A school is composed of students, teachers and administrators who contribute to the process of control. The institutions or individuals vested with the authority to initiate control in schools include administrators, state school officers, school education boards, student and teacher organizations. Student control is achieved through organizations such as student unions which provide avenues for its members to voice their concerns furthermore such organizations have direct links to the school administration thus their ability to influence the school’s activities. Student unions are however considered the lowest level of influence on the schooling process (Charles 2005).
The role of administrators in the control of schools is evident in the planning of resources. This may be either physical or human (staff development). These administrators are also responsible for the maintenance of discipline within the school and also acting as decision-makers especially when it comes to issues that impact the overall performance of a school (Charles 2005). The state school officers carry out control functions that are related to the implementation of directives from the state department furthermore they act as a link between the state and a school. Teacher organizations exert control through issuing directives on how teachers will perform their duties.
The institution responsible for making policies is the school board. These policies are made in line with the law and provisions of the state. It is necessary to point out that several school boards have failed to utilize such mandate however the increase in the levels of awareness of their functions has made them engage the process at a deeper level (Lashway 2003). The process that the board goes through in order to formulate appropriate policies includes mobilizing the support of the public and in this case parents, teachers, administrators and the citizens of the state who are entitled to information on the activities taking place in schools.
The resources required to formulate appropriate policies are provided by the state in conjunction with relevant departments. In order for the process of policymaking to assume a considerable degree of professionalism, the policymakers outsource the experience and expertise of persons such as a school’s superintendent who offers guidance to the whole process. The challenge that are faced by boards in the formulation of policies is the inability to be proactive as characterized by a majority of the participant’s reaction to situations rather than giving ideas critical to the solution of problems. The board is also responsible for the delivery of policies and establishing corrective measures in case a policy fails to meet the stipulated objectives (Lashway 2003).
The sole responsibility of the state and the central government is to come up with objectives that will aid in shaping the educational process to be in line with a definite social, ethical and economic perspective. This is achieved through putting in place laws and directives to this effect. An illustration of such a law is the No Child Left behind Act that advocates for a specific manner of delivery of learning content or curriculum to students with different abilities. The impact of such laws is seen in determining the ethical, social and economic directions that is pursued and later adopted by a student.
The setting of the curriculum is the responsibility of the state; it is however achieved in synergy with the teachers and the district education board who perform supporting roles. There are doubts concerning the ability of a state to set a viable curriculum that appreciates the needs of the students and the teachers. The contribution of the teachers is seen in their ability to influence the instructional procedures taking place within the classroom context. In setting the curriculum the state looks at the activities that go together with the learning objectives and targets, it also explores the means by which assessment can be carried out with the aim of providing optimal learning opportunities for all students (Clive 2002).
The motivation of student organizations in controlling schools is seen in the need to voice their concerns especially on matters that affect the student population. It is worth mentioning that the student body establishes a link with the administrators, state school officers and teacher organizations in an effort to put across their agendas. The administrators derive their motivation in the mandate bestowed upon them that makes them responsible for the coordination of the different resources within the school environment. These include human and nonhuman resources. The roles of a facilitator and decision-maker are a function of administration it, therefore, leads to high levels of motivation. The motivation of the school board lies in the development of policies that can positively influence the performance of students and teachers as they are considered the most active participants in the schooling process.
The contribution of teachers towards the control of schools is perhaps the most significant this is by virtue of their position as disseminators of knowledge. They derive their motivation from the desire to contribute to the success of the students and the strategies put in place by the administrators. Teachers possess the ability to play a pivotal role in a school setting thus better functioning of the constituents of a school (Elizabeth and Luc 2009).
Charles, J. (2005). Conflicts over Directing the Education Children: Who Controls, Parents, School Officials?. Boston University School of Education.
Clive, R. (2002). Should the Curriculum Set by State Fiat? An Empirical Test Using Economics Courses in High School. Occasional Paper.
Elizabeth, S. & Luc, P. (2009). Administrative Pressure and Teachers’ Behavior in the Classroom. Theory and Research in Education. Volume 7 number 2.
Lashway, L. (2003). Using school board policy to improve student achievement. Eric digest.