Red tape may arise at work when an authoritative entity – whether a school leader, a legislator, an inspector or a pedagogical school supporter – installs certain conventions, procedures or types of administration with the clear purpose of improving the quality of the work, yet reaches the opposite result. If the eventual executors of these measures – teachers, school leaders, administrative personnel – fail to perceive the purpose of what they are doing, even the best ideas may soon turn into a perception of red tape and provoke feelings of frustration, stress and tedium.

Red tape is all but unfamiliar in the field of education. Yet, as a topic for scholarly inquiry, it is relatively poorly studied. Nevertheless, the fruits of addressing this topic are quite clear. The less time teachers spend on red tape and the more time they get to spend on meaningful (inter)actions with their students, the more chances these students get to realize their optimal learning potential. Moreover, it has been evidenced that teachers who perceive a high rate of red tape in their job are more likely to quit their profession altogether.

Tackling the dynamics of red tape is not so easy. Its forms and sizes are very diverse. A very fine procedure at one school may turn out to cause a lot of frustration in another school. Red tape thus presents itself as a protean enemy, lurking in several areas of the school organization and constantly threatening to undermine people’s motivation to give it their all in the classroom.

To add to the problem, the origins of red tape are often hard to trace. Some red tape is produced by the interventions of the government, while other instances may be installed by a school leader or a coordinator at school. Some may even stem from the particular IT-tools used by the school to facilitate the work, or by the expectations of the students and their parents. Red tape may thus metaphorically be conceived of as an onion, of which one needs to peel quite a lot of layers before its core shows itself.

The Flemish inspectorate of education is determined to help school fight this common enemy. In a recent survey it held among over 7000 professionals, it was evidenced that while school leaders feel that they address the topic of red tape in several ways, teachers respond that they feel few results of these efforts. What seems to be lacking, thus, is a clear and precise dialogue at schools about where red tape is to be found, what the actual requirements of the government are, and how the school itself may deal with these requirements in a more functional and less patronizing fashion.

The ignite talk for this conference aims to highlight the importance of having a nuanced understanding of red tape. It addresses three essential questions:

• What is red tape precisely?
• What should schools do and avoid in tackling red tape?
• How can an online tool as developed by the Flemish inspectorate improve the quality of dialogue and policy about red tape in Flemish schools? (more on that tool in the section about methodology)

By demonstrating how the tool is conceptualized, this talk aims to inspire researchers and practitioners in education to come up with novel and diverse methods to assist school world-wide in their battle against red tape. I thus hope to make a humble contribution to the overall quality of education and the job satisfaction of teachers, school leaders and other practitioners in the field of education.

Red tape revolves around the balance between effort and (positive) effect. When this balance is distorted, people feel frustrated with the poor effects of their efforts. Tackling red tape is thus not only about reducing people’s efforts, but also about raising the effects of their work. In developing and launching the online tool called the ‘red tape calculator’, the Flemish inspectorate applied the following procedures: 1. On the basis of focus groups and extant secondary literature, we identified 34 areas in the school organization where red tape is most likely to occur. These 34 areas form the content of the questionnaire on which the red tape calculator is based. 2. School principles can ask for access to a personalized dashboard, from which they can invite the members of their particular school to participate in this survey. 3. We developed a functional grid in which school participants can mark the amount of effort they put into a certain area and the resulting effect of these efforts. 4. We programmed the calculator so that it can calculate the average balance between effort and effect for each of the areas as perceived by each member of the school community. 5. The calculator then provides a school report of the areas where the balance between effort and effect is quite sound, and areas where this balance is distorted. 6. This overview enables school leaders to address the causes of red in a more precise and strategic fashion. The relevance of this online tool extends beyond individual schools, for the Flemish inspectorate also has access to the average scores of all participating Flemish schools. On the basis of this wider overview, the inspectorate is able to report on broader red tape tendencies in the schools to the Flemish government. This in turn allows for a more precise and purpose-driven political discussion about the actual need for certain decrees and other legal measures. The ultimate goal is, of course, to come to a legislative and practical framework that allows for the clear articulation of societal expectations towards the schools, but also for a maximum of autonomy in how teachers and school leaders deal with these expectations.

As the ignite talk’s main purpose is to inspire listeners to address red tape in their local context, I will not dwell as much on the eventual results of this research in Flanders, but rather demonstrate how we devised the tool and how it assists us in tackling red tape in the different layers of the Flemish education system. What we expect as an outcome from our engagement, is that schools will feel encouraged to claim the freedom they receive from the government to organize themselves in a functional way. At the aforementioned survey among over 7000 professionals in education, it was evidenced that more than 80% of the participants indicates that the level of red tape in Flemish education has increased in the past three years. It is to be expected that the combined effort from school leaders, inspectorate and legislators will result in a marked change of that trend (as we will measure again in a new survey in three years from now). In the end, we hope that this purposeful effort to reduce red tape in education will also be positively linked to student performance, job satisfaction among school professionals and the attractiveness of working in education in Flanders.

Bozeman, B. (2000). Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Prentice Hall. Campbell, J. W. (2017). Red tape and transformational leadership: An organizational echelons perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(1), 76-90. DeHart-Davis, L., Davis, R. S., & Mohr, Z. (2015). Green tape and job satisfaction: Can orga nizational rules make employees happy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 849-876. Department of Education Flanders (2016). Report: Operatie Tarra. www.onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/nl/operatie-tarra/rapport-operatie-tarra (in Dutch). Eggers, W. (2007). Government 2.0: Using technology to improve education, cut red tape, reduce gridlock, and enhance democracy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kenis, P. et al. (2013). Report: Kom op tegen planlast. www.onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/nl/operatie-tarra/rapport-kom-op-tegen-planlast-2013. Antwerp Management School (in Dutch). Muylaert, J., Decramer, A. & Audenaert, M. (2022). How leaders’ red tape interacts with employees’ red tape from the lens of the job demands-resources model. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1-26. Struyven, K., & Vanthournout, G. (2014). Teachers’ exit decisions: An investigation into the reasons why newly qualified teachers fail to enter the teaching profession or why those who do enter do not continue teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 37-45.