Executive Leadership and the Coupling Nature of the Relationship between Educational Organizations and Member Schools in England

References

• Baxter, J., & Floyd, A. (2019). Strategic narrative in multi-academy trusts in England: Principal drivers for expansion. British Educational Research Journal, 45(5), 1050–1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, J., & John, A. (2021). Strategy as learning in multi-academy trusts in England: Strategic thinking in action. School Leadership & Management, 41(4–5), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211051907
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 972–1019). Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling. In R. Greenwood, C. Olive, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 78–98). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Constantinides,M. (2021a). Understanding the complexity of system-level leadership in the English schooling landscape. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(6), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2020-0200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Constantinides,M. (2021b). Instructional reform and multiple institutional logics: insights from executive leadership in English Multi-Academy Trusts. Educational Review, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1916441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtney, S. J., & McGinity, R. (2020). System leadership as depoliticisation: Reconceptualising educational leadership in a new multi-academy trust. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220962101
   Google Scholar
• Davies, P., Diamond, C., & Perry, T. (2021). Implications of autonomy and networks for costs and inclusion: Comparing patterns of school spending under different governance systems. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219888738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, C. (2020). How teachers’ individual autonomy may hinder students’ academic progress and attainment: Professionalism in practice. British Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070708000401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective. Management in Education, 30(4), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616665938
   Google Scholar
• Dimmock, C., & Yong Tan, C. (2013). Educational leadership in Singapore: Tight coupling, sustainability, scalability, and succession. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311492
   Google Scholar
• Frostenson, M. (2015). Three forms of professional autonomy: De-professionalisation of teachers in a new light. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28464
   Google Scholar
• Glatter, R. (2017). ‘Because we can’: Pluralism and structural reform in education. London Review of Education, 15(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.1.10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greany, T., & Higham, R. (2018). Hierarchy, markets and networks: Analysing the ‘self-improving school- led system’ agenda in England and the implications for schools. UCL IOE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greany, T. (2020). Self-policing or self-improving? Analysing peer reviews between schools in England through the lens of isomorphism. In D. Godfrey (Ed.), School peer review for educational improvement and accountability: Theory, practice and policy implications (pp. 71–94). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Greany, T., & McGinity, R. (2021). Structural integration and knowledge exchange in multi-academy trusts: Comparing approaches with evidence and theory from non-educational sectors. School Leadership & Management, 41(4–5), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2021.1872525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122409357044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hautala, T., Helander, J., & Korhonen, V. (2018). Loose and tight coupling in educational organizations – An integrative literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2017-0027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, M., & James, C. (2018). Developing a perspective on schools as complex, evolving, loosely linking systems. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 729–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217711192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keddie, A. (2018). Conceptions of responsibility within and beyond neoliberal frames: A story of leadership in an English primary school. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670648
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keddie, A., MacDonald, K. C., Blackmore, J., Eacott, S., Gobby, B., Mahony, C., Niesche, R., & Wilkinson, J. (2020). School autonomy, marketisation and social justice: The plight of principals and schools. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 52(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2020.1818699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menzies, L., Baars, S., Bowen-Viner, K., Bernardes, E., Theobald, K., & Kirk, C. (2018). Building trusts: MAT leadership and coherence of vision, strategy and operations. ASL.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, H. (2002). From “loose coupling” to “tight management”? Making sense of the changing landscape in management and organization theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210454992
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ofsted. (2019). Multi-academy trusts: Benefits, challenges and functions.
   Google Scholar
• Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peurach, D. J., Penuel, W. R., & Russell, J. L. (2018). Beyond ritualized rationality: Organizational dynamics of instructionally focused continuous improvement. In C. James, D. E. Spicer, M. Connolly, & S. D. Kruse (Eds.), The sage handbook of school organization (pp. 465–489). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Peurach, D. J., Cohen, D. K., Yurkofsky, M. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2019). From mass schooling to education systems: Changing patterns in the organization and management of instruction. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 32–67. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowan, B. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(2), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowan, B. (2002). Rationality and reality in organizational management: Using the coupling metaphor to understand educational (and other) organizations – A concluding comment. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 604–611. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210446072
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (4th ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J., DeBray, E., Lubienski, C., Londe, P. G. L., Castillo, E., & Owens, S. (2017). Urban regimes, intermediary organization networks, and research use: Patterns across three school districts. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1264800
   Google Scholar
• Simon, C. A., James, C., & Simon, A. (2021). The growth of multi-academy trusts in England: Emergent structures and the sponsorship of underperforming schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219893099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spain, A. K., & Woulfin, S. L. (2019). Past, present, and future of coupling as a leadership concept. In B. L. Johnson & S. D. Kruse (Eds.), Educational leadership, organizational learning, and the ideas of Karl Weick: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 162–185). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315114095
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210385102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., Seelig, J. L., Blaushild, N. L., Cohen, D. K., & Peurach, D. J. (2019). Educational system building in a changing educational sector: Environment, organization, and the technical core. Educational Policy, 33(6), 846–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819866269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wermke, W., & Salokangas, M. (2015). Autonomy in education: Theoretical and empirical approaches to a contested concept. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 28841. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28841
   Google Scholar
• West, A., & Wolfe, D. (2019). Academies, autonomy, equality, and democratic accountability: Reforming the fragmented publicly funded school system in England. London Review of Education, 17(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.17.1.06
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woulfin, S. L. (2015). Highway to reform: The coupling of district reading policy and instructional practice. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9261-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woulfin, S. L. (2018). Mediating instructional reform: An examination of the relationship between district policy and instructional coaching. AERA Open, 4(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418792278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xia, J., Shen, J., & Sun, J. (2020). Tight, loose, or decoupling? A national study of the decision-making power relationship between district central offices and school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(3), 396–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19851174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zancajo, A. (2020). Schools in the marketplace: Analysis of school supply responses in the chilean education market. Educational Policy, 34(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819881781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar