The use of performance feedback in school improvement in Louisiana Kim Schildkamp a, * , Adrie Visscher b,1 a University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioral Science, Department of C&O, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands b University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioral Science, Department of O&M, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands article info Article history: Received 6 July 2009 Received in revised form 7 April 2010 Accepted 9 April 2010 Keywords: Accountability Performance feedback School improvement abstract Although school performance feedback is available in schools all over the world, there is a dearth of information about the use made of feedback and about the effects of its use. This paper presents case study research into the use of school performance feedback and its’ perceived effects. All schools used the feedback in writing school improvement plans, but the extent of genuine school improvement varied across schools as did the perceived effects of the use of performance feedback. The results highlight various factors which may promote or impede the use of school performance feedback and its effects. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction 1.1. Accountability in Louisiana Educational reform and accountability became a national priority in the United States with the publication of the Coleman et al. report (1966). Attention to educational reform grew with the publication of ‘A Nation At Risk’ in 1983 (Teddlie, Kochan, & Taylor, 2002). By the end of the 1980s the majority of the states had established indicator systems (Blank, 1993). Attention to account- ability increased further with the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act requires all states to implement state- wide accountability systems (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). In the 1990s, comprehensive accountability systems to monitor and enforce progress towards state performance standards were established in a large number of states. Louisiana launched its first comprehensive accountability initiative in 1996. The accountability system measures school performance based on a weighted composite of achievement, attendance and dropout data. It assesses the annual performance of schools and places each school in one of the following categories: Academically Unacceptable, Academically Below Average, Academically Above Average, School of Academic Achievement, School of Academic Distinction, or School Of Academic Excellence. It also categorizes schools according to two- year growth as either: School in Decline, Minimal Academic Growth, Recognized Academic Growth, or Exemplary Academic Growth. Schools which exceed Louisiana state standards are rewarded, while schools which fall short of those standards e categorized as schools in School Improvement (defined as those which failed to make the required growth in student achievement over one year) e are subjected to sanctions and corrective actions. A typical corrective action is a 2e3 day school site visit by the District Assistance Team, a 4e5 member team from the Louisiana Depart- ment of Education. The goal of these visits is to provide guidance to school personnel conducting comprehensive evaluations of the school in order to construct a detailed snapshot of current condi- tions at the school. This evaluation information is then used to inform the design and delivery of follow-up assistance to the school, and becomes a resource for school staff in their on-going school improvement planning (Teddlie et al., 2002). 1.2. School Analysis Model (SAM) In conducting site visits, the district assistance team makes use of protocols based on the School Analysis Model (SAM), which is a comprehensive school analysis approach consisting of (i) gath- ering and interpreting process data at the classroom, grade/ department, and school levels, and (ii) applying this data to context-specific, school improvement planning, driven by best practices in school effectiveness and staff development research. An ABC þ matrix was developed by Teddlie et al. (2002), crossing four types of educational variables (Attitudinal, Behavioral, Cogni- tive, and Contextual e defined below) by four data sources (Parent, Student, Classroom/Teacher, School/Principal). The matrix provides 16 data cells which may include both quantitative and qualitative * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ31 53 489 4203; fax: þ31 53 4893759. E-mail addresses: k.schildkamp@utwente.nl (K. Schildkamp), a.j.visscher@ utwente.nl (A. Visscher). 1 Tel.: þ31 53 489 3609. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate 0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.04.004 Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1389e1403