We’re all familiar with chains of command. Many of us deal with them all the time. We know to whom we should take a question or problem, and we know to whom it isn’t kosher to approach with the very same issue. This chain of command exists in school systems as well, of course, but, for my money, it manifests itself in an interesting way – or rather, creates some interesting consequences. More in a minute.
Let’s start with the classroom teacher. This is over-simplified, of course, but the teacher’s immediate ‘boss’ is usually the principal, who in turn answers to the superintendent (with perhaps another level or two here at bigger schools), who is responsible to the local school board. And all of these entities – at least in theory – answer to the community, who has elected the Board. This, roughly, is the familiar chain of command.
With various exceptions and subtleties along the line of course, it is clear that as one moves ‘up’ the chain of command, each level gains more and more power over what happens in a school system in general, especially in terms of policies, procedures, etc. This is normal, and certainly not without its strengths. A lot of good things get done efficiently (and with accountability) that way.
But there’s an interesting feature about a school’s chain of command. As one moves back ‘down’ this chain, one gradually returns ever closer to the actual classroom itself, where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. This is where the real learning can happen, and where real differences can be made on a day to day – even minute to minute – basis. If moving UP this chain is called the chain of command, then moving DOWN it should be called the chain of influence. One gains power moving up, but one gains authentic influence with students moving down. And, moving down, we end ‘at the top’ with a full circle return to the teacher.
This creates, however, some interesting consequences. The further away one gets from the teacher, the more power that is gained in the system. But this leaves the teacher in an awkward and often absurd position: The one person with the most influence and knowledge about what happens in the classroom and how/when to effect genuine learning, is, tragically, often the person who has the least real POWER over important system-wide decisions!
There’s a lot of talk about ‘bad teachers’ these days. We seem obsessed with the idea of getting rid of them, and we do so, in my opinion, at the risk of losing much perspective. I’m convinced much, if not most, of this talk is pure (often politically-influenced) rhetoric and misplaced finger-pointing. For every ‘bad’ teacher (how that is determined or identified is a topic for another time!), there are literally handfuls of good teachers, making a real difference with our students, and doing so against very tall odds and less-than-ideal conditions.
Please understand: I am NOT against ‘accountability’, and I am NOT defending ‘bad teachers’. I’ve said this before. But I am saying that what we tend to do (whether intentionally or not) is to give teachers more and more responsibility and less and less power to go with it. We overly blame them for the bad things that can happen and then we simultaneously hamstring their ability to fix the bad things and create good things. We definitely do not ‘enable’ them to do their jobs effectively.
Wouldn’t it seem to be helpful all across the board if we paid more attention to the chain of influence in schools, and made it more important in the chain of command’s decision-making structure?
Comments are closed