SCHOOL FAILURES CAUSED BY PERSONAL GOALS OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS
THAT DWARF SOCIAL ONES
Over the past decade, numerous alterations have been implemented in our nation's
educational enterprises; however, to date, the effect has been very little
overall improvement in our national performance. One hypothesis suggests
that educational changes have been predicated on personally rational decisions
rather than organizational rational ones. Personally rational decisions are
those directed toward an individual's goal as contrasted with decisions based
on organizational goals. Inferential and direct evidence supports
such a possibility. Privatized goals obscure the true educational needs
of students and school educational delivery systems are subverted. As school's
move beyond personally rational decision-making can be facilitated by public,
data-driven decision-making. In a high-tech society, greater freedom and
empowerment will result from fuller communication of individual goals as
well as orgartizational goals. Thus, all educators should have skills
required to derive decisions from appropriate data in an interdependent environment.
America's educational system has been widely accused of failing
the nation. The Public Television network evening news program of December
13, 1990, presented a panel of experts (including John Silber, Ross Perot,
and Thomas Kean) who concurred that the present educational system is "worse
than a disaster?' The Nation's Report Card for 1990 has been called "a compendium
of disappointment" (Associated Press Editorial, 1990). The specific negative
findings were:
1. Students do not read analytically.
2. Few students write well enough to communicate effectively.
3. Half of the high school students cannot handle challenging
material
in math.
4. Students have an uneven understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
Clearly, at a minimum, America's schools have an image problem.
At most, they are failing the nation and need total renovation. The true
situation is somewhere between those extremes, but extensive repairs are
indicated. The problems of our educational system requirepractical solutions
and it behooves the nation to search for cures for its educational maladies.
Certainly, one of the first steps in this procedure is to identify the difficulty
to be corrected.
A Proposed Diagnosis
A plethora of alterations have been made in the nation's educational
enterprise during the past two decades. The overwhelming majority of these
changes has been directed toward correcting specific areas such as teacher
certification and graduation requirements. In spite of these efforts, the
main problems remain. It appears that, as yet, an accurate diagnosis has
not been made. At least, one has not served as the base for a satisfactory
corrective effort. Thus, there is a need to continue work to specify a comprehensive
causal agent and, since the efforts targeted on limited areas have not worked
effectively, it may be profitable to explore larger, more general factors.
In light of available data, it is reasouable to postulate that
educational progress is being impeded by a process called personally rational
decision-making which Luthans (1985) defined as a decision directed toward
an individual's goal (p. 593). This mode of selecting objectives is contrasted
to organizationally rational decisions which are aimed at organizational
goals.
Personally rational decision is directed toward self-selected
goals. The final stage of the process is private and self-monitored being
devoid of collaborative input. Even though the final decisions may range
from selfish to altruistic, all are formulated idiosyncratically.
It is appropriate to present evidence to support the rather
bold contention that certain aspects of educational programs are plagued
with personally rational decision-making; but, a caveat should be added.
It may be impossible to explicate even a small portion of all the data which
could support the notion that education is laden with personally rational
decisions. Indeed, it would require an impossible amount of psychotherapy
to identify the private decisions of all the people involved in the educational
process. There is, however, enough readily accessible data to justify a conjecture
that the use of privatized goals is extensive.
Inferential Evidence
American schools exist within a culture that is beset by personally
rational decision-making. Indeed, many writers have called the present society
the "me generation" (Lasch, 1979). This label connotes a popular lifestyle
in which personal concerns supersede social considerations. Since privatized
decision-making is prevalent in the broader society, it is reasonable to
assume that it exists to about the same degree inside education institutions.
A second source of inferential evidence is the popularity of
personally rational decision-making in positions of power which according
to Shakespeare magnify human traits. Watergate, Irangate, S&L and White
Water investigations revealed clearly the prevailingpursuit of individual
preferences over group concerns at the
highest levels of our society. While schools cannot be compared
to major power centers, the human motivations seem similar throughout society.
That is, in general, people have a tendency to move in directions that offer
rewards. Educational decisions are subject to the same law of behavior. Many
educators prefer to select and pursue their own goals to enhance the likelihood
of personal gain.
Direct Evidence
A source of direct evidence is the educational system's highly
successful resistance to fundamental change. Even after more than a decade
of strong efforts for revisions, it is widely conceded that in our educational
institutions the fundamental practices have remained relatively constant.
While many possible explanations for this phenomenon are feasible, it is
reasonable to maintain that the resistive strength of the educational system
is at least partially attributable to a decision-making process that emphasizes
personal rationalization. In this mode, it is difficult, if not impossible,
to align a whole school or system so that one decision impacts the entire
structure. The individuals within the system do not interconnect tightly
so that each is almost independent of the others. It is much like trying
to pull a series of loosely connected railroad cars. This configuration gives
education a great deal of resistive strength but very little power of collective
action.
A second source of direct evidence relates to real-life situations.
Personally rational decision-making is a correlate of fiefdoms that have
been discovered frequently in schools that have attempted extensive educational
change. For example, in Kentucky, where the state is implementing the nation's
most widespread program of school reform, the most difficult problems arise
vis-a-vis fiefdoms. These private power bases range from superintendencies
to maintenance positions and each has its own unique configuration. Quite
probably for this dimension. Kentucky does not differ significantly from
other states. It is warranted to assume that personally rational decision-making
is an impediment to educational change in other parts of the nation as well.
Perhaps the best source of direct evidence was obtained using
a telephone survey of educational professionals. This study included two
major sources of information: (a) teacher trainers, and (b) educational counselors.
Data was obtained from twenty-five Ph.D. level teachers trainers who had
worked with thousands of educators across a 25 year period (1965-90) in both
pre-service and in-service teacher education projects in 42 states and seven
foreign countries. This group represented a wide range of experience and
demographic backgrounds. A second survey requesting summarized confidential
information was collected from five Ph.D.-level counselors who had consulted
privately with educators throughout the same 25 year period. The data was
obtained by extended open-ended interviews with each of the teacher trainers
and counselors. The responses were reviewed by two Ph.D. investigators for
statements describing decisions made with a personally rational process.
Every interview contained statements describing applications of this decision
making process. That is, in their professional experience, these educatorshad
observed a great many program decisions that were made on the basis of privatized
goals.
The Dysfunctional Quality of Personally Rational
Decision-Making
In many instances, personally rational decision-making has a
deleterious effect on education because it inverts the roles of students
and schools. Normally, education is perceived as a process in which schools
facilitate students' learning. This means that the main purpose of schools
is to educate learners. Carkhuff (1989) represented this relationship with
the model in Figure 1.
This diagram indicates that the major intent of education is
to promote students' growth. However, when the school's decision-making processes
are dominated by personally rational decisions, the helping model reverses
into the configuration presented in Figure 2.
In this situation, the learners facilitate the school's goal
attainment. Thus, students become helpers and help to fulfill a school's
needs by doing things such as winning honors to satisfy the institution's
(or some individual's) personally rational decisions. For example, it is
commonly taken for granted that institutions that have several National Merit
scholars are good schools and their instructors are effective.
Another aspect of this issue pertains to the locus of the personally
rational decision-making procedure. Educational planning may be conceptualized
as proceeding in two spheres: (a) a general sphere that affects broad policies
and collegial relationships, and (b) a specific sphere that relates to a
definite assignment such as teaching a particular class. In practice,
matters in the general sphere are more apt to be addressed cooperatively
than are those in the specific sphere. One of the truisms in education is
that each teacher is "the boss" in her/his classroom. When taken collectively,
this professional autonomy translates into a considerable power base for
front-line personnel and it is within such narrow areas that personally rational
decisions are most frequently applied in education.
It also is true that the teacher-learner relationship is the
heart of education. Thus, it is a that point of contact that the most important
educational decisions are made. Significant data reveals that this relationship
is relatively unaltered by the myriad of changes instituted in the last decade.
Teachers still dominate classroom interactions by talking most
of the time (Good-lad, 1990). This has been the predominant instructional
mode since the beginning of public education in America. Teachers continue
to maintain control of classrooms where personally rational decisions dominate.
This is to say that in the most important context m education, teachers exercise
the main authority. In private communication instructors disclose that in
executing that responsibility they often use minimal input from others.
Perhaps the major question in this entire issue is: why do educators
use personally reactional decision-making so extensively'? Information from
interviews with teacher trainers and teacher counselors is relevant. The
pattern that emerged from the data was that educators perceived themselves
as being under attack from a wide variety of sectors and they felt cast into
a defensive stance. In this posture, many front-line educational workers
protect what is seen as a last vestige of power which, for teachers, is a
classroom. Therefore, they exercise control over it by using personally rational
decision-making. In a real sense, there is a straggle between educators and
change agents who would dilute the authority of professionals. Personally
rational decision-making is a survival strategy in that fight.
It may be that schools dominated by personally rational decision-making
can serve the needs of both the school and learners but the probability of
a symbiotic relationship is slight. While school mission statements usually
state that prime importance should be placed upon meeting learners' needs,
educators' privatized goals
may actually guide the planning process.
Remediating Personally Rational
Decision-Making in Education
If personally rational decision-making is a problem in education,
then it is important to remediate it. One strategy involves the application
of professional practices to the decision process to serve as retardants
to widespread use of personally rational decision-making. This means that
professionally committed educators always have supported mutually shared
decision-making in education. However, this has not included all educators.
Fortunately, technological advancement is providing a procedure
that will impede personally rational decision-making. Decisions based on
data available to all participants counteract inefficiencies resulting from
privatized choices. When data is derived honestly, it produces information
that may be used to enhance student performance. Conversely, when programs
are skewed to accomplish privatized goals, the effects rarely lead to intentional
improvements in behavior.
For instance, if a decision-maker has configured a situation
to fulfill privatized goals, then accurate data will reveal that fact. It
will indicate that the current alignment will not purposely improve specific
desired outcomes. In short, honest data will pinpoint the true ends being
served by the procedures used in a given context. Thus, when accurate information
is aviable to all participants it may serve as an effective antidote to personally
rational decision-making.
Data driven decision-making will be criticized because, to some
observers, it connotes an inexorably impersonalized process in which human
values are obliterated by a valueless technology. However, this is an unfortunate
equation. Carkhuff (1989) has designed a Human Technology that integrates
value relevant data into the
decision-making process. This procedure operationalizes the common understanding
that both affect and cognition must be included in an affective selection
process. Indeed, because they are motivators, values are the most critical
component in Carkhuff's decision-making procedure.
The crux of the matter is that the alternatives to personally
rational decision-making are not limited to a valueless technology. Decisions
can be made through processes that can encompass a wide range of individual
values even in a large group. Tower (1990) addresses this point by asserting
that the paradox of our time is that our mass production technology is demassifymg
our society. That is, the ability of modem production lines to customize
products is expanding the growth of individuality. It can do the same thing
for decision-making in education. The more schools incorporate thinking from
everyone, the more they will be able to meet the goals of each person.
Some observers may ask, "Why all the worry about improving education?"
They may cite data that indicates that patrons report a high level of satisfaction
with theft local schools. Individuals almost always give low grades to schools
in general but award high marks to schools in their own neighborhoods. Thomas
Kean (1989), former governor of New Jersey and current president of Drew
University, pinpointed one important reality in this situation. He stated
that people do not have enough of the right kind of data to rate even theft
own local schools. Kean held that most parents do not know how to assess
a teacher's classroom performance other than to say it is generally good
or bad. Likewise, they do not know what expectancies are reasonable for the
students. As Kean said, "The local schools are bad, too. People just do not
have the data to discern how bad they are" (p. 7).
There is a huge imbalance in our present educational evaluation
procedures. Professional educators have much greater access to important
data than do on-professionals who by and large do not know how to ask the
most relevant questions about educational outcomes. Thus, it appears that
most patrons of the educative enterprise are at the mercy of school personnel
who may use personally rational decision-making procedures in the most important
arena, the classroom.
A real-life example may illustrate the unilateral decision-making
authority of educators. A student who made A's in all other subjects received
a grade of C in handwriting in an elementary class, which removed the child
from the honor roll and contingent privileges. The parents asked the teacher
to describe the specific behavior the child needed to improve in order to
enhance her performance and presumably her grade. The teacher's response
included only a general statement that the handwriting was not
at grade level. Neither the student nor the parents knew why the grade was
given or specifically how to improve it. After receiving the teacher's report,
the parents were reluctant to press the issue for fear the teacher would
take offense and punish the child even more.
In a professional situation, a superintendent discussed an innovation
with his staff. The deliberations led to a consensual adoption of the new
procedure. However, when observation reports of teaching were completed,
it was noted that the change was not being implemented. When the staff reconvened,
the CEO brought up the lack of implementation and the staff reported that
they had either decided privately that it really wouldn't work or had modified
it to their liking. This personally rational decision-making rendered the
change process virtually useless. While it was highly desirable to customize
a procedure to fit a specific situation, it was ineffective to do so without
dialoguing with the other participants. In fact, considerable research indicates
that this type of unilaterally selective implementation of programs accounts
for the limited success of many innovations. Indeed, the problem area in
the foregoing example was the high degree of personally rational decision-making
in the system. According to the interviews conducted for this investigation,
the previous situation is not atypical.
The problem in the foregoing examples was that educators made
personally rational decisions and then, either were unable or unwilling to
share the factors which were considered in their choice processes. Some people
might say that the instructors justifiably made professional decisions but
even that type of selection should have data to support it. Also, when educatorsmake
choices that involve other people, they should be able and willing to discuss
the reasons for them. Public education is the public's business and as such
must be open to dialogue with the relevant participants.
Educating the appropriate publics is a critical process in a
democracy. It seems very cumbersome and inefficient but the most basic American
premise is that when citizens know the facts, they will make better decisions.
As agencies of the state, public schools have the responsibility of giving
account to the citizens. Privatized decision-making that was so much
a part of "The Little Red School House" is passe in the 21 st Century.
Table 1 contains a questionnaire designed to help individuals
ascertain the type of planning process strategies applied proportionately
in a planning meeting. The categories describe processes that range from
highly privitized to fully consensual. By estimating the proportion of planning
time devoted to each category, one can determine the predominant planning
process of a given organization.
In summary, education is stagnated and unable to adjust effectively
to the needs of society. One of the reasons for that circumstance is that
too many decisions throughout the system are derived from personally rational
decision-making processes. This problem may be ameliorated by using data
driven decision-making procedures whose outcomes may be assessed straightforwardly
by all members. This process could integrate inputs from all participants
and yield choices that have a greater opportunity of engendering cooperative
action. In short, it may break the current educational logjam.
Discussion
American Education is in a difficult period. It is widely conceded
that, in general, schools have not produced the results needed by the broader
society if it is to prosper in the 21st Century. Thus, it is essential to
diagnose the problem and remediate it as efficiently as possible. Many specific
recommendations have been offered and related programs have been implemented.
None have corrected the major difficulties faced by our educational institutions.
It is appropriate to explore new and larger areas.
It has been herein suggested that personally rational decision-making
is a major, generalized source of obstruction to progress in our educational
system. This process, which yields privatized goals, places the educational
enterprise in the role of provider of rewards to decision-makers rather than
serving its main function which is to meet the educative needs of students.
Thus, school delivery systems are subverted until their configuration is
diametrically opposed to education's prime purpose. Additionally, the separate
goals of individual decision-makers are aligned so that they form a chain
of demands that obstruct each other. In short, the educational delivery system
is grid-locked by competing, privatized goals.
Personally rational decision-making differs from selfishness
or greed in that it refers to the idiosyncratic process through which goals
are derived. In this mode, a person may be quite altruistic and yet make
decisions unilaterally. The danger is that the goals become hidden agendas
and when an organization is dominated by privatized motives, it cannot function
effectively.
A school's movement beyond personally rational decision-making
is facilitated by its polar opposite, public, data-driven decision-making.
This means that choices are made in an open arena where all facts are known
to all participants. One of the earliest forms of this practice was known
as "sunshine legislation."
In the long run, personally rational decision-making is self
defeating for it may destroy the institution that is being manipulated toward
private ends. The path to destruction though may be slow and torturous.
Open, data-driven decision-making consistently will yield information that
can facilitate effective corrective action. Given these realities, privatized
goals are luxuries the nation's schools cannot afford. Additionally, privatized
decisions are inconsistent with the free and open processes of a democratic
society. Thus, they are unjustified on both practical and philosophical grounds.
It is impossible to tabulate the number of personally rational
goals in even a single family, let alone an enterprise as large as an individual
school. It is possible, however, to infer that most institutions are replete
with private agendas. Also, the debillitative effect of privatized objectives
can be visualized by contemplating their impact on any given
situation. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assert that schools should promote
public, data-driven decision-making as an antidote to the prevailing influence
of personally rational goals.
Some resistance to data driven decision-making will be offered
by advocates of individual rights. These people may presume that there is
an inherent conflict between group action and individual goals. Fortunately,
the formulation of a human technology (Carkhuff, 1989) has broken that equation.
Indeed, it has demonstrated that collective action is most effective when
the participants' individual goals are integrated into the choice process.
Apparently, in a high tech society, greater freedom and empowerment results
from fuller communication of individual objectives. Work with quality circles
seems to indicate that if group members understand each others' goals, then
there is an increased probability of providing for them. The emerging equation
appears to be: Mutually Communicated Goals=Freedom. This is opposed by: Privatized
Goals=Limitations.
Cleghorn (1992) coined the term "coopetition" to identify the
pursuit of morally-based, superordinate goals which raise human performance
outcomes through individual empowerment within competitive an cooperative
relationships. He describes the most difficult aspect of coopetition as the
ability to move beyond a local or personal perspective into a global view
of our responsibilities and aspirations.
The educational community must consider these new equations
as it prepares for the 21st Century. Currently, schools are ill served by
their decision-makers' private agendas. Educational planners must communicate
honestly with each other as well as their extended communities and data-driven
decision-making is a practical method for doing so. One of the prime implications
for the educational establishment is that all educators should have the skills
required to derive decisions from appropriate data. The urgency of remedial
efforts in this area is underscored by research (Apsy, 1986) that indicates
that most educators do not have the prerequisite skills to successfully derive
decisions systematically from data, especially on an interdependent basis.
In short, there is a need for considerable training if educational planning
is to be transformed to data driven decisiond-making. Specifically, educators
need to be able to identify the data (including the values) and the processes
utilized in deriving their decisions.
Table 1
Planning Process Assessment
The following questionnaire is designed to investigate educators'
perceptions of planning meetings. Doubtless, you have attended a number of
planning meetings during your professional education career. Please indicate
the approximate percent of those sessions that is best characterized by the
description listed below.
Type Description
Proportion of Time
I. A person assigns tasks but the others largely
ignore them and make their own decisions.
II. The group goes through a process that seems to call
for sharing ideas but most participants make their own
decisions and ignore the group's choices.
III. One person assigns tasks to the others and they accept the
assignments.
IV. The participants make their decisions without consulting
each other but they share their completed plans.
V. All participants share their ideas and the final
decision is a consensus of the group's thoughts.
DIAGRAM: Figure 1 Carkhuff Model of School Mission
DIAGRAM: Figure 2 Distortion of School Mission By Personally
Rational
Decision-Making
References
Aspy, C. (1986). The Carkhuff models m human resource development.Education,
106, 250-261.
Carkhuff, R. (1989). Empowering the creative leader in the age
of the new capitalism. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Cleghorn, G. (1992). Coopetition in rural health education:
The South Carolina AHEC model. JSC Med Assoc. 88(10), 462-5.
Goodland, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation's schools. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Kean, T. (1989). Dollars and sense: Money and quality in our
public schools. College Board Review, 152, 6-8.
Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism. New York: Norton.
Luthans, F. (1985). Organizational behavior (4th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift New York: Bantam Books.
Untitled Associated Press editorial (1990, Sept. 27). The
Courier-Journal, p. A-4.
~~~~~~~~
By CHERYL B. ASPY, Family and Community Medicine, University
of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292
_________________
Title: School failures caused by personal goals of teachers
and
administrators that dwarf social ones.
Subject(s): SCHOOL failure -- United States; SCHOOL management
&
organization -- Decision making
Source: Education, Summer95, Vol. 115 Issue 4, p560, 8p, 1 chart,
2
diagrams
Author(s): Aspy, Cheryl B.
Abstract: Examines school failures in the United States caused
by
personal goals of teachers and administrators that dwarf social
ones.
Proposed diagnosis; Dysfunctional quality of personally rational
decision-making; Remediating personally rational decision-making
in
education.
AN: 9510054528
ISSN: 0013-1172
Full Text Word Count: 4110
Database: Academic Search Premier
