Data for Improvement, Data for Accountability

Abstract

Turner and Coburn begin this special issue with the observation that data use has been a strategy for fostering improvement in public schools in the United States. The articles in the issue contribute to understanding the process by which these improvements might happen. They address the complex linkages from the provision of data to professionals, the encour agement and pressure to use the data in making decisions, the institu tional contexts that support or discourage the use of data in making decisions, and the resulting practices that lead to educational outcomes. As I read the articles, I am struck that some of the data systems dis cussed by the authors are intended principally to improve the perfor mance of school staff, whereas other data systems are intended principally to hold schools and districts accountable for outcomes. Both types are expected to improve educational results, but, although both make use of data as an active ingredient in their strategy, the two types represent different logics of action and intervention (Weiss, 1999). If data systems are to improve performance, the data systems should be designed to help school staff (especially teachers and principals) do a better job of instruction in order to enhance student learning or achieve other educational goals (such as attainment or skill acquisition). They seek to build the knowledge and skills of teachers and principals so that they can be more effective in their professional work. If, on the other hand, data systems are intended to hold educators accountable, the data systems should be designed to measure and report outcomes in a way that will allow actors outside the schools (often elected officials or other stake