49 thoughts on “Deliberation in Organizations”

1. I work as a coordinator for a CUNY-wide institute with an ambitious agenda but with limited staffing. We have recently been successful in receiving grants that have allowed us to grow the team little by little. One of our latest members to join the team is a recently graduated college student who has great interpersonal skills but lacks structure or initiative. He is responsible for coordinating specific education seminars every two months. He’s been on board for about 10 months now and continues to need constant supervision and guidance but has a hard time accepting feedback (the problem). His latest seminar was scheduled to take place last week. A week prior to his seminar he had just began working on the promotion of the event which I found unacceptable. My director has much appreciation for this person and although she had made comments about his work style, she was lenient on it and never spoke to him about it.
   A deliberation began between him and I via email when I made a suggestion about the wording of his promotional material. His rigidity to the suggestion made the Director ask me to step in and do his job which I found to be an unacceptable solution to the problem and led me to proposed a staff meeting to go over responsibilities, expectations, and work on our communication as a group (options exploration).
   During our meeting, we expressed the level of responsibility we each have to very specific projects and made sure to convey the idea that we are a team, but we cannot be depended on one person to carry the weight of the entire institute. We decided that there would be better communication and respect between us but that we also depended on others to carry their own weight.
   Since the meeting, I have seen an improvement in the communication between the team and a slight improvement in the person’s independence. He is still depended on the director to make decisions and approvals but is showing some initiative. I am hopeful that he will be able to keep up and continue improving in time for his next seminar. (monitor feedback)

   1. I think it’s great that you held an all staff meeting to discuss an express the concerns that you had. But also, it probably gave that individual an opportunity to see that everyone does feel the same way – in terms of responsibility. Also, was your director present at the all staff meeting? Just wondering because, she does have a soft spot for this individual so maybe if she heard the opinions and concerns of the entire team, she can also help in pushing forth his independence.

      1. Kristia,
         Since we are a relatively small team, my director has been present in every staff meeting. As a team, I have to admit, we have issues communicating openly. Other staff members may agree with me regarding his work ethic and his lack of initiative, but we hadn’t openly discussed it with the director. Some comments here and there would be made, but we haven’t had a discussion about it. From my part, I refrained from bringing up the issue with her due to her responses to the comments, “he’s learning”, “he will eventually get there”, “the next one should be better”, etc. which would make me feel like my suggestion would simply be dismissed.

2. Today I witnessed deliberation among my companies Executive Officers as they decided what positions would be adding to the companies budget for 2016. My Supervisor and I prepared the budget packages and distributed them among the Executive team.

   The CEO explained that we would go down the list by department and that the Executive responsible for the department would justify the positions requested. A decision would be made on the spot. It was extremely informal and loosely structured. A vote would not be called, the Executives would make their case and ultimately the CEO decides. It became a battle that didn’t go anywhere to be honest. More then 100 positions were presented yet I have no idea what was approved and thats my job!

   Suggestions, I would have accurate information available and verified by the executive team as to the status of each current position in their budget prior to entering the meeting.

   Second, A decision would have to be made for each position on the spot… this didn’t happen although it should have because the conversations went all over.

   More structure is necessary, anyone could have interjected at any moment.

   The CEO should have explained what his expectations were of each executive officer prior to meeting.

   Ultimately my CEO has scheduled a second and final meeting in two weeks. It was an experience I would not like to be apart of again unless more structure is implemented unfortunately that is not the case.

   1. I agree with your point that structure is very important for any meeting or organization. Without proper structure, it is very run the system effectively.
      While I used to work at the Bangladesh Consulate, I observed how structure of each department was very important to run the organization effectively. Sometimes, if one individual from a department did not follow the system, then it used to create clashes in the whole office. For his or her action, general people used to comment very negatively about every officials in the office.

   2. I think that with any deliberation process, structure of some kind is necessary for there to be a smooth and positive outcome. I wonder if for the next meeting, your CEO can have a suggestion section at the end of the meetings so that you guys can let him know what worked and didn’t work. This way, you may not have to sit in another meeting that is disorganized and leads no where. Good luck!

   3. Freddy,
      I feel your pain. Many times I feel that the larger the meeting the less productive it can be. I am a structurally driven individual so it frustrates me to be in a meeting with no agenda, no structure, and that sense that no one is aware of anything. Most of the time it is the details that make the difference. If there is nothing being worked on prior to the meeting or no pre-meeting material being shared, most of the time it is a flag signaling that the meeting with pretty much be decided on the spot. It might be useful to have smaller meetings within departments and ultimately have only the representatives meet with the Executive team while there is someone structuring the meetings and keeping record and structure of the process.

   4. I agree with you and the other commenters here – structure, expectations are needed going into something like this. The number of companies that I have worked with, both large and small, that are so disorganized — well it makes me wonder how anything gets done sometimes.

3. Restructuring has allowed various experimental management processes to be utilized in the school system. Decentralization created the community boards and in urban communities decisions were made to increase hiring of minority teachers and principals to be reflective of the community. Though purported this encouraged community involvement and implementation of innovation curricula and improvements in student performance levels, it did not significantly increase performance at all levels. Additionally, the board’s business decisions to improve school performance were marred by unethical practices that were focused on personal gain and not school improvement efforts.

   While management functions have been decentralized and then recentralized due to some systemic failures, neither seems fully effective in bring about significant changes in educational attainment. Regardless of whether it is school-based management giving principals, teachers and parent authority regarding administrative decisions at the school level, mayoral control or charter-schools, these models fall short and do not seem to truly address improving teaching methodology and influencing positive student performance outcomes across the board. The wrestling or transferring of decision making powers back and forth between school-based management and mayoral control may be contributory to school performance issues.

   1. Lorina I completely agree with you these restructurings have negatively impacted the decision making process within the school system. Some consistency is needed when dealing with the education of our youth. America is one the richest countries in the world with the worst education systems ranking 17th according to the world press. The back and forth control of power exerted by the mayors of the time, various political officials and community board groups are really harming the education system and in turn hurting our children.

4. The restructuring of the public school system led to the back and forth of decentralization and re-centralization of public schools. In the article, the author mentioned that decentralization caused diversity among teachers in public schools, as well as more community influence (between parents and the school officials) in the schools. However, there were still no improvement in the performance rates of the schools. In the article it states “…there should be less focus on changing the organizational structure of the school system and more focus on what goes on in the classroom.” I agree that the reasons why charter schools emerged in the first place, is due to the lack of structure in the public school system. Charter Schools used the “No Child Left Behind” motto and spun it to show that a child’s educational success does not have to depend on his/her zip code.

   If the focus shifted a bit from decentralizing and re-centralizing public schools, more thought can be put into recreating a better curriculum, hiring the best of teachers, finding out the problem in the public schools – and why the students are not excelling. Classroom size, environment, and overall expectation from teacher to student. If more attention is brought there, then we may potentially see a change in our school system. Charter schools are all about reform, and although there is a grey area to how students are picked in the charter school lottery system, it has proven to be effective with high-achieving students. If that reform strategy is taken and applied to public schools, change can occur for the better.

   1. Kristia, it’s reassuring to hear that charter school are improving student performance. Like you said there is a gray area in the enrollment aspect, and this fact usually is covered more widely by mainstream media more so than the performance of the school. I’m curious if there are charter schools that are leading the way in reshaping educational practices. They often get the reputation of splinter groups, and are defined as a decentralized and informal entity that is difficult to replicate. But there must be constants that bolster education. Please share if you aware of any!

5. In my current organization, my team has recently become part of a large organizational wide restructuring. The mission and vision of our unit is changing to align with the shifting political agenda of the administration. Our team is being moved from one department to another, we will have new supervision and management, and our job tasks will be changed in the near future.

   I think that initially, to ignite this change the leadership examined the current political agenda and discovered that my team did not fit into the mission of our current department and that the team would work more effectively elsewhere. I think that the current leadership is using Graber’s four phases of decision making as they examined and identified the problem, explored options, and made a decision. I am confident that feedback will be monitored as we move forward because they have already communicated with us several times to get our feedback and opinions regarding the change. We were not involved in the initial changing of the vision and mission, however, we are being included in the restructuring of the team and how we will work together and how our job titles will function under the new structure.

   I think that the leadership is using strategic planning to include us in this daunting process. We had a meeting a few weeks ago in which we were asked our feedback and suggestions for the change. My colleagues and I were able to provide a few suggestions for the team moving forward. My boss, who is a middle manager, and other middle managers are being asked consistently for their feedback. Next week, they are holding a meeting with the entire team to discuss the transition and how things can be improved moving forward. I feel that our opinions and expertise are being valued and taken into account during this transition. I hope that moving forward we will continue to be included throughout this process.

   1. Keri, your company sounds like it is managing change in a very thought out and well planned way. Detailed changes in organization structure and operations can be concerning for the employees. There is that fear of the unknown that poses a major hurdle for more tenured employees. Whenever middle and upper management seeks meaningful feedback from employees doing the day to day work – it proves to be a good sign for improvement. There are many organizations that attempt to make drastic changes but end up not being fully committed to listening to the employees feedback, and thus the abandon their plans. This could be due to the fact that the status quo was the best option. But more often than not, the leaders involved in the decision making process were not fully prepared to take on the task at hand. A failed attempt at making organization changes often results in the termination of employment for the decision makers involved. So the risk is often a barrier to begin the process.

   2. Keri, your company’s use of lower management and non management employee feedback in their restructuring process is the best way to go. Feedback can be very motivating and energizing and can bring to light issues which otherwise will be missed by management. It has strong links to employee satisfaction and increases productivity. It makes employees feel involved and identified with their organization. It is useful information that can inform an organization’s decisions and strategies. A similar approach was implemented at my old job and it has brought about drastic changes in the way the company is run and the way it addresses challenges.

      1. I agree, the fact that they are seeking Keri and her teams input shows that the company values their opinions, and most of all value them at employees. I wonder if they are seeing results in response to their feed back. Has the organization made clear how feedback will be handled? It seems the company is on to what may be a successful reorganization.

   3. Keri,

      I commend your leadership for being in touch with the current political climate and making good assessments to reorganize your team to fit the mission of the department. Frequently, leadership (I refer to the public sector) is not innovative and timely in decision making. It is excellent that your team is incorporated in the process by frequent feedback on the re-design. I share a similar situation at work where we were not told initially of plans to merge bureaus, but unlike your situation, our feedback is via Webinars where we listen to the leadership speak with no opportunity for us to provide our feedback. So while they may have used Graber’s four phases of decision making, the important factor…internal feedback was not part of the process.

6. Decentralization and re-centralization of the NYC school system.
   I like how there has been constant change in the organization of New York City schools. Since the social, political, and economic climates are constantly in flux, it makes sense that school management would constantly be reworked. In reading the article, there seems to be little difference in performance during eras of centralization vs. decentralization. Even more concerning, the lines between the two schools of thought have been blurred for decades – to the point that people once in favor of decentralization later came to favor centralization and visa versa.

   However, due to the lack of improvement, it seems that the constant restructuring has not been a net positive affect over a long period of time. The idea of bottom up management also called “school-based management,” “site-based management,” “school-based autonomy,” or “school empowerment, makes sense because it allows for the decision makers to be the people with boots on the ground that truly understand the needs of the students (Cotton). This would be the best option if each school was seen in judged independently of the other schools in the region/district.

   Because the schools all contribution to the State in terms of statistics, they need to be ran like branch offices of a larger firm. With this model, each school would have “managers” that were in touch with the needs of the school and students. These managers would execute strategic plans and maintain the workings of their schools. They would meet with a district/regional manager to report feedback. The district/regional reps would then meet with the top executives for the state to report status of performance, executed strategies, pain points, etc. Each “branch” would be able to function autonomously and be granted funds as needed, but they would operate under the umbrella of a standardized “company” – this being the State.

   1. Anna, I agree with your opinions on this matter. It seems to me that views on this topic are constantly changing. I think in education constant, positive change is necessary for growth.

      I like the idea of running schools like branch offices. It would be interesting to see this thought out completely. Would the managers be principals, district/regional managers be superintendents? I think that it is definitely an interesting structure to consider. Right now, departments in the DOE are borough based and there are “borough field support centers” that specifically support schools in those boroughs. Maybe the structure of this could be re-thought to better support the idea.

      1. Keri, that is a great question. I am not too familiar with the inner workings and day to day operations of a principal or superintendent. But, the way you describe it could work. However, the principals and superintendents may be too busy with their day to day responsibilities and tasks to be a “manager” or “regional manager”. In the same sense, that a sales person is too busy with their day to day duties to manage a sales team. The sales team needs a manager. What they could do, should this thought be played out, is to shift some of the menial tasks to the assistant principals and assistant superintendents so the principal and superintendent can focus on the goals of the broader organization.

   2. Anna, interesting thoughts on treating schools like ‘branches’. I think some type of hybrid approach makes sense as well. Perhaps the larger authority needs to be flexible and create a larger array of options for the schools to operate within. Schools therefore have some choice and can find a policy that fits the community, and the central authority has already said that it fits within the window it provided. Flexibility is important, we don’t need it to be completely centralized or decentralized.

   3. Anna, your understanding of bottom-up management strikes a chord with me, although I believe it is not politically plausible. I’m for the ideas of locally-grown schools that are fostered by the community they operate in. These free associations would benefit those individuals who are mindful and dedicated to the cause of education. As our culture promotes private enterprise and business-minded strategies, bottom-up management can not compete. This type of management is not statistically strong, and therefore the benefits get lost.

      Really great angle, Anna!

      1. Joe, thank you,
         What I meant is to use bottom up in the sense that there are people tuned in with the needs of the school/region. These people then work with the larger organization to provide feedback, ideas and brainstorm how to implement successful strategies from other schools into the schools that need help. This type of deep understanding of each school is only achievable when there are people dialed into the school.

7. The constant restructuring regarding the decentralization and re-centralization of school in NYC creates a tense environment for administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Each party ostensibly wants to foster the education of students, but the modifications of power and structure lifts the veil of potential ulterior motives. That is to say, each group wants an educational organization that best serves their purpose. For example, in the article Patrice D. Johnson points out that the teachers involved in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville school system were more concerned with keeping their jobs rather than creating the best curriculum for students. As for the other parties, administrators want to make the state-made marks to ensure (and increase) budget, parents want the best environment and pedagogy for their children, and students want to feel comfortable in a space, which in turn could foster education. Perhaps the department of education should focus on strong pedagogical techniques rather than organizational structures of school districts to ameliorate the education of students. Preoccupying energy and resources with the latter hasn’t showed improvements, so a shift in culture instead of a shift in structure could yield better results.

   Johnson’s research reveals that neither centralization nor decentralization increased student performance. The persistent changing of organizational structure could actually be adding to this issue. It serves as a distraction, forcing school administrators and teachers to meet state standards rather than student-specific standards. Instead, I believe highlighting pedagogical styles could improve student achievement growth. Of course, there has to be some sort of structure for educators, but shoehorning insecure students into rubrics hasn’t been too effective. Treating students like mechanized entities is problematic and this approach does not achieve the goal of state policymakers.

   1. It’s obvious neither the centralized nor the permanently decentralized organizational structure leads to high performance. Instead of switching back and forth between centralization and decentralization I believe a mixed approach will better serve all parties involved. More decentralization at the lower levels of the educational structure that will give parents, teachers and principals more say in the running of the schools and more centralization at the higher levels to reduce bureaucracy.

   2. Joe, interesting point. In reading the school system article, I wondered about the dynamics of each side, seeing the advantages and disadvantages of each. However, not once did I think about the fact that problems might stem from the constant change of the structure itself. I’m an advocate of decentralization since I think local control engages more stakeholders. However, if parents and teachers feel as though their say is short-term only, why would they even try? Seems as though the next move needs to be for the long-term, to really demonstrate whether it is successful or not.

   3. I totally agree with your comments. Experimenting with various types of structures does not really address the underlying problem which is inadequate student performance. Just to expand on your statement, children want and deserve competent teachers and administrators who will foster educational achievement, not changing organizational structures.

   4. I agree Joe when reading the article I was amazed by the constant back and forth in restructuring. I don’t know if enough analysis is done on pedagogical techniques used. There is a an obsession with performance measurements and it seems only logical however every student learns differently. What may be most important is conveying to students the importance of every topic and how topics relate to the student.

   5. I like your argument about how both centralization and decentralization system did not improve the education system greatly. In this situation, I think we should use the mix of both centralization and decentralization method to improve the students learning. Moreover, I think government should not constantly change between centralization and decentralization. Instead they should choose one system which will help the student’s growth in the long run.

8. Reading Graber’s article on foundations for sound decision making was very interesting because I could directly relate it to the policy changes that took place at my former job. The company was ranked second to last for a couple of years in consumer satisfaction surveys but nothing happened until this dissatisfaction translated into a massive loss of customers. In their worst month they lost thousands of customers in New York alone. Not long after management started to implement drastic policy changes that addressed the companies approach to decision making and problem solving.
   He talked about how companies used the organisations culture and historical experiences in crafting solutions to current challenges and the dangers involved with such practice. They were stuck in their ways because they had a stable customer base and were immune to external shocks. This made them stick to the status quo until recently when the emergence of competition, coupled with changes in consumer preference and demographics meant the approaches used to address customer related issues for years no longer work.
   The circumstances that led to the above situations can be related to graders concept of decision making errors. It talks about the problem of decision making at the small group level and how the lack of diversity and a narrow information base can make people become isolated and blind to the situation on the ground. Until the emergences of this crisis most decisions were taken mostly by upper management only some of whom have zero field experience and most of their decisions were based on business models without any technical input. This created a big disconnect between the company and the needs of its customers resulting in the high customer dissatisfaction.
   The company still makes use of the group level concept in its decision and policy formulation but with the new approach. The new process utilizes a more holistic approach in sourcing information to inform its decision process. The process now includes inputs from customers, field personnel, union representatives, technical experts as well as lower management. This diverse group now meets at given intervals to deliberate of current challenges and the best possible solutions to these challenges. The outcomes are now forwarded to upper management who then use it as part of their decision making process.
   The incorporations of the outcomes of these meetings into the companies policy formulating process has led to a more customer focused approach. Their products are now tailored to meet the different needs of their customers. The new approach has led to an increase in both customer’s numbers and customer satisfaction.

   1. Chris, it sounds like your company took structures that could have been potentially devastating if they had kept it in practice and created positive change for the company. How did the administration decide to change the decision making process and problem solving policies throughout the company? Was it through collaboration with others or was it something that was decided and then the staff were consulted for implementation? Was the change implemented quickly or was it done over a longer period of time?

      I think that your company definitely made the right decision to move towards a group level decision making process.

9. I just spent two days on a jury. It was not easy. We listened to two sides present evidence on a case involving a man who was hit by a car claiming damages against a car owner. It was hard to be rational as Graber’s model aspires to. It was hard to be methodical. There were seven questions to be decided. And each question had consequences for the following ones. As a civil case we were 6 jurors and 5 had to agree for each decision. It was hard not to bargain incrementally. We analyzed the problem as best we could. We reviewed the evidence presented and could gather no additional information. We tried not to but were influenced by the attorneys’ interpretations of the events. Exploring the options turned into trying to figure out what happened and there was no way to actually do that.

   We decided in favor of the plaintiff with damages to be paid by the defendant.

   During our deliberation we marveled at the idea of knowing what really happened. But no one could tell us that. It was brought to us the jury to decide.

   However, the judge did do just that. After the verdict was read the judge joined us in the jury room to thank us and send us on our way. But first she wanted to know about our thinking. How did we come to our conclusions? Basically, how could we be duped? She stated she thought this case should not have been tried in the supreme court. She would have thrown it out herself if it had been her choice. She went on to say that in her experience the evidence presented was not strong enough to side with the plaintiff. So what were we doing there?

   I’m glad I wasn’t sending anyone to prison. I’m glad a poor injured elderly man gets some money. I’m glad it is not an exorbitant amount and (even though it may impact the cost of insurance premiums) that a large insurance company will pay and not an individual. I just wish I did a better job.

   We were a group of 6 charged with deciding either unanimously or 5 to 1. We had to sign our names to each vote. I felt it was important to take responsibility for participating in each decision. To be the one to sign as dissenting each time felt like the easy way out. Only once did I expressly sign as dissenting from the group.

   I started deliberation siding with the defendant. Every vote seemed a bargaining and it resulted in something I could just tolerate for him. Perhaps I can view it as mitigating the extreme opposition in the group. Our group of six was jovial even though voting consistently divided along racial lines. The plaintiff was black and the defendant was white. I was one of four women on the jury and the only white one. Of the two men, black and white, the white one often sided with me. The judge was black.

   I often asked myself if I was being racist in questioning the credibility of the plaintiff — and more so a racist to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. But I’m not according to the judge – she felt the exact same way.

   Alliances formed and racial politics played a part and facts got muddled. We were definitely a garbage can of decision making.

   1. Improvements on the process:
      Allow jurors in the deliberation room to have paper copies of the laws and definitions of the legal terms that are read out loud in the courtroom instead of having to request to return to the courtroom to have the laws read to them again.

      The process of requesting to return for clarification takes a lot of time and is a deterrent to requesting clarification. Jurors will be better prepared for the job if criteria for decision making is in hand.

      1. I am not familiar with the court system, but I asked myself the same question of why where you guys there if the judge didn’t think the case was to be tried in her court? Also why did she give a verdict that she didn’t agree with, cant she over turn it? I think your recommendation to have copies of the laws and legal terms would aide better decision making. I can see how it was a challenge in determining whether you were being racist or not. Often times even though we do not intend to make race influence our decision making it still does. We tend to side with people who are like ourselves.

10. Decentralized schools are good for local board’s decision-making. Centralized schools or school system is good for state or federal decision making. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act was used to centralize public education and decide that testing and accountability was important. Teachers are limited to teaching, because they are forced to teach lessons that relate to exams. Students seem to be made to memorize or be prepared for exams rather than really learning the curriculum. Schools are under a lot of pressure because they have to pass as many students. Nowadays, state governments and Congress want to decentralize as a response to this and give decision making power back to the states and localities. Decentralization seems like a good method for public schools in terms of performance and community standpoint, however, this becomes political because some communities like a centralized system that could focus on equity and reallocation of funding. A centralized structure can help organizations control costs, quality and efficiency. Yet, some others prefer local community decision making and having the government in a reduced role. Decentralizing schools seem to be the most effective approach because not all schools and systems are created equally to succeed the same way. We cannot expect schools to use the same policies since New York is a diverse area-every culture and economic background will have different opinion about which methods are the best approach.

    I couldn’t agree more with what the author said about “school officials need to work with teachers, parents and community leaders to determine the needs of the students”. Parents as well as family members play a vital role in a child’s education, the broader community has a responsibility to assure higher education for all students. Teachers and parents know children best, not office or government. Classrooms need to be made with a supportive and productive environment. The author also makes a good point about what happens in the classroom needs to be examined. Parents can help with school work and at the same time, they can show their support in their children’s education life. When parents are involved with their child’s education, the results are improved.

11. After reading the article on the NYC school system, the restructurings in the school system clearly affect the participants and structure of decision-making.

    A centralized school system leads to top-down decision-making. Administrators in the central office make decisions for the school, including the curriculum, achievement standards and allocation of resources. Principals and teachers are there to implement for the students. A decentralized school, on the other hand, engages more with the community. Parents and others in the community collaborate with the school, including teachers and parents, to determine standards and school policies.

    While the author indicates there is no current research that indicates higher achievement in decentralized schools – and that the main concern, corruption, has occurred – this structure still appears to be for the best. A key to education is engagement. Specifically, engagement leads to students and families having a stake in their own education. A decentralized school, where parents can have a say in the curriculum and policies, seems to be a great way to create this engagement. When they feel the city or state is forcing certain lessons or standards, it’s an easy way to checkout. The same goes for teachers. They want to feel a sense of freedom, a sense of a stake in the school too, and having them at the table is an important aspect.

    Perhaps a hybrid model is the best answer, with schools maintaining control over certain aspects, while a centralized authority controls other parts. That solution makes everyone a stakeholder, including the authority, and forces all sides to align with another. The author notes that plan led to some success in Chicago in the 1990s. Like most things, the answer might lie somewhere in the middle.

12. In the article, “Decentralization vs. Centralization in New York City Public Schools”, author Patrice Johnson mentions that school system either use decentralization or centralization method to operate the education system. The constant change between decentralization to centralization impacts student’s education negatively. Under the centralization method, government usually set up the curriculum for schools, try to maintain standard exam. In this system, board of schools, principal, teachers and parents cannot easily impact the school system. Therefore, this process makes it hard to allocate resources among students based on their needs. However, centralization method held school officials accountable for their actions, so it reduces corruption and influence them to give the best education to their students.
    On the other hand, under the decentralization method system, principals, teachers and parents work together to set the school curriculum and make any decision regarding student’s needs. Over here, community also plays bigger role to improve education system for their school. Principals, teachers, parents and communities are very involved under this system to make any better changes for school. However, this system might create differences among schools in communities. Therefore, centralization system tries to reduce difference among schools and give equal education to everyone.
    While I was on high school, I was in the School Leadership Team where I had to meet with the principal, teachers and parents once a month to discuss student activities and advocate for any changes from students perspectives. In this situation, sometimes it used to get very hard to come up to a decision by maintaining every group’s interests.
    Lastly, I think both centralization and decentralization system impacts education system differently. They both have their positives and negatives sights. To improve education system, I think we should use positive sides of both centralization and decentralization method and give the best education to our future students.

13. Keri, its good to hear that your company is managing change in a positive way for success. Feedback and suggestion are both important elements of effective learning. It helps individuals understand the subject and clear guidance of how to improve their learning. They create and modify current existing protocols,procedures and rules. All employees partake in decision making. Suggestion and feedback is one way of involving everyone to participate.

14. Maureen, interesting analysis on deliberation from your own experience. I’ve enjoyed reading it. Your experience is evident proof that applying a lot of models when it comes to deliberation can be quite difficult. -We are humans after all- You’ve mentioned it several times how hard it was for you to be rational even when trying to use Graber’s model. But I’d say that using the process is EXACTLY that : constant questionings, constant revision of your thought process, ensuring you’re not incorporating biases( whether it be racial or educational) in decision-makings. I think you’ve handled just fine.

15. After reading the article about the history of decentralization and re-centralization in the NYC school system, I think the restructuring (whether it might have been centralization or decentralization) affected decision making within the education school system. Both concepts are equally highly important. However, the misuse of one might lead to further problems. In the end, if you want to restructure a system, you must do it to see significant improvements; the pros must outweigh the cons. With issues of non-diversified teacher and/ or lack of representation for minorities in the boards of school, decentralization affected the system and with that idea that in centralization all administrative authority is vested in an independent central body. One can realize that one system might work for one school and not for another one. Using or or the other may not be so effective, rather the embodiment of both.

    1. I agree the misuse of one caused the creation of the other. If community members felt their needs were being met decentralization might not have come about at all. No system is ever going to be perfect because we live in a morally and ethically challenged world. The school system will continue to flip flop between the two concepts over time and new players will focus on the lack of unity and enter the arena like charter schools who growing in numbers each and every day. For every student lost in the public school system a student now thrives in charter school.

16. The debates over centralization vs. decentralization of public schools continue to be an ongoing issue in the public school system. On one hand, advocates for school denationalization feel this approach will improve relations between the schools and communities. Decentralization of public schools was passed in response to communities who felt that the schools weren’t meeting their needs. Then, the decentralization of public schools would give the people better community control. As a result, the proportion of minorities’ teacher increased, promoting diversity. This also creates advancement opportunities for minorities within these communities. Although the decentralization of public and schools promotes diversity, there were major concerns by those who opposed decentralization. After 10 years decentralization was implemented, there was only a slight increase in standardized test scores, which questions the effectiveness of decentralizing structure in public schools. On the other hand, those who support centralized structures argue that schools need a central office to act as an intermediary in their relationship with the state. A centralized structure is needed to reduce fraud and improve accountability. A combination of both structures at different levels was considered by Mayor Giuliani. Although the implementation of this structure increased test scores, there is no direct link between school-based management and improved student performance.

    1. Reading this brought to mind the concept of dual sovereignty. Federal laws trumps State law. But the States still have the ability to govern itself. I think that some things in schools should be decentralized. This is because the school should be able to make decisions that will be beneficial for their specific needs. what might for another school might not work for them. Likewise some things should be centralized in order to keep some level of fairness and equality.

17. In my organization I recently witnessed a deliberative decision making process I fear may not be representative of the entire organization. The Executive Director would like to have a staff appreciation event to help boost moral within the organization as employees are feeling underappreciated and over worked. In theory this sounds like an excellent idea, the Executive Director tasked a committee be put together to handle the event. The committee was entirely made up of senior management. Senior management is not reflective of the general population and this will not be a good event if you don’t include people from each department. At soon as the meeting began people began talking; cutting each other off and it became a screaming match. This was one of the worst meetings I have ever attended and a true example of very poor deliberation. To improve this meeting we should have elected a chair, entertained less personal opinions and biases as mentioned in the models along with the incorporation of a more diverse committee and establishing some rules since it was clear we could not engage in civil communication.
    There are pros and cons of each the decentralization and centralization of the New York City school system. Creating community boards and establishing a more neutral place for members to express feelings and rights is always welcomed when it benefits the surrounding area. The problem comes into place when embezzlement and misappropriation of funds happens. Centralizing could prevent this but you take away from the needs of the community you serve. To balance this we need to create a community system that reports to a higher power. This group should be established there for this group is now accountable to the community it serves as well as a higher power to regulate and ensure corruption doesn’t happen.

18. I agree Shanice it is hard to have a deliberative platform when most of the people , if not all are part of the senior staff management. It leave little room for the whole organization to participate or communicate, it allow for a lot of biases in taking decisions.

19. A firm that I worked for for several years in real estate was the master of dysfunction when it came to deliberation. A lot of it was the CEO trying to make the managers feel as though they had a voice when in reality they had none. The nature of the business required centralized management. When ideas were presented to the CEO they were generally dismissed (mostly because he knew best) and we all got to a point where we realized that what we said was unimportant, that if we did say something, that it was just for show. For me, if you are going to have a group of managers who are responsible for running things and have direct knowledge of what is happening on the ground it makes sense to take what they say seriously, and if not seriously, at least with respect which was not something this particular CEO knew how to do.

20. The “reforms” to the NYC public school system in the last decade have been very controversial with the NYC Mayors (Bloomberg and DeBlasio) arguing for increased centralization of decision-making and teachers and principals unions arguing for increased decentralization. The argument for centralization is simple, one body should be responsible for the successes and failures of the NYC school system. In the past, the School Boards complicated the school system by politicizing education and creating a deliberative process that could be blamed for inaction. The argument for decentralization is evident in the experience of this former Teaching Fellow. The current school system has been standardized to the detriment of the teacher and the student. With little to no room for teacher innovation and specialization based on the needs of a student, many suffer under the current one-size fits all approach to the school system. In my opinion, increased decentralization is needed to empower teachers and principals to better innovate in their schools but the Mayor must firmly remain the central authority when it comes to NYC public schools.

21. As a HR Business Analyst, a part of my daily function is to determine the salaries of new hires and people being promoted. And big part of determining what would be an appropriate salary is considering what the individual currently makes, and the salaries of the people within the same title and department . There was an instance where an individual was fighting for way more money than what was justifiable for him. At this time I went to my manager to seek advice. He said, it’s your department, what do you think is the best salary for him ? After I gave my response; he was pleased and supported my ecision. His management style is an example of McGregor’s theory Y . He believes in his staff and does not constantly monitor us. This is every effective and for me because is shows that my worth ethic is valued and respected. It builds my motivation to do more.

22. Patrice Johnson’s essay on the history of the centralization vs. decentralization debate in the New York City school system provides a good primer into the background of this still contentious subject. Although I am sympathetic to many of the arguments made in favor of centralization, particularly its usefulness in lobbying the state, I believe that in a city as diverse as New York, school districts should have some direct accountability to their immediate community. School boards, both in their election and governance, are an excellent means for communities to exercise deliberative democracy. By giving communities some power to shape the management of their schools, decentralization has the possibility to give those who would otherwise feel left out of the democratic process a stake in their community. This in turn fosters a sense of responsibility and civic pride that is often lacking in a school system that has often been accused of benefitting only those who are already born into privilege. This doesn’t mean doing away with centralization altogether – in the case of dealing with the state on issues such as Regents’ standards and funding, it is more effective to lobby as a united front. If done properly, many local management decisions can easily be made by the local school board, rather than a City Hall that feels distant and estranged from many of the outer borough districts. Restoring this civic involvement on the community level ties in nicely with the more challenging question of what goes on inside the classroom. Schools, in addition to providing useful real world skills, are meant to instill civic values in its students so as to make them better future citizens. Allowing communities to retain some control over their schools is a way to ensure that these practices and values continue throughout ones’ life and career, rather than as vague concepts learned years ago inside a classroom. This is a benefit that has been eroded under Bloomberg and DeBlasio’s centralized management style of schools, which has resulted in school closings and the creation of privately operated charter schools, which are allowed to cherry pick their students as a means of showing increased performance. Allowing this trend to continue will only increase the divide that separates New York’s less fortunate communities from the political elites governing the school system from City Hall.

Comments are closed.