Local Uses of Title I Evalutions

Research on Data Use: A Framework and Analysis

“…Attention is partial and filtered in significant ways (Spillane & Miele, 2007). People tend to search for and see aspects of the data that support their beliefs, assumptions, and experiences and do not even notice data that might contradict or challenge these beliefs (Bickel & Cooley, 1985;David, 1981;Hannaway, 1989;Ingram, Louis, & Schroeder, 2004;Kennedy, 1982;Young & Kim, 2010). This phenomenon may be exacerbated during conditions of data overload that many schools and districts are currently experiencing.…”

“…Cognitive psychologists remind us that it is far more likely that we will assimilate information into pre-existing ways of seeing the world than engage with data in ways that cause us to reconfigure or "accommodate" existing cognitive frameworks in light of new information (see Spillane & Miele, 2007, for a review of this literature). Indeed, there are ample instances in the research on data use where individuals interpret test scores or assessments as confirming pre-existing beliefs and discounting the data when they challenge these beliefs (Coburn, 2001;Coburn et al, 2009;David, 1981;Young & Kim, 2010). For example, in her study of the use of Title I evaluations in 15 districts, David (1981) found that district administrators consistently discounted evaluations that challenged their perceptions of the programs, questioning their validity, the appropriateness of the methodology and measures, and the degree to which the evaluations measured valued outcomes.…”

“…Indeed, there are ample instances in the research on data use where individuals interpret test scores or assessments as confirming pre-existing beliefs and discounting the data when they challenge these beliefs (Coburn, 2001;Coburn et al, 2009;David, 1981;Young & Kim, 2010). For example, in her study of the use of Title I evaluations in 15 districts, David (1981) found that district administrators consistently discounted evaluations that challenged their perceptions of the programs, questioning their validity, the appropriateness of the methodology and measures, and the degree to which the evaluations measured valued outcomes.…”

“…There is quite a bit of evidence that beliefs play a central role in noticing data (Bickel & Cooley, 1985;David, 1981;Hannaway, 1989;Kennedy, 1982Kennedy, , 1984West & Rhoton, 1994), interpreting data (Bickel & Cooley, 1985;Coburn et al, 2009;Cromey, 2000 Hallett, 2010;Herman & Gribbons, 2001;Ikemoto & Marsh, 2007;Ingram et al, 2004;Kerr Marsh, Ikemoto, & Barney, 2006;Mintrop, 2004;Young & Kim, 2010), and in constructing implications for action (Coburn et al, 2009;Kennedy, 1982;Spillane, in press). For example, teachers often perceive standardized test data or interim assessments as lacking either validity or usefulness for making decisions about student learning or teacher effectiveness.…”

Evaluation Utilization: A Review of the Literature with Implications for Gifted Education

“…David (1981) noted that findings from Title I evaluations were used primarily "to meet legal requirements, provide feedback, and provide gross indicators of program effectiveness" [p, 31). Patton, Grimes, Guthrie, and Brennan (19771 found that educational evaluation "is used by decision-makers, but not in the clear-cut and organization shaking ways that social scientists sometimes believe research should be used" [p, 144).…”