The notion of schools as ‘loosely coupled’ organizations has been widely discussed in the research literature. Many argue it is either a protective mechanism for schools to buffer external pressure or a barrier for implementing new reforms. Against the backdrop of systemic change and accountability, we applied a two-level hierarchical linear model to nationally representative data in the US, testing the ‘loosely coupled’ theory through examining the association between data-informed improvement efforts at the school level and data-informed instruction at the classroom level. Statistically significant associations were identified but with a small proportion of variance explained, indicating that the top-down systemic change strategy failed to tighten the system as intended. Alternatively, bottom-up strategies, such as professional learning communities, which operate under the assumption of working with loose coupling, should be considered.
BabbieE (2010) The Practice of Social Research, 12th edn. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
2.
BrykASSebringPBAllensworthELuppescuSEastonJ (2009) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BrykASGomezLMGrunowA (2011) Getting ideas into action: building networked improvement communities in education. In HallinanMT (ed) Frontiers in Sociology of Education (pp. 127–162). New York: Springer.
4.
CelioMBHarveyJ (2005) Buried Treasure: Developing a Management Guide from Mountains of School Data. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
5.
CheongYFFotiuRPRaudenbushRW (2001) Efficiency and robustness of alternative estimators for 2- and 3-level models: the case of NAEP. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics26: 411–429.
6.
CoburnCETurnerEO (2012) The practice of data use: an introduction. American Journal of Education118(2): 99–111.
7.
CohenDK (1990) A revolution in one classroom: the case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis12(3): 311–329.
8.
DealTECelottiLD (1980) How much influence do (and can) educational administrators have on classrooms?Phi Delta Kappan61(1): 471–473.
9.
DiamondJBCooperK (2007) The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: some lessons from Chicago. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education106(1): 241–263.
10.
DuFourR (2004) What is a ‘professional learning community’?Educational Leadership61(8): 6–11.
DyckhoffALZielkeDBültmannMChattiMASchroederU (2012) Design and implementation of a learning analytics toolkit for teachers. Educational Technology and Society15(3): 58–76.
13.
ElmoreRF (2000) Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
14.
FirestoneWAWilsonBL (1985) Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve instruction: the principal’s contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly21(2): 7–30.
15.
FusarelliLD (2002) Tightly coupled policy in loosely coupled systems: institutional capacity and organizational change. Journal of Educational Administration40(6): 561–575.
16.
FusarelliLD (2005) Gubernatorial reactions to No Child Left Behind: politics, pressure and education reform. Peabody Journal of Education80(2): 120–136.
17.
GoodladJKleinMFand Associates. (1975) Looking Behind the Classroom Door. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company.
18.
GoldspinkC (2007) Rethinking educational reform a loosely coupled and complex systems perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership35(1): 27–50.
19.
HalversonRGriggJPrichettRThomasC (2007) The new instructional leadership: creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership17(2): 159–194.
20.
HarrisAJonesM (2010) Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools13(2): 172–181.
21.
HessFMFullertonJ (2009) The numbers we need: bringing balanced scorecards to education data. Phi Delta Kappa90(9): 665–69.
22.
HollinsERMcIntyreLRDeBoseCHollinsKSTownerA (2004) Promoting a self-sustaining learning community: investigating an internal model for teacher development. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education17(2): 247–264.
23.
HonigMICoburnC (2008) Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy22(4): 578–608.
HoxJJMaasCJM (2001) The accuracy of multilevel structural equation modeling with pseudobalanced groups and small samples. Structural Equation Modeling8(2): 157–174.
26.
IngersollR (1993) Loosely coupled organizations revisited. Research in the Sociology of Organizations11: 81–112.
27.
IngersollR (1994) Organizational control in secondary schools. Harvard Review64(2): 150–172.
28.
IngersollR (1996) Teachers’ decision-making power and school conflict. Sociology of Education69(2): 159–176.
29.
IngramDLouisKSSchroederRG (2004) Accountability policies and teacher decision making: barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record106(6): 1258–1287.
30.
JohnsonLSmithRWillisHLevineAHaywoodK (2011) The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
31.
KauermannGCarrollRJ (2001) A note on the efficiency of sandwich covariance matrix estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association96(456): 1387–1396.
32.
LachatMAWilliamsMSmithSC (2006) Making sense of all your data. Principal Leadership. (Middle Level Ed.)7(2): 16–21.
33.
LaskySSchafferGHopkinsT (2009) Learning to think and talk from evidence: developing system-wide capacity for learning conversations. In EarlLMTimperleyH (eds) Professional Learning Conversations: Challenges in Using Evidence for Improvement (pp. 95–108). New York: Springer.
34.
LittleJW (2012) Understanding data use practice among teachers: the contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education118(2): 143–166.
35.
LouisKSMarksHM (1998) Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education106(4): 532–575.
36.
LutzFW (1982) Tightening up loose coupling in organizations of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly27(4): 653–669.
37.
McCoachDB (2010) Hierarchical linear modeling. In GRHancockROMueller (eds) The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 123–140) New York: Routledge.
38.
MandinachEBHoneyMLightD (2006) A theoretical framework for data driven decision making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Retrieved fromhttp://cct.edc.org/admin/publications/speeches/DataFrame_AERA06.pdf
39.
MasonSA (2003) Learning from data: The role of professional learning communities. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago IL.
40.
MeyerJWRowanB (1978) The structure of educational organizations. In MeyerJW (ed) Environments and Organizations (pp. 78–109). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41.
MorleyLRassoolN (2000) School effectiveness: new managerialism, quality and the Japanization of education. Journal of Education Policy15(2): 169–183.
42.
OrtonJDWeickKE (1990) Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review15(2): 203–223.
43.
O’DayJA (2002) Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review72(3): 293–329.
44.
PajakEGreenA (2003) Loosely coupled organizations, misrecognition and social reproduction. International Journal of Leadership in Education6(4): 393–413.
45.
RaudenbushSWBrykAS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
46.
RosenthalRRosnowRL (1984) Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
47.
RowanB (2002) Rationality and reality in organizational management: using the coupling metaphor to understand educational (and other) organizations-a concluding comment. Journal of Educational Administration40(6): 604–611.
48.
RudnerLMBostonC (2003) Data warehousing: beyond disaggregation. Educational Leadership60(5): 62–65.
49.
SarasonS (1982) The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
50.
ShenJMaX (2006) Does systemic change work? Curricular and instructional practice in the context of systemic change. Leadership and Policy in Schools5(3): 231–256.
51.
ShenJCooleyVReevesPBurtWRyanLRaineyJMYuanW (2010) Using data for decision-making: Perspectives from 16 principals in Michigan, USA. International Review of Education56(4): 435–456.
52.
SmithMSO’DayJA (1990) Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanSMalenB (eds) The Politics of Curriculum and Testing (pp. 233–267). Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.
53.
SpillaneJP (1999) External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: the mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies31(2): 143–175.
54.
SpillaneJP (2012) Data in practice: conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education118(2): 113–141.
55.
SpillaneJPParizeLMShererJZ (2011) Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms policy, school administration and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal48(3): 586–619.
56.
StollLBolamRMcMahonAWallaceMThomasS (2006) Professional learning communities: a review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change7(4): 221–258.
57.
StrahanD (2003) Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three elementary schools that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal104(2): 127–146.
58.
SupovitzJAKleinV (2003) Mapping a Course for Improved Student Learning: How Innovative Schools Systematically Use Student Performance Data to Guide Improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
59.
ThornCA (2001) Knowledge management for educational information systems: what is the state of the field?Education Policy Analysis Archives9(47): 47.
60.
ThorntonBPerreaultG (2002) Becoming a data-based leader: An introduction. NASSP Bulletin86(630): 86–96.
