In the current accountability policy context, access to and use of research evidence are central to district and school improvement. Our study examines the network of relations between central office administrators and principals using a political lens to consider the ways in which the underlying politics in a district may call into question some of the assumptions around evidence use and change under accountability policy sanctions. Results indicate that relational ties regarding evidence use (data use in this case) are sparse in comparison with other work-related networks. Second, we find a misalignment between what one would expect based on district data use initiatives, formal lines of authority, and communication patterns and the underlying informal social interactions of the leaders around the use of data. We discuss the implications of this research for district improvement and the use of evidence in the current policy context.
AhujaG. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425-455.
2.
AndersonL. (2010). Embedded, emboldened, and (net)working for change: Support-seeking and teacher agency in urban, high-needs schools. Harvard Educational Review, 80, 541-572.
3.
BacharachS. B.MundellB. L. (1993). Organizational politics in schools: Micro, macro, and logics of action. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29, 423-452.
4.
BlaseJ. (1991). The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
5.
BorgattiS.EverettM.FreemanL. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
6.
BorgattiS.FosterP. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991-1013.
7.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. C. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
8.
BrassD. J.GalaskiewiczJ.GreveH. R.TsaiW. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795-817.
9.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40-57.
10.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for school improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
11.
BrysonJ.CrosbyB. (1992). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared power world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12.
BurtR. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
ChrispeelsJ. (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.
15.
CoburnC. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19, 476-509.
16.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203-235.
17.
CooperA. (2012). Knowledge mobilization intermediaries in education: A cross-case analysis of 44 Canadian organizations (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
18.
CrossR.BorgattiS.ParkerA. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25-46.
19.
DalyA. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 168-216.
20.
DalyA. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
21.
DalyA. J. (2012). Data, dyads, and dissemination: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-38.
22.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 111-138.
23.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. (2011). The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 39-79.
24.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. (2012). Exploring the space between: Social networks, trust, and urban school district leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 2, 493-530.
25.
DalyA. J.LiouY.TranN.CornelissenF.ParkV. (2013). The rise of neurotics: Social networks, leadership, and efficacy in district reform. Educational Administration Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0013161X13492795
26.
DatnowA.HubbardL.MehanH. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London, England: Routledge Falmer.
27.
FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (2010). Learning at a system level: Ties between principals of low performing schools and central office leaders. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 179-195). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
28.
FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119, 41-71.
29.
FinniganK. S.DalyA. J.CheJ. (2013). Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring and diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 476-497.
30.
FinniganK. S.DalyA. J.StewartT. (2012). Organizational learning in schools under sanction. Education Research International, 2012, 10 pp.
31.
FinniganK. S.GrossB. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 594-630.
32.
FinniganK. S.StewartT. (2009). Leading change under pressure: An examination of principal leadership in low-performing schools. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 586-618.
33.
FlessaJ. (2009). Educational micropolitics and distributed leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 331-349.
34.
FrankK. A.ZhaoY.PenuelW. R.EllefsonN.PorterS. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84, 137-156.
35.
GoughD.TripneyJ.KennyC.Buk-BergeE. (2011). Evidence informed policy in education in Europe: EIPEE final project report. London, England: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
36.
GouldJ.FernandezJ. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89-126.
37.
HenigJ. R. (2012). The politics of data use. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-32.
38.
HonigM. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 357-383.
39.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37-62.
40.
LazearE. P. (1995). Personnel economics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
41.
LinN. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
42.
MarshJ. A.PaneJ. F.HamiltonL. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research (OP-170). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
43.
MawhinneyH. (1999). Reappraisal: The problems and prospects of studying the micro-politics of leadership in reforming schools. School Leadership & Management, 19, 159-170.
MillerD. (1993). The architecture of simplicity. The Academy of Management Review, 18, 116-138.
46.
MintropH. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn’t work). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
47.
MintropH.SundermanL. G. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement-and why wemayretain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353-361.
48.
MintropH.TrujilloT. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from state and district strategies in first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48), 1-30.
49.
MohrmanS.TenkasiR.MohrmanA. (2003). The role of networks in fundamental organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 301-323.
50.
MoolenaarN. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools: Theory, methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119, 7-39.
51.
MoolenaarN. M.SleegersP. J.KarstenS.DalyA. J. (2012). The social fabric of elementary schools: A network typology of social interaction among teachers. Educational Studies, 38, 355-371.
52.
ObstfeldD. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100-130.
53.
PariseL.SpillaneJ. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 323-346.
54.
PenuelW. R.RielM. R.KrauseA.FrankK. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124-163.
55.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
56.
SpillaneJ. P.HealeyK.KimC. M. (2010). Leading and managing instruction: Formal and informal aspects of the elementary school organization. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 129-158). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
SpillaneJ. P.HuntB.HealeyK. (2009). Managing and leading elementary schools: Attending to the formal and informal organization. International Studies in Educational Administration, 37, 5-28.
58.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
59.
SunM.FrankK.PenuelW.KimC. (2013). How external institutions penetrate schools through formal and informal leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 610-644.
60.
SundermanG. L.KimJ. S.OrfieldG. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
61.
SupovitzJ. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
62.
TogneriW.AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Learning First Alliance.
63.
TsengV. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice (Social Policy Report, Vol. 26, No. 2). Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research on Child Development.
64.
WardV.SmithS.FoyR.HouseA.HamerS. (2010). Planning for knowledge translation: A researcher’s guide. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 6, 527-541.
65.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1998). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
66.
WellmanB.BerkowitzS. D. (1998). Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
67.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
68.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
