PCA – Structure Analysis

Kyle Craig

OGL 481

6/6/2021
 Situation Restatement

In my case study I am writing from the perspective of a Gilbert School District

member making the decision that was made January 5, 2021 during a six hour school
board meeting on whether or not the students would be returning to full time instruction
the following day as Winter Break came to a close. The district returned to a hybrid
learning model in December 2020, but teachers threatened a Sick Out in January because
they wanted to avoid potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 after all of the traveling
students did over the break.

Structure Influence

The structure of Gilbert School District can best be understood by looking at

Mitzenberg’s Model (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Bolman and Deal describe the Strategic
Apex as the top tier individuals who make the big decisions for the organization (2017).
The team responsible for making decisions on returning to in person instruction in
January 2021 were the district’s five board members and the Superintendent. The
Operating Core is best understood as the bulk of the workforce, Gilbert School District’s
teachers are responsible for educating children and making sure state education
standards are met each year (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The Support Staff consist of aids,
bus drivers, lunchroom workers, office administration, and paraprofessionals that took
on a new role in the midst of the pandemic. In order to comply with Governor Ducey’s
Executive Order 2020-51, the school had to create an onsite learning plan in the fall of
2020 in order to accommodate individuals at risk enrolled in the district. The
paraprofessionals were asked to sit in a room and provide guidance and support while
children in groups no larger than 15 sat and attended their online classrooms. The final
group that Mitzenberg created space for is the technostructure (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
Gilbert School’s technostructure encompasses contractors who provide services at the
school, the state’s Superintendent of Public Schools, and in the midst or a global
pandemic, the Arizona Department of Health Services had to be consulted in order to
provide a safe environment for children to learn.

While the decision finally came down to the vote of five people. There were
hours of discussion to determine what the best way forward would be, where at least
sixty people took a turn on the microphone. In November, the board had created a
document with threshold numbers for number of cases in each school in order to begin
hybrid learning. After six hours of converstation, it was decided that instead of students
returning full time on January 5, 2021, they would continue in a hybrid model through
the end of January and begin fulltime in-person learning on February 1 as long as the
school was below the threshold of cases. A guiding factor to continuing hybrid and not
moving to a fully virtual model was that the school stood to lose government funding if

2
 they delayed meeting in person. Another thing that was important to address was
teachers’ vaccine availability and distribution. In an effort to retain government
funding, but also protect teachers, their families, and students alike, the hybrid model
seemed to be the best compromise for the month of January. This was not well received
by all of the parents and staff in the district but with a district this size, it is impossible to
please everyone.

Course of Action Recommendation

The best structure for an alternative course of action in the case of Gilbert’s return
to school would have been creating a team to discuss, design and propose a plan that met
the needs of all of the people the district serves. This team would be composed of 6-10
people who were teachers at different grade levels, parents whose students were in
schools throughout the district, and support staff from throughout the district. The team
would also have a board member as the “One Boss” who has authority in the group and
who all of the communication would run through (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The team
would be tasked to stay current on the Arizona Department of Health’s guidance for
schools as well as the Superintendent of Public Education’s guidance for reopening
schools.
From December 2020 to January 2021 Arizona reported their highest new SARS-
CoV-2 infections throughout the pandemic. The spike in infections and hospitalizations
around the valley left teachers concerned that they might be exposed and then expose
their families when school reconvened in January. Parents planned on school returning
to full time in person instruction in January and had not planned for alternative avenues
for their children to attend school. Instead of Gilbert School Board members hearing all
of this information during a six hour board meeting, a more effective solution would
have been to get the employees and parents talking prior to the meeting and collaborate
on a solution so that everyone’s needs were heard and met to the best of their ability.

Do Different Reflection

The board carefully considered all of the information that was presented by the
people who spoke during the meeting. While teachers were concerned for their own
health and safety since the vaccine was still not readily available to teachers, parents were
concerned that their children were suffering academically and socially from being out of
school for so long. What began as a two week break in the Spring turned into three
quarters without in person instruction. In an effort to best serve the students and also
protect the teachers and their families, the board worked to find a solution that was in line
with the governor’s mandates. Structurally school districts do not have a lot of wiggle

3
 room for restructuring, the board and Superintendent will always be responsible for
making decisions for the district while also keeping in line with the mandates from the
state’s Superintendent of Public Education and Governor.
In order for the weight of this decision to not fall solely and heavily on the school
board, the board could have designated a task force to help make the decision. Forming a
team of individuals who were teachers, support staff, and parents with a board member as
the team lead would relieve the pressure on the board’s decision the final night. A “One
Boss” model of team formation would work best for this team with the board member at
the top as the main correspondent (Bolman & Deal, 2017, para. 21). This team composed
of people who the decision effected differently and with all of the necessary health
information would have been able to listen to one another and propose an option that best
addressed everyone’s concerns. While there is not a lot of wiggle room in how the final
decision was made, the district’s board members could have avoided some of the
frustration that night by delegating and getting opinions beforehand to help decide how
students should return to school in January 2021.

4
 Reference

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and

leadership (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass