Surviving the reform: management usage of the garbage can model during implementation of reform
| Date | 15 April 2020 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2019-0169 |
| Published date | 15 April 2020 |
| Pages | 373-387 |
| Author | Emanuel Tamir,Mirit K. Grabarski |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Surviving the reform: management
usage of the garbage can model
during implementation of reform
Emanuel Tamir
Ohalo College of Education, Katzrin, Ramat HaGolan, Israel, and
Mirit K. Grabarski
Ivey Business School at Western University, London, ON, Canada
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to apply the garbage can model to identify factors that affect managerialdecision-
making processes in educational systems undergoing reforms.
Design/methodology/approach –Thispaper used a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews
with 39 teachers and managers in schools undergoing a system-wide reform.
Findings –The paper presents examples for a typology of decision outcomes found in the model and provides
explanations for their emergence. It shows that there are many challenges that are associated with reform
implementation and suggests factors that need to be taken into account when planning and implementing a
reform.
Originality/value –School management and policy makers can learn about the risks that are associated with
garbage can decision-making and the various risk factors. Practical suggestions are given to reduce the
probability of suboptimal decision-making.
Keywords Garbage can model, Reform, Decision-making, Conflict of interest
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Educational reforms aim to improve schools’functioning, and autonomy in school decision-
making is considered to be a positive factor that increases flexibility (Oplatka, 2019;Tamir
and Arar, 2019). However, these good intentions come with several complexities. First,
expanding school principals’authority also increases their administrative load (Fullan, 2016).
Second, while decentralization shifts decision-making authority, school managers have
training mainly as educators and not as managers. Thus, they face conflicting demands, often
without the necessary skills to cope with them (Nir, 2012;Schechter et al., 2018). Third,
changes associated with reforms are usually fraught with uncertainty, as when new unclear
guidelines must be implemented (Hargreaves and Fullan, 1998). Fourth, a lack of clarity or
mixed signals from the authorities following a reform often results in school-level managers
(i.e. principals, deputy/assistant principals, coordinators) struggling with decision-making
(Cohen and Schechter, 2019;Cuban, 2013;Leaf and Odhiambo, 2017). Finally, evidence
indicates that while school managers may be granted autonomy, they still feel the pressure
and need to comply with external expectations and make compromises (Berkovich and
Bogler, 2019;Sugrue and Solbrekke, 2017).
Hence, educational reforms provide a compelling context for examining decision-making
at the school level. When the status quo is disrupted, school managers are prone to make
ineffective decisions, thus not achieving the goals of the reform. The current research applies
the theoretical lens of the garbage can decision-making model (Cohen et al., 1972) to New
Horizon, a system-wide educational reform in Israel. The garbage can model categorizes
decisions into three types: flight, oversight and resolution (Cohen et al., 1972). The first two are
considered ineffective –either the problem at stake remains unresolved or an unsuitable
solution is imposed on it, and resolution is considered a relatively rare but possible outcome.
As garbage can situations are likely to occur in the context of reforms, as will be explained
Garbage can
model and
reforms
373
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-8234.htm
Received 25 September 2019
Revised 23 December 2019
23 February 2020
28 February 2020
Accepted 2 March 2020
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 58 No. 3, 2020
pp. 373-387
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-09-2019-0169
To continue reading
Request your trial