Victoria Schooler
ELIB 550
Sociogram
School Board of Trustees
Principal/
Superintendent
Assistant
Principal
Curriculum
Director
Business
Manager
Department
Chairs
LMT
Teacher
Academy
Leaders
Red – Administrators
Parent
Blue- Staff
Student
Thin arrows – weaker relationship
Thick arrows – stronger relationship
Circle size and shape indicates power
Reflection – Taft Union High School Structure
Our school operates under the control of the school board of trustees. Every month our
administrators meet with the board of trustees to make decisions about the operation and
maintenance of our school. The board makes all the final decisions and approves all final
changes, of course, under the guidance of our superintendent. Under the board of trustees,
which is made up of five alumni members, is the superintendent and principal position.
Currently, our superintendent is acting as our principal. Below the superintendent/principal
position are the three administrators (assistant principal, business manager, and curriculum
director). From there, it’s the staff, students, and parents.
Unfortunately, our power structure seems to be ever-changing because of financial situations
or because of our fairly new superintendent. Each year there has been new changes in our
administrative positions. We continue to lose positions each year and our leader is planning
more cuts in the future. It seems like there’s only one leader- superintendent/principal. We
only have one assistant principal who works as our dean of students. There are really only
about four administrators at our school and our principal is planning to eliminate the
curriculum director in the next two years and then possibly the library media teacher. It’s been
difficult to distinguish this power structure/relationship because of its on-going changes. We’re
left with few people to connect and build relationships with.
I believe that our school operates on a typical power structure. As a school, we have to
communicate with many people and we have to be aware of how each program works. Our
school mostly operates on a chain of command. We have been given a chain to follow when we
have problems, questions, etc...(e.g. a teacher first talks to department chair, then the chair
talks to the director or principal or a parent first talks to the teacher, than teacher to counselor
or department chair, depending upon the situation). Every employee knows who to go to when
they need assistance or have a problem. I have found through creating this sociogram,
however, that this type of organizational leadership has its disadvantages. For example, as a
teacher, I can’t just go talk to the principal if I have a concern. I have been instructed to talk first
with my department chair. This limits the relationships among staff.
From the perspective of the LMT, I found that the position doesn’t have as strong of a
relationship with the principal, teacher or the students that it should have. The relationships, as
far as collaboration and communication are pretty weak. Teachers at our school are so
concerned with test scores that they are limited time to collaborate with the LMT or flexibility
in their curriculum to create activities or assignments. It seems that the stronger relationships
exist with the business manager and department chairs. I noticed that the relationships
between the LMT and the students are very weak. Their relationship seems to only exist at the
counter when checking out books. This may be a result of the weak relationship between the
teacher and LMT.
The type of inclusivity at TUHS: While at first glance one might say it’s a fiefdom since one
person serves as both superintendent and principal (and has a very compliant board), but I
don’t think that our Superintendent actually operates that way. I think our school fits better
within the Compliance model. To quote Farmer, “team players are key” and “differences are
ignored with the emphasis on the bottom line.” The team players are department chairs and
other program leaders (e.g., AVID, FFA, Oil Academy team leaders), as well as the occasional
influential teacher (due to popularity with parents and/or students – like Mr. Kopp). The
bottom line is higher pass rates and test scores (both benchmark and state tests), higher
attendance rates (ADA!), and lower dropout rates.
I like to think TUHS is a collaborative learning community, but I’m sure this is more so in some
departments than others (although I admit I don’t have much personal knowledge of how other
departments operate). I see some of the Affirmative Action characteristics at TUHS too. People
are generally free (at least within their department) to bring up new ideas, and differences of
opinion are tolerated, but only up to a point. That’s where the team player model comes in
again, bringing us back to the Compliance model. We have gone through brief phases where we
operated under the Restructured model, but I wouldn’t say that is the default mode. I don’t
think we’re quite at the Diversified level, although I see occasional examples of it (e.g., we do
have some influence on policy and/or procedures in the English department, even though the
administration tries to move us into the Compliance mode as often as possible – which is to be
expected, as that is how most management entities seem to operate. But I have always felt free
to bring things up with our principal (and, to a lesser degree, with our Director of Curriculum)
and usually find them receptive. I don’t know how they respond to other people, though I’ve
seen encouraging responses to suggestions made by other teachers. I suspect the
administration is more receptive to those they believe are effective teachers and hard workers,
etc. (it’s just human nature).
To sum it all up, I found the source of power is situated in its expected place and our school
follows the official organizational structure.
Implications for Improving the Library Program
Communication effectiveness directly affects the success of a school. The Library media teacher
is a vital component in the success of a school and the students. I strongly believe that the LMT
should have the strongest relationships with teachers and students and it’s evident that our
LMT does not have that relationship at our school. I’ve noticed that our current LMT works
more as a “glorified” library clerk. Unfortunately, our school leader has a misconception of the
role of the LMT and doesn’t understand what the role involves. Our superintendent needs to
learn and understand the function and capabilities of an LMT and begin using that position as it
should be before any progress can be made. Communication could be improved if the LMT was
being used as she should be. To begin the improvement, the LMT needs to become more
involved with the teachers and their curriculum. The LMT should actively seek out opportunities
to interact with staff and students, frequently promote library instruction opportunities to staff,
and continually share teaching skills and information literacy knowledge to staff and students.
It is obvious that the perception of the LMT has to change at our school. School library media
teachers are vital to a successful learning experience. The first necessary step to building a
better relationship with teachers would be for the library media teacher to personally go out
and meet every teacher at least once during the school year to discuss their curriculum needs.
To build a better relationship with students, the LMT could get involved in student activities –
like homecoming week and offer the library for meetings.
I like the conclusion in Farmer’s article that a librarian/LMT is in a position to exert some “soft”
power if he/she is shrewd and political (in the positive sense of the word). This will be
increasingly challenging as the information center model becomes even more decentralized
(with classroom labs, sets of laptops, groups of students with netbooks – like AVID, Oil
Academy, Journalism students). The LMT must find a way to stay not just relevant but
indispensable to students, faculty, and staff – and, if possible, the community.
Sociogram and analysis based on:
Farmer, Lesley. “The Powers of Management”. The Book Report. September/October: 2000.