Proponents of the charter school movement often claim that the decentralized, autonomous nature of charter schools from district and state authority allows teachers greater influence over school policy both instructionally and administratively. Using a data set of 1,427 New York City schools, we empirically examine the extent to which organizational characteristics predict the amount of policy influence charter schools and traditional public schools grant to teachers. Results indicate not only do charter schools grant their teachers less policy influence but also other organizational features are stronger predictors of teacher policy influence including several nonlinear relationships. Directions for future research are discussed.
AbdulkadiroğluA.AngristJ. D.DynarskiS. M.KaneT. J.PathakP. A. (2011). Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and pilots. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 699-748.
2.
AngristJ. D.DynarskiS. M.KaneT. J.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2012). Who benefits from KIPP?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31, 837-860.
3.
BerendsM. (2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 159-180.
4.
BidwellC. E. (2001). Analyzing schools as organizations: Long-term permanence and short-term change. Sociology of Education, 74, 100-114.
5.
BifulcoR.LaddH. F. (2007). School choice, racial segregation, and test-score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 31-56.
6.
BimberB. (1993). School decentralization: Lessons from the study of bureaucracy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
7.
BrehmJ.GatesS. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
8.
BuddinR.ZimmerR. (2005). Student achievement in charter schools: A complex picture. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 351-371.
9.
BulkleyK.FislerJ. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17, 317-342.
10.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. The American Political Science Review, 82, 1066-1087.
11.
DaftR. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 193-210.
12.
DeeT. S.FuH. (2004). Do charter schools skim students or drain resources?Economics of Education Review, 23, 259-271.
13.
DriscollD.HalcoussisD.SvornyS. (2008). Gains in standardized test scores: Evidence of diminishing returns to achievement. Economics of Education Review, 27, 211-220.
14.
FerrisJ. S.WestE. G. (2004). Economies of scale, school violence and the optimal size of schools. Applied Economics, 36, 1677-1684.
15.
FowlesJ.ButlerJ. S.CowenJ. M.StreamsM. E.TomaE. F. (2014). Public employee quality in a geographic context: A study of rural teachers. The American Review of Public Administration, 44, 503-521.
16.
GawlikM. A. (2007). Beyond the charter schoolhouse door: Teacher-perceived autonomy. Education and Urban Society, 39, 524-553.
17.
GoerdelH. T. (2003). “Organizations, structure, and diverse clientele: An examination of decentralization, organizational performance, and the Latino dropout problem.” Texas Educational Excellence Project. Available at http://teep.tamu.edu
18.
GolannJ. W. (2015). The paradox of success at a no-excuses school. Sociology of Education, 88, 103-119.
19.
HannawayJ.WoodroffeN. (2003). Policy instruments in education. Review of Research in Education, 27, 1-24.
20.
HansenJ. S.RozaM. (2005). Decentralized decisionmaking for schools: New promise for an old idea?Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
21.
IngersollR. M. (2009). Who controls teachers’ work?: Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
JeynesW. H. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects and contributions of public, public charter, and religious schools on student outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 305-335.
23.
LaddH. F. (2003). Comment on Caroline M. Hoxby: School choice and school competition: Evidence from the United States. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10(1), 67-76.
24.
LareauA. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
25.
LeeV. (2000). School size and the organization of secondary schools. In HallinanM. T. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 327-344). New York, NY: Springer.
26.
LeiterJ. (1981). Perceived teacher autonomy and the meaning of organizational control. The Sociological Quarterly, 22, 225-239.
27.
LewisR. (1999). Teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline. Social Psychology of Education, 3, 155-171.
28.
LipskyM. (1983). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
29.
LubienskiC. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 395-443.
30.
LundströmU. (2015). Teacher autonomy in the era of new public management. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1, 73-85.
31.
MalloyC. L.WohlstetterP. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools: What’s the appeal for teachers?Education and Urban Society, 35, 219-241.
32.
MeierK. J.BohteJ. (2000). Ode to Luther Gulick: Span of control and organizational performance. Administration & Society, 32, 115-137.
33.
MeierK. J.FaveroN.ZhuL. (2015). Performance gaps and managerial decisions: A Bayesian decision theory of managerial action. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 1221-1246.
34.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2009). The proverbs of new public management: Lessons from an evidence-based research agenda. The American Review of Public Administration, 39, 4-22.
35.
MuellerC. W.FinleyA.IversonR.PriceJ. L. (1999). The effects of group racial composition on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career commitment: The case of teachers. Work and Occupations, 26, 187-219.
Nicholson-CrottyS.MeierK. J. (2002). Size doesn’t matter: In defense of single-state studies. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 2, 411-422.
38.
OuchiW. G. (2006). Power to the principals: Decentralization in three large school districts. Organization Science, 17, 298-307.
39.
PearsonL. C.MoomawW. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29, 38-54.
40.
PodgurskyM. J.BallouD. (2001). Personnel policy in charter schools. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
41.
PodgurskyM. J.SpringerM. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: A review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 909-950.
42.
RenzulliL. A.BarrA. B.PainoM. (2015). Innovative education? A test of specialist mimicry or generalist assimilation in trends in charter school specialization over time. Sociology of Education, 88, 83-102.
43.
ScottW. R.DavisG. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
44.
SmithK. B.MeierK. J. (1995). The case against school choice: Politics, markets, and fools. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
45.
SnowD.WilliamsonA. (2015). Accountability and micromanagement: Decentralized budgeting in Massachusetts school districts. Public Administration Quarterly, 39, 220-258.
46.
SteinbergM. P. (2014). Does greater autonomy improve school performance? Evidence from a regression discontinuity analysis in Chicago. Education Finance and Policy, 9, 1-35.
47.
StuitD.SmithT. M. (2010). Teacher turnover in charter schools (Issue brief). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED543582). Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543582.pdf
48.
TaylorI. (2007). Discretion and control in education: The teacher as street-level bureaucrat. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35, 555-572.
49.
TheobaldN. A.Nicholson-CrottyS. (2005). The many faces of span of control: Organizational structure across multiple goals. Administration & Society, 36, 648-660.
50.
TonsoK. L.ColomboM. (2006). Parental choice and the decision to decharter an urban, black, middle school. Journal of School Choice, 1(1), 85-118.
51.
TorresA. C. (2014). “Are we architects or construction workers?” Re-Examining teacher autonomy and turnover in charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(124), 1-23.
52.
WeiX.PatelD.YoungV. M. (2010). Opening the “black box”: Organizational differences between charter schools and traditional public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 1-23.
53.
WestA.IngramD.HindA. (2006). “Skimming the cream”: Admissions to charter schools in the united states and to autonomous schools in England. Educational Policy, 20, 615-639.
54.
WilliamsonA. L. (2011). Assessing the core and dimensional approaches: Human resource management in public, private, and charter schools. Public Performance & Management Review, 35, 251-280.
55.
WilliamsonA. L.SnowD. (2013). Bridging theory and practice: The landscape of public management reforms in local school district budgeting. Public Performance & Management Review, 37, 154-187.
56.
WitteJ.WeimerD.ShoberA.SchlomerP. (2007). The performance of charter schools in Wisconsin. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 557-573.
57.
ZimmerR.BuddinR. (2007). Getting inside the black box: Examining how the operation of charter schools affects performance. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2-3), 231-273.
