STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 1
Case Study: Structural Analysis Assignment
Brittany Krieger
School of Education, Liberty University
Introduction
Greendale Elementary School, a pseudonym for a mid-sized suburban school in the
fictional Riverdale Public Schools district, serves approximately 800 students in a community
that is both culturally and economically diverse. The district and the school share a common
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 2
commitment to inclusive education. Greendale shows a clear commitment to equitable learning
opportunities and individualized support for all students. About 18% of the students receive
services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004).
Chain of Command
The chain of command at Greendale follows a traditional public-school hierarchy, with
authority flowing from the district superintendent to the building principal and then to various
assistant principals and department leaders. The principal serves as the key link between district
leadership and classroom practice. They oversee policy implementation, supervise staff, and
ensure legal compliance – especially when it comes to IEP implementation and special education
services. These responsibilities require close coordination among educators and specialists
(Friend & Cook, 2021).
Formal authority within the school is multifaceted. Economic authority lies primarily at
the district level, where budgeting and staffing decisions are made. Legal authority stems from
federal and state mandates, including IDEA, which govern special education compliance.
Contractual authority arises through negotiated agreements that define teacher responsibilities,
while collegial authority is evident in the school’s grade-level and departmental teams that
collaborate to design instruction and address student needs (Bolman & Deal, 2021).
Although authority is clearly defined, Greendale’s recent struggles with inconsistent IEP
implementation suggest that communication and accountability channels within this hierarchy
are not always functioning as intended. The structure looks solid on paper, but in practice, the
flow of information between administrative, special education, and general education isn’t
always consistent. That inconsistency leads to uneven delivery of accommodations across
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 3
classrooms. This shows the kind of communication barriers that Friend and Cook (2021) identify
as common challenges in school environments.
Span of Control
Greendale Elementary’s span of control reflects its moderate size. The principal oversees
two assistant principals who split the responsibilities of overseeing the different grade-levels.
Additional members of the administrative team include two instructional specialists, two
counselors, a behavior interventionist, a testing coordinator, and a special education
diagnostician.
These leaders support approximately 60 certified teachers and a number of
paraprofessionals. The assistant principals and instructional specialists work together to
supervise many of the staff members, while the special education diagnostician manages
compliance, service delivery, and collaboration among special education teachers and aides. In
practice, that means there are about three or four layers between district leadership and the
teachers in the classroom.
This structure helps with oversight and specialization, but it also introduces complexity.
Teachers often have multiple points of contact including administrators, instructional coaches,
and coordinators. This can result in confusion over who is responsible for certain tasks. The
narrow but multilayered span of control contributes to both close supervision and potential
bottlenecks in communication (Bolman & Deal, 2021).
Departmentalization Structures
Greendale Elementary employs a hybrid departmentalization structure that combines
functional specialization with grade-level teams. Functionally, staff are organized by their role –
general education, special education, and support services such as counseling, intervention, and
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 4
testing. This structure helps staff build expertise within their roles and keeps accountability clear
(Bolman & Deal, 2021). At the same time, teachers collaborate in grade-level teams that include
both general and special educators. These teams meet regularly to discuss instruction, share
student progress data, and plan interventions (Friend & Cook, 2021). Ideally, this dual structure
should make collaboration easier across roles; however, the overlap between functional and
grade-level structures sometimes causes miscommunication. For instance, general education
teachers may plan lessons without fully incorporating IEP accommodations if special educators
are unable to attend planning meetings.
According to Bolman and Deal’s (2021) structural framework, effective organizations
balance differentiation (dividing work into roles and departments) with integration (coordinating
that work into a unified effort). At Greendale, differentiation is strong, but integration—
particularly between general and special education—is uneven. This imbalance has contributed
to the school’s ongoing challenge of inconsistent IEP implementation, echoing Donaldson’s
(2001) argument that an organization’s structure must adapt to its environment and tasks to
remain effective.
Decision Making
Decision-making at Greendale Elementary occurs across multiple levels, blending
centralized administrative authority with collaborative instructional input. District leaders make
high-level decisions related to policy, staffing, and resource allocation, while the principal and
assistant principals handle day-to-day operations and compliance monitoring (Bolman & Deal,
2021). Instructional decisions are often made within Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
or grade-level teams, where teachers analyze data and determine strategies to address student
needs (Friend & Cook, 2021). Decisions related to accommodations and modifications occur
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 5
through multidisciplinary IEP teams that include general and special educators, parents, and
administrators, as required by IDEA (2004).
Even with these collaborative processes, decision-making doesn’t always flow smoothly.
Teachers sometimes aren’t sure who to reach out to about IEP adjustments or clarifications. In
the absence of a clearly defined feedback loop, decisions may not reach all relevant staff,
contributing to the uneven application of accommodations. Bolman and Deal (2021) suggest that
such gaps often arise when formal authority structures are not supported by effective
coordination systems.
Centralized/ Decentralized Continuum
Greendale Elementary exhibits a moderate level of centralization that aligns with its
public-school context. District administrators retain significant control over budgeting, staffing,
and policy, while the principal manages building-level decision-making. At the classroom level,
however, decision-making is partially decentralized to promote teacher autonomy and
responsiveness to student needs (Bolman & Deal, 2021).
This balance has a few advantages. Teachers can adjust instruction to individual students,
while administrators still keep an eye on compliance and equity. Yet, in the case of IEP
implementation, decentralization has led to unintended variability. Without uniform systems for
monitoring accommodations, teacher discretion has resulted in inconsistent practices (Friend &
Cook, 2021).
As Bolman and Deal (2021) point out, the right balance between centralization and
decentralization depends on how well it fits an organization’s goals and culture. For Greendale,
greater centralized accountability mechanisms, such as shared documentation platforms or
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 6
standardized checklists, could coexist with decentralized instructional flexibility which ensures
both autonomy and consistency in meeting student's needs.
Staff/Line Distinctions
Within Greendale Elementary, line positions include general and special education
teachers, paraprofessionals, and instructional aides who directly deliver instruction and support
students. Staff positions include administrators, specialists, and the diagnostician who guide,
support, and evaluate instructional efforts. Although this distinction is formally recognized, the
lines often blur. For instance, instructional specialists and the special education diagnostician
sometimes provide direct student support in addition to their supervisory roles (Friend & Cook,
2021). While this hands-on approach promotes collaboration and shared understanding, it can
create ambiguity about accountability and role boundaries. Bolman and Deal (2021) note that
such overlaps, if unmanaged, can weaken structural clarity and hinder performance.
Conclusion
Greendale Elementary’s organizational structure reflects both the strengths and
challenges of a modern, inclusion-focused public school. The existing hierarchy,
departmentalization, and collaborative teams align with the school’s mission of equity and
inclusion. However, gaps in communication, unclear role boundaries, and limited coordination
between general and special education staff have created structural barriers to consistent IEP
implementation. According to Bolman and Deal’s (2021) structural framework, organizations are
most effective when their structure matches their goals, people, and environment. For Greendale,
this means aligning its collaborative culture with clearer communication pathways, more
integrated decision-making processes, and stronger accountability systems. Improving this
alignment could make IEP implementation more consistent.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 7
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Sage.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2021). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (9th
ed.). Pearson.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
