Bureaucracy And The Education System

Is a bureaucratic structure an effective route for school systems? There are ample of evidence to suggest so and even claim that schools today are ran on a bureaucratic system. Educators all over the globe are frantically researching and searching for the right structure in place to bring about desirable changes and improvements to the education system. Not only are educators scrambling for a change but also government officials and society are. It seems like everyone wants to voice their opinion and attempt to enforce it. Educators have looked into this system of bureaucracy and some have adopted characteristics and features into their own system as there is some good in it but just because they do does not classify them as bureaucracies, that is because they are not.

Bureaucracy has many different

meanings and is somewhat complex to define depending on if one is defying it from a positive or negative standpoint.

All in all, it’s definition seems to be similar across the line in the basic sense. Bureaucracy is a system that “makes critical decisions which shape the economic, political, social, and even moral lives of nearly everyone on earth” (Downs, 1964, p. 1). According to Alder & Borys (1996) the negative view of bureaucracy is a form of organization that stifles creativity, fosters dissatisfaction, and demotivates employees whereas the positive view, bureaucracy provides needed guidance and clarifies responsibilities, thereby easing role stress and helping individuals be and feel more effective (p. 61). This system is not carried out by all organizations and entities but by ones that choose to be and usually are the ones that fit the description.

Bureaucratic organizations are known as bureaus if and only if it possess specific

characteristics. The four characteristics are as follows: the organization is large (“the broadest structural cause of bureaucracy, whether in business or in government, is the tremendous size of the organization” (Selznick, 1943, p. 50)).; a majority of its members are full-time workers who depend upon their employment in the organization; the initial hiring of personnel, their promotion within the organization, and their retention therein are at least theoretically based upon some type of assessment of the way in which they have performed; major portion of its output of its output is not directly or indirectly evaluated in any markets external to the organization by means of voluntary quid pro quo transactions (Downs, 1964, p. 2). In a bureaucracy, the relationships within the bureau are based on a well-defined hierarchy and workers work with discretion and are under control. The ultimate goal of a bureau is to achieve its organizational goals by following the commands of those in authority (key word: control). Dilulio’s (1994) research on bureaucracy within the government used Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) as a perfect example of a fully functioning and successful bureau. One of the key characteristics that stuck out in this case study is how the workers were symmetrical in their views of the bureau and how it functioned, this may be because there are systematic procedures in place for dealing with work situations or dealing with the rights and duties of employees. “Most BOP workers, active and retired, have taken for granted the uniformities within the system....administrative basics are all the same. Of course we do it the same way everywhere!” (Dilulio, 1994, p. 290).
In a typical bureaucratic organization, importance is placed upon authority and command. Emphasis is added in regards to certain types of authorities controlling types of programs and/or committees. The types of authority are usually by salary from high to lowest paid. This division of labor based on pay and/or role of performance thus creating a hierarchical description of authority, produces a complex and challenging machine-style organization in school systems. This view is contradicts Selznick’s (1943) view that this type of behavior is a deflection of a bureaucratic system moreover the “goal.” A working bureau does depend on a strong leadership (Dilulio, 1994, p. 314). In addition, Downs (1964) mentions that workers within a bureau are motivated by self-interests either by power, higher position, income, and/or prestige these are the traits of bureaucrats who work within a bureau thus going back to the idea that hierarchy authority are in fact deeply rooted in the bureaucratic system and is not a way of deflection.
Bureaucracy is not all bad and that some features in an improved form can be adapted to our educational system today. Such features are mentioned by Dilulio (1994) such as the commitment to the achievement of organizational goals and the system of basic rules covering the right and duties of employees have merit. But keeping our educational systems today as a complete bureaucratic system or what one can label as a “machine-ran organization” is not the solution to our needs. Embracing such bureaucratic system will cause more harm than good. The system will impair aspects to our education system such as the coordination of students, teach autonomy, the multiple responsibilities teachers bare, the existence of the school (government funding), and etc. As noted above, in a bureaucratic system, there needs to be some sort of uniformities and consistency in procedures this is hard to do in the realms of education thus having a systematic way in coordinating students is impossible. Teacher autonomy is thrown out the window in a hierarchical authority and will limit the education students will receive. The responsibility given to teachers and administrators are more than just the students in a bureaucratic system, they also have a responsibility to a community. To add to this responsibility they have to worry about the existence of the school due to the lack of innovation and differences in ideas among personnel to create school and personal growth and due to the laws in place. State funding is based on standardized test scores and if they do not comply there are legal penalties thus to satisfy this issue. “Recess has been canceled, arts and humanities courses scrapped, and creative interaction replaced by rote drills -- largely because of one law, known as No Child Left Behind. Another unintended effect of focusing only on the lowest performers is that all the all the other students get left behind. Teachers are treated like machine tools, their personalities and passions extruded through rigid drilling protocols” (Howard, 2012). Clearly, the only way schools can grow is if bureaucracy is eliminated. According to Howard (2012) “schools are human institutions. Their effectiveness depends upon engaging the interest and focus of each student. A good teacher, studies show, can dramatically improve the learning of students.” Bureaucracy interferes with human interaction, which is the essence of effective teaching.

One cannot generalize and assume that the education system is bureaucratic system due to its similarities to a bureaucratic system and organization. In fact, bureaucracy is an extremely time consuming and machine driven that it takes away the main function of an education system. Societal and political forces are pressuring and influencing the goals and direction of American education, thus building pressure on school administrators to make educational changes. Our educational systems are being attacked at all angles due to funding (tax payers money and government grants), curriculum (what is taught), the way the building is managed (school administrators), paper work, and the various laws in place. Due to these rapid changes needed, bureaucratic ran schools are not the answer as they lack the types of characteristics needed to run a lively system and interfere with effective teaching.