What is site-based or school-based management?

Site-based or school-based management shifts decision making authority from the central office to the schools. It reverses a trend, evident at least since the mid - 1960's, to try to improve school performance through general-purpose instructures of public policy - regulation, mandate, enforcement, and legal action. According to the theory of site-based management, all decisions of educational consequence are to be made at the school and none may be compelled by regulation in the district. In practice however, it may be understood as a relative term, i.e., as an increase in the number or importance of decisions made at the school level.

1. Under the concept of the principal as a site manager, the principal controls school resources and is held accountable for the success of the school. This view of the principal as the site manager was reinforced by the school effectivenessliterature's focus on site leadership.

2. Under the philosophy of lay control, parents control site policy because they are the consumers and care most deeply about policies at schools their children attend. Parent school-site councils deliberate and decide on school level policy.

3. Under school-site policymaking by teachers, teachers form a school-site senate and allocate funds and personnel as well as decide instructional issues. School-site policymaking by teachers also enhances the professional image and self-concept of teachers.

4. Under a philosophy of parity, no one party should control the school entirely. Teachers, administration, and parents should have parity on a school-site council that reaches agreement through bargaining and coalitions. At the high school level, students may be included. All factors deserve a place at the table, and the best arguments should prevail.

Critical Issue: Implementing Site-Based Management to Support Student Achievement

ISSUE: Site-based management, also known as school-based management, is a way to structure relationships between districts and school sites in a manner that places much more power, authority, and accountability in the school. Site-based management's potential to enable comprehensive reform holds promise for schools and districts seeking to improve the educational system and help students reach higher levels of achievement. Before implementing site-based management, districts need to ensure they have the buy-in of all stakeholders, a well-defined vision, and the time and training for implementation.

OVERVIEW: Site-based management is a significant reform initiative that promises to place more authority in individual schools through the adoption of a more democratic decision-making process. "School-based decision making is one aspect of systemic school reform--an approach to improving schools that also includes changing instruction, curriculum, and the institutional web that surrounds the schools to achieve an integrated focus on the outcomes of education," note Wohlstetter and Mohrman (1994, p. 1). Although the forms and methods of site-based management may vary, the primary goal is typically the same: to shift authority away from the district administrative hierarchy and into the hands of school groups (such as teachers and parents) that are more closely connected to the school and, theoretically, better equipped to meet the specialized needs of students.

The concept of site-based management is derived from corporate management theories such as W. Edwards Deming's (1986, 1994) philosophy of management (commonly referred to as Total Quality Management). It also has been influenced by the high-involvement management approach, which finds that employees perform best in an environment where they "are deeply involved in the ongoing improvement of the organization and are committed to its success," states Drury (1999, p. 3). Site-based managed schools and districts are hoping to mirror the positive results such participatory decision-making techniques have yielded for corporations during the past 30 years.

Although school systems and large businesses are by no means structurally identical, they do tend to share many of the same dysfunctions. Both are struggling to break away from the traditional organizational pyramid--typically characterized by its authoritarian, hierarchical, and restrictive tendencies. Corporations such as General Motors have benefited greatly from collapsing the traditional pyramid and using the high-involvement management approach. The success of the Saturn line of automobiles is largely attributed to GM's renewed relationship with the United Auto Workers union and the inclusive management approach that the company has taken with its employees (Dolan, 1994). Essentially, site-based management advocates in the education community are hoping to achieve similar results by breaking down the often-adversarial relationships that exist between teachers, school boards, teachers unions, and the central office.

Site-based management has existed throughout districts in a variety of shapes and forms for decades. Perhaps to its detriment, site-based management initiatives have existed for so long and in such haphazard forms that "in the absence of a clear focus on school performance, site-based management has become an end in itself" (Drury, 1999). Nevertheless, recent controversial school-choice initiatives along with high-stakes assessments have significantly accelerated and renewed interest in decentralized, transferable school management practices. In essence, the more scrutiny the "system" comes under, the faster states and districts are rethinking the roles and functions of all levels of the current educational structure. Like corporations, public schools

are being asked to consider not only the needs and demands of their customers, but also the threat of their competitors.

The effects of decentralization on student achievement still remain relatively unknown. Factors such as stakeholder resistance, institutional barriers, lack of focus on student achievement, limited school authority, concentration of authority vested in administrators, and deficiencies in resources have limited the impact of site-based management on educational outcomes (Drury, 1999). More than any other limitation, stakeholder resistance may affect the success or failure of site-based management attempts. In order for schools to move forward in the change process toward site-based management, it is imperative to have buy-in from school board members, central office administration, building-level administration, teachers, and teachers unions.

School board members may view site-based management as a threat to their own authority and therefore may wish to limit school-level decision making. According to Brown (1990, cited in Drury, 1999, p. 11), central office administrators tend to be "the most prominent among groups that work against the implementation of decentralization." They may experience role confusion, lack of security, and a diminished sense of authority. Although building-level administrators usually gain new authority under site-based management, they may fear greater responsibilities, increased accountability, and the loss of power (Drury, 1999). In addition, teachers and teachers unions may provide obstacles to site-based management. Teachers may fear greater accountability, loss of autonomy, added responsibilities, and increased parental involvement (Drury, 1999). Teachers unions often fear their new collaborative role and may believe that site-based management will jeopardize their bargaining position (Drury, 1999).

Considering the multitude of conflicts that may arise, it is important for everyone to be involved in building a collective vision for the school and to understand the potential benefits that may result from implementation of site-based management. As change occurs, all stakeholders should work together through continued participation in the decision-making process and ongoing professional development (Dolan, 1994).

Many educators believe site-based management is a promising strategy to improve educational decision-making because those closest to the students and the needs of a particular school are involved (Cohen, 1989; Stinnette, 1993). Teachers are asked to assume leadership roles in staff development, mentoring, and curriculum development, and to become key partners in school and staff supervision and evaluation. However, researchers have determined that the effectiveness of site-based management is largely dependent on where the locus of authority lies--administrators, school professionals (teaching staff), or members of the community.

Leithwood and Menzies (1998) categorize site-based management as either administratively controlled, professionally controlled, or community controlled. Administratively controlled site-based management focuses predominantly on the effective use of resources; it gives local school administrators (aided by site councils) authority over budgets, personnel, and curriculum. Professionally controlled site-based management makes teachers the primary decision-makers and asks them to use their experience to guide decisions over budgets and curriculum. Community controlled site-based management allows parents and local community members the opportunity to align local values and preferences with curriculum. Regardless of the intent,

however, the site-based management effort often is controlled by the school administration. Leithwood and Menzies (1998) note, "Evidence suggests that whatever form of site-based management that districts or states thought they were legislating, what was implemented was some form of administrative control site-based management" (p. 341).

Ideally, and by definition, a site-based managed school should seek to distance itself from any one specific locus of control. Rather, the idea is to draw upon all members within an existing educational community as equal partners working toward a common goal: the improvement of student learning.

 

An Example of Site-Based Management:Springfield Public School District 186, Springfield, IL

One successful example of site-based management is Springfield Public School District 186 in Springfield, Illinois. Since 1996, central and building staff have steadily implemented many of the shared decision-making processes developed by author and labor-management consultant W. Patrick Dolan. According to the District 186 Communications Council (1998), the new system "is being established deliberately to place greater authority, responsibility, and related decisions for education within the school itself " (p. 3). Stakeholders from all areas (not just the schools) are constantly involved in the decision-making process. At the district level, a Communications Council (composed of representatives of the board of education, administrators, teachers, and support staff ) meets regularly to "assist and support individual learning communities as they implement shared decision-making" (District 186 Communications Council, 1998, p. 6). The roles of the Communications Council have been clearly defined. Specifically, the council locates resources and training for stakeholders, reviews waivers (allowing sites to function outside board, state, and union policies), provides technical assistance to individual site leadership teams, develops parameters within which the schools will work, and develops an information system throughout the school district. "The council is not a regulatory body, nor does it replace the superintendent, school board, or collective bargaining groups" (District 186 Communications Council, 1998, p. 6).

Site-based management in Springfield District 186 is constantly being adapted to reflect changing needs and phases in the implementation process. In spring of 2000 the name of the Communications Council was changed to the S.I.T.E.E. Council (Shared Initiatives Toward Excellence in Education), and the membership was expanded to include a representative from the site leadership teams of every school in the district. The new Council is organized to operate in a manner congruent with a school's site leadership team.

 

Author and labor-management consultant W. Patrick Dolan has been a strong advocate of shared decision-making in education. In fact, the Dolan model of school management has influenced

site-based management implementation in many schools. Dolan (1994) emphasizes that the implementation of site-based management should be thorough and deliberate. He suggests that implementing site-based management sporadically or through a pilot program is sure to yield limited, inconsequential results. Rather, he suggests phasing it in over a three-year period, implementing it at one-third of the schools in the first year and adding another third each of the following years. "The entire system is one," asserts Dolan (1994, p. xii), "and to change a school is to change a district, its union, board, and management.... Anything else will be short-lived and false."

The district must demonstrate strong support for site-based management. Dolan (1994) suggests the formation of an oversite committee at the district level to initiate the process of shared decision-making. The core of this committee should consist of district-level staff, union representatives, and school board members because agreement from these groups is imperative if power is to shift to the schools. This group will initiate and ultimately be responsible for the implementation of site-based management. Its responsibilities include:

Developing guidelines that support site-based management, and establishing parameters and a waiver process.

Reviewing schools' site plans and governing documents before submitting them to the superintendent and school board for approval.

Finding ways to provide resources, training, and support for the school sites. Developing a system for communication and sharing among the district, sites, and the

community. Evaluating the procedures and making changes as necessary to ensure success of site-

based management efforts (Dolan, 1994; North Carolina Network for School-Based Management, n.d.).

After the oversite committee provides the district's foundation for site-based management, individual schools can create school-site councils to make decisions at each site. The school-site council typically consists of the school's principal, teachers, parents, community members, and sometimes students. David (1996) has identified several key characteristics of successful school-site councils. The most successful school-site councils have a well thought-out committee structure, enable leadership, focus on student and adult learning, and have a schoolwide perspective. School-site councils also need a strong leader who can "exercise leadership by mobilizing others," notes David (1996). Leaders must be able to encourage participation and model reflective thinking. At a typical site-based managed school, the principal may act as team leader, organizing the various decision-making teams and committing them to agree upon goals and implementation strategies. These activities reflect the changing roles for principals in the school improvement process.

Although the oversite committee and the school-site councils work together in their decision making, it is imperative that the oversite committee develop clear guidelines for implementing site-based management and allow schools the power they need to effect change. Holloway (2000) states, "Leaving the design issues ambiguous or ill-defined may have serious consequences. Districts must nurture and support teams by giving all team members a clear picture of the goals and procedures of site-based management and by aiding them in developing

communication and decision-making skills" (p. 81). School-site councils need access to four essential resources: power over personnel, curriculum, and budget; information that builds an understanding of available resources, student performance, and parent and community satisfaction; knowledge of teaching approaches, budget development, and problem-solving skills; and rewards to recognize efforts and improvements (Drury, 1999; Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1994). The oversite committee is responsible for helping the schools obtain these resources.

As the district shares power with the schools, it also shares responsibility for student success. Centrally determined goals and standards are necessary if those empowered with decision-making authority are to be held accountable for their decisions. Reasons for failure of site-based management are that schools have failed to address improvements in curriculum and instruction and also have failed to keep focusing on improving student outcomes (Cotton, 1992). Working toward clear district goals and standards helps school-site councils keep this focus.

In order to make improvements, the school-site council must know the needs of the school. This task can be accomplished with an informal needs assessment. After the school-site council understands the needs of the school, it can develop a plan for implementation and evaluation (Dolan, 1994). "Continuous improvement through data-driven decision making is central to the organizational life of schools," states Drury (1999). "Continuous improvement is achieved by assessing current needs, developing and implementing a course of action based on available knowledge and information [from within the school and from outside], evaluating the effects, and finally, repeating the process" (p. 27). Available knowledge and information includes not only needs-assessment data but also information on educational research and best practice. As straightforward as this process may seem, it is a challenge to the thinking and processes of most schools. The evaluation process ensures that schools are meeting goals and making changes as necessary.

Another element critical to the success of site-based management is providing the school-site council with ongoing training. School-site councils must have skills in group problem-solving, consensual decision-making , and conflict resolution (Dolan, 1994; Holloway, 2000). They also need support to work collaboratively in an effective manner. Team building that includes discussions about how the team will work, when and where it will meet, its decision-making process, and how it will communicate with others should occur right at the start. Team building enables the school-site council to focus on maximizing student learning and meeting school goals (David, 1996). Besides providing skill training in group processes, successful school-site councils also take time to educate themselves on different approaches to desired outcomes for students, promising practices, and educational research.

Shared Decision-Making at Springfield Public School District 186, Springfield, IL

In Springfield District 186, a school may participate in the shared decision-making process if at least 80 percent of the school agrees (by secret ballot) to participate. (This process is illustrated in a flowchart of the shared decision-making process.) At the school, a site leadership team is created. The site leadership team is composed of the principal, teachers, support staff, parents, students (at the middle and high schools), and community members.

It usually is chaired by a teacher working with the principal. The site leadership team assumes primary responsibility for the education of the school's students and generally handles all communications. After receiving appropriate training, the site leadership team completes a needs assessment. Then it forms design teams to focus on the identified areas of need. The design teams are composed of administrators, staff, parents, and community members. Each design team is charged with developing an action plan (typically predicated upon a review of best practices and available research or literature) that maps out a method of dealing with the problem or need. If approved by the site leadership team, the action plan is presented to the school as a whole for ratification. Once ratified, the plan's implementation is continually monitored and assessed by the design team. At the close of the cycle or school year, the design team's assessments are used as a basis for determining what strategies either did or did not work well. The design team's findings are then worked into the school's next cycle and overall school-improvement plan.

The school board president points out that this shared decision-making process functions best when parameters are clearly defined. School leadership teams are more able to develop effective plans when they understand the scope of their responsibility and their power to make changes. Effective communication also is essential. School board members are kept aware of changes resulting from the implementation of site-based management and are able to respond promptly if they are questioned by community members about the appropriateness of activities in the schools.

 

There is no definitive estimate of how long it takes to create a successful site-based managed school. Researchers recommend a minimum commitment of anywhere from three to 15 years (Oswald, 1995). However, what is certain is that it is in no way an easy shift in practice or procedure. In the end, schools are betting that the "long-term pain" of clinging to the status quo will be more detrimental than the "short-term pain" of changing (Patterson, 1997). Fortunately, site-based management offers improved educational environments if put in place thoughtfully.

Effective implementation of site-based management has shown several positive effects. Nobel, Deemer, and Davis (1996) note that the implementation of site-based management brings increased collegiality and reduces teacher absenteeism. Leithwood and Menzies (1998) corroborate these findings in their review of 83 research studies on site-based management. Positive effects for teachers include increased collaboration, changes in classroom instruction, a sense of increased control over one's work, and a sense of increased accountability. Principals are found to take on a more managerial role, to become information resources, and to have increased accountability. Parents show an increased satisfaction in their schools. Although none of these results indicates a change in student achievement, the effects seem to increase the overall quality of the educational environment.

Odden and Wohlstetter (1995) identify two characteristics necessary for site-based management to improve student achievement. First, people on school-site councils must have real authority over budget, personnel, and curriculum. Second, changes must be introduced that directly affect

teaching and learning. The researchers also indicate that dispersal of power throughout the school, ongoing professional development, knowledge base building, and strong leadership that can delegate responsibility are common attributes in schools that have successfully implemented site-based management. These schools also are more proactive in finding resources for teachers and seeking grants (Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1994). Schools that are less successful with site-based management tend to focus on power and housekeeping issues (Holloway, 2000; Odden & Wohlstetter, 1995) and have less-effective communication systems, which often result in information being passed through the grapevine instead of formally (Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1994).

The ultimate goal of all site-based management efforts should be to improve student achievement. The focus should be on curriculum and learning issues as well as assessment of progress toward district and school learning goals. Although not all issues discussed may seem to have a direct influence on student learning, there should be a conscious effort to connect decisions with creating conditions to maximize learning opportunities (David, 1996).

Districts and schools seeking to implement site-based management must ask one important, rather obvious question: Will more decision-making authority actually be transferred to the school? Although the goals of site-based management are attainable, the "system" currently used to govern schools may not fully support the ideal site-based management model. In actuality, researchers have found that site-based management is seldom implemented fully. Instead, districts and schools often rush into a site-based management model before recognizing what is necessary to make the transition (Holloway, 2000). The result is ill-defined site teams, lack of training, and frustration due to a lack of genuine authority (Holloway, 2000).

Other restraints that can impede site-based management implementation are federal, state, and district mandates (Dolan, 1994; Holloway, 2000). A school may be given discretion over professional development initiatives, but the district might still hold all decision-making authority over what amount of funding, if any, is allocated toward the effort. "Linkages among budget, personnel, instructional, and operational decisions means that decentralized authority ostensibly given to school staff over one class of decisions has effectively been limited by centralized constraints on other classes of decisions," notes the RAND Corporation (1995). States, however, are becoming increasingly aware of site-based management. Many states have enacted legislation allowing the appointment of various parent advisory committees, local school councils, and other advisory boards. Although the power of these various committees, councils, and boards may differ in each state, the legislation suggests a general shift toward an increasingly participatory governance structure. Keeping in mind these realities, schools looking to implement site-based management should prepare themselves not only for an obvious shift in their internal management practices but also for the incongruities that may accompany being a relatively anomalous part of a larger statewide system.

Despite the pitfalls and barriers to implementing site-based management, schools and districts can overcome obstacles by ensuring the participation of all stakeholders in thoughtful planning and by rethinking the use of educational resources to provide time and money to support the change that is necessary to fully implement site-based management. Schools implementing

changes can maintain support by consistently assessing progress toward goals and by effectively communicating results to the district as well as the community.

Site-based management may hold the key to increasing support for public education. During a time when pressure for school improvement is strong, bringing the community into the schools will help to deepen understanding of the complexities of education and each school's needs.

GOALS: Site-based management should result in the following:

Administrators, school boards, teachers unions, teachers, parents, and communities working together to improve teaching and learning.

An improved teaching and learning environment throughout the school and improved student achievement as measured in a variety of ways.

Realistic budgeting and alignment of financial and instructional resources as well as time with instructional goals.

Renewed sense of school ownership and accountability among staff, teachers, students, parents, and the community.

ACTION OPTIONS:

At the District Level:

Ensure the buy-in of all stakeholders by including them in the process from the start. Develop a vision for the school. Base the vision on information about current practice

within schools, journals and articles from education and the private sector, and personal observations of schools where new approaches are in practice (Conley, 1992).

Plan site-based management throughout the district, not just in a single school. Implement a plan to phase in a certain number of schools every year, with a goal to have every school participating in three years.

Work with committees to be sure that everyone promotes the focus on high student performance and is willing to try new approaches to curriculum and instruction that will meet the needs of all students.

Establish a process for determining the success of site-based management efforts based on predetermined goals that reflect the district's vision. Help schools to develop procedures to evaluate and modify their site-based management and school improvement plans through an ongoing review of program activities and their effects (Cotton, 1992).

Establish parameters to guide schools through what they can and cannot change (for example, federal and state laws, collective bargaining agreements, and state standards and assessment practices).

Compile a knowledge base of data and research on site-based management (refer to Additional Resources) and use it as a basis for decision making (Else, 1997).

Ensure that all administrators and the school board have genuine acceptance of the shared decision-making process and create a safe environment for the process to work (Else, 1997). Teachers unions also should be included in this process.

Rethink the use of educational resources. Determine resource reallocation possibilities. Decentralize financing by instituting school-based budgeting so that each school can

determine the most effective use of funds at its own site. Ensure that all stakeholders understand the need to restructure time (Dolan, 1994; Else,

1997). School improvement requires finding time for professional development and other activities.

Develop a site leadership team-training model so that newly elected site leaders have a basis for their work during the first three years of site-based management.

Develop a training program (such as the training curriculum used at Illinois District U-46. Continue to provide necessary support for teams throughout the site-based management

process and to meet needs as they arise. Administrators, central office administrators, teachers, school staff, and community members who are taking on new roles will need support and information to make those changes.

Support principals in understanding the changing roles for principals so they can successfully empower, train, and reward staff. Encourage principals to develop a high-involvement management philosophy and to implement a team approach to decision making.

Create an infrastructure for site-based management that will help sustain successful reform regardless of employee changes within the school or district (Drury, 1999). The infrastructure should include: "the development of a districtwide consensus around student performance objectives; the specification of structural arrangements which provide a framework for authentic participative decision making at the school level; and the delegation of significant budgetary, staffing, and programmatic authority, coupled with the development of information, knowledge and incentives at the school site and throughout the organization," notes Drury (1999, p. 28).

Encourage the school board, superintendent, and teachers union to create a written agreement for stating every person's commitment to site-based management. This short and simple agreement protects the process from changes in leadership; it also communicates the commitment of all stakeholders to the site-based management change process (Dolan, 1994).

At the Site Level:

Create a school-site council made up of the principal, teachers, parents, and community members to develop and implement site-based management plans for the school. Include teachers from all grade levels so that the process is seen as a whole-school effort, not aimed at particular problems at a particular grade level.

Emphasize building a collective vision for the school that will focus work on student learning and guide the council in determining goals, priorities, and actions for the school.

Conduct a needs assessment to determine areas on which to focus improvement efforts. Organize committees or design teams to focus on specific areas of need and develop

action plans to meet those needs.

Orchestrate shared decision-making (a responsibility for principals) by facilitating the involvement of others in school decision-making, communicating with all school constituencies, fostering the change process, building a school vision, organizing meetings, and helping the school leadership team build coalitions for the good of all students (Tanner & Stone, 1998).

Work with the district to provide awareness-building and skill-building activities. Such activities could include team building, conflict resolution, consensus building, effective communication, problem solving, understanding the importance of assessment, and understanding the change process (Else, 1997). All members of the school-site councils should be included in these activities. When possible, use available resources such as industry and universities in the community to provide training and support for team development efforts.

Review educational research and best practices (such as the Critical Issues and supporting material in Pathways to School Improvement) to ensure that decisions are based on successful strategies.

Determine methods for leading and managing change and improvement. Create a safe haven where participants can meet and talk candidly about which initiatives

are working and which ones are not. Provide professional development opportunities for teachers when determining new

strategies and procedures to improve student learning. Professional development helps ensure that changes in the schools will be implemented at the classroom level by teachers who have the skills they need. Students will benefit from reform efforts if teachers are supported in changing or enhancing their teaching skills and knowledge.

Consider options such as a four-day week, lengthening the school day, and year-round school when restructuring school time (Else, 1997).

Develop an assessment plan in the early stages of planning and implementation process to determine if site-based management efforts are making a difference in improving student learning.

Monitor the assessment process throughout the school year by collecting data and ensuring that efforts are made at integrating assessment and instruction in ways that support learning.

Review the plan, goals, and assessment processes implemented during the school year. Evaluate progress toward the predetermined goals.

IMPLEMENTATION PITFALLS: Designing and implementing effective site-based management programs may present challenges such as the following:

Site-based management may be considered an end in itself. Frequently, districts focus strictly on changing to site-based management without considering the comprehensive changes that must occur. Yet without a clear set of goals focused on student achievement and a real assessment and accountability system for schools with consequences, sanctions, and rewards, the process of change to site-based management will slow down and little improvement will be made. Evaluation of site-based management requires accurate measurements of system performance--the primary indicator being student achievement (Dolan, 1994). Education communities,

however, should be cautious of judging results too quickly upon the basis of standardized tests alone. Along with standardized test scores, measurements of student achievement should include performance-based assessments, portfolios, and other forms of alternative assessment.

Schools may neglect to provide adequate training for teachers, principals, school board members, parents, and community members who are participating on school-site councils. Councils lacking in problem-solving and consensual decision-making skills may find themselves in an adversarial environment struggling for power and focusing on procedural issues instead of student learning. Ongoing training opportunities are critical to creating well-functioning site councils that make well-informed decisions.

School districts may neglect to recognize the time and resources required for change to site-based management. All too often, schools find themselves on the road to change without the proper support. Expecting teachers to work extra hours without pay will create a frustrated, burned-out staff. Finding time and money for teachers to engage in the added responsibilities of effective school-based decision making is key to supporting schools. Meeting this challenge usually means restructuring both the school organization and the teachers' jobs, including how teachers spend their time (Dolan, 1994). Districts need to be proactive in finding resources such as grants, and in using time and existing resources creatively (Else, 1997; Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1994). Districts may want to explore resource reallocation as a means to restructuring time and resources. Rewards for teachers "need to be aligned with the desired outcomes and strategic needs of the school," states Drury (1999, p. 21). Options such as alternative salary schedules may assist schools with providing such rewards.

Districts often are not clear about how decisions should be made or how long the implementation process for site-based management should take. They may leave school-site councils to create their own rules. "Decisions must be worked out concerning appropriate decision-makers and procedures; the scope of decisions to be made at the site; staff training; accountability; resource distribution; and site-based budgeting implementation resources and time tables," states Hadderman (1999). Vague definitions of roles and responsibilities may lead to confusion and frustration. Sometimes the central administration overrules decisions made at the site or quickly moves back to a centralized decision-making system, which leads to disillusionment of those involved. All stakeholds need to understand the expectations and parameters of the site-based management effort (Dolan, 1994; Holloway, 2000). Stakeholders need to participate in establishing a clear plan for the implementation of site-based management. Districts need to recognize that the change to site-based management takes time, rather than expecting that within a year or two they will see improvement in students' test scores. Allowing for time, reflection, and refinement will lead to a workable decision-making system that can improve student performance.

Care should be taken to avoid placing power solely in a school-site council. Entrusting power to a single body within the school may result in an "us and them" relationship among staff (Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1994). It also may place all the responsibility and extra work on a limited set of staff, creating overload and resentment. Instead, power can be dispersed among a set of subcommittees (horizontal decision-making teams) in order to maintain collaboration, spread the workload, and broaden the commitment to reform (Dolan, 1994; Wohlstetter &

Mohrman, 1994). In addition, budgets and personnel decisions must be decentralized. School-site councils will be ineffective if they are given the authority to make decisions but are unable to control the budgets or choose the personnel to carry out decisions.

Over time, the sustainability of shared decision-making may be threatened by changes in leadership. New principals, board members, union representatives, and superintendents often bring new initiatives and management styles. Because site-based management goals may take several years to implement, districts must create an infrastructure that will sustain shared decision-making even if the personnel change. The implementation of site-based management should be systemic and not based on individual preference. When new members are brought into leadership roles, there must be clear planning, knowledge base building, and goal setting that can be communicated through a formal process and thus ensure continuity (Dolan, 1994).

DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW: Many people believe that the top-down system of school management ensures accountability, streamlines decision making, and facilitates cohesiveness and alignment between grades and buildings. Some research has revealed that "decentralization increased the fragmentation and complexity of city schooling, which paradoxically expanded administrative burdens, bringing pressures to re-centralize" (Noble, Deemer, & Davis, 1996). In addition, research has documented an increased workload for teachers participating in site-based management. Already burdened by regular teaching duties, teachers who experience the increased workload associated with site-based management may feel overwhelmed. This situation may accelerate teacher burnout and turnover rates. Research also has shown that site-based management slows down the decision-making process and leads to increased frustration by participants working hard to implement changes in the best interest of students (Noble, Deemer, & Davis, 1996). Rather than increasing morale and effort, poorly planned site-based management efforts may have an opposite effect on schools.

Critical Issue:Transferring Decisionmaking to Local Schools: Site-Based Management

ISSUE: Site-based management is a way to structure school site/district relationships in a manner that places much more power, authority, and accountability in the school. It has been proposed as a way to help schools produce higher student achievement.

OVERVIEW: Decentralized, high-involvement management means that teams of individuals who actually provide services or make products are given decision-making authority and are held accountable for the results. It is now the emerging management and organization model in both the public and private sectors of the economy (Barzelay,

1992; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Lawler, 1986, 1992; Wohlstetter, Smyer & Mohrman, 1994).

A management and organization strategy should be designed around the nature of the work, which has three key dimensions: complexity, collegiality, and certainty. Simple, individual, and highly certain work lends itself to hierarchical structures.

Complex, collegial, and uncertain work, however, lends itself to decentralization and employee involvement, common in new high-technology organizations like Apple Computer. An increasing amount of work is complex, requires teamwork, and exists in a rapidly changing environment. Mohrman, Lawler, and Mohrman (1992) argue that teachers perform intellectually complex tasks, are most effective when working collegially or in teams, and face uncertainty in their day-to-day work. Therefore, a high-involvement and decentralized management strategy is appropriate for schools.

GOALS: Site-based management should result in the following:

Higher student performance

More efficient use of resources Increased skills and satisfaction in school administrators and teachers Greater community and business involvement in and support for schools

ACTION OPTIONS:

Decentralize four key resources: 1. Power 2. Knowledge and skills 3. Information 4. Rewards

Create an instructional guidance system. Develop new roles for teachers, principals, and community members.

These action options also are strongly associated with positive changes in curriculum and instruction, including teaching for understanding, teaching problem solving to diverse students, and teaching an integrated and cross-disciplinary curriculum (Robertson, Wohlstetter, & Mohrman, 1995, forthcoming). A comprehensive decision-making process promotes ambitious school improvement initiatives.

IMPLEMENTATION PITFALLS: Designing and implementing effective site-based management programs in education present many challenges, which include at least the following:

Decentralizing power only and placing that power solely in a school site council. Power, knowledge, information, and rewards all need to be decentralized, and vertical and horizontal decision-making teams must be created in addition to a school site council.

Directing the efforts of an effective shared decision-making process toward curriculum, instruction, and student achievement. Too often, site-based management efforts create "Christmas Tree" programs with no coherent focus or direction.

Getting teachers out of their classrooms and into a variety of schoolwide efforts that over time make the school a high performance educational organization.

Finding time for teachers to engage in the added responsibilities of effective school-based decisionmaking. Meeting this challenge usually means restructuring both the school organization and the teacher's job, including how the teacher spends his or her time.

Using a real accountability system, with real consequences, sanctions, and rewards. Such a system requires accurate measurements of system performance - the primary indicator being student achievement.

Sticking with a decentralized decision-making plan, rather than adding a new layer of regulations about how decisions should be made, overruling decisions made at the site, or quickly moving back to a centralized decision-making system.

DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW: Not everyone agrees that site-based management will improve school performance. Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz (1990) and Wohlstetter and Odden (1992) have shown that such programs applied to schools prior to 1990 rarely decentralized significant portions of the budget, provided substantive personnel authority, were comprehensive, or improved student achievement. Smylie (1994) shows that few programs engaged teachers in curriculum and instruction change, further limiting their effectiveness.

Site-based management should entail more than just creating school site councils and giving them the power to make some decisions. It must be designed comprehensively and used to educate all students in high standards of thinking and problem solving.

The Future of Site-Based Management: Principals are the Key

Volume 5 Issue 3 Fall 2007Posted On Mon, Sep 13 2010 15:53:50Authors: Agnes M. Richardson

Editor's Rating:0 (0 Ratings)

Reader's Rating:0 (0 Ratings)

Login to Rate | About Ratings

The Future of Site-Based Management: Principals are the Key

Site-Based Management (SBM), also known as decentralization, is a process that gives decision-making power over educational programs to individual schools instead of district offices with the ultimate goal of improved student learning (Hansen 2005; Tanner and Stone 1998; Walker 2007). It is a concept that was introduced to education over two decades ago (Cromwell 2005). There are a number of states and major cities in the United States that have legislated and mandated SBM programs, including Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles (Chittum 2006; Walker 2007). SBM successes and failures have a number of specific characteristics and components; however, it is the belief of this author, based on the research, that the future success of SBM will be largely determined by the role and leadership of school principals.

There is a wealth of evidence supporting the importance of the role principals play in successful SBM programs. Briggs and Wohlstetter (2003) found in a study of the Chicago Public Schools SBM programs that the Chicago Consortium on School Reform (CCSR) concluded that principals are the single most important factor in promoting school reforms. Buchen (2003), in reviewing successful SBM programs, concluded that the focus of SBM reforms should be on the principal as the beacon for implementing SBM programs. In addition, research conducted by Ouchi (2006) on education decentralization in large urban areas concluded that the key to improving student achievement was turning over control of the school to the principal. According to Tanner and Stone in their 1998 SBM research study, they concluded that the role of the principal, “Is essential to any reform that is to be quick and lasting,” (Tanner and Stone 1998,

1). Finally, Cromwell (2005) concluded that a principal’s ability to lead and share power and responsibility is a key characteristic in a successful SBM program.

There are a number of characteristics principals with successful SBM programs possess. Tanner and Stone (1998) determined there are four basic processes principals with successful SBM school management programs exhibited: (a) principals must work collaboratively with staff members to analyze problems, (b) set need priorities, (c) resolve issues, and (d) use group dynamic skills. These researchers believed it is critical that principals be leaders instead of middle managers; they must disburse power, promote commitment to learning, involve teachers in the work of the school, collect student learning information, and distribute rewards. In addition, Briggs and Wohlstetter (2003), noted that principals in schools with successful SBM programs also sought out and built relationships with specific purposes in mind: newspapers for publications, universities for professional development, and businesses for technology support.

According to Cromwell (2005), successful SBM programs have principals who are able to lead and share power and responsibility. Districts where SBM programs failed did not set autonomy limits for the schools. Failure was also noted because principals told others what to do instead of working with others to develop skills and allow of some autonomy, did not distribute accountability throughout the school, and did not control power hungry decision-making groups (Cromwell 2005). Briggs and Wohlstetter (2003) identified one of the key elements of a successful SBM program is that leadership is jointly shared between the principal, who acts as the manager and facilitator of change, and the teachers, who take on increased responsibilities for student learning.

Al Sandrini, superintendent of the Norris California School District, is not 100% sold on the autonomy provided to principals through SBM programs (Olson 2000). He is skeptical because SBM programs because he has seen how SBM programs can go awry when the vision provided by the school district is not adhered to by school principals. One specific example was when the school district wanted to increase literacy through an aggressive program and laid out the goals for the school. The school response was it would support the goal; however, the principal did not want to spend the $30,000 earmarked for library and literary materials, but instead wanted to buy physical education equipment. This was not okay with the school district and provides the always needed cautionary tale that power needs to be kept in check.

Public School versus Private School Principal Influence

Is there a difference in the level of influence enjoyed by principals in public and private schools? If a principal has more influence over the school can it result in a more effective SBM program? According to research conducted by Apodaca-Tucker and Slate (2002), the answers to both of these questions are yes.

Based on the research results, private school principals reported exerting more major influence in six areas of decision-making than their public school counterparts. The areas the principals were surveyed in were: (a) hiring, (b) selecting textbooks, (c) curricular guidelines, (d) establishing policies and practices for student grading and evaluation, (e) spending of discretionary funds, and (f) input on professional development (Apodaca-Tucker and Slate 2002). In alignment with

these findings were comments by public school principals that teachers, school boards and districts, and SBM committees had a high degree of influence over decision-making in these six areas. By contrast, the private school principals believed the only other group with any major influence over these areas was the parents.

While both public and private school principals see SBM as essential to school reform public schools have a higher degree of SBM implementation than private schools (Apodaca-Tucker and Slate 2002). The reason for this may rest in the fact that public schools are subject to state and district mandates that private schools are not.

The Value of This Study

The reason determining the importance of principals to the future of SBM programs is important is because SBM has endured a rocky history; however, it is back on the rise because of the pressure placed on the education system by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Hansen 2005). According to Hansen (2005), the reason SBM programs were mostly unsuccessful the first time around in the United States was because of improper implementation. More specifically, principals were not viewed as the leaders of schools and were not given control over budgets and resource allocation (Hansen 2005).

Edmonton Public Schools. The rising interest in the United States to revamp SBM efforts is obvious because of increased visits to Edmonton, Alberta, Canada—noted for having the most successful SBM program in the world (Hansen 2005). According to Dr. Emery Dosdall, Superintendent of Edmonton Public Schools, “School-based decision-making in our district is an approach that focuses on decisions being made closest to where programming is provided for students, at the school level . . . The focus on improving student achievement places principals in a fundamentally critical role,” (Cromwell 2005, 1). All 206 district principals report directly to Dosdall. A 1994 study by Wohlstettler and Briggs of school districts in the United States and Canada emphasized the importance of the role of the principal being the primary decision-maker and empowering others as key to successful SBM programs in Edmonton.

Chicago . The Chicago Public Schools began decentralizing power in the late 1980s and possessed all the necessary components for a successful SBM program. A number of the most critical factors for success included: shared decision-making, the principal sharing power while leading the school, professional development, and having control over the school budget (Briggs and Wohlstetter 2003; Cromwell 2005; Walker 2007; Woestehoff and Neill 2006). A study from Designs for Change (2005) reported 144 under-performing Chicago Public Schools made significant improvement under the SBM reform. “The most consistent feature of these improved schools is that all adults work together as a team to improve education, including teachers, parents, Local School Council members, principal and community agencies,” (Designs for Change 2005, ii). Research conducted by the Chicago Consortium on School Reform (CCSR) determined the single most important factor in SBM reform was the school principal promoting decentralization, empowering and involving stakeholders, and implementing changes (Briggs and Wohlstetter 2003).

Five years after reform, the Illinois state legislature received pressure for more academic gains and more dramatic reforms. In response, the state legislature granted the mayor of Chicago power to centrally rule over Chicago Public Schools in 1995 (Woestehoff and Neill 2006). The newly appointed head of the Chicago Public Schools

System had no education background and began to undermine the gains made with SBM. Principals lost power to run their schools and the practices of teaching for tests and punitive policies for students and schools based on performance on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and Tests of Achievement and Proficiency (TAP) replaced SBM.

After a decade of losing ground, Chicago Public Schools finally recommitted to improve SBM programs to the glory years of the early 1990s. According to Buchen (2003), McCosh Elementary School is now a model for SBM programs. The principal receives her goals and budget from the district and then she and her teacher-managers run the school. The result of this principal’s work is that McCosh has the best test scores in the district and high morale ratings from teachers, students, and parents (Buchen 2003).

Another positive sign for SBM programs in Chicago occurred in the school year 2005-2006. The district named 85 schools as Autonomous Management and Performance Schools (Hansen 2005). The hallmark of this new program is that the principal is the leader of the school receiving overall goals from the district office and then having jurisdiction over school budgets and resource allocation (Hansen 2005).

ABC Program of North Carolina. There is evidence from a research study that North Carolina’s ABC Program is a powerful tool that helps principals in changing their behaviors and improving student learning in SBM programs. According to Ladd (2001), “The ABC’s Program is designed to hold schools Accountable for the Basic skills of reading, math, and writing, while giving the schools more local Control,” (Ladd 2001, 18). Ladd surveyed principals in 1997, after the first year of the program, and then again in 1999. Over 60% of the respondents supported the program and believed ABC increased their ability to make teachers more effective because they were empowered to provide teachers with incentives if the school exceeded achievement goals by over 10% (Ladd 2001).

The respondents indicated that the biggest change in their behavior from 1997 to 1999 was that they became more involved in a wide range of policy issues at their schools (Ladd 2001). A sample of the areas of increased involvement include improved instruction, development of extra curricula math and reading programs, and increased time spent mentoring teachers. The respondents also focused more attention on low performing students that included focusing additional funds to help these students. The overall results was improved student test scores and fewer students struggling.

The Future

So, how do school districts and other key stakeholders responsible for the successful implementation of SBM programs enact these programs in a way that allow for principals to be the key facilitators of change over their schools? Tanner and Stone (1998) propose that school

districts encourage professional development and expansion of their principals’ expertise in management and administration. They found that 85.7% of principals in their study believe the principal responsibilities increased to cultivate leadership from teacher ranks. Therefore, principals would dramatically benefit from leadership training. They also need to be provided with the tools and training to develop comprehensive plans for coordinating groups within their schools.

Another method for assisting principals with successfully implementing SBM programs comes from a National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) paper. The NAESP calls for principals to be instructional leaders and champions of student achievement instead of victims of bureaucracies (Buchen 2003). NAESP also suggested appointing assistant principals to create an army of future principals who are more visionary, aggressive, and knowledgeable about school reform and improvement (Buchen, 2003).

An additional way to assist principals with improving leadership is to develop them into master facilitators and communicators. An essential role of the principals in SBM programs is to coordinate development of distribution systems on promoting budgets, hiring personnel, developing schedules, and planning curriculum. Principals need these special skills to support SBM participatory management.

A final conclusion is that since strategic planning is critical to successful SBM programs principals should be provided with education and skills in this area. The observation of this author is that while many studies concluded this is a critical component in assisting principals with implementing successful SBM programs no suggestions on how to do this exist. It is the recommendation of this author that specific assessment tools be developed addressing strategic leadership and administered to principals. Based on the assessment results, each principal would be provided with a personal development and training plan to provide training in the areas he or she is deficient in strategic leadership. Follow-up assessments would determine if the principal adequately possessed the necessary strategic leadership skills or if more training is needed. Ultimately, results will be determined based improved student learning and morale ratings at SBM schools.

 

References

Apodaca-Tucker, M. T. and J. R. Slate. 2002. School-based management: views from public and private elementary school principals. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (April 28): 23.

Briggs, K. and P. Wohlstetter. 2003. Key elements of a successful school-based management strategy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 14 (3): 351-372.

Buchen, I. H. 2003. Education in America: the next 25 years. The Futurist 37 (7): 44-56.

Chittum, M. 2006. The plan approved by Roanoke city schools has goals and actions for every facet of the system. The Roanoke Times, September 3.

Cromwell, S. 2000. Site-based management: Boon or boondoggle? Education World http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin176.shtml (accessed June 4, 2007).

Designs for Change. 2005. The big picture: School-initiated reforms, centrally-initiated reforms, and elementary school achievement in Chicago, 1990-2005. http://www. designsforchange.org (accessed July 28, 2007).

Fung, A. 2004. Empowered participation: reinventing urban democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hansen, J. S. and M. Roza. 2005. Decentralized decision-making for schools. RAND Education Occasional Papers (Document No. OP-153-EDU) http://rand.org/pubs/ occasional_papers/2005/RAND_OP153.pdf (accessed June 3, 2007).

Hoover, H. D., G. B. Bray, A. N. Hieronymous, D. A. Frisbie, and S. B. Dunbar. 1996. Iowa tests of basic skills: interpretive guide for school administrators, levels 5-14, Form M. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Ladd, H. F. 2001. School-based educational accountability systems: the promise and pitfalls. National Tax Journal 54 (2): 385.

Nagaoka, J. and M. Roderick. 2004. Ending social promotion: the effects of retention. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Olson, R. 2000. The Great Sandrini. School Library Journal 46 (8): 44.

Ouchi, W. G. 2006. Power to the principals: decentralization in three large school districts. Organization Science, 17 (2): 298-315.

Tanner, C. K. and C. D. Stone. 1998. School improvement policy: have administrative functions of principals changed in schools where site-based management is practiced? Education Policy Analysis Archives 6 (March 1): 6.

Walker, K. 2007. Research brief: site-based management. http://www.principal partnership.com/sitebased.pdf (accessed May 20, 2007).

Woestehoff, J. and M. Neill, M. 2006. Chicago school reform: lessons for the nation. Chicago: PURE.

Home Current Issue

Archives Search Buy Contact

December 1995/January 1996 | Volume 53 | Number 4 Site-Based Management: Making It Work    Pages 4-9

The Who, What, and Why of Site-Based Management

Jane L. David

For all its guises, site-based management is basically an attempt to transform schools into communities where the appropriate people participate constructively in major decisions that affect them.

Site-based management may be the most significant reform of the decade—a potential force for empowering educators and communities. Yet no two people agree on what it is, how to do it, or even why to do it.

Kentucky requires virtually every school to have a site-based council with three teachers, two parents, and the principal, and endows councils with considerable fiscal and policy authority. Maryland and Texas require schools to have school-based decision-making teams, but in contrast to Kentucky, do not specify their composition or legally transfer authority from the district to the school.

In Chicago, state law places significant authority in the hands of local school councils and defines their makeup: six parents, two community representatives, two teachers, and the principal. In Cincinnati, reorganization and downsizing of the central office has shifted considerable responsibility, but no additional legal authority, to school principals.

Colorado governor Roy Romer initiated site-based management in Denver as part of

stalled contract negotiations between the school district and the teachers' association and required a business representative on each council. In Memphis, site-based management never got beyond a small pilot phase. In Dade County, Florida, the pilot was expanded but in a much weaker form.

These are only a few examples. According to Ogawa and White (1994), one-third of all school districts had some version of site-based management between 1986 and 1990. Since 1990 at least five states have jumped on the bandwagon. And during the same time, more than 20 states have passed legislation to create charter schools—schools that are de facto site-based managed, even though they do not carry that title. All this activity excludes individual schools that have instituted reforms but have not been delegated authority by their district or state, although some of these may be excellent models of democratic decision making (see, for example, Apple and Beane 1995, Wohlstetter and Smyer 1994).

What Is It?

So what is site-based management? It has almost as many variants as there are places claiming to be “site-based.” And they differ on every important dimension—who initiates it, who is involved, what they control, and whether they are accountable to an outside authority. Site-based management may be instituted by state law or by administrative action, by a district, or by a school. It may be linked to an accountability system with consequences tied to student performance, or it may not be.

Most variants of site-based management involve some sort of representative decision-making council at the school, which may share authority with the principal or be merely advisory. Some councils have the power to hire principals, some hire and fire, some do neither. Some can hire other personnel when there are vacancies. Some councils specify that the principal be the chair, others specify that the principal not be the chair.

The composition of site councils also varies tremendously. In addition to teachers, parents, and the principal, they may include classified staff, community members, students, and business representatives. Educators may outnumber non-educators, or vice versa. States or districts may list constituencies who must be represented, or simply leave it to individual schools. Chicago and Kentucky are exceptions in specifying exact membership of the site council—who and how many of each type of constituent.

Why Do It?

Reasons for initiating site-based management run the gamut, yet virtually all are cloaked in the language of increasing student achievement. To some, site-based

management is a governance reform designed to shift the balance of authority among schools, districts, and the state. This tends to be the rationale behind state efforts rather than district reforms, and it is often part of a larger reform agenda that claims to trade school autonomy for accountability to the state.

To others, site-based management is a political reform initiated to broaden the decision-making base, either within the school, the larger community, or both. But democratization of decision making as an end in itself leaves open the question of who should be involved in which decisions.

Site-based management may also be an administrative reform to make management more efficient by decentralizing and deregulating it. Here, too, management efficiency presumably serves the ultimate goal of the organization—student learning. Yet another premise of site-based management as educational reform is that the way to enhance student learning is to let education professionals make the important professional decisions.

Further complicating the landscape, there are often underlying motives. Stated purposes may obscure far less lofty aims, such as weakening entrenched and distrusted local school boards, creating the illusion of reform without investing more resources, putting a positive spin on central office downsizing by calling it decentralization, or simply trying to shift the blame for failure to the school itself.

Linking Decentralization and Achievement

Although site-based management appears in many guises, at its core is the idea of participatory decision making at the school site. And despite all the variations in rationale, its main stated objective is to enhance student achievement. Participatory decision making and school improvement are presumed to be related, but that's not always the case.

Consider what happens when any group is formed by bringing together people who have never worked as a group, who may have no experience in collaborative decision making, and who may in fact have a history of being adversaries (parents and teachers, for example). To make matters worse, some members may be subject to evaluation by other members (teachers by the principal, most obviously). Why would such a group be expected to improve student learning?

Indeed, groups like these that do function well tend to spend most of their time on issues of discipline, facilities, and extracurricular activities. They limit themselves to these issues for good reason—these are the issues that people are passionate about and have some idea how to tackle. Moreover, these are concerns that parents and teachers share (David 1994).

Curriculum and instruction are much more difficult to deal with, for educators and

non-educators alike. And these issues are even more difficult to tackle when states or districts mandate new assessments that require teaching methods that are unfamiliar to many parents and teachers. When there are serious consequences for unsatisfactory student performance—especially teacher or principal dismissal—but a lack of knowledge about how to improve student performance, trust and constructive dialogue are further undermined.

Who Decides What?

For site-based decisions to be sound, attention must be paid to who decides what. Sound decisions are made by those who are informed about and care about the issues and who know the context in which the decision will be carried out. Otherwise, there is no guarantee that these decisions will be any better than those made by policymakers many steps removed. In fact, school-based decisions could be made by only one person, and that person could be uninformed and insensitive to the context.

Participatory management does not mean that everyone decides everything. Some decisions are best left to the professionals in the school, some to parents, and others to students. Some decisions are appropriately made by representatives of several constituencies, others by a formal schoolwide body. Nor does site-based management mean that all decisions are appropriately made at the school level. Schools belong to larger systems—districts and states—that must provide a strong center if decentralization is to create something other than anarchy (Murphy 1989).

Schools are unlikely to improve unless community members—and particularly parents—participate meaningfully. And in secondary schools, students should be involved as well. Schools are also unlikely to improve unless teachers—the main implementers—shape the direction of change. In general, those who have the strongest personal stake in and the most immediate connection to the school are the ones who should tackle the issues. The challenge is to maximize the likelihood that decisions will be appropriately participatory, informed, and sensitive to the context.

Internal Elements

Site councils that truly flourish in the school community tend to have a number of characteristics in common, most notably the following.

A well-thought-out committee structure. In a well-structured system of council committees, there is a good matchup between the types of decisions to be made and the most appropriate people to debate and resolve those issues. Some committees may be standing, others ad hoc. Some may be composed of teachers, and so defined by naturally existing groups like teams, departments, and grade levels. Some may consist only of parents;

others may be representative of all constituencies. Whether the relationship between the committees and the site council is formal (approval) or informal (advisory), the committee structure with overlapping memberships provides a communication network that is critical to an effective council.

Enabling leadership. Strong councils are usually led, though not always chaired, by strong principals (and sometimes teachers) who exercise leadership by mobilizing others. They encourage all parties to participate. And they model inquiry and reflection. Such leaders create schoolwide ownership of the improvement agenda so that principal turnover or a change in council membership does not bring efforts to a halt.

Focus on student learning. Not all issues have a direct influence on student learning, but strong councils consciously connect non-instructional decisions with conditions that maximize learning opportunities. For example, a decision to invest in classroom telephones to facilitate communication between teachers and parents will also affect students. By linking all issues to teaching and learning, council members don't lose sight of the ultimate goal.

Focus on adult learning. There are two points here. First, council members need new skills, assistance, and practice in asking hard questions and gathering evidence about what is and is not working. Second, councils need to appreciate that their constituencies—parents and educators—require access to new knowledge and skills, both to be active decision makers and to change their teaching and learning practices and beliefs.

Schoolwide perspective. Functioning councils focus on the collective interests of the parties, devoting their energy to school goals and direction, coordination and communication, and allocation of resources and equity. They do not get caught up in details of management or curriculum, and they do not get waylaid by individual agendas. Naturally most parents will be thinking about their own children's needs, and most teachers will be thinking about their own classrooms, and so they might be defensive. Moreover, everyone may lack confidence in a new process that carries considerable responsibility.

External Elements

Not many schools are able to create on their own the conditions I have described, particularly when strong enabling leadership is absent. To learn how to do it, most schools require support from their district or state agencies, including the following:

Long-term commitment. Councils cannot evolve into effective decision-making bodies at the school site if the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other every two or three years. Site-based management cannot be the reform du jour that changes authority and flexibility when the superintendent changes. Sustained commitment is essential. The process is hard work and takes time.

Curricular guidance. Schools need a substantive framework within which to make appropriate choices. Whether that guidance is best communicated in the form of learning goals and standards, curriculum or content guides, or assessments is an open question—as is the way in which choices about such guidance are made. The goal of site-based management is not to let a thousand flowers bloom nor to force every school to reinvent itself from scratch.In addition, everyone from classroom teachers to other members of committees who diagnose problems must have opportunities to learn new ways of operating, including mediating techniques. School councils must reflect the existing culture. For most schools, if real improvement is to occur, individual beliefs and, ultimately, the school culture will need to change.

Opportunities for learning and assistance. Districts can provide resources for the kinds of learning opportunities that adults in schools need to change classroom practices and to function effectively as council and committee members. School councils will necessarily reflect the existing culture. Most councils, but especially those with local conflicts and limited experience in collaborative problem solving, will need assistance and access to facilitation and mediation. For most schools, if site-based management is to lead to improvement, individual beliefs and, ultimately, the culture of the school site will need to change.

Access to information. Schools must have easy access to the information needed to make decisions, including everything from budget to performance data. A decentralized system can function well only when each unit knows how it is doing. Although schools can gather certain data from students, teachers, and the community, they cannot be expected to have the data collection and analysis capability that a larger organization can support. Moreover, because the system has its own needs for information, the flow must go in both directions.

Open Questions

Making fundamental changes in systems as complex as state and local school systems raises a number of questions for which there are no pat answers. The solutions simply have to be worked out by those involved. Among these difficult issues are questions of equity, adult learning, decision making, and changing conceptions of teaching and of community.

What policies and supports will ensure that site-based management does not exacerbate resource differences among schools? Schools in poorer neighborhoods tend to have fewer resources and less educated populations. They are at risk of being further disadvantaged under a decentralized system.

How can site-based management create a sense of community in schools that draw from a large geographic area, as do most secondary schools; and in schools in districts with desegregation plans, choice, open enrollment, or magnet schools? Parents and staff at such schools may not have access to

transportation or time to participate in school decision making. New ideas for teacher professional development are emerging, but where are

the opportunities for principals, central office staff, and parents to learn new roles and ways to assist site councils?

How should teachers' jobs be redefined to allow time for collaborative decision making and ongoing professional development? Both teachers and the public believe that teachers should devote their time to students, and teachers are finding classroom demands take increasing time and energy.

How can site-based management be structured to balance school autonomy and flexibility with certain centralized operations that require consistency, coordination, and legal constraints? For example, collective bargaining, transportation, and government regulations may all affect class size, schedules, services, and how facilities are used.

What is the best public education analogue to private sector work teams, and where do parents and community members fit in? That is, decentralized private organizations delegate authority to work teams that don't involve the public. But in schools, neither site councils nor groups of teachers are really teams that carry out the work of the organization (teachers typically work in isolation).

Should schools have mandates that require them to involve parents and the community in decisions? What is the likelihood that without such mandates, parents and community members would continue to have little voice in some local schools?

Risks and Benefits

In theory, the benefits of site-based management overwhelm the costs: the goals of education reform are unlikely to be met in any other way. As public support for public education in general, and reform in particular, dwindles, community members' engagement in their local schools offers the most promise for rebuilding support.

Without a school and community culture that supports ongoing learning, student achievement is unlikely to improve. The challenge is to open avenues for informed conversation and for becoming informed. Ultimate accountability rests on the ability of individuals to influence what is not working (Wiggins 1993). That is certainly far preferable to a state takeover or school closure.

Although the ultimate goal of participatory site-based management is to improve schools in order to improve student performance, the intermediate goals are desired ends in themselves. Involving teachers in decisions about their work must be valued in its own right, as must giving parents and other community members more involvement in their schools.

One risk is that the public will judge site-based management prematurely on the ultimate goals, derailing sound practices whose success is not yet reflected in test

scores. When there is more than one desired end and the means to those ends are not clear, it is difficult to assess progress along the way. Therefore, it is critically important to devise new ways of measuring progress for such an undertaking (Bryk et al. 1994).

Another risk, however, is that participants will not judge site-based management in terms of any of its goals—intermediate or ultimate—but simply allow the process to absorb time and energy to no good purpose. Unfortunately, in practice, the potential of site-based management is rarely realized. It can even have deleterious effects, exhausting limited energy and good will in futile exercises. Only with visible progress and results will folks willingly put in the hard work.

The key is to identify and exploit ways to ensure that decisions will be appropriately participatory, informed, and context-sensitive, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will lead to better school practices and stronger instruction. Ultimately, it will be the people who carry out site-based management who determine what it is—and can become. Their success or failure will also help others decide whether it is worthwhile in terms of the human costs it exacts.

Finally, the goal of transforming schools into communities where everyone has a voice goes beyond issues of school reform to the heart of our democratic society. The creation of models of collaboration and participatory decision making for students to witness and become involved in—not only in classrooms but also in their community—ultimately benefits not just the school community but our entire society.

References

Apple, M. W., and J. A. Beane, eds. (1995). Democratic Schools. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bryk, A. S., et al. (1994). “The State of Chicago School Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan 76: 74–78.

David, J. L. (1994). School-Based Decision Making: Linking Decisions to Learning. Lexington, Ken.: The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

Murphy, J. T. (1989). “The Paradox of Decentralizing Schools Lessons from Business, Government, and the Catholic Church.” Phi Delta Kappan 70: 808–812.

Ogawa, R. T., and P. A. White. (1994). “School-Based Management An Overview.” In School-Based Management Organizing for High Performance, edited by S. A. Mohrman, P. Wohlstetter, and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing Student Performance Exploring the Purpose and

Limits of Testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wohlstetter, P., and R. Smyer. (1994). “Models of High-Performance Schools.” In School-Based Management Organizing for High Performance, edited by S. A. Mohrman, P. Wohlstetter, and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.