Archived Information

Assessment of School-Based Management - October 1996

How Schools Make

School-Based Management Work
School-based management (SBM) decentralizes control from the central district office
to individual schools as a way to give school constituents -- principals, teachers,
parents, community members, and in some schools, students -- more control over
what happens in schools. Proponents of SBM argue that increasing the involvement of
school-level stakeholders in managing schools will increase the capacity of schools to
improve by increasing stakeholders' ownership and accountability for school
performance. It is further argued that through SBM, a broader range of perspectives
will be taken into account in the decision-making process, thereby producing
decisions better tailored to the needs of the local school community. These potential
outcomes are strong inducements. As a result, more and more school districts are
turning to school-based management as a centerpiece for their improvement efforts.
However, as educators, parents and the public are discovering, some districts and
some schools are experiencing greater success than others in implementing SBM.
While some schools are using SBM to redesign the school organization to accomplish
an educational vision, other school communities are stuck on power issues like
whether the principal should have veto power and who should serve on the site
council, and on housekeeping issues like who should have access to the copy
machine.

For more than three years, researchers with the School-Based Management Project at
the University of Southern California in Los Angeles have been studying schools and
school districts in the U.S., Canada and Australia to find out what makes school-based
management work.11 We visited 40 schools in 13 school districts and interviewed
more than 400 people from school board members, superintendents and associate
superintendents in district offices to principals, teachers, parents and students in local
schools. All the districts we studied had been operating under SBM for at least four
years, although some had been working at it much longer. We also surveyed teachers
about classroom practices and carried out classroom observations. The purpose of our
research was to identify the conditions in schools that promote high performance
through school-based management. We defined high performance SBM as occurring
in schools that were actively restructuring in the areas of curriculum and instruction;
these were schools where SBM worked well. We compared this group of successful
schools to schools that were struggling; that is, schools that were active with SBM but
less successful in making changes that affected curriculum and instruction.

In brief, we found that school-based management requires a redesign of the whole

school organization that goes far beyond a change in school governance (Mohrman,
S.A., P. Wohlstetter, and Associates 1994). For SBM to work, people at the school
site must have "real" authority over budget, personnel and curriculum. Equally
important, that authority must be used to introduce changes in school functioning that
actually impact teaching and learning, if SBM is to help improve school performance.
Further, we found that power was not effectively used at a school unless the school's
strategy for using its new power included strategies for decentralizing three other
essential resources: professional development and training for teachers and other
stakeholders in teaching, managing and problem-solving; information about student
performance, parent and community satisfaction, and school resources to help school-
level people make informed decisions; and a reward system to acknowledge the
increased effort SBM requires of participants as well as to recognize improvements in
school performance.12 Our studies also pointed out the importance of principal
leadership and of having some sort of instructional guidance mechanism -- a
curriculum framework, for example -- at the school site to direct curriculum and
instruction efforts (Wohlstetter, P., R. Smyer, and S.A. Mohrman 1994). In this article
we discuss strategies that we found promote high performance in SBM schools and
give examples from the field of what we found in schools where SBM worked and in
schools that were struggling with SBM.

Strategy #1: Disperse power throughout the school organization so that many
stakeholders participate in decision-making.

When SBM is adopted, site councils usually are created at the school site to make
decisions about programs and resources. In some schools, the structure and
composition of the council is decided by the district or even by the state, while in
other schools, the school itself can determine the composition of the council
(Wohlstetter, P. and S.A. Mohrman 1994). Whether established at the district, state or
the school-level, most councils are composed of administrators, teachers, parents and
classified employees, who are elected by their respective constituencies. In some
schools, the council has final approval on decisions under its jurisdiction; in others,
the principal retains final decision-making authority. Many SBM schools also have
created a formal system of subcommittees which report directly to the site council.
Some schools have as many as twelve subcommittees. Other schools use as few as
three subcommittees covering areas such as budget, curriculum and instruction, and
facilities. Subcommittees dealing with the core technology of schooling such as
curriculum and instruction may have teacher members only. Other subcommittees,
like public relations and technology, have a wide range of participants including
parents and community representatives, in addition to teachers.

What distinguished the schools where SBM worked from the struggling schools was
the extent to which power was dispersed throughout the school beyond the principal
and council to subcommittees and other decision-making groups, like teaching teams
and ad hoc interview committees. These groups were created by principals or the
council and tended to be structured formally, with assigned members and regular
meeting times. With the wide dispersal of power, nearly all faculty members at the
successful schools participated in SBM.

These schools used their new power to bring about change in teaching and learning
practices. For instance, one school reallocated two teaching positions to create two
part-time resource teachers: one who worked to coordinate professional development
for teachers and the other who worked to monitor student absenteeism. Other schools
focused on restructuring the school day. One council voted to lengthen the school day,
so that teachers could have a common planning period one morning a week. Another
school shortened the day several times during the year to schedule face-to-face parent
conferences to distribute student report cards. Finally, resource allocation decisions
also were targeted at improving teaching and learning. One council at an elementary
school agreed to use all their instructional dollars for the year to purchase math
manipulatives for the entire school. Likewise, schools that had the budget authority to
carry-over savings from one year to the next used their savings for instructional needs.
With power dispersed and decision-making focused on teaching and learning, the
isolation and turf squirmishes so common in schools was notably less in the
successful SBM schools we studied.

Struggling SBM schools tended to concentrate power in a single school council that
often was composed of a small group of committed teachers who were painfully
aware they did not have broad representation. Subcommittees and other decision-
making groups (if they existed at all) did not have wide participation and so the
committed few often felt exhausted and burned-out. Further, there were strong
feelings of isolation among teachers in the absence of meetings that allowed teachers
and other stakeholders to interact around specific projects, such as the development of
a school-wide portfolio assessment system.

Strategy #2: Make professional development an ongoing, school-wide activity.

Professional development in schools where SBM worked was a very high priority.
Activities were oriented toward building a school-wide capacity for change, creating a
professional community and developing a shared knowledge base. In some successful
SBM schools, teachers with release time were responsible for soliciting input from
other teachers, and either arranging for the training or actually delivering it
themselves. Several schools routinely sent small groups of teachers off-site for
training who then returned to train the rest of the staff. Through our interviews and
surveys in actively restructuring schools, we found widespread knowledge of the
topics targeted for training and broad, if not universal, participation (see Robertson,
P., P. Wohlstetter, and S.A. Mohrman 1994).

Schools where SBM worked were also more likely to have multi-year commitments to
professional development which included all teachers. These schools often offered
follow-up sessions. Several of them had subject matter consultants who visited and
carried out demonstration lessons, observations, and worked with teachers on
individual and group problem-solving.

These schools also had expanded the categories of training and of individuals
receiving training. The subject matter of training was broadened to assist with the new
decision-making responsibilities at the school site. Training was provided in
interpersonal skills required for effective work groups, such as group decision-
making, consensus-building and conflict resolution, and in leadership responsibilities
like running meetings, budgeting and interviewing. Attention also was given to
developing knowledge in the core technology of schooling -- teaching, learning,
curriculum and assessment.

The categories of individuals receiving training were expanded to include nearly all
members of the school organization and the various stakeholders. As a result schools
where SBM worked had council members, teachers, administrators, office staff,
support personnel and in some cases at the secondary level, students receiving various
kinds of training. Sources of training at actively restructuring schools included
training from the district office, universities, and even from non-traditional education
circles like businesses that provided training in management and group decision-
making.

By contrast, in struggling schools there tended to be an individual focus to

professional development rather than a school-wide focus. We also found more
instances of "go, sit and get" training rather than on-going professional development
models. Some teachers opted out of professional development altogether. In other
struggling schools, the only target group for training was the small group who sat on
the site council. Their training tended to be offered at the start of SBM but without on-
going support. One council had been trained initially on how to make decisions by
consensus, but with little on-going support during the year, "meaty" topics were
eventually shelved in favor of "easy to reach consensus" topics. Struggling schools
also typically lacked a staff development plan. Funds for training in such schools were
dispensed on a case-by-case basis, usually by the principal, without any school-wide
involvement in who should be trained or what the topics for training should be.

Strategy #3: Disseminate information broadly so that SBM participants can make
informed decisions about the school organization and all stakeholders are kept
informed about school performance.

The traditional flow of information in schools is from the central office to the school
site. What distinguished the schools where SBM worked were the additional channels
used to disseminate information. In these schools information not only flowed to the
school from the central office, but also within the school, out to the community and
back up to the district office. Particularly noteworthy were the multiple vertical and
horizontal teacher work teams used to collect and dispense information within the
school, and the constant efforts to inform parents and community outside the school.

All of the schools where SBM worked created some sort of network of work groups
where many issues originated or were delegated. In addition to grade level teams and
subject area teams, teachers were also on council subcommittees, or school-wide
committees addressing a particular school priority or goal (Odden, A. and E. Odden
1994). It was common in these schools to have teachers working on two or more
committees. For example, an elementary teacher might be on a vertical work team
addressing a subject area or a school goal -- such as expanding the use of technology
in the classroom -- with representatives from all grade levels, and a horizontal grade
level team. A secondary teacher might be on a vertical work team focusing on a
school goal and a horizontal subject area team with members from relevant
departments. Because many committees cut across level and subject areas, there was
wide awareness of the needs of the school as a whole. Several schools scheduled brief
grade level or department meetings (above and beyond the regular meetings of those
groups) immediately after faculty meetings, so that horizontal input could be given
quickly. Two secondary schools used short meetings every morning before school to
share information among members of the school organization. The effect of these
work teams was dramatic. There were high levels of school-wide awareness of issues
and much greater ownership in decisions than at the struggling SBM schools. Further,
implementation of curriculum and instruction reform at these schools was consistently
described as a collective effort, with constant problem-solving and fine-tuning as a
result of teachers continuously talking about reform. By contrast, in struggling SBM
schools we found teachers often uninformed about school-wide issues, basing their
opinions on rumors, and using pronouns like "they" to describe decision makers.

Most of the successful SBM schools were also systematic and creative in how they
tried to communicate with parents and community. Many administered annual parent
and community satisfaction surveys, and the results typically were used to help set
priorities for the following year. Another common practice in successful SBM schools
was to disseminate daily attendance and tardiness data to parents on a regular basis.
Parent-teacher conferences and newsletters were also used as information channels.
Some schools offered classes for parents on topics like computers and student-parent
math activities. Another school used grant dollars to hire a part-time ombudsman to
serve as a liaison between the school and parent communities.

The schools where SBM worked also collected many kinds of data on school
performance and tried to act on the information to improve that performance. In
addition to attendance data which was collected by many schools, one secondary
school regularly printed out grade distributions for every class as a means of
monitoring student and teacher performance. Student performance data was
maintained in a variety of forms such as portfolios and anecdotal records. Narrative
report cards were being piloted in one school. Another school was developing its own
student profiles in reading and mathematics with grade level expectations. Other
schools were piloting student profiles in all subject areas.

Access to up-to-date information related to the management and operation of the

school was spotty. This emerged as a key variable for central office attention. Schools
engaged in SBM need timely information aggregated to facilitate use by a wide range
of stakeholders. One of the districts we studied recently installed an on-line interactive
computer system in schools that included budget and personnel information; data on
student achievement; electronic invoicing and purchasing; and a master schedule.
Most schools, however, were not yet satisfied with their ability to monitor accurately
and in a timely manner the status of resources and students.

Strategy #4: Frequently reward individual and group performance on progress

toward school goals.

Rewarding teachers for the additional effort and new roles that SBM requires and
rewarding groups or schools for improvement was not frequently done, although
schools where SBM worked used this approach slightly more than the struggling
schools. Some of the successful SBM schools regularly recognized individuals for
work well done; in other schools the norm was group recognition. Rewards which
provided money included differentiated staffing positions with extra compensation for
administrative responsibilities, money for professional development, and grants to
reimburse teachers for extra time, including (in one district) money for council
membership. Non-monetary recognition included the prestige associated with
responsibilities like mentoring, notes of appreciation from the principal, recognition
meals, and plaques. In schools where we found distrust, monetary rewards were
suspect and public recognition was greeted with cynicism.
Differentiated staffing was widely used and accepted as a way of recognizing
expertise in one of the districts we studied. Some of the positions offered additional
pay and a slightly reduced teaching load; for other positions, only teaching loads were
reduced; and a third type offered only intrinsic rewards, mainly the prestige and
visibility of being a leader. All of these positions had to be applied for and were
allocated to schools on the basis of student enrollment, typically accounting for about
50% of the teaching positions in a given school.

It has been argued that intrinsic rewards are sufficient to motivate and reinforce
teachers. We found in actively restructuring schools many teachers were excited and
motivated by the climate of professional collaboration and learning in their schools.
We also found that some teachers, who had been working with SBM for longer than
four years, were tired and wondering if they could keep up their level of involvement.
Too many districts have assumed that SBM occurs with average levels of commitment
and energy. Our research found that actively restructuring SBM schools placed high
demands on all individuals involved. The argument that intrinsic rewards are
sufficient to motivate and reinforce teachers for engaging in SBM over the long haul
may be too optimistic.

Strategy #5: Select principals who can lead and delegate.

All schools where SBM worked had principals who played a key role in dispersing
power; in promoting a school-wide commitment to learning and growth in skills and
knowledge; in expecting all teachers to participate in the work of the school; in
collecting information about student learning; and in distributing rewards. The
principals were often described as facilitators and leaders; as strong supporters of their
staffs; and as the people who brought innovations to the school, and who moved
reform agendas forward.

While principals in successful SBM schools typically spearheaded the effort to

develop a school mission, other tasks often were delegated. Principals tended to
delegate to subcommittees responsibilities such as material selection, budget
development and professional development schedules. The use of subcommittees
effectively increased teacher ownership and accountability to the school-wide
program, which was reflected in the frequent use of the pronoun "we" by teachers in
schools where SBM worked. Aside from formal collaboration, principals also fostered
informal communities by scheduling common lunch periods for students and staff and
common break times for teachers.

Principals in high performance SBM schools also were instrumental in outreach

efforts. Some principals served on boards of local business groups or regularly
attended their meetings. Others worked diligently to foster press relations with local
papers. Principals also were active in cultivating outside resources, such as
professional development from universities, advice on technology from area
businesses, and financial support from private foundations and educational networks.

Instruction and curriculum reform were what distinguished the schools where SBM
worked, yet the principals of these schools functioned more broadly than instructional
leaders. The principals worked to promote a school organization and climate where
the teachers were leaders in instruction and curriculum. The principals' role then was
to support that leadership by providing resources to nurture their efforts.

Principals in struggling schools were often perceived as either too autocratic or too
laissez-faire. Some appeared to their staffs as not involved enough; others appeared to
dominate all decisions (Wohlstetter and Briggs, in press). In many struggling schools,
the key struggle was over power between teachers and the principal. In some cases,
the principal's unilateral agenda for change was rejected by the faculty.

Strategy #6: Adopt a well-defined vision for curriculum and instruction to direct
reform efforts.

Most of the schools where SBM worked operated according to a set of curricular
guidelines developed at the district, state or national (e.g., National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics) level. Yet teachers perceived themselves as having
considerable leeway regarding the specifics of the curriculum they provided to their
students and the instructional approaches and materials they used. Some schools had a
separate curriculum framework for each content area that teachers had written
themselves; some schools used sections from existing frameworks to come up with
their own approach.

What distinguished the schools where SBM worked from the struggling schools was
the shared understanding and widespread commitment to instruction and curriculum
approaches adopted by the school. Such schools had a well-defined vision delineating
the school's mission, values and goals regarding student outcomes. This vision served
as a focal point and guided conversation in all the various decision-making forums.
The development of the school vision came about in some schools through a formal
consensus-building process, like at a retreat before the new school year began, and in
other schools, through more informal and more frequent interactions of various
stakeholders around curriculum and instruction issues. Struggling SBM schools, in
contrast, often had power and control issues that interfered with any process for vision
setting. Even when struggling schools had a vision statement they could point to, it
was not an "active" document and was rarely mentioned in interviews or surveys.

Summary
Interest in SBM as a reform to improve school performance is high. Research from
the School Based Management Project found important differences between schools
where SBM worked to bring about instruction and curriculum reform and schools that
were struggling with SBM.

Schools where SBM worked used their SBM power in tandem with a commitment to
on-going professional development; effective information collection and
dissemination; and a system of rewards for individual and group performance. In
addition, these schools had strong principal leaders who led by creating ownership in
a common vision and by delegating specific projects and tasks. These successful SBM
schools had multiple formal and informal channels that encouraged interaction among
all staff; high levels of skill development among various stakeholders; initiatives to
include parents and the community in the school organization; and a concerted focus
on student needs and accomplishments.

Struggling schools, on the other hand, lacked a common vision and were frequently
characterized by factions. These problems reflected a lack of at least one and usually
more of the strategies that make SBM work. For districts embarking on or refining
their SBM plans, the strategies that we have found promote success can serve as a
blueprint for action. At the same time, individual schools can investigate the degree to
which they currently are using the six strategies we have identified here, and then
work to sustain and strengthen practice.

References

Lawler, E.E. (1986).

High Involvement Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E.E. (1992).
The Ultimate Advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mohrman, S.A., P. Wohlstetter, and Associates. (1994).
School-Based Management: Organizing for High Performance. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Odden, A. and E. Odden. (1994).
School-Based Management -- The View from 'Down Under' (Brief No. 62).
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center on Organization and
Restructuring of Schools.
Robertson, P., P. Wohlstetter, and S.A. Mohrman. (1994).
Generating Curriculum and Instructional Changes Through School-Based
Management (Working Paper). Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California, School-Based Management Project.
Wohlstetter, P. and K. Briggs. (In press).
"The Principal's Role in School-Based Management." Principal.
Wohlstetter, P. and S.A. Mohrman. (In press).
School-Based Management: Promise and Process (Finance Brief). New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.
Wohlstetter, P., R. Smyer, and S.A. Mohrman. (1994).
"New Boundaries for School-Based Management: The High Involvement
Model." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16, 3: 268-286.
11
This work is part of the Studies of Education reform program supported by the U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), Office of Research. This research has also received
generous support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Finance Center of the Consortium for Policy
Research in Education (CPRE). The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the position or
policy of the U.S. Department of Education, the University of Southern California, the Carnegie Corporation or
CPRE, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

12
Findings from this research are similar to those found for businesses that employed the "high involvement"
model of decentralization (Lawler 1986; 1992).

-###-

[School-Based Management: Changing Roles for Principals]

[Redefining School-Based Budgeting for High Performance]