Symmetrical Learning and District-Level Continuous Improvement

• In Event: At the Nexus of Continuous Improvement and School District Research: Possibilities, Dilemmas, and Provocations

Abstract

Research on continuous improvement (CI) has focused on how school leaders and teachers use CI to improve outcomes for students, but fewer studies examine how district leaders use CI within their work. This paper focuses on a CI model called the Data Wise Improvement Process (Boudett, City, & Murnane, 2013), where teams of educators examine data to identify a shared problem, investigate how the system contributes to that problem, develop and implement an action plan, measure progress, and continuously adjust (Langley et al., 2009). Although Data Wise began as a school-based model to improve outcomes for K-12 students, it has expanded into a district-level model for improvement (Parrott-Sheffer, Williams, Rease, & Boudett, forthcoming).

Districts set expectations for CI, such as accountability requirements, or provide resources, such as data systems or professional learning (Daly et al., 2014; Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter, 2007; Anderson, Leithwood, & Strauss, 2010; Young, 2006). Prior research established that districts are part of the “organizational context” for collaborative data inquiry (Coburn & Turner, 2011, 2012; Farrell, 2015; Honig & Venkateswaran, 2012), but few studies have examined district-level teams as they engage in CI routines themselves. Notable exceptions include studies of district leaders using research evidence for improvement of their own practices (e.g., Farley-Ripple, 2012; Honig, Venkateswaran, & McNeill, 2017). Given the sparse information about the district-level implications of CI, we asked: How do district administrators engage in CI (i.e., Data Wise) in their settings? What do they learn about CI and what implications does their learning have for their district?

To examine these questions, we draw from interviews of district administrators in the United States who participated in professional learning about Data Wise. We approached data analysis using constructivist grounded theory, which meant that we derived codes and themes inductively from the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and paid attention to the meanings underlying the participants’ responses (Charmaz, 2003). Our findings emerged through the constant comparative method of examining key themes and patterns iteratively across interviews.

We found that engaging in CI shifted district administrators’ mindsets as well as their practices. We analyze our findings using the concept of organizational symmetry. As a mathematical idea, symmetry describes how an object looks the same on both sides of an axis. As a concept, Elmore (2009) and Mehta and Fine (2019) used symmetry to explain how practices at one level of an organization might be mirrored at another level—in this case, from the school to the district. Because district administrators engaged in a CI practice that was symmetrical to what they required of their schools, they acquired a newfound empathy for what they asked school practitioners to do. District leaders became more aware of the process and its related tools and the challenges of using data precisely to describe and solve problems. This led to more understanding of the professional knowledge and skill required at the school level. A symmetrical learning experience might influence how district leaders understand their roles within CI initiatives.

Author

• Candice Bocala, Harvard University