The seeds of school reform, planted 12 years ago by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, have taken root in the restructuring of schools and districts. Its blossoms (if any) appear in concepts such as increased teacher involvement in school governance, shared decision making, site-based management, school-site control, and teacher empowerment.
Schools in Canada, the United States, and Australia have all taken dramatic steps to ensure that teachers participate in school decisions. Over a year ago, for example, New York began assembling both district- and school-level planning teams of teachers, administrators, and parents.
The teacher involvement bandwagon is on a roll and gathering momentum. And perhaps it's about time. John Dewey (1903) recognized the need 90 years ago: Until the public school system is organized in such a way that every teacher has some regular and representative way ... [to] register judgment upon matters of educational importance—with the assurance that this judgment will somehow affect the school system—the assertion that the present system is not ... democratic seems to be justified. However, as Abraham Maslow (1965) noted, no one can say that political democracy is a scientifically proven experiment: It is based on the assumptions that human beings like to participate in their own fate, that given sufficient information they will make wise decisions about their own lives, and that they prefer freedom to being bossed.... None of these assumptions has been adequately enough proven so that we would call it scientific fact....
Participatory democracy, much like rosebushes, may bring forth positive results; but rosebushes also have thorns. If we can locate the thorns, then we can learn how to hold the flower without injury.
Following is some of the research on shared decision making and descriptions of three cases where it has led to questionable, if not deleterious, outcomes. By examining these cases, we may better learn how to involve teachers in decisions in order to enhance educational outcomes.
Good for Teachers, But How About Students?
Just as earlier scientific management studies spawned education's cult of efficiency, so too decentralization and empowerment have moved from industry to education. In the industrial world, participative decision making owes much of its popularity to a classic study by Coch and French (1948) that underscored the value of involving factory workers in changing their work roles.
We question education's reliance on that study for two reasons: first, teachers differ significantly from factory workers; and second, attempted replications by French and others (1960) failed to obtain the same results. Unfortunately, the replication studies have not received much attention. Bartlem and Locke (1981) suggest that the outcomes of the Coch and French study may be due more to the clarity of goals—whether set by, with, or for the workers—than to worker involvement.
Researchers have studied participative decision making in business, industry, and education for the past 40 years, with inconsistent results (Conway 1984). About two-thirds of the studies found increased worker satisfaction. But satisfaction is not the same as productivity.
When considering the relationship of participation to productivity, the results are even more questionable. A few years ago, 584 companies around the world formed a database of quality practices known as the International Quality Study (Industry Week 1992). An analysis of 1,000 such practices strongly challenges some current views of empowerment. Their findings suggest one should view worker involvement as a risky process; that involvement may or may not persist over time; and, of most interest for education, that it may or may not increase productivity.
Only a few studies have considered the impact of teacher participation on student achievement. In one, researchers found the relationship between teacher-perceived participation and student-perceived teaching quality to be curvilinear rather than direct (Greenblatt et al. 1983). That is, the high point of teaching quality occurred in schools where teachers perceived their level of involvement to be “consultative.” Quality was lower in both authoritative schools and highly participative schools.
Weiss's study of 12 high schools found that teachers in shared decision-making environments feel more professional and enjoy the increased authority and collegiality, but that the results do not translate into increased emphasis on teaching (1993). “So far,” says Weiss, “it looks like an OK deal for teachers, but perhaps not a great one for students.”
Why these ambivalent results?
Greenblatt and colleagues speculate that teachers want to be informed and have a voice in their work environment, as well as a high level of control over their classrooms, but they don't necessarily want involvement with all aspects of the school organization. In her study, Weiss confirmed a hypothesis found in earlier studies that shared decision making detracts from, rather than enhances, teacher work (Duke et al. 1980).
We support teacher involvement, yet we believe that involving teachers in management decisions can lead to potentially serious consequences. Meanwhile, educators are touting and mandating such involvement across the country. If the validity of the process is in question, what will these mandates produce?
Next, we consider three cases developed from our consultant research in which attempts to involve teachers in decision making created rather than solved some school system problems. Taken together, the cases provide an opportunity to examine mistakes and identify clues for avoiding them.
CASE #1: A Teacher-Owned Program Creates Chaos
Ten years ago, in a medium-sized, city school system, three teachers volunteered to form a gifted and talented (G/T) program in which children from 10 elementary schools would travel to a central location. Over time the program grew to include 10 teachers and 4 aides for the elementary grades, as well as a junior high outreach component. During this period of growth, the program saw three principals come and go.
The teachers designed their own curriculum, developed special materials, and tested them, pointing with pride to high satisfaction from both children and parents. Because the program changed yearly, the teachers successfully argued for a four-day teaching week with the fifth day reserved for planning and making group decisions.
Eight years into the program, the board of education appointed a new superintendent. A supporter of G/T services, he became concerned that the program served mostly white youngsters, thus according them elite status. He and the board decided to change the program so that every school could have access to the G/T teachers as consultants. The superintendent appointed a new principal, charging her to work with the group to phase out the pull-out program and redefine themselves as resource teachers.
During the following year, the teachers were courteous but reserved. They resisted most attempts to change procedures, meeting regularly to discuss the curriculum and defend their longstanding program.
Early in her tenure, the principal asked to meet with the teachers around the table where they normally conferred. Entering the work room, she sat down in an empty chair and was greeted with cold silence. Finally an aide said: “That's Ms. ______'s place!” A teacher then placed a chair slightly outside the group saying: “Perhaps you would feel more comfortable sitting here.” Though somewhat confused at this demonstration of teacher territoriality, the principal chose to move rather than upset the group norms.
The teachers eventually nullified the proposed change. At one point they asked for an external evaluation—by a consultant of their choice. Still later, they incited parents of the G/T children to lobby the board, almost causing the superintendent to lose his job.
An analysis of Case #1. The teachers had become the owners of the program. Having planned, implemented, and maintained it, they were not about to relinquish control. Wildavsky (1989) describes this archetype of group culture as an “equity regime.” He contends that in such a regime (where all are considered equals), leadership is either an illegitimate concept (since equals means that none are higher than others) or is tolerated only if the leader is charismatic and emerges from the group.
In the G/T program, the teachers had evolved into an equity regime that denied leadership from outside the group (the appointed principal). They refused to change their mission, even when the board of education requested it. In this instance, the group had replaced its primary focus of serving students' educational needs with that of maintaining itself first and serving others second.
The negative consequences became clearer as the case played out. Even a change in structure—the formation of an executive committee of teachers—proved unsuccessful. Political pressures from the program's teachers, as well as aides and parents, continued until the superintendent transferred the principal to another program. Over the next two years, half the teachers resigned or were transferred. Only then could a new group reshape the program and address the broader needs of the city's gifted and talented students.
What lesson can we draw from this? In general, every beginning must also have an end. Expect it and plan for it! When a school system charters a group to perform a task or achieve a goal, the charter should contain a sunset clause that calls for the group to disband or re-form itself when the charter runs out.
CASE #2: Teachers Select Their New Leader
Over time, a suburban school district gradually increased staff involvement in decisions about curriculum, teacher selection, peer coaching, curriculum development, and inservice opportunities. Thus, it seemed natural for them to help select the next high school principal.
The board, superintendent, and superintendent-elect agreed to the teachers' involvement. District administrators established a timetable, developed criteria, and advertised the position. From 200 applications, they narrowed the field of candidates to 7. Central office staff and a committee of eight teachers held a transition meeting to review procedures and reaffirm the selection criteria. Together, they selected three candidates for a final interview, which the teachers would conduct.
While interviewing the first candidate, one teacher asked questions that opened the gates for a significant shift in their inquiries: “In what ways will you protect the teaching staff from aggressive parents?” “Whose side will you take in a teacher/student dispute?” These questions created a snowball effect, prompting others of the same nature.
The problem was not with the questions themselves; they were legitimate and warranted discussion. Rather, professional issues became secondary to personal concerns about security. It became obvious that the selection would weigh heavily in favor of a teacher welfare position. In addition, all three of the finalists left with an unfortunate impression about what this staff valued.
An analysis of Case #2. When leaders address followers' self-interests or motivate them through incentives and rewards, they manifest managerial, or transactional leadership (Burns 1978). This level of leadership, while important, falls short of transforming followers into people who willingly change their outlook and behaviors to achieve a goal. Burns argues the need for transformational leaders who can motivate followers to transcend self-interests for the sake of the organization. In the case described above, committee members sent the new principal a message: “We want a transactional manager, not a transformational leader.”
Why did this well-intentioned committee deteriorate? What went wrong?
The lesson here is simple: Don't assume! Or if you do, be willing to live with the results. There was nothing wrong in delegating the final decision to the teachers' committee. However, given the opportunity to participate, they chose to act on the basis of self-interest. In a situation where self-interests can dominate, the system needs mechanisms that assure attention to the larger issues.
In this case, the selection committee should have agreed on questions and issues ahead of time, perhaps in a discussion facilitated by a neutral person such as a consultant. Or the teachers' union might have gathered concerns about teacher/student disputes, then passed them on to the committee.
Further, it appears that the process gave both data collecting (interviewing) and data interpreting (candidate selection) to the same group. We see that as one of the fundamental mistakes in the process. If a selection committee cannot be trusted to represent the full range of interests, then a different committee that includes all levels is needed.
CASE #3: An Autocratic Principal Tries Participation
The board of a large school district decided to subdivide the district into “families of schools.” A controversial element of the proposal stipulated that each school adopt participatory decision making.
One high school principal had run his school in an autocratic fashion for 23 years, while providing quality education. Teachers described the school as a “tightly run ship sailing on smooth waters.” Despite the bureaucratic nature of the operation, both staff and community respected the principal, as staff and students could expect fair, consistent treatment.
After adopting the new proposal, district staff offered training in participatory skills. Although the principal was reluctant to change his approach, he felt obligated to attend the five-day workshop. Upon completing the training, he began to implement the mandated strategy. He involved faculty in a new governing structure, while adopting a stance that decisions were everyone's responsibility.
The experience was not pleasant for him, nor for the staff. Teachers wondered whether personal problems accounted for his inconsistency and lack of decisiveness. His behavior was out of character, and personal credibility became an issue. Some staff remarked that making decisions was not their responsibility. “After all,” they said, “isn't that what the principal is being paid for?”
The superintendent noticed the decline in staff morale and in the traditional indicators of school quality. He assigned a second vice-principal to help run the building, which provided little relief. After two years, the principal reverted to the autocratic style he preferred. While the school is still not back to normal, it is again moving in a positive direction. Staff now talk about the two-year interlude as his mid-life crisis, which they and he successfully endured.
An analysis of CASE #3. As a visiting fellow in management, Maslow (1965) observed that the first consequence of lifting the rigid restrictions of authority may well be some chaos, some release of hostility, some destructiveness, and the like. Authoritarians may be converted and retrained, but this is apt to take some time.... This, too, can breed disillusionment in some people who are not prepared for this transitional period of disappointment, and lead to a quick change back to authoritarian management (p. 43) From Maslow's perspective, the district might have waited the principal out, enduring the trauma to the system and staff until the participatory style had become more comfortable.
On the other hand, the staff had learned to live with the principal's by-the-book style, which led to consistent operation. We believe this is the critical factor in the case. The faculty had learned to trust the principal.
The more an individual can predict another person's behavior, the more that individual can bestow trust. This does not mean they must like the behavior; if they consider the outcomes desirable, then trust leads to a positive assessment.
A generalization might be this: Where trust is high, participation becomes less crucial (though never unnecessary). The principal had earned his faculty's trust over many years. Through his evenhanded, consistent behavior, they knew what to do and how to get what they needed in order to do their job. Once he involved them in decisions, they could no longer predict outcomes, and their trust in him diminished. Consequently, their cry was understandable: “Leave management to the manager, and let us teach!”
Lessons for Other Districts
- Where decisions about program become the purview of teachers, we recommend that a sunset clause be part of the agreement. Groups tend to perpetuate themselves unless they are formally disbanded or there is a process for rolling off members in a systematic way.
- When a school district delegates power to a teacher committee, the process requires careful planning. The concept may be excellent, but the flesh of well-meaning groups is often weak. Protect the group from falling victim to its own self-interests.
- The process of governance does not have to be an either/or choice between centralization and empowerment. The key is to find the right balance for resolving district problems. Solutions may require flexibility in both structure and process.
- When administrators are ready to embark on a path of democratic governance, assist them, but also be patient. Too sudden a change in their behaviors may create uncertainty for the system. Protect competent administrators undergoing changes in style from undermining themselves and others' trust in them.
- Some policymakers have interpreted the positive outcomes that sometimes accompany a participatory process as having been “caused” by that process. It may be equally plausible that the ideas that were implemented were the primary reasons for the positive ends. In other words, they may have mixed up the process (teacher involvement) with the product (improved education).
- Before embarking on site-based management, administrators should identify key issues to address. Failure to identify issues may result in confusion about roles and responsibilities and deflect the energies necessary to effect resolution. Teacher involvement in certain kinds of decisions can be mutually enhancing: it returns to teachers the power to govern their own professional affairs, and teachers, in turn, empower administrators to make decisions that enhance the organization's goals.
- Finally and most important, the results of any restructuring effort must maintain a primary focus on enhancing the teaching/learning process. Otherwise, we may find ourselves working more for the welfare of teachers and administrators than of students.
