WM 3 LDWa'iR} . gm” M -' ABSTRAC T A STUDY TO DEVELOP A DECENTRALIZED ORGANIZATION MODEL FOR URBAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND TO DEMONSTRATE A PROCESS OF DECENTRALIZATION OF DECISION-MAKING AT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL By C. Robert Muth The purpose of this study has been to develop an organizational model for the more effective management of urban school districts. The approach to the literature review in the preparation of such a model was to parallel the literature on management and organizational theory in industry and education. The objective of review was to bring into focus that theory which is universal and applicable to all organizations and to determine to what extent it has been applied to the educational organization. To determine the internal need for decentralization of decision -making, a survey questionnaire was designed and. adminis - tered to eight elementary principals and eight central administrators. C. Robert Muth Subsequently, the survey participants were regrouped in a demonstration project of developing decision parameters for the elementary principal. The. approach of this thesis was to analyze the educational organization objectively, to define it specifically in terms of its functions, objectives, and participants, to describe it perceptually as it is and seek to understand its development, structure, and limitations, and to relate and reference it to organization and man- agement theory. Urban school districts are buffeted with criticisms of irrelevance, insensitivity, mismanagement, and functional failure. School operations have grown in magnitude and complexity. The school organization finds itself with less capacity to meet the demands of the time. A ready answer seems to be to break up the districts into smaller units, easier to coordinate, and closer to the people - - to decentralize. Management theory began with the scientific management concept of engineering all inputs, including human, into production. In its early stages, management development began by defining the functions of management and in classifying them into. broad cate - gories such as planning, organization, coordination, control. Man as an individual and as a member of a work group was gradually C. Robert Muth recognized as important to the concerns of management. Modern industrial management has reached the level of synthesis where management structure and function (Classical Theory) accepts and integrates the essential role of the human being (Behavioral Theory). The literature on educational management tended to follow and parallel the literature on industrial management. Today the literature strongly emphasizes the human relations approach but does not incorporate the classical management theory of industry. Little action research or case study history of the application of management theory to education is available. As industrial enterprises grew, specialization increased and coordination of multiple functions was required. One approach to coordination is through the bureaucratic application of policies, I“ll-lea, and procedures to effect continuity and coordination. As the Significance of the human element in the enterprise became recog- nized and as coordination became more complex, management turned to the decentralization of authority and responsibility. Coordination, $1lbsequently, was effected through the articulation of objectives fr Om the central organizations to the intermediate functions. This approach to management is called management by results or man- a‘g‘ement by objectives. In recent years the term ”systems coordina- ‘1 on" has been used to indicate the relatedness of different functions .Ao C. Robert Muth as subsystems .of the total system. The literature indicates changing views on the subject of centralization versus decentralization, and presently, there is a synthesis where theory, practice, and tech- nology are merging to provide improved methods of management. The question is not decentralization or centralization, but what are the most effective means of coordinating the multiple functions or subsystems into increasingly complex and specialized organizations. The emphasis on decentralization in education refers not only to decentralization as a means of coordinating the functions of a complex organization but also refers to decentralization in a political context. . The teachers, principals, and the lay public want to participate in the decision process of education. Parental sup- pol‘t is probably the most important aspect of a child' 3 education and g 1‘ Owth, yet parents as a group are not actively recruited for par- f‘i cipation in public education. There is a recognized need for a de Centralized system that would capture and optimize the contribu- ti One of all the participants in education to more effectively achieve Qt‘galnizational objectives. The thrust of this thesis was to demon- strate a method and present an organizational model to achieve this D1:Lt‘pose. The educational organization is unique but not immune to t he application of organizational theory. C. Robert Muth The model constructed provides for parental involvement in the influence structure of the school system. However, it is not presented as an applicable organizational chart but as a conceptual model that considers and provides for the essential human relation- ships of education within the parameters of modern management theory and practice. The complexities of organizational change have been recognized and a developmental program to effect such change re commended. A STUDY TO DEVELOP A DECENTRALIZED ORGANIZATION MODEL FOR URBAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND TO DEMONSTRATE A PROCESS OF DECENTRALIZATION OF DECISION-MAKING AT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL By C. Robert Muth A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 Copyright by C. ROBERT MUTH 1971 “we! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to all who have contributed to the development and completion of this study. Special acknowledgment is due Dr. Donald J. Leu, Chair- man of the author' 3 doctoral committee, who has given valuable time and counsel to the author and who exhibited patience and support. To Dr. Richard Featherstone, who served as committee chairman at the last stage of completion, and Drs. Stanley Hecker, James C"Qatar, and James McKee, appreciation is expressed for their con- ti nuing interest throughout the development of this study. Gratitude is also expressed to the Grand Rapids Board of E ducation and colleagues and the administrative staff of the Board for their help and encouragement. Special appreciation is expressed to the writer' 8 secretary, Karen Dryer. Finally, to the writer' 5 wife, Patricia, and sons Jon, itldrew, and especially James, a sincere and permanent apprecia- 1 On is felt for their infinite patience and encouragement during the hours spent in preparation of this thesis. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS , LIST OF PLATES LIST OF QUESTIONNAIRES LIST OF GRAPHS . C HAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . Introduction The Problem Significance of the Problem Delimitations of the Problem Summary and Overview .REVIEW OF PERTINENT LITERATURE ON INDUSTRIAL AND EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT Introduction . History and Development of Industrial Management. . . History and Development of Educational Administration . Summary iii Page vi vii viii 16 17 18 21 21 23 48 65 CHAPTER III. IV. REVIEW OF PERTINENT LITERATURE ON INDUSTRIAL AND EDUCATIONAL DECENTRALIZATION Forces for Decentralization and Centralization in Industry Forces for Decentralization and Centralization in Education Summary . DE CENTRALIZA TION DEMONSTRATION Introduction. . Questionnaire Development and Use Responses from Principals and Central Administrators Design of Parameters for Administrative Decentralization Model Summary . DEVELOPING THE ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL . Introduction Uniqueness of the Educational Organization Perceptual Organization of Education The Educational Organization . Objectives of the Organization-- School System . Participant Needs of the Organization Deficiency Corrections of the Educational Organization The Informal Organization-- Parent Participation . The Organization Model Summary. . iv Page 67 67 99 118 121 121 124 136 166 181 186 186 191 202 211 220 221 235 247 255 268 CHAPTER VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . Conclusions . . . Recommendations for Further Study . BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Periodicals . Other Sources . APPENDIX A. LETTER OF INTRODUCTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY B. . PROCEDURE FOR SURVEY RESPONSE Page 270 270 277 282 285 285 289 290 291 292 “ti-tur- ne'm '1“th ‘1 PLATE IV-l LIST OF PLATES QUESTIONNAIRE SCHEDULE OF COMPOSITE SCORES. SOCIE TAL EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION PROCESS FACTORS OF CHILD GROWTH . PROCESS FACTORS IN THE EDUCATION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FLOW OF AUTHORITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY DE CENTRALIZED DECISION AUTHORITY — - FORMAL ORGANIZATION DECENTRALIZED DECISION AUTHORITY-- FORMAL AND INFORMAL ORGANIZATION . ORGANIZATION ~MANAGEMENT MODEL . vi Page 151 213 215 217 258 260 262 264 QUE STIONNAIRE IV-1 IV-2 IV -3 IV -4 LIST OF QUESTIONNAIRES SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO BUDGET AND FINANCE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO PURCHASING AND SUPPLY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES PLANNING SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Page 126 128 130 132 GRAPH IV -1 IV-2 IV-3 IV-4 IV-5 IV-7 IV-8 LIST OF GRAPHS BUDGET AND FINANCE PURCHASING AND SUPPLY . EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES PLANNING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS SUMMARY PROFILE OF PRINCIPAL INVOLVE - MENT SUMMARY PROFILE BY SEX OF PRINCIPAL TEACHER INVOLVEMENT PRINCIPAL DECISION RESPONSIBILITY . viii Page 153 154 156 157 159 160 163 164 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction In recent years a deepening educational crisis has been developing in our city school systems. They are increasingly the ”target of the critics' barbs. In their tardiness to remedy cultural deprivation, they are pictured as large, monolithic structures, immobile, unable to change. They are criticized for their failures and seeming inability to reorganize for success. No problem is more current or perplexing than that of developing a school organi - zation that meets the- demands of urban school district management. The development of this thesis has three general purposes: 1) to place school organization in perspective in relation to manage- ment philosophy, principles, and development; 2) to describe the educational organization, its uniqueness, and its objectives; and 3) to express these. objectives for education in a hypothetical model for decentralized decision-making and community involvement. A secondary purpose is to analyze the business functions pertaining to elementary schooladministration and to demonstrate a methodology for establishing parameters of authority in the decentralization of elementary school management. To understand fully the problem, the forces that contributed to it, and the factors that are now in effect, it is necessary to describe the situation as. it is. City school systems have been experiencing a growing com - plexity of operation in the last decade. Total numerical growth in enrollments has continued, while the culturally and economically disadvantaged make up an increasing proportion of the total. The large cities have literally become enclaves of the poor, especially the black, while the white middle class has moved to the suburbs. It has become increasingly difficult to employ teachers, although state legislatures have passed tenure laws to give teachers, and in some cases administrators, security by position. Even with the hiring of marginal and substitute teachers, class sizes have grown. The personnel function of recruiting, evaluating, and screening has increased and been encumbered by mushrooming supply and demand. Laws authorizing collective bargaining forpublic employees have been passed, and a whole new era of labor relations has become a part of education. Growth and student density have increased the need for school construction, especially in the inner city. Limitations of funds have made it necessary to compete for educational resources to meet the most urgent requirements. Little has been left for research or innovation. Federal legislation and programs in urban renewal, public housing, and civil rights all have had their impact on education. Federal programs in education have carried with them complicated procedures of applying and reporting as well as stipulations for program staffing and operation. Concurrently, social and community critics are using more militant means of expression which demand attention. New technology in educational and business equipment require new personnel spec - ialties. All of these changes have taxed the administrative and organizational structure of the school system. However, these changes do not only present school organi - zation questions. Rather, they are manifestations of broad socio- educational problems. .The educational system has become the focal point of a growing frustration and discouragement with progress in assimilating the poor into the mainstream of our society. Children of the poor, especially the black, are not progressing toward the norms of achievement and success in school. Lack of achievement and success in school result in social problems of myriad sorts. Therefore, to the critic, the schools are wrong, other cultural and environmental factors notwithstanding; something must be done, changed. The problem is further complicated by a growing political emphasis on the educational system as a base for power—-for parents, for teachers, for principals, and for political activists. Parents, especially the dissatisfied and powerless, want more to say about their schools. Teachers, through their unions, want to be a part of the policy -making process yet retain the security and protection of unionization. Principals no longer want to be silent members of the team; they now have organizational power and are expressing their desire for a greater share of decision -making responsibility. Political activists, whether they be black power, Birchers, or groups with other special interests, attempt to use the schools and their captive audience as soil for planting their ideas. The increasing complexity and confusion of the milieu of education cannot serve as an excuse for inaction, but rather-the stimulus for a more viable organization and management of the edu- cational enterprise. Out of this new environment of education must Come new approaches to getting the job of educating all children done more effectively. The question is: How can the public schools be organized to become a more responsive and responsible instrument of the parents for serving their children and achieving the goals of our society? And how can they be organized to develop and use the full potential of the professional staff in a continuous reaching for educa- tional objectives ? The Problem The critics of the schools do not weigh causes of their problems, yet it is clear that city school systems are not entirely blameless. They have not been able to mobilize well. the resources that are available to them. Their organizational structures have remained relatively unchanged over the past twenty ~five years. They have not been able to tap fully the potential of the professional staff, nor to develop an understanding, participating, supportive community. They have been unable to create the flexibility needed to meet changing requirements. They are charged with being unimaginative, unable to innovate, unresponsive, and even unper- ceptive. They are pictured as a monolithic structure so entangled in its own web of tradition that it is unable to adjust philosophically, organizationally, or managerially to engulfing social changes. The reply that the change came so rapidly that there was neither time nor money to restructure the management organization is hardly an adequate justification. It can also be claimed that there are no examples of organizational change that the large city superintendents can use as a pattern or guide, yet the literature onorganizational structure and management in general is most profuse. The most frequently prescribed remedy for the stagnated bureaucracy of the large city school district is decentralization of the organization--to create involvement and participation among the lay patrons and initiative, enthusiasm, and concern among the pro- fessionals. The purpose, of course, is to achieve more meaningful and effective education. However, the task of effective decentraliza - tion is extremely complex. How can a major school district be dissected to achieve decentralized decision -making within a total legal entity? How can decentralization be effected without creating multi -bureaucracies? How can the functions and responsibilities of a total system be divided and yet retain unity of objective and effort? How can a school district be broken into parts and yet have effective coordination and planning with the overlapping municipality and other metropolitanorganizations? The most complete study ever undertaken was that of the Mayor' 5 Advisory Panel on Decentralization of the New York City Schools, more commonly called the Bundy Report. It is not the pur- pose of this study either to criticize the Bundy Report or to support its basic decentralization approach, but to emphasize the completeness of a study that analyzed the largest school system in the world and proposed a model for its decentralization. This treatise will pro— vide the basis andfoundation for ongoing studies of school organiza - tion; other major school systems have already taken. it as a starting point in their own evaluation. In their! letter of submittal to Mayor Lindsay, the panel set an excellent philosophical framework for study of a school organiza - tion: The first premise of this report is that the. test of a school is what it does for the children in it. Decentralization is not attractive to us merely as an end in itself; if we believed that a tightly centralized school system could work well in New York today, we would favor it. Nor is decentralization to be judged, in our view, primarily by what it does or does not do for the state of mind, still less the "power, " of various interested parties. We have met men and women in every interested group whose spoken or unspoken center of concern was with their own power, community power, Board power. We believe in the instrumental value of all these forms of power--but in the final value of none. We think each of them has to be judged, in the end, by what it does for the education of public school pupils. Neglect of this principle, in our judgment, is responsible for much of what is wrong in the New York City schools today. We find that the school system is heavily encumbered with con— straints and limitations which are the result of efforts by one group-to assert a negative and self -serving power against some- one else. Historically these efforts have had ample justifica- tion, each in its time. To fend off the spoils system, to protect teachers from autocratic superiors, to ensure professional standards, and for dozens of other reasons, interest groups have naturally fought for protective rules. But as they operate today these constraints bid fair to strangle the system in its own checks and balances, so that New Yorkers will find themselves, in the next decades as in the last, paying more and more for 1888 andless effective public education. We underline our conviction that this is not a case in which it is appropriate to level charges of individual guilt, or to assess responsibility more against one group than another. We have been deeply impressed by the honesty, the intelligence, and the essential goodwill of leaders of all elements. We heard angry denunciations of militant parent and community groups, but when we met with them we found them reasonable, open, and usually clear in their.understanding that it is the education of the child, not the power of the community as such, that is .the true end of their efforts. We have met with union leaders and we find them very different from the villains portrayed by some self —righteous observers; they are determined to advance the interests of their members, but they are also well aware that the school system of New York cannot support those members by proper salaries if it loses the confidence of the people. We find the union' 8 commit- ment to more effective education--and to closer community involvement—~to be real and strong. We have also heard much criticism of the central staff and the Board of Education which we are unable. to accept. We do believe, as our report demon- strates, that there is deep and legitimate objection to bureau- cratic inflexibility or inertia, and to administrative caution or impotence. But we encountered a large number of men and women of outstanding ability and dedication at every supervisory level in the system, and we wholly dissociate ourselves from those who would make villains of ”The Board, " or "Livingston Street, ” or any single element in the system. 1 To the Bundy panel, then, parents, teachers, and admin- 1 Strators concerned with the New York Public Schools are dedicated people, but their efforts need to be coordinated toward a single pur- Dcase: a complementing, effective, dynamic organization that pro- cl1.1ces results and inspires hope. \ 1McGeorge Bundy, Reconnection for Learning, Mayor's Advisory Panel on Decentralization of the New York City Schools, ew York, November 9, 1967. In prefacing their recommendations, the panel states as their purposes the following: ° open new channels and incentives to educational innovation and excellence, ° achieve greater flexibility in the administration of the schools, °afford the children, parents, teachers, other educators, and the city at large a single school system that combines the advantages of big -city education with the opportunities of the finest small -city and suburban educational systems, and ° strengthen the individual school as an urban institution that enhances a sense of community and encourages close coordi- nation and cooperation with other governmental and private efforts to advance. the well -being of children and all others, all with the central purpose of advancing the educational achievement and opportunities of the children in the public schools of New York City. 2 It is significant for this study that the purposes of decen— tI‘alization stated in.the Bundy Report would be just as relevant for QIle of the thirty to forty community districts recommended for Qbeation within the school district of New York. They are equally b elevant for Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, or districts Qt even smaller size. Although the. report did not detailrecommendations for decentralization at the individual school level, it devoted a section to What it thought community decentralization should do for individual 3 chool decentralization: 2Ibid. 10 The Panel holds strongly with the proposition that the most significant interaction between the community and the educational system occurs. at the level of the individual school. Under effective decentralization, as before, the school would be the primary point of contact with the system for the vast majority of parents. It is at the school level that the decisive test of the proposed Communinity School System will occur. The reorganized system should open up possibilities for new and strengthened avenues of participation and dynamic partner- ship among parents, teachers, and administrators of each school --all for the educational growth and personal development of all pupils. It has been indicated that decentralization of the legal, policy, and operational- control of a school system, while maintain- ing unity of purpose and effort, is extremely complex and cumber- some. And if effected, decentralization carries with it a finality, fOr power once given is most difficult, if not impossible, to retract. Decentralization of administrative decision -making within the frame - Work of the organization can be implemented by the policy body VWithout the need for. legislative change and without irrevocable, aJbrupt power dispersal, Involvement at and decentralization to the IQ cal school level requires administrative delegationof decision- hlaking, regardless of the size of the policy organization. It is the position of the author and the basis of this study 1‘Jtlat realistic decision -making power has not been delegated to local \ 3Ibid. 11 educational units in city school districts, large or small. Local school lay involvement cannot be real if there is no local adminis - trative prerogative. Therefore, it would seem prudent to achieve effective administrative decentralization first, even when policy decentralization is the objective. The transition to policy decen- tralization would be greatly facilitated with an operable administra- tive plan. It is not bigness that is bad; it is the ineffectiveness of Size is not as important as the degree of effective- the organization. ness and efficiency with which functions and actions are implemented. What is important is whether an organization achieves its objectives. There is no evidence that small school districts have better met the Challenge of educating concentrations of the poor. The criticism of 1argeness is made without comparing it to the successes, or lack mereof, of small districts with the same problems. This is not to diminish the criticism but rather to point toward a different direction for investigation. If decentralization of decision -making is impor- tant and its need is not unique to the very large, is something needed 1 h the internal organization and management of education? A decen- t1‘alization model is needed for the elementary school as the smallest, I:l'lost community oriented operational unit. Industry has passed through centralization and decentrali - 2-a.tion to a synthesis of both, but education has not searched the 12 literature and experience of industrial management for transferable ideas and methods. Industry has used bigness as a tool for effective- ness and in the process has learned to decentralize decision -making to achieve efficiency through involvement with responsibility. It is time for educators to look at the research in organizational change and industrial management for insight and adaptation to educational organization and management. As this study specifically involves elementary principals, it is important to know their attitudes about decentralization. With the unionization of teachers in Michigan, confusion has developed as to the compatibility of the Michigan Education Association as a blanket organization for all professionals. A new cover organiza - 1lion for administrators has been formed, the Michigan Congress of School Administrator Associations. It comprises the separate <>J:*ganizations of superintendents, business officials, secondary principals, elementary principals, and other administrative groups. R ormation of this cover organization gave birth to a policy state- ment of the organizational relationship of educational administrators. This position of the Congress is called the Management Team Con- ert, described in part as follows: It is a basic belief of the Michigan Congress of School Adminis- trator Associations that administrators can become more effective and efficient through joint participation on local 13 management teams. Unilateral support of this concept is not sufficient to make the management team viable. It requires total commitment to all administrative levels including princi - pals, supervisors, central administrators (hereafter referred to as adminibtrators), and boards of education. While we believe it to have been educationally valuable for all educators to have been associated under a single organization, this new law and other organizations have made this impracti - cable. It is now apparent that administratorsshnuld function as a team in the administrative role, giving leadership, effec- tive coordination, and maintaining an overall view of the educational program. We believe that the administrative team, teachers and board, of education working cooperatively and closely together can bring the finest education to the children of Michigan. In order to be meaningful, the management team concept must be practiced as well as discussed. It requires that all members of the administrative team keep other members of the team informed on matters of mutual concern. Furthermore, the sharing of information should take place before decisions are made and must be implemented at each level by those involved. In short, the management team concept requires a mutual respect among team members and a recognition that each member is best equipped to act within his area of responsibility while acknowledging that administrative decisions are imple— mented at more than one level within a school system. Elementary principals are debating their participation in time Congress in the light of their apparent right to organize and bargain collectively as a separate unit. David C. Smith, Executive Assistant for the Michigan Association of Elementary Principals, authored a position paper in behalf of the organization, paragraphs of which are quoted below: \ 4Michigan Congress of School Administrator Associations, "The Management Team Concept. " Unpublished Position Statement, East Lansing, Michigan, July, 1968. 14 Unfortunately, all superintendents and boards of education have not seen wisdom in implementing the management team concept. Some appear to act as though paternalism and domination are still fashionable. As a result, in such districts the effective- ness of the elementary principal is severely limited and restricted. Implementation of the management team concept is a matter which should acquire the serious attention of those concerned with educational administration. More than .lip service must be given to a genuine exchange of faith between principals, central office personnel, and boards of education. This position in support of the management team concept is taken in full realization that obligations as well as benefits are involved. For example, it is realized that principals who are members of a management team carry a heavier burden of responsibility than principals who have little or no voice in major administrative matters. It is also recognized that this heavier responsibility carries with it greater accountability as well. In other words, the principal can more frequently be expected to accept the full consequences of his decisions. The management team concept also clearly implies that ele - mentary principals must be able to demonstrate the ability to make effective decisions. As is well known, some administra- tive decisions. are required which are hard, bitter, and steeped in conflict. The modern principal, who is an integral part of a management team, can be expected to act appropriately in such a situation, without referring the matter to an administra - tor at the next highest level in order to avoid the difficult decision making process. Michigan administrators are movingahead in their under- Q ‘tanding of management techniques. But operational research is tleeded to chart theway for implementing decentralization of 5David C. Smith, "The Management Team. " Unpublished Paper, Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals, East *Lansing, Michigan, November, 1968. 15 administrative decision -making. Administrative roles and the relationship of levels of authority and responsibility within the organizational structure must be clearly defined. This thesis will study the development of an operational model for a decentralized business authority at the elementary school level, with reference to and under the blanket of a hypotheti - cal model for administrative decentralization of an urban school district. The study will analyze and compare administrative and management organization in both-industry and education in order to provideia base for understanding the functions of management in achieving organizational goals. It is intended that such analysis and Synthesis will extend management science to the educational enter- prise and enable others to adapt management theory to a particular 8 chool organization. The School District of the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, will be used as a base of research to develop parameters 01‘ authority for elementary principals in the business functions of 1ll'leir schools, as a demonstration of decentralized decision -making 1 11 an urban school system. By reviewing the development of industrial. management and educational administration, by defining methods and principles used by management to achieve organizational objectives, by demonstrat- ing a method of establishing decision -making parameters in the 16 business functions of education, and by developing a description of public educationas an objective seeking human organization, a model can be developed that should have applications to other school dis - tricts. Grand Rapids is a city of 210, 000 people in the west central part of Michigan; it is the nucleus of a metropolitan area of 400, 000. It is a diversified industrial city that has been generally prosperous, with a low unemployment rate. It has experienced continuous growth as well as an in -migration over the past twenty years. The school district has a K-12 enrollment of 34, 000, of which 21 per cent is Negro. This student enrollment places it in the size range of 20, 000 to 40, 000 students, which is generally, but not uniformly, stated as ideal for a school district. This enrollment range is large enough to provide all essential educational services with economic efficiency and small enough to permit Open communication channels from the citizens to the board and the staff to the administration. Significance of the Problem The significance of the general problem presented is illustrated daily by the news media of our nation. It is so current, so broadly visual, that documentation of its significance is unneces - sary. The confrontation between teachers and the local school boards has resulted in teacher strikes. The summary of the city school 17 situation as stated in the Introduction is laymen' s knowledge; it is not limited to professionals. It is current; it is universal. Not enough has been done in researching the organizational and management structure of the city school system. What work that has been done has been the result of contracted management studies that are not in publication form. In these, the emphasis has been generally restricted to line -of-command (type organization and not related to the need of decentralization to effect vitality and initiative at the elementary school level. The literature in school management is predominantly limited to specific techniques: man- agement by objectives, application of computers to specific school problems, operation control techniques, and more recently the development of Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems, known as PPBS. What is needed is a comprehensive application of psycho- logical and sociological management principles to education, a comprehensive analysis. of the achievement of educational goals, and an organization that maintains and enhances this approach for the continuous improvement of student success and staff satisfaction. Delimitations of the Problem A valid study must identify as many variables as possible. In order to focus sharply on the problem to be considered, the fol- lowing limitations will be observed: 18 The researcher proposes to develop an organizational model for decentralization within the legal, policy, and control entity, the Grand Rapids Board of Education. In defining levels of decision- making, only the elementary school organization will be used. The model, then, will be an. administrative one for the City of Grand Rapids flowing from the classroom teaching unit through the ele - mentary structure to the Superintendent and Board of Education. Parent involvement through an informal organization will be built into the model. Recommendations and conclusions should have applications for the total system and for other city school districts or subunits of large city districts. Summary and Overview The preceding. has been an introduction to the problems facing the school systems of our nation. Although the specific problem of this study is one of school district organization, the challenge is to the very viability of urban school districts and the adequacy of their administration. The profession of school admin- istration is literally on the block, and it must rise to the challenge by enlarging its perspective and increasing its ability to manage organizations of people, which is what the educational enterprise is. 19 The educational enterprise is not what it was a generation ago. It is more political than ever; sophisticated power blocks know how to exert influence far beyond their numerical strengths; demon- strations, violent and nonviolent, are the order of the day. Schools as never before are agencies for social change and must bear the scars of the critic' s stab and still pursue relentlessly, courageously, hopefully the effecting. of that change. Schools are the employers of organized labor and must negotiate contracts within the full range of labor philosophy and techniques and yet strive for more sensitive teaching through improved professional relationships. Schools are buffeted by demands for more services, increasedsalaries, and better working conditions, and economies required by taxpayers and legislatures. Yet, the schools' business is still the education of children, all of the children, and they must succeedat this person- alized task within a milieu of seemingly self -interested forces. The organization of the enterprise must change and use the changing framework of our society to achieve its objectives. We shall, in this thesis, try to develop a broader perspec - tive of the problem of educational administration in urban America and point toward a direction which will enlarge our capacity for the selection of alternatives of organization and management. In Chapter II, the literature pertinent to the evaluation of modern management and organization, for both industry and 20 education, will bereviewed. Chapter-III will focus on pertinent literature on industrial and educational decentralization. Chapter IV will present a survey. questionnaire of the level of decision —making in elementary education and interpret the data received in responses. In Chapter V a model for decentralized decision -making in the Grand Rapids School System will be developed as a thesis for future testing, evaluation, and refinement. Chapter VI will present conclusions and recommendations of the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF PERTINENT LITERATURE ON INDUSTRIAL AND EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT Introduction The purpose of Chapters 11 and III is to review historically the development of management theory with special emphasis on organizational decentralization. It is our belief that present man - agement thought and practices may best be understood in light of their historical development. This chapter .will concentrate on that body of thought referred to as the classical theory or organizationand management. It also includes theories of management which have developed from the social science disciplines. The development of educational man- agement will be placed in parallel relationship to industrial manage - ment, so that similarities as well as differences will be apparent. In order to derive full benefit from the historical analysis, it is imperative to present first the point of view taken in this thesis toward management theory, organizational theory, the application of 21 22 different schools of thought to education. This will allow the reader to understand our point of view in historical analysis. First, it is necessary to define the terms organization and management: "An organization may be defined as a structured process in which persons interact for objectives. "1 The term pro- cess is defined here as. the dynamic nature of organizations. All organizations are constantly in a state of flux because they involve interaction among people to achieve objectives. These interactions always take place within some type of structure. Management provides the integrating force for group effort in achieving organizational goals. Effective management leads to purposeful, coordinated, goal -directed activity. ...Management may be defined as "the process of achieving desired results by influencing human behavior in a suitable environment. "2 The desired results would be the fulfilling of the organizational objectives. The suitable environment would be a correctly structured organization. The point of view taken in this thesis is that. the process of management is a part of. the larger concept of the process of organi - zations, and, further, that the concept has univerSal application, 1Herbert G. Hicks, The Management of Orgnizations (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), p. 16. 2 William McNair Fox, The Process of Management (Home- wood. 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1963), p. 341. 23 specifically including. the educational organization. When the broad process of organizations view is taken, then the several schools of management are recognized as valid and variable approaches or techniques are available to the manager. ~ He is free to select the best approach for himself and his organi - zation, depending on the goals of his particular organization, the specific conditions existing, and the particular place and time. We-will not consider the several schools of management thought to be contradictory or mutually exclusive. "Rather, the process of organizations view, the manager recognizes the infinite complexity of people and their organizations, . . . "4 The manager who sees organizational performance is determined by many things, including the style of management, attitudes, incentives, formal and informal organization structure, and control and discipline systems. Per- formance is not due to any single one of these variables. The total mix of many variables determines the end result of organizational performance. The effective manager is one who achieves a workable, judicious mixture of all the approaches and techniques of management and considers all the influences that affect organizatiOnal behavior. History and Development of Industrial ManaLgfiement Management thought, as an identifiable and separate field of study, is relatively immature. Individual ideas of management 3Hicks, op. cit., p. 341. -4Ibid . 24 date back for more than 2,000 years; however, organized management theory is a product of the last half century. The period before man- agement theory became a separate discipline whichwe will call the pre -classi cal period. In the pre -classical management period workers were dominated by their supervisors within a social caste system, a master -serf and craftsman -apprentice economic system. In the environment of the pre -classical period it was not neces- sary to study any organized body of management concepts. One needed only to be in a position of authority, for authority meant power and control in social and economic systems of the period. It was not until men began to think beyond the realm of their immediate situation and to see hopes of improving communication and production that they began to think about effective management. The search for better management began after the settlement of the New World. It progressed until management became a separate discipline during the 1880' s. The classical management movement was pioneered by Frederick W. Taylor. Taylor believed that sound scientific analysis of any business operation would lead to discoveryof the one best way to carry it out. His analysis involved breakingdown each task into component parts, studying the movements of the workers, 51bid., p. 328. 25 investigating the use made of materials and equipment, experimenting with different work methods and procedures, and then finally adopting those procedures which proved most efficient. Taylor concentrated his studies at the level of the individual worker and his work bench. 6 Although management emerged as a separate discipline with the work of Taylor and the scientific management movement, the basic attempts to develop a top management view of administration were not made until later. Taylor did emphasize that scientific management was a philosophy and an attitude, but his specific examples and techniques related primarily to lower levels of man- agement. Taylor provided many individual ideas for the conceptual frameworks later adopted by administrative management theory, such as the separation of planning from execution, functional organi - zation, the use of standards in control, monetaryincentives for employees, and the exception principle. However, .an explicit and broad framework did not appear until Henri Fayol set forth his five elements of administration and fourteen principles of administration. 7 6Frederick W. Taylor, Scientific-Management (New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1947), pp. 62 ~63. 7Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management, trans. by Constance Storrs (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd. 1949),pp.40, 109. 26 Fayol has been looked upon as a pioneer in administrative theory by most classical writers. A summary of his framework canserve as the initial step for understanding classical management theory. Fayol' 3 five elements of administration were: 1) Planning, 2) Organization, 3) Command, 4) Coordination, and 5) Control. These elements were generally referred to as duties or functions of management. According to Fayol, planning involved both. the forecasting of the future and the preparation to meet it. Plans were viewed as postulated on objectives that set the direction in which the manage - ment was headed. Fayol defined his second element: To organize is to define and set up the general structure of the enterprise with reference to its objectives, its means of opera- tion, and its future course as determined by planning. It is to give form to the whole and every deta11 1n 1ts place. The emphasis on structure in this definition and the minimization of the human factor became a major characteristic of all classical management theory. Fayol viewed planning and organizing as preparation for operations. The functions of command and coordination were to 8Luther F. Gulick and Lyndall F. Urwick, Papers on the Science of Administration (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), p. 103. 27 carry out the operations. Command involved the execution of plans, and coordination meant uniting and correlating allactivities. Control involved the checking of actual performance with the rules which had been laid down and the instructions which had been given. James D. Mooney later reinforced the trend toward the narrow definition of organizing with his emphasis on structural principles. 9 Mooney' a theory of organization involved the dividing of jobs and the grouping of positions into a hierarchy. Henry S. Dennison contributed to the theory. in a book called Organization Engineering (1931), a title which directed attention to the mechani - cal viewpoint. 10 The subject of organizing was restricted to the relationship of positions, not people: human characteristics were considered constants. Using a framework similar to Fayol, Luther Gulick specified the work of the executive under the word .POSDCORD, whose letters identified the seven elements of planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. 11 The meanings of planning, organizing, and coordinatingwere not greatly 9James D. Mooney and Allan C. Reiley, The Principles of Organization.(New York: Harperand Row, Inc. , 1939). 10Henry S. Dennison, Organization Engineer-1g (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1931), pp. 183-184. 11Gulick and Urwick, op. cit., pp. 49-88. 28 different from those used by Fayol. Directing replaced Fayol' s command but explicitly included the making of decisions and the statement of them as orders. Staffing was added to include the per- sonnel function of recruitment and training of the staff and the main- tenance of favorable conditions of work. Gulick added reporting as a management function and led the way to the emphasis on informa - tion and communication. Budgeting was substituted for Fayol' 3 control. All classical writers have discussed management in a func - tional framework. They view organizing as uniquely the job of the manager, and most study. the function of organizing as distinctly dif - ferent from the function of placement of human beings in the structure. Urwick made the distinction between organizing and staffing definite: "In good engineering practice design must come first. Similarly, in good social practice design must come first. "12 Classical theorists also tended to state concise and simple principles as guides for amanager in the execution of his functions. Among the earliest comprehensive attempts to state principles of management were those of Henri Fayol. Fayol' 8 principles became authoritative. Many later writers based their own statements on at 12Lyndall F. Urwick, The Elements of Administration (New York: . Harper and Row, Inc. , 1931). . 29 least a portion of Fayol' a list. Fayol' s fourteen principles are: 1) Division of Work, .2) Authority, 3) Discipline, 4) Unity of Com- mand, 5) Unity of Direction, 6) Subordination of Individual Interest to General Interest, 7) Remuneration of Personnel, 8) Centralization, 9) Scalar Chain, 10) Order, 11) Equity, 12) Stability of Tenure of Personnel, 13) Initiative, 14) Esprit de Corps. 13 A second attempt to provide a conceptual framework of man- agement was made by James D. Mooney and Allan C. Reiley in their book, Onward; Industry. 14 Their construct was built around four major principles: . 1) The coordinative principle, which directed attention to the unity of action toward a common purpose; 2) The scalar principle, which defined the. hierarchical flow of authority; 3) The functional principle, stressing the need for specialization in the grouping of duties; 4) The staff principle, which answered the need for advice and ideas by line executives. Mooney and Reiley' s conclusions were generally consistent with Fayol' s. The agreement was considered by classical proponents to provide strong support for the validity of the concepts. While Mooney and Reiley became popular in the United States, Oliver Sheldon was making his contribution in England. . In 13Fayol, op. cit., pp. 22 -40. 14James D. Mooney and Allan C. Reiley, Onward Industry (New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1931). 30 his book, The Philosophy of Management, Sheldon discussed in some detail the relation of management to society and .management' 3 social responsibilities. He recognized that man was the key factor in man- agement and that man should not be treated as a machine or com - modity. He indicated an awareness of the human dimensions that were being introduced by Mayo and Roethlisberger in the United States. 15 Sheldon felt that it was necessary to develop a philosophy of management with a code of principles, which should be scientifi - cally determined and generally accepted as guides for practice. Three of Sheldon' s principles were: 1) Policies should be conducive to communal well -being; 2) Management should try to interpret the highest moral sanction of the community as a whole; 3) Management shouldttake initiative in raising the ethical standards of social justice. The principles of early classical writers were primarily structured and procedural. Sheldon' s principles were primarily of an ethical nature. His work began to bridge the gap between scientific management and human relations. He heralded the emergence of the human relations movement that was to be a dominant theme of man - agement thought in the 1930' s. A fourth contributor to early classical thinking, Mary Parker Follett, hada view of management which differed significantly 15Oliver Sheldon, The Philosophy of Management (London: The Pitman Co., 1923), p. 218. ‘ 31 from the views of Fayol, Mooney, and Sheldon; her attention was focused on the areas of psychology and sociology. 16 Follett attempted to express her ideas as fundamental principles of organization. They were: 1) Coordination by direct contact of the responsible people concerned; 2) Coordination in the early stages; 3) Coordination as the reciprocal relating of all the factors in the situation; 4) Coordina- tion as a continuing process. The first two principles expanded on the typical classical preoccupation with hierarchical communications and focused attention on the cross relationships among department heads. Follett' s fourth principle called for continuous readjustments in the process by which coordination is maintained. She emphasized the dynamics of the management situation, which was in sharp con- trast with the static point of view of many other classical theorists. Follett' 8 key concepts were related to the total situation and viewed management as a social process. Follett developed her thoughts by using four terms: evoking, interacting, integrating, and emerging. Evoking related to the leader' 3 duty to draw out from each individual his fullest possibilities. Interacting indicated that management does not try to adjust to a situation or to create a new 16Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration: The Col- lected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, ed. byH. C. Metcalf and LT Urwick (New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1942). 32 situation, but to make reciprocal adjustments among its members. Follett felt that conflict should be handled by the manager through use of integration. In integration, the first step is to bring differ -. ences into the open. A second stepwould be to re -evaluate the conflicting desires. It is important to find the significant rather than the dramatic features of the controversy and to analyze the differences. The ideaof emerging came from Follett' s idea that management is in a continually changing situation with newly evolv- ing developments. The preceding sections outlined the early conceptual frameworks which have become the foundations for current classical theory. This section will focus attention on some of the more important specific concepts which have been adopted by current classical writers as basic principles of management: 1. Hierarchy, or the Scalar principle, which is the heart of . the classical organizational structure. This principle states that authority and responsibility should flow in a clear, unbroken line from the highest executive to the lowest operative. 2. Unity of command; no member of an organization should receive orders from more than one superior. The neo- classics regard this as a useful concept, but to be qualified by many factors appearing in actual situations. 33 Exception principle; decisions which recur frequently should be reduced to a routine and delegated to subordinates. Span of control of the manager. All statements of the con- cept prescribe that the number of subordinates reporting to a superior should be limited. Organizational specialization; the division of work into units with specialized activities. Classical concepts and definitions: a. ' Organizatio --the structure and process of allocating jobs so that common objectives can be achieved. b. Authority--the right and power to act. c. Specialization--division of labor. (1. Coordination—-the pre -arrangement of a number of separate efforts in such a manner as to produce a definite end. e. Line--major functions which form the essential skeleton of organizational structure. f. Staff-~those organizational components which exist for the purpose of providing advice and service to line units. 34 g. Accountability--the Obligation to carry out responsibility and exercise authority in terms of established perfor- mance standards. 17 Until the middle of the 1950' s, classical. theory remained a distinct approach to management. Most writers of classical man- agement theory up to 1955 elaborated on earlier statements of classical principles and stated additional propositions which were consistent with early principles. Classical thinking was expanded to include broad administrative issues, ethical problems, and the professionalization of management. Theorists turned away from attempts to use scientific method. Value judgments were needed to tackle the philosophical issues raised by the growth in the size and power of business corporations. After 1955 other approaches to management which had developed during the previous decade created a major challenge to traditional thinking. Each of these challenges has developed first with regard to the methodology for studying management and then with regard to the concepts that flow from the new .methodology. Although classical theorists have retained many of the (concepts and principles discussed earlier, they have adopted several different 17Joseph Massie, "Management Theory, ” Handbook of Organizations, ed. by James G. March (Chicago: Rand McNally f Co., 1965). pp. 396-403. 35 approaches to management. These approaches are related to the earlier classical works, but each responds in a different way to the challenges from other disciplines. There are two general groups of current classical approaches to the study of management: 1) the traditional classical approach, and 2) the neo -classical approaches. The traditional classical approach concentrates on deducing the universals of management and emphasizes the formalistic aspects of organization. The neo- classical approachesrecognize the early classical frameworks but expand and make significant qualifications of them. Three types of neo-classical approaches will be discussed. They are: 1. The management process and human behavior approach, which acceptsclassi cal prescriptions as hypotheses, but attempts to integrate the contributions from other disciplines with classical thought; 2. The comparative approach, which studies historically and operationally the similarities among different organizational structures in an effort to find basic generalizations of man- agement; 3. The challenge and response approach, which views manage - ment as a practice, not a science, and seeks to explain means by which jobs can be made more interesting and 36 challenging by granting greater autonomy to lower managerial levels. 18 The different approaches to classical theory may be sum- marized best by devoting attention to individual contributors. Ralph C. Davis is an important representative of the tradi - tional approach. Davis' principal contributions were his philosophy of management and his classification of a large number of terms in which his concepts were stated. Key to his treatment of management is the basic idea that the prime objective of business is service. His philosophy committed owners to active promotion .of social and economic progress. It emphasized the concepts of delegation, decentralization, individual initiative, and individual accountability. 19 Another exponent of the traditional classical approach is Lyndall Urwick. Urwick concentrated on collecting the basic ideas of earlier writers into a summary of classical concepts. After arriving at twenty -nine principles of administration, Urwi ck tried to fit the principles into a tight and concise picture. He felt that all management principles fit togetherinto a balanced and interrelated framework. Urwick implied that all dimensions of management are 1811310., p. 409. 19Ralph C. Davis, The Fundamentals of Top Management (New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1951), pp. 202 -237, 281-322. 37 accounted for and that the future direction of thought on management will be to fill in the details. 20 A third example of the traditional approach used a different method for arriving at its conclusions. Paul Holden, Lounsbury Fish, and Hubert Smith interviewed the executives of thirty -one leading industrial corporations and published their findings in a book called Top Management Ogganization and Control. The two major subjects studied by Holden, Fish, and Smith were organizational planning and control practices. Their treatment of organizational plans reinforced thinking about formal organization in the classical manner. The detailed control procedures used in the thirty -one firms indicated the importance of central control over such areas as policies, rate of operation, quality of key personnel, wages, costs, methods, capital expenditures, lines of production, research and development, and external relations. However, Massie points out that The traditional approach' 3 prescriptions may serve as first approximations and as provocative statements concerning important questions in management. Their chief weakness is 20Urwick, The Elements of Administration, op. cit. 21Paul Holden, Lounsbury Fish, and Hubert Smith, Top Management Organization and Control (New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1941), pp. 9-95. 38 that the acceptability of the prescriptions has depended on the reputation of the prescriber. . By the beginning of the 1960's, new topics such as morale, participation, communications, status, executive development, motivation, perception, and interaction were supplementing the classical framework. Conflicts developed between classical principles and propositions dealing with human behavior. Some authorities who had previously used the traditional approach broadened their scope of attention and joined the neo -classicals. Neo -classicals attempted to discover the real differences that exist between traditional classical theory and the newer ideas coming from the different disciplines; they sought to provide a bridge between the conflicting .schools of thought. William Newman and Charles Sumner in their book, fl: Process of Management, used the management process and human behavior approach. .Their theory was built on classical foundations but treated the human factor as a variable instead of a given. 23 As the authors stated, A manager is a man who gets things done by working with people and other resources; in order to reach an objective, he 2Massie, op. cit., p. 414. 23William H. Newman, Charles E. Sumner, and E. Kirby Warren, The Process of Management (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 9-12. 39 coordinates the activities of others rather than perform operations himself. . . . Managing is a social process. It is a process because it comprises a series of actions that lead to the accomplishment of objectives. It is a social process because these actions are principally concerned with relations between people. The comparative approach is another neo -classical attempt to remedy the defects in classical theory. It is based on the empirical study of management activities in two or more firms, in an effort to develop guides for predicting what will work reasonably well in comparative situations. Its Objective is to build parts of a theory that could be used in the present and might develop later into universally valid propositions. The work of Ernest Dale in the book, The Great Organizers, is an excellent illustration of the comparative approach. Dale criticized the universalists because they neglected to test and refine their principles, because they claimed too much, and because they seemed unwilling to deal with some important areas of organization. His emphasis on the comparative approach extended the classical framework by studying similar factors under different circumstances and qualifying generalizations to fit explicitly stated conditions. 2 >24Ibid. , p. 43. 5Ernest Dale, The Great Organizers (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1960). pp. 11-28. 40 The challenge and response approach takes a pragmatic outlook on management. It does not attempt to build a consistent framework of thought or knowledge, but stresses that management is a practice which should employ all ideas developed by science and the arts to increase achievements in business performance. The manager is challenged by the situations in which he finds himself and must seek answers to his particular problems unrestricted by any single conceptual framework. This approach may make use of classical concepts but does not itself seel to discover generaliza- tions; its orientation is not toward theoretical or scientific increase in general knowledge but toward the answer to specific problems faced by managers. Peter Drucker. is the chief management authority who has contributed to the challenge and response approach. Drucker viewed the ultimate test of management as performance. This pragmatic test de -emphasized the importance of a rigid framework of prescrip- tive rules, knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and analysis as an end in itself. Drucker contended that management can never be an exact science, but maintained that it is a practice which can be developed by anyone with normal intelligence. This. development can be accelerated by a systematic study of principles, the acquisition of organized knowledge, and the analysis of actual 41 performance. 26 Drucker' s approach has appealed to practicing managers and management consultants because it avoided tight theoretical models and focused on results in the real world. The challenge and response approach forces a new look at some of the basic classical assumptions. It differs from the tradi - tional classic approach in that it focuses attention on actual per- formance rather than on proposed normative theory. It differs from the comparative approach in that it does not encourage the development of a general theory of organization and management. We have extensively covered classi cal management thought; the task remains to cover briefly some of the approaches to man- agement which have developed from disciplines outside of the classical management realm. One approach to management may be called the Behavioral School, based on the central fact that, since managing involves getting things done with and through people, the study of management must be centered oninterpersonal relations. 27 The Behavioral School brings to bear existing and newly. developed theories, methods, and techniques of the relevant social sciences, upon the study of 26Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of Management (New York: Harper and Row, .Inc. , 1954), pp. 3, 62 -65,. 126-129, 227- 252. 2 7Harold Koontz, "The Management Theory Jungle, " The Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. IV, No. 3, pp. 174-188. 42 inter- and intra -personal phenomena, ranging from the personality dynamics of individuals to the relations between different cultures. The school has a heavy orientation to psychology and social psy- chology. Its primary focus is on the individual, as a socio- psychological being, and on what motivates him. In other‘words, this school concentrates on the ”people" part of management and rests on the principle that, where people work together as groups in order to accomplish objectives, "people should understand people. ” The Behavioral School received important impetus from the Mayo research in the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company. In this study he discovered that the social interaction or the total environmental perception of the worker group was more significant to production than the physical environment. This much- referenced research led the emphasis away from man as a produc- tion machine to man as a human being within a social organization, and human relations became a major concern in administrative thought and practice. This was human relations, however, as seen mainly from the viewpoint of top-administrators interested in obtaining the cooperation of employees. The approach did not deal directly with the behavior of the managers themselves; thus it is quite different from the human relations of Follett who was interested 43 in the behavior of managers as well as workers and who dealt directly with interest conflicts. 28 That management mustdeal with human behavior can hardly be denied. But whether the field of human behavior and its still unlocked factors is the equivalent of the total field of management is quite another thing. The Behavioral School includes those researchers who look upon management as a social system, that is a system of cultural relationships. This approach identifies the nature of the cultural relationships of various social groups and attempts to show these as a relative, integrated system. An important theorist in this school was Chester Barnard. In searching for an explanation of the managing process, this business executive developed a theory of cooperation grounded in the needs of the individual to solve, through cooperation, the biological, physical and social limitations of him- self and his environment. Barnard, then, shaped from the total cooperative systems a set of interrelationships which he defines as "formal organization. " His formal organization concept, unlike that usually held by other management theorists, is any cooperative a system in which there are persons able to communicate with each 8Elton Mayo, Human Problems of an Industrial Civiliza- tion (New York: The MacMillan Co. , 1933). 44 other and willing to contribute action toward a conscious common purpose. The work of.Herbert A. Simon can be regarded as a sig- nificant extension of that of his immediate predecessors. In this author' s opinion, Simon broadened the path of comprehensive inter- disciplinary research in management and organization and brought learning and human development theory to industrial. research. He is a systematic theorist who gives careful attention to rigorous definition and precise formulation of relationships. The book, Org:nizations, which he authored with James G. March, is a classic in its field. He went further than Follett, Mayo, and Roethlesberger in analyzing some of the psychological and social aspects of admin- istration. He picked up and developed Barnard' 5 basic ideas on equilibrium, decision -making, communication, and authority. He developed the theory of rational choice in individuals, claiming that this theory and the theory of administration depended on one another. He felt the purpose of organizations is to compensate for the limited rationality of individuals and the purpOse of administrative theory is to fill the gap inthe rationality of organizations. 30.. 29Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press, 1938). 0Herbert A. Simon and James G. March, Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1967). 45 Rensis Likert has probably had the most profound effect in actually carrying social science research in management into organi - zational practice. As the leader of the University of Michigan School of Social Research, he has been both a trainer of researchers and a consultant to industry. In his book, New Patterns of Maaagement, Likert documented and expanded on the group theory of Mayo but placed great emphasis on the supervisor as the supportive group leader: Management will make full use of the potential capacities of its human resources only when each person in an organization is a member of one or more effectively functioning work groups that have a high degree of group loyalty, effective skills of interaction, and high performance goals. He began the synthesis of management theory as evidenced by two quote 5 : Every organization is a human enterprise whose success depends upon the coordinated efforts of its members. All componentparts of any system of management must be con- sistent witheach of the other parts and reflect the system' 8 basic philosophy. 33 The Behavioral School has made many noteworthy contri - butions to management. Among them are the recognition of organized enterprise as a social organism, subject to the pressures and 31Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Mana nagement (New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co., .1961), p. 104. 32Ibid., p. 178. 331bid., p. 222. 46 conflicts of the cultural environment, the awareness of the institutional foundations of organization authority, and the influence of informal organization. Another approach to management theory might be referred to as the Decision Theory School. This school concentrates on a rational approach to decision -making; that is, selection from among possible alternatives of a course of action or of an idea. The approach may be to deal with the decision itself, with the persons or organi - zational group making the decision, or with analysis of. the decision process. The Decision Theory School has tended to expand its horizon considerably beyond the process of evaluating alternatives. Decision theory has become for many only a springboard for examination of the entire sphere of human activity. The result is that decision theory becomes no longer a neat and narrow concen- tration on decision but rather a broad view of the enterprise as a social system. Again we may state that decision theory is only part of the larger process of management. The-Mathematical School includes those theorists who see management as a system of mathematical models and processes. The abiding belief of this group is that if management, or organiza - tion, or planning, or decision -making is a logical process, it can 47 be expressed in terms of mathematical symbols and relationships and-in terms of selected goals or objectives. 34 A mathematical approach to any field can be useful. It forces upon the researcher the definition of a problem, and it conveniently allows the insertion of symbols for unknown data, and its logical methodology. However, mathematics is not a separate school of management theory any more than it is a separate school of physics. The last approach to management that we will discuss is the Empirical School. We have previously discussed the empirical approach as it has been applied by the neo -classicals, but for clari - fication we will define it as a separate entity. The Empirical School is based on the premise that, if you study the experience of success- ful managers or the mi stakes made in management or attempt to solve management problems, you will somehow understand and learn to apply the most effective kinds of management techniques. This approach assumes that by finding out what worked or did not work in individual circumstances, the student or the practitioner will be able to do the same in comparable situations. 34Abe Shu’ckman, Scientific Decision -Makingin Business (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1963). 35Ernest Dale, The Great Organizers: Theory and Prac- tice of Organization (New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1960).: 48 In the past decade numerous schools of management theory have developed. We have chosen to discuss those schools which are most important and relevant to current management thought. Those schools which have been neglected may either be considered a small part of a school which has been discussed, or they may not have been formalized enough to be considered unique. We have pointed out that different schools of thought blend and interact and that no school of emphasis constitutes the entire theory of management. We would repeat the introductory statement that management is a part of the larger concept of the process or organizations. As such, knowledge of all theories is necessary to plan, organize, coordinate, and con- trol the unique resOurces Of a particular organization. History and Development of Educational Administration Educational administration developed first as an extra duty and part -time chore added onto the work of the teachers and board members in local communities. Many contributed to the progress of educational administration, as they met or failed to meet the tasks at hand. However, most of the early contributions were lost because they were not shared, reported, or analyzed. Later, through journals, texts and conventions, experience and information was pooled. Much of the study of administration was 49 a matter of looking backward or sideways at what had been or what was being done. Administrative theory was exchanged but little was studied scientifically; however, within recent years educational administration has become a field of study and development, as well as a vocation. There was no need for school administration until there were sizable schools and school districts and a consequent need for coordination of activities. Shortly after 1870, the number of school administrators began to increase as school systems grew rapidly. At this time, thought was given to the nature of the organization of schools and school systems. It was agreed that the purpose of the school was to develop the innate abilities of each individual pupil. Education was a process of unfolding or developing the unique quali - ties of each individual. However, the circumstances that administrators found themselves in were changing. The rapidly increasing number of centralized city systems provided tests of and rewards to adminis- trators. The value.of-a rationale of administration which supported centralized control became stronger. A new philosophy of education developed.. It was felt that the first job of the superintendent was the discovery, by philo- sophical or scholarly inquiry, of the appropriate purposes and 50 methods of education. The superintendent' s superior knowledge was to fit him for the task... After the inquiry it only remained to execute the superintendent's plans. The principal was to be the deputy of the superintendent; he was to transmit directives and. see that they were carried out. Teaching was defined as making the pupil master small daily doses of the accumulated knowledge selected by the superintendent. Given the circumstances, it was argued that decisions made by theteacher ought logically be kept at a minimum, since the teacher' 3 tasks did not require him to make. decisions and his usually limited knowledge did not enable him to make sound ones. Beginning about 1900, the conception of the role of the chief administrator of the schools again began to change. The change occurred not because of any change in the nature of the work of teachers or the purposes of the school; the changes were a direct result of the powerful impact of social forces on the schools. In this period the greatest force was industrialization. At the time, the business industrial group rose to a position. of great prestige, and it became inevitable that business values would greatly influence educational administration. The extent of the business influence was increased by aspects of the great reform crusade which occurred at the same time. The reform movement, primarily an attempt to copewith the problems which were a product of rapid 51 industrialization, was directed against corruption and inefficiency in business. By 1910, after years of subjection to the steadily growing business influence and about the time that the momentum of reform had reached its peak, the schools were facing grave problems. The greatest issue was the influx of immigrants and their children; the school could not. handle the increased numbers with their available finances. At the same time, the scientific management movement was coming into vogue, and the country became even more efficiency conscious. Demands were made that the scientific management system be applied to education, to solve education's financial prob- lems. As a consequence, by 1913 the main function of educational administration had become business management. The change was a . result of the‘rapid growth of school systems and the tendency to apply business concepts to all areas of human experience. Scientific management in education-was brought to the fore 36, 37 by two men, Frank. Spaulding and John Bobbitt. Spaulding charged that the administration of public-education was grossly 36Frank E. Spaulding, "Improving School Systems Through Scientific Management" (Washington, D. C. : National Education Association, 1913), pp. 249-279. 37John Bobbitt, Ideas Presented in the Twelfth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 1913. 52 inefficient; he urged that the training of the administrator emphasize the practical aspects of the job and be based on simple and sound business principles. .. Critics felt that the administrator should be first of all a philosopher, but at this point in time they were over- ruled. Spaulding reported on procedures for lowering costs which he had found successful as a superintendent. He had eliminated small classes, increased the size of others, and reduced the number of classes offered. The result was that fewer teachers were needed. Many superintendents responded to public demands to cut costs by adopting Spaulding' .3 ideas . Another major effort to change educational administration over to business models was made by John Bobbitt. He felt that administration should be based on a body of science and the admin- istrator should be the chief interpreter of that science. The admin- istrator was to use the science to make all major decisions, set standards for the product, determine tasks to be performed and the incentive to be provided, determine the methods of instruction, pro- vide detailed instructions for the workers, select and train the workers, and choose the tools to be used. Bobbitt believed that efficiency depended. on centralization of authority and definite direc- tion by the supervisors of all processes performed. Purpose and economy were to determine organization and teacher role. 53 By 1915, another trend toward change in educational administration was well. under 'way. In the next decade the basic patterns of change were extended and institutionalized through graduate programs in administration. The two men who led the development'were Ellwood Cubberley and George Strayer. 38’ 39 Cubberley pictured the superintendent as a heroic, super- human figure. . His is the office "up to which and down from which authority, direction, and inspiration flow. " He is ”the organizer and director of the work of the schools in all theirdifferent phases. " He is "the executive officer of the school board, and also its eyes, " He is "the supervisor of instruction and also the ears, and brains. leader, advisor, inspiror and friend of the teachers. " Cubberley' 3 system of administration can be described as benevolent authoritar— ianism. The superintendent was an executive of a large enterprise and the teacher was a technician who played a subordinate role. In the 1920' 5 probably the most influential figure in the development of administration was George Strayer. He applied basic statistical techniques to. the work of educational administration; he 38Ellwood P. Cubberley, Public School Administration (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co. , 1916), p. 123. 39George D. Strayer, Problems in Educational Administra- tion (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1925). 54 sought to achieve a graduate program in educational administration that had the respectability of medicine and law. What emerged, how- ever, was a high -level training center which provided students with practical skills and enabled them to acquire and keep jobs in a business society. Strayer believed that professional training should provide the student with the specific skills needed to do the job. The result was emphasis upon techniques and the mechanics of adminis- tration. The training provided the knowledge and skills necessary to operate the schools in a businesslike way, a must in most school districts of the twenties. In the 1930's concepts of administration again shifted. There was a reappearing interest in the purpose of public education as a proper concern of the administrator and a lesseninginterest in super- vision and teaching effectiveness. > However, attention was still given to the management and operation of the school, and investigation con- tinued into such areas as finance, public relations, and school plants. The reappearance of interest in the purpose of the school grew from popular interest in social planning during the Depression of the 1930's. A prominent and seemingly typical figure in educa- tional administration during the 1930' s and early 1940' s was Arthur Moehlman, 40 one of the most industrious scholars in the field of 40Arthur B. Moehlman, School Administration (Boston: Houghton -Mifflin Co. , 1940). 55 educational administration. He published in the fields of history of education, school finance, public relations, school survey child accounting, and school plants. Moehlman' s framework generally dealt with matters that had been of concern in the previous decade. He did work on the purpose of the school, but the body of his writing concentrated on the administrator as manager. The treatment of administration by Mort in 194641 and Mort and Ross in 195742 respectively, seems to rise logically from the same general approach as that employed by Moehlman. They saw administration as mediating between classroom teaching -learning and the purpose or function of the school and made a considerable attempt to develop-systematic concepts of administration. They were concerned with participation in decision -making, the social signifi - cance of education, community interpretation, and responsibility for staff growth as well as the specific functions and areas of adminis - tration. There are a number of possible explanations for the decrease of interest in supervision of teachers by writers of administration. In general, the investigations of the preceding decade in the field of 41Paul R. Mort, Principles of School Administration (New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1946). 42Paul R. Mort and Donald H. Ross, Principles of School Administration (New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1957). 56 teacher effectiveness had not been fruitful. It was not possible to generalize from research in this area. But by the_1940' s, human relations had become a watchword in management. In education the increasingly popular term "democratic administration" reflected this trend. In their book, Democracy in School Administration, Koopman, Miel, and Misner emphasized participatory management in terms of group participation and involvement. ”The group must learn to think together in order to adopt common purposes and plan action, to act together in order to carry out plans, and to think together again in order to evaluate results achieved and make future plans in light of evaluation. "43 Although primarily concerned with profes- sional participation, -the authors were also concerned with community . resources: "The single building represents the ideal unit of partici- pation . . . each school will usually be found in the center of a * district small community with its own peculiar needs and problems. ”44 The advent of the human relations movement provided schools with a new avenue for expressing and realizing a point of view that had been crystallizing for decades. Democratic adminis - tration culminatedin the so -called life adjustment education view 43Robert Koopman, Alice Miel, and Paul J. ‘Misner, Democragr in School Administration (New York: Appleton -Century Co. , 1943), p. 11. 4411314., p. 78. 57 which rose to its peak in the early 1950' s. This view was set forth by John Dewey and his disciples. The human relations era encompassed two significant phases of administrative inquiry and practices. The first phase, democratic administration, lasted through the late 1940' s into the early 1950's. The second phase of the era, thesystem -process period, is still current. It came about because of the growing recognition that, to apply realistically some of the worthwhile tenets of democratic administration, persons in administrative positions had to know about more than interpersonal expectations, morale, and group cohesiveness. They also had to learn about the principles of social organization which structure human relations. The system -process era was first identified in the literature in 1955, but it actually began in 1947. The American Association of School Administrators (AASA), in November 1947, initiated a request to W. K. Kellogg Foundation for funds to conduct research in educa - tional administration. After committee study, a program was adopted in 1950 which was to be called the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration. This project, which-was to study multiple facets of educational administration and training, was to extend from 1951 to 1956. The Kellogg Foundation was to invest more than $5, 000, 000. Eight research centers (regional centers) 58 were established for the project: Harvard University; University of Chicago; Teachers College, Columbia University; University of Texas; George Peabody College for Teachers; University of Oregon; Stan- ford University; and Ohio State University. Activities in these regions were loosely coordinated by mutual acceptance of general goals and by the efforts of a Development Committee of AASA. At some of the regional centers sociologists and psycholo- gists were invited to participate in educational administrative research. Now social scientists involved in research in educational management began to apply research from the industrial field to education, and it is from these centers and the personnel that they nurtured that the new literature in educational administration con- tinues to emerge. At the annualmeeting of AASA in 1947 leading professors of educational administration formed the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA). The organiza- tion received initial support from Thomas Watson and the Interna - tional Business Machine Corporation and had its first. conference in August 1947. By the time of the seventh meeting of NCPEA at Michigan State University in 1953, conference topics included: 1. Implications for school administration of recent develop- ments in the theory and practice of communication. 59 2. Decision -making in school administration. 3. Administrative behavior and personality: emerging con- cepts and hypotheses. At the 1954 annual meeting of NCPEA, the full implications of the behavioral approach to educational administration were evident. .A third organizational influence on educational administra - tion was the formation of the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) in 1956. Through grants from the United States Office of Education and others, administrative research has been conducted. .Three early booksin the new emphasis appeared. The first was The Use of Theory in Educational Administration by Coldarci and Getzels, 45 which called attention to the lack of theory, advocated the integrity of theory and practice, and proposed a theory or model for educational administration. Moore published a sum- mary of research projects undertaken by the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration Regional Centers. His book, Studies ia School Administration: A Report on the CPEA, 46 was sponsored 4.5Arthur P. Coldarci and Jacob-W. Getzels, The Use of Illeory in Educational Administration (Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press, 1955). 46Hollis A. Moore, Jr. , Studies in School Administration: .A Report on the CPEA (Washington, D. C. : American Association Of School Administrators, 1957). 60 by AASA. The third, a book sponsored by NCPEA and edited by Campbell and Gregg, is Administrative Behavior in Education. 47 This publication developed from the authors' participation in the Denver meeting of NCPEA. Participants in the regional centers and NCPEA meetings were the original behavior -oriented contribu- tors to educational administration. Conferences sponsored by the Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, in 1957 and 1959 resulted in tao books of the published papers of the conference: Administrative Theory in Education48 edited by Halpin and Administrative Theory as a Guide to Action49 edited by Campbell and Lipham. In 1962 the University of Alberta sponsored a conference from which the book, The Social Sciences and Educational Administration, 50 edited by Downey and Enns, was published. In 1964 the University of Oregon 47Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg, eds. , Administrative Behavior in Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957). 48Andrew W. Halpin, ed. , Administrative Theory in Educa - tion (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of — Chicago, 1958). 49Roald F. Campbell and James M. Lipham, eds. , Admin- Lsgrative Theory as a Guide to Action (Chicago: Midwest Administra- tion Center, University of Chicago, 1960). 0Lawrence W. Downey and Frederick Enns, eds. , The S?Cial Sciences and Educational Administration (Edmonton, Canada: DIVision of Educational Administration, University of Alberta, 1963). 61 conducted a conference and subsequently published the papers in a volume, Perspectives on Educational Administration and the Behavioral Sciences. 51 All four conferences included educators and social scientists, and the publications furthered the behavioral approach. Subsequent contributors to the new approach were Griffith, 52 Halpin, 53 Hemphill, 54 and Lane. 55 Educational administrative theory and literature is now following the behavioral theory of industrial management at a time when the behavioral approach is effecting a synthesis with classical theory in industrial literature. In the current phase, some attention is being given to the distribution of power, the function of roles, the degree of specialization, the centralization of decision —making, and the character of the prestige system, all of which can more 51Roland J. Pellegrin, ed. , Perspectives on Educational Administration and the Behavioral Sciences (Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965). 52Daniel E. Griffith, Administrative Theory (New York: Appleton -Century -Crofts, 1 95 9). ‘ 53Andrew W. . Halpin, Theory and Research in Administra - tion (New York: The MacMillan Co. , 1966). 54John K. Hemphill and Daniel E. Griffith, Administrative Performance and Personality (New York: Teachers College, Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1962). 55Willard Lane, Ronald G. Corwin, and William G. Monahan, Foundations of Educational Admiaistration: A Behavioral Approach (New York: MacMillan Co. , 1967). 62 appropriately be considered to be properties of the organization itself than of the membership. Although administrative and management theory has become increasingly abundant, it has not been comprehensively applied in education. Dr. S. P. Marland, Superintendent of Schools, Pitts- burgh, Pennsylvania, affirmed this statement: "Up to and including the present time, school administration has been based on empirical foundations; it has evolved a quasi -professional apprenticeship or folklore with technique and processes handed down from one genera - tion to another through trial and error, ' hard knock pattern. ' "56 Traditionally, the quality of research in educational admin- istration has been far below the standard that the new requirements placed on it. Aside from the efforts of a small group of the new thinkers, little pure research has been undertaken in education, and little systematic application of general management theory has been attempted. Part of the reason for the lack of research may be because no theoretical model exists against which theory can be applied or because no acceptable measure of effectiveness has been developed against which either theories or practices. can be tested. 56$. P. Morland, Jr. , Administrative Theory as a Guide to Action, ed. by Roald F. Campbell and James M. Lipham (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1960), p. 23. 63 Part of the reason for the lack of application has been the lack of general management theory knowledge, the lack of manage- ment theory training, the lack of a management theory model as an application reference, and the lack of management and organizational research staffs as part of University staffs or ongoing school organi— zations. The review of literature indicates that concern for the management of schools has prevailed throughout this century. The critics have always been present, but criticism has become more scathing and demands for change more urgent during times of great social and demographic change --when these societal changes have placed great new burdens on public education. The public school system as the mitigator of societal differences seemingly becomes seen as the cause rather than the remedy for society' 3 ills. The rationality of the criticism is again not as important as the potential for success and the degree of realized success of education. In spite of the increased research and emphasis in educational manage- ment, there is little evidence in the literature of structural change to adapt to the increasing complexity of the educational organization. Dr. Ernest O. Melby, in an address delivered to thework- shop for Community School Personnel, had this to say about current administrative practices in reference to large urban centers: 64 There may, of course, be some administrators and students of administration who believe that this is a passing fad and that we will someday get back to Cubberley -Strayer -Englehardt assump— tions. No one who has been close to the life of the modern urban complex can easily accept such a view. A much better guess is that present trends will continue and become more dominant. Also that both practitioners and theorists face the task of rewriting our books, and in the process develop a new theory calling for greatly modified practices. The old administration is obsolete. The unhappiness of some of our administrators comes in no small part because they are trying to function in the classical manner in a situation which is no longer classic. The age of innocence is over. Painful as the admission may be to us, the old administration, the old roles, the old preparation, the old theory, are all dead or dying. I am fully aware that I will win no popularity contest with this statement. At the same time, we are making it harder for our- selves by being defensive. We should not be too apologetic. We have little to be ashamed of. The old administration did great things for American education. For its day, like the Model -T Ford, it performed pretty well. But like the Model -T it is obsolete. ..It has been made obsolete by social change and scientific-technological development. And in administration, as was the case with the Model -T, minor annual improvements will not help. They merely waste time we should be using in designing and implementing the needed new model. It is, there- fore, my thesis that we should undertake, without delay, the building of a new administrative concept, with new assumptions, new roles for public administrators, boards, teachers and students. 57 The voids that will make educational management research, evaluation, and improvement possible are yet to be filled. 57Ernest O. Melby, ”Decentralization and Community Con- trol: Threat or Challenge?" The Community School and Its Admin- istration, Vol. VIII, No. 3, Nov., 1969. 65 Summary In review of the literature on management, it was emphasized that the classic management theory has not been replaced by a humanistic theory, but rather, the classic theory as most clearly defined by Fayol has been modified and made more complete by the social science contribution. The management principles of Planning, Organization, Command, Coordination, and Control are sound and necessary to effective organizational survival. Motivation, participation, ego satisfaction, group belonging, and personal gratification are social -psychological realities that must be accepted and developed to personalize the organization and make it progress. The social psychologists have humanized management and organization theory and shown the way toward effecting manage - ment principles through people rather than by people. There is no conflict in the various theories of organization and management, only the growing knowledge of how organizations function and how individuals function in them. Organizations have different objectives, different boards of control, different client obligations, different personnel requirements, different sizes, operational processes, and personalities. .Yet management functions and management theories are essentially the same for all organizations. That edu- cational organizations are no exceptions to this statement has been 66 so often stated by so many authorities that it needs no documenta - tion. The literature on educational administration has generally followed the trends of industrial management theory. In the last ten years educational administration and organization have been sub - jected to research by sociologists as well as educators. The human relations approach prevails in current literature. Yet the educational organization has not changed; it is still hierarchical and top —directed. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF PERTINENT LITERATURE ON INDUSTRIAL AND EDUCATIONAL DECENTRALIZATION Forces for Decentralization and Centralization in Industry The question of centralization versus decentralization is really but a part of the broad subject of organizational structure. The two concepts are inverse aspects of the problem of delegation of duties, power, and authority within the organization, and they refer to the effective levels of decision -making authority and responsibility. Max Weber1 made the first comprehensive study of organizations and described a form of organization which he called bureaucracy. He developed a concept of organization as a neces- sary evolution from the traditional forms, which depended upon k 1Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organi - m, trans. by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, ed. Talcott Parsons (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. , 1947). 67 68 unquestioned, almost mystic, leadership. He saw amore rationalized organization that could maintain itself throughspecialization and control which, in a sense, required functional decentralization. Weber's definition of a bureaucratic form of organization continues to be valid today, with variation and modification as a means of meeting industrial enterprise needs. As his theory was based on the knowledge of his time, current organizational theory is based on the technology of our time. Both technology and knowledge grow, and new theories to rationalize these with operationalrequirements are needed. Modern forms of organization have incorporated the increas- ing specialization born of science and technology as well as the social sciences. Stability, continuity, and predictability become the strength of a bureaucracy, as they do to the corporate form of organization. But this seemingly requires routinization and impersonalization. Thompson states this: To secure stability, continuity, and predictability of product, the activities of the organization are reduced to procedures or routines. Routinization of organization activity is implicit in the process of specialization and is characteristic of bureau- cracy. Specialization requires a stable environment and a guarantee of continuity of function. He further related specialization for the general goals of the organization, 69 Organizations as problem -solving mechanisms depend upon a factoring of the general goal into subgoals and these in sub- subgoals, and so on, until concrete routines are reached. If the factoring is accurate, rationality in terms of each unit will be rationality in terms of the organization as a whole. In this way, bureaucratic organizations achieve rationality far beyond the capacity of any individual. However, the requirements of specialization and routiniza- tion may result in an apparent inversion of the ends and means of goals, so that means are aggrandized and the ends submerged. These same requirements, when implemented through rules, regu- lations, and procedures, result in bureaucratic impersonalization and resistance to change. Merton charts the decay of a bureaucracy in four steps: 1) An efficient bureaucracy requires predictable responses and obedience to rules. 2) Obedience to rules eventually tends to convert them to absolutes. Rules are no longer seen as means to the accomplishment of organizational objectives. Obeying the rule becomes an end in itself 3) Special problems not covered by the rules are not adequately dealt with. 4) Thus, the rules whichvwere designed to promote efficiency eventually become obstacles to that efficiency. The organizational need for stability, continuity, and pre- dictability is real, but these needs become irrational unless the 2 Victor A. Thompson, Modern Orgmzations (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), PP. 14-15. . 3Robert K. Merton, "Bureaucratic Structure and Per- sonality, " Complex Organizations, ed. by Amitai Etzioni (New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), p. 54. 70 organization is goal-oriented, personal, and flexible. , The rights of authority positions must be rationalized with individual motivational factors within an increasingly technical, professional, and specialized society. This problem is placed in early operational perspective by Peter Drucker in his book, The Effective Executive. He relates the experience of Alfred Sloan in his early years as president of General Motors Corporation: The big business, Sloan saw, needs unity of direction and central control. It needs its own top management with real powers. But it equally needs energy, enthusiasm, and strength in opera- tions. The operating managers have to have freedom to do things their own way- They have to have responsibility and authority to go with it. They have to have scope to show what they can do, and they have to get recognition for performance. This, Sloan apparently saw right away, becomes even more important as a company gets older and as it has to depend on developing strong independent performing executives from within. Everyone before Sloan had seen the problem as one of per— sonalities. . . . Sloan saw it as a constitutional problem to be solved through a new structure; decentralization which balances local autonomy in operations with central control of direction and policy. . . . Alfred Sloan's decentralization was completely unacceptable at the time and seemed to fly in the face of every- thing everybody "knew. "4 March and Simon, recognizing limitations of the bureau- cratic organization, developed rather fully the concept of rationality, as it pertained to individuals in the organization and the organization 4Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1967), pp. 120-121. 71 in the decision -making process. Theirs is an anatomical approach to the study and explanation of organizations. The basic features of organization structure and function derive from characteristics of human problem -solving processes and rational human choice. Because of the limits of human intel- lective capacities in comparison with the complexities of the problems that individuals and organizations face, rational behavior calls for simplified models that capture the main features of a problem without capturing all its complexities. They built their theory on the proposition ”that the 'real' situation is almost always far too complex to be handled in detail and a means of factoring programs into nearly independent parts therefore becomes essential to rationality. " However, they pointed out that the subgoals established through program factoring become reinforced through cognitive mechanisms in terms of the established frame of reference of the individual, the content of inegroup com - munication, and the exposure to environmental stimuli. These mechanisms are based in both individual and phenomenological psychology. Because of this continued reinforcement, members of the organization tend to evaluate actions in terms of subgoals, even when they conflictwith the goals of the larger organization. The dichotomy is apparent: program factoring and subgoal establishment are essential means of achieving organizational goals, but the 5James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, O_rganization (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ,. 1967), p. 169. 72 process sets up mechanisms that tend to camouflage those very goals. Simon and .March also developed the concept of operation- ality of goals, stating that goals would affect program decisions "only if it can somehow be determined whether and to what extent these goals will be realized if particular courses of action are chosen" --hence, they are operational. They point out that govern- mental "promoting and general welfare" goals are not operational and can only be related through the intervention of subgoals and further state: An important circumstance causing the substitution of subgoals for more general goals as criteria of decision is that the former are perceived as operational and the latter as .non -operational. 6 The more factoring and specialization required to rational- ize a program, the greater-the interdependence and the more coordination required tomaintain common purposes and objectives. Also, the greater the elements of variability in process specializa- tion, the greater the burden of coordination. (Increased specializa- tion requires increased stability and predictability and is less tenable in rapidly-changing circumstances. ) Communication becomes a copartner‘with coordination in a complex, interdependent organization. Simon and March state, 61pm, p. 156. 73 "The greater the efficiency of communication within the organization, the greater the tolerance for interdependence. "7 They applied the principle of bounded rationality as an important force for promoting decentralization. Decentralization is essential for individual and organiza- tional rationality, but centralization is necessary .to maintain direction toward organizational goals. Coordination as effected through a communication system, then, is directly related to the degree of decentralization in an effective organization. Theoreti - cally, decentralization seems the best approach to bringing individual and organizational goals together for maximization of effort and achievements, but the degree of decentralization possible depends on the organizational capacity for coordination. As specialization continues and technology becomes more complex, functionalization tends to increase. The question becomes: - How to achieve coordination in a highly functionalized organization? Decentralization theory derives not only from Weber' 3 theory of bureaucracy and Simon and March's theory of rationality, but also from the theory of motivation as it affects an individual in an organization. The concept of organizational motivation has broadened from the traditional economic concept to include social 7Ibid., p. 162. 74 and psychological influences. The individual works not just to earn wages but to satisfy personal goals --goals that are based in the psyche, but more importantly goals that man has as a social being; goals that find their origin outside the organization, either outside the work environment or extraorganizationally within the work environment. These provide the point of reference that a person brings into an organization; they are his self-characterization, his concept of self -worth, of independence, of his personal capacities and competencies. A basic drive of human endeavor is to satisfy one' s self-image or to maintain personal status. Therefore, the extent to which one' s job provides opportunities to enhance his self- image, the more his efforts will also serve the objectives of the organization. Hicks expressed this rather concisely: Each member of the organization has two sets of concepts about himself and the organization: a) his concept of the objectives that he expects to achieve by participating in the organization; b) his concept of the objectives of the organization. . . . The most effective organizations are those in which, first, concepts (a) and (b) are actually compatible. . . . Second, all individual concepts of (b) which we may call b1, b2, b3, etc, , are sub- stantially in agreement. The extent, then, to which an individual through his occupa- tion fills the need to satisfy his self -characterization in terms of self -worth, independence, and capacity, and the extent to which he 8Herbert G. Hicks, The'Managament of Ofianizations (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967). p. 23. 75 perceives his personal objectives as compatible with the organization' 8 Objectives, is the extent to which he will be satisfied in his job and make a greater contribution to the organi- zation. Likert noted the increasing independence of individuals in our society and the, trend within society' 3 organizations for greater freedom and initiative: "People are less willing to accept pressure and close supervision than was the case a decade or two ago. " He also pointed to the increasing levels and values of edu- cation that place emphasis on participation and individual initiative that carry forward to adult organizations. As the values of society change, they are reflected in all organizations. This desire for more individual responsibility when coupled with increasing inter- dependent technology leads to the need for greater participation and coordination. Likert accepts the age -old and continuing problem of how best to organize the efforts of individuals to achieve desired objec- tives and builds a case for a new management theory by enlarging on the psychological groundwork of Follett, Barnard, and Simon. His emphasis is the group as the significant point of reference in 9Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1961), p. 1. 76 the effectiveness of the organization. He believes that a supportive attitude and group loyalty are essential: "A supportive attitude on the part of the superior, as well as the constructive use of group meetings, is necessary to develop group pride and loyalty. "10 . The genesis of this development can be followed from the Hawthorne studies. And Likert presents additional research relat- ing high peer group loyalty to higher production and acceptance of organizational goals. The new significance of his approach is to place greater importance on the individual supervisor as the molder of group loyalty for the acceptance and achievement of organizational goals. The leaderneeds to understand group dynamics as well as to be adaptive to the needs of individual members of the group: ”To be effective and to communicate as intended, a leader must always adapt his behavior, to take into account the expectations, values, and interpersonal skills of those with whom he is interacting. "11 To be adaptive, however, the leader must have the authority to do so, hence, the significance of decentralized authority together with the ability of upward influence as well as downward: To function effectively, a supervisor must have sufficient influence with his own superior to be able to effect the 10Ibid. , p. 28. 11Ibid. , p. 95. 77 superior' s decision. Subordinates eXpect their supervisors to be able to exercise an influence upward in handling problems which affect them. 12 The organization, then, must facilitate the supervisor's role by insuring his participation and influence, which Likert called the linking pin function. But, in addition, the organization must establish a philosophy of operation that is compatible to the needs of the individuals. "The ability of a superior to behave in a supportive manner is circumscribed by degree of compatibility between the objectives of the organization and the needs of the individuals com- 13 prising it. " Although urging broad participation, Likert recognized the limits of its application. The creation of the decentralized division structure is one of the important social inventions of this century. It is significant that after organizations reach a certain size, they find they function better with a decentralized organizational structure. Unfortunately, decentralization usually stops at the plant or division level. In companies using decentralization, there is often more centralized control within the decentralized division than existed prior to the occurrence of decentraliza- tion. 14 Likert thus urged a participatory, therefore decentralized, management organization with a vertical and horizontal communication 12Ibid., p. 113. 13Ibid., p. 115. 14 Ibid., p. 85. 78 linkage differing from the hierarchical organization with strict vertical lines of authority and central decision -making. Victor A. Thompson in his book, Modern Organizations, developed the pathology of the bureaucratic, monistic, or hierarchic organization. He exposed the conflict between specialization staff and the hierarchical structure line and between the hierarchical structure and individual satisfaction and self -realization. He sup- ported Likert in the belief that specialization requires group problem - solving by specialists within a non -stratified group process. To him, specialization and increasingly complex technology are growing aspects of organization that must be coordinated and rationalized to achieve both individual and organizational goals. He rejected com- mand (hierarchical) as a means of coordination: Coordination through command assumes the moniStic structure of influence, each person in the system being legitimately sub- ject to influence only from the person above him in the hierarchy. Specialization has long outrun human ability to coordinate in this fashion. 15 Coordination, then, depends on horizontal cooperation within the organization: ”Under advanced specialization, cooperativeness must depend upon recognized and accepted mutual interdependence. "16 15Thompson, op. cit., p. 183. 16Ibid., p. 187. 79 He further stated that this type of coordination cannot be arbitrarily set by authority but agreed that authority, disciplined by reason and reality, is necessary: "The system of regulation may be facilitative and tension reducing if it is consistent with specialization --if it formally recognizes a pre -existent technical interdependence. "17 To Thompson, centralization and decentralization were expressed in terms of the need for and the problems of coordination of interdependences of the highly specialized organization. He rec- ognized that specialization itself results in the centralization of functions and that increased functionalization tends to move the decision centers outside the hierarchical line structure. He stated the problem: "Failure to use available specialization is 'over decentralization' ; centralization beyond what is technically indicated is 'over centralization' . "18 Centralization, then, may either be the natural result of specialization or it may be imposed by hierarchical authority. Optimally, an organization should achieve maximum utilization of specialization with minimal requirements for the coordination of the interdependence of specialization. He considered the centralization of means particularly dysfunctional: 17Ibid. , p. 41. 18Ibid . 80 When centralization of means is an act of power, however, frustrations arising from the interdependence cannot be made acceptable because they cannot be demonstrated to be neces- sary. . . . Whenever it is technically possible permanently to assign subunits of means, it is technically possible to decen- tralize. He concluded: "That there should be decentralization wher- ever centralization cannot be shown as necessary. "20 Authors who gave considerable attention to the mechanics of decentralization were Ralph C. Davis, Newman, Sumner and Warren, and Henry H. Albers. Ralph C. Davis gave special consideration to the process of delegation in decentralization: Decentralized operations require subordinate personnel to understand clearly and completely the functions for which they are responsible and their requirements. Difficulties develop 1 when subordinates do not know to whom they are accountable. Effective decentralization requires proper delegation of mana- gerial responsibilities and provision of the necessary giersonnel 2 and facilities at the point of decentralized operations. He stated concise steps in the process of delegation: 19Ibid., pp. 103, 104. 20Ibid. , p. 197. 2 ~ . 1Ralph C. Davis, The Fundamentals of Top Managament (New York: Harper and Row, Inc. ,1 1951), p. 304. 22Ibid., p. 306. 81 1. The objectives and functions should be analyzed carefully to determine the conditions and requirements of their accomplishment. 2. The decision and specification of responsibility should be based on proper grouping of functions. 3. Correct functionalization should be established for pur- poses of coordination and cooperation. 4. Authority should be delegated commensurate with duties and responsibilities that have been specified. 5. A means of evaluatin results and assessing accountability must be established. 3 Newman, Sumner and Warren, in giving special attention to decentralization, stated: By its very definition, decentralization means increasing the freedom of action of subordinates. This freedom naturally effects the fulfillment of self -expression needs. It offers managers unusual chances for self assertion and growth. But they pointed to the key function in decentralization-- planning. To them decentralization was concerned with how much of each complex planning activity is assigned to each executive. They developed guides to "how much decentralization" on the basis of: who had the facts for decision -making, who had the capacity to make decisions, the required speed of decision -making, coordina- tion requirements of local decisions and the importance of local decisions. * 2 31bid., p. 653. 24William H. Newman, Charles E. Sumner, and E. Kirby Warren, The Process of Management (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. 208. 82 They pointed out that delegation always raises the question of control, but stated: An executive need not lose control when he delegates a large measure of planning, but he should be prepared to change con- trols. As he delegates increasing amounts of authority to plan and decide, the executive should shift his attention away from operating details to results that are achieved. . . . To decen- tralize without losing control one must really know both what . . 25 results are deSIred and how to measure achievement of results. Henry H. Albers, in discussing the same topic, stated: Size is an important determinant of the extent to which func- tional centralization is feasible. . . . Although a reason for centralization is to give greater emphasis to a necessary function, the result is sometimes an expansion beyond the needs of the organization. He, too, pointed out that communication and coordination are basic problems of size which have been most often met by a plan of decentralization. However, he stated: Decentralization always involves some degree of centralized planning and control to coordinate activitiesand achieve an organizational. unity of purpose. There is a reduction in per- sonal supervision but it is replaced by other forms of control such as budgetary, profit and loss controls. To Albers the most important function of central manage - ment was to plan fOr long -time growth and development of the enterprise . 25Ibid., p. 98. 2 - 6Henry H. Albers, Principles of Oganization and Manage- ment (New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), p. 105. 27Ibid., p. 160. 83 From the review of literature up to this point, certain principles of decentralization may be derived: 1. The degree of decentralization that is effective and economi - cal tends to vary directly with: a. The size of the organization and the complexity of its functionalization. The physical dispersion of the organization' 8 activities. The complexity and difficulties of organizational com- munication and coordination. The complexity of its information feedback and evalua- tion system. The capacity for and quality of organizational planning for achievement growth. The quality of subordinate leadership at the decentral- ized operationlevels. The availability of adequate numbers of competent, trained personnel. The extent to which the decentralized personnel have been indoctrinated with sound organization philosophy and objectives, as well as operational skills and knowledge. The state of morale in the organization. 84 j. The adequacy of results measurement and other evaluation criteria. 2. The degree of decentralization that is effective and economi - cal varies inversely with: a. The speed, accuracy, and capacity of available com- munications and information feedback equipment and services. b. The centralized decision -making capacity of the organi - zation. c. The degree of standardization of the factors, forces, and effects in the situation that can be developed and maintained. (1. The degree and extent of the emergencies that must be dealt with. e. The degree of organizational stability and turnover. f. The interrelatedness and interorganizational impact and influence of local decisions. g. The degree of standardization necessary. Underlying the principles stated is the assumption that central management philosophically supports, and conscientiously implements, a program of decentralization, beginning at their level. It is now necessary to place the centralization -decentraliza - tion question in reference to the most recent theories of organization 85 and management. This, in a sense, is a re -analysis of this question as well as of the undergirding question of the human relations emphasis versus the classical (hierarchical) organizational empha- sis. Edward C. Sehleh in his book, Management by Results, gave cognizance to the significance of the individualin modern organi - zation but never lost sight of the requirement that the organization meet its objectives: "Democracy expects higher and higher produc- tion and with it an increasing recognition of the individual. "28 His book is documented by social science research, but it represents pragmatic approach of the experienced management con- sultant. He believed that "results management" will integrate the overall objectives of the institution with the individual interests and desires of employees. Management's responsibility. is to develop the full capacity of individuals while achieving the objectives of the organization. In this approach the hierarchical structure becomes one of delegation by results and requires that results, not programs, be factored into parts. The factoring of overall objectives into sub- objectives and the holding of someone accountable for their achieve- ments (results) are the essence of this theory. This becomes 2 8Edward C. Sehleh, Management by Results (New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. ,. 1961), p. 5. 86 decentralization by results as well as control by results (ends), rather than control by procedure (means). Sehleh placed great stress on the administrator as a decision -maker; he is the planner, the programmer, the implementer, and he is accountable. He agreed that the subordinate should par- ticipate in setting his own objectives, but the superordinate carries the burden of accountability for the achievement of departmental objectives as a summation of individual subobjectives. Authority extends downward enough to effect results at each level, and accountability flows upward in terms of results achievement. As results are decentralized, then too are authority, decision —making, and planning. However, Sehleh; repeatedly emphasized that account- ability precedes authority: "Without accountability, authority leads to chaos. . . . Decentralization programs fail for this reason. Accountability must precede authority. "29 To Sehleh measurement and reporting were the binding ingredients of a mangement program--measurement is essential to management by results: "You cannot have a ' results' account- ability without measurement. "30 29Ibid., p. 53. 301bid., p. 73. 87 Measurement is necessary to add reality to accountability and to provide a focus and reference for results. Measurement is essential even if its validity is initially uncertain-~if there is no measurement for a job, its need is questionable. In noting the natural tendency for centralization in growing organizations, Sehleh stated that management should "force decisions to the lowest level possible. "31 But he cautioned against over specialization and the breaking down of accountability for a single result. He shared in the concern for coordination with growing specialization and gave considerable attention to line -staff conflict with the warning that these relationships must be clearly defined. He did not share Thompson's opinions relative to committee deci - sions--decisions must be related to accountability: "A man, not a group, should be accountable for actual accomplishment of individual results. "32 He cautioned "beware of committees"; they tend to diminish accountability, encourage flourishing "paper mills, " hold post- mortems. Committees formulate alternatives and recommendations; they do not make decisions --they are not accountable for action. k 31Ibid., p. 114. 32Ibid., p. 136. 88 He also cautioned of decreasing staff personnel (specialists). "There must be a need for staff"; "staff, too, must be responsible for results; " "staff people report to the lowest level possible. " "In reality, central staff are consultants"; "staff seems to avoid account- ability"; "have central staff do only what cannot be done locally"; "otherwise thereisa tendency toward heavy centralization and little action down the line. ”_ When results, authority, and accountability are decentral- ized, so is control. Control occurs at the point of deviation from objective, and a system of controls records must be maintained that report deviations to the man himself as well as to his supervisor. Control is now centered at the point of expected results, and the superior becomes a helper rather than a disciplinarian. The control system, then, must stimulate constructive action on significant deviations, and to doso the control system must be current. Sehleh summarized that as organizations grow, they move toward centralization of control, and centralization- results in decision -making that is insentive to local problems. Decentraliza- tion becomes the answer, but decentralization develops increased cost and new problems, and the organization gravitates back to centralization for control. He stated: This cycle often occurs because they fail to realize that decen- tralization does not start with authority. It must start with 89 accountability. . . . Failure to set up accountability first is a prime error in many decentralization programs. He, too, saw coordination and integration as the prime function of management: It is the responsibility of management to continue to give attention to the accomplishment of the individual, at the same time that it integrates the individual accomplishments of all, even in the most complex enterprise. This is essentially a problem of analyzing intricate relationships and difficult, integrated timing requirements. A modification of management by results is management by exception. Lester R. Bittel gave this concept full coverage in his book, Management by Exception. Where Sehleh prescribed action when results are at variance with objectives, Bittel pre- scribed action when statistical data keys an exception indicator to a planned program of results. Both concepts call for delegation of decision -making or decentralization for results, but Bittel was much more concerned about the development of indicators for higher man- agement than results guides for operational levels. Bittel stated: "Management by exception, in its simplest forms, is a. system of identification and communication that signals the manager‘when his 33113101.. pp. 243 -244. 34Ibid., p. 248. 90 attention is needed; conversely, it remains silent when his attention is not required. "35 It is a system of information, communication, or data input that triggers variation or exception to a preconceived plan or objec- tive. It is a system of delegation for results with a built -in monitoring device. Its purpose is to relieve management of the day- to -day lesser decisions by delegating them to the lowest possible level so that full attention can be given to exceptions in the plan and the more important aspect of planning and coordination. Its empha- sis is on documentation and relevant data: "Management by excep- tion is based upon a respect for documented facts that have shown a relationship to desired results. "36 Documented facts imply an effective system of measurement to provide those facts—~objective, quantitative measurement. Man- agement by exception, then, is a system of controle-control to effect organizational objectives. Bittel did state that management by exception provides opportunities for participation. . In fact, he said: "No one in the entire range of management organization should be excused from entering into the planning activity. "37 35Lester R. Bittel, Management by Exception (New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co., 1964), p. . 36Ibid. , p.19. 37Ibid., p. 60. 91 However, the emphasis is on management level participation and the upward flow of management decision data. In essence, it is an updated concept of scientific management; it begins with and centers on achieving organizational objectives. Human relations and individual motivation become tools of management. The human rela - tions approach begins with the uniqueness of the individual, and seeks to adopt a management system that meets his needs and hence the objectives of the organization. Sehleh attempted to synthesize the two approaches, scientific management and human relations, by equalizing the emphasis on the organization and the individual. Bittel was fully aware of the human relations approach but discounted the overgeneralizations and inconclusiveness of social scientist research while placing importance on psychological findings on human behavior. He applied these findings as necessary understand - ings of (managers and supervisors, but did not attempt to build them in as an integral part of the management system. In speaking directly to the (point of centralization- decentralization, Bittel had this to say: One of the key decisions to be made when establishing policy is the extent to which control will be centralized or decentralized. Centralized control tends to provide greater assurance that top management goals will be achieved. Decentralized controls-- especially when they apply broadly to profit responsibility-— present four difficult problems. First, they are costly to administer. Second, they require a tighter, more complex 92 information system. Third, they depend upon a more highly qualified middle management staff. Finally, there is always the danger that the lower -echelon managers will not be moti - vated, or act, in the best interests of the company. Weighed against these disadvantages are the greater resilience, balance, and diversity that a decentralized system can develop and maintain. The trend that runs through all management systems is the need to achieve coordination, communication, and decision -making capacity while maintaining control of organizational objectives. As the coordination and management of large organizations has become increasingly complex, a new term to describe the inter- dependence and interrelatedness of functions and programs has been devised: the systems approach. The programs and functions are described as subsystems that require integration into the whole. It is necessary for one to look at the total system and fit, coordinate, and integrate the subsystems to effect the optimum function of the total system. The systems approach is a refinement of preceding management theory and gives a more current connotation of organi - zational wholeness --a total system with integrated subsystems. In their book, The Theory. and Management of Systems, Johnson, Kost, and Rosenzweig described a system as: "An organized or complex whole; an assemblage or combination of things or‘parts forming a 381bid., p. 106. 93 complex or unitary whole. "39 They stated that the word system connotes plan, method, order, and arrangement and re -emphasized that the essence of management is coordination. To them the focus of systems management is "on providing a better picture of the net- work of subsystems and interrelated parts. " In this respect it parallels the primary focus of management by exception. Although the authors described a very sophisticated information and control system, they introduced a new broader management concept of the organization as a social system. They stated that there are three common elements to all organizations: ”1) Social systems, or people in groups; 2) an integration of activi - ties, people working together; and 3) goal oriented,. people with a purpose. "40 They then went on to give their definition: "The organi - zation is an adaptive, social system striving for rationality in its environment. "41 They added environment as an external factor in the under- standing and studying of all organizations. To them the organization as an adaptive system permits the explanation of both its resistance 39Richard A. Johnson, Fremont E. Kast, and James E. Rosenzweig, The Theory and Management of Systems (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1967), p. 4. .. 401616., p. 45. 41Ibid., p. 47. 94 to and need for change. Their systems approach welds management and organizational theory together and permits the synthesis of the contributions that the various disciplines have made to the function- ing of organizations. The bureaucracy model of an organization provided a hierarchical structure of command; the human relations model belittled the hierarchical command structure and emphasized indi - vidual and group interaction and the horizontal relationship of specialists; the management by results approach retained the hier- archical structure of decision -making authority, but placed accountability both vertically and horizontally through the organiza - tion by factoring and controlling through results achievement. The systems approach also retained the hierarchical structure but through system and subsystem integration. "Hierarchical structure has important implications for the general systems concept. Every system, both human and natural, has a hierarchical structure. "42 But Johnson, Kost, and Rosenzweig further point out that: Modern organization theory is multidimensional in its con- sideration of subsystems and their relationships. . . . Not only hierarchical but horizontal and cross relationships are considered. 42Ibid., p. 54. “Ibid., p. 64. 95 The systems approach becomes a hierarchy of subsystems and integrates and. controls via the central objectives. In this sense it is centralized through creating and planning for central objectives and goals. It is also decentralized in that each subsystem becomes an operational microcosm of the whole and interrelates to other sub- systems through their contribution to the central objectives. It is a synthesis of organizational theory. Under the systems concept, the organization is viewed as a series of parts which include the individual, the informal work groups, the formal structure, and finally the environmental systems, which have a direct impact upon the organization. . These parts are integrated through various processes such as the information and communications network, the decision system, the built -in equilibrium system mechanisms that exist in every organization. Control is as important in system theory as it is in organi - zation theory. Both begin with organizational objectives; control is essential in the coordination and integration process if objectives are to be achieved. However, the control of the subsystem should be consistent with the overall objectives of the larger system, pre- ventive‘rather than punitive, no more elaborate than necessary. The systems approach is a synthesis of. previous organiza - tion and management theory. This is the expected development as new knowledge is added to old and all theory is tested in the crucible 44Ibid., p. 69. 96 of reality. Modifications and mutations take place; new bases for research appear and knowledge grows. The field of management is no exception to this process. And writers within the field change as new data and knowledge become part of their perceptions of theory and reality. Simon, in writings subsequent to Organizations, gave attention to organizational structure for setting expectations and parameters for members of the organization in the decision pro- cess. Hierarchy in the organizational structure becomes fundamental and natural: The near universality of hierarchy in the composition of corn - plex systems suggests that there is something fundamental in this structural principle that goes beyond the peculiarities of human organizations. . . . The reasons for hierarchy go far beyond the need for unity of command or other considerations relating to authority. 45 Likert in The Human Organization, a book following New Patterns of Management, in sequence, further developed models of organizational systems. The models were defined as Exploitive Authoritative, Benevolent Authoritative, Consultative, and Partici- pative Group. He analyzed operating characteristics for each of these models and gave strong support to the effectiveness of the Participative Group model. This system is strongly supported by 45Herbert A. Simon, The New Science of Management Decision (New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1967), p. 47. 97 social service research and places great emphasis on the supervisor to use the principle of supportive relationships, group decision- making and supervision, and to set high performance goals. Likert, too, emphasized the systems approach: "In experi - ments involving organizational theory and management systems, therefore, a systems approach must be used. ”46 He gave attention to measurement, pointing out that the methodologies developed in social science research make the measurement of causal and inter- vening variables as accurate as end -result variables. These measurements provide information on the state of the system--the behavior, perceptions, reactions, and attitudes of the human system: "A fundamental concept . . . is that the results achieved by an organization are a manifestation of the effectiveness of the interaction -influence. system of its human staff. "47 This value of the human organization he called "Human Asset Accounting. " In his discussion of coordination in a highly functionalized organization, Likert' 3 re -evaluation of the centralization- decentralization question becomes significant: 46Likert, The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, p. 123. 47Ibid., p. 131. 98 But as decentralization solves some problems, it produces others. With decentralization some of the gains of specializa- tion are lost; economics of scale are often sacrificed, and new problems of coordination are created. . . . Decentralization is becoming, moreover, an inadequate solution as technologies become more complex and evermore extensive functionalization becomes essential. Decentralization, furthermore, does not eliminate differences among staff or among departments; it merely changes the relationship of who differs with-whom about what. 43 Likert added his voice to the expression of concern over the dilemma of achieving coordination in a highly functional organiza- tion. In this section we have shown the chronological development of authoritative thought relating to centralization and decentraliza- tion in organizations, including an evolution of thinking between authors and by authors. The essential question of management, however, is not centralization or decentralization but rather, how best to organize the total resources of the organization to most effectively achieve organizational objectives. Centralization versus decentralization is much too narrow a. debate point to be germaine inindustry today, when the basic unsolved problem is how to effect coordination of effort in a highly functionalized and complex human organization. The human resources must be blended with and become compatible 48IbIc1., p. 157. 99 with technical and economic resources in a total system planned and designed to achieve organizational objectives. The organizational objectives cannot be compromised, nor can individual objectives, personalities and motivations be denied. Forces for Decentralization and Centralization in Education The review of literature on educational decentralization reveals two basic arguments for decentralization. One is to de- centralize for the elimination of what is called bureaucratic red tape and operational stagnation--an internal management position. The second is for the involvement of parents in the process of educa- tion; this position has significance for management when the stated purpose is to place the parent in an administration evaluation role, but it is a political argument when the purpose is to restructure the policy control of education. The most fundamental crisis in urban education today is a failure to produce organizations capable of adapting the program of a given school to the needs of a given child. The structural inability of school systems to achieve meaningful metamorphosis explains in part why so many attempts to upgrade urban schools have failed. The effect is that, at the bottom of the bureaucratic pyramid, principals and teachers become clerks, and children are not well 100 educated in the process. One inevitable conclusion is that the bureaucracies of (big city schools must either transform themselves internally or be changed by pressure from outside. An important element of such a transformation is decentralization, to disperse the functions and powers from the central office to the individual schools and classrooms. Lay control of the schools has been a sacred part of govern- ing American education, but the growing bureaucracy of larger systems has immunized them from parental influence. Parents, national parent groups, and especially black parent groups, are seeking involvement and change to resolve problems as they see them. The black demand is expressed in terms of the educational needs of their children, but its broader base is sociological in terms of racial identity, pride, power, and nationalism. These social forces have been organized and are exerting an unrelenting pressure for better educational results. These lay groups, then, either want a change in the organization or want to replace it with an organiza - tion that they perceive as meeting their needs. Dr. Ernest O. Melby, who has deep insight into and knowl- edge of urban education problems, has stated the need for local involvement: Now the public, out of patience with what it believes to be ineffective education, demands a share of the control at the 101 local level, while the teachers through collective bargaining are becoming involved in types of decision —making previously seen as the prerogative of administrators and boards of education. Former U. S. Commissioner of Education, Harold Howe II, in a speech to the Council of Chief State School Officers, stated the case for community involvement: Educators alone cannot make schools succeed with every youngster. They need the active involvement of the community --something they have been able to get in more fortunate areas but have largely failed to achieve among the poor and among those who are discriminated against. Bringing these people into the power structure of education will create controversy. But it is controversy worth having, for out of it can come major progress. The charge that the school systems have become entangled in their own red tape, are inflexible and unable to meet the demands of the time, is often repeated. Decentralizationof administration as an answer, then, would bring decision, authority, and account- ability closer to the operational needs. School organization is a strange combination of classical theory, emphasizing a centralized scalar organization, and pro- cedural control, coupled with a laissez ~faire approach to profes - sional performance and results. Control in the educational 9Ernest O. Melby, "Decentralization and Community Control: Threat or Challenge?" The Community School, Vol. VIII, No. 3, November, 1969. 50Harold Howe 11, Speech to Council of Chief State School Officers, Salt Lake City, Utah, November 18, 1968. 102 organization is the reverse of the modern trend; in education procedure and process are centralized and results and evaluation decentralized. Its organizational structure and management methods do not enable it to operate otherwise. The school organi - zation differs markedly from other organizations in the indefinite- ness of its general and specific objectives, the dearth of management information on performance, and the lack of an effective operational method of evaluating- either individual, administrator, or subunit performance. As such it does not really meet the criteria of an organization but is rather an administrative polyglot of legal and procedureal controls of otherwise individual professional perfor- mance. But it is also charged that the hierarchical organization of education restricts the potential of the professional. The constric- tions of red tape, procedure, and regulation without objective performance evaluation discourages initiative and professional group efforts while screening and preserving mediocrity. For too long educational leaders have accepted the organi - zational defects of education as inherent and have simply applied more administration and more specialization in attempts for improve - ment. Instead, the organizational structure needs to change to pro- vide an environment for innovation, improvement, and individual initiative and recognition. Organizational objectives need to be set 103 and redefined into components at the lowest level of operation, and results need to be measured. Management decisions should be made on the basis of comprehensive information and measured results. The full professional staff must participate in setting and achieving objectives as a means of stimulating individual initiative and per- formance. This is a management position for change to achieve more effective results and, therefore, suggests the application of modern management theory. The second argument for decentralization is organizationally more complex in that it seeks local lay influence and control over education. Here it is claimed that city systems are too big, too far from the people, too remote from local needs, too distant to com- municate with, too influence -resistant. Parents see education as an impenetrable establishment of the legislature, the local board, the administration, and the teacher. The parent feels ineffective and estranged from the system; the board is unreachable, the adminis - tration is too busy, the principal is unresponsive, and the teacher has tenure. Teachers are organized, receiving higher pay, getting less involved, and gaining more security. The parents want better education, but they perceive that they are paying more and receiving less. They want to share in evaluating teachers and programs and to be involved to influence the education of their children in school. 104 The disenchantment with the educational establishment was expressed by Mrs. Jane Tate, President of the Michigan Parent Teachers Association, in a paper presented to the Michigan Governor' 3 Com- mittee on Educational Reform: We finance our schools as though time had not moved since the frontier days when the one room school predominated and all wealth came from the land. We do not know just what we would like the kids to know when they get out and we wouldn' t know how to measure it if we did. . . . Our teachers and administrators call themselves professionals when we ask embarrassing ques— tions but they are trade unionists when wages and hours are under discussion. . . . School board members find themselves constantly in the middle; between arrogant superintendents who manipulate them, angry parents who resent them, state legislators who force them to risk jail every time they adopt a budget, and extremists of all kinds who use the schools as tent shows. . . . Meanwhile, the interests of the kids fall between the cracks in the floor until we really begin to wonder if anyone remembers what this whole thing is really about--kids and their education. Mrs. Irvin E. Hendryson, President of the National Con- gress of Parents and Teachers, voiced the changing, more aggresive policy of the Congress toward parent involvement to prevent mem - 52 bers from going elsewhere for a "piece of the education action. " To implement this policy, the PTA is reviewing its stand of 51Mrs. Jane Tate, paper presented to Governor' s Commis - sion on Educational Reform, Detroit, Michigan, July 14, 1969. 52Mrs. Irvin E. Hendryson, speech to National Congress of Parents and Teachers, Education U. S. A. (Washington, D. C. : National School Public Relations Association, November 3, 1969). 105 cooperating with schools without interference in their administration or control of policies. The black parents add another dimension to this demand for local influence and control as they assert that the public schools are perpetuating the self -defacement of the Negro by persisting in a white, middle -class.format of education which disparages his social and cultural heritage. The failure of the black child to overcome his lag in educational achievement must be blamed on the system. An insecure, self-doubting, status -sensitive, and status -seeking com— munity of parents cannot accept the further stigma of educational failure; the psychological need of the group will not permit this acceptance. Is it not the school's responsiblity to teach? If so, failure is the school's, not the child's, not the parents' , not the environment' 8. Although psychological and socio-economic factors prior to and outside of the classroom are established by research as the major deterrents to learning, they serve as inadequate argu- ments to a militant and irate community; nor should they serve as rationale for maintaining the present system and methodology. The system has failed, and it is only the degree of responsibility that is debatable. The school must convince itself and the community that it is seeking better education and that it is in reality achieving it. 106 The black position, however, is that the white establishment has failed and is incapable of success. Therefore, local (black) control of the schools would inspire and insure the participation of the poor in the education of their children, and with this involvement the partnership of the school and the home in education would be established for the poor as well as the affluent. For the black com- munity, this involvement, or responsibility, or power, would serve to make education relevant to the black child, to build, self -pride and self -identity. This, then, as the logic goes, would establish an environment of self -worth to the student, who can best progress through ego reinforcement. This logic assumes local parent involve — ment would result and that such involvement would improve the quality of education and the educational achievement of children. However, if local control means the deprofessionalization of education with organizational chaos, it can hardly be justified as an experiment in involvement. The black man must become competitive within his society: a complex, technological society where education is at a premium and where the technology and economy is white -dominated. The Negro must carve a place for himself within this technology, rather than remain in an isolated enclave that is relevant only to his past and present. 107 The fifty -member Urban Education Task Force appointed by Health, Education and Welfare Secretary, Robert H. Finch, reported "that education is the only field which offers the poor and disadvantaged a chance to overcome poverty in one generation. "53 There is in addition a black power position of achieving integration by first achieving racial pride, self-worth, and success through separation. Although not supported by educational research or experience, it is a strong force in decentralization. It is carried under the democratic banner of self —determination while supported by a hate philosophy. It is carried into the arena where educational integration exists or should exist. Lurking behind this position is the desire of black militants for power, the educational power and economic power that could come from the control of education. Some would even say it is the desire for political power of a rising revolu- tionary movement that needs the continual infusion of youth; control of education would provide opportunities for doctrinal inculcation. Irving Kristol states this opinion quite succinctly: The black nationalists have, with great political -acumen, raised the matter of "community control. " They want to freeze the neighborhoods. . . . They want to prevent middle class or work - ing class blacks from moving to the white areas, elsewhere in the city or suburbs. Their aim is apartheid because only in 53Report of the Fifty -Member Urban Education Task Force, Education U. S.A. (Washington, D. C. : National School Public Relations Association, November 3, 1969). 108 apartheid can they ensure their rule. Nor do they care about the economic and social consequences. The poorer, the more ignorant, the more isolated the black communities are, the better the chance for black nationalists to play upon their ngevances and to stimulate the1r fantaSIes. 5 It is ironic that this group is supported by the bigoted, reactionary white community that also seeks separation or educa- tional segregation for the unstated but evident purpose of‘continual I white dominance of our society. These, then, are the forces for decentralization: 1. Improved management of the school to achieve better results through improving the decision -making process and the objective attainment of the organization. 2. More educational relevance and evaluation through lay (parent) participation in the power organization of educa- tion. 3. Desire by black militants for economic and political power through separation and the desire of white bigots to main- tain school segregation. As in all organizations, there are also forces that exert a centralizing tendency upon education. A review of the authority chain of education gives evidence of these forces. This section 54Irving Kristol, "Who Knows New York?" The Public Interest, Summer Issue, 1969, quoted in The Community School, Vol. VIII, November 3, 1969. 109 provides the environmental background of the public education organization. Public education is a government function, controlled and limited by the constitution and legislation. This is illustrated as follows: National 5 State State Local Board Constitution Constitution 3 Legislation 3 of Education The Federal Constitution provides for equal protection of the laws, which has been construed as equal opportunity and equal education. In education the Brown case tried before the Supreme Court in 1954 established that de jure segregation in education was unconstitutional. The Court held that racial segregation in education was inherently unequal, and Federal Office of Education guidelines extended the Brown case logic to de facto segregation. Therefore, the constitutional law of the land prohibits de jure segregation in educationand has interpreted board of education discriminatory school boundary policies as de jure segregation; courts have directed northern city. school districts to present plans for desegregation. The state has the responsibility for public education. State constitutions generally spell out general philosophy and principles in terms of levels of education, equal opportunities in education, and in some cases, the participation of local communities. The plan for 110 and the financing of education is delegated to the legislature. State policy bodies such as the State Board of Education are also estab- lished. The local boards owe their basis of existence to the state constitution, either specifically or by tradition. Although local boards were created by constitutional reference, their powers and continuing existence depend upon the legislature. As creatures of O the legislature they are subject to the process of politics and legis- lation. The local school boards are delegated the responsibility of operating a state school system. They have policy determining authority within the limits established by enabling legislation, and there is no legal entity or authority beyond the local school board. There remains, however, the democratic process of electing repre- sentatives to the local school board, the state legislature, and the state policy bodies, and the legislative lobbying process of exerting group power in effecting statute law or local board policy. This, then, is the legal hierarchy of education. Now, how do the legal and extra-legal influences effect a more centralized educational organization? Again, these influences range from the national level to the local level, and influence is felt wherever there is power and the will to use it. At the national level increasing federal legislation and appropriations for education influence the local organization; the urge to obtain federally appropriated funds 111 shapes the curriculum and requires compliance with the guidelines. For example, the national policy on the desegregation of schools carries the penalty of loss of funds with failure to comply; the national assessment and the federal drive for evaluation and accountability will have an increasing effect on school organization and management. Federal involvement in educational policy is broadening. At the state level, legislation prescribes educational organi - zation. Financial plans have an indirect, sometimes an insidious, way of affecting school district organization and programs. Surely, as the state plays a larger role in insuring equal educational oppor- tunity through equal financing, it will also prescribe the program requirements of equal educational opportunity. Rules and regula- tions developed by state departments of education can be as effective as legislation in program development and assignment. State Board of Education policies can have direct and indirect influence on edu- cation through their granted constitutional authority and their responsibility for legislativerecommendations. More and more local prerogatives have been taken to the state level to be resolved through legislation, such as teacher tenure, length of the school year, certification of teachers, approval of building plans, fire regulations, health regulations, and many other issues. These are all in addition to the general school statutes 112 that prescribe the powers of the local board. Court cases have delimited the local prerogatives in the broad area of civil rights, from student controls to the important area of school desegregation. It is obvious that the legal centralization of education is moving pro- gressively to the state and national levels of government. . In addi - tion, the growing national and state bureaucracies encourage local centralization through the pure weight of administrative workload, and the greater need to communicate and influence. Larger admin- istrative units become more necessary. Education U. S. A. reported: A wide disparity .has been discovered in the amount of federal aid received by different school districts-—and one of the major causes of the difference is the presence of a full -time federal aid administrator. This discovery was made in a new survey conducted by a New York educational consultant, Howard S. Rowland. Extra -legal influence is most concentrated at the state level. The teachers' union, the School Administrators Association, the School Board Association, the larger school districts, and any organization with a particular stake in education work to influence state law. The school boards, administrators, and teachers have professional lobbying representatives, while parents are repre- sented by an informal PTA group whose constitution supposedly pre - vents political action. 55Howard S. Rowland, Survey of 130 School Districts, Education U. S.A. (Washington, D. C. : National School Public Rela- tions Association, October 27, 1969). 113 Negotiated teachers' contracts are coordinated through the state teacher organizations and amount to state -wide negotiating with similarity of contracts. The school district contracts have become more specific relative to working conditions, and a locally authorized variation in enforcement within the district tends to establish prece - dents for the next negotiated district contract. Management counter- reacts to this process by consistency of administration. All con- tracts are centralized at the level of the local legal entity, the Board of Education. V Technology tends to centralize because of the cost of equip- ment and specialized personnel. The computer is becoming more widely used in education, and it will become essential if education management data are to become available. Educational television and systemized program learning require substantial outlays. The increasing range of specialized services in education requires cen- tralization of substantial scale to become feasible'and economical, while the process of specialization also creates centrality. Within the large school district, size itself demands organi - zational coordination which has traditionally been met through centralization of decision -makingand the proliferation of procedure and directive . 114 As in industrial management, the review of the forces of centralization and decentralization does not answer the questions of centralization versus decentralization, or how much decentralization, or more importantly, how to decentralize. Extreme positions, of course, are invalid. Organizational literature does establish that centralization to effect, coordinate, and monitor goal -directed activities is essential, while decentralization of operational planning, implementation, and evaluation is necessary to maximize the human potential through participation. Persons experienced in educational administration have also emphasized the incompatibility of some of the forces for decentralization and centralization in education. C. Taylor Whittier, former Superintendent of Schools in Philadelphia, recognizes the need for community involvement but raises some pertinent questions: Both decentralization and community control are consistent with the principle of placing the decision -making point as close to the action as possible. However, the problem remains as to who is going to make the decisions and who has the authority to support or reject them. . . . One can reason that the local citizens know who among the staff is doing a good job and who is not. But this has beentrue of many parents for a long time. The question now is who should have the authority to act on this knowledge and what are the implications of the, action taken. . . Above all, will the student who seems to. be forgotten in this power struggle receive a better education? The realignment of power is a painful process without guaran- teed improvement. Yet changes must be made to better serve 115 all citizens and particularly those who find the present system inadequate. The questions on educational decentralization remain, but there is a new urgency and commitment to seek answers. But, as in industry, the question is too narrow to be answerable: the ques - tion is how to restructure the organization to get the best educational product for children through the maximum involvement and contribu- tion from all those interested and concerned with their success. This review of decentralization and centralization influences has not centered upon various proposed models for breaking up the very large metropolitan school districts. The emphasis of this study is upon the application of organizational theory to the internal struc- ture of the school organization as prerequisite to community involve- ment at the local school level. The proposed divisions of the large cities of New York, Detroit, or Washington, D. C. , do not fall within the Context of this study. School districts of 25, 000 to 40, 000 stu- dents are still large school districts needing organizational restruc- turing if both effective staff and community involvement are to result. A school district of 40, 000 students could be even more bureaucratic and insensitive than a district with 400, 000 students. To this author, 56C. Taylor Whittier, "A Look at Decentralization and Community Control, " The School Administrator (Washington, D. C. : American Association of School Administrators, NEA, January, 1969). 116 parent involvement in a partnership with the school administration and the professional staff means at the level where his child personally feels the impact of the system and the profession--the local building level. For those concerned with the very large, monolithic school structure, the McGeorge Bundy report provides the most compre- hensive analysis. 57 Richard Featherstone and Frederick Hill, in their series of articles in American School and University, pre- sented a thorough and knowledgeable review of salient factors to be considered and problems to be confronted in the legal reorganization of a large district. 58 Detailed review of New York and Detroit reorganization plans the the implementation problems related thereto has led this author to the conclusion that such reorganizations, to be successful, should lead to clear, legal delineation and separation. It seems apparent that when a central district is maintained While major policy and administration is decentralized, as an organization it can only provide service and collection functions; it cannot retain control functions without the legal and operational power to enforce them. 57Bundy, Reconnection for Learning. 58Richard Featherstone and Frederick Hill, "Urban School Decentralization, Parts I, II, ‘III, IV, and V, " American School and Ugiversity, Vol. 41, Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 8, and Vol. 42, No. 1, Oct. and Dec. , 1968, and Feb. , Apr. , and Sept. , 1969. 117 In reviewing the New York plan and its ramifications, Joseph Featherstone observed that "creating good schools is the task of professional educators. "59 He goes on to say: Schools cannot be run by "participating democracy" alone. Bureaucracy, alas, is essential if for no other reason than that communities disagree on what they want, and because many. of the problems are technical, not political. The question is not bureaucrats or no bureaucrats, however, but which bureau- crats, responsive to whom, and enforcing what rules. Certainly some decentralization is needed. Central bureaucra- cies are unwieldy and too insensitive to community feelings. There is no room for much experiment in working out power relationships between parents, teachers and government. Dr. Ernest O. Melby, while expressing concern for the urban school organizational structure, had this to say: Internal decentralization is a must, but how is it to be accom- plished? What decisions should be made by professional people, and what decisions by the lay people? Where should lay involvement be decision -making and where advisory? How should professional personnel react to lay opinion about matters of professional knowledge and skill? If we are to build a great education we must have community involvement, but it should not be complete local control. Sydney J. Harris, the syndicated columnist, who is cer- tainly the journalistic specialist in centralization and decentraliza- tion, summed up the inconclusiveness of the answers in an article: 9Joseph Featherstone, "School Managers, "- The New Republic, Vol. CLX, No. 6, Feb. 8, 1969, pp. 13,. 14. 60Melby, op. cit. 118 If you like nutshells, here' 5 the problem in a nutshell: as the world grows more complex, it needs more centralization-~but as the world grows more complex, it also needs more decen- tralization. How do you solve this problem, which goes far deeper than all the political and economic schisms of our time? This is the dilemma we should be addressing ourselves to. And, of course, nobody is. Take the first proposition. Everything is increasingly related to everything else these days; what happens in one area affects other areas. The world is smaller and tighter and more inter- dependent than ever before. Obviously, we need to coordinate and centralize these manifold activities. - Take the second proposition. The world is becomong impersonal and automatic, so that the individual is lost in the shuffle, so that smaller communities are losing their identity and their power to make decisions for themselves. Obviously, we need to humanize and decentralize these manifold activities. . . We can see this paradox most clearly, on the national scale, in the matter of schooling. . . . We need closeness, coordination, centralization. We also need room to move freely, independence from conformity, and more decision ~making at the grass-roots level. This is true every- where, under any system, in the technological world of the 20th Century. The true task of politics is to combine these contrary needs at their optimum points. Summary The centralization -decentralization theories of organization are not mutually exclusive. Centralization to effect unity of purpose 1Sydney J. Harris, "To Centralize or Decentralize, " State Journal, Lansing, Michigan, March 19, 1969. 119 and coordinated goal -seeking activity is necessary in all organizations. Decentralization to place decisions at the point of most relevant information and accountability improves both the quality and timeli - ness of management decisions. To involve all levels of management in establishing and determining objectives is to create a commitment to those objectives. More effective results occur when the satisfac- tion of achieving personal objectives contributes to the achievement of organization objectives. Personal independence and decision ability encourage initiative and innovation and develop self -motivation and self -eva1uation; yet stable parameters for this autonomy are essential. Independence of action does not imply the right to reject organizational objectives, exceed authority, abrogate organizational policies, or violate the rights of others. The centralization- decentralization pendulum then should rest where it most effectively fits the organization. Centralization versus decentralization in education has both an organizational (management) basis and a political basis. The factors significant to the position of the centralization -decentralization pendulum in business enterprise apply to education with the additional factor of community involvement. Community involvement may be a local parental concern for better education or a national movement of black political power through black -controlled schools. It is also 120 an external manifestation of educational management' 5 inability to establish valid and interpretable measures of educational performance on the part of the student, the teacher, and administration, and to effect management decisions on the basis of objective evaluation. CHAPTER IV DECENTRALIZATION DEMONSTRATION Introduction The secondary purpose of this study, as stated, is to analyze the business functions pertaining to elementary school administration and to develop the parameters of the principal' s authority as ademonstration step in the decentralization of school management. The author has assumed that effective administra- tion decentralization must precede effective lay involvement at the operational unit level. To decentralize decision -making it is necessary, first, to determine the most managerially appropriate level of decision for each family of functions and the relationship of various decision- making centers. Obviously, decision levels range from the teacher to the board of education, but what decisions are appropriatefor the teacher, the principal, the director, the assistant superintendent, and the superintendent? Functionally, operationally, and organiza- tionally, where is the optimum level of decision? At what point will 121 122 decision -making ability encourage participation, initiative, responsibility, and the internalization of organizational goals at the school building level; and at what point does the achievement of the organizational goals require more centralized levels for decision? At what point does building -1evel independence increase effectiveness, and at what point does centralized business service supplement and support the educational effectiveness of the building administrator? At what point do technology, law, contract require- ments, and business ethics affect the level of decision? At what level can decisions be assigned and still carry accountability? Just where is that point of fine balance between centralization and decen- tralization? These questions cannot be answered finally for every organization or for every elementary unit in a school system. Com- munities vary, the educational needs of children vary, individual personalities and capacities vary; thus, flexibility, with account- ability, is a requisite of decentralization. Therefore, educational decentralization must begin with a philosophy of management based on involvement and participation with evaluation and accountability. There must be centralized intent to find and effect the optimum level of managerial decentralization and to work to develop the adminis- trative talent to implement the plan. Decentralization must provide 123 parameters for individual and group decision making, and the organization must encourage and reward the assuming of responsi - bility while at the same time applying objective means of evaluating operational effectiveness. Decentralized parameters must be accepted and understood and should be developed through participa- tion of representatives of all administrative levels. This chapter presents a demonstrationof a method of achieving decentralization for four areas of business management: budget and finance, purchasing and supply, educational facilities planning, and maintenance and operation, as they relate to elemen- tary school management. These four areas were chosen because they were definable areas of operation headed by director level administrators in the Grand Rapids Public School System. One major input in arriving at a prototype for decision- making will be established through the application and analysis of questionnaires, interviews, and structured committee recommenda- tions. A random sample of elementary principals .will be used as representative of the total population of elementary principals. The purpose of the questionnaire is to present decision- making situations and to determine the attitude of elementary principals and central administrators as to the autonomy of decision- making at the local level. It will also be used to determine the 124 perceptions of existing autonomy of the elementary. principal. Subsequently, the results of the questionnaire responses will serve as a committee source in the development of a recommended state- ment of authority and responsibility. In summary, the purpose of this chapter is to establish present perceptions and demonstrate a method of development of future parameters of decision -making for elementary principals in certain business functions in the Grand Rapids School System. This is action research with an intent to effect change as well as demonstrate a method of change. Grand Rapids has a public school population of approxi - mately 35, 000 students, K through 12. Its organization includes four high schools, eight junior high or middle schools, and forty- eight elementary schools. The elementary school attendance areas represent natural attendance areas and range in student enrollment from 300 to 700 students. Each elementary school is administered by a full-time principal. Questionnaire Development and Use A questionnaire was developed for each of ,the chosen areas by initially inviting sample questions pertaining .to elementary unit decisions from four principals and four central administrators. These were supplemented and edited by the author. The initial list 125 of decision situations represented a broad range of functions as a taxonomic approach to defining decision situations. Ten questions were selected and refined to represent a range of decision complexity for each chosen area. These comprised the initial sample question- naire that was reviewed by the eight participating administrators and two professors of elementary education. As a result, it was decided that questions should be included dealing with teacher decision pre - rogatives and principals' attitudes about decision responsibility. It was decided that each questionnaire should contain ten questions, two relating to teacher autonomy, two relating to principal capacity and willingness for decision -making, and the balance of the questions to provide a hierarchy of decision situations to be indicative of parameter limits. In addition, each questionnaire would include a general question to determine the respondent' s perception of the . principal' s present authority, responsibility, and prerogative in each area of operation. Responses to the questions were .to indicate the range of decision autonomy: Yes; Yes, within general guidelines; Yes, with specific limitations; and No. The data from the questionnaire will be analyzed, but in this demonstration the questionnaire serves basically as the first instrument toward parameter development. 126 QUESTIONNAIRE IV -1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO BUDGET AND FINANCE This questionnaire is designed to obtain your objective Opinion relative to levels of school organization decisions. Check the column providing the best answer to each question. c—l Cd 0 State what you believe to be the E “3 principal's authority, responsibility, go 8 and prerogatives regarding finance and g 3‘ budgeting in the management of your g g” .5 g buildi . "‘ F "‘ 1:! “g . :2 a) m '3 a) 8 o :>+ >4 no >4 :1 Z 1. Should each teacher in an elementary school have a budget for discretionary purchase of educational supplies? 2. Should each school have a budget for educational supplies and equipment (globes, charts, small equipment)? 3. Should each school have a budget for maintenance of building? 4. Should principals be involved in the process of determining the proration of elementary school funds to the units within the system? 10. 127 Should principals be involved in the system -wide budgetary process and allocation of funds within the total school district? If elementary principals had budgetary control in areas stated in questions 2 and 3, should teachers participate in the building decisions for the expendi - ture of budgets? If elementary principals had budgetary control in areas stated in questions 2 and 3, do you believe that a better use of funds would result and the system objectives be more effectively achieved? Should principals be involved in evaluating the cost effectiveness of programs and personnel serving elementary schools? Do principals have the time and capacity, to manage and control a school budget? Are principals willing to be evaluated on the effectiveness of their decisions. in business management? Yes Yes, within general guidelines Yes, with specific limitations No 128 QUESTIONNAIRE IV -2 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO PURCHASING AND SUPPLY This questiOnnaire is designed to obtain your objective opinion relative to levels of school organization decisions. Check the column providing the best answer to each question. State what you believe to be the 7,3 o principal's authority, responsibility, 3 5'3 and prerogatives regarding the go 8 purchasing and supply management c: 3‘ m of your building. as; 53 as", g: 3 S a '43 . ,g . 3 :0 on m "" a) m "" a) E 0 > >4 E» _:>« :1 Z 1. Should individual teachers be permitted to buy supplies and materials from retail sources? 2. Should representative teachers be involved in the selection of educational supplies and materials for the school? 3. Should principals be permitted to select whatever instructional mate - rials they want for their building within budget? 4. Should principals be allowed to purchase, or otherwise obligate the Board regarding materials, directly from vendors? 10. 129 Should representative principals share in the selection process for educational supplies, equipment, and furniture? Should representative principals share in selecting materials to be added or'deleted in supply inventory? Should principals be involved in plan- ning the procedures for purchasing and requisitioning of materials? Should individual principals be able to select the make of school furniture they want after competitive bids have been received from a standard specification? Do principals have the time and capacity for the selection and control of educational supplies, equipment, and furniture? Are principals willing to be evaluated on the effectiveness of their decisions in purchasing and supply management? Yes Yes, within general guidelines Yes, with specific limitations No 130 QUESTIONNAIRE IV - 3 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES PLANNING This questionnaire is designed to obtain your objective opinion relatiVe to levels of school organization decisions. Check the column providing the best answer to each question. State what you believe to be the E o principal' s authority, responsibility, 2 $3 and prerogatives regarding the g’, 8 educational facilities planning for c: 3‘ a: your building. 32 g {3 :0: B - B ' .3; .33 3 3 '3 3 8 o >4 >-. no >4 :1 Z 1. Should teachers be permitted to change and arrange their rooms as they please? 2. Should teachers have the prerogative of requesting and effecting physical (structural) changes in their rooms, such as, bulletin boards, cabinetry, door location, etc. ? 3. Should principals have the prerogative of requesting and effecting structural changes in their buildings, such as, room utilization, wall locations, play- ground equipment placement, etc. ? 4. Should principals make annual reports of school facility needs and be able to communicate those needs by conference with a central administrator? 10. 131 Should principals have the authority to effect or reject enrriculum programs that will require facility modification? Should principals have the authority to make building modifications if they can get parents, teachers, friends, or ven- dors to donate the work and materials? Should representative principals be involved in planning new curri culums and new facilities to implement the curriculum? Should principals be able to reject a curriculum for which a building was planned? Do principals have the time and capacity for leadership in building modernization and planning? Are principals-Willing to be evaluated on the effectiveness of their decisions, in achieving curriculum effectiveness through building utilization? Yes Yes, within general guideline 3 Yes, with specific limitations No 132 QUESTIONNAIRE IV - 4 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS This questionnaire is designed to obtain your objective opinion relative to levels of school organization decisions. Check the column providing the best answer to each question. State-what you believe to be the '8 O . . . . . . L. pr1nc1pal's authority, respons1b111ty, 2 a3 and prerogatives regarding building 80 8 maintenance and operations of your a g; . . . U) building. g a): 5% 8 B - B '5 .33 .g 3 3 '3 3 8 o >4 >* no t» :1 Z 1. Should a teacher have the prerogative to make building modifications or . perform building maintenance work? 2. Should teachers be able to demand custodial time for special projects or special assignments in their room? 3. Should principals direct the work and be responsible for custodial services? 4. Should the principal have the pre - rogative to direct the custodian to make building modifications? 10. 133 Should the principal have the authority to permit public use of the building and incur overtime cost? Should the principal and head custodian together decide the custodial per- formance, work schedules, and personnel assignment? Should the principal evaluate the effectiveness of the custodial services and the custodian? Should the custodian be used as one source of evaluating the effectiveness of the principal in building manage- ment? Do principals have the time and capacity for full responsibility for building maintenance and operation? Are principals willing to be evaluated on the effectiveness of their manage- ment of the physical building? Yes Yes, within general guidelines Yes, with specific limitations No 134 Sample Selection The author was advised that a random selection of eight of forty -eight elementary principals who make up the total population of the Grand Rapids Public School System would provide a reliable research sample. Four principals who were involved in the process of developing and screening the situation questions were eliminated from the population. Therefore, the sample consists of eight randomly selected principals from an adjusted population of forty- four, the sample thus comprising 18. 2 per cent of the population. The sample selection was made by placing the name of each school in the population on_ a 3 X 5 card. The cards were repeatedly shuffled and mixed, and the fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty -fifth, thirtieth, thirty -fifth, and fortieth cards were selected. The principals of the schools selected made up the sample. The sample included four men and four women; three principals of inner city schools and five outer or transitional school communities; two principals with less than five years experience and six with more than five years experience. Eight central administrators were chosen to participate in the study. Their selection was made by function, not by sample, although in essence they comprise the total population of the central administrators in the operational decision hierarchy of the areas chosen for study. They were: 135 Assistant Superintendent of Schools --Instruction Director of Elementary Schools Director of Budget and Finance Director of Procurement and Modernization Director of Educational Facilities Planning Director of Maintenance and Operations Supervisor of Purchasing Supervisor of Elementary Operations (Custodial Services) Of the eight, all but the Director of Maintenance and Opera - tions and the Supervisor of Elementary Operations are certified teachers functioning in central administration positions. The two noncertified persons have had long careers in working with elemen- tary principals. The individuals selected were not advised of the thesis orientation of the study; rather, they were in reality participating in action research at the request of the Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Charge of Business Affairs, the author of this thesis. Administration of the Questionnaire The general question of each questionnaire required a written response, and it was felt that respondents would also feel the need to elaborate on answers to specific situation questions. Therefore, to facilitate questionnaire completion and to encourage full participation of the respondent, four competent secretaries were employed to administer the questionnaire. Each secretary was to present the questionnaire to two principals and two central 136 administrators and stand ready to receive dictation on the general question as well as elaboration of specific questions. The secre- taries were thoroughly instructed as to the purpose of the question- naire and their role in its administration, which was to facilitate and make convenient cooperative involvement. They presented a statement to this effect to the respondent and were further instructed not to attempt interpretation of questions or in any way influence responses. The secretaries made appointments with their four respondents and returned the completed questionnaires plus tran- scribed dictation. Introductory letters requesting participation of the respondents preceded the secretarial contact. This letter included an enclosure describing the procedure for investigation, Appendices A and B. Responses from Principals and Central Administrators Responses to the general question on each questionnaire clearly evidenced a lack of understanding of what the principal' s authority, responsibility, and prerogatives are. Newer principals frankly said they didn' t know; older principals related the function as they practiced it. In other words, the job has been defined through individual experience and initiative. Almost all expressed a desire for more authority. More central administrators thought principals 137 did have authority, but in responding to this question stated how, in their opinion, it ought to be. The principals were responding to what they considered an internal study, and they responded according to their perceptions from their particular reference point and bias. The central administrators also felt the principal should have more authority but emphasized its pairing with the acceptance of responsi - bility. The principals did not emphasize accountability, but this was not the question, and they may have assumed this came with authority. The importance of the study is not whether perceptions were right or wrong but that they evidenced a need for delineation and clarification; therefore, no attempt will be made to compare perceptions with the indended modus operanti. A comparative summary of respondent statements follows on the next page; each paragraph represents a statement from a different individual. Both the principals and the central administration felt that there should be more local level involvement in management decisions. Their statements validated the need for the decentrali - zation demonstration project in Grand Rapids. The problem remains to describe the parameters of decision autonomy at the elementa ry school level. Questionnaire General Question Responses Budget and Finance Principals I think principals are respon- sible for the budget as it is allocated to us in the various areas as they affect our schools: supplies, equipment, instruc- tional materials, including audio -visual and books. So we are responsible for the expendi - ture of these, selection of materials, and I suppose, their use. We are responsible in the area of budget when it comes to supply. We are allotted a cer- tain budget for the school year, and we must try to stay within this budget. At the present time we have very little prerogative with regard to budget and finance when it comes to expenditure because it is presently well formulated. Budgets are set and predetermined with the number of children. When it comes to prerogative, I don' t. think we have any because it comes as a directive from the business office telling us what it 18. We know the needs of our build- ing. We should have more say regarding monies allocated to our building. Central Administrators I believe that an experienced principal who had been assigned to a school two or more years knows the needs of the building and is the best person to judge where the money will be spent. However, there should be some general guidelines for all prin- cipals established by the finance department together with the Director of Elementary Schools and working with a committee of elementary principals. For example, a principal who is interested in science should not 'spend all the money for scien- tific equipment to the exclusion of materials needed in math, primary rooms, etc. New prin- cipals need much assistance in ‘ allocating budget. Principals have very little pre - rogative in planning the budget. They do have responsibility after the budget is established to see that they stay within the confines of their building allotment. To submit their annual budget for the major needs of the school and after budget determinations are made to operate the school as effectively as possible within its limitations. I feel we should be acquainted in general with financial aspects dealing with our schools and be able to interpret to staff and community as well. It would be great if we would understand it better-J see this as a possi- bility. There was a time‘when we could indicate certain types of things that we needed, but we no longer do that. Most of these funds are established by some - body, then we just work within that framework. A principal has authority to order within budgeted amounts in areas of instruction and to ask for anything else she feels the building needs. Very little. It is all predeter- mined. We-work within a framework that is handed down and don' t know the rationale behind it. It could be our fault for not asking. When they have set up the tentative budget for the next year, they have never asked me what I thought about it. I don' t truthfully know what my authority is in the area of budget and finance. It hasn' t been defined. We have requisitions, and supposedly we should get the things we order, but we don' t always. I wish we have author- ity to demand things we order. 139 I believe principals are well aware of their general responsi - bility to manage their building in the area of finance and budget. They do have the authority to prepare financial budgets for their particular school, and they do have the authority to control that budget once it is approved. In practice, however, most principals do not realize that they have this authority and therefore, in fact, do not par- ticipate to the extent that they could in preparation and control of the budget for their building. Most principals are confused as to the exercising of this author- ity, since I believe it has never been explicitly delegated to them. It is the principal' s responsi - bility to determine what his needs are and then list the items that he needs based .upon cost and instructional value. Principals should expe ct a stated amount of money each year for equipment for that year that he can count on. The principal should work in conjunction with the Director of Budget & Finance and Director of Elementary. Schools in making the budget for the school year. The business department should set the budget, and then within budget limitations the principal should have freedom. The principals should submit a budget for the cost to run the school for the year. 140 The principal has the responsi- bility for analyzing the needs of teachers in terms of instruc- tional materials and to recom- mend what is required to do the job. She has the responsibility to review her needs during the school year andif any of the elements change, number of students, educational need, she has the responsibility to require necessary change in budgeting to accomplish what she perceives to be the educational goal in her building. There is alSo the re- sponsibility to live Within that budget. Since all schools have more needs traditionally than can be met by available monies, the principal has the responsi - bility to request budget adjust- ments to effectively manage within the limitations of the financial support. She then has the responsibility of interpreting and supporting the budget to her staff and to the parents of the children in her school. 141 Questionnaire General Question Responses Purchasing and Supply Principals Our responsibilities are limited to the purchase of equipment and materials as allocated by the central office. We are respon- sible for the allotted expenditure for school supplies, ordering, and dispersal of supplies. As far as purchasing of mate- rials, we are given a budget to purchase maps, globes, arith- metic, reading, science mate- rials, etc'. , and we have the right to select materials we think are beneficial to the school. When it comes to sup- plies we have to order what is in the supply building. We really don' t have any control over the kind of supplies we receive. This is all done through the pur- chasing office. Major area is requisitioning materials both on daily basis and monthly. We also. send in spe- cial orders whenever something is needed in theway of repairs or materials, machines, or whatever. There are also the big categories of book orders, audio -visual aids, arithmetic, science, or Other subject matter areas we are supposed to do within the prescribed budget. Central Administrators The principals have the respon- sibility for identifying the needs in terms of equipment and supply that are required in the instruc- tional program, but central staff should interpret these require - ments for the competitive bidding and purchasing. I think involve- ment of principals and teachers, particularly in product evalua - tion, is desirable. I think after the decision to buy a given piece of equipment is made, the prin- cipal is responsible for its effective use in the building. Any problems in using materials should be reported to purchasing management, and any unusual success in the use of a given material or equipment should also be made known to central purchasing. I think we spend too much time in our school system with the items of supply that really cost pennies, and we per— haps work inordinate numbers of hours trying to control the use of supplies. We might be better reversing that time, looking at the effective use of expensive equipment and materials and effective utilization of teaching staff. To channel and approve requi si - tions within the allotted budget. 142 Be realistic in the needs of schools. Each school is differ- ent; each school' s needs are different. Only a principal can know these needs. Principals should have more to say in purchasing supplies (audio- visual, physical education equipment, etc. ). We should have a voice in this matter. We should be given more consideration for our specific building. We should be directly responsible for pur— chasing. Prerogative is to order supplies which are available within the budget for the school. Preroga- tive as far as purchasing extends only as far as making a request and hoping that they will find the money out of some budget to purchase. Authority to spend the budget allocated for supplies. No authority as far as purchas- ing. Responsibility to see that supplies are ordered and used effectively in areas where a budget is established. Respon— sibility in purchasing to make knoWn the needs of the building through a purchase order. The only thing we can do is fill out a purchase requisition and perhaps we get the materials and perhaps we don't- In my expe- rience, there has been no format set up to let us know whether or not a purchase request has been granted other than waiting to see if it gets here. The principal should discuss with the Director of Purchasing the selection of any supplies which will be used within his building. In the area of requisitioning supplies and educational equip- ment, they do exercise their authority to prepare both supply and purchase requisitions. How- ever, since they do not exercise their authority to control the budget, they do not relate their requisitions to budget. Due to standardized purchasing sched- ules, quantity purchases, and bidding process, individual principals exercised very little influence as to selection of edu- cational supplies and equipment. I believe the responsibilities of the principal include requesting materials and equipment prior to the time of need. They should screen the requests made by teachers to see if the article is beneficial and of value in terms of instruction. Use should justify the cost. They should review with their teachers the needs of the school and should expect to get those items which are justified. The principal should be responsible for any decision he makes. They can make recommendations for the purchase of certain edu- cational supplies. I believe they have a petty cash fund, and they can buy supplies from that fund that cannot be furnished by the Supply Department. It is my responsibility to see that we have adequate supplies. It is the direct responsibility of the building principal to see that these are done, but machinery takes away from the responsi - bility. 143 I believe that the principal, working with the teachers, should make the decisions in this area. The total budget must be set by the central administration, and guidelines for the use of supplies should also be set by central adminis - trative personnel. 144 Questionnaire General Question Responses Educational Facilities Planning Principals It is our responsibility to make known to the appropriate planning office what the needs are for conducting an effective school program. When our building is included in some major change, we have the responsibility of working with the planning office in providing them with informa- tion needed to carry out change; for example, we can work with the teaching staff, maintenance staff, school architect, and the planning office in interperting the goals and objectives of the school program as they relate to the building. It has been my observation that we have had very little authority other than making suggestions or in working with the planning committee. We should be a member of any committee that might be organ- ized for this type of planning for the educational facilities planned of a building. We should have more to say than we have had. I had a recent experience in which I requested a change and found that the director of mod - ernization draws up plans and they tell you what they are. That' s the way it is. Central Administrators To work cooperatively with the school plant planner. To get the best facility within the allotted budget for the students in their area. If the principal has been appointed for the building, I believe that principal should be involved in the initial planning and continue to work through all phases until the building is ready for pupils. If no principal has been appointed, this responsi - bility must be carried by the Director of Elementary School and/or his appointee. A com- mittee of principals should work on the planning to ensure its practical use. The principal should be involved in moderni - zation planning. They should be involved to a certain degree and should be heard in the planning of a new facility. However, I feel that they should not become so in- volved so as to dictate. School buildings are not the private residence of a principal but a school system facility for edu- cating children. Final decisions should be left to professional trained personnel. 145 In general, the buildings already exist, so educational planning has been completed. I think many times we should probably be called in to give suggestions on what we see, living right with the problem. For instance, putting trees in the school yard to beautify it with long thorns to be picked off and used as needles. A responsible group (principals, teachers, administrators, Mr. Miller) should meet and talk about the needs of that particular facility. Being in a building already built, my responsibility would be to always be alert to possible improvements, to better meet needs of program. That would cover a big territory. Responsi - bility of serving on committees planning new schools. It is important to get feedback from people who live with the plan, to capitalize on experience of people who do the actual living. By pure chance I was on the committee to look over original blueprints. If the principal of a new building is known, he or she should have a chance to be in on the planning. The success of the programs in the building is partially due to the principal! s feeling about them. I think prin- cipals should be consulted when new buildings are added to the school and when any rooms are made over to be used for differ— ent purposes. In terms of principals' responsi - bility in modernization require - ments, I think they must listen to the requests of their staff for minor room changes, storage needs, etc. , and translate these needs into an effective proposal. They should do this annually at the same time the budget is pre- pared. They should be inVolved in the decision concerning what can and what cannot be done and, when the decision. is made, they should accept the responsibility of that decision rather than stat- ing that someone "above them" has made the decision. In terms of planning for new construction, principals should accept and give priority to serving on, planning committees and contribute to the planning activity, and. as commit- tee recommendations are made to the Board they then must accept responsibility for that building design and the commit- tee' s position. I believe princi- pals should serve asleaders in the school building and should look for ways to. improve teacher- pupil relationships, teacher- principal relationships, and parent -teacher relationships; and if these improvements can best be effected by changes in the school physical plant, they Should relate these changes to the cen- tral planning office. -They should be prepared'to demonstrate that the innovation has potential for educational improvement and far more effective use of staff by having developed a model that can be observed by central adminis- tration. In planning you need a cross section. Principals need a direct part in planning. If they are instructional leaders, they should know about buildings and what is conducive to instruction. 146 I believe principals exercise little if any influence in the edu- cational planning of a new build- ing, except as they are asked to be a member of a staff planning committee. Principals in the past have been assigned to the building after the building has been completely constructed. A principal should be responsible for reviewing with the. planning office future enrollment projec- tions, socio-economic, ethnic, and other community changes so that he can brief his staff. He should be responsible for inform- ing the planning office relative to the needs for changes in his building. The planning office should give help in terms of bu building changes and student profiles. I would like to see their signa- tures on modernization and new construction plans. . I think they are being ignored or are failing to show interest. Their responsibility is to provide the planning department with data pertaining to the educational facilities needed for better edu- cation. My experience would indicate that most concern is for personal desires rather than valid improvements for better education. 147 Questionnaire General Question Responses Building Maintenance and Operations Principals Our responsibility is to see that the building is maintained prop- erly for carrying out an effective school program for children. It includes housekeeping, care of building and grounds, safety, etc. Our authority includes the requisitioning of appropriate services: carpentry, plumbing, and other areas of maintenance in order to ensure that the building is in good operating condition. Our prerogatives are very limited in terms of establishing priorities relative to what should be done as we observe various jobs to be done. We should be involved with any work done Within our building of any nature. At the present time we are responsible for the building; that is fine. We see things that needattention. It should be our prerogative to make plans in this area. I have authority over the main- tenance and operation of the building in that I am responsible for it. It is my authority and responsibility to see that the building is maintained and operated in the best way possible within the limitations of the maintenance staff assigned to the building. Central Administrators His responsibility is to see that the personnel under his direct jurisdiction keep the building clean as well as see that minor repairs are accomplished. In addition, it is his responsibility to report major repair and maintenance needs to central administration. I believe that the principal, working with the staff, under- stands and knows the needs for the operation and maintenance of the building on aday -by -day basis, and should request improvements as needed and follow through to see that these are made. They are responsible for the educational and physical facili - ties and make recommendations for the improvement of such. They submit maintenance requi - sitions for various repairs to the physical plant. The custodian should also sign the requisition so that he will be aware of what they have submitted and vice versa. Principals should report any inferior work that perhaps is being done by maintenance personnel in their respective buildings. 148 It is very much up to the build- ing principal to.see that it is properly maintained through daily observation and ,, initiate these requests and see that they are carried out and completed. A lot of room within to work. Most of the responsibility falls upon us, and I think this is good. It makes you feel part of the: system and building when you have the responsibility. The building does not belong to you, but it becomes more of a per— sonal thing to you. I think we have theresponsi- bility to see that our building is as well organized as possible: storage of materials, equipment, general cleanliness of building. I feel we do have something to say in regard to custodial ser- vices. We have responsibility in orienting custodians to the philosophy of the school. It is a divided duty because as I understand it, the custodians are under the supervisor of operations, and anything we really want to have done with them must go through him, and yet we are responsible for the appearance of the building and how it suits the children; this makes it very difficult. I have found the supervisor to be very accessible. The principal should be 100% in charge of maintenance, and the custodians should answer to him. The principal is in charge of the building and the level of main- tenance. The physical condition of the building at any given time is a reflection of that principal' 8 concern for housekeeping. The principal is the head custodian' s immediate boss, and if she has particular need or concern about the cleanliness in the building or needs special help from the cus- todian, she should be able to give that direction and see that the job is carried out. She also has the responsibility for report- ing damage to the building, needed repairs, etc. , and to follow up. She should have a voice in decisions on paint schedules and color selection. If comfort levels in the building do not meet her perceived stan- dard, she should review these ‘ with the proper department. She should understand structural or financial limitations and accept responsibility for inter- preting these limitations to her teaching staff and community. A principal should cooperate with the maintenance staff‘and custodians so that. the best 1 environment possible can be obtained. He has the responsi - bility of working with custodians so that they‘are understanding with the'kids. Every custodian has a specific assignment that he is expected to do, but the principal makes special assign- ments. I think that the principal should plan any changes in the building with the custodians. I have authority to identify with my building needs, but I can' t always do something about it. I am liable for my building if something happens, but my authority doesn' tcome close to equalling my. liability, which puts me at a disadvantage. The machinery moves too slowly for 149 some things that are imperative. Scheduling of maintenance and renovations is not influenced to a great degree by principals. Custodial staffing and scheduling is done by other than the princi - pal, but they are consulted and can exert influence. The prin- cipal does have the authority to direct the custodial staff on the job. He' 3 got the building responsi - bility. He must operate the building according to state and city codes. He should cooperate with the operation and mainte - nance department people in the use of his building, notification of extracurricular activities, and weekly inspections with the building engineer, and general operation of the building. 150 The analysis of specific question response provides more details of the perceptions stated. For the purpose of quantitative analysis, responses to questions were given the following values as indicative of local autonomy: Yes . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Yes, within general guidelines . . 2 Yes,- with specific limitations . . . 1 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Responses were totaled by question for the principals' group and the central administrators' group. A maximum total value for each group is therefore 27 and a minimum 0. The table on the following page presents these totals in summary form by each functional area. The higher the'total, the more favorable the opinion toward principal inVQIVement and decentralized decision -making; the lower the total, the more favorable the opinion toward centralization. Respondents were also invited to dictate comments elaborating on their question responses. This dictation is not summarized here, but it will be used by the author in broadening the analysis of the questionnaire data. 151 H mm NH mm NH om «H vm oH H m m mH m mH m NH 0. w mH, H H. H . _ pH 3 om w oH mm H m mm NH mH H H mm H. H 3 H w mH H N H pH m m OH 0H m pH vm H. pH m H. m Va vm m wm mH pH H. NH NH m mH H. vH v m m m m H. wH wH w pH H N N N m mH om m w H. m H _. H. M “WWW Hon HocHHnm H. MMHWM HaHosHHm HMHHHHWW Hang—Hum HMHHHHWW HaHquum - . msoflmoaO meoaoaodo msHSHmHnH bHHHomnH bag—m mucosa use oosocoHGHmsH .Q Hosonoospm .O poo mchoHHoufinH .mH 28 .535 d mflmOUm HBHwOnHSHOU m0 HADQHmUm HEH HEEL 152 To illustrate differing opinions between principals and central administrators, the composite scores for each question are presented in graph form in the following groupings: 1. Questions relating to principal involvement: a. Budget and Finance --Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 b. Purchasing and Supply ——Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 c. Educational Facility Planning --Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (1. Maintenance and Operations --Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 e. A. Summary Profile f. Summary Profile --Male and Female Participants 2. Questions relating to teacher involvement: Questions A-l, 6; B—1, 2; C-1, 2; D-l, 2. 3. Questions relating to principal capacity and willingness: Questions A-9, 10; B-9, 10; C-9, 10; D-9, 10. Graphs IV -1, IV -2, IV -3, and IV -4 show the total scores per question listed for each category: Budget and Finance, Purchas - ing and Supply, Educational Facility Planning, and Maintenance and Operations. The questions represent the abcissa of the graphs and group scores are the ordinates. A large area between the scores for any question indicates divergent opinion between the two groups. Similarity of score would 153 GRAPH IV -1 BUDGET AND FINANCE Values Principals . ._ — — Central Administrators 0 , | l I I l 2 3 4 y 5 7 8 Questions indicate agreement on decision level parameters for any question. In Graph IV -1, Questions 5 and 7 show divergent opinions. Question 5 deals with the involvement of prinCipals in the system -wide budgetary process. Principals felt more Strongly that they should be involved in the process of the allocation of funds or the setting of budgetary priorities within the total school district. Central administrators differed with them, feeling that the complexity of the total system operation prohibits a quasi -budgetary negotiation system with all departments and units. The attitudes expressed in question 5 in a 154 sense‘were restatedin question 7, as principals felt that the system objectives would be more effectively achieved if they had more budgetary control, while the central administrators were much less convinced. The. general agreement between the two groups on questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 indicated agreement on parameters of decentralization beyond those now in practice. GRAPH IV -2 PURCHASING AND SUPPLY Principals — — -— Central Administrators 24‘. 21H 13H 15— 12— Values ' l I I l 3 4 5 6 7 8 Questions In Graph IV -2, substantial divergence of opinion existed between groups with major difference existing for questions 4 and 8. 155 Question 4 deals with the authority of a principal to make direct purchases or otherwise to obligate the Board of Education for the expenditure of funds without procedural or budgetary approval. All principals responded that they thought they should have this authority. All central administrators disagreed. Question 8 dealt with the authority of a principal to make his choice of school furni - ture after competitive bids had been received. Five of the eight principals thought they should have this authority, and all central administrators believed they should not. Part of the difference on this question may be due to the lack of the principals' awareness of ethical procedures and public relations implications in bidding and purchasing equipment. It was very evident from the verbal elabora - tion of question 4 that the principals felt a need for more flexibility in selecting and purchasing items of an unusual and immediate nature. It was somewhat of a contradiction on the position of the principals that they were less willing to allow representative teachers to participate in the selection of educational supplies and materials than were the central administrators. This could be con- strued to indicate that principals want more prerogative for purchas - ing and selection of materials but are less willing to involve teachers in the process. 156 GRAPH IV —3 EDUCATIONAL FACILITY PLANNING Principals _ _ — Central Administrators Values Questions As shown in Graph IV- 3, there was considerable unanimity of opinion between the two groups regarding educational facility Planning. The difference was primarily that expressed to questions 2 and 3, which deal with the prerogative of teachers to make struc- t“Pal changes in their rooms and the prerogative of principals to effeet structural changes. Part of the difference of opinion here was pr Obably caused by the knowledge of central administrators as to the conlplexity of structural changes. Structural changes involving wall 157 location and doorways and the use of various materials come under a severe State Fire Marshal Code which places reSponsibility with the policy bodies. Central administrators also expressed awareness of the changeability of teacher and principal environmental prefer- ences and indicated that buildings should be designed to serve an educational function, not the whims of the teacher. On the other hand, principals indicatedthat often room utilization changes were not accompanied by the necessary structural changes to provide an adequate educational environment for the new use. GRAPH IV— 4 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Values 3 — Principals — — — Central Administrators 0 l I T I I 3 4 5 6 7 8 Questions 158 There was substantial agreement between the two groups in responding to the questions for maintenance and operations, as shown in Graph IV -4 on the previous page. The only differences related to use of the custodian for building modifications and the principal' s role in evaluating the custodial services and vice versa. It was somewhat surprising that the principals as a group were more positive in their opinions both as to their responsibility for evaluating custodial services and the custodian as a source in evaluating the effectiveness of the principal in building management. Graph IV - 5 on the following page shows a summary profile of all questions of principal involvement. The graph indicates that generally principals were more favorable to the decentralization of authority and responsibility than were central administrators, although as pointed out under each individual heading, differences related more to extraneous forces that affect system -wide school management than internal forces that affect elementary operations. There was considerable philosophic agreement relativeto. internal sChool management. Graph IV- 6, on page 160, shows a summary profile of all (Inestions of principal involvement, using male and female principals as Comparison groups... Each principal' 3 response score'was multiplied by two to provide for similar graph values. 159 msoumosG msoflmuoao wagmHm . msHmeHoaam Hompsm m H. m m H. m m H. m m H. m m H. w m H. m m H. m H. m m _ H . r H_ — . . H a _ P p L . _ — — P _ H H O H > > _ H, : H , H/ 1 m H, H H I H , a / H H , H . H H , H - H, i m H / H . _ H , H / > H , / H , H H H H. H , H z x/ H , I. m \ : H H A : HH mH 1 HN l vm 23233384 Houacou | I | mHmQHocHHnH FZHSHHHVAOH/ZH AH mmgw same A 160 H L _ mocmcmufimg L mcoummsO T—FL b 12 In” ma lam Iva mcgwfim wcwmmsnuusm wbwmvmwbmmvmwpmmvmuwpmvmm _ _ F» H _-_ — H _ H _ _ H/ > H/ H, H / H , H x H , , , H l H / , H , , ’ H z , H , / a H H/ , x / H x (H 332 .III onSmh dawnflUZHmnm ho NHm Wm MAE—0mm Mgzbm m .. >H mméU same A 161 When group response values of female and male principals are platted, a most interesting pattern is evident. More variation appears on the platted responses than appeared in the comparison of principals and central administrators' responses. However, male and female principals did not differ with each other on the same questions that they differed with central administrators; on their differences with central staff, male and female principals agreed. They differed with each other on Budget and Finance ques- tions 3, 4, and 8; Purchasing question 8; Planning questions 5 and 8; and Maintenance question 5. In the area of Budget and Finance, male principals wanted more to say about the maintenance budget in their building'but were much less concerned about being involved in the proration of ele - mentary funds to elementary units within the system. Females were more concerned about evaluating programs and personnel (consultive services) thanweremales. In Purchasing, female principals wanted to be involved in planning purchasing and requisition procedures for the system; male principals, seemingly, could care less. In Facility Planning, male principals would be more inclined toward independence in effecting or rejecting curriculums for their building, although they were aware of the inherent limitations in the questions asked. 162 Male principals wanted the authority to control the public use of their building, including the authority to incur overtime cost. Female principals seemingly were not anxious for this authority. In summary, this limited sample would indicate that male principals were more desirous of the authority to run their building, including its maintenance, use, and curriculum. Female principals apparently wanted to be more involved in establishing system -wide standards that will serve as guidelines for their operation. These apparently rather wide differences in the administrative attitudes of male and female principals would indicate a need for further study, and for flexibility in implementing a decentralization plan. Graph IV- 7 compares the opinions of the principals and central administrators relative to teacher involvement. There are two points of difference in responding to questions of teacher involvement. Generally, principals felt teachers should be less involved in the selection of educational materials and supplies for the school, but they felt they should have more prerogative in the physical arrangement of the classroom. This could be paraphrased by stating that the principal seemed naturally less concerned with control of the physical environment than with the materials of instruction. If this preference is instructionally oriented, it raises 163 the question of participation as a teacher motivation in effective use 'of materials. GRAPH IV - 7 TEACHER INVOLVEMENT 24 J —— Principals — — — Central Administrators Values 9 I l 1 r i T I 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 Questions Graph IV - 8 shows group comparisOns for questions relating . the principal' 3 capacity and willingness to accept decision responsi - bility. Therewas general disagreement between central adminis - trators and the principals relative to the principals' time and capacity to manage the business functions and their willingness to 164 be evaluated on the effectiveness of their management. Central administrators felt that principals had less time and capacity for each function and that they were less willing to be evaluated on their performance . One point of similarity was that both central admin- istrators and principals felt that they had inadequate time and capacity to manage the maintenance and operation of their facility. The principals no doubt felt that this aspect of the job is less directly related to instruction and less worthy of their time allotment. Values 24— 21" 18— 15—1 12—4 GRAPH IV - 8 PRINCIPAL DECISION RESPONSIBILITY Principals — — — Central Administrators Questions 165 Summary - -Questionnaire Analysis There is confusion among principals as to what their authority and responsibility. is and between principal and central administrator as to what it is and ought to be. The dictated responses to specificquestions clearly indicated that principals wanted more involvement, but they also expressed dissatisfaction with services received. They perceived more effectiveness if they could just do things or get them done. The central administrators evidenced a lack of confidence in the principal' s capacity for making decisions in support of system goals. They repeatedly emphasized responsibility. Generally, however, there was more agreement than dis- agreement between the two administrative groups on potential parameters for decision -making. If parameters were extendedin those areas of agreement, they would be broader than in current practice. Apparently, then, present parameters, developed through practice, are to a substantial extent informal, individual, and personal in character. The parameters have narrowed because the principals do not feel they have authority and because central administrators feel principals do not accept responsibility. What is needed is a clear definition of roles and a method of communication 166 that will initiate, maintain, and monitor the managerial functions of the principal. Design of Parameters for Administrative Decentralization Model The next process, after questionnaire responses were tabulated and evaluated and the verbal responses of the respondents transcribed, was to use this information in a committee format to develop proposed parameters. Four central administrators, outside the area of business and all former elementary principals, were chosen as committee chairmen. Two of the respondent principals and two respondent central administrators, together with the chairman, made up each committee. When principals were interviewed, they were asked to indicate their preference of a discussion group of the four areas. In six cases the principal' s first interest preference was honored for committee structure; in two cases the second preference prevailed. Development committees, then, consisted of the following: Budget and Finance: Chairman Two Principals Director of Budget and Finance Assistant Superintendent, Instruction 167 Purchasing and Supply: Chairman Two Principals Director of Procurement and Modernization Supervisor of Purchasing Educational Facilities Planning: Chairman Two Principals Director of Educational Facilities Planning Director of Elementary Schools Maintenance and Operations: Chairman Two Principals Director of Maintenance and Operations Supervisor of Elementary Operations The chairmen were instructed in their role of stimulating committee participation in developing new statements of authority and responsibility of the business function of the principal. Chair- menwith a previous orientation to the elementary principalship were chosen to ensure against central administration domination of com- mittee thinking. The tabulation of questionnaire responses and graphs previously illustrated were presented and explained to the chairmen. They also received copies of the dictated verbal responses of the participants. The chairmen were apprised of the research use of the total project and particularly of their contribution. They 168 were fully informed of the- objectives and methods of the study. All participated voluntarily and enthusiastically. The four secretaries who administered the questionnaires were each assigned to a committee as recorder. Transcriptions of committee discussion as well as the final committee reports were available to the author. The committee chairmen were directed to make their reports under three headings: Present Procedures, General Statement, and Proposed Statement of Authority and Respon- sibility. The formats of reporting varied because it was felt a specific outline guide would have been restrictive to committee originality. Budget and Finance Present Procedures. -- The Director of Elementary Schools requests a total amount of money by bydget categories for elementary schools. Upon final determination of available funds and determina- tion of fixed costs (salaries, etc. ), the Director of Budget and Finance allocates funds. The Director of Elementary Schools assigns amounts to each school. Budgets for supplies and supple- mental books are assigned on a per student basis. Other funds are assigned as needed but usually in terms of a specific family of equipment. Elementary teachers do not have individual budget allotments for individual purchase of incidental classroom supplies. 169 General Statement. -- Principals should be more involved in determining the budgetary needs of their'schools, and in particular, the distribution of funds within their buildings. They should have the responsibility of presenting an annual budget request for the overall needs of their operations. They should be accountable for the effective educational use of budget allocations to their buildings. Proposed Statement of Authority and Responsibility. -- 1. The principallshall be responsible for preparing an annual budget request for the operation of his building to include: a. Educational supplies and equipment b. Personnel needs: teachers, clerks, custodians c. Maintenance and housekeeping needs d. Special capital outlay needs This shall be asingle, comprehensive budget proposal which shall be supported by educational program needs and objec- tives. Central office personnel should be used as consultive help in budget formulation. Teachers should be cooperatively, involved in defining the educational objectives and the resources needed to achieve the goals. The principal shall submit his budget to the Director of Elementary Schools with a copy to the Director of Budget and 170 Finance, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Instruction, and the Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Business. The principal can expect that his needs will be considered, and he can further expect an opportunity to present his budget personally to the Director if he desires. .When final budget is determined, each principal will be advised as to the allocation .of funds to his building. This advice shall be specific for major expenditures of maintenance or capital outlay items, including a schedule of completion for approved items. He shall decide the application of his allocation in equipment and supplies but shall follow the established procedures of central requisitioning and purchasing. The principal shall be responsible for pursuing the educa- tional objectives of the school system. He shall be expected to understand the budget application to his building and interpret and support the budget with his staff and community. He has the oppor- tunity and responsibility of being a member of the management team. 2. Each building shall have an unassigned fund (Principal' 8 Fund) deposited in the internal funds of their building each year. This fund will be used at the discretion of the principal for direct purchase of educational supplies (equipment under $25 in cost categorized as supplies) or the reimbursement to teachers for their purchases. Purchases will be restricted to items that support an 171 educational activity or program. Payments from the fund will be supported by receipts or invoices and recorded in the accounts of the school. The principal will be responsible for developing and controlling procedures for managing this fund. The fund will be allowed to accumulate but not to exceed one year' s appropriation. 3. The principal shall be responsible for proper account- ing of all monies handled in the school, such as milk and lunch money, book rentals, Principal' s Fund, etc. The services of the Auditor of Internal Funds are available to the principal for training the clerk or for any other help in managing the funds. The funds of the school shall be subject to annual audit. Purchasing and Supply Present Procedures. --The principal receives a per pupil allotment of funds for requisitioning educational supplies (paper, crayons, pencils, etc.) from the supply warehouse. Each school receives a daily delivery of _mail, audio-visual materials, and urgent supplies. Each school is scheduled for one bulk order (major order) per month. The principal places orders in terms of local need within budget items. Educational equipment is obtained through planned programs that are controlled by the Director of Elementary Schools and departmental supervisors. Maps, globes, and charts, kindergarten equipment, foods equipment, physical education 172 equipment, etc. , are specifically budgeted and controlled. Levels of equipment adequacy are established, and plans are initiated to reach and maintain these levels. All such equipment is requisitioned through and purchased by the business division with consultation, participation, and evaluation of the appropriate educational admin- istrators. Principals are only informally used in this process. Principals are not permitted to make direct purchases, but they do have a small petty cash fund for urgent items of less than $2 in cost. General Statement. -- Principals, on a committee basis, should be more involved in the selection and evaluation of educa- tional equipment and materials. Principals should have more prerogatives in the use of equipment budgets to concentrate on equipment most significant to their school. Funds, of limited quantity, should be available for immediate direct purchase of materials timely to the educational program. Proposed Statement of Authority and Responsibility. -- The principal shall be responsible for obtaining those educational materials and equipment that will be most effective in achieving the objectives of his school. Timely and functional materials help to engender and maintain the enthusiasm and success of the teacher, and hence, the success of the education process. The principal shall 173 manage supplies to provide the greatest support and encouragement to each teacher. To meet this responsibility, the principal shall have: 1. A building fund from which direct purchases by teachers or the principal may be made. A building budget- for all educational equipment and the pre - rogative to allocate the funds and requisition the equipment most effective for his program. (School program objectives must be consistent with system objectives.) Business office support through a system of supply and purchase management that requires a minimum procedure, quick response, and positive communication. The responsibility for planning for the effective selection and use of educational equipment by teachers by encourag- ing their participation in selection and evaluation. The responsibility for planning for and meeting procedural requirements .that are necessary for an efficient system of procurement and supply availability. The opportunity to have his opinions and concerns heard by the educational supervisors and business office relative to the equipment and supply needs of his building. 174 Facility Planning Present Procedures. --In new facility planning, represen- tative principals, directors, and teachers are selected as a planning committee to work with the Director of Educational Facility Planning in developing educational specifications for the building. A smaller steering committee coordinates the planning and continues to work with the planner and the architect in the design of the building. In the modernization of existing buildings, the planning department and the maintenance departments work with the principal in design of the change. Principals are not given final decision on the modification. Modernization or maintenance changes are initiated both by the principal and through the planning office. Coordination and commu- nication are not always effective. General Statement. -- There was some difference between the administrators and the. principals concerning the way in which principals should be involved in planning new facilities. The prin- cipals felt more strongly about the need to involve them in planning new buildings. They believed that principals should always be involved on a representative basis whenever a new building is planned, that they should be especially concerned when a structure is to house a new organizing plan such as Team Teaching, and that 175 representation should be selected by the principals' group with the advice of the Director of Elementary Schools. Organizational. changes such as the Continuous Progress Program and instructional changes such as team teaching usually develop throughthe efforts of a few forward -thinking persons in the school system. The school plant planning in relation to new curri cu- lar ideas depends on the creative thinking of central office personnel as well as principals. Proposed Statement of Authority and Responsibility. --All major modernization should involve the principal, the staff, and the central office. In the areas where he does have authority, the principal should be held accountable for his decisions, even to the point of being replaced if necessary. The factor of accountability suggests that people differ in their psychological need to be protected in making a major decision. This might indicate the need a principal has not to be totally responsible for major changes in the school plant. The question of liability to the vendor is also significant in determining who will have authority to make changes. The principal should have the prerogative to request but not to effect. The principal should not only have a part in the school plant planning but should accept responsibility for such plans once they are 176 consummated. Major curriculum or methodology changes proposed through the facility planning process that have system -wide implica - tions should have representative principal participation and system- wide communication. Every principal, however, should not be expected to agree with every curriculum or organizational change. The principal should not accept an appointment to a situation where he rejects the form of instruction. The principal should have the responsibility not only to make building needs known to the business office; he should also be obliged to carry some responsibility for following through on such needs. Building changes of any major proportion should be a joint undertaking. For example, the principal should be involved when an art room is changed into a classroom. Authority in change must be limited in terms of budget. It is the principal' s responsibility to be concerned with budget, and he must be aware of priorities not only in his own building but system wide. Building principals do leave or transfer to another building, and therefore their authority in making major changes should be limited within the general budget and educational objectives of the total system. Long -range planning, demographic research, and community mobility and change cannot be shared with principals in all its details, but there should be an annual planning briefing of all principals. 177 The principal should involve the staff in consideration of building needs. Principals should make it possible for minor con- cerns to be the responsibility of the teacher. A change of room arrangement, fixing a faulty door or pencil sharpener, etc. , should be made without the principal being involved. The principal should have the responsibility for annual evaluation of his building -through a programmed means of stating the needs as he sees them.~ He should expect that his requests will be specifically answered with details adequate for his complete understanding and interpretation. He should sense the authority to push for the needs of his program, yet be team -oriented. Further requisitions for work should be specifically answered with affirma - tive or negative responses with necessary rationale. The principal shall be advised of planned work schedules for his building so that he can effectively coordinate the maintenance work schedule with the educational program. @1ng Maintenance and Operation Present Procedure. --Maintenance is requisitioned by the principal. . If the request involves routine maintenance or requests involving safety, health, or security, the Director of Maintenance initiates Work orders. Requests for building changes to affect the 178 educational program go to the planning department for review and action. Only the principal or head custodian can initiate a requisi - tion for maintenance work; teachers must work through the principal. The principal is in charge of the custodial services in the building, but this responsibility is not always understood or accepted. Custodians are employed by the Personnel Department and assigned by the Supervisor of Elementary Operations. Reassignment of custodial help is discussed with the principal. The Supervisor of Operations serves in a staff relationshipwith the principal but has final authority on personnel assignment, discipline, and promotion. General Statement. -- The principal should have total responsibility for his building, including operation. The custodial staff” should understand the authority of the principal and their responsibility to him. However, because of the specialization of the service and the major responsibility of the principal for educa- tional administration, centralized control of employment, training, evaluation, and standards is desirable. Proposed Statement of Authority and Responsibility. -- Ideally, maintenance and remodeling should be initiated by the prin- Cipal and should involve the teacher only as it relates to his teaching conditions. The scheduling of such work must be through the 179 maintenance and operations office, and any necessary schedule changes should be done cooperatively keeping the teaching schedule in mind. The principal' s primary responsibility is to report and request needs as seen by him or his staff, particularly the custodian, as he also has a responsibility for the building. All requests for facility changes should go through the principal to insure that build- ing repair and remodeling priorities are set and adhered to. Building changes resulting from community changes, such as low —rent housing units that affect building usage or result in other changes which normally involve the pupil personnel and plan- ning departments, should also involve the building principals. Teachers should follow rules of good housekeeping, because the cleanlinessand orderliness of a room has a definite effect on the attitude of the custodian on the care of that particular room. Principals should have the authority and responsibility for daily supervision of custodial services, but the operational super- vision lies with the supervisor of operations, who is responsible for scheduling, working conditions, training, and standards. Minor scheduling changes and work priorities should be a prerogative of the principal. 180 The principal' 3 evaluation of custodians should be verbal and immediate when necessary; it should also include an annual evaluation of the head custodian. Inasmuch as the principal is responsible for the building, the scheduling of building use should be cleared through him first and then through the central office to insure uniformity in the system. There must be some distinction between availability of the building and the responsibility of the requesting group, and many times the central office can only determine the availability. The evaluation of the principal in terms of building man- agement should be through the supervisor of operations with the custodian possibly playing a minor role in considering personalities and other factors . The Proposed Statements of Authority and Responsibility, prepared by separate committees, could not be directly incorporated into a policy or operational manual. They would have to be edited and placed into consistent format. However, the research purpose was to demonstrate a method of cooperative management develop- ment. The demonstration does present a positive and effective methodology for improvement. A cursory reading of the dictation associated with the questionnaire responses and the verbatim interchange of the 181 committee meetings points quickly to changing concepts and attitudes among participants in the study. Direct communication resulted in a more common body of information, procedure, and purpose; and direct involvement alleviated distorted, personal attitudes and opinions. Where personal bias and differences were expressed in questionnaire responses, similarity of opinions and objectives were expressed in committee meetings. A cohesiveness ofpurpose existed but was camouflaged, and left undiscovered, by a lack of position preparation, lack of adequate information, lack of com- munication, and lack of organizational understanding and unity. Summary A summary of the findings of the action research indicated the following: 1. Elementary principals did not know what their authority and responsibility were in the areas studied. 2. No comprehensive job descriptions or decision parameters were available. 3. No formalized training or preparation program existed for new principals; they learned on the job. 4. Job responsibilities and authority became established through experience, specific subject directives, and group meetings, 182 andwere individualized according to the personality of the principal, his aggressiveness, interest, and. leadership. No comprehensive taxonomy of elementary principal decision situations existed in the literature as a means of defining the job or developing a training program. Meaningful operational and monitored objectives had not been established for the system or for each elementary unit in the system. No formalized, written, or verbal annual evaluation of principals or the effectiveness of their school operation were made. General distrust between elementary principals and central administration existed. Principals felt they did not have authority--that decisions were made at the top. Central administrators felt that principals had authority but would not exercise it--would not accept responsibility. The researcher would judge both positions to be partially true. Both central administrators and principals) saw the need .for more autonomy at the buildinglevel and for a delineation of decision -making parameters. However, principals did not have the same desire for autonomy; some needed more support; males seemed to have a greater desire to run their building. 183 10. Central administrators and elementary principals, working together in a structured format, were able to reach con- sensus on management change. 1 1. The study was primarily one of administrative decentraliza- tion and the organizational relationship of principals and central administrators. However, enough information was gainedto indicate the need for further study of the principal- teacher relationship of the elementary school. 12. Participation and communication were essential organiza - tional elements and became effective instruments of change wheninitiated and structured from the top‘with sincerity, relevance, and implementation intent. The demonstration study was significant in revealing the misunderstanding and mistrust that exists among central adminis- trators and principals, yet at the same time reveals the extensive amount of unity of thinking and purpose among administrators. Individual administrators working togetherformulatedimprovements in management organization andindi cated a desire and willingness for more decentralized management responsibility and accountability. If individuals are willing to accept more authority and more respon- Sibility, then it must be assumed that it is the system, the organi - zation, that is the deterrent to management change. This seemingly 184 inevitable conclusion of organizational blame strangely cannot be personalized even though organizations are comprised of person- alities. This, then, is the‘dilemma of educati’onwhich this study attempts to penetrate. Comprehensive recommendations are reserved for Chapter VI, but the demonstration project presented an organized method of achieving improvement. It began with an appraisal of the situation as it existed orwas perceived. Individuals were asked to respond to a small taxonomy of decision situations and invited to elaborate on the specific responses of the questionnaire. They were able to express themselves under conditions of convenience and status support (dictating to a secretary). They participated in a committee structuretin the area of their highest interest with the purpose of stating the authority -responsibility relationship as it ought to be. They were participating in action research to effect change in the management organization of the Grand Rapids School System. The product of their work was consensus recommendations for increased decentralization of decision -making at the elementary school level. Their statement of responsibility and authority did not represent the most decentralized approach to elementary school management, but it was a proposal of experienced administrators working consciously and cooperatively toward improving management. 185 Different groups in another school system would have different solutions emerging from differing situations, environment, and personalities. The committee recommendations cannot be specifi - cally generalized to other organizations, but the process can be generalized, and it would be suspected that the existing organization in Grand Rapids is more typical than atypical. This chapter vividly points to the need for better manage - ment in education, the need to develop an organization. that is philosophically committed to and structurally capable of continual improvement of management. Objectives must be defined and made seriously operational at each level of control, and monitoring methods must be developed to evaluate progress toward the objec- tives. CHAPTER V DEVELOPING THE ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL Introdu cti on The review of literature clearly revealed the expanding knowledge in the field of management and organizations. There now exists an almost universal consensus that organizations of all kinds are more similar than dissimilar and, further, that all organizations are human organizations. The previous review of the literature may be synthesized by the following paragraphs. The traditional theory of management that progressively categorized the functions of management to be Creating, Flaming, Organizing, Motivating, Communicating, and Controlling are valid. The social scientists and psychologists have added. the perspective of the actions, reactions, and interactions of individuals and sub- groups of individuals within the functioning organization. The individual within the educational organization is especially signifi - cent because of his professional training and. status. The term Professional connotes expertise, independence of action, self 186 187 discipline, and ethical commitment. The educational organization, then, must provide a structure that will enhance the teacher as a professional, provide compatibility between organizational objec— tives and teacher objectives, and provide an atmosphere that motivates and stimulates initiative; and, in fact, it must literally force the highest possible performance by cooperatively creating higher organizational and individual goals. The goals, of course, are directed toward the maximum growth of the student, both in personality and achievement. The teachers do not stand alone in this objective; they are members of an organization team that shares the objective and supports their efforts. The student is the central source in the process and the school shares him and his educable time with his parents, his family, and his community. Education is an interaction process involving the native talents of the student, his school program, his home, and his neighborhood. The school organization is a body politic; it is public bureaucracy. It is an organization that provides the most intimate of services--the nurturing of children. Because of the nature of - its services, its functions are readily. visible and have daily impact on parents, the ultimate evaluators of those services. Because it is the only public bureaucracy, charged specifically with extending the culture of society, it becomes the focal point for remediating 188 society' 8 ills aswell as the critical point for leveling blame for those ills. It simultaneously. is the cause of the dilemma and the panacea for its resolve. Schools have always had their critics, but today' s criticism is unique because it rises from within the greatest social upheaval the American society has ever experienced. Three centuries of the grossest type of personal discrimination and degradation was practiced on the Negroes. In the last twenty -five years the recipi - ents of this treatment have burst out of their geographic prison and migrated to the northern and western cities. They came to the industrial cities at a time of great technical change, a time of job specialization; they came deprived of education, deprived of the realization of economic opportunity, deprived of those cultural standards that their new environment expected. They are now striving to make up time, and such a disparity of status within a democratic society tends toward revolutionary rather than evolu- tionary resolve, and the schools are the focal point of attack. The_.schools as society' 3 vehicle for cultural extension serve both to effect change and to react and adjust to societal change. Therefore, schools are always placed in a somewhat con- flicting role. . In the metropolitan areas they must both effect change on a deprived generation and change structurally and programatically 189 to a rapidly changing technological society which has been accompanied by a rapid growth in our population and a move to largeness. Our population while it has been growing has moved to metropolitan centers. Everhting has become bigger and more centralized: city government, state government, federal govern- ment, business, and education. This is truly the age of bigness, the age of the conglomerates. Individuals are feeling less and less significant and important in the whole process. Many best selling books have been written demonstrating man' 8 loss of identity. The individual parent has felt increasingly frustrated and impotent in dealing with the bureaucracy to which he entrusts his child. The current stress for community involvement stems from this sense of powerlessness, this distrust and dissatisfaction with the growing professional monopoly of education. Criticisms are based on both fact and perception, and they must be corrected in both fact and perception if public education is to survive. We have emphasized that education has not adapted modern management and organizational theory toits operation. The struc - ture of the educational organization has remained largely unchanged through the past fifty years; and, in fact, as the educational systems grew, so did the bureaucracy that managed them. As bureaucracies grow, more specialization feeds back to the bureaucracy by 190 increased requirement for procedures and rules to sustain the specialization. Bureaucracy, then, through increased specializa- tion feeds on itself until the means tend to become ends and internal change becomes most difficult, even when-the need for change is recognized. This is especially true of political organizations where formal and informal power is diffused. However, the demands for change in the educational system are loud and are voided both externally and internally. The action research presented in Chapter IV of this thesis demonstrated that educational administra - tors want more responsibility and authority and are willing to be evaluated and held accountable. They seek clearly stated objectives, the delineation of responsibility and authority, and increased par- ticipation in decision -making. It is, then, not so much the individ-, uals within the organization that reject change, but rather the organizationthat is incapable of effecting change through individuals. It is the organization, its leadership, and its management philosophy that must provide the stimulus for change and the climate for indi - vidual growth and satisfaction that will support change. In this chapter the author'will develop a model for the edu- cational organization that will be compatible with modern theories of management and organization and that will permit the involvement of professionals and lay citizens in the influence processes that 191 affect their participation in the organization. However, to develop a functional model for an organization, it is necessary to understand its uniqueness, its operational reality, and its societal function and purpose. General theories of organization can then be applied within the framework of reality. Uniqueness of the Educational Organization To understand the education organization as it is reflected in operational image, it is necessary to know and understand the basic uniqueness of the organization which has its manifestation in the operational image. We havestated previously that organization and manage.- ment principles are universal but that organizations have different characteristics; in fact, each has its own personality and is unique from all others. In the review of literature the writer intentionally paralleled industrial and educational organization, but the educational organization is basically different in several respects: 1. It is a governmental agency-~it is a body politic within the milieu of modern democratic processes, tactics, and strategies. The school board is a legal entity created by the state legislature; its legal powers and limitations of power are determined by statute and its judicial interpre - tation. It has no legislative power, no self -creating 192 authority or power. Neither has it authority to transfer powers, specifically granted to it, to other agencies or appointed groups; it cannot give away its legal functions for operating the public schools. It is charged with the overall responsibility for education within prescribed limits and as such has legal accountability to the state level of govern- ment. However, its board membership and its fiscal sup- port are directly and strongly influenced by- local voter behavior. It differs from other organizations in the structure of the forces that control its operations. The legislative powers granted are locally implemented, and the implementation begins with school board policy and philosophy. In most states, board policy is influenced directly by the local process of district election of board members and district approval of operating funds; it is indirectly influenced by the power structures within the community. The board has high visibility and availability; it is subject to and some- times defenseless against local power group influences. The board members are not technically or professionally qualified to manage specialized organization, but rather represent the desires, values, and expectations of the lay 193 public. Their ability to function, their power, depends in great measure on the broadness of their local support base; they have general operational and fiscal account- ability to the local community. 3. Education is a service that deals directly and intimately with people. But it is an involuntary service -- students are required to be physically available for educational services, and parents are legally required to have them in attendance. This presents a restriction on the recipient to withhold participation and on the school to withdraw services. This is markedly different than an organization operating in a free economy. A functional conflict is established between the deferred goal of the organization and the immediate desires of the participants-—the students. Charles E. Bidwell stated this point thusly: Furthermore, since students are to be socialized to adult life, the central activities of this role are not directly relevant to the immediate interests or lives of its incumbents. From the ‘ point ofview of the student, participation in these activities is likely to be foreign to his own preferences, yet he cannot opt for or against participation. 1Charles E. Bidwell, "The School as a Formal Organiza- tion, " Handbook of Organizations, ed. by James G. March (Chi- cago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965), p. 973. 194 Thisalso presents an environment for conflict between the parent and the school. The desire for individual client concern and preference as perceived by the parent conflicts with the universal requirements of education as perceived by the organization--the parents perceive an individual service; the organization perceives a societal service. Education is an organization in which the major operational roles are professionalized. Professionals desire autonomy over work methods and procedure, a situation which often results in variance with actual control by the administra - tor. The demand and need for teacher autonomy in dealing with daily variables of group education has resulted in dif- fused building authority. Not only is autonomy a criterion of professionalism, but in education it is a physical fact because of the organization of education by single unit (classroom teacher). The teacher is isolated in her environment. Likewise, administrative professionalism coupled with individual personalities leads to variability in school building administration. The elementary school is also an isolated unit within the system, and the aggressive, independent principal can interpret and redefine adminis - trative policy. The teachers present a closely knit 195 colleague group motivated both by professional norms and self-interest as individuals; they are relatively invulnerable to control by coercion, reward, or punishment. The principal is expected to use bureaucratic authority in external administration of the school (student discipline and parent complaint) and colleague persuasion and influ- ence internally (curriculum and methodology). School-s differ from other organizations in the great impediments to accurately evaluate the success of opera - tions. Philosophy and policy statements tend to be so abstract that they are useless in establishing criteria for success. Objectives and goals of education seem so dif- fused that they are ineffectively interpreted into end results. Measures of end results or organizational effectiveness have not been administratively applied, pro- fessionally accepted, or fully developed. The complexity of theprocess and the independence of variables affecting educational achievement confuse the accountability for results. Teaching procedures and methods are inadequately defined and too varied in practice to be professionally identifiable. The professional skills of a teacher are not as visible publicly or administratively as the human relations 196 skills. -There exist few practical, objective, and acceptable methods of measuring teacher effectiveness. In the absence of a measure for professional effectiveness, there remains only the client, colleague, and administrative perception of the individual and of individual effectiveness. Elementary teaching effectiveness in particular, then, is more depen- dent on the intrinsic values of the individual than the spe - cialized training of the profession-—teaching as an art rather than a science. The obfuscation of educational goals, the limitations on results measurement, the unidentifiability of professional competency and technology, the significance of human relations skills, and the complexity but univer- sality of the process serve to make education everyone' 3 business. Yet, in another sense it is no one' 3 business; because of the lack of objectives, lack of use of measure- ments, and the professionalization and isolation of teachers, real control of the process is virtually impossible. This situation has increasing adult awareness, the aura of myth surrounding education and the educational profession has been punctured, and conflict is developing between what the professional espouses and the client observes to be the end results of educational effort. 197 Schools differ from other organizations in the void of scalar positions of administration and the relative lack of preparation and in-service training for administrative posi - tions. The void in administrative preparation is matched bya void of organizationally initiated teacher professional training. Professional growth is essentially unplanned, unsupervised, and unrecognized. Where industry places great emphasis on the development of management talent, it generally occurs by happenstance in education. Most industry has multiple levels of administration where each level is a proving ground for the next; in education it is classroom teacher today and elementary principal tomor- row. Not only does education not provide for organized training and experience for professional growth and admin- istrative preparation, it provides few opportunities for informal growth through association. It does not provide activities and functions where the less experienced work with the experienced and competent in an ongoing and pro- gressive group effort toward a common objective. Teachers seldom work in situations where individual talents are blendedinto a team effort under team leadership and with a stated organizational expectancy of results. The modern 198 literature on the significance of group relationships on the attitudes and motivations of individuals within the group and the perception of the group relationship to the total enter- prise has not been adequately incorporated into the organi - zation and management structure of education. In general, schools differ in their lack of organi - zationalplanning and programming for improvement through personnel selection, training, organization, supervision, and evaluation. Very little money is programmed for internal improvement through in -service training, organi - zational development, or management research. The symbol R 8: D (Research and Development) is a frequently used and commonly recognized symbol of industrial organizations; it is not a part of the public school vocabu- lary. Research and Development programs either cannot be afforded or have unrecognized value in. education. School systems differ from other organizations in their physical and time references. The public education process is carried on over a long time (13 years generally) and through several different organizational structures. The individual child in the elementary school process has a minimum of seven separate annual experiences, and in the 199 inner city, residence mobility may be such that an individual may move through twenty or more separate educational operations. In terms of total development, the individual cannot be identified with a single organization--every classroom is a different situation. Neither can the school be identified as a single unit, as it is part of a system of units, dispersed throughout the community and state. The term system in education is a misnomer. Mobility of the teaching-staff places each unit into annual .flux (it has been estimated that one -third of the teachingstaff at the ele- mentary level changes annually). The function of education occurs over an exceedingly broad range in time, places, and people. These causes, together’with specialization and professionalism, create a great burden on the coordinating function of management. The coordinating function is additionally handicapped by a dearth of management infor- mation. Communication ineffectiveness is a major prob - lem for large organizations, and in this respect, education is not unique. In the absence of an adequate evaluation method and management or organizational information, coordination has been effected through rules and regulations rather than results, and through curricular content rather 200 than methods. This is the bureaucratic approach to organizational coordination. 8. Finally, education differs in the manner and scope of customer or client participation in the decisions of the organization. In the product market of a free economy, the customer reacts to organizational decisions by individually withholding participation if he so desires. This is a very simple and direct way of effecting client influence. In education, the methods of product influence are complicated and sophisticated. The protection afforded members by the bureaucracy makes change most difficult without piercing the organization itself. The school patron cannot effect changes through the simple external action of withholding. Education then differs from other organizations in 1) the origin of its existence-~it is governmental; 2) the forces that control it--it is highly visible, influence susceptible, political body; 3) the nature of its services--personal, yet voluntary; 4) the concentration of its operations staff--aspiring to be professional with a non- identifying technology or practice; 5) the lack of evaluation methods --the inability to articulate philosophy or objectives or measure results or effectiveness; 6) the void of management training or 201 scalar programming and infrequency of group‘working and learning experiences; 7) the difficulty of coordination due to the dispersal of time, places, and people; 8) the insulation from individual client influence --the requirement of direct client involvement to influence organizational decisions or practice. Education presents a most dichotomous organization. It is a state function; yet the process functions locally. The changing relationships, politically affected, between thestate and the school district have resulted in a growing conflict between local autonomy and a state system of education. Education is a specialized process, professionally administered, but lay controlled. Technical organi - zations controlled by lay (nontechni cal) people present an inherent potential for conflict with professional administration. The profes- sional in the classroom seeks autonomy of purpose, content, and method, yet rejects both objective and client evaluation of his effectiveness. The lay school board is susceptible to local power and group influence, but the individual client is impotent. Education is a state function although the inculcation of the child into society is even more basically a family function, and still another potential conflict grows from philosophic differences. The function of the school, then, is to contain in equilibrium the basic conflicts between the universal and community functions of 202 education, between lay control and professional administration, and between the teacher and the client. To maintain the equilibrium or control, education developed and continues as a dominant authority or bureaucratic organization. The educational organization is sig- nificantly unique and its bureaucratic structure can be rationalized. Yet, as a human organization it is not dissimilar from other organi - zation. The uniqueness of education is its structure and its tradi - tional definition of both its functional and participant relationships. Its inherent weaknesses have been compensated for, not corrected. Management and organizational principles can be applied to the human enterprise which is education if we begin with a basic under- standing of the organization, its objectives, and the basic needs of the individuals who participate in seeking the objectives. The struc- ture must be adapted to the basic requirements of the organization rather than adapting the functions of the organization to the structure. Perceptual Organization of Education The author' s perception of today' s functioning organization and its settings is presented as the second step toward reorganiza- tion. Education is legally a function of the state. Each state has created local school districts. The management of education begins at the local school district level with a popularly elected school board. It selects a 203 superintendent and delegates to him the administrative management of the schools- .He, in turn, delegates down the organizational hierarchy. Education is a profession; it is technical with many special- izations, and the educational process is complex. Board members are not professional educators; they are lay people essentially volunteering their talents and time to the children of their com- munity. They have neither the training, the time, nor the tenure to operate the system. They depend upon professional administra- tors. Theoretically, they restrict their attention to selecting the chief school administrator, establishing policy, evaluating results, and resolving community crises. Policies are the broad operational parameters that serve as a roadmap for reaching organizational objectives. But what are the objectives of the subunits? What is policy and what is adminis - tration? How much information and capacity does the board have to set educational objectives, formulate policies, and share in planning? To set objectives implies the monitoring and evaluation of their achievement. Assuming the setting of objectives, what monitoring methods and objective evaluative data is available for judging per- formance and organizational progress? The answer to the last two questions is that there is generally very little. Yet the basic function 204 of an organization policy body is to set objectives and monitor results. Without policy level tools of evaluation, administrative security is a product of personal relationships between the board and the superintendent. If the board becomes a partner in a policy- administration conglomerate, the educational management is unevaluated, unaccountable, and hence, so is its operation. Under these limitations, boards of education have the responsibility of performing procedural tasks and the more impor- tant task of monitoring the community. Within this charge the edu- cational organization and process is set, or is fixed, and the monitoring becomes a human relations factor between school policy X or school employee Y and school patron Z. The school patron, like the board member, is not a professional educator, but as a human beinghe is an evaluator of character, personality, and other factors of interpersonal relationships. As a parent he is especially qualified to make these evaluations as they pertain to his child. In some systems, this is the only education evaluation format or the most. reliable and the only basis for change. Education, it seems, is often evaluated by community sound levels where nonews is good news, and insulation from sound is expedient administration. But, when community voices do raise, educational management data is essential, yet frequently unavailable. A board of education cannot 205 respond to emotion with emotion, so without objective evaluation data they must sit silently, ride out the storm, and pacify where possible. This approach is not adequate in facing the serious problems, searing accusations, and great challenges facing metro- politan education today. The superintendent of schools is not in a much better position than the board, for he is charged with the management of the system but has few management tools. The lack of clearly stated system goals and mission objectives degenerates to a com - plete void of measurable subunit objectives. The lack of evaluation data at the policy level comprises the same lack at the management . level. Only his sophistication as an educator makes him more capable of evaluation. If he is unable to evaluate through personal observation, he must rely on the personal evaluation or opinion of someone lower in the scalar system. But these evaluations become overpersonalized at the source and depersonalized to impotency as they proceed to the decision level. The more levels they proceed through, the more untenable they become. Because of thevoid of objective and reliable evaluation criteria, control is achieved through procedure and directive. The organization becomes rigid and inflexible; innovation is discouraged; initiative is stiffled. The exception level of decision is too far away. 206 The building level administrator is the lower echelon recipient of an entangled bureaucracy. He, too, functions without clearly stated and achievable objectives or evaluation criteria to judge his or his school' 3 performance. He becomes the enforcer of procedure and administrative policy, the educational clerk, the school disciplinarian. However, his authority is uncertain; the tenure, isolation, and invulnerability of teachers forces him to control through a senior colleague' s status and influence rather than power. His inability to satisfy school staff requests for change, innovation, or funds is blamed on central administration. The building level administrator imperceptably becomes a part of a negative building attitude toward central administration and in so doing withdraws himself from the management team and manage- ment responsibility. The classroom teacher at the real performancelevel is on his own. He is not motivated or challenged by an organizationally expressed goalior objective or an expectancy of performance. He is not evaluated on an objective, measurable scale of student growth and achievement. - If he gets along with the principal, controls his classroom, and causes few problems, he is successful. He is isolated in his classroom, except for the required number of prin- cipal visits; he is not stimulated by classroom or on -the —job 207 association with colleagues; he does not work with his colleagues, he talks about work with them. Because he may happen to be a new teacher doesnot alter the situation; he' s on his own, he sets his own goals, he judges or rationalizes his own success. It is the conten- tion of the author thatno other profession abandons its new members so quickly after formal training. The fact that some teachers do well on their jobs is because of their personal talent and decication and the stimulation provided by both the enthusiasm and needs-of children. If the teachers grows, it is because of his personal drive and need to do so or through the happenstance of experience; he is providedlittle on -the -job help or guidance. He can' t grow bydaily observationof, or participation with, other more experienced and successful teachers. Because of the limited contact with the principal, his required evaluation for tenure qualification does not provide real growth value, and after he is on tenure, really, why evaluate? The absence of objective evaluation criteria makes it difficult for a teacher to gain professional recognition. The teach- ing profession becomes a faceless mass that obliterates individual professional identity. It is no wonder that many teachers get into ruts of mediocre performance and some survive a career of poor performance. The excellent work of many teachers cannot be credited to organizational encouragement but to the personal ability 208 and character of .the individual and a supportive building environment provided by the personal leadership of the building principal. The final and last participants in this educational process are the students, and the persons most concerned with their-welfare and success, their parents. The child in an unhappy, unsuccessful school situation has few options, all of which are self -adjustments. He either adjusts to and conforms to the situation (gets along with the teacher), orwithdraws and separates himself from the educa- tional process (he doesn' t learn but he stays out of trouble), or compensates classroom failure by seeking peer recognition through nonconformance (he becomes a troublemaker). He cannot change the situation or the system; he can only opt out when he. reaches sixteen. His parents have little going for them in such a situation, as they can. only urge conformancewith the situation which may pit them against their child, even when they feel he is right. But what options does the parent have if he wants his child to get an education? If he intervenes forcibly, it may only make the situation worse and give his child a school -wide reputation of a troublemakerwhich could become a self -fulfilling prophecy throughout his education years. A conference withthe teacher might help if real concern for the child prevails with both teacher and parent. A conference with the principal might help under the same circumstances if the 209 principal has flexibility of action and assignment. Contact with the superintendent or a board member may help, but this requires a knowledge of channels and a sense of influence power. But if enough parent complaints pinpoint a problem, it regresses to a conflict of personalities in the absence of objective, consistent evaluation cri - teria. And personal opinions don' t hold up in a tenure hearing, so a poor situation (or teacher) is handled by internal transfer to silence criticism. This is where the lay community wants in on educational management; they want to change ineffective situations and ineffec - tive personnel in their schools. In their opinion, their child may be the raw material of the educational system, but he is their life and blood; he does not belong to the state. The school system is not a self -sustaining, independent organization. Parents are the school system; they pay the taxes and provide the children. The purpose of the system is to provide a service to them through their children, and they want effective influence --communication in evaluating those services. After all, schools do not exist to provide jobs for teachers but to educate children. Education is a combina- tion of technical skills and interpersonal relationships, and the parent is qualified to evaluate the human relations aspects of the teaching process as well as recognize extremes in the results spectrum. 210 In addition to the organizational factors within the educational process, there are extraorganizational voices of the community. These are often expressed in concert and force. The teachers' union in negotiating working conditions would interpret this so broadly as to move into the area of administration and policy. The union leadership wishes to sit at the policy table as the voice of the professionals. In some situations administrators are organized and have goals similar to the teachers. Lay segments of the community are organized, ench as: The Taxpayers Association, Associations for the Mentally Retarded, Neighborhood School Association, Black Unity Committee, John Birch Society, NAACP. All of these associations represent various minorities in the community; their voices are often loud beyond their number. Power politics and power tactics are sometimes their tools for shaping education for the majority. The ordinary parent and his weakly organized PTA finds himself dispersed and outside the influence milieu, but now he wants to be heard. The extraorganizational voices are growing, are gaining organizational skills, and will not go away or be appeased. The lay voices within the organization, the parents, must be brought into the influence structure of the formal organization to defend against special interest groups as well as to add their evaluation to 211 educational effectiveness. The voices of the parents must be heard, must be organized to be heard, must be made to speak; even though they cannot be an integral part of the formal legal organization, they must become a part of the influence organization. This is today' s challenge to American education. This perception of today' s educational organization does not meet the modern concepts of organizations, or management, or of internal or external human relations. The Educational OrgLanization To develop a theoretical influence process model for an organization that does meet management criteria, it is necessary to define what an organization is and what its purpose and functions are. There are many definitions of an organization, but all state in some way that it is the gathering, coordinating, and utilization of resources in seeking the objectives of the organization. Hicks says: "An organization is a structured process in which persons interact for objectives. "2 Johnson, Kast, and Rosenzweig elaborate by defining three common elements in organizations: "1) social systems or people in groups; 2) an integgation of activities, people working 2Hicks, op. cit., p. 16. 212 together; and 3) goal oriented, people with a purpose. "3 Although these statements are concise and real, they are generally accepted as definitions of the central organization; the personalization and extension of the concepts to every level of the organization are less understood. Thompson was quite specific in this regard: Organizations as problem -solving mechanisms depend upon the factoring of the general goal into subgoals, and these into sub- goals, and so on, until concrete routines are reached. These subgoals are allocated to organization units and become the goals of those units . . . rationality in terms of the whole organization requires that individuals in the subunits accept the assignedsubgoal as the end or objective of their activities. The definition of an organization as a human organization, then, is more than a descriptive statement but is a philosophy of achieving results through effective human relations at all levels of the enter- prise. All organizations, then, are microcosms of society, but the educational organization is more than a reflection of a small part of society; it is an integral and interlaced part of society. It shares the core of society with the family and hence has two primary societal purposes: to extend the culture and values of society and to extend the potential of each child as a contributing member of 3Johnson, Kast, and Rosenzweig, op. cit., p. 45. 4Thompson, op. cit., p. 15. 213 society. The interdependence of the societal educational process can be illustrated as follows: PLATE V - 1 SOCIE TAL EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION / A l 0 ie \ 'e S X(lutlatitlfi' e/ \/ \Sbcé‘ tat:l (As Vflues I Lay goals /\ gages eeds\ \ 7L;// verru‘nent \ This presentation of society' 3 organization for transmitting and extending its culture shows the objectives of society being Sought through the educational mediums of the family and school and the control of the process through law and government. As society 214 meets its objectives, its policy body (government) restates its objectives and societal growth becomes a continuous process. The school, society' 3 formal organization for extending its culture through its children, is mutually interdependent with society' 3 informal organization for the same purpose--the family. Both must concern themselves with and utilize all other societal organizations that affect their purpose, their role, and their product--the child. The societal educational organization, there- fore, is depicted as an interacting, open organization. The product of the educational organization, the child, and the process of his individual culturation must be understood. It is illustrated as shown in Plate V -2 on the following page. The child has an unknown potential for growth. This potential has an indeterminate base in the genetic physiology of his brain. But that potential unfolds through interaction with his environment, first his family environment, then his community environment (neighborhood), and then his school environment, and finally the interaction of all factors. The broken lines in the diagram illustrate the interdependence of these factors. His growth is dependent upon the stimuli that evoke responses from his past experience (memory) and in so doing add to that experience and provide a base for reaction to a broader base of stimuli. The child 215 PLATE V-Z PROCESS FACTORS OF CHILD GROWTH School Program Community \ / ’ Family . / . Env1ronment / \ I l x \ Env1ronment Genetic Capacity is a total child and brings an experience set to every learning stimuli. This experience set includes not only the cognitive base for stimuli association but also values and beliefs that determine response actions and consequence expectations. His response is both a factor of his experience set and the stimuli. Education, therefore, cannot be effected through stimuli presentation alone 216 but through stimuli response that adds to the experience set. Educationally injected stimuli are the means to the educational ends --experientialset growth. Educational growth, then, is a continuous series of success responses to stimuli which build the memory capacity for successful responses to increasingly complex stimuli. The experiential set that a child brings to a learning situ- ation is both a product of his total accumulation of related memory and his immediate receptivity in terms of his psychological, physiological, .and sociological needs. The stimuli, method of presentation of the stimuli, and the association of the stimuli with the accumulation of past experiences will influence immediate receptivity, but so may emotional, physical, or perceptual deter- rents originating'within the present family, community, or school environment. The educational process, then, can neither ignore the effect of a child' 3 life environment on his experiential set or his immediate personal environment on his receptivity to stimuli. Therefore, an educational process that does not begin with the influences latent in the child's experiential set (where he is) and concern itself with the environmental influences that affect his stimuli receptivity (motivation) has limited potential for evoking desired responses (growth). For education to be successful with all children, it must concern itself with and be involved with all factors affecting an individual child' s growth process. 217 The individual school as an educational organization can also be illustrated, and again, broken lines express the interdepen- dence of the process factors: PLATE V - 3 PROCESS FACTORS IN THE SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAM \ ystem Goals V Family, Subsystem Objectives, Chil ’Love and Sue . Leadership t. l— L \ Learning Support ) ‘ Professional S /i), ,k‘alue Development 1 Staff Resourpes _ School Support Material Resources / Evaluhtion Student Genetic Capacity Environment The individual school provides the setting, the climate, for the educational process of the individual child. This is the 218 administrative unit for the process, and the educational organization should functionally be built up from here rather than down to this level. Here the teacher and the student in the classroom have the programmed but intimate interpersonal relationship that is education. The child as a. learning organism has been described. The teacher' 3 training makes him aware of this process and provides methodologies for stimulating the process. Further, the teacher, as a professional, has an ethical and moral commitment to the educational health of the child as a physician has to a patient. At the early ages especially, the burdenis on the teacher to teach, not the learner to learn. How- ever, it has been clearly illustrated that the learning process of a child is not restricted to the teacher -pupil relationship. The child brings values, goals, beliefs, expectancies, and aspirations to the classroom as part of his prior conditioning for learning and continues these developments both in and out of the school environment through- out his educational career. This has to be recognized and accepted as a challenge to the school' 3 primary objectives of extending the values and goals of society and the development of the child as a contributing member of that society. The school, then, must teach society' 8 interpersonal values as well as cognitive needs. The comprehensiveness of the objective and complexity of the process requires the full cooperation and effort of all interacting factors in 219 the process. Therefore, the family, the out -of-classroom support environment of the child, and the system, the out -of -classroom support environment of the teacher, are depicted as integral parts of an open process system. The self-image of the child, as a part of his experience set, is an important factor in his learning process. So, too, the self - image of the teacher is an important factor in his teaching process. The respective external environments of the child--his family and community--and the teacher--his work organization and community --play significant roles in self -image development. The point in emphasis here is that the child, as an individual, must be recognized and supported by the teacher, home, and the system, and that the teacher, as an individual, must be recognized and supported by his organization and community. The family and school organization, then, serve as support environments to the child and teacher within a process that has agreed upon common objectives. As the burden is on the teacher to teach, the burden for the support environment, both internally and externally, is on the educational organization. In these illustrations, education began as a function of society; and at_the operation level, society (family) becomes a function of the educational process. The significance is that they are insep- arable at all levels from the societal reference to the individual 220 child. We have described the educational organization and its function and purpose in society. It is defined as an interacting, open support environment for the individual growth of a child. The thesis of this paper and the purpose of the model design in develop- ment is that the educational organization has not effectively provided for such an interacting support environment. Objectives of the Organization-- School System As the school system is an instrument of society, its objectives have their basis in societal goals; they could be called the imperatives of education, and they emanate from the needs of society and the individuals that comprise it. The school system objectives can be stated more specifically than societal goals but even so must be generalized. It is not the purpose here to develop the objectives for a school system but to stress that school system objectives must be developed by the policy body in coordination with the staff and community. We have adequately stressed that an organization with- out objectives is not an organization. The statement of objectives or purpose is. the beginning point of management. We-would pro- pose three simple criteria for school system objectives: 1. That they be meaningful to those who frame them. 2. That they be sub -interpretable, restatable, and achievable to the operationlevel of the system. 221 3. That their achievements be measured both at the operational level of the system and at the policy level. An .oversimplified system objective might be that every child read, write, and speak at a level commensurate‘with his ability and potential. Such a statement can be reinterpreted and restated at a particular operational level. It is measurable by standard testing procedures. Measurements can be evaluated at the school level and the system level to determine objective achievement. The educa - tional fraternity has a general aversion to managerially evaluated test results. But how else can a system determine the success of its efforts or methods? Indeed, how else can it evaluate the appro- priateness of its objectives? Participant Needs. of the Organization The review of the literature established the importance of the individual in the organization. Ideal organizational equilibrium exists when the individual satisfies personal and social needs while achieving the objectives of the organization. Chester Barnard said, "The key to dynamic effort in all industry is the individual and his willingnessto develop in it. "5 Rensis Likert adds, "Every aspect 5Chester I. Barnard, Organization and Management (selected papers) (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1952), p. 8. 222 of a firm' 3 activities is determined by the competence, motivation, and general effectiveness of its human organization. "6 The willing- ness of individuals to develop-within the organization is the essence of the process of education. What are the needs of the participants at the elementary school level? Needs of the Student We have discussed the needs of the student in terms of his future role as a contributing member of society and his need to grow in terms of social values and cognitive skills. We have developed a summary statement of how a child grows in reference to his experiential set and the stimuli —response mechanism that adds to his capacity for continuing growth. However, the process takes place within a social -psychological environment setting, and this setting contributes to his receptivity to stimuli whether he responds to them or not and whether the response is the one anticipated or not. This environment is psychological in terms of the child' 3 individual personality, values, beliefs, fears, and desires. These are per- sonal with him and his feeling about the learning stimuli. To elicit the response desired, the stimuli must be consistent with his needs as an individual, his perception of self, and his perception of the 6Likert, The Human Organization, op. cit., p. 1. 223 learning environment as well as his cognitive capacity at the time. This approach to stimuli response is sometimes called the per- ceptual approach to human behavior and holds that how a person behaves (responds) at a particular time is dependent upon the way things seem at the moment. Combs extends this view to learning: If behavior is a function of personal meanings, then perceptions must become the center of the teacher -learning situation. . . An educational system that hopes to change behavior . . . must deal actively with meaning or personal perception. Bruner supports this concept: Research on the intellectual development of the child highlights the fact that at each stage of development thechild has a characteristic way of viewing the world and explaining it to himself. 8 Learning and behavior, then, is a function of the personal concept one has about himself and his environment. The term "self - concept" has been much used; we will define it as the way a person feels about himself, sees himself, and sees others in identification with him. This self-concept determines the receptivity that a person has toward a learning situation, whether he has an openness to experience, or‘whether he‘withdraws from or represses experiences. 7Arthur Combs, Perceiving, BehavirLg, Becomig, Year- book of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1962). p. 68. 8Jerome I. Bruner, The Process of Education (New York, N.Y.: Vintage Books, 1960), p. 33. 224 Maslow defines an individual' s inner core as the intrinsic inner nature plus the characterological traits of early childhood and then states: No psychological health is possible unless this essential core of the person is fundamentally accepted, loved, and respected by others and by himself. 9 No ideally good relation to another human being, especially a child, is possible without B (unselfish) love. Especially is it necessary for teaching. . . .10 The primary motive for a child' s behavior or-learning is his need for self -esteem or sense of personal adequacy. Combs further emphasizes that self-concept is learned: People learn who they are and what they are from the ways in which they have been treated by those who surround them in the process of their growing up. . . . People develop feelings that they are liked, wanted, acceptable, and able from having been liked, wanted, accepted, and from having been successful. One . learns that he is these things, not from being told so, but only through the experience of being treated as though he were so. The sociological reference of this basic concept is its extension to group relations within the classroom and school in the interpersonal relationships of students and all students to teachers. 9A. H. Maslow, Perceiving, Behaving; Becoming, Year- book of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1962), p. 36. 101bid., p. 41. 1 1Combs, op. cit., p. 53. 225 Each student should have his self-concept nurtured, reinforced, and developed, but he should also learn to respect others and their unique personalities. This identification with others is really an expression of his own self-concept, because the optimum self-concept permits one to forget self in the process of identifying with others. The child needs to learn the discipline of self in relationships with others and the discipline of self in the learning process. The author takes the position that this concept of learning is precedent to the techniques, methods, and even the subject matter of teaching. This environment for learning is the essential need of the student, especially in the elementary school. It is the responsi- bility of the organization to provide and ensure this supportive environment. It is the minimum that the child and his parent should expect from the school, and it is that part of the learning process that both are able to judge better than any other participant in the process. The organization, therefore, should provide for their involvement in both setting the objectives for and evaluating the interpersonal relationships of the classroom. They are not able to evaluate professional aspects of curriculum sequence and structure, nor teaching methodology, but the professional and technical aspects of the process must take place within a visible environment that is self -enhancing and not self -destructive to the student. 226 Needs of the Teacher The psychological influences on behavior are essentially the same for adults as they are for children. As a child' s primary motivation is his need for self -esteem, so the adult strives to main- tain and enhance his personal self. Learning and behavior are a continuous process of satisfying needs as the individual perceives them. They differ only in the depth and complexity of the conscious and unconscious experience set or memory, the interpretability of the stimuli and the perception of environment of the moment. Among adults the greater complexity of all factors provides for a greater array of responses and increased possibility for unanticipated responses. G. W. Allportlz was prominent in developing this personalistic psychology or the approach of observing human behavior in terms of the individual himself and his personal reference. The adult, too, lives, behaves, and reacts in a world that he personally perceives. Donald Snygg and Arthur W. Combs developed the con- cept more fully and called it the phenomenological approach or reference and made the inclusive statement: "All behavior, without exception, is completely determined by and pertinent to the 12G. W. Allport, Personality: A Psychological Interpre- tation (New York: Holt, 1937). 227 phenomenal field of the behaving organism. "13 To them the phenomenal field included the needs of the individual and the activity by which he tried to satisfy them at the time; it is organized around activities of the moment and all influences that affected the activity. Mayo applied the principle to understand organizations by demonstrating that production was influenced not by physical condi - tions of the work environment but by the personal reference the worker gave to the environment--the meaning he ascribed to it. 14 Simon systematically attempted to bridge the gap between personal- istic psychology and the actions of individuals in groups and in organizations. 15 Likert further hypothesized models of organiza- tions that provided the supportive work environment that resulted in higher levels of individual, group, and organizational achievement. 1 The employee as an individual acts to satisfy perceived needs, and he acts to satisfy them within his phenomenal field or environment. This is especially true of a professional organization, 13Donald Snygg and Arthur W. Combs, Individual Behavior (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), p. 15. 4Mayo, op. cit. 5Simon, op. cit. 16Likert, The Human Organization, op. cit. 228 such as education, where both the participating professionals and the organization subscribed to the objectives of the profession. The school organization, then, provides and should optimumly encourage the environment .for the teacher (professional) to satisfy individual personal needs for status, self—esteem, growth, and satisfaction. Teaching is a learning process, and the teacher should expect that the organization will provide opportunity and stimulation for her growth and success. Beyond this the teacher as a profes- sional should expect the opportunity for self -determination and self- initiative in her work. She should participate in the formulation of actions that affect her work life, but with the professional' s pre - rogatives come the professional responsibility of self—effort toward personal growth and organizational support. She should establish, with principal review, her performance objectives but also accept the evaluation of that performance. She should expect organizational support with her parent community and parental support with her students; in turn, she must accept parental evaluation of her inter- personal relationships with the children. . In addition, the teacher should expect organizational sup- port in creating a physical, material, and technical environment that maximizes her potential for classroom success. She should expect a full partnership effort toward the accepted objectives of the school. 229 As the teacher is so important in creating a supportive phenome - nological field for the student, it becomes an organizational prerequisite to create a supportive environment for the teacher with expectations for performance. And the teacher is best able to judge the adequacy of the support environment. Needs of the School Principal As the teacher is the key individual in creating the class- room learning environment, the principal is the key person in creating the school environment for learning and living for teachers and students. In the author' 8 opinion, the elementary school prin- cipal is the prime catalyst to improved learning in metropolitan school districts and the preferred focus of emphasis for effecting improvement. This is the operational management level of the education enterprise, and the major responsibility for success rests with the general manager of the production facility--the principal of the school. The management of a school has grown exceedingly more complex for all the reasons previously stated in this thesis. Yet, in spite of unionism, community militancy, criticism, technology, and specialization, the human relations emphasis must prevail in what is a human enterprise. Within the entire milieu of modern management problems, a professional 230 camaraderie, unity of purpose, and commitment to the child as an individual must be maintained if operational success is to be achieved. Management principles must prevail, management results must be obtained, but management decisions must be perceived as shared. The principal' s teaching staff must perceive her personal support, her commitment to their personal growth and success, and yet accept her responsibility for evaluation of performance and policy administration. If the school principal is to be held responsible for educa- tional success in her school, she should expect authority commen- surate with the responsibility, she should expect organizational support personally, technically, and materially. She should expect well defined areas of decision prerogatives and expect organizational reinforcement of these prerogatives. The principal should not only be urged to make decisions within known parameters; she should participate in developing organizational policies that affect her building operation and her decision parameters. She should be part of participatory management above her-level, as teachers should participate at her level. The principal should expect to be treated as an individual and should expect support in satisfying her personal needs through the organization. She as an individual needs to feel recognition, 231 success, and self-esteem. The organization has the responsibility of establishing the climate for her success as she must set the climate for the success of her school. She should expect the organi - zation to enhance her growth through constructive evaluation, con- tinuous training, and effective communication. But she must accept that the higher one goes up the management ladder, the more one is responsible for one' s own growth and results achievement. The principal should have the opportunity for leadership in restating system objectives into supportive and achievable objectives for her building. She should both judge herself and be judged in terms of achieving those objectives. She must accept accountability for her own performance and must accept evaluation, even to the extent of administrative retention, on the basis of results produced. In sum- mary, she should be made responsible for results, be given decision prerogatives necessary to effect those results, be held accountable for supporting system objectives and achieving local objectives, and expect to receive organizational support and recognition for her SUCCESS. Needs of the Parent The role and importance of the family (the parents) in the process of education has been previously developed. Although 232 undeniable, it is often ignored or underutilized in the formal process of education. The home and family certainly provide the greatest impact to the school success of the child--whether the impact pro- vides great stimulus to achievement, is rather ambivalent, or is a deterrent to progress. However, the school must seek success in its objectives through the understanding and development of the home support for the in-school process. Real professionalization must come through the knowledge and acceptance of the total concept of education. The parent expects that his child presents such a challenge to the teacher. - Most parents expect, first of all, that their child will be accepted, loved, and respected as an individual. Secondly, the parent expects that he will be accepted and respected as the person most concerned and interested in the success and welfare of his child. Thirdly, the parent expects that his limitations personally and the limitations of his life environment be understood and not diminish the mutuality. of concern and interest he shares with the teacher. The parent must also be understood as an individual. Like the teacher, he strives to maintain and enhance his personal self. He has basic drives, desires, goals, and values, and a phenomeno- logical field that determines his actions. As he is reflected in his children, so his children are a reflection of him. He not only has 233 deep parental love and a protection instinct for his child, but he also sees his child as an extension of himself. Therefore, his concept of maintenance of self extends to his children--a compliment to his child is a compliment to him; a criticism of his child is likewise a criticism of him. His child is a part of his concept of self. Teacher- parent relationships must seek to constructively but objectively enhance the parent' 8 self -concept, as the teacher-pupil relationship enforces the child and the principal -teacher relationship enforces the teacher. . Human relations and social -psychological understand - ing and methods must extend to the informal organization, parents, as well as to the formal organization; and for the same reasons, humans react positively when treated with respect, honesty, integrity, and empathy, and better results toward objectives are obtained. The education of the child is a partnership of the home and the school, and the school should strive to make it a full partner- ship. To do so requires extensive communication and coordination. The elementary schools have probably done better than other levels of education, but much needs to be done, especially where parental involvement is. not spontaneous or always positive. The initiation of involvement is the responsibility of the school, not the responsi - bility of parents. In addition to the needs previously stated, the 234 parent needs to be involved in the welding of the formal and informal process of education; he must sense and accept a responsibility and should be encouraged to evaluate the process. This paragraph should not be construed to mean that parents are shut out of the schools --they are not; more often the school' 3 invitations to par- ticipate are ignored. However, it is the intent to emphasize the significance of the home in the process of education and the need for the school to accept the challenge of parental participation as one of their most important functions. Participation improves results through commitment to a purpose. For the elementary school the individual parent involvement will enhance the success of the indi - vidual child, and parent community involvement will enhance the success of the school. Up to this time in Chapter V the organizational literature has been resummarized, the uniqueness of the educational organi - zation has been described, and a conception of the present state of the organization has been presented. The educational process in its societal and individual reference was developed, and the educational organization, its objectives, and the needs of the participants were defined. This knowledge of the organization, its purpose, function, process, and participants is precedent to model development if the structure is to serve the function. 235 Deficiency Corrections of the Educational Organization The deficiencies which cast doubt upon education as an organization were elaborated. It was stated that these deficiencies were compensated for, not corrected. A model developed without proposals for correction would be as suspect as the existing model. Proposals for the correction are the first building block of the model construction. It was stated that the educational organization was unique because of the indefiniteness of its general objectives and the lack of subobjective development , the dearth of management decision information, a void of measurement methods, the lack of manage - ment training, and ineffective control mechanisms. It was empha- sized that control was through procedure and curricular perception, which requires constant supervision where the profusion and isola- tion of teaching centers (classrooms) prohibit such control. The deficiency of ineffective control stems from the lack of measurement which in part is an outgrowth of unarticulated objectives, goals, and subgoals. Establishment of objectives at the general system level requires only the planned attention of the Board of Education and the central staff, but as these in essence are community objectives, 236 their involvement could be the first step in community participation. Objectives and goals emanate from society' s philosophies and values. The community, then, as the local society for education, must be involved in stating the philosophy and determining the values which serve as a foundation for system objectives. Criteria for establishing objectives were previously stated, and it will suffice to indicate that system objectives should be intepretable, devisible , and measurable to the operation level. The establishment of goals and subgoals is the first step in measurement and evaluation. As general objectives are operationally restated at each subsequent level, the participants at that level should share in the development of subobjectives and subgoals. They become their objectives and their goals. As goal restatement moves down the organizational structure, it becomes more specific and short term --or from long range and general to short range and specific. To be specific goals must be measurable and time oriented. The establishment and factoring of-objectives is the beginning of the management process, and reorganization of educational administration mustbegin here. The void of measurement tools in evaluating the educational organization and its results achievement has been elaborated. The author' s position is that the educational organization and its results can be measured --indeed, must be measured. Measurement must 237 be made of the quantitative results and organizational viability. Education has been described as one of the most personal of formal organizations. The effectiveness of interpersonal relationships and interorganizational relationships will mark the success of the organizational effort in supporting the teacher -student achievement objectives. Therefore, both achievement results and the state of the organization must be measured. Achievement measurements are well established and exten- Win)“ :9". waitiamm' - I , ( sively utilized in education. However, they have not been utilized for management purposes. Their general use has been to establish national or state level standards (norms) against which school systems, schools, and individual children can be rated. They too often are used to determine whether a child is "dumb" or "smart. " Socio-economic and other environmental factors have not been cor- related to establish standards of individual expectancy; they have not been generally used for individual diagnosis and prescription; they have not been generally used to evaluate program, curriculum, methodology, or teacher; they have not been used to provide a chal- lenge for subgoal achievement. In short, they have not been pro- gressively and consistently used to establish standards of expectancy or evaluate organizational performance; they have not been used as a systematic longitudinal research tool for improvement in method, 238 content, or management. Achievement testing must be adapted to evaluate program, method, and organization rather than the student; it must become a management tool for improving the process and method of achieving student growth rather than a rationale for lack of student growth. This proposed use is technologically feasible today; the tests have been developed, and present ”op scan" and computer equipment make the scoring and statistical analysis of tests economical and managerially timely. Testing to determine the state of the organization has not been applied to education, and it is new to industrial organizations. It is an outgrowth of methodologies developed-in social science and socio-psychological research. Rensis Likert expressed the concept of "Human Asset Accounting. " He first identified three classifica- tions of variables in an organization: The "causal" variables are independent variables which determine the course of developments within an organization . include the structure of the organization and manage- ment' s policies, decisions, leadership strategies, skills, and behavior. The "intervening" variables reflect the internal state and health of the organization, e. g. , the loyalties, attitudes, motivations, performance, goals, and perceptions of all members and their collective capacity for effective inter- action, communication, and decision making. The "end result" variables are dependent variable% which reflect the achieve - ments of the organization. . . . 1 17Likert, The Human Organization, op. cit., pp. 28-29. .q‘. - 239 He later states: Methodological developments make it possible now to measure the causal and intervening variables with accuracies approach- ing or exceeding the accuracy of measurements of end results measurement. 18 These measurements provide an appraisal of the present state of the human relations and interactions of the organization. He further emphasized this human asset accounting by stating: The performance and output of any enterprise depend entirely upon the quality of the human organization and its capacity to function as a tightly knit, highly motivated, technically compe - tent entity, i. e. , as a highly effective interaction-influence system. 19 The "causal" factors then emerge from the organization structure and management modus operandi; the "intervening" variables result from human relations within the organization and the reaction of participants to the organization; and "end result" variables. are dependent upon the interaction of the "causal" and "intevening" variables. The "causal" and "intervening" variables measure the effectiveness of the support environment that the school system provides the teacher in the classroom as well as the support environment the teacher provides the child. The significance of the total concept of education and the support environments to the '181bid., p. 130. 19Ibid., p. 134. 240 process has been fully developed. It is axiomatic, therefore, that the organization know how to create such an environment, know when they have created it, and know that it is being maintained. Measure - ment is essential and now available --school systems must learn to use the survey and opinion techniques of the social scientists. It is possible to measure: 1. The native ability and personality traits of the members of the organization. me~ufiaa . . The knowledge of teaching methodology, psychology, and child growth and development of teachersand administra - tors. The human relations attitudes of participants. The loyalty to the school organization and identification with its objectives. The identification that the community. has with the school and its objectives. The extent to which teachers and administrators at all levels feel the objectives of the system are consistent with their. professional goals and personal needs. The perceptions that the teachers have toward the sup- portive-function of the organization and their principal. The perception that the parents have toward the supportive role of the teacher. 241 This list could be broadly expanded and refined, but such development is not the purpose of this thesis. The-list is illustrative of the feasibility of measuring the human organization that is education. The-literature of social science and education presents innumerable studies measuring single variables. What is needed is the develop- m. ment of a comprehensive and systematic plan for the continuous measurement of the formal and informal organization of education I to determine the effectiveness of its support function. Measurements of results and the state of the organization y are technically possible, but there remains the need to make man- agement decisions based on measured data and information. To make such decisions the will, ability, and power to do so must exist. In business organizations to measure is almost synonymous with control, but in education this relationship is not established. Education, we pointed out, presents unique deterrents to control; its participants are professional and seek their own definition of procedure and method. Administrative control is diffused and pressure susceptible. Both the teacher and principal have close contact with the parents whom they may influence to support them by effecting community pressure against administration or use union power or tenure: law to make administrative discipline an exercise in futility. 242 In many metropolitan school districts black teachers and black administrators are uniquely insulated from administrative directive or discipline. The black community is not likely to sup- port the white administration in the discipline of a black employee. Administrative power is confused and insecure within the urban school system. And certainly administrative authority unsupported by objective information and measurement systematically accumu- lated is weak at best. Today administrative decisions must be supportable to be enforceable. Urban school administration will regress from confusion to chaos unless accurate, timely, and systemized management information and measurement is developed and used for precise and objective decision -making. Measurement is needed for managerial control; but, even more importantly, it should be used for professional self—control and motivation. The psychological and social need for involvement and participation-was earlier established as a prerequisite to employee internalization and acceptance of organizational objectives. If the professional seeks and receives the prerogative of self- determined procedure and method, he must and generally would accept the-responsibility for results. It has been noted, however, that results are difficult to standardize --there are too many vari - ables. But standardexpectancies for individual student results and 243 growth rates could be established and subsequently summarized by classroom (teacher) and by school as a base for evaluationand goal- setting. If those responsible for achieving results--teachers and principals --participate in establishing achievement goals for them - selves, the goals become their challenge and the measurement their r‘ Ir.- control as well as system information. This is management by results and is ideally suited to professionals who desire to retain the prerogative of method. In this system the teacher‘would set his own objectivesin consultation with the principal and in support of school and system objectives. These would become the basis for self -evaluation and growth. The system would provide a cooperative setting for professional principal -teacher relationships--the teacher' 8 objectives would be internalized as her objectives and the principal placed in a supportive role rather than a punitive role. But the results would be objective, measurable, documentable, and capable of bringing classroom performance out of isolation into the total school setting. Measurement and the systematic communication of manage - ment information, then, is necessary for both the hierarchical pre - rogatives of educational management and the human relations requirement of participation and commitment. Relevant information on both end results achievement and the state of the organization is 244 necessary for making management decisions. System objectives must be established and restatedtinto goals and subgoals until they comprise classroom goals for individual children. Each classroom subgoal is developed through the participation'and cooperation of the teacher and the principal and serves as the self -monitoring challenge 3% of the teacher. . The magnitude of the communication and coordination neces— sary to develop such a participating -results system in an urban education center. is formidable. We have pointed to the inherent deterrents to coordination in education--the dispersal in time, place, and people, the turnover of both teachers and principals, and the professional independence of teachers all make coordinated effort toward a common goal most difficult. The communication, internali - zation, understanding of and response to the necessary rules, regulations, and administrative procedures in a. complex organiza- tion become exasperating problems to both central management and building management. This communication maze is one basis of bureaucracy criticism althoughtit is essential to organization coordination and control. . It becomes demoralizing when it is accompanied by misunderstanding, lack of involvement, and a per- ception of dysfunction. When such communication is extended to the classroom where a fourth to a third of the teachers have no previous 245 system experience, breakdown is inevitable. Rules, regulations, and procedures provide stability, continuity, and purpose to the organization but not to the new teacher. If understanding, acceptance, and coordination are to be effected, communication and administration lines must be concentrated. The value of thelong F, term and skilled employee must be utilized to the benefit of the ,- organization and its participants. This should be accomplished through the creation of an additional level of middle management--the teaching team. Such a team organized by grade level or age and directed by structured leadership could become the communication terminal and the basic operational unit of the system. It is not the purpose of this thesis to fully develop the teaching team as an education unit but to empha - size it as a corrective necessity to a dysfunctional educational organization. These new middle management units are necessary to communication, coordination, in-service training, and evalua- tion. Ideally, such teams should work within a common physical environment where personal association and cooperation are enhanced. The team leadership becomes the focal point of admin— istrative communication and organizational interpretation; relay to the team members becomes personal and supportive'to the team developed objectives. This concept is an essential goal for a 246 decentralized system. It has been emphasized that decentralization requires more capable middle management and effective communi - cation and coordination. The organization to support results management must be developed to the operational level, and this means organizational support to the individual who must make E. parti cipatory administration work. The author theorizes that system objectives must be reinterpreted and implemented through subadministrative units that also serve as communication channels and that the effective func- tioning of such channels requires continuity of leadership personnel. Further, he would submit that the small group organization is the best vehicle for participation and development of a mobile profes- sional staff as well as extending and receiving organizational support. For these reasons the organizational development will begin with the teaching team, not the single unit classroom. Thus, we have described the school enterprise as an organization, its purpose, functions, and participants, and we have proposed corrections to present organization deficiencies. We have indicated that objectives, goals, and subgoals can be established through organizational effort, that measurements can be made through administrative commitment and that controls should be effected by cooperative and participating results management. This 247 completes the organizational background and information for model construction. The Informal OrganizationuParent Participation The family as part of the societal organization of education r. was emphasized and developed. It was noted, however, that the parent as part of the extraorganizational influence system of educa - tion was impotent and frustrated. The parent must be brought into the effective organization, because he is essential in the process of 9 education for his child and because his support of the school and school system is essential to the survival of public education. He cannot be brought in unless he perceives his participation as valuable to the growth of his child and meaningful in effecting the quality of education at his school. The terms "his child" and "his school" are intentionally used to relate the parent' s interest in education versus power -group effort at system -wide influence. The position is taken that parental interest and involvement must stem from his child and his school, both personal and direct. Involve - ment at levels above this must become organizational and repre - sentative, but at any level involvement requires a perception of effect and influence. For parent participation to be meaningful at his school requires that decision prerogatives exist at the individual school 248 level. If the school system is rigid and highly procedural and directive controlled, there are few local prerogatives, and change or modification requires bucking the system. Likewise, if the ‘school principal interprets general directives and operational guide - lines rigidly, she creates the screen of bureaucratic inflexibility with the same results. To provide the setting for meaningful parental participation requires central flexibility within broad guidelines and policies and a local administrator with the willingness and ability to create and guide meaningful parent involvement. The question immediately is, how can parents be involved and what decisions can they make? Legally and organizationally the answer to the latter part of the question is clear: .they can make no organizational decisions. The school board isthe only legal entity, and as such it determines policies within its statutory authority and delegates administration of the schools to the superintendent and he through the organization to the teachinglevel. Parent committees are not part of the legal structure of education. Organizationally, two policy bodies cannot control the same operation, nor can a policy bodygive away policy authority without creating eventual con- fli ct. Policy authority given away or forfeited is difficult to recover. Organizational stability and viability require that control and coordi - nation of plans and activities toward objective achievement be 249 maintained and exercised by the policy body. Lay committees and parent groups can only act in an advisory capacity to the policy board or to an administrator at a decisionlevel. Their recommen- dations, then, can either be accepted or rejected on the basis of merit and within the framework of influence. It should be recognized |"”“ that the recommendations of advisory committees are difficult to reject, because the committee' 8 creation and the selection of its members assumes inherent good faith and confidence on the part of the appointing body. As such they present a potential threat to the appointing body, especially if they are a permanent advisory com - mittee. Again, how can parents be meaningfully involved? They can be involved as an advisory committee to the principal in those areas where she has administrative decision autonomy. The principal could work with a parent advisory committee in the same manner in which she works with a teacher committee or the entire school faculty. The same delineation between authority and advisory exists; the difference lies in the status of participants and the acceptance of their ability to contribute. In the case of teacher committees, professional colleague association assumes ability, but in the case of parents it requires professional acceptance of their ability to make positive contributions. It requires the understanding and acceptance of the parent in the total process of education, both individually and organizationally. 250 The degree of parental participation depends on the extent of individual school autonomy, the management philosophy, sincerity and effectiveness of the principal, and the willingness and capacity of the parent group. The first variable is causal and stems from the organizational structure; the other two variables are intervening because they refer to the interpersonal relationships, attitudes, and capacities of the participants within the structure. The purpose of parental participation is to improve the support environment for the individual child, and the support environment of the school and com- E munity, not to administer the school. Therefore, the parent advisory committee could and should contribute to the following general areas: 1. Establishment of school objectives in support of system objectives. 2. Adviseand support the process of education that seeks to relate the community to the school. 3. Express their evaluation of the support environment of the classroom and the school. Organizationally, parent advisory committees should not be encouraged or permitted to: 1. Evaluate the principal or recommend his employment or retention 2. Evaluate teachers or recommend their discharge or retention. 251 (These two functions are basic and essential internal control and management functions and the loss of them destroys the existing organization. ) 3. Dictate in the area of professional methodology or participate in classroom activity without invitation. Parent involvement must not result in threat or intimida - tion to the teacher in the classroom. 4. Be used to abrogate central policy or exceed the parame- ters of local decision autonomy. Within these guidelines parental involvement can provide, as a minimum, a meaningful communication link to the community or, optimumly, realistic participation in the school program. Two additional aspects of parent involvement need elabora - tion: the involvement of the individual parent with his child and the involvement of parents in the system ~wide influence - communication process. The individual parent, especially the economically and socially disadvantaged parent, must become concerned and involved in the education of his child. In the disadvantaged areas of urban cities, both parents and students must be brought into educationvvery early in the child' s life. The schools in the inner city should start serving all children at the age of three and within a format of 252 required and encouraged parent involvement. The ages 0 -8~are the formative and dependent years of the child, the years when child- mother relationships in particular are so important. These are the years where parent participation is sought and accepted by the child and most spontaneously given by the parent. To provide a home 1“” support base for the child may require the education of the parent, and the school should accept this challenge as essential to the total process of education. If mothers need to learn to read, they should be taught; if they need babysitters to participate, nursery facilities should be provided; if middle and upper class children do better in school because of attitudes toward learning and the learning they get at home, then the school system must strive to create this early home environment for all children. This is parent involvement on a large scale. A child' s attitude toward learning is developed at an early age, and it is theorized here that parental attitudes toward the school are established at the early levels of their child' 3 education. Theparent involvement in school, of course, grows from his personal interest in his own child. His involvement will be related to the teacher' 8 expressed interest in his child through the activities of the school. Therefore, to create parent involvement is to create student involvement through activities and the reporting of activities. The most intimate involvement is the individual 3C 253 conference with parents about their child. This is a most effective program where parents come to the school, but all parents should participate. It would contribute to parent involvement and to parent- teacher understanding if one of the conferences could be held in the home setting of the child. It will suffice to say that all means of r-s encouraging parent involvement in education should be developed, but we have indicated further that the school should take an active role in seeking a supportive home environment for education. 1 Parental involvement and influence at levels above his school require either substantial personal influence or influence communication through a group or organizational channel. Parental organization and participation at the school level would be incomplete without the means of communicating concerns and opinions to the policy level of the schools. It was indicated that parent committees should not be able to insert themselves into the administrative structure of the school, but they should have the channel for communicating their concerns regarding teaching and administrative effectiveness to the proper levels. The school com- mittee should have ample opportunity to communicate with the principal about its perception of the classroom effectiveness and through higher parent organization levels regarding school administrative effectiveness. What we have described is a parental 254 advisory organization paralleling the administrative levels in the school organization. In addition, central school management should initiate its own program of assessing the state of the organization on a regular basis by the use of survey and opinion tools. Thus, both an assessment via the informal organization and individually responding parents and patrons would be available for central administration planning and decision —making. There are dangers and difficulties in the proposal pre— sented. To maintain the equilibrium between organizational authority, parent advisory functions, and professional classroom autonomy will require greater leadership skills on the part of the principal. The elementary school has become a highly complex operational structure and new capacities for management ability, human relations and decision -making are necessary. The demands of educational administration have changed and the educational organization and its leadership must change. There is danger to the organization if aggressive building leadership organizes parental involvement to abrogate board policy and insulate itself from admin- istrative control. There is danger that the principal will use his parents to exert pressure for personal preferences. There could be concern by the board of education that strong leadership will develop within the parent organization that will challenge its 255 authority and decision. There is danger to the teachers that their professional autonomy will be threatened. And there is danger to the marginal employee that his ineffectiveness will be exposed. But if the change isseen, not as an adversary development but as the coordination and cooperation of all directly concerned with education, there is the potential for a new era of educational effort and achieve- ment. At a time of national concern and waning confidence in public education, what are the alternatives? Parents must be brought back into the educational process even in the largest metropolitan school districts. Theymust share in the process and accept responsibility for the results. The Organizational Model The historical background to educational administration indicated that school systems early in their life became highly centralized. The current literature and the writer' 3 perception of present school organization suggest that it remains a highly cen- tralized, bureaucratic system. The development of this chapter clearly illustrates that current management philosophy and the unique characteristics of both the formal and informal educational organization point to a decentralized system as most supportive of the processes, human resources, and the objectives of the school 256 system. Where broad variability in individual capacity and environmental impact exists, as well as great variability in school communities, where the professional autonomy of the teacher is sought, together with colleague participation in building administra - tion, where parent advisory participation is desired, and where the product is a human child nurtured by human resources, bureaucratic authoritarianism is malfunctional. This does not mean, however, that a hierarchical organi - zation structure is malfunctional. A hierarchical structure is essential to control and coordinate the functions of the organization in seeking the achievement of objectives, but so is the support environment that optimizes the contribution of human participants. Freedom is a human desire but known parameters of freedom are a societal as well as an individual necessity. Policies, authority delineation and limitation, and parameters of decision autonomy are required in coordinating and integrating a complex organization into a smooth functioning system. Management must encourage and recognize the accomplishment of the individual while it integrates and coordinates the accomplishments of all. Decentralization in the model presented comes not through fractionalization of the organization, but rather through the dis - persal of decision authority to each hierarchical level--ideally, 257 decision authority commensurate with the accountability, of the level. Associated with decision authority dispersal would be accountability for results achievement. In this type of decentralization, decision prerogatives and results accountability would exist at all levels in the structure, and each level would perform all the functions of 11-7 management--creating, planning, organizing, motivating, com- municating, and controlling. Each level, however, becomes a sub- system of the next higher sublevel and has the function of contribut- ing to the achievement of that level' s objectives. Thus, management functions exist at all levels as subsystems of an interlaced and integrated total system. Each level has the major functions of plan- ning, coordinating, and controlling its subsystems and meeting its result expectations as part of the higher system. At each level planning and control are centralized with respect to subsystems, while authority and accountability are decentralized. This could be called a Centralized -Decentralized system and illustrated as shown in Plate V-4 on the following page. In this illustration arrows flowing in both directions indicate a participation in planning and controlling between levels. Each level would involve lower-levels in both planning and control- ling; objectives, goals, and result expectancies would be coopera - tively developed, but plans at each level would stem from and seek 258 .. .. . .. . .1 to . .. it. I. .lJuP F.b(..)3}...v...|... ._ a . Uuwm¢<£< .i 7 3:332:83. a. c.2053 .. H H wcaofisou cw measflnm .. WBEHmdNHZDOUUAV 92¢ WBHMOEED< .mO 304m EZHEHU HBjm Each. wswnommm. Hmmaoczm ,muflnogmfim . . muoofivm haSGoEon—u .. ~30th «sopsoufiaoasm soflmosvm mo venom 259 to support upper level plans. This system provides for both down- flow and up -flow of communication and opinion. This is a manage - ment by results application to education. The schematic plan above is illustrative of the flow of management. Illustration V -5, on the following page, presents the proposed model for the decentralization of decision authority with - , ,. —“.-I .J the organization format. This illustration shows the hierarchy of decisionlevels and t depicts both the policy control and the decision autonomy at each level. The arrows connecting levels indicate the up and down flow of communication and the cooperative development of central policies for each level. The participant at each level, then, is knowledge - able about the policies that control her operation and shares in the interpretation and development of that policy and in establishing the parameters for her decision autonomy. The break in the line separating policy control and autonomy is indicative of an open system where communication will help interpret and develop both autonomy parameters and policy control. Communication provides for planned flexibility to help the organization adapt to change and stimulate change. To complete the organization model the informal organiza - tion of parental and community participation must be superimposed 260 i... . .' . . . . ..n N. r 1!.N .gl..i|‘up '7 hfiosofijw H he 30% Each. l_1 35:00 magnesia. l_. he 30% Hoonom Iml 3.3280 maosougw l_‘| moflom :onnLQ l_.. 3.3.80 H mEosofijw |_I so Bahama the mom -583. n_1 28m mofiummou - can” Hood magnum 38m Emma. mnflomoh 3305*” tficoaofim mHoonom humusoaoflm mo nouomfim unopsowfiaoaam aofidoanm .«o venom ZOEQVNHZAYUMO Agmom nu WFHMOEH D< ZOHmHUHQ QWNAAEBZHUHQ m. > Whjm 261 on the formal model of the organization shown in illustration V -5. As indicated earlier in the chapter, parental participation and involvement cannot be interjected into the formal organization but must be advisory to it. It has also been indicated that parental participation at any, level could not exceed the administrative decision autonomy of that level. These two limitations of parental involvement are essential if the informal organization is to support the formal organization in its objectives rather than supplant it in administrative function. It was also earlier stated that the functions of the parental organization are principally those of participation in establishment of objectives, in the development of the processes of education relating community to school, and in evaluating the sup- port environment of the classroom, the school, and the school system. In Plate V - 6 the relationship of the parental organization to the school system is shown by broken lines to indicate the advisory relationship. The connection of the levels of the parental organization is shown by solid lines to indicate a proposal for representative selection of parents from the lower level to serve on higher level committees. This, then, establishes a representative informal organization where communication can flow in both direc - tions. Hence, the individual parent has direct contact with the ‘: h \ .3 Yr. .Wv . 262 «soEoZQEH vacuum Hgvgapfi L, mmufiaao0 Hoonom 3858800 own—38800 muomggw fiflsogofim 20560 msamfipu000 omfi H8800 meow £64» so Emoapm mo my mom 4.89:4 |_| hofiom d35< [h we mom .583. A. anm Each. |_.. 33.30 somemZm 4834 .._I hoflom mu mmoooumuw Hoonom Hmuuco0 mo>flooFO H soflwfigm. .._I $¢ mmoooumw d35< moflom ‘ 858.30 inn—I 39.50 noflmfigm AI :oflmfipaoo0 ~96an mo>floo30 so 0 :58 _o . a is. 8 DIV :oflgfig ho mom .wouoanm Hwooq mousse 33m Econ. 3303a. . Haunts humanoduofim— . mfioocom mufismfioflm mo hon—ooh HQ . pudenda .. cwumasm . :oflmosmom mo pa mom . ZOHE HEEL 263 school at his child' s participation level and influence communication upward to system levels through his informal organization. The functions of the informal structure in relation to the formal struc- ture are indicated for each level. This, then, presents a model for decentralization of edu- cation through the decentralization of decision autonomy and the decentralization of authority and accountability. To illustrate the organization in terms of both organiza- tional and management decentralization, Plate V- 7 overlays the management functions of planning an objective establishment with control through the evaluation of results. This illustration is pre- sented in condensed form, showing only the four levels of the stu- dent, the teaching team, the school, and central administration. This illustration superimposes the concept of cooperative establishment of objectives and the evaluationof results within the concept of the decentralization of decision autonomy. It shows the student as the initial building block of both the formal organization and the parental informal organization. Each is concerned with student growth and each establishes objectives for that growth and evaluates results achieved. The implementation of such an organizational plan including parent involvement will require precise planning and systematic 264 EZHQDBw mo> nooncO vacuum unmawm adavtfivcm o3» H5500 Hoosom 3:38:30 not H8800 wsflmnanuoo0 II N fiBouO mm>uoonn0 . «seesaw . . Smog. haosougw HI mo mom Each. HI Hoocom mfianom mozuomFO Each. Hoocom hfionofié .._l moflom Hoonom .._I 35530 min—mom mo>floonc0 Hoocom Hmaacm0 . soflwflmawfigw “mauno0 AHQOSH BZHEHOAVZE .. ZOE. "Malina 265 development. It cannot be a crash program. It is necessary to repeat that such a plan of decentralization in the sense of com- munity involvement cannot exceed decentralization of management decision authority-decentralized management must precede parental involvement. Sehleh' s warning on authority decentralization also needs repeating: As firms grow in size and complexity, there is a natural move toward centralization in order to get control. . . . The con- sequence is often insensitive decision making--insensitive to local problems. To counteract the difficulty a firm may decide to decentralize authority in order to give managers plenty of leeway. They may then be astonished at the increases in cost and in the number of new problems incurred and gravitate back to the refuge of centralized control. This cycle occurs because they fail torealize that decentralization does not start with authority. It must start with accountability. No one should ever have authority until he has been made firmly accountable for the sound administration of authority. . . . Failure to set up'accountability first is a prime error in many decentraliza- tion programs and frequently leads to thousands of dollars of waste and extra cost in their early stages. He goes on to say: If you wish to maintain accountability at every level, a consis - tent attempt must be made to make each man personally accountable for the total effect of his function, and forthe total cost. . . .To do this, measurement is necessary, not vague comment. . 20Sehleh, op. cit., pp. 243-244. 21Ibid., p. 239. 266 Because of the difficulty in precise measurement, there is a natural reluctance to attempt any measurement. As a conse - quence, staff has no personal accountability. The comment is made, "They can't be measured. " In our experience, this often is not true. The implementation of such a plan must begin‘with account- ability, and the establishment of accountability requires measure- ment. Any system of management must be initiated from the top, supported from the t0p, and actively monitored from the top. An innovative system will not start by itself, will not maintain itself. A constant life blood of organizational support and reinforcement must be injected--maintaining system improvement is a constant job. It begins with top level commitment and determination, gains momentum through planned management and the allocation of resources; and maintains momentum throughcontinuous input and monitoring. Such aplan for education must begin developmentally through sequential steps: 1. First, the initiation and implementation of a management byobjectives sytem at top echelon--top management must learn to initiate and maintain such a system—-commitment, perseverance, and practice are essential. As effectiveness 22Ibid. , p. 245. 267 is demonstrated and management skills are gained, the system can be extended downward in the organization. Secondly, research and development, on a participatory basis, must begin in determining and evaluating measure- ment criteria. Measurements for both the state of the organization and end results should be developed. As measurements are accepted, subobjectives will be stated more specifically-~by projected results. Management decisions must be made on the basis of results measure- ment, else the proposed system will become as dysfunctional as the bureaucracy it is designed to replace. The lack of management decision will destroy any system. As measurements and result expectancies are established, participatory development of building level parameters of decision autonomy can be established and enter a state of constant development. As decision parameters are generally established, com - munity involvement and participation can be nurtured. Involvement should begin with the planning for involvement. The school board and administration should have fully prepared for such involvement by complete study of their objectives, responsibilities, and prerogatives, and the 268 likely reactions, problems, and achievements of such participation. They should know their own organization and management structure. The board and staff should have full knowledge of control requirements and potential dangers of community involvement, but they should not have closed minds about details of the relationships. They should want involvement and stand ready to make it work. Internal organization and management system development is first priority and a precedent to both administrative decentraliza - tion and community participation. If involvement results in lost control, it would most likely be caused by abandoned responsibility or'neglected attention to coordination. Summary This chapter began with the understanding of the public school organization, its uniqueness, its limitations, its functions, its objectives, and the needs of its participants. Proposals were presented for correcting formal organization deficiencies and creating a supportive informal organization of parents. A model was developed for an organizational structure that would meet the requirements of modern management theory and provide for pro- fessional participation in the informal organization. The purpose 269 was to develop a model that would be viable for today' s demand for educational performance and maximize the contribution of all participants in the complex process of education in an urban school system. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RE C OMME NDATIONS Summary Urban school districts are buffeted with criticisms of irrelevance, insensitivity, mismanagement, and functional failure. School operations have grown in magnitude and complexity. City systems have experienced rapid growth associated with a changing ethnic and socio-economic climate. Families of lower economic status, especially Negroes, are moving into the cities while families of middle and upper middle economic status are leaving for the suburbs. The children of the inmigration families have lower academic and achievement levels; they have been economically and socially deprived. However, there is a general social con- sciousness of their plight and society is demanding a remedy. The education scene is taking place on a larger societal stage of social revolution. The poor and the black want a greater role in the politics that affect their lives. 270 271 These societal influences are associated with internal complexities of school operation-Jack of funds, facilities, and teacher andmanagement personnel, the added influence and admin- istrative load of increasing state and federal involvement, and com- munity, employee, and student militancy. Teachers and building administrators want a bigger voice in decision —making. The school organization finds itself with less capacity to meet the demands of the time. Communication, coordination, and innovation are ineffec- tive,rand city schools are categorized as monolithic bureaucracies unable to change. A ready answer seems to be to break them up-- make them smaller, easier to coordinate, and closer to the people. These answers, . however, are often quick assumptions based on politics, emotion, or conceptual models of yesterday. The approach of this thesis was to analyze the educational organization objectively, to define it specifically in terms of its functions, objectives, and partiCipants, to describe it perceptually as it is and seek to understand its development, structure, and limitations, and to relate and reference it to universally applicable organization and management theory. The ultimate purpose of such analysis was to develop an organization model through the appli ca- tion of universal theory to the unique enterprise of public education. Management theory began with the scientific management concept of engineering all inputs into production to create the best 272 product at the best price. Human input was the same as material input; there was a best way and aminimum time--man was a produc- tion tool. In its early stages, management development began by defining the functions of management and in classifying the many functions into broad categories such as planning, organization, coordination, control. Man as an individual and as a member of a work group‘was gradually recognized as important to the concerns of management. His attitudes and motivations in relation to others and to the organization were established by'research as significant contributing factors to the success of the organization. Modern industrial management has reached the level of synthesiswhere management structure and function (Classical Theory) accepts and integrates the essential role of the human being (Behavioral Theory). Educational management began with the growth of metro- politan systems during the late decades of the nineteenth century. Through the twentieth century the literature on educational manage- ment tended to follow and parallel the literature on industrial man- agement. Today the literature on educational management strongly emphasizes the human relations approach but does not incorporate the classical management theory» of industry. Educational manage - ment is not in the state of synthesis of these two broad management theories. Little action research or case study history of the 273 application of management theory to education is available. Apparently, the inherent limitations of the educational organization in terms of measurement, evaluation, and accountability restrict the application of management theory. As industrial enterprises grew, specialization increased, and coordination of multiple functions marked the beginning of man- agement. One approach to coordination is through the bureaucratic application of policies, rules, and procedures designed to effect continuity and coordination. As the significance of the human element in the enterprise became recognized and as coordination became more complex, management turned to the decentralization of authority and responsibility. This was further refined by develop— ing objectives and standards for results at the decentralized manage- ment levels. Coordination, then, was effected throughthe articula- tion of objectives from the central organizations to the various intermediate functions within the organization. This process depended on the motivation that is inherent in manwhen he is given the oppor- tunity for independence, initiative, and self -enhancement. All organizations are human organizations, and the success of their efforts toward objective achievement is through the participation and contribution of the human members. This approach to management is called management by results or management by objectives. In 274 recent years the term "systems coordination" has been used to indicate the relatedness of different functions as subsystems of the total system. The coordination of the subsystems into the total system becomes the purpose of management. Modern development of internal information systems and the lack of success of some attempts at decentralization has resulted in changing views on the subject of centralization versus decentraliza - tion; and again there is a synthesis where theory, practice, and technology are merging to provide improved methods of management. The question is not decentralization or centralization but what are the most effective means of coordinating the multiple functions or subsystems into increasingly complex and specialized industrial organizations. The emphasis on decentralization in education refers not only to decentralization as a means of coordinating the functions of a complex organization but also refers to decentralization in a politi - cal context. There is general recognition of the need for manage- ment decentralization to effect coordination of effort toward meeting educational objectives in urban centers. Education seemingly has not been able to decentralize authority and responsibility while retaining coordination and control of general system objectives. The basic control mechanisms of industry do not exist at the present 275 time in education. Education began under a bureaucratic structure and remains so today because the control mechanisms are limited to centrally determined policy and procedure. There is a recognized need for a decentralization system that-would capture and optimize the contributions of the participants in educational organization. The thrust of this thesis was to demonstrate a method and present an organizational model to achieve this purpose. The political empha - sis for decentralization stems from the social revolution taking place in America and especially in its urban centers. The poor and the powerless are seeking their role in governmental policymaking and see the decentralization of schools as a means of providing more opportunities for participation and power by ensuring control through homogeneous constituency. Both teachers and administrators want to participate in the decision process of education. As professionals they assume a right to determine both the content and methodology of their profes- sion. Their professional skills are less visible than their human relations skills as seen by the parent. There is a growing gap between what the'teacher sees as professional prerogative and the lay community sees as professional achievement. The teachers and administrators sometimes see the central administration as a stifling and inhibiting bureaucracy, and central 276 administration sometimes sees them as unwilling to accept responsibility for initiative offered. The lay public is increasingly perceiving the educational enterprise as an impenetrable professional conglomerate that seemingly ignores its needs. Such perceptions are not universal nor completely valid, but they do evidence an organizational illness. There is a growing gap between the per- ceived prerogatives of local building administration and the need for control and coordination of central objectives as seen by central administration. This internal gap is overlayed by external desire for decision capacity by lay groups. A new organizational format is necessary to develop and coordinate all the resources of education--both material and human. There is an urgent need to effect an increasingly cooperative effort among all the participants in education. The action research pre - sented in Chapter IV demonstrates the internal need for management organization and reorganization. Parental support is probably the most important aspect of a child' 3 education and growth, yet parents as a group are not actively recruited for participation by public edu- cation. The model constructed in Chapter V serves this need. i It is not presented as an applicable organizational chart but as a con- ceptual model that considers and provides for the essential human relationships of education within the parameters of modern manage- ment theory and practice. 277 Conclusions The paraphrasing of the findings of the action research presented in Chapter IV indicates the following conclusions relative to the Grand Rapids Public School System: 1. Neither elementary principals nor central administrators knew what the specific authority and responsibilities of the principals were. No comprehensive job descriptions or decision parameters were established. Job responsibilities and authority became established through experience, specific subject directives, and group meetings, and were individualized according to the person- ality of the principal, his aggressiveness, interest, and leadership. No formalized training or preparation program existed for new principals. Their selection was not based on admin- istrative training or experience qualifications. No comprehensive taxonomy of elementary principal decision situations existed in the literature as a means of defining the job or developing a training program. Achievement and operational objectives had not been estab- lished by central administration nor were they self -initiated by the principal 10. 11. 12. 278 No formalized, written, or verbal annual evaluation of principals or the effectiveness of their school operation were made. There was general distrust between the elementary princi - pals and central administration. Principals felt they did not have authority—-that decisions were made at the top. Central administrators felt that principals had authority but did not exercise it--would not accept responsibilities. Both central administrators and principals saw the need for more autonomy at the building level and for a delineation of decision -making parameters. Female principals seemed less desirous of building autonomy than did male principals. The program of building decentralizationshould be flexible enough to provide autonomy where desired and support where needed. Central administrators and elementary principals, working together in a structured format, were able to reach con- sensus on management change. Participation and communication were essential organiza- tional elements and became effective instruments of change when initiated and structured from the top with sincerity, relevance, and implementation intent. 279 The review of the literature and the analysis of the present educational organization leads the author to the following conclusions: 1. The management literature has reached a point of synthesis where the importance of human relations has been integrated into the scalar structure of organizations. The classical theory of management in terms of functional relationships has been blended with the human contribu- tions to each function. The literature of educational management has been a combi - nation of how -to -do -it prescriptions and theories of human relations. It has not incorporated classical theory in terms of the functions of management. Educational management has not developed criteria for measurement and evaluation. The educational organization has not been effective in establishing general objectives which can be reinterpreted into specific measurable operational objectives. Student measurements have not generally been used as management tools for establishing objectives and project- ing achievement. The educational organization has been and is controlled through policy and procedure from the centralized structure 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 280 rather than by results and objective achievement at the operational levels. Education has not generally been able to effect participatory management throughout the administrative hierarchy. Neither scalar opportunities nor specific training programs generally exist within the school district for the preparation of building level administrators. Educational organization does not provide adequate training environment for-new teachers. They are isolated. Because of isolation and lack of measurement tools, teachers are essentially unevaluated. Decentralization in industry is an approach to the achieve - ment of more effective management functions. The principal management problem of highly complex and specialized organizations is coordination of activities toward the central objectives. Management has effected decentralization through the factor- ing of central objectives and establishing result expectancies. Decentralization in education is expressed from both a man- agement and a political reference. Smallness is not necessarily a panacea for the perceived dysfunctions of size. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 281 Measurement and evaluation methods must be developed for participants, operation of units, and the educational system as a whole. Accountability must precede administration decentralization. Principals and administrators want more autonomy and will accept more accountability. Decentralization of administration must precede informal decentralization of policy. Parent involvement for improved educational opportunity of the child is basic and psychologically and sociologically supported. Bifurcated, fractionalized, and overlapping policy decision centers result in organizational chaos. Parents have not been actively nor consistently included in the total organization of education. Parents have no decision function nor organized channel of communication within the organizational structure. Modern communication methods give small power groups unusual opportunities for the magnification of their voices while unorganized parents cannot be heard. Parent involvement must be nurtured and promoted as a security measure for public education. 27. 28. 282 There is a recognized need for a more functional organization for urban education. An organization can be developed that will permit the appli - cation of management and human relations theory to educa - ti on. Recommendations for Further Study Grand Rapids should initiate a program of management by objectives. Such program should begin at the top echelon and extend through subsequent levels only as it becomes operational at each level. This program should be con- sidered the first step toward administrative decentraliza- tion. Staff studies should be initiated that will cooperatively establish the role of the elementary principal in terms of functions, authority, and accountability. The school system should invite university participation in developing acceptable measurement tools for managerially evaluating students, teachers, administrators, operational units, and the state of the total system. Central staff and the Board of Education should begin informal and executive work sessions to study the 283 organization of education and of the Grand Rapids School System with thought toward establishing its objectives, identifying and correcting its weaknesses, and developing its human resources. 5. Central school administration and the Board of Education should initiate discourse with the Parent -Teacher Organi - zation relative to the potential involvement of parents in an ongoing informal organization. Such discussion should be preliminary and exploratory with full awareness by the PTA that parental involvement must follow administrative decentralization. The first contact with the PTA should establish tentative Board policies relative to community involvement. The recommendations cited are general steps to be taken in the revitalization of the Grand Rapids Public School System. The main purpose of the thesis was to establish an organizational model that would have application and value for all urban school systems. It was the intention that the effort herein contribute to the general theories of educational organization. To the author' s knowledge no other work. had attempted to parallel and transfer organizational and management theory from industry to education. The general theo- ries in management are universal and founded in basic disciplines, 284 but they are applied to organizations that are unique in purpose and structure, in product, and in personnel. Education is unique as an organization but not immune to the application of management theory, as illustrated in Chapter V. Much needs to be done to adapt the educational organization to the demands of the time. This thesis points a direction, establishes an alternative, but it is for the urban school districts themselves and the universities to develop the tools, the resources, and the people to implement such a model. The challenge is formidable but undeniable. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Book 3 Albus, Henry H. Principles of Organization Management. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1965. Allport, G. W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt, 1937. Barnard, Chester. Organization and Management (selected papers). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952. Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1938. Bittel, Lester R. Management by Exception. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co. , 1964. Bobbitt, John. Twelfth Yearbook of the National Society for Study of Education, 1913. Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. (New York: Vintage Books, 1960. Campbell, Roald F. , and Lipham, James M. , eds. Administrative Theory as a Guide to Action. Chicago: Midwest Adminis- trationCenter, University of Chicago, 1960. Coldarci, ArthurP. , and Getzels, Jacob W. The Use of Theory in Educational Administration. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press, 1955. Combs, Arthur. Perceiving, Behaving BecomingzfiA New Focus for Education. Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1962. 285 286 Cubberley, Elwood P. Public School Administration. Boston: Houghton -Mifflin Co. , 1916. Dale, Ernest. The Great Organizers. New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1960. Davis, Ralph C. The Fundamentals of Top Management. New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1951. Dennison, Henry S. Organization Engineering. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co. , 1931. Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive. New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1967. Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1954. Fayol, Henri. General and Industrial Management. Translated by Constance Storrs. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd. , 1949. Follett, Mary Parker. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers ’of Mary Parker Follett. Edited by H. C. Metcalf and L. Urwick. New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1942. Fox, William Mc Nair. The Process of Management. Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1963. Griffith, Daniel E. Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton- Century -Crofts, 1959. Gulick, Luther F. , and Urwick, Lyndall F. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Columbia University Press, 1937. Halpin, Andrew W. , ed. Administrative Theory in Education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago, 1958. Hemphill, John K. , and Griffith, Daniel E. Administrative Per- formance and Personality. New York: Teachers Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1962. 287 Hicks, Herbert G. The Management of Organizations. New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1967 Holden, Paul; Fish, Lounsbury; and Smith, Hubert. Top Manage- ment Organization and Control. New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1941. Johnson, Richard A. ; Kast, Fremont E. ; and Rosenzweig, James E. The Theory and Manggement of Systems. New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1967. Koopman, Robert; Miel, Alice; and Misner, Paul. Democracy in School Administration. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co. , 1943. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co. , 1961. Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization--Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw -Hill Book Co. , 1967. March, James G., ed. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally Co. , 1965. Maslow, A. H. Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming: A New Focus for Education. YEarbook of the Association for Super- vision and Curriculum Development. Washington, D. C. : National Education Association, 1962. Mayo, Elton. . Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1933. Merton, Robert K. "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. " Complex Organizations. Edited by Amitai Etzioni. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961. 288 Moehlman, Arthur B. School Administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. , 1940. Mooney, James D. , and Reilley, Allan C. The Principles of Organi - zation. New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1939. Mooney, James D. , and Reilley, Allan C. Onward Industry. New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1931. Moore, Hollis A. , Jr. Studies in School Administration: A Report on the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration. Washington, D. C. : Amterican Association of School Administrators, 1957. Newman, William H. ; Sumner, Charles E. ; and Warren, E. Kirby. The Process of Management. Edgewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice -Hall, Inc., 1961. Pellegrin, Roland J. , ed. Perspectives on Educational Administra- tion and the Behavioral Sciences. Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administra- tion, University of Oregon, 1965. Sehleh, Edward C. Management by Results. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1961. Sheldon, Oliver. The Philosophy of Manigement. London: The Pitman Co. , 1923. Shuckman, Abe. Scientific Decision Making in Business. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1967. Simon, Herbert A., and March, James G. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1967. Simon, Herbert A. The New Science of Management Decision. New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1967. Snygg, Donald, and Combs, Arthur W. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Strayer, George D. Problems in Educational Administration. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1925. 289 Taylor, Frederick W. Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1947. Thompson, Victor A. Modern Orgganizations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961. Urwick, Lyndall F. The Elements of Administration. New York: Harper and Row, Inc. , 1943. Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson and TalcottTarsons. Edited by Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947. Periodicals Featherstone, Richard, and Hill, Frederick. "Urban School Decentralization, Parts I, II, III, IV, and V. " American School and University, Vol. 41, Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 8, and Vol. 42, No. 1, October and December, 1968, and Febru- ary, April, and September, 1969. Melby, Ernest. O. "Decentralization and Community Control. " The Community School, Vol. VIII, No. 3, November, 1969. Report of the Fifty -Member Urban Education Task Force. Educa- tion U. S. A. IWashington, D. C. : National School Public Relations Association, November 3, 1969. Roland, Howard S. Survey of 130 School Districts. Education U. S.A. Washington, D. C. : National School Public Relations Asso- ciation, October 27, 1969. Whittier, C. Taylor. ”A Look at Decentralization and Community Control. " The School Administrator. Washington, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, NEA, ‘ January, 1969. 290 Other Sources Bundy, McGeorge. Reconnection for Learning. Mayor' s Advisory Panel on Decentralization of the New York City Schools. New York, November 9, 1967. Howe, Harold H. Speech given to Council of Chief State School Officers, Salt Lake City, Utah, November 18, 1968. Michigan Congress of School Administrators. "The Management Team Concept. " Unpublished position statement, East Lansing, Michigan, July, 1968. Smith, David C. "The Management Team. " Unpublished paper, Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals, East Lansing, Michigan, November, 1968. Tate, Mrs. Jane. Paper presented to Governor' 3 Commission on Educational Reform, Detroit, Michigan, July 14, 1969. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION OF Q UE STIONNAIRE SURVEY . Ifgtz‘i‘lu KAT-Fm, m?“ V?! 3.3)..“ «1 as... - 291 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN February 26, 1969 Mr. Richard Bandy, Alger Mr. Elmer Vruggink Miss Margaret Berry, Oakdale Miss Ina Lovell Mr. Robert Hawley, East Leonard Mr. Wendell Lubbinge Mr. John Kirchgessner, Mulick Park Mr. Milton Miller Mrs. Marguerite Munch, Ken—O-Sha Mr. Patrick Sandro Miss Jean Sehler, Kent Hills Mr. Dan Biddick Mrs. Yvonne Sims, Sheldon Mr. W. G. Koster Mr. Anthony Smith, Jefferson Mr. M. J. Moll The Business Office is interested in reviewing the relation— ship between the elementary principal function and the function of the Budgeting and Finance Office, Purchasing and Supply Office, Educa- tional Facilities Planning Office, and Building Maintenance and Operations Office, for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of the business services to the principal and thereby improving the educational effectiveness of the principal. In order to obtain a statistically representative view, I have made a random sampling of elementary schools in our system. These schools and their principals are listed above. I would like you to serve in this capacity with the eight administrators also listed above. My secretary, Karen Dryer, will contact you for a secre- tarial appointment for the purpose of completing the questionnaire which is Phase I of the procedures. An outline of the procedures is attached. Sincerely yours, C. Robert Muth Assistant Superintendent In Charge of Business Affairs CRM/krd Enclosure -mM-‘j ' .4 b V ""v‘. ‘4 I “-‘ #1 II I. H a APPENDIX B PROCEDURE FOR SURVEY RESPONSE j APPENDIX B PROCEDURE FOR SURVEY RESPONSE The procedure for this investigationwill be as follows: Each principal will state what he believes his authorities and responsibilities are at the present time in respect to the four areas of Budget and Finance, Purchasing and Supply, Educational Facilities Planning, and Building Maintenance and Operations. Answer the questionnaire pertaining to each of these four areas. There will be opportunities for comment to each question of the questionnaire if the principal so desires. A secretary will be available to record the principal' 8 response to the questions as well as record any elaboration of the questions that the principal wishes to make. Each principal will be asked to indicate the areas in which he has the strongest feelingsin terms of the need for change. 292 293 Eight administrators will be asked to respond to the same questions on the questionnaire. Two principals and two administrators then will be asked to form a committee for deve10ping a proposed statement of the principals' authority and responsibility in each of the four areas of management.