School as a loosely coupled organization? An empirical examination using national SASS 2003–04 data

Abstract

The notion of schools as ‘loosely coupled’ organizations has been widely discussed in the research literature. Many argue it is either a protective mechanism for schools to buffer external pressure or a barrier for implementing new reforms. Against the backdrop of systemic change and accountability, we applied a two-level hierarchical linear model to nationally representative data in the US, testing the ‘loosely coupled’ theory through examining the association between data-informed improvement efforts at the school level and data-informed instruction at the classroom level. Statistically significant associations were identified but with a small proportion of variance explained, indicating that the top-down systemic change strategy failed to tighten the system as intended. Alternatively, bottom-up strategies, such as professional learning communities, which operate under the assumption of working with loose coupling, should be considered.

Loose and tight coupling in educational organizations – an integrative literature review

“…Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Publishing Limited. ' counterforces for educational transformations (Gamoran, 2008;Hökkä and Vähäsantanen, 2014;Shen et al, 2016) -Decentralization and flat, distributed, leadership enables the autonomy of sub-units (Hargreaves, 2011;Horne, 1992;Weick, 1976) -Faculties are described as being overly autonomous and lacking sufficient accountability (Ingersoll, 1994) Distances supervision and instruction in schools -Sub-units are weakly monitored (Weick, 1976) -Lack of connections between the core operations of institutions and their management activities (Murphy et al, 1985) -Poorly defined organizational instruction, combined with unsettling environment (Pajak and Green, 2003) -Captures the moderately weak linkage between the institutional environment and its instructional activities (Aurini, 2012) -Minimal attention to the management of instructions and staff accountability (Murphy et al, 1985) -However, indirect supervision loosely coupled to instruction is likely to encourage good teaching (Willower, 1981) Other features: Benefits: -Persistence, buffering, adaptability, satisfaction, effectiveness (Orton and Weick, 1990) -Teachers have ample opportunities for professional development, and strong sense of professional agency (Hökkä and Vähäsantanen, 2014) -Independency, adaptability, diversity, and self-efficacy (Shen et. al., 2016) Neutral features: -Organizations are held together by shared beliefs, norms and institutionalized expectations (Meyer, 2002b) -Teachers' professional development mainly occurs through planning and implementation of working practices (Hökkä and Vähäsantanen, 2014) Endeavours organizational effectiveness -Accountability is relevant characteristics of effective, tightly coupled, educational organizations (Murphy et al, 1985) -Rigorous assessment of effectiveness of the instructional programs and curriculum (Murphy et al, 1985) -Possibility to administer continuous and large-scale changes (Meyer, 2002a;Rowan, 2002) -Advantage...…”

“…However, according to Vuori (2015, p. 652), rationally inclined managers -Elements are affected by the external environment eventually rather than immediately, occasionally rather than continually (Horne, 1992) Challenges: -Relative lack of coordination (Hargreaves, 2011;Horne, 1992;Weick, 1976) -Unclear goals and technology (Murphy et al, 1985) -Different means lead to the same end (Horne, 1992;Weick, 1976) -Difficulty and resistance to change with planned unresponsiveness (Hargreaves, 2011;Horne, 1992;Hökkä and Vähäsantanen, 2014;Meyer, 2002a;Pajak and Green, 2003;Weick, 1976) -Lack of contact among participants (Murphy et al, 1985) -Facilitates social reproduction and misrecognition (Pajak and Green, 2003) -Poses challenges in higher education, in the context of manager-academics' work (Vuori, 2015) -Ambiguity and obstinacy (Shen et. al., 2016) 'This article is © Emerald Publishing Limited and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (https://tampub.uta.fi/).…”

“…Fusarelli, 2002;Shen et al 2016) -Organization's academic agenda clearly defined (Murphy et al, 1985) -Consistency in the school's instructional practices and curriculum established (Murphy et al, 1985) -Direct instructions or active teaching methods emphasized to promote student achievement (Murphy et al, 1985) -More time allocated to teaching, and time used more effectively (Murphy et al, 1985) -Ongoing structured staff development required (Murphy et al, 1985) -Institutional isomorphism enabling educational organizations to function in an ever-changing environment (Fusarelli, 2002) -Curriculum development, salary reforms and a quality assurance process (Hökkä and Vähäsantanen, 2014) Strategies to balance loose and tight aspects of educational organizations -Ideas of 'organizational learning', 'entrepreneurial organization', and 'network organization' reflect the need to balance conservative and creative aspects of the organization, as well as to balance tension between rational and spontaneous forces of an organization (Meyer, 2002b; see also de Lima, 2007) -For creating agency-centred coupling systems, collaboration between actors within different levels, high quality communication and communication systems, and meaning construction within and beyond organizational boundaries need to be promoted (Hökkä and Vähäsantanen, 2014) Continues 'This article is © Emerald Publishing Limited and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (https://tampub.uta.fi/). Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Publishing Limited.…”

“…Goldspink, 2007), while other researchers (e.g. de Lima, 2007;Morley and Rassool, 2000) have regarded loose coupling as a problem to be solved (see also Shen et al, 2016;Weick, 1976). Loose coupling, with several 'relaxed' meanings, has been seen as a difficult concept, and one obstacle for operationalizing loose coupling "is the lack of agreement among those who write about it" (Firestone, 1985, p. 7; see also Willower, 1981).…”

“…Additionally, according to scholars (e.g. Hökkä and Vähäsantanen, 2014;Shen et al, 2016;Vuori, 2015), there is current evidence that educational organizations are facing increasing demands for accountability, and hence, for tightening the loose coupling in order to meet challenges of the current era. However, for example Hallett (2010) has illustrated that environmentally defined regimes for accountability, leading to recoupling of loosely coupled practices, have created perturbation in educational organization.…”