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.
61 thoughts on “Deliberation in Organizations”
Comments are closed.
Decentralization is defined as the transfer of decision-making authority closer to the consumer or beneficiary. This can take the form of transferring powers to lower levels of an organization, which is called deconcentration or administrative decentralization. In this case the decentralization vs. centralization in New York City Public Schools, there has been decades of deliberation about which system fits best to bring the biggest improvements and effective changes to the schools organizational and educational operations.
As former Mayor Bloomberg has been the main force behind the decentralization movement within NYC, making the 32 districts transition into a 10 region structure has statistically shown to make gradual improvements amongst educational levels more than straighten out the organizational hierarchy issues. Although issues with non-diversified teacher personnel and lack of representation for minorities amongst the school boards, decentralization has made substantial changes and improvements throughout New York City. This eliminates the corruption, fraud, patronage, and nepotism possibilities to be conducted amongst the Local School Councils decisions to keep things running as they “always” were.
The decentralization and restructuring dismantle school boards that have been put together for 30 years, therefore removing power from school boards that continue to have failing test results and poor graduation rates, especially within minority areas where schools are at risk to shutdown. Despite as there have been issues presented as there are school boards and personnel that have been opposed to decentralization at first, have now found a way to work the system in there favor, surely there needs to be some reforms within the decentralized structure. I believe that decentralization has broke down some major barriers that have prohibited improvement at first, although it hasn’t had the highest hike in numbers, I believe the decentralization system is best for NYC.
Hey tiffany, I enjoyed reading your analysis of the article.
I agree with you that decentralization is a better way of managing the New York Public School system. For my other classes i have looked over two cases, one on Special Education in New York school system and one on Juvenile Detention centers and both cases focused on shifting power from centralized boards to more local levels and to line managers. in both cases results have improved when line managers were empowered to solve problems.
It also goes in line with shifting from Theory x to theory y which is a trend in both the private and the public sector. Theory y suggesting managers should be there to empower staff and create an environment to enable them to do their job best.
tiffany,
there is so many issues with the NYC public school system and though i dont belive decentralization will fix all the problems but it would definitely go a long way. there are so many decisions made by people who are not directly affected by the decisions and decentralization can definitely help with that
I think that the theory x and theory y scenarios are equally applicable to either centralization or decentralization of the school system. Either way, schools themselves are where the important interactions occur and “management” (which at the school level means the principal, AP, and whatever teacher leadership system is in place) can create a theory x or y feeling within that school.
Hi Tiffany,
I loved reading your view on the article. I agree that decentralization eliminates the corruption and fraud seen within the public school district. You bring up a great point when you say it’s important that New York City Public Schools don’t keep things running as they “always” were. Although I’m one that isn’t sure if decentralization is any better then centralization, I do believe that decentralization has have many positive outcomes.
Hi Tiffany, it is true that centralization allows for corruption within the school districts. However, the article quotes research that decentralization results in limited benefits to schools. Furthermore, centralization is seen as important to high achievement within schools. Therefore, as long as a school district is not corrupt, re-centralization seems to be the best choice for the school system.
Tiffany,
Agree with you that decentralization is best for NYC Public Schools. This is the best way to attack corruption, fraud and nepotism. As you mentioned, many were resistant to change at first, but are now adapting. This could lead to further improvements in educational results in the future.
One of my first jobs in New York was that of a front desk manager in an upscale tennis and squash club. The club owners exercise an old school theory x where they made it very clear that my job is to babysit lazy and irresponsible staff.
Major issue was a consistency in making errors in bookings, missed emails and wrong court times.
My first step was to analyze the problem. I went through few weeks of bookings and marked all the mistakes made and who made them. This analysis gave me a pretty good idea of where major mistakes are being made. This is Graber’s first step in decision making.
I sat down with management and discussed various options. We implemented levels of cross checking and developed policies that would allow for jobs being fairly distributed among staff. This is Graber’s second phase.
Third phase was negotiating with the club management an increase in an hourly pay that would allow me to attract a more qualified and detail oriented staff. It was a balance of incremental bargaining and a rational choice model.
Fourth phase was monitoring feedback. i made it a standard to record all mistakes as a way to more easily pinpoint problem areas or a problem employee.
I enjoyed reading your decision making process you used at one of your first jobs. After reviewing this weeks readings I think you did a great job at using Graber’s model. I didn’t choose this option but after reading your post I can see how I would apply the Graber decision making process to my current job. I’m curious, what was the final outcome of this process? Were you able to convince them to increase your salary to attract more qualified staff?
This is interesting in that you see how a method can be administered into a real life decision. Sometimes it takes a new hire to be able to bring to light an issue in the system. More often than not, long-term staff begin to perform tasks a specific way because that is the way it was always done. I also appreciate that you did not go in like gangbusters and instead took a measured approach towards improvement. You are more likely to have a positive result, as well as a happy and motivated staff implanting the changes as you did. We all have had experiences with someone new coming in and making changes that do not take the culture of the office into consideration. Having worked in several Theory X run companies it is nice to see that you were able to initiate a positive change in a formal and considerate manner within the company.
Nikolina, you did a great job of incorporating Graber’s phases of decision making into your past experience as a front desk manager. It is interesting how you describe each of your steps and tie it into each phase. Your strategies sound like they would be great for helping pinpoint problem employees. How open was club management to negotiating increasing hourly pay? Did it take a long time for them to come to a decision?
Hi Nikolina, I like the way that you approached the problem using Graber’s phases. It sounds like using Graber’s model allowed you to take a seemingly complex problem, identify the exact issues, and then make decisions that would allow you to overcome the problem successfully. Ultimately, how did working through the phases go for you? Also, did you see results?
Nikolina,
Thanks for sharing your experience. Nice to see how you applied the Graber model to a real life situation. I guess it actually can work! After reading your example, it brought up ideas for my post.
Nikolina,
I enjoyed reading how your intervention lined up well with Grabers model! Seemed like it was an effective way to improve efficiency in this workplace! Curious…did your “x-theory” managers appreciate your dedication to improving performance? And did they allow you more autonomy from this point?
I enjoyed reading your post and being in management I liked the way you handled the issue. When there is an issue on my unit I like to involve staff to come up with options. I then need to see if any of the options are doable. Monitoring is very important to see if the ideas work or not.
As Tiffany defined above, decentralization is the transfer of decision-making authority closer to the consumer or beneficiary. One major form of decentralization is administrative decentralization. Administrative decentralization redistributes authority, responsibility and financial resources for providing public services among different levels of government. The article about the New York City Public Schools was an interesting read. The ways in which many public primary and secondary education is financed and delivered varies throughout the world. In France education is highly centralized at the level of the national government. In Canada the national government does not have an education department, and in the United States education is mainly the responsibility of local school districts.
During the 1990s and early twenty-first century, many countries began to decentralize education. Decentralization has become a cornerstone of the education reform movement. Decentralization can improve the decision-making about a curriculum, increase the accountability for outcomes, engage parents and communities in what is going on, and place ownership on the school while realign with the community and improving student achievement. With the call for community control the authority of hiring school staff members were in the hands of the community boards. One positive outcome of decentralization process in the New York City Public School system was the increase of minority teachers that brought degree of competence and innovation that had not been seen prior. Decentralization gained support from those who were originally against it because they learned how to work the system to their advantage.
I believe that the decentralization system has benefited the New York City Public Schools although I can’t say that I believe that it may be better then centralization. I agree with Johnson that there should be less focus on changing the organizational structure of the school system and more focus on what goes on in the classroom. Classroom size can be decreased so that students have a better learning experience, the quality of curriculum and the classroom environment improved, all while increasing the lines of communication on all levels.
Katie I think you bring up a great point that there is a disadvantage in oversimplifying and expecting decentralization to solve most problems of the NYCPS system.
Smaller class sizes, more school supplies, better food program, better after school programs and counseling are all part of a umber of things needed for a better educational system.
i still do believe that teachers and principles have a better understanding of what the needs of their students are. If not fully decentralizing power it can be beneficial to open stronger channels of communication between school and board members.
I do agreed that teachers and principles have a better understanding of what the needs of their students, however, they should also include the voices and participation of actively involved parents as well. Instead of just having the education leaders making the decisions.
I also agree that we need to shift the focus from the decentralization v. centralization to what is happening in the classroom. It is highly unlikely for a school system that is as wide and as diverse as New York City to be successful under one type of system. Students are coming from all over the world and with a variety of backgrounds and needs. While it is important to look at big picture items that effect the entire student body of New York City with a central administration, more local control needs to be implemented at the classroom level.
Smaller classrooms would aid in being able to better adhere to an individual student’s needs, while also engaging the class as a whole. The teachers in the school have the greatest understanding of their students’ needs and would be the best resource in what changes should and need to be implemented. As you mention, this issue is bigger than one policy over another. It is a reminder that the focus of any educational system should be the student above all else.
I would absolutely think teachers are much better equipped to make evaluative decisions regarding the students. Each school district varies and are better equipped to understand the individual needs of the district. Many communities come together with ethnic divides and a district is able to customize education to such students.
Hi Katie,
I really enjoyed reading your post. I also agree with your idea that the future of NYS school system is highly important in the successful education of many students in the future, and oversimplifying the system to only contain two different concepts of decentralization vs. centralization, is not enough. As times are changing and our society is becoming more technologically advanced, I believe there is a lot of initiative and reform that can take place to better both systems. Controlling classroom size, modifying curriculum, implementing new hands on teaching methods, etc. are all reforms that can be used in conjunction with these concepts to improve the schooling systems.
Hey Katie:
Thank you for your post. I learned a lot about the how decentralization has changed the public school system. Much like Tiffany’s post, I agree that this has created a more beneficial way of managing the public school system here in New York City. It certainly takes a different approach than what has been practiced. I also agree that more focus should be given on what happens in the classrooms because thats where you see the effects of large scale organizational change.
I was a member of the management committee at my old firm(Derivative sales company) for about 10 years. The committee was the same 5 guys the for my entire service period. The group was dominated by the CEO and largest shareholder in the company—we’ll call him Jack. Jack’s role was the dominator and aggressor. I guess looking back he was a “bully.” It was pretty much Jack’s way or the highway. I played the role of “harmonizer” guy. The other members of the committee really didn’t like Jack, so I was constantly trying to encourage everyone, to hang in, etc…
Our decision making process fell into the “garbage can” method. We choose the easiest way every time, because we really didn’t like dealing with “Jack.” In the end, our group was total “groupthink.” We just went along with Jack, because we were tired of being pushed around by him and wanted as little contact with him as possible. In the end, the company went “belly up”, mainly because nobody could sway “Jack” to do anything he didn’t want to do. It was his company, so it was Jack’s way or the highway.
Looking back, we should of stood up to him early on, instead of settling into a “groupthink” mentality. Then we should of suggested multiple solutions to problems, which we never did. The firms biggest problem was keeping brokers. We were constantly poached from other firms and Jack refused to increase pay. There’s much more to the story, but I’ll leave it at that.
Hi Greg,
I enjoyed your post and I can picture “Jack” and his management style. It sounds like he thought the “X” style of management was the way to go. Thinking staff were self centered and selfish, he had to monitor everything in an authoritative manner. When I was thinking about the roles people play I was thinking about my work environment and thinking who plays the harmonizer, the encourager, and who plays the negative roles. Also, the garbage can decision – just doing the easiest thing or what the higher up has suggested seems to be a common theme. Thanks for sharing your story.
Mary
Hi, Greg,
Thanks for sharing your personal real-life experience. This dominating role can be detrimental to decision-making process. On the individual level, people are intrinsically risk-averse. When there is dominator in the group who tends to suppress different opinions, group members were given little incentive to confront the dominator, which leads to ignoring the problems and failing to collect enough information to reach a rational decision. On the group level, if the decision misfired, the burden of blame falls on multiple shoulders, instead of specific individual. In your case, you mentioned this resulted in “garbage can model”. On a larger scale, this hampers the development of the organizations since decision-making didn’t rest on individuals’ diverse intellectual contribution, also it failed to consider the dynamics of the environment.
Hi Greg,
I enjoyed your post. As I was reading your story, it felt familiar to many. While I don’t have specific situation in mind, I feel like I have experienced the exact same scenario before in many professional, non-profit, or personal situations I have been in. There always seem to be the same cast of characters. A bully, a harmonizer, and the rest of the group who just go along with the bully in order to not ruffle any feathers.
Thanks for sharing.
Best,
Jonathan
Hey Greg,
Thanks for your post. I know what it feels like to have a boss like Jack. I too had a similar experience in the same organization I work with still ,in a different group. It was pretty much her way or the highway, in the end all the people I worked with in the group left, and she was left to find new people with limited staff to train the new hires. Having someone like that made it difficult, as am sure you know, to make any decisions and every meeting felt like it was pointless. Thanks for sharing your story.
Restructuring any organization is an extremely difficult task. Not only do you have to create a new set of rules and regulations, but you have to change the thinking and practices of long time employees. In the school system, every school has a slightly different way of handling issues that may arise, as they are catering to a variety of students. This leads to a greater level of confusion when trying to implement restructured changes. There is no one size fits all solution when it comes to centralizing or decentralizing a school system. The constant back and forth between being centralized and decentralized more likely hurts the schools more than improving just one type of system. Eventually, people become confused and either walk away, give up, or just do what needs to get done to complete the necessary tasks.
Student success or failure can be attributed to various outside factors, such as a student’s home life, parental involvement, and the general feelings towards the importance of an education. Many of these factors are outside of a school’s control. Decentralization is not necessarily the primary answer, but it is also not the wrong answer. Decentralization allows for the schools to have better control over what is occurring within their walls and respond directly to the needs of their student body. Being decentralized allows the teachers and principals, who are closest to the students and understand the needs of their student body better implement the needed changes to help them. A centralized office is not aware of outside factors or all of the difficulties facing the teachers in a particular school. Conversely, a centralized administration allows for big-picture thinking, since the central office can review policies and trends district-wide, learning what works and what doesn’t and implementing change where necessary.
A better method for schools would to have a combination of both the centralized and decentralized methods. Each school district would have a central administration to oversee district-wide issues, such as budgets, capital improvements, and the setting of curriculum; while allowing the individual schools to have more freedom to institute the central administration’s policies. By working together in a cohesive way rather than as adversaries, the primary goal of better educating their students can be reached.
The article states how many of the areas that were decentralized did not see a marked improvement in student performance. I think a combination of both approaches is the better solution. In the end, everyone has the students’ best interests at heart. The constant fighting between the factions of centralization versus decentralization has seemed to hurt the students more than anything else. It is time to stop trying to prove one way is better than the other and work together to have a more nurturing educational environment allowing all students to succeed.
Hi Michelle,
I really enjoyed reading your post and hearing about your views on centralization vs decentralization in the schooling system. I too agree that a combination of both systems would be the optimal solution to the issue. Decentralization by itself always seems to result in chaos. Centralization by itself always seems to result in over control, over power, and inefficiency. A combination of the two would keep the system in check and ensures a more viable solution than flip flopping back and forth between the two systems, which agreeably only ends up hurting the students.
Hi Michelle,
I agree that there should be a combination of both systems are needed as well. I think you hit the nail on the head when stating that it’s time for politicians and school board officials to stop the arguing to prove which one of their system works best and work together for the success of students. I think they have been blinded by wanting to ‘win’ the fight of educational system politically, that ‘success’ of students have not been a priority.
The concept of centralization and decentralization are highly important to the success of our school systems. Centralization is the idea that all administrative authority is vested in an independent central body. This central body is entirely responsible for all aspects of planning and decision making. Decentralization is the idea that all administrative authority is vested in the individual school and supporting community. Individual schools can make their own decisions in terms of hiring, budgeting, curriculum etc; however, there is still a central body that oversees the system. I believe that the current wavering between the two systems has proven to hurt the NYS school system rather than resolve to improve it. It is possible to reach a happy medium between both systems in order to optimize the success of NYS school systems.
Decentralization of schooling systems allows schools and communities to be the primary advocate of their own system. Decentralization also allows for greater flexibility and a more efficient and prompt process of orders. The individuals on site have the power to make necessary changes almost immediately and as deemed necessary. It is not necessary to waste time running everything through a third inconvenient and disinterested party. Decentralization helps to promote and establish accountability and greater parental and community involvement. Parents, community members, and staff are the ones who have the the school and students best interest at heart. They are also the ones who have the greatest emotional stake in the success of the school and the children’s education. However, I believe that total and utter decentralization would result in chaos. I believe that a combination of both systems would achieve the most success and beneficial solution to our schooling system. In order for this to be successful there needs to be constant negotiation, communication, and support by both systems.
Dona,
I agree that a combination of both systems would achieve the most success. I also agree that negotiation would constantly need to take place in order for the combination to be successful. However I also think its important to keep in mind that while parents, community members, and staff are the ones who usually have the school and students best interest at heart, unfortunately that is not always the case. There are corrupt people who are motivated by their self interest. That being said I think a combined system would help limit that.
I agree! Some parts of the school system should be centralized to ensure efficiency, while other decisions should be left to individual schools. I also think the district should provide training and support for school leaders making decisions.
As you first stated, decentralization of schooling systems allows schools and communities to be the primary advocate of their own system. I think this is an important point because so many communities are formed around a particular group that has immigrated and it allows a district to center education based on individual needs of that group.
After reading the article about the history of decentralization and re-centralization in the NYC school system I think the restructuring affected decision making within the system. In the article it says, “According to most studies on the issue, advocates for school decentralization believe that it brings about better relations between school and community, that it provides more efficient maintenance and support for local schools,…”. While it may be true that decentralization gives the school and its neighboring community more authority and flexibility with regards to its administration, it is also true that too much administrative freedom could be harmful.
The article also says that “Opponents of decentralization say that schools need a central office to act as an intermediary in their relationship with the state”. I think it is true that schools should be overseen by a central office, however, I don’t think they should be totally centralized. I think decentralization assists decision making within the system because individual schools can make decisions that best serve their students. I think a system that incorporates certain aspects of each (decentralization and centralization) would be more ideal than having one or the other.
Hi Danielle,
I agree with you that schools should be overseen by a central office but not totally centralized. In decentralization, the core power remains in the central office but sends out authority and decision making to it’s remote locations/branches. I have to relate it to something I’m familiar with – so I relate it to my work in the hospital. I thought of decentralization as the many different peri op units in my organization. Each department must follow the organization mission and vision statement. How we achieve those goals can be met at the unit level.
Mary
Hi, Danielle,
I agree with your standpoint that “too much administrative freedom could be harmful”. “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Besides, as you mentioned, the debate between centralization and decentralization of educational system harms students ultimately. No matter which system is adopted, it should put the students’ interest as the priority, rather than cater to specific political preferences.
This week I chose to read and comment on the article regarding the history of decentralization and re-centralization of the NYC school system. According to the article, when former Mayor Bloomberg took office he continued what Giuliani had started. He consolidated 32 school boards into 10 regions. Advocates for school decentralization feel it brings higher student performance, more efficient use of resources, increased creativity, and greater community involvement. Opponents of decentralization believe that decentralization can lead to fraud and corruption. Centralization refers to a large central body having complete control over resources. Often times these large central bodies form bureaucracies that have so much red tape change is difficult.
I can see the pros and cons with each system. I think for the school decentralization to be efficient, the players have to be committed, engaged, and accountable. I can see how different regions or boroughs of NYC would have more parental and community involvement than other regions. This inequity could put children in some regions/boroughs at a disadvantage. I feel a combination is necessary.
An organization that uses either centralization and decentralization methodologies have easily distinguishable differences. However, the application of either methodology in the NYC school system has been vague and disorganized, most likely due to the highly complex and multi-faceted system in place. The question of which system better provides measureable and effective outcomes is still heavily debatable based on the pros and cons NYC has experienced. Furthermore, the question of whether or not “restructuring” the school system is even the answer to achieving better outcomes is still in in the air.
What isn’t in question, however, are the effects decentralization and centralization has on decision-making within the NYC school system. Since centralization uses a “top-down” approach, this methodology does not eagerly incorporate deliberations among all tiers in the school system. For example, prior to the 1960’s decentralization movement, the centralized NYC school system did not promote or meet the needs of the growing minority population since the schools remained de facto segregated. After New York passed legislation in 1969 to decentralize the school system, “the authority for hiring teachers, principals and district superintendents were now in the hands of community boards”, and as a result have seen significant improvements diversifying school administrations. “In many cases, these professionals, lacking ties to the central bureaucracy, brought a degree of competence and innovation that had not been seen prior to decentralization. Principals reported greater parental involvement, and the community boards were able to implement innovative curricula”. Centralization may provide greater control over operations and efficiency, but may not be as great in maintaining and meeting the needs of an ever-changing student population. This decision-making process is better left to the tiers of the NYC school system that are more closely involved and interactive with the student population. However, using a centralized organizational approach will limit and handicap decision-making opportunities. I think a decentralized approach would create a “shared responsibility mentality” if the decision-making process is not in the highest tier. They wouldn’t be able to pass blame if everyone is responsible for outcomes. With this said, I think those involved will be more engaged and empowered to create meaningful dialogue and solutions to improve the school system.
The debate between decentralization versus centralization is one that has affected the New York City school system for years. Decentralization refers to increased power given to on-site administration, such as principals, teachers, and school board members. Centralization, in contrast, refers to giving power to a central office that manages many schools, such as school districts. I think that the best model for the school system should be some sort of balance between centralization and decentralization. Decentralization results in a divided school, where the many different parties have differing interests and battle for decision-making power, and studies show that decentralized systems result in low-achieving schools. Re-centralization of the school system, on the other hand, might mean a lack of autonomy for schools, which is not the answer either. It seems to me that schools should be able to be somewhat autonomous while allowing school districts to have increased decision-making power at the same time.
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.
Batya,
I enjoyed dreading your post.
You really did a good job mentioning the merits of both re-centralization and decentralization. Furthermore, your analysis as to how re-centralization is better for the schools makes sense. Having decision making ability in the hands of so many different people can ultimately be more destructive than constructive.
Best,
Jonathan
Hi Grace,
I agree that there needs to be a balance of decentralization and centralization all dependent on each districts characteristics. Each district is unique, whether urban or suburban, racial demographic or religious affiliation; there is no possibility that one system will work well for all. Your example of the two school districts in Long Island can attest to that.
I believe that author brings up a strong point that the school system is not a corporate business, it is much more complex. The complexity is underestimated and not understood. Therefore, it is no surprise when the government attempts to tackle the school system like a corporate business system and is dumbfounded when a decentralized system or centralized system fails.
A balance of decentralization and centralization is needed and catered to each school district as each has their own characteristics, challenges and goals. In addition, the author hones in on another key point: ‘… that there should be less 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 curriculum and the classroom environment; increasing the lines of communication on all levels. In assessing schools’ success, we need to look at criteria such as teacher retention rates, student dropout rates, and student participation in extracurricular activities and not just standardized test scores.’ Throughout the 1900’s and now, going back and forth between these two systems have proved to be less than exemplary. Obviously, other tactics need to be addressed on a smaller level.
the school system is definitely a complex one and the author brings some fresh ideas to consider. Our school systems are in danger and there seems to be no right fix. Any new ideas brought to the table should be thoroughly considered
Susan, I agree. The argument of whether system works best is unclear and needs further research. What isn’t debatable is the impact teachers have in the classroom, and not the boardroom. There is a direct impact teachers have on the students, and an indirect impact the administration has on the students. If there hasn’t been a clear answer between either system, then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at the broad logistics to solve the issue –especially since the population in every school is very unique and needs to be catered to on a specific level.
Katie – I agree that decentralization and centralization seem to have both benefits and negative outcomes. You also bring up a great question: shouldn’t there be greater focus on what goes on inside the classroom rather than on the organizational structure of the schools? I think that in order to improve the quality of education, there needs to be also be a focus on individual teachers. By improving the quality of instruction, success rates within schools will improve.
Tiffany, I agree that decentralization has its benefits when working with central offices that are dysfunctional and unsuccessful. However, decentralization also results in an inability to make decisions because of the many parties involved. Each of these parties has its own interests, which results in gridlock. It seems as if the best decision for the school system would be some sort of balance between centralization and decentralization.
This article illustrates decentralization vs. the re-centralization of the NYC school system when Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office. The concept of centralization refers to a large group that has total control over school resources. Often times these large central bodies form bureaucracies that will cause a tremendous level of red tape and cause change to be difficult. When Bloomberg came to office he continued the work that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani had initiated and proceeded to combine 32 school boards into 10 regions.
These actions caused a divide. Proponents of school decentralization emphasized how this will encourage more efficient use of resources, better student performance, an increased level of creativity, and a higher level of involvement from the community. On the other side of the coin, opponents of decentralization believe that it will lead to dishonesty, fraud and corruption.
I agree with Mayor Bloomberg and think his actions were beneficial to the NYC School system. I believe that school decentralization makes the system more efficient, as well as more accountable for their actions. While every school district may be different, the concept of consolidation, efficiency, and accountability lead to a better product, system, or service in any area of business or public service. I perfect example is the way Jack Welch, legendary CEO of GE shed many non-core businesses, preached accountability, and eliminated employees who were redundant or weren’t doing their job. This allowed GE to better capitalize on resource and resulted in the company becoming the largest most well respected company in the 80’s and 90’s. There are countless other examples of how improved efficiency and better use of resources have helped institutions. I think Mayors Bloomberg and Giuliani had the right idea.
Dear Jonathon –
I think that your comparison with Jack Welch of CE is a good one. I’m currently taking an econ class and a lot of what you said about accountability and economy rings true to me regarding what we’ve been studying class. Question, though, do you think that these same measurements can be place on human beings, especially those with youth development issues? It seems like these might be too rigid measurements for dollars.
While I agree that the NYC DOE can eliminate waste and improve their efficiency, I don’t think the model Jack Welch used at GE can be accurately applied to NYC public schools or any government department. Profit can act as a powerful motivator and tool that can and should not be applied to public goods, like education. For example merit pay for teachers has not proven to be effective. School choice, i.e. introducing market competition into school systems, has not produced better results. While government can learn from business, it cannot necessarily apply all of the same solutions.
To better serve the society and provide more intelligent and innovative generation, decentralized educational system is more desirable. First, it’s more efficient. With more autonomy, it can respond to various school needs more effectively than bureaucracies full of red tape. According to Graber, two of four resources to influence decision-making are “possession of relevant information” and” top executive open to persuation”. In the hierarchical structure of centralized system, the process of bottom-up information transmission can be time-consuming, even ineffective due to message distortion or the top levels’ indifference to the problems.
Second, John Stuart Mill believes that “government run education is an evil because it would destroy diversity of opinion for all people to be taught the curriculum developed by a few”. Especially, in this “knowledge economy”, the standardized curriculum can’t keep pace with the fast technological and social development.
Although opponents of decentralization claimed that decentralized system is prone to corrupt and fraud. However, the correlation between the above two factors doesn’t guarantee their causal relationship, since “U.S. urban history is rife with incidents of patronage, cronyism and nepotism”. To reach a sound decision, we should avoid the errors such as stereotyped reasoning or mental abstracts.
Also, the research reveals that “after 10 years of [New York’s] decentralization, standardized test scores showed only slight improvement”. It’s not credible to evaluate school performance based on one criteria. Sufficient and various information is necessary to identify the problem first before multiple options can be given.
As this article mentioned, charter schools emerged as an option of “school choice” from the debate. This adopted “incremental bargaining power” model, in which a final choice of options is a balancing of diverse and conflicting interests. Nevertheless, charter schools still adopt the essence of decentralization in a compromising way.
In sum, decentralized educational system can prevent the red tape of bureaucracy and further serve students’ needs more efficiently.
Dear Jingyan,
I agree that I think decentralization is an intelligent method to be used for our public schools.
Do you think that the systems of grading should be different as well? I’m wondering if having various grading systems will be difficult align to see how one party is doing over another.
From 2010 – 2011 I did an Arts Management Fellowship at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. During this Fellowship we were able to sit in on a variety of Board Meetings, including one of the National Symphony Orchestra (NSO), which I will discuss in this post.
The Kennedy Center has a savvy staff and the meetings are highly choreographed. The NSO Board has many sub-committees that meet before the general board meeting, so a lot of the decisions were made ahead of time. However there were decisions that were made with the general members, and one I remember is when the idea of bringing back a beloved arts outreach program, the Instrument Petting Zoo.
The Four Phases of Decision Making that Graber discusses were utilized in the process. First the Chair of the Education sub committee spoke to the members and presented the Problem. During this Problem Analysis the Chair presented anecdotal evidence from community members supporting the reinstatement on the program, as well as statistics regarding declining numbers in attendance at other events by those who used to attend the Instrument Petting Zoo.
In the next phase, Option Exploration, the Chair reiterated his suggestion that the program be reinstated. There was then a dialogue between members regarding the costs and benefits of the program and various ways to fund it. One option was to hold a special fundraiser, another was to cut back on other programming. Then it was time to make a decision.
Several Board members had conflicting opinions, but eventually a decision was reached using the Incremental Bargaining Model. The Chair was responsible for moderating the two opposing sides, and after making a few amendments to the program proposal, it was agreed that the Instrument Petting Zoo program would be reinstated and would be paid for by a fundraiser.
Immediately after the meeting was a quick concert by some of the NSO players, and then there was an organized lunch. The development staff were tasked with monitoring both good and bad feedback, and the next day they presented their aggregate information in a staff meeting, where strategies were brainstormed and solidified.
The main problem I saw in the process was the use of the Incremental Bargaining Model to make a decision. The people on the NSO Board were important members or the community, and it did seem that their heated discussions were more about their personal connections than about the mission of the organization. I felt that it was hard to see the true costs or benefits of the program through this lens.
NYC public schools currently serve over 1 million students. In such a large system, it is logical that many support and office tasks – payroll, database management, procurement, etc. – can be most easily and efficiently handled by a centralized office.
However it is debatable whether instructional tasks, such as selecting curriculum and hiring Principals, are best left to schools or should also be centralized. On the one hand, making these decisions at a centralized level could ensure they are made thoughtfully and by qualified professionals. For example district-wide department of curriculum specialists would have the expertise needed to make decisions on the curriculum, which would likely help schools that do not have that level of expertise on staff. In addition the decision-makers who have the lens to understand all schools, not just one school, can help shape the district for the better. For example a district-wide Superintendent would be able to transfer strong Principals strategically to struggling schools.
On the other hand, school communities are all different, especially in a place with as much class and ethnic diversity as NYC, and education is not “one-size-fits all”. School staff who know the school community deeply may be best equipped to select a curriculum or principal that would work best for their students. I believe decentralization would lead to more deliberation across a broad range community members and ultimately more well-rounded decisions.
While decentralization would allow for more community members to be involved in decision-making, neither centralization nor decentralization is the “silver bullet” for academic achievement. As the author writes, “there should be less 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 curriculum and the classroom environment; increasing the lines of communication on all levels.”
I agreed with the article that decentralization should improve the community involvement and the schools should decrease the class size, improve the quality of curriculum and the classroom environment, and maybe even add in more extracurricular activities as well. Instead of having the principal making all the decisions.
I found that the decentralization of public schools to not effective nor efficient to use at all. Furthermore, they have no research or model that proves decentralization of public schools has direct link to school management improvement. In addition, the grades of students in public schools did not improve at all.
Even though, decentralization means the passing of powers and authority of school activities and budget to principal, teachers and parents. However, the article tells us that even though parents are actively involve, their decisions and participation are not included at all in the decision making. In fact, it is usually the principal of the school who makes all the decision. Therefore, I believed that decentralization can cause corruption more frequently.
The group that I currently work in is a small portion of a larger group in my organization. Because we are a small group of 10 individuals and do not have a direct supervisor a lot of the decision making process for our group is made by the group of 10 or by the overall director with our direct input. It can be said that we are managed using the Y theory, and we have very little overhead management.
Since we have to make a lot of decisions on our own, we were allowed to all collectively choose the 10th person to our team. In order to do this the candidate had to go through three interviews. One with the director of the group and a more senior member of the existing members, one interview with 4 member’s, and a field interview with two existing members. We had the last 2 members monitor information gathered in meetings to have an objective point of view. At the end of the interviews process we all had to meet and decide on who we would like to join our team. Again we had very little overhead influence from the director. She was mostly there to monitor the meeting when we chose.
There was a lot of what was discussed in Tuckman’s Stages of group development. There was a good time that we spent on storming, weighing the pros and cons of the candidate before we could move to a Conesus. The decision making process was very much like what was talked about in Gerber’s four phases. Once the problem was addressed and a decision had to be made it was made in the incremental bargaining take of decision-making. We did this was so that everyone in our small group was able to get what they needed on a potential teammate. I should mention that we work in pairs, and that sometimes pairs can be switched around. It was important for all us to not only to pick a qualified individual, but also choose someone that all of us would like as a partner, spending 8 hrs. a day with for 5 days, everyday. Once we had chosen someone, we were all able to spend sometime working with that individual during his or her probation period to monitor feedback.
In all I think we chose someone excellent that has been a great asset to our group structure. I think our decision-making processes although lengthy worked. Currently we only work in 4 boroughs in our teams of 2, so this works well for our small group. In a bigger group this would be inefficient and would take a lot of time, unless there were smaller groups designated to choose. I know in the medical portion of our group, which is much larger when they choose new technicians or doctors they have two interviews, one sit down with the director and overseeing supervisor and one field interview with a team that has shown to work well with all members of the medical team. This makes the decision-making processes a litte faster when sorting through more candidates. The medical team has 40 members, so having each person work with a candidate would be extremely inefficient. I do know that all new medical staff go through a 6 month probation period so that a person that has just been hired has the opportunity to work with several teams and feedback can be collected.
I worked in the NYC public schools for 4 years in the early 2000s. I had some interesting run ins with both centralization and decentralization – and it was hard to tell which was which. During the early Bloomberg years, I was teaching 4th grade in Manhattan. I was teaching in the gifted program – all of my kids would get 4s on the state tests and there was no concern about promotion. But there was great concern in the school about the letter of the law. I came back from a prep one day to find that my mentor teacher (who was wonderful, in general) had re-arranged my classroom because a directive had come from somewhere that classroom rug areas had to be visible from the hall window. My rug area was actually right under the window area and so not so easily viewed by people looking in the window. My other interesting experience was in the late Guiliani years – I was teaching in District 4. After a terrible experience (knives, possible guns, student harassment), I left that school and secured a job in District 2. My District 4 principal was angry that I was leaving (yes, ANGRY) but “let me leave.” However, I found that you have to be “released” by District 4. If they did not release me, my options were to teach in another district 4 school or not teach in the NYC public school system at all. District 4 administrators seemed stunned when I said that it was no choice for me at all – that I would leave the system before I continued in District 4. It took my District 2 principal 6 weeks to negotiate my release – and all this time, my new kids had a sub and I sat at home getting paid.
I don’t think these stories are the result of either centralization or decentralization – this kind of mismanagement could happen under either system. Personally, I am a fan of more centralization. I taught in two schools less than 2 miles apart – one was fully stocked with books, a wonderful janitor and bright, clean classrooms. The other was dirty (no janitor – teachers were supposed to broom clean their own classrooms…), no paper for the xerox machine and no library. This was when decentralization was the predominant model. I think that centralization could (Could – not will) lead to a more efficient distribution of resources.
However, in my opinion, what was missing from this article, was a discussion of teachers. I get frustrated and tune out at the endless discussions of teacher training and professional development (should teachers take an extra 18 minutes on tuesday or should it be 3 minutes a day over 6 days etc.). Teachers are not treated with the respect of investment bankers in this society, they are not paid well, they are not trained well and it is still considered a profession that anyone can do – because (and I mean this with irony) how hard can it be to teach first grade?
I am not a big fan of community involvement at the school level – it contributes to the idea that teaching and schools are not places that professionals work. Don’t get me wrong – I think parent involvement in a kids school is great – on the community level. NOT in the classroom and not in curriculum. Why have professionals if you want to substitute non-professional judgement. Just hold your professionals to a higher standard.
I could go on for pages. But the last more or less relevant point I want to make is that it is not all or nothing – it is a not centralized school system or a decentralized one. There is administrative matters, curricular matters, training areas, student distribution matters (neighborhood schools vs. city-wide etc). And for some things a centralized system works better and for other, more decentralization.
But, to complicate the issue – I do not like the way a centralized set of standards – like Common Core — are often implemented.
I believe I incorporate Graber’s decision making process into my management style. When I a problem arises, I first try to figure out if it is an isolated incident, is it related a system issue, etc. I encourage feedback from my staff to come up with options, since there are the ones on the frontline. They tend to know what works in the workflow the best. Together we come up with possible solutions. We constantly monitor to see if the solution/option is effective or not.
As stated in an earlier post by Katie,” Administrative decentralization redistributes authority, responsibility and financial resources for providing public services among different levels of government.” I find this important for NYC public schools. Just to take a look in Manhattan the neighborhoods vary vastly both social and economically thus that would infer so does the educational needs of the neighborhood. As an example Washington Heights an neighborhood that has a high ration of children that immigrate from the Dominican Republic this neighborhood has a large need for ESL programs. I think a school district is better in touch with the needs of the district but also it is a parents responsibility to attend such school district meetings to make sure that schools are meeting the needs of your child and the district at large.