The Effect of the Social Organization of Schools on Teachers' Efficacy and Satisfaction

7/28/2019 The Effect of the Social Organization of Schools on Teachers' Efficacy and Satisfaction

1/20

The Effect of the Social Organization of Schools on Teachers' Efficacy and SatisfactionAuthor(s): Valerie E. Lee, Robert F. Dedrick, Julia B. SmithSource: Sociology of Education, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Jul., 1991), pp. 190-208Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112851 .Accessed: 20/04/2011 10:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Sociology of Education.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2112851?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2112851?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa


2/20

THE EFFECT OF THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOLS ONTEACHERS' EFFICACY AND SATISFACTIONValerieE. LeeRobertF. DedrickJulia B. SmithUniversityfMichigan

Research uggestshat he ocialorganizationfschoolshas an importantmpacton both eachers nd students. singhierarchicalinearmodelingechniques,heauthorsxplore he inks etweenchoolorganizationnd the elf-efficacynd obsatisfactionfsecondarychoolteachers.They lso investigateherelationshipbetween teacher's enseofcontrol verclassroom ractice nd self-efficacy.Drawn rom heAdministratornd Teacher urvey romHighSchool ndBeyond,thesample includes8,488 full-timeeachers n 354 Catholic and public highschools.Suchelementss principaleadership,ommunalchoolorganization,norderlynvironment,nd average evelsofcontrol ranted o teachersnfluenceaverageefficacy. igher evelsofefficacynCatholic han npublicschools reexplained yorganizationalifferences.

The organization f schools affects helives ofallmembers-students,eachers,ndadministrators.he currentnterestn theorganization f schools (hereafter alled"school organization"), ocusedmostly nstudents, tems mainly from two mainsources: research n effective chools (seePurkey nd Smith 983andRosenholtz 985for houghtfuleviews) ndrecent esearch nthe elativeffectivenessfpublic ndprivateschools starting ithColeman,Hoffer,ndKilgore 1982). Organizational eatures reincreasinglyeen as importanteterminantsofeffectivechools Chubb 1988; Chubb ndMoe 1990;McNeil 1986;Metz 1986; New-mann,Rutter, nd Smith1989), withfre-quently ited featuresncludinghe school'sorganizational ulture, ethos, or climate(Grant1988; Lightfoot 983; Rutter t al.1979).

Researchershave had some difficulty,however, n demonstratingirect mpiricallinksbetween choolorganizationrclimateand student utcomes.The source of thisdifficultys bothmethodologicalnd substan-tive Bidwell ndKasarda1980). Briefly,hemethodologicalifficultytemsfrom pera-tionalizingchool effectsmainly s aggre-gates.Substantively,tmaybe more ppro-priate to conceptualize he link betweenschools ndstudentss indirect, ediated yteachers. n thisview, school organizationwould nfluence owteachersiewtheir orkand how theyteach. Teachers'perceptionsandpracticeswould, nturn,ffecttudents'learning.The second link-betweenthe practicesand attitudes f teachers nd student ut-comes-was empiricallyalidated yAshtonandWebb 1986) andRosenholtz1989).' Inthis rticle,we focuson thefirstink nthechain-betweenfeaturesf schoolorganiza-tion and teacher utcomes.Whilethere remanyways in which schools may affectteachers and teaching, we narrowedourinquiryothe ocialdimensionsfschools sorganizationsnd to teachers' xpressionsfsatisfaction ith heirwork nd perceptions

This research as supportedya grant romheOffice fEducational esearch nd mprovement,U.S. Departmentf Education GrantNo. R-117E80 04) under the Field InitiatedStudiesprogram. nyopinions, indings,nd conclusionsexpressedn thisarticle re thoseof the authorsanddo notnecessarily eflect heviews of eithertheUniversityfMichiganr theU.S. Departmentof Education.The authors ppreciatehe helpfulsuggestionsfAnthony. Bryk nconceptualiza-tion ndanalysis nd theuseful ommentsfFredM. Newmann n an earlier raft f thisarticle.Address ll correspondenceoProfessor alerie .Lee, SchoolofEducation, niversityfMichigan,610 EastUniversity,nnArbor,MI 48109.

I While thetwo studies howstrong elation-shipsbetween chievementndteachers' fficacy(Aston nd Webb1986)andcommitmentRosen-holtz1989),both tudies re imited ecausetheydidnot akehierarchicalelationshipsnto ccountintheirnalyses.

190 Sociology f Education 991,Vol. 64 (July):90-208


3/20

SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAND TEACHERS' EFFICACY 191of their fficacyn doingthatwork. n ourinvestigations,e have taken ccount fthegroupingf teachersnto choolsby employ-ingmultilevelnalyticechniques.

BACKGROUNDPsychologicalnd SociologicalPerspectives

Efficacy, n psychological erms,is aperson's erceivedxpectationf succeedingat a task or obtaining valued outcomethroughersonalffort.t s, thus, cognitiveprocess that involves identifying goal,assessing henecessaryffortndabilities oachieve hat oal,andpredictingheoutcome(Stipek ndWeisz 1981). Satisfaction,heo-reticallyistinctromfficacy,s anaffectiveresponseo achievinghat oal. Efficacy,orteachers,s basedon their erceivedbilityoaffecttudents'earning, hereas atisfactionderives rom hevaluethat eachers lace onthis ctivityAshtonnd Webb 1986).In an organizationalnvironment,fficacyand satisfaction ypicallydo not reflectexpectations f a particular ccurrence rtask. Rather,theyaddressworkers'moregeneral eelingsboutthedailyoperationfthe ob, basedon cumulativexperiencendassessmentf thework nvironmentMaehr1987). As such, efficacy nd satisfactionoperate s two parts fa whole Fuller tal.1982;Maehr 1987). For teachers, speciallysecondary-schooleachers, ho teach everalgroups f studentsverydayand mayeventeachdifferentubjects o differentroups,efficacynd satisfactioneflect eneral er-ceptions f the lassroomnvironment.Social psychologyhas identifiedbothintrinsicnd extrinsicources finformationaboutperformances importanteterminantsof professional atisfactionnd efficacy.While intrinsicources originate romtheactualwork nprogress,xtrinsicnformationcomesfrom utside henarrow ork nviron-ment.Most of teachers'ntrinsicnformationon performanceomesfromnteractingithstudents s theylearn the materialbeingpresentedn the classroom, ut tmayalsoincludeinvolvementn such self-improve-ment ctivitiess learning ew material rusingnewteachingmethods. xtrinsicnfor-mationomesfrom he argerchool ontext,suchas salary ncreases, ecognitionnd/orsupport rom ther eachers, valuationbyadministrators,r increased uthorityver

some aspectof schoolorganizationsuchasbecominga department ead or a unionleader).Althoughoth ources finformationaycontributeoa teacher's enseofefficacyndsatisfaction, person's ccess to either ypeof information epends on organizationalconditions.pecifically,heschool environ-ment can determine eachers' access toinformationutside theirown classroomsand,consequently,ay nfluencehe ontinu-ing developmentnd growth f teachers'perceptionsftheir erformanceapabilities.Intrinsic nfluences

The major cological tructurenfluencingteachers' fficacynd satisfactions, unsur-prisingly,he lassroom.AccordingoLortie(1975), teachers'motivation s based onintrinsic actors-internalharacteristicsfthe lassroom.He noted:Othersources of satisfaction . . pale incomparison ithteachers' xchangeswithstudentsnd thefeelinghat tudents avelearned.We would hereforexpect hatmuchof a teacher's orkmotivationould otatearound he onductfdaily asks-thectualinstructionf tudents.p. 104)

In numeroustudies f the"microsystem"fthe lassroom, rofenbrenner1976) reportedthat hemost nfluentialactors n teachers'self-efficacyre (1) thetypes f studentsnthe lassroomnd 2) the mountfcontrolteacherhas in determininghe classroomenvironment.Student characteristics. Fundamental todeterminingheir fficacynd satisfactionsthe expectations eachers hold for theirstudents.f studentsre seen as having owability r as beingunableto learn, eacherstend o lower heir xpectationsf their wnabilityo teach hemAshtonndWebb1986;Metz 1978). When dealingwithuncoopera-tive students, eachers,because of theirlowered enseofefficacy,ocus ndisciplineover nstructionBrophynd Evertson 981).Ashtonand Webb (p. 15) concludedthat"teachers' attributionsead to . . . expecta-tions hat ffect heir enseofefficacy, hichsubsequentlynfluences heirbehavior ndstudenterformance."Control over the classroom environment.In addition o thetypesof studentsaught,general erceptionsf efficacyrebased on


4/20

192 LEE, DEDRICK, AND SMITHorganizationalonditions hat facilitate rhinderheattainmentf personalworkgoals(Rosenholtz 987). A senseof control verone's environmentaycontributeo percep-tionsof efficacy y determining1) howintrinsic orkgoals are establishednd (2)the riteria ywhich uccess smeasured. orteachers,work goals that are based onintrinsic ources of satisfaction nd self-efficacynclude hecurriculum,hemethodsused nteachinghat urriculum,ndfreedomand flexibilityn controllinghe classroomenvironment-selecting aterials,planningthedailyagenda, and exercising lassroomdiscipline Cooper, Burger,and Seymour1979;McNeil 1986).Teacherswho controlheir urriculumndmaterials an changethe conditions f thelearningnvironment.uchteachersre morelikely o feel ffectiventeachingherevisedcurriculumhan rethosewhodo nothavethefreedom o alter course work (Holdaway1978;Mohrman,ooke, ndMohrman 978).Controlover classroomdisciplineenablesteachers to decide on the agenda andoperationf the lassroom,while he ackofcontrol ftenmakes them eel hinderedndineffectiveMetz 1978). Teacherswithoutcontrol ver the classroom nvironmentreunable to make independentecisionscon-cerning ailyworkgoals and workopera-tions.The results f studieson classroomdiscipline uggest hat this lack of controlcould contributeo stress n tryingo copewith the daily problemsof teaching ndproduce lowered enseofefficacynd obsatisfactionRosenholtz1987; Schwab andIwaniki 982).Extrinsicnfluences

In hierarchical rganizations,ccess toevaluative informationbout performancereflectsheauthoritytructuref theorgani-zation.Such accessdepends n one's visibleproximity o the technical core of theoperation. In bureaucratic rganizations,managers trive to maximizeparticipants'effectivenessndefficiencyhileminimizingtheunhappiness orkers eel over their ackof control f evaluativenformationWeber1947,as discussed yRosenholtz 987). Onthebasisofthetype f nteractionhat akesplace over the technical core in schoolorganizations,wo typesof authoritytruc-

tureshave been identified:oosely coupledand ntegrated.Both authority tructuresmay operateunder bureaucraticinkagesthatencourageloose coupling, atherhan ntegrationFire-stone nd Wilson1985). Classroom oors reclosed, teachers' salaries are negotiatedthroughhird-partyechanisms,eachers reinfrequentlyr never valuated, nd dailyorperiodic upervisionf teachers s typicallyabsentnmost chools.Thus, t sthe ulturallinkages-the structuref social interactionwithin he chool-that ither uccumb othebureaucratic tructure r providea moreintegratedunctioningfauthorityFirestoneand Wilson). How schools are organized sworkplaces strongly nfluencesteachers'overall satisfactionnd efficacyBrykandDriscoll 1988; Little1982; Rosenholtz 989;Rutter 986). Thus,differencesnthe uthor-ity tructuref schoolswouldbe reflectednthe natureof communicationsnd in theconsensuson organizational oals in theschool, ather hanntheformalrganizationof rules ndprocedures.Loosely oupled tructure. eick's 1976)phrase oosely oupledrefers o an organiza-tional structuren whichthe activities fpersonA have little mpacton personB'sperformance,nd vice versa. Educationalactivities onstitutinghe technical ore ofinstructionn a typical ublichigh chool relooselyconnected o the school's authoritysystem the principal nd superintendent).Secondarychool teacherswork n isolationnotonlyfrom heirupervisorsut lso fromtheir eers,which imits heir nowledge fschool ctivitiesutside heir wnclassrooms(Bidwell1965;Lortie 975).Thisdetachmentof instructionrom he formalmanagementsystems, inpart, bufferingechanismhatallows publicschools to operate s institu-tions that respond to externaldemandswithout ecessarilylteringheir oreopera-tionsMeyer ndRowan1978;Weick1976).The loose couplingof instruction ithauthorityechanismss relatedargelyo theenvironmentalinkagesof schools to theirconstituenciesScott and Meyer 1988). Afundamentalifference etweenpublic andprivateschools in this regardmakes theorganizationfpublic choolsfarmore ikelyto show bothhigh nternal omplexitynddistant onnections etween administratorsand the chool'stechnical oreof nstruction.Chubb and Moe (1990) suggested hatthe


5/20

SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAND TEACHERS' EFFICACY 193bureaucraticrganizationf public schoolsrenders hem oth ess willing o respond otheir lientsparentsndstudents)nd moreable torespond o thepolitical nvironmentsto whichthey re accountable. he marketorientationf private chools,on the otherhand, encourages esponsivenesso clients'demands, suallydirected oward cademicactivities. These arguments uggest thatlooselycoupledorganizationaltructuresremore ypical fpublic han fprivatechools.In public schools, daily classroom pera-tions reseparatedromong-rangeecisionsandplanning. urthermore,anagersfdailyclassroom ctivitiesteachers) re separatedfromneanother,o that achoperatesn aninformationacuum bout hewholeorgani-zationForsythndHoy 1978). Suchschoolsexhibit division f aborbetween rganiza-tional unctions,ossiblywith ifferentbjec-tives ndgoals.Thisdivisionf abor esultsnambiguitybout thecentral urposeof theschool,which an extend ouncertaintybouteachmember'soleFirestonendWilson 985;Schwab nd waniki 982).A consequencefsuchuncertaintys the ackofconsensus boutgoals ndmission.eachers avedifferentoalsfor heirtudents,hichmaybe at odds withthe fficial oalsofthe chool Fuller nd zu1986;Hoy and Ferguson 985).In oosely oupled rganizations,lose nter-action mong ifferentroups revenamongdifferentembersfthe amegroup reoftenassumed oresultn onflict,ince ariousgen-dastypicallyequireifferentrocessesndpro-cedures oresolve aily roblemsHoy ndFer-guson 985).Such chools end odevelopwhatWeber 1947) called a bureaucratic-legalisticauthoritytructure,n whichmembersmustmove hroughormalized echanismso nter-actwith thermembers.ollegialnteractionstypicallyimited, hich esultsn ittle ommu-nication boutwork ithermong eachers rbetween he rincipalnd eachersHerriotndFirestone984).Consequently,he nly ourceof nformationvailable oteachersbout heirownperformanceies nthe lassroom.Integratedstructure.Conversely, schoolsmay xhibit strongenseofcentral urposeand a sharedvalue system bout education(Bryk nd Driscoll1988; Purkey nd Smith1983; Rosenholtz1989). Effective choolsseem to operateunder more unified ndconsensual et oforganizationaloals,creat-ing a social consensus boutthe academicmission fthe school Fuller nd Izu 1986).

Theconvergencefbeliefs bout heorgani-zationalmission as beenrelated oa school'senvironmentalinkages o its external om-munityChubb ndMoe 1990; Fuller nd zu;Scott ndMeyer 988).Thus, oherentoals,characteristic f schools with integratedculturalinkages,maybefoundmore ftennprivate han npublic chools.Schoolswith strongentral urposeworktocoordinatehe echnicalore perationsiththispurpose. hus, their eacherswouldreg-ularlymonitorperationst a larger cale thanonly ntheir wnclassroomEdmonds 979;Rosenholtz 1987, 1989). Communicationamongmembersfsuchorganizationss partofthedailyschooloperation,nd it is morecommonlyboutwork-relatedctivitiesRosen-holtz1987). While uch choolsmayoperateunder ureaucratictructures,he ulturalink-agesamong he taffacilitateommunicationabout heir ctivities,hesharingfdifficul-ties ndsolutions,ndprofessionalnteractionabout heprocesses sed to educate tudents(Anderson1982; Brykand Driscoll 1988;Rosenholtz 989; Rutter 986).Certain tructuraleatures f schoolsap-pear to facilitate ultural inkagesamongorganizationalparticipantsin particular,smaller ize and a privateespeciallyCatho-lic) school-governancetructureBrykandDriscoll1988). Weber 1947) suggestedhatthe ationalizationndbureaucratizationf anorganizationncreasewith ize, making hehuman nteractionshatsustain sense ofcommunity oredifficultn larger nviron-ments. oleman ndHoffer1987) suggestedthat he"functionalommunities"hat ypifyCatholic ndprivatechoolsmore han ublicschools contributeo the success of theseschools.The amount f communicationhatteachers ave with ne another ndwith heprincipalhas been shown to contributepositivelyo severalteacher utcomes-theoverallevelofsatisfaction,erformance,ndorganizationalfficacyBridges ndHallinan1978; Forsythnd Hoy 1978; Little1982;Rutter1986). Because of this collegialcommunication, participantn such anorganizationalulturehas access to bothintrinsicndextrinsicources finformationabouthis orherperformance.uchteachersare better ble to establish xternal, oal-directedriteriabout heir erformance.FocusoftheResearchSchools operateunder some degree of


6/20

194 LEE, DEDRICK, AND SMITHbureaucraticinkagebetweenmanagementauthorityndthetechnical perationsf theschool teaching).The degreeof consensusabout goals and the structure f dailycommunicationsmong different embersmay,however, ither einforcehosebureau-cratic eparationsr act toovercomehem.nboth uthoritytructures-looselyoupledorintegrated-mosteachers'work akesplacein classrooms,with little supervision revaluation. n loosely coupled structures,classroom environments rovide teacherswith heir nlysourceof informationbouttheirperformance. hus, teachers'controlover the environments hypothesizedodetermine heir efficacyand satisfactionassociatedwith heirwork.On the otherhand, in the integratedstructure,lassroomactivities re supple-mented y a consensus mong hegroup nthe chool's genda ndcommunicationboutteaching hatoccursoutside heclassroom.With ess reliance n classroomperationsodeterminene's performance,ersonal on-trol ver pecific lassroom omains suchasthechoice of materials r pacing)maybesupplementedymore nputnto choolwidechoicesand possiblymoreconsensus boutclassroomnvironmentsr a greaterontribu-tion to the school's goals. Organizationalefficacy ay hus ontributeo the fficacyfindividuals' erformanceFuller tal. 1982).We hypothesizehat lthoughontrol verthe intrinsicources of classroom perfor-mance determines teacher's sense ofpersonal fficacy, hisrelationships miti-gated by structural eatures.We furtherhypothesizehat uchfactorsrerelatedo thesocialorganizationf the school, n particu-lar,to members' pportunitieso communi-cate aboutthegoals of theorganizationndtheirworkwithint.A highgroup onsensuscan weaken ndividual ecision making, nthat one must ultimatelyoncede to thegroup.Groupconsensus,however, educesthe uncertaintynd ambiguity f roles-factors hatmakegeneralfunctioningiffi-cult. Therefore,n schools witha strongcommunitarianrganizationnd a sharedvaluesystem,herelationshipetweenndi-vidualclassroom ontrol nd teachers' elf-efficacys attenuated.choolswith ooselycoupled tructuresnd weakculturalinkagesare likelyto exhibit strong elationshipbetween teacher'sndividualontrol f the

classroom nvironmentnd his or her effi-cacy.

METHODSampleOur sample ncludes ,488 teachersnthe307public nd47 Catholic igh choolsfromthe riginal ighSchool andBeyond HS&B)surveywho were also included in theAdministratornd Teacher Survey (ATS)conducted n 1984 (Moles 1988).2 Theoriginal urpose f theATS was to collectdatarelevant oclaims nthe iteraturen theeffectivenessf schools.Data werecollectedfrom pto 30 randomlyelected eachers erschoolwhospentmost f their ime eachingmajor ubjects.Wehave used datafrom oththeATS in 1984andaggregateemographicmeasuresof 1982 seniors in the HS&Bschools.Fordetails fthe ntentnddesign ftheATS, see Moles (1988), Newmann t al.(1989), or Rutter1986).

MeasuresTeacher-leveldependentmeasure. Thepsychologicaliteratureescribes atisfactionand self-efficacys separate constructs.Although onceptually istinct, hese mea-sureswerehighly orrelatedmong eachersin this sample. Therefore, he factorweconstructedapsbothconstructs.his factorincludesmeasures fself-efficacy"To whatextent oyoufeel uccessfulnprovidinghekindof education ouwould iketoprovideformost fyour tudents?"nd "I sometimes

feel t s a wasteoftime otry o do mybestas a teacher"reverseoded])and atisfaction("I usuallyookforwardoeach workingayatthis chool"and"How much fthe ime oyou feel satisfiedwith your job in thisschool?"). The factor, alled "teacher ffi-cacy,"was standardizedmean= 0, standarddeviation= 1].3 The Appendixprovides2 Schoolswith ewer han10 teachers ampledwere liminated.3 Newmann t al. (1989), who also used theATS data,combinedhe denticalmeasures ntocompositemeasure hat theycalled "efficacy."While uroriginalntent asto treathe onstructsefficacynd atisfactions distinct,hedataforcedus to combinethe individual ndicatorsnto asingle factor.Although, o be consistentwith


7/20

SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAND TEACHERS' EFFICACY 195detailsof the constructionf all variablesconsideredn the tudy.Teacher-levelndependent easures. Wefound hat eacher fficacywas unrelatedoeither personal demographics r to theexternal haracteristicsf the employmentsituationespecially alary).4 ence, wehavenot included uch factorsn our analyses.Similarly,utter1986) found orelationshipbetween teachers' salaries and teachers'engagementn theirwork,usingATS data,nor even moderate elationshipsetween hedemographicharacteristicsf teachers ndteachers' ngagement.We founda strong elationshipetweenteacher fficacynd the amount f controlteachershave over classroom conditions,which supportspreviousfindings n theliterature. factormeasuringeachers' on-trol was constructedromself-reportsfinfluenceverthe election f textbooksndinstructionalaterials,nstructionalontent,teachingechniques,hediscipliningf stu-dents, nd the ssignmentf homework. hemeasure s moderatelyorrelated itheffi-cacy (r = .30). It was also suggestedhatself-efficacys influenced y the typesofstudents hat teachers each. The variableemployedhere, which asks teachers tocompareheir tudents'evel ofabilityo thatof the average studentsn the school, ismeasureds theproportionbove the schoolaverage.The measure s weaklycorrelatedwith eacherfficacyr = .17).School-levelndependenteasures. chool-level measuresfall into two types: schooldemographicsndaspects f the ocialorgani-zation f schools.Thedemographicariablesconsideredschool ectorpublic rCatholic],5school size, average socioeconomic tatus[SES], averagechievement,nd verage um-

ber fmath ourses aken) avebeen hown oberelatedoefficacy.Conceptually,urmostmportanteasurestap thesocial organizationf schools.Con-structeds school-levelggregates f factorscreated rom eachers' eports,choolsocialorganizations reported y thosewhoexperi-ence it-the teachers-rather hanby theprincipals. he school-averagemeasures n-clude teachers' ontrol verclassroom rac-tices, perceived ense of community,tu-dents' disorderly ehavior,the degree towhichprincipals re consideredeaders, hestaff's nfluencenmaking mportantchooldecisions, he encouragementf innovation,administrators'esponsivenesso the staff,time spentin collaborative ctivities, ndknowledgeof other courses in teachers'departments.heconstructionfthese actorswas guidedbyresearch y Newmann t al.(1989), since these researchers rovidedevidence that these factors re related toteacher utcomes.Unlikethepresenttudy,their esearchwas conductedntirely t theschool evel.Descriptivedifferences ysector. Substan-tialdifferencesxist nthe ocialorganizationandauthoritytructurefCatholic ndpublicschoolsChubb nd Moe 1990;Lee andBryk1989; Scott and Meyer 1988), includingdifferencesn teachers' atisfactionnd self-efficacyBrykand Driscoll 1988; Lee andBryk1989). Since we organized ur nvesti-gationarounddifferencesetween he sec-tors,wepresentll thevariables onsiderednour analyses separately or Catholic andpublic chools nTable 1. Thepublic choolsamplencludes ,467teachersn 307schools(an averageof 24 teachers er school).TheCatholic chool ample ncludes ,021teach-ers n 47 schools an average f 22 teachersper school).6 Mean differences n everyvariable hown nTable1 except chool ize)arestatisticallyignificant.Teachers in Catholicschools, who feelconsiderablymore efficacious, lso reporthavingmuch more control ver classroomactivities.Although heyreport eachingslightly igher roportionf studentsbovethe chool's verage, hese ifferencesrenot

Newmann t al.'s article,we named thefactor"teacher fficacy,"we admit hat he abeling ssomewhatrbitrary.4 Weak correlations ere foundbetween ffi-cacy and thefollowingeachermeasures: ender(r = .03), minoritytatus r = .02), years ofexperiencen either hepresentchool r = - .01)or teachinglsewherer = .05), andsalary r =-.01). The ATS contains no measures ofteachers' ocial class, but we suspectthat thismeasurewouldbe unrelateds well.5 The small number f non-Catholic rivateschools n theATS (n = 21), together ith heirconsiderable eterogeneity,ed us to eliminatethese chools nd teachers.

6 All analysesuse school-level esign weightsprovidedwith the ATS data, and teacher-leveldesign weightshave been used for obtainingdescriptive eans. The reportedample izes areunweighted.


8/20

196 LEE, DEDRICK, AND SMITHTable 1. Means n Catholic nd Public choolsofVariablesUsed inHLM Analysesa

Public CatholicSchools SchoolsVariables (Mean) (Mean)Teacher-LevelVariables (N = 7,467) (N = 1,021)Teacherefficacyb -0.020 0.295Teacherontrolb -0.027 0.399% of studentsaughtabove chool verage 34.98 38.48% femalec 44.00 55.84%minorityc 10.60 3.70Annualalary, 983-84c $22,226 $14,796Teachingxperience,yearsc 14.76 12.50Major ubjectaughtc% Math, cience 29.5 31.1% Humanities 47.0 62.6

% Vocational 17.7 5.5% Special ducation 4.3 -% Other ubjectreas 1.6 0.8School-LevelVariables (N = 307) (N = 47)SchoolDemographicsSchool ize 694.4 509.5Averageocial lassb -0.122 0.347Averagechievementd 51.14 56.17Averageyearsofacademicmathcourses akend 1.72 2.83School ocialOrganizationeAverageeacherontrolb - 0. 138 0.806Sense fcommunityb - 0.117 0.680Disorderlytudentbehaviorb 0.155 -0.902Principaleadershipb - 0.051 0.296Staffnfluencendecisionmakingb -0.171 0.995Encouragementfinnovationb -0.078 0.456Administrativeresponsivenessb, -0.050 0.334Collaborationime,teachersb, -0.084 0.490Teachers' nowledge,otheroursesb, -0.063 0.419

a HLM = hierarchicalinearmodeling.Meandiffer-encesfor ll variablesexcept chool ize)arestatisticallysignificants tested by t-tests. Sample sizes areunweighted,utmeanswere omputed ith eacherndschooldesignweights uppliedwith heATS data.b Teacher nd schoolvariables tandardizedt mean

= 0, SD = 1oneither or heir espectiveamples.cNot ncludedn thefinalwithin-schoolLM model.d Not included n the final between-school LMmodel.e These variables nclude the same itemsand areconstructedn a similarfashion o those reportednNewmann, utter,ndSmith 1989).

great. atholic chool eachers, hoaremorelikelyto be femaleand less likelyto beminority,aveslightlyess experienceeach-ing (althoughheaverage n bothsectors s

over 12 years).Salariesare much ower nCatholic chools.That self-efficacys higherfor theseteachersdespitethe large salarydifferentialsupportshe ack of a relation-ship between salary and efficacy.Moreteachers n Catholic than in public highschoolsteach "humanities,"nd fewhavevocationalor special educationclasses astheirmajor eachingesponsibility.Except for size, Catholic and publicschoolsare verydifferent.atholic choolsenroll studentsof higher SES, and theachievementevel n these chools s higher.Studentsn Catholicschools take almostayearmoreof mathematics.ocial organiza-tionalcharacteristicsall measures tandard-ized on the entire ample) favor Catholicschools, s well.Staffollegialitycommunalorganization, taff influence n decisionmaking, ollaborationime,and knowledgeof others' courses) is strongern Catholicschools.TeachersnCatholic chools realsohigheron ratings f leadership principalleadership,ncouragingnnovation,dminis-trative esponsiveness).herefore,t is notsurprisinghat their lasses are much lesslikely to be characterized y disorderlybehavior.Social organizational haracteristicsreinterrelated.ince all thesemeasureswerecreatedas school aggregates f teachers'perceptions,heir ariances re considerablysmaller hanare thoseof the teacher-levelmeasures romwhich heywereaggregated.It is well knownthataggregatevariablessufferrom igh orrelations,artly ecauseof restrictedariability.hus,thesenterrela-tionshipsouldbe artifactual.here s alsoreason o suspect,however, hat hesemea-sures are conceptually imilar. Althoughstatisticalmethodsmay not separatethepotentialausesof such orrelations,ehaveinvestigatedhesenterrelationshipsohelpusconstructur final analyticmodels, sincehighlyntercorrelatedariables houldnotbeincludedn statistical odels.These correla-tions representednTable2.Averageteacher ontrol s negligiblye-lated o all variables xcept taffnfluencendecision making (r = .432) and size (r =-.436). Communitys stronglyelatedr >.4) toprincipaleadership,ncouragementfinnovation,ndadministrativeesponsivenessand moderatelynd negatively elatedtodisorderlybehavior (r = -.352). Principalleaderships stronglyelatedr > .5) to staff


9/20

SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND TEACHERS' EFFICACY 197Table 2. Correlationsetween chool-Level ocialOrganizationndDemographic ariables

En- Ad-Sense Dis- Prin- courage-minis- Col- Knowl-of orderlycipal Staff mentf trative abora- edgeCom- Behav-Leader- In- Innova-Respon- tion of SchoolAveragemunity ior ship fluence tion sivenessTime Courses Size SES

Average eachercontrol .162 -.232 .039 .432 .209 .091 -.044 .029 -.436 .122Senseofcommunity - .352 .486 .364 .452 .405 .055 .307 - .138 .143Disorderlytudentbehavior -.208 -.283 -.214 -.205 .043 -.092 .221 -.265Principaleadership .536 .708 .675 .182 .161 .110 -.002Staffnfluenceindecisionmaking .609 .555 .285 .168 -.113 -.002Encouragementfinnovation .700 .151 .103 -.098 .016Administrativeresponsiveness .019 -.107 .009 -.103Collaborationime,teachers .623 .281 .205Knowledge fcourses .227 .229School size .139influence,ncouragementf innovation,ndadministrativeesponsiveness,uggestinghatthesevariables ap a common onstructndshould not be included ndividually.More-over, taffnfluence,nnovation,ndrespon-siveness re also highlynterrelatedr > .5).It is interestinghatprincipaleadership ndstaff influence on decision making arestrongly elated r = .536) because therelationshipuggests hatstrongeadershipdoes notdiscourage nputfrom hefaculty.Although ollaboration nd knowledgeofother ourses restronglyelatedr = .623),they renegligiblyelated o othermeasuresof social organization.hispattern f inter-correlations ed us to include principalleadership s a proxy for administrativeresponsivenessnd/orncouragementf in-novation.Revised research questions. The descrip-tive informationust presented ocumentssubstantial ifferencesetweenteachers nCatholic and public schools on both thedependent variable-self-efficacy-and onschool ocialorganization.evised n ight fthesedifferences,ur research uestions reas follows:

1. What s therelationshipetween ffi-cacyandcontrol?2. Is thatrelationshipffectedwhen thetypes f studentsaughtre taken ntoaccount?3. Is either he verage evelofefficacyn

schools or the relationship etweenefficacyndcontrol ifferentor each-ers nCatholic ndpublic chools?4. The last,andmost mportant,uestionis this: If teacher efficacy nd theefficacy/controlelationshipiffer ysector,are thosedifferences etweensectors xplained ythedifferencesnthe ocialorganizationfschools n thetwosectors?Given hefocus fourquestions, otonly nmeanbetween-schoolifferencesnthe enseof self-efficacyhatteachers xperiencentheir obs, but also on the relationshipsbetween efficacy and control,we haveemployed statisticalmethod-hierarchicallinearmodelingHLM)-that allows us tostructureuranalysisnthisfashion.Analytic odels

Researchon school effects as typicallybeen conducted t a singleanalytic nit-eitherhe ndividualevel here, eachers) rthe group evel (schools). The studiesbyAshton ndWebb 1986),Rosenholtz1989),and Rutter 1986) on teachers were allconducted t the teacher evel (frequentlyincluding roup-level easures ntheirnal-yses),whileNewmann t al.'s (1989) workwas at theschool evel. However,warningshave been sounded bout theinappropriate-nessofsingle-levelnalyses fschool ffects,


10/20

198 LEE, DEDRICK, AND SMITHwhichmay producemisleadingesults Bid-well andKasarda 1980; Burstein nd Miller1981; Cronbach 976; Haney 1980; Lee andBryk1989).Whiledifficultiesf aggregationbias or misestimatedtandard rrors arecommon, he"problem" fheterogeneityfregressions themost roubling.n this ase,heterogeneityf regression ccurswhentherelationshipetween eachers' ractices ndself-efficacyaries cross schools. Althoughthis henomenonas usually eenconsidereda methodologicaluisance,he ausesof suchheterogeneityre an appropriateocus ofresearch n school effects.The natureofschool-effectsuestions is hierarchical-variationsn organizationalractices crossschoolsaffect henomenand relationshipswithin chools.HLM is designed o investi-gate such relationshipsfor the statisticaldetailsof HLM, see Lee and Bryk 1989 orRaudenbushnd Bryk 986).Theanalytic rameworkeremplies iffer-enteffects f schoolsocial organizationnteacher efficacywith various amountsofcontrolby teachersover their classroomconditions.t seems morelogical to viewteacher ontrol s a functionf schoolorga-nization, atherhan s a characteristichatvaries mong eachers ithin school. Thereisempiricalvidence f variation, othwithinand betweenchools,however.UsingHLM,wefound hat heproportionf total arianceinteacher ontrol ccurring etween chools(thentraclassorrelation)s estimateds .184.7This findingustifiedurdecision o considerthismeasures anindependentariable, othwithinndbetweenchools.Conceptually,hisdecisionmeans hatweregardeacher ontrolas bothafunctionof and an aspect of schoolorganization.Thepartitionfthe eacher-controlariableinto its within-schoolnd between-schoolcomponentsas substantive eaning.Whilethebetween-schoollement18.4 percent fthetotalvariation) robably eflects ctualvariationn theamount f control eachershave over classroom onditionscertainlyn

aspect of school organization),he pooledwithin-schoollement 71.6 percent f theactual variability)s more likely to reflectteachers'perceptions of the degree to whichtheycontrol hesethings han their ctualcontrol.As such, this type of control sprobably functionf schoolorganization.Since the itemsfromwhich hisfactorwascreated ome from eachers' esponses, otfrom bjectivemeasures f control, he ctualcomponentsmay be separatedfromtheperceptual.We thuscapturebothtypes ofteacher ontrolnthese nalyses.8The outcome is teacher efficacy andsatisfaction.nitially,we considered achteacher-levelariable escribedn Table 1 asa predictorf teacher atisfaction.owever,since neither hedemographicharacteristicsof teachers (sex, minority tatus), theirprofessionaltatus salary,years of experi-ence), nor the subjects they teach weresystematicallyelated o teacher fficacyndsatisfaction,hosevariables were dropped.The final within-schoolmodel regressesteacherefficacy TCHEFF) for teacherwithin chool j as a function f teachercontrol TCNTRL) and the proportionfstudentsaughtwho wereabove the schoolaverage PABOVEAV):

TCHEFFij= Ioj + Ilj(TCNTLij)+ I2j(PABOVEAVij)+ eijThe distributionf teacher fficacyn eachschool is characterizedn terms of threeparameters:n interceptPoj) and tworegres-sion slopes (I Ij and I2j]) TCNTRL andPABOVEAV are continuous ariables en-tered round heir espectivechoolmeans.9Each of theseparametersas beenadjusted

7This is an unbalanced ne-way andomffectanalysisof variance,where chool is a randomfactorwith different umbers f teachersperschool.Using he eacher-controlariable efore twas standardized, e estimated he within-schoolvariance ooled across schools to be 10.606 andthebetween-schoolariance, .385 [2.3851(2.385+ 10.606) = .184].

8 Rutter 1986) offered ome supporthere,describingeveral eacher utcomes hat includedboth sychologicalndbehavioralimensions"p.8). He described measure fteacherngagement,also using he ATS data,as "exclusively sycho-logical.9 Subsequentnalyses howed hat he lope ofstudent bility n efficacy, hilestrong, id notvary across schools. Therefore, his slope wassubsequentlyreated s a fixed oefficient.hus,in subsequent nalyses, students'abilitywascentered ot around heschoolmeanbutaroundthe amplemean. See Bryk t al. (1988) formoredetail.


11/20

SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAND TEACHERS' EFFICACY 199forothervariables n the model.The threeparameters aybe interpreteds follows:

oj = Meanefficacyor eachersin school .

plj = The degree to which differencesnperceivedontrolmong eachersrelate oefficacy.2j = Thedegree o which ifferencesnthe ypes f studentsaught elate oefficacy.Under hismodel, "good school"would

have simultaneouslyigh evels of teacherefficacy (1oj) and smaller slopes betweenefficacyand both teacher control (1j) andtypes f studentsaught12j). Two of theseparameters-one interceptnd one slope-arehypothesizeds random ariables hatvaryacrossschoolsas a functionf school-leveldifferencesn social organization.We maypose a separatebetween-schoolmodel foreachof the1 coefficients. first est f ourhypothesizedxplanations whetherchoolsocialorganizationalactors rerelated otheefficacyfteachersndto the elationshipsfcontrol ndstudentharacteristicso efficacy.Ourrevised ypothesesuggest second est:Can school social organizational actorsaccount ordifferencesetween atholic ndpublic chools n these ffects?RESULTS

The Unconditional odelThe HLM statisticaloftwareBryk t al.1988)wasused topartitionhe otalvariancein teacherefficacy nto its within-andbetween-schoolomponents.hese twocom-ponentswereestimated ith n HLM modelin whichonly a random verage efficacycoefficientasspecifiedor hewithin-schoolmodeland an unconditionaletween-schoolmodel was specified. The within-schoolvariance ooledacross choolswas estimatedas .552910 and thebetween-schoolvarianceat

.0712. The intraclass orrelation,r propor-tionof totalvariance ccounted orbetween

schools, s .114. Althoughhisproportionslarge nough o proceed, t suggestshat nlya modest roportionf thevariancenteacherefficacys actually xplainable y variationnschoolfactors.In thefirsttepof HLM estimation, e fitanunconditionalr random egression odel.Our first stimations f the within-schoolmodel describedpreviouslyndicated hatboth eacher ontrol nd studentbilitywerestronglyelatedto teacher fficacywithinschools theslopeswere ndividually ighlysignificant). he slope for student bility,however, id not vary ystematicallycrossschools." Therefore, his parameterwas"fixed"-that s, it was notallowed to varyacross schools and its causes were notinvestigated. owever, ts effectwas takeninto ccount s a covariate. able 3 presentstheseresults.The averageteacher fficacywas .01218. The averageslope for teachercontroln efficacy as .29716,a significantresult p ' .001). The averagerelationshipbetween tudentbility nd teacher fficacywas also significant.12673, p ' .001). Eachofthesemean ffectsncludeddjustmentortheother ariablesn themodel.

The unconditionalmodel providesotherimportantnformation.he slope for eachercontroland the mean for efficacywereweakly utpositivelyorrelatedr = .164),indicatinghatnschoolswhere eachers eelmore fficacious,here s greater ifferentia-tion in the efficacy f individual eachersrelated o the degree o which heyperceivethey have control over their classroomactivities. eliabilitiesf the random ffectsindicate hatwhilemean fficacy as reason-ablyreliable.597), theregressionlopewasmuch less reliable (.062). Much of theobserved ariabilitynregressionoefficientswas, thus, ampling ariancend,as a result,

10 The actual estimatewas .9666. Given anestimated eliabilityf .572, this estimatewasadjustedo .5529.

" The original ypothesis-thatchool organi-zational haracteristicsould ccount orvariabil-ity n the elationshipetweenhe ypes f studentstaught nd the teachers'sense of efficacy-isstronglyupportedy the iteratureAshton ndWebb 1986; Rosenholtz 1989). Althoughweinitially lannedhis elationshipo be thefocus fouranalysis, ither imitationsnthedata thats,theproportionf students bove average s animperfectmeasure of the type of student heteacher ypicallyncounters)r a genuineackofvariabilityn this elationshipcross chools orcedus to abandon his heoreticallyromisingineofinquiry.


12/20

200 LEE, DEDRICK, AND SMITHTable 3. HLM Unconditional odel

EstimatedffectsaGammaCoefficients Standardrror tStatistic p-Value

MeanTeacher fficacyMean .01218 .0177 0.481 .491TeacherControl lopeMean .29716 .0133 22.367 .000Student bilitylope fixed)Mean .12673 .0108 11.763 .000Chi-Square ableb

Estimatedarameter DegreesParameter Variance ofFreedom Chi-Square p-ValueMean efficacy .06813 352 1102.0 .000Control lope .01225 352 469.5 .000Correlationsmong chool-Level andom ffects

MeanSatisfactionTeacher ontrol lope .164ReliabilityfSchool-LevelRandom ffects

Mean efficacy = .597Controllope = .062a All estimatesor wo-levelmodels eportedn this rticlewere omputedsing heHLM programBryk, t al.,1988).b The hi-squaretatisticseportedn his able rovidepproximaterobabilityalues orwo easons.irst,heyare imple nivariateests hat o not ake nto ccounthe andomffectsn themodel.Second, heyre estimatednthebasisofonly hose chools hat ave sufficientatato compute separate LS regressionn = 352 here).cannot be explained by school factors.Nevertheless,s shownnthe hi-squareableinTable 3, therewas sufficientariabilitynbothmeanefficacyndtheslopeto proceed(p ' .001 for oth).HLMModelsofTeacher fficacy

We have consideredhreeHLM models,organized n a hierarchical ashion.Theresults romhesemodels reshownnTable4. Theunconditionalodel,ustdiscussed,sshownnthe eft-handolumn.Sector-effectsodel.Results fa "sector-effects"model are shown in the middlecolumn f Table 4. That s, Catholic O =public, 1 = Catholic)was added to thebetween-schoolquations. Supporting heinformationromTable 1, mean teacherefficacy adjustedfor control nd studentability)was significantlyighern Catholicthann public chools p ' .001); thats, thepositive oefficients .29391, or almost 3SD. However, the fact that the control/efficacylopewas notsignificantlyifferentfor atholic nd public chools .0303) meansthatwhileteachersn Catholic choolsfeel,onaverage,more fficacious,he elationship

betweenfficacynd controlneachschool sequivalentn the wosectors. hus, althoughteachers n Catholicschools report reatercontrol vertheir eachingTable 1), therewas neithermorenor ess differentiationfefficacyy evelof controln these chools.School ocial organization odel.Thefinalstep nvolvedmodelingmean fficacynddif-ferentiationycontrols a functionfboth hedemographicndsocial organizationalharac-teristicsfschools.Our imherewas twofold.First,we wished o identifychoolorganiza-tional haracteristicshat ould xplainhedif-ferencesn teachers'fficacyetween atholicand public chools.Hence,we aimed o "ex-plain way" he ifferencenthe ectorseen ncolumn ofTable 4. Second,we wished oidentifyharacteristicsf thesocial organiza-tion fschools hatwererelatedothe eachercontrollope. 2Thefinalmodels shownnthe

12 Theprocess orbuildinghefinalmodelwasas follows. We firstconsidereddemographiccharacteristicsfschools hatwere elatedoeither,Boutcomen a multivariateodel.After onsid-ering nd includingignificantemographicari-ables, we introducedhe social organizationalfactors ne by one. For factorshatwere highly


13/20

SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND TEACHERS' EFFICACY 201Table 4. HLM Teacher fficacyModels

EstimatedffectsSector Final choolUnconditional Effects OrganizationModel Model Model

Random ffects:MeanTeacher fficacyBase .0122 - .0257 .0088Catholic .2939*** -.0401Average ES .0432**Mean control .0813Size .0425**Disorder -.0910***Leadership .0636***Community .0930***TeacherControl lopeBase .2972*** .2943*** .2978***Catholic .0303Mean control -.0093Disorder .0129Leadership .0426**Community -.0211Student bility lope fixed)Base .1267*** .1267*** .1205***Unexplained arianceMean efficacy .0681 .0578 .0168Teacher ontrollope .0123 .0119 .0111ProportionfVariance xplained R2)Mean Efficacy - .152 .753Teacher ontrol lope .027 .096** p ' .01.***p .001.

right-handolumn fTable 4. Theresults orthe wooutcomesrediscussedeparately.Differencesetweenhe ectorsn mean f-ficacy avedisappearedn themodel fschoolmean teacher fficacy-ourfirst oal. Twoschooldemographicactorsre related oeffi-cacy: verage ES and ize p ' .01for oth).Bothrelationshipsrepositive,ndicatinghatteacherseelmore fficaciousnhigh-SESndlargeschools.The positive elationshipithsize maynot eemconsistentithmost f theliterature,hich ndicateshatmorepositiveteacherttitudesre foundnsmaller chools.We returno this nomalyater.Threemea-sures f ocialorganizationre tronglyelated(p c .001) to mean fficacy:verage eachercontrol,ommunity,rincipaleadership,nd

student isorder. ll relationshipsre in thehypothesizedirection. chools n which heteachers avegreaterontrolver heir each-ing, hosewith strongerense f community,and those n which heprincipals seen as astrongeaderhave more fficaciouseachers.Schoolswithessorderlynvironmentsremuchless likely o haveefficaciouseachersp '.001). Theserelationshipsre,withmean ffi-cacy, djustedor ifferencesnperceivedon-trol nd students'bility ithin chools.In severalHLM modelsnot shownhere,we found hatno school demographic ea-sureswererelated othe lope measuringherelationshipetween fficacynd perceivedcontrol,ndfew ocialorganizationalactors(includingaverage teacher control)wererelated. Of the extensive et of measuresconsideredall school variablesfrom able1), onlyprincipaleadership as significantlyrelatedo the eacher ontrol lope p c .01).The positive relationship ndicates thatschools n which heprincipals perceivedsa strong eader are more differentiating-

intercorrelatedsee Table 2), we selected aparticularactor: rincipaleadership.All factorsconcerned ith ollaborationmong eachersndasense of community ere considered. ast, weconsideredisordermong tudents. ariables hatwere individually onsignificantt < 1.5) wereeliminated,nd those thatweresignificantereretained.


14/20

202 LEE, DEDRICK, AND SMITHteachers ho perceivehey avemore ontrolfeelmore fficacious.Variables ot nthemodels. omerelation-shipsexamined n theseHLM analyses renoteworthyytheirbsence. nmodelingheefficacyf ndividualeacherswithinchools(the first tage of HLM), we foundthatneitherhe demographicsf teachersraceand sex), salary, experience,nor subjectmatteraught ffectedhevariationn effi-cacy. AlthoughAshton and Webb (1986)reportedhat eachersre generally emoral-ized bytheirowpay,suchan associationsnot manifested ere.3 In fact, all theserelationshipsere rivialomparedoteachercontrol nd the typesof students eachersteach. Moreover, orthe analysesbetweenschools HLM second tage),neitherverageachievementor theschool's academicem-phasis measuredythenumberfmathemat-ics courses aken y students) as related oeither fficacy r the control lope. Thisfindingndicates hat heacademic bility fthestudents hom ndividual eachers eachis clearly mportanto teachers'sense ofefficacyrecall,from able 3, that he ffectwas strong), ut t is thesocial,rather hanthe academic, organizationf schools thataffectseachers' erceptionsf their fficacyand satisfaction. e consider heabsenceofacademic rganizationalffectsn importantfinding.Explainedparametervariance.The esti-matedparameterariancesforeach of themodels ustdescribedre shown t thebottomofTable4. Theproportionfvariancen bothoutcomesn each model s computeds theratio f the differenceetween he uncondi-tional and unexplainedvariance in eachmodel (the second and third olumns)tounexplainedariance rom he unconditionalmodel (left-handolumn).Although akingintoaccount choolsector xplainsonly 15percentof the variance in mean teacherefficacy,hefinalmodel s quitesuccessful,with 5 percentfthevariance xplained. n

theotherhand,we werenot successfulnexplaininghevariancenthe lope; ess than10 percent as explained ythefinalmodel.The variance stimate orthe slopewas, infact, ow in the unconditionalmodel (lessthan20 percent f the variancefor meanefficacy); hus,therewas notmuch efttoexplain.Overall, these HLM analyses provideconsiderablempiricalupportor ur nitialhypothesisfthe ubstantialmpact f schoolsocial organizationn teachers' fficacyndsatisfaction.ur results re consistent ithotherrecentresearch hatdocumented heeffects f school organizationn teachers'performanceAshton ndWebb 1986;New-mannet al. 1989; Rosenholtz 989; Rutter1986), but they dd somenew dimensions.First,we conceptualizedchool effects nteachershierarchically,aking ntoaccountthat ariationsn theorganizationf schoolscan affectnot only mean differencesnteacheroutcomesbut relationshipswithinschools. Other studiesthatexploredthesequestions oncentratedn a singleunit ofanalysis.4Second,we introducedchool ector, incethere s considerable vidence to supportsubstantialrganizationalifferencesnpub-lic and private econdarychools Bryk ndDriscoll1988;Chubb nd Moe 1988;Lee andBryk 988,1989).Alltherelevanttudies nthis opicAshtonnd Webb1986;Newmannet al. 1989; Rosenholtz 989; Rutter 986)were onductednly npublic chools.Third, lthough ther esearch as docu-mented he associationof teacher fficacywithboth classroom ontrol nd students'characteristics,hesemeasures ave notbeenexplicitlyncorporatedn modelsthat alsotake social organizationnto account. Wemaintain hatonlya multilevelpproach sappropriateere, s is thegeneralase for heinvestigationf school ffects.

13 What Ashtonand Webb (1986) reported,however, ouldbe a general iscouragementithlow pay. Regression etectsvariationwithinsample, utnot trend. erhaps hat xplains heanomaly.Otherwise, e are ledto conclude hatsalary does not affectteachers' efficacy ndsatisfaction.hisconclusions troubling,iven hepushof teachers' nions owardncreasingeach-ers' salaries s a wayof mprovingchools.

14 Newmanntal. (1989), whoconductedheiranalysis at the school level, are aware of thedifficultyf single-levelnalysis. hey tated, Itcan also be argued . . . that the originalpsychologicalonstructsromwhich climate sinduced rebasedessentiallyn theperceptionsfindividuals,ot ggregates,nd that he tructuresmust irst e understoodt the ndividualevel ofanalysis. . . . Ideally, statistical nalysis could beundertakenhich ombines nd compareshe woapproaches."pp. 230-231)


15/20

SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAND TEACHERS' EFFICACY 203DISCUSSION

Why should we care about teachers'self-efficacy nd satisfaction? eyond ageneral oncern or contented orkforce,we have been bombardedwith reports fburnoutmong eachersBoyer 1983; Good-lad 1984;Sizer1984). t s difficultot o inka disillusioned adre of teacherswith m-paired classroomperformancey teachers,which ultimately esults n the decreasedachievementf studentsAshton nd Webb1986; CarnegieTask Force on Teaching1986; Rosenholtz 989). The findingsf thisstudy houldcome as no surprise.t seemsreasonablehatndividuals' rofessionalffi-cacy is related o theenvironmentn whichthey ractice heir rofession.Neither s it surprisinghat teachers nCatholic chools eelmore fficaciousntheirjobs than do theircounterpartsn publicschools. Whilethehigher fficacyevelsofCatholic choolteachers ould be an artifactof sharedvalues or of school selectivityofteachers, s well as of families nd students),we suggest hatour initialfocus on differ-ences in the school sectors should beconsidered ithinhe perspectivef a set oforganizationalharacteristicshat repossibleto nculcaten all schools.Ourresults upportthatview. Recall that nce social organiza-tionaldifferencesre ntroducednthe HLManalyses, ifferencesn teachers' fficacynthe wo ectors isappear. hisfinding eansthat organizational ifferenceslone mayexplain ifferencesnefficacy etweeneach-ers nCatholic nd npublic chools.The literature escribes two sources ofinformation-intrinsic and extrinsic-uponwhich eachersudgetheir wnefficacy nd,hence,base their atisfaction.f these twosources f informationre defined arrowly(intrinsicources nvolve heclassroom ndextrinsive ources come fromsalary andexternal ecognition),henourresults howthatbyfar hemajor ourceofefficacyndsatisfactions intrinsic. oth the students'level of abilityand the degreeto whichteachers ense thattheycontrol lassroompractices re bothstronglyssociated withefficacy.he extrinsicactor fsalary basedless on merit r competencehan n experi-ence or education) s unrelated.f, on theotherhand,we define xtrinsic ources ofinformationore ociologically-as eachers'perceptionsf theirfit n thehierarchyf

power n theschool-then suchinformationbecomes ssential. ublic ndprivate choolsareorganized ifferentlyn thisregard,withpublic chools eingmore ikely o be looselycoupled, bureaucraticrganizationsnd pri-vate schools being more ikely to be inte-gratedtructures.Principaleadership.nterms fstructure,the results on the effects of principalleadershipare interesting. n a looselycoupledschoolorganization,dministrators'activities re separatedfromthe technicalcore of operations instruction).nstead,principals btainresources nd protect hecore from otentiallyostile nd disruptiveforces in the externalenvironment. hemeasurefprincipaleadershipncludesheseelements"getsresources or his chool"and"dealseffectivelyith ressuresrom utsidethe school that might nterfere ith myteaching")naddition o traditional easuresof eadership"setspriorities,"knowswhatkindof school he wants,"and "lets staffmembers now what s expected f them.")Principaleadership aspositivelyssociatedwith both efficacy nd the control lope.Whilewewouldviewthefirstelationshipsa positivenfluence n teachersnd schools(self-efficacys high n schoolswith trongleaders), the second is more problematic.That is, in schools n which eachers ensestrongeadership,hedependence fefficacyon teachers'degreeof controlover theirclassroom nvironments stronger.We offer wo interpretationsf thisfind-ing, focusing n twofunctionsfprincipalsthat teachersmay see as characteristicfstrongeadership: ufferingnd delegating.In loosely coupled schools, the bufferingfunctionllowsteachersutonomynmanag-ing their classrooms.The classroom thusbecomesan even more mportantource ofinformationbout heteachers' erformance.A further elationship etweenperceivedprincipaleadershipndthe mountf controlteachersxperienceverclassroom ecisionsmayberelatedo the delegating"unctionfleadership Peterson1989). Strong nstruc-tional leaders, particularlyn secondaryschools, try o fostereadershipwithin hestaff,with the aim of generating ositivestudentoutcomes for the school. Strongleadersare likelyto fosternnovation nddiscourage onformity,ccording o Rutter(1986). It maybe that n schools n whichteachers see the principal as a strong


16/20

204 LEE, DEDRICK, AND SMITHinstructionaleader,the organizationalivi-sion of labor is moredifferentiatedmongteachersand stronger eachers are moreinfluential.hat s, individual eachersmayhave specificeadershipesponsibilities,ndteacherswith ess responsibility ay sensethedifference orekeenly hence n increasein the relationship etween control andefficacy). his relationship aythusreflectthe more general dynamics f interactionamong taffmembers nd the delegation fleadership.It is surprisinghatthe school's averageamount f teacher ontrols unrelatedothisslope. Nor is average control relatedtoprincipaleadership r = .039, from able2). This odd patternfrelationshipsllustratesthe essential ifferencen meaning etweenthegroup-levelnd individual-levelersionsof the same measure. As was discussedearlier, he nterpretationf aggregatedon-trol s muchdifferentromhe nterpretationofthe ontrol ach teachererceives e or shehas. It is thiswithin-schoolontrolmecha-nism, nd tsassociation ith fficacy,hat saffectedby principal eadership,not theaverage evel of controlnthe chool.

Schoolsize. Althoughhepositive ssocia-tion f school izeto mean fficacy ay eemsurprising,we believe there is a logicalexplanation. he positiverelationshipeenhere s net of selectivitynd organizationalfactors. t is likelythat once such schoolcharacteristicsre controlled,arger choolshavemore fthe esourceseachershinkheyneed, and teachershus eelmore fficaciousin theirworkingnvironments.ociologistshave usually efined small s beautiful"orthefosteringfmeaningfuluman elationsin schools Bryk nd Driscoll1988; Weber1947). However,the relationships morecomplex.Althoughchoolsize is negativelyrelated o severalmeasures f socialorganiza-tion (r = -.138 with community,r -- .436 with verage ontrol,romable2), itis positively elated o othermeasures sedhere (such as r = .110 with principalleadershipndr = .139 with verage ES).Moreover,lthoughchool ectorsrelatedoefficacy,heaveragesize of schools n thetwo ectorss notvery ifferent.he numberofsmallpublic chools s surprisinglyarge.There s someresearch vidence osupportthepositive elationshipf size to desirableschool utcomes.or xample, ridgesndHal-linan1978) found hat ize waspositivelye-

lated oteachers'ask-relevantommunication.Friedkin ndNechochea 1988) reportedhatthe elationshipetweenize and tudents'er-formanceifferedy thecompositionfstu-dentsnschools.Low-SES studentsid betterin mall chools, utnupper-SESchools, izewaspositivelyssociated ithchievement.ut-ter1986) also found small utpositive sso-ciation etween ize and teachers'ngagementintheir ork, nce host fteachernd choolorganizationalharacteristicsascontrolled. emust onclude hat ncethe social organiza-tional nddemographicharacteristicsf choolsare akenntoccount,eachersn argerchoolsare,onaverage,more atisfied ith hegreaterresourceshese chools robablyffer.Communalorganization. The strongestpredictor f teacher fficacy s community.Thiscompositemeasure as received eriousresearchttentionf late in the sociology feducation (see, for example, Bryk andDriscoll1988;Newmannt al. 1989; Rosen-holtz1989;Rutter 986).Ourfindingsre ngeneral greement ith hose tudies.Never-theless,we consider heempirical alidationof this link important. chools in whichteachers eelmore fficaciousre ikely o beenvironmentsn which humanrelationshipsaresupportive"You cancount n most taffmembers ohelp," "a great eal ofcoopera-tiveeffort,"a big family"),where eachers"share beliefsand values about . . . thecentralmissionof the school," and wherethey feel accepted ndrespected"see theAppendix).Althoughuchfindingsre notsurprising,t is troublinghatthere re somany chools nwhich eachers o not findsuch support,respect,and sharedvaluesabout he schools'purpose.We aregratifiedthat mergingesearchindingsre so consis-tent n the mportancefcommunal rgani-zationfor he success of schools.However,the ranslationf these esearch indingsntoschoolpracticeshat osterommunitys theissue. Rosenholtz 1989) offered severalpracticaluggestionsnthis egard.The results f thisstudyhave shown hatseveral lementsfschool ocialorganizationare stronglyelated o averageteacher ffi-cacyand satisfaction.heyhave also shownthat eachersre more fficacious hen heyhave more ontrol ver their wn classroompractices.We wouldpreferoreporthat hedegree to which teachers state they aresatisfiedndefficacious asnot elated o thetype f studentshey aught-that egardless


17/20

SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAND TEACHERS' EFFICACY 205ofthe students'evel of ability,eachers elttheywere accomplishingheir esiredgoals(whichwe assume rerelated o the tudents'learning). Although there are consistentsuggestionsromeachers' nions hat mallerclasses and higher aywill attractnd retain

good teachersn theprofession,hese esultssuggestthatfostering ooperative nviron-ments nd allowing eachers easonable u-tonomyn their lassroom racticesre morelikely o fosterhe fficacyndsatisfactionfteachers.

APPENDIXDetailsof theConstructionf VariablesA. Teacher-Level ariablesTeacher fficacyAlpha = .73)T17 How successfulo you feel neducating tudents?T19FF I lookforwardoworkingvery ay.T1911 I sometimes eel t s a waste f time o try o do mybest s a teacherreversed).T32 How much f the ime o you feel atisfied ithyour ob in this chool?TeacherControl Alpha = .74)How much ontrol o youfeelyouhave nyour lassroom ver achofthefollowingreasof your lanning ndteaching 1 = none o6 = complete ontrol)?T02A Selecting extbooksnd other nstructionalaterials.T02B Selecting ontent,opics, nd skills obe taught.T02C Selecting eaching echniques.T02D Discipliningtudents.T02E Determininghe mount f homeworko be assigned.

Variablewas exponentiallyransformed,ue tonegative kew, ndthen tandardizedmean= 0, SD = 1).% of Students aught bove he choolAverageT10 Compare he cademic bility f the tudents ouhavetaughtince hebeginningf the urrentchoolyearto theaveragefor heschool. Whatpercentagef your tudents ave been above the schoolaverage? recodedfrom ategories o a percentage). tandardizedmean = 0, SD = 1) in HLM

analyses.FemaleT37 What s your ex?MinorityT38 What s your rigin r decent?T39 What s your ace?

If either ariablewas coded Hispanic r Black, teacherwas codedminority.Annual alary,1983-84T46 What s your nnual alary rom our choolbefore axes?Yearsof Teaching xperienceSum of thefollowing,ecodedntoyears:T401 Prior o thisyear,how manyyears fexperience aveyouhad as a full-timeeacher t this chool?

T402 Prior othisyear,howmany ears fexperience aveyouhad as a full-timeeachern other chools?Major SubjectTaughtT43 1 What ubject reashave youtaughtnthe astfour ears?What syourmost requentlyaught ourse?(61-categoryariable ollapsed nto 1) math/science,2) humanities,3) vocational, 4) specialeducation,nd 5) other urricularreas).B. School-Level ariablesCatholic choolSCHSAMP School ample ype from S&B 1980 choolfile).Public chools oded0, Catholic chools oded1, other rivatechools liminated rom he ample.SchoolSizeSB002A Total schoolmembershipfrom S&B 1980 schoolfile).Schooldemographicariables reated y aggregatingtudent-levelariables rom irstollow-uptudentile 1980) onoriginal S&B sophomores.Average ocial ClassFUSES Follow-up ES composite.AverageAchievementFUTEST Follow-up est omposite. (Continued)


18/20

206 LEE, DEDRICK, AND SMITHAPPENDIX Continued)

AverageYearsofAcademicMathCoursesTakenSumof thefollowing, hichweredummyoded O = no, 1 = yes).FY5A Have or have not aken irst-yearlgebra.FY5B Have or havenot aken econd-yearlgebra.FY5C Have or have not aken eometry.FY5D Have or have not aken rigonometry.FY5E Have or havenot aken alculus.School ocialorganization easuresreated yfactornalysis principalomponentsxtraction,arimax otation)of ndividual eacher-levelariables.Variables hen ggregatedo school evel and standardized.

Average eacherControlAggregated rom eacher-levelariable isted arlier.Sense ofCommunityAlpha= .76)T19D You can count n most taffmemberso helpoutanywhere,nytime-evenhought maynotbepart f their fficial ssignment.T19E Most of mycolleagues haremybeliefs nd valuesaboutwhat hecentralmission f the choolshould e.T19V I feel ccepted ndrespecteds a colleaguebymost taffmembers.T19DD There s a great eal of cooperativeffortmong taffmembers.T19GG This school eems ikea big family;veryones so close and cordial.Disorderly tudent ehavior Alpha= .63)T19T The levelof studentmisbehaviore.g., noise, horseplay,r fightingn the halls,cafeteria, rstudentounge) nd/orrug r alcoholuse in this chool ntereferesithmy eaching.T19P Theamount fstudentardinessnd classcuttingn this chool nterferesithmy eaching.Principal eadership Alpha= .85)T191 The principaloesa poor ob of gettingesources or his chool reversed).T19J The principaleals effectivelyith ressuresrom utside he chool hatmightnterfereithmyteaching.T19K Theprincipaletspriorities, akesplans, nd sees that hey re carried ut.T19R Theprincipalnowswhatkind f a schoolhe/she ants nd communicatest to the taff.T19HH Theprincipalets taffmembersnowwhat s expected f them.StaffnfluencenDecisionMaking Alpha = .77)TOlA Howmuch nfluenceo teachers ave over choolpolicy ndeterminingtudent ehavior odes(1 = none to 6 = a greatdeal)?TOIB Howmuch nfluence o teachers ave over choolpolicy ndetermininghecontent f n-serviceprograms1 = none o6 = a great eal)?TOIC Howmuch nfluence o teachers ave over choolpolicy nsetting olicy n grouping1 = noneto6 = a great eal)?TOlD How much nfluenceo teachers aveover schoolpolicy n establishingheschool curriculum(1 = none to 6 = a greatdeal)?T19Q Staff re nvolvednmaking ecisions hat ffecthem.T19Y The principaleldomconsultswith taffmembers efore e/shemakesdecisions hat ffect s(reversed).Encouragementf nnovationAlpha= .68)T19T Inthis chool amencouragedoexperimentithmy eaching.T19JJ Theprincipals interestedn innovativend new deas.AdministratoresponsivenessAlpha= .81)T03A To what xtent as theprincipal r schoolheadhelpedyou improve our eaching r solve aninstructionalr classarrangementroblem1 = hindranceo7 = extremelyelpful)?T03C To what xtent ave other chool-leveldministratorselpedyou mprove our eaching r solvean instructionalr class arrangementroblem1 = hindranceo7 = extremelyelpful)?T190 Staffmembersrerecognizedor job well done.T19S This school'sadministrationnows heproblemsacedbythe taff.T19W The school dministration'sehavioroward he taffs supportivendencouraging.Collaboration imeT13 Since thebeginningfthecurrentchoolyear,howmuch ime ermonthon average)have youspentmeetingwithother eachers n lessonplanning, urriculumevelopment,uidance ndcounseling,valuationfprograms,rother ollaborative ork elated o instructionreportednminutes)?Teachers'KnowledgefOther lassesT19KK I am familiar ith he ontentndspecific oalsofcourses aughtyother eachersnmydepartment(1 = stronglyisagree, = stronglygree).

a Exceptwhere oted, ll variables ome from heHS&B 1984 Administratornd Teacher urvey Moles 1988).


19/20

SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAND TEACHERS' EFFICACY 207REFERENCES

Anderson, . S. 1982. "The SearchforSchoolClimate:A Reviewof theResearch."Review fEducational esearch 2:368-420.Ashton, . T. and R. B. Webb. 1986.MakingADifference: eachers' Sense of Efficacy ndStudent chievement.ewYork:Longmann.Bidwell,C. E. 1965. "The School as a FormalOrganization." p. 972-1019 in HandbookofOrganizations,dited y J.G. March.Chicago:RandMcNally.Bidwell, C. E. and J. D. Kasarda. 1980."ConceptualizingndMeasuringhe Effects fSchool and Schooling."AmericanJournal fEducation 9:401-31.Boyer,E. L. 1983. High School: A ReportonSecondary ducation n America.New York:Harper Row.Bridges, E. M. and M. T. Hallinan. 1978."Subunit ize, WorkSystemnterdependence,and EmployeeAbsenteeism." ducationalAd-ministrationuarterlv 4(2):24-42.Brofenbrenner, . 1976. "The ExperimentalEcology f Education." ducational esearcher5:5-15.Brophy, . E. and C. M. Evertson. 981. StudentCharacteristicsnd Teaching.White Plains,NY: Longman.Bryk, . S. andM. E. Driscoll. 988.The chool sCommunity:heoreticaloundations,ontextualInfluences,nd ConsequencesorStudentsndTeachers.Madison:National enter n EffectiveSecondarychools,Universityf Wisconsin.Bryk,A. S., S. W. Raudenbush, . Seltzer, ndR. T. Congdon.1988.An ntroductiono HLM:Computerrogram nd User's Guide. Version2.0. Chicago: Universityf Chicago,Depart-ment fEducation.Burstein,. andM. D. Miller.1981."Regression-basedAnalyses fMultilevelducational ata."In R. F. Boruch, . M. Wortman,. S. Corday,and Associates (Eds.), Reanalyzing rogramEvaluations. an Francisco: ossey-Bass.Carnegie ask ForceonTeaching s a Profession.1986,May.ANation repared:Teachersorthe21st Century. ew York: CarnegieForumonEducation theEconomy.Chubb,J. E. 1988. "WhytheCurrentWave ofSchoolReformWill Fail." The Public Interest90:93-105.Chubb,J. E. and T. M. Moe. 1990. Politics,Markets, nd America'sSchools. Washington,DC: TheBrookingsnstitution.Coleman,J. S. and T. Hoffer. 987. PublicandPrivateHighSchools:The mpact fCommuni-ties.NewYork: Basic Books.Coleman,J. S., T. Hoffer,nd S. D. Kilgore.1982. High School Achievement:ublic, Pri-vate, and Catholic Schools Compared.NewYork:Basic Books.Cooper,H. M., J.M. Burger,ndG. E. Seymour.

1979. "ClassroomContext nd Student bilityInfluencesnTeacher erceptionsf ClassroomControl."American ducational esearchJour-nal 16:189-96.Cronbach, . 1976. "Research n Classrooms ndSchools: Formulationsf Questions,Design,and Analysis." Occasional paperof the Stan-ford EvaluationConsortium).StanfordCA:Stanford niversity.Edmonds,R. 1979, October."Effectivechoolsfor the Urban Poor." EducationalLeadership:15-24.Firestone,W. and B. L. Wilson. 1985. "UsingBureaucraticndCultural inkages o ImproveInstruction:he Principal's ontribution."du-cationalAdministrationuarterly1(2):7-30.Friedkin, . E. and J. Nechochea.1988. "School

Size andPerformance: Contingencyerspec-tive." Educational valuation nd PolicyAnal-ysis10:237-49.Forsyth, . B. andW. K. Hoy. 1978. "Isolationand Alienationn EducationalOrganizations."EducationalAdministration uarterly 14(1):80-96.Fuller, . andJ. A. Izu. 1986."Explaining choolCohesion: What Shapes the OrganizationalBeliefs of Teachers? AmericanJournal ofEducation 5:501-35.Fuller, B., K. Wood, T. Rapoport, nd S. M.Dombusch.1982. "The Organizationalontextof Individual fficacy."Review fEducationalResearch 2:7-30.Goodlad,J. 1984. A Place Called School.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Grant,G. 1988. The World We Created atHamilton igh. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUni-versity ress.Haney,W. 1980. "Units ndLevelsofAnalysisnLarge-scale Evaluation. New DirectionsforMethodologyf Social and Behavioral cience6:1-15.Herriot, . E. and W. A. Firestone. 984. "TwoImagesof Schoolsas Organizations: Refine-mentndElaboration." ducational dministra-tionQuarterly0(4):41-57.Holdaway, E. A. 1978. "Facet and OverallSatisfactionfTeachers."Educational dminis-tration uarterly4(1):30-47.Hoy,W. K. and J.Ferguson. 985. "A Theoreti-cal Frameworknd Exploration f Organiza-tional Effectivenessf Schools." EducationalAdministrationuarterly 1(2):117-34.Lee, V. E. and A. S. Bryk.1988. "CurriculumTrackings MediatingheSocial DistributionfHighSchool Achievement."ociology fEdu-cation 1:78-94.. 1989. "A Multilevel Model of theSocialDistribution f High School Achievement."Sociology fEducation 2:172-92.Lightfoot,. L. 1983. The Good High School.New York:Basic Books.


20/20

208 LEE, DEDRICK, AND SMITHLittle,J. W. 1982. "Normsof CollegialityndExperimentation:Workplace Conditions ofSchool Success." AmericanEducationalRe-searchJournal 9:325-40.Lortie, D. C. 1975. Schoolteacher.Chicago:UniversityfChicagoPress.Maehr,M. L. 1987.AdvancesnMotivationndAchievement:nhancingMotivationVol. 5).Greenwich,T: JAIPress.McNeil,L. M. 1986. ContradictionsfControl:School Structurend SchoolKnowledge. on-don:Routledge KeganPaul.Metz, M. H. 1978. Classrooms nd Corridors:The CrisisofAuthorityn Desegregated econ-dary chools.Berkeley: niversityf CaliforniaPress.. 1986. Differentby Design: The Context

and Character of Three Magnet Schools.London:Routledge KeganPaul.Meyer, .W. and B. Rowan. 1978."TheStructureof EducationalOrganizations." p. 79-109 inEnvironmentsnd Organizations, dited byJ. W. Meyer nd W. R. Scott. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.Mohrman, . M., Jr.,R. A. Cooke, and S. A.Mohrman. 1978. "Participationn DecisionMaking:A Multidimensionalerspective."du-cationalAdministrationuarterly4(1):13-29.Moles, 0. 1988. High School and BeyondAdministratornd Teacher urvey1984). DataFile User'sManual.Washington,C: Office fEducational Research& Improvement, .S.DepartmentfEducation.Newmann, . M., R. A. Rutter,nd M. S. Smith.1989. "OrganizationalactorsAffectingchoolSense of Efficacy, ommunity,nd Expecta-tions."Sociology fEducation 4:221-38.Peterson, . D. 1989. Secondary rincipals ndInstructionaleadership:Complexitiesn a Di-verse ole.Madison:National entern EffectiveSecondarychools,UniversityfWisconsin.Purkey,. C. and M. S. Smith.1983. "Effective

Schools:A Review." Elementarychool Jour-nal 83:427-54.Raudenbush, . W. and A. S Bryk. 1986. "AHierarchicalModel for Studying chool Ef-fects." ociology fEducation 9:1-17.Rosenholtz, S. J. 1985. "EffectiveSchools:InterpretingheEvidence."American ournal fEducation 4:352-88.,. 1987. "Education ReformStrategies:WillThey ncrease eacher ommitment?"mericanJournal f Education 6:534-62.. 1989. Teachers' Workplace: The SocialOrganizationfSchools.New York:Longman.Rutter, ., B. Maughan, . Mortimore,. Outson,andA. Smith. 979.Fifteen housand ours: ec-ondary choolsand TheirEffectsn Children.Cambridge, A: Harvard niversityress.Rutter, . A. 1986. Facilitating eacher ngage-ment. Madison:NationalCenteron EffectiveSecondarychools,Universityf Wisconsin.Schwab, R. L. and E. F. Iwaniki. 1982."PerceivedRole Conflict, ole Ambiguity,ndTeacherBurnout."EducationalAdministrationQuarterly 8(1):60-74.Scott,W. R. And J. W. Meyer.1988. "Environ-mental inkages ndOrganizationalomplexity:Public and Private Schools." In ComparingPublic andPrivate chools, dited y T. JamesandH. M. Levin. London:Falmer ress.

Sizer,T. R. 1984. Horace's Compromise.oston:HoughtonMifflin.Stipek, D. and J. Weisz. 1981. "PerceivedPersonal ontrol ndAcademicAchievement."Review fEducational esearch 2:101-37.Weber, M. 1947. The Theoryof Social andEconomic rganization,dited ndtranslatedyA. M. HendersonndTalcott arsons.Glencoe,IL: Free Press.Weick,K. E. 1976. "Educational rganizationssLoosely CoupledSystems"Administrativeci-enceQuarterly1:1-19.Valerie . Lee, Ed.D., is Assistant rofessor,choolofEducation,UniversityfMichigan, nnArbor.Her mainfieldsof interestre school restructuring,chool organizationnd its effectsn socialstratificationn education,ingle-sexchooling,nd multilevel ethodsor chool-effectsesearch. heis currently orkingn a seriesofstudies n how schoolrestructuringffectstudents' chievement,engagement, nd equity.She is also engaged in a multiyeartudy comparing ingle-sex ndcoeducationalrivate econdarychools.RobertF. Dedrick,Ph.D., is Assistant rofessor,Departmentf EducationalMeasurementndResearch, choolof Education,Universityf SouthFlorida,Tampa. His main ields of interestrequantitative ethodsnd studentearning.He ispresentlytudyingheroleofmentor elationshipsngraduate ducation.Julia B. Smith,MS (mathematics)s a doctoral candidate nd Research Assistant, rogram nEducational tudies,School of Education,Universityf Michigan,Ann Arbor. Her mainfieldsofinterestre sociology feducationnd school earning. he is now tudyinighe ffectsfrestructuringon middle-gradechools, he ffectsf chools ndschoolingn who akes lgebra neighthrade, ndthegrowthfmathematicsearning ordisadvantagedhildren.

Documents

The Effect of the Social Organization of Schools on Teachers' Efficacy and Satisfaction