restructuring_for_democratic

RESTRUCTURING PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR INTERNAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE: A
CIRCULAR APPROACH

ABSTRACT

Ackoff's circular structure has been successfully utilised to combine
hierarchy and democracy in various industries. This paper argues that
this structure is the most appropriate democratic structure for the
internal governance of public schools. It concludes that a circularity
of power relations between administrators and teachers would create
genuinely empowering teacher participation, improve co-ordination,
foster teacher self-actualisation and expressiveness, alleviate
teacher shortages, help attract high quality persons to teaching
careers, ensure appropriate (service oriented) teacher supervision,
and increase the number of successful school improvement projects.

Although teacher participation programs have become increasingly
common, such participation programs have occurred in the context of
school organisations that are not internally democratic.

Current texts on school administration, moreover, have almost
invariably assumed that internally democratic school organisations
would be inviable (e.g. Campbell et al., 1985). Internal democracy,
such texts assume, would lead schools down the path of chaos,
disorder, disintegration, and inefficiency. The assumption that
internal democracy is infeasible, moreover, is apparently strong
enough to cause its virtual absence from the entire literature on
educational administration. I view this as being highly unfortunate,
since I am convinced that internal democracy, when it is appropriately
defined, is a feasible structural alternative to non-democratic
internal school governance.

Defining Internal Democracy

Democracy is a concept that can be operationalised in many ways.
Indeed, I believe that much of the scholarly resistance to the
prospect of the internal democratic governance of public schools is
due to a general lack of awareness with respect to an appropriate
definition of organisation democracy. Most importantly, the current
definitions of organisation democracy which exist in the literature on
educational administration all assume that a democratic structure
cannot contain a formal hierarchy. This assumption, as Ackoff
demonstrates, is untrue (Ackoff, 1989).

Since it is widely accepted that schools are complex organisations
that, as I will later demonstrate, require the co-ordination and
control mechanism of hierarchy, a viable operational definition of
organisation democracy for public schools must include a hierarchical
structure.

Ackoff's operational definition of organisation democracy (Ackoff,
1989) is uniquely relevant to the issue of school structure precisely
because it demonstrates that hierarchy and organisation democracy are
conceptually compatible.

The Circular Organisation

Ackoff agrees with the Weberian view that hierarchy is necessary to
ensure adequate control and co-ordination of organisations. Ackoff,
however, demonstrates that organisation hierarchies can be made
democratic by subjecting each level in the hierarchy to democratic
control from below. Thus, he is proposing a "circularity of power",
and calls his organisation type "the circular organisation".

Specifically, Ackoff proposes that organisation hierarchies be
organised through a system of "boards". Such boards would be created
for each member of the hierarchy, and would be comprised of (a) the
member of the hierarchy (the authority figure), (b) the subordinates
of the member of the hierarchy, and, (c) the supervisor of the member
of the hierarchy. Thus, the organisation chart of the organisation
would consist of a series of interlocking boards, from the president
on down. The boards would have the following responsibilities:

1) planning for the unit whose board it is,

2) policymaking for the unit whose board it is,

3) co-ordinating the plans and policies of the next lower level,

4) integrating its own plans and policies and those of its immediately
lower level with those made at higher levels,

5) decision making regarding the quality of working life of those on
the board, and

6) evaluating the performance of the manager whose board it is, and
removing him of her from that position if necessary (Ackoff, 1989, p.
12).

Ackoff, in discussing business organisations that have applied his
guidelines, notes that not all such organisations give the boards the
sixth responsibility mentioned above. Organisations that do not give
their boards this responsibility, Ackoff realises, are not truly
circular.

In organisations where subordinates do have the power to remove their
supervisors, very few have actually removed them. This is due, Ackoff
suggests, to the fact that employees are usually able to obtain what
they want from their managers through constructive criticism:

Once each year the manager's immediate subordinates meet to discuss
what their boss can do make it possible for them to manage more
effectively. The subordinates are precluded from telling their boss
what he or she should not do; they must confine themselves to
constructive suggestions covering what their boss can do to enhance
their-not their bosses--performance . . . Receiving managers can . . .
reject a suggestion, but if they do, they are required to explain
their rejection fully. In most cases their rejections are due to
constraints imposed on them from above, constraints of which their
subordinates were unaware . . . We have seen very few cases where such
explanations did not produce the required understanding. (Ackoff,
1989, p. 13)

Also, Ackoff asserts that "the principal responsibility of these
managers is to create an environment and conditions under which their
subordinates--once they are trained--can do their jobs as effectively
as their capacities allow--not to supervise them".

Additionally, Ackoff has observed that (a) no corporation has ever
dropped their circular form, (b) such forms have led to dramatic
improvements in productivity, and (c) such forms have led to
improvements in the quality of worklife (Ackoff, 1989).

With respect to the ultimate governing board of the circular
organisation, Ackoff is somewhat vague, but suggests that this board
be comprised of the Chief Executive Officer, his or her immediate
subordinates, and representatives of various stakeholder groups. Thus,
Ackoff hints that circular organisations ought to have their power
checked, at least in part, by forces external to the administration of
the organisation. In practice, such organisations have always had an
ultimate governing mechanism that is external to the organisation. In
business settings, then, the circular organisation may be criticised
(by those whose advocate workplace democracy) on the grounds that it
does not include the condition of worker sovereignty.

With respect to public schools, however, the sovereignty question
which I have mentioned is a non issue. The public, that is, has
sovereign power over the public schools. The nature of this
sovereignty is an issue pertaining to the external governance of
schools, and is beyond the scope of this paper.

The Circular Public School Organisation

Ackoff advocates that the internal governance of circular
organisations be organised through a system of boards. In the case of
the typical public secondary school, "internal boards of education"
could be created for the two hierarchical levels which comprise the
school organisation:

1. The school level board of education

This board could include:

a) The school principal or headmaster (who reports to this board)

b) The Assistant Principal(s)

c) Department chairpersons

d) Teacher representativese) A union representative

f) A parent representative

g) A student representative

2. The departmental level boards of education

These boards could include:

a) The principal or headmaster

b) The department chair (who reports to the board)

c) The department's teaching staff

d) Representatives from other constituencies (subject to the desire of
the other board members)

With respect to a small elementary school, a single school level board
comprised of the principal or headmaster, the entire teaching staff
(or the entire teaching staff on a rotating basis), a parent, and a
union representative might be sufficient.

If the above structural specifications seem sketchy, it is because I
do not wish to provide a blueprint for all schools and all
departments. The specifics of a circular structure (i.e. the functions
of the various boards and school administrators, the exact composition
of the boards) should be contingent on its circumstances.

As long as the specific structure chosen does not violate the
principle of circularity, the principle that requires that each person
who has authority over others be directly subjected to their
collective authority, then that structure can be legitimately called a
circular structure.

The Four Frames

When organisational changes of a fundamental nature are contemplated,
it is important that they be contemplated from a perspective which
includes as complete a picture of organisational reality as possible.
Otherwise, the implementation of such changes are more likely to be
accompanied by unintended consequences of a problematic nature.
Fortunately, Bolman & Deal (1984) have done an excellent job of
assessing the organisational literature, and have demonstrated that
all previous work concerning organisations can be classified as
belonging to one or more of four metaperspectives or "frames". Each
frame highlights a different aspect of organisational reality, and
provides a fundamental, historically enduring window through which to
view organisations.

The Structural Frame literature emphasises that organisations must be
effective in order to survive, and focuses on ascertaining the
effectiveness of various means of co-ordinating and controlling work
within various organisational environments (e.g. Weber, 1947; Blau &
Scott, 1962; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967); the Human Resource Frame
literature emphasises that organisations exist to meet human needs,
and focuses on the fit between individuals and organisations (e.g.
Argyris, 1957; McGregor, 1960; Maslow, 1979; Hertzburg, 1966); the
Political Frame emphasises that organisations are coalitions of
individuals and groups which were created to serve the various
interests and ideologies of their members, and focuses on the
strategies and tactics which are utilised to deal with conflict under
various organisational conditions (e.g. Baldridge, 1971; Gamson, 1968;
Pfeiffer, 1978); the Symbolic Frame emphasises that reality is
socially constructed by cognitively limited human beings, and focuses
on the ways in which people in organisations deal with an ambiguous
and uncertain organisational reality (e.g. Cohen & March, 1974; Weick,
1976; Deal & Kennedy, 1982).

Since I consider the use of each of the four frames to be essential
for an assessment of fundamental organisation changes that is
sufficiently complete, I will perform my assessment of the potential
of circular structures to transform public schools utilising all four
frames.

I. Human Resource Assessment

The central proposition of the human resource frame thinkers is that
improvements in the level of fit between individuals and organisations
enhance both individual satisfaction and organisational effectiveness.
It is my contention that internal democracy has the potential to
significantly increase the level of fit between teachers and their
work. If this potential is realised, then major improvements in
teacher satisfaction and educational effectiveness are likely to
occur.

When we recall our own best teachers, we will almost invariably recall
those teachers who possessed a strong "sense of self", and were able
to passionately express this sense of self through the educational
messages that they were communicating. Abraham Maslow (1970) would
describe such teachers as being "self-actualised". That is, they were
able to use their work as a means to satisfying their innate need to
express their true selves. Since non-democratic structures discourage
such expression by attempting to place major limits on human freedom,
we can conclude that internal democracy may have the potential to
increase the number of self-actualising teachers.

Would the additional freedom which internal democracy could provide to
teachers be used by the teachers to achieve self-actualisation?

It could be asserted that most teachers lack the motivation to strive
for self-actualisation. I believe this position to be fallacious,
because the objective characteristics of the task of teaching are such
that they enhance the motivation of those who teach.

Hackman & Oldham's (1980) well known model classifies the job
characteristics which have been found to determine one's potential to
develop intrinsic motivation to do various jobs:

1) Task Meaningfulness--A task is meaningful if it provides
opportunities to do varied, as opposed to routine activities (task
variety), perform and identify with a whole task (task identity), and
involves activities which are significant, as opposed to trivial (task
significance).

2) Task Autonomy--A task is high in autonomy if it enables those who
perform it to experience individual responsibility for its results.

3) Task Feedback--A task is high in feedback if it provides those who
perform it with immediate knowledge of the effects of their efforts.

To the extent the objective characteristics of a job are high in task
meaningfulness, task autonomy, and task feedback, the job is
classified by Hackman & Oldham as having a high "motivating potential
score".

Teaching is, quite clearly, a task with an extremely high motivating
potential score. Teaching is a varied activity that provides those who
engage in it the opportunity to identify with significant activities
(the development of our young people), experience a sense of
individual responsibility (teachers do much of their work alone--they
are the sole authority figure in the classroom), and obtain immediate
feedback (from students). Teaching, then, is an intrinsically
motivating activity that can provide those who undertake its
challenges with the opportunity to approach the level of
self-actualisation that is vital to its success.

Given the nature of teaching, it appears that the question of whether
or not schools ought to foster the self-actualisation of teachers
should be answered with a resounding yes.

How does one foster the self actualisation of teachers? Is it
necessary to change the structure of schools to achieve a significant
increase in the number of self-actualising teachers? Consider the
non-structural views of Douglas McGregor. McGregor (1985), came to the
conclusion that those who lead organisations tend to emphasise, often
implicitly, one of two theories concerning human behavior at
work--Theory X or Theory Y. Theory X managers assume that people do
not really want to work, and need to be coerced and directed if they
are to put forth a reasonable effort. Theory Y managers, on the other
hand, believe that people want to work, and are capable of
self-control.

According to McGregor, those leaders who subscribe to theory X tend to
be autocratic, while those who subscribe to theory Y tend to be
"democratic" and allow their subordinates to seek self-actualisation.
McGregor, being a human resource theorist, proposes that training and
organisation development activities be used to develop a cadre of
theory Y managers, armed with the know how necessary to humanise the
workplace. Clark & Melloy (1989), however, point out that there is a
fundamental inconsistency between the style of leadership McGregor
proposes (theory Y leadership) and the bureaucratic structure (theory
X structure) which he accepts:

None of these recommendations [concerning theory Y leadership] require
any suspension in any of the requisite structural characteristics
associated with bureaucracy. They are reasonable adjustments that can
be made within an existing structure that is, in fact, antithetical to
the theoretical propositions to which the author subscribes.

Thus, McGregor's proposal assumes that teacher self-actualisation and
empowerment can become prevalent under a structure grounded in the
view that teachers must be subjected to the nearly absolute authority
of appointed administrators. In fact, as Argyris (1957) pointed out,
unidirectional power structures tend to encourage subordinates to be
passive, dull, alienated and apathetic. Thus, such structures
encourage supervisors to adopt theory X views of human behaviour.

Clark and Melloy, after presenting their cogent critique of the
current bureaucratic governance of schools, go on to suggest a
democratic structure based on theory Y principles:

1. Designated leaders, such as the principal, should be chosen by
teachers. . .

2. The responsibility for a new school lies with the professional
staff of the school, not solely, or even predominantly, with a
designated leader. . .

3. The staff of a new school must trade assignments and work in
multiple groups to remain in touch with the school as a whole.

4. Formal rewards to the staff--salary, tenure, forms of
promotion--should be under the control of the staff of the new school
as a whole.

5. The goals of the new school must be formulated and agreed to
through group consensus. The professional staff is responsible for
negotiating the acceptability of the goals to the school community.

Clark & Melloy are offering us the polar opposite of our current
bureaucratic structure. Their proposed structure can properly be
classified as belonging to the category of participatory democracy. As
I will soon attempt to demonstrate, however, participatory democracy
is a structure that is incompatible with the nature of school
organisations.

Structural Assessment of Internal Democracy

The structural frame, which could alternatively be titled the
"structural limits frame", is based on the fundamental argument that
certain structures, although they may or may not optimise the social
and psychological needs of workers, are, nevertheless, necessary if an
optimal level of organisational effectiveness is to be achieved.

Structures for school governance, if they are to be optimally
effective, must ensure that the following administrative tasks get
performed in the most suitable manner:

1. Supervision of teachers

2. Curriculum development

3. General Administrative tasks (i.e. school policy, scheduling,
budgeting,school rules and procedures).

It is my contention that neither bureaucratic nor purely democratic
structures are best suited to ensuring that these administrative tasks
get performed appropriately.

Consider the first task of administration--the supervision of
teachers. Obviously, the appropriate method of supervision of any task
is contingent on the nature of that task. What is the nature of
teaching? As Ornstein (1989) realises, the nature of teaching is such
that we cannot reach agreement on valid generalisations concerning the
factors which induce its effectiveness:

It is not an exaggeration to say that the literature on teaching is a
morass of ill-defined and changing concepts. Investigators have
examined teacher personality, traits, behaviors, attitudes, values,
abilities, competencies, and many other characteristics. A host of
measuring instruments have been employed: personality tests,
attitudinal scales, observation instruments, rating scales,
checklists, bipolar descriptors, and closed-ended and open ended
written statements. The results of teaching have been studied in terms
of student achievement, adjustment, attitudes, socioeconomic status,
and creativity. Despite all this activity and thousands of studies
conducted in the last fifty years, common denominators and agreed-upon
generalisations are hard to come by; hence, few facts are deemed
established concerning teacher effectiveness. (Ornstein, 1989, p. 95)

Thus, even those who have mastered the scholarly literature on
teaching have difficulty blending teaching theory and practice
(Ornstein, 1989). The reason for the lack of generalisable guidelines
for good teaching, Ornstein appreciates, is that teaching is a result
of a complex interaction between the personal characteristics of
teachers and the teaching situations in which they confront:

Every teacher has a special way of doing things, and a special way of
thinking--a manner or style that helps characterise who he or she is.
Teaching style is a composite of personality and philosophy, evidenced
by behavior and attitude, what the teacher emphasises, how he or she
reacts to different situations. . .Teachers integrate the theories
they believe in through their style . . . If teachers are not
themselves, students will see them as "phony". In short, teachers must
develop their own repertoire, relative to their own physical and
mental characteristics and their students. Thus, there is no one ideal
type but a multiple set of teachers types and styles. Teacher style is
a matter of choice and comfort, and what works for one teacher with
one set of students may not work for another. (Ornstein, 1989, p. 95)

Thus, the nature of teaching demands that teachers be free to choose
their own teaching style, and be free to reject advice which they feel
would contradict that style.

The supervision of teaching, therefore, should not involve an emphasis
on enforcement, but rather, it should involve an emphasis on service.
The effective supervisor, that is, should concentrate on (a) helping
teachers to determine what, if any, changes in their teaching they
wish to make, (b) offering suggestions and encouragement, and most
importantly, (c) offering teachers as little or as much assistance as
they desire, in a manner which they are willing to accept. To the
extent that supervisors violate these guidelines, they are likely to
pressure teachers to teach in a manner that is phoney, inconsistent,
and uninspired, or provoke teachers into frustrating battles with them
that will involve a high level of concealment. Thus, their teachers
may attempt to utilise their ideas only to the extent necessary to
avoid obvious disobedience. The result is likely to be an inconsistent
mixture of supervisor and teacher ideas and techniques.

Clearly, the command structure of bureaucracy is incompatible with the
nature of appropriate teacher supervision. Even new teachers who are
struggling to achieve competency must be in an empowered position with
respect to their supervisor if they are to learn and grow in a manner
which enables them to develop an appropriate, consistent teaching
style.

The second task of administration, curriculum development, is, in one
way, similar to the task of teacher supervision. Both tasks, that it,
must be performed in a manner which is not antagonistic to the needs
of teachers. Curriculums, however, must possess a certain degree of
uniformity--otherwise, students will be inappropriately prepared for
each successive course in their school program. Each teacher would
have to "start from scratch" each semester, and student development
would proceed slowly. Thus, teachers must, to some degree (and this
degree obviously depends on the nature of the subject), sacrifice
their own teaching needs to obtain the coordination which is necessary
to foster student development.

Similarly, the third task of administration, the "general
administrative task", requires policies which will not necessarily
reflect the preferences of each individual teacher. Administrative
tasks two and three, in short, require coordination.

As my preceding analysis of teaching suggests, such co-ordination
should not be imposed by all-powerful administrators. On the other
hand, this analysis suggests that the complexities of teaching are
such that they would render the attainment of appropriate goal
agreements through schoolwide consensus to be highly problematic. Such
consensus' would take an extraordinarily large amount of time to
achieve. Given that public school resources are scarce, administration
by schoolwide consensus is clearly inappropriate. In short, both
participatory democratic and nondemocratic structures are not
appropriate structures for school organisations. Schools need a
structure that encourages a balance between teacher participation and
timely decision-making. The circular structure, I am asserting, does
encourage this balance.

Symbolic Assessment

Once again, I wish to emphasise that teaching is an activity that is
exceedingly difficult to analyse. Thus, no general formulas exist for
administrators to impose with a realistically high level of
confidence. As a result, school structure is often ambiguous. School
bureaucracies designed on the basis of formal rationality can become,
at least in part, symbols of order which serve to mask a more chaotic
reality (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Schools have been viewed as organised
anarchies (Cohen & March, 1974), and have been defined as "loosely
coupled systems" (Weick, 1976; March & Olsen, 1976; and Cohen & March,
1974).

In their most recent article on loose coupling, Weick & Orton (1990)
assert that the concept of loose coupling is best viewed
dialectically, rather than statically. They hope that loose coupling
will "lead researchers to study structure as something that
organisations do, rather than merely something they have" (Weick &
Orton, 1990). Thus, they view structure in loosely coupled systems as
something that emerges from a continual tug-of-war between forces for
unification and forces for fragmentation. As Weick & Orton (1990)
appreciate, collective agreement is the only way out of this
tug-of-war:

If organisations are determinate means-ends structures for attaining
preferred outcomes, and loose coupling is produced by uncertainties
about these means-ends structures (Thompson, 1967, p. 134), then
agreement about preferences is the only source of order that is left.

Thus, the response to loose coupling on the part of current
administrative theorists is to emphasise that administrators must
develop strong cultures, based on shared values, in order to encourage
a "looseness of flexibility," rather than a "looseness of chaos" (e.g.
Deal, 1985, and Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

Although agreement about preferences is relatively approachable within
business organisations in a money oriented society (i.e. efficiency
based on financial goals), agreement within school organisations is
considerably harder to achieve. An infinite variety of means-ends
choices are available to educators, and these choices tend to be
connected to competing ideologies. Thus, it is no surprise that
curriculum, teaching, and educational improvement projects usually end
in failure, due, at least in part, to difficulties in gaining teacher
acceptance (Deal & Nutt, 1983; Boyde, 1983; Wise, 1983). The
achievement of a consensus based on a value agreement that is created
by school administrators then, appears to be an unrealistic attainment
for most school organisations.

Our best hope for school improvement, given the validity of the
preceding analysis, is to create structures that encourage teachers to
actively participate in school improvement processes that are intended
to balance the goals of coordination and teacher freedom. An adequate
degree of consensus or compromise, concerning school improvement, that
is, to not likely to occur as a result of administrative decree.
Adequate school decision making is usually the result of significant
teacher participation.

Although the attainment of significant employee participation is a
goal which has been endorsed by virtually everyone, it is a goal that
is rarely achieved within existing bureaucratic structures (Bolman &
Deal, 1987). As I previously pointed out, unidirectional power
structures do not encourage the sharing of power by those on top of
the hierarchy.

Therefore, I will conclude that non-democratic internal school
governance is ill-suited to encouraging a level of teacher
participation that is sufficient to foster adequate co-ordination of
school organisations. In addition, non-democratic governance is
ill-suited to encouraging teacher freedom (and self-actualisation). As
a result, tug-of-wars between teachers and administrators often occur
that result in teachers balancing external administrator demands and
their own internal needs in a manner that thwarts administrator goals
while simultaneously frustrating their own desires.

Our only hope for getting out of this mess, I think it reasonable to
conclude, is to foster truly participatory dialogues between teachers
and administrators, based on a real circularity of power relations.
Only a circularity of power relations can ensure that teachers and
administrators are encouraged to balance their individual desires for
free expression with their collective desire to achieve a level of
co-ordination sufficient for the practice of good teaching.

Political Assessment

Politically oriented theorists focus on the nature of power and
conflict under conditions of significant scarcity and diversity. When
there is no significant scarcity of resources, and differences in
individul preferences and interests are minimal, then conflict becomes
insignificant, and politics fades into the background. Most
situations, and virtually all organisational situations, however, are
ridden with conflict. School organisations, of course, are no
exception.

In fact, the ambiguities surrounding the nature of teaching often make
schools into fiercely political battlegrounds. The less certain a
technology, that is, the more likely it is that different interests
groups will have sufficient justification to argue for a use of that
technology which suits their preferences (Bolman & Deal, 1984).

There are two fundamental political issues which are relevant to any
call for a circular internal school governance structure. Firstly,
there is the issue of the potential effects of circularity on the
internal politics of schools. Secondly, there is the issue of the
political feasability of the attainment of such circularity.

Circularity and the Internal Politics of Schools

It is my contention that the effect of circular structures on the
internal politics of schools would be overwhelmingly positive. The
primary effect of circularity on internal school politics, I believe,
would be the creation of stronger coalitions between administrators
and teachers. Decision-making by administrators would become much more
collaborative. Those who would not collaborate might well be voted out
of their positions, and transferred to a central office assignment or
a teaching post. Repressive tactics, moreover, would be virtually
eliminated. School change efforts would be performed with the support
of school staffs, and conflicts fought through open debate.

Would the ideological confiicts that would inevitably accompany such
debates prove fatal to the health of schools with circular structures?
I think not. The nature of educational technology, as opposed to
factory technology, is such that it is able to support contradictory
components. If I want to emphasise topic X, for example, and you want
to emphasise topic Y, then the appropriate compromise is simple--we
allow each other to emphasise our respective topics, and agree to a
reasonable level of coverage of our respective less favored topics. As
my previous discussion of loose coupling suggests, such agreements
(which are necessary for proper coordination) are more likely to occur
in circular structures. Circularity, that is, encourages compromise,
whereas bureaucracy encourages subterfuge.

With respect to schoolwide decisions concerning school policy and the
nature of the curriculum, I recognise, it is infeasible to satisfy
entire teaching staffs completely. That is one of the primary reasons
why I am not advocating the participatory democratic governance of
schools. Attempts at policy consensus by entire school staffs are
likely to create endlessly time consuming ideological debates. School
policy must be developed by a principal, subject to internal board
participation and approval, and bound by external rules and
guidelines.

The Attainment of Circularity

If my overall analysis is correct, then circular structures have the
potential (if they are tried out) to enhance school improvement
efforts and raise teacher morale. Furthermore, it is high plausible
that such structures would help attract high quality teachers into the
profession, and, in some countries, alleviate teacher shortages. Thus,
successful experiments with circularity could produce at least some
level of public support for circular structures.

On the other hand, the circular concept would, of course, face
considerable organised opposition from educational administrators
themselves. Such administrators would certainly argue that all
employees, including teachers, must be kept in line by a powerful
authority figure. Given the general work assumptions of our
bureaucratic society, it is likely that such arguments would meet with
considerable acceptance. Thus, I am not optimistic, at least
concerning the short run, about the prospects for widespread diffusion
of circular structures.

I am convinced, however, that the circular concept should be made a
part of the standard curriculum on educational administration.
Firstly, such inclusion would increase the likelihood that circular
structures, already tried out successfully in business settings, will
be tried out in educational settings. Secondly, I believe that those
whose have at least considered the possibility that democratic
internal school governance is feasible, and desirable, might take
existing programs that are relevant to teacher participation and
empowerment, and implement them more effectively. Their level of
insight concerning such programs, that is, could be enhanced by their
knowledge that a much grander vision of teacher participation and
empowerment is appropriate.

Summary and Conclusion

The existing literature on educational administration almost
invariably assumes that internally democratic school governance is
infeasible. I have argued that this assumption is faulty, and is
based, at least in part, on the belief that hierarchy and democracy
are incompatible. While it is true, I concur, that pure participatory
democracy is infeasible for schools (since schools face a significant
level of scarcity and ideological diversity), I have argued that
Ackoff's definition of organisation democracy (1989) the "circular
organisation", provides a feasible structural possibility for the
internal governance of schools, since it includes an appropriate
degree of hierarchy.

I have used Bolman & Deal's (1987) four frames, or mete perspectives,
to organise an argument for the superiority of this structure with
respect to school organisations based on a broad utilisation of the
existing literature on organisation theory, management, and behaviour.
Principle arguments include:

1) a) The nature of teaching is such that teachers will often possess
the motivation necessary to strive toward self-actualisation.

b) Self-actualisation fosters excellent teaching.

c) Non-democratic internal structures hinder teacher
self-actualisation (and encourage dullness), whereas circular
structures would encourage teacher self-actualisation.

2) a) Teaching is extremely hard to analyse and measure,

b) Teachers must develop and utilise their own teaching style in order
to be effective.

c) Therefore, supervisors should emphasise teacher service, rather
than teacher control.

d) Non-democratic internal structures encourage supervisors to
emphasise teacher control, whereas circular structures would encourage
supervisors to emphasise teacher service.

3) a) Schools are loosely coupled (i.e. hard to control).

b) School improvement efforts usually fail, and school co-ordination
is usually inadequate, unless teachers are truly empowered
participants in the school improvement process.

c) Non-democratic internal structures discourage empowered
participation, whereas circular structures would encourage empowered
participation.

d) Therefore, non-democratic structures discourage school improvement,
and adequate coordination, whereas circular structures would encourage
school improvement and adequate co-ordination.

5) a) Non-democratic internal structures do not foster teacher
satisfaction, and have probably contributed to teacher shortages in
various countries (the USA, for example).

b) Circular structures have the potential to alleviate these
shortages, and help attract high quality teachers into the profession.

6) a) Participatory democracy emphasises decision-making through
consensus.

b) Given the complexities of teaching, adequate schoolwide consensus
decision-making is a highly time-consuming process for schools to
undertake.

c) The ideological diversity which surrounds educational
decision-making further increases the amount of time necessary for
adequate schoolwide consensus decision-making.

d) Public schools face significant resource scarcity.

e) Therefore, participatory democratic structures for internal public
school governance are inappropriate, since they would require an
expenditure of decision-making time which would subject public schools
to excessive extra costs.

f) Circular structures would foster a balance between hierarchical
decision-making (necessary for efficiency), and decision-making by
democratic committees (necessary to encourage adequate teacher
participation).

7) Given statements 1-6, circular structures are both desirable and
feasible.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the low probability of short
run, widespread use of circular structures for internal school
governance does not make my proposal irrelevant. Firstly, the
possibility that its inclusion in the school administration curriculum
may inspire future (and current) educational leaders to experiment
with curricular structures (structures that have proven their success
in a variety of industries) makes it a worthwhile proposition. Also, I
am convinced that a feasible vision of internal democracy could
inspire some school administrators to better implement the existing
reforms (i.e. teacher participation, teacher empowerment, school
restructuring) and work toward successive approximations of internal
democracy that are increasingly potent.

At some point in the distant future, perhaps, school scarcity and
ideological diversity will become vastly less significant. Thus, a
vision of participatory internal school democracy may one day become
appropriate. At this point in time, however, I think we should urge
educational administrators to contemplate a definition of internal
democracy that is appropriate now, and encourage them to take the
possibility of internal democracy more seriously.

NOTE

[1] Geoffrey Moss is a PhD candidate in Sociology and Education at
Teachers College, Columbia University and a former Instructor of
Management, Baruch College, the City University of New York. His
interests include Organisation Theory, School Restructuring and
Education for Workplace Democracy.

REFERENCES

ACKOFF, R. (1989) The Circular Organisation: an update, The Academy of
Management Executive, 3(1),pp. 11-16.

APPLE, M.W. (1988) Teachers and Texts (New York, Routledge).

ARGYRIS, C. (1975) Personality and Organisation (New York, Harper &
Brothers).

BALDRIDGE, J.V. (1971) Power and Conflict in the University (New York,
John Wiley).

BLAU, P.M. & SCOTT, W.R. (1962) Formal Organisations: a comparative
approach (San Francisco, Chandler).

BOLMAN, L.G. & DEAL, T.F. (1987) Modern Approaches to Understanding
and Managing Organisations (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).

BOYDE, W.L. (1983) The Politics of Curriculum Change and Stability,
in: J. V. BALDRIDGE & T. DEAL (Eds) The Dynamics of Organisational
Change in Education (CA, McCutchan).

CAMPBELL, R. F., CUNNINGHAM, L.L., NYSTRAND, R.O. & USDAN, M.D. (1985)
The Organisation and Control of American Schools (Ohio, Charles E.
Merril Publishing Company, A Bell and Howell Company).

CAMPBELL, R.F., FLEMING, T., NOWELL, L.J., BENNION, J.W. (1987) A
History of Thought and Practice in Educational Administration (New
York, Teachers College Press).

CLARK, D.L. & MELLOY, J.M. (1989) "Renouncing Bureaucracy: a
democratic structure for leadership in schools," in: T. J. SERGIOVANNI
& J. H. MOORE (Eds) Schooling for Tomorrow (Needham Heights, MA, Allyn
and Bacon).

CLIFFORD, G.J. & GUTHRI, J.W. (1988) Ed School (IL, The University of
Chicago Press).

COHEN, M.D. & MARCH, J.G. (1974) Leadership and Ambiguity: the
American college president (New York, McGraw-Hill).

DEAL, T.E. & NUTT, S. (1983) Planned Change in Rural School Districts,
in: J. V. BALDRIDGE & T. DEAL (Eds) The Dynamics of Organisational
Change in Education (Berkeley, CA, McCutchan).

DEAL, T.E. & KENNEDY, A. (1982) Corporate Cultures (Reading, MA,
Addison-Wesley).

DEAL, T.E. (1985) Symbolism of Effective Schools, The Elementary
School Journal, 85, pp. 601-620.

GAMSON, W.R. (1968) Power and Discontent (Homewood, IL, Dorsey).

HACKMAN, J.R. & OLDHAM, G.R. (1980) Work Redesign (Reading, MA,
Addison Wesley).

HERTZBURG, F. (1966) Work and the Nature of Man (Ohio, World).

LAWRENCE, P. & LORSCH, J. (1967) Organisation and Environment (Boston,
Division of Research, Harvard Business School).

MARCH, J.G. & OLSEN, J.P. (Eds) (1976) Ambiguity and Choice in
Organisations (Bergen, Norway, Universities Forlaget.

McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise (New York,
McGraw-Hill).

MASLOW, A.H. (1970) Motivation and Personality (2nd ea.) (New York,
Harper & Row).

MEYER, J.W. & ROWAN, B. (1977) Institutional Organisations: formal
structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83, pp.
340-363.

ORNSTEIN, A.C. (1989) Theoretical Issues Related to Teaching,
Education and Urban Society, 22(1), pp. 94-104.

PFEIFFER, J. (1978) Organisational Design (Arlington Heights, IL,
AHM).

WEBER, M. (1974) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisaton (T.
Parsons, trans.) (New York, Free Press).

WEICK, K.E. (1976) Educational Organisations as Loosely Coupled
Systems, Administrative Science Ouarterly, 21, pp. 1-19.

WEICK, K.E. & ORTON, J.D. (1990) Loosely Coupled Systems: a
reconceptualisation, Academy of Management Review, 15(2), pp. 203-223.

WISE, A. (1983) Why Educational Policies Often Fail: the
heyperrationalisation hypothesis, in: J. V. BALDRIDGE & T. E. DEAL
(Eds) The Dynamics of Organisational Change in Education (Berkeley,
CA, McCutchan).

~~~~~~~~

By GEOFFREY MOSS[1], Teachers College, Columbia University, USA
_________________

Copyright of School Organization is the property of Carfax Publishing
Company and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Source: School Organization, 1991, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p71, 15p.
Item Number: 9707075358

Record: 1
97070753580260136219910301

Title: Restructuring public schools for internal democratic...
Subject(s): SCHOOL management & organization
Source: School Organization, 1991, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p71, 15p
Author(s): Moss, Geoffrey
Abstract: Argues how the Ackoff's circular structure is an appropriate
democratic structure for the internal governance of public schools.
Definition of internal democracy; Circular organization; Circular
public school organization; Frames of reference that are essential for
an assessment of fundamental organization change; Circularity and the
internal politics of schools; Attainment of circularity; Conclusions.
AN: 9707075358
ISSN: 0260-1362
Full Text Word Count: 6222
Database: Academic Search Premier