Advertisement

Using data to support educational improvement

  • Carol Campbell
  • Ben Levin
Article

Abstract

Data on student achievement are increasingly being used to support effective policy and practice, and to move education systems towards more evidence-informed approaches to large-scale improvement. In this paper, we outline strategies used in Ontario, Canada to create, enhance and apply a range of data to support educational improvement. These strategies were intended to integrate the collection of data and its use at the three levels of school, district, and province. The strategy also included improving educator capacity to use data and the development of better analytic tools to understand data in context.

Keywords

Assessment School improvement Data use planning Ontario Literacy 

References

  1. Assessment Reform Group U.K. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge, U.K: University of Cambridge School of Education. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from http://www.aaic.org.uk.
  2. Barber, M., & Fullan, M. (2005). Tri level development: It’s the system. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_05/TriLevel%20Dev%27t.pdf.
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 71–74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, C., & Fullan, M. (2006) ‘Unlocking the Potential for District Wide Reform’. Unpublished report. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Education. Available at: http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_06/Articles_06a.htm.
  6. Datnow, A., Parker, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performance school systems use data to improve instructions for elementary students. Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California Commissioned by Newschool Venture Fund.Google Scholar
  7. Diamond, J., & Spillane, J. (2004). High stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00375.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doyle, D. (2003). Data-Driven Decision-Making. T.H.E Journal Online. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=4419.
  9. Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  10. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Leading in a Data Rich World: Harnessing Data for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  11. Edmonds, R. R. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1979). Search for Effective Schools: The Identification and Analysis of City Schools that are Instructionally Effective for Poor Children (ED 170 396).Google Scholar
  12. Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Firestone, W., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95–113.Google Scholar
  14. Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  15. Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  16. Gillborn, D. & Gipps, C. (1996). Recent research on the achievements of ethnic pupils minority. Report for the Office for standards in Education of London HMSO.Google Scholar
  17. Goldstein, H., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1996). Lead tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 159, 385–409. doi: 10.2307/2983325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 647–673.Google Scholar
  19. Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D., Wilcox, B., Farell, S., & Jesson, D. (1999). Improving Schools: Performance and potential. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gray, J., Goldstein, H., & Thomas, S. (2001). Predicting the future: The role past performance in determining trends in institutional effectiveness at A level. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris, R., & Mercier, M. (2000). A test for geographers: the geography of educational achievement in Toronto and Hamilton. Canadian Geographer, 44(3), 210–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2000.tb00705.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heritage, M., & Yeagley, R. (2005). Data use and school improvement. Challenges and Prospects Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(2), 320–339. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7984.2005.00035. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7984.2005.00035.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106, 1258–1287. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00379.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, D. (2005) Signposts of Success: Interpreting Ontario’s Elementary Secondary school Test Scores. C.D. Howe Institute Policy 40.Google Scholar
  25. Kerr, K., Marsh, J., Schuyler Ikemoto, G., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). “Strategies to Promote Data Use for Instructional Improvement: Actions, Outcomes, and Lessons from Three Urban Districts”.Google Scholar
  26. Lachat, M., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices That Support Data Use in Urban High Schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR).Google Scholar
  27. Lafee, S. (2002). Data-Driven Districts [Electronic Version]. School Administrator, 59(11), 6–79–10, 12, 14–15.Google Scholar
  28. Levin, B. (2005). Improving research-policy relationships: The case of literacy. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 613–628). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin, B. (2006). How can research in education contribute to policy? Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, 147–157.Google Scholar
  30. Levin, B. (2008). Sustainable, large scale education renewal. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 323–336. doi: 10.1007/s10833-007-9041-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacBeath, J. (1999). Schools must speak for themselves. London, U. K.: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Mason, S. A. (2001). Turning data into knowledge: Lessons from six Milwaukee public schools. Using data for educational decision making. Newsletter of the Comprehensive Center-Region VI, 6, 3–6, spring.Google Scholar
  33. McIntire, T. (2002). The administrator’s guide to data-driven decision making. Technology & Learning, 22(11), 18–28, 32–33.Google Scholar
  34. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socially disadvantaged areas—a review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 149–176. doi: 10.1076/sesi.15.2.149.30433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mortimore, P., & Whitty, G. (1997). Can school improvement overcome the effects of disadvantage? Institute of Education Occasional Paper. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  36. Nuttall, D. I., et al. (1989). Differential school effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(7), 769–776. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(89)90027-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nutely, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: Policy.Google Scholar
  38. OECD (2007). Evidence in education: Linking research and policy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  39. Ontario Ministry of Education (2006a). Target Setting and Improvement Planning. Toronto: Queen’s Printer of Ontariox.Google Scholar
  40. Ontario Ministry of Education (2006b). Differentiating Instruction: Continuing the Conversation. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
  41. Rolheiser, C., & Ross, J. A. (2001). Student Self-Evaluation: What the research says and what practice shows. Centre for Development and Learning. www.cdl.org.
  42. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. doi: 10.1007/BF00117714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995a). Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A review of school effectiveness research. A report by the Institute of Education for the Office for Standards in Education. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  44. Scheerens, J. (1997). Conceptual models and theory embedded principles on effective schooling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 269–310. doi: 10.1080/0924345970080301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sebba, J. (2004). Developing an Evidence-based Approach to Policy and Practice in Education. In G. Thomas, & R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence based Practice in Education. Maidenhead: OUP/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  46. Slee, R., & Weiner, G.with Tomlinson, S. (Eds.). (1998). School effectiveness for whom? Challenges to the school effectiveness and the school improvement movements. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  47. Stiggins, R. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment. New York: Merrill.Google Scholar
  48. Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., & Reynolds, D. (2000). Context issues within school effectiveness research. In C. Teddlie and D. Reynolds (Eds.), International handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 160–185). Falmer, London.Google Scholar
  49. Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: Let’s be realistic! Buckingham: Open University.Google Scholar
  50. Tremblay, R. E., & Lemarguand, D. (2001) Individual risk and protective factors, child delinquents: Development, Interventions and Service Needs, 137–164.Google Scholar
  51. Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria. VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  52. Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in Practice (Grades 5–9). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  53. Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design p. 200. Alexandria, VA: ASCD (ISBN: 13-978-1-4166-0284-2).Google Scholar
  54. Willms, J. D., & Kerr, P. (1987). Changes in sex differences in Scottish examination results since 1975. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 7(1), 85–105. doi: 10.1177/0272431687071008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ontario Ministry of EducationTorontoCanada
  2. 2.OISE University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations