Summer 5

i.i,ir:t "d_

mbridge Ud_

ud Univ€rsiiy

rf the tiber{- q4), t-I8.

q 4nd 'oc;t l

hool Ladathh

',,. (T. Parsoi,

vd Om?aninn sity Pres.

Y t , - r ' , ' t . - , . 1 1

a , t ' . . , , ,

cenffal elements ofthe new institutionalism and to explore its real and potendal contributions to the study of educa- tional organizations. ln developing this analysis, we gxam- ine how rhe new institutionalism exDlains dre rise of.- ---r--+ "- r large-scale, educatlon but€aucractes, looK at wnat tn$ Per- sDective sals about the strucrure and manaRement ofedu-

"<----- . -=-----1-. . I ca onal organlzatrons, and explore rts lmplrca ons ror tne

# . ' - F _ _ 1 - - - . 1 - rs!:gl gTgy?.,'! lo ner Blosucfl vrry. r n oever opr n g o ur argu - rfrEns, we will review previous research on schooling un- deraken from the institutional perspecive, but we also will apply institutional theory to domains ofeducational analy- sis to which it has not prwiously been applied. In this way, we consider both the contributions and the potential lim- its of this perspective to the study ofeducation.

What Is the "New" Institutionalism? In organization theory and in the disciplines ofeconomics, political science, and sociologr, a consensus is growing that instirudonal arlangemen$ play a key role in shaping col- lective action. As Scott (1995: Chapter 3) shows, institu- tional arrangements can be found at a vari€ry of levels in social systems-in societies (and the world system of soci- etier), in organizational fields, in individual organizations, and in primary and small groups. Moteover, as.lgott (1995) shows, institutional artangements have regulatory norma- tive, and cognitive origins. Some institutions are based on formal. wrinen codei of conduct, such as laws, constitu- tions, manuals of procedures, ard so on, all of which are backed by the coercive power ofsocial agencies. Other in- stitutions exist more informally as norms and values-that

the Study of Educational Organizations

Brian Rowan and Cecil G. Miskel

l , i l

x)u,./ l-a C',,

In the past decade, scholars have described the emergence ofa 1new" institutionalism in organization theory and the ore disciplines from which it draws-e conomics, politi- cil science, and sociology (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; March and Olsen, 1989; Moe, 1984; Scott, 1995; lan- $ois, 1986; lfilliamson, 1995: Chapter 9). Altl-rough this mo-vement contains diverse and sometimes inconsistent theoretical ideas, it reflects a growing tendency in the so- cial sciences to abandon models of social and organiza- tional action in which relatively autonomous actors are seen as operating with unbounded rationality in order to puhue their self-interests. Such models have been central to a variety of theories in the social sciences, including micro-economic theories of the firm, pluralist political theories, and closed rational systems theories oforganiza- tion. In contrast, the new institutionalism sees social ac- rors of all sorts-individuals, managers, inreresr groups. $!l!e "gen"i.s, and corporations-as embedded in so- ci4lly-organized environments that generate rules, regula- uarm norms. and definitions of the situation that

t t . , l L T - i / Q € *' , 1 , ' ' ' , ' : , " i :

. . , ( ' . . ( . . : \

. i " ' . ' , t t ' '

l "

360 Brian Rowan and Cc|ii C. llr.risl<el

is, as strongly fclt obligations that have been internalized through socialization. Stillothers cxist in thc form ofdecply instirurionrlized cognirive schcmata or n rilrrs rhrr is. ;ei- atively r.lcir. ralren-for -grarrrcd. rulc-like undersrrnding< of a siruation. Given rhe diversiry of insrirurional forms, we

J define an insrirutior: "r "" ra, o[nror. or less agrccd-upon

rules wnlcn carry meantng lor and determtne the acuons ol io*mt.Fopuladon bf actors" (Abell, 1995: 5). Furdrermore, we say that an action, or sequence ofactions and interactions, is institutionalized when it recurs reperitively and without overi iirrervenriorr, or when a parrein of social acrion re- produces irseJf according ro sorrre orderly scr of rrrler (cl. Jepperson, 1991).

The importance of institutions can be illustrated by briefly examining rhe new insr iru rionalism as ir is emcrg- ing in rhe various social science disciplirre, rhar conrri[,ure to organizarion theory and educational adminisrration. Rather than atrempring a complete review, we focus here on a small number ofclearly identifiable works at the cut- ting edge of the movemenr. For an extensive review ofthe new institutionalism in a variety of disciplines, see Scott ( 1 9 9 4 ; I 9 q s ) .

The New Institutionalism in Economics In economics, the new institutionalism responds to what many organizarion theorisrs scc ar unrealisric assumprions abour rhe narure offirms {for a review. see Langloi.. i98J). The orrhodox view in cconomics regards a firm as a uuirary decision-maker wirh an obiective sl of pref.r.nces acring to maximize its present value or profits. However, profit maximizarion qtn occur only in a perfecrly comperirive market, that is, a market with a larse number of buvirs ard sellers, perfect information, and eiily accomplished trans, actions. The problem wirh rhis model. of ctur"c, is rhar firms are seldom unitary actors and markets olten fail. Principal-agent theory (Jensen and Meckling, 19/6) and trarrsaction cosr economics (Villiamson, 1975: l9B5) ad- dress rhese problems. Together they constirure the core of the new insrirurionalism in economics.

Tiansaction cost economics dcals with rhe nroblem of how to conduct economic rransactions ar eI]icientlv ar oos- sible under condirions ofmarker hilure. Ir., i-poir"ni. ro institurional rhcory i. rhar ir explains rhe emeqgercc of rx anlcrules governing economic cxchanges. in palicular. rhe conditions under which economic rransactiorrs com< lo be governed either by the pricing mechanisms of the market, the hierarchical arrangemenrs of firms, or some hybrid form. Tiansacrion cost economics describes how l.actors like uncertainry opportunism, and asset specificiry affect the potential costs of economic exchanges; and it also ex- plains the condirions under wl:ich differcnr govcrnance strucrurcs lsuch ar markets verrus hicrarchie,,) succeed in economizing on costs.

[ ' , ' i ' I r t , , , 1 , . . . . r : . ' r , : . , J , , , c r p l . | n n o " * r r . n . c . r : . . r r l ( r r ( r , l . ' , , r l r , r , t u r r r r . I h i r 1 , . r , y , e . r i r c " " ; i , r l r . l l r n r . r . . , r i r r i r i , , u . l . g . r l 1 . . r . , , r r " i , 1 , . , , " r o i b i L , " , , i \ , , r , 1 . r ( l i n g r . L r r i , ' r r s r r i l ' s r v i r l r i r . . r l : c n r ' . f l , . * . g " n r , . i ll ( r r r r . J r ' . . c c r . r . r . r t i , ' r r . r l , r . 1 , ' ' r l ' 1 1 1 , ' r r t , u h , r a . r i n r h " ; . u r r r r / . r ' u 1 ' g r , ' . c r l r , ' r l r . f i r r r i . r L c , r i r r r c r c ' r , . P r i n . r p r l , , [ 4 i , r , l i h l , r r l r r i r r ' < r I r , ' r i r , ' r i r l t J B ( r r , , , r r i . i r i " , . . , , d " g c n , r l r i p r c J i , l ' . r . c , l 1 , r t n g , r 1 ' 1 l r I e p p , , r 1 r u r i . r i , b r l r . l i . r . r , , , , . e k [ - ,r r ; r , , r . r h l , j - r , r r , . r l r i r r r l r c i r I , r r . ' l E . r , . . , n J r " , h r r k r h c i r , " - . l ' r , r r , i l , i l i l i . . . A , . r r , . r r l r , r r r r J . r . r , r i , l c r . r r r g e o l . o n d i r i o r i , l i r r r r . p r . , J r r ' , . 1 r l . , , | ' I i r r | . r I r 1 r . u 1 r . . , . I t i n . i p r J - . r g e r t r h e 6 l d . . . r i 5 , . . ' ' r , ' r l , r , , 1 y , \ i , r n . \ ' . r , t \ l . , , n l r o l I n r ( h a n t n r r , t l r . t t . . r r r I ' c u r . l L r p r i r . i l ' c . r , , . , , r r * r r a i n r h c b c h a r i q r ; l agctrts ancl in,:reasc orgaliz:rrional cllicienry ,

lloth principal,agenr tircory.and rransacrion cosr ecq-l nomics paint r nruch nroLe rcalistic pictLrrc of the fir6i th:rn tiocs classi,t:ai ecolomic rhcory Both concentrare 6nl clescribiog rhc vuiorrs rules ancl proccdures that can 16 uscd by firnrs to control rhc actions ofinrcrnal and exter_t nal exchange perrncrs. I lorvevcr, as Williamson (199j;, 211) notes, the rcw institurionalisrn in economics hx51 rilthcr narrow fircus, lttemprine to cxplain how economic organizarions clevclop cliflirent governance structures under; a limircd set ofhistolically boundecl economic conditions.'fhus

it is vcry <1ifli'rcnt fionr olcler rraditions of institu-' tional economics that sougirt to descr.ibe tire larger set of poliricll, social, and lcgal rulcs thar cstablish the brsis fori ccorrorrric ploducriorr, exchange, and disrribution in soc! eties ar many different poinrs in rine. Thesc broader ques, tions continuc to capture thc interesr ofeconornists and, to sonre exrerr, sociologists, but this rraclition is nor usuailJ seen as the fbrcfionr ol- the nerv insrirutionalism in eco- nonics.

The New Institutionalism in Political Science ']iansacrion

cosr cconomics, pr.incipal,agenr theory and re- lated perspectivcs are also being used ro dcvelop a new in, sltutionalisn in polirical science. l{cre, horvevcr, the new insritutionalism appears ro lr a rcaction :rgainst aspects o[ plulalisr politic-al rheory. As llill and Hardgrave (1981)noro politicai sciencc rvas once tlomin:rted by lnalvscs ofthe for, mal institutions of gol.ernnrent. Horuever,'these anall'scr rvere largcll clescriptive arxl athcoretical and bv the 1960s t h c t r r t r c l u s r r < , i . r . i d u b y . c l ' o l . r n i r r r e n r o n c x . r m i n i n g political behavior. srrr:h as voting, partv and interest group fornation, rhc infbrnrai cxcrcise of porver and influence, ancl so on. One ofthc nrost inportant srrands in the be. havioraljsr tr':rdition is pluraiisr polirical theory', rvhich de- scribes <lemo,.'uric politics as a fluid process in rvhich rclarivciy auronornous indivicluals aud interest groups ra- tion;Jlv pursuc theil scif-incercsts in rhe political arela,

IJv thc 1980s. political seientisrs begar ro reasscrr rhe irulnrtunr:c of institutions in political lifi (March and

Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational Organizations 3 6 1

I Eovei- ,/e vievs bilateial gents, i1 in their

)ah have Ben$ are seek u! their re- nditions,

1, fi:oty lhan$mi havior of .

cost ecG the firm ntfate 0[ rt can h nd exter- n (1995: rics har a :conomic res under rnditions. rf instiru- ger set of : basis for n ln socL- rder ques- sts and, to ot usually m in ecc

ence ,ry and te' a n e w l l t

rr, dle nelY asPeds ol 981) nor' of the for-

se ana\sa the 1960s examining rrest grouP influence, in the be which d'-

' i . t n ' h i c h grouPs ta

rl arena. reassert dt \,[arch anu

and influence among interest groups, but also by the more stable, institutionalized rules that shape legislative decision-making (Shepsle and Veingast, 1987). In related work, Moe (1984) extended this approach to the study of public bureaucracies. Moe argued that public bureaucra-

., iies take on the structutes they do in order ro protecr polirical

"properry rights," ro respond ro uncenainry and change, and to control principal-agent problems inherent in the exercise of public authoriry (Moe, 1995). Like the new institutionalisrn in economics, these approaches are ftequently used to explain only a small number of insti- rutional arrangements, often those in the U.S, federal q'stem. But a broader insritutional analpis also exists in po, lidcal science, one that scelcs ro undersrand how hisroricallv- grounded instirurional arrangemens srrucrure inleresrs and constrain acdon in different industrial sectors and nation- sates around the world (Scon, 1994; Steinmo, Thelen. and Longstreth, 1992).

The New Institutionalism in Sociology It is more difiicult to pinpoint the origins ofa new institu- tionalism in sociology. Sociologlr is often defined as the study ofinstitutions, and institutional analysis (in one form or another) has characterized sociology since its inception. For convenience, we attribute dre beginnings of thi new instirutionalisrn in sociolory to the work ofJohn rM Meyer, W Richard Scon, and colleagues (Meyer and Scotr, l gti3). Meyer. Scotr, and orhers are *orking in rhe rradition ofor- ganization rheory ard de,reloping aiorm of organ izarional analysis rhar is closely allied wirh"the op.n, nrri."l ,yr,.-, movemenr in rhis field. Here rhe reacrion is aeainsr closed. rational systems models thar portray organiza"tions as rela- tlYely autonomous units concerned primarily with achiev_ ing technical efficiency. In closed, raiional sptems models, organizational srucrures are rypically seen t; develop in re- sponse to increased needs for coordination and control that result from increases in size or technical complexiw (Blau and Schoenherr, 1967; Woodward, l96i\- , Beginning in r-he 1970s, closed, rarional sysrems mod-ets were gradually abandoned in organization theory as

open qystems theorists began ro look at the relations ofor- gantations to their social environments. In the early smges ofopen systems theory the emphasis was still on rational ic- ::rs i:!_+e idy: towardefficiency. For example, Thomp-son ( t967) developed a form of open sysrems analysis in wlrich organizations *.r. r..n ,a r,iiuing to be rarional andetticient but consrrained by the srrucruie ofexchange rela-tronships across organizarional boundaries and by iarious

Olsen, 1984). One line ofwork uscd rransacrion cosr eco- nomics, agency theory. and relared approaches ro explain ply polirical processes are more srable rhar pluralisr rheo- ;sswould predict and to show how polirical outcomes are affected. not only by rhe relatively fluid contesr for power

internal, technical complexities. Thompsons work was a warershed in- organizarion rheory, putring the final na_rl in the coffin.of closed, rational systems mo"dels in organiza- tlonal analysls.

The institutional-theory ofMeyeq Scott, and colleagues conrinued this rradirion of open systems drinkins-bur changed ir substanrially. Their emphasis wa_: on insriruiional as,.opposed to technical sources oiorganization, that is, the tendency for organizarjons to succeed ard persist as a resu| ot contormiry to insrirurionalizrd rules and procedures as opposed to rechnical efficiency (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). As we discuss below, the con_ flio berween -pressures lor efficiency and pressures lor insri-tutronal conlormiry is a theme thar dares ro lhe earliesr institutional theories of organizations (Selznick, l95Z; par_ sons, 1960), and one drar hal led Scon (1992) ro view in_ stit.urional analysis as a form oiniiu.al (as opposed ro raUonal, systems theofl zlng. ^ Equally important, the institutional theory of Meyer,Scott,.and colleagues changed rhe way insrirurions were thought abour by organizar ional sociologists. In parricuJar, rhe new insr itu rionalisrs were influenied by'phenom_ enologica.l conceptions of institutions, "rp..i"liy B"re.. and Luckmaan\ (1967) sociology of k ,owledee. andiu rhe phenomenological and symlol ic in L..".ri"on irr .ori- ceptions of praffical action dweloped by Schuo (1962), Garfinkel (1967), and Goffman (D67) ifor " dir"*sion. see DiMaggio_ and Powell, 1991: Chapter l). In this per- spective, regulatory ald normative frameworks are still viewed as key components ofan organizarion's insriturional environmenr. bur addirional emphasis is placed on whar Scot ( I 995) calls the^5ggqirive" Lnceprion of instirurions -tnat

-ls, tlle raken-tor-granted schemara and ideologicallorrnarions rhat define appropriate srructures and l-end meaning and order ro practical action. ,_ ̂ A cognitive_conccption of institutions allowed Meyer(1983a) and other theorists ro mounr a radical attack on the conceps of rationality in organizational, political, and economic analysis. In the sociological version of the new institutionalism, concepts such as-radonaliry self-interest, and efliciency are seen as ideological formaiions _rhar is. cultural construcrions impossible ro conceptualize wirhour rhe creation and institutionalization of new ideolosies abour rhe nature of individuals. sociery, and progress ind that are impossible to achieve in praciicai ".iiorr-*itho,,t substantial changes in the regularory and normarive regimes ol sociery (Dobbin. 1994; Douglas. 1995; Fried_ lander and Alford, 1991; Jepperson and l,feyea 1991).

Comparing the New Institutional Theories Ahhough the new institutionalism in sociology, political science, and economics contains diverse theoretical oer- specrives, some unifi,ing rhemcs do appear (for an arrempt

;

362 Brian Rowan and Ceril G. Miske!

at a synthcsis, se€ Scott, 1995). In each disciplinc, there is a rcjection of models in which social actors (individuals, groups, orgalizations) are seen as engaging in unrestrained, rational Dursuit of their interests. Instead, a// institutional theorists see action as socially embeddef,and constrained bi regulations, normative obligations, ard/or cognitive schemata.

One way institutional approaches differ, howeve! is in the level ofanalysis at which they operate (for a discussion, see Scon, 1995: 57). In political science and economics, for example. principal-agent rheory, transaction cost econom- ics, and related perspectives pay the closest attention to tlre regulation of exchange relationships occurring within or- sanizations or at their boundaries. The focus is thus on or- galir.tions or organizational subrysrcms, a terrain rhat was formerly the distinctiye province of organization theorists. Sociologists are a.lso interested in institutional analysis at these levels, but more reccntly they have extended organi- zarional analysis to includc attention to instjtutions at supra-organizational levels, such as populations of organi- zations, insdrudonal sectors, and the societa.l and world rys- tem levels of analysis. Thus the sociological version of the new institutionalism is coming into closer alignment with current studies of industries and societies undertaken by political scientists and economists (for a discussion, see Scott, 1994).

Finally, institutional perspectives vary in the degree to which they embrace rational actor models. Principal-agent theory is built around them, but it shows how actors in ra- tiond pursuit oftheir own self-interests can undermine or- ganizational goals and produce suboptimal performance at a colDorate level. As a result, this version of institutiond theory has some resemblance to early institutional analyses in organization theory (discussed below), which emphasize how the interactions of sclf-interested parties in organiza- tions calr deflect organizations from their original goals and compromise performance (Selznick, 1957). tansaction cost economics explicitly embraces a model ofbounded ra- tionaliry and uses this model to show how actors can de- sign governance structures that are as efficient as possible, given a set of constraints $Villiamson, 1995). In its em- phasis on bounded rarionaJiry. transacrion cost economics intersects with the Simon-March tradition in organization theory (Simon, 1945; March and Simon, 1958), and in its emphasis on exchaage relationships at the boundary ofor- ganizations, it is working in the same terrain as the open, rational rystems approach pioneered byThompson (1967). The new institutionalism in sociology appears to be the least congruent with rational systems models of organiza- tion. It sees the rational pursuit ofinterests as frequently in conflict with and subordinate to the pursuit ofinstitutional legitimacy (Meycr and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Pow- ell, 1983). In addition, it frequendy sees rational action, not as a material fact, but rather as a cultural construction

i r r r r l r r . h m c . r n ' - < t t \ l \ c q r c n ( ( . . l l r , l t l r , t , r v . a l . u l u . o f , , _ t r " r r . , l c [ i r . i c r r . i . r r c L t n . l e r . t o . , J , . r . l . " l o g i . r l . . , n , 1 r u . , , instituticindizcd in socien.

Early Institutional Analyses in Organization Theory

'fhe cliscussion to this point suggesrs rhat the new in5dtu_

tionalisn provitles scholars rvitb a variety of powqlf!1, .r- alr.tic tools that hclp cxplain rvhy large-scaLe, bureaucratic orgenizatious often fail to display the rechnic,Jly efficienr opentions described in Weberi (l 947) idcal rnodel of ra_ tional bureaucracics. In this rcspect, however, the new i1 sriturionalism is hardJv plorving new ground. Cririques of the Wcberian rrodel oforganiz-ation and ofrhe rarionalily of burcaucraric action rvere also present in an older and much rcvcred traclition of institLrtional analysis rhar emergecl at thc founding of organiantion theorv as a dis- tinctive field of studl'. In this sccrion, rvc discuss this older form of instirutional analysis and shorv how, in the late 1970s, it came to bc applicd to the study ofschools u or- ganlzatlolls.

Early Institutional Analyses of Organizations The mosr visible origins of institutional analysis in organi- zation theor]- can bc found in rhe rvtitings ofl' hilip Selznick and fbllorvers (for a review, scc Pcrrow, 1986). In a series of case studies conductecl in the 1950s and early 1960s, Selznick and collcagues described horv organiiational gods, structures, ald processes tlevcloped in rcsponse to thc inter- play ofintercscs among *re intelnal :rnd externiLl constituents - of organizations and the changing social environments in rvhich organizatior.rs are located (Selz-nick, 1948, 1949, 1957; Gusfield, 1955; Clark, 1956; ltrrow, 1961;Zaldand L)enton, 1963). ln this early version ofinstirutional theory organizations wcrc scen, not so much as "the structural ex- prcssion ofrational action," but rather as naturally evolving iocial systcms thar become institutionalizcd and develop stable and orderly'pattcrns. For Sclznick (1957), the grad- ual process of institutionalization madc organizations nore than rational instruurents designecl to tneet technical ends,- lnstead, Selznick (1957: 17) believed that organizations ar!, :rlrvays infused rvith ntaning and vaiue

"far be,vond ttre ' technical valuc of rhc rask at-hand," and as a result, thar o r g l n i z . r r i n r r . n c v r r l h r l h \ u ! ( ( ( J i n \ u n q u c r i n B . l h e n , , n r a t i . , n u l d i t t t . t ' s i o t t ' , t r 8 t n i z . r r i , ' r r I ' e h . r v i o r ' ( S e l i n t c k ' 1 9 4 8 : 2 5 ) .-l-alcott

Parsons ( 1960) also mrtde a rnajor contriburion r o r h < i n r r i t u r i o n , r l . r r r . r l v ' i ' , ' l o 1 5 . r u i z . r t i o n . . I n _ . o n t r x t r ' ' \ c l z n i , k , l ' ) l q r . \ \ h u c n r l ' 1 1 . 1 ' ; r . . 1 I \ r u . c \ . ( ' o t r n s l . l t u ' r i n r r . J i z . r r i . , r r o ! \ r l r r i r r s \ v r r l l i t r , , f t t r i / . r l i o n \ a l l d i r l t h e l r

-r Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational Organizations 363

of ra- itruqs

ostltu- ul, an- .rcratic Ticient , of ra- ew in- lues of onality er ald .s that i a d l s - ,s older he late s a5 0f-

immediare environments. Pa-rsons (1960) advalced lhe ;ew rhar organizaiions are subsysterns of the wider social $/srem and garn legitimary and resources by conforming to relevanr norms, values, and technical lorc insrir ur ionalized in iJciery. As a resulc, Parsons (1960) believed thar a key ruk of administrators is the aJignm_enr ofan organizarioni aims and mlsslons wlm socre-fys norms and values. ln lhr- soni (1960) view, actions ral<en ro align organizarions ro 5ociely's norms and vdues often come into ionflict with ac- tions taken to promote goal attainmenr, As a result, Par-

The Revival of Institutional Theory

ns organi- ielznic! ;eries of 1960s,

J goals, re inter-

For nearly wo decades, these early contributions to insti- rutional analysis lay dormant in the field of organization theory But in the late 1970s, t-bey were rwivJ and ex- tended in an essay \r14eyqr and Rorvanl1977) that is often cigg! as the beginning of the ' 11s\i,," in5dtutionalism in organization rlreory. Building on Berger and Lu&mann's 0967) sociolog;r oF knowledgei Meyer"and Rowan (1977)

B,qyqntal97Z utew, organizarions rhat depend for sur- vival on conformity to instituiioniliied myrhs oftbn en- gagi in a process of"decoupling" rhar buffers work in the tethnical core from rhe conieq,iences ofinstirurional con- formiry. fuparr o[rhis process, a logic of confidence and good Iaith devclops in orgarizarions as adminisrrarors de- liberately ignore and discount informarion about techni- ial activities and ourcomes in order to maintain the appear-ance that things are working as they should be, even ifrhey aren'r. In this way, organizarions conrinue ro mobilize supporr and resources simply by conlorming ro externally-defined rules, even when such rules do not Jro- more rechn ical eflicienry

An Application of Institutional Analysis to the Study of Schools In a related essay, Meyer and Rowan (1978) applied these ideas ro rhe analysis o[ educarional organiz.ations. Ar the time, organizarion rheorisrs were struggling ro undersrand how schools could be so ouenly bureiucraiic in form and yet be characrerized by such weak conrrols over teaching and learning in classrooms, a situation that led schools to bi like-ned to "loosely coupled" sptems (Bidwell, 1965; Weick, 1 976) . Meyer and Row:n's ( 1 978) argument was that edu- cational bureaucracies emerged in reiponse to heavily ra- tionalized, taken-for-granteJ theories about how beit to organize education in modern sociery but they also argued that this process did nor lead to increased coordinatioriand co n r rol ove r r each in g an d learn ing. Th us rhey dweloped an explanarion for why schools exiri.d "" loor.iy.oupl.d "ys- tems.

In Meyer and Rowant (1978) argument, modern schooling in rire Unired Sares developeJ as a way ofsort- rng and classifying studenrs lor places in the occupational order. a socieral funcrion drar required rhe developmenr of a hosr of riiionalizrd and srandardized caregories in educa- rion, For example. modern schools *.r. i".fl-.d by r,-- dardizrd rypes of reachers assigned ro reach srandardizrd qpes ol curriculum ro srandardized rypes of srudenrs in srardardized rypes of schools. Such sraniardizarion crearcd a national idenriry market thailldwed organizations qf 4!l kinds to son and allocate individuals to oositions within the socieral division of labor. Bureaucraric adminisrrarion of schooling evolved ro organize a-nd marage these stan- dardized caregories and. as rhis occurred, theichooling en- rerprise gained enormous legirimacy in sociery and sec"ured nuge rnvestmenK oi resources.- -However.

rhe legirimacy of schooling as an enterprise depended crucialJy Jn mainraining rhe p"ubli., .onfid.n.. in this highly insr ir ut ionalized sche-e, and this required educators (and the public) tg ignore the obvious variitions in classroom activities and srudent outcomes that occuffed iithin standardized forms ofschooling. As a consequence,

;tltuen$. lents il , 1 9 4 9 , -ald and theory, ural el- :volving develoP he grad- ns more :al eno!-,.

like templates are insriturionalized in sociery and rhat or- ganizarions gain support and resources by ionlorming ro .*rem. ln adlirion, M.y., *d Rowan (1977) ".gu.d ih"r tne tendency for organizarions to conform to rarionalizrd mp}s explains why formal organizarions look rhe way rhey do, why they adopr particular srrucrures, include parricuJar occupational groups in rheir division oflabor. have parric- uia-r rules and procedures, and so on. Thus in rhe l9Z0s, Meyer and Rowan (1977) reiecred rhe view that formal or- Falizatignal struclures emerge in response ro pressures for technica.l efliciency. Instead.-rhey saw orgarizacional struc-

arglqltharmany of the elements characterizing modern, qq3u:5atic o:ganizati:n arc "rationalized mlthls"-that is, !edf-i1tg11,t." itea, rulelike understandings about howbest_to organize r<i produce a given end. FolJoiing Parsons 11960), Meyer and Rowan (1977) argued rhar rhese .ule-

In the same essay, Meyer and Rowan (1977) elabo- la!{9rr Parsont (1960) ideas about the qualitatirie briakbetween institutional and technical spheres ofaction and on-Selznickt (1948) ideas about the non-rarional tenden- ctes of insr iturional ized organizarions. In Meyer and

-E-tS s-e i.fl..iio""f ruf.-fif.;;'*;p;i;?; ;h, fra#Ltr; to organize.

ons aq ond the ult, thal ring the ielznick,

ributlofl contrut

I instio in their .

364 Brian Rowan and Cecil G. Miskel

schools evolved an elaborate set of administratiye mecha- nisms like cenificarion ard accredirarion, and a number of social pr4ctices (various forms of "face work') that allowed adminisrrators ro avoid irrspecring rechnical acrivities while at the same time maintaining confidence in the system. In this way, an educational bureaucracy emerged that pays close attention to conformity to rhe institutionalized rules defining the structure of schooling, but one that gives far less attention to the actual tcchnical acrivities or ourcomes

sult, l'errorv ( I 9il6) cloubts drat conformiry to institution_ alized rule-s can enhance an organizlrion, ru*iu.1 prorf..l rvithout also improving effi ciencl.

I l r . o n t r r s l . h l c y c l l r r J R o r v . r n t l Q - I 1 . 0 - 8 r a r g u e $ 4 1 i n e l d . i c r r r n r g J r ) i r . u i u r \ r r e u f i c n l , r o r e c r e d b y i , , . , " u u , a n _ . alized rules ai,l ,u*ive f", to.g p'.ri,rd. oi#;j[:; cite several eramples (such as Amtrack). ]t wnuld b. a rnis'- , tal<e, howevel, to vicw Meyer and Rowan (1977) as primar- ily interestcd in explaining the survival of inellci.nr urB.u)izrriur)\. lrr'rcrd, rlrel a-rguc rlr.rr inrrirurirrnaJized n1l ofi, n .rabilizr .md cnhanr c rlrc rurvival pr.,.p.. t,, oforgrni_ i . r r i o n ' u ; ' e r . r r i n g i r r d o m r i n s . h a r . r c r e r i r c d b y h i g h r e i h n i _ cal uncertainty where clear information about technical pcrlormance is missing or difficult to obtain.The Bridge from Older to

Newer Forms of Institutional Theory As the discussion above demonstrates. earlv institutional

. theorisrs believed rhar conformiry ro insrirurlonal ized rules could increase an organirrrion! legiLimacy and survival prospecrs without aJso increasing orqarizational efflciency or rechnical performance (Parsoni. tq60; Meye, ali I<"*"o, t9ll,'tg78i sEi: ilio DiMaggio and Poweli, 1983). !h!q argument stands in sharp contrast to rational systems models, v&ich hold that organizaiional performance (as- sessed in terms of efficiency) is the primary determinant of organizational survival. Thus the heary emphasis on legit- imacy as a so u rce of o rgan i'e r io n aJ su rviva.l pla ced. early in- stiturional theory squarely in the camp ofnarural sysrems theorizing about organizarions and made insrirurional anllysis a distinctive form ofrheorizing in rhe field ofor- galizations research.

In this section, we show how current forms ofinstitu- tional analJsis have modified early institutional theorists' heary emphasis on legitimacy as a source oforganizational survival, and we show how this change in emphasis has im- ponant implications, not only for understanding how newer forms ofinstitutional theory depart from older ones, but also for understanding how newer institutional theories cal be used to und.rrt-i .on,a-Dorary events in Ameri- carr education.

'Ibnsions Betrveen Legitimacy and Fffi ciency'in Institutiiiiral Theory A number ofempirical studies confirm the hlpothesis that increased legitimacy improves an organization's chances for survival (Baum and Oliver, 1991, i992; Sineh, TUcker, and Meinhard, I 99I ). Howeve r. the argunre nt ihat legirimacy can enhance an organizationt chances for survival without also increasing efficiency remains controversial. Perrow (1986), for example, argues thar emciency and legitimary are closely intertwined and that ineflcient orgarizations have a dilllculr rime mainraining legirimary, e.pecially in societies that highly prize rationaliry and efficiency. As a re-

occurring within schools.

- [,conomists and political scicntists working within rhe fiamework ofthe neu, institutionalism also argue that insri- turionalizrd rules ernerge under condirions of rechnical un_ cerrainry and thar such rulcs stabilize organizational forms.'{4rat is intercsring abour these argumenrsj howwer, is *re apparent firith placed in the rationaliry of instirutionalized rules. In transacrion cost economics ald principal-agent the_ ory,, for examplc, instirutionalizrd rulcs are g?ically thought to mal<e cconomic transactiorrs rnore efficient. l'f,ur Willianson (1 975; I 98 5) argues that insrirutionalize d rules allow organizations to develop alternarivcs to market trans- actions under conditions ofmarket lailure. ln his vieq such r u l r ' r c d u e c r r n r c r r . r i r r r i e ' . s r ; h i l i z c c , o r o m i c r r a n \ a c t i o n 5 , and nrake then more eflicient. Similarly, principal-agent theory dcscribes thc various institutional rules that princi- pals create to consrrain rhe acions of agents, panicularly when principals are unable to closely monitor performance. ln this view, insritutional rules prevent thc kind ofoppor- tunistic behavior that undcrmines organizational goals and produces suboptimal performancc. Thus here roo, instiru- tionalizcd rules arc seen as enhancing orgarizational perfor- D)ance,

Technical and Institutional Environments Clcarll these different versions of institutional theory make very differenr assumprions about the effects of in- stitutionalized rulcs on organizational efficiency. One way to resolve thcsc differences, however, is to turn to Meyer and Scott'.s (1983; l99l) distinction berwcen technical envitonments thirt demand and rervard organizational pcrFormance antl institurional environments rhat demand and reward instirutional conformiry. Using rhis distinc- tion, Meyer and Scott ( I 983; 1991) devcloped a rypology that classi0es organizations inro four categories: (l)orga- nizations th:rt cxist in weak technical bur strong institu- tional cnvironnents (such as schools and other heavily regulated organizations rvith ulcertain technologies); (2) organiz:rtions that exisr in weak instirutional but strong technical clvironments (many business firms in compet-

Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational Organizations 36s

rin rhe t lns$ cal un- forml

idve markers); (3).orglnizations that exist in srrong tech-

'1.,t "nd rrrong insritutional environmenrs (hospirals);

ll?rii "te-i;".l"ns that exisr in weak technical and

ill'inrii,ir;."4 e nvironments (many personal se rvice

establishmentsl'-'?his wpology has a number ol adtantages-for institu-

;onJ'*ityt;t. "fi",'.it

calls.attention to the fact that or-

l,ni.,ioni * .*p"rience differing demands for technical

lfi.i*.y "fd initirurional conformiry' Second' it sug-

lou,h"i diff.t"n, tersions of-insritut ional rheory can be

fir. ot f.* suited to the analy'sis of organiza(ions oPer- ^.;." in different kinds of environments' for examPle'

lr-i".,i.^ cosr economics and the principal-agent the-

^- seek to explain the emergence and tunctlonlng or ln- i,ilti".A;t"a tut.t rhat matirially enhance performance' fi*',fr"y *.- mosl relevanr to- the analysis of social

ac- rivities occurring within relatively well-dellned tecnnlcar environments where the abiliry to a5sess costs' measure ou,pu,t, -d assign responsibility flor productive outcomes allows for a direct rest of tie assumprion that lnstltutlonai--irrJ

Jo ""tt*"" organizational performance (for an ex- ilpI., t.. Ch"bb *iMoe, 1990)' On the other hand' the ri"i"*i"A version of institutional analysis is designed to -a."ita organizarions operaring in weak rechnical envi- rn^"no *tt.".. information abou; te-chnical produoiviry is difficul to obtain, uncenain' and inhequendy- emphasueo (Meyer and Rowan, 197' I 9781 Scon and Meyer' l

''v 1 )' i.ri on. d*.lopt -easures of the extent ro which an orga- n-iration l fotm

'it legitimate and examines the difierential

,u*l*l of l.gi,irn",.Ld egirimate forms over dme in the absence of dlta on effeaiveness (for eramples' see Rowan' 1982a; Baum and Oliver, l99l' 1992; Singh' Tircker' and

and institutional environments probably result from the institution-building activities of interested pa-rties in agiven domain. In fact, thi various versions ofinstitutional theory iust discussed suggest that under some conditions' inter-'.rt.d

oarri.s in.t&e demands flor institurional conformiry in ih.' "br.n.. of pressures lor efliciency,-but under other conditions inrerested parties instit r rrionalize demands tor bener performance. If these rzrious demands can shift over rime. ii is posible lor a population oforgnizations to exist in r *eaklv ilaborated reirnical or insdrudonal environment at on. ooin, in dme, bur. afier concened insrirudon-building' to b. in, ,,-ngly .laborared technical or instirudonal envi- ronment at a later pornt n ume.

In fact, something like this appears to be happening in American education. Over the Past 30 yea$, concerted institution-building by dre education professions' govern- ment agencies, and privare sector orgnizadons has begun to oroduce a more elaborate technical environment tor school- ing. on. ,tra, ;n.ludes not only an increasingly sophisricarcd rhiorv of educarional producriviry. but also the technrcal a.o".iar,o irxpect insriuctional outcomes in schools fu a ..lui,, i, "oo."tt thar schools now face much srronger de- m"nds foitecbnical performance thar they did in $e past' without also experiencing a decline in demands for institu- tional conformitY.

An interesting question for educational researchers is what will htpp.i "t a result of this change Scon and Meyer (1983:126), iollowing Parsons (1960)'.argue that org"nir"tion, operating in strong technical and xrong tn' ,ri'rution"l .nuiion-.ni, .*p.rience high levels of confl ict' This appears to be the case in American educarion' where " I".k

'oh aonranru, over appropriate institutional arrange-

ments for schooling is cleaily on the rise' Rowan (1982a) and eibulka (tS95) argue that this kind of dissension iribilin, .aoorion insiitutions, leading to periods of in- tense reform and new institution building' If this is true' it is not surprising to find that recent calls for greater ac- countabiliry and"productivity in education (without a .orr.rponding d..r.ase in demands for institutional con- formiry) have"produced a long period ofeducation reform i., ,t. Unit.a'S,",es. In fact,lnsr itut ional rheory predicts

' just such a trend. Although instirurional theory seems to- predicr thecur-

rent slate of conflict in American educatlon' lt says lltue abour the likely outcomes ofsuch a conJlict' As a result' an irno.ti-, ,.pi. for future research is to study issues of or- sanir^ational survival ald instirutional legitimary in envi- r"on^.n,, rhat demand effrciency and institutional conformiry in educarion. for example' historical srudies are needed to better understard how increased demands lor irr*u",iorrd ^".o,rntabiliry arose in the past and how such dem:nds affected the institutiondization and dissemina- tion ofnew instructional practices and/or patterns ot regu- lation. Alons these lines, for example, we might examine

; is the nalized :nt the- hou$t , Thus :d mles :t rans- rar, such

rmanc€. I oppor- pals and , institu- J perfor-

Meinhard, 199D. The imoonant point is that newer forms of institu-

donal "na.lysis have moved well beyond the simplisric as- senion that conformiry to institutionalized r';ies ahaays conflicts with orsanizational efficiency' Instead' institu- tional theorv no*"rugg.",, that in some institutional envi- ,on-"nr. ('rhose wit' well-understood technical rules)' pressures for institutional conformity can be efficiency en- Lancine. while in other instirurional environments (those withwlaklv-understood technical rules), instirurional con- formity is best viewed as buffering organizarions from tech- nical uncertainry and decoupling demands lor instirutional conformiry from demands for organizations to secure- a weal{y-specified and porentially unachievable state of tech- nical efficienry.

Implications for the StudY oi Educational Organizations There is linle reason to believe that the four kinds ofenvi- conments described by Scorr and Meyer (1983;-199.1) are lued ard immutable. lnstead. rhe properties ol techntca.l

Ll theory :ts of in- One waY to MeYer technicai rizational t demand s distinc' ' rypologi (1) orga-

rg rnstlt!- er heavdy ogies); (2) )ut strong n comPet'

366 Brian Rowan and Ce-ii '.. J'trske;

current trends in education ard ask ifregulatory and pro- fessional agencies are increasingly willing to endorse and disseminate only prograns with

"demoustrated" effective- ness, and whether the emergence of institutionalized pro- cedures lor 9u1c9rng inspection gives rise to preslurer for deresulation and market-based education reforms. Current even;s suggest that such rends cxist, but more empirical studies are needed if we are to understand how increased demands for productiviry arise in education and how edu- cational organizations respond to such demands.

How Institutional Theory Explains the Structure of Educational Organizations

In the previous section, we demonstrated how recent insti- tutional theories have modified earlier assumPtions about the inherent conflict between institutional conformiry and organizational eflicienry. However, another central premise of early institutional theory the idea that organizational conformity to institutionalized rules shapes the structure of organizations, has been retained as institutional theory moves forward. In this section, we examine ideas about in- stitutional conformity and show how these ideas can be used. to explain the.rise oflarge-scale, education bureaucra- cles ln mooern socleues.

The Concept of Institutional Sectors The hlpothesis that organizations conform to institution- alized rules suggests that, over time, organizations in the rarze institutional environment will come to resemble one another. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) were the first to argue that institutional environments produce homogene- ity among organizational forms, a conclusion drey drew by shifting the focus of institutioqal theory away from the srudy ofsingle organizations and toward the study ofwhat Meyer and Scott (1983; 1991) call "institutional sectors." An institutional sector can be defined as a domain ofacdv- ity involving the production and distribution ofa particu- lar service or product. Such a sector is composed of the population of organizations that produce the given sewice or product and the popriations of suppliers, consumers, ard agencies that regularly interact with and support these organizations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Scott, 1991).

Using this definition, we can identily an education sec- tor within American society that is composed of (1) a pop- ulation of organizations providing educational sewices; (2) the associated organizations that supply these organizations (textbook companies, testing companies); (3) the popula- tion ofpeople who are served by educational organizations (students, parenm, businesses, and the interest groups in

ton difler rvith rcspect to dre patterns ofhierarchiqrl and lat- eral relationships th:rr tlcvclop among or1;adiations; in the kin.is ofrules, rcg'ularions, and prescliptions developed bv in- stitutional agencies :urcl :rctors; in thc lcvels ofthc social sys, tcrrr at rvhich institutionalizecl rules dwelop (national, regional, local); in thc aspccrs of orggrization;Ll strucurc and proccss constrainecl by the rulcs; ald in dre permeabiliry of the scctor ro broatler socialforces.

Processes Leading to the Homogeneity of Organizational Forms C)lcc institrrtional sectors are well fbrmed, various processes recluce varietv and increase the homogeneity (or isomor' phism) of organizational tbrms in rhe sector (DiMaggio and Porvc'll, 19113; Scott, 1994). One such process is co- c r , i v r i . , ' n r , ' r 1 ' l r i r r r r , i r r r v h i . l r , ' r B . r n i z . r t i o n s i t t l . e , t o t follorv tirc fbrmal rules and regulations laid dorvn by the

thev rvhich rhcv prlricipatc); (4) a number of groups 1]q, providc support rvithin rhcsccrrr qrtiuat. lbundationr, f_ depcnclcnr consulrants, and policl cntrepreneurs); x1d 1{1 a \ . r ' i c r r , , l r q ( r L i ( ' n r r ] r , . l a l c a I l , l r l ' c p r " f e , , i o n , 1 6 . , r , g r r l ; t c . r r , l F i \ c \ l r u \ l r r r c t o t l t c e d u c . - t t i U r r r n t c r p r i , e .

As t)iMaggio alcl Porvell (i983) observe, insiitutional sccror origilrte as loosc aggrcgations of organizations qj gt oups.

'l'hcv take on a coherent slructurc as interactions

. l r r , ' n u , , r t , r r r i z . r r i o n \ i l t l l ) c \ ( ( r o r i r r , t . e , r r < . a s h i . r r r c h i c a i | . r r r c n r \ i r l . l r L l r u r i n . , . l o l r i r r . r r i t , r ' . I n J . o . r l i r i o n d c r e l o p . a l d as orgrrnizations and grot4rs in the sector exchalge informa_ rion arcl clevelop an awarcncss rlat they ae engaged in a connron cntcrprise (fbr an exanple, see DiMaggio and pow- cll, 1991). C)ncc formcd, institutional sectors can taks 6n x varicty of srructural featules. For exanple, Meyer ald Scon (198J; i 99 i ) arrd Scon (1994) describe how instirutional sec-

state ancl its agcncics and thereby end up with similar stnrctures or procedures. This, of course, is rhe process rypic.rily clescribed in principal-agcnt theory where a prin- cip:r1 (in this case, a state agelcy) uses a number ofpolicy instnrments ro encourirge rule-fbllorving bv an agent (in rhis case, an organization). McDonnellancl Elmore (1987) describe :r nusrbcr ofsuch policy ilstrumcnts in cducation, such as indrrccnrenrs, mandates, and capaciry-building. Their arguments sulgest thar policy instrumcnts diflbr in rhc extent to rvhich thcy prorlucc organizational homo- F C r r i l r i r r c d U ( . r l i r ) n .

A najor problenr with cocrcive policy instruments ts that they ofien drivc rrp cnfirrcenent costs without produc- ing anticipatccl g:rins in elficienc1r This is especially the case ir dorrrajns chrractcrizcd by high technical rrncertainry (see lv'loc, 1995). lirus a sccond strategy that leads to homo- gcnciry is norrrarive isourorphism. DiN{agliio antl Powell (198-)) rrgrrc thar this is the process by which professtons connonlv impose order on organizerions. Here protes' sional codo lrc sprcad to ot-g:rnizatiotts try personnel wno

Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational Organizations 367

riat , ln- I (5) that

ional i ard tions rlical ), and )rma- l i n a , Pow- i o n a . Scott ral sec- nd lat- in the

I h. i"- . : ^ l ̂ -

rtional, rre and rility of

'rOCeSS€S

isomor- Maggio 'ss ls co- a sectot n by the r similar : process fe a prln- of policY agent 0n re (1987) ducation' building. ; differ in al homo-

uments is rt produc- ly the i:se rainty (see to homo

rnd Powell professions ere P.roTY onnel who

have been socialized ard educaced. to follow professional .'rrnd.-rdr. N.* institutional theorists in political science".idlconornio

dit.*. this proces' lor example. in describ- l"J ho* ptofet"ional cenification and accrediution can

iitor. up ."tk ,t rhat have failed or constrain the oppor- i.,i;r.'of "g.n,t. However, these versions of instirutional ][-- ,and to see normarive constraints as ar enforce- i in,",ra,.gy, while'sociologisrs emphasize how institu- rionalized norms Produce homogeneous Populatlons ot organlzatlons'"'"A,hird

pto.ot that produces homogeneiry oforganiza- tional forms, especially in sectors characterized by high tech- ii."l un..n"ittry. is mimetic isomorphism This process' *hi.h ir ri.il"t to Meyer and Rowani (1977) discussion of conformiry to rationalized mlths. occurs as organiza- tions mimic successful or prestigious organizations in-rhe i.ld. tn doing to. the les iuccessful.organizat ions seek to gain prestige ind to- assure publics rhar they are acting in iu"ur',h",1t. modern and rational. ln rhe long run' mimeric processes also lead to homogeneiry as organiza- tions in tire same institutional sector adopt similar struc- turcs.

The three strategies just discussed are often criticized for ponraying oryanizarions a. relatively passive actors that sim- olv adapt to rheir insrirutional envtronments. hlowever' wrtn rire ero*ing use ofrarional acror models in insritudonal the- ory"Guch L principal-agent theory). concepts 9f.agelcy have become more prominent, and irstitutional theorists have bequn ro see orgalizations as more Pro-actlve wlth re- soect to-their instiruiional environments {Oliver. l99l) ln oducational analysis, for example, Timar and K(p (1988) discuss how state policy implementation is affected by local school district capacity. Thiir ideas correspond to the-ideas ofinstitutional theorists, who argue that the nature and tim- ing o[organizational resporses to institurionalized rules can be-affeaid by the characteristics of the conforming organi- zation. Other researchers (Fuhrman, Elmore, and Clune, 1988; Firestone, Rosenblum, Bader, and Massell, 1991) also argue that school districs rary widely in their responses to stite policy initiatives, although here an emphasis is placed on the ways in which these responses ale slraqed by $1 strategic actions oIdisrrict leadership. Although this work is usefirl ir should be approached with caurion. Srudies in ed- ucation often examine new education policies, not ones drat are deeplv institutionalized, and as many instirutional theoriss have shown, the effects of organizational capacity and sratesic considerations on institutional conformity may be gre"atest in *re early stages of the institurionalization proccss

-(Tolbert and Zucker, lq83). More interesting is-Brint

"nj Kat"b"l's (1989) excellent institutional analysis of community colleges in which it is found that organizational leadership frequenrly plays an acive role in promoting institutional ch-g.'-d producing insritutional isomor- phism.

Good demonstrations of the processes by which orga- nizational forms in a sector become more and more alike can be found in studies tracing the diffusion of particular institutionalized forms through a population of organiza- tions over long periods of time (Brint and Karabel, 1989; Burns and V4roley, 1993; Dobbin et al., 1988; D'Aunno, Sutton, and Price, 1991; Fligstein, 1985; Mezias, 1990; Tolbert and Ztucker, 1983; for a review, see Scott, 1995). These studies show that after new forms of organizing are institutionalized in the rules, norms, and regulations of powerfr.rl agencies in the institutional environmenr. they al- -ost "l*ayo diffi-rse rhrough rhe population of otganiza' tions in a iector, often in the pattern predicted by theories of mimetic isomorphism. But studies also find that organi- zational characteristics such as size, complexiry, network location and linkages, resource dependencies, and other factors affect the response and timing of an organization's response to chang,es in the insritut iona.l environment. espe- cijly in the early"srages of the adoption Process.

Organizational Isomorphism in Education

The formation of an institutional sector, rlle institutional- ization ofnew rules and templates for organizing, the diffir- sion of these rules and templates throughout a population, and the resulting isomorphism of organizational forms ap pear to describe common processes in education. Howweq-the

reader interested in these developrnen$ in American ed- ucadon must read widely in the history of education and reinterpret the data presented in order to see such processes "t *ork, A" * "*" ple, we can trace the sarting Point for to&yt education sector to tle common school movement oftie 1800s. If we read various historical works, it is ap- oarent that the education sector of the early 1800s had^both

a weak technical environment and a weak institu- tional environment. To be sure, in the first halfofthe 19th century before the advent of compulsory school laws' many iocal communiries had schoolt' and in mary com- munities, school enrollments were quite high (Richardson, 1994). But there were many compering models ofeduca- rional oreanization at this time (see Katz, l97l) and rhere was very'linle state, federal, or profesional regulation (see tack, James, and BeneYot, 1987).'

Aldoueh many histories trace the development of the educarion ictor in'the Unired Srates, the work oflyack and colleaeues is especiallv helpfirl (see especially Meyer, Tyack' N"e.i,-d Goidon, i lzl, ty".t . l'f4;Tyack. Jama. and Ben'avot, 1 987; Tyack and Tobin, 1 994) . Tyack's work is- ex- emplary in its broad description of insritution-building ", the n"tion"l, srare. and loca.l lrvels (especially in urban schools) and for its attention to the network of political, Ieqal. and professional actors who worked togerher to insti- ru-rional ize a rar ional ized, professional ized, ard bureaucra- tized qntem ofpublic schooling in the United States. Tyack

-

368 Brian Rowan and Cecil G

Miskel E"'

Fjl',l'-l'l+'fir#"t"'.; $fr.ItJ #i[J'i:i*l**gni1{l**** I':#:ruu**ll'ln*llx l'ff;:ln #im:q"l *;lgg;'gs''rvar'u' acr'rs ,"',llli'f miiii:i:1i{'n'r":T,:il H l*':!:'1"]N$i#['1":i:.*l];*' i ffi#.#rftdt*$,:'li*;#$'-l'trt t$iiitll*+*nlti**':'Jtit|il*::l::T:T;T':$i[#i:i*::'^'*,,*-,*'q.1. ::lji*:'lm:[:;i:::::r,;ul,nlu,l':W f,,'#l'"1l:ilf iilH*:x::fl.f.,!ir;14':i.':l;[H':'',1.":il]i]t'ffi ""*'**f *

cludi.g the usual sranmar d':ll:o^:-*i:'::10::' t

:#Itt*$$;:"*:tl"+:.i*li$'f, :ix*iri:,T*i:i:*ry-;11;";;1ry;

***Hdfr****ffiffi fu:d'tif.i=q*uCtli:Tff''':*H'iilitiffi !:q:l,*.ff i'*iffi i l*:u*,'lttrl*''::,'*o$**u $*l;":;**'*ruiffi ffiffi*lrum'mffi*iffi*;ffi l**,p:1;'pi*$$:.9*iffi,',:'i','* *;1;,1;ffi;*:*:*r;** . cduca'na . rtf i:,',i:i#q..4#:lff::'.i* :#,'i.* t*+$1ru#ffiH$$#,'*m'l+*'lxlll$;{q*ltffi'qn*-r*$'*'****,"*::l'#**1i$frffi

tions (' dre ler shaPin onlY t wttntn oped t

N ln ln tiona krge' in rh tion A s d tend rut1( gani how don that ben gan stllr cor tiot ten an( wh du ml efl fo

in as * ir

c c t

g165$iff'$ffiffi*t'*tffi

rudenh, nd a re- ls ldeol_ :ieties of rS actOIS ,IESCO, rnd uni- 'stem of

Process.'aced rhe re world s educa- >m 1870 C War ll. 'nt, loca- x of the mass ed- I Rubin- and ue

rcnsored orld. Benavot 9 sample : data m- ng in the he world Iudes at- :e, social )vet the aregones udy doa r of these cr acrcss t is strik' bout the find drat ,dardized

ional or- al theory rs of the ritutional donal or- rld, mass lar set of ng. This st a$end cor with- ies of the rf puPils, nd sPace well pre- al condi-

Institutional Theory and the Study of Educatioral Organizations 369

69j5 (various characreristics ofrhe local school population, fie level of local economic developmenr, and so on) in s6aping schooling. Instead, the un ilorm iry ofschooling car only be accounted lor by the isomorphism of schools slthin a well-dweloped institutional sector that has devel- epcd within state, national, and world systems.

Institutional Analysis and Managerial Processes Within Schools

In the previous section, we showed how the new institu- tionalism provides a powerfill explanation for the rise of large-scale education bureaucracies in virrually aJl countries in the modern world. In rhis section, we rurn ro a descrio- don ofhow rhese education bureaucracies .r. -rtr*.'d. ,{s discussed earlier, older versions of institurional rhiorv tended to predict that organizational conformity to insti- tutionalized rules produces 'non-rational" tendencies in or- ganizations. Selznick (1948; 1957), for example, described how responses to instirutional pressures diverted organiza- dons from their central missions, Parsons (1960) argued tlnr institutional conformiry produced a qu.rlitarive break kween the technical and institutional comnonents ofor- g'anizations. ard Meyer and Rowan ( 1977) argued that in- stitu-tional conformity was often accompanied by a logic of confidence and face-saving in institurionalized organiza- tions. _Up through the 1970s, then, insriturional iheory tended to suggest that the isomorphism of organizations and institutional environments pioduces a situation in which goals are loosely coupled to technical activities, pro- duction outcomes are seldom monitored, and manase- ment turns from the problem of improving technical efficiency to the problem ofmaintaining institu"tional con- rormtty.

In this section, we show how more recenr versions of institutional analysis depart fiom this assumption. In fact, as we demonstrate below, the new institutionalism oredicts tlat educarional organizarions. ahhough subjecr ro srrong lnstrruuond pressures everywhe re in rhe world, will show a variery of parrerns of management depending upon rhe chuacteristics of the insrirutional environmerus in which they are embedded. The theories that lead to dris oredic- tton are the focus ofdiscussion in rhis nexr secrion.

Patterns of Management Within Institutioial Sectors In newer forms of institutional theory the patterns by whrch organizarions are managed "r. ri.n ro d.p.nd .ru- ltally on the ways in which inirirurional ,..,o., "r. o.g"-nlzed and on rhe rypes of conrrols agencies in a secio,

exercise over the populations of organizations within that sector. Scorr and Meyer { l99l) areihe firsr ro describe the structural dimensions along which institutional sectors vary. These include (l) the comphxiry ofa sector (the num_ ber and qpes ofagencies exercising tontrols in the sector), (2) the extent to which a dear hierarchy exists within a sec_ tor (the extent to which local agencies are clearly subordi- nate to regional agencies, which in turn are subordinate to national agencies); and (3) the amount of hoimntal coor- dination arnong agencies and groups in the sector. Scort and Meyer (1991) also discuss differe nt pdttern ofcontrol that emerge in insrirurional secrors. For example ,-agencies that monitor_ performance and demand eficiencj often create rules abour and/or monitor organizational inputs, processes, altd outputsr and agencies that monitor con- formiry ofren specifi organizational goals, processes, and Dudgers.

Scott (1995) discusses a number of factors that affect the amount of complexiry hierarchy, and coordination ev- ident in an institutional sector ard the types of controls thar agencies exercise over rhe relevant poiularion oforga- nizarions in a secror, The facrors he menrions incluie market conditions, political traditions, the technologies available for use in a secror, and a variery of orher coridi- tions. In our analysis of educational organizations, how- ever, we emphasize how socierallevel pol;rical rraditions give rise to particular sector configurations. This emphasis is particularly appropriate, we believe, because in the mod- ern world, education everywhere is socially constructed as a collective project ofthe nation-stare (Fuller and Rubin- son, i 992).

. Jepperson and Meyer (1991) discuss the larger, politi-cal traditions within which institutional ,..toi, .-.rn.. They argue rhar rhe various 'poliries" lound in mode".n nadon-stares take on a number of identifiable forms, in- cluding a liberal form (such as the United States), a cor- poratist form (such as Germany), and strong and weak statist forms (France is a strong form; many Lltin Ameri- can countries are weak forms), In order to demonstrate how larger political forces structure institutional sectors and how rhese, in rurn, shape manageria.l processes, we provide some examples of the ways in which narional po, litical traditions srructure rhe institutional environments of schooling, Our analysis concentrares on the strongest possible conrrasr in rhis process, a conrrasr berween Ju- cation secrors in liberal polities and education sectors in state-centered polities.

The Education Sector in Different Countries and Its Effects on Coordination and Control The United States is a classic example of a liberal poliry where individuals havc important stinding in society and

fti.t

370 Brian Rowan and Cecil C. Miskel

are accorded many rights. Along with these rights, ho-weve! individuals are also vested with a great responsibility for car- rving out sociery! collective proiecrs. Thus in rhe United *",i, -*y imponant colleitivc projects like r-he amelio- ration of ooverry are thought to be handled best by rhe pri- u"r. ".tion, of indiuiduJt. For example. in rhe United States today, there is much emphasis on volunteerism, on chariry ani philanrhropy. and on corporare

'tesponsibilirl'

as imponant strategies for_ addressing the complex,soctal problem ofpoverry. As can be seen ln the current decllne ol iocial welfare programs, the state and its agencies are seen to have much less of1 role to play in collecive proiects in a lib- eral polity, and state mecLanisms for achiwing collective ends'theiefore tend to be relatively weak (Jepperson and Meyer, 199l). Scon and Meyer ( I99 I ), following many orh.rr, "t2" fi"t liberal polities encourage a pluralistic ap proach tJdecision-making, one rhat purposefirlly limits rhe powers ofcentralized, political agencies. As a result, institu- tional sectors in liberal polities are often organized as com- plex, multi-layered goYernance sJstems characterized by iras-ented decision-making structures.'Th.

education secror in tlre Unired Srates illustrares this tendency. Education is primarily a function of sures within rhe Gderal system, bui rhe federal government and local oolitical bodies are also active in the sector as well. Indeed, all three levels contribute to decisions about program goals, operations, and/or funding. These three lwels of govern- -.rrt ".. ,to, orgattized in a tightly coordinated way, how- ever. Instead, authorities at multiple levels ofthe system are active in decisions of all kin&, creating overlaPPing and loosely coordinated Programs that often duplicate one an- other and sometimes conflict. In such a situation, many agencies create programs lhey do not fund. fund programs o"ver which rhey haie lirrle operarional audtoriry' or specifr imporrant orga-nizarional go.,ls bur leave the means and fundinq ro be specified elsewhere in the sysrem.

This complex and loosely coordinated system accounts for many ofthe peculiar characteristics ofpublic schools and school iistrics in the United States. For example, Meyer (1983b) notes that public school districts in the United States are accountable to a large variety ofagencies exercising control over funding and programs, and as a result, they ex-- pand their administiative components to rapgnd 1o e.a9\ of these aqencies. This may account for the relatively higher exoendiru.es rhat U.S. school systems make on administra- tion in comparison to school systems in other nations (see, for e"amole, OECD, 1996). In a similar way, organiza- tional difterentiation in public schools in the United States tends to mirror the diverse elements ofthe institutional en- vironment, rather than being built around work flows in the technical core. Thus American public schools have mary different program lirnctionaries who respond directly ,o ."r.rn"l progr"-s (such as

-Iltle I teachers or special ed-

ucarion teachers), bur therc is only onc lormally differenli- ate,i jnsrructionai leadcr: the principal

1'he unique characteristics of the American education secror also accorrnr for tire peculiar p"ttcrns of cont,ol f o r r r r d i r r A r r e r i t a r t 1 ' r r h l i . ' . h , ' r r l \ ) \ l ( t n \ . l n r h e A m e r i c a n ( r \ c . a g c r ( i r \ t l r r t l i r n J ; p t o g r . r t n , r h c n h r v e l i t t l e o r n o authoritl over its content or operations. This is the case, lor - cxamplc, in nrilny statc educatiott systems with strong tra- i djti,rns oflocal conrrol, and, to a lcsser exrcnt, the pattern ol BU\ crnJn(( li,u rr.l in t h< feJ, ral l itlc I program. ln Lhis r i r u a t i . , n , f i r r a n . i r l . r n J \ ( r l i \ l i . J l . r . . o u n t i n g , t e n d t o d o m - inatc as control mcchanisms, but more substantive inspec- : tion and regularion ofschool processes are typically absent, , Moreover, :rs financial ar-rd statistical controls come to dom- r inate, A,merican scfiool systems develop elaborate business managemcnt opcrations urd appoiut- managers of special programs, but thcre is correspondingly lcss grorwh ofad- ininistrative componen(s managing the tcchnical core (cf. l { o w J n . l q 8 l . l q R 2 b r . f h e A m c r i . . r n c d u e a r i o n ' y r r e r n also contains cases in which Program sPecifications origi-' nate in one agenrywhilc progran funding originates in ar- other. l his accounts in part for the widespread finding that patrcrns ofprogram impiemcntation at the local level often vary widely, cven thoup;h activities are conducted under the . r u r p i r c r o l t h r s a m e a u t h , r i z i t , g a 6 e n . y ( M e y e r . 1 0 8 3 b ) . l h i l a r g c r p , ' i n r i . r h a r r n u e h o f t h c l o o ' e . o u p l i n g o b -

served in Americar education, the multiple and loosely co- ordinated programs tha( are present within educational organiantions, ihe fiequently loose connection of program g.ll.rll, to 1,rugr"tt.t activitics, and rhe emphasis on statistical . , , n r r , , , l s i n t h c . t b . c n e e o f s t t b s t a t t t i v c i n s l ' c . t i o n a r e a , - countcd fbr by the lragmented nature of control in the Anerican education sector (Meyer and Rowan, 1978).

The loose coupling so characteristic of American edu- cation is unlikely i<-t be fbund in the education sector ofa \rJrr r cnlcreJ J'oliry' rh.rt i'. .r loliry that tcnd' to organize t u l l e . t i r c l t t t t . t i o n s t h r o t r g l r t h e s t r t e F t . t n . c i . r y p i c a l l y cited as an ex,rmple of such a s1'stem in which

"formal or- ganizing arises in .socicry linkcd to, suborclinate to' and de- hn.,i iri tcr-s of state-rcpresented actions and functions" (eppcrson and Meye r, 199I ). ln a srare-centered poliry.in- iir.i,l,rr1. o, uth". -cial units that seek to influence collec- tivc action clo so through the state. ln such a system' one can exPecl more tightly structured and coherent institu- tional sectors, "rp..i.lly ,..,o., urganized around a collec- rivc lirnction ofsociery like education ln a state-centered polit1,, control over prollrams, oPcrations' and ftrndinl nuo,,i.l be ce,trrnlizrd "nJ cn.trdinat.d by the state and itr funcrionaties. All other actors in thc sector (professiona [ r n p \ , \ u l t ' o r ( A r u u l \ r o r r h c f i . l . l o t o r B r n i / a t i o n \ P e r i o n n i n g , h . . l l i r r r . t i , , r n v r u l J ' r c l ' i t t l l t r c r r c . a n d p o w c r b ' mobiliiing at rhis ccntral lcvel lfcpperson and Meyel r 9 9 1 ) .

Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational Organizations 371

ferenti-

ucatlon control neucar'l e O t n O ase, for

Such a description captures much ofwhat is disdnctive about the French education system. The system is far more centralized than the U.S. education system, with civil ser- van$ having strong powers over substantive educational maners, such as the curriculum. Moreoyer, there is consis- tent (as opposed to ftagmented) control over progammatic, operational, and funding decisions. l,ower levels of educa- donal governance are subordinate to the state, and pmfes- sionals in education enjoy great power by being linked to the state through graduation from state-sponsored, elite universities (for a description of the French system, see OECD, 1996). In theory such ar institutional environ- ment should be more tightly coupled, both vertically and horizontally, than the U.S. system, and activities, once au- rhorized or mandated, should be carried out wi*r more fi- deliry than would be *re case in the American setting (Scott and Meyer, 1991; Meyer, 1 983b) . In fact, some evidence ex- isa to support dre hlpothesis that strong state control pro- duces more straightforwa{d and faithful implementation. For example, Stevenson and Baker's (1991) cmss-national smdy ofteaching showed tlat as state control over the cur- ridum increases, the variance in teachers' content cov€r- age decreases, demonstrating just the effect that one would expect from a centralized and unified institutional envi- rolunent.

lng ra- paftern . In this :o dom- rnspec-

' absent. to dom- business f special h of ad- core (cf r system ns origi- rs ln an- ling that vel often Lnder the 1983b).

rling ob- ,osely co- ucational Program statistical n are ac- ol in the 978). ican edu- ector ofa r orgalize . rypicallY brmal or- c, and de- unctions' poliry, in- rce collec- stem) one nt rnstltu- d a collec- e-centered 1 tunding ate and irs rofessional rtions P€r- I power bY nd MeYer'

Politics versus Markets in Institutional Sectors The discussion has implications for current argumens about ducational reform in the United States. In the 1990s, much anention has been siven to the creation ofcoherent educa- tion poliry, atr apfroach also known a.s q,stemic reform (Fuhrman, 1994; Smith and O'Day, 1990). The main at- tempt here is to move away from the fragmented control q.s- tem currendy governing Americal education ard to move toward closer coordination of policies about instructional goals, means, and funding. Instirutional theory would pre- dict that such a move could markedly change the way American schools are managed internally, considerably tightening the relationships between program goals, activi- ties, and outcomes (see Meyer, 1983b). However, instiru- tional theory also suggests that powerfirl forces must be overcome if such a rystem is to be implemented in the American polity. American states will have to work aga.inst a supremely powerfirl and ingrained tradition of local con- ftol in education. Moreover, systemic reform would require much more hierarchical (inter-governmental) coordination and cooperation than have bei-n evident in the past. Such coordination would aim to link program goals and means tn-ore tighdy and connecr rhese with a more unified syscem ol funding and monitoring. Finally, systemic relorm would recuire much more horizonal coordination. For ex-

ample, a1l the non-governmental groups within the educa- tion sJstem, such as the specialized professional associations, the teacher and administrator preparatory institutions, and the textbook and test publishers, would have to closely co- ordinate or subordinate their activities to the state iftheir ac- tions were to be brought into line in qzstemic reform. A.ll of this seems to require the emergence ofa more state-centered polity like France, something difficult to achieve in a liber- al polity like the United States.

Ifmoving to a strong, state-conuolled educational sJstem seems difficult to achieve in the American poliry, perhaps a move toward deregulation and market controls makes more sense. In 6ct, thiiis a common theme in current efforts to reform American education, and one that is well-suited to the kinds of instirutional analses emerging in political sci- ence and economics. Market reforms have strong ideologi- cal appeal in liberal states around rhe world, in part because the ideological basis ofliberal polities gives strong endorse- ment to the "private" enactment of 'public" interest (Jep- person and Meyer, i 99 1 ) .

An interesting empirical analysis ofmarket controls over schooling is provided by Chubb and Moe (19!0). In the classic tradition ofinstitutional ana.lysis, they set out to com- pare managem€nt practices in public and private schools in the United States, arguing that "different systems ofinstitu- tional conuol should produce schools with quite different . . . characteristics' (Chubb and Moe, 1990: 1066). Chubb and Moet (1990) basic argument has the familiar ring of both new and old institutional analysis. They argue that the instirutional environment ofoublic schools exerts strong pressures for conformiry and

-brings about a'one

best rystem," that is, a powerftrl pressure toward organiza- tional uniformity. This arises, they assert, because public authority over education exists primarily to impose higher order values on schools, and its does so through bureau- cratic controls such as rules and regulations, monitoring, and the creation of incentive structures that encourage con- formiry. Moreover, the system of public control over edu- cation is subiect to capture by a wide range of special interests, many of which gain power and educational re- sources in the system in return for their suppon ofpoliti- cians. As a result, the mission ofpublic schools is deflected and made more complex.

Chubb and Moe ( i 990) also view public school officials as self-interested bureaucra*, interested in expanding their budgets, programs, and administrative controls, which they do by mobilizing as a political interest group that supports continued bureaucratic control over schools. Perhaos the mosr pernicious effect of this organizing. they argue, is the tendency for public schools to become near monopolies and to create a host of restrictions on family choice of schooling. In the American situation, parents can choose to exit the public school rystern by enrolling their children in

1! Brian Rowan and Cecil C }4i$kel3 7 2

orivate schools, bur exit is difllcult because private,s.'hools

iequire tuition payments Thus many dlssallslled cllcnts

..main in scho;ls. ar(emPting to exerclsc volce hut nav-

iil;""d;;; j;t ont of ̂ """v ""ices that must be at- ""ttuo jl,r,rr",, private schools in the united States are *.,i6" cfttSC "ita Moe t l9q0) as largely free of burcau- cratic control, including Catholic schools

(whrch arc suD-

i"., . ,f'.l"f i. "f ,le C""rLolic chutch) ln the ir.view' there

'i, muah "u,ono-y in the privare seclor' and

wltn tnls

."-* " ""-U* of i-po""nt organizational attributes'

Private schools have a greater abiliry ro locus on.a conerent

as op posed, " " flp-: : ::.1.T1 i:ff ','J

iH :'J,';i::;over. autonomy allows Prtvate scn ;;;;;;;;6lo'* of d"i'ion-'aking'.gives

schools

-ora'ftaado- to hire personnel that march lhe neeos ano

-ic"..itir. in;oi.'-d "'ult' in a higher.level of em- olovee iob sarisfaction and commitment l'rlvatr

5cnools

#'"ltJ;. i;;;aunion const rainrs' and' because.tbeir f,i.n," ,,,.nd by choice (not constraint)' private

schools

il"r. S.,t'.t r.laiionships with parens' higher parent tn-

volvement in schools. and a clientele that morc closely

monitors student work at home'"'- To ruppor, t heir ,argu menrs'

Chubb and Moe (lc)c)0)

.,.o"nt an'"n"-fyri, ofsurucy data collected in 1984 from a

:,io;'i; ;;;.^tariue sample of teache rs and adminis-

i';;J,h;'u"i;;J So'" T'h' d"t''how remarkable di[- ;;;;;.; t; the managerial features of public and private .J..[. at *o**d' irivate schools are less subiect to ex- ,.'..1:;",;ii;i Ji lo'rs' in'luding rubsrantive,conrrols over instruction ald curriculum practices' as

well as Per- sonnel pracrices. Private school principals rePort

morc'co-

operation and support from parens Compared to puottc

school reachers. teachers tn prtvate schools iudge their prin-

cipals to be stronger instructional leaders' rePorl .navlng -".il irn"*.. """tchool policies of all sorts

(includingin-

";;;J policies). reporr higher levels of coopcration

*ong ,a".h.,,. and highe r levels ol job salrslactlomn-q

ao--"ir-anr. Moreover' privare schools seem to be more

;;;t;J .t a single misiion-instructional excellence -

';;;;;;i;.fr"Is' which tend to endorse manv soals ,s wonhv. Thu, Chubb and Moe ( 1990) present strong ev- idence thar differences in institutional envtronments

arecr

pr.",r,, of -"n., g"l'1,: :,::hi'j'".c.s ( I e90) anallsis isDesoite is appeal' LlruDD a ri-i",Jtut-i"-.i"'" t ion ro the American contqrt and

by irs

;:-b,; ;l;;;;;'l-'i't"l) 'o"t'*' in which American ed-

,ti i"" rt tr*"it a For example' Chubb and Moe (1990)

"il.t.,noiii^ ,tte historical imergence of the.pr ivare sec-

tor wi$in Ame rican educarion' lailing to-show.how Prrwte schoolinq in rhe Unired Statcs is nested wllhrn thc

safilc

il"-..,".ilti"ta"iit' in";tution"'l tnvironment in which

oiBi;;;;i, ;"' ln fact' private schoolins in rhe united

i..,.it ttf,r-ftt. -uth pttblit institution building For

exarrrDlc, priv:rrt' schools gain thcir right to educate stu- C l e l , J \ . r r ( . t l l l . l l l l r r l r u r l . r r l t ( i l l l l t l l l l i r r g \ ' ' r n d r e l r g i o U s 5 . 1 1 , u , l . . 1 . r , t < r h , i r t r c r d , ' r n t r u r r t i t t s t i t t t t i o n a l c o n \ t l a j n ! s a s a . , , l l \ < q U . l l ( c " l t l l c \ t t l , r i . r t r ' l a l c t t r l u t t a n t e t o h e a v - i l y r c q r r l . r r c l ' r i v . r t c r f t r i r s { l ) . a r i n ' l

q R ' ) ) - T h i \ s r a n d ) i n "in,,-'.., ,n na'y other nati.trs of thc rvorld' where the in- .,i,u,io,t"l .ntir,,rt-et,t allbrds ciroice of secular or reli- gio.,s ,c,h,r.,liug to stuclcnts but does not al}brd religious or i.iu,,te ..1ru.ri.'th. salne measure of autonomy fiom erter-'nai,

institutiond consrraint rltat private schools in *re United Statcs crtrretrtlv enjoy (t)ECil)' 1996)

M,,r"ou.r. it ,uoild be a misrake to assume that Amer! car priv:rte schools arc largeiy fret ofinstittttional constrailt.

Th.] I"rg.st sy.t",tt oi pr ivatc education in the country the Catltolii scirt ol s,vstent, appears to have gonc through much ,h. ,",rr. ,,"g". of in.tittttinrt"l deveiopment as the public .u-,,.m. ttt tlie Jaci<sonian period, thc svstem was'i modey J.,ll.cti.,,, of impoverishecl schorls" that was increasingly

bro.,glt, u,t,1., stroog institutional control by the Roman

il",ni,tl. tlttu..t' (Baier. 1992: 200) By the postbellum pe-

riocl. thc svstetn ha.1 dcveloped an elaborate institutionai

.,.'-,.*tr., .,,rnry1.," lvith a uriquc institutional politics and

" *r."n. proF.rri.t'ralisn Over time' the schools in this rys- icr, .u.." i.lib.,",.ly constructed iu reference to the pub-

i i . . f . ' , f . r l t . * ( r ' . l q r ' l r h r i n g i r r g a b o u t w h a r . D i M a g g i o

. r r r , l l ' , , r u c l l ( l q ' r l r ! " l l " r t n p c t i t i ' c i \ , l r n o r P h r \ m l h u s

Catholic schcxr]s arc in somc nleasure a part of the "one

il;;;;'; that Chubb and Moc (1990) see as composed

onh' ol- public scbools Moreover' in recent yeats' vattous

;;it;;.: J';'. Ied the Catholic school system to begin to

;;;*i.;t;;tt of the spccial educarional services that are

irr"",.i.i i" ir,,frii. schlols (-l'itle I) a.d t. recruit a teach' i;; f;;:; i;"; tbc samc labor pool as public schools Thus . , r n i r . , 1 n l . r r k c t l l t d o t l t t r i n ' t i t r r t i t ' n a l P r e 5 s t L r c \

n a v e

j ( n r , l l r r ( t l t l r e ( . r t h t ' l r ' t ' l r " o l ' i r r A m ( r l t J ' J n d t n e s e

l-",.r,... ft"t. procluccd substantial instirutional isomor-

Pltiill,r,.'uf ,l i. i. -ea't to deny the cenual pointofchubb

,,''.i1'r,t"t iistol aralysis 'fheie are substantial diflerencs

i " ' L f t t . t 1 , , f ' f i . u r J p r i v r r ' * h " ' - ' l ' i r r t l r c U r r i t r d S t a t e " r r e

,".",*.,1. .1,,a 'u.lt ,1ih.r. ,,..' r..'ult ft..'m diff'rcrrce' in rhe

rtr.,i,Xf"itf ."t,,-ts to wirich thcsc schools are subiected rs

t:t,ui't' u,..t \"1,1; r lo'rQr rlot( ho$fler' (xtencling,fie mu-

k c r l , r , ' r i . i o t r r ' l . . l l o u l i r r g i r r t l r t U t r i t < ' l 5 t : r t c ' t o r n < p u u " '

;t:;.;;r,,li ."qui,. ,ttb'ttu"ti''l instirutional change As in

r,tt' t"tfl''.t.i.'. "tt' lutn"' ..rl in'tirutiotr'rl. r<gulation

rv.,Lrl.l he reqrrircJ. e'1"'ci'rllv ptrhli' pt'li' ie' 'lcstgneo tu

. r ' ^ " , ' , , , ' ^ , . r , r i r l r n . u k e t t . r i l u t c ' ' t r r r l m l n g l t o m t n l o r m a -shore up potential tnarket failures stemm:?il:I,ffii;; tiotr probletns' barriers to entry' alld ;i::, fi;i;;,;;.-.iucatio* is a public good (l-cvin' 1e8e; V"ir*, "tta Vittut*' 198')) 1 he Point thcn is that wen

mar'

i . , " ' - " ' U ^ , , " r r ' . 1 , " ' t " n l . r I ' o i i ' i ' ' l u ' l t J t t t " r i r t t t i o t t a l c o n

t r o l . . r r , . l r n , ' t i r r g r , , r l t e t n . ' r L c t p r o v i ' i o r l o l e ' l u u l t t o l ) l n u "

'irni*.j ii"", t".,la rcqttite ttttich institution brrilding

T

.Cate stu_ rel€louJ

)nstraints I to heav- srands in re rhe in_ r or reli_ ligious or )m exteF re Unired

at Ameri- onsnalnt. Lrntry rhe rgh much he public "a modg, creasingly c Roman ,ellum pe- ;tirutional rlitics and n this q's- , the pub- )iMaggio m." Thus : the "one

romposed 's, various r begin to rs that are it a teach- rols. Thus ures have and these

lsomor-

ofChubb differences 1 States are nces in the bjecred,ls g the mar- the Public urge. Ao in regulation esigned to n informa- xternaiitic 'vin, 1989; t even mar- tional con- Lrion in the ilding

Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational Organizations J t 5

Institutional Analysis and the Technical Core of Schooling

fo this point, we have seen how institutional aralysis ac- counts for the rise oflarge-scale education bureaucracies in modern societies and how differences in the configuration of institutiond environments (within and berween coun- tries) accounts for the different patterns of management observed in different school systems. In this section, we turn to an analysis ofhow institutional processes affect the technical core of education.

Early institutional theories tended to ignore the effects ofinstirutionalized rules on the technical core ofschools- teaching and learning in classrooms. For example, Meyer and Rowan's (1978) analpis of loose coupling in educa- donal organizations followed Parsons (1960) by positing a oualitative break between institutiona.l ard technica.l levels oTmanagement in schools and by predicting tlat manage- rial actions were most frequently dwoted to buffering the technicrl cor€ from institutional pressures. In retrospect, however, Meye r and Rowan's ( 1 978) e mphasis on loose coupling appears to have been a shoncoming ofearly insri- rutional analysis, as various proponents of the new institu- donalism have argued (Powell, 1991). In this section, we therefore dwelop a set of arguments about the ways in which instirurional processes /o affecr rhe technical core of schools.

Institutional Effects on the Teachers' Instructional Work

when policies about a particular instructional practice were unambiguous ar:d clear, rhe fideliry ofimplernenrar ion was high and variation in pracrice among reachers was low. On the other hand, when policies abour a pracrice were arrr- biguous, implemenrarion was more variable and teachers, practices-were more influenced by teachers' prior experi- ence and rhe unique inrerprerations reachers made of rhe policies. A similar ser of findings wx reported by Goodrick and Salancik (1996) in the health caie domain where organizational variations in the implementation of inslirutionalized rules were highesr when rules were un- certain and ambiguous and lowest when these rules were clear alld certaln.

These_studies suggest that clarity and consistency in in- stitutional rule-maLing can produce real effecs on work activities within the technical core ofschools. But institu- tional effects on teachers'work might also occur eyen in the fragmenred sysrem of educaiional control in rhe United States._For example, a great deal of evidence sug- gesa that teaching practices in the United States are sur- prisingly consistent and numbingly routine. In an early studt Jacl$on (1968) nored an almost ritual sameness in classroom instruction. hter, Goodlad (1!84) described the remarkable (and dreary) sameness of classroom teachinq practices, Cuban (1984) nored the persisrence of teacheri cenrered pracrices in American schools. and Rowan 0 995) reponed rhat the majoriry of high school reachers in his study o[ teachers' work pracrices reponed thar rheir work was routine.

For institutional theorists, the routine nature ofteachins is a srrong indication *rat reaching pracrices in American schools are instirutionalized. Thus an important problem is to uncoyer the factors thar stabilize and institutionalize these practices. The most common argument in research on American schools is rhat reaching pracrices are con- strained by the organizational structure of schools (Cu- ban, 1984) and passed down across generations of teachers through an apprenticeship of observation (Lor- rie, 1975). From the standpoint of institutional theory, this argumenr makes sense, for ir explains quire cleariy how social processes are reproduced a-ross generations in a way that is quite consistent with Zucker's (1977) exper- imenral srudy of rhese processes and wirh Berger and Luckmanni (1967) broader discussion of insritutional- ization processes.

A shortcoming of this explanation, howeveq is its fail- ure to locate rhe origins ofthis institutionalized pattern of teaching practice. In rhe argumenr, schools e st as instiru- tionalized structures widr embedded routines, people pass- ing through these schools confront these instirutionalized routines as objective reality, a-nd thus become habituated to them. later, as these individuals become teachers. they re- produce *re rourines they earlier experienced. The quesiion, ol course. is whar accounrs for the orieinal framework?

There-are a number ofways that instirudonal arrangemen$ can affect technical or work activities within an oisaniza- tion. First, the srructure of insrirurional r..totr, atd rh. qper ofnrles promulgated therein, can affect the nature of work in organizations. As discussed above, complex and tragmented institutional sectors exercise only weak con- strun$ on organizational work, but as an institutional en- v[onment becomes more unitary, aJ rules about work in the technical core become more specific, and as these rules get anached ro outcome assessments or other insoection rystems, instirurional t-heory (like organizarion rheory more generally) predicts srronger effecrs of insrir u rionalized rules on work ac iviries (Scorr and Meyer. 199 | ; Meyer. | 9g3b).

. An interesring analysis of rhe effects of insrirurionalizedrules on teachers' work can be found in Cohen and Spillare's (1992) dircussion of insnuctional guidance rystems (institu-tionalized rules about instructioni In a test ofdre ideas de- veloped there. Spillane and Jennings (1997) invesrigaredcurricular reForms in a school disriicr $at had carifully altqled its yarious instructional policies in support of an ambitious, new model ofliteracy instructio". Th. p,,1pos. of the study was to examine tlre effects of these policy ciranges on teached instructional practices. The study found tiat

374 Brian Rowan and Cecil G. Miskel

Decades of research show that teaching practices in the Unired Srates are zol subject to strong regulatory prcssure ofthe sort described by Cohen and colleagues (Coher and Spillane, 1992; Spillane and Jennings. I997), so deliberare institution-building by smte education agenciei and locJ- school districts is L'unlikely source for the stability o[ tcaching practices. Moreover. workplace norms of pracrice ".. unli'k.lv sources of deep instit urionalizar ion' lor here too e,tidence suggests that formal and informal collegial controls over teaching are gpically weak in American

r schools (for a review, see Rowan, 1990)' lfexplicir regulations ard workplace norms do nor ap-

o.rt,o "..oun,To, the routine reaching pracrices found in hmerican schools, perhaps teaching practices ar.e sructured bv more tacit, coqnitive understandings ln tacl' Jackson (iq68) suggesred i,.tsr such an idea after finding that reach- .r, *...,ii.bI. to aniculate any well-developed rationale for their teaching activities. Jacksoris work further suggests that these tacit irnderstandings are difficult to surface in the tlpical study, especially because teachers are largely un- aware of the talen-for-granted understandings that struc- ture their activities. \X/hat may be required, it seems' is a research desiqn similar to the

"breaching experiments" con- ducted bv iarfinkel (1967), in which the tacit under- standings and expectations that structure a social situation are t iolited. As this occurs, tacit understandings are some- dmes more easily brought to the surface for study than would be the case in situations where these remain in an as- sumed form.

In education. ar interesring example ofa breachingex- perimenl can be found in high schools rhar are engaged in ietracking-reform effons designed to replace the homo- geneous abiliry grouping so characterlstlc of u J nlgn ichool.. In " t,uiy oi l0 racially mixed high schools en- aaged in such reforms, Oakes and colleagues have begun ro i."-onr,r",. the powerful ideological and cultural bases of this common insiructional practice and, thus, to discover the tacit understandings that shape instructional work in American schools (Oakes, Vells, Jones, and Datnow' 1997). They found that many teachers and parents in the schools unier study embraced a commonsense

"ideo-logy

ofintellieence" ani a view ofsocial mobiliry derived from rhe "Amirican dream." They argued that these views are deeolv roored in American culture and exisr as

"ruling ideas in,.rn"lit"d by a maioriry ofpcople Irhat act as] a defining motif of everydav life" (Oake' t al ' 1997:485) ln the schools undei study, these larger, societal ideologies legit- imized tracking and were available to participants as argu- ments against"detracking reforms. Moreover, those who e^br"cei these ideologiis were resistant to a rational cri- rique of their views. Thus it appears thar rracking ard the und.tlying ideologies which legirimize it are deeply. insti- rurion;i;d and liave meaning

'far beyond rhe rechnical value ofthe task at hard" (Selznick, 1957: 17)'

l l r l r r o r i g i r ' , ' l r r . r . l < - i r g l i c i r r r h c i n r r i r u r i u n . b u i l d i n * ot progrcr.ir c <Ju. .ttor' .rnJ thc p.-'u er ful ideologie. innil r r r r i u n . r l r z c J i n n m c r i ( J r ) ' , ' . i c t v I l y r . k . l ( ) - , 4 ) . i r m a l e \ sense to see this iustructional pracrice as mrtch more tha' an eflicienr and rational solution to thc tcchnical problqn of individual dillerences in instruction. liacking is x]5e. social institution that has important consequcnces lq1 i1- structional acrivities and instructional outcornes. ft is lysll known, for example, that students itt diflcrent tracks xrc c x p o . c d r o d i t l r r c n t c r r r r i , r t l a r c o t r t e n l . l h a t t c a c h i n g 4 r d .1,r..r,-,.nr .'limrrc. Jif{cr ;, r.r.' rr.rck:. and thar ter, heri morivational stares are affected by the track ofthe cius they are teaching (Oakes, (iamoran, and Page, 1992; Rauden- bush, Rowan, :rnd Chcong, I 992, M3). A great deal of lq- search shows that these cross-track diffcrences in teaching practicc are part ofthe explanation for the effects of tracki i,rg ,rn .tr.,,lent "chicvement

'l'hus the ideological assump- tions about learning, intelligence, and social mobiliry that rationllize and give legitirnacv to tracking also appear to shapc the narr.rre ofteachers' rvork in schools' lu a varietyof sr.rJics d.mo,,rtrate (fbr a revierv, see C)akes, (iamor6, and Pagc, 1992).

Thi discussion above presents ln account ofa technical p r J \ t i c c i n . . h , . r t , l . t h r r t i . b a . e d o r r I c o g n i t i v e . o n c e p t i o n of institutions, that is, an account of a social institution that focuses on thc taken-for-granted assumptions lyingbe- hind rhe insritution rather the llormatlve or regulatory bascs ofthe insritution. 1'he power of this cognitive view of instirutions is also found in recent studies of the effects of academic disciplines on rhe nature oftcachers'work Jack- son (198(,: Chapter Q argucd that all subjects within the school curriculum are associated with their own, unique epistemologies, that is, assumptions about the nature of L,ro*l..lge-",td how it can be understood ln partic- ul"r, ]aclion (198(r) argued that the sciences tend to be nr,run,l.d in a more str,tctu..d and paradigmatic view of i . n o * l . J g " a n d . r n l . ' r . i l t c d n r i n r e l i t o r t r ' r r r \ r n i s s i o n - . , , i t n r c d l , h i l . , . " p h y o f I r a r n i r r g a r r d I e a L l t i r r B . B y

( o n ( r a r ( ' h e a r c u e d r l r . r t t h c h u m , r n i t i c \ ( o n t r i r r a v i c ' w o l k o o w l - edg. is f1ui,l and evolving and thar the humanities endorse " [t.an.fo.,tt"tiu.i' (intcractive) strategr- of learning and reachins.

An lccumulating body of evidence suggests that these c p i s t c m o l o q i c l l J \ . u l l l p t i o n \ t h a l t c t h e t l ' t t l ' t u l t e l ' ' h e r s * , - , r k . S , . , d " , , 1 . L . { t ' ) 8 8 r . l u r c x a m p l c . ' r u d i c d c l c t n c n t a r y schnol te"cheri as they raught rnathcmatics and history lessons and found that the sarne teirchers used very differ- ent teaching strategies when they taught differcnt subjects Teachcrs' mathemirtics lcssons rvere characterized by a more structurccl approach and involvcd fiwer instructional for- mats than dii social studies lessons, thus confiruringla& sorir 1 I ()8rr t vicr,,. .rbout .pi:tcm,-,l.rgi,.rl ditlir crr' e' in- ̂tne J i ' c i 1 , l i r t < . . M o r e r c . c t r t l u ' r t , ' d o l ' k l a r r d ( r r o ' s m a n i l ( ) ( ' r r have shorvn rhat high school teachers in tliflerent discipltnes

Y

63ve very differenr views abour the naturc of knowledge and engage in differenr.levels of curricular coordination. For er.ample. mathematics leachers tend to see knowlcdge x5 highly structured and well-defined. and r-hey rend to *ork wirh colleagues to standardize and tighrly coordinare rhe curriculum. English teachers, on dre other hand, view furowledge as fluid and less well defined, and they are less likely to attempt to coordinate and standardize the cur- riculum.

A series of studies of high school teachers conducted by Rowan and colleagues closely parallel and support thae findings (Raudenbush, Rowan, and Kang, l99i; Rowan, Raudenbush, and Cheong, 1993; Rowan, Rau- denbush, and Kang, 1991). These studies demonstrate srrong effects of disciplinary specializ:tion on teachers' viewiabour the nature of their work. Teachers from dif- ferent disciplines tend to have different views about the exrent to which teaching is a routine task, they tend to prefer different teaching strategies, and they have differ- €nt propensities to engage in collegial relations and participate in school decision-making. Moreover, in the iudies conducted by Rowan and colleagues, the effects of disciplinary specialization were found to be much stronger than the effects resulting from within-school variations in the way the "core technolog/' ofinstruction was arranged. Thus the discipline in which a teacher is teaching appears to have a much stronger influence in or- ganizing teachers' work thar do local, technical circum- stanc€s.

To this ooint, our discussion of instirutional effects on teachers' work has concentrated on studies conducted in the United States. Howeve! a growing body of cross- national research suggests how teachers' work is shaped by nadonal cultures and by the institutionalized rules and un- denundings dweloped in different countries (for a brief re- view arrd relevant citations, see Stedman, 1997). McKnight x al. (1987) and Schmidt a al. (1996), for example, have showa that the structure and flow of classroom lessons varies significandy across countries. American teachers tend to uke a heavily didactic and teacher-centered approach to teaching and focus on a large number of topics. By con- trast Japanese teachers tend to emphasize a smaller number oftopics and use a group-centered, discourse-rich teaching strategy that emphasizes problem-solving (see also, Stigler and Stevenson, 1991).

Cross-national differences also are evident in the con- tent covered within the standard school curriculum. Not surprisingly, the U.S. curiculum is often describcd as frag- tnented, unfocused, and repetitive, covering a vast range of topia in litde depth. Other countries present fewer obiec- t|es in more depth (Schmidt et al., 1996; McKnigh:t et al., J987). Importattt differences among countries alio occurIll the ways curricula are sequenced. For example, in the United States, aleebra and calculus are introduced later

375

than in many other countries. There are also enormous dif- ferences in tracking rystems. The United States maintains a qstem of comprehensive secondary schools, organized on the basis of local anendance zones, with differentiated cur- ricular racks occurring within schools. Many other coun- tries have very different qrstems. In Germarry and Denmark, for example, drere are many different ry'pes of secondary schools offering very different academic and vocational edu- cation programs. In Japan, secondary schooling is not com- pulsory students are admitted to secondary schools on the basis of examination scores. and there is a clear status rank- ing among schools.

All of this strongly suggests that cross-national differ- ences in teaching, curriculum, and patterns of academic trackins reflect differences in national culture and ideol- ogy. Thus Schmidt et al. (1996: 6) argue that teaching is "fundamentally embedded in culture both in its concep- tion ard execution." The Japanese emphasis on groupwork in classrooms has been seen as reflecting the general cul- tural emphasis on the importance of groups in Japan, an emphasis that is seen not only in teaching strategies, but also in promotion policies and instructional grouping prac- tices (McAdams, 1993: 199). In contrast to the United States, students in Japan do not r€peat grades and are placed in mixed ability classes throughout primary school- ing. Similarly, differences in the curriculum and tracking practices in secondary schools reflect national ideologies, as TLrner's (1960) early discussion of contest and sponsored mobiliry suggests. Differences in curriculum and tra&ing also appear to reflect the different ways in which national polities are organized. For example, the liberal polity of dre United States, with its emphasis on individual responsibil- iry organizes a system of curricular tracking built around ideologies of choice. By contrast, the corporate polity of Germany, with its emphasis on the repr€sentation of pri- vate interests at the collective lwel, gives German busi- nesses a strong role in providing public education and tracks and sorts studens early into academic and voca- tional tracks.

Clearly, much more work is needed to identify the spe- cific aspects of national culture that shape instructional acdvities in classrooms. But the studies reviewed here illus- trate the important point that work in classrooms (the core technology ofschooling) is affected in important waJ's by institutionalized rules. Regulatory conceptions of institu- tions can be helpful in explaining rhese effects, but external regulations appear to structure dassroom insruction only when they are cleat consistent, and certain (a rare set of conditions in the United States). \Torkplace norms are also a possible source for the institutional structuring ofwork, but again such norms appear to be generally weak in Amer- ican schools. In our view, an important source of work rules is the (often implicit) ideologies held by teachers, stu- dents, parents, and administrators in school s1'stems, As

Institutional Theorv and the Studv of Educational Organizations

ildins lnstl- nakes : than rblem also a br in- is well ls are rg ard lchers' x they tuden- I of re- achrng track- sump-

)ear to riety of TIOran,

chnical reptlon itution

ulatory view of Iects of k. Jack- hin the unique rture of partic-

d t o b e view of nission- :ontrast,'krowl-

endorse ing and

rat these teachers me ntarl L h i s t o r y 7 differ- subjects ,y " l9t. onal tor- i"s lack- les in the r (1995) isciPlines

'qI

Brian Rowan and cecil G. Miskel5 l O

our review demonstrales. Lhcre is a Srowing body ofevidence on lhe effects of fiese ideologies on instructiona.l work tn schools.

Institutional Effects on Students

In contrast ro the modest atcenrion paid.to the.effecrs of institutionalized rules on teachers' work' insrituttonal the- rrit,, ft"". *i"* -uch more attention to the effects of ed- ucational ilnstitutions on students''{4tat is interesttng about this work, however, is the limited attention p-aid to ;;;-i:1.";"i;8. lnstead of concentrating on the formal elements ofcurriculum and instruction In schoo$ ano Ine ;;;; 'I.t. affect student learning' insrirutional rheorists have tended to pay closer attention to the hldden or In- f.*'Jl.rtri."f ,i"i and rhe broader wals in whkh schools socializr studens to become members o{ adult soctery | hrs ir ..*i"."t with the general rhrust of instirurional theory' *hi.h ofr.n look beiind rhe facade of forma] structures and manifest functions to identify the real PurPoses gurd- ins an organization'' "Rt.,iph"ti,

on the informal or hidden curriculum in *trootr-# U. t..n in Parsons' (1959) early analysis of tht elementary school classroom' For Parsons (1959)' school- ir* i" *.'*try grades was about much more than acade- -i. r.U*"-'.tl. It was also the first step in rhe long i""t*"i.*".a .a"lthood and one ofthe first places where'.iJrr',,

.rr"o,ttt,.red dre important social organizational irt-t "f A. hrger sociery' Dieeben (1968) extended this analvsis in his discussion of tle normative meslages trans-*rniriJ,.

t,"a.t",rt rough the social organization of class- room activiries. showing how the activiry structures ol "i;t;t.-t reinforced t}'i broader norms of society- These *Jp., "t. i-por,art because they view the school' notso ,nuah "t - org"nit"tion arrempting to maximize academtc producriviry, 5.,t ,"th.r as a social institution chartered to i..idJtiii.t" i"to the norms and values central to adult status."'--Lo,h.,

Iine oIanalysis in sociology uses labeling the- ory to address the imporrart sorting ard selectlon tunctlon olaved bv schools in the process ot sta(us attainment tt\lsr' iniii. ii.* .-pi'asis is placed on the ways school' confer !latus on srudents through labeling and on the etfecB tnat Iabeling processe. have on students Rist (1q77)' lor exam- ple, arfried that assignments to an instrucrional group in i-i"-.i.t*^,"tt sch"ool shape studenti sel[-conc-cprs and ,."Jrfrt .*o.a,",ions about a studenr's potential- [or Iearn- ine. Earlv labels rhus produce self-firJ filling-prophesies that lofk sui.nrt into " panern ofinstructionJ treatmenl lhat persists through schooling (for more recent evldence on iiit ".i"i, ,..'P"ll". ",,/.] Iq94) Orher classic studies o[ this proces. are Cicourel and Kiuusei ( 1966) study ol htgh JJol .ounr.lorc and Clark! (1960) srudy of communiry .l-[.*. .or,nr.lorr, both of which discuss the interaction

r i r r r . r l ' c n r l ' l , , r . J I ' v r r l u . a t i , ' r r p c r ' o n r t e l i r r . r h c l a b e l i n g p r , ) c ( \ . r \ 1 . R o r r . r r r . l ' ) 8 2 . ) A g J l r l . I l b < l l n B t h c o r i e ' \ h o ; tl,rr ..hnols "re rrluch more than organizetions designed to ma-ximizc lcaclcmic perfbrmance I'hey are also social in- sritutions that pcrform the sometimes tacit function ofal- Iocaring studerits to positions in society's stratified division of Iabor.

ln a clusic enalysis of the role ofeducation in stanu at- tainment, Ivlcver (1977) argued rhat the statuses conferred bv cducational orgaliz:.ticltts give students filture access 1o positions in the political ard economic order ofsociety.Iur- thernrore, thro,,gl, " proccss ol'dillirse socialization, studenu learn rlxrut "nd.".r.,n,. thc lifcstyles, rights' and privilega opically associared with thcir assignecl status. ln Mryert (igZZ)'ti.ru, howcvet the process oF status confcrr.l in ..hools ha-s littlc effect on what students actually know and are able to do. For cxarnplc, thcre is wide variation in the knorrlcdcc arrJ 'kill. 1,o'.e',scd by indiviJual' with $c same edu.rri.,i .redcrrriali .rrrd onl; a loo'e relation'hip be- wcen cducation credentials and the skills necded or used in rh. urrkplac.. l-duc'rti"rr crcJcrrtial\ lenlain d ccn(laldeler- nrinurr oi'lite chrr.es itt tttodetn so. ictie'' howevet and *rir occurs becausc schools function largely to define and confer status, nor to socialize students into a specific academic con- rent (cf. Mever ard Rowan, 1978)'

l)c'oire in'tirutiorral rheoryi useful fo'us on the non- al-rdem;r oul(ome5 of .. hooling otr( c'u)not help bur won- der if institutional Ptocesses are also at work in *re orodrrrtiur', ,rf aru*n rc knowlcdge Sociocultural theories of ir-.rrnius )ugfr\l .m el]lrtnativc Jll\iwer to lhi\ qucstion bul ro .l"r"l h.y.'h", e lrad litrle irnpacr on the ttew in"citutional- ism in organizrtion dreory (sec Moll, 1990 for one overviev oi'*rl, nia). rnit is unfortunate, for sociocultural theories J e m o t t ' t r a r c h . r w l c a r n i n g i t ' r i t i c a l l y . d c p e r r d : l t o l l T - g,ttlge atrd .ultur< rttd how it i' strongly \haPrd by tne rn-

'"riturion.rliz.d contcxt" in rvhich it occur.' ln P'lrtl(uar'"C"i.- iiisOl clemonstratcs that schooli'g is a panicuiar

k j n , l o l i r r ' r i t u t i . , n . J c o n t c x t f o r l v r t n i t r g l h a t g i v e s r r s e t o a p . r r t i , u l . - r r q p e o l l , . a r n i r r g C o m p a r e J t o o t h e r i n s t i t u l t o n a t

l,',u.tt. in'i,',. i.ry. ..hoil' .r" organiteJ 'rround a partetn

of discourse rhar is didactic in form (question/arsver/ cv.rlrt.ttion;. Moreov(r. t.lrot'rl work i\ otgJniled aJound

a

Ji.tinctjve .cl ol' (r\ki th.rr exptrrc' 5ttlJcnI\ lo J lJrge

arrrourrt nf infornt"tion that must be conmitted to mem'

, , r l . r n d u . , r l J g a i l l ( o a L \ c s \ r l t r l t e r i t t l o r l r t a t i o r l t t n a i Y '

r l t ' . r " . 1 " o f ' . i , . , u l i , t g . J n d t l r c d i : c o u r s c P ' r l t e r r r w r l h l n

' . I o . , 1 ' , p r , , J u , < I p a r r i . u l a r k i r r d o f l c r r n i n g . 5 t u d e n u rrlr,, lr.rr.l.rrt.ndcJ ., hool gcnerally-rrutPerli'rnr tho:ervttu

have n,,t att.nJ.d .. hool on tc't' ol 11)(mor)' (lJ5\lnc?r'u''

. ' r r J v e r l ' . r l l . 8 i c J p r o b l c n r ' t ( n l e ' l ( t q O l . . . - t , , ? A ' i . r n , i , . h , r . , l t a : i n ' t t t u t i o n ' t h r t ' c c k t o s o c t a " "

.,t,J.,u. i,,,,, .r pllti.ular lt'rrn ol krr'rwlcJge S:'"-l".li w a r i r r . r t , l a i r r i r i a r o n r < " 1 t l r e l r r z z l i n $ f i n d i n g \ i n r e s e J J r "

, , ' r " . h o , , i " B . . t i i . ' r e " l - o t c r ' r r n l ' l e i t t r t c . . c n t l n ' t l ) ( 1 " '

.rudent achievemenr among high school srudents in the Unir.d St"to. Richard Snow ard colleagues found rhar vari- lgjons in instr,.,ctional processes within schook were more highly assoctateo Ylth:lusent achrevement on test rtems ,ll5uring

"crysrallized". lorms of knowledge than with vrriarions tn stucent acnlevement on lesl l(ems measurlng more

"{luid" reasoning abilities (Kupperminz a al, 1995; Harnifton rt a1.,1995). Such findings suggest that schools. ar least in the United States, are in the business of social- izing students into a particular form of institutionalized knoiledge, the qpe of knowledge so aptly described by Cole (1990).

The role ofschools as "carriers" of a particular form of

ftnowledge has also been used to explain cross-national dif- ferences in rhe percenrages of variance in student achieve- menr explained by gpical indices of school quality and resources. Since the 1980s, it has been found tlrat differ- ences in school quality explain a far greater percentage of variance in student achievement in less developed countries dran they do in more dweloped countties, while in more developed countries, differences in social origins tend to ex- plain the largest percentage ofvariance in student achieve- ment. One explanation for this set offindings is that social dass differences in informal (and out-of-school) access to school knowledge is largely absent in les developed coun- ries, while in more developed countries, where universal, mass education has been institutionalized for longer periods oftime, informal and out-of-school access to school knowl- edge tends to be unequally distributed among members of dill'erent social classes (Helrreman and Loxley, 1983; Fuller and Clarke. 1994).

Studies ofstudent learning conducted by sociocultural theorists in the United States reinforce these ideas. For ex- ample, sociocu.ltural theoriss have dweloped the concept of"cultural congruence," defined as $e degree of similar- ity between *re culture ofthe home and the culture ofthe school. Research in the United States is beginning to show that when the discourse patterns and activity structures common to schooling differ from the discourse and activity patterns found in homes, children experience difficultv in compllng witi classroom norms, haue difficulry panici- paring successfrrlly in lessons, and are evaluated more nega- tively. Itesearch also suggesrs lhat increasing rhe congruence terween discoune and acrivity rourines in homes and schools car improve srudent performance (lor a review, see r harp, 1989).

Bioader cultural theories also have releyance to the anallsis of student academic performarce. For example, Ogbuis (1987) work on the ways in which minority group membership affects student participation and success in schooling shows how broader, societa.l forces affect student attitudes toward and success in school. His work is inter, ating because it departs from the functionalist accounts of schooling discussed previously, which tend to assume that

studens passively conform to the normative framework of schooling (Parsons, 1959). In a series ofstudies, Ogbu and colleagues have found that students adopt a rariety ofstances and anitudes toward schools, some ofwhich take the form of resistance to school norms (Ogbu, 1987). Ogbu's work con- centrates on differences in student reactions to schoolins that occur alnong srudens from voluntary and involtirtary minoriry groups. Depending on their migration history mi- noriry groups develop different assessmenrc of their future liG chances, hold different folk theories ofhow to qet ahead, dwelop a distinctive sense ofgroup idenrity and critural ref- erence for judging appropriate behavior, and accord different degrees oflegitimacy to the dominant institutions ofsociery. Ogbu argues that these processes account for the diFerences in school outcomes obsewed among East Asian students (voluntaryminorities) andA6ican-American, Hispanic, and Native American studena (involuntary minorities).

Resismnce theories (X4llis, 1977) also suggest that the conformity ofstudents to t}re normative demands ofschool- ing cannot be assumed and show how student agency plays a role in education productiviry lWillis (1977), for example, examined the reactions to schooling among a group of working-class students in Engla.rrd, showing how members of the group dweloped an assessmenr of their furure life chances that led them to a counter-cultural adaotation to school. Weiss (1988) also describes the coundr-culrural formations ofstudents, in this case, a group ofhigh school girls living in an area of the United States with declining economic fortunes. A ma.jor theme in resistance theory is the role ofsocial class in shaping students aftitudes roward schooling and the effecs of these anitudes on successfii participation in school.

An imponart question is whether the patterns of en- gagement in schooling obsewed by resistance theorists dif. fer across countries. Fuller and Clarke (1994) suggest rhat they do. In their view, students from developing nations are Iess likely than students from developed nations to display panerns of resistance to schooling, in part because educa- tion in developing nations is a scarce good and students can uniformly expect that educational attainment will lead to valued occupational outcomes. In more developed nadons, by contrast, schooling is often more accessible, and it often has less dramatic effecs on occuDational attainment. It fol- lows fiom this reasoning that students in developed nations might display more of a tendency toward disengagement than studenrc lrom less develooed nations.

Other studies suggesr d;r panerns of resistance to schooling diFer across highly dweloped countries. For ex- ample, Robinson and Thylor (1989) found that the corela- tion between low achiwement and negative afiitudes toward schooling was different in Britain and France, with low achiwing students in Britain reponing much lower interest and enjoy'rnent in school work and lower self-esteem than Iow achieving stud€ns in France. Robinson and Tlylor

Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational Organizations

rbeling , show ;ned to :ial in_ r of al- .ivision

rus at_ nfered :cess to tI Fur- nrdents ivrJega Meyer's :rral in ow aod , in the re same rip be- used in Ll deter- rnd this I confer uc con-

le non- It won- in the

:ories of on, but utiona.l-

theories on lan- the in-

rticulat I cu]at I$e to a tutional

Pafie(n alswer/ round a a large

o mem_ FinallY' within

itudents ose rvho fication,

socialize s a long rcsearch ,alysis of

Brian Rowan and Ceci! c. h/iisk'-i378

( 1989) exptained rhis finding in terms of lhe different con- ..paion, of r-d.n, ,olcs loJnd in Brirish and Frcnch cul- tule. In Brirain, a sru.{ent! academic performance was lreld ro reflect a pupil\ sranding "t -" .Ptt:ol'. ? possible

ronse- ouence of fie liberal narure of dte lJrttrsh pollry wrtn lts s'rrone empltasis on priuate respontibiliry for acrions under- uken"in a public role like studenr' Robinson andTlylor rea- ,on.J ,n",'*n." " t tudettt's public role x student is closely interwined with his or her piuate role as person' perlor- mance in rhe public role can have strong eftefls on sell-

t assessment. By.onrrast, Robinson and Taylor ( 1989). noted'

th"t F.n.h schools'appear to concenttate on the child as " ouolt, t-al a clcar scpiarion of *re subrole of pupil liom ,h'",'of p.rron means

'rhar any evaluarions of the subrole

lofpupil need nor exrend beyond rhai' (Robinson and lay- [;,'i6s6, 592 59r. Thus it appears that broad culrural understandingS of the srudent role, rather than univenal psy- choloe.ical prJ..rro. may be usefirJ in explaining r-he con- .,...iJs binu..n low achievement' Iow self-esreem' and resistance to schooling.----t*

tf SSal ako" compared the British and French school systems and argued that the two countries have cre- "i.J u".y aift t.n, lei,ning cultttre' She argued rhar rhe centra.lly-controlled French system creates clear' natlonal standards and strong incentives lor dolng well ln.scnool' For example. ,u...sif,tl performance in French schools is rewarded'from the earliesr grades and brings immediate gains in rhe form of promotion and eligibiliry for places in ilire schoots. In Britain. by conrrast' srandards ard Incen- tives are much less clear' and the recent economic climate in the country makes rhe connection berween success in s.hool "ttd l"t.t lif. much less clear' These institutional- fac- tors, kes (1994) believes, create the kind ofcounterculture "-ors lo*., ,oci"l class students noted byMllis (1977)' a co.rnt!r".llt.tr. that she argues is much less prevalent in France.

Other researchers have called attention to the different incenrives for acadcmic performancc that exist in various .ou",ti.t. eithop tf987; 1989), for example' notesrhe.lack of relevance rhai g.ade, and rrarscripr have for.iob place- menr and enrollment in post-secondary educatlon ln lne United States, while Rosinbaum and Kiraya (1989) de- scribe the tight institutional linkages between Japanese business firm"s and schools. In both analyses' it is argued that U.S. schools could secure greater student engagement and higher academic perlormarce by rightening inter- instirutional linkages between schools' buslne$es' al)o post-secondary inrtirutions Such linkagcs would darifr rhe ielationship berween srudent perlormance ln scbool and firture success, and could encourage more exPllcrt monl- torinq of school achievement by businesses and post- ,."otid"ry institutions. In fact, there is some evidence to ,uooo., ,hi. view. Using data from the Second Interna- r i o i r l M a t h . m a r i c s S r u d y ( S I M S T ' B i s h o p ( 1 9 9 2 ) r e p o r t s

thlr, aftcr conttoliiug fbr a varietv ofrelevant varix$tqt, ar- c r . l L , r r u J ! r , t . t . l r i ( v ! l r l L r r l o r r r h c S l M S t n r t h e m a t i t r t e , , t s i . l r i g h ( r i n , . ' l r r l l r i ( \ $ l l ( l c . ( t l l r l ( l l l u l l l _ b a \ e d ( x a m i n a - tions dcterruitrc aeccss to hlrther educatlon than in coun- trics that lack such tcsts'fhc l:rrger point is rhat therc are a number of ways i1 *tich institutionai arrangcments in society can directly 4. f , . r . r r r . l c r r t e n l : u g c r r r ( l t t ; n . . h q n l r a ' , / . t r r d e r r t l c a r n i n g . S . l r , ' ' 1 . , i r \ c ( n r \ . . r r \ . l d i \ t l l l ( ( i v c l v l ' c o l i r r . r i r t r r i o n i n . , J - ciety.l hc,v are orgarized to socialize stttilents into a panicu- lar rypc ofknowledgc, and participation in the institution of sch,r,rlirle ha. re.ri cRc-crs on the patterns of knorvledge thar students actltirc. ln adclition, Pattc rs of.ethnic group for- marion in socierl', <iccplv institutionalized iclcologies abour the role ofpupiis in sc,cicry linkages unc,ng instittttional sec- tn., i,r.u.i"ty, and rhe distinctive institutional characterir- tics o{:schooiing combinc to affect student notivation 4d engagcment in schooling, and through such processes, in- . l i r c . t l v . - r H , , t t t t t J c r r t . r . l l i r v c t t l c n

Conclusion I{avinq reviovcd thc v,iricd fbrms of institutional analysis in thc soclal scienccs ald education, we conclude by discusing rhe contributions of insritutional analysis to research ard orlctice in rhe ficld o1-eclucarional administration' As ar ap i,.o".h t., rescarch in the irield, wc find that the new insti-'turionalism

pre'scnts a powerlul set ofexplanarions for the .t..,.t,rr",rtt.l litnctioning of cclucational organizations io nodern societies. Wc have secu' for examp)c, that in- stitutional theorv providcs a telling account of the rise of largc-scrlc educarion bureaucracies around the world lt alri, l,"eins to explain the diflirent patterns of manage- ',r"nt lo.,r,d in schools located in diflerent states and in-

stitution"l sectors itt the Unitcd States and in different n:rtions of thc rvorld. Ilinally, we havc argued that institu- rional theories show iocreasing promise ofproducingnew L \ l ) l . r n x l i o r r . l o r t l l c \ J I \ i n F l . r r t r r n t o f r d L I ' r t t i o r r a l p r o - . 1 , i , , i t i , 1 , , t " ' " r u . , l i , ' , l i n . r . , i t L d t t r r r r i . r r ' ) ' t e m r a r o u n d thc rvorld.

F t r r r h c r d c r , l o l ' r n , l r t o l i r r ' l i l u l i t ' l r ' J t l t c o r y h o n e v e t r r i l l r c , l r r i r . J r ( \ ( . r r ( l r \ l t d l ( F ^ t l r J l i : \ c r y d i H e J e l n l r o m

L l r . ' , n . . r t p i ' . r l l r u ' c J h y * h . , l a r s i n ' J t t ' r t i r r t r a l l J m t n t s - ,.",irt.1:i,i tt.rrt t"e ,erli"oue,l h.rc nftcn locused on levels

nili,. ,u.i"t ,;ur.nt rveli beyond the loc'rl school and its im-

1 r 1 . l 1 . 1 1 . c n r i l , , r ' n r r t r t . I l r i t ' t a r t ' l ' i t l \ h r r P ( L l t l l r r \ t I o r e '

\ L . r t \ h I l l c ( l l l ( , r I i o t r ; r l i ' r g a r I i / J t i u l r \ L o r r J u ' t c d i n t h e l t e l 0

of eclucational aclrninistratiotr. Studies in educational ao-

lrinistratiol tvpicallv focus on Ptocesses $'ithin a glYen

' . h , u , l o r . . r . l t , l ' , , o 1 ' . t n i r r ' t i i r r t i o r r ' r l t l r c . . r r y ' h o ' w v c r ' l l r ( r e l ( v . r r ( t t r i t , , 1 . r t t r l ) . i s i ' t l r c h r o . r J , r \ ) 5 t e m w l t n t r l

* l L i . l ' . . h . , 1 . . . r . . r r r l ' c d , l e J . I l r t t ' r e " r r ' l r o r r \ L l r o o l \ u n '

-_

Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational Organizations 379

n l:

)-

of at It- rut

nd ln-

i

I I I I J l

$ m I

/.rraken from an institutional perspective requires atten-

]tl. ,., ore".iting processes occurring well above lhe l€vel

Iii. r"dl orga-iitation, and rhis implies a much greater i^.us on dte bto"d.r institutional envtronment ol scnools' il".*"^-;i;. stare education qsrems within the United',1".,

o"if i. *a privare secrors of schooling' narional sys-'*l.,i"i.it.r,io.i *d even the societal contexr of school-

i:;:"o"lt widr a much bener knowledge of how. these

if"g.t t).i.-t .. "rganized ard funcrion can we gatn tm-

Jo'n-i intigt , inro ihe organizarion and operation of local

sclools' lnstitutional analysis also gives careftll attention ro his-

,oriJpro*t"t. S.cause instirutionalized panerns of action

i"o nt'.rn.rg. o, ,,abilize quickly' research on educarion as

- i"rii*,it-. also requires-observation of wents over long

i.ri"a, ti,i-.. Here too' we find a need for researchers in

il"*ii""

administration to redrink their research prac- ,i*. itt *"-pt.' analyses of cunent educational reforms ,rlolfntifrtl in rh. literaiure on educational administrarion' ,ni.du""tionrt researchers frequendy draw negtive con- ll*ion, "bo.t, th. "Fects of new institutional arrangcments """"t*-J,ittA processes after observing,events for,only a shori period of time. lnstitutional theory' however' snows ,tr"i"o'".t"tio"t based on short-term analJ'ses of wents that occur early in the institutionalization Process are otten oii$. -".t bhattge it pervasive in the American educa- JoJ t*.rn, bu, tirdies ofcurrenr change effons are best undersiood as srudies of instirution building' Only Ionger periods of dme can tell us wherher new education reforms i"iiii. i""i,tt i.t"tized and what effecr these reforms will h.* on tha ,tau"t.tre of educational organizations and the Dradices wi*rin them.

Aoart fiom these general merhodological considera- dnn.] *" feel that rwo-areas of instirurional analysis need immediate anention in the field ofeducational administra- tion. The 6rst is the application of institutional theory to the mrdv ofteachine and learning' in schools' Despite an emerg- tg body of*o.f thowing thai the core rechnolory ofschools --the teachine and learning of academic content in class- rooms-is vitailv afleced bv-larger irutirurional processes' in- stitutional analrjss who srudv sihools have typically ignored isues related to school learning. ar least the learning ofaca- demic content. Ve would advocate much more attentlon to this oroblem in cominq years. The cross-national srudies of rc".iri.rn tht *e reviited here. as well as sociocultural theories of"learning, suggest rhat inshriiorid procbslesE Eto*-m:Uornaihiwavs reachers reach and what and howsrudenrs lJarnl ldenrifi,ine drese instirutional processes should be a hieh prioriry for rlearchers in educationrl ad- ministrarion. Joeciallv those *ho seek to bener understard the conditions Lnder which teaching and learning can be [nproved in Arnerican schools.

A second area that seems underdweloped is the appli- otion of principal-agent tieory and trarsaction cost eco-

nomics to problems of schooling'.These aspects ofthe new inrii o,ioniit- have not entered the educational analysis ofschooling as complerely as they could' To be sure' a lew srudies r.uii*ed heri "ppii.d dt.t. pt'specrives fruitfirlly ro the analysis ofschools as organizarions, but beyond these *. did not find much organizational analysis of schooling using principal-agenr theory and rransaction cost econom- i.". ittit it unfo.unr,. because economists and political scientists are a( the foref;ont of a movement ro develop a ;positiu" th"ory of institutions," one that can describe an "roy o[ qou.rn*a. arrangements rlat potenrially can im- prove *tJefficiency and productiviryof educadonal tranvc-'tionr.

M"t y.o-mon problems of educarional orgnization can be analyzed fiom the standpoinr ofrransaction cost eco- nomics ani principal agtnr fieory' problems rhat range from the development of employment conlracts wltn var- ious tl1les of eiucation personnel to the more mundare problims ofptouiding busing ard cafeteria services to stu- i.n,r. Mor. i-portirdy, immediate work is needed to see how the ao-^on go',a,n""ce mechanisms studied in rransaction cost economics and principal agenr theory can be applied to the analysis of reachers work and ro im- prouing'tie effort and engagement rhat students put into learning.--'

e.ri', f.o- these efforts, there is a continuing need to srud; the conFtguration of institutional environments (in JiffJr.nr A-.tiL sates and in different countries) and to empirically test the emerging ideas rhat institutional theo- risri haue ieveloped aboui lhe effecr ofsuch environmenrs on lh. m*"g.-.nt of educational organizations' ln par- ticular, the st"udies re'riewed here suggest that t-he instiru- tional environmenr ofeducation is changing in the Unrted States, thar there is a greater emphasis on monitoring orga- nizational performance. a growing- attempt to dsvelop more coherenr education policy. and a growrnB lnlerest.ln market-based controls over education' Studies are needed that map the different institutiona-l environments in Amer- it .d'u..tiott and that examine the conditions under *hi.h n.* .yp." of institurional environments develoP-

All of rhl'brings us to a final set ofobservations' lfin- ? ,,i .,,ionJ *t.ory i! to be useful to tie field of educational""

"J-irrir,r",ion, it must have relevance to educational prac- tice. We have not discussed this problem much here'-but we believe that lhe way instirutional rheory can-make a contribution to practice is for ir to develop into a theory ot insrirutional design. fu a theory ofdesign' instirutional the- ory.- pr.t.n, ih. educational practirioner with a set ol rools thai hat the porenrial to shape and constraln. actlon within educationi organizations' In the theory ol institu- tional desisn that we-envision, the tools would consist of uarious qpt ofinsriturional rules' regulations' norms' and th. t.k.n-for-gt*,ed assumptions of those at work in ed-

ry uLiott"i org""ni,atio,t,. Institutional theory suggests thatt ' furrd"-.n,ai change in education requires much more

slng and r a P nsu- r the ;ions rt in- Ls€ of ld. lt rage- .d in- :erent s tu- I new I pro- 'ound

: from mints- r levels its im- alorc' re field nal ad' l given lwev€r' within pls un-

I

i

Y 380 Brian Rowan and Cecil C. Miskel

than chalging an organizationt formal structure or work practices. I"n 6"t, th.i. "tp".s oforganizations are deeply embedded in and defined by complex regulatory norma-- rive. and cognitive constraints. Changing the nature ol schools as olganizations. ard changrng the nature ol prac- rices within schools. requires attention to changlng rhese institutional constraints.

At one level, a theory of institudonal design requires knowledge ofcurrent institutions, that is, the tacit ideologies th"r orgr;i". .h. *ay we thinl abour and act in educational senine; the norms and values that encourage particular formiof educational practice. and the reguJatory constraints tlrar structurc schooling Ar another level. practitioners also need a vision of alternative instirutional arangements, the kind ofknowledge that can only be gined through careful' comoarative analvsis and theory building And finally' we n..i " th.ory of i* riruion change, that is. a good under- sundine of i\ow existing insrirurions are desubilized and ,rew iniirutiors .-.rq.. \(/. rlink rhe revie\''/ of research presented here shows how this kind ofknowledge is emerg- i.,n ftom studies of education as an institution, but the k-riowledee we have of rhese processes is far ftom complete and has v1t ro be dweloped inro a posirive theory of instiru- rional desien. The promise of insirutional theory in educa- rional adniinistratiln. rhen. is the promise of a theory of institutional design, one that is built ftom careft , compara- tive, and historiJ consideration of the processes by which social instirurions affect educariond organization and out- comes.

REFERENCES Abell, P (1995). The new institutionalism and rarional choice theory In V'

i Scon & T. Chrisdans en (W.)' The Instiatkrul Corctrnttion of 0'

snizationi: Intdnationnl and Longitudinal Sndies, pp 3'14'Thousand b"t ", c,t, s"g..

Bachanch, S., Mascrs, B., Fnnk, \Yl, & Mundell' B (199t) Institutional iheorv and rle o.,rtirio of rnsricurionJiz'arion: togia ofacrion in sch'nl reform. ln RT'Oea"a (FA),Adwncet in RceaT h and Thrunc olSchool Maragenntt and ilrational Poliq,Vol. 1, pp 83 122 Greenwich' CN: JAI Pras.

Baker, D. P (1992) The politics ofAmerien Catholic school expansion' 1870 1930. ln B. Fdler & R Rubinson (Eds ), 76e Poliical Aatuc- tion ofEduation: The Sa*, Scboot Ezpansion, and Ennonbs Change' pp 189-206. New York Praeger'

B'"m.I. & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional link.ages and organizational rnor- tilty. Adnini'tatiu. $imu Qartetfi, 36: r87 -218'

Brum, J. & Oliver, C. (1992) Insdrutional embeddedners and *re dlnamia ofo.s,nrzaLion.rl pop,rlar i on:. Antia n Soriolagieal Rcticu' s7 : \4O-<\9 '

&Rtger,fi.A LuLkm n,T.(lqo-r. Th Socialt'orcmn;on oJ &airry' New York DoubledaY Anchor

Bidwell, C. (1965). The school as a formal organization ln J G March (FA.), Handbook ofksearch on Organizaiont, pp' 972 l019 NewYork: Rand McNallY.

Bill, J. A. & Harjgnve, R. L. (1981). Comparati'e Politit:'rhe Qtex for Theory. VJxhington' DC: University Press ofAmerica'

Btshop,l.-(198n. I;forlnation e'temalitie' and 'he ntial palofn acadmi. irt'i"u"-r"t. Ithaca, NY: Corncll Univenity, Center for Advanced Human Resourcc Studics

t { l l , u l I l ' \ q . 1 " . . 1 t , . t . . , . . - . / . r L l / J t . . q . . 4 1 r y t . . , , " t t u d o , , . - t , . ? . / . r , . . ! 4 r ] 1 . , 1 , , r 1 , . 4 ' . J I h . ' . r \ , ' o - r . . l U " -

B , l , n l r l ' ' . l r " t { , ' , r r ' , r o , l ' ' r r r d r r ' r ' r r r ' i . , i . u , u n h . e d

, , . . . , . . . r ' r r . l . , r , . h r r , r - , . l , \ c i d , r " ' . 0 a i 1 - , t a r i o a . t a p . \ anl l+uttlntg, t,Mtl|, pp 2( 264

Rlau, ll M. & Scho<nhcrr, R. (.1961).7'h( Sttutn. oi Aryniution!.New \irk: Bric Books.

B , , r i . l . R . , n , , , c i I t ' . & V ^ r r . l U r l ' t < l i L , l , n n p , \ c . ' r , g i n . " n d , ^ t L l ' l ' , . . ' l | . . . J u . ' r r " n t " n t a ' a t t ' t ' t u J I i " ' t P . i u . 2 , ) l I 4 5 1 7 0 .

Brinr, S. & K.rrrbel, J (1989). Th. Dn(t€d Dftd/,: {'ontnuniry Colbge: and tht l+onir ol Edrtatioaal OpTorrultl n Antrica, /904-198J. New \brk: Orfor,l Univcnitv Prcs

Burns. L. R & Vr1,olcy, D. R. 0991). Adoption arrd al,andonmcnt ofma- , , . , , , , - , l . i s \ a k " r t i r ' ; , J n 1 t 1 . , ' t o l o r g , r ' i z ' r r ^ t " l . h r r r , r . r r r ' . . , n d , r r . n r r , , n r . a ; . n r l r ' . q ' r k - , ' l d d " ) ' t U - t t . t - . " t l u u ' n . ) L 1 0 ( F 1 3 8 .

ChLrbb, J. fi. & Moc, l'. M. (191)0). l'olitics, nurkets, and the organiz.arion of sclfiols,. Anncan I+litial Sa?n.e Rfli€tu' 81t: t/t9 567

C l i b u l k a , I . t i . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e i l s t i r u r i d t a l i z a t i o n o f p u h l i c s c h o o l s : T h e d e - cline ot legnimizing n,yhs and the politics ol organizarionrl instabil- i*tn ln R.

'ii Llgawa (Ed. ), Aluaes in RewrJt and Thnrn of Sehool

Managcnort and Etluntionat I'olit1'Yol.I' pp l2-l-l58 Greenwch, CN: IAI Pres

(licoLrrcl, A. \l & Krtsuse.l.I. (\966). t tu Edutatiunal Detuion Mdtret ln- d i r n a p o l n , l N : B o b b v M e n i t l .

C.hrk, 1I3. (t956).,4rlub &lu.dt;o i/t l tunittian Bctkelev: Llnivcniry of Cel- iiornir Prcss.

Clark, tl. (1960). The cooling oLrr tunction in higher cducarion "lzencan l.,nnl ot \ortalost, 6\ \6' ;-'

, ^ 1 . n . 1 t I 1 1 " ' , , , . t t , u , r J r r r g r e r . l r . n r n r . r t " l . n , P | d ; r r r r " n ' ( I n \ H Fuhnrran & J. A. O Dav lLds ), Raun{ anl RcJnm: Crearhg Eduea' tiondt lncenriue; I-hdr Vbrl S:n Fr:rncisco: lossev-Bts

Cohen, D. K. & Spillane. J r (t992) Policy and pncriccr l hc rchdom k- nr""rr g.rani.c. :d i"strr-rction ln G. Grant (!id), Rniat ofReturch in ltliiariot\ksl,ng15.on, l)C: Amcricrn F'ducationrl Rcsexch Arsoci'

(lolc. M. (1990). Coenilive dorlopnrcnr lrd fornai schooling:The ddencc frcn, -"s<ulr"r;l rcs.,rrch.In L C Mt I(Ed). Vlgots@ aulEdaution: Iatnaiondl Inptinttott: awl ATptiunou of Socio-h;stoncal I'Echabg' D o . 8 , l l u \ r * Y . r l ' : I a r r r h r " l g c I n . r e r i l n * '

, " , i . ' , . . n r . F " . d . \ t L . & V r w t i n r . r . l t . B ' l J . . r ' l ' o r ' , / / z l a [ '

itits aJ Educatrrt awlth Ncu lnstitutianalun: Rebtteflt;ng the An'ntn Scl,aal. v'ohinitnn, DC: lalmcr l'ress.

(lub.rn, 1.. (1984). Ho* trathm taught, Con"n"q mrd chd gc in Ancnran ck.sroou l88G 1980 Ncw Vxk:l'ongmrn

D A u n n o , T . S u t t o n . I { 1 . & P r i c e ' I I H ( 1 9 9 1 ) k o m o r p h i s n r n a c x t e r

nal sunoor in conflicrins instimtional environmcnlr: A nudy ot drug

, i : I i . " " ' . . t A n ' a a t I M t a a r ' " 1 c ' 1 t t ' u q a t t t : b \ 1 4 ( t l r . r r : \ . I I ' o d ' r ' A r , ' u a l ' t ' l " t t ' \ ' / d ' l

r o l d o n : I r m e r

Di\{,tesio, P I. & Po*ell, W: lii (198:l) Thc irrn cage revisrtedr lsonor-

pilsr" "r..1c"lha;'c -tionrlio ir, organization:l lrcll's Anernntl roc''

olrdall Re1)ku,48: 147 160 D , \ 1 . , ! ; ' " . I I 6 l o w , l l , u \ " L r l l ' o l t t " l t o l " n m o n a t " n

t n

i i u , . " i a , n - t A " t t ' r h i ' r s . ' : I r : v ' r ' r v o t t I u v " l r e * - l , o l , l , : l . R . \ l o ' ) r / , t / , ( l n l u t ' u l t o h c r | ' . I n t ? d \ t a k b a & ' a

u,.t ht"r. ,t lx Rnita!,43r. New York: t}mbridg€ Univcnrry rTess'

I r , h l r n . I l r . . L l , r m r ' . L r i . i . t . u . I r " ' a , r ' a l ' 8 c " I h e i \ p { ' l o - n . t t l u t u r . * . ' r r , o r ( r r r r a r r " r ' l r I r ' / - t r l ' r " 1 1 t i r u r c " t !

l t r

, , " ' . ' 1 . , ' ' , . " ' . ' - , i , 0 , . ' , h * e a " t I t , o ' ' t n l r p - l l 0 r r r r n

o r J g - . \ 1 \ : B r r r r ' . , t I r , ' r L l i . M l " r . ( 1 r . r ! r ' r ' i n r . r . n i r r r \ \ r ' l r r c l " l ' 5 " ' n J

i $ r ' r u

r r , , r , . , l . . . ' n " r I i . t l , ( ' l \ i r l r ' r r ) " n ' U t 1 4 f i ' d t n a t ' . t r r

t , a t . , , " r - t , , . . r J n t , " t \ ? . 4 . n . t B ? v l r l . l l \ " x I l 5 N c $ Y o I &

Oxlord tlni'cnity i,rcs

Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational Organizations 3 8 1

nell Uni

'grns and , i e w , 2 9 l

t14r and '85. New

istics and mdt, 361

: The de- l i n s t a b i l ,

ryof CaJ-

: . l n S . H . ng Eduta'

Prchobg,

. Ttu Pol'

ly of dng 536 {$t. ni Falmer

l: lsonot'

rsiry Pr€ss

100. Gm-

nd insrittt- on Thtory: NewYorkr

Dreeben, R (1968). On \Vhat Is lzamel in School Readins MA: Addison' \fesleY.

Fircsron€, W A., Rosenblum, S., Bader, B. D. & Masell, D. (1991). r/z- cdon rcfom fon 1983 to I990: Stdte dction a d dntrict rcsponse. New Brunswick, NJ: Consonium for Policy Research in Mucation.

t l i s s r r i n . N . ( 1 q 8 5 ) . T h e r p r a d o t r h e m u l r i d i v i s i o n r l f o r m a m o n g l r g e frrm!" 1919 1979. tuwuan sociolosical turia4 J0: )77 3t1.

Freidlarder, R & Alford, R R (199r). Bringing sociery back in: Syrnbols, pncticer, and institutional contradictions. In P J. DiMaggio & W: W: lowell (Eds.), Th€ Nar l^'ntutionali'm in Otganizational Anagsn, pp. 232-263. Chicago: Universiry of Chic-ago Press.

Fufirman, S. H. (Ed.) (1994). De'igning Cohdaft Education Poliq: Improt irg th. SJttem. S$ Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ighrman, S. H., Clune, Vi & Elmore, R F. (1988). Research on education reform: l,essons on rhe implementation of educaion policy. Tiachers Coll4e Rccord, 90: 237 258.

Iu er B. & Clarke, P (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring cllture? local conditions ald the influence ofclassroom tools, nrles, and pcda- gcg. R.viar of Autanonal Rncarrh. 64: I t9-t \1.

Fuller, B. & Rubinson, R (Eds .\ (1992). Th? Pol.itid Aturuction ofEdutation: Itu tuu, School Exparcion, and honornn Chang. New Yorlc Pr.ger.

Galvin, P F. & Barron, J. E. (1995). A nationat data base for org:ni,ations: A pmposal for including drr.r from economic rheories oforpnizations. In kT. Ogawa, (FA.), Aduanccs in Revarch and Theoiet in School Man- agcmcnt and Etlucational Poliq, pp.2142. Greenwich, CN: JAI Prcss.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnoncthodobg. Englewood Cliffr, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cmtrrl,an, E. (1967) . Intenctbz Rirnal Garden City, NY: Anchor. GocAlad, J . 0984). A Plact Calhl School. New Yo*: McGraw-Hill. Goodrick, E. & Salancik, G. R (1996). Organizarional discretion in te-

sponding to irxrirurional practices: Hospirals and Cesarean binhs..4/- ninntmnu Scince Quancrfi,4l: l-28.

Greenwood, R & Hinnings, C. R (1996). Underctanding radical organi- zetional change Bringing rogether the old and new institutionalism. Acadml of Managennt Rei.u,2L 1022-1054.

Gusfield, j. R (1955). Social structure and moral reform: A srudy of the womeni Chrisr;an Te m pernce Union. Andcan krnal of So,:iohg. 6 t : 2 2 1 2 3 2 .

Hamilton, L. S., Nursbaum, E. M., Kupperminsz, H., Kerkhoven, J. I. M. & Snow, R E. (1995). Enhancing the validity ard usefulness oflarge, scale educational assessmcns, II: NEI-S: 88 sciencr zchlevement. Arur ican Educaional Rsearh Jounal,32: 555-582.

Hannan, M, T & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecologr oforganiza- trons. Anaican Joumal ofSociolog, 82: 929,964.

Heynernan, S, P & l-oxley, V A. (l 983). The effect ofprimary school qual, ity on acadcmic achievement acros twenry-nine high- and low-incomc

_- cowtl::tries. Ameftaa Journal ofSociohg, SS: 1162-1194. House, E. R (1996). A framewo* for appraising educational reforms. .t/-

thdtional Researcher, 25: 6-14, Ocrober I&kson, P W: (1968). ,rf in Cl*noons. New York Holt, tunehan, and

V4nston. Ja.kson, P \t: (1986). Thc Pnaicc ofTiacbing New Yorlc Teachers College

Jens€n,.M. C. & Meckling, W: C. (1976). Th€ory of rhe firrn: Managerial behavior agency cosrs, and ownership strucrure. ,Io umal of Finandzl tcononia,3: 305-360.

leppcrson, R L. (1991). Institurions, insrirurionrl effects, and instjtutional, tzauon. In P J. DMaggio & V:lq Pow€ll (Eds.), The Neu Innitution- akn in Oryanizational Antlf'n. pp. laJ-l6J. Chic.ago: Unirersiry of

J'pp"*n. n. L. t M.y." J. \(/. (199 | r. The publ;c order a;rd rne.onvruc- non offo, mJ organiarions. In P J. DiMaggio & V. W powetl rEdr.r. Ih. N"u ln$i'urionalin in Oryanizanonal Anal)'i', pp. 204 )Jt.

,. Lh,cago: Unive6iry ofChicago Press.\re M. B. (19-l). From volunrrrirm ro bureaucr;cy in Amer ican educa- t;on. Socioto&J of Edh anon, 4q: 2q? -i r.

Kupperminrz, H., Ennis, M. M., Hamifton, L. S., Thlbert, J. E. & Snow, R. D. (1995). Enhancing the validity and uscfulness oflarge+cale ed- ucarional asessmen$, I: NEI-S: 88 marhematics achievemem. Amcr- ican Edutational Recarch lo"flal,32. 525,554.

Langlois, R N. (Ed.). ( 1986). honomi* dr d l+oc.tt: Bsays in the Nau buti- tunonal &ononi$.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ietr:, L. H. (1994). C,onparatiue Elucaion Revieu 38. l-evin, H. M. (1989). Education as a public and prirate good. In N. E.

Deavins (FA.), Public Valucs, Piuate SchooL.landon: Falmer Press. l-anic,D. C. (\975). Schoobcarher: A Sociohgical Stut. Chiego: University

of Chicago Press. McAdams, R P (1993). Lessorfon Abnal: How Other Auntrics &lrcate

Thcir Childrcn.l ancasrer, PA: Technomic Publishins. M. Donnell. L. M. & Emore. R F. ( 1987). Gening rhe job done, Alerna-

tive poliq insrrumenrs. E/rrational Euluation and Policy Arufisiq 9: l J J - l 5 2 .

McKnighr, C. C., rral (1987). The Und*achining Cutricuhm: Acsing U. S. Sthool Mathcmatics fnn an Inknatbnal Pet'pccti"e, Champaign, IL: Stripes Publishing.

March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P (1984). The new instirurionalism: Oreaniza- rional fa.ton in pol;riuJ lifc. Anoiran lotinrat Seienc? R 'i;u,?81 734-749.

March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P (1989). kdncot'ering Instinnou: The Oryaniza, nonal Ba'ir of Pol;t;'s. New York Free Press.

March, J. G. & Simon, H . A. (1958). Oryanizatione . New York John Mlcy. Mei€r, J. \V: ( 1970). The dnn€r Conditions ofdiffixe socialization in schools.

ln \Jil R Scott (Ed.), Sacial lttvcesa and Social Strutrn?, DD. 5(A-j7a. New Yon<- Holr Rinelun, and wirbron.

Meyer, J. r,)tl (1977). The effecs of educarion as an insritution. Amcrian toumAr or Laufaion,6Jt >t/ /.

Meyer, J. \( 41983a). Institutionalization and the rationality offormal organi, ?arional structure In J. W Me)rcr & \( R Scoft, O'liznizatbnal Enuinn- mmx: Naal and Ratianaliry, pp. 261-282. Bsv€rly Hi s, CA Sage.

Meyer, J. \i1 ( 1983b). Centralization oftunding and control in educational governance. ln J. W Meyer & IJC R Scott, Oryanizanonal Enairon- mcnt: Ntual and RztitruliE, pp. 179-198. Bcv€rly Hills, CA: Sage.

Meyea J. \7. & Rowar, B. (1977). Insritutionalized orqanizations: Formal strucrure as myr-h and teremony. Anoican Jouial ol Soaolop. 8J: 34v363.

Meyer, J. W & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure ofeducational orsaniza- tions. ln M. \0. Meyer (Ed.), Enuironncnx and Organizations, pp. 78-109. San Fnncisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, J. W & Scon, !(f k (1983a). Organizational Enainnnents: Ritual anl Rationaliry. Beverly Hills, C"{: Sage.

Meyeq J. V, Kamens, D. & Benavot, A (1992). School Knouhdge for thc Maws: VorA Modzls and National himary Currinhm Cakgoric' in th. Twntiah C,eaatry. I andonl. Flaner.

Meyer, J. W:, R mn€q E O. & Soltal, Y N. (1992). \forld expansion of mass educacion, 187 0-1980. Sociobg.of Etutation, 65: t28-t 49.

Meyer, J. uil, Scoa, Vl R & Deal, T E. (1983). Institutional and technical surces of orgrrizational srructurc Fxplaining thc strucnue of educr- rional organizations. In J. Vl Meyer & \( R Sco$, Oryanizdtional h-

nnnens: Fit al and Rationalitl, pp. 45-O . B*ety Hills: Sage. Meyer,l. W, Tpck, D., Nagel, J. & cordon, A (1979). Public education as

nation-building in America: Enrollmena and bureaucrarization, I 870- 1930. Ancrican Journal ofSociobg, 85: 59r-4r3-

Mezias, S. J. (1990). An insrirutional model oforganizational practice: E- nancial r€porring at the Fomne 200. Adminitraiac Scimce Qurterly, 3 5 : 4 3 \ 4 5 7 .

Moe, T. M. (1984). Thc new economics oforeanization. Thc Anericax Po, linral Scinct Rpicu, 28:7J9 77 /.

Moe, T. M. (1995). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In O. E. Villiamson (EA.\, Orraniution Theory: Fron Chc:to Eaman! to rhe F.c,nr and Btlond, I l6_t 5J. Ne* yo;k, Oxford Univeniw Press.

Y 382 Brian Rowan and Cecil G. Miskel

Moll, L. C. (Ed.). (1990). Vlgot'$ and Mucanon: Irctrucnotal Inplicationt and. Applicanons of Sodohisnical Psychobgy. Ncw York Cambridge Universiry Press.

Oakes,J., Gamoran, A. & Page, R (1992). Curriculum differentiation: op' portunities, outcomes, and memings. In P W Jackso n (FA.),ILandbook of Rcscarch on Cutriatun, PP. 57M09 New York Macmillan

Oales,1., Vells, A S.,lones, M. & Darnow, A. (1997) Detracking: The so- cial consrruction ofabiliry cultural polirics, aad resistance to reform I2achm' Coltqc Recod,98: 482-510.

Ogawa, R. T ( l99Z). The instirurional sources ofeducation reform: the case of school-based nanagenerLt. Ancrican Edurational Researh Joumal, 3r: 519-548.

Ogbu, j. (1987). Minoity Eduation and Catte: Thc Amerian SJnem in Cns-&lnral Paspccnve. New York Academic Press.

Olivei, C. (1 991). Stntegic responses to instituri omJ. rcsponses- Aca*m1 of Mawgcmmt Rmieu, l 6: 1 45-179.

Orgarization for Er:onomic Coopcr*don and Development (OECD). ( 199Q. Edwarion ar a Ghnct Payis: Au'.}:.or

Palla, A., Enrwisle, D. R., Alcxander, K. L. & Slutka, M. F. (1994) Abil- ity group effecrs: Instructional, social, or instituti onzl? Sodologf ofEl-

Panons, T. (1959).The school clxs a a social s)stem: Some ofitr tunctions inAmerican society. Itraard Edxcation Rcvicw, 29: 297-313.

Panons, T (1960). A sociologicJ approach to the theory oforganizations. In T. Parsons (M.), Srrzc*re and hocctt ir Modzm Societia, pp. 16 58. Glencoe, lL: Free Press.

Peroq C. (1961). The analysis ofgoals in complex orga iaations Amtinn Socio bcical Rtui€u, 26:. 85 4 866.

Percw,C. (1986). C,onpbt organization: A Ciical,&a7, 3rd Edition. New York Random House.

Powell, W V (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. ln P J. DiMaggio &'\( \(? Powell (EAs.), The Neu Innintioialism in Oryd i' ztttiorul Aufisis, pp. I 83-203. Chicago: Universiry of Chicago Press.

Ramirez, F. O. & Boli, J. (1987). The politic.l construction of m,ss educa- rion: European origins and worldwide institutionaliaoon Sociohgy of E&tation,60:2 17.

Raudenbush, S. W, Rowan, B. & Cheong Y E (1992). C-onrexnul effecs on tlre self-perceived e{ficacy ofhigh school teachers. Saaalogr ofEduanon' 6 5 : 1 5 0 - 1 6 7 .

Raudenbush, S. \(, Ro*an, B. & Chmng, Y F. ( 1993). The punuit ofhigher' order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school inlluencrs. Ancrican Elucational Rcscarh Joumal 30: 521553.

Raudenbush, S. Wi, Rowan, B. & Kang, S. J. (1991) A multilevel, multi- rariate model for studlng school climate with estimation via the EM algorithm arrd application to U. S high school d*t Joumal ofEduca' tional Statktic', 16 295-330.

tuchanison, J. G. (1994). Common, delinquent, and spccial: On rie for- maliz.arion ofcommon :chooling in the Amerion qares Anetican Ed' ,caioflal Rr'.arch Joumal, 31 : 695123

Risr, R C. (1977). On understanding the processa of schooling: 'Ihe con-

tributions of labeling theory In J. Krabel & A. H . Halsey $ns.) , Pouo and ldzolog in Efucanoz, pp. 292-305. New York Oxford University Press.

Robinson, W P & Taylor, C. A. (1989). Correlata of low academic anain- ment in three countries . Intenational Joumal of Mucatioxal Research, r3:592 593.

Rosenbaum, J. E. & Kirala, T (1989). From high school to work Market and institutional mechanisms hJapan. Aneican Jotnal ofSociobg' 94:1334-1365.

Row:n. B. (198I ). The effects ofinsthutionalized rules on adminisrratos [n S. B. Bachamch (Ed.), &ga nizatiorul bchat ior in schooL and school dn' t'.4 pp. 47-75. New York Praeger.

Ro,*an, B. (1982a). Organizarional structure and the institurionel environ- mcnr: The case of public sdtools. Admlnbtratiue Scimce Quarterl,27: 259-279.

Rowan, B. (1982b). Insttuctional management in historical perspective El- tcational Adninittation Qtanetl, 18: 4159

Rorvan. B. 09ll2c). lhe s nr oreanizing work of s.hoots. So.,a/ Scirc. Q t u " t o t y , 6 J : 4 t : a 9 t .

l r o r , ' R , l ' r n ' . , r d . , , r r , , 1 { r e r n r r [ c , r r U ( q r ( ! r ^ , , 1 u e . , ' . / , r i n n J , l r ' l c l l , r ' . 1 , " . 1 ' I ' t t ^ a * " a ' . X . , ' . . : " r n " l " i ) n I . u . t t r , . . \ , , t t , . u J . h n F ' t , , , , . t r A m ( r . , J n t d , _ , . o n J - n " ' scarch .&ociation.

t r , . * J n . B , I r , 5 r t r . r r r u r i , , n r l r n r l r . i . o f e J r - r , n J , , r g : n i l l r i , , n . | , ^ * o t r c . r r r J J r r e . r r o r r ' t n r c . c , . h l r l { t : O c , " r ' t d . , a 1 , , . , , ] R/..n, t a\l l r"n4.. nt.\, h..ot t\ld aarcn,, a1.1 l,l,r"'r-L t",,,j.\;i 3, pp. I )0. (ireenwich, CN'.,JAI Press.

I r , , s r n t s . R r r r d r n b , s h . i u : & , h i , n t s . Y F I I r ) o { ) , T e r . h r n g - r n " n - r o , - ' . n " u . ( . l n ' n l r r | r l " r r . l o r r h c n ' r n r r c m c n ' " ' * l ' , , o 1 . U " n a n a t A t nn\ndno (latftd4, )9: /t79 500.

R , . q ' r r . l t . . R , r . J " I b r J ' . \ . \ X & K r a t . s l / 1 , 0 1 ) U r p . r n r / . u i . , n i l d 6 i * r r L r J : 1 . . . h " ' l ' : A m r l r r r c ' e l J r , ! i r . r \ . , 4 i ? r , , . r , h h - r l o J t d " , ! t , ; " , , 9 9 : 2 : 1 8 2 6 6 .

Sehnridr, V. & orhcrs. (.1996). A Swnnary Charaaerizing pe&gog,cat flau An lnr'lig.ttio of Sci(nce

'tedding in Six Countio. tondon, Ktuve,

Acadcnic l'ublishers. schurz, A. (1962). Oollcael I'apcrs (Edited by lv{.ruricc Natanson). fte

I laguc, Nedrerlands; N;jhol1. Scorr, \9. R. (t992) . O4qrniz/1tto/B: Rtuio,t1l, N,ttaral, and Opn Syteru.nd

Fditron. Englsood Cliffs, NJ: Prcnt;ce I lall. Scon, \0. R. (l991). lnstirurion,J .rnalysis: Variancc and process thcory ap-

prorches. In \(l R. Scott. J. \{l McFr & Associares, Insnntiotut Enit ranmcnr and Orgarizations: Struttu/nt L:onlkiry and htliriduaLn, pp. 81 99. Thousand Oak, tlA: Sage.

Scott, W Il. (1995). h$titutto,t t d O/gr,;z?t;,,j. I housaJrd OaLs, CA: Sagc.

Scott, W R. & Mcyer, J. \{. (1991). The organiation ol societal sectoa.lr P J. t)iMeggio & Vl W: Powell,7 tu Neu' lnttitutionahn in (rganiu tiondlAnd$i:, pp. 108-140. Chic.ago: Llniversicy ofChic.rgo I'res.

Sclznick. Il (1948). FoLrndrrbns ofthe theory of orgmizations. /lzmcar Soriolognal Ret'icu, 1 3: 15 35.

Sclznick, 1l ( I949). WA and the Grastrua*. Berkclcv: Universig of Califor

Sclzn;ck, t'. (t957) . I.edtlersb;? h Adniltrnatton. New Yotk Haryer .md Rou. Shepde, K. A. & \(eing.rst, B. (1987). Thc insrirLLtionJ loundadons oi

commitree powcr,4rzrricar I'oliucal Sciercc Rerlrz, 8l: 85 104. Snnon, H. A. (1945).l/z iui:tr,tti!€ BehaioL Ncv York Macmillan. Singh, J. \1, Tircker. l). J. & N{einhard, A. G. (1991). tnstitntioml change

and ccologicl dynmria. In Il J. Dili{rggio & Vi \!l Powcll (lldr.), Irr n"ru hrtittttonalxn in OrganiurionalAna$sn, pp. 190-422. Chicrgol Unnrrsitl- of Chic.rgo Press.

Srnirh. M.5. &t)'l)ev,J.A. (1990). Systenic rhu,lreform.ln S H Fuhrnar & ts. Malcn (FAs.),lln Polirb of Otmnlun anzl tlsting Bnsrot' rL

Spillanc, l. I & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aiigned instructionrl polio ard ambirious pcdagogy: L.xploring instnrctional reform fiom rhe clasroon posptcri'c. Tlacht: {,:olhge Reco ,98: 44'}48].

Stedm.rn, L. (1. (1997). International achievement diffcrences: Att l.ses- mcnr of .r new pcrspect;ve. Ltlacational lI:ntcher, 15: 4 15.

Sreinnro, S., l helen, K. tr l.ongsrrcth, Ii (l',Js.). \19921) Stutunng P0Ln6: l lttoriul hutitrtionatrm in Conlnntti!. A'aUi'. C:,mbr;fuc, UK C;m- bridge Univeniq Prcss.

Ste"enson, Il. tt B"l<er, D. (1991). State <,ntrolofthe curriculum and chs- roonr instruction. Srtz,bgl oJ Eduattion, 6l: 1 10.

Sriglcr, J. & Stocnson, H. (1991). rtow Asi:m reachen polish cach lason to peftectiot Anetican Edurarar, Spring, l2 20, 447.

Srrrdolsb|.l, 5. S. ( I988). The Sublect Maners: {)hstraom dcti)lry ;n nnth au ;orialtuliu. Chtcago: Univcrsity ot Chicago Ptcsr.

Strxlolslq, S. S. & rirossman, P I.. (t995).l'hc rlrP.rd ofsubie.t ma{el on eurricul:rr activirl: An rnrlysrs offivc.tcadcnric suhie.$. Atn€rlcdu t'- ucational Rsurclt Jormal, 12: t7 - 249.

Srrilrrg, D. ( 1987). l'he admrrristrativc rrosti,rmation of Ame .ico educacion' School dislrict consolidar rrn. 19 3a-980. Adm intttlattu Sritnce Qaartz/'1' 1 2 : - 1 5 2 l { 1 6 .

' Y '

'nal Re-

xi Lin€s

/;9, Vot.

rl desien

Kluwer

tn). The

eory aP nr Enti-

:k, CA:

Caliior'

lnd Ro*

t 0 4 .

change ^ . ) , T t ' l Chiego:

Fuhrrner isrol, PA

JIC Gm-

Auftlt'

:licy and

Institutional Theorv and the Studv of Educational Orsanizations 383

T h ' p . R . C . ( 1 9 8 q ) . P s y c h o , u l ' u r J v r r i r b l e s r n d r o n v a n s : E f f e c r s o n ierching ,nd le.rning in .chool'. Aanian PU,hologi!. Fcbruary. 349-359.

Thomp$n.J. D {lq67) Organtzanont in Arrion.Ne* York: McCraw Hill. Imu. T. B. & Kirp. D. L. ( le88). Manag;ng Edkanonal E ..Lnn New

York Falmer Press T o l b e n . P S . & Z u c k e r , I . G . ( 1 9 8 J ) . I n s r i r u r i o n a l s o u r c e s o f . h a n g e i n r h e

formJ srucru.e oforyanization.: The diffusion ofcivil ten ire refor m, 1880-1935. Adninirtratite Scieace Qunetfi, 30: 22-39.

Tuner, R (1960). Moda ofsocial ascenr rhrough educationi Sponsored and cir\t st moblllty. Amer;.an So.;obgial Ref iew, 25t 851867 .

Tva&, D. (1974). The One Best $stem. C,anbridge, MA: Hanard Univcr-' siry Press.

Tyrck, D. & Tobin. V. (loe4). The grammar ofschooling: \0}y har ir' been so hard rc (hlln1et Annnan Educat;onal Rtscarch Joumal. Jt: 45v79.

T1eck, D., James, T & Benavot, A. (1987). Zaa and the Shdpkg ofPubk Eduanon, 17811954. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uaivenity.

fveber, M. (1947). Th.7-h.o,1 ofsocial alll hononic Organization, eds. A. H. Henderson ardTalcon Parsons. Glencoe, lL: Free Press.

\(ei&, K. E. (1976). tducarional organizarions ,r loosely coupled q.stems. Aln;nntranae Scincc Qurtab, 21 : l-19.

Veimcr, D. L & Mning , A. B, (1989) . Pol;cy Analysn: Concept and Prattice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mliiamson. O. E. (1975\. Markat and ltietarchiet: Analyis and Antirrutt lzzpllcaaazr. New York Free Press.

\Tilliamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic lutitxion! of Capitalirn. N*r York Frcc Press.

\(/illiamson, O. E. (1995). Transaction cost economics and oreanizerion rheorv. In O. F. William son lEA.l, Organization Thtory; Frin Chester Bamard to thc Pftsnt .tnd Bqonl, pp. 207-256. New York Oxford university Press.

tX\llis, P. (1977). Lcaming to Zzlar New York Columbia Univercity Press. \iroodward, J. 0965). Industrial Oryanization: Theory and Practicc. New

York Oxford Univenirv Press. Zald, M. N. & Denton, P (1963). From enngclism to genetal service:

The transformarion of theyMCA. Adninistati"e Scienu Qtznaly8: 2 1 4 - 2 3 4 .

Zu&er, L. G. (1977). The role ofinstitutionalization in culrural percistence. Anerican Socioloenal Raien, 42t 726 743.