Today’s educators are inundated with different forms of data, with the expectation that they will use them routinely and systematically to support instruction in schools. Driving this “educational data movement” are new data management systems, consultants, coaches, data teams, protocols to facilitate data-driven conversations, and advocacy-oriented, “how-to” books. But, despite the press from advocates to incorporate data into decision-making, the research base lags behind. Specifically, what are the important organizational conditions that shape educators’ use of data and their ability to mobilize resources to support this organizational goal?  

Performance-based accountability (PBA) has provided educational leaders with incentives to use achievement data to plan for school improvement.  In fact, there is evidence that they are using test score data for decisions about everything from the curriculum to what is served for lunch.  In the article, “Staffing to the Test,” we previously documented that staffing too is data-driven, with administrators moving to tested grades and subjects teachers whose students make substantive learning gains.  But, what are the implications of PBA for the assignment of students?

Research consistently shows that schools serving large proportions of disadvantaged students tend to have teachers with weaker credentials.  Because teacher credentials, such as more years of experience, higher licensure test scores, and National Board Certification, are predictive of higher student achievement, this uneven distribution of teachers across schools is detrimental to the learning of disadvantaged students.

In any given year, California alone has typically accounted for roughly half of total enrollment in year-round school calendars nationally. It is likely that this school policy option was so widely embraced in California due to the fact that the state experienced school crowding issues and that year-round school calendars often appear to be a promising solution. Year-round calendars redistribute the same number of school days more evenly across the year. A particular type of year-round calendar, multi-track, does this in a way that supports a larger student body in the same school facility. The multi-track year-round calendar has therefore gained the reputation of being a cost-saving remedy to school crowding.

There’s an old adage that states “what gets tested, gets taught.” However, my research has shown that adage probably needs to be revised to “what gets tested, and included in school accountability calculations, gets taught.” It’s not as succinct, but it is more accurate. Specifically, even though there has been a tremendous national fervor to promote science education, science has taken a backseat to reading and math during the No Child Left Behind years. While reading and math were required to be included in school accountability calculations, science has been optional—and it is an option that was rarely chosen.

In our chapter, “Planning, Changing, and Leading a Community of Professional Practice: Lessons Learned from an Innovative Urban School Leaders Preparation Program in Southern California”, we examine the ongoing planning and changing of the Urban School Leaders (USL) program at California State University Dominguez Hills. Supported by a five-year federal grant from the US Department of Education, the innovative Urban School Leaders program (USL) is the result of a partnership with four Local Districts within Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH). The program is intended to prepare, place, and retain leaders for high-needs schools and provide staff development to these leaders with the ultimate outcome resulting in student achievement gains.

Educational technology has always overpromised and underdelivered.  Despite the glitz and hype of technology, no one has figured out a more efficient and effective way of educating students than placing a teacher in front of a bunch of them.  Technology has largely been subject to this existing production system: at most, it has been a valuable adjunct.  Until now.

High-stakes accountability policies such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) hold schools and districts responsible for student achievement. However and whenever the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is reauthorized, it is clear that schools and districts will continue to be held accountable for student performance. Although research and media attention has focused largely on the punitive aspects of accountability policies, there is more to these policies than just consequences for failure. 

The contemporary politics of education cannot produce Learning 2.0. The problem is not—as many who call themselves “reformers” allege—with education interest groups. Politics is always full of interest groups, and some of the loudest reformers are reaping generous personal benefits. The problem is that the system is focused on the wrong things.

Over the last year, I have visited schools where people think outside the conventions of the acquisition and storage model, and where learning is organized in unconventional ways. Synthesizing these experiences and the rapidly growing research literature on learning, technology, and open education, it is possible to sketch the design of Learning 2.0.

As the current controversy over parent takeovers of schools illustrates, almost all the politics of education concerns rearranging adult power and privilege. Relatively little political energy is spent consciously designing a contemporary system of public education. That should change.