CASE STUDY: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 1
Case Study: Structural Analysis through the Structural Theories Lens
School of Education, Liberty University
Introduction
This case study will use the structural theories lens to evaluate the organizational structure of
the my school, a high school within the New York City Public Schools (NYCPS). In this analysis,
the chain of command, span of control, departmentalization, decision-making process,
centralization, and staff and line will be discussed to determine how it uses the current
organizational structure to support or jeopardize the organization's effectiveness. This exercise
aims to give a broad overview of the school’s structure and identify potential pitfalls.
Chain of Command and Lines of Authority
CASE STUDY: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 2
The school's organizational structure is linear with the typical hierarchical structure: Principal →
Assistant Principal → Department Leaders → Teacher. At the next level, the district is headed by
a Superintendent. The principal has the ultimate economic power within the school, overseeing
its funding, which comes from several funding sources such as the city, state, and federal
government. These, among others, are Fair Student Funding (FSF), Title I for lowincome
students, and IDEA for special needs services. The principal is primarily responsible for setting
the budget, but staffing is coordinated through the district’s Human Resources division. Some of
these funds are locked, meaning they cannot be reallocated. The Title I Committee typically
decides how Title I funds are spent, whether on instructional staff and materials, professional
development, and/or student services.
The legal authority is delegated to a senior legal counsel who provides guidance on labor law,
contracts, and special education. The contractual authority has been standardized by the
NYCPS, but principals have some control in the establishment of staff schedules. In terms of
collegial control, this is exercised by partnership structures such as the building council, where
the campus principals meet to decide about shared resources or policies. The assistant
principals convene every week to collaborate on staff development sessions, student discipline
and instructional strategies. In years past, campus assistant principals had a collaborative
process for addressing challenges, but this process has decreased in utilization.
Span of Control
The principal heads the whole school, backed up by 3 assistant principals with their specific
roles:
•AP1 oversees: Special education, Safety/Security, discipline, support staff (secretaries,
librarian, community associate and parent coordinator), The Art and Physical education
department, equity team, student activities and is the 9th grade cohort leader.
CASE STUDY: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 3
•AP2 oversees: English, SS, ENL, school aides, after-school program, discipline, and is the
10th-grade cohort leader.
•AP3: Oversees: Math, Science, World Language, equity team, student activities, guidance
team, and is the 11th and 12th grade cohort leader.
With nearly 600 students and four levels of leadership (Principal, APs, department
leaders/deans, teachers), the span of control is broad. The department leaders meet regularly
with their teams to disseminate information and provide instructional and academic support.
However, the structure has led to communication breakdowns. For instance, the social studies
department leader informed the staff that she received approval from the principal to deviate
from a school-wide practice. Implementing this unapproved strategy brought confusion within
the departments and undermined the leadership's credibility. When leaders are stretched too
thin, gaps emerge that others may fill inappropriately, creating mistrust and inconsistency.
Departmentalization Structures
Our school is departmentalized into Math, Science, English, Social Studies, and World
Languages. There are classrooms categorized by subject, and each department has a leader who
works in tandem with an assigned assistant principal. The duties are adequately delineated with
no material redundancies or deficiencies in department functions.
Decision-Making
Decisions are made centrally, with the principal involving assistant principals, the union
representative, and department leaders in discussion where necessary. Professional
development led by teachers generally introduced new strategies. The policy alterations are
conveyed by the appropriate staff member (AP, counselor, and/or union rep). When making
decisions that may impact personnel negatively, it is best to weigh the matter and seek wise
counsel to not make matters worse by causing friction or harm. For instance, the counselor who
supported the freshmen this past school year was reassigned to the 11th grade. She
CASE STUDY: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 4
established a rapport with the parents and students and helped those students to make great
academic achievements. Despite making the case that she should remain with her cohort for
the sake of continuity, the principal decided otherwise. The counselor felt that his decision was
personal because several weeks before, she was very outspoken in a meeting the principal had
with the guidance counselors. This decision further divided the guidance team. This summer,
the principal made a last-minute decision to offer a Biology summer course which ended up
wasting money with little student outcomes. These examples highlight the need for more
inclusive and thoughtful decisionmaking.
Centralized vs. Decentralized Continuum
Our school follows a centralized model, in which the principal decides the most significant
matters. In many instances before the principal makes the final decision, he seeks the input
from assistant principals and department leaders. Although this structure can yield faster
decisions, it may limit personal autonomy, less follow-through, and accountability when
decisions are made unilaterally versus collaboratively. Lastly, leaders cause stakeholders feel
marginalized or undervalued, the result is a communication breakdown, as evidenced in the
examples above.
Staff and Line Distinctions:
Staff and line positions are not blurred. Line roles include teachers who teach directly to
students. Such positions can vary from counselors, department leaders, and support staff who
engage in work that contributes to student learning and well-being. Job descriptions and
supervisory framing maintain these distinctions. But emotional currents and interpersonal
conflicts can occasionally blur the lines and derail the collaboration.
Conclusion:
CASE STUDY: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 5
This structural analysis of our school exhibits a clear hierarchy and departmental organization.
The wide scope of control and the centralized decision-making, however, have brought
communication pitfalls and some blunders. The structure ensures that when bold leaders
overreach, there’s a price to pay. To increase organizational effectiveness, the principal should
give thought to the reallocation of responsibilities, integrating cooperation, and promoting
more participatory decision-making.
CASE STUDY: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 6
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (7th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
New York City Department of Education. (n.d.). Fair Student Funding overview. Retrieved from
https://www.schools.nyc.gov
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice-
Hall.
Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2015). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and
school reform (11th ed.). Pearson.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
