Structural Coupling, Robustness and Effectiveness of Schools

Abstract

Explores the relationships between teacher perceptions of the structural coupling in their schools and their perceptions of school robustness and effectiveness in a research study of 73 participating schools. Pearson product‐moment correlations of mean scores from each school produced significant relationships, suggesting that teacher perceptions of relatively tight coupling of goal direction/vision and work supervision structures, and relatively loose coupling of manipulative control structures, are associated with their positive perceptions of school robustness and effectiveness as well as student achievement and attendance.

Loose and tight coupling in educational organizations – an integrative literature review

“…Rowan (2002, p. 604) has argued that "ideas about loose coupling can serve a useful purpose in organization theory, but only if they are re-worked substantially" (see also Tyler, 1987). Furthermore, according to Ingersoll (1993), assessment of organizational coupling is highly dependent on research location, used criteria and method (see also Firestone, 1985;Logan et al,1993;Orton and Weick, 1990;Tyler, 1987). Considering the above-mentioned coupling attributes will enhance and enable the accumulation and comparison of the conducted research in this context, and here the current paper with the conceptual framework of organizational couplings may function as a basis for future research.…”

“…Hökkä and Vähäsantanen, 2014;Shen et al, 2016). As a characteristic and indicator of loose coupling, autonomy has been connected to the features of professional orientation and professionalism (Pang, 1998) and employment of discretion (Cheng, 2008(Cheng, , 2009Logan et al, 1993;Pang, 1998). Respectively, decentralization and flat, distributed leadership have been described as prominent characteristics of loosely coupled system (Hargreaves, 2011;Horne, 1992;Weick, 1976), resulting in faculties in loosely coupled organizations being overly autonomous and lacking sufficient accountability (Ingersoll, 1994).…”

“…Dimmock and Tan, 2013;Meyer, 2002a;Orton and Weick, 1990), and most commonly, simultaneous (e.g. Logan et al, 1993;Orton and Weick, 1990;Pang, 2003Pang, , 2010.…”

“…These systems are simultaneously "open and closed, indeterminate and rational, spontaneous and deliberate" (Orton and Weick, 1990, p. 204-205; see also Meyer, 2002b). An example of simultaneous coupling is that schools can be characterized by simultaneous tight coupling of student discipline components and loose coupling of teacher behaviour in supervision (Logan et al, 1993). Another example is that some organizational actors or subsystems might "deliberately attempt to weaken ties to one element in the system in order to tighten coupling to another element" (Rowan 2002, p. 609).…”

“…Aurini, 2012;Cheng, 2008Cheng, , 2009Hargreaves, 2011;Pang, 2003;Tyler 1987) -Teachers' autonomy has strong connection with job satisfaction and commitment to work (Pang, 2003(Pang, , 2010; see also Hökkä and Vähäsantanen, 2014) -Autonomy has been connected to the features of professional orientation and professionalism (Pang, 1998), and employment of discretion (Cheng, 2008(Cheng, , 2009Pang, 1998) -Teachers must develop individual professional skills, and need to behave as selfmanaging professionals in order to work effectively (Billing, 1998;Cheng, 2008) -However, teaches' professional autonomy, and strong professional agency may act as Highlights rules, regulations, monitoring and certification in organizations -Relatively strict rules and regulations approved by schools to control teachers (Cheng, 2008(Cheng, , 2009Pang, 1998;Willower, 1981; see also Tyler, 1987) -Regulation includes resources, teachers, pupils, topics and spaces (Weick, 1976; see also Logan et al, 1993) -Tight coupling comes as a result of rules, schedules, procedures, hierarchy, authority, rewards and sanctions (Cheng, 2008) -Regular monitoring of student progress, processes and sub-units (Aurini, 2012;Hargreaves, 2011;Murphy et al, 1985) -Evaluation and decision making closely linked (Murphy et al, 1985) -Administrative zones and classrooms highly connected (Ingersoll, 1994) -Routinized settings (Weick, 1976;Willower, 1981) -Standardized operating procedures (Hargreaves, 2011) -Routines for student control (Logan et al, 1993) -Significant attention devoted to m...…”