Kaleidoscope of School Options: Differentiating School Missions, Values, and Practices in Los Angeles

• In Event: 51.067 - Institutional Perspectives on Education Policy: New Directions in Theory and Research

Abstract

Purpose
The structure of U.S. public education is changing dramatically. New systems are melding market competition with centralized oversight of schools operating under varied types of governance and degrees of autonomy—including traditional, autonomous, charter, and magnet schools (Bulkley, Henig, & Levin, 2010). Advocates believe these “portfolio” systems will lead to more choices, better serve the varied needs of students, and motivate innovation. However, there is limited and mixed evidence on the extent to which these portfolio systems create meaningfully diverse schools (e.g., Bulkley & Travers, 2013; King et al., 2011). We address this gap by asking: How diverse are the missions, values, and associated practices of schools within Los Angeles–one of the most diverse portfolio systems in the country—and why?

Theoretical Framework
Neo-institutional theory guided our research and allows us to expand on prior research, probing beyond surface-level characteristics to underlying assumptions and beliefs. It asserts that various logics—“socially constructed, historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices”—give meaning to the daily work of individuals and organizations (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p.804; Friedland & Alford, 1991). This literature supports competing hypotheses relevant to our question: 1) all schools are constrained by similar logics, and will thus embrace similar values and practices to maintain legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), or 2) schools will differ as actors draw upon multiple field and societal logics, which are more or less salient depending on varied organizational characteristics and ties to fields outside of education (Greenwood et al., 2001).

Methods
Our mixed-methods study (Yin, 2013) in Los Angeles draws on three data sources: a) a survey of all public school principals (n=995, 50% response rate); b) web sites for 75 schools, purposively sampled to represent different governance models; and c) analysis of 54 interviews with school faculty from six case study schools (2 charter, 2 traditional, 2 magnet/pilot). We conducted multiple rounds of coding, combining both deductive codes adapted from prior studies of mission statements (e.g., Lubienski & Lee, 2016) and inductive coding to identify organizational logics within and across schools, and utilized matrices to detect patterns and explanations (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013).

Results
Our data indicate that portfolio systems may be resulting in intended, but limited differentiation of school options. We found many similarities across school types in LA. Survey results indicated few significant differences in reports of “most important” values. All three data sources also surfaced a predominant performance logic across schools, focused on preparing students for college and career success and outcome-driven practices. Yet our data also indicate important differences. A logic of prestige, valuing awards and exceptionalism, permeated a subset of schools characterized not by different governance, but by perceptions of threats to survival (e.g., declining enrollment). We also found notable differences between stand-alone and networked charter schools (e.g., social justice logic was more common in stand-alone charters).

Scholarly Significance
This paper yields new insights into the competing institutional logics in education and the enactment of choice policy, providing implications for policy, practice, and theory.

Authors

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California

• Taylor N. Allbright, University of Southern California

• Katrina E. Bulkley, Montclair State University

• Kate Kennedy, University of Southern California