| Home | Resumé | Ph.D. Studies |
ED812 The Governance of Educational Institutions
Reaction Paper #2
SITE-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM) IN EDUCATION
Course Tutor: Dr. Bev Enns
Learner Documentation:
INTRODUCTION
Educational reform issues have been the dominant feature of education literature for the last 20 years. Equal funding, desegregation, alternative curriculum, accountability, assessment, minimum competency, school choice, etc., have all been discussed and researched with the most relevant research involving "various balances of equity, efficiency, and liberty" (Brown and Hunter, p. 96). The premise behind systemic school reform is that reforms generated at the top of the system will eventually filter down, creating reforms at the bottom of the system as well.
Research indicates that the successful implementation of education reform policy requires coordination among all levels of school governance, from the state to the classroom, sufficient resources and local capacity to support the reform, and perceived applicability of the reform by the school change agents. (Brown, et al., p. 106).
According to Brown, et al. (1998), restructuring education will encounter six major barriers:
1. Tradition. Powerful stakeholders will renegotiate their power base which may delay the implementation of reforms because the micro-politics of any educational organization are strong. The teachers and administrators will not want to adjust their power base without a good indication that it would be to their benefit.
2. Organization. Teachers and principals tend to not want to be part of something too risky and, therefore, they will support a good solution instead of an outstanding solution. As Simon (1945) states, "Schools as organizations generally do not seek to be outstanding; rather, they seek to be good" (as cited in Brown, et al., p. 102).
3. Vested interests. The importance of the micro-school politics is often not taken into account when planning reforms. There is a strong internal culture inherent in any school system that may include, but is not limited to: administrators, teachers, parents, board members.
4. Time, money, and motivation. As key stakeholders in determining the success and/or failure of a particular reform, teachers have minimum tolerance for reform if basic problems such as renovations, raising salaries, etc., are not addressed as well. Historically, teachers have resented the intrusiveness of educational reforms mandated from outside the district. Without the support of the teachers, no educational reform policy will pass the critical longevity test.
5. Trust. All reform involves politics and even the instigators of reform will not usually support it if serious resistance appears. Teachers are usually wary of reforms that might dilute their power base and the hidden agendas of many stakeholders are often discounted when planning for a particular reform.
6. Planning and evaluation. In our modern western culture, immediate results of policy implementation procedures are deemed necessary to prove their validity; however, the truth is that the results of reform will not be truly known for many years. "Evidence from reform experiments in Europe, Australia, and the United States reveals that from goal setting to implementation, the process takes a decade or more under the best of conditions" (Brown, et al., p. 102). The worry, of course, is that after that period of time, determining which reforms were successful and why becomes problematic due to staff and leadership turnover as well as the implementation of other policies and procedural changes during the same time period.
Although educational reform efforts are usually directed toward the public school system as a whole, Hannaway and Talbert (1993) found several differences between effective high schools with three community types: urban, rural, and suburban. Some of their findings include: a) that school size is a positive factor for suburban schools, a negative factor for urban schools, and has no effect on rural schools; and b) that urban high school principals have less autonomy regarding school policy than their suburban or rural counterparts (as cited in Kemper and Teddlie, 2000). An additional study by Hess (1993) found that urban schools have an abundance of reforms that do not endure over time.
In a study of 57 urban school districts from 1992 to 1995, … found that the typical urban school district implemented an average of 12 significant reform efforts. The combination of a multitude of high profile initiatives with transitory superintendents and principals are barriers to sustained school improvement in urban districts. (as cited in Kemper, et al., p. 173)
SITE-BASED or SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM)
Certainly then, for a reform policy to be effective, allowances must be made for distinct types of schools. Perhaps a method of ensuring that each school district implements the most efficacious policy for its own clientele would be to de-centralize the management so that various stakeholders would be involved in the decision-making process. At least that is the premise behind the site-based or school-based management (SBM) movement. SBM grew out of research done by Purkey and Smith (1983) to investigate characteristics of effective schools.
A finding of that study indicated that schools in which teacher input helped shape curriculum and instructional practices had higher levels of student achievement. However, the shared decision making observed in those schools was 'authentic'. It grew out of the context of the school and represented a desire for shared decisional power (as cited in Kemper, et al., p. 182).
SBM is, therefore, defined as "a form of decentralization revolving around school site management" (Keithwood and Menzies, p. 325). A critical component of the Purkey and Smith (1983) research is that authenticity of reform is essential in determining its ultimate success. Although, as will be discussed later, various types of SBM have evolved, an integral component of each type is the creation and role of school site council groups. However, these councils may have different briefs. Keithwood, et al., (1998) found that, in one model, the council will have the legal authority to make decisions while, in the second and more popular of the two models, the council will advise the principal who is the ultimate decision-making authority.
One of the unique features regarding the SBM movement is its worldwide component. Canada implemented a form of SBM in the 1970s and various countries around the world, including: Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, Belgium, France, Germany, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland have implemented programs dealing with school-level decision making (Keithwood, et al., 1998). Unfortunately, although the SBM movement continues to grow, there is a "lack of positive findings from research on the ability of this innovation to improve schooling…" (Brown, et al., p. 95). One of the problems, as mentioned earlier, is that it is difficult to determine whether or not SBM has been responsible for improvements because it is usually implemented as one of several reform efforts.
Many districts implement SBM for reasons similar to that of Columbus, Ohio which adopted the SBM strategy in 1989. The reasons for the reform as a whole included "declining federal support, racial tensions, court ordered business to achieve desegregation, high dropout rate, teacher dissatisfaction, falling college entrance rates, and middle class flight" (Keithwood, et al., p. 329). While it is difficult to ascertain the success, particularly with regards to student improvement, of most districts, Chicago's system is beginning to show positive results.
The Chicago School Reform Act of 1988 was initiated in response to "widespread anger and concern among parents, community, business leaders, and politicians, regarding the poor achievement level of students in Chicago schools" (Keithwood, et al., p. 332). However, because there were no noticeable improvements in student performance, it is important to realize that Chicago implemented supplemental accountability legislation in 1995 (Limerick and Anderson, 1999).
Earlier research studies had found that, if student performance was to improve, a key component of any reform effort should be directed towards the teachers.
There are three essential components to this effort at staff improvement. One is to seek to improve the curriculum being offered by the teachers, particularly as new standards [are] emerging for the teaching of math, English writing, and many other subjects … A second strategy involves upgrading teachers' knowledge of the subjects that they teach. A third approach is to improve the pedagogical skills of teachers. (Limerick, et al., p. 502)
After the accountability measures that "addressed the will and capacity of employees to undertake change and the will of students to be fully engaged with their schoolwork" (Limerick, et al., p. 507), students in the Chicago system, particularly at the elementary school level, began to show improvement.
Thus, 94% of the elementary schools had higher percentages of their students at or above the national norms in 1998 than they had at that level in 1990, as reform was beginning; 80% had gains larger than four percentage points, and 60% gained more than 8 percentage points. Unfortunately, the picture at the high school levels is less encouraging. There, fairly striking increases in math are offset by a drastic decline in the percentage at norms in reading between 1990 and 1996, with some recovery in 1997 and 1998 (Limerick, et al., p. 497).
At least for Chicago, accountability proved a key factor in establishing the balance that was necessary to show evidence of individual student performance change. Although the Chicago program is now thought of as the benchmark for the potential of SBM to improve education, other programs have been evaluated as well.
Remembering that improving students results is just one of the intended goals of the SBM movement, other evaluations have been undertaken. One method, described below, addresses the role of decision making powers in affecting change. A second method, to be described later, analyzes the effects of SBM on various stakeholders.
FOUR TYPES OF MANAGEMENT CONTROL
Murphy and Beck (as cited in Keithwood, 1998) describe four major types of SBM programs that indicate who or which group has ultimate control: community control, balanced control, professional control, and administrative control.
Community Control.
The basic assumption giving rise to this form of SBM is that the curriculum of the school ought to directly reflect the values and preferences of parents and the local community. School professionals, it is claimed, typically are not as responsive to such local values and preferences as they ought to be. Their responsiveness is greatly increased, however, when the power to make decisions about curriculum, budget, and personnel is in the hands of the parent/community constituents of the school.
Schools employing the community control form of SBM will usually exhibit a high number of changes; however, there is virtually no effect on educational practices (Keithwood, et al., 1998). Some have written that the community control form of SBM has, at its base, the notion of "choice" and that, for parents, this will ultimately prove to be their most powerful weapon in ensuring their children receive the best education possible.
Professional Control.
Basic to this form of SBM is the assumption that professionals closest to the students have the most relevant knowledge for making such decisions and that full participation in the decision making process will increase their commitment to implementing final decisions.
Examples of schools that employ this form of SBM are Columbus, Ohio; Miami, Florida; and Los Angeles, California. In Miami, there were always low levels of conflict between schools and the community (Keithwood, et al., 1998) and so this form of SBM worked effectively. However, in Los Angeles, the effect of teacher empowerment was neutralized because of adversarial relations with the unions (Keithwood, et al., 1998) resulting in negligible effectiveness of this particular mode of SBM.
Generally speaking, there are more positive effects in teacher practice, using professional control, than with either administrative or community control (Keithwood, et al., 1998). Because teachers' practices have a direct effect on students, some believe this form holds the greatest promise for future SBM development. Additionally, of the three major types of SBM, this system is most likely to increase teachers' sense of accountability to both parents and the community (Keithwood, et al., 1998).
Balanced Control.
This form of SBM attempts to accomplish the purposes of both community and professional control forms of SBM. That is, it aims to make better use of teachers' knowledge for key decisions in the school, as well as to be more accountable to parents and the local community. Not all authors believe that this is a viable form of SBM; however, examples can be found in Salt Lake City, Utah and in Spain (Keithwood, et al., 1998).
Administrative Control.
This form of SBM is aimed at increasing accountability to the central district or board office for the efficient expenditure of resources, on the assumption that such efficiencies will eventually pay off for students. Advocates of this form of SBM reason that such authority, in combination with the incentive to make the best use of resources, ought to get more for the resources of the school into the direct service of students.
Results indicates that state level reform policies are subject to interpretation at the school level and that this form of control offers the smallest number of changes to the school. Administrative control "allows for the slimming down of a central office staff without a significant loss, and perhaps a marginal gain in the efficiency of a school district" (Keithwood, et al., p. 338) . Examples of this form of SBM are to be found in Canada, which has employed SBM since the 1970s, as well as in Texas. (Keithwood, et al., 1998). However, in 1991, legislation was passed indicating Texas is moving away from administrative to professional control.
In 1991, this legislation was followed by a state regulation 'which directed the campus committee … to undertake responsibility for improving student outcomes through goal setting, curriculum, budgeting, staffing patterns, and school reorganization. (Keithwood, et al., p. 328).
THE EFFECTS OF SBM ON STAKEHOLDERS
As mentioned above, the effectiveness of SBM can also be evaluated based on its impact on various stakeholders, including: teachers, parents, students, principals, and district administrators.
Teachers.
The majority of studies point to the professional control system as having the most positive benefit for teachers and, as a result, more possibility of benefiting the students as well. Some of these benefits include: increased teaching commitments, more collaboration, changes in classroom instruction techniques, less teacher turnover, and an increased school-wide focus on professional development. However, the involvement of the extended community also involves an increased workload and, for some, a diversion from attention to instruction to focus on other issues, and less power and control (Keithwood, et al., 1998).
Of course, the benefits to teachers will differ depending on the particular form of SBM employed by their school district. The staff at two Texas public schools were recently interviewed regarding their opinions about how SBM impacted on decision making. Although both schools used a form of administrative control, the staff in one were decidedly more empowered and aware of their own input regarding decisions. "25% of the teachers at Roberts [High School] felt that SBM impacted on decision making while 52% at Ferguson [High School] felt there was an influence" (Kemper and Teddlie, p. 181).
With a number of years experience, some Australian staff believed that SBM would allow them more of a role in decision-making processes. The concept "of SBM was emancipatory for female school leaders as it offered them the chance to develop a new style of school administration unfettered by the continuing influence of accepted (male) practice" (Hess, p. 402). However, it appears that while primary school teachers believe they have experienced more freedom, secondary teachers haven't noticed any appreciable change. This is attributed to the fact that high schools are already to some extent self-managing (Hess, 1999), and that the only real changes will occur in the area of finance rather than in the administrative hierarchy.
Parents.
Studies have shown that parents feel community control, although theoretically offering more control, in reality, offers little in the way of concrete, long-lasting changes and that, in fact, the professional control format actually offers more opportunities for parental input into school decisions because the teaching staff take the time to become more attuned to the needs of the community and parents.
Students.
There doesn't appear to be any firm research-based knowledge about the effects of SBM on students with the exception of some achievement results e.g. Chicago. However, the nature of these improvements is not always clear. Whether they are resulting from the SBM reform measures or simply reflective of the Hawthorne effect is not yet discernible. Some studies have shown that most of the effects are either neutral or negative (Keithwood, et al., 1998). Positive features include: increased test scores, increased pass rates, changed patterns of achievement, and higher expectations.
Principals.
Basically, in all forms of SBM, principals take on more managerial and less instructional roles and experience increased performance accountability. However, principals in different types of schools report varying degrees of success with SBM. While urban principals report some effect, suburban principals report a positive effect and rural principals report debatable effects. Kemper and Teddlie (2000) offer the commentary that, interestingly, some principals prefer the administrative control because it provides a forum whereby they can promote their own ideas as it can give teachers and community members the perception that they have a stake in decision-making while ensuring the principal is the leading decision-maker.
District Administrators.
Of the aforementioned groups, district administrators have felt mostly negative responses to SBM. Although they use the system to sell their school system ideas to the community and have an increased partnership with unions, there is usually increased stress and a heavier workload. Additionally, some district administrators feel they are distanced from the everyday workings of their schools as they attempt to liaise with various stakeholders outside the immediate school environment.
LOCAL ADAPTATIONS OF STATE MANDATED SBM REFORM
An interesting component of SBM is that the legislature often dictates how the programs should be run but, in reality, the local school areas interpret the laws differently. This was evidenced above in the two Texas schools where the two principals administered policy in almost diametrical opposition to each other.
Urban and suburban schools usually created SBM program structures that were tightly aligned with the law. However, the urban schools seldom utilized the SBM committee in ways that were consistent with the spirit of the law in that true decision making power was not often lodged in the urban SBM committees. In contrast, rural schools appeared to feel that the SBM mandate was a constraint to the informal decision-making procedure already in place at the school. As a result, the rural schools typically lacked the required SBM program structure even though the teachers reported high levels of participatory decision making. In addition, schools across all three community types were apt to utilize alternative decision making vehicles. Thus, the policy mandate neither ensured that the SBM structure would be put into place, nor did it ensure that the spirit of the law was followed in terms of devolving decision making." (Kemper, et al., p. 182).
"Furthermore, the mandated forms of SBM control often do little to disrupt the traditional influence patterns in schools, blurring distinctions even further." (Keithwood, et al., p. 337)
For example, Senate Bill I in Texas specifically sets down requirements as to the responsibilities of the principal and committee.
Senate Bill I specifically states that the SBM committee at each school must consist of elected teacher members, as well as parents and community members. The law also mandates that the principal will work with the SBM team to develop the campus improvement plan. The principal and the committee must (a) assess the academic achievement of all students, (b) set campus performance objectives, (c) determine resources to implement the plan, (d) identify staff needed to implement the plan, and (e) measure progress toward goals. (Kemper, et al., p. 174)
As reported by Kemper and Teddlie (2000), in a series of interviews conducted in two Texas schools, one principal had written the school report, did little to involve his staff, and chose the committee members, while, in the other school, the principal had set out the objectives, organized an electoral process for committee members, and instructed the SBM committee members to write the report. Interestingly, the principal's contract at the second school was not to be extended even though both the staff and the parents agreed that the environment at the school had greatly improved since her arrival.
SUMMARY
Kemper, et al. (2000) report that effective educational reform must not be an isolated policy. That is, the policy must be coherent and must not conflict with either itself nor previous policies. It would appear that the implementation of all SBM programs is not always cohesively planned. Rather, the tendency in some school districts is to ignore or adapt the regulations in a micro-manner. The Chicago reform effort, on the other hand, has been consistently analyzed and adapted so that it reflects a total program and incorporates both top-down and bottom-up reform efforts.
"A society stratified by unequal positions of power, income, and social status can hardly alter these conditions through its schools; it can merely reproduce the existing inequalities" (Brown, et al., p. 96). Therefore, mandating a change to a site-based management process will not necessarily bring about educational improvement. Reform efforts that are merely "cosmetic and symbolic responses to imposed school improvement agendas (Kemper, et al., p. 182) should not be expected to bring about the desired changes.
However, as the Chicago reform effort has shown, there are several key themes that must be addressed to ensure an effective reform response. According to Limerick, et al., (1999) teachers and parents must have high expectations for the students; staff must be given the opportunity to change their current practices; the capacity of school personnel must be enhanced; and, there must be a forum to address the will of teachers, principals, parents, and students to change.
According to the literature, professionally controlled SBM plans are said to offer the highest potential for success, largely because they encompass the points mentioned above. Schools are only reflective of the surrounding culture. Integrated involvement of the stakeholders will go a long way towards the improvement of our educational system for our children.
SELECTED RESOURCES
Brown, F. and Hunter, R.C., (March, 1998). School-based Management, Urban Education, 33(1), 95-119.
Hess, Jr., G.A., (September, 1999). Expectations, Opportunity, Capacity, and Will: The Four Essential Components of Chicago School Reform, Educational Policy, 13(4), 494-518.
Keithwood, K. and Menzies, T., (May, 1998). Forms and Effects of School-Based Management: A Review, Educational Policy, 12(3), 325-347.
Kemper, E.A. and Teddlie, C., (Winter, 2000). Mandated Site-based Management in Texas: Exploring Implementation in Urban High Schools, Teaching & Change, 7(2), 172-211.
Limerick, B. and Anderson, C., (1999). Female Administrators and School-Based Management: New Models in an Era of Change?, Educational Management & Administration, 27(4), 401-414.