Representative bureaucracy theory posits that the demographic makeup of a bureaucracy can affect how policy is implemented, especially when bureaucrats engage in “active representation” or behavior that directly advances the interests of a particular group in society. It is often assumed that active representation is motivated by the unique beliefs, convictions, or affinities experienced by bureaucrats holding particular social identities. But few studies of representative bureaucracy have attempted to directly measure the attitudes of bureaucrats, and even fewer studies examine whether such attitudes are meaningfully linked to policy outcomes. This study examines the social identities, self-perceived roles, and political preferences of local school administrators in Texas. The results confirm a link between bureaucratic managers’ social identities and distributional policy outcomes, while also suggesting that distinctive bureaucratic attitudes (as observed here) can offer at best a partial explanation for why the social identities of bureaucrats are linked to policy outcomes.
AlemánE.Jr. (2009). Latcrit educational leadership and advocacy: Struggling over whiteness as property in Texas school finance. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680902744246
2.
AlvordD.RauscherE. (2021). Minority support: School district demographics and support for funding election measures. Urban Affairs Review, 57(3), 643–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419877461
3.
BarberaC.SiciliaM.SteccoliniI. (2016). What Mr. Rossi wants in participatory budgeting: Two R’s (responsiveness and representation) and two I’s (inclusiveness and interaction). International Journal of Public Administration, 39(13), 1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1177839
4.
BellE.Ter-MkrtchyanA.WehdeW.SmithK. (2021). Just or unjust? How ideological beliefs shape street-level bureaucrats’ perceptions of administrative burden. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13311
5.
BertrandM.SampsonC. (forthcoming). Exposing the white innocence playbook of school district leaders. Equity & Excellence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2021.2021669
6.
BishuS. G.KennedyA. R. (2020). Trends and gaps: A meta-review of representative bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 559–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19830154
BradburyM. D.KelloughJ. E. (2008). Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 697–714. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum033
9.
BustamanteR. M.NelsonJ. A.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2009). Assessing schoolwide cultural competence: Implications for school leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 793–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09347277
FaveroN.MolinaA. LJr. (2018). Is active representation an organizational-level process? The indirect effect of bureaucrats on clients they don’t directly serve. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016660614
13.
FernandezS.KomaS.LeeH. (2018). Establishing the link between representative bureaucracy and performance: The South African case. Governance, 31(3), 535–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12319
FordM. R. (2022). A little representation goes a long way: Minority teacher representation and district performance in a highly homogenous context. Public Organization Review, 22(3), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00535-3
16.
FurmanG. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11427394
17.
GershensonS.HartC.HymanJ.LindsayC.PapageorgeN. W. (2022). The long-run impacts of same-race teachers. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(4), 300–342. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190573
18.
GershensonS.HoltS. B.PapageorgeN. W. (2016). Who believes in me? The effect of the student-teacher demographic match on teacher expectations. Economics of Education Review, 52, 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.03.002
19.
GoddardR. D.SkrlaL.SalloumS. J. (2017). The role of collective efficacy in closing student achievement gaps: A mixed methods study of school leadership for excellence and equity. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 22(4), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2017.1348900
20.
GrissomJ. A.KeiserL. R. (2011). A supervisor like me: Race, representation, and the satisfaction and turnover decisions of public sector employees. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 557–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20579
21.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS.MasterB. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13510020
22.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/3559017
23.
HeilbrunA.CornellD.LovegroveP. (2015). Principal attitudes regarding zero tolerance and racial disparities in school suspensions. Psychology in the Schools, 52(5), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21838
24.
HoltS. B.GershensonS. (2019). The impact of demographic representation on absences and suspensions. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 1069–1099. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12229
25.
JangS. T.AlexanderN. A. (2022). Black women principals in American secondary schools: Quantitative evidence of the link between their leadership and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(3), 450–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X211068415
26.
JohnsonR. (2022). School choice as community disempowerment: Racial rhetoric about voucher policy in urban America. Urban Affairs Review, 58(2), 563–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087421992122
27.
JonesC. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions of African American principals’ leadership in urban schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(1), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7701_2
28.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402000321
29.
KennedyB. (2014). Unraveling representative bureaucracy: A systematic analysis of the literature. Administration & Society, 46(4), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712459724
30.
KhalifaM. A.GoodenM. A.DavisJ. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
LayJ. C.BaumanA. (2019). Private governance of public schools: Representation, priorities, and compliance in New Orleans charter school boards. Urban Affairs Review, 55(4), 1006–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417748783
33.
LiD. (2021). Spillover effects of minority representation on majority bureaucrats’ behavioral change. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1071–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13428
34.
LimH. H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00572.x
35.
LindsayC. A.HartC. M. (2017). Exposure to same-race teachers and student disciplinary outcomes for Black students in North Carolina. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 485–510. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717693109
36.
LomoteyK. (2019). Research on the leadership of black women principals: Implications for black students. Educational Researcher, 48(6), 336–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19858619
37.
LomoteyK.LoweryK. (2015). Urban schools, black principals, and black students: Culturally responsive education and the ethno-humanist role identity. In KhalifaM.GrantC.ArnoldN. W.,, & OsanlooA. F. (Eds.), Handbook of urban educational leadership (pp. 118–134). Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
LongN. E. (1952). Bureaucracy and constitutionalism. American Political Science Review, 46(3), 808–818. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952286
39.
LouisK. S.DretzkeB.WahlstromK. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness And School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.486586
40.
MabokelaR. O.MadsenJ. A. (2005). ‘Color-blind’ and ‘color-conscious’ leadership: A case study of desegregated suburban schools in the USA. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(3), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120500107313
41.
McKenzieK. B.ScheurichJ. J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04268839
42.
MeierK. J. (2019). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvy004
43.
MeierK. J. (1993a). Latinos and representative bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037178
44.
MeierK. J.NigroL. G. (1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review, 36(4), 458–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/974854
45.
MeierK. J.O'Toole JrL. J. (2006). Political control versus bureaucratic values: Reframing the debate. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00571.x
46.
MeierK. J.RutherfordA. (2017). The politics of African American education: Representation, partisanship and educational equity. Cambridge University Press.
47.
MeierK. J. (1993b). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. In PerryJ. (Ed.), Research in public administration (Vol. 2, pp. 1–35). JAI Press.
48.
MeierK. J.StewartJJr. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: Educational systems and public policies. The American Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409202200301
49.
MeierK. J.StewartJ.EnglandR. E. (1989). Race, class, and education: The politics of second-generation discrimination. University of Wisconsin Press.
50.
MillerC. M.MartinB. N. (2015). Principal preparedness for leading in demographically changing schools: Where is the social justice training?Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213513185
51.
MorrisJ. E. (2001). Forgotten voices of Black educators: Critical race perspectives on the implementation of a desegregation plan. Educational Policy, 15(4), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904801015004004
52.
MurakamiE. T.HernandezF.Mendez-MorseS.Byrne-JimenezM. (2016). Latina/o school principals: Identity, leadership and advocacy. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1025854
53.
Nicholson-CrottyS.GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyJ.ReddingC. (2016). Disentangling the causal mechanisms of representative bureaucracy: Evidence from assignment of students to gifted programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw024
OmiM.WinantH. (2015). Racial formation in the United States. Routledge.
56.
PetersS. J.Rambo-HernandezK.MakelM. C.MatthewsM. S.PluckerJ. A. (2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446
57.
PolinardJ. L.WrinkleR. D.LongoriaT. (1990). Education and governance: Representational links to second generation discrimination. Western Political Quarterly, 43(3), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300312
58.
ReddingC. (2019). A teacher like me: A review of the effect of student–teacher racial/ethnic matching on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 499–535. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319853545
59.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G.LiH. (2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12401
60.
RossmannD.ShanahanE. A. (2012). Defining and achieving normative democratic values in participatory budgeting processes. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02480.x
61.
SampsonC. (2019). (Im) possibilities of Latinx school board members’ educational leadership toward equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(2), 296–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18799482
62.
SampsonC.HorsfordS. D. (2017). Putting the public back in public education: Community advocacy and education leadership under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Journal of School Leadership, 27(5), 725–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700506
63.
SanchezG. R.VargasE. D. (2016). Taking a closer look at group identity: The link between theory and measurement of group consciousness and linked fate. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915624571
64.
SantamaríaL. J. (2014). Critical change for the greater good: Multicultural perceptions in educational leadership toward social justice and equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 347–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13505287
65.
SeldenS. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. M. E. Sharpe.
66.
SeldenS. C.BrewerG. A.BrudneyJ. L. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public administration: Understanding the administrative role concept. Administration & Society, 31(2), 171–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953999922019085
67.
ShahP. (2009). Motivating participation: The symbolic effects of Latino representation on parent school involvement. Social Science Quarterly, 90(1), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00612.x
68.
ShoresK.LoebS. (2016). Distributive decisions in education: Goals, trade-offs, and feasibility constraints. Theory and Research in Education, 14(1), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515619797
69.
SkibaR. J.MichaelR. S.NardoA. C.PetersonR. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021320817372
70.
SmedleyA.SmedleyB. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. American Psychologist, 60(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16
71.
SmithC. A. (2005). School factors that contribute to the underachievement of students of color and what culturally competent school leaders can do. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 17, 21–32.
72.
SolomonR. P. (2002). School leaders and antiracism: Overcoming pedagogical and political obstacles. Journal Of School Leadership, 12(2), 174–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460201200205
TillmanL. C. (2004). Chapter 4: African American principals and the legacy of Brown. Review of Research in Education, 28(1), 101–146. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X028001101
TyackD. B. (1980). Reformulating the purposes of public education in an era of retrenchment. Educational Studies, 11(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326993es1101_5
77.
VillegasA. M.IrvineJ. J. (2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments. The Urban Review, 42(3), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-010-0150-1
78.
VinopalK. (2020). Socioeconomic representation: Expanding the theory of representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz024
79.
Watkins-HayesC. (2009). Race-ing the bootstrap climb: Black and Latino bureaucrats in post-reform welfare offices. Social Problems, 56(2), 285–310. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2009.56.2.285
80.
Watkins-HayesC. (2011). Race, respect, and red tape: Inside the black box of racially representative bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl_2), i233–i251. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq096
WitherspoonN.TaylorD. L. (2010). Spiritual weapons: Black female principals and religio-spirituality. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 42(2), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220621003701296
Supplementary Material
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.
