Effects of a Data-Driven District Reform Model on State Assessment Outcomes

A district-level reform model created by the Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE) provided consultation with district leaders on strategic use of data and selection of proven programs. Fifty-nine districts in seven states were randomly assigned to CDDRE or control conditions. A total of 397 elementary and 225 middle schools were followed over a period of up to 4 years. In a district-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analysis controlling for pretests, few important differences on state tests were found 1 and 2 years after CDDRE services began. Positive effects were found on reading outcomes in elementary schools by Year 4. An exploratory analysis found that reading effects were larger for schools that selected reading programs with good evidence of effectiveness than for those that did not.

[1]  C. Kelley,et al.  CONSORTIUM FOR POLICY RESEARCH IN EDUCATION , 2012 .

[2]  Nancy A. Madden,et al.  Measures Inherent to Treatments in Program Effectiveness Reviews , 2011 .

[3]  Donald J. Peurach.  Seeing Complexity in Public Education , 2011 .

[4]  Geoffrey D. Borman,et al.  A Multistate District-Level Cluster Randomized Trial of the Impact of Data-Driven Reform on Reading and Mathematics Achievement , 2011 .

[5]  J. Wayman.  Second-Year Results From an Efficacy Study of the Acuity Data System , 2011 .

[6]  Vincent Cho,et al.  District Policies for the Effective Use of Student Data , 2010 .

[7]  Katrina E. Bulkley,et al.  Building With Benchmarks: The Role of the District in Philadelphia's Benchmark Assessment System , 2010 .

[8]  R. Catalano,et al.  Using Community Epidemiologic Data to Improve Social Settings , 2010 .

[9]  Abigail A Fagan,et al.  If at First You Don't Succeed ... Keep Trying: Strategies to Enhance Coalition/ School Partnerships to Implement School-Based Prevention Programming , 2009, The Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology.

[10]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Effective Reading Programs for the Elementary Grades: A Best-Evidence Synthesis , 2009 .

[11]  David K. Cohen,et al.  The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation Fix the Schools? , 2009 .

[12]  Abigail A Fagan,et al.  Results of a type 2 translational research trial to prevent adolescent drug use and delinquency: a test of Communities That Care. , 2009, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[13]  Using Student Data to Improve Teaching and Learning: Findings from an Evaluation of the Formative Assessments of Students Thinking in Reading (FAST-R) Program in Boston Elementary Schools. , 2008 .

[14]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Effective Programs in Middle and High School Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis , 2008 .

[15]  R. Slavin,et al.  Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best‐Evidence Synthesis , 2008 .

[16]  C. Coburn,et al.  Evidence-Based Decision Making in School District Central Offices , 2008 .

[17]  Rebecca Maynard,et al.  Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2008-4020. , 2008 .

[18]  M. Greenberg,et al.  Substance-use outcomes at 18 months past baseline: the PROSPER Community-University Partnership Trial. , 2007, American journal of preventive medicine.

[19]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Effective Programs in Elementary Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis , 2007 .

[20]  Vincent Cho,et al.  A District-Wide Evaluation of Data Use in the Natrona County School District , 2007 .

[21]  Sarah Guckenburg,et al.  Measuring how benchmark assessments affect student achievement , 2007 .

[22]  Pierre Foy,et al.  PIRLS 2006 International Report IEA's Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary Schools in 40 Countries , 2007 .

[23]  Henry May,et al.  A Randomized Evaluation of Ohio's Personalized Assessment Reporting System (PARS) , 2007 .

[24]  Jeffrey C. Wayman,et al.  Technology‐Supported Involvement of Entire Faculties in Examination of Student Data for Instructional Improvement , 2006, American Journal of Education.

[25]  Steven J. Chrostowski,et al.  TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA's Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. , 2004 .

[26]  Mary E. Little,et al.  Comprehensive School Reform , 2003 .

[27]  B. Eller,et al.  District Data-Informed Decision Making. , 2003 .

[28]  Victoria L. Bernhardt.  No Schools Left Behind. , 2003 .

[29]  Mike Schmoker,et al.  First Things First: Demystifying Data Analysis. , 2003 .

[30]  Corinne M. Herlihy,et al.  Foundations for Success: Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve Student Achievement [and] Abstract. , 2002 .

[31]  Philip Streifer.  Using Data to Make Better Educational Decisions , 2002 .

[32]  D. Grissmer,et al.  Searching for Indirect Evidence for the Effects of Statewide Reforms , 2001 .

[33]  J M Bos,et al.  Using Cluster Random Assignment to Measure Program Impacts , 1999, Evaluation review.

[34]  Mike Schmoker.  Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement. 2nd Edition. , 1999 .

[35]  S. Raudenbush.  Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials , 1997 .

[36]  Mike Schmoker,et al.  Results: the Key to Continuous School Improvement , 1996 .

[37]  Siegfried Engelmann,et al.  Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years beyond DISTAR. , 1996 .

[38]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  The Instructional Effect of Feedback in Test-Like Events , 1991 .

[39]  Frank N. Dempster.  Synthesis of Research on Reviews and Tests. , 1991 .

[40]  I.,et al.  Street-Level Bureaucracy Revisited : Frontline District Central-Office Administrators as Boundary Spanners in Education Policy Implementation , 2022 .