This study sought to understand the opportunities and challenges associated with the implementation of state designed Race to the Top (RttT) funded reform networks. Drawing on a conceptual framework developed from the networked governance literature, we analyzed the 12 state RttT grantees’ applications. Our analysis revealed that states designed large implementation networks with potential to bring a wide range of resources to bear on reform efforts, particularly through participation of numerous nonsystem actors. However, coordinating large and diverse networks places state education agencies (SEAs) in a new and challenging role. The extent to which networks extend state capacity to support educational improvement or further complicate the work of SEAs remains an open question. We propose a model including a set of theoretical propositions to guide future research.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 295–326.
2.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
3.
AlterC.HageJ. (1993). Organizations working together (Vol. 191). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
4.
AugustineC.GonzalezG.IkemotoG.RussellJ.ZellmanG.ConstantL.. . . DemboskyJ. (2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
5.
BackstromL.HuttenlocherD.KleinbergJ.LanX. (2006, August). Group formation in large social networks: Membership, growth, and evolution. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 44–54). New York, NY: ACM.
6.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
7.
BrownC. G.HessF. M.LautzenheiserD. K.OwenI. (2011). State education agencies as agents of change: What will it take for the states to step up on education reform?Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, The American Enterprise Institute.
8.
BrykA. S.GomezL. M.GrunowA. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In HallinanM. (Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127–162). New York, NY: Springer.
9.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.KerbowD.RollowS.EastonJ. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for social change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
10.
BurchP. (2010). The bigger picture: Institutional perspectives on interim assessment technologies. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 147–162.
11.
CarlileP. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555–568.
12.
CepikuD.MussariR.PoggesiS.ReichardC. (2012). Special issue on governance of networks: Challenges and future issues from a public management perspective editorial. Journal of Management and Governance, 18, 1–7.
13.
CoburnC. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19, 476–509.
14.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L.KaufmanJ.SteinM. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119, 137–182.
15.
CohenD. K. (1982). Policy and organization: The impact of state and federal educational policy on school governance. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 474–499.
16.
CohenD. K.BarnesC. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In CohenD. K.McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. E. (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207–239). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
CohenD. K.HillH. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
ConsidineM.LewisJ.AlexanderD. (2009). Networks, innovation and public policy: Politicians, bureaucrats and the pathways to change inside government. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1989). Policy brief: State education reform in the 1980s. Author. Available from http://www.cpre.org
20.
DalyA. J. (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
de LimaJ. A. (2010). Thinking more deeply about networks in education. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 1–21.
23.
DeSeveG. E. (2009). “Integration and innovation” in the intelligence community: The role of a netcentric environment, managed networks, and social networks. In GoldsmithS.KettlD. F. (Eds.), Unlocking the power of networks: Keys to high-performance government (pp. 121–144). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
DiMaggioP.PowellP. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
25.
DolleJ. R.GomezL. M.RussellJ. L.BrykA. S. (2013). More than a network: Building professional communities for educational improvement. In FishmanB. J.PenuelW. R.AllenA. R.ChengB. H. (Eds.), Design based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook) (pp. 443–463). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
26.
DonovanM. S.SnowC.DaroP. (2013). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation. In FishmanB. J.PenuelW. R.AllenA. R.ChengB. H. (Eds.), Design based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook) (pp. 400–425). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
27.
EgleneO.DawesS. S.SchneiderC. A. (2007). Authority and leadership patterns in public sector knowledge networks. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 91–113.
28.
FuhrmanS. H.GoertzM. E.WeinbaumE. H. (2007). Educational governance in the United States: Where are we? How did we get here? Why should we care? In FuhrmanS.CohenD. K.MosherF. (Eds.), The state of education policy research (pp. 41–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
GoldsmithS.EggersW. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
30.
GoldsmithS.KettlD. F. (2009). Unlocking the power of networks: Keys to high-performance government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
31.
GrayB. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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. (2009). “External” organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous schools initiatives. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 394–413.
34.
HonigM. I.IkemotoG. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 328–363.
35.
HuangK.ProvanK. G. (2007). Structural embeddedness and organizational social outcomes in a centrally governed mental health services network. Public Management Review, 9, 169–189.
36.
IsettK. R.MergelI. A.LeRouxK.MischenP. A.RethemeyerR. K. (2011). Networks in public administration: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 1), i157–i173.
37.
KahneJ.O’BrienJ.BrownA.QuinnT. (2001). Leveraging social capital and school improvement: The case of a school network and a comprehensive community initiative in Chicago. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 429–461.
38.
KeastR.BrownK. (2002). The government service delivery program: A case study of the push and pull of central government coordination. Public Management Review, 4, 439–459.
39.
KeastR.MandellM. P.BrownK.WoolcockG. (2004). Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review, 64, 363–371.
40.
KimH.BearmanP. S. (1997). The structure and dynamics of movement participation. American Sociological Review, 62, 70–93.
41.
KlijnE.-K.SteijnB.EdelenbosJ. (2010). The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88, 1063–1082.
42.
KoberN.RentnerD. S. (2011). More to do, but less capacity to do it: States’ progress in implementing the Recovery Act education reforms. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
43.
LouisK. S.ThomasE.GordonM. F.FebeyK. S. (2008). State leadership for school improvement: An analysis of three states. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 562–592.
44.
LubellM.ScheiderM.ScholzJ.MeteM. (2002). Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 148–163.
45.
MalenB.CroningerR.MunceyD.Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113–132.
46.
MannaP. (2010). Competitive grant making and education reform: Assessing Race to the Top’s current impact and future prospects (Education Stimulus Watch, Special Report 5). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
47.
McDonnellL. M.ElmoreR. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133–152.
48.
McGuinnP. (2012). Stimulating reform race to the top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26, 136–159.
49.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2001). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 271–294.
50.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2003). Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63, 689–699.
51.
MeredithJ. K. (2013). State policy diffusion and race to the top: The impact of federal competitive grants on state policymaking (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3577025)
52.
MiskelC.SongM. (2004). Passing reading first: Prominence and processes in an elite policy network. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 89–109.
53.
MurphyP.HillP. (2011). The changing role of states in education: The move from compliance to performance management (2011 PIE Network Summit Policy Briefs). Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
54.
New York Department of Education. (2010). Race to the top application for initial funding. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
55.
OliverC. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241–265.
56.
O’TooleL. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agenda in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57, 45–52.
57.
PeurachD. J. (2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and success for all. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
58.
PodolnyJ. M.PageK. L. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 54–76.
59.
PowellW. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
60.
ProvanK. G.KenisP. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229–252.
61.
ProvanK. G.MilwardH. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1–33.
62.
ProvanK. G.MilwardH. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61, 414–423.
63.
RowanB. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 259–279.
64.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283–314.
65.
RussellJ. L.BrayL. E. (2013). Crafting coherence from complex policy messages: Educators’ perceptions of special education and standards-based accountability policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21, Article 12.
66.
SmithA. K.WohlstetterP. (2001). Reform through school networks: A new kind of authority and accountability. Educational Policy, 15, 499–519.
67.
SpillaneJ. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 33–63.
68.
SpillaneJ. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How local schools misunderstand policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69.
SpillaneJ. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118, 113–141.
70.
VentrescaM. J.MohrJ. W. (2002). Archival research methods. In BaumJ. A. C. (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 805–828). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
71.
VergariS. (2010). Safeguarding federalism in education policy in Canada and the United States. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 40, 534–557.
72.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
73.
WeberE. P.KhademianA. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge, challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68, 334–349.
74.
WohlstetterP.MalloyC. L.ChauD.PolhemusJ. L. (2003). Improving schools through networks: A new approach to urban school reform. Educational Policy, 17, 399–430.
75.
WohlstetterP.SmithJ.MalloyC. L. (2005). Strategic alliances in action: Toward a theory of evolution. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 419–442.
76.
YamaguchiK. (1994). Some accelerated failure-time regression models derived from diffusion process models: An application to a network diffusion analysis. In MarsdenP. V. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 24, pp. 267–300). Washington, DC: Blackwell.
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.
