Institutional vs. Technical Environments:

A Framework for Analysis of Evolving Charter School

OrganizationsLuis A. HuertaTeachers College, Columbia University

Andy ZuckermanTeachers College, Columbia University

Research Objectives

This research framework focuses on whether the decentralized context in which charter schools operate influences the emergence of innovations that challenge the institutionalized definitions of schooling and over time can resist the isomorphic pressures to adopt the institutional rituals, norms, and rules of the wider institutional environment (Meyer & Rowan, 1977, 1978; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).

Initial Empirical Questions:

• Does the devolution of public authority to local-level actors under a decentralized school reform model, result in the emergence of new organizational structures and new teaching and learning strategies?

• Can charter schools operating under a decentralized policy context, sustain change and innovation within the wider institutional environment and gain the necessary legitimacy to insure organizational survival?

The Evolution of Charter Schools Charter schools have evolved as a direct response to

both the bureaucratic controls that govern public schools in the United States and to an increasing local demand for greater community control of schools.

Proponents claim that by lifting bureaucratic controls over schools, charter schools will act as laboratories for innovation, leading to the creation of local accountability systems, new teaching and learning methodologies, and efficient school models that will allow schools to compete in a local education market (Finn, Manno, & Vanourek, 2000; Finn, Bierlein & Manno, 1997; Nathan, 1996; Kolderie, 1990).

Charter schools have grown to nearly 4,000 schools serving one million students in 40 states, in the last 15 years.

Institutional Theory as an Analytical Tool

Institutional theory defines how bureaucratic oversight in schools has historically led to a “one size fits all” approach of employing rational accountability measures, resulting in “schooling rules” that have attempted to coordinate layers of the school organization (Meyer & Rowan, 1978). This holds relevance for how states currently attempt to hold schools accountable and essentially require that charter schools look more like traditional schools (Huerta, 2002).

Institutional Theory as an Analytical Tool (cont.) The ritual classifications that have resulted from

the institutionalization of bureaucratic controls are the very rituals which charter school proponents claim have standardized the education process and stifled innovation in public schools.

Yet, as charter schools evolve, not only are they challenging the tenets of the institutional environment which they are part of, but their evolution and the development of new alternative forms of schooling is challenged by the rules, norms, and rituals of the more established and robust institutional environment that defines legitimate forms of schooling.

Institutional Theory as an Analytical Tool (cont.) Looking at decentralized school policy through the

lens of institutional theory allows us to identify whether the decentralized conditions under which charter schools operate can influence changes within the wider institutional environment. Principally, it is necessary to focus on how decentralization might influence institutional shifts that could accommodate new innovations created by the charter school movement, or whether the existing norms, rules and expectations of the institutional environment lead decentralized schools to adopt the already accepted normative definitions of effectiveness that are linked to bureaucratic and rule-based compliance.

Charter School Research Charter school research, however, is not conclusive in determining

the extent to which the day-to-day experiences of charters support the assumptions inherent in the decentralized theory of action.

Only recently have substantive research efforts begun to tackle the important empirical issues that charter schools are raising, including:

Charter school effectiveness and achievement gains realized by students in comparison to traditional school students (Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L. and Rothstein, R.,, 2005; Hoxby, 2004; AFT, 2004; Miron et al, 2002).

The creation of a competitive education market and the “ripple effects” felt by traditional public and private schools (Henig & McDonald, 2002; Teske et al, 2001; Arsen, Plank, & Sykes, 1999).

The role of parents and community in developing and sustaining charter schools (Rofes & Stulberg, 2004; Schneider & Buckley, 2003; Yancey, 2000; Fuller, 2000).

Creating and sustaining innovations in market-driven school reform (Lubienski, 2003).

Charter School Theories of ActionDifferent theories of action linked to the decentralized

charter school reform model have resulted in diverse forms of schooling, including:

Local Control: diffuse forms of leadership and school organizations that have evolved in the form of community based schools

Market Forces: external management of schools that are tightly aligned with market-based principals and are promoted by EMO run charters

Management Re-Centralization: newly emerging CMO charters that have created hybrid management structures that both mimic existing institutional governance structures and adopt centralized efficiencies as tools to scale-up more technically oriented forms of schooling.

Conceptual Frame for Analysis: Institutional v. Technical Environments The following sub-themes derived from RQ2, drive the

conceptual frame… Does local accountability allow charter schools to be

more attuned to their technical environment as opposed to the demands of the wider institutional environment?

Do charter schools increase their prospects of organizational survival by organizing around the tasks of technical production, as opposed to responding to the institutionalized rituals that define legitimate schooling in the institutional environment?

Institutional v. Technical Environments An institutional theory perspective assumes

that charter schools, like all public schools, are still operating within a highly institutionalized environment.

The institutional environment identifies legitimate forms of schooling via a school’s conformity to environmental conditions that define effectiveness through standardization and certification procedures,rather than measurable outcomes (Meyer & Rowan, 1978)

Institutional v. Technical Environments Institutional theory predicts that "organizations

fail when they deviate from the prescriptions of institutionalized myths: quite apart from technical efficiency, organizations which innovate in important structural ways bar considerable costs in legitimacy" (Meyer & Rowan, 1977, p.353).

An organization that adopts efficiency criteria and rejects conformity to institutionalized rules, undermines “ceremonial conformity and sacrifices its support and legitimacy” (Powell and DiMaggio,1991,p.41).

Institutional v. Technical Environments: The Competing Environments of Charter Schools

BUREAUCRATIC FRAME

(Institutional Environment - Traditional Schools)

DECENTRALIZED FRAME

(Technical Environment - Charter Schools)

Organizational Environment: Schools are responsive to bureaucratic demands and are attuned to a well defined institutional environment, which results in tighter coordination of ritual classifications and less organizational ambiguity (Scott, 1998; Meyer & Rowan, 1983; Meyer, Scott, & Strang, 1987).

Organizational Environment: Schools operate in a decentralized context and are more attuned to their technical environment, resulting in tighter control of technical activities and less organizational differentiation (Meyer & Rowan, 1983; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).

Organizational Boundaries: Schools are open systems and are closely linked to the institutionalized definitions of production. Open systems rely on ceremony, usually in the form of certification and standardization in order to decouple their technical core from their formal structure (Meyer & Rowan, 1978; 1983).

Organizational Boundaries: Schools operate as closed systems and are structured around the technical core. A closed system decouples its technical work from "environmental conditions" which could disrupt production, resulting in a tighter link between goals of the organization and the technical core (Meyer & Rowan, 1983).

Organizational Structure: Schools are subject to institutionalized rules and norms, and are organized around a set of ritual classifications (usually bureaucratically defined) which already define legitimate forms of schooling (Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Meyer, Scott, Strang, & Creighton, 1988).

Organizational Structure:Schools that are free from regulatory controls and subject to locally defined demands for schooling, will create innovative organizational structures, teaching and learning methodologies, and accountability measures.

Accountability: Effectiveness is measured by the ability of a school organization to respond and conform to rule-based bureaucratic definitions of efficiency. “Schools fail according to their conformity to institutionalized rules, rather then by effectiveness of their technical performance” (Meyer, Scott & Deal, 1983, p.56).

Accountability: Effectiveness is measured by meeting explicit outcome goals set by local actors, as opposed to bureaucratic conformity and rule-based accountability advanced by the institutional environment (Meyer, Scott & Deal, 1983).

Institutional v. Technical EnvironmentsOrganizational Environments BUREAUCRATIC FRAME

(Institutional Environment - Traditional Schools)

DECENTRALIZED FRAME(Technical Environment -

Charter Schools)

Organizational Environment: Schools are responsive to bureaucratic demands and are attuned to a well defined institutional environment, which results in tighter coordination of ritual classifications and less organizational ambiguity (Scott, 1998; Meyer & Rowan, 1983; Meyer, Scott, & Strang, 1987).

Organizational Environment:Schools operate in a decentralized context and are more attuned to their technical environment, resulting in tighter control of technical activities and less organizational differentiation (Meyer & Rowan, 1983; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).

Institutional v. Technical EnvironmentsOrganizational Boundaries BUREAUCRATIC FRAME

(Institutional Environment - Traditional Schools)

DECENTRALIZED FRAME(Technical Environment -

Charter Schools)

Organizational Boundaries: Schools are open systems and are closely linked to the institutionalized definitions of production. Open systems rely on ceremony, usually in the form of certification and standardization in order to decouple their technical core from their formal structure (Meyer & Rowan, 1978; 1983).

Organizational Boundaries: Schools operate as closed systems and are structured around the technical core. A closed system decouples its technical work from "environmental conditions" which could disrupt production, resulting in a tighter link between goals of the organization and the technical core (Meyer & Rowan, 1983).

Institutional v. Technical EnvironmentsOrganizational Structure

BUREAUCRATIC FRAME(Institutional Environment

- Traditional Schools)

DECENTRALIZED FRAME(Technical Environment -

Charter Schools)

Organizational Structure: Schools are subject to institutionalized rules and norms, and are organized around a set of ritual classifications (usually bureaucratically defined) which already define legitimate forms of schooling (Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Meyer, Scott, Strang, & Creighton, 1988).

Organizational Structure: Schools that are free from regulatory controls and subject to locally defined demands for schooling, will create innovative organizational structures, teaching and learning methodologies, and accountability measures.

Institutional v. Technical Environments Accountability and Measuring Effectiveness

BUREAUCRATIC FRAME(Institutional Environment

- Traditional Schools)

DECENTRALIZED FRAME(Technical Environment -

Charter Schools)

Accountability: Effectiveness is measured by the ability of a school organization to respond and conform to rule-based bureaucratic definitions of efficiency. “Schools fail according to their conformity to institutionalized rules, rather then by effectiveness of their technical performance” (Meyer, Scott & Deal, 1983, p.56).

Accountability: Effectiveness is measured by meeting explicit outcome goals set by local actors, as opposed to bureaucratic conformity and rule-based accountability advanced by the institutional environment (Meyer, Scott & Deal, 1983).

Institutional v. Technical Environments Micro-institutional perspective

Institutional theory indicates that macro-level conditions in the wider environment force all schools to operate according to the definitions of effective schooling advanced by the institutional environment. This implies that all charter or traditional schools that attempt to innovate may be forced to become isomorphic with institutional expectations and scripts of the environment at the expense of advancing and sustaining their innovations. Yet research shows that the challenges in sustaining innovations within a decentralized policy context are highly contextualized and unique to the specific conditions at the micro-level of the organization.

Institutional v. Technical Environments Micro-institutional perspective (cont)

The micro-institutionalist perspective challenges the assumptions of macro-level institutional research and insists that new-institutionalist thought has focused too heavily on the macro-level analysis that advances taken for granted relationships between an organization and its external environment (Zucker, 1991).

Little is known about the process of institutionalization from

the micro-level of the organization.

Institutional v. Technical Environments Micro-institutional perspective (cont)

The normative frame constructed by macro-institutionalism provides significant explanatory and predictive value that identifies the content within the institutional environment which leads to isomorphism. However, micro-organizational analysis complements the macro-organizational perspectives and provides insight into the nuances of how organizations develop and the agency that actors within organizations

posses in navigating institutional pressures.

Institutional v. Technical Environments Challenges for New Research

While it is clear that charter school reform has yet to yield large numbers of new, different, and better public schools, what remains less clear is how the ones that are succeeding in “breaking the mold” have done so, and how they are building new institutions that may in turn pressure change in the environment.

An important theme for future research to investigate involves deciphering both the micro- and macro-environmental conditions that trigger isomorphism in order to understand how charter school organizations may counter the forces of isomorphism.

New research must also begin to look at how charter schools are reacting to changes in their institutional environment, including the wider charter school movement, the changing discourse of regulatory schemes at the state-level, and the local conditions which either foster or reject the development of new organizational forms.

Institutional v. Technical Environments Challenges for New Research

Engaging in research of evolving charter school organizations will require researchers to understand and further develop more detailed descriptions of the intents, challenges and successes of the theories of action advanced by charter school operators.

Applying constructs from institutional theory as an analytical lens to the evolving theories of action will assist researchers in explaining and predicting the challenge that different charter school types may encounter as they evolve in the wider institutional environment of schools