School Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Fidelity

by

Jimmy L. Dolson

Dissertation Prospectus

-DRAFT-

Submitted to the Department of Leadership and Counseling at

Eastern Michigan University

December 10, 2010

Ypsilanti, Michigan

Introduction and Background

“Organizations act only as the result of action by their members…”(Thompson, 2003, p.xxvii). “Organizations [are]…social and cultural systems” (Scott, 2008, p. x). “Organizations try to alter their environments” (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003, p. xii). The essential element of any organization is people; people working together in a social and cultural system to produce results by engaging their environments.

Schools are organizations which also engage their society. As organizations designed to educate and indoctrinate the youngest members of society, schools come in varying forms. Schools are public, charter, private, and home-based. Each type of school appeals to different segments of the society with varying missions, visions, and purposes.

However, even with the variation amongst school types, there is commonality. All schools must operate within an economic reality while maintaining legitimacy with the community and constituents(Pfeffer & Salancik; Scott; Thompson). In operational terms, schools must be efficient with their resources while remaining effective in accomplishing their stated purposes.

The idea of maintaining organizational efficiency and effectiveness is not new to organizational and management theorist. Taylor (1911)was among the earliest researchers to introduce the notion of efficiency into organizational models. Organizational theorists introduced the concept of organizational rationalization in an effort to balance legitimacy with the environment against the need to be efficient(Scott; Thompson). In some cases, even modifying the core technology in order to be counted as legitimate. Other theorists promoted engaging and enacting the environment so the organization could give the illusion of legitimacy without sacrificing the core technologies (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). Still others suggest a middle-of-the- road approach by offering a method to managing legitimacy while balancing efficient operations (Suchman, 1995).

In parallel with this organizational evolution, school organizations also were evolving. Taylor (1911)developed his factory model of efficiency in the early part of the 20^th century and for the next several decades Taylorism dominated school organizational thinking. In the late 1970s and into the 80s, however, a new movement was underway challenging schools to be effective in the classroom, not just efficient (Edmonds, 1982). Where Taylorism was a laser focus on efficiency both in and out of the classroom, the mantra of the effective schools movement was to increase student achievement for all children. In other words, schools were casting off the notion that efficiency throughout the organization was the only worthwhile goal.

Unfortunately, schools cannot only focus on being effective (Pfeffer & Salancik; Thompson). Given that schools must make organizational changes to remain legitimate, they must also stay viable. There is no value in remaining legitimate if the doors of the school cannot remain open. This has come to light over the past couple of decades as the economy has ebbed and flowed between times of prosperity and strife.

Statement of the Problem

Creating an organization which can simultaneously balance efficiency and effectiveness is not easy. Thompson (Thompson, 2003) has over 60 testable hypothesis on how to balance organizational variables. Scott (Scott, 2008) proposes three major pillars by which to determine the right way to formulate the institution and co-exist with the environment. Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) suggest three additional measurements of structure, information systems, and organizational activities encouraging the proper balance between efficiency and effectiveness.

There seems, however, to be a missing construct. A construct which, if employed, will assist school organizations in balancing efficiency and effectiveness. Given that any organization wants to be both efficient and effective (Pfeffer & Salancik), is there a third variable that acts as a governor, or moderator? Is there a variable which helps balance the organization against being too efficient while sacrificing effectiveness or vice-versa?

There is a natural tension embodied in all organizations (Thompson). The tension to constantly balance actions which cause the school to be financially viable while also meeting student achievement targets will always be in play. Organizations which do not learn this balancing act will not persist.

Scott insists that there must be more than just the current research to explain why some organizations persist and expand while others do not (Scott, p. 146). More effort is necessary to keep an organization viable and durable other than just balancing efficiency and effectiveness. Studying and understanding why people in organizations put forth the “continuing effort” (p. 146) to keep the organization stable and sustaining may reveal a third organizational variable. A variable which may explain how organizations keep themselves from becoming too myopic on just achieving efficiency or just effectiveness.

Purpose of the Study

Since organizations are comprised of people working in the context of a social system with norms, cultures, and values (Pfeffer & Salancik; Scott; Thompson) there must be a reason that pulls people together on a daily basis. Each organization, whether non-profit or otherwise, survives for a reason, a purpose. Some organizations exist to make money, others exist for benevolent purposes, some for promoting a cause, while others exist for passing on values and ideals. Churches and schools fall into the latter category.

In institutions such as K12 religious schools, organizational purpose is often the driver that motivates people to spend their time working on organizational business. In many such schools, purpose is the common filter for all organizational decisions. Purpose is typically communicated through mission and vision statements.

Whereas mission statements motivate employees or volunteers to become involved with the organization, vision acts as the glue to keep them involved in pursuit of an ideal. Organizational vision usually portrays a word picture of how a service should be delivered, or how a product should function. Often vision expresses what the ideal service or product looks like to the end consumer.

Somewhat related to understanding the organization’s purpose is the notion of belief in the organization. Simply understanding what the organization is about is different from believing in the organization. The formal definition of “believe” includes the thought of accepting a “statement or opinion…as true” (Dictionary, 2009).

Therefore, believing in the purpose of the organization implies that people not only accept the mission and vision of the organization, but they are of the opinion that the organization is beneficial and right. Extending the concept of belief into an action leads to the construct of fidelity.

For this research, organizational fidelity is proposed as a third variable by which to moderate or govern efficiency and effectiveness. “Fidelity” is the “devotion to duties, obligations…[or] loyalty or devotion…to a cause”(Dictionary, 2009). Fidelity of organizational members is best understood as the amount of loyalty to the benefits and rightness of the organization. In essence, fidelity is a measure of the commitment to the cause. In the case of a

K12 Christian school, fidelity is a measure of the commitment by employees to the school’s purpose.

Significance of the Study

This research study will attempt to establish the relationships between three organizational variables. The variables of efficiency and effectiveness are well studied constructs (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003; Scott, 2008; Thompson, 2003). Less studied however is the notion of fidelity as defined in this study. The purpose of this study is to offer fidelity as a third variable which works alongside the variables of efficiency and effectiveness helping the school organization navigate a changing environment.

Hypothesis and Research Questions

One of the major premises of this study is the addition of a third organizational variable identified as fidelity. Fidelity along with efficiency and effectiveness work together as constructs helping administrators and school leaders make decisions regarding status and direction of the school organization. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:

Given that the two organizational variables of efficiency and effectiveness are in constant tension, organizational fidelity will moderate the other two variables.

In the course of demonstrating the connectedness between fidelity and the other two variables, the following research questions are also offered:

What are the descriptive statistics of the organizational variables efficiency, effectiveness, and fidelity? and,

What is the strength of the relationships between efficiency, effectiveness, and fidelity?

Theoretical Framework

Organizational fidelity is one of this research study’s major variables. In the context of this study, fidelity is a quantitative measure of how strong-minded or resolute organizational members are about the purpose of the organization. Metaphorically, if fidelity controls the rudder on a ship, then a higher fidelity by members results in more determination to steer the organization towards its purpose. The variable gives an indication of how strongly people believe in, or are loyal to, the organization’s purpose.

Although fidelity to organizational purpose is necessary, it is not sufficient as a lone entity to keep the organization viable. Strong loyalty to the organization’s purpose without a translation into action is useless. Efficiency is a measure that often used to assess how an organization is progressing in accomplishing operational objectives (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). In a broader context, efficiency is an internal measurement which assesses how well an organization uses internal resources to accomplish organizational purpose.

But once again, organizational fidelity and efficiency alone are not sufficient to keep the organization persisting. The concept of effectiveness assesses the degree to which the organization is meeting a need in the surrounding community. It is a value judgment levied by the external environment about how well the organization is achieving its purpose (Pfeffer & Salancik, p.12).

A theoretical framework, therefore, must include all three organizational constructs in a bonded relationship. Included in the framework is acknowledgement of the impact caused by the environment. Though measuring the environmental impact on schools is not necessarily part of this research, any organizational framework is incomplete without its acknowledgement (Pfeffer & Salancik; Scott, 2008; Suchman, 1995; Thompson, 2003).

Definitions

Efficiency. Efficiency is a ratio of organizational outputs to organizational inputs for any given process (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). Efficiency assess the question of, “How well does the organization use its resources to accomplish organizational purposes?”. For example, a process is efficient if the output-to-input ratio increases when its input increases. An inefficient process will decrease its the ratio when the input increases (Bessent, Bessent, Elam, & Long, 1984). Ideally, the variables to construct the outputs and inputs are important to achieving the school’s objectives.

Effectiveness. Effectiveness is a measure of how well the organization meets its environmental demands (Pfeffer & Salancik). Effectiveness assess the question of, “How legitimate is the organization’s purpose from the community’s perspective?” An effective organization, for instance, is one that achieves high approval rating from constituents regarding the accomplishment of organizational purpose (Suchman, 1995). An ineffective organization, on the other hand, is one which is not highly esteemed by others achieving nothing greater in value other than being a mere commodity.

Fidelity. Fidelity, for this study, is a measure of the personal commitment by members to the purpose of the organization. The measurement is an assessment of the loyalty by members to the mission and vision of the organization. It assess the question: “How much does each member really believe in the organization’s purpose?” Foundationally, fidelity is a measure of congruence between members and the organization’s “shared assumptions” (Schein, 2004, chp. 2). For each member in the organization, fidelity assesses the alignment between their personal beliefs and values and organizational beliefs and values. For instance, someone who displays high fidelity will dedicate much time for little compensation in service to the organization because they are loyal to, committed to, the underlying values and beliefs of the organization. Conversely, members who invest little personal time into organizational activities display low fidelity to the organization’s purpose.

2. Review of Literature

The primary research topic in this study pivots on the general topic of organizational theory. A review of the literature on this topic reveals a vast number of seminal research studies, doctoral dissertations, peer-reviewed articles, books, and general discussions. Organizational theory, then, is a mature topic with a deep well of knowledge.

Given the vastness of the literature, the challenge is not one of finding relevant studies, but one of sorting and organizing to find relevant topics related to this study. Creating a framework to filter and then contain only the relevant studies is essential to paring down the literature. A readymade framework for this purpose is the conceptual framework. Therefore, categories for containing the appropriate research literature are: organizational theory, organizational fidelity, organizational efficiency, and organizational effectiveness.

Organizational Theory

At this point a general review of organizational theory helps set the stage for balance of the literature review. There are various postulations around how organizations perform in their environments. These postulations are summarized in Suchman’s (1995) research on organizational legitimacy. His work defines two primary positions on organizational legitimacy, one being strategic in nature, the other institutional. The strategic view of organizational legitimacy states that there is “a high level of managerial control over the legitimation process” (p.576). Indicating that the managerial level hi-jacks organizational artifacts and uses those artifacts as a means to establish legitimacy with the environment. All this is done without the organization changing its basic core of operations. Thompson (2003) maintains that this type of legitimacy is established by organizations acting like closed-systems (p. 4).

The opposite view offered by Suchman (1995) is the institutional view of organizational legitimacy. This view of organizational legitimacy allows “external institutions [to] construct and interpenetrate the organization in every respect” (p. 576). In this view, legitimacy for the organization is easily achieved since the external environment defines the organization. Thompson (2003) argues that these organizations establish legitimacy with their environment because they operate as an open-system (p.6).

In his social science approach to explaining organizational actions, Thompson (2003) seeks to adopt both views. He recognizes that organizations must respond to the uncertainty of the external organization to establish legitimacy while also acting rationally to compete and survive in the market place (p.10). By adopting both views, Thompson proposes dozens of testable hypothesizes that exist in organizations. He proposes that rational organizations simultaneously behave as open and closed systems.

Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) seem firmly entrenched, however, in the notion that organizations are active in establishing their own legitimacy. They propose that environments engage, or enact, their environments (p. 72). That is, they are active in testing, selecting, sorting, and spanning their environment (p. 74). The notion of engaging the environment follows the vein of using legitimacy as a strategic weapon to attract more constituents from outside the organization (Suchman, 1995).

In an opposite view, Scott (2008) purports an institutional like view of organizations. His framework to digest organizations is built along three pillars: regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive (p. 51). In his view, Scott maintains that organizational meaning and stability are

defined along legal, moral, and cultural boundaries implying that organizations are driven by external players (Suchman, 1995).

Organizational Fidelity

Fidelity as an organizational variable carries wide and varying meanings. Variation in the meaning becomes narrower when context is understood. For example, organizational fidelity to a process by members implies that loyalty to a particular procedure increases the opportunity for success(Brown, Feinberg, & Greenberg, 2010). Loyalty by an organization to societal values and principles is also understood as organizational fidelity (Coombs & Lüschen, 1976). This meaning blends together with the organization’s need for legitimacy with the external environment (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003; Scott, 2008; Thompson, 2003). Closely connected, is the need for organizations to appeal to their external donors (Voss, Cable, & Voss, 2000). In this context, high fidelity between organizational values and the values of constituents is necessary to the organization’s survival. Van den Steen (Van den Steen, 2005) asserts that fidelity, when understood as loyalty to organizational values by employees, is a tool for selecting and sorting employees.

Though understanding the meaning of organizational fidelity requires contextualization, a common strain running throughout the various definitions emerge. Organizational fidelity, or loyalty to the organization, is closely tied to alignment with organizational beliefs and values by members. Schein offers a typology of organizational beliefs and values in an effort to explain alignment issues and behaviors (2004, chp. 2). At the upper level of the typology are artifacts and the visible attributes of the organization. Going one level deeper, the typology reveals the espoused beliefs and values which contains organizational goals and strategies. The bottom, or deepest, layer of the typology contains the thoughts, perceptions, and feelings of the organization. As Schein indicates, resident in this bottom layer of underlying assumptions is the “ultimate source of values and actions” (2004, chp. 2, fig 2.1).

Therefore, the importance of aligning the values and beliefs of members to the underlying organizational values and beliefs cannot be understated. In Maton’s and Salem’s (Maton & Salem, 1995) study, alignment of beliefs and values amongst employees can strengthen and reinforce the culture of the organization. According to the study, with highly aligned values and beliefs organizations are able to “effectively, consistently, and powerfully motivate and direct members along a pathway of activities” (Maton & Salem, 1995, p. 12). In Van den Steen’s (2005) study, alignment of beliefs amongst employees improved performance and self-propagated the beliefs to the next generation of employees.

Organizational Efficiency

One of the primary focuses in the managerial and operational realm is that of organizational efficiency. For instance, efficiency of an organization is the “output per unit of input…” (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). More specifically, it is a metric of internal performance. Other studies articulate the internal performance in detail, “… critical in any efficiency analysis is selecting the specific outputs upon which the efficiency of a unit is to be judged and identifying the inputs used to provide these outputs” (Bessent et al., 1984).

The Bessent et al study goes on to provide an operational definition to select the input and output variables for any efficiency ratio. The definition includes three tests: 1) outputs represent organizational objectives; 2) increasing an input should increase one or more of the outputs if

one assumes efficient processes; 3) output and input measures are designed so as not to favor either large or small organizations (p. 2).

In discussing technology and structure, Thompson (2003) argues a definition of organizational efficiency based on capacity. He purports that organizations are not efficient if they underutilize their resources (p. 53). Furthermore, he believes that organizations which over use their resources, or sub-optimize their resources by cross-sharing, are also not efficient.

On the issue of connectedness between efficiency and effectiveness, there seems to be general consensus that the two variables operate independently. Quantitative studies indicate correlations values of -.12 to .21 indicating no cause-effect relationships between the variables (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). Qualitatively, Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) reveal the independent and competing natures of the two variables. Schools which are efficient, may not be effective. Conversely, schools which operate inefficiently may be effective. Ideally, rational schools strive for a balance, equality, in achieving operational efficiency while maintaining their effectiveness (Thompson, 2003).

Organizational Effectiveness

A definition of organizational effectiveness is elusive and varies between researchers (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). However, understanding legitimacy helps in the understanding of organizational effectiveness. According to Pfeffer and Salancik (2003), organizational effectiveness rests on the “acceptability of the organization and its activities [and] is ultimately judged by those outside the organization” (p.11). They go on to make the case that for an organization to survive it does not need to be considered legitimate by all members of society but must “only maintain a coalition of parties who contribute resources and support necessary for it to continue its activities” (p. 26).

The notion of organizations being acceptable, judged, and establishing coalitions is closely aligned with a general understanding of organizational effectiveness. Much of the research about effectiveness focuses on a definition that targets the value of the organization as viewed by the external environment. “When…organizations consider what [emphasis added] is being measured…they are concerned with effectiveness rather than efficiency” (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). The research goes further indicating that “the effective organization is one which responds to the demands from its environment according to its dependence on the various components of the environment” (p. 84)

One of the players in the external environment that many schools and other non-profits are dependent upon are individual and foundational donors. As Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) suggest, determining organizational legitimacy is not a passive game but rather an enactment of key environmental players. Frumkin (2006) expands on the notion of this enactment specifically with donors. Frumkin maintains that donors want to maximize the effect of their dollars by creating “social leverage” (p. 204). He further suggests that donors want to amplify their dollars’ usefulness (p. 204). Furthermore, Frumkin has argued that donors and recipients which share high levels of value congruence are tightly coupled around a common purpose (chp. 8).

Therefore, by appealing to constituents, organizations establish legitimacy. Accordingly, studies by other researchers suggest that constituents align themselves with organizations that reflect similar values (Voss et al., 2000). Parsons’ (1951) research on social systems indicates that constituents carry “moral values”(p. 32) that cause them to take action with organizations in

which they have an interest. And similarly, Suchman (1995) study indicates that constituents in the external environment are active with their support.

Summary

The literature on organizational theory is vast and deep. Seminal research by Taylor (1911), Scott (2008), Thompson (2003), Parsons (1951), Pfeffer & Salancik (2003), and Suchman (1995) have covered a wide range of management and organizational theory. Given the richness of the research, a framework equivalent to the theoretical framework offers an appropriate filter and container for studies relevant to this research.

Relevant literature reveals that organizational fidelity has a wide range of meanings but maintains a common thread around values and beliefs (Brown et al., 2010; Coombs & Lüschen, 1976). Alignment of values and beliefs between members of the organization provides improved performance (Scott; Thompson; Van den Steen, 2005; Voss et al., 2000). Schein (2004) adds further depth to understanding of this alignment by putting forth the notion that organizations operate by a typology with beliefs, thoughts, and perceptions at the foundational level of organizational action.

Organizational efficiency is based on a ratio of outputs to inputs (Pfeffer & Salancik). A study of efficiency by one group of researchers suggests that a criteria for selecting efficiency measurements follow a rigid protocol (Bessent et al., 1984) . Thompson (2003) also suggests that organizations which over-utilize and under-utilize their resources are also not behaving efficiently. Both qualitative and quantitative research studies support the notion that efficiency and effectiveness operate independently (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993; Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003).

Understanding organizational effectiveness can be difficult because firm definitions are elusive (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Establishing legitimacy with the environment is, however, a part of understanding effectiveness according to Pfeffer and Salancik (2003). From a macro perspective, organizational effectiveness measures what is being accomplished instead how it is being accomplished, as with efficiency. Other researchers suggests that organizational effectiveness can be assessed by knowing how much resources are supplied to the organization by constituents (Parsons, 1951; Suchman, 1995; Voss et al., 2000).

3. Methods

Type of Research

The proposed research study is a explanatory qualitative study using a cross-sectional analysis technique (Johnson, 2001) . The study looks to establish and explain the relationship between organizational variables fidelity, efficiency, and effectiveness. The research will use a cross-sectional approach by sampling private religious K12 schools across the country

Research Design

This study is built around the notion that relationships exist between three organizational variables. It is assumed that these variables are quantitative in nature and, therefore, are analyzable by utilizing statistical techniques. Accordingly, this study employs surveys, descriptive statistics, and path analysis to gather and explain variable relationships.

Instrumentation

This study utilizes two cross-sectional surveys as the primary data collection instrument. The first tool, “The School Profile Survey”, will collect school profile information such as the primary religious denomination of the school, school enrollment, school grades, and governance style to name a few. In addition to these demographic details this survey also collects data related to efficiency and effectiveness. For example, faculty count, total faculty wages, total dollars from all revenue streams, and total tuition discounts are data collected in this section of the instrument. The survey will be completed by the head administrator of the school.

The second survey instrument, “The Employee Profile Survey”, will collect profile information from each participating employee of the school. Data collected from this survey will help assess fidelity of beliefs and values between employees and the school. Questions will use a Likert (1932) scale to establish a quantitative value that is able to be manipulated.

The surveys will be distributed via email to head administrators of schools. The names and email addresses of schools will be obtained from multiple databases maintained by various religious school associations (see Subjects section). The surveys will be distributed during March of the calendar year with a two week deadline.

Procedures and Measures

Calculating Fidelity. Calculating organizational fidelity is tied to the notion of employee loyalty (Coombs & Lüschen, 1976). Also closely connected to fidelity is value congruence between and employee’s values and the organization’s values (Maton & Salem, 1995; Schein, 2004; Van den Steen, 2005). This study, therefore, measures congruency between employees and their organization in two areas: religious beliefs, values.

Fidelity of employees to organizational beliefs is a ratio obtained from questions on the survey targeting congruency of religious beliefs. The ratio is a comparison between the total Likert (1932) points of respondents for those questions and the total Likert points available for those questions. The higher the ratio, the more fidelity between employee and organizational beliefs. Mathematically, the ratio is expressed as follows:

f _beliefs = ∑ belief questions ÷ ∑ total possible points for belief questions,

where, f _beliefs is the fidelity of school employees’ religious beliefs to the school’s religious beliefs.

Fidelity of employees to organizational values is a ratio also obtained from targeted questions on the survey. Similar to fidelity of religious beliefs, fidelity of values is a comparison between the total Likert points of those questions targeting employee personal values and the total Likert points available for those same questions. Once again, the higher the ratio, the more congruency and fidelity between employee and organizational values. Mathematically, ratio is as follows:

f _values = ∑ value questions ÷ ∑ total possible points for value questions,

where, f _values is the collective fidelity of school employees’ values to the school’s values.

Calculating of Efficiency. A number of considerations are necessary when selecting school resources for an efficiency assessment (Bessent et al., 1984). Schools have many resources and assets necessary to accomplish the purposes of the organization. Money, of course, is the most common resource considered when thinking of school and organizational assets. But, there are other assets to consider as well. Bessent, et al suggests that when considering efficiency measurements, outputs critical to the organization’s purpose require studying. Teachers, students, curriculum, and buildings just to name a few are all worthy of consideration because they aid in the achievement of the school’s purpose. Resources of interest in this study include: teachers, students, and money.

Religious schools, like their public and charter school counterparts, acknowledge the importance of low ratios between students and teachers. Low ratios of students when compared to teachers promotes more intimate and one-on-one time with students. From a systems viewpoint, as a school adds more students (input), the school will add more teachers (output). Schools, like any other organization, however will attempt to get the most out of the current teacher pool before adding more teachers to accommodate an increasing student population. Therefore, the ratio of students-to-teachers will assess the organization’s attempt at operating efficiently. Mathematically, this relationship is expressed as follows:

e_st-ratio= ∑ student ÷ ∑ faculty,

where the variable e_st-ratio is school efficiency as assessed from a student-to-teacher ratio perspective. The numerator and denominator variables are the independent sums of student enrollment and faculty count, respectively, for the given time period in which the efficiency is being assessed.

Religious schools often do not compensate their teachers with competitive wages. Thus, any measure of efficiency for a religious school must consider teacher wages. Organizations will always attempt to get the most work out of the current pool of wage earners without increasing wages, and religious schools are no different. The ratio, then, of the school’s total revenues to teacher wages is worthy of measurement. A higher ratio is desirable financially indicating that the school is diverting little of the revenue stream to teacher wages. A low ratio can be interpreted as school administration making every effort to convert revenue stream into wages. Either extreme may not be ethical, or advisable for long term sustainability, and is certainly problematic. Mathematically, the relationship is as follows:

e _wages= ∑ revenue stream ÷ ∑ faculty wage,

where the variable e _wages is school efficiency as assessed from a teacher wage perspective. The numerator of the ratio is the sum of all revenue streams for the operating budget including

tuition, gifts, donations, and other sources of revenue. The denominator is the sum of all faculty wages not including stipends for extra duties, gifts, or bonuses.

Historically, religious schools provide tuition discounts to parents as enticements for enrollment and retention of students. Unfortunately, the negative effect is loss of funding that would otherwise be revenue to the school’s operation. Thus, a robust measurement of efficiency in religious schools is not complete without understanding the loss of funding based on discount policies. A high ratio of revenue-to-discounts indicates that very little revenue is being given away in the form of tuition discounts. A low ratio, conversely, is evidence of discount policies enacted to attract, or retain, more students. Mathematically, the relationship is established as follows:

e _discount= ∑ revenue stream ÷ ∑ tuition discount,

where the variable e _discount is school efficiency as assessed from a tuition discount perspective. As before, the numerator of the ratio is the sum of all revenue streams for the operating budget including tuition, gifts, donations, and other sources of revenue. The denominator is the sum of discounts including faculty, staff and administration discounts.

Calculating Effectiveness. Given the various meanings of the term “effectiveness” (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) it is difficult to gain consensus on any one satisfying measurement. However, meaning bearing some relevance for religious schools is coupled to the notion of legitimacy (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003; Suchman, 1995). Religious schools have a need to establish legitimacy like any other organization and must consider the viewpoints of multiple external constituents. External constituents for religious schools include: local religious bodies (i.e. churches, etc), denominational leadership, local community organizations, alumni, colleges or universities, and donors just to name a few.

Legitimacy with religious bodies, donors, and colleges are of primary interest for this research. In a broader view, the term “religious bodies” refers to all religious organizations from which religious schools seek legitimacy. This would include other religious non-profits or organizations of similar belief. Religious bodies which share a high level of value congruence should be tightly connected to the denomination’s religious school in the community (Frumkin, 2006). Therefore, these religious bodies should financially support the local religious school in their denomination. A higher level of financial support when compared to the school’s total revenue streams is indicative of increased legitimacy, and vice-versa. The effectiveness calculation for these constituent is as follows:

E _{religious bodies} = ∑ religious body support ÷ ∑ revenue stream,

where the variable E _{religious bodies} is school effectiveness as assessed from the amount of financial support from religious bodies. The numerator of the ratio is the sum of all financial support from all religious bodies. The denominator is the sum of all revenue streams for the operating budget including tuition, gifts, donations, and other sources of revenue.

Somewhat connected to financial support by religious bodies is financial support from individual, foundations, or corporations. Donations from these actors in the external environment is a game of enactment for religious schools (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). That is, religious schools must demonstrate and prove value congruency in order to increase donations from these constituents. Higher levels of donations indicate that the school is enacting constituents which share similar values. Calculation of effectiveness for this body of constituents is as follows:

E _donors = ∑ donor support ÷ ∑ revenue stream,

where the variable E _donors is school effectiveness as assessed from the amount of financial support from all individual, foundation, or corporate donors. The numerator of the ratio is the sum of all financial support from these donors, but not the religious bodies. As before, the denominator is the sum of all revenue streams for the operating budget including tuition, gifts, donations, and other sources of revenue.

Assessment of school effectiveness is not just a financial test, but also one of academic achievement. Assessing and comparing students across different locals, states, and regions has long been solved by utilizing standardized tests such as the ACT or SAT. As with other schools, religious schools typically wish to establish legitimacy with colleges and universities so their students can gain access to quality higher educational institutions. One method of assessing academic effectiveness for a religious school is measuring achievement on tests such as the ACT or SAT. A high score indicates increased effectiveness in the eyes of colleges and universities, and vice-versa with a lower score. The effectiveness calculation for constituents like colleges and universities is as follows:

E _universities = School’s National Ranking,

where the variable E _universities is school effectiveness as assessed by the ACT organization. Schools taking only the SAT will have their national ranking converted to ACT rankings to normalize the data for fair comparison.

Controlling Variables. This study explores the relationships between organizational variables fidelity, efficiency, and effectiveness. An understanding of the context in which school organizations operate is necessary to bring clarity to the relationships. Therefore, a number of additional studied variables will bring further explanation to the results. Controlling variables are nominal, ordinal, and ratio in nature and based on important characteristics of private religious schools and the profile of the individuals completing surveys. Controlling variables include denominational type, school size, school board governance style, the identification of the school’s owner entity, and the type of community the school in which the school resides. The controlling variables also include identification of any government funding received by the school and alliances with local public schools.

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, Path Analysis. Descriptive statistics is the primary means of analysis for the study. Mean, median, and mode will describe the individual characteristics of all interval and ratio variables in the study. Additional descriptive statistics of each school’s calculated variables will provide insight to the individual characteristics of fidelity, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Correlation analysis will demonstrate the relationships between the variables cut along each of the controlling variables. Along with the path analysis, the study hopes to show the strength of relationships between the variables used to calculate the organizational variables fidelity, efficiency, effectiveness.

Subjects

Participants for the study are private religious elementary and secondary schools throughout the US. Denominations of interest include evangelicals, reform, Catholic, Lutheran, and Islamic. Participants are drawn from a number of associations that maintain school profile databases for their memberships. The Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) maintains a

database of over 4,000 religious schools in the US. The American Association of Christian Schools (AACS) has over 1,000 US schools in their membership. The Michigan Association of Non-Public Schools (MANS) has a database of 400 potential schools centered in the state of Michigan. Christian Schools International (CSI) group has nearly 300 US schools in their database.

Participation in the study is limited to only those schools whose primary purpose is to educate children in a religious environment. A number of hybrid school systems are developing throughout the US. These include home-school co-ops and charter schools for instance. Though these schools may employee religious teachers, their dominant themes are a general education from a secular viewpoint. Conversely, religious schools primarily exist to offer students a general education from a denominational, or religious, viewpoint. The religious school integrates general education with religious beliefs. Therefore, this study targets a specific segment of the US population: organizations that are intentionally focused on blending a general elementary and secondary education with religious beliefs.

Limitations

The study results must be careful applied. This study is done in the context of private religious K12 schools. The term religious for this study is restricted to realm of Christian schools. Schools with other world religion denominations will need to carefully review the assumptions to find relevancy in the study. Public schools and charter schools may also find the results of this study not relevant. One major contextual difference between public and private schools is the matter of tuition funding versus government funding. This one difference alone will cause problems applying the study to other than private schools.

And finally, the definitions of organizational variables fidelity, efficiency, and effectiveness are somewhat tuned for private religious schools in the US. Government subsidies, for instance, for schools may be acceptable in other countries. Religious schools which operate only with a part-time staff may not find this study helpful given that faculty wages are a major component of the efficiency definitions. The understanding of values and beliefs can also vary widely amongst even Christian schools so understanding the specific definitions is necessary before applying results.

Conclusion

The proposed research study is a explanatory qualitative study using a cross-sectional analysis technique (Johnson, 2001) . The study looks to explain the relationship between the fidelity, efficiency, and effectiveness organizational variables. The research will use a cross-sectional survey instrument to sample private religious K12 schools across the US.

Data analysis uses descriptive statistics to fully explain organizational characteristics and relationships between fidelity efficiency, and effectiveness. Mean, median, and mode will describe the individual variables while correlations and path analysis defines the strength of inter-relationships.

References

Bessent, A., Bessent, W., Elam, J., & Long, D. (1984). Educational productivity council employs management science methods to improve educational quality. Interfaces, 14(6), 1-8.

Brown, L. D., Feinberg, M. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2010). Determinants of community coalition ability to support evidence-based programs. Prevention Science, 11(3), 287-297. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0173-6

Coombs, F. S., & Lüschen, G. (1976). System performance and policymaking in west european education: Effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, and fidelity. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale De l'Education, 22(2), pp. 133-153.

Dictionary. (2009). World english dictionary (North American Edition ed.) Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Edmonds, R. R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview.

Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Johnson, B. (2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 3-13.

Likert, A. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives De Psychologie, 6(140), 173-177.

Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5)

Ostroff, C., & Schmitt, N. (1993). Configurations of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1345-1361.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363.

Schein, E. H. (2004). . New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and intersts, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NW: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Thompson, J. D. (2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Van den Steen, E. (2005). Organizational beliefs and managerial vision. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 21(1), 256-283.

Voss, G. B., Cable, D. M., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Linking organizational values to relationships with external constituents: A study of nonprofit professional theatres. Organization Science, 11(3, Special Issue: Cultural Industries: Learning from Evolving Organizational Practices), pp. 330-347.

Content actions

Footer

This work is licensed by Jimmy Dolson under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 3.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.

Last edited by Jimmy Dolson on Dec 21, 2010 11:40 am -0600.