In this paper, we document development of administrator networks around teacher evaluation and Common Core in an urban district over four years. Using social network analysis, we look at the extent to which networks focused on instructional initiatives spanned formal roles. Findings highlight influences of role and grade level as well as the nature of different initiatives in the ways that networks developed. As interactions increase, administrators share their knowledge and expertise—and district leadership has the potential to develop structures that support this. We conclude with implications for policy and practice.
BorgattiS. P., EverettM. G., & FreemanL. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for windows: Software for social network analysis [Computer program].Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.
2.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education.New York, NY: Greenwood Press, 81–93.
3.
BurkW. J., SteglichC., & SnijdersT. (2007). Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4), 397–404.
4.
BurtR. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in organizational behavior, 22, 345–423.
5.
CampbellK. E., MarsdenP. V., & HurlbertJ. S. (1986). Social resources and socio-economic status. Social networks, 8(1), 97–117.
6.
CarleyK., & KrackhardtD. (1999). Cognitive inconsistencies and non-symmetric friendship. Social Networks, 18(1), 1–27.
7.
CarringtonP. J., ScottJ., & WassermanS. (Eds.). (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis (Vol. 28). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
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
9.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
10.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
11.
CornwellE. Y., & CornwellB. (2008). Access to expertise as a form of social capital: An examination of race-and class-based disparities in network ties to experts. Sociological Perspectives, 51(4), 853–876.
12.
CoxA. B. (2016). Cohorts, “siblings,” and mentors: Organizational structures and the creation of social capital. Sociology of Education, doi: 10.1177/0038040716681053.
13.
DalyA. J. (2012). Data, dyads, and dynamics: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–38.
14.
DalyA. J., & FinniganK. S. (2010). The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 39–79.
15.
DalyA. J., & FinniganK. S. (2012). Exploring the space between social networks, trust, and urban school district leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 493–530.
DalyA. J., MoolenaarN. M., BolivarJ. M., & BurkeP. (2010). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers' social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 359–391.
DuFourR. (2007). Professional learning communities: A bandwagon, an idea worth considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning?Middle School Journal, 39(1), 4–8.
20.
DuFourR., DuFourR., EakerR., ManyT. W., & MattosM. (2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work, 3rd ed.Bloomington, Indiana: Solution Tree.
21.
FeldmanM. S., & PentlandB. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.
22.
FeldmanM. S., & RafaeliA. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309–331.
23.
FreemanL. C., RomneyA. K., & FreemanS. C. (1987). Cognitive structure and informant accuracy. American anthropologist, 89(2), 310–325.
24.
FullanM., & QuinnJ. (2015). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems.Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
HatchT., HillK., & RoegmanR. (2016). Investigating the role of instructional rounds in the development of social networks and district-wide improvement. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1022–1053.
27.
HatchT. (2013b). Innovation at the core. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 34–38.
28.
HightowerA. M., KnappM. S., MarshJ. A., & McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.). (2002). School districts and instructional renewal.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
29.
HillK., HatchT., RoegmanR., & AllenD. (2015). The common core, coherence, and social networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
30.
HonigM. (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.
31.
KahnW. A., CrossR., & ParkerA. (2003). Layers of diagnosis for planned relational change in organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 259–280.
LevittB., & MarchJ. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319–340.
34.
LinN. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
35.
LinN. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action.New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71–87.
37.
MarchJ. G., & SimonH. A. (1958). Organizations.New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
38.
MaroulisS., & GomezL. M. (2008). Does “connectedness” matter? Evidence from a social network analysis within a small-school reform. The Teachers College Record, 110(9), 1901–1929.
39.
McGuinnP. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136–159.
40.
McPhersonM., Smith-LovinL., & BrashearsM. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353–375.
41.
MeyerJ. W., & RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
42.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
MoolenaarN. M., DalyA. J., & SleegersP. J. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovative climate in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1983–2017.
44.
MorseJ. M., & RichardsL. (2013). Readme first for a user's guide to qualitative methods, 3rd ed.Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
45.
NelsonR. R., & WinterS. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
NewmanF., KingB., & YoungsS. P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from Urban elementary schools. Paper presented to Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
47.
O'DayJ., FlodenM. E., & GoertzR. E. (1995). Building capacity for education reform.New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
48.
RipleyR. M., SnijdersT. A. B., Bo'daZ., VörösA., & PreciadoP. (2017). Manual for Siena.Technical report, Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics; Nuffield College.
49.
RoegmanR., HatchT., HillK., & KniewelV. (2015). Relationships, instruction, understandings: One district's implementation of rounds. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(5), 625–641.
50.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis, 2nd ed.London, United Kingdom: Sage.
51.
ShererJ. Z., & SpillaneJ. P. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 611–657.
52.
ShojiM. N., HaskinsA. R., RangelD. E., & SorensenK. N. (2014). The emergence of social capital in low-income Latino elementary schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 600–613.
53.
SmallM. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
54.
SnijdersT., SteglichC., & Van de BuntG. G. (2010). Introduction to actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32(1), 44–60.
55.
SpillaneJ. P., & KimC. M. (2012). An exploratory analysis of formal school leaders' positioning in instructional advice and information networks in elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 73–102.
56.
SpillaneJ. P., HallettT., & DiamondJ. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1–17.
57.
SpillaneJ. P., KimC. M., & FrankK. A. (2012). Instructional advice and information providing and receiving behavior in elementary schools exploring tie formation as a building block in social capital development. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1112–1145.
58.
SpillaneJ. P., PariseL. M., & ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619.
59.
SpillaneJ. P., & ThompsonC. 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.
60.
StollL., & LouisK. S. (2007). Professional learning communities.London: Open University Press.
61.
SzulanskiG. (1996). Exploring stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
62.
TogneriW., & AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools.Washington, DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
63.
Van de BuntG. G., Van DuijnM. A., & SnijdersT. A. (1999). Friendship networks through time: An actor-oriented dynamic statistical network model. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 5(2), 167–192.
