Working against ourselves: decision making in a small rural school district
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610652033 |
| Pages | 142-158 |
| Date | 01 March 2006 |
| Published date | 01 March 2006 |
| Author | Jean A. Patterson,Andrew Koenigs,Gordon Mohn,Cheryl Rasmussen |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Working against ourselves:
decision making in a small rural
school district
Jean A. Patterson
Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas, USA
Andrew Koenigs
Andover Public School, Andover, Kansas, USA
Gordon Mohn
Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh, Hillsboro, Kansas, USA
Cheryl Rasmussen
Highland Community College, Highland, Kansas, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine decision making and resource allocation in a
small, rural district in a Midwestern state of the USA during a time of economic retrenchment.
Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative case study methods were used, including focus
groups and personal interviews with current and former district administrators, Board of Education
members, teachers, parents, and other members of the communities the district serves. Organizational
archetypes were used as an analytic framework to reveal the deeper cultural values and preferences
influencing board and superintendent decisions.
Findings – Underlying historical patterns of decision making were found that were not aligned with
constituents’ preferences. District leaders refused to consider information that did not fit with their
own beliefs and a crisis of leadership occurred, which resulted in the ousting of the superintendent and
a majority of school board members. These patterns of decision making furthermore advantaged one
group of constituents and disadvantaged another.
Originality/value – This study illustrates the potential of archetypes as an analytic framework for
understanding organizational decision making. Revealing tacit patterns of decision making can help
organizations recognize and change patterns that are dysfunctional and have negative outcomes.
Keywords Decision making,Schools, Rural areas, Leadership, UnitedStates of America
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Rural schools and districts throughout the USA are confronted with unique challenges
stemming from loss of population, declining enrollments, and concomitant loss of
resources due to state fiscal crises and decreasing local budget authority. In these less
than desirable circumstances, rural districts must make difficult decisions regarding
allocation of resources, including the possible closure of small schools with low
enrollments. In rural locales, the school is often the center of community and economic
life and therefore integral to rural development (Miller, 1995). Because the relationship
between the school and community in rural settings is highly interdependent (Bauch,
2001), the closure of a community’s school often foretells the demise of a small town.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
JEA
44,2
142
Received July 2005
Revised November 2005
Accepted December 2005
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 44 No. 2, 2006
pp. 142-158
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230610652033
The literature is replete with examples of small, rural towns attempting to stave off
consolidation and closure of their schools in order to remain viable (Hadden, 2000;
Howley and Eckman, 1997; Jackson, 2000; Mid-Continent Research for Educational
Learning, 2002). Furtherm ore, while a large and growing body of resea rch
demonstrates the many academic and social benefits of small schools (Bickel and
Howley, 2000; Howley et al., 2000; Irmsher, 1997; Raywid, 1999), economies of scale
continue to prevail, particularly during times of economic retrenchment.
In this paper, we present an analysis of qualitative data obtained through a study of
a countywide rural school district located in a Midwestern American state. At the time
of the study, the district, which we refer to using the pseudonym Middlesex County
School District (MCSD), was operating nine schools located in five communities. The
district was facing cutbacks in funding due to declining enrollment and the state’s
failure to generate adequate revenue to fund its public schools. Given their budget
situation, district leaders (the Board of Education and a newly appointed
Superintendent) asked us to gauge community perceptions regarding decision
making and allocation of shrinking resources, including the possible closure of three
schools with enrollments ranging from 23 to 48 students. We used theories of
organizational archetypes (Greenwood and Hinings, 1993, 1996; Hinings et al., 1996;
Morgan, 1997; Senge, 1990) and organizational culture (Argyris, 1999; Schein, 2004) as
a framework for analyzing MCSD’s decision processes, which enabled us to reveal
patterns of cultural values and preferences influencing superintendent and school
board decisions.
We present a case study of the Middlesex County School District to illustrate how
we used these theories as analytic devices to uncover historical and tacit patterns of
decision making resistant to change which, in this case, accelerated rather than
resolved problems. We also explore the consequences of decision-making that
contributed to inequitable resource distribution, pitted the district’s communities
against each other over scarce resources, and isolated the school district from other
public and private endeavors. We then discuss the implications of identifying
organizational archetypes, particularly in small, rural districts where a community’s
future depends on all sectors working together to sustain and/or revitalize it. We argue
that understanding theories of action that underlie an ineffective pattern of decision
making is the first step toward replacing it with a process constituents will support.
Conceptual framework
Organizational (Greenwood and Hinings, 1993; Hinings et al., 1996) and systems
archetypes (Senge, 1990; Wolstenholme, 2000) served as our overarching framework
for analysis. Archetypes, or patterns, are useful analytic devices for understanding and
explaining how organizations operate. Greenwood and Hinings posited that analysis of
an organization’s overall patterns provides a better understanding of its structure and
culture than an examination of discrete and narrowly construed parts. Archetypes are,
in Greenwood and Hining’s words an “interpretive scheme” that reflect the beliefs,
ideas, and values that underpin and are represented in organizational structures and
culture. They argued that the relationship between an organization’s structure and
values is expressed as an archetype.
Senge (1990) has argued that a fairly limited number of archetypes tend to recur in
organizations. However, organizational participants are typically unaware of the
Decision making
in a rural district
143
To continue reading
Request your trial