2Q$XJXVW
$FFHVVGHWDLOV$FFHVV'HWDLOV>VXEVFULSWLRQQXPEHU@
3XEOLVKHU5RXWOHGJH
,QIRUPD/WG5HJLVWHUHGLQ(QJODQGDQG:DOHV5HJLVWHUHG1XPEHU5HJLVWHUHGRIILFH0RUWLPHU+RXVH
0RUWLPHU6WUHHW/RQGRQ:7-+8.
-RXUQDORI-HZLVK(GXFDWLRQ
3XEOLFDWLRQGHWDLOVLQFOXGLQJLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUDXWKRUVDQGVXEVFULSWLRQLQIRUPDWLRQ
KWWSZZZLQIRUPDZRUOGFRPVPSSWLWOHaFRQWHQW W
5HIRUPLQJWKH/RRVHO\&RXSOHG6\VWHP,PSOLFDWLRQVIRU-HZLVK6FKRROV
$GDP*DPRUDQ
7RFLWHWKLV$UWLFOH*DPRUDQ$GDP
5HIRUPLQJWKH/RRVHO\&RXSOHG6\VWHP,PSOLFDWLRQVIRU-HZLVK6FKRROV
-RXUQDORI-HZLVK(GXFDWLRQ٢
7ROLQNWRWKLV$UWLFOH'2,
85/KWWSG[GRLRUJ
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Jewish Education, 74:52–67, 2008
Copyright © Network for Research in Jewish Education
ISSN: 1524-4113 print / 1554-611X online
DOI: 10.1080/15244110802493321
ADAM GAMORAN
Reforming
Journal the Loosely
of Jewish Coupled System
Education
Over the past three decades, advocates of school reform in the United States
have increasingly recognized that improving teaching and learning requires
attention not only to classroom activities, but also to the organizational
context in which teaching and learning take place (e.g., Barr & Dreeben,
1983; Bidwell & Kasarda, 1980; Gamoran et al., 2003; Newmann, 1992;
Newmann and Associates, 1996). Efforts to improve teaching, however,
have often foundered because of the difficulty of penetrating through the
layers of bureaucracy and reaching the classroom. As Weick (1976)
Adam Gamoran is Director of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research and Professor of Sociology
and Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a consultant to the Mandel
Foundation. E-mail: gamoran@ssc.wisc.edu
An earlier version of this article was presented at the conference honoring the memory of Seymour
Fox at the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, November 2007.
52
Reforming the Loosely Coupled System 53
NCLB, states that accept federal funding for education must set performance
standards for students, administer tests in reading and math in grades 3–8,
and hold districts and schools accountable if their students do not hit
the pre-ordained targets in these grade levels. Districts and schools are
responsible not only for student performance overall, but for performance
attained by students in various demographic subgroups (if sufficient numbers
of students in these categories are enrolled). At least 95% of students must
participate in the tests and schools are required to place a “highly qualified
teacher” (one who has a college degree, teaching certification, and subject-
matter knowledge) in every classroom. Schools that fail to meet these standards
face increasing sanctions, from allowing students to transfer in the second
year of missing targets to possibly closing and reconstituting the school in
the fifth year. In light of these sanctions, NCLB reforms are intended to give
educators new incentives to seek out and implement more effective
approaches to increase student learning.
The impact of NCLB is widely debated (e.g., Gamoran, 2007; Zimmer
et al., 2007), but that is not the topic of this article, which instead it poses
two questions about improving learning in private schools. Of course, pri-
vate schools are not subject to NCLB, but the general climate of increased
accountability may spill over onto the operations and ethos of private
schools. Hence, efforts to improve teaching and learning in private schools,
including Jewish schools, may first pose the question: To what degree is the
new emphasis on accountability reaching private as well as public schools?
To answer this question, I examine data on where accountability would
matter most for teaching and learning: in the influence of teachers on their
schools and classrooms.
To preview the results, it is not surprising to learn that school influence
and classroom control are much greater among private than public school
teachers, and while such autonomy has declined substantially in public
54 Journal of Jewish Education
schools, this is apparently less true for private schools, including Jewish
schools. These findings provoke a second question: What alternative strategies
for reform are available? In response, I review current theories and existing
evidence on three other approaches and weigh their potential for improving
teaching and learning in private schools in general and Jewish schools in
particular.
For the past 20 years, the National Center for Education Statistics has
periodically surveyed principals and teachers in schools across the nation,
including private as well as public schools, in the Schools and Staffing
Survey (SASS). Among the perennial questions are two items concerning
Downloaded By: [New York University] At: 18:55 18 August 2010
• How much actual influence do you think teachers have over school policy
AT THIS SCHOOL in the following areas? Areas of inquiry have included
curriculum, budget, teacher hiring, evaluation, and professional develop-
ment, student discipline, and, new for 2003–2004, performance standards.
• How much actual control do you have IN YOUR CLASSROOM at this school
over the following areas of your planning and teaching? This question
is posed for specific areas including textbooks and materials; content,
topics, and skills; teaching techniques; evaluating and grading students;
disciplining students; and assigning homework. The most recent SASS
was administered in 2003–2004, during the second year of implementation
of NCLB. In light of the accountability provisions of NCLB, one might
expect to see substantially greater autonomy among teachers in private
than among those in public schools.
TABLE 1. Teacher Perceptions of Influence Over School Policy and Control in Their
Classrooms, 2003–2004 (Percentage responding in Each Category).
Performance standards
Public schools 16.2 28.8 37.3 18.0
Private schools 6.5 16.1 37.9 39.5
Jewish day schools 10.0 20.6 41.5 27.9
Curriculum
Public schools 13.8 26.9 37.5 21.9
Private schools 6.2 13.8 32.8 47.3
Jewish day schools 10.4 14.7 40.0 35.0
Textbooks and other materials
Public schools 12.9 24.4 32.0 30.8
Private schools 5.6 15.0 27.5 52.0
Jewish day schools 8.4 15.7 30.8 45.2
Content, topics, skills to be taught
Public schools 10.6 22.0 32.5 35.0
Private schools 3.6 10.5 26.5 59.4
Jewish day schools 5.0 12.6 24.5 58.0
Teaching techniques
Public schools 1.3 4.1 24.4 70.2
Private schools 0.5 2.0 14.6 83.0
Jewish day schools 0.0 3.9 15.7 80.5
Source: Author’s calculations from the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing Survey, Public and Private School
Teacher Questionnaire. Samples limited to full- and part-time regular classroom teachers. Weighted
(projected) sample sizes: 3,056,100 public school teachers, 440,200 private school teachers, and 27,500
teachers in Jewish day schools.
Note: All figures for teachers in private and Jewish schools are significantly different at p < .05 from those
for teachers in public schools, except for “no influence” responses by teachers in Jewish schools on
performance standards, curriculum, and textbooks, “moderate influence” on standards and curriculum,
and “minor influence” on teaching techniques. Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
a
For performance standards and curriculum the response categories are “no influence,” “minor
influence,” “moderate influence,” and “a great deal of influence.” For materials, content, and techniques,
the response categories are “no control,” “minor control,” “moderate control,” and “a great deal of
control.” See text for question wording.
56 Journal of Jewish Education
Percentage
70
60
Downloaded By: [New York University] At: 18:55 18 August 2010
50
40 Public
Private
30 Jewish
20
10
0
None Minor Moderate A great deal
FIGURE 1. Perceptions of control over classroom content in public, private, and Jewish
schools. (Source: Author’s calculations from the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing Survey,
Public and Private School Teacher Questionnaires.)
Percentage
50
45
40
35
30 Public
25 Private
20 Jewish
15
10
5
0
None Minor Moderate A great deal
FIGURE 2. Perceptions of influence over school curriculum policy in public, private, and
Jewish schools. (Source: Author’s calculations from the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing
Survey, Public and Private School Teacher Questionnaires.)
Reforming the Loosely Coupled System 57
& Robinson, 1999). To what extent do the observed differences reflect the
role of NCLB in limiting the autonomy of public school teachers? We can
address this question by examining pre-NCLB responses by teachers on the
SASS survey. If NCLB has affected teacher perceptions of influence and
control, we would expect to see declining autonomy among public school
teachers, but not among private school teachers.
Table 2 presents results from this comparison, drawing on a published
report for the 1993–1994 SASS, 10 years prior to the current survey.
Unfortunately, NCES changed the response categories for this question.
In 1993–1994 there were six response categories, with “no influence/control”
listed on the low end and “a great deal of influence” or “complete control”
on the high end. On the survey form, a two-headed arrow stretched between
these extremes, with no other labels on the intervening category boxes.
In 2003–2004 the survey was revised to indicate four specific categories: “no
influence/control,” “minor influence/control,” “moderate influence/control,”
Downloaded By: [New York University] At: 18:55 18 August 2010
TABLE 2. Change in Teacher Perceptions of Influence over School Policy and Control in
Their Classrooms, 1993–1994 to 2003–2004
content in 1993–1994, but 10 years later, only 35% reported a great deal of
control. A decline also occurred among private school teachers, but it was
much smaller and at a higher level overall, from 74.6% to 59.4%. A similar
pattern characterizes the other areas of potential influence and control. The
temporal differences in public schools (Figure 3) can be compared to those
in private schools (Figure 4) for the question about influence.
Although increases in external accountability seem a likely source of
the differential changes over time, it is difficult to make this attribution with
Percentage
100
90
80
Downloaded By: [New York University] At: 18:55 18 August 2010
70
60
1993–94
50
2003–04
40
30
20
10
0
Curriculum Materials Content Techniques
FIGURE 3. Public school teachers reporting “a great deal of influence,” 1993–1994 and
2003–2004. (Source: For 1993–1994, U.S. Department of Education, 1997; for 2003–2004,
Author’s calculations from the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing Survey, Public and Private
School Teacher Questionnaires.)
Percentage
100
90
80
70
60
1993–94
50
2003–04
40
30
20
10
0
Curriculum Materials Content Techniques
FIGURE 4. Private school teachers reporting “a great deal of influence,” 1993–1994 and
2003–2004. (Source: For 1993–1994, U.S. Department of Education, 1997; for 2003–2004,
Author’s calculations from the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing Survey, Public and Private
School Teacher Questionnaires.)
Reforming the Loosely Coupled System 59
Pub/priv ratio
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
1993–94
0.5
2003–04
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Curriculum Materials Content Techniques
FIGURE 5. Ratio of public to private school teacher reports of “a great deal of influence,”
1993–1994 and 2003–2004.(Source: For 1993–1994, U.S. Department of Education, 1997; for
2003–2004, Author’s calculations from the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing Survey, Public and
Private School Teacher Questionnaires.)
60 Journal of Jewish Education
Percent
50
45
40
35
30
Public
25
Private
20
15
10
5
0
Curriculum Materials Content Techniques
FIGURE 6. Percentage changes in public and private school teacher reports of “a great deal of
influence,” 1993–1994 and 2003–2004. (Source: For 1993–1994, U.S. Department of Education,
Downloaded By: [New York University] At: 18:55 18 August 2010
1997; for 2003–2004, Author’s calculations from the 2003–2004 Schools and Staffing Survey,
Public and Private School Teacher Questionnaires.)
autonomy has declined much more than that of private school teachers over
the last decade. A plausible interpretation of the results is that external
accountability measures have created these changes. Corroborating evidence
for this interpretation comes from a recent analysis of SASS surveys by
Phillips and Flashman (2007), who showed that teacher perceptions of
autonomy declined significantly in states that enacted accountability reforms
prior to NCLB, compared to states that did not enact such reforms in the
same time period. In short, while accountability reforms seem to have
broken through the loosely coupled system in public schools, it does not
seem to be the case for private schools.
accordingly, even though they are not subject to the same regulations.
Arguments supporting private school choice emphasize both efficiency—
the marketplace is expected to encourage schools to use resources wisely—
and effectiveness—to compete with other private schools and public
schools, schools of choice are expected to select whatever strategies are
most likely to lead to positive outcomes, such as high levels of learning or
whatever it is that consumers value (e.g., Chubb & Moe, 1990).
Despite these provocative notions, the benefits of the educational
marketplace have been little manifested in practice. First, while Catholic
schools may produce higher achievement than public schools (e.g., Bryk,
Lee, & Holland, 1993; Coleman, Hoffer, & Kilgore, 1982; Morgan, 2001),
this does not seem to hold for other private schools once population
differences are taken into account (e.g., Gamoran, 1996). Moreover, recent
studies cast doubt on the achievement benefits of Catholic as well as other
private schools (Lubienski, Crane, & Lubienski, 2008). Second, the market-
place as a reform mechanism may be limited in areas such as education,
where perceptions may be more influential than substance in parental
choice. Recent studies of choice indicate that parents choose schools
where achievement is high, but only insofar as high achievement reflects
an advantaged student population, not as a result of the school’s distinctive
quality (Lauen, 2007). Other studies show that parents and students tend to
choose schools that are located nearby and whose demographic profile is
similar to that of the chooser, rather than basing choice on school effective-
ness (e.g., Hastings, Kane, & Staiger, 2005). For these reasons, school choice
and the mechanisms of the marketplace remain an unproven strategy for
education reform.
In the realm of Jewish education, whether or not to support public
vouchers for private schooling is a matter of long-standing debate (e.g., Ain,
2000; Religious Action Center, 2001). On the one hand, vouchers would
62 Journal of Jewish Education
School Restructuring
A second alternative strategy for school reform is restructuring. Recognizing
the importance of the organizational context of schools, a variety of
researchers during the 1990s explored the viability of restructuring as a
Downloaded By: [New York University] At: 18:55 18 August 2010
CONCLUSIONS
Data from a national survey of teachers clearly shows that private school
teachers perceive substantial autonomy in their schools, and particularly
within their own classrooms, compared to teachers in public schools.
On indicators of classroom control, responses of Jewish teachers mirror
those of other private school peers. On measures of perceived influence
over school policies, teachers in Jewish schools may be somewhat less
influential than those in other private schools, but they have more say than
those in public schools. While teacher autonomy has declined somewhat
over the last decade even in private schools, it has not declined nearly as
much as it has in public schools, so that the autonomy gap between public
and private school teachers has widened. Thus, private schools—including
those in the Jewish sector—remain a loosely coupled system.
How does one bring improvements in a context of loose coupling?
Recent research suggests that choice and restructuring are unlikely to
Reforming the Loosely Coupled System 65
improve quality. While vouchers may make Jewish schools more accessible,
they are unlikely to result in quality enhancements because most parents
choose schools on other grounds. Of course, schools must pass a basic
threshold of safety and order, but parents do not seem to focus on quality
beyond those essential considerations.
For these reasons, the professional learning of teachers seems to be the
most promising strategy for improvement. Although more research is
needed to document the effectiveness of this strategy, it is widely recog-
nized that teacher quality is the most important school-related factor in
determining outcomes for students (e.g., Rice, 2003). While teacher quality
could be improved by enhanced preservice as well as in-service preparation
of teachers, the need for better teacher quality for Jewish schools is too
great to be met through better preservice preparation, at least in the short
term (Gamoran et al., 1999). Consequently, professional development
seems to be the most practical option for improving Jewish schools, as well
Downloaded By: [New York University] At: 18:55 18 August 2010
REFERENCES
Ain, S. (2000, September 22). Big day school donors see need for vouchers.
Jewish Week. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.thejewishweek.com/
viewArticle/c36_a9991/News/New_York.html
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, J. D. (1980). Conceptualizing and measuring the effects
of schools and schooling. American Journal of Education, 88, 401–430.
Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common
good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High school achievement: Public,
Catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
66 Journal of Jewish Education
Stodolsky, S. S., & Dorph, G. Z. (2003). Changing the culture of professional develop-
ment: Results of a survey of graduates of the Mandel Teacher Educator Program.
Jerusalem: Mandel Foundation. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://mandel.mli.
org.il/MandelFoundation/Publications/
Tourkin, A., Swaim, N., Guan, X., Peterson, J., Schwanz, D., Warner, T., Parmer, R.,
Wilson, M., Broughman, S., & Walter, E. (2007). 2003–2004 Private School
Universe Survey (PSS) Data File user’s manual and survey documentation.
NCES Document no. 2008–314. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Public and private schools: How do they differ?
NCES Document no. 97-983. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Razquin, P., Booker, K., Lockwood, J. R., Vernez, G., Birman,
B., Garet, M., & O'Day, J. (2007). State and local implementation of the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Volume 1: School choice, supplemental
educational services, and student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.