Kim Schildkamp

School performance feedback systems in the USA and in The Netherlands: a comparison

Schools around the world are using instruments for performance feedback, but there is no scientific evidence that they have positive effects on education. This paper compares a School Performance Feedback System (SPFS) used in the USA as an accountability instrument to an SPFS used in The Netherlands. The study employs a unique database: one in which 2 separate countries with 2 distinct performance systems are compared using the same instruments. The use and effects of both SPFSs are compared to acquire more knowledge about the utilization and effects of SPFSs in an international context. Also, the variables which influence SPFSs are presented and then utilized to predict the use of the 2 SPFSs in their 2 separate contexts.

The effects of the use of a school self-evaluation instrument

School quality care has become important in many Western countries. A number of self-evaluation instruments have been developed in response. The goal of these instruments is improving the quality of education. One such system, ZEBO, was developed for performing quality assessment in Dutch primary schools. The use of this self-evaluation instrument was studied in 79 primary schools in The Netherlands over a period of 5 years. The results of the multilevel analyses with repeated measures show that the use of the self-evaluation results had no effect on pupil achievement scores (so far). However, it did have other effects, for example, an impact on the professional development of teachers.

Editorial article for the special issue on data-based decision making around the world: from policy to practice to results

This editorial article briefly examines the importance of data-based decision making. It discusses the definition as well as rationale for data-based decision making, its purposes, the use of data at different levels of the educational system, and possible promoting and hindering factors of effective data use. It also examines the effects of data use, intended effects (e.g., increased student achievement), as well as unintended consequences (e.g., cheating with tests). We end with suggestions for new research priorities.

Data teams for school improvement

The use of data for educational decision making has never been more prevalent. However, teachers and school leaders need support in data use. Support can be provided by means of professional development in the form of “data teams”. This study followed the functioning of 4 data teams over a period of 2 years, applying a qualitative case study design. The findings show that data use is not a linear process, and that teams go through different feedback loops to reach higher levels of depth of inquiry. The data team procedure is a promising way of enhancing data-based decision making in schools.

Data-based decision making : conclusions and a data use framework

In this chapter, the results of all the studies presented in this book are summarized. What are the lessons learned? Based on the lessons learned, we developed a data use framework. In this framework, data use is influenced by several enablers and barriers (e.g., the school organization context, data and data systems, and user characteristics). Data can be used in a desirable as well as undesirable manner, but what happens a lot in schools as well is that data are not used. Policy may also influence the use of data, as well as its enablers and barriers. Finally, we argue that if data are used in a desirable manner this can lead to school leader, teacher, and student learning (e.g., increased student achievement).

Student group differences in examination results and utilization for policy and school development

At the end of secondary education in The Netherlands, students have to pass a final examination, consisting of an internal school-based assessment and an external national assessment. According to the Dutch inspectorate, to ensure the quality of final examinations, the discrepancy between both assessments must be less than 0.5 points (on a scale from 1 to 10). In the first part of this study, we demonstrate that these examination results are a rich source of data schools can use. We investigated the discrepancy between school and central examination grades for different groups of students and found that the discrepancies for some student groups are too high. The second part of this study focuses on the use of examination results as an important source of data in improvement planning. The results show that final examination results are underutilized and that schools rarely investigate discrepancies for certain student groups.

Cognitive development in Dutch primary education, the impact of individual background and classroom composition

A sample of 815 Dutch pupils from 49 classes was followed from age 6 (Dutch Grade 3) through age 11 (Grade 7) to estimate growth trajectories for pupils with different socio-ethnic backgrounds. The results indicate that the disadvantage for spelling already present in Grade 3 increases more strongly for Dutch low-socioeconomic status (SES) pupils than for low-SES minority pupils. With regard to mathematics, the initial disadvantage of Dutch low-SES pupils hardly changes, whereas the gap is clearly reduced for low-SES minorities. Effects of classroom composition appear to be quite modest, but classes with very high proportions of low-SES minority pupils show a clear disadvantage for both spelling and mathematics at age 6. In subsequent grades, the spelling gap between advantaged and disadvantaged classroom populations disappears completely. For mathematics, the gap is initially reduced to some extent, but at age 11 the disadvantage increases again.

The utilisation of a school self‐evaluation instrument

School quality care has become important in many Western countries. Expectations are high, but little is known about the nature and extent of the use of self‐evaluation instruments within schools. From this longitudinal study into the use of a Dutch school self‐evaluation instrument, it became clear that schools vary in the extent to which they are able to make use of self‐evaluation results. A minority of schools in this study were able to use the self‐evaluation results for developing measures at the school and classroom level to improve the quality of education. Potential causes for the findings and alternatives for promoting the utilisation of school self‐evaluation instruments are discussed.

Integrating data-based decision making, Assessment for Learning and diagnostic testing in formative assessment

Recent research has highlighted the lack of a uniform definition of formative assessment, although its effectiveness is widely acknowledged. This paper addresses the theoretical differences and similarities amongst three approaches to formative assessment that are currently most frequently discussed in educational research literature: data-based decision making (DBDM), Assessment for Learning (AfL) and diagnostic testing (DT). Furthermore, the differences and similarities in the implementation of each approach were explored. This analysis shows that although differences exist amongst the theoretical underpinnings of DBDM, AfL and DT, the combination of these approaches can create more informed learning environments. The thoughtful integration of the three assessment approaches should lead to more valid formative decisions, if a range of evidence about student learning is used to continuously optimise student learning.

The use of school self-evaluation results in the Netherlands and Flanders

This article presents the results of two studies on the use of school self‐evaluation in the Netherlands and Flanders. It focuses on which forms of instrumental use of school self‐evaluation results can be found in schools, and how differences in self‐evaluation use between schools can be explained. Results show that the instrumental use of self‐evaluation results in both contexts was limited. Results further show that differences in the use of school self‐evaluation results can be explained by differences in school organizational characteristics, implementation characteristics, and the characteristics of the school self‐evaluation itself. Implications for theory, policy, and practice are discussed.