Using Leading and Lagging Indicators to Inform Systemwide Change
By Susan A. Gendron and Scott Traub
Sustained student achievement is our goal. But if change takes time, how do we ensure we’re heading
down the right path?
Too Little Data, Too Late?
Over the past few decades, schools in the United
States have made dramatic advances in the regular
use of data for decision-making. Technological shifts
such as Student Information Systems have made
more data available to school stakeholders more
quickly than ever before, and policy changes have
held teachers and leaders accountable for responding
to this data.
Leaders, teachers, and policymakers analyze student
test scores to determine targeted interventions and
drive overall strategy. However, many stakeholders
feel like something is missing—the data they are using
doesn’t tell the whole story, and it’s difficult to turn
this information into action. Real, sustained change
can take years to show results, and data from
standardized tests and other summative sources
often feel like too little, too late. Standardized test
scores, end-of-term grades, graduation rates, and
other common summative metrics are calculated and
shared infrequently, and are usually released at a
time when their potential for immediate impact on
student learning has passed. The Annenberg Institute
for School Reform (Foley, et. al. 2008) quotes one
research study participant who likened the
overreliance on summative data to “playing the game
with the scoreboard off. When the buzzer sounds at
the end of the game, you flip the scoreboard on and
say, ‘Wait a minute. I thought we were ahead.’”
Early, Often, and Varied
To reconfigure school data systems in a way that will
make them truly effective, we can borrow the
economic concept of “leading and lagging indicators.”
Lagging indicators are the data points most
commonly used in schools—for example,
standardized test scores, graduation rates, and endof-course exams. These indicators are historical in
nature, and can be used to diagnose a trend once it
has already begun (Douglas, 2012). These data are
important, and many schools and districts could
benefit from expanding their repertoire of lagging
indicators, moving beyond standardized test scores to
longer-reaching data points such as college
persistence and post-secondary civic engagement
(Foley, et. al 2008). Analysis of this type of data can
help schools to look at real measures of college and
career readiness, rather than relying solely on the test
scores that often serve as proxies for these factors.
Lagging indicators serve a critical purpose, but lagging
indicators focus on the outcomes of instruction that
has already occurred—they don’t tell us what is
happening now.
Leading indicators, on the other hand, are predictive
in nature. These data points are frequent and
formative, and they offer valuable information that
can help organizations to adjust and change course in
the moment. Examples of leading indicators include
attendance records, early reading proficiency,
enrollment levels in key courses like Algebra, and
formative teacher quality data. These types of data
can sometimes be more challenging to capture and
interpret than lagging indicators, but schools and
districts can work together to develop measurement
systems that include this predictive information.
Attending to leading indicators can make a dramatic
difference to the health of a school—if lagging
indicators can be likened to an autopsy report,
leading indicators are a patient’s vital signs (Data
First).
Copyright © 2015 by International Center for Leadership in Education. All rights reserved.
1
Cultivating Confidence

Change takes time. The learning curve associated with
the implementation of reforms and new initiatives
can be challenging and uncomfortable. Michael Fullan
(2007) describes the “implementation dip” that often
occurs during the change process. He explains, “the
implementation dip is literally a dip in performance
and confidence as one encounters an innovation that
requires new skills and new understandings.” This dip
can be made bearable by acknowledging and
celebrating small successes along the way. Leading
indicators can provide early and often evidence of
these successes, increasing stakeholder confidence.
For example, if a new instructional method is
increasing student engagement, attendance levels (a
leading indicator) will increase before this increased
engagement manifests in standardized test scores (a
lagging indicator). On the other hand, leading
indicators can provide an early warning when an
intervention is NOT having the intended impact,
allowing teachers and leaders to make relevant
adjustments and change course as needed.

Designing a Comprehensive Data System
Many schools, districts, and even states are now
designing data systems that incorporate the
measurement and analysis of both leading and
lagging indicators. For example, in the state of
Mississippi, the Department of Education has
developed a school transformation plan that tracks
leading indicators, including discipline incidents and
teacher attendance rate, alongside lagging indicators,
such as proficiency on state assessments and college
enrollment rates (Mississippi DOE, 2012). The
following guidelines can help you incorporate leading
and lagging indicators into your planning:

Carefully define the leading and lagging
indicators that are most relevant to your
environment. Since every school and
community has its own DNA, consider the
data points that are meaningful for your
stakeholders. The Annenberg study defines
leading indicators as indicators that are timely
and actionable, benchmarked, and powerful.
(p. 3)
Gather, analyze, and use data at the
individual student level AND the systemic
level. Leading and lagging indicators can
inform decisions and interventions at the
micro- and macro-levels. Having short-term
and long-term data on individual students can
help to guide each student’s instructional
pathway and identify strengths and
challenges. The same types of data used at an
institutional level can drive new innovations
and systemic reforms.
Make data analysis part of the culture at
your school. Empowering every staff member
at your school to access and analyze data can
have a dramatic impact on teacher practice
and student learning. Consider making deep
data dives a regular part of your professional
learning community work, and incorporate
leading and lagging indicators into these
discussions.
Seeing the Whole Picture
In order to make lasting and meaningful change in
schools, we need to understand the long-term,
historical trends in our work, but we also need to
adapt, stay agile, and respond to what we see in the
moment. Creating and refining comprehensive data
processes that involve the thoughtful collection and
analysis of data about both leading and lagging
indicators can help us to walk this line. Each data
source is one piece of the school improvement
puzzle—let’s make sure we’re looking at the whole
picture when we make decisions about teaching and
learning.
References
Data First: Leading and Lagging Indicators. [Video
file.] Retrieved from http://www.datafirst.org/learning/leading-and-laggingindicators/
Douglas, E. (2012, Aug 14) Leading and lagging:
Balancing education measures. Education
Week. [Blog post] Retrieved from
http://blogs.edweek.org/topschooljobs/k12_talent_manager/2012/08/leading_lagging
_balancing_measures.html
Copyright © 2015 by International Center for Leadership in Education. All rights reserved.
2
Foley, E., Mishook, J., Thompson, J., Kubiak, M.,
Supovitz, J., and Rhude-Faust, M.K. (2008)
Beyond test scores: Leading indicators for
education. Annenberg Institute for School
Reform. Retrieved from
http://annenberginstitute.org/sites/default/fi
les/product/206/files/LeadingIndicators.pdf
Fullan, M., (2007) Leading in a culture of change. New
York: Jossey-Bass.
Leading and Lagging Indicators, Mississippi
Department of Education. (2012) Retrieved
February 19, 2015 from
http://home.mde.k12.ms.us/OSR/LLI
About the Authors
Susan A. Gendron is President of the International Center for Leadership in Education;
Scott Traub is the Executive Director of Education Partnerships, West.
Copyright © 2015 by International Center for Leadership in Education. All rights reserved.
3