What a difference a district can make: An interview with Meredith Honig

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.

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.

Street-Level Bureaucracy Revisited: Frontline District Central-Office Administrators as Boundary Spanners in Education Policy Implementation

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.