Differential Impacts: How Accountability Policies Impact School Leaders’ Data Use and Decision Making

• In Event: Data Use for School Improvement: Findings From Studies of School Leaders’ Decision Making in Accountability Contexts

Abstract

Accountability pressures from No Child Left Behind, state accountability systems, and district performance management policies imply that, especially in low-performing schools, leaders need to make dramatic changes to their schools’ educational programs in order to dramatically improve student performance. Simultaneously, these policies implore leaders to use data in these decisions (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006; Anderson, Leithwood, & Strauss, 2010). In a typical example, Seattle Public Schools requires schools to complete annual school improvement plans that must include school-level data analyses and list different strategies and programs the school will implement to improve student performance. Research suggests that accountability pressure can influence leadership, (Colyvas, 2010; Finnegan & Stewart, 2009) but little research has examined how this pressure can influence school leaders’ data-use in their decisions about how to improve their schools’ performance. How, if at all, does accountability pressure lead to differences in how school leaders gather and use data and evidence in their school-level decision-making?
This paper addresses this question by examining how the school leadership teams in two schools—one high performing and one under pressure to dramatically improve student achievement—gather and use data and evidence in their school-level decision-making. To guide my data collection and analysis I developed a conceptual framework drawing on theories of decision-making from an institutional perspective (March, 1991, 1994; March & Olsen, 2008; March & Shapira, 1987). This framework highlights how a school’s external environment and organizational resources influence which data decision-makers gather and how they use these data in their decision-making. My data for this paper come from two main sources: observations of 51 leadership team meetings (73 hours) and 31 interviews. The meeting observations provide data on each schools’ decision-making processes and the interviews provide information on schools resources and external accountability demands.
I found that while the process of decision-making was very similar in the two schools, how leaders gathered data to use when making decisions differed and was at least partially attributable to differences to accountability and other external pressures. The school under more external pressure to improve student performance had more resources to devote to gathering data due to extra grant funds and district support. As a result of these additional resources this school was able to pay staff to conduct searches outside of their school for new programs and interventions to improve student achievement. The school under less external pressure had fewer resources to support this kind of external searches. However, this school had a relatively low staff turnover that teachers attributed to the relative lack of accountability demands placed on them. The low turnover allowed the leaders to develop low-cost systems for gathering data from their staff on possible interventions.
This paper contributes to research on how factors related to a school’s environment can prompt leaders to develop and use different resources when using data and evidence in their school-level decision-making. For practice, this paper suggests ways that districts can support data use schools with differing needs and resources.

Author

• Lydia Rainey, University of Washington