Working against ourselves: decision making in a small rural school district

Abstract

PurposeThe 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/approachQualitative 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.FindingsUnderlying 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/valueThis 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.

Rethinking the School Closure Research: School Closure as Spatial Injustice

“…Our sources show that efficiency arguments have long defined rural closures (Bastress, 2003;Blauwkamp, Longo, & Anderson, 2011;DeYoung, 2000;Hendrix, 2013;Hyndman, Cleveland, & Huffman, 2010;Patterson, Koenigs, Mohn, & Rasmussen, 2006;Sell & Leistritz, 1997;Spader, 2007;Surface, 2011;Tholkes & Sederberg, 1990). Rural justifications, though, have focused on resource "maximization" across small populations, with officials seeking to expand options by closing schools and consolidating resources, whether physical resources like buildings (DeYoung, 1995), material resources like curricula and course offerings (Casey, 1998;C.…”

“…The research on urban closures suggests a relatively common process of closure: state or district leaders decide that closures are necessary; they use academic and financial metrics like test scores, enrollment, or costs per pupil to select schools to close; they prepare for the closure, which can include gradually phasing out enrolled students, immediately un-enrolling students the year of the closure announcement, or shifting grade configurations in receiving schools; they close the school, usually at the end of the school year; they transition students from the closed school to an open school; and, sometimes, they sell surplus properties (Bifulco & Schwegman, 2019;Bross, Harris, & Liu, 2016;Brummet, 2014;Dowdall, 2011;Dowdall & Warner, 2013;Engberg, Gill, Zamarro, & Zimmer, 2012;Finnigan & Lavner, 2012;Jack & Sludden, 2013;Kemple, 2015;Khalifa et al, 2014;Patterson et al, 2006;Siegel-Hawley et al, 2017;Steiner, 2009;Subramaniam, 2011). The rural research, like the urban, describes the processes by which officials choose schools for closure or consolidation; generally, these decisions originate in district or state meetings and offices (Deeb-Sossa & Moreno, 2016;Patterson et al, 2006;Ward & Rink, 1992). Unlike the urban literature, however, rural analyses rarely detail the steps policymakers take after choosing sites, such as preparation for closure, the transition of students, or the handling of properties after closure.…”

“…However, residents often argue that these processes for "community input" are performative and that closure decisions are made with little regard for the immediate needs of those communities most affected (Buras, 2015;Freelon, 2018;Pappas, 2016). Most studies describing residents' reactions showed that, even with votes or forums or committees, community members felt excluded from closure and consolidation processes: They did not close their schools-instead, their schools closed on them (Alsbury & Shaw, 2005;Bard, Gardner, & Wieland, 2006;Buras, 2015;Chance & Cummins, 1998;Deeb-Sossa & Moreno, 2016;DeYoung, 1995;DeYoung & Howley, 1990;Ewing, 2018;Freelon, 2018;Gaertner & Kirshner, 2017;Kirshner, 2015;Lincove et al, 2017;Null, 2001;Patterson et al, 2006;Siegel-Hawley et al, 2017;Shiller, 2017;Vaughan & Gutierrez, 2017;. Residents sometimes felt unheard by school boards on the basis of racial discrimination (Briscoe & Khalifa, 2015;Desimone, 1993), and in other instances, residents contended that their schools were "set up" to fail by the district or state, whether due to inadequate resources for students with special education or language needs or to broader funding inequities (Freelon, 2018;Good, 2016;Kretchmar, 2014;Patterson et al, 2006).…”

“…Other responses to closure are more individualistic in nature, like moving out of the district or seeking private or charter school options (England & Hamann, 2013;C. W. Howley, 2006;Patterson et al, 2006;Pazey et al, 2017;Post & Stambach, 1999;Williams, 2013).…”

“…Several described how residents reacted with smaller, quieter actions, such as voting to remove closure-supporting board members from office or to increase the tax rate or raising local funds to keep a school open (C. B. Howley & Harmon, 2000;Patterson et al, 2006;Ward & Rink, 1992). Researchers also noted how, in racially or economically divided rural settings, White, well-off parents registered their opposition to school closure by requesting reassignment or sending their children to private schools, while poor or Black parents often could not or did not seek this option (Desimone, 1993;England & Hamann, 2013;Williams, 2013).…”