The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 65-87

  Honig, Meredith I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Capacity; District central office; Implementation; Intermediary organization; Oakland; School community partnerships

Indexed keywords

EID: 3242735778     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737026001065     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Barley, S. R. (1990). Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Science, 1(3), 78-108.
2. Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
3. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools' Scale-Up Phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Washington, DC: The RAND Corporation.
4. Bodilly, S. J. (2001, April). Philanthropic efforts at creating instructional reform through intermediaries. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
5. Burch, P. E. (2002). Constraints and opportunities in changing policy environments: Intermediary organizations' response to complex district contexts. In A. Hightower & M. Knapp & J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 111-126). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
6. Camino, L. A. (1998). Building local infrastructure for youth development: The added value of capacity-building intermediary organizations. Washington, DC: Center for Youth Development and Policy Research, Academy for Educational Development.
7. Cibulka, J. G., & Kritek, W. J. (Eds.). (1996). Coordination among schools, families, and communities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
8. Coburn, Cynthia E. (2002, April). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
9. Coburn, K. G., & Riley, P. A. (2000). Failing grade: Crisis and reform in the Oakland Unified School District. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute.
10. Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1, 2), 183-204.
11. Finnigan, K., & O'Day, J. (2003). External support to schools on probation: Getting a leg up? Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
12. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team. (2000). Oakland Unified School District Assessment and Recovery Plans. Sacramento, CA: Author.
13. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232-263). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14. Gewertz, C. (2000, February 9). Calif, audit cites litany of troubles in Oakland schools. Education Week, p. 11.
15. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
16. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. L. (1991). The role of mediating structures in university and community revitalization: The University of Pennsylvania and West Philadelphia as a case study. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25(1), 10-25.
18. Hartley, J. F. (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 208-229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Jazzing up the theory of organizational improvisation. Advances in Strategic Management, 14, 181-191.
20. Honig, M. I. (2001). Managing ambiguity: The implementation of complex education policy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
21. Honig, M. I. (In Press). Where's the "up" in bottom-up reform? Educational Policy.
22. Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: Central office administrators' roles and capacity in collaborative policy implementation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292-338.
23. Honig, M. I., & Jehl, J. D. (2000). Enhancing federal support for connecting educational improvement strategies and collaborative services. In M. C. Wang & W. L. Boyd (Eds.), Improving results for children and families: Linking collaborative services with school reform efforts. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
24. Kirst, M., & Bulkley, K. (2000). 'New, improved' mayors take over city schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 81 (7), 538-546.
25. Kronley, R. A., & Handley, C. (2003). Reforming relationships: School districts, external organizations, and systemic change. Providence, RI: The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
26. Malen, B., Ogawa, R., & Kranz, K. (1990). What do we know about school based management? A case study of the literature - A call for research. In W. Clune & J. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Volume 2: Decentralization and school restructuring. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
27. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making. New York, NY: The Free Press.
28. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York, NY: The Free Press.
29. Marsh, J. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature on the relationship of districts with states, schools, and communities. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
30. Marsh, J. A. (2003, April). Understanding joint work: District-community partnerships for educational improvement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
31. Mawhinney, H. B., & Smrekar, C. (1996). Institutional constraints to advocacy in collaborative services. Educational Policy, 10(4), 480-501.
32. May, M. (2000, January 22). Scathing report on Oakland schools, district earns dismal marks in state audit. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A-15.
33. McDonald, J. P., McLaughlin, M. W., & Corcoran, T. (2000, April). Agents of reform: The role and function of intermediary organizations in the Annenberg Challenge. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
34. McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
35. Merton, R. K. (1987). Three fragments from a sociologist's notebooks: Establishing the phenomenon, specified ignorance, and strategic research materials. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 1-28.
36. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Oakland School Linked Services Work Group. (1999). Partnership for change II. Oakland, CA: Author.
38. Pavetti, L., Derr, M., Anderson, J., Trippe, C., & Paschal, S. (2000). The role of intermediary organizations in linking TANF recipients with jobs (MPR Reference No: 8543-400). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
39. Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
40. Planning and Oversight Committee of the Oakland Fund for Children and Youth. (1997). Strategic Plan, Oakland Fund for Children and Youth. Oakland, CA: City of Oakland.
41. Public Education Network. (2001). Communities at work: A guidebook of strategic interventions for community change. Washington, DC: Author.
42. Rodriguez, A., & Pereira, J. A. (2000, October). The role of intermediaries in organizational capacity building. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.
43. Salamon, L. M. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third-party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29(3), 255-275.
44. Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
45. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform, Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). New York, NY: Falmer Press.
46. Smylie, M. A., & Crowson, R. L. (1996). Working within the scripts: Building institutional infrastructure for children's service coordination in schools. Educational Policy, 10(1), 3-21.
47. Smylie, M. A., Crowson, R. L., Chou, V., & Levin, R. A. (1994). The principal and community-school connections in Chicago's radical reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(3), 342-364.
48. Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
49. Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the nonmonolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(33-63).
50. Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1997). Teacher learning in a social context: Integrating collaborative and institutional processes with the study of teacher change. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 155-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Localism and globalism in institutional analysis: The emergence of contractual norms in venture finance. In W. R. Scott & S. Christensen (Eds.), The institutional construction of organizations (pp. 39-63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
52. Urban Strategies Council. (1996). What is a community building intermediary? What work does it do? What makes it effective? Oakland, CA: Author.
53. Wechsler, M. E., & Friedrich, L. D. (1997). The role of mediating organizations for school reform: Independent agents or district dependents. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 385-401.
54. Weick, K. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40-49.
55. Wynn, J. R. (2000). The role of local intermediary organizations in the youth development field. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children.
56. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.