Conflict in School Systems: The

Conflict in School Systems: The Impact and Forms of Conflict between and within School Boards, School Administrators, Teachers, Parents, and the Community Like all types of organizations, school systems also experience their share of conflict. The source of conflict in the schools can assume a number of types, including between and within school boards, school administrators, teachers, parents, and the surrounding community. Conflict, though, does not necessarily represent a negative condition, but rather can be viewed as an opportunity for growth and improvement when properly administered.

Unfortunately, many school systems are constrained by their inability to resolve such conflicts and the outcomes of these conflicts can in fact be highly damaging for all of the stakeholders involved. To determine what the impact of such conflict can be and what forms conflict assumes in school systems, this paper provides a review of the relevant juried and scholarly literature, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion At every level, the potential for conflict exists in school systems beginning with the school boards that govern them. Because educators, parents and community members are very different humans, it is not surprising that the types of conflict and problems that are typically encountered in the schools mirror these important differences. For instance, according to Feuerstein, "Some boards seem quite adept at carrying out their responsibilities, while others seem to have difficulty understanding their role and fulfilling their responsibilities as stewards of the local school district" (3).

Moreover, many school board-related problems include conflicts of interest over resources, nepotism, and misunderstandings concerning the appropriate role of school board members (Fueurstein 4). There is also frequently a serious disconnect between the goals of school board members and the desires of the citizens of the community as well as students' parents (Fueuerstein 4). A potential solution to this type of conflict between school board members and the community is more active engagement.

For instance, according to Howell, "[School] boards must find ways to invigorate and involve the broader public so that average citizens have cause to come to their defense. When citizens view state and federal infringements on school board prerogatives as infringements on their own ability to guide education policy, boards will have a considerably stronger basis on which to promote the benefits of local control" (27). At the administrator level, conflict can occur within and between the school board, teachers, parents and the community.

In an increasingly multicultural society, it is reasonable to expect some type of conflict that is related to cross-cultural issues in the schools. In those cases where school administers identify a language barrier between educators and parents, translators can help bridge this communication gap. As Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch and Hernandez point out, though, "Problems in cross-cultural communication are often due to conflicts between parents' values and the implicit values of the school rather than to language" (45).

Other sources of conflict for school administrators and principals involve decisions over where money should best be spent to achieve the school system's objectives. School systems that assign responsibility and authority for such budgetary decisions to parent and teacher committees are major sources of conflict between parents, teachers and administrator (Ouchi 19). According to Ouchi, "That's because parents and teachers aren't accountable for either student performance or budget performance. It's the principal who is accountable, and it's the principal who should have the final say in these decisions.

That doesn't mean the principal should be allowed to become an emperor or empress. The principal should be expected to consult with and listen to all parties" (19). Likewise, there may be significant incongruence between what educators expect of parents and the parents' perception of their appropriate role in the education of their children.

For instance, Trumbull and her associates note that, "Many schools provide parent education on child-rearing and academic tutoring, but parents may resent being told how to rear their children or may not think it appropriate to assume an academic teaching role with their children" (46). The implications of this type of conflict for parents can be highly serious because of the perceptions that are created that they are inadequate or substandard parents. In this regard, Trumbull et al.

add that, "When parents do not accept the roles that schools expect, teachers may negatively evaluate them" (46). Since the schools are not there for the administrators or the parents, though, these issues overlook the larger concern about what is best for the students. At the classroom teacher level, the sources of conflict also span the entire range of boards, administrators, peers, parents and the community.

These conflicts can take the form of variances over federal and state mandates, controversial curricular offerings, budgeting, technological issues, and even concerns over teacher free speech (Gee 409). Moreover, classroom teachers are challenged by overcrowded conditions as well as mainstreamed students with learning disabilities who require significant amounts of individualized attention (Anderson-Butcher and Ashton 40). Furthermore, teachers are among the most highly unionized workers in the United States and their participation in these collective bargaining efforts have been the source of a great deal of conflict.

In this regard, fully 80% of all public and private school teachers are union member compared to just 11% of private sector workers (Ouchi 18). According to Ouchi, "Teachers' unions are blamed for corrupting the independence of state and local officials with their large campaign contributions, for supporting rules that protect bad teachers and for handcuffing principals by denying them the authority to assign teachers to the schools and the classrooms where they are most needed. Some of that criticism is fair, but most of it is not" (18).

Based on his analysis of six school districts in California, Ouchi identified the Los Angeles school system as being the most heavily unionized as well as experiencing the most conflicts. The intuitive assumption would be to place the blame for this higher level of conflict on the teachers' unions, but Ouchi is quick to point out that, "It's true that adversarial unions typically arise in response to abusive management.

Playing that countervailing role unfortunately places unions in the position of counterbalancing what is wrong rather than helping to create what could be right" (19). Complex problems such as these require complex solutions and the sources of conflict in the school classroom are certainly no exception.

Despite the challenges that are involved, though, Anderson-Butcher and Ashton emphasize that there is no room false starts or experimentation when it comes to the delivery of high-quality educational services: "These complex problems and issues must be addressed if students are going to learn in the classrooms" (41). At the community level, citizens may be concerned that their school systems are not teaching the types of courses that will prepare students for meaningful employment in the 21st century workplace (Anderson-Butcher and Ashton 40).

Other sources of conflict at the community level include concerns that school systems are disinterested in the views of community members, whether this perception is accurate or not. To overcome this source of conflict, Anderson-Butcher and Ashton recommend the use of a community collaboration model that actively involves all stakeholders who are committed to improving children's learning and healthy development.

For example, according to Anderson-Butcher and Asthon, "In community collaboration, parents, youths, older adults, community leaders, schools, youth development agencies, city government, health and mental health providers, businesspeople, child welfare workers, religious institutions, police officers, victim's advocates, and others coordinate, harmonize, and synchronize the operations of all of their agencies" (41). Some salient examples of these types of initiatives include the following: 1. COPS efforts to engage law enforcement, schools, youth development agencies, community centers, and local residents in formal cooperative structures that combat crime and delinquency in the community; 2.

Gang task forces that enhance awareness of gangs among community members by publishing information on the signs and symptoms of gang involvement; and, 3. Time-dollar bartering systems and parent-to-parent support programs to provide nonmonetary systems of building mutual support and aid (Anderson-Butcher and Asthon 41) The impact of these types of initiatives on resolving community-level conflicts can be profound. As Anderson-Butcher and Ashton conclude, "Mutual benefits result as schools partner with other human services agencies, families, and other invested parties in their school communities. The job of educating becomes easier" (41).

Busy classroom teachers, school administrators and even school board members will likely readily appreciate this type of improvement in the ability of teachers to provide high-quality educational services and Anderson-Butcher and Ashton conclude that the effects of these types of collaborative efforts can go a long way in defusing conflicts within and between these stakeholders.