Professionalism & the New York City Teacher Role : A View through the Lens of Organisational Structure

This article is rooted in the belief that our effectiveness in any role is dependent, to some degree, on the contribution and support of others. Using a New York City context, the teacher role is examined in relation to other, withinsystem roles. These roles (superintendents, principals, policy-makers etc.) often function within formalized systems which can be seen as promoting or blocking different types of teacher professionalism. Here the lens of organisational structure is used to move away from the ‘microscopic’ view of the teacher (e.g. teacher role in isolation) and provide a more holistic view of the teacher within the context of a comprehensive system. It provides an aerial view of the teacher and examines how his/her effectiveness might be influenced by other roles existing within the formal system. The juxtaposition of professionalism and organisational structure attempts to connect new threads of information in human behaviour among the multiple layers and roles which operate within the New York City education system. In this way, professionalism models are treated as by-products of the organisational structures which support them. Current and alternative organisational structures are compared, with a special focus on structural designs which offer increased reciprocity and a more equitable distribution of accountability. Geographic Background The United States of America I begin with an overview of the U.S education system and move on to the New York City school system. Education, at all levels, in the United States is composed of a highly decentralized system with each of the fifty states having complete autonomy over how each administers and manages their respective education system (U.S Department of Education, 2010a). This autonomy is all-encompassing and it includes teacher-training programmes, Educate~ Vol. 12, No. 2, 2012, p. 23-33 http://www.educatejournal. org 24 teacher certification, establishment of learning standards, as well as the administration of state testing to monitor student progress (Jennings, 2011). To decentralize even further, states often pass on a significant amount of autonomy to smaller sub-regions (districts), allowing them to further differentiate the delivery of curriculum (U.S Department of Education, 2010a). Quite often, even within a given sub-region, individual schools may choose to use different textbooks based on teacher/administrator preferences (U.S Department of Education, 2010a). According to Hannaway, Murphy & Reed (2004) the ability of individual states, districts, or even schools to serve as ‘incubators’ for educational innovations is perceived as an advantage by some educators. In contrast, they also point out the widely perceived disadvantage of decentralisation, which includes the lack of a systematic approach to student learning and policy development. This key weakness has resulted in a recent national movement for states to adopt Common Core Standards. The movement has resulted in 47 out of 50 states choosing to participate in a more unified set of learning standards (Common Core Standards Initiative, 2011). The federal government’s role in U.S. education has been historically limited (U.S Department of Education, 2010a). The federal government does, however, exert some passive control through funding opportunities it provides to states willing to administer its federal programmes. One of the most well-known programmes is the “No Child Left Behind Act’, a federal programme specifically designed to support minority and disadvantaged students (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001). While participation remains optional, most states are quite willing to tap into these additional funds. In 2010, 5 billion U.S dollars were distributed to states across the nation to implement the programme (U.S Department of Education, 2010b).