Organizational Perspectives on Educational Improvement
LSAP 3095-1010 (CRN# 29060)
Instructors
Jennifer Russell
808 LRDC / 5812 Posvar
jrussel@pitt.edu
(412) 624-7489
Office Hours: By appointment
Schedule
Mondays, 1:30 – 4:10
WWPH 4317
Course Description
One way to see the act of education is that it is essentially about what occurs between
teachers and learner. In other words the key unit of analysis is the classroom or activity
structure. The classroom is important, but teaching and learning are also shaped by their
context. Individuals are situated in organizations, which are situated in broader social,
cultural, and political environments. Consequently, reform and improvement efforts must
not only take seriously individual factors, they must understand the ways in which
individual action is enabled and constrained by organizational and environmental contexts.
This seminar will focus on schools as organizations drawing on theoretical and empirical
work grounded in organizational theory. We will interrogate the institutional,
organizational, and day-to-day contexts of work in schools. We also explore how reform
efforts targeting organizational features can intervene and perhaps, improve teaching and
learning. In order to grapple with the concepts from the literature, students will analyze
several cases of organizational improvement efforts and conduct a small study examining
an improvement effort in a local educational organization.
Goals / Objectives
1. Students will demonstrate understanding of central organizational elements (e.g. core
technology, human capital, social capital, leadership, goals, control) through application
to analysis of fictional and real world organizational cases.
2. Students will demonstrate an understanding of how organizations are shaped by their
cultural, political and institutional context through analysis of fictional and real world
organizational cases.
3. Students will evaluate different models for educational improvement (e.g. charter
schools, organizational learning, collaboration and networks) through an organizational
perspective
1
Course Requirements
Students are responsible for completing the weekly reading assignments and preparing to
actively participate in class discussions. The first two segments of the course will culminate
in a case-based written analysis. Students are encouraged to form study groups to discuss
readings and the preparation of the cases, but should write analyses individually. In
addition, students will develop a proposal for a course paper that applies an organizational
perspective to a core aspect of their research interests.
Assignment 1: Individual case analysis. Students will write a 4 to 5 single-spaced page
analysis of the assigned case drawing on the concepts from the first segment of the course.
Due October 6th
Assignment 2: Paper proposal and reference list. Students will write a 1 to 2 singlespaced page proposal for their final paper, which applies an organizational perspective to
an aspect of their research interests. The proposal should include a preliminary reference
list. Due October 27th
Assignment 3: Paper outline. Students will write an abstract and substantive outline for
their final paper. Due November 17th
Assignment 4: Final course paper and presentation. Students will write an 18 to 20
double spaced paper that applies an organizational perspective (particularly core concepts
from the course) to a substantive issue related to their research interests. Papers due
December 11th / Presentations on December 8th
Grades will be determined by class attendance, active participation in class discussion
(25%), by the quality and timely completion of the individual case analyses (25% each),
and by the organizational analysis and presentation (25%). Students should notify the
instructor in advance of absences whenever possible. In order to avoid a deduction in
participation points when absent, students should prepare a 2- to 3-page memo that
summarizes and reacts to the assigned course readings. The memo and other assignments
(if applicable) should be emailed to the instructor before the next course session. Absences
greater than two will result in a reduction in participation points regardless of memo
completion. A rubric will be provided in advance that outlines the grading for the
individual cases and organization analysis and presentation.
The statements contained in this syllabus, other than the grading policies, may be subject to
change with reasonable advance notice as deemed acceptable by the instructors.
Required texts:
Please purchase/obtain a copy of the following books:
 Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural,
and open system perspectives: Pearson Prentice Hall.
2

Bryk, A., Easton, J. Q., Sebring, P. D., Allensworth, A. & Luppescu, S. (2011).
Organizing for school improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
All other assigned readings will be made available on-line through CourseWeb.
Departmental Grievance Procedures
Students are encouraged to first discuss the grievance with the instructor. If the grievance
cannot be resolved, the aggrieved may file an appeal informally to the LSAP chair. The LSAP
chair will immediately confer with the student and the faculty member involved. The
aggrieved may request the assistance and presence of one of the graduate student
representatives at this and at all following steps in the procedure. If a satisfactory
resolution is not achieved, the individual may file a written statement of grievance with the
LSAP chair. Upon receiving the grievance, the chair will establish a Grievance Committee
composed of one faculty member selected by the aggrieved student, one faculty member
selected by the chair, and a third faculty member appointed by the other two members.
This committee will consider the grievance and make a written recommendation.
Policy on Academic Integrity
Students in this course will be expected to comply with the University of Pittsburgh’s Policy
on Academic Integrity. Plagerizers will receive a failing grade for the course.
Disability Policy
If you have a disability for which you are or may be requesting an accommodation, you are
encouraged to contact both your instructor and Disability Resources and Services (DRS),
216 William Pitt Union, 412-648-7890 (412- 282-7355 for TTY) as early as possible in the
term. DRS will verify your disability and determine reasonable accommodations for this
course.
3
Organizational Perspectives on School Improvement - Schedule
Week
1
Aug.
25
Session
Course overview
 Introductions
 Review syllabus and major assignments
 Introductory lecture
Segment 1: Organizational Elements
2
Sept.
8
Work / Technology
Scott Chapter 6: Technology and Structure
Rowan, Raudenbush & Cheong (1993). Teaching as a non-routine task:
Implications for the management of schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 29, 479-500.
Sherer, J. Z. & Spillane, J. P. (2011). Constancy and change in school work practice:
Exploring the role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-19.
3
Sept.
15
Human and Social Resources
Scott Chapter 7: Labor and Structure
Johnson, S. M. (2004). Finders and Keepers: Helping New Teachers Survive and
Thrive in Our Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Chapter 7]
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for
improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [Chapter 2]
4
Sept.
22
Goals, Power & Control
Scott Chapter 8: Goals, Power & Control
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Who Controls Teachers’ Work: Power and Accountability in
America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Chapter 2]
Miller, R. J., & Rowan, B. (2006). Effects of organic management on student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 219-253.
Spillane, J. P., & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and
management from a distributed perspective. The Elementary School Journal,
111(2). OPTIONAL
4
Week
5
Sept.
29
Session
Synthesis / Taking Stock
Spillane, J., Gomez, L. & Messler. (2009). Notes on reframing the role of
organizations in policy implementation: Resources for Practice, in Practice (pp.
409-425). In Sykes, G., Schneider, B. & Plank, D. N. Handbook of Education Policy
Research. New York: Routledge.
REVIEW ACTIVITY
Segment 2: Organizations in their cultural, political and institutional context
6
Oct. 6
7
Oct.
14
Organizations & Environments
Scott & Davis, Ch. 4 (pages 87-98) & 9 (pages 233-244)
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations.
CASE ANALYSIS DUE
Practice in organizations as shaped by their institutional environment
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the
institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211244. EVERYONE
(Tues) Read one of the following --Goodrick, Elizabeth, and Gerald R. Salancik. 1996. “Organizational Discretion in
Responding to Institutional Practice: Hospitals and Cesarean Births.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:1–28.
Metz, Mary H. 1989. “Real School: A Universal Drama Amid Disparate Experience.”
Pp. 75–91 in Education Politics for the New Century, edited by D. E. Mitchell and
M. E. Goertz. New York: Falmer Press.
Lounsbury, M., & Pollack, S. (2001). Institutionalizing civic engagement: Shifting
logics and the cultural repackaging of service-learning in US higher education.
Organization, 8(2), 319–339.
Ogawa, R.T. (1994). The institutional sources of educational reform: The case of
school-based management. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 519-548.
5
Week
8
Oct.
20
Session
Organizational Fields and Forms
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
sociological review, 147-160.
Read one of the following --Scott, W.R., Deschenes, S., Hopkins, K., Newman, A., and McLaughlin, M. (December
2006). Advocacy organizations and the field of youth services: Ongoing efforts to
restructure a field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 697-714.
Russell, J. L. (2011). From Child’s Garden to Academic Press: The role of shifting
institutional logics in redefining kindergarten education. American Educational
Research Journal, 48 (2), 236-267.
Hopkins, M. (2014). Beliefs in Context Understanding Language Policy
Implementation at a Systems Level. Educational Policy, 0895904814550073.
9
Oct.
27
Recap – Institutional Theory
Ogawa, R. (2009). Commentary: Improvement or reinvention: Two policy
approaches to school reform (pp. 534-538). In Sykes, G., Schneider, B. & Plank, D.
N. Handbook of Education Policy Research. New York: Routledge.
Reread the Metro Case – Prepare to analyze the case drawing on the institutional
theory perspective (Weeks 6 through 8). You and a partner will co-construct a
memo about how district is relating to its environment.
FINAL PAPER PROPOSALS AND REFERENCE LIST DUE
Segment 3: Organizational Perspectives on School Improvement
10
Organizing Schools for Improvement – Part I
Bryk, A., Easton, J. Q., Sebring, P. D., Allensworth, A. & Luppescu, S. (2011).
Nov. 3 Organizing for school improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Chapters 1-3.
6
Week
11
Nov.
10
Session
Breaking Free from Institutionalized Structures: Charters, Privates & New
Organizational Forms
Lubienski, C. (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.
Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2006). School sector and academic achievement:
A multilevel analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Research
Journal, 43(4), 651-698.
Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution:
Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 26(1) 18-27.
12
Nov.
17
13
Nov.
24
Learning Within and Beyond Schools
Russell, J. L., Knutson, K., & Crowley, K. (2013). Collaborations bridging the formalinformal divide in an urban educational ecology. Journal of Educational Change.
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., ... & Watkins, S.
C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media
and Learning Research Hub.
 Everyone skims pages 2 – 34 and 40 - 48
 Choose one of the cases: Case 4 - 9
FINAL PAPER OUTLINES DUE
Research-Practice Partnerships
Dolle, J., Gomez, L., Russell, J. L., & Bryk, A. S. More than a network: Building
professional communities for educational improvement. In B. J. Fishman, W. R.
Penuel, A. R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.). Design based implementation research. National
Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112, 2.
Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research-practice partnerships: A
strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts.
New York: William T. Grant Foundation.
14
Dec. 1
Innovations in the Early Childhood, K-12, Informal Learning and Higher
Education Sectors
No new readings
Presentations and discussions
7
Week
15
Session
Final Presentations
Dec. 8
FINAL PAPERS DUE 12/11 BY 5:00
8