Current school reform debates often connect schools' autonomy, such as that of charter schools, to opportunities for pedagogical innovation. Scholars like Lubienski (2003, 2004) have argued that, at least in charter schools, this theory does not always hold. While charter schools offer choices for parents, the array of possibilities is narrower than market advocates envision is possible (Hess, 2008). Using the organizational lens of isomorphism, this paper builds on these findings through an historical examination of the progressive Eight-Year Study and the isomorphic obstacles participating schools faced with colleges, and professional peers, and parents. It closes with a discussion of the implications for schools and policy makers who seek to promote innovative practices in schools, including the need for people-centered reform and the promise for charter innovation in areas like structure, governance, and culture.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AikinW. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study.New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
2.
BidwellC. E. (2001). Analyzing schools as organizations: Long-term permanence and short-term change.Sociology of Education Extra Issue, 2001, 110–114.
3.
BrownB. W. (1992). Why governments run schools.Economics of Education Review, 11(4), 287–300.
4.
BuckleyJ., & SchneiderM. (2007). Charter schools: Hope or hype?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
ChamberlainD., ChamberlainE., DroughtN. E., & ScottW. E. (1942). Did they succeed in college? The follow-up study of the graduates of the thirty schools.New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
6.
ChubbJ. E., & MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, & America's schools.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
7.
CubanL. (2008). Frogs into princes: Writings on school reform.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8.
CohenD. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plu que ça change … In JacksonP. W. (Ed.), Contributing to educational change (pp. 27–84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
9.
DaviesS., QuirkeL., & AuriniJ. (2006). The new institutionalism goes to market: The challenge of rapid growth in private K-12 education. In MeyerH.-D., & RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 103–122). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
10.
DiMaggioP. J., & PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
11.
DeArmondM., GrossB., & GoldhaberD. (2007). Look familiar? Charters and teachers. In LakeR. J. (Ed.), Hopes fears, and reality: A balanced look at American charter schools in 2007 (pp. 43–52). Washington, DC: National Charter School Research Project.
12.
ElmoreR. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
FullerB. (2000). The public square, big or small? Charter schools in the political context. In FullerB. (Ed.), Inside charter schools (pp. 12–65). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
GilesC., & HargreavesA. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform.Educational Administration Quarterly, February, 42(1), 124–156.
17.
GilesH. H., McCutchenS. P., & ZechielA. P. (1942). Exploring the curriculum: The work of the thirty schools from the viewpoint of curriculum consultants.New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
18.
GrahamP. (2005). Schooling America.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
HargreavesA. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20.
HessF. M. (2008, November). The supply side of school reform.Phi Delta Kappan, 90(3), 211–217.
21.
HessF. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
22.
HessF. M., & MannoB. (2008). Encouraging diverse suppliers. In LakeR., (Ed.), Hopes, fears, & reality: A Balanced look at American charter schools in 2008 (pp. 43–50). Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
23.
HoxbyC. M. (2002). Would school choice change the teaching profession?The Journal of Human Resources,, 38(4), 846–891.
24.
HoxbyC. M. (2004). Achievement in charter schools and regular public schools in the United States: Understanding the differences., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research.
25.
HoxbyC. M., MurarkaS., & KangJ. (2009). How New York City's charter schools affect achievement, August 2009 Report.Second report in the series. Cambridge, MA: New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project.
26.
KaranxhaZ. (2008). Charter schools work harder than public schools to involve parents, or do they? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
27.
KliebardH. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum.New York, NY: Routledge Flamer.
28.
KridelC., & BulloughR. V.Jr. (2007). Stories of the eight-year study: Reex-amining secondary education in America.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
29.
LagemannE. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
LakeR., DusseaultB., BowenM., DemerittA., & HillP. (2010). Charter management organizations: Innovations, opportunities, and challenges.Seattle, WA: National Charter School Research Project, Center on Reinventing Public Education.
31.
LittleJ. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work.Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917–946.
32.
LortieD. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LubienskiC. (2001). Redefining “public” education: Charter schools, common schools, and the rhetoric of reform.Teachers College Record, 103(4), 634–666.
34.
LubienskiC. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools.American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395–443.
35.
LubienskiC. (2004). Charter school innovation in theory and practice: Autonomy, R&D, and curricular conformity. In BuckleyK., & WohlstetterP. (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What happened and what's next? (pp. 72–92). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
36.
MannoB. V. (2006). Charter school politics. In PetersonP. (Ed.), Choice and competition in American education (pp. 161–171). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
37.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. E. (2006). School-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
38.
McQuillanP. J. (1998). Educational opportunity in an urban American high school: A cultural analysis.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
39.
MersethK. K.with CooperK., RobertsJ., TiekenM. C., Valant, & WynneC. (2009). Inside urban charter schools: Promising practices and strategies in high-performing schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
40.
MetzM. H. (1990). Real school: A universal drama amid disparate experience. In MitchellD., and GoertzM. E., (Eds.), Educational politics for the new century: The twentieth anniversary yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 75–91). Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.
41.
MeyerH-D. (2006). The rise and decline of the common school as an institution: Taking “Myth and Ceremony” seriously. In MeyerH-D, & RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 51–66). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
42.
MeyerJ., & RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
43.
NelsonC., & MironG. (2004). Professional opportunities for teachers: A view from inside charter schools. In BuckleyK., & WohlstetterP. (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What happened and what's next? (pp. 32–51). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
44.
OgawaR. T., CrainR., LoomisM., & BallT. (2008). CHAT-IT: Toward conceptualizing learning in the context of formal organizations.Educational Researcher, (37) 2, 83–95.
RavitchD. (2000). Left back: A century of battles over school reform.New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
47.
RowanB. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools.Review of Research in Education, 16, 353–389.
48.
SarasonS. B. (1998). Charter schools: Another flawed educational reform?New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
49.
SchroederJ. (2004). Ripples of innovation: Charter schooling in Minnesota, the nation's first charter school state.Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
50.
SpillaneJ. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education.Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179.
51.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
52.
TeskeP., SchneiderM., BuckleyJ., & ClarkS. (2000). Can charter schools change traditional public schools? In PetersonP., & CampbellD. (Eds.), Charters, vouchers, and public education (pp. 188–214). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
53.
TyackD., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
TyackD., & TobinW. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479.
55.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2004). Innovations in education: Successful charter schools.Washington, DC.
56.
WellsA. S., SlaytonJ., & ScottJ. (2002). Defining democracy in the Neoliberal Age: Charter school reform and educational consumption.American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 337–361.
57.
WohlstetterP., & ChauD. (2004). Does autonomy matter? Implementing research-based practices in charter and other public schools. In BuckleyK., & WohlstetterP. (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What happened and what's next? (pp. 53–71). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
58.
YanceyP. (2000). We hold on to our kids, we hold on tight: Tandem charters in Michigan. In FullerB. (Ed.), Inside charter schools (pp. 66–97). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59.
ZernikeK. (2000). Selling air: New England parents spark a new revolution. In FullerB. (Ed.), Inside charter schools (pp. 124–143). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
