The first part of the study dealt with defining the specialist and indicating how we can help strengthen the church teaching program. In the second part, articles three and four, some of the problem areas peculiar to the administration of staff specialists were identified and briefly considered with particular focus upon the relationship of the minister of education and the elder-administrators.

In this part, the chief point to be considered is how to fit the staff specialist into the overall structure of the church program. As before, particular attention will be given to the position of the minister of education in the local church.

The concept of major importance in the solution of how to organize specialists appears to be that of line and staff. One source has pointed out that:

In both practice and in the literature, the single most debatable issue as to the role of instructional staff administrators is "shall the instructional staff administrator be line or staff?"56

Before pursuing this issue, more attention to the meanings of line and staff is in order. Line is that vertical aspect of the charted organization. Those who hold a position in the line are ones who have "been given a uthority to issue commands, orders, and directives which significantly influence the entire organization."57 The line man has been called "a generalist who executes administrative actions."58

Staff personnel is the horizontal aspect of the charted organization. Those who hold a position in staff are persons whose authority and responsibility are limited to specialized services. They function in an advisory capacity. They perform "a function necessary to, but not a part of, the line operation."59 Staff personnel are commonly spoken of as the "right arm" of the line personnel.60

As has already been indicated those included in "line" function in the local church of Christ would be the elders and other male members who would be delegated authority and charged with the responsibility of the various "divisionized" activities of the church. The minister of education, department coordinators, and consult-ants in the educational program of the church have in this study been termed "staff."

But it is of the opinion of this writer that the meaning ordinarily implied in these terms cannot be transferred en toto into the church of Christ setting. In fact, it is worthy to note that there is no hard and fast subscription to the meaning and use of line and staff among organizational theorists. Co-authors John Pfiffner and Marshall Fels indicated this when they wrote.

The specialists who do the aiding are ordinarily referred to as staff people, whereas those whom they aid are referred to as line people. It is possible to spend a great deal of time philosophizing, arguing, and debating about whether an employee is staff or line, but such speculations would not be fruifful from our standpoint.61

Edward C. Schleh has advised strongly against mixing line and staff: "An easy error to slip into is the mixing of line with staff work."62 Another source has expressed discontent with the line and staff concept:

A few decades ago the line-and-staff organization was generally accepted as the most desirable type. With changing concepts of the meaning of educational leadership, this concept of organization has undergone further examination.63

The same source, in discussing how personnel administration can be developed effectively as a staff function has this note:

The problems related to a line and staff organization for personnel may be so difficult that they may suggest recourse to another type of organization.64

Louis A. Allen has recognized that "A line exists in staff as well as line departments."65 And Dubin wrote:

The expert is supposed to be a continuous consultant to the organizational doer-of-things, the line executive. Well and good-in theory. Unfortunately, this theoretical pure staff function is difficult to find in fact.66

So there is all the more reason to exercise caution in applying the "ordinary" meanings of line and staff to church administration, particularly in educational areas. In viewing the church as an organism in which its members are "members one of another," it would be well to modify any reference to line and staff with the concept of "interpersonal engagement."67

Ministers of education in the local church have been spoken of thus far in this study as staff specialists with some line duty, and latter being with those who work with them, the department coordinators and consultants. It was noted earlier68 that the minister of education compared closely with the assistant superintendent for instruction in public education. This assistant superintendent for instruction is regarded as one of three designated by the "instructional staff administrative position."

The other two to which previous reference has been made are the coordinators and consultants. However, attention is given only to the instructional staff superintendent or the comparable minister of education in this portion of the study.

Daniel E. Griffiths and three other authors have explored and evaluated the arguments on each side of the issue as to whether the instructional staff administrator shall be line or staff. Several points in the arguments have important implications for the minister of education in fitting him into the overall organizational structure of the local church.

First,the arguments in favor of the specialist serving as a line man will be considered.

Help inexperienced leaders.

One reason that this is recommended is because:

Many elementary school principals are appointed to their positions without the necessary background and/or experience. Not knowing elementary education, principals with such a back-ground cannot do a good job. It is, therefore, reasoned that poorly-trained or inexperienced principals require close supervision by expert individuals.69

The authors concluded that "one cannot disagree with this argument."70

If this argument were to be transferred squarely into the church of Christ organization, it would mean that the minister of education specialist would be at times over the elders, particularly in educational matters. The breakdown of such reasoning in reference to church application is that elders in the Lord's church cannot be "poorly-trained or inexperienced" in dividuals. They must have the "necessary background and experience" before they can legitimately be elders in the biblical, New Testament sense.71 So, from this argument a minister of education cannot be in the hne position, unless he also be an elder, in which case the matter of concern here would be entirely different.

Expert head.

A second argument for educational specialists to be appointed in line positions is one that is based on expertness. It is contended that the one who knows the most should be in a position of authority. Even though the principals are welltrained and have excellent experience, it is often true that the educational specialist is better equipped to direct the educational program. Whenever this is so, then the exponents of this argument claim this is the person who should be "head man." The authors termed this as "the most telling argument . . . (yet it) is deceptive, for knowledge of an area is not necessarily related to one's ability to administer it."72

In application, elders are administrators in churches of Christ; they can always invite help from others even to the extent of engaging an educational specialist like a minister of education. He is then "on tap, not on top." Ministries are shared, yet in essence it is the elders who are more closely identified as the line men.

The bulk of literature on the subject argues for the instructional specialist as being mainly in a staff position.73

Best able to function as change agent.

In considering the arguments made by most school administrators, the strongest appears to this writer to be that since the instructional specialist has the primary responsibility of improving the overall educational program of the school system, and since "it is the consensus of writers in the field that change can best be brought about by persons in an advisory, not a line, position,"74 he should by all means be I in the position where he can most easily accomplish his purpose. He should therefore be staff, not line.

W S. Elsbree and H. J. McNally wrote to this effect.

Instead of being considered as the authority who "teaches" the teachers and determines the policies which they shall carry out, he is considered as a person who is freed of teaching responsibilities so that he may serve the staff in coordinating and facilitating its efforts to improve the work of the school.75

Edwin H. Reeder, with much the same argument in mind, wrote:

In this book we shall take the position unequivocally that to give the general elementary school supervisor a position in the line and to cloak him with authority is indefensible and will have the effect of vitiating, if not actually destroying, the possibilities of his doing the most significant kind of work in improvement of instruction.76

The staff specialist in education, above all, must:

Establish a rapport between the teachers and himself so that they will be free to call upon him for assistance and advice without suffering the anxiety that usually accompanies an admission of inadequacy.77

In this writer's own experience as minister of education the above argument for the improvement of instruction has proven true many times. This is confirmed in many conversations with other ministers of education. Until now the reasoning behind it has not been made so clear. Perhaps there are other reasons, but to this writer this reason now seems the best.

It has been this editor's fortunate experience to have worked with several congregations in which the relation to the elders and teachers was primarily a staff relationship as is being described in this study. Being free of teaching responsibilites and not being in an authoritative line position made it possible for this writer to be available at the beck and call of teachers, and to establish a rapport that would have scarcely have been possible otherwise.

Such freedom also can allow one time for development of training lesson plans, planning for workshops and conferences, time to study toward keeping up with the latest developments in education, and time to engage in speaking and writing in this very specialized field. These comments also relate to the next reason for the minister of education being primarily a staff position.

Authority is from technical knowledge

The role of the specialist in instruction is not to coerce, but to educate. Authority of position can interfere and hinder this role. Thus it is stated that:

The supervision specialist has line authority only in very special instances and then for a limited period of time. He is primarily a staff responsibility. He is an expert in his field, the authority on curriculum and method, and the individual who keeps the system informed about recent developments in his field of specialization.78

The subject of authority is a study within itself, therefore can only lightly be treated here. It should be clear that "along with the delegation of responsibjilty there must be a delegation of authority . . . sufficient for the execution of plans. "79 Schleh has illustrated staff authority in a story of a division controller in a large metalparts manufacturing firm. The controller was given specific authority to make certain studies, present recommendations, and demand certain kinds of action. In a sense, he was given a certain amount of status.80

Though it is recommended that staff use authority sparingly,81 line needs to pass some on according to Schleh. However, line authority, for the minister of education as well as the public education specialist, should be given "only in very special instances and then for a limited period of time."82 This writer believes strongly that it would be helpful if administrators and staff personnel in the church would learn more of the concepts of authority expressed in these brief excerpts: "wise authority is thus assured by and exercised after shared dehberation,"83 and "authority should stream up from those who command the local facts quite as much as down from those who, because of position, are compelled to make final and inclusive decisions."84

Dual responsibility.

A third argument for instructional specialists to be primarily a part of staff organization grows out of the problems involved in having two persons or groups equally responsible for the same task. In public education there are a few instances when both a prindpal and a supervisory staff person are responsible for instructional improvement. And, to comound the problem, sometimes the two are responsible to and reporting to different line authorities. Thus,

Open conflict has arisen in some instances between the principal and the supervisor who entertain different philosophies of education . . . there can be conflicting goals and confusion of responsibility.85

Roland C. Faunce wrote that:

These situations will be resolved only as the supervisory staff redefines its roles of responsibility and authority, and becomes truly a cooperative resource staff that operates on call.86

This lesson from public education surely has implications for the organization of the church educational program. For one thing, it seems to this writer that it could stop a lot of creeping institutionalization of distinctions between the preacher and the minister of education.

If ministers of education would see themselves as specialists on call and work closely and through department coordinators and consultant specialists, and if they would stay out of a line position as much as possible, but rather work with the elders and one elder In particular who would take up the line position and be the overseer in charge of the local church, then there would be no cause to fret-as many do-over being "second man" (to the preacher).

Of course the preacher would need to understand this position of the minister of education and respect It. Herman J. Sweet notes that "the matter of 'second-class citizenship' for the assistant minister is still a critical issue in the church."87

Among churches of Christ it is not so much the assistant minister as it is the minister of education.88 It Is also the opinion of this writer that the preacher himself would do well to regard his position in the church as a staff specialist-as much as the church will let him and the elders would support him. But this is a matter for other studies.

Inadequacies alleviated.

A final argument concerning the values of having educational specialists as staff workers in that:

The inadequacies within each of the specialists will be alleviated best if [they] are organized into a division of the school system with the purpose of offering advice and consultation to teachers and building principals.89

It seems that an almost direct transferance of this advice to the church educational program would be as well an argument for the staff position here as in public education. Thus all educational specialists- minister of education, coordinators of departments, and consultants-could be organized into a division. They could interact among themselves in conferences, study planning groups, and, led by the minister of education, all work in their particular positions and be on call by the teachers for improvements of the total educational progran of the local church.

The final article will carry an organizational chart that further emphasizes the position of the minister of education as staff specialist.

FOOTNOTES

56 Griffiths, op. cit., p.196.

57 Robert K. Bower, Administering Christian Education, p.36.

58 Modem Practices and Concepts of Staffing Schools, p.8.

59 Ibid.

60 Bower, op. cit., p.37.

61 John M. Pfiffner and Marshall Feis, The Supervision of Personnel, p. 73.

62 Schleh, op. cit., p.120.

63 Edgar L. Mophet. Roe L. John,, and Theodore L. Reller, Educational Administration. p. 242.

64 Ibid., p.359.

65 Allen, op. cit., p.10.

66 Dubin, op. cit., p. 185. Also the reader is referred hack to the first article of this series in which it was pointed out, in footnote, that there were some serious ambiguities in the staff-line concept.

67 The meaning of this can be illustrated in the New Testament concept of "the body. the church." See article number two of this series.

68 Supra, p. 4.

69 Griffiths, op. cit., p. 197.

70 Ibid.

71 See 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9.

72 Griffiths, op. cit, p.197.

73 Griffiths, op. cit., p.198.

74 Ibid., p. 197.

75 W. S. Elsbree and H. J. McNally, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, p. 407.

76 Edwin H. Reader, Supervision in the Elementary School, p. 333, 334.

77 Griffiths, op. cit., p. 199.

78 John A. Bartky, Supervision as Human Relations, p. 278.

79 Bower, op. cit., p. 79.

80 Schleh, op. cit., p. 123.

81 Ibid., p. 122.

82 Supra, get in CBT.

83 Tead, Administration, p. 126.

84 Ibid., p. 128.

85 Roland C. Faunce. Secondary School Administration, p. 92.

86 Ibid.

87 Sweet. op. cit, p. 25.

88 However, It seems quite parallel to apply much of the arguments that have been given to the minister of education to other ministers, be they assistants, associates, personal evangelists, ministers of music, or whatever.