A common theme of school reform efforts over the past many decades is the difficulty of spurring substantive improvements in teachers' underlying practice in spite of structural or organizational changes (Mehta, 2013; Tyack & Tobin, 1994). But organizational theorists have noted that this quality of schools--though frustrating for reformers and policymakers--should not be surprising, and actually is key to survival given schools' surrounding environment and the work educators engage in. Karl Weick (1976) famously labeled schools as "loosely coupled systems", where various elements of organizations are less related to or capable of influencing one another (e.g., administrators influence on teachers, intentions influence on outcomes, formal structures influence on instructional practice), arguing that while loose coupling may stifle systemic efforts at changing schools, it also provides schools with a number of advantages (e.g., stability, autonomy for educators to adapt to local needs). Meyer and Rowan (1977) also saw decoupling, particularly of formal structures and instructional activities, as a key mechanism for survival in light of the fact that schools are subject to a number of pressures from the environment that are not always consistent with one another or the technical demands of instruction. To remain legitimate in the eyes of relevant stakeholders (e.g., local, state, and federal government, parents) while not compromising instructional quality, schools ceremonially conformed to many of these expectations, intentionally buffering the work of instruction from scrutiny. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]