Sandra Rubin Glass: "Markets & Myths"
Vol. 5 No. 1 Education Policy Analysis Archives
Teacher and Principal Constraints, As They Describe Them
Private and public schools are subject to many of the same constraints. Constraints appeared in the form of requirements imposed by college admissions and the College Board, financial pressures, the threat of litigation, and parent demands. College admissions requirements force prospective students to take specified courses. The College Board, through advanced placement testing, delineates a specified curriculum in specialized subject areas so that students taking the test will be successful. Passing the test confirms that the student has fulfilled the curriculum equivalent to an entry-level college course. The same admissions requirements and the same advanced placement tests apply to all secondary schools regardless of their organization or distinction as public or private. Teachers and administrators alike pay a great deal of attention to this area because both parents who send children to college preparatory independent schools and parents of college-bound public school students expect their children to take the courses required by the better colleges. The stakes, therefore, are highest in this area. Little constraint, however, is felt by teachers, whether public or private, of non-college preparatory courses. Parents, and therefore administrators, pay little attention to these courses, thus permitting these teachers considerable freedom. Financial constraints limit options available to any type of school and its teachers. In both the public and private schools, finances often determine class loads and class size. The availability of many instructional resources is largely determined by available funds. Private schools spend considerable time and effort soliciting additional funds for these purposes. Indeed, the primary function of the board of a private school is one of raising funds and, for the schools in this study, establishing an endowment fund. The public schools rely on support from the community at large when requesting additional funds through bond elections. The threat of litigation affects public and private schools equally. Civil laws and laws regarding the health, safety, and welfare of students and employees do not differentiate between public and private institutions. Since schools of any organizational structure are equally susceptible to litigation based on the same set of laws, all schools experience this constraint to the same degree. It is acknowledged, however, that some laws pertain to public schools and exempt private schools since private schools are able to avoid students with special needs. Public schools serve the needs of all students and are obliged to provide equitable services. Additional federal and state mandates require public schools to function in a bureaucracy at least large enough to handle their administration (Boyer, 1983, p. 226). Chubb and Moe (1990) painted a picture of public school educators oblivious to the opinions and wishes of parents, tending a bureaucratic institution that has lost touch with its clients. These were not the educators who spoke of the pressures they felt to meet parents' expectations. There is no lack of concern for the expectations of parents of children who attend public schools. Parents of college- bound students are often highly educated professionals who are vocal in making demands on the schools and teachers. Grant (1988) reported that "in the aggregate parents as a whole may now be more educated relative to teachers and thus are likely to be more critical of teacher performance" (p. 149). Whether public or private, teachers and principals reported frequent contact with parents, making parents feel part of the team or family, and sharing the same expectations as parents for the children. In the public schools, that response at times included a response from the school board. Parents in large public school districts use the bureaucratic layers as alternative audiences to make their voices heard. Autonomy in Public and Private Schools
The feelings expressed by all of the participants in this study, both private and public, testify to a high degree of autonomy. The responses to interview and survey questions alike clearly dispel the myth that autonomy is generally high in private schools and generally low in public schools (Chubb & Moe, 1990, p. 183). Autonomy is generally high in both types of school studied here. Issues that emerged in the course of this study from teacher and administrator descriptions of their autonomy are: conflicting and contradictory demands, shared beliefs, layers of protection, a system of laws, funding constraints, and matters of size of the institution. These issues challenge oversimplified assertions that differences of any significance exist between the perception of autonomy held by professionals in public or private high schools. Before embarking on a detailed examination of the concept of educator autonomy, it is well to emphasize the particular characteristics of the sites examined here and how that characteristic may shape what has been learned. The educators who consented to be interviewed practice in upper-middle class college preparatory public and independent, non-public secondary schools. One might not expect to learn the same things about autonomy in religious affiliated private schools, though it is unclear whether the autonomy would be expected to be greater or less. One must also be cautioned about extrapolating the insights garnered from this research to other levels of school, such as elementary. The schools examined here enjoy success in all conventional senses of the term. This favorable environment may shape the way the political system treats educators and how educators respond in return. One might have reason not to expect the same organizational effect obtaining in schools under the duress of poverty and social dislocation. The following themes that emerged from this research should be viewed with these cautions in mind. Conflicting and Contradictory Demands
Contrary to the popular myth of public school bureaucratic insulation and insensitivity, both the public and private high schools in this study showed a sensitivity and prompt response to parent concerns. Parents are listened to and given serious consideration. Parent and teacher communication are encouraged in both the public and private high schools. Parents have access to the administration as well as teachers. In the larger system of the public schools, parents receive additional attention from the superintendent and school board. In all cases, board meetings are open to parents with one public system, in particular, scheduling an "open mike" segment prior to handling business on the agenda. Another public school conducted a survey of parent expectations that determined the goals of the school. Being responsive to parents has the potential, however, of constraining the very autonomy that some deem a requirement for creative and innovative teaching. The principal or head of school prevents responsiveness to parents from becoming a constraint on teacher innovation by virtue of a strong belief about how students are best served. The criterion which defines the degree of autonomy granted is based on the perceived success of the school and its students. But underlying the freedom of teachers and principals is a clear understanding of what parents and the community expect of the schools. If parents perceive the school to be doing what they say they are doing, public or private school teachers and administrators experienced greater freedom and fewer external pressures. Being responsive to parents prompted an assistant head of a private school to claim they must work "on the conservative side." It is what led one public school teacher to admit, despite opportunities to have a voice in decisions that affect her work life, that she felt little freedom and great frustration knowing those decisions must be responsive to a conservative parent body. This unspoken tension between autonomy and obligation requires teachers and administrators in both public and private schools to "negotiate competing demands" (Hawthorne, 1988, p. 231). Hawthorne's study found this negotiation process for the teachers she studied to be as individual as the negotiators (p. 231). In this study the manner in which teachers balance the demands of parents, administrators, or others who attempt to influence them with their own need for control was, similarly, an individual matter. Some chose to ignore certain rules or policies which they deemed insignificant, others relied on the support of their principal, head, or department chair. Both public and private school teachers and their administration demonstrated a responsiveness to parents by focusing on the needs of college-bound students. A college preparatory independent school and public high school housing a student body for whom college admission is a high priority are forced to meet the requirements of those colleges and the college advanced placement program. The curriculum of AP courses offered in both the public and private high schools are extensively defined by the College Board, which administers the exams students take to earn college credit. The advantage of size of the public institutions is that they can often offer a larger number of AP courses. Their size necessitates the offering of a number of the same courses to meet the demands of those students who qualify. Teachers of non-college preparatory courses describe the greatest degree of autonomy in curriculum decisions and all areas of teaching. An acknowledged lack of parent interest gives them this heightened sense of freedom. Parents of college-bound students are vocal in the public schools. The voice of parents of the college-bound student is heard and heeded. The demands and pressures placed on the school are felt to an equal degree in the private schools. Both types of schools must balance autonomy and obligation to parents. The private school response must include a consideration of consequences to the institution. If parents are not satisfied, the funds upon which the school depends can be withdrawn. The existence of the private school depends on satisfying the parent community. Even within the college preparatory private school, however, there exists a range of demands to which the head must respond. Those who imagine that private schools are very responsive to "customer" (or parent) demands or needs overlook one significant fact about American education: even small, homogeneous publics make conflicting and often contradictory demands. How is the school supposed to accommodate these wishes when one faction calls for greater emphasis on algebra and another calls for less? All three of the private schools in this study are small, with a constituency composed of middle-class to high income families and a desire for the kind of academic program which will enhance college admission. Even within this situation, heads of these schools found themselves taking a stand. Could they really afford to finance an advanced calculus program despite the demands of a few parents? Should a teacher whose personality was not tolerated by some parents be fired? It is because of conflicting parent demands within the small private school setting that a head of school declared, " It is our responsibility to be service-oriented and to be responsive to our parents, but it is not our responsibility to place them in the position of calling the shots." Not every parent can get his or her way. The head must take a stand to protect the autonomy of the teacher. Although the public schools in this study were selected because they, too, focused on academic preparation for college, they were likewise not able to escape contradictory demands of parents. One principal stated, " . . .they [parents] impact me on a daily basis, but they don't drive me." Principals in public schools are not necessarily threatened by withdrawal of a student, but they are under pressure by the community at large to respond to the needs of the students and demands of their parents. The bureaucracy works to the parents' benefit. If satisfactory recourse is not forthcoming from a teacher or principal, parents may voice their concerns to a superintendent or school board which has been elected to represent them. Educated and politically active parents know how to get things done despite a large bureaucracy. In turn, these layers of administration can preserve teacher and principal autonomy by providing support or acting as a buffer. Shared Beliefs
Teachers in independent schools talked about the freedom they have to design their own curricula, utilize any variety of teaching methods, and select their own textbooks. Coordination among faculty within a department or between a lower and upper school is often informal if it occurs at all. They share basic educational beliefs. These teachers were, for all practical purposes, hand-picked by the head for just that reason. The head of an independent school can comfortably allocate substantial portions of autonomy to these teachers. Principals in public schools also report considerable freedom in selection of faculty. They, too, choose teachers who share the same philosophy and an understanding of the expectations of the parents. It is with confidence, they can trust teachers to make appropriate decisions and provide the autonomy that teachers experienced. As long as the school runs smoothly, there is little need to question teacher autonomy. Indeed, the goal of site-based management within individuals schools assumes teachers will make the kind of decisions that support parent expectations and the goals of the school. In site-based schools teams of same subject teachers hire new faculty. There are, admittedly, times when principal freedom to select teachers is curtailed. This occurs when the relocation of a teacher from another high school within a district is due to a reduction in student population, therefore, a reduction in faculty. In this case, a principal would be required to take a particular teacher. The concept of shared beliefs of teachers and principals, schools and the community is the issue from which the perception of autonomy stems. In some sense, the autonomy that teachers, whether public or private, feel in relation to their principals is like the proverbial equity allocated to both beggars and rich men: The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. (Anatole France, Le Lys Rouge)What sort of freedom is it if it is never tested by conflict? When a principal selects teachers who generally agree with the principal's beliefs and values, there will be few conflicts and few instances when the teachers have to be told what to do by the principal. Some would say, then, that the principal has not, in fact, granted autonomy to the teachers, or that the limits of their autonomy are untested. They seldom chose to do that which would be overturned by their principal. Much of the autonomy that teachers feel may be of this type. If so, teachers might be better described as "like- minded" with their superiors rather than autonomous in relation to them. In either case, however, the image created by this view of like-minded or autonomous teachers is quite different from the image drawn by some in which teachers are portrayed as deadened and oppressed by a hierarchical bureaucracy. The challenge of making schools creative, interesting and productive environments for students may be more a matter of stimulating teachers and principals who have fallen into complacency than to free them from some ill-conceived notion of an repressive and domineering bureaucracy. It is important to recognize, however, that the above situation could be quite different in elementary schools or in secondary schools suffering the effects of under-investment and the pressures exerted by special social problems. Layers of Protection
Unlike the traditional perception of public high school bureaucracy, the hierarchy that exists is built out of a necessity to manage large numbers of people and a complex institution. The teachers have a number of layers to protect them from external influences. The department head is one line of defense and a person who speaks on behalf of the faculty of that department. The principal and assistant principal also protect teacher autonomy. Equally strong is the sense of control teachers feel because of the security that the teachers' association provides. The superintendent can also be a buffer between the principal and teachers and the school board. The trust that principals and department chairs expressed in their faculty is not unlike that described by the heads of school in this study. Acting as a buffer, however, does not mean to ignore the wishes of the parents. While public and private school teachers have the advantage of protection from administrators who demonstrate support in their professionalism, public school teachers have access to an additional entity. Membership in teachers associations provides another layer of protection for private school teachers. Those who claim that teacher autonomy is a requisite of the best education should applaud the teachers associations for giving teachers the kind of security they need to feel truly autonomous. This protection, in many cases, gives teachers the sense of control they need to try out innovative or creative ideas. Knowledgeable principals and teachers in public schools are able to use the teachers association to preserve their autonomy. A System of Laws
Freedom in both public and private high schools is constrained to an equal degree by a system of laws. These laws protect the health and safety of the inhabitants of both types of school. All schools have fire drills and public safety requirements. Health issues are promptly dealt with by both public and private institutions. Worker rights are addressed in the private schools by the same type of union that protects workers in any institution. Civil laws protect the basic rights of teachers and students. The threat of lawsuits has an equal effect on both public and private schools and influences many decisions made by teachers and administrators. Funding Constraints
A lack of an appropriate level of funding is yet another constraint on teachers, principals, and heads of school alike. Private schools cannot offer the range of courses offered in the public schools because the small numbers of students enrolled in each class will not support the cost of an additional teacher. Decisions constrained by finances result in large class size in the public school. The availability of certain instructional materials, such as computers, is often determined by finances rather than choice. Financial constraints put limits on the autonomy of both public and private schools. A Matter of Size
The three private schools in this study are small in student population, faculty, and facility. The public schools by comparison are larger in each category and require a degree of bureaucracy to manage the sheer size. The size also necessitates articulation of curriculum among grades and a means for frequent communication among groups of teachers. Teachers in the public schools are encouraged to participate individually or through their representatives in policy making. Bureaucracy may make greater demands of teachers' time to participate in decisions that affect them. But it is apparent that it does not impinge on teacher freedom over those decisions that matter most to them--the decisions that affect what occurs in the classroom. Because of the size of the public institution, teachers rely more on their colleagues and department chair both for advice on decisions that affect them and for protection from external influences. They have opportunities for participation in decision-making through committee work, access to department chairs, and access to the principal. Teachers in private schools express autonomy in similar ways. They have less of a need for a department chair to be a spokesperson merely because of the proximity of the head. The size of an organization cannot be ignored; however, but neither can it be called a determinant of teacher autonomy. Little of the quality of what occurs in the classroom can be defined by the size of the institution. There is a general belief that private schools equate with academic excellence. The perception of academic excellence in private schools may stem from a belief that small schools are less complex and small classes necessarily produce a quality education. Large public schools do not offer small classes, but they can offer college preparatory courses and advanced placement classes. What occurs within each classroom is under the control of individual teachers whether public or private, as the teachers in this study have described. When Chubb and Moe described "ineffective" and "effective" schools, they were essentially referring to public and private schools, respectively. Their critique of the organizational structure of each does not involve a comparison of organizational units of the same size or of like populations between the two types of schools. As reported by Hogan (1992b), since "public and private schools are very different kinds of schools that recruit different populations, pursue different objectives and tasks, and develop different tools to achieve them, comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges" (p. 93). Conclusion: The Myth of the Market
The findings of this research challenge directly the assertions made in one of the most visible research documents on the question of school choice, viz., Chubb and Moe's Politics, Markets and America's Schools. (1990). They acquired their data from the High School and Beyond Survey (Moles, 1988) and performed a secondary analysis of this government survey to collect information on effective schooling. Several critics argued that there were weaknesses in their analyses and their interpretation: Witte (1992), Hogan (1992a, 1992b), Goldstein (1992), and Glass & Matthews (1991). Some said that they were unable in their book and in their analysis to determine whether it was effective schools that were granting autonomy to their teachers and administrators or whether autonomous teachers and administrators were producing more effective schooling (Glass & Matthews, 1991). In other words, the direction of the influence may be reversed; that it may be the perception of a successful school (advanced placement courses, National Merit scholars, high graduation rate, admission to elite colleges) that confers autonomy to teachers and administrators. In addition, even though in their book, they tried to argue that private schools would necessarily grant more autonomy to teachers and administrators than public schools, Chubb and Moe never once analyzed or reported data from the High School and Beyond Survey on that question. In fact, they presented no data whatsoever from private schools, claiming that the data base in the survey was inadequate for making any generalizations. However, that did not stop them from making claims about the superiority of private schools (and, hence, the superiority of choice as a policy) because they assumed private schools grant more autonomy and demonstrate more responsiveness to parents and market pressures than public schools. Among the assertions made by Chubb and Moe, three are directly refuted by the findings of this research study: markets, bureaucracy, and the role of teachers unions or associations. On Markets
Chubb and Moe sought to perpetuate the myth that only private sector schools experience the goading of the market- place. They wrote: Under a system of democratic control, the public schools are governed by an enormous, far-flung constituency in which the interests of parents and students carry no special status or weight. When the markets prevail, parents and students are thrust onto center stage, along with the owners and staff of schools; most of the rest of society plays a distinctly secondary role, limited for the most part to setting the framework within which educational choices get made (p. 35).If responding to market pressures means responding to parent demands, the public schools are doing just that. To a very substantial degree, market pressures of various kinds have shaped and continue to shape educational politics and the institutions affected by them. The relatively decentralized structure of educational politics in this country actually enhances the vulnerability of school officials to popular political pressures, and, thus, to the market forces that shape educational politics. Parents are not without choice, or voice. Hogan (1992b) pointed out, "Savvy school officials . . . respond to the underlying anxieties and aspirations [of parents] by rigorously tracking . . . or by creating magnet schools or in any number of ways--parent choice being the latest--to keep their middle-class constituency from fleeing the public schools" (p. 193). The parents to whom he refers are those who believe college is the route to attain or maintain a middle to upper social class standing that they want for their children. The admittance of students to what Powell and others (1986) call top-track "specialty shops" (p. 124) forms the basis of the willingness of parents to enroll their children in public school system. These are not unlike the communities to which the public schools in this study belong. Student achievement within such schools is a matter of residential pattern, social demography, patterns of political participation from members of the community, and leadership in local educational politics. Parents whose children attend private schools may not share the same residential community, but they do share social demographics as well as participation and leadership in the workings of the independent school. In this study, teachers and administrators in both the public and private high schools supported Hogan's contention that they are responsive to parent expectations. College preparatory courses were given a great deal of attention and advanced placement courses were instituted. The public schools use advanced placement and upper level content courses as a tracked curriculum and become like a private school within a public school in response to parent demands. On Bureaucracy
Chubb & Moe decry the oppression of bureaucracy in the public schools and commend the private schools for their lack of bureaucracy, therefore, creating greater autonomy than possible in the public school. They claimed: . . . we show that private schools are organized more effectively than public schools and that this is a reflection of their far greater autonomy from external(bureaucratic) control (p. 24).Chubb & Moe further stated:Its [public school] institutions of democratic control are inherently destructive of school autonomy and inherently conducive to bureaucracy (p.47).Teachers in both kinds of institution reported feelings of considerable autonomy in such matters as determination of curriculum, dealing with students, parents, curriculum development. Not only was there a strong statement of autonomy on the part of these teachers, it was impossible to distinguish any difference in the strength of those feelings between public and private institutions. Additionally, two questions were also analyzed from the High School and Beyond Survey that Chubb & Moe had given and yet never used to report a comparison of public and private school teachers. When analyzed to compare teacher ratings of autonomy in several areas of their functioning (determining student behavior codes, content of inservice, curriculum, policies of grouping students, textbook selection, choice of teaching methods, etc.) the average scores came out virtually equal between public and private which increased suspicions that perhaps Chubb and Moe had seen in the High School and Beyond Survey no differences between public and private and were disappointed or confused by it. Perhaps it did not agree with their expectations about markets and choice in school so they chose not to report it. Many public school teachers in this study reported that the bureaucracy was supportive and protected their autonomy. One teacher spoke for many others when she said that the principal, superintendent, and school board did not give in "to cranky parents." This trust in the professionalism of the teacher gave many the perception of autonomy. What may appear to be a contradictory notion is the idea that knowledgeable parents understand the large public school system and are able to make it work for them. If they are dissatisfied with the response of a particular teacher, they can find a voice with the principal, superintendent or school board. Opportunities to be heard are found at each layer of the hierarchy. It is possible for the bureaucracy to be responsive to parents demands, yet make teachers feel they are not subject to the whim of the occasional "cranky parent." What of the question of shared beliefs? If principals or heads select and hire teachers who are like-minded, is autonomy really tested? In this case, teachers are more appropriately termed like-minded rather than autonomous. Teachers who share an education philosophy with the administrator can be trusted, given support and wide latitude leading to a perception of autonomy. In a similar vein, teachers reported that as long as things were going smoothly, no parental complaints, they felt greater freedom. These ideas were found to a strikingly similar degree in both the public and private high schools. In any case, regardless of the source of the perception of autonomy, in no instance were teachers perceived to be oppressed or deadened by the weight of bureaucracy. The challenge of making schools more creative, energetic, and innovative institutions may more be a matter of stimulating teachers and principals who have fallen into complacency rather than setting them free from some ill-conceived notion of a repressive and domineering bureaucracy. On Teachers Associations
The role of the teachers union in constraining the autonomy of teacher is described throughout the text of "Politics, Markets and America's Schools." (1990). This study was completed in a right-to-work state, where public school teachers have come to look to teachers associations rather than unions to protect their working conditions. For all intents and purposes, these teachers associations and teachers unions are synonymous. Chubb and Moe claimed: Teachers who are team players, who have lots of autonomy in their work, who routinely play integral roles in school decision-making, and who are treated as professionals are hardly good candidates for union membership (p.53).The public school teachers in this study reported that the teachers association actually protected their autonomy. For example, parents cannot force a teacher to change a student's grade. It is also the teachers association which negotiated a contract requiring teacher participation on committees charged with making policy decisions. Even principals spoke of working with the teachers association on controversial matters. The position of the association helped administrators by providing clear guidelines, thus avoiding ambiguity on many issues including the firing of teachers. Both administrators and teachers claimed the association's role was to guarantee fairness in workplace conditions. The public secondary school teachers in this study all reported opportunities to participate in decisions that are important to them, contrary to the blanket statements put forth by Chubb and Moe. Administrators in the public school reported considerable autonomy in the hiring and firing of teachers. It is true they work within the confines of the teachers association to fire teachers, however, their ability to fire teachers is not thus impaired. Experienced administrators understand how the system works and do not feel constrained. Two public school principals told of having freedom in the hiring of personnel. On rare occasion a principal may be required to accept a teacher who has been transferred due to a reduction in work force at another of the district's schools. The third principal, who reported reduced autonomy in the hiring of teachers, described how the faculty and chair of each department has the primary responsibility for hiring new faculty to their department. He was unconcerned about their selection because he trusted them. Teachers who share the educational philosophy of the administrator can be expected to hire new faculty with similar beliefs. This principal has an indirect role in the hiring of teachers. In this study, none of the public school principals experienced constraints in hiring or firing faculty as was the experience of their private school counterparts. These perceptions of autonomy exist despite the presence of teachers associations Conclusion
Chubb and Moe were perpetuating a general view regarding public and private schools. They sought to perpetuate the myth that teachers and principals in private schools enjoy autonomy and freedom from democratic bureaucracy that their public school counterparts do not. They further claimed that private schools only are subject to market forces. This research shows how complex the reality is. Autonomy is an issue that does not clearly distinguish public from private education. The freedom teachers and administrators feel and the constraints they experience are complex. Many of the constraints experienced by public and private high school administrators and teachers are similar. Both sectors must work within the limits of a set of prescribed laws. They are equally subject to pressures resulting from limited funds. Perceptions of autonomy are individual matters, often experienced within a range of accepted constraints. Teachers and administrators describe their attempts to secure professional autonomy in an arena circumscribed by the demands of parents, college admissions requirements, and the College Board. Often these demands are conflicting and contradictory, yet teachers are able to exert autonomy by seeking protection from administrative hierarchies, participating in opportunities for decision- making, ignoring selected policies, and seeking the sanctuary of their own classroom where their authority is unchecked. The greatest freedom is derived from the perception of a successful school. In schools that produce students who gain admission to colleges of choice, as in this study, teachers, principals and heads of school enjoy considerable autonomy. The limited scope of this study points to the need to explore perceptions of autonomy in the context of other types of private schools. How do teachers and administrators in religious private schools experience autonomy? In what ways do the social and economic circumstances of the students affect teachers' and administrators' autonomy? What are the relationships between autonomy and achievement when the variables of religious affiliation and economic level differ from those in the present study? Given the complexity of the issues and the persistence of the debate about privitization of education further research on autonomy is warranted.