Realistic Expectations in the Data-Informed District

• In Event: Using Data for School and Student Performance Improvement

Abstract

Objective
The objective of this paper is to use empirical data to describe how districts react to research-based suggestions for establishing effective data use district-wide.

Perspective
A Data-Informed District is one where structures are aligned throughout the district to support the regular use of data to inform practice (Wayman et al., 2012). A great deal of research has been devoted to identifying best practices in various district areas. Some research addresses specific areas, such as teachers (Little, 2013; Wayman & Stringfield, 2013), principals (Anderson et al., 2010; Copland, 2003), central office (Honig & Venkateswaran, 2012; Honig & Coburn, 2008); professional learning (Jimerson, 2012), and computer data systems (Cho & Wayman, in press; Wayman & Cho, 2009). Other research has focused on how these areas interconnect (Datnow et al., 2007; Knapp et al., 2006; Supovitz, 2010).

In spite of this research, districts still have difficulty in implementing these recommended practices (Valli & Buese, 2007; Wayman et al., 2010). One possible cause is that little empirical research has examined district actions upon receiving recommendations. The present study provides such evidence.

Method and Data Sources
In Spring, 2010, a research team evaluated the data practices of three districts in Central Texas. A comprehensive set of suggestions were presented that outlined how these districts could become “Data-Informed Districts” (Wayman et al., 2010). The research team worked with these districts over the next two years to implement these recommendations.

Data were collected over the course of these two years, observing what changes districts made in their processes and structures for supporting data use. Data included 257 artifacts, comprised of focus groups, individual interviews, observations, and documents.

Analyses were conducted to reveal which recommendations districts implemented, and how implementation proceeded. Analyses began with the universe of 51 recommendations presented to districts. These recommendation were allowed to coalesce into themes as analysis proceeded.

Results and Conclusions
Analyses revealed that districts pursued four main areas: collaboration, common understandings, central office support, and data system training. While these areas are typically recommended as part of an effective data initiative (Datnow et al., 2007; Honig & Coburn, 2008; Wayman et al., 2012), the study districts did not implement as suggested by this research base. For instance, research suggests that data system training is most effective when connected to daily practice (Datnow et al., 2007; Wayman et al., 2012), but while districts did increase data system training, it was conducted in large classes disjoint from everyday work. This result was typical of other findings. The full paper will outline detailed analyses that are similarly interpreted in light of prior research.

Scholarly Significance
This study is significant because it is one of the first to describe how districts implement research-based recommendations. Substantial research has described what schools and districts should do, but research infrequently follows up on their choices. By examining these choices in light of prior research, this paper will help practitioners focus their efforts and will help researchers better cast their recommendations.

Author

• Jeff Wayman, Wayman Services, LLC