USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Educational policy analysis archives

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Educational policy analysis archives
Physical Description:
Serial
Language:
English
Creator:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Publisher:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E11-00271
usfldc handle - e11.271
System ID:
SFS0024511:00271


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20029999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00271
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 10, no. 23 (April 28, 2002).
260
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c April 28, 2002
505
School-based management : views from public and private elementary school principals / Mary T. Apodaca-Tucker [and] John R. Slate.
650
Education
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e11.271



PAGE 1

1 of 31 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 10 Number 23April 28, 2002ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2002, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education .School-Based Management: Views from Public and Private Elementary School Principals Mary T. Apodaca-Tucker New Mexico State University John R. Slate University of Texas at El PasoCitation: Apodaca–Tucker, M. T. & Slate, J. R. (200 2, April 28). School-Based management: Views from public and private elementary school pri ncipals. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (23). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epa a/v10n23.html.AbstractIn this study, we analyzed the principal questionna ire contained in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten (EC LS-K) database regarding the extent to which school-based manageme nt was reported as having been implemented differently by public and b y private elementary school principals. Statistical analyses indicated m any differences in the degree of influence reported to be present on the p art of principals, parents, and other groups on important decisions ma de at schools. Differences in school-based management between our public and private elementary school principals were linked to the ext ant literature.

PAGE 2

2 of 31Moreover, recommendations for further research were discussed. In 1991, the Texas Education Agency directed school s to form school-based decision-making committees. Other states in this na tion have created similar mandates to reform their schools. The ultimate purpose of all d ecision-making in schools is to achieve the state's educational goals of equity and excellence for all students. Committees also served as advisory councils to the principal. Shared decision-making (SDM) committee was to include parents, teachers, a dministrators, and community representatives. Because of the increased local aut onomy and accountability that is created through SDM, increased student achievement has been cited as a positive outcome of SDM (TEA, 1992). Strong leadership by sc hool principals has also been supported by the Department of Education in the rep ort entitled Turn Around Low-Performing Schools (U.S. Department of Educatio n, May 1998). Limited research, unfortunately, is available about the extent to whi ch school-based management has been implemented across the United States.Theoretical Basis of the StudySchool-based management functions under decentraliz ation, the development of internal resources, and the wide participation of school mem bers in the decision-making process, which closely accompanies the tenets of critical th eory. Livingston, Slate, and Gibb (1999) reported that administrators agree that all stakeholders must be involved in decision-making if the school is to be successful a nd that teachers possess expertise that is necessary to make important decisions about the school. In addition, Cheng (1996) suggested that SBM assumes a multiplicity of educat ional goals, a complex and changing educational environment, need for educatio nal reforms, school effectiveness, and the pursuit of quality.The theory that guides this study is based on the w ork of two educational researchers: Glickman (1993) and Sergiovanni (1992, 1994, and 20 01) as well as researchers Conley (1993) and Schlechty (1997). The framework that gui ded Glickman's research (1993) consisted of a covenant of teaching and learning th at is brought to life using shared governance and action research. A covenant of teach ing and learning is a set of belief statements that capture what people associated with a school want students to know and be able to do, the type of instructional practices they believe will bring about these desired results, and a description of how students will demonstrate mastery of the desired skills and understandings. Shared governanc e is a democratic process that gives all of a school's stakeholders the opportunity to a ctively participate in bringing their covenant to life. Action research is an information -producing process that provides feedback and guidance as a school works to carry ou t the terms of its covenant (Glickman, 1993).Sergiovanni (1992) reported that most educators wou ld agree that leadership is an important component in improving our schools, yet f ew people are satisfied with leadership practices now in place. Sergiovanni illu strated how creating a new leadership practice, one with moral dimension centered around purpose, values, and beliefs, can transform school from an organization to a communit y (1994) and inspire the kinds of commitment, devotion, and service that can make our schools great (2001). Sergiovanni agreed with the research by Glickman (1993) by argu ing that this new leadership style is

PAGE 3

3 of 31importance to legitimizing emotion and getting in t ouch with basic values and connections with others. Sergiovanni and Glickman b oth reported in their separate research how collegiality, based on shared work and common goals, leads to a natural interdependence among teachers. When teachers and a dministrators are motivated by emotional and social bonds, guided by a professiona l ideal, and feel they are truly part of a community, the guiding principle is no longer wha t is rewarded occurs, but what is good happens (Conley, 1993; Schlechty, 1997).Participatory ManagementParticipative decision-making is not a new concept. Senge (1990) catapulted learning organizations in business into popularity in the 19 90s, and he also reported about participative openness. This theory by Senge (1990) about participative management soon became part of the educational reform movement Researchers, through their literature, illustrated a development in school ref orm that became known as school-based management.The concept of school-based management (SBM) and sh ared decision-making (SDM) basically fell under the theoretical umbrella of pa rticipative management. In recent years, it has become a generally accepted belief th at people who participate in the decisions that directly affect them are more likely to have a sense of ownership and commitment to the decisions and situations that inv olve them (Glickman, 1993; Conley, 1993). School systems are beginning to acknowledge the need to reform traditional hierarchical structures and to experiment with part icipative management styles to meet the needs of students who are falling behind accept able academic standards (Conley, 1993). Supposedly the low morale of school employees and t he decrease in organizational effectiveness has led many experts in the field of education to recognize the need for organizational and structural change. Educational s ystems in America have been publicly criticized for being disorganized and havi ng little empathy for the plight of their employees (Conley, 1993). Consequently, it appeared a natural outgrowth that reform related to participative management styles would be a viable consideration to traditional school structures. Teachers who have low morale and a sense of helplessness within their school system would seemingly be less incline d to apply maximum effort or maximum use of their professional capacities when i nstructing the nation's students (Conley, 1993).It becomes apparent that participative management i s complex in its theoretical structure. Different perceptions of participation m ay be related to the success or failure of the emergent styles of participative management (SDM, SBM, site-based management) that are currently being considered for implementation or already have been implemented in schools nationwide. How does pa rticipative management merge into education?Shared Decision-MakingShared decision-making, according to Allan S. Vann' s magazine article in Educational Horizons entitled "Shared Decision-Making: A Paper Tiger?" (Fall, 1999), is a state mandate that each school have a site-based manageme nt committee composed of

PAGE 4

4 of 31parents, teachers, and administrators. The purpose of each committee is to engage in shared decision-making to improve student achieveme nt. Consequently, it is left to each local school board, however, to determine each scho ol's precise committee composition, the membership selection process, and the issues th at such committees can, and cannot, consider. Researchers have revealed contradicting i nformation from studies on school reform; some researchers reported the advantages, l imitations, and components of SDM. Therefore, the following review of the literature o n shared decision-making reflects the diversity of information discovered by these writer s. According to Rodriquez (2000), site-based managemen t is implemented in a variety of ways in districts and schools across the United Sta tes. One of the reasons for the differences in implementation is a variation in foc us. Clune and White (1988) reported that many districts judge SDM as more of a mind set or disposition than a structured system. Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz (1990) stated that the emphasis is more on the spirit of the approach than the details of the arrangement In addition, they indicated that key parameters are set in place by districts regarding site-based management, but explicit detail of the governance process is left up to the individual school (Hill & Bonan, 1991). In a study conducted by Smith (1993), the conclusio n was that districts supplied insufficient clarification of the roles teachers we re to play in the decision-making process, and that districts gave little assistance as to how site-based management should be implemented. Ambiguity left by the districts cau sed teachers to build their own varying definitions of SBM (Smith, 1993). During th e investigation of Chicago's school reform conducted by Hess (1991), he found that the first years of site-based management were a time of "informal negotiations" (p. 8) durin g which shared decision making began to take on meaning.Rodriguez (2000) reported that investigators have d elineated three broad spheres of influence, or domains of site-based management, bud geting, curriculum, and personnel. In addition, goals and organizational structure hav e been added to these domains by Hill and Bonan (1991). Freedom to develop goals is perha ps one of the most important aspects of self-governing schools. Clark and Meloy (1989) remarked that well-developed goals include the values on which collaborative act ion can be taken. They also represent agreement on principles according to Hill and Bonan (1991) that aided in the solution of daily matters. Ultimately, control over its mission enables a school to create a distinctive culture and climate that allow it to meet the needs of the local community (Dade County Public Schools, 1989).Another aspect of site-based management is control over the budget. Autonomy in the sphere of finance is affected in numerous respects, reported Rodriguez (2000). Brown (1990) reported that SDM brings about a change in t he manner in which resources are allocated to schools. Therefore, advocates of sitebased management called for districts to allocate a lump sum of money to the schools, not to determine how that money is to be spent (Clune & White, 1988). Such an allowance b y site-based management permits stakeholders at the school-level to decide how the money will be dispersed. Hannaway (1992) noted that the larger the sum of money alloc ated to a school, the greater the amount of decentralization.A key issue that Rodriguez (2000) noted was that th e spending of schools' money is the extent to which those schools are able to spend the money as they wish, such as purchasing from venders outside the district. Conse quently, schools operating under site-based management generally have greater flexib ility regarding how they spend their

PAGE 5

5 of 31money and whom they purchase from than schools oper ating under the traditional model of school governance (Wohlstetter & Buffet, 1991). Hill and Bona (1991) reported that the greater the decentralization in a district, the greater the ability for empowered site-based managed schools to purchase what they ne ed to meet their students' needs. Closely connected to control over the budget was co ntrol over the hiring of school personnel (Rodriguez, 2000). In districts with the least amount of decentralization, hiring was generally left up to the district, where as districts that were highly decentralized gave nearly full control to their sch ools over the hiring of staff and faculty (Lindelow, 1981). In successfull site-based managed schools, Lindelow (1981) reported that administrators and teachers, along with commun ity members, select candidates to interview and make a decision, which is sent back t o the district for final approval by the school board. Some decentralized districts permitte d their schools to choose how they use personnel funding, such as purchasing books or materials or hiring paraprofessionals instead of teachers with the money (Fernandez, 1989 ). In the most extreme cases of site-based management, control over the hiring of t he principal is a decision left up to the site-based decision-making committee (Chapman, 1990). Another aspect of school-site autonomy was the abil ity to choose curricula that meet objectives set by the board and district administra tion (Rodriguez, 2000). School-based curriculum allowed the site-based decision-making c ommittee to determine which instructional materials should be used for instruct ion (Steffy, 1993). Clune and White (1988) reported that SDM schools make decisions reg arding the selection of textbooks, the selection of learning activities and supplement al instructional materials to be used, and determine the nature of alternative programs to be offered in the school. The more in-depth implementation of site-based mana gement in a district, the more opportunities local communities have to be involved in the selection of theoretical approaches used in the schools (Rodriguez, 2000; Wa tkins & Lusi, 1989) and in choosing professional development activities that h elps teachers meet the needs of the students. In addition, Guthrie (1986) reported that SBM implemented extensively allows for effective monitoring and evaluation of local le arning and teaching by the particular school.A final sphere of influence that Rodriguez (2000) r eported was the influence related to site-based management in school organizations. She indicated that decision-making committees are free to change the fundamental deliv ery of instruction and the traditional set-up of the classroom. Schools expansively implem enting site-based management at the elementary level are drastically altering the m anner in which students are grouped to form classes, such as changing age and ability comb inations (Murphy, 1991). He also argued that secondary schools with widely implement ed site-based management have offered alternative instructional programs, core cu rricula, and outcome-based education to their students.Numerous authors (Carlson, 1996; Reynolds, 1997) in the literature emphasized the importance of shared decision making training. Wher eas teachers are knowledgeable in their own domain, their preparation seldom included a heavy emphasis on collaborative decision-making. Shared decision-making schools use d a variety of methods to provide the necessary training, including outside consultan ts, trains the trainer programs, and the use of specific training methods.

PAGE 6

6 of 31In support of improving schools from within using s hared governance, Barth (1990) argued that the personal visions of most school pra ctitioners need no apology. "For certain, they differ in important ways from the lis ts of desirable school qualities constructed by those outside the schools. But these visions of insiders deserved to be taken as seriously as those of outsiders", (Barth, 1990, p. 177). He illustrated this argument by stating that not one but two tributarie s flow into the knowledge base for improving schools: the social science research lite rature from the academic community and the craft knowledge and vision from the school community. The former is often a mile wide but only an inch deep; the latter is ofte n only an inch wide but a mile deep. Together, they offer remarkable depth and breadth a nd a fertile meeting place for considering school improvement. Working in a school day after day, or rearing children of their own, entitles school people and parents to have a vision and to introduce that vision into conversations about school reform (Bart h, 1990). As principals struggled with their daily dilemmas o f leadership, they sometimes allow themselves daydreams in which their authority is un limited and they can act without having to plead, lobby, or negotiate with anyone. Y et, for the past decade, many school leaders have willingly participated in a movement t hat asks them to share their power with teachers and parents. In shared decision-makin g (SDM), principals collaborated with teachers and sometimes parents to take actions aimed at improving instruction and school climate. In some cases, teachers or parents are formally given a slice of power; more commonly, principals retain their authority bu t commit themselves to govern through consensus.After reviewing the literature, it appeared that sh ared decision-making is still too new to determine its overall effectiveness in schools. Lon gitudinal studies on the academic achievement of students, school operations, quality of instruction, the perceptions of students, teachers, and administrators must continu e to be conducted to determine the effectiveness of SDM as a means for school reform ( Herman & Herman, 1994).Public and Private SchoolsDifferences in the organization of public and priva te schools are a focus of school reform discussions. Yet, how different or similar p ublic and private schools really are is not well understood. School sector is not a simple organizational fault line running through the nation's schools. Debates about improvi ng schools often overlook the diversity among private schools, as well as the pot ential for a high degree of similarity between many public and private schools (Baker, Han & Keil, 1996; Synder, 1997). Using data from a national sample of secondary scho ols in the 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey, conducted by the National Center f or Education Statistics (NCES), examined organizational differences across public a nd private schools and among private school types (Baker et al., 1996). Overall, the results from researchers indicated considerable organizational variation among differe nt types of private schools and some significant similarities between public schools and some types of private schools. In addition, although private schools tend to have mor e on-site control of key administrative decisions about teacher hiring, curr iculum, and student discipline policies, not all public schools lack this feature. Accordingly, some difference exists in degree of administrative control among types of pri vate schools as well (Baker et al., 1996). Principals reported that on three types of p olicies, decision-making in private

PAGE 7

7 of 31secondary schools is dominated by principals. Priva te school principals are more likely to have a greater influence over establishing the c urriculum than public school principals. However, both private and public school principals have a great deal of influence on hiring (93 versus 84) and disciplinary policy (91 versus 88). Teachers in only a few schools in both sectors have a great deal of influence on hiring policies. About two-thirds of private schools have important input from teachers into curriculum decisions, compared to just over half of public schools (Baker et al., 1996). School boards had a similar impact on teacher hirin g across public and private sectors, but there is variation among private and public sch ool type. Public school boards are more likely to have an influence on curricular and disciplinary policies than private school boards. Therefore, decisions about organizat ional policy related to the educational functioning of the school tend to be mo re influenced by on-site personnel in private schools than in public schools. Clear diffe rences are present between the public and private sectors in the governance environment o f schools as reported by Baker and his colleagues (1996).Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993) indicated that many r eform proposals for public schools have looked to the private sector for models to emu late. School choice, small schools, and decentralization decision-making, for example, are among features commonly associated with private education that many have su ggested might benefit public schools. The variation that exists is as follows: The defining distinction between public and private schools is their different sources of support. Private schools provide an alternative for parents who are dissatisfied with public schools or have other reasons for wanting their chi ldren to attend a private school. Racial and ethnic diversity can enrich the school e xperiences of students and teachers in many ways; however, a heterogeneous sch ool population creates additional challenges to teachers and administrator s, who must be sensitive to different cultural backgrounds. Differences between public and private school teach ers are an important dimension in comparing public and private schools. Public school teachers appear to be more qualified than private school teachers i n terms of their education and years of experience. On average, public school teac hers receive higher salaries and more benefits than private school teachers. Althoug h teacher attrition tends to be higher in private than public schools, private scho ol teachers were more likely than public school teachers to be highly satisfied with their working conditions (36 % versus 11 %). Smaller schools are generally thought to be easier to manage, and to promote a greater sense of community among students and teach ers; however, large schools are often more equipped to offer a wider range of a cademic programs and support services. Private schools, on average, have smaller schools and class sizes than public schools. A key aspect of school management is where importan t decisions are made concerning curriculum, school policies, and classro om practices. Whereas public schools must necessarily take some direction from s tate departments of education, local school boards, and districts staff, private s chool teachers and principals are more likely than their public school counterparts t o believe they have a great deal of influence, particularly in setting discipline po licy and establishing curriculum.

PAGE 8

8 of 31In the area of teacher evaluation, almost all princ ipals, public and private, thought they had a great deal of influence; however, in a n umber of other policy areas as discipline, curriculum, inservice training, budgeti ng, and hiring, private school principals were more likely than public school prin cipals to think that they had a great deal of influence. Although crime occurs in and around both public and private schools, public schools have a much greater exposure. In 1993-1994, teachers in public schools were far more likely than private school teachers t o report that students' poor attitudes toward learning and negative interactions with teachers were serious problems in their schools. They were also more like ly to believe that a lack of parent involvement was a serious problem. Parent ac countability and participation in elementary schools may be more associated with t he social class of parents than with the private or public character of the school. The key aspects of the instructional program at the elementary level are the amount of time spent on core subjects, the teaching methods used in the classroom, and how homework is handled. Public and private schools exhibit both similarities and differences in these areas. Public schools provide a wide array of academic sup port and health-related services, some of which are required by federal and state laws that do not apply to private schools. Most support services are found mo re often in public schools than private schools (Choy, 1998). The National Center for Education Statistics conduc ted a study to determine exactly how public and private schools differ. The data reporte d many systematic differences, and provided a context in which to consider the debates about the merits of various aspects of public and private schooling. Synder and colleag ues (1997) reported that a key aspect of school management is where important decisions a re made concerning curriculum, school policies, and classroom practices. Whereas p ublic schools necessarily must take some direction from State Departments of education, local school boards, and district staff, more site-based management and local decisio n-making are frequently advocated as a means of improving school effectiveness. Private school principals (or heads) reported havin g more influence over curriculum than their private school counterparts. In a number of school policy areas, private school teachers and principals are more likely than their public school counterparts to bel ieve that they have a great deal of influence. Private school teachers reported having more autono my in the classroom (Synder, 1997). In the areas of setting discipline policy and estab lishing curriculum, in particular, private school teachers in the 1993-94 school year were con siderably more likely than public school teachers to think that they had a great deal of influence. Only a relatively small percentage of teachers in either sector were likely that they had a great deal of influence over certain other important policy areas, such as making budget decisions, hiring, and evaluating teachers (Synder, 1997). In contrast, pu blic and private school principals reported they had a great deal of influence in the area of teacher evaluation. However, in a number of other policy areas, discipline, curricu lum, in-service training, budgeting, and hiring, private school principals were more lik ely than public school principals to think that they had a great deal of influence repor ted Synder and his colleagues (1997).

PAGE 9

9 of 31Public school principals share authority for many p olicy decisions with school boards, district personnel, and State Departments of Educat ion. The following research question will be addressed i n this study. Is there a significant difference in the extent to which school-based mana gement has been reported as having been implemented in public and private elementary s chools in the United States?Methods and ProceduresSampleIn this study, 866 elementary school principals com pleted the survey. Of these 866 principals, 630 surveys were completed by public el ementary school principals and 236 surveys were completed by private elementary school principals. Although not analyzed by category within private elementary schools, 105 private schools were Catholic, 75 were Other Religious category, and 56 were Other pr ivate. Information on the survey was also present regarding school characteristics s uch as region and location and student enrollment. Regarding school region, 154 were from the Northeast, 228 were from the Midwest, 286 were from the South, and 198 were from the West. In terms of school location, 385 were designated as Central City, 286 were Urban/Large Town, and 195 were Small Town/Rural. Student enrollment ranged fr om 0-149 students (n = 117), 150 to 299 (n = 179), 300 to 499 (n = 223), 500 to 749 (n = 226, and 750 and above (n = 121).Information was also present regarding principal ch aracteristics such as gender and Hispanic ethnicity. Regarding gender, 331 elementar y school principals indicated they were male and 517 reported they were female. Of the sample, 36 reported they were of Hispanic ethnicity and 805 indicated they were not non-Hispanic. Other data regarding principal ethnicity was suppressed on the database used herein. InstrumentationSchool administrators, principals, and headmasters were asked to complete self-administered questionnaires during the spring of 1999. They were asked to provide information on the physical, organizational, and fi scal characteristics of their schools and on the school's learning environment and progra ms. Special attention was paid to the instructional philosophy of the school and its expe ctations for students. The questionnaire was an important part of the ECLS -K project and the questionnaire was directed to the school principal. As a result, the questionnaire was divided into nine sections. These sections could have been answered e ither by the principal or by a designee who was able to provide the requested info rmation. The final two sections requested judgmental evaluations about the school c limate and factual information about the principal's background and experience. These la st two sections were to be completed by the principal. Some factual questions requested information that was not readily available from school records (the average number o f years a limited-English-proficient first grader receives English-as-a-Second-Language services). Informed estimates were acceptable for such questions.Section 8 focused on school governance and climate. Principals were asked to respond

PAGE 10

10 of 31 to questions about frequency of classroom observati ons of kindergarten teachers, staff development, goals and objectives for kindergarten teachers, how decisions are made at their school, the school climate, and what influenc es the principal's job performance evaluation. Section 9 focused on 10 principal chara cteristics. The time required to complete this information collection was estimated to average 45 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search e xisting data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information col lected (U.S. Department of Education, April 2000).ResultsThe degree to which school-based management had bee n implemented in public elementary schools in the United States was examine d through an analysis of question 67, "We are interested in how decisions are made at your school." Respondents were provided with six decisions: (1) establishing crite ria for hiring and firing teachers; (2) selecting textbooks and other instructional materia ls; (3) setting curricular guidelines and standards; (4) establishing policies and practi ces for grading and student evaluation; (5) deciding how school discretionary funds will be spent; and (6) planning professional development. Percentages regarding the influence ea ch category of decision maker (i.e., principal or director; teacher organization or indi vidual teachers; parent organization; school board or council; school district office; an d school-based management committee) had on each of the decision categories m ade at their school are reported in Tables 1-6 based on the responses from public and p rivate elementary school principals in the United States.Table 1 Percentages of U.S. Public And Private Elementary S chool Principal Responses Regarding The Influence of Decision Maker s On The Hiring and Firing of TeachersDecision MakersPublicPrivateAdministrator Input To Hiring/Firing TeachersNo Influence6.21.5Some Influence15.36.7Major Influence78.591.8Teacher Input To Hiring/Firing TeachersNo Influence29.449.4Some Influencex 47.639.0Major Influence23.011.6Parent Input To Hiring/Firing TeachersNo Influence79.882.7Some Influence19.214.3Major Influence1.13.0School Board Member Input ToHiring/Firing Teachers

PAGE 11

11 of 31 No Influence17.043.9Some Influence22.122.9Major Influence60.933.1School District Input To Hiring/Firing TeachersNo Influence 8.652.5Some Influence23.622.1Major Influence67.825.4School-Based Management CommitteeInput To Hiring/Firing TeachersNo Influence58.381.7Some Influence25.910.8Major Influence15.97.5Table 2 Percentages of U.S. Public And Private Elementary S chool Principal Responses Regarding The Influence of Decision Maker s On Selecting TextbooksDecision MakersPublicPrivateAdministrator Input On Selecting TextbooksNo Influence5.62.1Some Influence48.314.9Major Influence46.283.1Teacher Input On Selecting TextbooksNo Influence6.03.2Some Influence19.413.4Major Influence74.683.3Parent Input On Selecting TextbooksNo Influence55.367.5Some Influence38.528.2Major Influence6.34.3School Board Member Input OnSelecting TextbooksNo Influence24.657.3Some Influence36.833.1Major Influence38.69.6School District Input On Selecting TextbooksNo Influence11.252.0Some Influence31.029.6Major Influence57.818.4

PAGE 12

12 of 31 School-Based Management CommitteeInput On Selecting TextbooksNo Influence38.279.3Some Influence28.316.3Major Influence33.54.3Table 3 Percentages of U.S. Public And Private Elementary S chool Principal Responses Regarding The Influence of Decision Maker s On Setting Curricular Guidelines and StandardsDecision MakersPublicPrivateAdministrator Input On Setting CurricularGuidelines and StandardNo Influence 6.51.0 Some Influence39.410.4Major Influence54.188.6Teacher Input On Setting CurricularGuidelines and StandardsNo Influence 9.46.6 Some Influence37.724.2Major Influence52.869.2Parent Input On Setting CurricularGuidelines and StandardsNo Influence 46.666.3 Some Influence46.231.3Major Influence7.32.4School Board Member Input On SettingCurricular Guidelines and StandardsNo Influence 9.638.2 Some Influence27.740.8Major Influence62.721.0School District Input On Setting CurricularGuidelines and StandardsNo Influence 4.041.4 Some Influence16.016.5Major Influence80.042.1School-Based Management Committee InputOn Setting Curricular Guidelines and StandardsNo Influence 35.479.8

PAGE 13

13 of 31 Some Influence34.58.5Major Influence30.111.7Table 4 Percentages of U.S. Public And Private Elementary S chool Principal Responses Regarding Establishing Policies and Pract ices for Student Grading/EvaluationDecision MakersPublicPrivateAdministrator Input On Establishing Policiesand Practices for Student Grading/EvaluationNo Influence4.8.5Some Influence36.811.1Major Influence58.488.4Teacher Input On Establishing Policies andPractices for Student Grading/EvaluationNo Influence5.14.4Some Influence29.221.3Major Influence65.774.3Parent Input On Establishing Policies andPractices for Student Grading/EvaluationNo Influence53.777.3Some Influence39.019.6Major Influence7.33.1School Board Member Input OnEstablishing Policies and Practicesfor Student Grading/EvaluationNo Influence12.752.3Some Influence29.629.7Major Influence57.718.1School District Input On EstablishingPolicies and Practices for StudentGrading/EvaluationNo Influence5.244.7Some Influence23.317.4Major Influence71.537.9School-Based Management CommitteeInput Establishing Policies and Practicesfor Student Grading/EvaluationNo Influence38.283.0

PAGE 14

14 of 31 Some Influence31.78.5Major Influence30.18.5Table 5 Percentages of U.S. Public And Private Elementary S chool Principal Responses Regarding The Influence of Decision Maker s On Deciding How School Discretionary Funds Will Be SpentDecision MakersPublicPrivateAdministrator Input On Deciding HowSchool Discretionary Funds Will Be SpentNo Influence.4.5Some Influence14.011.7Major Influence85.687.8Teacher Input On Deciding How SchoolDiscretionary Funds Will Be SpentNo Influence11.518.4Some Influence42.554.7Major Influence46.026.8Parent Input On Deciding How SchoolDiscretionary Funds Will Be SpentNo Influence40.636.3Some Influence43.243.5Major Influence16.220.2School Board Member Input On Deciding HowSchool Discretionary Funds Will Be SpentNo Influence35.427.4Some Influence35.830.6Major Influence28.942.0School District Input On Deciding HowSchool Discretionary Funds Will Be SpentNo Influence29.079.5Some Influence38.115.6Major Influence32.94.9School-Based Management CommitteeInput On Deciding How School DiscretionaryFunds Will Be SpentNo Influence25.276.3Some Influence27.59.7Major Influence47.314.0

PAGE 15

15 of 31 Table 6 Percentages of U.S. Public And Private Elementary S chool Principal Responses Regarding Professional DevelopmentDecision MakersPublicPrivateAdministrator Input On Professional DevelopmentNo Influence .40.0 Some Influence20.87.0Major Influence78.893.0Teacher Input On Professional DevelopmentNo Influence 3.62.2 Some Influence29.033.9Major Influence67.564.0Parent Input On Professional DevelopmentNo Influence 68.478.3 Some Influence28.019.3Major Influence3.72.5School Board Member Input OnProfessional DevelopmentNo Influence 35.152.6 Some Influence42.335.3Major Influence22.612.2School District Input OnProfessional DevelopmentNo Influence 8.243.2 Some Influence28.727.3Major Influence63.129.5School-Based Management Committee InputOn Professional DevelopmentNo Influence 22.882.4 Some Influence28.49.9Major Influence48.77.7 Pearson chi-squares were conducted to ascertain the extent to which differences were present between public and private elementary schoo l principals for each individual decision and each individual decision-maker. This p rocedure permitted a detailed analysis of where specific differences might be in school-based management implementation.Six Pearson chi-squares were calculated to determin e whether public and private elementary school principals reported a different a mount of principal influence (i.e., 0, 1,

PAGE 16

16 of 31or 2) in each of the six decision categories. The f irst chi-square revealed a statistically significant difference between public and private e lementary school principals in the degree of principal influence regarding establishin g criteria for the hiring and firing of teachers, 2(2) = 17.23, p < .0001. As reported in Table 1, private elementar y school principals (91.8%) indicated they had significantly more influence in the hiring and firing of teachers than was indicated by the public elementary school principals (78.5%). A second chi-square yielded a statistically signifi cant difference in the degree of principal influence regarding the selection of text books, 2(2) = 78.60, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 2, private elementary school prin cipals (83.1%) indicated they had significantly more influence in the selection of te xtbooks than was indicated by public elementary school principals (46.2%). A third chi-s quare revealed the presence of a statistically significant difference in the degree of principal influence in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards, 2(2) = 72.07, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 3, private elementary school principals (88.6%) indica ted that they had significantly more influence in the setting of curricular guidelines a nd standards than was indicated by the public elementary school principals (54.1%).In the fourth chi-square, a statistically significa nt difference was noted in the degree of principal influence on establishing policies and pr actices for student grading and evaluation, 2(2) = 56.58, p < .0001. As shown in Table 4, private elementary s chool principals (88.4%) indicated that they had signific antly more influence in establishing policies and practices for grading and evaluation t han was reported by the public elementary school principals (58.4%).In terms of school discretionary funds, no statisti cally significant difference was noted between public and private elementary school princi pals. See Table 5 for exact percentages. Regarding professional development, a chi-square yielded a statistically significant difference in the degree of principal i nfluence between public and private elementary school principals, 2(2) = 19.42, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 6, private elementary school principals (93.0%) indicated that they had significantly more influence in professional development planning than was indicated by the public elementary school principals (78.8%). The effect si zes for the five statistically significant differences between public and private elementary school principals ranged from small (hiring and firing; policies and practic es for grading; professional development) to moderate (selection of textbooks; c urricular guidelines and standards) in size (Cohen, 1988).Another chi-square revealed a statistically signifi cant difference between public and private elementary school principals in the degree of teacher influence regarding establishing criteria for the hiring and firing of teachers, 2(2) = 25.05, p < .0001. As reported in Table 1, public elementary school princ ipals (23.0%) indicated that teachers had significantly more influence in the hiring and firing of teachers than was indicated by the private elementary school principals (11.6%) A second chi-square yielded a statistically significant difference in the degree of teacher influence regarding the selection of textbooks, 2(2) = 6.03, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 2, private elementary school principals (83.3%) indicated that they had significantly more influence in the selection of textbooks than was in dicated by the public elementary school principals (74.6%). A third chi-square revea led the presence of a statistically

PAGE 17

17 of 31significant difference in the degree of teacher inf luence in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards, 2(2) = 14.74, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 3, private elementary school principals (69.2%) indicated that they had significantly more influence in the setting of curricular guidelines a nd standards than was indicated by the public elementary school principals (52.8%). In the fourth chi-square, a statistically significant difference was not noted in the degree of teacher influence on establishing policies and practices for student grading and eval uation. See Table 4, for exact percentages.In terms of school discretionary funds, a statistic ally significant difference was noted between public and private elementary school princi pals regarding teacher influence,2(2) = 21.07, p < .0001 as depicted in Table 5. Regarding professi onal development, a chi-square did not yield a statistically significan t difference in the degree of teacher influence between public and private elementary sch ool principals. See Table 6 for exact percentages. The effect sizes for the five statisti cally significant differences between public and private elementary school teachers were small (hiring and firing; textbooks; curricular guidelines and standards; discretionary funds, and professional development) were small in size (Cohen, 1988).Another chi-square did not reveal a statistically s ignificant difference between public and private elementary school principals in the deg ree of parent influence regarding establishing criteria for the hiring and firing of teachers. See Table 1 for percentages. A second chi-square yielded a statistically significa nt difference in the degree of parent influence regarding the selection of textbooks, 2(2) = 7.56, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 2, public elementary school principals (6.3%) indicated that they had significantly more influence in the selection of textbooks than w as indicated by private elementary school principals (4.3%). A third chi-square reveal ed the presence of a statistically significant difference in degree of parent influenc e in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards, 2(2) = 20.66, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 3, public elementary school principals (7.3%) indicated that they had si gnificantly more influence in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards than was indicated by the private elementary school principals (2.4%).In the fourth chi-square, a statistically significa nt difference was noted in the degree of parent influence on establishing policies and pract ices for student grading and evaluation, 2(2) = 28.35, p < .0001. As shown in Table 4, public elementary sc hool principals (7.3%) indicated that they had significa ntly more influence in establishing policies and practices for grading and evaluation t han was reported by the private elementary school principals (3.1%).In terms of school discretionary funds, no statisti cally significant difference was noted between public and private elementary school princi pals. See Table 5 for exact percentages. Regarding professional development, no statistically significant difference was noted between public and private elementary sch ool principals. See Table 6 for exact percentages. The effect sizes for the three s tatistically significant differences between public and private elementary school princi pals (selection of textbooks; curricular guidelines and standards; and policies a nd practices for grading) were small in size (Cohen, 1988).

PAGE 18

18 of 31Another first chi-square revealed a statistically s ignificant difference between public and private elementary school principals in the degree of school board influence regarding establishing criteria for the hiring and firing of teachers, 2(2) = 52.73, p < .0001. As reported in Table 1, public elementary school princ ipals (60.9%) indicated that they had significantly more influence in the hiring and firi ng of teachers than was indicated by the private elementary school parents (33.1%). A second chi-square yielded a statistically significant difference in the degree of school boar d influence regarding the selection of textbooks, 2(2) = 71.49, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 2, public elementary school principals (38.6%) indicated that they had signific antly more influence in the selection of textbooks than was indicated by the private elem entary school principals (9.6%). A third chi-square revealed the presence of a statist ically significant difference in the degree of school board influence in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards,2(2) = 105.02, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 3, public elementary school principals (62.7%) indicated that they had significantly more influence in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards than was indicated by the private elementary school principals (21.0%).In the fourth chi-square, a statistically significa nt difference was noted between public and private elementary school principals regarding school board influence on establishing policies on student grading, 2(2) = 121.93, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 4, public elementary school principals (57.7%) indi cated that they had significantly more influence on establishing policies on student gradi ng than was indicated by the private elementary school principals (18.1%).In terms of school discretionary funds, a statistic ally significant difference was not noted between public and private elementary school princi pals. See Table 5 for percentages. Regarding professional development, a statistically significant difference was noted between public and private elementary school princi pals regarding school board influence on professional development, 2(2) = 17.12, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 6, public elementary school principals (22.6%) indicat ed that they had significantly more influence on establishing policies on student gradi ng than was indicated by the private elementary school principals (12.2%). The effect si zes for the five statistically significant differences between public and private elementary school principals were small (hiring and firing teachers; and professional development) were small in size. The effect sizes for selection of textbooks; curricular guidelines and standards; and policies for student grading were moderate (Cohen, 1988).Another chi-square revealed a statistically signifi cant difference between public and private elementary school principals in the degree of school district influence regarding establishing criteria for the hiring and firing of teachers, 2(2) = 135.58, p < .0001. As reported in Table 1, public elementary school princ ipals (67.8%) indicated that they had significantly more influence in the hiring and firi ng of teachers than was indicated by the private elementary school principals (25.4%). A sec ond chi-square yielded a statistically significant difference in the degree of school dist rict influence regarding the selection of textbooks, 2(2) = 115.93, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 2, public elementary school principals (57.8%) indicated that they had signific antly more influence in the selection of textbooks than was indicated by the private elem entary school principals (18.4%). A

PAGE 19

19 of 31third chi-square revealed the presence of a statist ically significant difference in the degree of school district influence in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards,2(2) = 139.94, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 3, public elementary school principals (80.0%) indicated they had significantly more influ ence in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards than was indicated by priv ate elementary school principals (42.1%).In the fourth chi-square, a statistically significa nt difference was noted between public and private elementary school principals regarding school district influence on establishing policies on student grading, 2(2) = 138.73, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 4, public elementary school principals (71.5%) indi cated that they had significantly more influence on establishing policies on student gradi ng than was indicated by the private elementary school principals (37.9%).In terms of school discretionary funds, a statistic ally significant difference was noted between public and private elementary school princi pals regarding the spending of school discretionary funds, 2(2) = 107.48, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 5, public elementary school principals (32.9%) indicated that they had significantly more influence on spending school discretionary funds th an was indicated by the private elementary school principals (4.9%). Regarding prof essional development, a statistically significant difference was noted between public and private elementary school principals regarding school district influence on professional development, 2(2) = 103.68, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 6, public elementary sc hool principals (63.1%) indicated that they had significantly more influence on profe ssional development than was indicated by private elementary school principals ( 29.5%). The effect sizes for the six statistically significant differences between publi c and private elementary school principals were moderate (hiring and firing teacher s; selection of textbooks; curricular guidelines and standards; policies for student grad ing; discretionary school funds; and professional development) were moderate in size (Co hen, 1988). Another chi-square revealed a statistically signifi cant difference between public and private elementary school principals in the degree of school-based management committee influence regarding establishing criteria for the hiring and firing of teachers,2(2) = 17.95, p < .0001. As reported in Table 1, public elementary school principals (15.9%) indicated that they had significantly more influence in the hiring and firing of teachers than was indicated by the private elementa ry school principals (7.5%). A second chi-square yielded a statistically significa nt difference in the degree of school-based management committee influence regardi ng the selection of textbooks,2(2) = 55.28, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 2, public elementary school principals (33.5%) indicated that they had significantly more influence in the selection of textbooks than was indicated by the private elementary school principals (4.3%). A third chi-square revealed the presence of a statistically significant difference in the degree of school-based management committee influence in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards, 2(2) = 62.13, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 3, public elementary school principals (30.1%) indicated that they had s ignificantly more influence in the setting of curricular guidelines and standards than was indicated by the private elementary school principals (11.7%).

PAGE 20

20 of 31In the fourth chi-square, a statistically significa nt difference was noted between public and private elementary school principals regarding the influence of the school-based management committee influence on establishing poli cies on student grading, 2(2) = 62.11, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 4, public elementary school principals (30.1%) indicated that they had significantly more influenc e on establishing policies on student grading than was indicated by the private elementar y school principals (8.5%). In terms of school discretionary funds, a statistic ally significant difference was noted between public and private elementary school princi pals regarding school-based management committee influence on the spending of s chool discretionary funds, 2(2) =88.66, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 5, public elementary school principals (47.3%) indicated that they had significantly more influenc e on spending school discretionary funds than was indicated by private elementary scho ol principals (14.0%). Regarding professional development, a statistically significa nt difference was noted between public and private elementary school principals regarding school-based management committee influence on professional development, 2(2) = 120.76, p < .0001. As depicted in Table 6, public elementary school principals (48.7%) indi cated that they had significantly more influence on professional development than was indi cated by the private elementary school principals (7.7%). The effect sizes for the five statistically significant differences between public and private elementary school princi pals were moderate (selection of textbooks; curricular guidelines and standards; pol icies for student grading; discretionary school funds; and professional development) were mo derate in size. There was one statistically significant difference between public and private elementary school principals that was small, hiring and firing of tea chers (Cohen, 1988). In sum, differences were present regarding the impl ementation of school-based management across the United States in public and p rivate elementary schools. Furthermore, differences regarding the influence di fferent decision-makers have in the six areas of decisions made in elementary schools w ere also reported by all respondents to be present.DiscussionPublic school principals also reported a high degre e of involvement by the school-based management committee regarding influence across all six decision categories namely, hiring/firing teachers, selecting textbooks, settin g curricular guidelines/standards, establishing policies and practices for student gra ding/evaluation, deciding how school discretionary funds will be spent, and planning pro fessional development. Responses from private school principals indicated a low degr ee of school-based management decision-making committee involvement regarding inf luence across all six-decision categories. This finding may again be due to the la ck of federal and state mandates for the implementation of shared governance (Rodriguez, 2000). Revealed within the literature was that federal legislation, state regu lations, district mandates, local and community interests, all have demanded change in pu blic schools but not private schools. In addition, because construction of campu s improvement plans call for the expertise of many people in a variety of areas, pub lic school principals may be more open to the input of others who are knowledgeable. Private school principals are not required to comply with state regulations (Rodrigue z, 2000). After all, school-based

PAGE 21

21 of 31management is a structure and process that allows f or greater decision-making power related to the areas of instruction, budget, polici es, rules and regulation, staffing, and all matters of governance (Herman & Herman, 1994). The more administrators deem stakeholder input to be important, the more likely they may be to empower those stakeholders (Glickman, 1993; Herman & Herman, 1994 ; Schlechty, 1997; Sergiovanni, 1992 & 1994).Though different perceptions exist about the role a nd function of school-based management in schools, no standard operating model exists of shared governance for public or private schools. Murphy and Beck (1995) a rgued that the elusiveness of decentralized participation as a construct also cre ates challenges for the SBM implementation process. As a result, this change pr ocess involves controversies, conflicts, frustrations, and ultimately satisfactio n when educators exert a collective will to do more for all their students (Glickman, 1993). In addition, this reform movement of SBM in the United States is based on the shared bel ief that the best education grows out of the wisdom, care, and diligence of members of lo cal schools and local communities who take on greater authority, autonomy, and public responsibility for their students (Glickman, 1993). Public school respondents suggest that public schools are generally willing to explore and make changes in their school whereby private schools are reluctant to change their school environment.Consequently, some public elementary school princip als may also be responding more than private elementary school principals to the lo w morale of school employees and the decrease in organizational effectiveness, and thus are making school structural changes. Educational systems in the United States have been publicly criticized for being disorganized and having little apathy for the pligh t of their employees (Conley, 1993; Schlechty, 1997). Therefore, it seems natural that some school principals would consider school-based management as opposed to traditional s chool structures. Although the implementation of SBM varies from school to school, its focus on collaboration and shared governance are seen as essential to school r estructuring (Schlechty, 1997). Glickman (1993) reported that schools need to make their own judgments regarding the best way to proceed at any particular moment and ea ch school must choose their own model for shared governance. Furthermore school-bas ed decision-making training for committee members often encompasses the constructio n of improvement plans (Rodriguez, 2000). Though both public and private e lementary school principals perceived degrees of involvement by committees, pub lic school respondents indicated a higher degree of school-based management implementa tion than private school respondents. The difference may be that some public elementary schools foster educational citizenry for a democracy and attempt t o model the concept of shared governance in their school whereas others do not va lue democracy as a priority belief (Conley, 1993). Private elementary schools may choo se to maintain a neutral position and stay true to the philosophy for their school. A democratic form of school governance strives for decisions that focus on matters of scho ol-wide education, is fair and equal in the distribution of power and is morally consistent with the goal of democratic engagement of students (Glickman, 1993).Percentages of public and private elementary school principal responses regarding the influence of decision-makers on the hiring/firing o f teachers, selection of textbooks, setting curricular guidelines and standards, establ ishing policies and practices for student grading/evaluation, deciding how school discretiona ry funds will be spent, and planning

PAGE 22

22 of 31for professional development were investigated. Pub lic elementary school principals indicated a higher degree of influence by teachers, school boards, school districts, and school-based management committees on the hiring/fi ring of teachers at their school. Private elementary school principals reported a hig her degree of influence for the principal and parents. In contrast, in a study by t he National Center for Education Statistics (1997) when comparing ratings for 1987-8 8 to those ratings for 1993-94, evidence was present of an increase in public schoo l principal influence over hiring new teachers (5.3 versus 4.9). Perhaps this difference in perception may be due to the fact that private school principals are expected to be t he individual responsible for their school teaching staff and only need to respond to t he parents who pay tuition for their children's education. Public elementary school prin cipals view themselves and their school as only one voice in many with regard to the hiring/firing of teachers at their school (Sergiovanni, 1994). In contrast, Synder and colleagues (1997) reported a different view on the issue of hiring/firing of tea chers when investigating the condition of public and private schools in 1997. Only a small percentage of public and private elementary school teachers were likely to think tha t they had a great deal of influence over the hiring/firing of teachers.Public elementary school principals also indicated a higher degree of influence by parents, school boards, school districts, and schoo l-based management committees on the selection of textbooks. Private elementary scho ol principals reported a higher degree of influence for the principal and teachers. This i nfluence may suggest that public elementary schools have progressed to a level of pa rtnership with their school district personnel and school board in regard to shared gove rnance, whereby private schools are not motivated to include various stakeholders in th eir decision-making (Sergiovanni, 1994). Perhaps this difference in perception may be explained by the fact that private elementary school principals are expected to be the person responsible to a lesser degree along with their teachers (Snyder, 1997). Additiona lly, private elementary schools do not have state mandates on the selection of their textb ooks. But public elementary schools must comply with the use of state-selected books (B aker et al., 1996). Textbook companies are big business in public school educati on. In contrast, research by Synder and colleagues (1997) indicated different findings concerning textbook selection; they discovered that relatively few teachers in public a nd private schools thought that they had a good deal of control over the selection of te xtbooks. Public elementary school principals again indicated a higher degree of influence by parents, school boards, school districts, and schoo l-based management committees on setting curricular guidelines and standards. Privat e elementary school principals again reported a higher degree of influence for the princ ipal and teachers. Snyder and colleagues (1997), using national data survey resul ts, agreed that private school principals were more likely to report that they, ra ther than any other group, had a great deal of influence on establishing curriculum. In ad dition, public school principals attributed more influence to the State Department o f Education, school district staff (which private schools do not have), and even to te achers than to themselves (Synder, 1997). Therefore, the possibility may exist that th e difference in perception may be because private elementary school principals consid er themselves to be the sole decision-maker concerning curriculum planning and i nstruction. Public elementary schools, conversely, are expected to include all st akeholders in the district and the school board to design the school curriculum and instructi on.

PAGE 23

23 of 31Public elementary school principals also indicated a higher degree of influence by parents, school boards, school districts, and schoo l-based management committees on establishing policies and practices for student gra ding/evaluation. Private elementary school principals again reported a higher degree of influence for the principal and teachers. In the 1993-94 national study (NCES) by S ynder and colleagues (1997), private school principals and teachers reported that they b elieved they had a great deal of influence on a number of school policy areas. One c an deduce again that the difference in perception may be because private elementary sch ool principals are viewed to be the only decision-makers along with teachers on the est ablishment of policies and practices for student grading/evaluation by tuition paying pa rents. Public elementary schools, conversely, are expected to include all stakeholder s of the district and the school board to design the establishment of policies and practic es for student grading/evaluation (Glickman, 1993; Herman & Herman, 1994; Rodriguez, 2000). Public elementary school principals once more indic ated a higher degree of influence by teachers, school districts, and school-based manage ment committees on deciding how school discretionary funds will be spent. Private e lementary school principals in contrast reported a higher degree of influence for the princ ipal, parents, and school board. Therefore, the possibility may exist that the diffe rence in perception may be that private elementary school principals are responsible for th e design of the school budget along with parents and the school board, which are usuall y composed of tuition-paying parents (Baker et al., 1996). Public elementary schools, co nversely, are mandated by the state to include all stakeholders of the district and the sc hool board to design the school budget. Public elementary school principals, district perso nnel and board members are all together accountable to the state and tax-payers fo r responsible spending of public funds (Rodriguez, 2000). In contrast, Synder and colleagu es (1997) reported a different view on the issue of fiscal spending when investigating the condition of public and private schools in 1997. Only a small percentage of public and private school teachers were likely to think that they had a great deal of influ ence over budget spending. Accordingly, some public and private school districts may say th ey are all in favor of school-based management, as long as they do not have to do anyth ing differently. This unwillingness to look at underlying assumptions, values, beliefs, practices, and relationships can prevent schools from coming to grips with the profo und and disturbing implications of true restructuring (Conley, 1993).Public elementary school principals yet again indic ated a higher degree of influence by teachers, parents, school boards, school districts, and school-based management committees on planning professional development. Pr ivate elementary schools in contrast reported a higher degree of influence for only the principal. It is possible that private elementary school principals again view the mselves as the sole person responsible for the planning of professional develo pment for their teachers as parents hold them accountable for the instructional program at their school. Public schools, conversely, are expected to include all stakeholder s with the assistance of district personnel and the school board to plan the professi onal development of teachers at their campus (Conley, 1993). Findings from the 1997 natio nal report of public and private schools indicated that on certain measures, public school teachers appear to be more qualified in terms of their education than their pr ivate school counterparts. Accordingly, public school teachers were also more likely to par ticipate in professional development activities. They believe that teachers, as professi onals, should update and improve their

PAGE 24

24 of 31teaching skills throughout their career (Sergiovann i, 1994). Snyder and colleagues continued to report that beginning teachers in publ ic schools (those teachers in their first 3 years of teaching) were much more likely than the ir private school counterparts to participate in a formal teacher induction program ( 56% versus 29%). However, induction may be done informally in some schools. A possible explanation for public school teacher participation in professional develo pment could be that teachers have a sense of ownership in their professional developmen t and private school teachers do not experience this ownership for their professional tr aining. Public schools are in the process of second-order c hange or restructuring. This change might explain a high degree of implementation of sc hool-based management by public schools. They are altering the ways in which school s are put together, including the development of new goals, structures, and roles as opposed to the first-order change, which may be found in private schools with a tradit ional form of school governance. Conley (1993) reported that first-order change impr oves the efficiency and effectiveness of what is already occurring without disturbing the basic organizational features, without substantially altering the way that children and ad ults perform their roles. School-based management is commonly applied to only a small subset of the constellation of decisions that go into running a s chool (Bimber, 1993). Consequently, some school districts have decentralized budgetary decisions but not decisions about personnel or curriculum. Some have decentralized as pects of curriculum only, and others have decentralized other different combinations. Bi mber (1993) argued that often SBM plans give authority to schools over marginal issue s only; for example safety, and career education. Accordingly, shared decision-making gene rally does little to change the fact that most schools have discretion over much less th an 10% of the money spent within their walls (Bimber, 1993).Implications for Future ResearchValue exists in employing multiple methods and mult iple perspectives to produce a more focused and realistic understanding of issues challenging education. Miles and Huberman (1994) are strong advocates of the develop mental mixed methods design, where researchers incorporate alternating quantitat ive and qualitative phases, which build on, and inform one another to produce superio r results. The design of this quantitative study evolved from prior quantitative research; the findings now allude to questions that could be answered through one-to-one interviews with a purposefully selected sample of principals, teachers, and parent s (Miles & Huberman, 1994). For example, the administrator response to the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 questionnaire suggests topics for further research The fact that the administrator of both public and priv ate schools indicated low degrees of parent involvement in their school-based management committees raises questions concerning the inclusion of all stakeholders. Why a re parents not more involved in the decision-making process at their school? In addition, the differences discovered in this stu dy regarding the decision-making influence of various stakeholders in school-based m anagement committees requires some further investigation to understand better the environment of our nation's schools. A need exists to explore the training of school-bas ed management committee members.

PAGE 25

25 of 31Training for SBM committee members and school staff serving on decision-making committees appears not to be prevalent based on a r eview of the literature (Conley, 1993). An additional area for future research is to explor e the effects of school-based management on student performance using qualitative research at individual schools in the United States and at different stages of school -based implementation (Rodriguez, 2000). The majority of research on shared governanc e has focused on process and not product. Rodriguez (2000) suggested that the litera ture on this topic illustrates a profusion of material on what should occur, how to do it, and the practices that effective school-based managed schools should engage in. The question to ask is whether or not students who attend public and private schools that implement the school-based management model receive a better education than st udents who attend schools that follow the traditional model.The theory behind school-based management implies t hat school leadership is the key to implementation of shared governance in our elementa ry public and private schools (Conley, 1993; Deal & Peterson, 1994; Herman & Herm an, 1994). Shared leadership should be an important research focus (Sergiovanni, 1994). Researchers could empirically be examined by researchers regarding th e concept of shared governance and its contribution to school climate, school developm ent, and school effectiveness at the elementary level. Furthermore, a close investigatio n of the relationship between the school leadership role and the model of school effe ctiveness at not only the national level but also at the state level could aid in the improvement of effective leadership. For example, Rodriguez (2000) examined shared governanc e in the state of Texas as reported in this study. Accordingly, the next relea se of data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten 1999-2000 from the National Center of Education Statistics will provide another opportunity to obta in a portrait of shared governance in public and private schools in the United States for that period of time and to examine changes in the principalship since 1998-1999.Finally, another area for research relates to the e ducational reform initiatives and shared decision-making. That is, researchers could focus o n specific reform initiatives and investigate the extent to which shared decision-mak ing changes or has changed as a result of the reform initiative. It may be that sta tes or schools actively involved in educational reform may have greater shared decision -making practices than those states or schools not as involved in educational reform.ConclusionsAccording to our findings, public school principals have implemented school-based management to a higher degree than private schools. Furthermore, survey responses from public school principals, as a whole, indicate d a higher degree of implementation regarding the influence and involvement of decision -makers on the six categories of decisions made at their schools: hiring/firing of t eachers, selection of textbooks, setting curricular guidelines/standards, establishing polic ies and practices for student grading/evaluation, deciding how school discretiona ry funds will be spent, and professional development planning.From this study, new insights regarding the extent to which principals implement

PAGE 26

26 of 31school-based management and the inclusion of stakeh olders in school-based management committees across the United States were established. These new insights provide an authentic context from which to conduct further study of school-based management in our public and private schools on the state and national levels.ReferencesBaker, D., Han, M., & Keil, C. T. (1996). U.S. Depa rtment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, How different, how similar? Comparing key organizational qualities of American public and pri vate secondary schools Washington, D.C.Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, a nd principals can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bimber, B. (1993). School decentralization: Lessons from the study of bureaucracy. Santa Monica, California: RAND Institute.Blas, J., & Blas, J. (1997). The fire is back! Principals sharing school governa nce. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.Brown, D. J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. London: The Falmer Press.Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good Mass.: Harvard University Press. Carlson, R. V. (1996). Reframing & reform: Perspectives on organization, l eadership, and school change. New York: Longman Publishers. Chapman, J. (1990). School-based decision-making an d management: Implications for school personnel. In C. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management. London: Falmer. Cheng, Y. C. (1996). School effectiveness and school based management: A mechanism for development. New York: The Falmer Press. Choy, S. P. (1998). Public vs. private schools. Principal, 77 (5), 1-4. Clark, D. L., & Meloy, J. M. (1989). Renouncing bur eaucracy: A democratic structure for leadership in schools. In T. J. Sergiovanni, & J. A. Moore, (Eds.) Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reform to issues that count. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Clune, H. H., & White, P. A. (1988). School-based management: Institutional variations, implementation, and issues for further research. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Policy Research in Education.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral scien ces (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.Conley, D. T. (1993). Roadmap to restructuring: Policies, practices and t he emerging

PAGE 27

27 of 31visions of schooling. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.Dade County Public Schools (1989). Renaissance in education. Miami, Florida: Author. Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Fernandez, J. A. (1989, May). Dade County public sc hools' blueprint for restructured schools. Paper presented at the conference on choic e and control in American education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. In J. Murphy, & L. Beck, School-based management as school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America's schools: A guide for school-base d action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Guthrie, J. W. (1986, December). School-based manag ement: The next needed education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (4), 305-309. Hammer, C. (1997). U.S. Department of Education, Na tional Center for Education Statistics, Public and private school principals in the United States: A statistical profile, 1987-88 to 1993-94 Washington, D.C. Hannaway, J. (1992, March). Decentralization in education: Technical demands as a critical ingredient. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345 362 ). Herman, J. J., & Herman, J. L. (1994). Making change happen: Practical planning for school leaders. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc. Hess, G. A. Jr. (1991, February). School restructuring, Chicago style: A midway repor t. Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance. Hill, P. T., & Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and accountability in public educa tion. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Lindelow, J. (1981). School-based management. In Sm ith, S. C., Mazzarella, J. A., & Piele, P. K. (Eds.) School leadership: Handbook for survival. Eugene: University of Oregon, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational managemen t. Livingston, M. J., Slate, J. R., & Gibbs, A. (1999) Shared decision-making and practices of rural school principals. Rural Educator, 21 (1), 20-26. Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1989). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literatureA call for research. Paper presented at the conference on Choice and Control in American Educat ion, University of Wisconsin-Madison, May 17-19.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis Thousand Oakes, California: Sage Publications, Inc.Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press.

PAGE 28

28 of 31Murphy, J., & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Reynolds, L. J. (1997). Successful site-based management: A practical guide Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.Rodriguez, T. A. (2000). The implementation of site-based management across Texas: An empirical study (doctoral dissertation University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX). Schlechty, P. C. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educat ional reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the l earning organization. New York: Doubleday.Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school im provement. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers.Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon Publishers.Smith, W. E. (1993, April). Teachers' perceptions of role change through shared decision making: A two-year case study. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia. Snyder, T. (1997). U.S. Department of Education, Na tional Center for Education Statistics, Findings from the condition of education 1997: Publ ic and private schools: How do they differ? Washington, D.C. Steffy, B. E. (1993). The Kentucky education reform: Lessons for America. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.Texas Education Code. (1991). Chapter 21, Section 2 1.931. Texas Education Agency. (1992). Resource guide on site-based decision-making and district and campus planning. Austin, Texas (II-1). Texas Education Agency. (1997-1998). Snapshot view of Texas. Austin, Texas. U.S. Department of Education. (1998, May). Turning around low-performing schools: A guide for state and local leaders. Washington, D.C.: Planning and Evaluation Service. Vann, A. S. (1999, Fall). Shared decision-making: A paper tiger? Educational Horizons, 78 (1), 16-17. Watkins, J. M., & Lusi, S. F. (1989, May). Facing the essential tensions: Restructuring from where you are. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri can Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

PAGE 29

29 of 31 West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (2000, April). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics America's Kindergartners: Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kinder garten Class of 1998-1999 NCES 2000-070 (Revised), Project Officer, Jerry West. Wa shington, DC. Wohlstetter, P., & Buffet, T. (1991, March). School-based management in big city districts: Are dollars decentralized too? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.About the AuthorsMary T. Apodaca-TuckerNew Mexico State UniversityMary T. Apodaca-Tucker obtained her Ed.D. in Educat ional Administration from the University of Texas at El Paso in 2001. She is curr ently a professor at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico teaching Educa tional Administration courses focused on the Principalship. She has over 30 years of experience teaching and working as an administrator within the El Paso area and has also worked as an Area Superintendent for the Austin ISD. To date, She aut hored "Understanding Restructuring in Practice: A Study of Teachers' Perceptions of Or ganizational Interventions and Core Technology on Student Success," Planning and Change (1997) and "Shared Decision-Making: Beliefs and Practices of Principal s at the U.S. Mexico Border," International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning (2001). John R. SlateUniversity of Texas at El PasoJohn R. Slate received his Ph.D. from the Universit y of Tennessee in Knoxville in 1984. He is currently a Full Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations at The University of Texas at El Paso. His current interests are in examining school reform efforts, specifically throu gh analysis of large-scale databases such as state report cards and the National Assessm ent of Educational Progress.Copyright 2002 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: casey.cobb@unh.edu .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University

PAGE 30

30 of 31 John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov hmwkhelp@scott.net Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Education Commission of the States William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton apembert@pen.k12.va.us Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers California State University—Stanislaus Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven scriven@aol.com Robert E. Stake University of Illinois—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico roberto@servidor.unam.mx Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.angulo@uca.es Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx

PAGE 31

31 of 31 Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx kentr@data.net.mx Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica simon@openlink.com.br Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 10issue 23series Year mods:caption 20022002Month April4Day 2828mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2002-04-28