What explains variation in district support to schools? The role of context, leadership and institutional logics.

• In Event: Leading from the middle: new evidence about the role of the middle tier of education systems to improve foundational learning outcomes

Proposal

District education offices are the crucial link between classroom-level teaching and learning and the broader education system. While there is a long history of research on the middle tier’s role in education in high-income settings (Ford et al., 2020), not enough is known about how district offices and their staff operate in low- and middle-income countries (Asim et al., 2023). There is burgeoning interest in how middle tier actors in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) can support policy implementation and improve teaching and learning in schools (Asim et al., 2024; Bell, 2024; Boakye-Yiadom et al., 2023; De Grauwe & Lugaz, 2007; Levy et al., 2018; Tournier et al., 2023; Walter, 2018). Recent studies shed light on district work and often find evidence of wide variation in district office practice and effectiveness, even in systems with centralized curriculum, education policies and funding. These findings raise the question: how and why do district education offices vary in their practices and support to schools in low- and middle-income countries? As district offices manage schools and teachers, understanding variation in district practice provides insight on how education policy is ‘made’ on the front lines of policy delivery (Brodkin, 2012; Klemsdal et al., 2022; Lipsky, 2010; Møller & Grøn, 2023). Drawing on a mixed methods study of three district education directorates in Ghana, this paper identifies and explores how and why district education offices differ in their management and instructional support to schools.

Utilizing nationally-representative survey data on district management practices and 75 semi-structured sub-national interviews conducted over two years, it draws on research from district leadership, street-level bureaucracy theory and an institutional logic framework to highlight how district offices are ‘caught in the middle’ between top-down demands from the bureaucracy and political actors and bottom-up expectations from schools and communities (Bell, 2024). This paper proposes a new conceptual framework to understand how context, discretion and leadership interact with competing institutional logics to shape district management and instructional support practices and drive variation. It points to how district-specific contexts enhanced some district management and school support practices, and constrained others. Moreover, the case studies reveal that even in a de facto centralized education system such as Ghana, district leaders exercised discretion. They navigated competing expectations differently, adopting practices that improved or constrained the efficiency and effectiveness of support to teaching and learning. Overall, the study views district variation in practice less as a deviation from national policy, and more a necessary, adaptive response by district staff as street-level managers to local context and competing expectations and stakeholders (Klemsdal et al., 2022; Rahman et al., 2024). It contributes to research and policy on how the middle tier in LMICs can play a stronger instructional leadership and support role with schools. Insights from this research also contribute to improved policy design and implementation, as well as capacity building for district offices as leaders in supporting teaching and learning in schools.

Author

• Sheena Bell, O.I.S.E. University of Toronto