This study investigated what research district leaders find useful. It draws on evidence from interviews and surveys of central office leaders in three large urban districts in the United States. We find that although leaders did report using research as federal policies intend—to select among curricula, programs, and interventions to adopt—the kinds of research district leaders find useful are not primarily peer-reviewed impact studies. Instead, research they find useful present frameworks and practical guidance in the form of books. Leaders also report using research to support their own professional learning, guide their instructional leadership activities, and monitor and support implementation of district-adopted programs and practices. These findings make the case that we need a broader understanding of the research that may be relevant for the multifaceted work of district leaders.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 516 (2009).
2.
AsenR.GurkeD.SolomonR.ConnersP.GummE. (2011). “The research says”: Definitions and uses of a key policy term in federal law and local school board deliberations. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 195-213.
3.
BoalerJ.HumphreysC. (2005). Connecting mathematical ideas: Middle school video cases to support teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
4.
BoalerJ.StaplesM. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110, 608-645.
5.
BoykinW.NogueraP. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision & Curriculum Development.
6.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
7.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
8.
BurchP. E. (2002). Constraints and opportunities in changing policy environments: Intermediary organizations’ response to complex district contexts. In HightowerA. M.KnappM. S.MarshJ. A.McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 111-126). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9.
BurkhardtH.SchoenfeldA. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-14.
10.
CityE. A.ElmoreR. F.FiarmanS. E.TeitelL. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
11.
CoburnC. E.TalbertJ. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112, 469-495.
12.
CoburnC. E.HonigM. I.SteinM. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In BransfordJ. D.StipekD. J.VyeN. J.GomezL. M.LamD. (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67-87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
13.
ContandriopoulosD.LemireM.DenisJ.-L.TremblayE. (2010). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: A narrative systematic review of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 88, 444-483.
14.
CorcoranT. B.FuhrmanS.BelcherC. L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 78-84.
15.
DatnowA.ParkV. (2010). Success for All: Using tools to transport research-based practices to the classroom. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 77-91). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
16.
DesimoneL. M.Le FlochK. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 1-22.
17.
DonovanM. S. (2013). Generating improvement through research and development in educational systems. Science, 340, 317-319.
18.
DufourR.DufourR.EakerR.ManyT. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
19.
DynarskiM. (2006). Advancing the use of scientifically based research in forming policy: A response to Mahoney and Zigler. Applied Developmental Science, 27, 295-297.
20.
DynarskiM. (2008). Bringing answers to educators: Guiding principles for research syntheses. Educational Researcher, 37, 27-29.
21.
DynarskiM.KiskerE. (2014). Going public: Writing about research in everyday language (REL-2014-051). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Analytic Technical Assistance and Development.
22.
Educational Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-279 (2002). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/aboutus/.
23.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
24.
Farley-RippleE. (2012). Research use in school district central office decision making: A case study. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40, 786-806.
25.
Farley-RippleE.JonesA. (2015). Educational contracting and the translation of research into practice: The case of data coach vendors in Delaware. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 10(2), 1-15.
26.
FinkelsteinN.ShieldsP. M.Tiffany-MoralesJ. (2012). College bound in middle school and high school? How math course sequences matter. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
27.
FinniganK. S.DalyA. J.CheJ. (2013). Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring, using, and diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 476-497.
28.
HaskinsR.BaronJ. (2011). Building the connection between policy and evidence: The Obama evidence-based initiatives. London, England: Nesta.
29.
HaskinsR.MargolisG. (2015). Show me the evidence: Obama’s fight for rigor and results in social policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30.
HessF. M.PetrilliM. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
31.
HonigM. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 292-338.
32.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65-87.
33.
HonigM. I.IkemotoG. S. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 328-363.
34.
HonigM. I.VenkateswaranN. (2012). School-central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118, 199-222.
35.
HonigM. I.VenkateswaranN.McNeilP.TwitchellJ. M. (2014). Leaders’ use of research for fundamental change in school district central offices: Processes and challenges. In FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 33-52). New York, NY: Springer.
36.
Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
KinsellaK. (2015). English 3-D. New York, NY: Scholastic Publishing.
38.
LemovD. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
39.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28, 131-144.
40.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42.
National Research Council. (2012). Using science as evidence in public policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
RoderickM.EastonJ. Q.SebringP. B. (2007). Developing new roles for research in new policy environments: The Consortium on Chicago School Research. Chicago, IL: The Consortium on Chicago School Research.
46.
RorrerA. K.SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 307-357.
47.
SchiappaE. (2003). Defining reality: Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
48.
SlavinR. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
49.
StokesD. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
50.
TsengV. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Washington, DC: Society for Research in Child Development.
51.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2013). Education research: Further improvements needed to ensure relevance and assess dissemination efforts (Report to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives). Washington, DC: Author.
52.
WeissC. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431.
53.
WeissC. H.BucuvalasM. J. (1980). Social science research and decision-making. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
54.
WelnerK. G.HincheyP. H.MolnarA.WeitzmanD. (2010). Think tank research quality: Lessons for policy makers, the media, and the public. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
55.
WhitehurstG. J. (2003, April). The institute of education sciences: New wine, new bottles. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
