How Can Institutions Manage Street Level Bureaucracy?

Hello!

For many years I have worked with training instructors in the private sector, and have found that they often control the direction of how training is applied. Their impact extends from who is taught, when they are taught, and most importantly what is taught. All of these instructors provided with fixed curricula, complete with carefully crafted instructional objectives, lecture materials, lab materials, and performance assessments. There are also extensive corporate standards for student performance and conduct that are expected to be followed in the training centers.

But if you take any single course that they are teaching and observe it at any training center around the country, you will find that there are no two instructors that teach the course the same way, or deal with the learners in the same way. In some cases, instructors will collaborate with each other to modify training materials or set new student standards without the approval (or knowledge) of the corporate office. The instructors set their own policies as they have assumed the roles of “street level bureaucrats,” as discussed by Michael Lipsky in his book, “Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services” (2010).

Lipsky’s book is aimed more at the public sector than the corporate world, but almost all of his observations are salient in both realms as public school teachers have the same issues and motivations. In both cases, factors of their jobs make it difficult to follow policies from higher ups. According to Lipsksy (2010), there are three main characteristics that lead to them making their own policies, which I will paraphrase for you here:

1. The aspects of the job are too complicated to be defined by policy.

2. The workers have to deal with complex human reactions that may not be covered by policy.

3. The workers (teachers, in this case) are seen by their students as being the only path to their success in the class.

And I would like to add something else that Lipsky mentioned, and that would be the desire for autonomy on the part of the workers. This is a string motivator as people often like to “do their own thing.” But how can educational leaders manage instructors who have become street level bureaucrats? Hopefully the educational policies that they are promoting and encouraging are sound, so they have to find the best way to encourage their teachers to come back to the team.

First it would be good to look at how teachers can cope with being in the situation of not being able to meet the demands of the learners, so they end up creating their own policies. Winter and Nielson (2008) list three mechanisms that are used, including: 1) creating their own demand for output 2) limiting output, and 3) Somehow automating their processes. Respectively, I think that these are manifested though practices things such as: 1) Creating policies that create barriers to entry for enrollment, 2) Reducing the number of available courses, and 3) Creating mechanisms to reduce instructor workload.

None of these things sound good when you put yourself in the place of the learner. So why are things like this allowed to occur? Verdung (2015) offers two main reasons, and they both make sense to me. He says that this occurs because “governing bodies lack competence to make appropriate local decisions” (p. 17) and “lack time to make well-informed local decisions” (p. 18). Neither one of these statements is a surprise, and they confirm that leadership is too disconnected from what is occurring in the classroom or training center. I do not have the answer for this, would like to keep looking. I am however reminded of a Japanese phrase “genchi-genbutsu,” which translates as go-and-see, and is often used when discussing problem solving. The basic idea is that it impossible to completely understand a problem unless you have seen it with your own eye. Maybe this is something for leader to consider when they are making policy…

Thank you for checking in here today, and please let me know what your thought are on street level bureaucracy.

References:

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russel Sage, New York, NY.

Verdung, E. (2015). Autonomy and street-level bureaucrats’ coping strategies. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2). (15-19)

Winter, S., & Nielsen, V.L. (2008). Implementation of public policy.

Do Policymakers Actually Use Educational Research?

There is no doubt that the educational policy world is in a state of constant change as school performance is not only evaluated by learning outcomes, but also by how well our system addresses social and economic development, as well as inequality (Little & Green, 2009). Further pressures on public policymakers come from educational funds being taken away from the public sector as private organizations take control of educational policies (Abrams, 2016). These are both serious issues for policymakers to contend with as educational expectations are higher and there is less money to work with, so how do they use educational research to help them determine where our educational system is going to go? There is little doubt that some sort of research should be consulted when developing policy.

Jennifer Rippner acknowledges these issues, as she states that , “There are substantial resources at stake, thus inviting attention from private interests through political channels” (2006, p. 154). In a perfect world, policymakers would be able to create their own research studies for educational issues. But these studies do not happen overnight, and often times there is a urgency to make a hasty decision. Also, academic researchers have a different mindset than the general public that results in complex explanations that might not be palatable to politicians who are looking for a quick fix. These same researchers are probably not terribly politically savvy, and might be hesitant to make policy recommendations. Not to mention that politicians are distrustful of data that does not come from within their own circle of influence, such as their staff or their peers (Rippner, 2016).

But I see a whole new set of issues when elected and appointed officials try to consult academic research when setting educational policy. Academic research studies are long, and are often hard to read and understand by those who are steeped in academia, let alone poor folks from outside our halls who are just trying to get some information so they can make a decision. Seriously, does the average appointed official understand the importance of a literature review or all of the data charts that were dumped out of SPSS by hard-working researchers? Do peer-reviewed journals hold they same mystical prominence for a politician (if they can even access these readings), and can they understand the concept of biases that researchers might be laboring under? What about consideration of the research design and the educational theories that apply (not to mention pedagogy)? These unknowns makes for a grim outlook for those of us who hope to have informed educational policymakers.

So, the current situation is that we have people making very important decision based on research that they might not able to access, or understand if they are able to find it. And many of these individuals have serious political agendas and supporter obligations that they have to meet. One tool that is available for policymakers is “A Policymaker’s Primer on Education Research” that is produced by The Education Commission of the States. This is a wonderful resource that can help these individuals learn about how research can be properly used. But how many policymakers have actually read this, and if they do, will they actually apply this knowledge?

This blog post is kind a stone-cold bummer to read, and it was not much fun to write either. I answered almost nothing here, and ended up with many more questions than I started with. One thing I do know is that education is our most important avenue for having an inclusive society, and we have to do our best to ensure that policymakers get the information they need to make the proper decisions.

Thank you for checking in today!

Resources:

Abrams, S. (2016). Education and the commercial mindset. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Little, A., & Green, A. (2009). Successful globalization, education, and sustainable development. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(2), 166-174.

Murgatroyd, S., Sahlberg, P. (2016). The two solitudes of educational policy and the challenge of development. Journal of Learning for Development, 3(3), 9-21.

Rippner, J. (2016). The American education policy landscape. New York, NY: Routledge.

Who Sets Educational Policy for Post-Secondary Education?

Hi there!

I have been reading Jennifer Rippner’s The American Education Policy Landscape (2016), and just finished reading her chapter on higher education. This is a wonderful read on who the stakeholders are in educational policy, as well as the current state of policy decisions in our nation’s community and 4-year colleges. One of the major stakeholders is our federal government, and the policies they enact are far-reaching and are backed with money. These policies go as far back as the Morrill Land-Grant College Act of 1862, the 1965 Higher Education Act, and of course, one of the more recent ones that is familiar to all educators, the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. But one problem with any legislation is that without a champion for the cause, there is a chance that the next administration could scrap the program; these champions could include politicians, and Rippner states that “as of 2013, almost half of state system leaders had been in their positions for two years or less” (Rippner, 2016, p. 126). Fortunately, most schools are autonomous enough that they can wait out these continual changes in governance, but how are schools going to get enough traction to actually make progress and focus on big-picture issues? Rippner also points out that public governing boards show a “relative lack of diversity” (p. 127), meaning that educational leaders are most likely not representative of the students or faculty that they are supposed to be helping. Is there another way out of this mess other than hoping that status quo will lead to a miraculous improvement in higher education?

There is only brief mention in The American Education Policy Landscape of the role of private foundation in setting academic policies, but this was enough to spur me on to more research. One foundation that reader may be most familiar with is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in particular their Postsecondary Success program, ”whose goal is to dramatically increase the number of young people who obtain a postsecondary degree or certificate with labor-market value” (Gates Foundation, 2018). This program is funded by the Gates Foundation, in partnerships with colleges and universities as well as industry. The Koch brothers also donate millions of dollars to universities to support research and to “encourage students to engage with the ideas of free societies” (Charles Koch Foundation, 2018).

These two foundations both have clear overall goals supported by specific objectives, and they have long-term leadership that is not subject to replacement by voters or political leaders. In this way they are set up to set and maintain educational policies in ways that the government and publicly funded education just cannot accomplish. But at what cost? These foundations are both run by wealthy families, with some describing the Gates foundation as a shell for tax evasion (Drobny, 2006), and others saying that the aim of Charles Koch is to prepare “bright, libertarian-leaning students to one day occupy the halls of political power” (The Center for Public Integrity, 2018). I am not trying to diminish the efforts and results of these private organizations, but it is important to keep in mind that there might be other goals of organizations other than what is stated on their websites and press releases.

So, who should be setting policy for post-secondary education? There is no easy answer, but I imagine that it is going to fall on a coalition of both the government and the private sector. It will be interesting to research this more to see what other links I can find.

Thank you for checking in!

Rex

Resources:

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2018). Postsecondary success strategy overview. Retrieved from: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/US-Program/Postsecondary-Success#OurStrategy

Charles Koch Foundation (2018). Supporting scholars and students at more than 300 colleges and universities. Retrieved from: https://www.charleskochfoundation.org/our-giving-and-support/higher-education/

Drobny, S. (2006). The Gates and Buffet foundation shell game. Retrieved from: http://web.archive.org/web/20130912101039/http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0823-26.htm

Rippner, J. (2016). The American education policy landscape. New York, NY: Routledge.

The Center for Public Integrity (2018). Why the Koch brothers find higher education worth their money. Retrieved from: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/05/03/21730/why-koch-brothers-find-higher-education-worth-their-money

Educational Policy Implementation and the Big Picture

Jennifer Rippner’s The American Education Policy Landscape (2016) is a comprehensive summary of how policy is instituted in our nation’s schools, from Pre-K though college. It contains a wealth of statistics and sources, and is a good starting point for anybody who needs to research why our schools are run in often-inexplicable ways. This book was an easy and compelling read, but quickly became frustrating as I became more aware of how inefficient our system is how and disconnected policymakers are from what teachers and administrators are expected to do.

Because of the way America was founded and its rapid expansion across the continent, there is little federal oversight and a disjointed hodgepodge of state educational policies and procedures. Exacerbating this situation is that many decisions are made by politicians and appointees who have little (or no) educational experience, and with no real understanding of the background of why current policies were implemented. This means that the country’s policies are created and implemented a little bit at a time, without a holistic view of what the true goal of education should be, and with no pedagogical rationale.

One of the more obvious examples is the 2002 legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act, which set reading and math standards for states to meet by 2014. The stated goal was to close achievement gaps, and improving reading and math skills are one part of the way to meet this goal, but the federal government was not looking at the situation holistically when this policy was written, so standards were set with no guidance or oversight on how this was to happen. When this policy was enacted at the state level it was up to each state to decide how to implement the policy, and each state had to write its own rules. As Furgol and Helms stated, “Stakeholders must adopt strategies and approaches to rulemaking that reflect the dynamics and realities of the policy environment of the individual state in which they operate” (2012, p. 805). As each state has a different demographic it is important that they had the freedom to create their own rules for implementation and assessment, but in many cases subjects other than reading and math were marginalized, and how will this affect learners’ college readiness preparation?

When looking at the four steps of policymaking, information gathering, policy definition, policy implementation, and policy evaluation, in some sense each of these is taking place for No Child Left Behind. But do reading and math scores tell the whole story about achievement gaps? Probably not, so what could the government have done differently? Hopefully we will be able to learn more about this during the next semester!

Furgol, K. E., & Helms, L. B. (2012). Lessons in leveraging implementation: Rulemaking, growth models, and policy dynamics under NCLB. Educational Policy, 26(6), 777-812.

Rippner, J. (2016). The American education policy landscape. New York, NY: Routledge.

CODEL 2020 Countdown

Based on a May 16, 2020 graduation date...

My countdownCountdown

5 Reasons why Post-secondary Administrators SHOULD Use Twitter

Twitter is a hugely effective way to reach a specific audience with not a lot of effort, and as an educational leader here are a few practical uses for this social media platform:

1. Celebrate!

There is so much negativity in today’s media, making it particularly refreshing and engaging to see some good news for a change. Why can’t you be the one to spread this positivity? Sure, there are challenges in education, but there are also wonderful success stories as our learners develop their skills and mature. Make sure these achievements do not go unnoticed!

2. Breaking News and Announcements

This probably seems like a no-brainer, but it is essential to remind students of critical dates and times. But your learners might also appreciate hearing about things that could affect their day, such as parking lot closures, severe weather warnings, or even a reminder to register to vote.

3. Promote Your Program

Twitter should not be the only way to advertise what your program has to offer, but it is a great companion to your university or department website. Sites do not get updated every time something changes, and your Twitter feed can be a great way to present your offerings to potential students in the best possible light.

4. Help Your Learners

Don’t forget that Twitter is not just for broadcasting information, and you have to monitor what your students are commenting on. If your feed shows that a student is having challenges, this is very visible to your followers, so make sure you follow up, keeping in mind that you should not post any personal details online. Privacy, you know…

5. Show That You are Human

You have many learners that you work with, and time constraints might make them feel like you are unapproachable. Try to show them that you are not a machine that just goes to meetings, works on the budget, and metes out corrective actions. You also spend a lot of time attending events where you interact with students - maybe you can take a selfie at the next one and Tweet it with a positive message. Keep it tasteful, of course.

Welcome!