This study examined the data use of central office administrators working in the Curriculum and Instruction Department of a school district. The purpose of this work was to broaden the knowledge base of data use and of the integral role the central office plays in the district-wide use of data to improve teaching and learning. Two research questions guided the study: (a) How do central office personnel involved in curriculum and instruction use data to support district goals of improved student achievement, and (b) how do central office personnel involved in curriculum and instruction use data to support campus goals of improved student achievement? A qualitative and quantitative data collection process with a single-case study approach included focus groups, individual interviews, and a survey instrument. The data from these components were coded, analyzed, and translated into themes and findings using a 9-step constant-comparative process. This process provided rich description and a comprehensive evaluation of findings to answer the research questions. Findings regarding the use of data within the department of curriculum and instruction at the central office revealed that administrators most often took on the role of data provider. The central office provided reports both to campuses and to comply with federal and state regulations and funding requirements; provided professional development to principals, teachers, and instructional specialists; provided information about student achievement to parents and the greater community; and encouraged the use of data and highlighted the value of data use to inform instructional choices. Further analysis of the data revealed barriers that inhibit the systemic use of data and the ability of school districts to become truly data informed: lack of a common vision for data use, creation of data silos that reduce the ability to collaborate and make cooperative data-based decisions, too much data for consideration, and fragmented implementation of the goal-setting process. These findings contribute to the current literature by demonstrating the importance of the central office in data use. In conclusion, what central office administrators do with data matters, and how the central office uses data to support teacher and principal quality is critical in a district focused on improving teaching and student learning. / text

In this study, the aim is to review principals' data-based decision-making process, which is based on analysing the discourses that are expressed in the documentation of their decision-making process. There are 84 decisions reviewed which come from 12 different principals in 13 different schools (pre-school class and year 1 - 9 compulsory school).  The theoretical startingpoint for the study is organisational theory and a model for Critical discourse analysis (CDA), which consists of three interrelated processes of analysis. Four different decision discourses are identified, efficiency discourse, knowledge discourse, documentation discourse and problem-based discourse. Previous research in the same field are confirmed. However, it contradicts with the idea that data-based decision-making process is following certain steps and fixed order in this kind of decision process in school. The conclusions are that despite guidelines and a strong focus on assessing results, the decision-making process seems to take other directions than planned in policies. Some parts in the process seems to be particularly complicated, and schools would gain from clarifying a designed data-based decision process. / I den här studien är syftet att granska rektorers välgrundade eller databaserade beslutsprocess, vilket sker genom att analysera de diskurser som kommer till uttryck i rektorers dokumentation om analys av resultat och planerade åtgärder. Utifrån en flerdimensionell analysmodell granskas 84 planerade åtgärder, från 12 olika rektorer i 13 olika grundskolor. Den teoretiska och metodologiska utgångspunkten finns i kritisk diskursanalys och organisationsteori. Resultatet stämmer till viss del överens med och bekräftar tidigare forskningsresultat inom samma område, men det motsäger att den välgrundade beslutsprocessen går till i bestämda steg och i en viss ordning. I studien identifieras fyra beslutsdiskurser: effektivitetsdiskurs, kunskapsdiskurs, dokumentationsdiskurs och problembaserad diskurs. Slutsatserna är, att trots riktlinjer och ett starkt fokus på att bedöma resultat verkar beslutsprocessen ta andra vägar än det som planeras i direktiv och policys. Vissa delar är särskilt komplicerade och av den anledningen kan alla organisationsnivåer vinna på att ge en mer tydlig form till processen för de databaserade besluten.