Educational systems have evolved from the one-size-fits-all model of the 1950s to a more individualized way of looking at students and of managing faculty and staff.  Superintendents used to have the first and final word in the way schools were run.  In the  1970s and 1980s principals started to assume more responsibility for what went on in their schools (Senge, 2000).   They introduced new programs and new ways of running schools. This shift  from leadership from above to site-based management in schools has also meant a shift from a predominantly rational system to more of a natural system with elements of both rational and open systems.

       In the rational system, leadership emanated from above.  The superintendent, through his assistant superintendents or area specialists, directed  principals.  Decisions were made at the Central Office and passed down to the schools through the principals.  The principal was responsible for keeping things in order and making sure that the school ran smoothly according to the directives which came from the superintendent’s office.  Hiring was done at the Central Office with no input from the principal.  The principal answered to the superintendent, enforced the system standards and ensured control  in the school so that the goals of the system could be met.

      However, in the 1980s the concept of site-based management broke down these established divisions of authority as principals took control not only of how well rules were being followed,  but also of making the rules for the school.   The superintendent became more of a supervisor, overseeing the operations in the system.  The principals decided what was best for their schools.  For example, under the rational system of decision making, a principal could suggest a new program to the superintendent and the superintendent would tell the principal whether he thought it would work and whether the principal had permission to implement the program  in the school. He might decide that the program had merit and then decide to put that program into a school which didn’t request it.   In contrast, under site-based management, the principal can propose a new program to the superintendent and show how she will implement it.  Through bargaining they can work out a budget so that  the principal can hire the teachers she needs to staff the program.   Therefore, the shift of decision making authority from the superintendent to the principal signals a shift from the rational system to a more natural system with flexibility and with more ambiguity. (1)

         Pure rationality assumes that people  in an organization  operate from a common set of beliefs which make consequences from decision making predictable.  Roles are well defined and understood by all the players  (March, 1994).   This was true in schools.  When leadership came from the superintendents, roles were clearly delineated and the rules for those roles clearly set. The superintendent was the leader; the  principal was the manager.  The role of principal was to supervise the teachers whom she received, as the teachers taught a standard curriculum which was given to them.   Expectations and consequences were known from  past experience.

        However, when school based management was introduced into a school, roles changed.  The principal did not just take orders, she was able to choose curriculum, implement programs which benefited her student population and hire the teachers she wanted.  The role of principal evolved from passive to active as she tried to provide leadership rather than just management like before.        (2)

        The evolution to a more natural system provided change for teachers too.   For example, the role of the teacher had been to follow the system rules and to do the best with the resources allotted.  Under site-based management, teachers had to interview with principals to be hired and they had to convince the principal that they were the kind of teacher that the principal needed.  Once hired, teachers found themselves asked for input and to suggest improvements.  This presented the teachers with a role change as they found themselves more involved in designing curriculum or being on instructional committees as well as teaching.  The identity of teacher broadened to include  advisor, materials developer  and curriculum planner.        (3)

        When  the superintendent was in charge of leadership in the schools,  the schools had to follow  state-wide standards and objectives.  Even with site-based management, this rational characteristic has not changed.  In fact it has become more entrenched with the initiation of the Standards of Learning (SOL) exams.   Schools are responsible for passing these standard exams.  The shift from predominantly rational to more natural and open is seen in the way principals are changing their schools in order to provide the leadership for their students to pass the exams.  For example, in one school which had abysmal scores in science, the principal appealed to the community for a volunteer science tutor who could come in unpaid every week. Also she appealed to local businesses for funds and got a gift of $10,000 to set up a science lab.  A parent with an advanced degree in Science Education heeded the call and is now  working with students in the new lab every day.  This  open system solution provides quality instruction at no cost and no recourse to the superintendent.        (4)

         In the past, in a school system, any school looked like any other school.  Leadership came from above.  Principals managed.  Teachers taught.  With the change to school-based management principals and teachers still manage and teach but they do much more.  With the evolution to a more natural system their power to make decisions and to affect change has increased.  If the evolution continues, where will it lead?  As decision making is decentralized and the community is brought in to help, maybe the educational system will become more open and as that happens, the superintendent’s role will continue to change so much that he or she will be a spokesperson for the system rather than its rational leader.

References

March, James G.(1994) A primer on decision making.     New York:  The Free Press.

Senge, Peter. (2000) Schools that learn.  New York:  Doubleday.

Simon, Herbert A. (1993).  Decision Making:  Rational, nonrational, and irrational.  Educational Administration Quarterly,      Vol. 29, No. 3  392-411.