Do one of the following: 1) Describe a deliberative or decision-making process you have witnessed in an organization. Discuss this process making uses of some of the models and concepts that you read about in Graber and/or Spee and Jarzabkowski (eg. phases of decision-making, decision-making errors, strategic planning). Either make a recommendation for improving the process or explain why the status quo worked well. 2) Read this article about the history of decentralization and re-centralization of the NYC school system. Comment on how these restructurings have affected decision-making within the system and whether this has been for the best or not.
76 thoughts on “Deliberation in Organizations”
Comments are closed.
The decentralization process in New York City’s school system has had a vast impact on the decision making process in the system. For one, decentralization, or the focus from a larger system to multiple smaller systems has given the community the ability to connect with schools on a smaller, more localized level. Because of the new decentralized system, the community, specifically minorities are easily able to hold influence on the way the schools are run. It also has been reported that decentralization has increased parental involvement with the school and community boards were able to incorporate feedback from parents into the curriculum.
At the end of the day, there is no clear answer to whether decentralization is best for our city schools. While it appears that the decentralization of NYC’s schools has done a great job of bringing the public, specifically minorities into the fold, it has also brought with it fraud and corruption (which is not just a result of decentralization). While I think centralization is extremely bureaucratic and makes it difficult for schools to be run, ESPECIALLY, in New York City, I think we need to find a balance between a centralized system and a decentralized system, almost like how the United States Constitution gives some powers to the federal government and some powers to the states government. As the author mentions, it’s not a matter of if we decentralize schools, but to what extent to do we so. I am all in favor of giving power to the community, but I am not in favor of a disorganized system that does not run properly. This not beneficial to anyone, especially the students, who at the end of the day are most important to this discussion.
Hey Jacqui,
I really enjoyed reading your response. I agree that there is no clear evidence that decentralization works. It is interesting and a good suggestion that you related this to the check and balance system in the US Constitution. I agree with you and the author that there needs to be a more focus on trying to find an organized system to benefit the students. Political and community problems aside, I think both the government and the government should come together to find a common beneficial ground.
On Patrice D. Johnson’s End of Daze
The issue of decentralization v. centralization in New York City’s public schools is a topic that has been tackled by a few mayoral administrations. Centralization, in which the administrative authority lies with a central body has both advantages and pitfalls, as does Decentralization, which the article’s author describes as a “bottom-up” approach whereby authority lies with individual schools. With a large school system like New York, it seems a too-large bureaucratic web to manage it from the top, so Michael Bloomberg’s attempt at “recentralization” in the early 2000’s seems to have been destined for reconsideration.
Centralization does have its advantages, as the author pointed out. There is a system of accountability at the central level, schools receive support and services and professional development resources. But it fails to consider the level of autonomy necessary for effective school decision-making. The trend is toward decentralized decision-making or school-based management. Even though decentralization encompasses those who work directly with students such as teachers and principals and brings caregivers closer into the equation, this systems brings with it fraud, corruption and self-interest. It seems like a middle-ground compromise is needed since both decision-making methods are flawed and may vary depending on the school/district size and other measures.
As the author pointed out, “school restructuring should not be an end in itself, but a means to improving student performance”. The various shifts throughout the last half-century from community control to a central office or some hybrid, have not produced any notable improvement in standardized test scores. New York City public school students are still far behind their peers in other parts of the country, and that is the true failing.
Norrisa, I completely agree with you that the real issue at hand is that of our failing schools which includes stagnant standardized test scores. As stated in the quote you provided, we must find the structure that best serves our students. I believe that is why there has been so much back and forth between the centralized and decentralized systems – to figure out which system will be the most successful. Unfortunately, I don’t believe we have quite figured it out yet. In my post I wrote about a sort of hybrid system which you also touched on being a possibility since both systems on their own seemed to be flawed.
Norrisa I agree with your post. I was also having difficulty deciding whether centralization or decentralization is more effective in our school systems. Each has attributes that make it desirable but neither serves as a suitable model for every school. Understanding the needs that each school faces is very important because we cannot expect central offices, that are usually disconnected from the various schools they oversee, to make all important decisions for the school. We must reach a happy medium that can give both the local schools and central offices power to make decisions. I believe we need to focus on a system that combines the positive features of decentralization and centralization and mold it to fit the needs of each school.
The history of decentralization and re-centralization of the NYC school system allows us to explore the different options that were used throughout time and whether there needs to be a change in the way we look at the school system. The article allowed us to understand that decentralization and centralization in the school system has positive and negative implications. Decentralization allows local schools to become more individualized and independent, and therefore allowed to make decisions without having the large bureaucracy to step over all the time. Centralization allows schools to fall under one major umbrella and therefore the bureaucracy has a say in everything and the state is involved. It is difficult to determine which system works the best because one system cannot be used in all schools and all cities around the world. The article highlights different places like Chicago and New York and therefore we are allowed to see that restructuring of the education system is a better choice.
Rudy Giuliani’s method of incorporating both systems allows us to see that there is no need to have one system but rather both work well in combination with each other. It is important to have school-based management but also give power and governance to community school boards, superintendents and school principals. This allows all parties to have a say in the system but also feed off of each other’s ideas and innovations. Having a decentralized system opens doors to fraudulent behaviors and lack of accountability. I agree with this, but I also think centralized systems also have their drawbacks and corruption also happens in this type of system.
Instead o f debating which system works, what to dismantle, and what to adopt, it is important to understand what goes on in the classrooms. Our children are learning in the classrooms and we need to see how they are being instructed, the academic resources they need, test-taking skills they need to hone, and whether they are learning in a sound environment.
I work for a private educational organization that works with various private and some public schools around the city. Through my work and interaction with private institutions, I’ve come to understand that students are their main priority. They have 20+ reading and learning specialists, therapists who look into the mental and academic resources students need, or whether the teachers are providing an adequate amount of instruction and direction to students. We should focus on our students and the system at the same time.
One system may work for a school in New York but it may not work for a school in another borough or city. The community and those who are impacted by the local schools or school need to make the call regarding adopting a decentralized, centralized or combination system.
Sharmin, I also wrote about some sort of balance between centralization and decentralization – I agree with you that it is important to use components of both of these structures in public schools. I really enjoyed your perspective from working in for a private educational organization. I completely agree with you that the focus needs to be put on what is happening in the classroom and how our students are being directly impacted. In a private school system, the lack of being a part of a larger system allows for more flexibility and a large amount of autonomy in the school. This allows for the larger focus on the students. This is why I think the charter school system is very fascinating because it combines the public system with the values of a private school.
Hi Sharmin!
I totally agree with you – a balance between the systems would be ideal. And, like you said, it is important to see what is going on in the classrooms to have a better understanding of what needs to be improved and what student needs have to be addressed. By focusing on the students, educators can assure that students are able to succeed in school. Since I work in a special education preschool, I feel that it is important to look at each student individually. Teachers should cater to students’ needs and make student-appropriate goals that are achievable and measurable.
Sharmin,
Great post and thank you for recognizing what may work for a school in New York, may not work for a school somewhere else. I think we are very quick to judge “well if one place does this, so can we.” However, New York is in a league of its own. But you are absolutely right- we have to focus on our students. Very good to hear that schools are focusing on mental and academic needs of the students.
Jacqui
Hi Sharmin,
Agreed, it cannot be a one-size-fit-all type of approach, as each community is unique and what works for Brooklyn may not work for Queens. A balanced approach may work best, but as you pointed out, with all the interest of all stakeholders taken into account. As the article points out there should be “more focus on what goes on in the classroom” and not so much on the organizational structure. The students should certainly be the priority.
Sharmin thank you for citing schools that have prioritized students’ needs to ensure their success. I believe it is essential to study schools that have devised a system that works for their students. Every school has different needs that cannot be satisfied by one specific model. However, if we study these successful school models, I am certain we can apply certain aspects of it to other schools that necessitate improvement. A compromise must be reached between local school boards and central offices to ensure that people who head decentralized units face accountability, yet also have the power to obtain the resources necessary to safeguard the success of its students.
The restructurings of the New York City public school system between decentralized and centralized structures has greatly impacting the decision-making within the system. In a public school system there are many types of decisions that need to be made by some body of people. These include, hirings (principals, teachers, etc.), implementation of curriculum, testing students, budgeting, teacher evaluation, graduation requirements, and more. In a decentralized system, there is more autonomy for each community district or school whereas in a centralized system, the power is more removed.
There have been both positive and negative outcomes from these restructurings. For example, along with the decentralization in the 1980’s, the percentage of minority teachers greatly increased. Additionally, parents became more involved with their children’s schools and more innovative curricula was implemented. However, the decentralization also caused a lot of personnel cutbacks and many questioned the quality of the new teachers. While centralization has better accountability, decentralization better understands the needs of the local community.
Essentially, in a decentralized system, decisions are based on understanding the local community whereas decisions in a centralized system are based on the attempt to improve performance over a large scale. I believe that there needs to be a balance between the two. There surely needs to be accountability and a drastic increase in performance in our public schools. However, better performance can also come with decentralization due to meeting local needs. I would advocate for a centralized system in which standards are more individually designed to meet local needs. Each local school district would have to propose its standards to the centralized authority and be approved. This allows for the central system to be accountable and hold local districts to high standards. At the same time, hires and curriculum among other components of public schools can be determined by the local authorities if it is approved.
I really like this idea. I too agree that there needs to be a fine balance between a centralized and decentralized system. Every community is different and decisions need to be made on a case by case basis. On the other hand, it’s always good to strive for the best and increase performance regardless of the background.
Yael, you also mentioned things I wrote about which allows me to agree with your suggestions. I also think having a strong centralized system with individualized standards. This allows the new system to have the best of both systems. Schools follow the centralized system but also have the independence to follow their individualized ideas, curriculum, and unique methods of hiring and teaching. As I’ve mentioned in my writing, we need to understand what our children and families want and need. A school in Brooklyn has different needs than a school in the Upper East Side. We need to include and factor in all of this when determining which system works best.
Hi Yael,
I definitely agree that a balance of the two systems would be ideal. I think that your idea of a centralized system with individually designed standards for local communities would be great. A central system could set the “gold standard,” while public schools/communities can write their curriculums to better address and meet the needs of the students in the area. The goals of the curriculum should be realistic and attainable, to ensure the students’ success in school. Curriculums should also set measurable goals to determine effectiveness.
Yael,
I agree with finding this balance. Definitely a lot easier said than done. While it’s important to give the community a voice, but we have to make sure the needs of our future generations are met. It’s especially hard to do this in New York because of the large scale we are working with.
In the large special education preschool that I currently work at, the decision-making process follows Graber’s Formalistic Model in which “each unit performs well-specified tasks.” The preschool contains various administration members and departments including: Executive Director, Principal, Assistant Principal, School Secretary, Receptionist, Education Department, Occupational Therapy Department, Physical Therapy Department, Speech Therapy Department, Social Work/Psychology Department, and Maintenance Staff. The major benefits of this model is that roles are clearly defined, and each discipline has its own responsibilities. The flow of communication for decision-making is upward, so the “choice of final options is relatively easy.”
However, there are some flaws with the decisions primarily being “concentrated at the upper levels of the organization.” One major flaw is staff retention. While employees are informally reporting suggestions to their supervisors, the final decisions rest solely on the executive director. Consequently, employees sometimes feel that their suggestions have been ignored and that their opinions don’t matter. At times, it is unclear that suggestions are really being passed upwards to the higher ups.
A recommendation to improve the process is to have regularly scheduled staff meetings. Ideally, these would be staff-wide meetings where employees can voice their opinions on upcoming decisions and truly feel that their voice is being heard. This could also be a chance for administration to address employee concerns, even if it is solely to inform an employee why a suggestion or option is not the best choice at the time. If staff-wide meetings are unfeasible, department meetings should be held on a regular (i.e., monthly) basis to discuss any pressing issues. Department Heads can then meet amongst themselves with the administration to speak on their inferiors’ behalves.
I agree with you 100%! I have the same sort of problem at my organization. I think your recommendation is great but I think the key is that the administration really needs to listen when the employees talk. Otherwise employees end up feeling even worse than before because they feel they tried to express themselves and they weren’t heard. That coupled with the fact that the administration actually needs to vouch on behalf of their department!
Fran, thank you for providing the example of the pre-school you work at. I find it interesting that roles are clearly defined yet there are some loose ends, such as staff retention. One big problem in any organization or company is the fact that executives and supervisors take major decisions without consulting or discussing with the rest of the employee. Not only is this frustrating, but I also think it is unfair. If employees are fulfilling their responsibilities then they should be able to become a part of the decision making, at least in things that impact them.
I do agree with your suggestion of having regularly scheduled meetings. I think this is important for the organization and their employees. There should be a clear line of communication, transparency and exchange of ideas. This could be done through regularly scheduled meetings which allows employees to take their organization seriously and provide their ideas and innovations.
Hi Fran,
I strongly agree with you that regularly scheduled staff meetings should be held. For example,
in our office in the beginning of every month we have a meeting.Every single person in the department must be present. These meetings have been held maybe for the last two years and I think many issues have been identified and solved during these years. When only supervisors were holding meetings a lot of issues were left unheard and staff members couldn’t work efficiently. If the worker sees that his/her voice is heard they tend to work better and provide better work attitude.
Hi Fran:
Thank you for sharing your experience with decision-making at your school. I agree that when decision making is relegated to only upper management, employees with lesser job designations feel unimportant and insignificant. This can definitely impact staff retention.
Regularly scheduled staff meetings is a good idea, but if it’s only to pacify staff members by making them feel like they have a voice, and none of the ideas from these meeting are considered or explored, then it will all be for nothing.
Well said, Fran. I think employee input is important.
I think staff-wide meetings may not be as effective since different departments have different issues, and often these meetings have limited time. I think regular department meetings to discuss any pressing issues, and department heads present the issues to the administration is more feasible.
In recent years, there has been a significant shift from centralization to decentralization within the school system. However, the introduction of Mayor Bloomberg to office in 2002 saw the start of “re-centralization” of the school system, as less power was allotted to individual school boards and more decision-making was placed in the hands of the central office.
When the system is decentralized, the decision makers for schools end up being those people directly involved in the specific school, including principals, teachers, parents, and community representatives.
Decentralization has some benefits; some schools experienced an increase in academic achievement. However, this positive outcome was only experienced by several schools, and mostly by elementary schools only. Furthermore, when the decision-making power is in the hands of so many different people, they are bound to have different interests and therefore to disagree on various issues, which impedes decision making. Re-centralization, on the other hand, results in increased quality of education. Therefore, I think that the shift toward re-centralization is a good one for the schools.
Graber Models
I have been working in the Office of Human Resources for over three years. The monthly meetings are considered essential and important components of our department. The director of Human Resources values the presence of all employees during each of those meetings. Every single employee must be present no matter of title or position. Each employee has the right to raise any types of issues or problems that they are encountering during work.
After discussing for a while we define the most important problem of the month. (Problem Analysis). The longest part of our deliberation is the identification of plausible solutions (Option Exploration). Each individual has the right to propose options that would address and solve the given problems. Each solution option is estimated with regards to its advantages and disadvantages. We try to identify solutions that would address our problems the best. When we can’t come up with single solution than we will start voting. The option that gets the most votes will be picked up (Making Decision/Rational Choice/Aggregative). Finally, after a month or two we will readdress previous issues and see if solutions were helpful. There are no meetings again because this check up is done through email questionnaires (Monitor feedback).
To my understanding the Graber’s decision making model is the most effectual one and meetings in general are very important apparatuses of each office. It will allow employees collaboratively solve all the issues occurred in the department. Definitely there will be some errors associated with this meeting. For example, some people will not want to talk in front of their colleagues or argue with them about any disagreements. However, my experience showed that meetings have more advantages than disadvantages. When I just started working, our previous director did not hold monthly meetings and if done so only supervisors would be present. Many problems and issues were unheard thus it was harder to provide efficient work results.
Hi Tamara!
Your post echoes the same sentiments as mine, regarding the importance of meetings as opportunities for everyone within the department to voice their concerns. I agree that communication, whether individuals are in agreement or not, is absolutely crucial to ensuring a healthy organizational environment. Additionally, I believe it’s necessary to provide all workers with agency over their experience within their workplace. These meetings seem conducive to that end, which I applaud!
Your application of Graber’s theories applies quite well to your specific organization’s decision-making processes, which must be really gratifying to be a part of. Out of curiosity, have your own concerns regarding departmental affairs been a catalyst for policy change?
Thanks so much for sharing!
Hi Jamie,
Thank you vey much for your comment. Actually I really enjoy those meetings not merely because they help us to identify major issues but it also helps to enjoy some camaraderie.
Have my concerns been catalyst for policy change? Well, as I have mentioned I am a Business Data and Reporting Analyst L2 at Human Resources and I am part of data integrity team. My job is mostly concentrated on analyzing various datas and reports within CUNYfirst. Roughly said, I do “clean ups” in CUNYfirst so I am first to see any types of errors that occur in our office. During our meetings I have to speak about the most common errors. I am very proud to say that my idea of creating a special guide with most common errors and their solutions was approved by my supervisors and I am on half way of creating it. My guide will also be useful for new employees who would have step by step procedures with illustrations.Please let me know if you have any question for concerns.
Hi Tamara,
I agree that Graber’s decision making model is the most effectual one. It is important to have monthly meetings at work, and I find them to be very helpful. I like that you monitor feedback through email questionnaires instead of having meetings again. That saves time and allows for different ways of communicating and all can voice their opinions. It is great that your new director has them monthly meetings with you!
-Dianna
I agree at what the model can do to properly bring more collaboration. The organization I am at currently uses a weekly staff meeting model in order to keep communication clear and effective on problems. You certainly do boost your organizational capacity with that model.
I think ultimately time is the biggest factor in decision making. In your post you addressed the two-three months it took to make the model work. Had the problem been different I can imagine that your method would have been significantly different. The time crunch of decision making is what makes the best solution fit in most occasions.
Hi Tamara:
I think this is a great idea to have monthly meetings. I applaud your director for being so proactive and taking all employees viewpoints into consideration. I also like the fact that all employees, regardless of their position have to attend. This is so important because I find that different roles and levels in particular can have vastly different ways of seeing an issue. People feel like their opinions matter, even if ultimately, their position is not upheld. This collaborative decision-making style is one I wish would be employed more where I work.
Thank you for sharing.
An organizational decision-making that I recently witness was when the director at my clinical site noticed there was a problem with patient through-put in her department. She realized this was a problem she could not tackle by herself so she sort out help from the leadership of the organization. The director together with the leadership of the organization met to discuss how the problem can be resolve. During the meeting many different ideas was brought up. Each idea was looked at in great details to see how they would help resolve the problem. The committee using The Rational-Choice Model (my observation) finally settled on a handful of possible solutions, they think might be the answer to the problem.
The committee than decided on a time period that they would be conducting the test and also selected specific unit which will serve as the pilot units. At the end of the specified period the committee met again to assess if the solutions that were put in place did help solve the problem. During the test period, good documentation is kept so as to be able to determine if it is the interventions implemented that help solve the problem. At this meeting the committee went over the interventions implemented to see if they can be made any better than what they already have and if there are any changed that is needed to further solve the problem.
Once all the kinks have been addressed and the committee is satisfied with the result, it is then implemented “house wide” in the entire organization to improve patient safety and patient satisfaction.
Hi Juliet,
Thank you for sharing with us your story from work. Your example proves that regular meetings are one of the most essential components of any office or department. Your director should have always had meetings at least once a month and not just after having some issues.This way she might even have prevented problems that rose from issues that were unknown to her. However, I think everyone should be able to be present during those meetings and not just supervisors. Each single individual plays an important role in the development of good workflow. To me offices are like puzzles and each worker is needed for the complete picture. During those meetings information is shared which makes everyone aware of any issues that office might have.
Thank you Tamara. I do agree that everyone is a piece of the puzzle and all the pieces are needed to make it complete.
Hi Juliet,
I am not sure what ” patient through -put “is, but I like the decision -making process that you described. Were the staffs ( or their representative ) that work on the unit that were affected by the problem initially and during the implementation process invited to the committee meeting and had any input in the decision-making process ?
In my previous job I worked for an Institutional Review Board (IRB). It is the job of the IRB to review research protocols involving human participants to ensure that the rights of the participants are protected. The IRB has to ensure that participants are not subject to unreasonable harm (physical and emotional), and make sure that information is always kept confidential. At my time with the IRB we came across several cases where participant’s information was not stored securely and thus not making it confidential. It took a major problem that arose because of this to one day meet as a department and discuss the issue of confidentiality at hand.
The research department analyzed the problem and discussed how to better make sure that employees ensure the participants rights during research project participation. As seen in Graber’s model, problem analysis will bring in facts and options and will weigh them against one another. Option exploration happened when the department was deciding on what policy options can be made to help solve the problem. There needed to be a clearer policy within the institution to how to train incoming employees on meeting confidentiality of research participants. There needed to be a policy made that all new incoming medical personnel including physicians, residents, nurses and research administrators, get trained on research ethics and protocols. The issue was how to go about creating a better policy (since an outdated policy was in place).
Would the employees have to meet certain training requirements prior to either starting their new job or will they have to meet training requirements within 3 months of employment. Do all employees have to do these training or will it only be those who will be working around research? So many questions came up during our departmental meetings. These questions and ultimately people’s concerns turned into models of discussion. As a team we had to choose the model that we believed fit best for the problem we were addressing. We held several meetings to discuss how to do this in the most sufficient way. The conclusions of the meetings came to the IRB panel for presentation.
Not only in this situation, but in many others, the Graber’s decision making model works best to come up with the best strategic plan. The only problem I saw with how my previous job went by this issue was that there was no monitoring feedback. Having a monitoring feedback is something I would say needed to be improved. Also, I would have done a trial run approach towards training employees both in person and on an online training module. In person would be difficult since residents and doctors have different schedules then the average workers in research administration but that is why I believe several training’s should be done as a trial.
Hi Dianna!
Your post is incredibly revealing considering how important IRBs are to research in all fields. It’s also disconcerting that there are potentially many IRBs that have staff who are simply unqualified in terms of ensuring participant confidentiality. I assumed IRB policy guidelines, especially related to on-boarding, would have been more stringent in nature. In this case, the decision-making process is necessary, as to prevent future instances of breaches in confidentiality. Out of curiosity, what option(s) did your organization choose?
I agree that feedback monitoring is essential in your case. If discontented employees leave the IRB as a result of a faulty policy measure, then the on-boarding and training process, I believe, would become considerably more arduous. Leaders need that kind of feedback to make changes along the way, in the scenario the organization encounters flaws within a chosen option.
Thanks for sharing!
Hi Dianna,
This is a good example from your previous workplace. I like the idea that the issue or breach in protocol was discussed and the importance of participants’ rights during research was reinforced to all. It seems the options were considered and the training protocols were reviewed in the process. As a result, the opportunities for improvement were identified and the outdated policy was updated. It seems that the team choose the best option based on the team meetings, and discussion models were developed as a result. It is true, monitoring feedback is indeed an important element of the process, as many lessons-learnt and improvement opportunities can be captured there.
Greetings Dianna. This is a great post! Patient and client confidentiality is such a problem and only grows as we go paperless, so it is great to see that your former place of employment is taking measures to improve their practices.
I think that a newly implemented training policy would go hand-and-hand with monitoring feedback. The feedback could take the form of exit slips for training sessions. When we hold professional development workshops at my organization, we often have slips of paper with one or two questions that gauge the overall understand of a training. This is not necessarily to test the individual’s knowledge but to text the effectiveness of the training overall.
This summer, as I’ve revealed in other posts, I canvassed for Amnesty International USA, representing their New York office. The position is one I look back on with gratitude but it wasn’t without its organizational conflicts.
For context: each group of canvassers was supervised by a ‘Team Lead,’ who were supervised by a trio of ‘City Coordinators,’ who were supervised by the head of the office, or the ‘Regional Director.’ Communication was maintained between these positions through regular office-wide meetings.
My group’s Team Lead, who I’ll refer to anonymously as Michael, was an anomaly. While he displayed the telltale attributes of a ‘theory y’ leader, his personal characteristics often collided with both the efficiency of the group and the values that AI USA stands for.
Generally, the day started off on a bright note, aided by Michael’s seemingly jovial, upbeat attitude. By the afternoon, however, the mood of the group noticeably shifted. In scenarios whereby he failed to get a passerby to sign up, Michael would privately scorn the individual, blaming his own inadequacies on – I kid you not – either the race or gender or even weight of that individual. By the end of the day, we lost count of how many slurs and microaggressions were committed by Michael. This made our already difficult job of attaining sign ups even more arduous and left my team members, most of whom were part of some marginalized group, extremely uncomfortable.
It wasn’t long before a team member and I, encouraged by other team members, felt compelled to approach the Regional Director to mitigate this issue. The meeting that took place represents the decision-making process relevant to this post. While unbeknownst to us at the time, the three of us utilized Graber’s Four Phases of Decision Making as a method of finding a solution that primarily benefitted our fellow team members.
We defined the problem – that Michael’s behavior was an impediment to our work and simply unacceptable in any context – and proceeded to explore options. We then attempted to make a decision, which proved tricky, as the Regional Director had little evidence to exact punishment. From his view, there was only so much that could be done, beyond maybe a finger wag, without, say, video footage of Michael’s misconduct. Still, our allegations were corroborated by many other canvassing groups and even City Coordinators, bolstering our case.
A ‘rational choice’ was considered, which involved calculating the risks of simply firing Michael from an office that had been lacking in a sufficient number of Team Leads. The benefits were clear but were they worth the costs? Well, being perhaps the largest international non-profit that rarely, if ever, conceded on its base ideology of social equality for all, we felt it morally right and necessary to carry out the firing and replace his position with a more senior member within the group.
This decision was unanimously well-received. Canvassers not only felt more safe but were also, without the distraction of Michael’s unpredictable behavior, more productive. The process involved was liberating, especially as individual fulfilling an entry-level position, as it provided us agency over a decidedly harmful situation. Indeed, some were reluctant to go through with the decision, believing it to be unduly harsh. But given that the majority of canvassers were people of color and/or LGBTQ, we felt holding on to Michael would have caused more damage than was manageable.
Hi Jamie,
I think that it was the right thing to do when you approached your Regional Director. I feel that more people need to stand up to their directors and not be scared to voice any problems that they have while at work. You brought the problem to your director and as a team a rational choice was made. There is no doubt that if you held onto Michael more damage would have been done! Your situation at work is a great example of decision making.
-Dianna
Hi Jamie,
I hear you! It’s amazing how sometimes, we are strangers to strategies in theory, but we are able to, although maybe not so perfectly, execute these strategies in practice as if we have been trained to do so. I think that all decision making in general is accompanied in a way with the typical cost-benefit analysis model. We always find the need to weigh our options, similar to how you mention how the pros and cons where weighed when debating on whether to keep Michael in the organization or not. And going back to the definition of the problem, I feel this is where we fail most of the time when making a sound decision. It is many times the lack of communication and the lack of clear conceptualization of what is at stake (what is being deliberated). The combination of these two elements are key when going through the decision making process.
Hi Jamie,
Your advocacy for the safety and well-being of yourself and fellow volunteers is commendable. Employees often feel intimidated by people in powerful roles and out of fear say nothing. I’ve worked at organizations where there was never a formal complaint made against a director until the exit interview. Your use of the Graber Model to protect your working conditions is spot on. Using the phases of decision making to present an issue that needed immediate action most certainly strengthened your case. It sounds like the matter was approached strategically and not emotionally. Often times, the last straw is when employees approach upper management to address a problem. Perhaps this model of decision making should be included in job orientations!
Hey Jamie,
It takes a lot of courage to address issues of this matter. Most establishments do not tolerate any form of racism or discrimination. That’s a pretty hard decision to take but it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, Michael may have lost his job but it worked out for the rest of the group in a sense where no one will be harassed by him. This is a great example of decision making because you guys thought about other options before firing him. The only thing that was left to do was to fire him because those actions were out of line.
There has been much debate on the effectiveness of the centralization/decentralization of schools. Supporters of decentralization have stated that it establishes a better relationship between schools and their community, offers more resources, and responds more effectively to local school needs. On the other hand, opponents of this structure believe that there is limited accountability on the part of people who administer the decentralized units and these schools are more prone to fraud. Both centralized and decentralized schools have been studied and the results have varied among schools.
Quite frankly, I am uncertain on which system promotes better decision-making. I can certainly see the appeal to a decentralized school system, which promotes community involvement and an innovative curriculum. However, standardized tests make this structure’s success difficult. If schools become too innovative with their curriculum and deviate their focus from preparing their students for standardized tests, this decentralized system can easily be perceived as one that does not work. Centralized school structures removes power from local school boards and transfer it to central offices; according to Bloomberg this has resulted in improvement in state reading and math tests scores. However I believe each school has different needs. I do not believe there is a “one size fits all” approach that applies to schools, but because of standardized testing uniformity is essential, to a certain extent.
I agree, standardized testing and curriculum in place by school systems are a larger issue not addressed in the article. Standardized testing has continued to chronically disadvantage racial minorities into obscurity no matter which system is in place. It is as if standardized testing is the continual centralized force of schools.
I do agree with you Leslie. Finding the middle ground between Centralized and the decentralized system is what should be worked on. It will be best if each school is looked at individually to find what works best for that particular school community. This will encourage the community to participate and get involve with activities in the school program and give opinions while at the same time having the central offices consider these options to see how they will fit into the bigger picture of increasing scores on standardized tests.
Hi Leslie,
I agree with you that each school has different needs and one structure doesn’t work for all schools. I was also very uncertain on which position is better for schools. I’m not a fan of standardized tests because if a child does not do well in them, it makes feel unintelligent and waste time to improve those scores. The tests that essential won’t help with the student’s education that much. Meanwhile, the child could be focusing on other subjects or partaking in extracurricular activities. I think this article should focus on that. I think there should be a structure that benefits the school more rather than focusing on centralization and decentralization.
The goal of innovation is to make a change that is an improvement. When done correctly, an innovative curriculum should improve a student’s ability to pass a standardized test. I feel that there is something fundamental that is not being addressed in the school system that neither centralization or decentralization can fix.
As the article pointed out, this debate over centralization vs. decentralization is not a new one, and decision-making within these systems are affected both positively and negatively.
In the New York City public school system there has been arguments for both decentralization and centralization, however, it seems most are in favor of the decentralization argument. Proponents of decentralization have argued that it results in improved school-community relations, improved support and maintenance for local schools and greater resources being allocated. These proponents have also argued that this structure is more flexible and responsive to the needs of those it serves. Challengers would argue that decentralization lacks a centrally located intermediary office, results in a lack of accountability, fraud and corruption. Various cities have reported that school-based management systems had fallen short of their goals, and although it allowed for equal participation, principals still controlled the agenda.
Mayor Bloomberg and previous administrations have all attempted to “recentralize” the system, however, this was met by resistance from teachers and school boards. As centralization was introduced to reduce frauds and manage accountability, once decentralization had been found to only slightly improve school scores.
It seems a compromised approach may work best, depending on the school district and the needs of the community. As the article concluded “decentralization makes sense for large school systems like New York’s”, however, it may not work for more rural communities. The community and all stakeholders need to participate in the decision-making process, so that their concerns can be factored into the academic equation. Certainly, it is equally important that the focus be on the actual students and “what goes on in the classroom” as, much as on the organizational structure. As both work in tandem to ensure student success and improved academic outcomes.
Hi Cicely,
Well said! I have been a longtime advocate for the idea that realities should fit circumstances best. Systems will not always be a one size fits all. Governments, while referring to a system as a whole, have been instituted at different levels such as local, state, and federal. This shows you that various systems are needed in order to fit the realities best and serve the communities best interests as well. A compromise between both centralization and decentralization would truly bring out the best from both worlds so to speak.
Hi Cicely,
As I read more about this topic, I found that in this country, there are no absolute supports for complete centralization or decentralization of school the systems, although, the consensus is towards decentralization. This idea can be seen in the popularization of charter schools, where public funds are used to fund a system where parents can play more active role in the system. In decentralization, the school boards and parents associations locally make decisions including teachers’ evaluations, decisions regarding curriculum, instructional methods, and students testing.
“As of now we have no research evidence that school consolidation or school decentralization improves education” (Ornstein).
Centralization versus decentralization – much ado about nothing?
Accountability and control versus autonomy, community and responsiveness. These are the major conflicts that exist in the fight for, or against centralization or decentralization. Thrown into the mix are factors of economic status, politics, education experts, parents, race and labor relations, which influenced the approach to the decision-making process of the various parties involved.
Education has always been a sore point for the economically challenged and minority communities in America. In New York in particular, there is a plethora of stakeholders and interested parties with diverse goals for the education system, and themselves. With educators, teachers, teaching professionals, politicians and union representatives involved in the decision-making, it is telling that the author’s conclusion reads: “Elected officials have repeatedly embarked on programs of school reform to meet political ends rather than educational ones.” It is also very revealing that the assessment of the author is that neither decentralization nor centralization have yielded significantly different results.
It would appear however that elements of both centralization and decentralization are necessary. Decentralization allows a more intimate and responsive community for students, and centralization provides assessment and professional support to educators and the community. Today, decision-making continues to be a highly political event, with proponents of charter schools aligned against traditional public school advocates. It isn’t purely a management issue (argument for centralization) or a case for a focus on student support/performance (argument for decentralization), in a winner-take-all battle. It is a question of how to bring together the best elements of what worked in both arenas. The answer of course lies somewhere between both camps.
m.willie,
I do support your points that both elements of centralization and decentralization are necessary for balance in support for students and educators. The views supporting decentralization believes, it ensures sound relationships within the school system. While the ones supporting centralization, believes it brings about more accountability in the school system. Forging a balance between the two systems, I believe will lead to more efficiency in the school decision processes.
In my current position as a Program Officer for an educational non-profit, I organize and facilitate selection committee meetings to determine if interviewed candidates will receive offers from our alternative teacher certification program. We use the Aggregative Model to determine applicant eligibility and fit. There are representatives from multiple branches of the program who contribute to the committee meetings. These representatives include program coaches who work directly with residents on a regular basis, teaching mentors, program staff, faculty and representatives from schools that have hosted teaching residents. The multiple perspectives offer different opinions about candidate program fit. These partners serve as checks and balances, offering a multi-dimensional perspective on the candidate based on each stakeholders experience with the program and residents.
To monitor the feedback and effectiveness of the current committee model, there is a yearly analysis to cross check the effectiveness of graduating teacher residents with their scores and overall feedback given by the selection committee.
Although we work to improve the admissions committee processes on a yearly basis, there are still pitfalls. At the individual level, there are times with the data (scores and results of candidates) do not outweigh the past experiences of committee members. Then the committee member decisions become about a former candidate or resident teacher who may have similarities to a current candidate. This may cause predetermined bias based on past decisions rather than the current candidate’s performance and compatibility. The opinion of a committee member may also be based on their own principles and practices as a current or former teacher.
My recommendation for the admissions committee is to work in a Collegial Model to revise the current rubric and admissions process. There would need to be a variety of stakeholders who hold different expertise. This group would be able to come to a consensus on the most important qualities in a candidate are based on different criteria and data.
Hey Kim,
It’s pretty cool to learn a portion of the selection process for the teacher certification program. I like how you are proposing to diversify the different levels of expertise in order pin point out more important qualities in candidates with different backgrounds.
New York City has always been considered an environment of its own. When comparing its demographics and population, it by far surpasses any other city in the nation, and with that said, it would be reasonable to study even closer the realities of the education system in New York City. The debate between decentralization and centralization is one that, as Johnson’s articles very well articulates, is one that remains to be settled, and it seems that although New York City is its own “thing”, it is not an exception to the research completed on this topic. Decentralization doesn’t necessarily trump… or should I say win over centralization and vice-versa. It all depends on the circumstances of each community. In the case of our city, I would argue that there must be a balance (emphasis on the word balance) in order to achieve improvement in the education system. I will refer back to the article by quoting that “organizational change should not be an end in itself, but rather the mean to the end”. This makes perfect sense as many in government tend to see “a change in structure” as the remediation of the issue. Instead it will be paramount to see the bigger picture and what really needs to be ultimately monitored. This is performance, ability, accountability, and success in the classroom. Communities need to be involved in the decision making process as it allows those directly invested in the education system (parents) to play a role and voice their concerns in the system. Such participation will bring forward honest feedback and sincere interests in how the educational structure that governs children’s development grows as a system. I think that restructuring, although not entirely positive, has allowed critics and professionals to see both sides of the story so to speak. If it is not through trial and error, how else can we truly test the best ways to excel.
The factor towards which schools are centralized or not, doesn’t really address the issue of chronically underperforming schools. Schools will continue to fluctuate like social trends because capitalism and local markets will continue to change. The “white flight” example from the 1960’s changed the what happened in many urban centers throughout the nation. In Brooklyn, it changed top performing schools to underfunded nightmares with regressive school models. Schools have such a role in educating young people and being centers of communities that with inconsistent markets the least prepared schools will still float back and forth between effective decision making by personnel or lack there of.
While I agree with you that there will be fluctuating trends in school performance, I’m not sure that I follow the connection that you make with capitalism and markets.
In Decentralization vs. Centralization in NYC Public Schools-Patrice Johnson noted, the shift in the control of the NYC school system from decentralization, where the school boards are vested with the decisions making power, to centralization, which vest decisions making powers on mayoral control, became rooted during the Giuliani-Bloomberg eras. However, the author made a point, in identifying that this re-centralization of the NYC school system is a step backwards in decisions system, as there is a dwindling political support for complete centralization of school systems in the United States. In addition, the trends in support for decentralization in educational system, encompasses all aspects of decisions makings, including curriculum, instruction, staffing and teacher evaluation, student testing, graduation requirements, and budgeting pendent schools or private schools with public money.
While, proponents of centralization argues that it promotes accountability, as the central office or the mayor plays the role of intermediary between the state and the individuals preventing corruption and fraud. However, advocates for decentralization, argues it promotes effectiveness in decisions making, by eliminating the bureaucracies in the relationships between the communities and their school systems. As stated in a decentralization vs. centralization survey, 92 percent of respondents advocated for decentralization in the New York City School System. This, emphasized the respondents believes decentralization disperses decision-making role, amongst stakeholders in the community, rather than the centralized system, which vest all the decision-making powers on the mayor.
The Charter school system is a form of decentralization in decision-making in the school level, which gives parents and community representative’s more autonomy in educational decisions making. Unlike, the centralized system, involved in the public school education under mayoral control, charter school system of decisions making supports community involvement. According to (Kirp, 2015), in “What Do the Poor Need? Try Asking Them” an article, published in New York Times, restructuring decisions makings, including decentralization of education decisions works better than centralization because it encourages community collaborations. According to this author, asking residents what would strengthen their community, including having a say on how education decisions gets made, works more than the “brick-and-mortar solutions” in decisions making strategies of public school system. The author asserted that, to improve poor neighborhoods, the people who live there must have a hand in deciding their own fate. Further, Kirp noted the ability of a community initiative, “flagship program” that reduced crime and improved school achievement in what used to be one city’s most troubled neighborhoods, showed the potentials of decentralized decisions making approach in education.
Joy, I like the fact that the article by Kirp talked about how to help people by working with them instead of doing everything for them. One can not make life better for another if you do what you think will help them but instead find out what they need help with and find out what they have tried on their own before that did not work. This encourages participation and general interest from all angles. This is how success is achieved.
That is so true Juliet. It is better to teach people the way, than to find the way for them. thanks.
Hello Joy,
I like the article you provided on decentralization by Kirp. I happen to agree with the idea of decentralizing public schools and agree with Kirp’s assertion of allowing people to have a say in the way students in their neighborhoods are taught. Giving people a sense of accountability allows them to have pride as well. Also like Juliet mentioned it encourages participation. Overall a community flourishes with this model.
As I’ve stated in previous assignments, I work for the New York City Council. I work as a project manager for sidewalk cafes. Only problematic sidewalk cafes are called up in order to decide if it should be approved or disapproved. Through our Subcommittee meetings, we have to follow 4 phases of Decision making:
1. Problem Analysis: Sidewalk was too narrow for the number of tables and chairs the restaurant requested. The unauthorized shed was in place in order to store trash.
2.Options exploration: Eliminating the shed since they didn’t have a license for it. Either reducing the numbers of tables and chairs in order to make sure people with wheelchairs, walkers and carriages can pass by or they can withdraw the application.
3.Making Decision: The applicant settled in reducing the numbers of tables and chairs. In which the aggregative process took place, the council members had to make a vote on the modification. It then was approved.
It was effective because both the council and the applicant were satisfied.
The author did a nice job discussing the decentralization and re-centralization of NYC school system. He outlined the pros and cons of each system. While the decentralized system has more parental involvement, it lacks accountability and more prone to fraud and corruption. On the other hand, centralized system is bureaucratic and rigid, and the system doesn’t work for all schools and students. Personally I think decentralized system , or a combination of both systems, would better serve our children. As each student is different and has different needs, the individual school needs to have the authority and flexibility to find way to help the students. Efforts should be spent on finding ways to eliminate fraud, corruption, holding individual school accountable, and doing what is best for the students.
The author’s thesis that changing the organizational structure of a school system does not guarantee success is correct. My view is that efforts or measures to improve school and students performance should look beyond the symptoms of the problem. Addressing the root causes, such as the reasons behind depressed academic performance might be a useful way forward.
According to a report published by Lindsey Morsey and Richard Rothstein, social disadvantages have been known to depress student performance. The article titled “ five social disadvantages that depress student performance” describes how social class characteristics plausibly depress academic achievement of students and suggest policies to address them. The authors highlights several factors, which in their view, hinders the performances of students: parenting practices that impede children’s intellectual and behavioral development, single parenthood, inadequate access to primary and preventive health care, and exposure to and from absorption of lead in the blood.
The decisions to decentralize and centralize New York City schools are both laudable in what they aim to accomplish. My view is that school should have centralized and decentralized elements. To discourage corruption and other unethical behavior, I feel some degree of oversight is required. I also feel that schools should be given the autonomy to run their schools and classroom as they see fit. Educators are the ones who are in direct contact with the children, the parents, and the community. They are in a more advantageous position to identify the root causes of underperforming schools and students. A bottom-up approach to addressing the problem would be advisable. Incremental bargaining method should be adopted to bring all stakeholders to the table with an eye to addressing the problem as a unit.
Hello Roland,
I like the stance you took on balancing schools with both centralized and decentralized components. I myself am more in favor of a decentralized model, but i think the report you chose shows that the model chosen won’t always allow for the best outcome. Like you said a bandage is not the solution. Going to the root of the problem will be the most effective.
Hi Roland,
I completely agree with you that we should do better in determining the root causes of poor performance and that’s a great resource that you’ve quoted. However, I also think that it’s very important to have a more robust and comprehensive way of measuring student as well as teacher performance. I think we tend to overly rely on testing and test scores which doesn’t necessarily convey the full picture of either student or teacher performance.
I’ve always thought that the best way to improve certain practices would be to examine those organizations or nations that do it best. I recognize that the NYC school system is overcrowded and complex, but I think we could certainly benefit from analyzing other successful nations in the way they approach education.
I completely agree, Roland. Policies should have enough oversight to prevent fraud and corruption, and centralization accomplishes that to a large extent. However schools are the most “local” kind of entity there is, therefore they should be treated as such through decentralization.
The recycling department at GrowNYC had to develop a new program to encourage NYCHA residents to recycle more working with Department of Sanitation and NYCHA’s policies and guidelines. There were various meetings for strategic planning. Like Jarzabkowski states, there were activities such as setting objectives and goals of how they are going to recruit residents to volunteer for this program, how many do they need, what will they do, and how GrowNYC will follow the two other organization’s guidelines. The recycling department used strategic planning by knowing that both organizations approval was very important to plan the NYCHA volunteers training and activities. How the GrowNYC recycling department directors will communicate their strategy to the organizations and then forward the rest to everyone in the recycling team. I believe that decision making used was incremental bargaining model as Graber states. The recycling department negotiated together as teammates of how to educate the NYCHA residents, how should the training Powerpoint should be set up, what activities will they do, what exact volunteer roles will there be, how many hours will they complete, and who will track those hours. Once they worked with ideas, conflicts, and preferences, they came to a set designed program to send to DSNY and NYCHA. When DSNY and NYCHA came back with their options and concerns, the team focused on their preferences and figure out how it can benefit or harm the goal of the program. Once they told DSNY and NYCHA about the harms of their preferences, all three of the organizations worked together for set decision to provide a new volunteer program for NYCHA residents. I think the processes they used to get this program started was beneficial because they worked with the other organizations to come with a set final program.
It does seem like these days there is more political support for decentralization. Supporters of this state that it improves that relationship between the community and local schools. The decentralization restructure has helped with hiring more minority teachers and principals. However, the decentralization process has showed that standardized test scores have improved only a little and the students still perform below national levels. Is decentralization the best? Teachers have still remained centralized, school board elections were low because school districts were large and remote, and it has worked in favor for predominantly white districts who worked the system in their favor. In 1995 and 1996, they made schools both centralized and decentralized. I feel like this restructuring of schools have caused too much unnecessary political drama and there needs to be more focus on the success of schools overall. I agree with the author that it does not matter what side someone chooses, but there needs to be more focus on what goes on in the classroom, teacher retention, fixing student dropout rates, and increase student participation in extracurricular activities. In order to change the NYC school system, there should be an educational structure change not political.
The restructuring of school districts are conducted like social experiments. It can be noted that the shifts between centralization and decentralization happened in minority neighborhoods. Unfortunately, there was very little academic improvement which begs the question as to what is really the problem. While decentralization created more minority teachers and faculty, the student did not see much needed improvement on test scores. I think neither options has made a difference in the long run. A better approach would be to study what is having the greatest negative or positive impact on students on a school by school basis.
I agree–these organizational decisions are often made, hoping that they will lead to positive outcomes for students, and then realize later that they don’t. I like your suggestion to look at each school, or group of similar schools, to see what’s working and what’s not instead of blindly implementing policies that aren’t going to solve the problem of low student-achievement.
Reading the article on the NYC school system restructuring made it clear that those on the losing end are the students. All the restructuring that the school system has gone through seems to have been based more on political expediency than on actual data and research that shows the restructuring would benefit student performance or outcomes.
As the author stated, the pendulum between centralization and decentralization seems to constantly be swinging back and forth. It’s apparent that the proponents of each side have claimed benefits for their proposition but once centralization or decentralization has been implemented in the NYC school system, the benefits have been very minor. I think that a combination of centralized and decentralized management of NYC schools would be more advantageous rather than choosing one solution or the other.
However, what I think is the most important issue of all – the process of evaluating school and student performance – isn’t really addressed all that thoroughly. Even the author concedes the fact that there should be less of a focus on “changing the organizational structure of the school system and more focus on what goes on in the classroom – decreasing class size, improving the quality of the curriculum and the classroom environment; increasing the lines of communication on all levels.” I don’t think that students will be served well by our school system until these fundamental issues are addressed.
Erinda, agree on mix of centralization and decentralization. It looks like each new mayor will change the structure of the school. I also would like to see more of attention on the students and help for them like tutoring, after school programs, carring when student is bullied and enforcing anti bullying programs.
When I was working at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, decision-making followed the Formalistic Model very closely. This is unsurprising since DOHMH is a huge bureaucracy, therefore it follows a strict hierarchy in decision-making. Information from lower-level groups would be condensed for reporting to supervisors, and chain-of-command is highly regarded. However, there is serious mistrust and competition between the bureaus and offices within DOHMH, more closely resembling the Competitive Model. Every day, I watched and overheard people whispering about other employees or the work being done in other programs or divisions. And while I trusted my supervisor wholeheartedly, I did not trust my colleagues and was warned against sharing too much with them for fear that a project would be derailed by competing offices. For example, when I first started at DOHMH, a physician in my program introduced herself and asked what I was working on in my position. Thinking she was just being friendly, I explained who I was, why I was there, and what I was working on. Later, my supervisor came to me and explained that the physician had come to her concerned, and questioned the work I was doing. I had no idea that I should be withholding information because I never imagined that I had any confidential information to share. Since that interaction, I’ve been warned again and again not to talk too much about the work I do for fear that certain people in my unit will find out, and possibly complicate the decision-making process. I believe this demonstrates the complexity of decision-making within a very large bureaucracy–it is formal, competing, and opaque!
Centralization does not encourage participation from the local members in terms of management or decision making. The decentralization model provides an environment where problem solving can be handled on a more local level. These people tend to be closer to what is actually happening in the specific school as opposed to a centralized system where an overseer can essentially create a one size fits all model. I feel that this gives schools an opportunity to boost morale. The staff is more involved and feels that their voice can be heard. Community also becomes involved which is key in creating an environment where all students can learn. This is turn creates a sense of accountability amongst community members. I also feel like the likelihood of reform is greater in a decentralized environment.
While I am more inclined to be in favor of the decentralized model, centralization does have its positive attributes. I think that centralization creates a cohesiveness and an overriding sense of order that decentralization can’t provide. Some factors Overall I feel that a mixture of both a centralized and decentralized school system model is best.
Hello, I agree with you comments, however I think it should be partially both. I like centralization, so it can free principles and other school officials from trivial things like ordering supplies. I would principles to be more involved in life of their students, like improving after school programs, or tutoring. Decentralization gives them so much of worrying about more just students.
Decentralization is believed to bring better relations between school and community, that it provides more efficient maintenance and support for local schools. It is also more resources for local school needs. Pro decentralization fans believe it is better for relationship between schools and community. The opposition stars that schools need a central office to act as a link in their relationship with the state. Decentralization also is seen as point to a lack of accountability on the part of the people who lead the decentralized schools. Decentralized system is prone to fraud. Dealing with corruption and fraud is usually the reason school systems decide to centralize. Mayor Bloomberg in 2003 moved schools from 32 educational boards to 10 units – instructional regions. A central educational system was created in 1902 in New York. Until 1960 the schools could make up their decisions regarding expelling students, principle made decisions regarding schools, employment of schools, schools printed their checks. Everything have good and bad side. Decentralization I think gives schools, principles more responsibility what’s going in their schools, but also makes it hard for anybody from outside to come and say anything. Centralization makes it easier for schools when it comes to major decisions, al office work. My opinion is, it should be centralized, with partial responsibility of principles for the school.