Purpose: Intermittent attention to the district as the unit of study has left a void in our understanding of the complexities associated with the ability of district-level leaders to contribute to successful, systemic educational reform. In this article, the authors address this void by providing a narrative synthesis of previous findings, proposing a theory of districts as institutional actors in systemic reform with the goal being to increase achievement and advance equity, and suggesting areas of future research that extend our understanding of districts as institutional actors in educational reform and build our knowledge of reform that improves achievement and advances equity. Proposed Conceptual Argument: The four roles of districts evident in research to date are (a) providing instructional leadership, (b) reorienting the organization, (c) establishing policy coherence, and (d) maintaining an equity focus. These four roles, which are interdependent, variably coupled, and coevolving through a nonlinear process, serve as a foundation for the authors' proposed framework of districts as institutional actors in improving achievement and advancing equity. Implications for Research and Practice: The discontinuous and limited nature of previous research has contributed to the lack of theoretical advancement with regard to a research-based understanding of district reform and thus to a lack of research-based guidance for district leaders to follow to create systemically districts that improve achievement and advance educational equity for all children. The framework presented here contributes toward the resolution of these issues by developing an intentional, coherent, and integrated framework of districts as institutional actors in reform.

No abstract

Purpose: In this article, the authors highlight three constraints—structural time crisis (Schor, 1991) ideal worker norms (Williams, 2000), and labor and occupational queues (Reskin & Roos, 1990; Strober, 1992)—on the decisions and choices of women seeking to advance to and hold positions in the superintendency. Proposed Conceptual Argument: The authors contribute to and extend the extant body of work by integrating a conceptual framework that emerges from feminist economics theory and feminist organizational theory. The authors use this framework to analyze the current access and representation of women in the superintendency. Conclusions: What exists today is an institutionalized, systemic pattern in the market that is robust and resistant to change. However, this discussion contributes to our understanding of women’s experiences in advancing to administrative positions generally, and the superintendency particularly, and advances the way we organize administration and administrative work to be more representative of women and eliminate constraints on women’s choices.

This study uses data from the Initiative for Systemic Program Improvement through Research in Educational Leadership ( INSPIRE) Preparation Program Features Survey to respond to national critiques of university-based principal preparation programs. The findings provide insight into the program content and relevancy, personnel, and content delivery of 97 principal preparation programs affiliated with the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). We found that UCEA institutions align their curriculum and assessment designs to national standards, actively engage in formalized partnerships with districts, engage their candidates in a variety of assessment practices for formative and summative purposes, and work to offer coursework that bridges classroom assignments to field-based experiences.

No abstract