Purpose: Care is of concern for educators, but little is known about the way that district-level leaders conceptualize and enact care within a district central office. This study explores the research question: How do district leaders conceptualize and strive to enact care? Design and Evidence: We draw on qualitative interviews with district central office leaders and employ a grounded theory approach to analyze our data and elucidate themes. Findings: District leaders described care as (a) complex and multifarious; (b) relational; (c) requiring partnership, political moves, and connections; (d) embodied; and (e) needs-driven and responsive. Implications: Central office leaders have varying conceptions of what constitutes care. Few districts had defined the boundaries of district care. This implies that leaders would be well served to spend resources on defining and aligning policy with care as it connects to their own school communities. We found that district leaders conceptualize care as being needs-driven and responsive to individual needs within the school community, yet there is a disconnect between our study and equity-oriented leadership practices. An implication is to consider how equity initiatives can be a key part of caring district leadership. Another persistent theme was the outsized role that external agencies and partnerships play in building the architecture of care. Much more so than with instructional reforms, how and to what extent political capital is needed to navigate and nurture this constellation of care is unknown. A fruitful area for future research might be at the nexus of community and district care.
Antrop-GonzálezR.De JesúsA. (2006). Toward a theory of critical care in urban small school reform: Examining structures and pedagogies of caring in two Latino community-based schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 409–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600773148
2.
BassL.AlstonK. (2018). Black masculine caring and the dilemma faced by Black male leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 28(November 2018), 772–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461802800604
3.
BjörkL. G.Browne-FerrignoT.KowalskiT. J. (2014). The superintendent and educational reform in the United States of America. Leadership and policy in schools, 13(4), 444–465.
4.
BourdieuP. (1966). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
5.
BovedaM.AnnammaS. A. (2023). Beyond making a statement: An intersectional framing of the power and possibilities of positioning. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 306–314.
6.
CharmazK. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). Sage Publications.
7.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
8.
ChaseM. M. (2016). Culture, politics, and policy interpretation: How practitioners make sense of a transfer policy in a 2-year college. Educational Policy, 30(7), 959–998. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814563382
9.
CoburnC. E. (2016). What’s policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122(May), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1086/685847
10.
CooperK. S.MinessA. (2014). The co-creation of caring student-teacher relationships: Does teacher understanding matter?High School Journal, 97(4), 264–290.
11.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
12.
CurryM. W. (2016). Will you stand for me? Authentic Cariño and transformative rites of passage in an urban high school. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 883–918. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216660380
13.
DeCostaD. B.GoodenM. A. (2024). The change you want to see: A culturally responsive and affirming approach to school leadership. Solution Tree.
14.
DonaldsonM. L.MavrogordatoM.YoungsP.DoughertyS. (2021). “Doing the ‘real’ work”: How superintendents’ Sensemaking shapes principal evaluation policies and practices in school districts. AERA Open, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986177
ElmeskyR.MarcucciO. (2024). Against the carceral logics of schools: A critical ethnographic study of restorative justice and politicized caring in a black school. AERA Open, 10, 23328584241297163. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241297163
FosterJ. L.LouisL.WinstonE. (2022). Creating conditions for social-emotional learning: An ecological framework. Theory Into Practice, 61(2), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2036059
19.
GilgunJ. F. (2019). Deductive qualitative analysis and grounded theory: Sensitizing concepts and hypothesis-testing. In The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 107–122). SAGE.
20.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company.
21.
Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators' roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X0325341
22.
HonigM. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028004357
23.
HonigM. I. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of new small autonomous schools initiatives. American Educational Research Jounral, 46(2), 387–422. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329904
24.
JacksonI.Sealey-RuizY.WatsonW. (2014). Reciprocal love: Mentoring black and Latino males through an ethos of care. Urban Education, 49(4), 394–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913519336
25.
JagersR. J.Rivas-DrakeD.WilliamsB. (2019). Transformative social and emotional learning (SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032
26.
KennedyK. (2019). Centering equity and caring in leadership for social-emotional learning: Toward a conceptual framework for diverse learners. Journal of School Leadership, 29(6), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619867469
27.
KennedyK. (2025). Mobilizing, advocating, and organizing for care in the school district central office. Educational Policy, 40(2), 231–271.
Knight-DiopM. G. (2010). Closing the gap: Enacting care and facilitating Black students’ educational access in the creation of a high school college-going culture. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15(1–2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824661003635192
30.
LawrenceT. B.MaitlisS. (2012). Care and possibility: Enacting an ethic of care through narrative practice. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 641–663. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0466
31.
LegetteK. B.RogersL. O.WarrenC. A. (2022). Humanizing student–teacher relationships for black children: Implications for teachers’ social–emotional training. Urban Education, 57(2), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920933319
32.
LiouY. H. (2015). School crisis management: A model of dynamic responsiveness to crisis life cycle. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 247–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14532467
33.
Long-SutehallT.SqueM.Addington-HallJ. (2011). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population?Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(4), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987110381553
34.
LouisK. S.MurphyJ.SmylieM. (2016). Caring leadership in schools: Findings from exploratory analyses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 310–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15627678
35.
MarshJ. A.McKibbenS.HoughH. J.HallM.AllbrightT. N.MatewosA. M.SiqueiraC. (2018). Enacting social-emotional learning: Practices and supports employed in CORE districts and schools. Policy Analysis for California Education.
McKinney de RoystonM.MadkinsT. C.GivensJ. R.NasirN. S. (2021). I’m a teacher, I’m gonna always protect you’: Understanding black educators’ protection of black children. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 68–106. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220921119
38.
MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
39.
MeyerE. J.LeonardiB.KeenanH. B. (2022). Transgender students and policy in K-12 public schools: Acknowledging historical harms and taking steps toward a promising future. National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/transgender
40.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
41.
Miles NashA.GroganM. (2021). Leadership and the U.S. superintendency: Issues of race, preparation and impact. School Leadership and Management, 42(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2021.1922375
42.
NeumannA.PallasA. (2015). Critical policy analysis, the craft of qualitative research, and analysis of data on the Texas Top 10%. In Critical approaches to the study of higher education (pp. 153–173). JHU Press.
43.
NoddingsN. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. Teachers College Press.
44.
NoddingsN. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press.
45.
NoddingsN. (2015). Care ethics and ‘caring’ organizations. In EngsterD.HamingtonM. (Eds.), Care ethics and political theory (pp. 72–84). Oxford University Press.
46.
O’LaughlinL.LindleJ. C. (2015). Principals as political agents in the implementation of IDEA’s least restrictive environment mandate. Educational Policy, 29(1), 140–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048145632
47.
ParkV.DatnowA. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1086/689930
48.
PeurachD. J.CohenD. K.YurkofskyM. M.SpillaneJ. P. (2019). From mass schooling to education systems: Changing patterns in the organization and management of instruction. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 32–67. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821131
49.
RigbyJ. G.WoulfinS. L. (2016). Understanding how structure and agency influence education policy implementation and organizational change. American Journal of Education, 122(May 2016), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1086/685849
50.
Rivera-McCutchenR. L. (2020). “We don’t got time for grumbling”: Toward an ethic of radical care in urban school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(2), 257–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20925892
51.
Rivera-McCutchenR. L. (2021). Radical care: Leading for justice in urban schools. Teachers College Press.
52.
RowanB. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(2), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392303
53.
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
54.
SmylieM. A.MurphyJ. P.LouisK. S. (2020). Caring school leadership. Corwin.
55.
SwenC. P. (2020). Talk of calling: Novice school principals narrating destiny, duty, and fulfillment in work. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(2), 177–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19840387
Tichnor-WagnerA.AllenD. (2016). Accountable for care: Cultivating caring school communities in urban high schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(4), 406–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1181185
58.
TrontoJ. C. (2019). Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality, and purpose. In Care ethics (pp. 51–64). Routledge.
59.
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: Issues of caring in education of US-Mexican youth. State University of New York Press.
60.
WallsJ.RyuJ.FairchildL.JohnsonJ. (2019). Contexts of belonging: Toward a multilevel understanding of caring and engagement in schools. Educational Policy, 35(5), 748–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819843590
61.
WarrenC. A.PresberryC.LouisL. (2020). Examining teacher dispositions for evidence of (transformative) social and emotional competencies with black boys: The case of three urban high school teachers. Urban Education, 57(2), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920933326
WhiteR. S. (2023). What’s in a first name?: America’s K-12 public school district superintendent gender gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22(2), 385–401.
64.
WilliamsB. V.JagersR. J. (2020). Transformative social and emotional learning: Work notes on an action research agenda. Urban Education, 57(2), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920933340
65.
WillisG. B.ArtinoA. R.Jr. (2013). What do our respondents think we're asking? Using cognitive interviewing to improve medical education surveys. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(3), 353–356. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-13-00154.1
66.
WilsonS.DumornayN. M. (2022). Rising rates of adolescent depression in the United States: Challenges and opportunities in the 2020s. Journal of Adolescent Health, 70(3), 354–355.
67.
WongL. S.CoburnC. E.KamelA. (2020). How central office leaders influence school leaders’ decision-making: Unpacking power dynamics in two school-based decision-making systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(4), 392–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2020.1800175
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
