Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

TOPIC: ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES IN THE SPECIAL EDUCATION

WORK

An assessment of some school administration and organizational factors affecting special


needs education.
The school shall have room for everyone, and the school should be a community for all
children. Pupils, who have not or cannot get satisfactory benefit from mainstream education,
have, according to the Norwegian Law on primary and general further education & 5-1 the
right to special education. Strandkleiv et al (2005) define special education as a form of
customized training that aims to help pupils with special needs. The Norwegian education
system is thus based on the principle of suitable adapted education for all and the right to
special education for all pupils who cannot fully benefit from ordinary education (Rustad,
2008). In its everyday’s tasks, the school system as an organization meets a variety of
challenges in the administration of special needs education. This essay is going to look at
some school administration and organizational factors that can affect special needs education.
The essay will mainly highlight on how the school’s organizational and administrative
conditions can effectively influence special needs education. Of special interest in this paper
is the relationship between school leadership and the influence it has on organization and
administration of special needs education. Along these lines, three main factors will be
assessed. These include features of the school as an organization, organizational perspectives
and how each can positively or negatively affect special education, and how the school’s
leadership can hinder or encourage progress of special education.

An organization is a social system that is deliberately designed to achieve common goals and
can also be described as a social arrangement which pursues collective goals which control its
own performance, and which has boundaries separating it from its environment ((Etzioni
1982, www.en Wikipedia/wiki/organization). What determine whether we call a group “an
organization” or not is whether the participants have common goals that unite them together,
and whether the existence of procedures or practices coordinates the work of the participants
towards the realization of these common goals. From the above, the school is no doubt an
organization as it has those entrusted with more responsibilities than others (hierarchy), goals
(i.e. values, visions) and structures (departments, working hour’s arrangements, managers,
plans). The school as any social organization has therefore its own leadership styles, rules and
regulations that govern it. Several perspectives of a school as an organization therefore come
up: the structural perspective, the human resource perspective, the political perspective and
the cultural perspective (Gotvassli, 1996).

Beginning with the structural perspective, an organization can be understood by the way in
which it divides its labuor into distinct tasks and then achieves coordination among them
(Skritic, 1995). The main focus of this perspective is that the activities of the school should be
organized and structured through division of labuor, specialization and responsibility sharing.
The school that uses this organizational form will be more interested in clear defined rules and
regulations, clear goals, clear communication and control. This perspective believes the
organization is primarily there to fulfill permanent set of purposes and goals (Gotvassli,
1996).

There are two theories that support the structural perspective, namely the configuration theory
and the institution theory. According to the configuration theory, organizations structure
themselves into one of several occurring configuration according to, among other things, the
type of division of labour and means of coordination that theory employ. In such a way
traditional school organizations configure themselves as professional bureaucracy (Mintzberg,
1979).

According to the institution theory, an organization like a school deals with contradiction by
two structures: the material structure that conforms to the technical demands of their work and
normative structure that conforms to the social norms or cultural expectations of their
institutional environment. Such organizations configure themselves as machine and
bureaucracy (Skritic, 1995).

Max Weber (1864- 1920) explains in his bureaucratic theory that in a bureaucracy there is
demand for specialization and clear marked boundaries for everyone’s job. There is hierarchy
of authority and that cases in an organization are handled the same as stipulated in the rules
and regulations of the organization (Gotvassli, 1996).

The human resource is the second perspective of the school’s organization. This perspective
came as both an alternative and opposing view to the structural perspective. Elton Mayo
(1880- 1949) was the founder of the view. He was interested in researching on effectiveness
and enjoyment in the work place. He and his colleagues studied the effectiveness of different
work conditions such as how workers felt about the number of hours they worked, placing of
breaks, lighting and ventilation in the office, etc. (Gotvassli, 1996). Mayo found out that when
working conditions are changed for better, production on the company also increased and vice
versa. This led to the acknowledgement that people in a work place are social beings with
feelings and needs. The main point was that when employees are shown attention and when
the social relationship between the colleagues is good, workers enjoy working and
effectiveness increases. Schools that focus on this perspective build on respect and security.
They make sure there is good working environment and that the teachers are comfortable with
their jobs. This school has little or no hierarchy of authority (Gotvassli, 1996).

The third perspective is the political perspective. This perspective views organizations as
political arenas that form a complex variation of individuals and group interests. The political
perspective is founded on four organizational beliefs: organizations are coalitions of different
people and interest groups, all people and groups in the organization are different. Meaning
to say people have different intentions, values and preferences, information and understanding
of the reality, resources are limited in an organization it boils down to who gets what? So
power becomes the most important resource one can get. Four organization’s goals and
decisions are guided by negotiations and maneuvering advantageous positions among
members of different coalitions (Gotvassli, 1996). This form of organization exists in today’s
schools and is characterized by power struggles among teachers, administrators, union and
parents; stiff relationships among people and opposing interests. Dealing with matters to
further ones interest is a good example in this perspective.
The cultural perspective, which focuses on the non formal organization, is the last
perspective of the school organization. Cultural theories of organization are premised on
subjective idea that humans contract social reality through their inter–subjective
communication. They are concerned with the way people construct meaning and how this
affects thoughts, actions and interactions that unfold over time in organization. This
perspective is supported by the cognitive and paradigmatic theories and both theories reflect
the interactive character of cultural perspective, i.e. culture creating people and people
creating culture (skritic 1995).

Paradigmatic theorists conceptualize organizations as paradigms. Organizational change from


this perspective is long periods of stability maintained by the self reinforcement nature of the
organizational paradigm. Occasional periods of change happen when irreconcilable anomalies
eventually undermine the paradigm legitimacy. Change is a slow traumatic process in such
organizations.

The cognitive theories in cultural perspective view organization as a human schema. An


abridged, generalized, corrigible organization of experience that serve as initial frame and
reference for action and perception (weick, in skritic, 1995). Weick argues that organizational
paradigm orient the thoughts and actions of the people who subscribe to them. However the
prevailing schema is undermined and later overthrown when sufficient anomalies build up,
and a new one emerges and action proceeds again under guidance of the new organization
framework.

The question now is how these organizational conditions can effectively influence the
administration of special needs education in a school. In the structural perspective the school
is viewed as non adaptable level of professional because of professionalization that produces
teachers with finite repertoires of standard practices matched to a limited set of predetermined
students needs. In the structural perspective, special education is a matter of pigeonholing.
That is pupil’s needs are dealt with in the same way all the time according to rules,
regulations and standard procedures of the school. This is done until the needs of the pupils do
not match with the skills that the teacher/ leader have to offer. So the child is then sent to
another specialist. This is opposed to the Norwegian school system of adaptive learning which
stipulates that all pupils have a right to adaptive learning depending on their abilities,
hindrances and needs (Bachmann, 2006). Although the administration of adjusted learning
can be done to individual pupils, collective learning culture is best preferred in Norwegian
schools where by all pupils experience the community. My opinion is that if the school has to
reduce the number of pupils going for special classes, it has to put much effort in improving
the quality of the ordinary teaching so that the needs of pupils with learning difficulties are
met within the classroom. Also, the school leaders and teachers have to be innovative and
flexible enough to experiment with new methods, activities and ways of adjusting to pupils
needs than cling to their tradition. This will however demand improved competence on the
part on the teachers and administrators of special needs, and that’s why I think staff training
should be an ongoing project at any school that strives to enhance the quality of education for
special needs pupils! On the other hand, an individual training plan should be made for every
pupil going
for special classes because every pupil is different and not every pupil can benefit from the
ordinary classroom training (Grøgaard, 2004). I suggest that the school should handle special
needs cases differently and at different times since it receives different pupils every time.
Thus care should be given depending on the need of the concerned child at hand and not
equally distributed to different pupils with different needs.

When it comes to the human resource perspective, the physical and social psychosocial
environments are very critical. Thus, in a school where infrastructure is good, relationships
between teachers – teachers, teachers – pupils are positive and secured,i think the
administration of special education becomes also easy to organize and administer since no one
is frustrated. The leaders of the school are concerned with taking new projects which will
enhance the competence of teachers so that the quality of adjusted learning is developed for
the benefit of special needs pupils in the classroom. Teachers are also motivated to work extra
since they are satisfied with their working conditions at the school.

Concerning the political perspective, people will always have some conflicting or opposite
ideas when it comes to issues of managing the school system. When power is used for
personal interests or frustrate the actions of teachers or colleagues, politics then becomes a
bad weapon in the school system and this will negatively affect people’s potential and
motivation to work effectively, especially with special needs pupils who need more time and
creativity on the part of the teachers. However with a good leader, all conflicting ideas can be
put under discussion and eventually people can come up with a common platform i.e.
concerning what projects the school should undertake or what should be done or how to do
things in order to help pupils with learning problems. All can work together if the leader
makes it possible for people to listen to other people’s views. I think a good leader should be
able to listen, initiate communication and collaboration among people and allow the local
(parents to influence) since parents may know their children better than teachers.

The cultural perspective is very flexible. In this perspective when a special needs case which
the school is not familiar with arises, instead of pigeonholing it to another specialist, people in
this frame of leadership see it as an opportunity for change. The anomalies are used to
construct new practice (Skritic, 1995). The leaders of the school can help influence this new
culture by among other things; showing attention to important things, reacting positively in
critical and difficult situations and giving praise and rewards where due ( Fullan, 2003). The
leaders in this perspective have to be very good at influencing the culture on the school. The
new culture can be used in the administration and organization of special education in the
school. I therefore think every school should have competent leaders who are proactive to
possibilities, who can construct changes and work to realize it.

In conclusion, schools are organizations with conditions, cultures, traditions and goals that
guide and govern their daily running. These are the factors that in the long run will affect
administration of special education on a particular school. The school can utilize the positive
aspects of each perspective of an organization for its development and progress in dealing
with special needs education issues. This can concern issues of relations, the learning
environment, competence, capacity building and ways of teaching to meet pupils with
learning difficulties.

Literature

Bachmann, K. Haug, P. (2006). Forskning om tilpasset opplæring. Forskningsrapport nr 62.


Høgskolen i Volda.

Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with vengeance. London and New York: rout ledge
Falmer.

Gotvassli, K. (1996). Barnehager - organisasjon og ledelse. TANO AS

Grøgaard, J et al. (2004). Elev i fokus? En brukerundersøkelse av norske


spesialundervisning etter enkeltvedtak. Rapport. 9

Lov 1998-07-17 nr61: Lov om grunnskolen og den videregående opplæringa.

Kunnskapsdepartment.

Mintzberg, H. (1979) ”The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research"


Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Nordahl, T. (2002). Hvis spesialundervisning ikke fantes-tilpasset opplæring i en skole for


alle. NOU 2003 Utdanningsdepartmentet.

Rustad, B. Typology of disability in Norway. Special education in Norway. Agder university


college, Norway.

Skritic, T (1995). Special education and students’ disability as organizational pathologies:


Towards a metatheory of school organization and change in skritic, T: Disability and
democracy. New York: teachers college press.

Strandkleiv,O.I. & Lindbåck, S.O. (2005).Tilpasset opplæring, nå. Oslo : Elevsiden DA.

Strand, T. (2001). Ledelse, organisasjon og kultur. Bergen: fagbok forlaget.

Hyperlink: www.en Wikipedia/wiki/organization

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi