Strategic Framing

Abstract

Although there is an emerging body of research that examines data-driven decision making (DDDM) in schools, little attention has been paid to how local leaders strategically frame sensemaking around data use. This exploratory case examines how district and school leaders consciously framed the implementation of DDDM in one urban high school. Leaders strategically constructed diagnostic, motivating, and prognostic frames to promote a culture of using data for continuous improvement. Our findings demonstrate that leaders developed (a) diagnostic frames centered on the need to confront student achievement and opportunity gaps; (b) motivating frames concentrated on school improvement as shared collective responsibility; and (c) prognostic frames focused on making incremental change to sustain reform efforts and the creation of common goals to monitor progress. The findings suggest that framing is an important leadership tactic that needs careful consideration when reforms are introduced and implemented.

Implementation and effects of a school-wide data-based decision making intervention

“…According to Hallinger and Heck (2011), school leaders are responsible for shaping a coherent focus on learning in schools, and Gerzon (2015) recommended school leaders to recognize and model data use for informing instruction, to provide time and resources, to ensure a safe environment for teachers where they are supported in collaborative inquiry, and to establish and communicate a common interpretation and orientation toward data use. This is in line with Park et al (2012), who described that school leaders need to build a culture of data use for continuous improvement. Successful school leaders in their exploratory case study did this by encouraging staff to believe in the relevance of data for improving teaching and learning, beyond accountability compliance, towards commitment for students, and by making sure teachers felt safe to use data (Park et al, 2012).…”

“…This is in line with Park et al (2012), who described that school leaders need to build a culture of data use for continuous improvement. Successful school leaders in their exploratory case study did this by encouraging staff to believe in the relevance of data for improving teaching and learning, beyond accountability compliance, towards commitment for students, and by making sure teachers felt safe to use data (Park et al, 2012). Also Copland, Knapp and Swinnterton (2009) stressed that a data culture can be enhanced by a clear vision and shared understanding of the value of data use.…”

“…Additionally, a safe environment with a culture of inquiry that supports DBDM, where teachers feel empowered by data instead of threatened, is crucial (Ikemoto & Marsh, 2007;Marsh, 2012;. This is also recognized in the case study by Park, Daly, and Guerra (2012), in which the principals in the district they studied acknowledged the need to tackle fears and overcome resistance.…”

Locating data use in the microprocesses of district-level deliberations

“…In this process, data do not speak for themselves; rather, people must actively make meaning of them and construct implications for action (Coburn & Talbert, 2006;Farley-Ripple, 2012;Kennedy, 1982). How educators use data in decision making is influenced by individual and collective beliefs, which shape how people interpret data and their consequences for policy solutions (Cho & Wayman, 2014;Park, Daly, & Guerra, 2013), as well as by the dynamics of social interaction (Spillane, 2012). In addition, people with different degrees of status and authority have varied influence in negotiations, with consequences for strategic decisions (Goodwin, 1993;Coburn et al, 2008).…”

“…Framing is used to characterise a problem in a particular way, persuade others to one's opinion, or to counter others' claims. Scholars have previously used frame theory and similar approaches to investigate school board deliberations (Asen et al, 2011;Tracy & Dimock, 2004), local negotiations of policy implementation (Coburn, 2006;Coburn & Woulfin, 2012), andmost relevant to our work -data use in decision making (Coburn et al, 2009;Park et al, 2013).…”