During the last decade we observed a growing, politically motivated trend to decentralize and regionalize the German education system. In the course of these developments, especially in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, a new local player, the so called Local Education Office (LEO), has gained in importance in almost all districts. In the literature this player is considered as a “boundary spanner” (cf. Honig, 2006) and intermediary local actor between various regional, educational institutions. The central role, politicians and scientists from the field of education, attribute to the LEOsis that of a support system for the coordination of educational activities and district-wide reforms (Emmerich, 2010). In line with this argument, the initial results of a state-wide survey among employees of the LEOs, conducted in the year 2011, indicate that the most important domain of LEOsis the management of transitions within the educational system (i.e. transition from kindergarten to primary school, transition from primary to secondary school, transition from school to work) (Manitius & Berkemeyer, 2011). In this context, according to the literature, LEOs should initiate and coordinate school-to-school networks as well as networks between schools and further relevant educational partners in order to increase permeability between different educational institutions. Even though the importance of the LEOs in supporting the development of educational networks is stressed in the literature, up to now there are only a few theory-based descriptions in the German scientific educational discourse conceptualizing to what extent activities of the LEOs can be considered to provide a support system (Järvinen, Otto & Berkemeyer, 2011).

     In this paper, we address this research gap and aim at giving a first data-based description of the LEOs´ activities in terms of supporting the development of school-to-school networks in the field of the transition from primary to secondary school. In particular, we explore the following research questions:

1. Which activities of the LEOs could be classified as supportive for the development of school-to-school networks?
2. How do schools perceive the LEOs` support services in terms of relevance for their networking activities?

    Developing this framework, we refer to existing theory-based classifications of potential support services for school improvement processes by external actors such as trainers, consultants, supervisors, central office administrators etc. (Berkemeyer, 2011; Fussangel, Rürup & Gräsel, 2010; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Jäger, 2004). We then relate them to findings from the educational self-determination theory (Prenzel et al. 2000; Deci & Ryan, 1993). These bodies of literature provide a provisional, theoretical framework to distinguish essential dimensions of supporting the development of school-to-school networks by the LEOs.

Berkemeyer, N. (2011). Unterstützungssysteme der Schulentwicklung - zwischen Konkurrenz, Kooperation und Kontrolle. In H. Altrichter & C. Helm (Eds.), Akteure & Instrumente der Schulentwicklung (pp. 115–128). Zürich: Schneider Hohengehren; Pestalozzianum. Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (Eds.). (1989). Angewandte Inhaltsanalyse in empirischer Pädagogik und Psychologie: 41 Tagung : Papers. Münster: Waxmann. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 39(2), 223–239. Emmerich, M. (2010). Regionalisierung und Schulentwicklung: Bildungsregionen als Modernisierungsansätze im Bildungssektor. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Educational Governance: Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. 355–375). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Fussangel, K., Rürup, M., & Gräsel, C. (2010). Lehrerfortbildung als Unterstützungssystem. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Educational Governance: Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. 327–354). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Honig, M. (2006). Street-Level Bureaucracy Revisited: Frontline District Central-Office Administrators as Boundary Spanners in Education Policy Implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383. Jäger, M. (2004). Transfer in Schulentwicklungsprojekten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Järvinen, H., Otto, J., & Berkemeyer, N. (2011). Neue Wege kommunaler Schulentwicklung. In H. Buchen, L. Horster, & H.-G. Rolff (Eds.), Schulleitung und Schulentwicklung. Erfahrungen - Konzepte - Strategien. Grundwerk. Loseblattausgabe. Raabe Verlag. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf Manitius, V., & Berkemeyer, N. (2011). Regionale Bildungsbüros - ein neuer Akteur der Schulentwicklung. In F. Dietrich, M. Heinrich, & N. Thieme (Eds.), Neue Steuerung - alte Ungleichheiten? Steuerung und Entwicklung im Bildungssystem (pp. 53–64). Münster: Waxmann. Prenzel, M., Drechsel B., Kliewe A., Kramer K., & Röber N. (2000). Lernmotivation in der Aus- und Weiterbildung: Merkmale und Bedingungen. In C. Harteis & H. Heid (Eds.), Kompendium Weiterbildung. Aspekte und Perspektiven betrieblicher Personal- und Organisationsentwicklung (pp. 163–173). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.