School District Central Office Research Articles

Tight, Loose, or Decoupling? A National Study of the Decision-Making Power Relationship Between District Central Offices and School Principals

Do school district central offices and school principals have the same level of influence on school decisions? What does the district–principal power relationship look like? These two questions are discussed but are rarely examined in the literature. Based on a nationally representative sample from the 2007-2008 Schools and Staffing Survey data, we explored these two questions. Specifically, we applied the paired samples t test to compare the district central offices’ and school principals’ influences and applied the multilevel modeling method to estimate the power relationship. We found that (a) on average, districts and principals had the same level of influence on establishing curriculum, whereas school principals had higher influence on the other six decision areas examined (performance standards, teachers’ professional development programs, evaluating teachers, hiring teachers, discipline policies, and school budget), and (b) a tight coupling power relationship between district central offices and school principals was identified for the three areas related to the technical core of schools (performance standards, establishing curriculum, and teachers’ professional development programs), a loose coupling power relationship was revealed for the personnel (hiring and evaluating teachers) and budget areas, while a decoupling power relationship was found for discipline policy decisions. Discussions and implications for school leadership and policy were included in this study.

Under What Conditions Do School Districts Learn From External Partners? The Role of Absorptive Capacity

School district central offices regularly engage with external partners in improvement efforts, but these partnerships are not always productive. Indeed, little is known about under what conditions partnerships are likely to lead to organizational learning outcomes. We conducted a longitudinal comparative case study of two departments in one urban school district central office, both working with the same external partner. Data included 131 interviews and 372 hours of observations as well as artifacts and social network data. While one department did not incorporate the partner’s ideas into policies and routines, the other demonstrated greater integration. We argue this difference is due to organizational conditions that foster absorptive capacity and to the nature of department–partner interactions.

Evidence-Based Decision-Making

Research has explored the use of evidence-based practices within schools but less is known about evidence-based decision-making among school district central office administrators. This study explored how individual and school-level characteristics of administrators were related to the implementation of evidence-based practices. Findings suggested that administrators were more knowledgeable about evidence-based practices if they were working in districts with existing policies in place to address the use of research in decision-making. Administrators were less knowledgeable about evidence-based practices in small, rural districts.

Central District Office Leadership for Diversity and Equity: Constraints and Opportunities for Policy Intermediaries

This article reports the findings of a multiyear investigation of school district central office directors of diversity and equity in Minnesota, who play an important role in school desegregation/integration policy implementation. Ethnographic and survey data were collected to examine a range of leadership activities and perspectives in communities across the state that received state funding for integration programming. In this article, I present findings that illustrate the role of integration leaders as boundary-spanning policy intermediaries who navigate competing frames of meaning about the purpose and value of diversity in learning environments. Learning from these school district leaders’ focus on educational equity in the context of changing demographics offers opportunities to address local community needs more directly.

Research Use as Learning: The Case of Fundamental Change in School District Central Offices

Districts nationwide have launched efforts to fundamentally change their central offices to support improved teaching and learning for all students and are turning to research for help. The research provides promising guides but is challenging to use. What happens when central offices try? We explored that question in six districts using sociocultural learning theory to analyze 124 interviews, 499.25 observation hours, and approximately 300 documents. We found that central office administrators varied in their appropriation of five research-based ideas between and somewhat within districts. Prior knowledge and assistance from intermediary organizations proved necessary but not sufficient to support appropriation absent internal leaders who taught others how to use the research. These findings elaborate research use as a learning process that may require particular, intensive internal leadership.

Absorptive capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding district central office learning

Globally, school systems are pressed to engage in large-scale school improvement. In the United States and other countries, school district central offices and other local governing agencies often engage with external organizations and individuals to support such educational change efforts. However, initiatives with external partners are not always productive. We draw on the idea of absorptive capacity to present a conceptual framework for understanding when and under what conditions partnerships are likely to foster district learning and support change efforts. We contend that prior knowledge, communication pathways, strategic knowledge leadership, and resources to partner are preconditions for a district central office’s absorptive capacity, and we identify the features of the external partner that likely matter for productive partnering. We argue that the relationship between district absorptive capacity and features of the partner is mediated by the nature of the interactions between district and partner, with likely consequences for organizational learning outcomes. For researchers, this framework serves as a tool for understanding how a district central office can learn from an external partner for educational improvement efforts. For school district leaders and external partners, this framework provides a structure for thinking strategically about when and under what conditions a partnership is likely to be productive.

Supporting the development and professional growth of middle space educational leaders through mentoring

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce readers to the special issue on “middle space” education leaders (those individuals who are second-in-command in schools). The special issue contains papers pertaining to mentoring those preparing for and aspiring to the assistant school leader role, as well as papers on programs that support new assistant principals/vice-principals through mentoring and coaching. The authors provide background on middle space leadership and mentoring from existing research literature, introduce the international papers selected for the issue, and identify unifying themes across the papers. Design/methodology/approach – The authors provide highlights of relevant research literature on the importance of mentoring for school leaders in general, but also specifically address the need for mentoring for middle space leaders from the scant literature that exists on the topic. After reviewing the relevant literature, the authors provide an overview of the seven papers that were chosen for the issue through a rigorous peer-review process. Findings – The co-editors of this special issue identify common themes that emerged from the papers chosen for the issue. In general, authors note that middle space leaders have unique mentoring and coaching needs, and there are few formal programs that address their needs. However, there is a growing awareness of the need to support assistant principals through structured mentoring programs, as well as preparing and mentoring those who aspire to the position. Research limitations/implications – The seven papers chosen for the special issue represent a variety of research methodologies. A limitation is that the majority of the studies are qualitative, with small sample populations. However, even with small sample sizes, commonalities can be seen across the studies and across international contexts. Practical implications – This review summarizes the issues facing middle space leaders in education and how they can be effectively addressed. The global audience that can benefit from engaging with the papers in this special issue includes educational leadership faculty, educational governing bodies, policymakers, school district central office personnel, senior principals, and assistant principals themselves. Originality/value – This paper and the seven that follow extend the scant research literature in the realm of middle space leaders in education. They provide unique insights – from different international contexts including the USA, Canada, Hong Kong, and New Zealand – into the need for and potential benefits of mentoring and coaching aspiring and new middle space leaders.

Interests and conflicts: exploring the context for early implementation of a dual language policy in one middle school

Dual language immersion program models represent a potentially effective way to serve growing numbers of English language learners (ELLs) in schools and districts. However, local challenges, such as interpersonal conflict, can impact the process of implementing dual language policies and programs, limiting the extent to which they are able to meet academic and equity goals for ELLs. Existing research provides little direct knowledge about how disagreements and competing interests influence dual language policies and programs. This study employs qualitative methods to examine how individuals understand and interpret the conflicts around a new dual language policy at one middle school. It presents a case study of local actors at the beginning of the implementation process, highlighting the tensions created by the interaction of policy with the material and ideological concerns of the individual actors. The findings describe how the interests of staff members both aligned and conflicted with each other and with the values embedded in the dual language policy. The study also reveals the influence of the local school district central office and brings to the surface disagreements amongst the staff about the appropriate role of the central office in the policy implementation process. This study suggests that the diverse material interests and ideologies of individual actors are important factors in the language policy implementation process.

Features and Issues of the Support for School Improvement by School District Central Office in U.S.

Features and Issues of the Support for School Improvement by School District Central Office in U.S.

Beyond the Policy Memo: Designing to Strengthen the Practice of District Central Office Leadership for Instructional Improvement at Scale

This chapter argues for the importance of design-based leadership research (DBLR) for advancing the research and practice of educational leadership, with a focus on school district central offices. DBLR, like other design-based research, calls on researchers to develop designs for practice. Unlike other such research in education that calls for designs for classrooms, DBLR focuses on designs for leaders. Researchers working in this mode develop designs for leadership practice that reflect the latest knowledge about how leaders matter for improved student results; they work alongside leaders to use that knowledge to design and engage in new forms of their own practice consistent with the knowledge and appropriate to their settings. Participants study the process to feed new knowledge into the partnership sites and the field. This chapter elaborates how such research differs from traditional scholarship on district central offices and forms of action research. Challenges to conducting DBLR include focusing practitioners on central offices (especially in tough budget times), capturing central office practice in DBLR knowledge-building activities, and growing and sustaining the work. Early experience illuminates how to address those challenges and advance DBLR partnerships that promise to significantly strengthen leadership practice in support of improved results for all students. In school districts across the country, central office staff members are working to improve how they lead district-wide instructional improvement, but are finding few guides or supports for that work, what design researchers might call limited “designs” for their leadership. Consider the following example. In a Midwestern school district, the superintendent promoted a successful principal, Betty Greene, to a new high-level position, reporting directly to the superintendent's office. In that position, she and two colleagues are to help all district principals become better instructional leaders—principals who do not mainly manage their buildings, but work intensively with teachers to improve the quality of classroom instruction. Greene's new position represents a sea change for many school district central offices from their historical focus on business and regulatory functions to providing direct, intensive supports to schools to improve the quality of instruction across the district. Greene enthusiastically accepted the position. She believed she had expert knowledge of high-quality teaching and how principals could support it. She viewed the new post as an opportunity to take some of her own successful school-level leadership to scale across the district. However, once in her new post, she struggled. With no predecessor to consult with, she wondered, “I know my charge is to help principals become stronger instructional leaders, but what does that mean I actually do day-to-day to realize those results?” As a school principal, she had access to myriad professional development opportunities, such as workshops sponsored by the state, the district, and outside groups, as well as conferences and peer networking opportunities. While not all of those opportunities were high quality, Greene always took something away from them. But in the central office, she found professional development opportunities for staff virtually nonexistent. Three years into the post, she reflected, “I have been in a building for 30 years and building principal for 20. When I was principal, I regularly complained that central office staff were never in my building. I have been at this job for three years, but I am hardly ever in buildings myself. I don't know what to do when I'm there to help.”

Research Use in School District Central Office Decision Making

The current educational policy climate in the USA places immense pressure on school district central offices to use evidence to inform their decisions in order to improve student learning. In light...

School–Central Office Relationships in Evidence Use: Understanding Evidence Use as a Systems Problem

Research on evidence use in school districts overwhelmingly focuses within schools on how school staff work with evidence including student performance data, research, and information about teaching quality. While important, this focus on schools reflects a mismatch with federal and state policies that demand not only that school staff work with evidence but that school district central office administrators do as well. This school focus also downplays how complex, social school-level change processes such as evidence use may typically involve central office staff in implementation and vice versa. To what extent do central offices matter to school-level evidence-use processes, and do schools matter to such processes in central offices? We explore these questions with a review of research on evidence use in schools and central offices with a focus on school–central office relationships in the process. We find that central offices and schools influence each other’s evidence-use processes in specific respects. We elaborate what extant research teaches about these relationships and argue that future research should aim to understand how evidence use plays out not solely within schools or central offices but across district systems and through interactions between central office and school staff.

No Small Thing: School District Central Office Bureaucracies and the Implementation of New Small Autonomous Schools Initiatives

New small autonomous schools initiatives are relatively recent educational change strategies that in some urban districts aim to remake how district central offices function as institutions. In this article, the author draws on theories of organizational innovation and learning to reveal how central office administrators participate in these change processes, what outcomes are associated with their efforts, and the conditions that help or hinder their work. The data came from a 3-year qualitative investigation of these dynamics in two districts. The results show that particular bridging and buffering activities by certain central office administrators were consistent with policy goals and linked to increasing district supports for implementation. Particular dimensions of the institutional environments of central offices shaped central office administrators’ choices and actions.

Evidence, Interpretation, and Persuasion: Instructional Decision Making at the District Central Office

Background/Context Calls for evidence-based decision making have become increasingly prominent on the educational landscape. School district central offices increasingly experience these demands. Yet there are few empirical studies of evidence use at the district level. Furthermore, research on evidence use among policy makers in noneducation settings raises questions about the models of decision making promoted by evidence-use policies, suggesting that they do not take into account key features of the interpretive process or the organizational conditions that shape how decision making unfolds. Purpose/Objective/Research Questions/Focus of Study The central premise of this article is that only by understanding the patterns by which personnel in school district central offices actually use information, and the factors that affect this use, can we begin to understand the promise and possibilities of evidence use. We ask: What is the role of evidence in instructional decision making at the central office level? What factors shape how decision processes unfold? Research Design We draw on data from a longitudinal case study of one midsize urban district, which we followed from 2002 to 2005. We relied on in-depth interviewing, sustained observation, and document analysis. We identified 23 decisions related to instruction that were captured in our data over the 3 years and for which we had at least three independent sources of information. We analyzed each decision using a coding scheme that was developed from prior research and theory and elaborated through iterative coding. We then used matrices to compare across decisions and to surface and investigate emerging patterns. Conclusions/Recommendations We argue that decision making in complex organizations like school districts is centrally about interpretation, argumentation, and persuasion. These processes are shaped in crucial ways by preexisting working knowledge and practices that guide how people come to understand the nature of problems and possible avenues for solutions. They are also influenced by organizational and political factors, including the organizational structure of the central office, resource constraints, and leadership turnover. We close by suggesting implications for efforts to foster substantive and productive use of evidence at the central office level.

District Central Offices as Learning Organizations: How Sociocultural and Organizational Learning Theories Elaborate District Central Office Administrators' Participation in Teaching and Learning Improvement Efforts

School district central office administrators face unprecedented demands to become key supporters of efforts to improve teaching and learning districtwide. Some suggest that these demands mean that central offices, especially in midsized and large districts, should become learning organizations but provide few guides for how central offices might operate as learning organizations. This article presents a conceptual framework that draws on organizational and sociocultural learning theories to elaborate what might be involved if central offices operated as learning organizations. Specific work practices that this conceptual framework highlights include central office administrators’ participation in new school assistance relationships and their ongoing use of evidence from assistance relationships and other sources to inform central office policies and practices. Sense making and managing paradoxes are fundamental to these processes. I highlight these activities with empirical illustrations from research and experience, discuss conditions that help/hinder these activities, and suggest directions for district research and practice.

Evidence-Based Decision Making in School District Central Offices

District central office administrators increasingly face policy demands to use “evidence” in their decision making. These demands up the ante on education policy researchers and policy makers to better understand what evidence use in district central offices entails and the conditions that may support it. To that end, the authors conducted a comprehensive review of research literature on evidence use in district central offices, finding that the process of evidence use is complex, spanning multiple subactivities and requiring administrators to make sense of evidence and its implications for central office operations. These activities have significant political dimensions and involve the use of “local knowledge” as a key evidence source. Evidence use is shaped by features of the evidence itself and various organizational and institutional factors. Policy shapes evidence use, but other factors mediate its impact. The authors conclude with implications for future policy and research on central office evidence-based decision making.

School District Central Office Power and Student Performance

The literature on effective schools suggests that building level power is associated with increased student performance. To the extent that central district offices try to assert their power over school buildings, one would hypothesize that students' performance would decline. This study uses the National Educational Longitudinal Study as a database to test this expectation. This database traces students interviewed in 8th grade until their graduation from high school. Results suggest that intrusive central offices are associated with somewhat lower student performance.

An Urban District's Knowledge of and Attitudes toward School-Based Innovation

A qualitative study of the sociometric relationships was conducted among high level administrators at an urban district's central office with respect to their knowledge of and attitudes toward school-based innovations. Analysis of data found little evidence either structural or behavioral ht personnel in this school district's central office had a clear understanding of what innovation is or of the complexity inherent in implementation processes. The lack of leadership, the overreliance on externally-funded programs, and the proliferation of unrelated job responsibilities all contimbute to the district's limited effect on school-based innovations.

Linking School Level Innovations with an Urban School District's Central Office

This descriptive study of school principal-central office relations is framed within the context of school restructuring. It specifically looks at leadership perceptions of school level innovations and reports the level of awareness and support by job functions and location given to such innovations by an urban school system central office. The findings indicate that awareness and involvement were limited to just two specific departments: area superintendents and educational programs. The former has direct supervisory responsibilities over principals; the latter seeks to bring innovative ideas to the school district. Both departments are located as satellite offices of the central office Other central office administrators did not demonstrate the levels of value reorientation needed for school system restructuring.

Improving the Quality of Writing in the Workplace

Despite the increased emphasis on teaching writing skills in both preprofessional courses and in-house seminars, practicing professionals still have difficulty conveying their ideas clearly and concisely to others in writing. To identify ways in which managers can develop and reinforce sound writing practices in the workplace, the practices used by a school district's central office were analyzed. The findings suggest that managers can improve the quality of writing in the workplace by creating an open communication environment and by developing a corporate culture that establishes sound writing practices as the norm. Establishing such a norm requires skill development, leadership commitment, modeling behavior, feedback, and recognition and reward. Managers can also improve quality by reducing the quantity of the writing both they and their subordinates do. The findings suggest that a top-down process of training may be more effective than the bottom-up system currently used for training in writing.