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

In this study of exemplary school-based managed schools, we found evidence of a broadened definition of school-based budgeting, but there was still a tremendous gap between school-based budgeting within the high involvement framework and what was actually occurring in the districts. Districts had decentralized some budget power, but schools had little discretion after district, and sometimes state, constraints were taken into consideration. There was a scaling up process occurring, however, as districts experimented with devolving authority over various items. Similarly, information sharing was often restricted by the political culture and use of technology within the district, but several districts were working to close the gap between ideal and real practices by expanding the use of technology in the budget process. While there was not as much evidence to suggest that districts were scaling up to reduce the gap between the need for continuous, ongoing staff development and the current fragmented practice of providing professional development according to availability and demand, there was a growing recognition that more training was needed and there was potential for growth in this area. Finally, there appeared to be very little experimentation with reward structures in schools, but there was movement toward the high involvement framework as some schools were beginning to manipulate budgets in ways that allowed participants to be rewarded for skills.

In conclusion, there are several policy implications for local, state, and national actors from this study of school-based budgeting. First, power that is devolved needs to be real power so that schools can allocate money according to site needs and priorities. Second, the flow of information can be improved with the use of computer systems that provide quick, up-to-date information that is needed to make good decisions. A guiding framework, provided by a state or district curriculum guide for instance, also informs the site-based budgeting process because it helps the school to develop its mission which in turn helps schools establish priorities and make budget decisions. Third, the money for professional development needs to be set aside to ensure that it is continuously provided so that participants can improve their budget decision-making processes. Finally, more experimentation is needed in terms of rewards. We have experiments with teacher compensation systems going on, but not in districts that have decentralized aggressively. There appears to be a need to marry the two reforms into a comprehensive strategy to create high performance schools.

Barzelay, M. (1992).

Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bradley, A. (1994, September 14).

Equation for equality. Education Week, pp. 28-32.

Brown, D.J. (1990).

Decentralization and school-based management. London: Falmer Press.

Brown, D.J. (1991).

Decentralization: The administrator's guidebook to school district change. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Clune, W.H. & White, P.A. (1988).

School-based management: Institutional variation, implementation, and issues for further research (Rep. No. RR-008). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

David, J.L. (1990).

Restructuring in progress: Lessons from pioneering districts. In R.F. Elmore (Ed.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 152-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Firestone, W.A. (1994).

Redesigning teacher salary systems for educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 549-574.

Hannaway, J. (1993).

Decentralization in two school districts: Challenging the standard paradigm. In J. Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement: Can we fulfill the promise? (pp. 135-162). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hatry, H.P., Morley, E., Ashford, B., & Wyatt, T. (1993).

Implementing school-based management: Insights into decentralization from science and mathematics departments (Rep. No. 93-4). Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.

Hentschke, G.C. (1988).

Budgetary theory and reality: A microview. In D.H. Monk & J. Underwood (Eds.), Microlevel school finance: Issues and implications for policy (pp. 311-336). New York: Ballinger.

Knight, B. (1993).

Delegated financial management and school effectiveness. In C. Dimmock (Ed.), School-based management and school effectiveness (pp. 114-141). London: Routledge.

Lawler, E.E. (1986).

High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E.E. (1992).

The ultimate advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E.E., & Mohrman, S.A. (1993).

A new logic of organizing: Implications for higher education. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Center for Research in Education Finance, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Levin, H.M. (1987, June).

Finance and governance implications of school-based decisions. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Advisory Committee of the Work in America Institute, New York.

Little, J.W. (1989).

District policy choices and teachers' professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 165-179.

Mohrman, S.A., Lawler, E.E., & Mohrman, A.M. (1992).

Applying employee involvement in schools. <

em>Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 347-360.

Murphy, J. (1991).

Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press.

Odden, A. (1994).

Decentralized management and school finance. Theory into Practice, 33, 104-111.

Ornstein, A.C. (1974).

Race and politics in school/community organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.

Prasch, J. (1990).

How to organize for school-based management. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Raywid, M.A. (1990).

Rethinking school governance. In R.F. Elmore (Ed.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 152-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994).

Education reform: School-based management results in changes in instruction and budgeting (GAO/HEHS Publication No. 94-135). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Wohlstetter, P. & Briggs, K. (1994).

The principal's role in school-based management. Principal, 74 (2), 14-17.

Wohlstetter, P. & Buffett, T. (1992).

Promoting school-based management: Are dollars decentralized too? In A. Odden (Ed.), Rethinking school finance: An agenda for the 1990s, (pp. 128-165). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wohlstetter, P., & Odden, A.R. (1992).

Rethinking school-based management policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 529-549.

Wohlstetter, P. & Mohrman, S.A. (1993).

Site-based management: Strategies for success (Finance brief). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Wohlstetter, P., Smyer, R. & Mohrman, S.A. (1994).

New boundaries for school-based management: The high involvement model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 268-286.

[Part 4: What Are the Budgeting Practices in Effective Site-Based Managed Schools? (continued)]

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