Abstract
Transforming into an innovative school is one of the strategies schools apply when facing changes in a turbulent environment. In the first year of such a transformation these schools face an essential dilemma: how to facilitate changes without jeopardizing their environmental legitimacy. Examining an Israeli elementary school as an instrumental case study through two theoretical frameworks—institutional theory and resource dependence theory—we found two ways in which the school faces this dilemma. First it seals its technical core while demonstrating the innovation by symbolical practises, and second, it employs buffering and bridging tactics in its reciprocal relations with its various partners according to the nature of their expectations. We conclude that the question is not why innovation does not change a school, but why a school needs innovation in order to change and improve. Further research directions and implications for innovative schools are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bacharach, S. B., & Mundell, B. L. (1993). Organizational politics in schools: Micro, macro, and logics of action. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 423–452. doi:10.1177/0013161X93029004003.
Bidwell, C. E. (2005). A sociological agenda for research on education. In L. V. Hedges & B. Schneider (Eds.), The social organization of schooling (pp. 15–36). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bosetti, L., Foulkes, E., O’Reilly, R., & Sande, D. (2000). Canadian charter schools at the crossroads. Canada: SAEE (Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education) Research Series #5. Retrieved June 30, 2006, from http://www.saee.ca/publications/A_003_AAB_MID.php.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17(3), 317–342. doi:10.1177/0895904803017003002.
Colbeck, C. L. (2002). Assessing institutionalization of curricular and pedagogical reforms. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 397–421. doi:10.1023/A:1015594432215.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101.
Eyal, O. (2007). Governmental sponsorship as a mechanism restricting school entrepreneurship. Educational Planning, 16(1), 1–11.
Eyal, O. (2008). When parents choose to start up a school: A social-capital perspective on educational entrepreneurship. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 99–118. doi:10.1108/09578230810849835.
Fink, D. (1999). Deadwood didn’t kill itself: A pathology of failing schools. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 27(2), 131–141. doi:10.1177/0263211X990272001.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). Teacher College Press, Routledge Falmer: London.
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156. doi:10.1177/0013161X05278189.
Green, S. G., & Welsh, M. A. (1988). Cybernetics and dependence: Reframing the control concept. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 287–301. doi:10.2307/258578.
Hepburn, R. C. (1999). The case for school choice: Models from the United States, New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden. Canada: Critical Issues Bulletins, Fraser Institute.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration theory, research, and practice (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jackson, W. P. (1990). Introduction to John Dewey “The School and Society and the Child and the Curriculum”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leonard, J. (2002). The case of the first-year charter school. Urban Education, 37(2), 219–240. doi:10.1177/0042085902372004.
Lewin, A. Y., Weigelt, C. B., & Emery, J. D. (2004). Adaptation and selection in strategy and change: Perspectives on strategic change in organizations. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 108–159). London: Oxford University Press.
Loveless, T., & Jasin, C. (1998). Starting from scratch: Political and organizational challenges facing Charter Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 9–30. doi:10.1177/0013161X98034001003.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Boston: Beacon Press.
Merriam, A. B. (1990). Case study research in education a qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations, formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1992). The structure of educational organizations. In W. J. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 71–97). USA: Sage Publications.
Ministry of Education (2008). Facts and data. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from: http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Owl/Hebrew/UvdotNetunim/netunim/.
Montessori, M. M. (1992). Education for human development: Understanding Montessori. Oxford: Clio Press.
Oplatka, I. (2004). The characteristics of the school organization and the constraints on market ideology in education: An institutional view. Journal of Education Policy, 19(2), 143–161. doi:10.1080/0144341042000186318.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. G. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational organizations. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 359–383). California: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Scott, R. W., & Meyer, J. W. (1991). The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism and organizational analysis (pp. 108–140). London: University of Chicago Press.
Sinkinson, A. (2005). Going for specialist school status: Perspectives from a front line head of department. School Leadership & Management, 25(2), 191–208. doi:10.1080/13632430500036181.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Summerhill School. (2003). Retrieved November 26, 2003 from: http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/index.html.
The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. (2003). Retrieved November 26, 2003 from: http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/About/index.html.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tubin, D. (2008). Establishment of a new school and an innovative school: Lessons from two Israeli case studies. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(7), 651–663.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia—A century of public school reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The grammar of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–480.
Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763–782. doi:10.1177/089590402237312.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tubin, D., Ofek-Regev, N. Can a school change its spots? The first year of transforming to an innovative school. J Educ Change 11, 95–109 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9100-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9100-z