District administrators’ governing styles in the enactment of data-use practices

References

• Aasen, P., Møller, J., Rye, E. M., Prøitz, T. S., & Hertzberg, F. (2012). Kunnskapsløftet som styringsreform – et løft eller et løfte? forvaltningsnivåenes og institusjonenes rolle i implementeringen av reformen [The Knowledge Promotion Reform – The role of the institutions in reform implementation] Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 93–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altrichter, H., & Merki, K. M. (2010). Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem [Handbook on the new governing of the education system]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Avidov-Ungar, O., & Reingold, R. (2018). Israeli Ministry of Education’s district managers’ and superintendents’ role as educational leaders – Implementing the new policy for teachers’ professional development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(3), 293–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
   Google Scholar
• Coburn, C., & Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Practice, 9(4), 173–206.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, A. J., Finnigan, K. S., Jordan, S., Moolenaar, N. M., & Che, J. (2014). Misalignment and perverse incentives: Examining the politics of district leaders as brokers in the use of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 145–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Datnow, A., Park, V., & Kennedy-Lewis, B. (2012). High school teachers’ use of data to inform instruction. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17(4), 247–265.
   Google Scholar
• Dillard, J. P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J. M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communications Monographs, 56(1), 19–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, C. C., & Coburn, C. E. (2017). Absorptive capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding district central office learning. Journal of Educational Change, 18(2), 135–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng, H., & Wilson, S. R. (2004). A critical review of the primary/secondary goal framework. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Educational outcomes, modern and postmodern interpretations: Response to Smyth and Dow. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 27–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havnes, A., & Prøitz, T. S. (2016). Why use learning outcomes in higher education? Exploring the grounds for academic resistance and reclaiming the value of unexpected learning. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 205–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henig, J. R. (2012). The politics of data use. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, M., & Brown, S. (2005). Grasping the TLRP nettle: Preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes. Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 7–30.
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, J. L. (2012). The effects of accountability system design on teachers’ use of test score data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, A., & Downey, C. (2012). Professional attitudes to the use of pupil performance data in English secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(4), 415–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, D. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. Cork, Ireland: University College Cork.
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 496–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research (pp. 230–243).  Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Lassnigg, L. (2012). ‘Lost in translation’: Learning outcomes and the governance of education. Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 299–330.
   Google Scholar
• Lawn, M. (2011). Standardizing the European education policy space. European Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 259–272.
   Google Scholar
• Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practices among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundgren, U. P. (2006). Political governing and curriculum change – from active to reactive curriculum reforms: The need for a reorientation of curriculum theory. Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy, 2006, 26853.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. L. (2010). Accountability policy implementation and the case of smaller school district capacity: Three contrasting cases that examine the flow and use of NCLB accountability data. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 384–420.
   Google Scholar
• Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Modernizing education – NPM reform in the Norwegian education system. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(4), 336–355.
   Google Scholar
• Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self‐evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, V., Daly, A., & Guerra, A. W. (2012). Strategic framing: How leaders craft the meaning of data use for equity and learning. Educational Policy, 27(4), 645–675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parke, C. (2012). Making use of district and school data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 17(10), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Prøitz, T. S. (2010). Learning outcomes: What are they? Who defines them? When and where are they defined? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(2), 119–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prøitz, T. S. (2014). Conceptualisations of learning outcomes – An explorative study of policymakers, teachers and scholars (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Series of dissertations, Faculty of Educational Sciences, 194. https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/278896
   Google Scholar
• Prøitz, T. S., Mausethagen, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2017). Investigative modes in research on data use in education. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(1), 42–55.
   Google Scholar
• Racherbäumer, K., Funke, C., van Ackeren, I., & Clausen, M. (2013). Datennutzung und Schulleitungshandeln an Schulen in weniger begünstigter Lage. Empirische Befunde zu ausgewählten Aspekten der Qualitätsentwicklung [Use of data and school administration in schools in less favoured locations]. Die Deutsche Schule, 13(12), 226–254.
   Google Scholar
• Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schildkamp, K., Karbautzki, L., & Vanhoof, J. (2014). Exploring data use practices around Europe: Identifying enablers and barriers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrader, D. C., & Dillard, J. P. (1998). Goal structures and interpersonal influence. Communication Studies, 49(4), 276–293.
   Google Scholar
• Skedsmo, G. (2009). School governing in transition? Perspectives, purposes and perceptions of evaluation policy (Doctoral thesis). University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Skedsmo, G., & Møller, J. (2016). Governing by new performance expectations in Norwegian schools. In H. Gunter, D. Hall, R. Serpieri, & E. Grimaldi (Eds.), New public management and the reform of education: European lessons for policy and practice (pp. 53–65). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 113–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., Hunt, B., & Healey, K. (2009). Managing and leading elementary schools: Attending to the formal and informal organisation. International Studies in Educational Administration, 37(1), 5–28.
   Google Scholar
• Steffensen, K., Ekren, R., Zachrisen, O. O., & Kirkebøen, L. J. (2017). Er det forskjeller i skolers og kommuners bidrag til elevenes læring i grunnskolen? En kvantitativ studie [Is it differences in value added by schools and municipalities? A quantitative study] (Statistics Norway Report 2017/2). Oslo, Norway: Statistics Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Tranvik, T., & Selle, P. (2005). State and citizens in Norway: Organisational society and state–Municipal relations. Western European Politics, 28(4), 852–871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wayman, J. C., Jimerson, J. B., & Cho, V. (2012). Organizational considerations in establishing the data-informed district. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 159–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, V. M. (2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 521–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, V. M., & Kim, D. H. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 18(19), 1. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/809
   PubMedGoogle Scholar