T he
El e c t r on i c
Ha llw a y ®
Case Teaching Resources
FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Box 353060 · University of Washington · Seattle WA
98195- 3060
www.hallway.org
A CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP AT THE
LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY
After hanging up the phone receiver, Ales Rakovich, the new Local Education Authority (LEA)
head in the town of Rubensk, sat back to collect his thoughts. The call from Zenon Gvozd, the
head of the Regional Education Authority, was very disturbing. The conversation revealed
Gvozd’s extreme dissatisfaction with the work of the Rubensk LEA staff. Rakovich knew that
he had to act immediately to address the situation.
Among the issues brought to Rakovich’s attention were problems laid at the feet of Olga
Vasyuk, the LEA secretary, which were interfering with the effectiveness of the LEA operation.
Even though Rakovich had spoken with Olga about her performance several times, nothing had
ever changed for the better. Besides the phone call from the REA, he had also received recent
complaints about Olga from the heads of the LEA departments.
Background
Lyubenski was a small, remote rural district in southern Belarus. There were about 35,000
people living in the area, working mostly in agriculture. Most residents had lived in this place for
a long time and knew each other relatively well. The school district was not big--about eight
schools (including one vocational school for agriculture and one music school)--with between
sixty to two-hundred children attending each school.
Very few newcomers came to settle in the area, which had been severely polluted during the
Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion. There were thus many vacancies in the local schools. In
addition, there were problems with hiring virtually every kind of teacher or school administrator.
It was also quite difficult to find employees for office work, as salaries were very modest.
This case study was made possible through the generous contributions of the Institute for Local Government and
Public Service in Budapest, Hungary. Its distribution through the Electronic Hallway system is made possible through
the Pew Charitable Trusts’ generous support of the Public Service Curriculum Exchange. The case was prepared by
Vassily Selishchev, Professor at the Belarus Educational Center for Leadership Development in Minsk, Belarus.
Professor Selishchev was a participant in the Cascade Center for Public Service’s 1994-95 Case Project for Central
and Eastern Europe.
The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This
material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email
hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for
educational purposes per the Member’s Agreement (www.hallway.org).
Copyright 2000 The Electronic Hallway
A Change of Leadership at the Local Education Authority (A)
The Belarus Educational Administration System
The system of educational administration in the Republic of Belarus was highly centralized. All
decisions were made at the top and imposed on mid-level administrators, who did not
participate in the decision-making process. This system bred administrators who were not
willing to make decisions on their own, as independent decision-making was accompanied by
stress and greater responsibility which the administrators tried to avoid. They considered it to
be much safer to monitor the accomplishment of tasks and execution of decisions made by top
administrators. Thus they considered the control function, or maintaining the status quo, to be
the most important aspect of their work.
The heads of the local Authorities were thus subject to long-term pressure of varying degrees.
Very often they were valued not for their professional skills, but for their ability to conform to
the policies and procedures dictated by top administrators. Even experienced administrators
had no idea what educational leadership was or how the organization should be managed.
Many them managed their educational or administrative support organizations intuitively, basing
their decisions only on their own previous experience. Most had received no formal training in
management, leadership or administration.
The Local Educational Authority (LEA) in Rubensk
The Local Education Authority office was situated in Rubensk, which was located in the
Lyubenski district. There were fourteen people working in the office. Before Ales Rakovich’s
arrival, the head of the LEA office had been Adam Lozinsky. He was an experienced
administrator and had served for five years in this position.
The role of the Lyubenski LEA was very important, as it served the rural population in a
disadvantaged area of the country. The LEA was involved in such activities as: allocating and
distributing educational resources, hiring teaching staff, organizing staff development programs,
designing and implementing assessment and evaluation procedures, and overseeing curriculum
development.
As part of the centralized system of educational administration, the LEA monitored and
controlled the implementation of the policies and decisions of the Regional Education Authorities
(REA), which in turn received decisions and policy directives ready-made from the national
Ministry of Education and Science.
This period of education development in Belarus was characterized by the transition to
liberalism, which proceeded rather slowly given the unpredictable political environment. This
transition was accompanied by uncertainties in the division of rights and responsibilities between
the national authorities (Ministry of Education and Science) and the Educational Authorities in
the regions and localities. For LEA administrators, the situation meant constant change,
2
A Change of Leadership at the Local Education Authority (A)
adapting to new conditions, varied student needs, new economic demands and development
imperatives.
The Rubensk LEA consisted of three departments: primary education, secondary education,
and vocational education (Attachment 1). Each department was comprised of the head of the
department and three administrative employees. The heads of the individual departments
reported to the head of the LEA. The LEA head was responsible for hiring and supervising all
departmental employees, although to undertake disciplinary actions and/or to fire the
employees, the LEA head had to consult with the head of the Regional Educational Authority.
The Rubensk LEA had one secretary, Olga Vasyuk, who had been hired by Adam Lozinsky
about three years before Ales Rakovich’s arrival. Olga was the sole clerical employee in the
office. (See Attachments 2 and 3 for LEA employee job descriptions.)
Organizational Culture
Under the stewardship of former LEA head Adam Lozinsky, there had been a tradition in the
organization of following the working habits of the head administrator. Thus, there were no
formal policies defining when staff had to arrive at the office and when they could leave work
each day. The national Ministry of Education regulations defined the length of the working day
(eight hours), but did not decree specific work schedules.
Because Lozinsky had typically arrived in the office at nine in the morning and left at five in the
afternoon, everybody in the office followed this pattern. This tradition became a part of LEA
office culture--an informal, but common working norm which was followed by most LEA
employees. It lent predictability to the operation and to the work of LEA employees.
The Secretary
Olga was the only secretary in the LEA office. Her responsibilities included working for the
LEA head and for the three department heads. Olga did a lot of computer work, since she was
responsible for sending letters and reports to the district and regional Education Authorities.
She enjoyed her work; she liked to type and to meet people. Olga didn't mind when employees
from the departments asked her to do some small tasks (e.g. looking for documents, answering
phone calls) for them.
From the time she was hired, Olga considered Adam Lozinsky (and later Ales Rakovich) to be
her real supervisor, though there were no official regulations defining to whom she formally
reported. Olga was a very good worker in many ways. She knew the answers to practically
everything and she had good communication skills. Local principals, kindergarten directors,
teachers, and parents had often commented to Lozinsky about how much they appreciated
Olga's helpfulness and friendliness.
But Olga had some negative qualities. She was not particularly orderly. First and foremost, this
became apparent through her work with LEA documents and files. Over the course of a typical
3
A Change of Leadership at the Local Education Authority (A)
day, Olga had to prepare documents, answer telephone calls, and take messages for the head
of the LEA and for the heads of the departments. Her desk would inevitably become a mess.
It was usually piled high with letters, messages, and pages from files she had pulled while
answering calls or preparing documents or messages. Olga sometimes forgot to put documents
back in their proper files and she never threw away papers she didn't need anymore.
Once or twice a month, when her desk became a complete mess, Olga would spend the whole
day cleaning it. After such episodes, her desk was a model of organization. But this was a
temporary state and her desk soon became covered with papers again, as Olga continued to do
things in her own disorderly fashion.
Olga’s second major shortcoming was that her arrival at the office each morning was very
unpredictable. When she worked for Adam Lozinsky, she would arrive at work from five
minutes to a half- hour after her boss every day. However, she usually stayed at work later than
most other LEA employees. Olga was typically in the office until 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. waiting for
her husband to pick her up. During that time, she answered phone calls and assisted visitors
who dropped in after-hours. Many of these people worked in small schools or farms far from
the central office, and could only visit the LEA office after their working day was over. Since
Lozinsky and LEA department heads often scheduled meetings after official working hours, they
found having Olga in the office to be very convenient.
From time to time, Adam Lozinsky would speak to Olga about her tardiness in the mornings,
and about how critical it was to return LEA documents to the files so that others could access
them when they needed to. The files were organized into several key groups: the first contained
information about teaching evaluations; the second group included educational institutions’ work
plans and data on student test scores and achievements. The third file-group contained financial
information, including the detailed budgets of local schools, special program funds (e.g.
additional funding for the Chernobyl zone), salary data, etc. Many of these documents were
classified “confidential” and were not intended for general use.
Within each file-group, folders were arranged according to their importance and frequency of
use. Often, after Olga had used the files, certain documents were missing one or more pages,
or were missing altogether.
During her periodic conversations with Lozinsky, Olga would always promise to improve, but
within several days she would have resumed her usual practice.
A New Regime at the LEA
After Adam Lozinsky retired, Ales Rakovich was appointed to direct the LEA office. Rakovich
had previously worked in a neighboring region. His work habits were different from those of
Lozinsky. Rakovich spent a lot of time in the field, getting acquainted with the facilities and
4
A Change of Leadership at the Local Education Authority (A)
employees across the school district. He usually began his day by visiting the principals of area
schools.
He usually started work at eight each morning, but was out of the office until close to noon. The
period from 9:00 to noon or 1:00 p.m. was, as a rule, the most busy period in the LEA office,
as many people called and important messages were taken. It was during this time that
Rakovich was out in the field, visiting schools, riding from one school to another, and it was very
difficult to locate him. However, he usually informed Olga of his whereabouts.
Because Rakovich was out of the office most mornings, LEA employees soon began arriving to
work at different hours. As a result, there was often no one in the office at nine or half past nine
to answer calls or greet visitors.
Conflict
Regional Educational Authority (REA) officers called practically every day to ask for statistical
information that LEA was responsible for preparing on a regular basis. Such information
included data on teacher assessment, school reports, student grades, student absenteeism,
financial reports or additions to them, and other standard documents. REA officers typically
called Rakovich’s office for this information, but, due to Olga’s absences, these calls frequently
went unanswered. If other staff members happened to be standing by her desk, they would
answer the calls. However, they had such a difficult time locating the necessary documents that
they were unable to answer inquiries effectively. Very soon they gave up trying.
After trying to reach Olga several times without success, a frustrated REA officer mentioned in a
phone conversation with LEA’s primary-education department head that he was going to report
this problem to the head of the REA. Consequently, Ales Rakovich and the LEA department
heads were forced once again to discuss with Olga the impact of her working habits. As she
had done in the past, Olga promised to change but then did little about it.
Finally, when Olga failed to give the primary-department head a very important message from
the REA and sent the documents intended for one principal to that of another school, the LEA
department heads complained again to Rakovich. The situation began to escalate very quickly;
it was clearly influencing the effectiveness of LEA’s work and its standing in the community.
Even Rakovich’s reputation as a capable manager was endangered.
REA Chief Applies Pressure
The situation finally culminated in a phone call between Rakovich and Zenon Gvozd, the
Regional Education Authority (REA) head, who expressed his dissatisfaction with the working
habits of LEA staff. The REA head said that he had recorded several cases when his messages
clearly hadn’t reached Rakovich. He also informed Rakovich that, due to the inadequate work
of the LEA staff and their inability to provide information to their chief, Rakovich had missed a
very important meeting with the head of the State Commission on Radiology about the
5
A Change of Leadership at the Local Education Authority (A)
consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe. During that meeting, the problem of allocation of
additional resources to educational districts in the polluted areas was discussed. With the
exception of Rakovich, all district heads were present and were able to present and justify their
districts’ needs.
This reflected poorly on Rakovich and seriously damaged the reputation of the LEA. Word
about the LEA office had filtered down to district constituents, who were talking, as Rakovich
learned, about his inability to improve educational services and the financial condition of
kindergartens and schools. Some even said that Rakovich was neglecting the interests of local
people.
Rakovich knew that if he didn’t take immediate action to rectify the situation, such events would
be increasingly damaging to his department. He sat down to decide what to do.
6
A Change of Leadership at the Local Education Authority (A)
Attachment 1
LEA Organizational Chart
7
A Change of Leadership at the Local Education Authority (A)
Attachment 2
Job Descriptions: LEA head and LEA secretary
Local Educational Authority Head
Organizes and monitors the work of the LEA. Reports to the
REA head. Responsible for organizing those educational
activities in the district aimed at achieving educational goals
developed by the Ministry of Education and Science.
Monitors the work of local schools and evaluates their
progress on their annual plans. Responsible for providing the
necessary financial and programmatic conditions under which
the schools can operate successfully.
Responsible for maintaining and responding to requests about
documents. Should perform in accordance with the
regulations and protocols approved by and used in the LEA.
Collects information requested by the LEA head from LEA
departments, schools and top authorities. Organizes meetings
between visitors and LEA head. Makes and answers phone
calls, takes phone messages for the LEA head and relays
them to him. Types necessary materials. Monitors incoming
information from the regional and national offices. Must
understand the structure of the organization, the protocols for
completing and organizing documents, how to operate office
machines, the rules of orthography, and LEA internal job
regulations and operations guidelines. Secondary school
education is required.
LEA Secretary
8
A Change of Leadership at the Local Education Authority (A)
Attachment 3
Job Descriptions: Primary education department
Head of the department
Advisory officer
Training officer - analyst
Book keeper
Reports to the LEA head. Is the LEA head
deputy. Organizes and supervises the work of
the department.
Deals with educational technologies, teaching
methodology, teaching resources. Responsible
for conducting annual and biannual evaluation
of primary education organizations. Monitors
and assists the evaluation of the teachers in the
schools.
Deals with retraining of teachers and
principals (organizes teachers’ and principals’
participation in the retraining courses and
programs). Conducts analysis of primary
education organizations’ accomplishments.
Defines services gaps, makes prognosis, etc.
Organizes and monitors distribution of state
finances to the primary education
organizations (PEO). Assists in developing
budgets of PEO’s. Responsible for effective
allocation of taxpayer money in the district,
etc.
NOTE: The structure of the secondary education and vocational education departments are the
same.
9