LINES OF AUTHORITY Lines of authority for supervisory control of school personnel should be so clearly defined and well established that each employee understands his relationship to all other employees. This is particularly true for school custodians because their services may be demanded, supervised, and praised-or condemned-by all who have any interest, real or imagined, in the operation of school plants. For example, pupils, teachers, lunchroom workers, and even parents may exploit the generosity of some custodians to such an extent that the latter are unable to perform their regular duties in an efficient manner. A reasonable adherence to sound policies governing supervisory control should protect both the custodian and the school district against unjustified demands for custodial time. Good administrative practice dictates that the executive officer of the board, the superintendent, be responsible to the board, and that all other school employees, regardless of rank, be responsible to him or to his designated assistant. In the case of the school custodian the line of authority should begin with the superintendent and extend through designated administrative heads to the school principal. There seems to be general agreement that, while the actual supervision of adequate performance and checking the work standards of custodians is the responsibility of either the superintendent or his designated assistant, all directions, procedures, and orders from the central office should be transmitted through the principal. Furthermore, it is essential that the principal of each school have immediate supervision over all custodial employees in his building.2 Various organizational patterns with their respective lines of authority for custodian personnel may be illustrated by the following flow charts. 1 N. E. Viles. Field Supervision of Operational Personnel. 1950 Proceedings. Association of School Business Officials. Kalamazoo, Mich. : The Association, 1950. p. 156-160. Su Florida State Department of Education. School Plant Operation and Maintenance in Southern States. Tallahassee, Fla.: The Department, 1940. p. 9. Paul J. Harris. pervision of Operation and Maintenance. 1952 Proceedings. Association of School Business Officials. Kalamazoo, Mich. : The Association, 1952. p. 148-153. Rufus A. Putnam. Central Office Administration and Organization of Personnel. 1950 Proceedings. Association of School Business Officials. Kalamazoo, Mich. : The Association, 1950. p. 154-156. Alanson D. Brainard. op. cit. p. 12. |