School Self-Evaluation and Inspection for Improving U.S. Schools?

The U.S. test-based accountability model holds schools and teachers accountable for student outcomes with little attention to school improvement processes. The authors look at an approach used in several European counties, which entails more school-centered accountability efforts, such as school self-evaluation followed by inspection (SSE/I) to examine school quality. SSE/I is a complex policy instrument with mixed consequences and many research questions still to be answered. Moreover, accountability models from other countries cannot be naively imported to the U.S. given the vital distinctions in sociopolitical contexts. That being said, a look at some of the purposes or principles behind SSE/I—especially its emphasis on quality improvement—can nevertheless inform efforts to redesign and improve the U.S. accountability model. The purpose of this brief is to take just such a look at this model. Despite those necessary cautions, the researchers suggest that SSE/I’s underlying purposes and principles, in particular its focus on quality improvement, can help inform the redesign and improvement of the U.S. approach

Focus Group Evidence: Implications for Design and Analysis

In evaluation and applied social research, focus groups may be used to gather different kinds of evidence (e.g., opinion, tacit knowledge). In this article, we argue that making focus group design choices explicitly in relation to the type of evidence required would enhance the empirical value and rigor associated with focus group utilization. We offer a descriptive framework to highlight contrasting design characteristics and the type of evidence they generate. We present examples of focus groups from education and healthcare evaluations to illustrate the relationship between focus group evidence, design, and how focus groups are conducted. To enhance the credibility of focus group evidence and maximize potential learning from this popular qualitative data collection method, we offer a set of questions to guide evaluators reflection and decision making about focus group design and implementation.Ope

Supporting teachers' data use for instructional improvement: The role of learning performance management systems and professional learning context

Teachers are increasingly expected to use data in systematic and scientific ways to make class- and school-level decisions (Kowalski, Lasley, & Mahoney, 2008). Despite great optimism and substantial investments in data use initiatives, recent studies (e.g., Carlson, Borman, & Robinson, 2011) found weak relationships between data use supports, teachers’ data use, and improved teaching and learning. This multiple-methods study used questionnaire data from a statewide sample of teachers (n=1422) to examine key school conditions—technological data management tools and professional learning community context—that purportedly support teachers’ data use. Qualitative methods (observations, interviews, and focus groups) were also employed at one school site to explore influences and consequences of data use. Statistical analysis showed that comprehensive learning performance management systems and professional learning communities support teachers’ data use, but school conditions are only part of the picture. Qualitative findings illustrated the ways in which teachers’ beliefs (e.g., about low-income minority students), knowledge (e.g., about effective instruction), and motivation (e.g., understanding of role and responsibility) drive the extent to which they use data. More importantly, their beliefs, knowledge, and motivation also shape how teachers interpret data and make decisions (e.g., whether learning problems require classroom changes, interventions for certain students, or non-instructional responses). This study challenges the common conceptualization of teachers’ data use as a techno-scientific process that can be mechanized with the right organizational conditions. Findings suggest that data use is better understood as interpretive acts, inevitably shaped by individual and groups of people with particular beliefs, knowledge, and motivation. While tools, methods, and procedures have some value for enhancing data use, they do not guarantee improved educational quality and equity. Data use initiatives need to support educators in interpreting data critically and making good professional judgments specific to their school, community, and classroom contexts