Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Lipsky[1] suggests that most citizens encounter the implementation of public policy not by attending board meetings but through their interaction with public service workers. Principals and teachers are like other public service workers (e.g. policemen, social workers or court officers) who interact directly with the citizens they serve and exercise considerable discretionary power in implementing public policy. Lipsky characterizes persons in these occupations as street-level bureaucrats.
Often, street-level bureaucrats must resolve on-the-job conflicts between enforcing the letter of the law or being responsive to the realities of the context and the needs of those they serve. Reminiscent of Lipsky's conception, Morris et al.[2] have described school principals as discretionary decision makers. They define discretionary decision making as the implementation of central office decisions, policies and programmes at the school level in a way that fits the principal's values, philosophy, goals and situation.
Creative insubordination is one component of discretionary decision making. This behaviour usually involves bending or disobeying central office directives so that they fit the local situation. While such behaviour can be destructive, for the most part, it can be understood as countering the dehumanizing effects of bureaucratic authority. Often it is implemented with a sense of humour and a touch of mischief but with the ultimate aim of making sure that central office directives do not do a disservice to teachers and students[2-5].Creative insubordination is demonstrated in the five examples below.
For instance, one principal wanted to implement a maths facts contest through a computer program designed for that purpose. There were three computers in the school that had been purchased with Chapter 1 funds but the principal was told by a central office supervisor that the computers were for Chapter 1 use and they could not be taken out of the Chapter 1 room. The principal moved the computers near the classroom doorway and trained Chapter 1 students to use the program. The Chapter 1 students assisted the other students in using the computers as they came in during the lunch period to learn maths facts. By keeping the computers in the room and using the Chapter 1 students as trainers, the principal was able to implement the programme and avoid ensure by the central office.
In another example, a school...