Culturally Responsive Central Office Leaders: Understanding Culturally Responsive Central Office Leaders' Best Practices

School leaders represent key players in improving teaching and learning in schools (Fullan, 2014; Harvey & Holland, 2013; Hattie et al., 2015). Considering who might support the school leader, scholars recognize that central office leaders create the working conditions that enable or restrict school leaders from enacting school improvement (Bottoms & Fry, 2009). Central office leaders have a positive, indirect influence on student learning (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Scholars report that effective central office leaders conduct a variety of key best practices that support school improvement efforts (Grove, 2002; Honig, 2012; Honig et al., 2010; Mattheis, 2017; Roegman, 2020; Stosich, 2020; Wong et al., 2020). However, an increasingly diverse student body (NCES, 2020) paired with a relatively homogenous leader population (Aceves & Orosco, 2014; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Perrone, 2022) necessitates the urgent prioritization towards leaders equipping themselves with culturally responsive practices to honor students’ diverse cultures and identities in schools (Perrone, 2022; Tanase, 2020). Culturally responsive leaders prioritize developing culturally responsive teachers and fostering culturally responsive learning environments (Khalifa et al., 2016). Through a synthesis of the literature, the Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) Framework determined four latent leadership themes, namely critical self-reflection, developing culturally responsive teachers, promoting a culturally responsive climate and culture, and engaging in positive community relations (Khalifa et al., 2016). Though scholars established the importance of Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) (Khalifa et al., 2016), there is limited research on the role of culturally responsive, instructionally focused central office leaders (Aguayo et al., 2023; Marshall & Khalifa, 2018). Scholars show interest in exploring superintendents’ impact on division-wide equity and culturally responsive efforts (Kruse et al., 2018; Maxwell et al., 2013; Whitt et al., 2015), yet few scholars have explored the impact of instructionally focused central office leaders, outside of the division’s top leadership team, on equity and culturally responsive efforts (Aguayo et al., 2023). The line of logic suggests that central office leaders create the conditions that enable school leaders to improve teaching and learning (Bottoms & Fry, 2009), therefore, it is crucial to understand how culturally responsive, instructionally focused central office leaders engage in leadership best practices to ensure equitable opportunities and outcomes across diverse student groups. Because of this gap of understanding around the importance of instructionally focused central office leaders, this study examined how instructionally focused, culturally responsive central office leaders implement best practices. To study this gap, the conceptual framework focused on the interaction between the literature on the best practices of central office leadership (Grove, 2002; Honig, 2012; Honig et al., 2010; Mattheis, 2017; Roegman, 2020; Stosich, 2020; Wong et al., 2020) and culturally responsive leadership (Khalifa et al., 2016). In support of this, the study’s research questions focused on how central office leaders defined effective central office leadership and what best practices culturally responsive central office leaders used, focused on understanding what joint work, coaching and consulting, networking schools, and policy advocacy looked like for culturally responsive central office leaders. The design of the study extended from these questions and this conceptual framework, implementing a case study at a suburban division, based upon semi-structured interviews with three central office leaders, as well as documents that supported the stories shared during interviews. This study’s data analysis utilized the conceptual framework and research questions to develop findings in the areas of the best practices of central office leadership and culturally responsive leadership. Major themes from the study suggest that critical self-reflection involves central office leaders reflecting on their personal experiences with cultural unresponsiveness/non-responsiveness to spur their motivation towards culturally responsive leadership, culturally responsive instructional and transformational leadership involves collaborative trust, a culturally responsive climate and culture involves central office leaders engaging in critical conversations with school leaders and staff to support the unlearning of harmful practices in schools, and culturally responsive community advocacy and engagement involves the prioritization of democratic decision-making. This study recommends four actions for division leaders, a term that encompasses both instructionally focused central office leaders and senior-level division leaders: 1. Cultivate a courageous, safe climate and culture for central office leaders to critically self-reflect on culturally unresponsive/non-responsive experiences 2. Actively build structures that disestablish inter-departmental central office silos and silos between central office and schools to establish multi-directional, culturally responsive trust 3. Create and use clear coaching protocols so central office leaders can initiate culturally responsive critical conversations with school leaders and staff to shift mindsets around culturally unresponsive/non-responsive practices 4. Promote central office leaders’ ability to empathetically understand the end-user experiences of school leaders, staff, students, families, community partners, etc.