Ecological Theory And School Choice In Toronto, And Promoting Differentiation In Ontario's Education System

Q1: K-12

Davies and Quirke (2007) analyze many private schools in Toronto. A) Using concepts from Ecological Theory, describe some of the ecology of school choice in Toronto. Choose among any of these concepts: org age, flexibility, niche width, field density, ease of entry / exit, technical vs institutional environments, org inertia, legitimacy constraints, differentiation, saturation, selection, etc.. B) Would Merrifield regard Toronto’s ‘New’ or ‘Third’ sector’ to be his ideal market? Why/not?

Q2: PSE

Pizarro-Milian et al discuss 4 org processes that may hinder the kinds of “differentiation” among Ontario universities advocated by Clark et al. Could more for-profit universities, as described by Ruch, generate more differentiation? Would Clark et al. welcome more for-profits to Ontario? Or would the for-profits also be affected by the 4 processes discussed by Pizarro-Milian et al? Where relevant, use concepts from Ecological theory in your discussion.

Please listen to and read the powerpoint presentation(I am attaching in the google link I will send you, as well as the articles to be able to answer the questions.
I will share the powerpoint via google drive and send you the link.

These questions will require students NOT to merely summarize the texts or state personal opinions about the readings, but to instead analyze them by addressing important theoretical issues, relating readings to one another, and by applying key concepts to their professional experience, previous education, and/or key policy issues.

Evaluation criteria will include:
1. Demonstrated understanding of core course concepts and content
2. Ability to connect theoretical ideas from organizational studies to key education policy issues 3. Ability to build on insights from readings, lectures and classmates’ posts
4. Overall originality, thoughtfulness, insight and effort, quality and organization of writing

About the discussion:
This week’s approach - ecological theory - is pitched at a macro level of analysis. It typically examines entire populations of organizations in a field, and examines factors that promote organizational births, growth, survival and deaths. Contra the New Institutional emphasis on isomorphism, this approach examines phenomena such as organizational variety and niche-seeking. Because this approach typically examines market forces and for-profit businesses, one could find it unsuitable for publically governed bodies like public schools. But it is arguably very relevant for understanding forms of private education that are strongly shaped by market forces. This week we will examine basic ideas behind ecological theory, some prominent examples, and then will apply those ideas to the realm of private K-12 education. For the past 20 years, various critics of public schooling have praised private schools, and called for the injection of market-like competition in public education, arguing that competition will leverage more variety in schools’ organizational form, pedagogy, curriculum, and specialties. We will read both theories and empirical research on school choice and market forces in K-12 education.

Concepts of Ecological Theory and School Choice in Toronto

Question 1

In the lecture notes of Week 9 and 10, the ecological theory was defined by Davies (2018) as an approach aimed to understand the performance of organizations such its survival threshold as influenced by paradigm shifts in internal to external processes. Variations create change that significantly affects the survival of organizations. Davies and Quirke’s (2007) hypothesized that the institutional and market changes in Toronto schools would result in feeble formal structures, use of performance indicators as an incentive for competitiveness and reversed tendencies towards isomorphism.

The findings of Davies and Quirke (2007) signposted three school choices namely public schools, private schools, and new-sector schools. Several concepts were identified by Davies and Quirke that shape the school choice in Toronto. One factor is differentiation; the physical characteristic is a prime attribute influencing the choice of the schools. The public school in Toronto focused on traditional academic spaces characterized by standard classrooms, large buildings, and large schoolyards. On the other hand, private schools focused on small areas because most of the school use rented spaces.  Differentiation and diversity are also central factors in Toronto schools. The authors indicated that due to market and institutional changes public schools shifted their strategies to offer a wide variety of courses such as art-centered studies, French Immersion, and intensive academic and curricula. Equally, aspects of flexibility were cited to influence school choice in the state. The authors posited that market changes forced new-sector schools to improve their extracurricular activities or be faced out by the rapidly transforming education sector. Public schools were also noted to be adaptive by losing isomorphism and coupling status. Regarding the concept of niche, new-sector schools that are less regulated have the potential to survive efficiently. They can create a culture that allows them to resist imposed adoption of universal metrics such as standardized tests. Davies and Quirke noted that schools operating in poorly regulated market niches could survive well in large education environments because they are more personalized.

According to Hannan (2005), ecological theory helps in understanding the interaction a relationship between and within organizations and their populations. Hannan vividly discussed some of the characteristics of Toronto schools such as diversity, flexibility, inertia, size, and change as key to shaping organizations. According to Davies and Quirke (2007), Merrifield (2008) would classify the schools in Toronto as Informal, Compromised Separation of School and State because on the continued loss of coupling and increased isomorphism as well as the low flexibility of public schools and skewed performance.  

Question 2

Clark, Trick, and Van Loon (2011) discussed a number of reforms they believed would be critical to Ontario’s higher education system. They noted that in order to promote differentiation in the public education system, the government must address the isomorphism challenge. They indicated that this trend is driven by unbridled competition hence failing to develop models that serve the needs of the society.  Clark, Trick, and Van Loon (2007) noted that differentiation of universities should be cost-effective and ensure efficient use of expertise and resources. Differentiation should also lead to fragmentation within the education system and among the isomorphic schools. The authors also advocated for teaching-focused colleges and universities as a remedy to the poor quality of the education system in the state.

Impact of Differentiation on Ontario's Education System

Nonetheless, Milian, Davies, and Zarifa (2016) note that despite Ontario’s education policymakers devotion to promoting differentiation in the education system as supported by Clark, Trick, and Van Loon (2011), the process has a potential to result in a myriad of unpredicted implications. Milian, Davies, and Zarifa study found out the differentiation directives would affect the higher learning institution in four fronts namely isomorphism, ceremonial compliance, sensitivity to prevailing demand of their markets, and progressive status seeking. They argued that differentiation reforms would only be sustainable if they are compatible with the prevailing norms and practices.

First, Ruch (2003) acknowledged that for-profit universities are likely to be oriented on profits generation as opposed to providing quality education; however, they equally have the potential to promote sustainable differentiation. Ruch argues that for-profit attribute in the education system will leverage the universities ability to respond to economic and social needs of the society directly and independently implement change through its internally generated funds as opposed to depending on rigid government funds. For-profits organization, accreditation is a central objective hence shall help the universities to meet as well as exceed their required thresholds because they will be able to allocate adequate human and financial resources needed for them to achieve their objectives. Ruch further noted that for-profit institutions are more capable than not-for-profit organizations hence handling the problem of payoff that is based on the earning power of graduates.

Clark, Trick, and Van Loon (2011, p. 9) acknowledged that even though Ontario has considerable efficient education standards its operation in terms of revenue per student is far much less than other provinces; therefore, Clark, Trick, and Van Loon are likely to welcome the idea of for-profits universities s it mitigates most of the challenges they cited. Ruch’s ideas also reduce the problems of isomorphism and ceremonial compliance, but small promote status seeking and sensitivity to market needs.

References

Clark, I. D., Trick, D., & Van Loon, R. (2011). Chapter 1: Case of Reform. In Academic reform: Policy options for improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of undergraduate education in Ontario (pp. 1-33). London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Davies, S. (2018). LHA 1040: Ecological Theory and Market Forces in Education: Post-Secondary Tier [Week 10, Lecture Notes). Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LVR0sFuuJVeTzzN7_RTb1-jTa_wwHpEH

Davies, S. (2018). LHA 1040: Ecological Theory & Market Forces in Education: K-12 Tier [Week 9, Lecture Notes]. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LVR0sFuuJVeTzzN7_RTb1-jTa_wwHpEH

Davies, S., & Quirke, L. (2007). The Impact of Sector on School Organizations: Institutional and Market Logics. Sociology of Education, 2(1), 66-89.

Hannan, M. T. (2005). Ecologies of Organizations: Diversity and Identity. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 51-70.

Merrifield, J. (2008). The twelve policy approaches to increased school choice. Journal of School Choice, 2(1), 4-19.

Milian, R. P., Davies, S., & Zarifa, D. (2016). Barriers to Differentiation: Applying Organizational Studies to Ontario Higher Education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 46(1), 19-37.

Ruch, R. S. (2003). Chapter 1: Confessions of a For-Profit Dean. In Higher Ed, Inc: The Rise of the For-Profit University (pp. 1-23). Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.