Site-BasedManagementand Scbool Councils:
Histo ryand Impact on Education
By BarbaraCa ul, B.A. B.Ed.
A paperfoliosu b min edtoene Scboo lof Gradual eSeudlesinpa rti alfulfilmeot of tberequireme nts fo rIbedegree of Ma sl er of Eduu doo
Departmenl of &ducalio n al Leaden hip Memorial Unive rsity ofNewfoliodl and
April 2000
Abstrac:t
Over thepasttwodecades,there has been a growingconcerninmanywestern industrialised countties overthefailweofschoo ls toprovide students withthe qualityof education needed tocompeteinlOday'sglobalworkforce, Respondin gtotheseconcerns, many educati onal policymakers initialed reforminthe hopesofimprovingeducationaloutcomes.In theearly19805,mosteducational refonn efforts focusedon increasingcentral~ratic controlof education. Researchshow ed thai these earlyreform efforts were not very successful.In order10be productive,researchersadvocatedthat educational reform effo rts mustfocus lesson stricter bureaucraticcontrol, andmoreon giving control to the individualschoolsite.Inthemid- to-late19805,dece ntralizat ionofscboolsystemsbecamea popularreform strategy.One suc h fonn ofdecen tralizationistheimplementationofsue-basedmanagement (SBM).SBM isa processwbich gives teachers,pare nts, communityrepresentativesandstude nts morecontrolin managingtheirlocalschools.ThestructurethatSBMusually takesisthaiofalocalgo verning, decisionmaking or advisory committee,commo nly referred to asaschoo l council
Thefirstpaperof thisfolio focuses on the bistoryof scboolcounci ls inAtlan ticCanada.
Each ofthe four Atlanticprovinces bastheir own uniquejustifi cati onsfor adoptingschoo l councilsand SBM asaneducational reform strategy, butthereare common factors which seem tohave influenced their decisions.All fOUl provincesheavilyrelied on research conducted elsew here whichsupportedSBM andschoolcouncils as aneffecti ve reform strat egy.These provinces also respondedto the public'sgeneral dissal isfaction with educationaloutcomes,and to parental and public press ure for more voicein educatio n.It istoo early10telliftheirdec ision to adopt thisreform strategywastheright one.
The second paper of thisfoliodiscussesthe impacts.bothpositiveand negative,that SBMandschoolcouncils haveon educati on ingeneral.The literaturein this area is ambiguous, and the researchmixed.Ingeneral,research has notshownthat parental and community involvem entinadecision making capacity;t.e.,through schoolecuncils,has hadapositive effect on studentachievement.Researchdoessupport,howe ver, using schoolcouacusasa means for promotingothertypesandlevels ofparental and community invol vement.which could have positiveeffects onstuden tachievem e nt.
Man y researchers blamethe ineffectivenessofSBM andschoo l councilson poor implementation proced uresandIor lack of supportfor theirproper maintenance. Policy makers havebeencritic izedforsettin gupstru ctures whic hbavethe potentia lto bequite effective,and thennot committing to providingthe::necessarytime orsupportneeded tosustainthem.Critics questi onthereal purposeof SBM andschoo l councils,suggestin gthatthisreform.strategy was chosensimplyasacostefficient and popularresponsetopublicpressureforreform.
Thethirdpaper of tbis foliodiscussestheimpact that SBMand school counc ils have on theroleofthe principaLThisreform strategy alters the contex tof schoolingsignifi can tly.
Scbools havebecome moredemocntic,with moreand mo repeople becoming involvedinthe ir mana gemenLThetraditionalcontro l oriented leadership styleof the principal is notcongruent, noreffectivein thisnewenvironment.Princ ipalsneedtoadoptamo redemocratic,facilitative, collabo rativestyle of leadershipifthey wishto be effectiveleadersof site-based managed schools.
Paper#1 of Paper folio
History of Site-Based Management and Schoolcouncilsin AtlanticCanada
Introd u cti on
Foralmost two decades,concerns over education have received increasing attentionin most westernindustrialised countries.Itbas becomewidely recognized that traditional educational systems are failingand reform,for the purpose of educational improvement, is urgentlyneeded(House,1992).There are various meaas of achieving this reform. one ofwhicb is tbrough the introductionofscboolcouncils.Thispaperfocuses onthe history ofschool councilsinAtlanticCanada,but before doingso,ittakes abriefloo k at the history ofeducational.
reforminNorthAmerica.
Inst o ryof Ed ucationalReformin Nort hAmeri ca
Contem poraryeducatio nalreformbeganinNorth Americawiththerelease ofthe commissio ned reportA Nation at Risk,releasedbythe UnitedStates'government in1983.
lbroughthisdocumen t,the UnitedStates'governmen tcalled formajor educa ti onal reform to address itsecoeoencproblemsand tobel p maintain its placeas aleadin g nation.. Steinberg (1996) called ANationaJRisk. "therallying document forthe current schoolreformmovement"
(p.47).
Subsequent to the release ofA Natioll atRisk.(1983), educational reform. went through two principal movements,often referredto as waves (Cistone,1989;Griffiths, 1993). The fust wave oflbereformmovementinthe early1980s coosistedofmajorstate level legislation, manda tes,rulesandregulationsexpected tobeimplemented atthelocal schoolor schoo ldistrict level.Reformwas mandat ed,bycentralized autho rities,inallareas of educatio nsuchas curricula,instruction, scheduling, and teachercertificationandtraining. Legislato rs wantedto see higher academ icstandardsforstuden ts, asses sed by state- wide basic com petency tests,and
higher teachingstan dardsfor teachers.assessedthrough staodardizedtests and stricter standards fer teachersenteringtheteachingpro fess ion (Cistoee, 1989;Griffiths.199 3).Thistimwave of reform was DOtveryeffecti ve(Griffiths,1993 ),and thepublic begansensin g thatthesemandated effortswereDotresultinginthepositiveeducationaloutcomessough!:(Carlson..1996;David, 1989;Goodlad,1984).
The second wave of educational reform baditsfoundatio nsinthreenationalreports releasedinthe UnitedStates;TheConregie Report. ANario,. Prepa red.Teachers forthe lIst Century(1986);Tomorrow 's Teac hers:A Report ofrhe HolmesGroup(l986);andThe GovernorsRepo rt. Ttme forRe.sults{l986).Oneofthemanyrecommen dationsstemmingfrom thesereportswas for restructuring ofsc hoo lsand the adoption ofschoolsite management (Griffiths,1993).Subse quen ttothesereports,emphasis onrefonnshifted from greater bureau cra tic control toreformthroughrestructurin gschoolsandschoolsystems .Restructuring, general ly definedas broadsystemi c changesin anorganizati on.. including changesintheroles andresponsibilities ofits members,andinitsorgaDizational and governan cestructures(Carlson, 1996),soon became a major educationalreform strategyinNonh America..
The second wave ofrefo nnbas beendescribed by manywriters asa reactiontoprevious reformeffo rtsthathave failed.Conley(1989) wrote:"Recomm eodati o nsmadeduringthe second phaseoftherefonn movemen twereinlargeparta reactionto the centralizing teodenc ies oftbe earlyproposals"(p.366).David(1989) reinforcedthisidea."Currentinterestisa respo nseto evidencethat the education system isnotworkingand,inparticular,thatstro ngcentralcontrol actually diminishesteachers 'moraleand,co rrespondingly,theirlevel ofeffort"(p.45).Carlson (1996)wrote:''Sc hool restructuringin manywaysgrewoutoftheperceivedproblems with
educationalbureaucracies and failuresofpreviouseffortsat school reform"(p.239).Schedd (19 88) descnbed the second wa ve:"'With remarkable swiftness,thedebat e overbow to'reform' Americanpublic educationhasshiftedfromstrategies that would have strengthenedthe bureauct3ticcontrolsthat boards and centraladministratorsexerc iseovertheir subordinatesto strategies designedto'em power ' thosevery samesubordinates"(p.409).Cistone(1989) wrote that"Interestinrestructuringstems from a growingconvictionthat educationreformefforts,to beproducti veandsubstantial,musebetargetedto theindi vidual schooland the creation of institu tio nal arrangemen tsandorganizational structuresthatwill maximizethe effectivenessof theschoolcenter" (p.3 63).
One ofthestrategi esthaibecamepopularas a means10accomplishrestructuring is known as site-based management(SB M).Othertermsused interchan geablywith S8M include schoo l-based managemen t,shared decisfoumaking(SOM), school-si te management,school- centredmanagement,sharedgovernan ce, site-based decision-makingandadministrative decentralization (Ciston e.,1989;Herman&Herman, 1993).
Site-basedmanagement has beendefined invarious waysintheliterature. Herman(1990 )describesitas ""astructureandprocess which allows greater decisionmaking power related to the areasof instruction, budget.policies,rulesandregulations, staffing,andall matt ers of governan ce;andaprocesswhichinvol ves a variety ofstake holders inthe decisions relatedtothelocalindividua lschool building"(p.3).
Hiatt(1994)wrote:"Schoo lrestructurin g advocates site-bas ed management,in which school districts returncontro l toschoolsites. Eachschoo listo have a govern ing board whose membership must include a majority of local schoo lparents.Thisgoverningboardwould
determinecurriculum.,createbudgets,hire faculty,andorganizethe schoolfacilities, students and faculty. Thismovem e nt holds peomise[0restorelocal parental control" (p. 37).
Reitzug andCapper (1996)defineit as ..thedev o luti o n ofdecisioo-making autho rity from the district level to the individual scbool site. SBMisthe most receor(andperhaps., most promo ted ) in alonghistory of orgamizarional participatory decision making initiatives.Its primary objectiveis tobrin g about~igni6cantchange in educationalpractice by providingschool staffssufficient auto nomyfromexternal regulationtomodifY andrestructureservices traditio nallymandatedfromaboveend,by allevi atingthe moraJe-dimin.ishingand effort- reducingeffectofstrongcentralcoretro l"(p.S6).
Gam age, Sipp le,and Partrid8e (1996)des crib eSB Mas ..a pragmaticapproach to a fonnal alterat ionof the bureaucraticmodelofscb oo l administra ti onwitha more democrati c structure.This formof dec entral ization ide ntifies theindivid ual schoo las theprimary unit of improvementandrelies onthe redisari bericnofdec isio n making authoritythroughwhic h improvementsinthe schools are stiolulatedand sustained.Itis believed that democratic devolutionleads[0more effective d-eetslce making resulting in increased autonomy,flexibility, productivity and accountability" (p.24).
Essentiallythen, SBMcanbe defined as aproces s which allows teachers,parents.
communi[yrepresen tati ves and stud-entsmo re controlinmanagingtheir local schools.Itgives them more powertomake decisions. based on their localneeds ,andmore autho ritytogovern overawiderangeof educational Issees.SB M makes schoolsmore auto no mous,democra ticand accountab le.lISultim ate goalis toIecreas e schooleffectiveness andstu de nt achievement.
Schoo lCo un cib
The structure that SBMusuallytakesisthat ofalocal governingIdecisionmakingor advisorycommittee,commonl yreferred toas a schoolcouncil.The compositionofthese councilsvariesacrossregions.Theymayincludesome or allofthe following:teachers,parents, schooladministration,supportstaff,communityrepresen tanves,andstuden ts.Thesecouncils meet regularlytodiscuss and makedecisions on educati onalissuespertinenttotheirschool The amount of authorityanddecisionmakingpoweraccordedtothem could rangefromadvisory statusonly,tofullfledged authority.TheirmandatescouJd incl udeanythingfromfundr:aisingto hiringandfiringstaff(David.1996).
House(1992)definesa schoolcounci l as"alegislated.school-leveladminis trativ e commi tteestructureenablingreprese ntativesof thelocalschoolcommunitytohavearealvo ice ineducationaldecisionmaking.Thiscouncilserves astheprimaryforum atthe schoolleveland, as themechanism for implementing shareddecisionmaking,isthekeyfeature forthe decentralizati on ofautho rity overthe management of the localschool"(p.43).
ThispaperdiscussestheI1ltionaJebehindthedecisio ns of thc four AtlanticCanadian provinces toadoptschoolcouncilsasa meanstoeducationalreform.
TheMov e To,,... nbSchoolCouncilsInAdanticCanada
Eachofthe four Atlantic provincessetupcommissionsor taskforces to examinethe ir respective educa tionalsystems. focusingpanicularlyontheirstructure.Theyreleasedreports on theirfindings.drafted.proposalsandcalledfor legislati on bas ed ontheirreports.Generally, recommendationswereputforth forrestruc turingeduca tionsystems byreducingthe num berof schoolboardsandbyestablishingschoo lcouncilsineachschoo l.Themostcomprehens ive
reportwas Newfoun dland's Royal Commissionof Inquiry intotheDeliveryof prognuns and services inPrimary,ElementaryandSecondary Education OurChildre n,Our Future releasedin 199 2.NewBrunswick' s Commission on Excellence:inEducationreleased a commissioned reportthat same year entitledSdroo/slor0New Century(/ 991).Prince EdwardIslandreleased theirfinalreportonthestructureandgovemanceofthe PEIeducation system entitled Towards ExceIIencein1993,andin1995 Nova Scotia'sDepartment of Educatio nreleased aWhite Paper onrestructuring the education system. entitledEduauianHorizons.
All foue provincesmade recommen da tions tohave schoolcouncilsintroducedineach schoo l. Theprovinces haveembraced the idea of'usingschoolcounc ils as a strategy of educational reform.They believethat byincreas ing parental and communityinvolvementin schools,anddecentralizing some decision making powerto thelocal schoollevel,schoolswill bemore effective and educationalimprovemen twilloccur.The Atlantic provinceshave drafted proposal s, followed bylegislation which allows parents andothercommunity representativesto takepartin schoollevcldecision making,and to playanadvisoryroleinschoo l-rclated issues.
Ratio na lebehindschool cou ncilintroductio nin PrinceEdwardbind
Educationalreform work beganinJuly,1990,when the government of PEIestablished the CabinetCommi tteeonGovernmenlalReform, The committee'sgoal wasto find CUIhow to restructuregovernmenttomeet theneeds of the nextcentury.Education wasonearea tobe examinedInFebruary,1991 , a committeerepresenting membersof the educationalcommunity was setup toidentify keyissues.In June,1991,thecommltteesubmittedareport entitled Eduoat tonfor the 90s and Beyond.Four key areas wereidentifiedfor study, structure beingone ofthem.InJuly,1991,a task forceoneducation wassetup toexamineand report on theissues
discussedinthisreport.The task forceheldpublic consultations ,and subsequentlysubmin edits own reportinMarch.1992.Thisreportcontainedmanyreccmmeadatlces includingacallfor a newfour-levelstructureofgovernance..Thefourleve ls wouJd be:elect ed councilsateach school, elected regional beards, a central agencyto takeoversome functionsfromthe regional boardsandthedepartment.andaredefineddepartmentof education.Inresponse 10 this task force~endation.the Ministry of Education established a Steering Committeetooversee work groups,eachfocusingondiffere ntaspects of thetaskforce report. A workgroup 00 structure andaccoun tabilityreportedthat basic structuraland governanceissues neededtobe further examined.InFebruary,199 3,a study on the structure andgovernanceofthePEl educa tio nalsystem was initialedand the reportTowardsExcellence wasreleasedin June,199 3.
Thepurpo se ofthe study was10identifyandexamineallaspects oftbestructure andgovernance issue,CAllYoutresearchanddatacollect ion,consultwith variousstak eholdersineducation, developsoundoptions,and finally,recommend themost appropriate stru ctural and adminisb'ativemodelfor-PEl(Fogarty,1993).
Workon the reportTowardr Excellence (1993) included infonnai and formal coesultanoes throughouttheeducationsystem,on-sireresearch, theoreticalresearch,literature reviews ,andarevie w and analysis of documents from earlierreform. initiatives,such as those carriedout bythe taskforce and work groups.Findin gs fromthisstudy,whichisbased upontwo years of educationalreform workinPEl,follow.
Public concernsraised duringdiscussionsof educationalreformin PEl tended 10 focus on stru cture, accountabilityandconsistency.There was publicuneasethatno onewasincontrolof the educatio nsystem, androlesand respo nsibilities within it were roc vague.Therewas a general
beliefthatthe centralized structurewasnot accountab leoverall.manypartsofthe system being accountab letonoone.Many feltthattherewas notenoughfocus on monitoringandevaluating the efficiency andcosteffectiveness of thesystem..The public called forgreater consistency.It was felt thatthecurricul umwasnotbasedongoals andoutcomes,butrather onteaching materialsavailable.Thepub lic wanted tosee goalsdefined andstandards of exce llencesetand measured...Moreemphas is on evaluation for accoun tab ility,consistencyand resultswascalled for.
Duringconsultations, it wasalsorevealedthat the peopleofPElweredissatisfied with thehierarchicalnatureofschoolsandschoo lboards.Schoolswerenotparen tfriendl y,and boards wereaccusedofactinginthesystem' sinterestrather thanthatof thepublic.Peo plefelt that thewholesystem was too passiveabout thequality ofeducation andserviceitwas providin g.Theywan tedamore open educati on systemrespo nsive tothepublicitserved,elected regional schoolboardswhic hlistenedtothe irneeds and wants,andfinally, thcywantedto participa teineducati on at the regional and local schoollev el.
Itbecame apparentas well that theroles andresponsibilitiesof the schoolwere changing.
Schools were expected to take on a broader,morecustodialrole, providing for example, health and social services. Schoo ls graduallyweretakingover responsibilitiesfonnerlyhe ld by parents and the community.Itwas felt thatthe role ofschoolsshouldbeexpandedtoservetheneedsof not only its students,butalso of thelarger communi ty, andthisbroader roleshouldbe reflected in itsgovern an ce structures.Betterlinks betweenschools,parents, service providersand communitieswereneeded, and the schooladvisory counc ilwas recommen dedasthe pref erred meanstoachievethis. "Aschool advisorybodyofferssomepote ntialbenefits, as a vehiclefor
thesevariousservicestomore effectiv elytailor the specific services andresources availabl ein each communitytotheuniqueneedsoftheschool" (Fogarty,p.41).
Acco rdin gtothe committee'sresearch review,participation through schoolcouncils "'has beenwidelyshowntohave majoreducationalbenefits" (Fogarty,p.41).Rationale for recommendingthe establishment ofschoolcouncilsinevery school canbesummedupinthis statement."'Wecan nolon ger affordtolet schools wallthemselves off from.theircommunities.
Theschoolis such avaluab lecommunity resource.the communityintumissuch avaluable schoolresource, and parentalparticipationissovitalto thequality of education,thatactionmust be takentodevelopstron g partnership sbetween everyschoo l and itscomm uni ty" (F ogatty , p.71).
Thecomm ittee 'sreco mm end atio n#31calls forlegis lationintheSchoolActwhich would mandatethe estab lis hme ntofschooladvisorycouncilsineveryschoolintheprovince ofPEl (Fogarty,1993).
Based on therecommendationsinTowards Excellence, schoo l councils were introduced throughthe Education ActinSeptember,1993(Co llins. 1998).
b tio n.le behindschoo lcou ncilintrod uction in Nova Scoda
Nova Scotianspro vince wide were consultedon educationalmattersin199 1· 199 2 by the SelectCommi tteeon Educationof the Nova ScotiaLegislature ,againin1993during governm en t's30-60-90 economic initiati ve,andinearly 1994throughtheDepartmentof Educati on'sStrategic Plan.InJune 1994,adiscussion paper wasreleased ou tlining proposals on how to addresspreviousl yidentifi ed concerns.Thisled to awhile paperon restructuringthe educationsystementitledEdu cationHorizonspublishedbytheNovaScotia Department of EducationinFebruary,1995.Thisdocumentaddressed theconcerns ofNova Scotians and
proposedrestructuring their educatio nsystem.withthegoalof offeringahigherquality education forNovaScotia's studen ts.Along withamalgamating schoolboards.government proposed the establishment of school councilswhich would allowparents.teacbers,stud ents,and community members to participate more fullyineducational maners.The reasoning behind the recommendationfor schoolcouncilsinNova Scotia, as outlinedinthe whitepaperEducation Horirons,foUows(Nova Scotia,1995).
One of thefirstissuesaddressedinthisdocumentisthe changingworld. Tradi tional patternsof work and employmentwerebeingtransformed, andsocial andcultural issues were becomin gmore complex. Educationa lpolicies and practicesbadtokeep up with thesechanges.
Studentsneededtobehighl y educated withteamworkskills,literacy and mathematicalabilities, probl em solvingskillsand techn ologyapplication skills. Through consul tations, Nova Scotians revealed concernsthatthe educationsystem wasnot adequatelypreparin g graduates withthese ski Usneed ed to compe teinthe globalmarketp lace.Theyfelt thateducational standardsweretoo lowand higherexpectationswere needed. Consultations withteachers.administrators,parents, students,businessandcomm unity representativesin1994 revealed that these groups understood thatchange wasneededintheireducationsystem to makeit moreadaptable and responsiveto the rapidlychanging environmenLThese groupsalso indicated thattheywantedtobe apartof thatchange,being given more influenceover the programs, services anddecisions that affect them.Oneofthe themesthat emergedfromtheconsultatio ns was thatstudents,parents, teachers and busin essIcommuni ty represen tativesshould be givenagreater role in the education system, throughinvolvement indecision -makingand participa tiononschoolcouncils.At this time, the schoo lsystem was verycentralized, withmostdecision makingauthority residing withschool 10
boardsor the Departmentof Education.Thiscentralizedstructure limited meaningful participationandinput of parents, community members. students,and even teachers inschool related matters.Those consulted feltthatschoo l councils, composedofelected representatives woridnginanadvisorycapacity , yet withsomedirectrespoosibilities ,would allowall stakehol ders more voiceinschooldecision-making,andallowthemtobepartof the school improvement process."Theschoo l, in partnershipwith parentsand the comm uni ty ,shoul d have primary responsibility forstudcn tlcarning. To effectively andefficientl y exercise that responsibility,schools,paren ts andthecommunity mustbegiven suffi cient authorityto make decisions throughschoo lcouncils" (Educatio nHorj,wns,1995,p.2S).
NovaScotians feltthat schoolcouncilswould representthe comm unity,be accountable to the community,andprovideinput on local comm unityneedsand goals.Councilswouldalso enable schoolsto provide more bcalth andcommuni ty- relatedservices,and be the means for bettercomm uni cati on. coordination.and planningto meet students 'needs ."Stronger links betweenschoo ls and theircommunitieswillimprovecommunicatio ns,decision-making,and accoun tabili ty which areessential ingredients in achievin g thevision ofcontin uousschool improvemen t" <EducatioQ HorizoM,1995,polS}.
Thegovernm ent felt that improving the structureoftheeducat ion systemwoul dena ble them toreach their goal ofhigh er qualityeducation,andtheystatedintheirwhite paper that improving the system begins with creatingeffec tiveschoo ls.Effective schoo ls were definedas oneswherealIeducationpartne rs work togetherto create the bestlearnin g envi ronme ntpossible, wherestudentsareactive learn e rs,parentsparticipateindecision-making, teachers are recognized asprofessio nals, principalshaveadequate authority,schools are accoun table,and
11
communitiesacegiven appropriate responsibility aspartners.The governm ent wantedtoavailof theexpertise,energiesand interestsofparents,teachers,studentsand the comm unityinthe creationoftbesc effectiveschools,sotheyrecommended theestablis bmen tofscbootcouncils.
Scboolcouncilswouldadvise on schoolrelatedmatters ,have someinputinto decision-making, andalsobegivencertaindirect responsibilities .This deci s iontoestablis hschoolcounc ils was partof govemm e nt' soverallrestructuringplan to createamo re efficient andcost-effecti ve systemina timeofdec linin gfiscalresources(Educatio pHorizn p$,1995).
Subseq uent totherelease of thewhi tepaper, govemm ent proposedtheestablishm ent of schooladvisory councils,and in1995,theywere mandatedthrough the Education Act (1995).
Rationalebehin dKhool.cou ncil introd uctioninNewBru nswick
InNovember1991,the Commissionon ExcellenceinEducationwas createdinthe provin ce of NewBrunswickwiththepurpose of "fosteringexcellenceineducat ion,trainingand hum anresourcedevelopme ntinNewBrunswick through a broadconsu ltativeprocess "~ fora NewCentury ,1992,p.7).Thecomm ission distribut ed an issuespaper,andconsu ltations aroun d the provincewere heldoverafive-monthperiod.The commiss io n didnot havethe time northemon ey to conduct its ownresearch.butitconsultedpubli shed studiesof research conductedon this continen tandelsewbere.In1992,acommissionedstudyentitledSdloots fora New Centurywas releasedwhich recommendedchan ges forthe education system.Many concerns andissues wereraised,as wellas resultingrecommendations(Schools for a~
1&lln!IY.1992).
Public co nsultations revealedanemergingfeelin ginNewBrunswickthat significant changewasneededintheeducationsystem.Schoolswerenot perceivedto bedoingenough to
12
fosterstudents 'fulldevelopm ent.They were beingblamed forstudents'lack ofsocial skillsand moral values,andlackofslcills needed to lead producti veandsuccessfuleconomic lives..
Standardsandexpectations were too low; the basicswereDOlonger sufficient. Childrenneed ed tobe challengedtothinkcriticallyandcreatively.Thesedeficienci eswere not totally blamedon the organizational structureofthe school system.. althoughthere wasageneral consensus that improvingthe structure could lead to someimprovemen t,
NewBrunswickersconsulted in this reportfeltthatthereshouldbe more focus on the curriculum,withthesocial responsibilitiesofschoolsbeing delimited.Schoolscould not be expect ed todoeverythingforeveryoneandcertain lycould notdo italone.Teac hersneed edto be freedfrommany of thecustodia landsocialrespo nsib ilitiesthattheyhadtaken onoverthe years andtheirprimaryfocus shouldbeon educationalgoalsand the curricu lum.Thecommiss ion expressed theopinion that thereshouldbe a shift towardsshared authority,with teachersin particularbeinggiven morevoice in decisions thataffectthem andtheir students.Parents, trustees,community,businessandlabour leaders,universities,educationalassociations , government agencies,andthe departmentof education must also take theirshare of responsibility."Inorderforthe public schoolsystem to fulfilits mandate,educationhastobea societalproject, throughwhichmanygroups forgeallian ces to create thecommoncauseand pro videthehuman andmaterial resources that are necessary" <Schoolsfor.NewCentury, 199 2).
Altho ugh therewerealready educational partnerships inplaceinNewBrunswick, throughtheHomeand SchoolAssociation and theComitedeParents,thedegreeof parental and community involvement wasnotconsistentthrougho utthesystem.Thecommission heardfrom 13
parentsandothers that theywanted to be allowedtoparticipatemoreintheeducation system.
Many parents consultedfeltthattheir participationwasnot welcom edbytheschools . The commissionexpressed theopinio n that parents must assume greater responsibility fer the education of their children and thatschoolsandthe educationsystem must be more open and inviting to parentswoo wish to get involved.1bcyfelt that •stru cture wesneededtofacilitate parentaland communityparticipation in education.,andtoensure cousistcncyandeffectiveness throughout the system. thestructure agreeduponshould be formalised throughlegisl atio n. Based.
00these reasons, recommendation number 36 ofthis reportcalledforschooladviso ry committeesto beprescribedbylegislatio n.Theirdutieswouldinclude such things as participa tionin goalsetting;discussionand adviceoncurriculum, schoolregul ations,discipline, andthe comrnunityuse of theschool;liaisonwith thecommunity , schoolboardsand govcmment; andthe training ofvolunteers toworkinthe schools.Following this commissioned report,the government releas ed a ReporttoParents(1996)calling for parents to getinvolvedin education through SchoolParentCommi tteesandDistrict Parent AdvisoryCouncils.In1996, legislationwaspassedrequiring schoo l council implementationin everyschoo l (New Brunswick,1992).
Rad on alebehind school councilintroductioninSewfou nd laod
Before educatiooalreform took.placeinNewfoundland, the educationalsystem. was based onatop-downmodel,where decisionmakingpowerwas heldby centralautho rities (DepartmentofEducati on,DenominationalEducation Councils,district level schoolboards) withlittle or nolocalschool input (House,1992).There weremanyindicationsthat paren ts in Newfoun dland fe ltisolatedfromthe schoolsystem. They felt intim idated whenapproac hing
14
reachers and principals,fiustrationaIbeingunableto influencethe system. helplesswhendealing with childree' aleaming problems. and some even feltthatschools were discouragingparental Iavolvem eat,It wasthoughtby manythat theburea ucraticnatureof the educationsystem.was the cause of thesefeelings(Governmentof Ncwfoun diaod andLabrador, 1994).There werealso decliningenrolments in schools dueto a declining populationinthe province.Thiswas particul arly the caseinruralNewfoundlan d,where manypeoplebadto movetolargercentres or out of theprovince to lookforwork.TwostudiesofNewfoundlan d's educati o nsystem, EducationforSelf-R eliance(/986)and Educationand LabourMarket training (/990),both
DOledthe importance of an educationsystemthatistailoredtothe needs and lifes tylesof Newfoundlanden living inoutports,as wellasthose livingintowns (House,1992).
TheNewfoundlandschoolsystem was alsocost- ineffici ent,Itwas a denominational education systemwith twenty-sevenschoolboards.There wereman y redundancieswithin the system. includin gduplicati on of resources.Bussingcosts alonewe reabigcon cern.Inmany communities,childre ndidnotattendschools closesttotheirhomes ,rathertheywere bussedto schools furtheraway sothatthey couldbe educated inthe irown religion.
A study of the Newfouod1aod educationsystemwas commiss ioned, and in 1992, Newfoun dland'sRoyalCommissio nreportin educatio n wasreleased,Itwasthemostambitious, comprehensivereporton education of thefourAtlanticprovinces.Itreviewedstudies on tbe Newfoundland educanonsystem and made recommendations forreform. Accordingto the Tenns of ReferenceforthisRoyal Commiss ion's study, someconcernsto beaddress ed were:(I) increasingdemandsforcontin uedimpro vemen t in thequality of educa tio n;(ti)geographic and demo graphicrealitieswhic b were resulting insmallschoolsand declining enrolme nts;and(iii) IS
the effectiveness andcost-efficieocyof theprovince'sschoolsystem.Alongwithstudying Newfoundl and'seducatio nsystem,chapcersix ofthisrepentincludedresearchon school councilsinNonh Ameri caandelsewhere.One oftbeRoyal Commision'srecommendations stemmingfromthese educati onalstudiesandreviewswas fora decentralizededucationsystem.
that included the establis hmentofschoo lcouncils . Thecommissi on concluded:
"Asingle centrally administeredsystemwith nolocal decisionmaking or advisory structures,and novalueplaced onparticipationbypare ntsor othercommunity members, isnot designedtoadapttothe needs of individualschool communities.Alesscentralized systemthat included andvalued publicparticipati on ateverylevel (school, districtand centIa1)coulduselocal leveldecision making through school councils,tomobilize allthe suppo rtneeded foraneffectiveeducation system..Thisstructure would be weU suitedto the difficulties of the thinly-populatedruralareasoftheprovince"(p.54 ).
The RoyalCommiss ion'reportstatesseveralgeneralreasons why schoolcouncilsare advanta geous,including benefitssuchasincreasedaccoun tab ility of schools,increased parenta l andcomm unityinvolvementineducation,anincreaseinlocalproblemsolvingstrategies,anda moredemocraticeducationsystem,The commissionalso advocatesschoolcouncil impleme ntatio n based on a1986 surveyonpublic opinionaboutdenominational education, whichshowedthaI peopleinNewfoundlandplaced more importance on havingtheir children ane ndschoo linthecomm unitythan in their own religion.Houseadvocat esthatschoolcouncils could representallmem be rs ofthelarger community, including people ofdifferent religious denominations,ensuringthat aUthevariousgroupsatthe comm unitylevel couldberepresented (House,1992).
16
Subsequentto the release oftbe Royal Commission's report were otherreports recommendingtheestablishmentofschoolcouncils.In1993,AdjustingtheCourse:
ReslTvCturing the SchoolSys tem !(#' Educationol Excellenu wasreleased, followed byAdj usting the CoW"SePort Two:Improvingthe ConditiOlUfor Learnillg(1994).Pilot school councils wc:rc:
set upinseven schools acrossNewfoundland. and two reports stc:mming from these wen: released inOctober,1995 and November,1996.Steeringcommittees onschool council implementation were also establishedtoexamine: educationalissues, and numerousarticlesonthe matterwere:
publis hed.
TheSteering Committee onSchoo lCounc il Implementation (1994)supported the esta b lishment ofschoo lcounci ls.The commi ttee felt that there:were:philosophical, soc ial, and political arguments su pporting thetights ofparentstoadvoc ateon their children 'sbehalf.They also feltthat ata time whe nNewfoundland' seconomywas dwindling,andcompetitionfor scarce resources was increasing, schoo ls could dependmore and moreon the publicsupportof parentsandthe community.Theyfeltthatschoo l councilscould be the forum for engagingthis
~ppon.
Collins,Harte& Cooper([994)Iinkc:dschool councilswithschoolboardrestructuringin Newfoundl and. TheNewfoundlandgovernm en tdecided torestructure: because of declining enrolmentsdue to adec linin g population,parentalandpu blic pressure: forreform, andeconomic concerns.They decided to consolida tethe twenty-sevenschoo lboardsintoten, andclosedor slated for closureseve ralschoo ls .One of theeffects oflhisrestructuringwastheneedand the demandforschoolcouncils.'''The movetolarg er schoolboardsand theincreaseinthe number and geographicdistnbuncnof schools,neces sitat es a structuralchangethatwill enableloc al
17
inputin decision-making.Forthesystemtoworkeffectively,sitebasedmanagement must be embraced"(Collins,Harte&Cooper, 1994,p.4).
Collins (1995a) suggested that legis lationand regulation ofschool councils could be powerfulmotivatorsfor deve lopingandsupportin gparentalinvolvement. Parental invol vement could be moreeffectivewhenparentsaregiven a varietyof'rolestoplay,andwhen the involvementis bc:ttc:rplanned,morecomprehensive,and longer lasting, aswould be thecase witha schoolcouncil.
Theculmination of all this research onschoolcouncilswasthe introductio noflegislation in1996 which mandated the establishm entofschoolcouncilsineveryschoolinNewfoun dlan d.
Sum m ary
Though each of the four Atlanticprovinc eshavetheirown unique justi ficati o ns for recommendingthe establishmentofschoo lcouncils,there ace commonfactors whichseemto haveinfluenced their decis ionstointroducecouncils.Pare ntsand interestedmembers oftbe generalpublicwere expressin gincreasin gdissatisfactionwitheducationsystems and their outcomes.Theywerepressurin g schoolboardsand departments ofeducati ontoreorganize10 giveparentsandothercomm unity membersmorevoice in education,particularlyatthe schoo l levelEducationaladministnttorsneeded tofindaneffecti vereform strate gywhichwas DOttoo costly and which wouldbesatisfactoryto parentsandothercommunity members.Becausethe Atlanticprovincesdonotbaveasubstantially larg eresearch budget,nor canthe y relyon a natio nalministryof educatio n, theylook ed to other,more progressiveprovinces andmore progres sive countries forinput intotheir own decisions.Allfourprovincesheavilyrelied on researchconductedelsew here.Researchcomingfrom the UnitedKingdo m,the United States,
18
AustraliaandotherpartsofCanadaindicatedthatrestructuringeducation systemstogivegreater localautonomy toschoolsendtheir respectivecommunitiescouldhelptoimprovethoseschools, and ultimat e lylead toimproved educational performance (House,1992 ).Educators and policy makersintheAtlanticpro vinces began valuingthepotentialbenefits ofschoo lCOUDcils, particul arlyatatime whenfinancial resources were laclcing, andtheychose toadoptthemas an importantstrategy of educati o nal reform<Educati onHorizons,199 5;Fogarty,1993;~
~1992;SteeringCommitteeonSchoolCouncil lmplementatio n,1994).
Thisdecision byCanadi anprovin ces, includingtheAtlantic ones,toadop tS8 Masan ed ucational reformstrategybasbeen criticized. Peters (1997)believesthatCanadianprovin ces adopted thisreformstrategyfrom othe rcoun tries withoutfittingit intotheCana di ancontext. He
accusesprovincialgovernmen ts ofoptingfo r S8 Mbasedontheir financial situa tionat thetime.
He believes that SBMisa response,not to thepublic'sdissarisfactic nwith education, norto a public outcryforhigherstu dentachievement,butaresponsetotheir ownfiscalsituatio n.He
statesthat themo ve towardS8M"ismoreofapolitical expedienttoco-opt publicsupportfor
publiceducati onatthe same time asthepursestringsare being tightenedand financialresources to schools are beingcurtailed"(peters.1997.p.l7).
Schoo l councilsinAtlanticCanada have beeninplace for a relativelyshort period of time,andthereisthusfarnot en ougb research done todetermin eiftheywillhavealasting, meaningful impactonstudentac hie vem entorschool improvementingeneralFurthermore,as oppose dto many schoo l councilselsewhere,schoolcouncilsinAtlanticCanada andacross most ofthecountry arc accorded advisory status only. School counc ilsinNewBrunswick have signi ficantadvisoryroles attheschoo land districtlevel,butinNewfoundland, Prince Edward
19
IslandandNova Scotia theiradvisoryrolesare fairlylimited(Collins , 1998).Peters(1997) questionsthemandateofadvisory councils:"'lf thc:yare purelyadvisoryinnature,willthey be ableto sustainthe:interestandthe invol vementofa sufficientlybroad-basedconstituencysothat theydoDOtsimplybc:c:omc:specialinterestgroupsfocusedsolely on narrowaspectsofthe school'sopera tion? (pe:ters.1997, p.18)" .From this author'sexperience asan c:ducator in Newfoundland,itseemsthatschoolcouncilsin this provincehave:DOtyethadthe:opponuoity to delveintomajor schoo l improvement initiatives.Faced with majorrestructurin gof the education sys tem, many school councilsinNewfoundland have focusedalargepartof theirtime rallying supportfrom parentsto fightschoo ldistri ct'sdecisions to close schoolsor tocutbackon programs.Manyhavenot yethadthe oppo rtunityto focusoncurriculumissuesor school improvement,dedicatingalotof their energies to simplyremainingviable.
Although thereason fortheirestab lishment maybeinquestion, schoo l councilshave beenlegislatedinallfour Atlanticprovinces,andare probably goingto exist forquite awhile.
Theamoun t ofdc:cisioomakingauthori ty accorded tothem couldincreaseordecrease over the years,dependin gontheir effectivenessandpublicpressure , Only time willtellwhether theywill be a successful reform.strategyleadin g tohigherstudentachievemc:nt.
20
Referen ces
Carlson. R. (1996). RdTamjngandreform'Permn;tiyeson organizationlead ershipan,d sch oo l
~.New York:Longman.
Cistone, P.J. (1989) . Schoo l-based managemect/shareddecisionmaking:Perestroikain, educationalgovernance.Education and UrbanSocietY21,363· 365.
Collins,A.(l995a) . Exemplary models of parenta land community involvement ·Ten Newfoundlan d and I.ahm~.TotalQualityLeadershipforLearningProject.Sit. John's : MemorialUnivers ity ofNewfoundl and.
Collins,A.(l995b) . Enhan cin g localjnvolvem ent in educationthroughqualityleadershin Schoolcounc ils:Apilotstudy.Total QualityLeadershipforLearningProject.St. John "s : MemorialUniv ers ity ofNewfoundl and.
Collins,A.(1996) . Schoo l councils and principal s :Issue sandchall enges. TheCanadiaJl!School
~(4),3 .6.
Collins,A.(1998, April).Paper presented at the conferenceoftheSoc iety for theAdvacncernenr ofExce UenceinEducation onShare dSchoo l Decision-MakinginVanc ouver, British Colum bia.
Collins,A,Harte, A.&Cooper,J.(1994).Enhancing local involvem entin educationtItrough qualityleadership. ~ (3),2-4.
Conley ,S.C .(I989). "Who'sonfirst? "Schoo l reform ,teacher participation,andthe de-cis ion makingprocess.Educati on andUrbanSociety 21,36&.379.
David,J.(1989) . Syn thesisofresearchonschoo l-basedmanagemen t.Education alI eadlmhjp46 (8), 45-5 3.
Fogarty,A.P. (1993). Towards excelle gce'Final reportonthestructureand governance: oftbe PEl educational system.Char lottetown, PEI.
flemin g, T.(1993).Canadianschoo l policyinliberal and postliberal eras:Historical perspectiveson thechangin gsoci alcontext of schoo ling,184&.1990.InY.M.Martin&R.J. S . Macpherson (Eds.),Restructuringadminjstrati vepolicyin public schooUpg-Canadjan an d internati o nalcasestudi es (pp. 57.76). Calgary; DetseligEnterprises Ltd.
Gam age, D.T., Sipple . P.,and Partridge,P.(1996) .Researchonschool-bas ed managennentin Vict oria. Journal of EducatjonalAdmjnistration 34 (I), 24-39.
Goodlad.,J.r.(1984 ). Aplace caIJedschool.New York: McGraw Hill.
21
Governmentof NewfoundlandandLabrador. (1994 ) Adjustingthe cOUlle·Restru cturin g tbe schoolsystemfor educationalexcellepg;..S1.John's,Queen'sPrinter.
Governmentof Newfoundland andLabrador.(1994 ).Adjusting theCQUrg'Paa 2· Improvi ng !be conditio nsforlearnin g.St.John' s .Queen' sPrinter.
Griffiths.D.E. (1993).Schooladministratorsandthe educationalreform movementintheUnited Sti les.In Y.M.Martin&RJ.S.Macpherson(Eds.),R'"'i'Jl1dWing idmj nisrnrive policyinpubljc schooling: Canadianandjnlematio Pl!!Cf.S<';studies (pp.35-56) . Calgary: DctscligEnlerpriscs Ud.
Hess,GA,Jr.(1994 ).School-based managementas avehicle forschoo lrefonn.~
UrbanSociety26,203-219.
Herman,1.1.(1990).School-basedmanag em ent-Instru ctjogal Leaderill(41.Texas Elementary Principals andSupervisorsAssociation.14.
Herman,I.I.,&Herm an,I.L.(1993).Schoo l_based management·Currentthjnking andpractice Springfield,Ill-Charles C.Thomas Publisher .
Hiatt, 0.8.(1994).Parent involvementinAmerican pub licschools:Anhistoricalperspective 1642-1994.School-Community-Jo umaJ4 (2),27-38.
Heese,I.(1992).Schoolcouncils.InWl1liam, L&Press, H.OurchildrenOurfuture?The Roy alCommjss io n ofInquiry intothePcljvmofPrornmsandSqyjccs inPrimary:
EignegtarySecoMaryS4uc.ation.St. John's.NF:GovernmentofNewfoun dl and and Labrador.
Natio nal CommissiononExcell ence inEducation. (1983).A MljOD alriSk·Theim perative for c:ducatioQAIrefoupWashington,DC:U.S.Government PrintingOffice.
New Brunswick..(199 2).Sclwolsforam;wcentu ry. Fredericton.., NB:Commission on Excellence inEducati on.
NovaScotia.The EducationAct (199 5).
NovaScene,(199 5).EdUcation horizons'White
paw
On JlriibJ1CNri agtheeducationmtem Halifax, NS:Department of Education.Pet ers.F.(1997).Sch ool baseddecision-making-The Can adianperspective .Schoo !Bus ines S
~(1l) ,16-2I.
Reitzu g , U.,andCapper,C.(1996).Deconstruetiagsite-base dman agement:Possibilitiesfor 22
emancipatio nand alternativemeans ofcontrol. Intem ati onalJo umal ofEdnca rional Bero nD 5 (1),56-69.
Scane,J.(l996).The path to schoolcouncils.0Ibit...21(4), 6-12.
Sche dd,J.B.(1988).Collective bargaining, schoo lreform,and the management of scbool systems. Educational Adm inistrat ionQuarterly24(4), 409.
Shafritz,J.M.,&Ott,J.S.(1996) .CJass ics oforganjuljootheory (4thEdlOrlando,Fl: Harc ourt Brace&Company.
SteeringCommittee on SchoolCouncil Implementation.(1994).Working together for educatjonalexcellence·A cODSllltationpaper00schoo lcounciloperations.St. John's.Queens Printer.
Steinb erg.L.(1996). Beyondthe clasSroom· WhySChoolrefonnhas failed and whatpare nts
~.New York:SimOD&Scbuster.
UnitedStatesCarnegie Fomm on EducationandtheEcono my. (1986).A natiooprepared- Teachers forthe 21" century CarnegieCorporation of New York, NY.
United StatesHolmes Group.(1986).TomOrrow'steachersAreport oftheHolme sGroup East Lansing,Ml.:EricksonHall.
UnitedStatesNational Governors'Association. (1986).Time for results 'Thegovern ors' report
~Washington.,D.C .:National Governors'AssociationPublicationsOffice.
23
Paper #2 of Pap er Folio
TheImpact of Site-Based Mana gem en t andSchoolCounc ils on Education
Introduction
During the mid-to-late1980s and early199Os, manyjurisdictions across North America and elsewhere decided to restructure theireducationalsystem s as a means to educational reform.
Restructuring took on many forms, including centralizingsome aspects of educational systems, whiledecentralizing others.One suchtypeof decentralization that receivedwidespread attention is site-based management (SBM).Support for SBM was abundant in educational literature at this time.Research suggested that by engaging teachers,parents,communityrepresentativ es,and even students in managing schools, and giving them more input into local decision-making, schools wouldbemore accountable and student achievement would increase.Inmany jurisdictions,educational policy makers legislated the establishmentof school councils as the structure used to implementSBM in schools.
Is SBM an effective means to educational reform?Researchers are now suggesting that school councils and SBM are not as effective as educators hoped they wouldbe (Conway and Calzi, 1996;Gleason,Donohue,and Leader,1996;Guskey and Peterson, 1996). While research still strongly supports the benefits of parental and community involvementineducation(Collins, 1995;Follan&Quinn, 1996), research has not shown that parental and communityinvolvement ina decision making capacity Le., through schoolcouncils, has had a positiveeffect on student achievement (David. 1996; Leithwood,1998;Parker, 1999; Sheppard. and Devereaux ,1997).
This paper explores SBM andschool councils,discussing both the positive and negative impacts theyhavebadon education, as well as problems associated with them.It begins with a discussion of the pwpose of SBM and school councils.
Purpose ofSBMan dscboo l coun cils
TheultimatepurposeofS8Mandschoolcouncilsisincreasedstudent achievement.
Tryingtoshow , however,whetherS8M through schooleouncils directlyleads to increased student achievement isvery difficult.ForODething.thereareLnnumerablefactorswhich affect student achievement,and tryingtoshow•directlink.between it andS8 Mandschool councilsis complex.Theliterature on S8Mandschoo lcouncilsisalsoambiguous.S8Mis descnbedinso manydifferentways,andtovaryingdegrees across countriesandwithin, that studyingusoverall effectshasnotbeeneasy.Most of theliteratureconsists of articlesadvocatingSBM based onan indi vidualschoo l'sorschoo l distric t'ssuccess sto ries,and there are relativ elyfewlon gitudinal studies onSBMandschool councils(Bauer,1988).
The purpose, itself, hasalsobeen questioned.Some writerssuggestthat SBM andschoo l co uncilsarepoliticalends in themselv es,and notameans todesired endssuch as increased student achievem ent. David (1996)suggeststhatthereareoften unde rlying motivesbehind
SBM,"lessloftyaims,suchasweakening entrenchedanddistrustedschoolboards,creating the
illusionof reform withoutinvestin gadditional resources,puttinga positivespinoncentraloffice downstzingby calling it decen tralizati on.,orsimply tryingtoshift the blameforfailuretothe school itself"(p.6).Leithwood and Menzie(1997) accuse schoolsystems and governmenuof using site-basedmana gem en t as"apopular symbol ofprogress iveand responsivepracticewithin
•public rhetoricof impro vingstudent achievement"(p.48).They suggest thatthere are perhaps other fasterand more direct reformstrategiesavailabl e.Leithwood(l 99 8)tookanevenharsher stance whenhe wrote thatschoo lcouncils"may wellstan dinthe way of enhancingstudent achi evement" (p.34) and"evidencemountsthatschool councilsare morecomplicatedto implementand,by itself,lesspowerfulasourceof schoolimprovementthan its advocates
suggest"(p.35).KenJesse ,in a presentationtoA1benaeducators, called the introduction of school councils""atransferof powerand authority as apolicysolutio nfor an undefined problem"
(Knight&Steele, 1996,p. ll ). Carlson(l996)after anextensive reviewof site-b ased management,writesthatitmaybe*nothingmerethansmokeandmirrorsthatgivethe impressionlhatsomethingimportant is beingdceewhen little ornoevidencecanbe foundto suppanthese claims"(p.279).Fullan&Quinn(1996)makethe distinctionbetweenschool councilsas endsin themsel ves (the compliance orientation )andschoolcouncilsasa means to invol veparentsandthe communityinbelpin gtoenhancethelearnin g ofstudents (the capaci ty- buildin gorien ta tio n).They suggest thatschoolcouncilsbecomeendsinthemselvessim ply becauseitiseasier to focusoncom pliance , andmuchbarder toworkincoUaborationto build new relationshipsbetweenparents, communitiesandschools.Theybelievethatschoo lcouncils wereintendedto be a means to educationalimp ro vemen t, but unfonunately, "complex innovat io ns ofte n unwittingly becomeends in themselves" (p.2).
Thoughtheirreasonforexistencemaybequestiona ble.thefactremains thatschoo l councilsandSBM have been esUb lisbedinmany educationaljurisdictions.Thenextsection discussesthe impacttheyarehavingoneducation.
Im pa ct ofS8 :\-1an dschoolcouncils011educa ti on
Research onthe impactSBMandschoolcouncilshave bad onstudent achi evem en t is mixed.Someresearchhasshown no impacton student achievement(Rondeau,1998),while othe rresearchbassho wn that scboolcounci lsmayeven havebad anegativeimpact(Leith wood
&Menzie,199 7) .Bauer (1998)writes:"studi esoftbe implementati on ofvarious forms ofsite- based management sho w that there is atbestmixedevid enceof any explicit connection between governance,particip ati on, andstudentperforman ce andachievement"(p.108).
Leithw ood&Menzies (1997),in a reviewofeteveestudieson S8M,creditschoo l councilswith maltingschoolsmoreaccountab le andresponsive toparentsandthecomm unity.
Theyfound thaiwhenparents andcommunity membenIlave decisionmakingpower,schools are more responsivetolocalvaluesandpreferences,andconsumer satis factio nrises.Their review overall,though,show ed thatS8M did not resultillsignificant benefits forstudents.
Eviden cesugges ted infact that"theeffectson studentsarejustaslikely tobenega tiveas positive"(Leithwood&Menzies,1997,p.48).
Rondeau(1998) foundthatdecentralizeddecisioo-makingleads to morecommitmentand cooperationbetweenvariousgroups, but foundDOproo flinkingittostude ntperformance.Based on hisreview of alongitudinal studybyCanada'sGeneral Ac:countingOffice to dctenn.ineif decc:ntralizatio n resultsin reducedcostsandhigher studentachievement, the decentralized educationsystemsstudi ed"di dnotleadto netbudgetsa'Wingsorbetter student performance"(p.
17).TwootherstudiesreviewedbyRondeaurevealedsienilar findings.Wohlst ett er and Mohrman' s (1994)studyshowed "'scanteviden ce' thattheschoo lswill improve simply because decisionmakingwillbeat the schoo llevel"and.Summe rs&Johns on' s(1995)stu dy fo und"virtuallynoeviden ce thatS8 M resultsinimprovedstudent performance"(Ro nd eau, 1998,p.I7).
Parker (1999)cameupwithsimilarresultsfromIJerliteraturereview:"Ibereislittle empiricalevidenceconnectingstructural reformand'an~thinihavingtodowithclassroom instructionorthelearnin gofstudents"(p.24).She foundfromherreview that overall,teac hers did not feel thatschoolcounci lsnorS8 M had a large influenceontheirteaching practicesor curri cul um.Shenotes , however,thattherewere someeffective councilsthatbad a positi ve influenceon the schoolas awholeand on classrooms.
Murphy&Hallinger(1993)concludedfromlbcirresearch.:"At neither the theoreticalnor the conceptual levels wastberemuchevidence tolinkrestructuring efforts(such as scbool-based managem ent )with changesinclassrooms.relationshipsbetweenteachers and students, and/or student outeomes"(p.2 54).
ResearchbyGleasonetat.(1996)showedthatwillieschoolcouncilsled toimprovements inperceptionsaboutteacher workconditionsand professionalism,and impro vement inparental involvemen t.there wasnoimpactonstudent achievement.Conway&Ca1zi(1996)alsofound improvements in teachersatisfaction,.butthis didnot translateinto higher productivity.Teachers whosharedinlbedec ision making felt more pro fessional andliked havingmore authority.but this didnotlead toincreasedemphasis on teaching.Infact, two otherstudiesreviewed by ConwayandCaIzi revealed respectivelythat shared decision-making detracts from.rather than enhances.teacherwork; andinvo lvingteachersindecision-makingcreated. rather than solved, someschoolsystemproblems .
Guskey&Peterson's(1996)researchshowedthatfew schoolcouncils actuallytook up learning-relatedtop ics associatedwith effectiveschools.nordidtheyhave anycleargoalsfor stud entlearning.Theyfound littleevidencelinking site-baseddecision- makingtoimprovemen ts instudentoutcomes.
Male n,Ogawa. and Kranz's (1990)casestudyof the literature examinedthreetheories relat edtothe indirect connecti onbetweenS8 Mandschoo limprovement;thego~1ICetheory, the organizational renewa lt,~eory.and the effectiveschoolstheory.
Thegovernan cetheorysuggeststhatbecause school councilsaregivenmore policy making influence, relations between administrators,teachersandpatrons (paren tsandother communi ty representatives)change.Teachersand parentshavemoreinfluence, whichshould
resultinmore responsiveand better qualitydecisionsbased onstudentneeds.This,in tum., shoul d translateinto improvedstudent performance and achievement.
Basedon their research,Malen, Ogawa andKranz(1990) concludedthat littleevidence exists linkingsite-based management toeven this intermediate,orindirectoutcome.Asforthe governance theory,theyfoundthatSBM resultsin more involvement, but not morepolicy makinginfluenceamongstakeholders.Councils typicallyhavelimitedinfluence because power stillessentia lly remainswith the princip alandbecause councilsdo not have the necessary training,inform ation, time or other resou rcestocarryout what is expectedof them.The organizationalrenewal theo rysuggeststhat byinvolvin g schoolstaffindecision -makin g,morale willrise.Higher morale will lead tobetterqualityplanning, more comm itment,moreinnovati ve teachin g,better diagn osis of studen t needs,better instructionalprogramsandpractices,all this of course leadingtoimproved stude nt performan ce.Malen, Ogawa,andKranz(1990 )did not find sufficient evidence tosuppo rtthistheoryeither.They foundthatcounc ils' impacton moraleis limited .Enthusiasmishigh at first,but graduallyreduced due tofacto rs suchas the bigtime commi tment,confusionover new roles, stressoverhigh expecta tions,and limitedresources avail ab le tosustain the process. Thereis litt leevidence linking SBM to betterquality planning , forcouncil sdo notspe nd much time oninstruc tion al issues, nortryto come up withinnovative teachingandlearning strategies .Theyfocus , rather,on the impact ofcurre nt practices .
Theeffectiveschoo lstheorysuggests that more autonomous schoolswilladopt chara cteris ticsassociatedwith effective schoo lssuchastheestablishment of a clearschoo l mission ,the developm ent of stronginstru ctional leadershipand highexpectati ons for students.
Theseeffectiveschool scharacteristicswill intumlead to improvedstude ntperfonn ance.
Again.Malen, Ogawa, andKranz(1990)didnotfindmuch supportfor thistheory.They found littlesupportfortheidea that more schoolautono my leadsto thedev elopment ofeffecti ve schoolscharacteristics,andeven less suppo rt that this improves stud ent achievementand performance,
Whilelittle evidence exists thus far to provea link between SBM,schoolcouncilsand higher student achievement, this restructuring strategyisnot a total failure.Much ofthe hlame fo r itsineffectivenesscanbeattributed tolack ofsupportforitsproperimplem entAtio n. Bauer (1998)writes;"Thenum berandtypesofdem andsonthesystem, limitedstaffdevelopm en t, lack of timetodiscussand de velop alterna tiveacti on plans,and the absen ceof'fun ds fornew programs conspire to limitthepotent ialofschool-bas ed managem entto resultinoutcomessuch asimprove d morale,innovation and effective ness.Additio nally,entrencbedno rmsinterferewith alterationsininfluence relations,althoughevenhere, capacityissues relating tostaff developm en t and trainingaresaid to contrib uteto the persistence of theproblem"(p.llO).
Several researchershave found that SBM andschool councilshavethe potential to be effectiveif proper lyimplemearedandsustain ed. ThefoUowing sectiondiscussessomeof tbeirpositive impactson education.
Pos iti veImpaeu Sc.boolCouncUs andS8 MAreHavingonEdualtion Parker (1999),who couldnot prove alink betweenS8 M and increased student achievement,didnote thatthere weresome effective councils whofostered,amongother things, strongschoo lIcommunityrelationships, improved communicationstrategiesandintegrated.
learnin gcentres .She wrotethat coun cil s could beeffec tivewhenthey focused clearlyon childrenandschool,discus sin g school direction and growth plans, andinvolvin gthe community
in their efforts.Packeralso found that schoo ls with influential councils hadahistoryofdiverse and highle vels ofparentalinvolvement.
Other researc hers(Botrie.,L996;Fullan, 1991;FullanandQuinn.1996; ) also found that SBM andschoolcouncils ean be beneficialfor students.Whiletheyagree that school councils by tbeeeselvesdonotsignifiean tly affect student learning.theyadvocateusingthemas a means forpromoting othertypes and levels ofparental and community involvemen t, which when properly managed, can positivelyaffect student achievement.FullanandQuinn(l996) found thatwhen learning is valuedbyschools.familiesandcommuni ties workin gtog ether in partne rshi p,children are highly motivate d. Theybelievethat whatmakesadifference is
"multipleforms of particularinvolvem en tdeliberatelyfost ered,developedandsuppo rted"
(Fullan&Quinn .1996,p.3).They alsobelievethat theseforms of involveme nt do notjust happenon theirownor even throughinvitation,but thatschoolsmust purposely solicit them.
Theyadvise educa torstothink:ofschoolcouncils as ameans to desirededucational ends,and to continually ask.the questionof what those particular endsshould be.Schoolcouncils need to be Jeokeda[ as an opportunitytodevelopgreatercommitment and resources for improvingteaching and learnin g in the schools.Theysuggestusing"capaci ty -buildin gsttat egies"such as:building shared purpose; developingknow ledg eandslcills; leadership tnining;orientati on.;creationof eetwcrks;provisionofresources;and provis ion ofmec hanisms forevaluationanddissemination.
lbeir reviewofresearchstresses the importanceofpareotalinvolvementdue to the fact that parentshaveknowledge of theirchildthat isece available to anyoneelse,and that parents vested interestintheir child'ssuccess can be verybeneficial .
Collins&Lube(1996)write:"school councilsprovide a vehicle for increasing involveme ntwith parentsandoffering alink:with community members whomay no t otherwise
be directlyinvolvedwith theschool" (p.18).Theyadvocatethat enhancing communicationwith parentsdevelopsmutualrespectandtrust whichisthe basis of astrong partnership.Chrispccls (1996)reviewednumerous studieson effective schoolsandfound thattheexperieece ofwodcing with parentson importantimprovement goalsbasenabledteacherstoredefinetheir relatioaships withparentsand tobeginwo rkin gwith them as partners.Heath&Vik(1996)descr ibe councils astoolsthat help establish astrong sense ofschoo l communitythrough wide participation.and theyserveasadeterrentforschools toJustdriftalong"(p.l 8).House(1992)foundthatschoo l councilsallow fo rempowerment of thecommunity whichbenefitseveryone.Apartnership between educationand communityfostersmutualtrustandrespectforliteracy andskills retrainingprograms that couldbepart ofthe comm unityschool'sprogram.Shealso foundthat local autono my andaccountabilityincreasewhen parents and the communityarepart oftbe decisionmakingprocessat thelocallevel. Participationin decisionmakingallows parentsto havea betterunderstandingoftheissuesbefore them andbemore supportive of the decisions reecbed,
Botrie (1996)found that whenparentsfeelwelcome intheschool,theybecomegood publicrelationsadvocat es forthe school. They alsoinform schools about thelocal comm unity andindivi dua l children. andcanhelp developenrichedprogramswithout the cost of additional educationalsuppo rt.
Epste in(1995 )supportsschool councilsasjustoneof sixtypesof involvementneeded to make partnerships between school, parentsand community worktowardsincreasing school effectivenessandstude ntachievement.Besides involvingparentsin decisionmaking and developing parentlead ers,othertypes of involvementneededare:encouraging goodparenting skillsto improvethe home environment ;two-way comm unication between borneandschoo l;
solicitationandorganization of parent aidesandvolunteers;promotion ofbome-tutoring assistaDce so parentskno who wthey can help their childre n learn atbome;and workingin cooperation with community agencies andservices.
There seems tobe general agreement among writersthatsimplyinvolvingparentsand the community ina decision-makingor managing capacity00school councils is just one formof involvementthat,byitself.isnotsufficient to bring aboutsignifi canteducatiooalimprovement.
Usingschoo lcouncilsina broaderrole,however,as a forum for engaging other diversetypes andlevelsof parentaland community involvement, andgiving them. thenecessary suppon, training,timeandresources tosustain the who le process ofsite-based managementmay leadto schoolimprovemen tand improved studentachie vem ent.
Add itio na l ben efi ts orschoo lcou nl:Us andSS M
Inhis bookReframingand ReformCarlson(1996)discuss essomebenefitsof sue-based management,oneof which isthat itpermits schoolsto be unique.Not allschoo ls havethe same problemsor needs.SBMallowsschoolstoidentify local problemsandneeds, and to deve lop strat egies to deal with them.Schoolshavegreater flexibilityand potentiallymoce creativity in solving theirproblems,andtheir knowledgeof resources,including teacher competence,can lead tobetter quality decisionmaking.Thisideaisceinfo rcedinHouse's(1992)research, which showsthatlocal representativedecisio nmaking allowsschoolstomore effectivelydeal with their problemson their own, andmakesthem less dependent onouts idegroups to solvetheir pro blems.
Schoo lcounc ils andSB Mmakeeducatio nalinstitu tionsmore openanddemocrat ic (Hous e,1992).Traditional"top-d own ",bureaucraticeduca tionalsystemsstress hierarchical controland leaveparentsandstudents feeling powerl ess , alienatedand frustrated. 88M and
10
schoolcouncils allow a more "bottom-up"approachwhichstresses autonomy,participative decisionmaking and coUaborationby all those involved(House,1992).
School councils can also allaypeople'sgeneralfearand distrustofprofessionals.
Parentsandother communitymembersare moreeducated thaneverbeforeandlessinclinedto accept without question centralizedauthorityoverlocal educati onal issues. Schoo l councils give them theopportunitytoquesti on decisions affecting their children,andto givetheirinput.They also serveasa forumforparents tovent their frustrationswithoutresorting todrastic actions suchasprotests or keep ing theirchildrenat home.Schoolcouncilscan be the means for addressingall sortsof problems(House,(99 2).
Finally,SBMcan be cost efficient andeffective.Schoo lscan wiselyand prudentl y allocateresources and monies whereand when needed,as opposedto justindiscriminatelyusing up funds and resourcessent fromcentralauthorities.
ProblemsWithSchoolCouncils and SBM
Aswith anytypeof educat ional change,thereare barrierstoits effectiv eness. Excessi ve timeand energy demandedforSB M andschoo l councils is identifi edas amajorobstacle (Carlson. 1996 ;KnightandSteele. 1996;Leithwood and Menzie,(99 7).Timedemandsare excessiveon teachers,parentsand especially administrators.Findingtime formeetingsis especial ly difficult forcouncilmemberswhohave obligati onsandcommitments totheirjobs and families(Heath and Vik,199 6).Particip ationon councils increases everyone'sworkload, leaving less time for otherimportant things,including teacher preparation.
Lack ofexpe rience, training and technicalassistance isanotherobstacle.Parents, teachers, admi nistra tors andothercommunityreprese ntativesare all broughttogether to advise or governa schoo l. Theyhave varying backgro unds and levels ofexperience behind them,and 11
differentreasons for choos ing to be onschoolcouncils.According10Collins(1997).eachgroup represen ted may have its ownagenda.Teachersaresaidto be concernedmainly about bow schoolcouncilswillpersonallyaffectthem.whileparentsareaccusedofloolciDgoutfor their ownchild'sinterestaheadofthe wholeschcot's .The scboolboardmaybeconce rnedwith its own survivalandcontrol,andgovernm entseemsInterestedonlyinefficiency.Community leadersseemto have a self-servingbusinessdrive nagenda,andprincipalsareperceivedto favouronegroupoverthe other.Without acomm on purpo se andacleardirectionof howto get there,counc ilsma y endupwastingprecioustime.What councilsneed toworkondevelopingis a sharedvision; a goal.thatallcouncilmembersregardless oftheirpc:rso Dalagendaswill strive to reachtogeth er.They alsoneed adequatetrainingindevelopingskillsinimerpersoeal communication, collaborativegoalsetting,conflictresolutio nanddecision-makin g.Heath&Vi](
(1996)warnthatunless councilmembers have training in collabo rativeleadership,theycan get boggeddownin thedecision-making process .
Anothermaj or obstacletoeffective S8 Misresistance to sharing power(Sheppard&
Devereaux, 1997). Tradi tio nally,princi palshavehadfulldecision-makingresponsibilityin schools,althoug hthose decisions areofteninfluenced bypressure from teache rs orparents.
Schoolcouncilsshakeuppower distributioninschools.Newplayers come onthesceneandare expected to take onnew formal rolesand responsibilitiesfor the running ofthe school.Paren ts, teachers,communityrepresentativesand sometimesstudents are given power and decis ion makingauthority (level s varyaccordingtojurisdiction) whic h theyare not usedtohaving.
Conflict andconfus ionoften arisesoverthenewroles eachgroupmust takeon,and there often existsthetendencyfo r coun cil membe rs toadhereto thetraditional roleswith whichtheyare most comforta ble.Administrato rsmay bereluctan t to giveuppower, andparents orothers may
12
notfeelready totakeiton.AccordingtotheCanadianEducationAssociatio nNewsletter (l99 8).
there isevidence,in fact,thatparents areootnecessarilyinfavourofdecisio nmakingmandates.
Paren ts who have responsibilitiesto employersandfamilies revealedcoocems overtheir ability totakepartin decisions formerlymadebyschooladministrat ors.Othersworriedthatif participationislimitedto those with sufficienttime and resources, the councilmay not democraticallyrepresen t all parents.Someexpressed reluctance 10participatebecause they were unsure ofwhatbeing a council mem ber entailed More feared thetlegislating councilsmay actuallyreduceparentalinvolvement.Again,Informati on, training and suppo rtinhelping councilsunderstand andadapt totheirnewpowerrelationships. roles andrespo nsib ilities would bebeneficial.
Ful lan&Hannay (t9 98) believethat reform strategiessuchas schoo l councils"oftenfail because theyarepiecem eal,attachin g onlyonepartofasetof factorsthat mustconverge"cp.S).
Schoo lcounc ils operating in isolationwithin a systemare not effective.Fullan&Hannay blame the problem on public policy making. Wheneverthere areproblems and public pressure for improvement, thegovernment policymakers desperately seek an idea, whether it be from another country,stateor province.or perhaps thebrain childof oneof their own researchers,and theyimpose it withouttaking intoconsidenWon thelocal context..Theydothisin a relatively short-term timeperiod.dictated bytheirmandate .They end upfocusingtoo much on struetwal changesandformal requirements, theirmain concern being to get thepolicydrawnup.What often results isa reformstrategy that isallstructure and nosubstance.Schoolcouncils acting purelyina decision makingcapacitycan be just that, and relyingsolelyon them tobring about improvementwillnot work.Aspreviouslymentioned, thereneeds tobea broadereffortto engageparents and thecomm unity toworktogether withschoolsin severalcapacities,atseveral
13
level s,andwithasharedgoalinmind..Setting apolicywithoutfacilitation to sustainitisnot sufficienL"Sincecapacity-buil dingreallyrequiresastrongvision ofwby iliscrucial.anda corresponding set of specific strategi es,thereisvirtuallyDOchancethatthe policywillproduce goodresults (Fullan&Hannay,p.8).
Although schoolcouncilsare bailedas a means 10make educationmoreinclusiveand democra tic,careneeds 10betake ntoensurethat the processremainsjust that.Ina discussion on parent councilsinAlberta, equityconcernswereraised (K.n.ight&Steele, 1996).Some participants raisedfears about thecapac ityofspecial Interes t groupsto domina tedecision makingwithincouncils.Because councilsare oftencomposedof people whohave the time, mo neyandresourcestobe elect ed, somefearedthe interes ts of anelitecould prev ailNon- workin gwomenwho vclua teeredforcouncils werestereotypedas "wom enwith time"(p.17) anditwas feltby some that thenature andvalue of theirparti cipat ion could becharacte rized by gender andnot bythe expertise they offered. Concerns werealsoraisedfor immigrantandlower incomegroupswhoare often underrepresented.Atschoo lmeetings,these groupslendto participateless,oftenbeing too intimidated 10speak up.Carr(1997)found thaisched ulesfor councilmeetin gs"en courag e differenti alpowerdistributio nsskew ed towardsnonworking mothers ,upperandmiddle-c lass fathers,interest edbusinesspeople,andprofess io nal educators"
(p.1S6) .
Carlson (1996)discusses equity concerns aswell.notwithin schools ,but between them.
''-00muchlocaldiscretion ordec entralization canlead toenormous differencesineducati onal opportuni tiesbetween schoo ls.Lessaggressiveandpoliticallyweak schoo lsdo notgetasmuch as stro ngerschools "(p.264). Fundraisingby schoo lcouncilscould alsolead to inequi ties,for poorer schooldistrictsmayfind it harder to raise as muchmone yas richer ones.
14
