This article examines educational reform as a function of a systemic process. School districts are viewed as dynamic systems that use reforms to reinforce their equilibrium as institutionalized organizations. It is argued that institutionalization effectively blocks formal feedback to decision makers and that educational reforms exhibit an alternating pattern resulting from the operation of a default feedback process based on reaction to undesirable side effects generated by those reforms. Reform is seen not as a vehicle of improvement but as a means of perpetuating the condition of institutionalization. System dynamics is suggested as a perspective and methodology for effecting systemic change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banathy, B. H.
(1992). A systems view of education: Concepts and principles for effective practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
2.
Bickman, L.
(Ed.). (1987). Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation (33).
3.
Cook, D.
(1966). Program evaluation and review technique applications in education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4.
Cooper, K.
, & Steinhurst, W. (1993). International system dynamics bibliography, 1993 (DOS Version .93C) [Computer software]. Lincoln, MA: System Dynamics Society [Distributor].
5.
Cuban, L.
(1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3-13.
6.
Darling-Hammond, L.
, & Wise, A. (1992). Teacher professionalism. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1359-1366). New York: Macmillan.
7.
Deutscher, I.
(1990). Doing it right and getting it wrong: Conventional assumptions as obstacles to useful research. Sociological Practice Review, 1, 52-56.
8.
DiMaggio, P. J.
, & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
9.
DiMaggio, P. J.
, & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powell & P DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Elmore, R.
(1991, April). Innovation in education policy. Paper prepared for the Conference on Fundamental Questions of Innovation, Duke University, Durham, NC.
11.
Feldman, M.
, & March, J. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171-186.
12.
Floden, R.
, & Weiner, S. (1978). Rationality to ritual: The multiple roles of evaluation in governmental processes. Policy Sciences, 9, 9-18.
13.
Forrester, J. W.
(1968). Principles of systems. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen.
14.
Forrester, J. W.
(1971). Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Technology Review, 73, 52-68.
15.
Ginsberg, R.
, & Wimpleberg, R. (1987). Educational change by commission: Attempting "trickle down" reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 344-360.
16.
Griffin, L., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (1994). Formal methods of qualitative analysis [Special issue]. Sociological Methods and Research, 23(1).
17.
Hannaway, J.
(1991). The organization and management of public and Catholic schools: Looking inside the "black box."International Journal of Educational Research, 16, 463-481.
18.
Hanneman, R. A.
(1988). Computer-assisted theory building: Modeling dynamic social systems. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
March, J. G.
, & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78, 734-749.
21.
McClintock, C.
(1990). Evaluators as applied theorists. Evaluation Practice, 11, 1-12.
22.
Meadows, D. H.
(1980). The unavoidable a priori. In J. Randers (Ed.), Elements of the system dynamics method (pp. 23-57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Meadows, D. H.
, & Robinson, J. (1985). The electronic oracle: Computer models and social decisions. New York: John Wiley.
24.
Meyer, J. W.
, & Rowan, B. (1992a). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In J. W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (Rev. ed., pp. 21-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Meyer, J. W.
, & Rowan, B. (1992b). The structure of educational organizations. In J. W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (Rev. ed., pp. 71-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Morecroft, J.D.W.
(1994). Executive knowledge, models, and learning. In J. Morecroft & J. Sterman (Eds.), Modeling for learning organizations (pp. 3-28). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
27.
Morecroft, J.D.W.
, & Sterman, J. D. (Eds.). (1994). Modeling for learning organizations. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
28.
Morris, D. R.
(1993, April). On the dynamics of the reform process in education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference, Atlanta, GA.
29.
Morris, D. R.
(1994, November). Is real progress in education being concealed by the operation of the reform process? Some insights from a system dynamics simulation. Paper presented at the Florida Educational Research Association conference, Tampa.
30.
Morris, D. R.
, & Hanson, M. K. (1993). Consequences of reform: Retention rate fluctuations in Dade County. In S. Bacharach & R. Ogawa (Eds.), Advances in research and theory of school management and educational policy (Vol. 2, pp. 121-157). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
31.
Natale, J.
(1991, January). Promotion or retention? Executive Educator, 15-18.
32.
Paich, M.
, & Sterman, J. D. (1993). Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Management Science, 39, 1439-1458.
33.
Palumbo, D. J.
(Ed.). (1987). The politics of program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
Patton, M. Q.
(1986). Utilization-focused evaluation (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
Pfeiffer, J.
(1968). New look at education: Systems analysis in our schools and colleges. New York: Odessey.
36.
Powell, W. W.
(1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183-203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Radzicki, M. J.
(1990). Methodologia oeconomiae et systematis dynamis. System Dynamics Review, 6, 123-147.
38.
Radzicki, M. J.
, & Sterman, J. D. (1993). Evolutionary economics and system dynamics. In E. Zepeda & J.A.D. Machua (Eds.), International System Dynamics Conference, Cancun, Mexico, 1993: Proceedings (pp. 388 1-388 XXVI). Atizapan de Zaragoza, Mexico: Centro de Competitividad Internacional.
39.
Reigeluth, C. M.
, & Garfinkle, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Systemic change in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
40.
Richardson, G. P.
, & Pugh, A. L., III. (1981). Introduction to system dynamics modeling with DYNAMO. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
Richmond, B. A.
, & Peterson, S. (1994). STELLA II: An introduction to systems thinking. Hanover, NH: High Performance Systems.
42.
Rowan, B.
(1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 353-389). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
43.
Sarason, S. B.
(1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before its too late?San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
44.
Scott, W. R.
(1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493-511.
45.
Scott, W. R.
(1994). Institutional analysis: Variance and process theory approaches. In W. Scott & J. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations (pp. 81-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Scott, W. R.
(1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
Shepard, L.
, & Smith, M. (Eds.). (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. New York: Falmer.
48.
Singh, J.
, Tucker, D. J., & Meinhard, A. G. (1991). Institutional change and ecological dynamics. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 390-422). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49.
Sterman, J. D.
(1989). Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 301-335.
50.
Stufflebeam, D.
, & Webster, W. (1988). Evaluation as an administrative function. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 569-601). New York: Longman.
51.
Throne, J.
(1994). Living with the pendulum: The complex world of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 64, 195-208.
52.
Weick, K.
(1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
53.
Weiss, C. H.
(1977). Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531-545.
54.
Weiss, C. H.
(1987). Where politics and evaluation research meet. In D. Palumbo (Ed.), The politics of program evaluation (pp. 47-70). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
55.
Weiss, C. H.
(1988). Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Evaluation Practice, 9, 5-19.
56.
Zucker, L. G.
(1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.
