Schools as Organisations

The school as an organisation

I’ve been thinking about how organisational theory might help to explain and address possible sources of disagreement and conflict within a school.

While a school may use many terms to describe its set of relationships, it is an organisation – a system of relationships and influences that combine to create structures and networks. The school effectiveness movement sees schools as examples of a rational open systems model. This makes it easy to view the educational process as one of value adding to the raw material of the input. This value-added aspect is what MySchool and the resultant league tables are concerned with. This approach emphasizes formalized social structure and relatively specific goals as well as the effective use of resources and the structural interrelationship of parts of the organisation (Bennett, 2001, p.99).

This type of organisation emphasises detailed job specifications, uniform procedures and consistency. Job descriptions define the lines of accountability and control that govern the work. These descriptions are important to the structuring of work in the organisation. These structures are fixed and only change as the result of specific decisions by those who control them. Those in management are overseers. Two relevant elements of this type of system are:

1) management has a responsibility to reduce the impact of change and upheaval so that they do not interfere with the basic task of the organisation’s members
2) each part of the organisation needs to be kept informed of things that are happening elsewhere that might affect its work.

For example, the management team may try to shelter their staff from the turbulence of issues such as changing enrolment numbers, the effects of the GFC, Naplan and MySchool, while keeping them as informed as was deemed appropriate. However, being informed is not the same as being consulted. The school executive may effectively use “deep coping” strategies such as re-staffing, restructuring and redesigning roles to deal with many of the changes. While some structural changes and new initiatives are introduced with a deliberate process of consultation, other learning programs associated with the structural changes may be altered without mutually agreed plans and no parameters for evaluation.

By comparison, organic views of the school organisation see them as being made up of members rather than tasks and therefore capable of developing a life of their own (Bennett, 2001, p. 100). In this view, the organisation is viewed as having the ability to adapt and grow as needs arise, without having to be changed by management decision.

In my view, the problem with schools is that the class teachers see themselves as part of an organic system, while the structures within which they operate and the expectations placed upon them are more mechanistic. One promotes a relational and nurturing approach, the other focuses on accountability and measurable outcomes. One sees the members as being able to devise and implement solutions to problems (using their skills, training and experience), the other sees management as the source of solutions.

In reality, a person’s place in the organisation defines their role and sphere of influence. Their significance is defined by their relationships with colleagues and the areas in which they are able to make decisions. In this regard, the members of the organisation are not equals. This inequality is an expression of the power that may be exercised by members. This power depends on two things. Firstly, the importance of the individual to the issue under consideration and the decision that has to be made. Secondly, the amount of individual discretion or freedom to act in response to decisions. Further, the power disparity between individuals is a major influence in shaping and defining the way that relationships develop within the organisation.

This power disparity leads non-managers to dismiss the legitimacy of some sources of power such as economic power (or power of dismissal). It may also determine whether a response to change is merely compliance and not full commitment. This is significant in the life of an organisation. Staff willingness and staff initiative has been identified as a factor that leads to successful implementation of change. This has been demonstrated to contribute to school improvement or school effectiveness or teacher effectiveness.

Power sharing is critical to securing staff willingness and initiative and crucial to stabilizing the change after implementation. In the effective schools scenario “the staff is given a considerable amount of responsibility and authority in determining the exact means by which they address the problem of increasing academic performance. This includes giving staffs more authority over curricular and instructional decisions and allocation of building resources” (Purkey and Smith, 1985, p. 358). However, empowerment tends to occur after the major decisions are made a rather than before.

One suggestion to promote stability and empowerment is the Collaborative School Management Cycle (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988). In this the policy group (principal, senior staff and Board) form the policy group, while teachers create programs to support the school activities associated with learning and teaching. The policy group is responsible for goal setting, needs identification, policy making, budgeting and evaluation programs. The program group takes responsibility for planning, budgeting, implementing and evaluating. With contentious issues, where there is disagreement on current practice among staff, it is recommended that a working party be appointed to prepare options for consideration by the policy group.

However, in the case of a disputed hypothetical program the policy group may dictate to the program group how a particular learning program will be designed and implemented. The withdrawal of discretion or authority from the program group by the policy group (teaching staff) may lead to resentment. The exercise of power by the policy group to ensure compliance and stifle debate may lead to feelings of impotence and devaluation. This power imbalance has the potential to weaken initiative and sustain instability. This works against the principle that “the potential of an organisation is realized through its people’s enthusiasm resourcefulness and participation” (Streeton Primary School, 2000).

References

Bennett, N. 2001, Power, structure and culture: an organisational view of school effectiveness and school improvement. In Harris, A. & Bennett, N. (eds) School effectiveness and school improvement: alternate perspectives. Continuum: London, pp. 89-122

Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. 1988. The Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), pp. 353-389.

Streeton Primary School. 2000, The 12 quality principles. In Q is for quality: continuous improvement in schools through quality management and quality learning (pp. 12-24). Yallambie, Vic.: Streeton Primary School.