New Virtual Schools Report from NEPC & Barbour

The National Education Policy Center, with support from the Great Lakes Center, has released their second major report on virtual school policies and practices in the United States. CASTLE blogger and friend Michael Barbour served as a coauthor on the report and had this to say:

“While there has been some improvement in what is known about supplemental K-12 online learning, there continues to be a lack of reliable and valid evidence to guide the practice of full-time K-12 online learning. Yet it is the full-time K-12 online learning that has seen the greatest growth in recent years.”

This is the second consecutive year of this report and it is quickly becoming the standard for virtual school policy in the United States. 

New Pub: Districts’ Efforts for Data Use and Computer Data Systems: The Role of Sensemaking in System Use and Implementation by Vincent Cho and Jeffrey Wayman

CASTLE friend and fellow Vincent Cho and coauthor Jeff Wayman have a new publication in Teachers College Record out this issue on Districts’ Efforts for Data Use and Computer Data Systems: The Role of Sensemaking in System Use and Implementation. 


The overview is: 

Background: Increasingly, teachers and other educators are expected to leverage data in making educational decisions. Effective data use is difficult, if not impossible, without computer data systems. Nonetheless, these systems may be underused or even rejected by teachers. One potential explanation for such troubles may relate to how teachers have made sense of such technologies in practice. Recognizing the interpretive flexibility of computer data systems provides an avenue into exploring these issues.

Objective: This study aims to explore the factors affecting teachers’ use of computer data systems. Drawing upon the notion of interpretive flexibility, it highlights the influence of sensemaking processes on the use and implementation of computer data systems.

Research Design: This comparative case study draws upon interview and observational data gathered in three school districts. Matrices were used to compare understandings about data use and about computer data systems within each district by job role (i.e., central office member, campus administrator, and teacher), as well as across districts.

Results: Our findings challenge commonplace assumptions about technologies and their “effects” on teacher work. For example, access to a system or its functions did not determine changes of practice. Paradoxically, we even found that teachers could reject or ignore functions of which they were personally in favor. Although computer data systems can support changes of practice, we found that agency for change rested in people, not in the technologies themselves. Indeed, teachers’ sensemaking about “data” and “data use” shaped whether and how systems were used in practice. Although central offices could be important to sensemaking, this role was often underplayed.

Conclusion: We provide recommendations regarding how researchers, school, and district leaders might better conceptualize data and data systems. These recommendations include recognizing implementation as an extended period of social adjustment. Further, we emphasize that it is the unique duty of school and district leaders to share their visions regarding data use, as well as to engage in dialogue with their communities about the natures of schooling and data use.

This very insightful article on the integration of the data management technologies and the everyday usage of the personnel on site is a must read. I know I will now personally be requiring this article in my EDL 664 course covering districts, data, and technology.