Light touch, heavy hand: principals and data-use PLCs
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0101 |
| Published date | 03 July 2017 |
| Pages | 376-389 |
| Date | 03 July 2017 |
| Author | Alice Huguet,Caitlin C. Farrell,Julie A. Marsh |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Light touch, heavy hand:
principals and data-use PLCs
Alice Huguet
School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University,
Evanstan, Illinois, USA
Caitlin C. Farrell
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA, and
Julie A. Marsh
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The use of data for instructional improvement is prevalent in today’seduca tional landscape, yet policies
calling for data use may result in significant variation at the school level. The purpose of this paper is to focus on
tools and routines as mechanisms of principal influence on data-use professional learning communities (PLCs).
Design/methodology/approach –Data were collected through a comparative case study of two
low-income, low-performing schools in one district. The data set included interview and focus group
transcripts, observation field notes and documents, and was iteratively coded.
Findings –The two principals in the study employed tools and routines differently to influence ways that
teachers interacted with data in their PLCs. Teachers who were given leeway to co-construct data-use tools
found them to be more beneficial to their work. Findings also suggest that teachers’data use may benefit from
more flexibility in their day-to-day PLC routines.
Research limitations/implications –Closer examination of how tools are designed and time is spent in
data-use PLCs may help the authors further understand the influence of the principal’s role.
Originality/value –Previous research has demonstrated that data use can improve teacher instruction,
yet the varied implementation of data-use PLCs in this district illustrates that not all students have an equal
opportunity to learn from teachers who meaningfully engage with data.
Keywords Principals, Leadership, Tools, Professional learning communities, Routines, Data use
Paper type Case study
Educational leaders at the school, district, and state levels have used data for years to
identify and address student needs and narrow achievement gaps (Slavin et al., 2010).
Indeed, we even see the use of data mandated for such purposes at the national level.
For example, the federal No Child Left Behind Act intended to shed light on the performance
of certain subgroups through disaggregation of student outcome data for English language
learners, socio-economically disadvantaged students, and historically underserved ethnic
groups (Linn et al., 2002). And under the recent Every Student Succeeds Act, schools are to
be monitored using a broader collection of data types, including both academic and
non-academic student measures. While these examples highlight how data-use practices
have been widely embraced, one suspects that they do not look the same from district to
district or school to school. Locally developed tools and routines related to data use may
bring about different teacher responses, or trigger no response at all (Farrell and Marsh,
2016a, b; Oláh et al., 2010). Tools –such as direct guides for data analysis, or disaggregated
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 55 No. 4, 2017
pp. 376-389
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0101
Received 19 September 2016
Accepted 13 April 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
The authors gratefully acknowledge support for this research from the Spencer Foundation (Grant No.
201100106). The authors also greatly appreciate the cooperation of educators in our case schools and
district, as well as contributions from other members of our research team, including Melanie Bertrand,
Jennifer McCombs, Beth Katz, and Brian McInnis. In addition, the authors bene fited greatly from helpful
feedback from Judith Warren Little, Gina Biancarosa, Ellen Mandinach, Edith Gummer, and Martin Orland.
376
JEA
55,4
To continue reading
Request your trial