Teachers’ Use of Student Data Systems to 

Improve Instruction: 2005 to 2007 

PREPARED BY: 

Lawrence Gallagher 

Barbara Means 

Christine Padilla 

SRI International 

PREPARED FOR: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2008 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-04-CO0040/0002 with SRI International. Bernadette Adams Yates served as the contracting officer’s 

representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the 

Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or 

should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Bill Evers 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

Office of Educational Technology 

Timothy J. Magner 

Director 

August 2008 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce this report in whole or in part is granted. 

While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Teachers’ Use of Student Data 

Systems to Improve Instruction: 2005 to 2007, Washington, D.C., 2008. 

To order copies of this report, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

To order via fax, dial 301-470-1244. You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 

877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.ed.gov. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at 

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer 

diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 

202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818. 
CONTENTS

List of Exhibits............................................................................................................................... iv 

Key Findings................................................................................................................................... 1 

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose of the Brief ........................................................................................................................ 2 

Data Sources ................................................................................................................................... 2 

Findings........................................................................................................................................... 4 

Content of Electronic Student Data Systems.............................................................................. 4 

Teacher Access to an Electronic Student Data System .............................................................. 7 

How Teachers Use Electronic Student Data Systems............................................................... 13 

Support for Using Electronic Student Data Systems ................................................................ 16 

Summary....................................................................................................................................... 26 

References..................................................................................................................................... 28 

 iii
EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1. Types of Student Data Stored Electronically, 2004–05 and 2006–2007 ...................... 5 

Exhibit 2. Types of Student Status Data That Districts Stored Electronically in 2006–07 ........... 6 

Exhibit 3. Types of Student Achievement Data That Districts Stored Electronically 

in 2006-07 ............................................................................................................... 7 

Exhibit 4. Percentage of Districts Granting Teachers Access to Their Students’ Data, 

by Degree of Access in 2006–07 .................................................................................. 8 

Exhibit 5. Teacher-reported Access to Data, by District-reported Categories of Teacher 

Access to Data in 2006–07 .................................................................................... 9 

Exhibit 6. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Access to a Student Data System, 

by school Level and Survey Year: 2005 and 2007 ..................................................... 10 

Exhibit 7. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Access to a Student Data System, 

by School Poverty in 2007.......................................................................................... 11 

Exhibit 8. Teacher-reported Categories of Data and Tools Available to Them: 2005 and 2007 12 

Exhibit 9. Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Using a Student Data System at 

Least a Few Times a Year for a Specific Function: 2005 and 2007........................... 14 

Exhibit 10. Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Using an Electronic Student Data System 

 at Least a Few Times a Year for a Specific Function, by Teaching Area and Year: 

2005 and 2007............................................................................................................. 16 

Exhibit 11. Teachers Indicating Support for Using Student Data to Guide Instruction, 

by Source of Support: 2005 and 2007....................................................................... 17 

Exhibit 12. District Support for Professional Development in Data-informed 

Decision-making in 2006–07.................................................................................... 18 

Exhibit 13. Teacher Reflections on Personal Confidence and Institutional Support for 

Using Electronic Student Data Systems in 2006–07 ................................................ 19 

Exhibit 14. Percentage of Teachers Using an Electronic Student Data System at Least 

a Few Times a Year for a Specific Function, by Level of Confidence and 

Support in 2006–07................................................................................................... 21 

Exhibit 15. Teacher Perceptions of Potential Benefit From Different Forms of 

Professional Development in 2006–07 ..................................................................... 22 

Exhibit 16. Teacher Perceptions of Potential Benefit From Different Forms of 

Professional Development, by Personal Confidence in Using an 

Electronic Student Data System in 2006–07 ............................................................ 23 

Exhibit 17. Teacher Perceptions of Potential Benefit From Different Forms of 

Professional Development, by School AYP Status in 2006–07 ............................... 25 

 iv
1

KEY FINDINGS

The following findings are based on analyses of national survey data from district technology 

coordinators and teachers from 2005 and 2007: 

• There was a significant increase in teacher-reported access to electronic student data 

systems between 2005 and 2007—from 48 percent to 74 percent. 

• Even so, teachers are more likely to report having electronic access to students’ grades 

and attendance than to achievement data: Only 37 percent of all teachers reported having 

electronic access to achievement data for the students in their classrooms in 2007. 

• Teachers express a desire for more professional development around the use of data, and 

those teachers who do feel better-than-average support from their colleagues and schools 

for working with data are more likely to use student data for instructional purposes. 

INTRODUCTION

The collection, analysis, and use of education data are central to the improvement of student 

outcomes envisioned by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Over the past six years, meeting the data 

requirements of NCLB and adapting or acquiring electronic data systems capable of generating 

the required student data reports have consumed much of the attention of district and state 

assessment and technology offices. The assumption of current policymakers is that the use of 

data from student data systems will lead to positive impacts on instruction and student 

achievement. But an examination of current practice suggests that the use of electronic student 

data systems and instructional decision-making are not fully integrated. Data-informed decisionmaking goes beyond the use of an electronic data system; it includes the adoption of a 

continuous improvement strategy that includes a set of expectations and practices for the 

ongoing examination of student data to ascertain the effectiveness of educational activities and, 

subsequently, to refine programs and practices to improve outcomes for students. If data are to 

influence the quality of the instruction that students receive, teachers who work with students 

day-to-day need access to timely information relevant to instructional decisions and the skills 

necessary to make sense of student data reports. Many district and school leaders are working to 

inspire and support teachers’ involvement in data-informed decision-making. Their efforts, 

combined with supportive education policies and improved data systems, are aimed at promoting 

data use practices at the school and classroom levels. 

The current brief is the second in a two-part series examining teachers’ access to and use of data 

from student data systems. The first brief indicated that about half of all teachers (48 percent) 

reported having access to a student data system in 2004–05, but teachers did not necessarily have 
2

appropriate data or tools they needed to make good use of student data in planning and 

individualizing instruction.1

What is data-informed 

educational decision-making? What is a student data system? 

In an education context, data-informed 

decision-making is the analysis and use of 

student data and information concerning 

education resources and processes to 

inform planning, resource allocation, 

student placement, and curriculum and 

instruction. The practice entails regular 

data collection and ongoing 

implementation of an improvement 

process. 

An electronic information system to assist 

in the organization and management of 

student data. Data systems consist of 

hardware and software that provide many 

different functions to users, such as storing 

current and historical data, rapidly 

organizing and analyzing data, and 

developing presentation formats or 

reporting interfaces. 

PURPOSE OF THE BRIEF

Using data from national surveys of teachers and school districts, this brief documents the results 

of efforts to promote data-informed decision-making within schools. Estimates of the prevalence 

of K–12 teachers’ access to and use of electronic student data systems at two time points (school 

years 2004–05 and 2006–07) are provided. Specifically, the brief addresses three research 

questions: 

• How broadly are student data systems being implemented in districts and schools? 

• How prevalent are supports for data use and tools for generating and acting on data? 

• How are school staff using student data systems? 

DATA SOURCES

This brief reports on analyses of survey data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National 

Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS), which examines the implementation of the 

Enhancing Education Through Technology Program as authorized by under the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001. The primary data used in this brief consist of survey responses from: 

 

1

 The first brief, Teachers’ Use of Student Data Systems to Improve Instruction, is available at 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/teachers-data-use/teachers-data-use-intro.html (last accessed June 26, 2008). 
3

• 1,028 district technology directors surveyed during spring 2005 and spring 

2007, and 

• 6,017 teachers surveyed during fall 2005 and 1,779 teachers surveyed in spring 2007. 

The teachers were clustered in schools sampled from the districts participating in a NETTS 

district survey.2 Both district and teacher respondents were asked to report on activities during 

the 2003–04 and 2006–07 school years. 

Teachers were sampled from 975 schools within the districts selected for the NETTS district 

survey.3 Higher-poverty4 schools were oversampled to obtain more precise data about their 

technology use. Response rates were 94 percent and 99 percent for the district surveys in 2007 

and 2005, respectively, and 85 percent and 82 percent for the teacher surveys in the same years. 

Sampling weights were applied to the teacher data to obtain nationally representative estimates. 

The survey data are part of a larger study that is documenting the availability of electronic 

student data systems, their characteristics, and the prevalence and nature of data-informed 

decision-making in districts and schools. Case study findings from this larger data collection 

effort that have yet to be published are used to help interpret survey results. 

 

2

 The NETTS district sample of 1,039 districts was nationally representative with respect to poverty status, student 

enrollments, and location (urban or rural status). The 60 largest urban school districts across the country were 

selected with certainty (i.e. included in the sample from the outset). Districts composed entirely of special 

education schools and vocational-technical schools, as well as independent charter schools that are their own 

districts, were excluded from the district sampling frame because of their dissimilarity to “typical” districts. To 

obtain the NETTS teacher survey sample, schools were selected from the district survey sample. Teachers were 

selected from the sampled schools (schools were stratified by poverty and grade level). Although the sampling 

process was sequential, entities at each level were selected at random (i.e., teachers were randomly selected from 

staff rosters from each of the schools in the sample). 

3

 To be eligible for the teacher samples in 2007 and 2005, a teacher had to be teaching at the same school in the 

school year prior to survey administration (i.e., teachers new to the school were excluded). Teachers who did not 

teach core academic subjects also were omitted from the sample. The final teacher sample in 2007 consisted of 

1,779 teachers from 865 schools. The larger sample of 6,017 teachers in 2005 was designed to provide robust, 

school-level estimates of technology use. 

4

 For schools, “higher poverty” was defined as above a specified cutoff in terms of the percentage of students who 

were eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program. The dividing line between higher-poverty and lowerpoverty schools was selected to ensure that for each school type (elementary, middle, or high school), there would 

be the same number of teachers in the higher-poverty and the lower-poverty groups, as reported in the National 

Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD). Elementary schools with 29.7 percent of their 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches were classified as higher poverty. For middle and high schools, 

the poverty thresholds were 24.3 percent and 15.9 percent, respectively. 
4

FINDINGS

Content of Electronic Student Data Systems 

As of 2006–07, nearly all school districts maintain at least some student data electronically. 

Based on all districts responding to the 2006–07 NETTS district survey, the most frequent types 

of electronic data maintained by districts were attendance (94 percent), grades (91 percent), and 

student demographics (90 percent). Large majorities of districts also maintained other types of 

administrative data such as special education information (89 percent) and course enrollment 

histories (86 percent) (see Exhibit 1). These proportions are similar to those reported in 2004–05, 

except for attendance data, which was significantly5 higher in 2005 (99 percent). 

 

5

 In this brief the word “significant” should be interpreted as “statistically significant.” The term “statistically 

significant” means that the observed difference in a pair of values is not likely due to random variation in the 

sample. The annotations p<.05, p<.01, etc., indicate the probability that these differences are due to random chance 

(i.e., less than a 5 percent probability, a 1 percent probability, etc.). When differences are not marked with an 

asterisk, we cannot reliably rule out the possibility that they are due to random variation in the sample. This brief 

uses the standard convention of *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, and  p<.0001. 
5

Exhibit 1 

Types of Student Data Stored Electronically, 2004–05 and 

2006–07 

94

90

89

91

86

99

94

92

89

93

0 20 40 60 80 100

Attendance** *

Student

demographics

Special

education

information

Student grades

Course

enrollment

histories

Percent of Districts

2006-07 2004-05

Exhibit reads: In the 2006–07 school year, 94 percent of districts 

stored attendance data in electronic form, compared with 99 

percent of districts in 2004–05. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant change from 

2005 to 2007 (***p < .001). 

Source: NETTS district survey, 2005 and 2007. 

The 2007 district survey asked respondents to provide information on additional data stored 

electronically. Exhibit 2 includes seven items not part of Exhibit 1, along with information on 

whether or not districts store the data electronically in the same format for three years or longer. 

As shown in Exhibit 2, fewer districts maintain data in the same format over time, thereby 

limiting opportunities for longitudinal analyses. Exhibit 3 includes the types of achievement data 

that districts stored electronically in 2006–07. 
6

Exhibit 2 

Types of Student Status Data That Districts Stored 

Electronically in 2006–07 

94

90

89

86

86

82

75

77

62

37

30

68

70

68

69

52

52

48

45

46

16

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Attendance

Student demographics

Special education information

Course enrollment histories

Codes for students no longer enrolled

Student graduation status

Program participation (ELL, Title I, etc.)

Behavior/discipline data

Prior school(s) attended

Status after graduation

Parent data (background, involvement,

etc.)

Percent of Districts

Data Available Longitudinal Data for 3+ Years

Exhibit reads: In the 2006–07 school year, 94 percent of districts 

stored attendance data in electronic form and 68 percent stored 

attendance data in the same format for three years or longer. 

Source: NETTS district survey, 2007. 

The 2007 survey also asked districts to provide more detail on the types of student achievement 

data stored electronically. The most frequent types of such data maintained in electronic form 

were student grades (91 percent) and scores on state tests (84 percent). The maintenance of 

longitudinal data was lower across all types of achievement data (Exhibit 3). 
7

Exhibit 3 

Types of Student Achievement Data That Districts Stored 

Electronically in 2006–07 

91

84

72

52

42

67

61

43

27

23

0 20 40 60 80 100

Student grades

Student scores

on state tests

Scores on

district tests

Scores on

school tests

Scores on SAT,

ACT, AP

Percent of Districts

Data Available Longitudinal Data for 3+ Years

Exhibit reads: In the 2006–07 school year, 91 percent of districts 

stored student grades in electronic form and 67 percent had this 

kind of data stored in the same format for three years or longer. 

Source: NETTS district survey, 2007. 

Teacher Access to an Electronic Student Data System 

When asked whether the district allows teachers to access data from an electronic data system 

on the students they teach, 91 percent of districts said that teachers had access to at least a 

limited set of data on their students. 

While the vast majority of districts grant teachers at least limited access to data about the 

students in their classrooms, only 8 percent of districts reported that their teachers had access to 

all of the system’s data on their students.6

 Another 38 percent said that teachers had access to 

“most” of their students’ data (Exhibit 4). The percentage of teachers who have access to at least 

 

6

 Use of the term “all” in the survey item meant that districts would have to consider non-achievement data, possibly including

information of a sensitive nature or protected by privacy legislation. 
8

a limited set of district data mirrors the percentage of districts granting access—the 91 percent of 

districts providing teacher access to data account for 91 percent of teachers nationwide. 

Exhibit 4 

Percentage of Districts Granting Teachers Access to Their 

Students’ Data, by Degree of Access in 2006–07 

8% 38% 45% 9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

access all data access most data access to limited set no access

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 8 percent of districts reported that 

teachers had access to all the data on students in their classroom 

contained in the district’s electronic data system. 

Source: NETTS district survey 2007. 

In 2007, districts were asked to report the degree of data they make available to individual 

teachers. The choices ranged from “all student data” to “no student data.” As in 2005, we found 

differences between teacher-reported access to student data and the access that districts reported 

teachers have (Exhibit 5). For example, 78 percent of teachers in districts reporting that teachers 

have access to all or most student data reported having such access, whereas 56 percent of 

teachers in districts that reported allowing no teacher access reported having access to individual 

student data. One of the reasons that teachers reported higher levels of access than districts is 

because teachers included access to student-level data from electronic student data systems other 

than the districts’ data system (e.g., the state, their school, commercial vendors).7

 

 

7

 The district survey asks specifically about access that individual teachers have to student-level data through the 

district’s data system, while the teacher survey asks if teachers had access to one or more electronic student data 

systems that provided them with student data. One of the reasons that teachers reported higher levels of access has 

to do with the fact that they are also including access to student-level data from sources other than the district 

electronic data system. In another item on the teacher survey not reported in the brief, teachers were asked the 

source of the student-level data provided to them and they indicated what some of those other sources are: 

17 percent (state), 33 percent (school), 2 percent (other)—this information was verified in case study work for this 

evaluation. 
9

Exhibit 5 

Teacher-reported Access to Data, by District-reported 

Categories of Teacher Access to Data in 2006–07 

78%

78%

73%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All data

Most data

Limited data

No data

Percent of teachers

Exhibit reads: In the 2006–07 school year, 78 percent of teachers 

in districts that report giving all teachers access to data actually 

report having access to data. Fifty-six percent of teachers in 

districts reporting no teacher access to student data report having 

access to data. 

Source: NETTS district and teacher survey, 2007. 

Case study research on student data system use within districts documents a range of opinions 

concerning the desirability of giving teachers direct access to student data systems. Privacy 

issues, teacher burden and ability to accurately interpret data have been cited as concerns (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2008). 

Teacher-reported access to an electronic student data system increased significantly, from 48 

percent in 2005 to 74 percent in 2007.

The percentage of teachers reporting access to an electronic student data system grew 

significantly between 2005 and 2007, rising from 48 percent in 2005 to 74 percent in 2007 

(Exhibit 6). The growth in teacher access was statistically significant within all three school 

levels (elementary, middle, high school). In 2007, elementary school teachers were less likely 

than middle school teachers to report having access to a student data system; the difference 

between elementary and high school teachers in reported access was not significant. 
10

Exhibit 6 

Percentage of Teachers Reporting Access to a Student Data System, by 

School Level and Survey Year: 2005 and 2007 

71

79

77

74

45

54

54

48

0 20 40 60 80 100

Elementary 

Middle** **

High 

Combined** **

Percent of Teachers

2007 2005

Exhibit reads: In 2007, 71 percent of elementary school teachers reported having 

access to a student data system, compared with 45 percent in 2005. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant change from 2005 to 2007 

(****p < .0001). 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2005 and 2007. 

As Exhibit 7 shows, teachers in higher-poverty schools were at least as likely as those in lowerpoverty schools to have access to an electronic student data system. In fact, among elementary 

school teachers, those in higher-poverty schools were more likely to report access to a student 

data system in 2006–07 (76 percent) than teachers in lower-poverty schools (67 percent). School 

poverty level was not a significant predictor of overall access for middle and high school 

teachers. School poverty did not significantly predict access to any of the particular types of data 

asked about on the survey or any of the systems described in the remainder of this report. 
11

Exhibit 7 

Percentage of Teachers Reporting Access to a Student Data System, 

by School Poverty in 2007 

76

81

79

67

78

76

0 20 40 60 80 100

Elementary*

Middle

High

Percent of Teachers

Higher Poverty

Low er Poverty

Exhibit reads: In 2007, 76 percent of elementary school teachers in higherpoverty schools reported having access to a student data system, compared 

with 67 percent in lower-poverty schools. 

Note: Asterisk indicates a statistically significant change from 2005 to 

2007 (*p < .05). 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2007. 

About half of teachers (49 percent) with data system access report that the system provides 

them with achievement data on their current students. 

To make instructional decisions informed by data, teachers need access to achievement data (and 

preferably longitudinal records of achievement) for the students they are teaching currently. The 

significant increase in teachers’ access to student data systems has yet to provide teachers with 

ready access to this kind of information. The only two types of data that a majority of teachers 

with access to a student data system reported having available to them were class attendance (74 

percent and 72 percent respectively for 2007 and 2005) and course grades (67 percent and 64 

percent in 2007 and 2005, respectively). 

Approximately half (49 percent) of teachers with access to a student data system (or 37 percent 

of all responding teachers) reported in the 2007 survey that they had access to standardized test 

scores for their current set of students (see Exhibit 8). This access level is a significant 

improvement over the 38 percent of teachers with system access (or 19 percent of all teachers) 

who reported this kind of access in 2005. The only other significant change in data access 

concerned estimations of achievement of adequate yearly progress (AYP): while 18 percent of 

teachers with access to a student data system in 2005 could look up this information, only 11 
12

percent of such teachers in 2007 reported having access to information about the likelihood of 

their school making AYP. 

Exhibit 8 

Teacher-reported Categories of Data and Tools Available to Them: 2005 

and 2007 

55

50

37

34

16

14

14

12

13

8

8

6

35

31

18

18

10

8

8

7

6

9

5

3

74

67

49

46

22

19

18

16

17

11

11

8

72

64

38

36

21

16

16

14

12

18

11

6

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Attendance

Course grades

This year's test scores****

Last year's test scores***

Course enrollments

Online assessments

Software for analysis

Prior schools attended

Online instruction**

Probability of school AYP***

Links from assessment to resources

Supplemental services

2007 2005

Percent of All Teachers Percent with Access

Exhibit reads: Of the teachers who reported having access to a student data 

system in 2007, 74 percent indicated that they had access to attendance data 

compared to 72 percent in 2005. Overall, 55 percent of all teachers reported 

having electronic access to attendance data in 2007, compared with 35 percent of 

all teachers in 2005. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant changes from 2005 to 2007 

(**p<.01, ***p < .001,  p<.0001). 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2005 and 2007. 
13

In both years, relatively few teachers reporting they had access to a student data system indicated 

that it included course enrollment histories for their students (around 22 percent) or provided 

information on students’ participation in supplemental education programs such as tutoring 

(around 8 percent). 

Even though nearly three quarters of all teachers (74 percent) reported having access to 

student data systems in 2007, the proportion of teachers with data system access who also have 

tools for making instructional decisions informed by data remains below 20 percent. 

Data systems can help promote data-informed decision-making by providing tools to help 

teachers improve decisions about instructional practice. Some of these resources include online 

assessments, formative assessment results linked to curriculum guides and instructional 

materials, and model lesson plans. Only a small proportion of the teachers in 2007 reported that 

the student data system incorporated online assessments (19 percent of teachers with data access, 

or 14 percent of all teachers), included access to software that they could use to analyze and 

interpret student test scores (18 percent of teachers with data access, or 14 percent of all 

teachers), or provided links to instructional resources tailored to student learning needs (11 

percent of teachers with data access, or 8 percent of all teachers). These proportions changed 

little between the 2005 and 2007 survey administrations for teachers with access to data. 

However, because the proportion of teachers with access to data increased so dramatically 

between the 2005 and 2007 surveys, the percentage of all teachers with access to some of these 

resources increased between survey administrations. 

How Teachers Use Electronic Student Data Systems 

The majority of teachers with access to a student data system continue to use these systems to 

provide information to parents (68 percent), and track individual student test scores and 

monitor student progress (65 percent, respectively). 

Of those teachers who reported having access to a student data system on the 2007 survey, 91 

percent said that they had used the system for at least one of the functions listed in Exhibit 9. The 

most frequent use of a student data system is to inform parents about their students’ progress; 68 

percent of the teachers who have used student data systems have done so for this purpose. 

Similarly, 65 percent of the teachers who reported having used a student data system in 2006-07 

said that they had used it to track individual students’ test scores. About 44 percent of the 

system-using teachers reported having used the data systems to examine test scores for a class of 

students. 

While teachers with access to electronic data systems reported using most of the functions of a 

student data system with approximately the same frequency in 2007 as they did in 2005, there 

was one function that showed a significant decline in use. In 2007, 43 percent of teachers with 

data access said that they had used a student data system to inform changes to their curriculum, 

compared with 49 percent of teachers in 2005. 
14

Exhibit 9 

Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Using a Student Data System at 

Least a Few Times a Year for a Specific Function: 2005 and 2007 

51

48

48

44

41

33

32

32

29

27

27

33

30

30

28

26

23

23

20

19

20

17

68

65

65

59

55

44

43

44

39

37

36

68

63

63

58

53

48

49

42

40

41

35

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Inform parents

Track individual test

scores

Track oth

ch

needs

Monitor student

academic progress†

er measures

Identify skill gaps

Pacing

Inform curriculum

anges** 

Track test scores by

grade

Identify promising

practices

Student placement

Assess test-taking

2007 2005

Percent of All Teachers Percent with Access

Inform parents

Track individual test

scores

Monitors student

academic progress†

Track other

measures

Identify skills gaps

Pacing

Inform curriculum

changes**

Track test scores by

grade

Identify promising

practices

Student placement

Assess test-taking

needs

Exhibit 7 reads: Of the teachers who reported access to a student data system, 

68 percent in both 2007 and 2005 said they used the data system to inform 

parents (or 51 percent of all teachers in 2007, compared with 33 percent of all 

teachers in 2005). 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant change from 2005 to 2007 

(**p<.01). 

† indicates that the wording of this item changed from “estimated whether your 

students would make adequate yearly progress (AYP)” in 2005 to “estimate 

whether your students are making adequate progress” in 2007. These two items 

are not directly comparable. 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2005 and 2007. 
15

Teacher reported use of student data systems generally does not vary by grade level or subject 

area, except for informing parents and instructional pacing. 

Using five teacher grade-subject categories elementary generalist (“all elementary”), middle-high 

school English, middle-high school mathematics, middle-high school science, and middle-high 

school history, analysts found statistically significant differences in the prevalence of just two of 

the 11 student data system uses examined on the 2007 survey. As shown in Exhibit 10, there 

were differences in: 

• Informing parents. Among teachers with access to a student data system, there were 

differences across teacher groups in the proportion using the data system to inform 

parents about student progress. Elementary school teachers (63 percent) were least likely 

to use a student data system to inform parents, while middle and high school science 

teachers (81 percent) and middle and high school English teachers (77 percent) appeared 

to be most likely to use a student data system to keep parents informed. Case study data 

suggest that this difference may reflect the greater body of informal observations and 

assessments of an individual student typically available to elementary school teachers. 

• Pacing. Among teachers with access to a data system, there were differences across 

teacher groups in the proportion using student data to help determine how to pace 

instruction. Elementary school teachers (47 percent) appeared to be most likely to report 

using a student data system to help in pacing instruction, and middle and high school 

social studies teachers appeared least likely (31 percent) to report doing so, and this 

difference is statistically significant. 

The differences between elementary and middle-high school mathematics teachers in using 

student data systems to identify skill gaps reported in 2004–05 disappeared by 2006–07. 
16

Exhibit 10 

Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Using an Electronic Student Data System at Least a Few 

Times a Year for a Specific Function, by Teaching Area and Year: 2005 and 2007 

All teachers All Elementary M/H English M/H History M/H Math M/H Science 

System Use ’05 ’07 ’05 ’07 ’05 ’07 ’05 ’07 ’05 ’07 ’05 ’07 

Inform parents 68 68 64 63ab 74 77a 76 74 67 66 68 81b

Track individual test scores 63 65 63 63 61 66 64 67 67 72 55 68 

Track other measures 58 59 61 57 58 62 67 56 45 55 50 65 

Identify skill gaps 53 55 59 58 47 43 47 46 40 58 44 54 

Monitoring student progress † 35 64 37 67 34 54 28 53 38 60 32 66 

Inform curriculum changes 49 43** 49 43 52 43 54 42 41 42 50 40 

Pacing 48 44 52 47c 52 36 38 31c 39 44 41 47 

Track test scores by grade 42 44 42 42 42 41 47 41 37 52 43 47 

Student placement 41 37 39 34 39 37 45 30 53 46 33 44 

Identify promising practices 40 39 40 41 44 31 42 33 33 35 44 43 

Assess test-taking needs 35 36 33 36 48 36 38 26 27 38 37 37 

Exhibit reads: Among teachers who reported using a student data system in 2007, 63 percent of elementary 

teachers used a data system to inform parents about student progress, while 77 percent of middle or high 

school English teachers and 81 percent of middle or high school science teachers used a data system to 

inform parents. These differences were statistically significant. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant change from 2005 to 2007 (**p<.01). 

2007 table values that share a common superscript a, b, or c are statistically significantly different from one 

another (p < .01). 

† The wording of this item changed from “estimated whether your students would make adequate yearly 

progress (AYP)” in 2005 to “estimate whether your students are making adequate progress” in 2007. As a 

result, this use is not directly comparable from 2005 to 2007. 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2005 and 2007. 

Support for Using Electronic Student Data Systems 

The most common supports for teachers’ learning to use an electronic student data system 

come from their schools and not through formal coursework. 

Roughly 60 percent of teachers with access to electronic student data systems reported having 

received professional development on this topic at their school. A similar proportion reported 

having been encouraged by their principal’s support for data-informed decision-making 

(Exhibit 11). In contrast, less than 10 percent of teachers with access to data systems reported 

having had formal coursework on the use of student data systems. 

A quarter (25 percent) of teachers who had access to student data systems said that they had 

received support from a consultant or mentor-teacher skilled in data analysis to help them use 

student data to guide decisions about instruction. About one-eighth (12 percent) of teachers with 

access to a data system reported having had paid time set aside for examining student data and 
17

using data to make decisions about practice. (This would include time during the regular school 

day or regular professional development days covered by their salary, as well as any summer or 

after-school sessions for which they received a stipend.) This is a statistically significant decline 

in the proportion of teachers with data system access reporting paid time for data use from the 16 

percent reported in the 2005 survey. 

Exhibit 11 

Teachers Indicating Support for Using Student Data to Guide Instruction, b

Source of Support: 2005 and 2007 

y 

43

42

19

15

9

5

30

29

13

8

8

4

58

56

25

20

12

6

61

59

27

17

16

8

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Professional development at school

Principal encouragement

Support from mentor

Professional development

outside school

Paid time set aside

Formal course work

2007 2005

Percent of All Teachers Percent with Access

Exhibit reads: Of the teachers who reported access to a student data system, 58 

percent in 2007 said that they had received support to use student data to guide 

decisions about instruction from professional development provided at their 

school, whereas 61 percent of teachers reported this kind of support in 2005 (or 

43 percent of all teachers in 2007 compared to 30 percent of all teachers in 2005). 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2005 and 2007. 

Teacher reports of their receipt of professional development on the use of student data systems 

and of data to inform instruction can be compared to district respondents’ reports of provision of 

professional development. Seventy-three percent of all districts indicated that they supported 

professional development in the past 12 months to “help teachers and administrators in datadriven decision making” (Exhibit 12). Districts paid for some of this professional development 

with federal funds. The Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program, authorized 

by Title II, Part D, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended 

by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), provides formula grants to states for promoting 

the use of educational technology to improve student achievement. Thirteen percent of districts 
18

reported using EETT funds to support professional development on data-informed decision 

making (12 percent using EETT formula grants, and 3 percent using EETT competitive grants). 

Exhibit 12 

District Support for Professional Development in 

Data-informed Decision-making in 2006–07 

73%

12%

3%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Supported by district

Supported by EETT formula $

Supported by EETT competitive $

Supported by EETT $ (combined)

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 73 percent of districts reported 

providing professional development to help teachers and 

administrators in data-informed decision making. 

Source: NETTS district survey, 2007. 

While teachers express overall confidence in their ability to use an electronic student data 

system, the availability of support from the district or school for using a data system appears 

more variable. 

New to the 2007 survey was a block of questions asking teachers to reflect on their use of an 

electronic student data system using a 5-point Likert response scale.8

 For some of these items, 

agreement with the statement would indicate a high degree of confidence in their ability to use a 

student data system or the perception of strong support for using one. For other items, such as “I 

have trouble finding information,” disagreeing with the statement would indicate a positive 

attitude. The latter items are indicated with (R) and for both types of items the percentage of 

teachers indicating a positive attitude is shown to the right of the vertical center line in 

Exhibit 13. 

The items were grouped into two scales. Items in the first scale—confidence in using a student 

data system—ask teachers to indicate their ability to perform various tasks connected with data 

system use. Research on teachers’ integration of technology into instruction has found that 

 

8

 A Likert response scale asks the teacher to respond to a statement by selecting one of five categories: strongly 

disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree. 
19

teacher confidence in specific areas predicts their likelihood of using technology in related ways 

(Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003). The expectation that similar relationships would 

emerge for teachers’ use of data and student data systems motivated construction of a scale of 

survey items dealing with teachers’ self-confidence regarding various aspects of data use. The 

internal reliability of the teacher confidence scale was .76.9 

Exhibit 13 

Teacher Reflections on Personal Confidence and Institutional Support for Using Electronic 

Student Data Systems in 2006–07 

Confidence Using Student Data Systems 

15%

15%

19%

24%

26%

20%

32%

63%

59%

46%

40%

39%

33%

33%

100% 50% 0% 50% 100%

I know how to use data to

refine teaching

I know how to work with

colleagues to monitor

progress

I'm often uncertain how to

interpret (R)

I have trouble finding

information (R)

Professonal development

prepared me for data driven

decision making

The student data system is

hard to use (R)

I can form data queries

Negative Positive

Support for Using Student Data Systems 

12%

5%

13%

29%

54%

59%

71%

70%

42%

37%

23%

14%

100% 50% 0% 50% 100%

I can turn to someone for help

I am comfortable having

colleagues with me

My school has improved

through student data system

use

Available data not helpful in

deciding what to teach (R)

Time is available as part of

regular day

If I use student data system it

has to be my own time (R)

Negative Positive

Exhibit reads: Among teachers who reported access to a student data system in 2006–07, 15 percent said 

that they did not know how to use data to refine their teaching, while 63 percent said that they did know 

how to do this (the remaining 22 percent were neutral); 12 percent indicated that they do not have 

someone to turn to when they need help making sense of data from the system, whereas 71 percent 

indicated they did have this kind of support (the remaining 17 percent were neutral). 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2007. 

 

9

 The internal reliability of a scale is a measure of how consistently the questions in that scale refer to the same 

underlying idea (in this case, confidence or institutional support), and is expressed as a number ranging from 0 (no 

consistency among questions) to 1 (perfect consistency or essentially identical questions). Scales with higher 

reliability are able to measure finer-grained distinctions in levels of the underlying idea than are scales with lower 

reliability. 
20

The second scale—institutional support—indicates the degree to which teachers feel supported 

by colleagues in their data use and are allotted time to use a student data system (internal 

reliability = .61). This scale provides an overall measure of the degree of support that teachers 

believe they have for using student data and student data systems. 

For six of the seven statements pertaining to confidence in using a student data system, a higher 

percentage of teachers responded positively than responded negatively with respect to their 

ability to use data to improve their practice. For example, 63 percent of teachers claimed that 

they knew how to use data from a student data system to refine their teaching, and only 

15 percent disagreed with this statement. For the seventh statement, teachers were evenly divided 

with approximately one-third of teachers agreeing and one-third disagreeing with the statement 

“I can form data queries.”10 

When asked about various forms of support for data use, teachers were more mixed in their 

responses. More than 70 percent of teachers agreed with statements such as “There is someone I 

can turn to when I need help making sense of data from the data system” or “I am comfortable 

having my colleagues with me when I examine performance data for my students.” More 

teachers expressed positive than negative attitudes in response to statements such as “My school 

has been improved through the regular use of student data” (42 percent agreement, 12 percent 

disagreement) and “The student data available on the system are not really that helpful in 

deciding what or how to teach” (29 percent agreement, 37 percent disagreement). A clear 

majority of teachers noted that school time was generally not available for using a data system. 

Only 23 percent of teachers agreed with the statement “Time for using the data system is 

available when needed as part of the regular school day,” while 54 percent disagreed with that 

statement. Similarly, 59 percent of teachers agreed that “If I want to use the student data system, 

usually I have to do it on my own time,” while only 14 percent disagreed with that statement. 

Teachers’ use of electronic student data systems is significantly associated with both expressed 

confidence and with their perceived support for system use. 

There are clear and statistically significant associations between whether teachers use a student 

data system in various ways and their degree of confidence and support (Exhibit 14). After 

forming the overall confidence and support scales described above, analysts divided the teachers 

into two groups, those scoring above the median and those scoring below the median score. For 

every listed use of a student data system, teachers were significantly more likely to report having 

used the data system for that function if they were either of higher confidence or felt higher 

support levels. 

 

10 Case study work suggests that some districts do not believe it is a good practice to have teachers forming their 

own data queries. 
21

Exhibit 14 

Percentage of Teachers Using an Electronic Student Data System at Least a Few Times a Year for 

a Specific Function, by Level of Confidence and Support in 2006–07 

77

78

79

72

72

61

59

57

55

48

48

61

54

51

48

40

30

31

31

25

27

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Inform parents 

Track individual test scores** **

Monitor student academic

progress 

Track other measures** **

Identify skill gaps 

Pacing** **

Track test scores by grade 

Inform curriculum changes** **

Identify promising practices 

Student placement** **

Assess test-taking needs 

Percent of Teachers With Access

Higher Confidence Lower Confidence

79

79

81

73

68

59

59

58

55

50

48

62

58

54

51

48

36

35

35

30

29

29

0 20 40 60 80 100

Inform parents** **

Track individual test scores 

Monitor student academic

progress** **

Track other measures 

Identify skill gaps** **

Pacing 

Track test scores by grade** **

Inform curriculum changes 

Identify promising

practices** **

Student placement 

Assess test-taking needs** **

Percent of Teachers With Access

Higher Support Lower Support

Exhibit reads: Among teachers who reported access to a student data system in 2006–07, 77 percent with 

high confidence levels said they used system data to inform parents of student progress, while 61 percent 

with lower confidence levels said that they did so. In addition, 79 percent of teachers who reported 

receiving higher support levels to use data said they used system data to inform parents, while 62 percent 

with lower support levels said that they did so. Both differences were statistically significant. 

Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences between teachers with higher and lower levels 

of confidence and support ( p<.0001). 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2007. 
22

A majority of teachers believe they could benefit from further professional development on the 

topics of (1) developing diagnostic assessments (58 percent)11 and (2) adjusting their 

instructional content and approach based on data (55 percent). 

The 2007 survey asked teachers with access to a student data system whether they could benefit 

from seven forms of professional development related to data-informed instruction and using a 

data system (see Exhibit 15). The most common forms of professional development sought were 

developing diagnostic assessments and adjusting instruction based on diagnostic data. The least 

sought after professional development was techniques for collaborating with colleagues. 

Exhibit 15 

Teacher Perceptions of Potential Benefit From Different Forms of 

Professional Development in 2006–07 

58

55

50

48

44

38

37

0 20 40 60 80 100

Developing diagnostic assessments

Adjusting content and approach

based on data

Identify types of data to collect for

progress monitoring

Proper interpretation of test scores

Mechanics of using student data

system

How to formulate questions

addressed with data

Techniques for collaborating with

colleagues

Percent of Teachers With Access

Exhibit reads: Among teachers who reported access to a student data 

system in 2006–07, 58 percent said that they could benefit from 

additional professional development in developing diagnostic 

assessments, while only 37 percent said they could benefit from 

further professional development on techniques for collaborating with 

colleagues. 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2007. 

 

11 Diagnostic assessments refer to the informal tools used by teachers as part of their formative assessment process 

to help them evaluate individual student progress as well as the class as a whole. 
23

The degree to which teachers felt they could benefit from further professional development 

depended on whether they were a higher-confidence or a lower-confidence teacher (Exhibit 16). 

As might be expected, lower-confidence teachers were more likely to believe they could benefit 

from further professional development, and this contrast was statistically significant for four of 

the seven listed forms of training. 

Exhibit 16 

Teacher Perceptions of Potential Benefit From Different 

Forms of Professional Development, by Personal Confidence 

in Using an Electronic Student Data System in 2006–07 

54

54

47

40

33

34

31

62

58

53

56

55

40

42

0 20 40 60 80 100

Developing diagnostic assessments

Adjusting content and approach

based on data

Identify types of data to collect for

progress monitoring

Proper interpretation of test

scores** *

Mechanics of using student data

system****

How to formulate questions

addressed w ith data

Techniques for collaborating w ith

colleagues*

Percent of Teachers With Access

Higher Confidence Low er Confidence

Exhibit reads: Among teachers who reported access to a student 

data system in 2006–07, 54 percent of higher-confidence teachers 

said that they could benefit from additional professional 

development in how to develop diagnostic assessments, compared 

with 62 percent of lower-confidence teachers. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference 

between teachers with higher confidence in using a student data 

system and teachers with lower confidence (*p < .05, ***p <.001, 

****p<.0001). 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2007. 

The degree of perceived institutional support for data use did not predict teachers’ endorsement 

of further professional development. Only one form of professional development—how to 

formulate questions with data—varied significantly with the degree of institutional support, with 

higher-supported teachers more likely to want this form of professional development (42 
24

percent) when compared to lower-supported teachers (34 percent). It may be that the highersupported teachers were more aware of an area in which their skills could be improved or that 

teachers receiving less support did not believe they would have the opportunity to apply this skill 

in their districts, as observed in case study schools. 

Teachers in schools that did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) the year before the 

survey were more likely to believe that they could benefit from additional professional 

development. 

The NCLB legislation explicitly calls on schools failing to make AYP to use data in their school 

improvement process. For this reason, schools failing to make AYP could be expected to place 

more emphasis on using student data systems. For six of the seven types of training addressed by 

the NETTS survey, a significantly higher percentage of teachers in schools not meeting AYP 

indicated that they would benefit from additional professional development when compared with 

teachers in schools making AYP (Exhibit 17). 
25

Exhibit 17 

Teacher Perceptions of Potential Benefit From Different Forms of 

Professional Development, by School AYP Status in 2006–07 

54

54

35

47

45

46

35

64

67

51

59

49

57

44

0 20 40 60 80 100

Adjusting content and approach

based on data*

Developing diagnostic

assessments**

How to formulate questions

addressed w ith data***

Identify types of data to collect for

progress monitoring**

Mechanics of using student data

system

Proper interpretation of test

scores*

Techniques for collaborating w ith

colleagues*

Percent of Teachers With Access

AYP Not AYP

Exhibit reads: Among teachers that reported access to a data system in 

2006–07, 54 percent of teachers in schools making AYP indicated 

that they could benefit from additional professional development in 

how to develop diagnostic assessments for their class, compared with 

67 percent of teachers in schools not making AYP. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between 

teachers in schools making AYP and those in schools not making 

AYP (*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p<.001). 

Source: NETTS teacher survey, 2007. 
26

SUMMARY

The availability and use of electronic student data systems for instructional improvement are 

rapidly changing, as illustrated by the data reported in this brief. Federal, state, and district 

efforts to promote the use of data to improve instruction and student achievement are being 

accompanied by changes in teacher access to student data systems and data use. 

Nearly three-quarters of all teachers reported having access to an electronic student data system 

in school year 2006–07 compared with half of teachers reporting access two years earlier—

nearly a 50 percent increase between the two survey administrations. Such rapid change in a twoyear period is notable for American education, but a significant proportion of teachers still do not 

have access to the data necessary for making instructional decisions. Only half of teachers with 

access to a student data system report that it provides them with achievement data for the 

students in their classroom, or only 37 percent of teachers as a whole have achievement data for 

their current students from the data system. Fewer still have access to achievement information 

more recent than the scores on the prior spring’s state test or to longitudinal views of student 

achievement over multiple years. The only data that a majority of teachers reported having 

available to them in 2007 were class attendance and course grades (74 percent and 67 percent, 

respectively, of teachers with data access). 

A majority of teachers with access to a student data system reported having received professional 

development on data system use and having support from their principal for data use activities. 

Teachers who felt that they had more support for data use were more likely to report having 

actually used the student data system for a variety of purposes. 

Of those teachers who reported having access to a student data system, a majority reported 

making use of it for keeping parents informed, monitoring student academic progress, and 

tracking individual test scores. Teachers who expressed confidence in their ability to use data 

and student data systems and those who felt well supported by their colleagues in this endeavor 

were likely to report making additional uses of data, such as identifying student skill gaps, 

informing changes to the curriculum, and identifying promising practices. 

Teachers express the desire for more professional development in using data—particularly for 

training in how to develop diagnostic assessments and how to adjust instruction based on 

diagnostic data. 

In addition to the need for improved access to the kinds of data that teachers can use to inform 

instruction and to more professional development, teachers need time to devote to examining 

data and making plans on the basis of that data: lack of time set aside for these activities was 

cited as a barrier in both 2005 and 2007. Less than one-sixth of teachers with access to student 

data systems report that they have had paid time set aside for data use. For the most part, teachers 

continue to be expected to use the data system as an extra activity, either conducted on their own 

time or substituted for other activities during their regular planning period. 
27

In brief, the prevalence and use of student data systems in schools have increased rapidly since 

the first round of NETTS surveys in 2005, but the need still exists for a more systemic approach 

to implementing the use of data as a central part of instructional decision-making. 
28

REFERENCES

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology 

use. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Implementing Data-Informed Decision Making in 

Schools: Teacher Access, Supports, and Use. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development.