Central office decisions and the role of research

Central office administrators make important decisions on a daily basis, and a number of elements inform their decisions. Yet, more often state and federal policies call for district administrators to back up their decisions using “scientifically-based” research.[1] So, what currently informs central office administrators’ decisions and why? What role does research play?

After reading a number of reports on this topic, Honig and Coburn’s (2007) meta-analysis of 151 empirical research studies covering the topic of central office decision-making thoroughly addresses these questions.[2] Honig and Coburn generally characterize administrators’ use of evidence[3] in decision-making into two categories:

1) Formal evidence: student data, testimony of experts, and social science research.

2) Informal evidence: experience of practitioners, community member feedback.

Honig and Coburn describe a set of factors that shape central office use of evidence:

1) Features of evidence itself (accessible, available);

2) Individual or collective working knowledge;

3) Social capital within and beyond the central office;

4) District central office organization;

5) Institutional norms within district central offices;

6) Political dynamics (for example superintendent turning over);

7) Federal, state, and local education policies.

In terms of the role research plays in administrator’s decision-making, Honig and Coburn discuss how evidence (and specifically research) are often unavailable, un-accessible, ambiguous, and un-credible to central office administrators:

1) Administrators have trouble finding research related to pressing issues;

2) Research syntheses are not available;

3) Up-to-date-studies are not public or available in mainstream databases;

4) The rapid pace of central office decision-making and slow release of research;

5) Findings might be left up for interpretation by administrators;

6) Some types of research are seen as more credible than others.

These research findings highlight the complexity of decision-making at the central office. Research has to compete with a many different types of evidence, most of which are more readily available, accessible, and straightforward. No wonder why central office administrators overlook research during the decision-making process. With pressure stemming from the state and federal requirements for funding, there needs to be some new process and structure that can make research more amenable to being considered during the central office decision-making process.

---

[1] For example, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act calls for the use of “scientifically based research” as the foundation for many education programs and for classroom instruction.

[2] Honig, M.I., and Coburn, C. (2008) “Evidence-Based Decision Making in School District Central Offices: Toward a Policy and Research Agenda.” Educational Policy; 22; p. 578-608. Some of the other works read on the same topic, but not referenced in this blog include: Kochanek, J.R. and Clifford, M. (2010) “Refining a Theory of Knowledge Diffusion Among District Administrators.” Presented at American Educational Research Association annual conference in New Orleans; Roderick, M. Easton, J., Sebring, P.B. (February 2009). The Consortium on Chicago School Research: A New Model for the Role of Research in Supporting Urban School Reform. The Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute; Smith, M.S. and Smith, M.L., (2009) “Research in the Policy Process” in Handbook of Education Policy Research, ed. Gary Sykes, Barbara L. Schneider, and David N. Plank (Washington, DC: Routledge Press), p. 372-398.

[3] Note – Honig and Coburn define evidence as “decision-making, data-based, data-driven, data management, knowledge utilization, policy making, research, research based, evidence, evidence-based, and working knowledge” (p.583).