Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda

Educational Policy

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 578-608

  Honig, Meredith I ^a   Coburn, Cynthia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Central office; Evidence based decision making; Policy implementation; School district

Indexed keywords

EID: 44949144894     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904807307067     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Bickel, W.E., & Cooley, W.W. (1985). Decision-oriented educational research in school districts: The role of dissemination processes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 11 (2). 183-203.
2. Birkeland, S., Murphy-Graham, E., & Weiss, C.H. (2005). Good reasons for ignoring good evaluation: The case of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.AR.E.) program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 247-256.
3. Boeckx, J.K. (1994). Developing community support for outcome-based education. School Administrator, 51 (8). 24-25.
4. Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2 (1). 40-57.
5. Burch, P.E., & Thiem, C.H. (2004). Private organizations, school districts, and the enterprise of high stakes accountability. Unpublished manuscript.
6. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Retrieved September 24, 2004, from http://www.excelgov.org/usermedia/images/ uploads/PDFs/User-Friendly_Guide_12.2.03.pdf
7. Coburn, C.E., & Talbert, J.E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112 (4). 469-495.
8. Coburn, C.E., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M. (in press). Evidence, interpretation, and argumentation: An analysis of instructional decision making in the district central office.
9. Corcoran, T. (2003). The use of research evidence in instructional improvement (CPRE Policy Brief RB-40). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
10. Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S.H., & Belcher, C.L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (1). 78-84.
11. Corcoran, T.B., & Rouk, U. (1985). Using natural channels for school improvement: A report on four years of urban development program. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
12. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London: Routledge Falmer.
13. David, J.L. (1981). Local uses of Title I evaluations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 3 (1). 27-39.
14. Englert, R.M., Kean, M.H., & Scribner, J.D. (1977). Politics of program evaluation in large city school districts. Education and Urban Society, 9 (4). 429-450.
15. Fillos, R.M., & Bailey, W.J. (1978). Survey of Delaware superintendents' KPU. Newark University of Delaware.
16. Fullan, M. (1980). The role of human agents internal to school districts in knowledge utilization. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
17. Hannaway, J. (1989). Managers managing: The workings of an administrative system. New York: Oxford University Press.
18. Holley, F. (1980, April). Evaluation utilization: Is it easier to move a mountain than a molehill? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
19. Honig, M.I. (2001). Managing ambiguity: The implementation of complex education policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
20. 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.
21. Honig, M.I. (2004 a). District central office-community partnerships: From contracts to collaboration to control. In W. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Theory and research in educational administration (Vol. 3, pp. 59-90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
22. Honig, M.I. (2004 b). The new middle management: The role of intermediary organizations in complex education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65-87.
23. Honig, M.I. (2004 c). Where's the "up" in bottom-up reform ? Educational Policy, 18 (4). 527-561.
24. Honig, M.I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: District central office administrators as boundary spanners in complex policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 357-383.
25. Kean, M. (1980). Research and evaluation in urban educational policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED190735)
26. Kean, M.H. (1981, April). Institutionalizing educational productivity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
27. Kean, M.H. (1983). Translating research and evaluation into educational policy. Urban Review, 15 (3). 187-200.
28. Kennedy, M.M. (1982 a). Evidence and decision. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Working knowledge and other essays (pp. 59-103). Cambridge, MA: Huron Institute.
29. Kennedy, M.M. (1982 b). Working knowledge. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Working knowledge and other essays (pp. 1-28). Cambridge, MA: Huron Institute.
30. Kennedy, M.M. (1984). How evidence alters understanding and decisions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6 (3). 207-226.
31. Kerr, K.A., Marsh, J.A., Ikemoto, G.S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2005, April). Districtwide strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
32. Lachat, M.A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 333-350.
33. Manheimer, R. (1995). System leaders apply research in their decision making. School Administrator, 52 (6). 17.
34. March, J.G. (1994). A primer on decision making. New York: Free Press.
35. Marsh, J. (2003, April). Understanding joint work: District-community partnerships for educational improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
36. Marsh, J.A. (2006). Democratic dilemmas. Albany: State University of New York Press.
37. Marsh, J.A., Kerr, K.A., Ikemoto, G.S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M.J., Zimmer, R., et al. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban school districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
38. Massell, D. (2001). The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: State and local strategies and their effects. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. One hundredth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 148-169). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
39. Massell, D., & Goertz, M.E. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43-60). New York: Teachers College Press.
40. Meyer, J., & Scott, W.R. (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41. Moll, L., Amanti, C., & Gonzalez, N. (Ed.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households and communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Nafziger, D., Griffith, J., & Goren, P. (1985, April). San Diego city schools'research cooperative: A marriage of practitioners, researchers, and community members. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
43. Newman, D.L., Brown, R.D., & Rivers, L.S. (1983). Locus of control and evaluation use: Does sense of control affect information needs and decision making ? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 9, 77-88.
44. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Stat. 1425 (2002).
45. Peterson, G.J. (1998, April). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: A case study of five superintendents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
46. Reichardt, R.E. (2000). The state's role in supporting data-driven decision-making: A view of Wyoming. Aurora: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
47. Roberts, J.M.E., & Smith, S.C. (1982). Instructional improvement: A system-wide approach. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
48. Robinson, C.M. (1988). Improving education through the application of measurement and research: A practitioner's perspective. Applied Measurement in Education, 1 (1). 53-65.
49. Rowan, B. (1986). Rationality and reality in instructional management: Results from a survey of districts in the far west. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
50. Slavin, R.E. (1989). PET and the pendulum: Faddism in education and how to stop it. Phi Delta Kappan, 70 (10). 752-758.
51. Slavin, R.E., & Fashola, O.S. (1998). Show me the evidence! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
52. Spillane, J.P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35 (1). 33-63.
53. Spillane, J.P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18 (2). 141-179.
54. Spillane, J.P., & Callahan, K.A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (5). 401-425.
55. Spillane, J.P., & Jennings, N.E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98 (3). 439-481.
56. Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72 (3). 387-431.
57. 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.
58. Spillane, J.P., & Zeuli, J.S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (1). 1-27.
59. U.S. Department of Education. (2002 a). No Child Left Behind: A desktop reference. Retrieved June 15, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/ nclbreference/reference/pdf
60. U.S. Department of Education. (2002 b, March 7). U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan 2002-2007. Retrieved June 14, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/plan2002-07/index.html
61. U.S. Department of Education (2006, July 21). LEA and school improvement: Non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/ policy/elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.pdf
62. Weiss, C.H., Murphy-Graham, E., & Birkeland, S. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A. R.E. American Journal of Evaluation, 26 (1). 12-30.
63. West, R.F., & Rhoton, C. (1994). School district administrators' perceptions of educational research and barriers to research utilization. ERS Spectrum, 12 (1). 23-30.