A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

The first of these is power. By definition, any mechanism for organizational decentralization entails the shift of power to lower levels of the hierarchy. This is the basic characteristic of SBM, namely, the shift of some decision making authority from the district administration to the school site and the inclusion of school-level constituents in the decision making process. However, Lawler (1986) suggests that three remaining elements must be decentralized in order to facilitate the development of meaningful patterns of involvement oriented towards improved performance. These elements are knowledge and skills, information, and rewards. To make good decisions, participants need the knowledge and skills required to enact their expanded roles so as to improve outcomes and achieve high performance. This includes not only technical knowledge regarding how to do their job, but also business knowledge relevant to managing the organization and interpersonal skills required for working together as a team. They also need timely information about organizational performance, especially regarding organizational goals and objectives and the extent to which these are being attained. Finally, it is important for rewards to be aligned with the behaviors, outcomes, and capabilities required for high performance. This provides incentive for employee involvement and holds people accountable for their contributions to organizational performance.

The high-involvement model serves as a useful framework with which to analyze the conditions necessary for SBM to be utilized effectively. A recent review of the SBM literature indicated that knowledge, information, and rewards are often not adequately decentralized in SBM efforts (Ogawa & White, 1994). Hence, a primary objective of the first phase of our research was to explore the extent to which school-level changes related to the four elements of the model facilitated the effective use of school-based management. By studying districts at the forefront of this reform, we found that, in general, attempts are being made to provide participants in school decision making with the knowledge, skills, and information they need to serve as effective decision makers. However, schools are not making much progress in terms of developing reward systems to reward individuals and/or schools as a whole for better performance (Wohlstetter et al., 1994).

In addition to these general trends, differences were also apparent among the individual schools examined. In particular, a comparison of schools that had been identified by district officials as "actively restructuring" under SBM (i.e., successful in making changes aimed at improving instructional effectiveness) to those schools identified as "struggling" (i.e., active with SBM but less successful in making changes) indicated differences in terms of three of the elements of the high-involvement model, namely, power, knowledge, and information. The one exception is the distribution of rewards for performance, which were almost nonexistent in any of the schools studied.

Actively restructuring schools used a number of approaches to share power widely among the various school-level stakeholders, including people who were not on the primary decision making council. They utilized their authority over the mix of personnel positions in innovative ways to support teaching and learning objectives. Struggling schools tended to empower only a subgroup of the faculty and to have only a limited number of mechanisms for involving additional people in the decision process. These schools frequently got bogged down in establishing power relationships, and there was often a power struggle between the principal and the staff. Knowledge and skill development at the actively restructuring schools was oriented toward building school-wide capacity for change and toward promoting a sense of professional community and a shared knowledge base among the faculty. Sources of professional development at these schools included training from outside the district and even from outside traditional educational circles. In contrast, professional development at the struggling schools tended to be an individual activity rather than a means of creating school-wide capacity for improvement, with subject matter often controlled by the central administration. The actively restructuring schools demonstrated better communication of information among constituents, including an increase in formal opportunities for interaction among teachers and a strong customer service orientation toward the community. Struggling schools, in contrast, usually had few mechanisms for sharing information among and between stakeholders, and even these usually operated on an informal rather than a formal basis.

In addition to these elements of the high-involvement model, our data suggested the possibility of two more conditions that seemed to be associated with the effective use of SBM. One is the presence of an "instructional guidance system," which includes a state or district curriculum framework along with the school's teaching and learning objectives and the means by which they are to be accomplished articulated within the parameters of the broader framework. Most of the actively restructuring schools had a well-defined vision delineating the school's specific mission, values, and goals regarding student outcomes. This vision served as an impetus and a focal point for decisions regarding what types of reforms to implement. Without such a vision, schools were usually less able to get very far in terms of designing and implementing any reforms.

The second condition has to do with the nature of the school principal's leadership role (Wohlstetter & Briggs, 1994). Principals at the actively restructuring schools were highly regarded by the faculty as being strong leaders. Some of them were adopting more of a managerial or even a transformational role, with a focus on effectively managing the whole of the social system rather than just the curriculum and instructional aspects (cf. Murphy, 1994). This orientation incorporates both an internal and an external focus. Internally, these principals motivated their staff, created a team feeling on campus, and worked to shield teachers from concerns in which they had little vested interest or expertise. Externally, they gathered information regarding educational research and innovative practices to share with their teachers. They were also entrepreneurial in that they sought out grant opportunities and encouraged faculty to write proposals to gain funding for desired innovations.

In summary, our findings from the first phase of this research suggested a number of factors that facilitate the use of school-based management as an effective form of governance for a school. Described above in terms of the elements of the high-involvement model, the use of an instructional guidance system, and the role of the principal, the bottom line is that effective utilization of SBM governance requires the development of high quality decision making structures and processes at the school. The adoption of school-based management can initiate the process of school improvement, but unless school decision makers effectively utilize their new power to introduce meaningful changes in school functioning, they are not likely to achieve improved educational quality. Since not all SBM schools are able to generate such changes, it is important to better understand the conditions required for schools to use SBM to generate significant reforms intended to enhance teaching and learning. This was the focus of the second phase of our research, which is described more fully below.
-###-

[Generating Curriculum and Instructional Innovations through School-Based Management]

[Part 3: Focus of the Study]