The extent to which mechanistic thinking is corrupting our culture might be illustrated in relation to any number of fields of activity. For instance, our educational system suffers disastrously from the dominion of the administrative mind, which is, by the very nature of modern administration, generally mechanistic in its thinking (and therefore unfitted to overlook strictly human affairs). It is a well-worn, but none the less just, joke among teachers that education is now a minor by-product of local authority administration. Classroom work is overlooked by superfluous local organizers. A county’s schools will be run from the authority’s central office rather as a ring of chain-stores is run from headquarters. As the grip of the administrator tightens, the authority and influence of the teacher and headmaster are correspondingly reduced. The headmaster is increasingly prevented from regarding himself as the leader of a vital community of persons. The telephone stands on his desk to remind him that, like the manager of a branch-store, he is in charge of one among a network of mechanisms operated from headquarters. The headmaster, who ought to be the link between school and parents, is now the link between the school and the local authority’s offices. The wheel has come full circle. Men of personal conviction, with vision and purpose, are often considered too “dangerous” to be appointed to headships. Some appointing authorities seek “safe”, mediocre men who will sit meekly at the far end of the telephone wire and do what they are told.

So wrote Harry Blamires (a student of C. S. Lewis) in his 1963 book, “The Christian Mind.” He was talking about the schools in England at the time, but his words could just as easily be applied to the schools in Peoria in 2010. It wasn’t that long ago that the District 150 Board of Education changed a student’s grade over the objections of the teacher and principal due to political pressure brought by the student’s parents. And the top-heavy nature of administration at District 150 has been demonstrated numerous times.

The usual solution proposed is to cut a number of administrators so that it’s more proportionate to the number of teachers and students, but otherwise to keep the basic organization the same. The question is, is that the best solution? Or might a better solution be something more radical — like decentralizing District 150 completely?

Imagine if each principal were made responsible for his or her own school. The money would follow the students, and the principal would be in charge of decision making and resource allocation. The principal would also be held accountable for meeting or exceeding state/federal academic performance standards.

To a great extent, this is how charter schools are organized. But what if, instead of turning a school over to a private organization, the school district simply empowered its own principals, and gave them the same freedom and responsibility it has given the charter school? To be sure, some principals — the mediocre ones Blamires described as nothing more than branch managers who do what they’re told — would have to be replaced. But once competent leaders were appointed to each school, couldn’t the results be at least as good as what is hoped for from the charter school experiment?

School autonomy is not untried. School districts in large cities such as Houston, Seattle, and Cincinnati have tried it, and England has moved toward decentralization since the 1990s. They call it “Local Management of Schools.”

With the arrival of a new superintendent, perhaps the time is right for a new paradigm in District 150.

For further reading: “Schools take a lesson from big business” (USA Today, 3/9/2006); “Decentralized Decisionmaking for Schools” (RAND Corporation white paper)