Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Trust and School Life pp 313–334Cite as

Trust in Districts: The Role of Relationships in Policymaking for School Improvement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Research has shown that school improvement is facilitated by trust. District central offices, however, often influence the capacity of schools to enact improvement efforts through instructional policy development. This chapter discusses the role of trust in district policymaking. Specifically, it argues that trust is an important determinant of what information is considered and used in policy-making. We develop theory on the role of trust at the district level by constructing four embedded case studies of instructional policymaking processes in medium-sized school districts. Within-case and cross-case analyses were conducted to develop a grounded theory on stakeholder engagement and influence. We found relational trust to be an influential factor governing the types of individuals and information entering into policy discussions, and that upper-level district administrators served as gatekeepers for people and information entering the policymaking process. District policymakers repeatedly turned to individuals with whom they had established associations or who had strong reputations as innovators or content experts for input on policies and policy implementation. The district administrators specifically sought input from recognized experts with credentials as successful administrators or particular content expertise. They also discussed perceptions of respect and personal regard as important factors in their choice of informants. Implications of the findings for state policy implementation strategies in local control states, the work of district superintendents, and researchers are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Response to Intervention (RTI) is an approach to teaching and instructional management that entails frequent progress monitoring and early intervention into learning concerns by applying research-based instructional approaches. RTI emphasizes individualization of instruction for students.

References

  • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–115. (2009). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/content-detail.html. Accessed 12 Feb 2012.

  • Asen, R., Gurke, D., Solomon, R., Conners, P., & Gumm, E. (2011). “The research says”: Definitions and uses of a key policy terms in federal law and local school board deliberations. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 195–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asen, R., Gurke, D., Solomon, P., & Gumm, E. (2012). Research evidence and school board deliberations: Lessons from three Wisconsin school districts. Educational Policy, 16, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (1996). Social trust: A moral resource for school improvement. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Gomez, L. (2008). Ruminations on reinventing an R & D capacity for educational improvement. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), The future of educational entrepreneurship: Possibilities of school reform (pp. 181–206). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2010a). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Stanford, CA, essay. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/spotlight/webinar-bryk-gomez-building-networked-improvement-communities-in-education.

  • Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010b). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, H., & Schonfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (Eds.). (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., Honig, M., & Stein, M. K. (2008). What is the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In L. Gomez, J. Bransford, & D. Lam (Eds.), Research and practice: The state of the field. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teacher’s College Record, 111, 1115–1161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S 95–S120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on a Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP). (2003). Washington, D.C.: Strategic Education Research Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, A. J., & Chrispeels, J. (2008). A question of trust: Predictors of adaptive and technical leadership. Leadership and Policy in the Schools, 71(1), 30–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, B. H. (2003). Social networks: The value of variety. Contexts, 2(1), 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fusarelli, L. (2008). Flying (partially) blind: School leaders’ use of research in decision-making. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 365–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennen, T., Bodilly, S., Galegher, J., & Kerr, K. (2004). Expanding the reach of education reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions. Santa Monica: RAND. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG248.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2009.

  • Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multi-level examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S.(1973). The strength of work ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 1,360–1,380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, R. (2004). Accessing, documenting and communicating practical wisdom: The phronesis of school leadership practices. American Journal of Education, 111(1), 90–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, R., Grigg J., Pritchett, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data driven instructional systems in schools. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 159–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A Knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M. I. (2004). District central office-community partnerships: From contracts to collaboration to control. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 59–90). Greenwich: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: District central office administrators as boundary spanners in complex policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M. I., & Coburn, C. E. (2007). Evidence-based decision-making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M., & Venkateswaran, N. (2012). School central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust in colleagues: Linking the principal with school effectiveness. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(1): 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikemoto, G., & Marsh, J. (2007). Cutting through the ‘data-driven’ mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. Evidence and Decision Making: Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 105–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenmeyer, C., & Lawrenz, F. (2006). National science foundation perspectives on the nature of STEM program evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 109, 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. M. (1982). Working knowledge. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Working knowledge and other essays (pp. 1–28). Cambridge: Huron Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, K., Marsh, J., Ikemoto, G., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochanek, J. R. (2005). Building trust for better schools: Research-based practices. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagemann, E. (2002). Usable knowledge in education research. New York: Spencer Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massell, D. (2001). The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: State and local strategies and their effects. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. One hundredth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 148–169). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massell, D., & Goertz, M. E. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43–60). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M. S. (2004). President’s comments: The continuing relevance of Lyle Spencer’s vision. The Spen-cer Foundation 2003–2004 Annual Report. Chicago: The Spencer Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Padilla, C., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Statewide longitudinal data systems grant program. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/.

  • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html. Accessed 24 Sept 2009.

  • Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roderick, M., Easton, J., & Sebring, P. (2009). The Consortium on Chicago School Research: A New model for the role of research in urban school reform. Chicago: CCSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebring, P. B, Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2006). The essential supports for school improvement. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherratt, E., & Miller, S. (2012). The bridge between researchers and teachers: The path to innovation in the classroom. Chicago: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. (2002). Evidence-based educational policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Resaercher, 31(7), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J., & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, S. (2004). Creating a culture of data use for continuous improvement: A case study of an Edison Project school. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(3), 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarter, C. J., Bliss, J. R., & Hoy, W. K. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(3), 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarter, C. J., Sabo, D., & Hoy, W. K. (1995). Middle school climate, faculty trust, and effectiveness: A path analysis. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29(1), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Institute of Education Sciences Education Research Grants. Washington, D.C.: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, diffusion, utilization, 1(3), 381–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creting a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 239–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Education Development Center, Inc., 43 Foundry Avenue, 02453, Waltham, MA, USA

    Julie Reed Kochanek

  2. American Institutes for Research, 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1231, 60606, Chicago, IL, USA

    Matthew Clifford

Authors
  1. Julie Reed Kochanek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Clifford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Reed Kochanek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Dimitri Van Maele

  2. University of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

    Patrick B. Forsyth

  3. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Mieke Van Houtte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kochanek, J., Clifford, M. (2014). Trust in Districts: The Role of Relationships in Policymaking for School Improvement. In: Van Maele, D., Forsyth, P., Van Houtte, M. (eds) Trust and School Life. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8014-8_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation