Building Policy from Practice: District Central Office Administrators' Roles and Capacity for Implementing Collaborative Education Policy

2003 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith I. Honig
2006 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith I. Honig

The designation of district central-office administrators to operate as boundary spanners among the central office, schools, and community agencies can help with the implementation of challenging policy demands. However, educational research teaches little about central-office boundary spanners in practice. This article addresses that gap with findings from an embedded, comparative case study of boundary spanners in the implementation of collaborative education policy. The study’s conceptual framework draws on public management and sociological literature on boundary spanning and neo-institutional theories of decision making. Findings reveal that the boundary spanners in this case initially were particularly well suited to help with implementation in part because they brought non-traditional experiences to the central office. However, over time, many of the resources that aided them initially became liabilities that frustrated their work. This article documents the importance of examining boundary-spanning roles in implementation and suggests how central offices might provide supports to boundary spanners to increase their potential as levers of bureaucratic change.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 860-883
Author(s):  
Bonnie M. Haecker ◽  
Forrest C. Lane ◽  
Linda R. Zientek

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 99 (7) ◽  
pp. 42-46
Author(s):  
Rafael Heller

While they’re often overlooked in education policy debates, district central office staff can play critical role in improving schools. In this interview, Meredith Honig, professor of Education Policy, Organizations, and Leadership at the University of Washington and founder of the District Leadership Lab, explains what her research and experience working with district has revealed about the value of their work and how they can be more effective.


2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 764-784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ava J. Muñoz ◽  
Anita Pankake ◽  
Elizabeth Murakami Ramalho ◽  
Shirley Mills ◽  
Marie Simonsson

Education ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Hoyle ◽  
Colleen Hoy

Administrator preparation refers to leadership education graduate programs in universities, granting master’s and doctoral degrees in educational administration or educational leadership. These programs usually include completing requirements for state licensure to serve as school principals, superintendents, and other central office administrators. Students’ degree programs include a plethora of courses including educational finance, organizational theory, leadership processes, education law, education policy, instructional management, research methods, program evaluation and data management, systems planning and analysis, and human resource management. The two most prominent professional associations for individuals engaged in administrator preparation and related research efforts are the National Council for Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) and the University Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Researchers for NCPEA reveal that more than 370 graduate programs in educational administration include approximately 3,000 professors and nearly all programs offer the master’s degree and courses leading to administrative licensure, many with an online option. The terminal degree—PhD or EdD—is viewed as a necessity for candidates competing for central office jobs or principalships in many school districts. The historical context and evolution of theory within the field has been important in generating research and change in administrator preparation programs. The American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), now called ISLLC 2008 Leadership Education Policy Standards, are the primary standards in place for administrator preparation programs. This standardization has raised significant criticism within the field, spurring best-practice research and efforts to reform existing programs. “Interdisciplinary” administrator preparation is a newer movement promoted by growing criticism of traditional administrator preparation. These new degree programs blend graduate-level courses in financial, entrepreneurial, and innovation skills in business administration, public administration, and public affairs with courses in departments of educational administration. In addition to new courses, the popularity of online courses and degrees increases each year. This new program content and the new mode of delivery require research to be conducted to compare the quality of credentials awarded online and through the traditional model.


1994 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ira E. Bogotch ◽  
Cormell R. Brooks

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document