Instructional Policy Making and Social Capital: Factors in District Research and Evidence Acquisition

• In Event: Roundtable Session 90
  In Roundtable Session: Social Networks and the Use of Research by Schools, Districts, and State Education Agencies

Abstract

Objectives
Improving learning for all students is at the forefront of public policy interest in schools and schooling. Attaining student learning gains depends on developing and maintaining local school conditions for improving student learning (Gamoran et al., 2003; Newmann, 1996). By virtue of their position, district-level leaders— include teachers, administrators, and others engaged in making district-wide decisions—influence student achievement and teaching quality through local policy design and acquisition of human, information, and financial resources (Gamoran et al., 2003; Halverson, 2004; Leithwood, Mascall, & Strauss, 2008; Spillane & Diamond, 2007). District leaders make determinations about whether a given policy is ignored, selectively applied, or administered outright (Firestone, 1989) and determine what resources are required to ensure personnel have capacity to enact policies (McLaughlin, 1990).
While district-level policies can support instructional and school improvement, less is known about district-level policymaking processes, or how district capacity for policymaking varies within or across school districts. National organizations and local constituents expect district-level policies to be well-reasoned and informed by research or other evidence, yet educators infrequently access or use research for policymaking (Burkhardt & Schonfeld, 2003). Our research closely examines the practice of district-level policymaking by asking: How does the structure and strength of school district relationships influence acquisition of research and other evidence?

Data Sources
The study answers the research question by observing and surveying district-level formal and informal leaders in the process of developing policy. We develop four case studies of districts’ acquisition of research and other evidence. Each case study follows two common, but different, instructional policy decisions occurring at the district level at the same time: adoption of Common Core Standards in mathematics and instructional technology purchases. We use district-level policy decision points to identify key participants in the process within the district organization.
Each case study is developed through extensive observation of policy-making processes, and social network analysis interviews. In total 37 meetings were observed and 55 interviews conducted with policymakers and suppliers of research and other evidence. Observations of policymaking meetings and central administrator job activities provided access to the people, tasks, and evidence accessed during district-level policymaking. Observations and interviews provided a basis for social network analysis and tasks analysis.

Results
For the districts and policymaking efforts that we observed, district-level policy-making appears to be a distributed process, involving administrators, teachers and consultants from within and beyond the school district. While the policymaking process involved many people, research evidence was infrequently acquired or applied to the process. Other evidence, such as personal, collegial, and organizational experiences, were more commonly invoked and influenced policy content and policymaking process. When research was acquired, district-level administrators tended to broker social relationships to bring the right information to the policymaking table by leveraging social, financial, and political resources, and they accessed information accumulated by these colleagues to determine courses of action. District central offices that acquired more research had more trusted relationships with formal, external consultants or intermediary organizations, or with actors engaged in regional networks of position-alike colleagues.

Authors

• Julie R. Kochanek, Education Development Center, Inc.

• Matthew A. Clifford, American Institutes for Research

• Coby Meyers, American Institutes for Research

• Melissa Brown-Sims, Learning Point Associates

• Ellen J. Behrstock-Sherratt, American Institutes for Research