The Role of the Central Office

In his State of Education Address in 1987, Secretary of Education William Bennett attached the nickname "the blob" to administrators and the administrative system in public schools. The blob, he argued, is made up of people in the education system who work outside the classroom, soaking up resources and resisting reform without contributing to student achievement. In 1999, he reiterated his point in a book he coauthored. In the Educated Child, Bennett explained that the "B.L.O.B." referred to the "Bloated Education Bureaucracy" and included superintendents, district office staff, and local school board members.



Certainly one can find examples of local school district bureaucracies that stand in the way of efforts to improve schooling. But does this characterization apply to administration in general? Is district leadership really unrelated to student learning (at best) or detrimental to student learning (at worst)?



These were precisely the types of questions Marzano and Waters set out to answer in their book District Leadership that Works (2009). These researchers conducted a meta-analysis (synthesis of studies) to determine if there is a correlation between district-level leadership and average academic student achievement in a school district. Fourteen studies met the requirements for inclusion in their meta analysis. These fourteen studies included data from 1,210 school districts.



The computed correlation found was .24 and was statistically significant at the .05 level. To interpret this correlation, consider an average superintendent (50th percentile in terms of leadership skills). Also assume that this superintendent is leading a district where the average student achievement is also at the 50th percentile. Now, assume that the superintendent improves his or leadership abilities by one standard deviation (in this case, rising to the 84th percentile of district leaders). Given the correlation between district leadership and student achievement of .24, we would predict the average student achievement in the district would increase by 9.5% points. In other words, average student achievement in the district would rise to the 59.5th percentile.



These findings stand in sharp contrast to the notion that district administration is a part of an amorphous blob that soaks up valuable resoureces without adding value to a district's effectiveness. On the contrary, these findings suggest that when district leaders are carrying out their leadership responsibilities effectively, student achievement across the district is positively affected. So what specific leadership behaviors are associated with student achievement?



In response to this question, Marzano and Waters (2009) found five district-level leadership responsibilities with a statisticallys significant correlation with average student academic achievement. These responsibilities are:

1) Including central office staff, building-level administrators, board members and other relevant stakeholders in establishing nonnegotiable goals for the district.

2) Ensuring that the goal-setting process results in nonnegotiable goals (goals that all staff members must act on) in at least two areas: (a) student achievement (b) classroom instruction.

3) Creating board alignment with and support for the district's goals.

4) Monitoring progress towards the established achievement and instruction goals.

5) Allocating the necessary resources (time, money, personnel and materials) to accomplish the district's goals.



Two other findings from their study are worth noting. First, the relationship between the schools and central office should be based on defined autonomy. In other words, the central office administration expects building principals to lead within the boundaries defined by the district goals. Second, the longevity of the superintendent has a positive effect on the average academic achievement of students in the district. This is an alarming conclusion when one considers the frequency of leadership changes in school districts throughout New Jersey.



Certainly this study does not identify all of the roles and responsibilities of central office administration. However, it does provide perspective on the impact leadership can have as well as guidance for what responsibilities to emphasize as priorities.



On a separate note, during the holiday season more than ever, my thoughts turn gratefully to those who have made our progress possible. In this spirit, I say, simply but sincerely, thank you and best wishes for the holiday season and a Happy New Year!