Institutional vs. Technical Environments:
A Framework for Analysis of Evolving
Charter School Organizations
Luis A. Huerta
Teachers College, Columbia University
Andy Zuckerman
Teachers College, Columbia University
Research Objectives

This research framework focuses on whether the
decentralized context in which charter schools operate
influences the emergence of innovations that challenge
the institutionalized definitions of schooling and over
time can resist the isomorphic pressures to adopt the
institutional rituals, norms, and rules of the wider
institutional environment (Meyer & Rowan, 1977, 1978;
Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).
Initial Empirical Questions:
• Does the devolution of public authority to local-level
actors under a decentralized school reform model, result
in the emergence of new organizational structures and
new teaching and learning strategies?
• Can charter schools operating under a decentralized
policy context, sustain change and innovation within the
wider institutional environment and gain the necessary
legitimacy to insure organizational survival?
The Evolution of Charter Schools

Charter schools have evolved as a direct response to both the
bureaucratic controls that govern public schools in the United
States and to an increasing local demand for greater community
control of schools.

Proponents claim that by lifting bureaucratic controls over
schools, charter schools will act as laboratories for innovation,
leading to the creation of local accountability systems, new
teaching and learning methodologies, and efficient school
models that will allow schools to compete in a local education
market (Finn, Manno, & Vanourek, 2000; Finn, Bierlein &
Manno, 1997; Nathan, 1996; Kolderie, 1990).

Charter schools have grown to nearly 4,000 schools serving one
million students in 40 states, in the last 15 years.
Institutional Theory as an Analytical Tool

Institutional theory defines how bureaucratic oversight
in schools has historically led to a “one size fits all”
approach of employing rational accountability
measures, resulting in “schooling rules” that have
attempted to coordinate layers of the school
organization (Meyer & Rowan, 1978). This holds
relevance for how states currently attempt to hold
schools accountable and essentially require that charter
schools look more like traditional schools (Huerta,
2002).
Institutional Theory as an Analytical Tool (cont.)

The ritual classifications that have resulted from the
institutionalization of bureaucratic controls are the very
rituals which charter school proponents claim have
standardized the education process and stifled innovation in
public schools.

Yet, as charter schools evolve, not only are they challenging
the tenets of the institutional environment which they are
part of, but their evolution and the development of new
alternative forms of schooling is challenged by the rules,
norms, and rituals of the more established and robust
institutional environment that defines legitimate forms of
schooling.
Institutional Theory as an Analytical Tool (cont.)

Looking at decentralized school policy through the lens of
institutional theory allows us to identify whether the
decentralized conditions under which charter schools
operate can influence changes within the wider institutional
environment. Principally, it is necessary to focus on how
decentralization might influence institutional shifts that
could accommodate new innovations created by the charter
school movement, or whether the existing norms, rules and
expectations of the institutional environment lead
decentralized schools to adopt the already accepted
normative definitions of effectiveness that are linked to
bureaucratic and rule-based compliance.
Charter School Research


Charter school research, however, is not conclusive in determining the extent to
which the day-to-day experiences of charters support the assumptions inherent in
the decentralized theory of action.
Only recently have substantive research efforts begun to tackle the important
empirical issues that charter schools are raising, including:

Charter school effectiveness and achievement gains realized by students in
comparison to traditional school students (Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel,
L. and Rothstein, R.,, 2005; Hoxby, 2004; AFT, 2004; Miron et al, 2002).

The creation of a competitive education market and the “ripple effects”
felt by traditional public and private schools (Henig & McDonald, 2002;
Teske et al, 2001; Arsen, Plank, & Sykes, 1999).

The role of parents and community in developing and sustaining charter
schools (Rofes & Stulberg, 2004; Schneider & Buckley, 2003; Yancey, 2000;
Fuller, 2000).

Creating and sustaining innovations in market-driven school reform
(Lubienski, 2003).
Charter School Theories of Action
Different theories of action linked to the decentralized charter
school reform model have resulted in diverse forms of
schooling, including:
 Local Control: diffuse forms of leadership and school
organizations that have evolved in the form of community
based schools
 Market Forces: external management of schools that are
tightly aligned with market-based principals and are promoted
by EMO run charters
 Management Re-Centralization: newly emerging CMO
charters that have created hybrid management structures that
both mimic existing institutional governance structures and
adopt centralized efficiencies as tools to scale-up more
technically oriented forms of schooling.
Conceptual Frame for Analysis:
Institutional v. Technical Environments
The following sub-themes derived from RQ2, drive the conceptual
frame…
 Does local accountability allow charter schools to be more
attuned to their technical environment as opposed to the
demands of the wider institutional environment?

Do charter schools increase their prospects of organizational
survival by organizing around the tasks of technical production,
as opposed to responding to the institutionalized rituals that
define legitimate schooling in the institutional environment?
Institutional v. Technical Environments

An institutional theory perspective assumes that charter
schools, like all public schools, are still operating within a
highly institutionalized environment.

The institutional environment identifies legitimate forms of
schooling via a school’s conformity to environmental
conditions that define effectiveness through standardization
and certification procedures,rather than measurable
outcomes (Meyer & Rowan, 1978)
Institutional v. Technical Environments

Institutional theory predicts that "organizations fail when they
deviate from the prescriptions of institutionalized myths: quite
apart from technical efficiency, organizations which innovate in
important structural ways bar considerable costs in legitimacy"
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977, p.353).

An organization that adopts efficiency criteria and rejects
conformity to institutionalized rules, undermines “ceremonial
conformity and sacrifices its support and legitimacy” (Powell and
DiMaggio,1991,p.41).
Institutional v. Technical Environments:
The Competing Environments of Charter Schools
BUREAUCRATIC FRAME
(Institutional Environment - Traditional Schools)
DECENTRALIZED FRAME
(Technical Environment - Charter Schools)
Organizational Environment: Schools are responsive to bureaucratic
demands and are attuned to a well defined institutional environment, which
results in tighter coordination of ritual classifications and less organizational
ambiguity (Scott, 1998; Meyer & Rowan, 1983; Meyer, Scott, & Strang,
1987).
Organizational Environment: Schools operate in a decentralized context and are
more attuned to their technical environment, resulting in tighter control of
technical activities and less organizational differentiation (Meyer & Rowan, 1983;
Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
Organizational Boundaries: Schools are open systems and are closely
linked to the institutionalized definitions of production. Open systems rely on
ceremony, usually in the form of certification and standardization in order to
decouple their technical core from their formal structure (Meyer & Rowan,
1978; 1983).
Organizational Boundaries: Schools operate as closed systems and are
structured around the technical core. A closed system decouples its technical work
from "environmental conditions" which could disrupt production, resulting in a
tighter link between goals of the organization and the technical core (Meyer &
Rowan, 1983).
Organizational Structure: Schools are subject to institutionalized rules and
norms, and are organized around a set of ritual classifications (usually
bureaucratically defined) which already define legitimate forms of schooling
(Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Meyer, Scott, Strang, & Creighton, 1988).
Organizational Structure:Schools that are free from regulatory controls and
subject to locally defined demands for schooling, will create innovative
organizational structures, teaching and learning methodologies, and accountability
measures.
Accountability: Effectiveness is measured by the ability of a school
organization to respond and conform to rule-based bureaucratic definitions of
efficiency. “Schools fail according to their conformity to institutionalized
rules, rather then by effectiveness of their technical performance” (Meyer,
Scott & Deal, 1983, p.56).
Accountability: Effectiveness is measured by meeting explicit outcome goals set
by local actors, as opposed to bureaucratic conformity and rule-based
accountability advanced by the institutional environment (Meyer, Scott & Deal,
1983).
Institutional v. Technical Environments
Organizational Environments
BUREAUCRATIC FRAME
(Institutional Environment Traditional Schools)
DECENTRALIZED FRAME
(Technical Environment Charter Schools)
Organizational Environment:
Schools are responsive to bureaucratic
demands and are attuned to a well
defined institutional environment,
which results in tighter coordination of
ritual classifications and less
organizational ambiguity (Scott, 1998;
Meyer & Rowan, 1983; Meyer, Scott, &
Strang, 1987).
Organizational Environment:Schools
operate in a decentralized context and are
more attuned to their technical
environment, resulting in tighter control
of technical activities and less
organizational differentiation (Meyer &
Rowan, 1983; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).
Institutional v. Technical Environments
Organizational Boundaries
BUREAUCRATIC FRAME
(Institutional Environment Traditional Schools)
DECENTRALIZED FRAME
(Technical Environment Charter Schools)
Organizational Boundaries: Schools
are open systems and are closely linked
to the institutionalized definitions of
production. Open systems rely on
ceremony, usually in the form of
certification and standardization in
order to decouple their technical core
from their formal structure (Meyer &
Rowan, 1978; 1983).
Organizational Boundaries: Schools
operate as closed systems and are
structured around the technical core. A
closed system decouples its technical work
from "environmental conditions" which
could disrupt production, resulting in a
tighter link between goals of the
organization and the technical core
(Meyer & Rowan, 1983).
Institutional v. Technical Environments
Organizational Structure
BUREAUCRATIC FRAME
(Institutional Environment Traditional Schools)
Organizational Structure: Schools are
subject to institutionalized rules and
norms, and are organized around a set
of ritual classifications (usually
bureaucratically defined) which already
define legitimate forms of schooling
(Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Meyer, Scott,
Strang, & Creighton, 1988).
DECENTRALIZED FRAME
(Technical Environment Charter Schools)
Organizational Structure: Schools that
are free from regulatory controls and
subject to locally defined demands for
schooling, will create innovative
organizational structures, teaching and
learning methodologies, and
accountability measures.
Institutional v. Technical Environments
Accountability and Measuring Effectiveness
BUREAUCRATIC FRAME
(Institutional Environment Traditional Schools)
DECENTRALIZED FRAME
(Technical Environment Charter Schools)
Accountability: Effectiveness is
measured by the ability of a school
organization to respond and conform
to rule-based bureaucratic definitions
of efficiency. “Schools fail according to
their conformity to institutionalized
rules, rather then by effectiveness of
their technical performance” (Meyer,
Scott & Deal, 1983, p.56).
Accountability: Effectiveness is
measured by meeting explicit outcome
goals set by local actors, as opposed to
bureaucratic conformity and rule-based
accountability advanced by the
institutional environment (Meyer, Scott &
Deal, 1983).
Institutional v. Technical Environments
Micro-institutional perspective
Institutional theory indicates that macro-level conditions in the
wider environment force all schools to operate according to the
definitions of effective schooling advanced by the institutional
environment. This implies that all charter or traditional schools
that attempt to innovate may be forced to become isomorphic
with institutional expectations and scripts of the environment at
the expense of advancing and sustaining their innovations. Yet
research shows that the challenges in sustaining innovations
within a decentralized policy context are highly contextualized
and unique to the specific conditions at the micro-level of the
organization.
Institutional v. Technical Environments
Micro-institutional perspective (cont)
The micro-institutionalist perspective challenges the
assumptions of macro-level institutional research and insists
that new-institutionalist thought has focused too heavily on
the macro-level analysis that advances taken for granted
relationships between an organization and its external
environment (Zucker, 1991).
Little is known about the process of institutionalization from
the micro-level of the organization.
Institutional v. Technical Environments
Micro-institutional perspective (cont)
The normative frame constructed by macro-institutionalism
provides significant explanatory and predictive value that
identifies the content within the institutional environment
which leads to isomorphism. However, micro-organizational
analysis complements the macro-organizational perspectives
and provides insight into the nuances of how organizations
develop and the agency that actors within organizations
posses in navigating institutional pressures.
Institutional v. Technical Environments
Challenges for New Research
While it is clear that charter school reform has yet to yield large numbers of
new, different, and better public schools, what remains less clear is how the
ones that are succeeding in “breaking the mold” have done so, and how they
are building new institutions that may in turn pressure change in the
environment.
An important theme for future research to investigate involves deciphering
both the micro- and macro-environmental conditions that trigger isomorphism
in order to understand how charter school organizations may counter the forces
of isomorphism.
New research must also begin to look at how charter schools are reacting to
changes in their institutional environment, including the wider charter school
movement, the changing discourse of regulatory schemes at the state-level, and
the local conditions which either foster or reject the development of new
organizational forms.
Institutional v. Technical Environments
Challenges for New Research
Engaging in research of evolving charter school organizations
will require researchers to understand and further develop more
detailed descriptions of the intents, challenges and successes of
the theories of action advanced by charter school operators.
Applying constructs from institutional theory as an analytical lens
to the evolving theories of action will assist researchers in
explaining and predicting the challenge that different charter
school types may encounter as they evolve in the wider
institutional environment of schools