Accountability policies imply much about high school teachers’ abilities and willingness to use state assessment data to improve instruction. This study asked what teacher- and school-level variables best predict how frequently teachers use state assessment data and how much instructional benefit they derive from use of data. Research has identified several potential predictors at multiple levels of analysis. This study used hierarchical linear models to analyze data from a survey of high school teachers in western Washington. The results carry several implications for educational leadership and future research.
References
1.
AbelmannC., & ElmoreR. F. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? (CPRE Research Report No. RR-42). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
2.
BakerE. L., & LinnR. L. (2004). Validity issues for accountability systems. In FuhrmanS. H., & ElmoreR. F. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 47–72). New York: Teachers College Press.
3.
BanduraA., & SchunkD. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598.
4.
BernhardtV. L. (1998). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement.Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
5.
BondT. G., & FoxC. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
BrykA., CamburnE., & LouisK. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 751–781.
7.
BurnsJ. M. (1978). Leadership.New York: Basic Books.
8.
CarnoyM., ElmoreR., & SiskinL. S. (Eds.). (2003). The new accountability: High schools and high stakes testing.New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
9.
CoplandM. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 375–395.
10.
DuFourR., & EakerR. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement.Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11.
EastonJ. Q., & LuppescuS. (2004, January). Teacher and principal responses to the Grow Network: A preliminary evaluation of use in Chicago public elementary schools. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php
12.
ElliottE. S., & DweckC. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
13.
EmbretsonS., & ReiseS. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
FirestoneW. (1985). The study of loose coupling: Problems, progress, and prospects. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 5, 3–30.
15.
GeijselF., SleegersP., LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2003). Transformational leadership effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 228–256.
16.
HaladynaT. M., NolenS. B., & HaasN. S. (1991). Raising standardized achievement test scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Researcher, 20, 2–7.
17.
HalversonR., GriggJ., PrichettR., & ThomasC. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 159–194.
18.
HolcombE. (1999). Getting excited about data: How to combine people, passion and proof.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
19.
HoxJ. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
IngramD., LouisK., & SchroederR. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1258–1287.
21.
KelleyC. J., & FinniganK. (2003). The effects of organizational context on teacher expectancy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 603–634.
22.
KerrK. A., MarshJ. A., IkemotoG. S., DarilekH., & BarneyH. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496–520.
23.
LeeV. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 125–141.
24.
LeithwoodK., SteinbachR., & JantziD. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 94–119.
25.
LemonsR., LuscheiT. F., & SiskinL. S. (2003). Leadership and the demands of standards-based accountability. In CarnoyM., ElmoreR., & SiskinL. S. (Eds.), The new accountability: High schools and high stakes testing (pp. 99–127). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
26.
LinacreJ. M. (2007). Winsteps Rasch measurement computer program (Version 3.65) [Computer software]. Chicago: Winsteps.com.
27.
McNeilL. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of high-stakes testing.New York: Routledge.
28.
MehrensW. A. (2002). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? In TindalG., & HaladynaT. M. (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation (pp. 149–177). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
NichollsJ. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
NolenS. B., HaladynaT. M., & HaasN. S. (1992). Uses and abuses of achievement test scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11, 9–15.
31.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
SchmokerM. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school improvement.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
33.
ShepardL., & DoughertyK. C. (1991, April). The effects of high stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
34.
SiskinL. S. (2003). When an irresistible force meets an immovable object: Core lessons about high schools and accountability. In CarnoyM., ElmoreR., & SiskinL. S. (Eds.), The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing (pp. 175–193). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
35.
SpillaneJ. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
SpillaneJ. P., DiamondJ. B., BurchP., HallettT., JitaL., & ZoltnersJ. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731–762.
37.
SpillaneJ., ReiserB. J., & ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
38.
StigginsR. J., & ConklinN. F. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the practices of classroom assessment.Albany: State University of New York Press.
39.
StreiferP. A. (2002). Using data to make better educational decisions.Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
40.
WaymanJ., & StringfieldS. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112, 549–571.
WrightB. D., & MastersG. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis.Chicago: Mesa Press.
43.
YoungV. M. (2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112, 521–548.
44.
YuH., LeithwoodK., & JantziD. (2002). The effects of transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment to change in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4), 368–389.
