Abstract
With the push for data-driven decision making in the current accountability system, evidence use becomes vital to the improvement of low-performing schools. In this exploratory case study, we utilize social network theory and methods to examine how evidence is diffused and brokered by the educational leaders (central office, area superintendents, and school site administrators) across a large urban district, focusing particularly on whether evidence reaches leaders in low-performing schools. Our results suggest that very sparse data use ties exist across the entire district and that principals of underperforming schools, who are arguably in most need of evidence for improvement, are often disconnected from the overall data use structure. Furthermore, area superintendents, who are formally tasked with being the “source” of advice for data, are not always the most sought leaders within their areas. In addition, the communication patterns indicate a tendency to seek advice from outside the area for brokers in both formal and informal networks. Findings of this study give importance to the role of brokerage in districts’ evidence use for improving low-performing schools.
This research was supported by an award from the W. T. Grant Foundation (Grant #10174). All opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the W. T. Grant Foundation.
Authors “Alan J. Daly” and “Kara S. Finnigan” contributed equally to this work.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Pseudonym.
- 2.
It is important to note that the area superintendents are central office administrators, but given the unique role they serve as a connection point to the schools and oversee the principals, and as such we have separated them out into their own administrative “level” for these analyses.
References
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.
Atteberry, A., & Bryk, A. S. (2010). Analyzing the role of social networks in school-based professional development initiatives. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), The ties of change: Social network theory and application in education (pp. 51–76). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
Baker, W. E., & Iyer, A. (1992). Information networks and market behavior. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 16, 305–332.
Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.
Borgatti, S. P., & Ofem, B. (2010). Overview: Social network theory and analysis. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), The ties of change: Social network theory and application in education (pp. 17–30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441–470.
Burt, R. S. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. New York: Academic.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19(4), 355–373.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–83). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carley, K., & Krackhardt, D. (1999). Cognitive inconsistencies and non-symmetric friendship. Social Networks, 18(1), 1–27.
Chrispeels, J. (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19, 476–509.
Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.
Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009a). What’s the evidence on district’s use of evidence? In J. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds.), Educational improvement: What makes it happen and why? (pp. 67–86). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
Coburn, C. E., Touré, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009b). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making in the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161.
Confrey, J., & Makar, K. (2005). Critiquing and improving the use of data from high-stakes tests with the aid of dynamic statistics software. In C. Dede, J. P. Honan, & L. C. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 198–226). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 375–395.
Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46.
Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 111, 111–138.
Daly, A. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Daly, A. J. (2012). Data, dyads, and dissemination: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–38.
Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. (2009). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11(2), 111–138.
Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 111, 111–138.
Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. (2011). The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high stakes accountability. American Education Research Journal, 48(1), 39–79.
Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. (2012). Exploring the space between: Social networks, trust, and urban school district leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 493–530.
Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In D. Plank, B. Schneider, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). New York: Routledge.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Center on Educational Governance.
Degenne, A., & Forsé, M. (1999). Introducing social networks. London: Sage.
Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2010). Learning at a system level: Ties between principals of low performing schools and central office leaders. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 179–195). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 41–71.
Finnigan, K., Daly, A. J., & Stewart, T. (2012). Organizational learning in schools under sanction. Education Research International, 2012(16), 1–10.
Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J., & Che, J. (2013). Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring and diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 476–497.
Firestone, W. A., & González, R. A. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in schools. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 132–154). Malden: Blackwell.
Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choices in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 85–112.
Halverson, R., Prichett, R. B., & Watson, J. G. (2007). Formative feedback systems and the new instructional leadership. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., & Russell, J. (2007). Implementing standards-based accountability under no child left behind: Responses of superintendents, principals, and teachers in three states. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Hammerman, J. K., & Rubin, A. (2002). Visualizing a statistical world. Hands On!, 25(2), 1–7.
Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California.
Hite, J., Williams, E., & Baugh, S. (2005). Multiple networks of public school administrators: An analysis of network content and structure. International Journal on Leadership in Education, 8(2), 91–122.
Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 292–338.
Honig, M. (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.
Honig, M. I., & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608.
Honig, M. I., & Copland, M. A. (2008). Reinventing central offices to expand student learning. An issue brief of the center for comprehensive school reform and improvement. Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates.
Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting through the “data driven” mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. In P.A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (National society for the study of education yearbook, Vol. 106, Issue 1, pp. 105–131). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 496–520.
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London: Sage.
Knapp, M., Copland, M., & Swinerton, J. (2007). Understanding the promise and dynamics of data-informed leadership. In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making (pp. 74–104). Malden: National Society for the Study of Education.
Krackhardt, D. (2001). Network conditions of organizational change. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools: A practical and positive approach for leading change at every level. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
Louis, K. S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177–204.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Retrieved from The Wallace Foundation website: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/Learning-from-Leadership-Investigating-Links-Final-Report.pdf
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research (OP-170). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., & Martorell, F. (2010). How instructional coaches support data-driven decision making: Policy implementation and effects in Florida Middle Schools. Educational Policy, 24(6), 872–907.
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125–148.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 70(3), 293–329.
O’Day, J. (2004). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems (pp. 15–43). New York: Teachers College Press.
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100–130.
Parise, L., & Spillane, J. (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(3), 347.
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M. R., Krause, A., & Frank, K. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. I. V., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Spillane, J. P. (2000). A fifth grade teacher’s reconstruction of mathematics and literacy teaching: Exploring interactions among identity, learning, and subject matter. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 273–307.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Stovel, K., & Shaw, L. (2012). Brokerage. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 139–158.
Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Supovitz, J., & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. 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.
Tseng, V. (2012). The use of research and evidence in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 1–16.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1998). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wayman, J. C., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 549–571.
Wayman, J. C., Cho, V., & Johnston, M. T. (2007). The data-informed district: A district-wide evaluation of data use in the Natrona County School District. Austin: The University of Texas.
Weick, K. E. (1985). Cosmos vs. chaos: Sense and nonsense in electronic contexts. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 50–64.
Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (1998). Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement Journal, 19(3), 239–259.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
Young, V. M. (2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 521–548.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Daly, A.J., Finnigan, K.S., Moolenaar, N.M., Che, J. (2014). The Critical Role of Brokers in the Access and Use of Evidence at the School and District Level. In: Finnigan, K., Daly, A. (eds) Using Research Evidence in Education. Policy Implications of Research in Education, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04689-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04690-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)