Dr. C. John Tarter is a professor emeritus at the University of Alabama. For over 30 years, he has studied schools, focusing on organizational characteristics, decision making, and how school structure influences student achievement. Together with his writing partners Anita Woolfolk Hoy and Wayne Hoy, he is one of the originators of the concept of Academic Optimism. 

It is hard to say a good word about bureaucracy. Mechanistic, soulless bureaucracy is insensitive, ineffective, and often outrageously frustrating.  I want to carefully and cautiously say a good word or two about bureaucracy. See what you think.

First off, let’s avoid the inevitable problem of the word “bureaucracy”; the term comes with a spotty history. Instead, consider the word/s “structure” or “organizational structure”. 

No one is in charge of the whole structure. Rather, different people exercise authority over different things. The school board approves a course, the principal marshals the resources necessary to teach it, and the teacher puts the last word on how it is taught. I think there is general agreement that the principal’s purview is the entirety of the school while the teacher is concerned with the classroom, and, of course, there are overlaps. 

The role of the principal is often obscured by the welter of words that describe the position: leader, manager, director, coordinator, and so forth. It seems safe to say that the principal is a central decision-maker, that is, some decisions are best left to a coordinating authority.  Decisions about teaching assignments, scheduling, and use of school resources are usually made at the principal’s level. Centralization is the term of art that describes how many other people weigh in on decisions. Centralized schools have few; decentralized have more. 

A second term of art in organizations is formalization, which refers to the written procedures at work in the school organization.  Lots of rules and regulations? High formalization. Few? Low formalization. The rules give continuity and stability to the school organization and limit the amount of unpredictability.  There is no daily decision, for instance, about when classes start, where everybody is supposed to be during class time, and when the school day is over. The decisions are made and, in the absence of compelling circumstances, followed. 

Centralization and formalization are the very stuff of structure or bureaucracy, though we are not using that word. Most educators would agree that schools need some centralization and formalization, That is, they need some coordination and some written rules to function.  How much? is an interesting question because it puts us right into the problem of porridge at the house of the Three Bears.  Too hot or too cold doesn’t work; we must find the amount of structure that is just right.  It is not enough to agree that we want centralized decision-making that does not hinder the mission of the school and that we want rules that enable people in the school to accomplish the central purpose of the school: to provide effective instruction. Whom shall we ask to find the right structure?

Well, we can ask the teachers.  Ask the teachers if the rules help them at their work or get in the way. Ask them if there is authentic communication between the administration and the teachers when it comes to the actual consequences of some rules. Ask the administration about the purpose of some rules or the openness of administrative decision-making. Ideally, the resolution to these questions could be achieved through a continuing and informal conversation between faculty and administration. And, in fact, that happy scenario happens at some schools.  One finds schools in which decisions about the flow of resources to various programs involve both administrators and teachers who bring some expertise to the table.

In those schools where there is a tension that hinders an easy exchange of professional opinion, teachers can be asked about decision-making and rules in a more formal questionnaire (Hoy & Sweetland, 2000, 2001). This model assumes some good faith among all parties to move the school toward its purpose. A response from the teachers about the usefulness of the school structure should lead to the formation of a group, formal or informal, depending on the school, to address any issues unearthed by questioning the faculty.

Creation of such a group calls upon a deep knowledge of the faculty and administration. Problems of centralization and formalization can be vexing, indeed, and thus call for a decision-making group made up of those with expertise about the question—to improve the quality of the resolutions—and some personal stake in the outcome—to improve acceptance of the resolutions.  The right mix of centralization and formalization no doubt varies with each school, but finding the right mix seems to involve knowledgeable and committed staff in all schools.

- C. John Tarter

References

Hoy, W. K. & Sweetland, S. R. (2000). School bureaucracies that work: Enabling, not coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 524-541.

Hoy, W. K. & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools; The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 37, 296-321.