An Administrators’ Association Partnership Translates to Gifted Education Advocacy

A formal partnership between a state-level umbrella association of educational administrators and one of its constituent associations, the association of gifted education administrators, has resulted in successful legislative and policy advocacy for gifted education. The formal partnership encouraged leaders of the gifted education professional community to identify as administrators and to collaborate with superintendents, principals, and other central office administrators. For the past three decades, this unique partnership has flourished and provides a model that other states can adapt to their context. In addition to the formal administrative association partnership, an informal partnership operates between two state gifted education associations (one focused on gifted education coordinators and administrators; the other focused on teachers and parents) and the umbrella organization of central office and building level educational administrators in the state. A key feature of the formal partnership is shared governance between the umbrella association and its 12 member associations, one of which comprises gifted education administrators. The informal partnership is linked by advocacy and policy development initiated by the salaried Legislative Advocate and a standing Legislative committee that includes the presidents of the state association for gifted education administrators and the president of the teacher and parent association. The benefits of the formal partnership and suggestions for initiating such a partnership in other states are discussed. The complexities of the informal partnership are explored.

Central Office Leadership for Instructional Improvement: Developing Collaborative Leadership Among Principals and Instructional Leadership Team Members

Background This study addresses the nexus of two significant yet under-researched areas of instructional leadership: the role of central office administrators in developing principals as instructional leaders and the potential for the instructional leadership team (ILT) to serve as a structure for supporting administrators and teachers in working collaboratively to improve instruction and student learning in their schools. Purpose Specifically, this study examines the efforts of principal supervisors—central office administrators responsible for supporting and evaluating principals—who aimed to develop instructional leadership broadly in high-poverty high schools by leading professional learning opportunities for principals and members of their ILTs. Participants Participants included principals and ILT members (e.g., assistant principals, teachers) in three high-poverty high schools in the same urban district and the three principal supervisors responsible for supporting them. Research Design Drawing on 36 interviews and approximately 80 hours of observation of ILT meetings and professional learning opportunities, the present study uses in-depth case studies of three focus schools to identify the specific practices principal supervisors use to influence the work of principals and ILTs. Findings The findings suggest that principal supervisors contributed to ILTs’ increased focus on instruction and encouraged principals to share leadership with teachers. Principals and ILT members viewed the support of principal supervisors as most helpful when they engaged in explicit teaching about the purpose and practices of ILTs, approached their work with principals and ILTs as joint work, and shared specific models that could be integrated into ILT meetings. Conclusions The practices used by principal supervisors represented a significant shift in the role of central office administrators toward a focus on teaching as opposed to a more traditional focus on supervision.

The Network Runs the Schools: From a Loose to a Tightly Coupled School District

This case study explores a central office’s attempt to improve its school performance by shifting from a loosely to a more tightly coupled organization through greater oversight and standardization of practice. Educational leaders and, specifically, district-level and central office administrators often negotiate between providing schools autonomy and pursuing greater accountability and uniformity to foster improved student achievement. Educators studying this case will examine the pros and cons of both approaches as well as the potential trade-offs when shifting from one system to another or engaging in a hybrid approach on elements like teacher motivation, teacher–student relationships, school culture, and student achievement.

Goals, Rhetoric, and (In)Equity: The Rationales Behind Decentralizing a Large, Diverse School District

School district decentralization typically shifts authority and resources from central office administrators at the district level to leaders at the school level. Although decentralization reforms have been prevalent in urban educational contexts for decades, they often yield poor results for low-income, minoritized communities. In this article, we examine stakeholder rationales behind decentralizing a large, diverse countywide district and the extent to which equity was part of these rationales. The findings suggest that although stakeholders aim to improve student achievement, financial and administrative efficiency, and family/community engagement through decentralization, many failed to consider how school-level disparities might result in sustaining or worsening inequities.

District micropolitics during principal professional learning

Principal professional learning is shifting in many districts in the United States of America away from didactic, central office-managed workshops to include more peer-led learning opportunities. Yet researchers have largely failed to examine issues of positionality and authority in principal professional learning, despite international scholarship that demonstrates the influence of micropolitics on the enactment of change. Using event analysis of a critical case study in an urban district in the northeast USA, we examine three chains of events. Principals and central office administrators used a variety of tactics – cooperation, compromise, and co-optation – to navigate overt and covert conflict during implementation of peer-led principal professional learning. Principals and central office administrators encountered micropolitics as they determined authority over the learning agenda, negotiated a redefinition of a new principal role, and co-constructed official spaces for peer-led learning. Findings provide lessons for educational leaders and those responsible for professional learning in districts with middle manager roles in any context, as well as suggesting that future research on the micropolitics of principal professional learning is warranted.

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.

Using data wisely at the system level

District administrators who want to build capacity for data use in schools may be well-served by starting in the central office. This case study of the Boston Public Schools shows how central office administrators can leverage their own data inquiry cycles to improve the ways they support schools in using data. Using the Data Wise Improvement Process, this central office team revamped its model for supporting teachers as they identify, practice, and integrate new instructional strategies to better meet the student needs they uncovered in their data. Here’s what it looks like when inquiry facilitators “walk the walk” of continuous improvement.