From Compliance to Improvement: How School Leaders Make Sense of Institutional and Technical Demands When Implementing a Continuous Improvement Process

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Maxwell M. Yurkofsky
{"title":"From Compliance to Improvement: How School Leaders Make Sense of Institutional and Technical Demands When Implementing a Continuous Improvement Process","authors":"Maxwell M. Yurkofsky","doi":"10.1177/0013161X211053597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: A recurring frustration in educational research is the tendency for school leaders to implement reforms in ways that prioritize compliance over more substantive improvements to practice. Drawing on new institutional theory and sensemaking theory, this article explores the different ways leaders respond to continuous improvement (CI) reforms and why they frequently privilege external compliance over the perceived needs of their schools. Methods: This study used interviews, observations, and artifacts to analyze how six leaders across two midwestern school districts led the implementation of a CI method. Data analysis involved an iterative process of identifying emergent themes, refining themes based on existing research, and evaluating their usefulness in explaining differences within and across school leaders, in order to understand the different ways leaders responded to CI and what factors caused them to prioritize compliance over substantive improvement. Findings: Findings illuminate six different responses to CI that vary across three dimensions: whether leaders prioritize bridging or buffering, the form or the function of reform, and concerns for external legitimacy or internal improvement. Leaders’ professional identities, their beliefs about the usefulness of CI, and their perception of district regulation contributed to whether they implemented CI in a way that prioritized concerns for legitimacy over improvement. Implications: These findings trace the shallow reach of recent reform efforts to the ways leaders make sense of the complex institutional and technical demands of their role, offer an integrative typology of leaders’ different approaches to implementation, and identify factors that support more productive responses to district reform.","PeriodicalId":48091,"journal":{"name":"Educational Administration Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Administration Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X211053597","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Purpose: A recurring frustration in educational research is the tendency for school leaders to implement reforms in ways that prioritize compliance over more substantive improvements to practice. Drawing on new institutional theory and sensemaking theory, this article explores the different ways leaders respond to continuous improvement (CI) reforms and why they frequently privilege external compliance over the perceived needs of their schools. Methods: This study used interviews, observations, and artifacts to analyze how six leaders across two midwestern school districts led the implementation of a CI method. Data analysis involved an iterative process of identifying emergent themes, refining themes based on existing research, and evaluating their usefulness in explaining differences within and across school leaders, in order to understand the different ways leaders responded to CI and what factors caused them to prioritize compliance over substantive improvement. Findings: Findings illuminate six different responses to CI that vary across three dimensions: whether leaders prioritize bridging or buffering, the form or the function of reform, and concerns for external legitimacy or internal improvement. Leaders’ professional identities, their beliefs about the usefulness of CI, and their perception of district regulation contributed to whether they implemented CI in a way that prioritized concerns for legitimacy over improvement. Implications: These findings trace the shallow reach of recent reform efforts to the ways leaders make sense of the complex institutional and technical demands of their role, offer an integrative typology of leaders’ different approaches to implementation, and identify factors that support more productive responses to district reform.
从服从到改进:学校领导在实施持续改进过程时如何理解制度和技术要求
目的:教育研究中反复出现的一个挫折是,学校领导倾向于以优先遵守而非更实质性的实践改进的方式实施改革。本文借鉴新制度理论和感知理论,探讨了领导者对持续改进(CI)改革的不同回应方式,以及为什么他们经常将外部合规置于学校感知需求之上。方法:本研究使用访谈、观察和人工制品来分析中西部两个学区的六位领导如何领导CI方法的实施。数据分析涉及一个迭代过程,即确定紧急主题,根据现有研究提炼主题,并评估其在解释学校领导内部和之间的差异方面的有用性,以了解领导对CI的不同反应方式,以及是什么因素导致他们将合规性置于实质性改进之上。调查结果:调查结果阐明了对CI的六种不同反应,这些反应在三个方面各不相同:领导人是否优先考虑桥接或缓冲、改革的形式或功能,以及对外部合法性或内部改进的担忧。领导者的职业身份、他们对CI有用性的信念以及他们对地区监管的看法,有助于他们是否以优先考虑合法性而非改进的方式实施CI。影响:这些发现将最近改革努力的浅层影响追溯到领导人如何理解其角色的复杂制度和技术需求,为领导人的不同实施方法提供了一种综合类型,并确定了支持对地区改革做出更有成效回应的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Administration Quarterly
Educational Administration Quarterly EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: Educational Administration Quarterly presents prominent empirical and conceptual articles focused on timely and critical leadership and policy issues of educational organizations. As an editorial team, we embrace traditional and emergent research paradigms, methods, and issues. We particularly promote the publication of rigorous and relevant scholarly work that enhances linkages among and utility for educational policy, practice, and research arenas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信