Centralized Administration

Published in: 2021

By: McMahon, Maureen

Subject Terms

Centralized Administration

Abstract

There are two types of public school governance: centralized and decentralized. A centralized school administration is one that is managed by the government, while a decentralized administration has the public managing all aspects of its governance. A centralized administration is generally seen as negative by educators because the power to make change is not in the hands of the people most affected by that change. The public only gets to control change in a decentralized school administration. The United States has seen many variances of both systems since the early 1900s and there is still a debate as to which method of governance is the most effective, as determined by student performance.

Overview

Successful administration of a public school requires many things. While expert supervision, credentialed teachers, strong financial standing, and parental support are essential to running an effective school system, a dependable method of governance is even more essential. Whereas a centralized administration may be the most successful for one district, a decentralized or localized administration may be what is most productive for another. For others still a trial of one as reform for another may be what is needed. In any event, it is important to understand who takes on what responsibility within a school district based on his or her position within that district. It is also important to understand the history of education governance before trying to establish a standard of administration.

In the greater scheme of school governance, there are two basic philosophies. The first is known as a decentralized school administration. In this case, the public authorizes, funds, and operates the schools within the school district (not including parochial schools—which require tuition—or charter or magnet schools, which are independently owned). This system is generally managed by a board of education elected by the community. State and local funds support the district, and a district manager, generally a superintendent oversees the day-to-day operations of the district. The second philosophy is one that establishes public authorization, public funding, but schools are operated by the state board of education or higher-level government body rather than a local board of education. The difference here is not the size of the supervising body (a board of education versus an established owner or corporation); it is the power behind that body: the public versus the government. A district administration is considered centralized when the government manages it. Decentralization occurs when the public takes control over a district's supervision.

The Decentralized School District. Figure 1 shows one possibility of how a decentralized school district administration can be established depending on its size and budget. A centralized district will not have a board of education; if it does, the board does not have the decision making power of either the superintendent or a supervisor to which the superintendent and board report.

In a decentralized administration, the local school board (with each member being elected by the community) establishes policies, makes personnel decisions, and supervises all members of the district, including the superintendent. The superintendent, in turn, manages each separate school, with the schools' principals reporting directly to the superintendent; he or she then reports to the board. A centralized district, on the other hand, has a supervising entity—sometimes a business owner, a corporation, or a state official or department—in the role of the local board of education. The superintendent (if there is one) oversees each school and reports directly to the entity in charge. Whereas the public elects a board of education and votes on policy creation in the decentralized structure, the public has little say in the administration on a centralized structure. With a great deal of effort and commitment, a district may choose to change the way its administration is run, although moving from a decentralized administration to that of a centralized form of governance is generally easier than the public gaining control over a government-run system.

History of Education Governance. Historically, community members have pushed for governance at the local level, the assumption being that such localized management would mean that the public has a voice in the way its schools are run. At the beginning of the twentieth century, however, school districts were forced to move from decentralized, community-managed systems to those funded and supervised by state governments. A series of changes brought about this new centralized administration, but the primary force was depressed and recessed economic times. When localized education cost more than the public could afford in taxes, schools needed financial assistance to stay afloat. Thus, they agreed to let the state step in, which it did, taking control over education away from the local communities. As a result, parents lost control to professionals, generally superintendents; local schools lost power to centralized office administration; and districts lost jurisdiction to the state.

In addition to these changes, other changes occurred as well over the next fifty years. Sociologist Wayland Sloan describes these other changes as "ancillary structures" because they were neither mandated nor incorporated into a formalized construction of public education (as cited in Raywid, 1980, p. 134). Furthermore, being ancillary also made them free from public control. For example, the production and marketing of textbooks put publishers at the forefront of consumerism. Also, the creation of standardized exams, the establishment of accrediting associations, and the increased value of teacher education—more trends out of the control of local communities—made pulling district governance away from state hands a challenging endeavor (Raywid, 1980, p. 134).

In addition, the government also made it difficult to take back local control over education. The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 provided financial aid to schools agreeing to enhance various academic and social sectors of education. Areas like math, science, languages, technical instruction, geography, English as a second language, and guidance counseling were slated for advancement under this act of Congress. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 influenced districts by threatening to withhold federal funding to school districts engaging in racial, religious, or ethnic discrimination. These legislative creations have been positive for educators and the students they serve, but they are still requirements passed down from the federal level that assure compliance through financial leverage. While few people would encourage schools to abandon the teaching of math or science, and even fewer people would advance a racist school structure, these acts of the legislature have made it financially harmful to do so.

According to Dennis Doyle (1993), in the 1990s school districts had taken back what control they lost, and while the United States' system of education may have its difficulties, it can tout that it is

"… democratic, egalitarian, and meritocratic. It is robust, dynamic, and resilient. It is responsive—at least to fads of the moment—and it is well financed, by any measure. It is radically decentralized, at least by world standards, and each component of the education system, from humble rural school districts to great research universities, stands on its own bottom" (as cited in Schultz, 1994, p. 273–274.)

The United States is continuously compared to other industrialized nations because as countries with the power to succeed, we should be all successfully educated individuals. However, with freedom comes choice, and many people choose to be fair educators, okay administrators, and average students. What is average in America, though, is considered poor—and offers no competition—to other countries. "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves," so says the National Commission on Excellence in Education's report, A Nation at Risk (1983). When the power to make critical decisions about something as defining as education is in the hands of the "people," that power can be used or misused depending on the desire of those people including the dismissal of this policy or that teacher or education as a whole, in the case of the students Doyle references.

Applications

Implications of Decentralized Administration. One of the problems with decentralized administration is that there is no absolute proof of its success (Olson, 1997). School boards (as well as constituents) believe that the people working most closely with students—the teachers—have the best information and are therefore the most qualified regarding how to offer effective education to their audience. Unfortunately, the only way to determine if decision-making systems have been effectively changed via decentralization is through student performance, which is best detected through test scores.

It is difficult to know what is going to work when it comes to improving the standard of education within a community. It is reasonable to think that the current administration is not successful and to propose change; that change, however, can only manifest itself in one way. And, for community members with so much at stake, letting go of control is difficult and often risky.

Implications of Centralized Administration. What is wrong with a privatized control over a public school system? Bennett (1992) believes nothing. It can be a positive measure for districts as it can cause schools to fight for student enrollment, increasing performance among teachers and students and encouraging the public's ability to choose. In the centralized system of education, teachers, administrators, and the staff of a school remain employed by the public, but are managed by a private entity, either a person, a corporation, or some form of government.

Bennett (1992) identifies a "utilities model"—a form of management successful in energy and telephone companies as well as for the postal service (Bennett, 1992). For-profit competition is a driving force in the United States; he suggests that people should be able to own their own schools like they own their own fast-food franchises. Giving members of the public school community the opportunity to focus only on education—rather than on governance—should yield stronger academic programs, teachers who can pursue professional development opportunities because they know the information will be used, and students who do not have to worry about the principal looking over their teachers' shoulders.

Bennett points out something very important to note: accountability. When people are held accountable, they tend to prove their worth. In public school systems run by community members, that worth can be more subjective than in school systems that are actually marketing to students. For example, a new restaurant offering the same food as the restaurant down the street has to give consumers an additional reason to eat its food or it will risk going out of business. Parents can look toward the accountability factor to help them choose what's best for their children: a school system that offers students more effective teachers (because they chose to apply there), advanced technology (because they are not reliant on public funding only), or a supervisor who trusts his/her administration (because s/he hand-picked its members from a lengthy list of qualified individuals), for example.

In this scenario, centralized education does not look so bad. It offers students and parents options, and, in many instances, quality teachers and staff members, and it offers the community a different look at school management structures. Finally, it offers students the ability to succeed. If they do not, they can always go back to the public school system they left, and the centralized system will falter on its own due to the lack of achievement expected from it.

Viewpoints

One of the concerns of a school board made up of community members is that members of the community have friends within the community; these friends have children in the school district, are vying for employment positions in the district, and pay taxes to the district. With friends on the board, it may be difficult not to call in a favor when a child is about to be suspended, or a job is about to be appointed, or taxes are going to be increased. These types of favors have been asked of Don McAdams, professor and director of the Center for Reform of School Systems at the University of Houston and member of the Education Commission of the States' National Commission on Governing America's Schools (McAdams & Urbanski, 1999). According to McAdams and Urbanski (1999):

"… most board members will acknowledge that they are frequently asked by constituents or vendors to influence a personnel or contract decision, and maybe sometimes have tried to do so. At the same time, many board members are frustrated by their lack of power to fundamentally change schools. My own view, the view of a school board member, is that the commission's report provides an exciting opportunity for boards to make the two changes that will most improve the performance of the schools they serve: Govern more, and manage less" (McAdams & Urbanski, 1999).

In the article "Governing Well" (1999), McAdams and Urbanski, both members of the National Commission on Governing America's Schools, detail the commission's description of possible scenarios regarding public school governance. The commission proposed two management systems, which are discussed by the authors.

The first scenario seeks to establish "publicly authorized, publicly funded, and publicly operated schools. The traditional, one-size-fits-all school system becomes a diversified and high-performance system of schools" (McAdams & Urbanski, 1999). In this system, schools—not school boards—are given the power to make decisions. Students and their parents get more choice within the schools, and schools get to decide their own budgets, hire staff members, determine class size, and choose which outside resources to purchase from vendors. Schools receive funding per student, as they are public institutions, and are held to greater accountability because parents can choose to send their children elsewhere if increased academic performance is not noted (McAdams & Urbanski, 1999).

The second scenario puts together community members, school districts, and private organizations, much like charter or magnet schools, to run an entire system of schools. These schools are "publicly authorized, publicly funded, and independently operated" (McAdams & Urbanski, 1999). These schools weigh governance authority in a different manner than the traditional example from the first scenario. In this second scenario, school boards delegate specific operations to the superintendent and principals, who work directly with the state's department of education and whoever else regulates education standards. So, a board of education, in this scenario, cannot manipulate decisions about the hiring or firing of a teacher, as the superintendents evaluate the performance of the students, the employees, and the schools (McAdams & Urbanski, 1999).

It is clear that the Commission has student success at the forefront of its proposal. While there are many different views about how that achievement is to be, the Commission does agree on several things. For example, nobody is suggesting that public schools should cease to exist. School governance needs to be strengthened; student achievement is not only the proof of that strength but it is also the only means by which district administration should be accountable. In addition, schools should have the power to decide how they are to operate—on an individual level. Finally, schools have responsibility to publicize enough information about their overall performance, including that of their faculty and students, so as to provide the public with the opportunity to choose which school is right for them.

Discussion. We are a diverse nation, one that is threatened by a growing disparity between the rich and the poor, minorities and privileged white Americans, and those with full access to technology and those who are isolated from it. Any governance change must ameliorate these inequities as well as address academic excellence. Excellence without equity is not excellence, it is privilege. Our goal should not be to help some to opt out; rather, it must be to help all children gain access to good schools and a good education (McAdams & Urbanski, 1999).

Noting the bottom line of these authors, it is easy to see why the administration of a school district is a concern to community members. It is also easy to see how complicated a process of governance public school administration is. A common ground can only be found if the common goal of student achievement is always the objective. In many of the examples noted (and, in all likelihood, even more that are not noted), however, the concern has been who is in control rather than how they are controlling.

Terms & Concepts

A Nation at Risk (1983): A report often noted as the root of education reform efforts after its publication by the U.S. Department of Education's National Commission on Excellence in Education.

Ancillary Structures: Constructs that have not been mandated or incorporated into formal structures of public education but do impact it, such as textbook marketing or teacher education.

Centralized Administration: Moving power from many to few; removing power from the local level to one of more authority, higher up (e.g., shifting the hiring power for individual schools from their principals to the superintendent of the school district).

The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Created a system that withholds federal aid to any school district practicing discrimination (racial, religious, or ethnic).

Decentralized Administration: Shifting power from the top to the bottom; removing power from a higher authority and dividing it among constituents of a lower rank (e.g., superintendent relinquishing hiring power to individual school principals).

Governance: The system of government within an institution or organization.

Localized Administration: Decentralizing administration and granting its authority to local subjects (e.g., making those on a local school board in charge of hiring teachers rather than a centralized superintendent making the decision).

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP): The most influential civil rights organizations in the United States, established in 1909.

The National Defense Education Act (NDEA): This 1958 law provided financial support to schools in math, science, and foreign languages and rejected the idea that federal aid should (and would) take the form of per-student grants to each state.

Bibliography

Bartlett, S. (2007, November 22). Class-size concerns spur series of community forums. Press Republican 114(315), p. A3.

Bennett, D. (1992). Will public/private control reinvent school system governance? Education Digest, 58(3), 30. Retrieved November 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9302030469&site=ehost-live

Currie-Knight, K. (2012). Education, decentralization, and the knowledge problem: A Hayekian case for decentralized education. Philosophical Studies in Education, 43, 117–127. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91977640&site=ehost-live

Geruson, G. J., Healey, C. L., Sabatino, A., Ryan, D., & Haney, R. (2013). School boards and effective Catholic school governance: Selected presentations from the 2012 Catholic Higher Education Collaborative Conference. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry & Practice, 17(1), 186–223. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90498617&site=ehost-live

Hendrie, C. (1999). No easy answers. Education Week, 19(12), 36. Retrieved November 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2579943&site=ehost-live

McAdams, D. & Urbanski, A. (1999). Governing well. Education Week, 19(13), 44. Retrieved November 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2583929&site=ehost-live

Millard, E. (2011). Going the distance. University Business, 14(3), 34–39. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=59732245&site=ehost-live

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 28, 2007 from website: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Olson, L. (1997). Shaking things up. Education Week, 17(2), 29. Retrieved November 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9709235595&site=ehost-live

Raywid, M. A. (1980). Restoring school efficacy by giving parents a choice. Educational Leadership, 38(2), 134. Retrieved November 18, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9395975&site=ehost-live

Robey, P. V., & Helfenbein, R. J. (2018). Perspectives of urban school principals from nontraditional contexts: A study of urban public charter and private school leaders. Education & Urban Society, 50(4), 303–327. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=129038124&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Schultz, F. (Ed.) (1994) Education 94/95: Annual Editions. Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.: Connecticut.

Steinberg, M. P., & Cox, A. B. (2017). School autonomy and district support: How principals respond to a tiered autonomy initiative in Philadelphia public schools. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 16(1), 130–165. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=121078815&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Centralized Administration

On this Page

Subject Terms

Centralized Administration

Abstract

Overview

Applications

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading