Leaders’ Use of Research for Fundamental Change in School District Central Offices: Processes and Challenges

  • Meredith I. Honig
  • Nitya Venkateswaran
  • Patricia McNeil
  • Jenee Myers Twitchell
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Policy Implications of Research in Education book series (PIRE, volume 2)

Abstract

An increasing number of school districts have launched efforts to significantly shift central office policies and practices to support districtwide teaching and learning improvement and are intentionally using various forms of research to guide the process. We use ideas from the sociocultural learning theory to conceptualize research use as a learning process, the outcomes of such processes, and the conditions that helped or hindered how administrators integrated research into their practice. Our data come from a 18-month long, in-depth, qualitative investigation of six school districts in one state that placed a high priority on both fundamental central office change and use of research to anchor the process. We found that central office administrators in all six districts used particular research-based ideas that challenged their traditional ways of working, but to varying degrees, with most instances reflecting low to moderate levels of appropriation. In this chapter, we elaborate this main finding by discussing central office staff’s engagement with one idea that called for fundamental shifts in the relationship between school principals and their supervisors. Practitioners’ prior knowledge and assistance from intermediaries influenced their appropriation, but not to deep degrees. More consequential were central office leaders, including superintendents, who engaged in high-leverage teaching moves to help their colleagues integrate research into their practice. Our findings underscore the importance of understanding research use as a learning process requiring intensive, job-embedded assistance typically beyond the capacity of outside organizations to provide.

Keywords

School Principal Central Office Instructional Leadership Conceptual Underpinning Intermediary Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Augustine, C. H., Gonzalez, G., Ikemoto, G. S., Russell, J., Zellman, G. L., Constant, L., et al. (2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership system. Monograph (No. 978-0-8330-4891-2). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  6. Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (Eds.). (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Coburn, C. E., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, A. M., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (2003). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible, the principles of learning: Study tools for educators. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  9. Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78–84.Google Scholar
  10. Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129–151.Google Scholar
  11. Elmore, R. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 96–124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District #2. New York: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future & the Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  13. Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. The Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598–606.Google Scholar
  14. Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999, November). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hannaway, J. (1989). Managers managing: The workings of an administrative system. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hightower, A. (2002). San Diego’s big boom: District bureaucracy supports culture of learning. Seattle: University of Washington Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Google Scholar
  17. Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Honig, M. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114, 627–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Honig, M. I. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of New small autonomous schools initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 387–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Honig, M. I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ instructional leadership. Education Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 733–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Honig, M. I., & Ikemoto, G. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 328–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Honig, M., Copland, M. A., Rainey, L., Lorton, J., & Newton, M. (2010). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement. Seattle: Center for Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  23. Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M. (2006). Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Kennedy, M. M. (1982). Evidence and decision. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Working knowledge and other essays (pp. 59–103). Cambridge, MA: Huron Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Lave, J. (1998). Cognition in practice: Mind, culture, and mathematics in everyday life. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. American Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literature—A call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. White (Eds.), Choice and control in American schools (pp. 289–342). Philadelphia: Falmer.Google Scholar
  28. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., & Darilek, H. (2004). The role of an intermediary organization in district instructional improvement: Early experiences and lessons about the Institute for Learning. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego: RAND.Google Scholar
  30. Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., & Darilek, H. (2006). Developing district intermediary partnerships to promote instructional improvement: Early experiences and lessons about the Institute for Learning. In K. Wong & S. Rutledge (Eds.), System-wide efforts to improve student achievement. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Stat. 1425 (2002).Google Scholar
  32. O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 1–31.Google Scholar
  33. Pea, R. (1987). Socializing the knowledge transfer problem. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(6), 639–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ravitch, D., & Viteritti, J. P. (1997). New schools for a new century: The redesign of urban education. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rogoff, B., Baker-Sennett, J., Lacasa, P., & Goldsmith, D. (1995). Development through participation in sociocultural activity. New Directions for Child Development, 67, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  37. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meredith I. Honig
    • 1
  • Nitya Venkateswaran
    • 1
  • Patricia McNeil
    • 1
  • Jenee Myers Twitchell
    • 1
  1. 1.Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, College of EducationUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations