The current educational policy climate in the USA places immense pressure on school district central offices to use evidence to inform their decisions in order to improve student learning. In light of both the expectations of evidence-based decision making and the significance of central offices in supporting teaching and learning, there is considerably little understanding of whether, how and why central office decision makers use research evidence to support educational decisions. Through an embedded case study of Hamilton School District and three central office decisions, this research examines the role of research in central office decisions, focusing on how research is used, what research resources are used and the factors that influence use. Evidence of limited instrumental and political uses of research in comparison to conceptual and symbolic use, preferences for practitioner-oriented resources, and the importance of research attributes, organizational context and culture, and decision-maker characteristics are presented. Findings suggest a need for strategies to improve instrumental use, including reconsidering the production and dissemination of research, facilitating the flow of knowledge within the central office, and further examination of conceptual uses of research.
BirkelandSMurphy-GrahamEWeissCH (2005) Good reasons for ignoring good evaluation: The case of the drug abuse resistance education (D.A.R.E.) program.
2.
BransfordJDStipekDJVyeNJ (2009) The Role of Research in Educational Improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
3.
CaplanNMorrisonAStambaughRJ (1975) The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level. Ann Arbor, MI: The Institute for Social Research.
4.
CoburnCE (2001) Collective sensemaking about reading: how teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis23(2): 145–170.
5.
CoburnCETalbertJE (2006) Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4): 469–495.
6.
CoburnCEToureJYamashitaM (2009) Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: instructional decision making in the district central office. Teachers College Record11(4): 1115–1161.
7.
CooperALevinBCampbellC (2009) The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change10: 159–171.
8.
CorcoranTFuhrmanSHBelcherCL (2001) The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan83(1): 78–84.
9.
DatnowACastellanoM (2003) Leadership and success for all. In: MurphyJDatnowA (eds) Leadership for School Reform: Lessons From Comprehensive School Reform Designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 187–208.
10.
DatnowAParkVWohlstetterP (2007) Achieving with Data: How High-Performing School Systems Use Data to Improve Instruction for Elementary Students. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Center on Educational Governance.
11.
DavidJL (1981) Local uses of title I evaluations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis3(1): 27–39.
12.
ElmoreRFBurneyD (1997) Investing in Teacher Learning: Staff Development and Instructional Improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
13.
FillosRMBaileyWJ (1978) Survey of Delaware Superintendents' KPU. Newark, DE: University of Delaware.
14.
GrossBKirstMHollandD (2005) Got you under my spell? How accountability policy is changing and not changing decision making in high schools. In: Holding High Hopes: How High Schools Respond to State Accountability Policies. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 43–80.
15.
HannawayJ (1989) Managers Managing: The Workings of an Administrative System. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
HonigMI (2003) Building policy from practice: central office administrators' roles and capacity in collaborative policy implementation. Educational Administration Quarterly39(3): 292–338.
17.
HonigMICoburnC (2008) Evidence-based decision-making in school district central offices: toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy22(4): 578–608.
18.
HonigMILortonJSCoplandMA (2009) Urban district central office transformation for teaching and learning improvement: beyond a zero-sum game. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education108(1): 56–83.
19.
HonigMICoplandMALortonJA (2010) Central Office Transformation for Districtwide Teaching and Learning Improvement: A Report to the Wallace Foundation. Seattle, WA: The Center For Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
20.
HubermanM (1990) Linkage between researchers and practitioners: a qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal27(2): 363–391.
21.
KeanM (1980) Research and Evaluation in Urban Educational Policy, No 67. ERIC/CUE Diversity Series.
22.
KennedyMM (1982a) Evidence and decision. In: KennedyMM (ed.) Working Knowledge and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Huron Institute, 59–103.
23.
KennedyMM (1982b) Working knowledge. In: KennedyMM (ed.) Working Knowledge and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Huron Institute, 1–28.
24.
KennedyMM (1984) How evidence alters understanding and decisions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis6(3): 207–226.
25.
KerrKAMarshJAIkemotoGS (2006) Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education112(4): 496–520.
26.
LevinBSaCCooperA (2009) Research Use and its Impact in Secondary Schools. Toronto: CEA/OISE Collaborative Mixed Methods Research Project Interim Report.
27.
LightDHoneyMHenzeJ (2005) Linking Data and Learning: The Grow Network Study. New York: Education Development Center, Inc.
28.
LortieD (1975) Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
MacIverMAFarley-RippleEN (2008) Bringing the District back in. Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service.
30.
MarchJG (1994) A Primer on Decision Making. New York: The Free Press.
31.
MarshJAKerrKAIkemotoGS (2005). The Role of the District in Fostering Instructional Improvement: Lessons From Three Urban Districts Partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
32.
MassellD (2000) The District Role in Building Capacity: Four Strategies. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-32.
33.
MassellD (2001) The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: state and local strategies and their effects. In: FurhnmanSH (ed.) From the Capitol to the Classroom: Standards-Based Reform in the States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 148–169.
34.
MaynardRA (2006) Presidential address. Evidence-based decision-making: what will it take for the decision makers to care?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management25(2): 249–265.
35.
McLaughlinMWTalbertJ (2003) Reforming Districts: How Districts Support School Reform. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
36.
MeyerJScottWR (1983) Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
37.
OhCH (1997) Issues for the new thinking of knowledge utilization: introductory remarks. Knowledge and Policy10(3): 3–10.
38.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007) Knowledge Management: Evidence and Education: Linking Research and Practice. Paris: OECD.
39.
PorterRWHicksI (1997) Knowledge utilization and the process of policy formation: towards a framework for action. In: ChapmanDWMahlckLOSmuldersAEM (eds) From Planning to Action: Government Initiatives for Improving School-Level Practice, 32–67) Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
40.
ReichardtR (2000) The State’s Role in Supporting Data-Driven Decision-Making: A View of Wyoming. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
41.
RichRFOhCH (1993) The utilization of policy research. In: NagelS (ed.) Encyclopedia of Policy Studies. New York: Marcel Dekker, 69–94.
42.
RobertsJMESmithSC (1982) Instructional Improvement: A System-Wide Approach. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.
43.
RosenkopfLAlmeidaP (2003) Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science49(6): 751–766.
44.
RowanB (1986) Rationality and Reality in Instructional Management: Results from a Survey of Districts in the Far West. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
45.
SpillaneJP (1998) State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal35(1): 33–63.
46.
SpillaneJP (2000) Cognition and policy implementation: district policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction18(2): 141–179.
47.
SpillaneJPThompsonCL (1997) Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: the local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis19(2): 185–203.
48.
SupovitzJA (2006) The Case for District-Based Reform: Leading, Building, and Sustaining School Improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
49.
SupovitzJAKleinV (2003) Mapping a Course for Improved Student Learning: How Innovative Schools Systematically Use Student Performance Data to Guide Improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
50.
WaymanJCStringfieldS (2006) Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education112(4): 549–571.
51.
WaymanJChoVJohnstonMT (2007) The Data-Informed District: A District-Wide Evaluation fo Data Use in the Natrona County School District. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
52.
WeissCHBucuvalasMJ (1977) The challenge of social research to decision making. In: WeissCH (ed.) Using Social Research in Public Policymaking. Lexington, MD: Lexington Books, 213–230.
53.
WeissCHBucuvalasMJ (1980) Social Science Research and Decision-Making. New York: Columbia University Press.
54.
WeissCHMurphy-GrahamEBirkelandS (2005) An alternate route to policy influence: how evaluations affect D.A.R.E. American Journal of Evaluation26(1): 12–30.
55.
WestRFRhotonC (1994) School district administrators' perceptions of educational research and barriers to research utilization. ERS Spectrum12(1): 23–30.
56.
WestEd (2002) Improving Districts: Systems that Support Learning. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
57.
YinR (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
