|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 of 24 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 10 Number 33August 4, 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. EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. 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 .The Politics of School-Based Management: Understanding the Process of Devolving Authority in Urban School Districts Elaine M. Walker Seton Hall UniversityCitation: Walker, E. M. (2002, August 4). The polit ics of school-based management: Understanding the process of devolving authority in urban school districts. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (33). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epa a/v10n33.html.AbstractSince the late 1970s the problem of urban education has been cast as partially a problem of governance and authority str uctures. This focus mirrors a larger preoccupation by educational refor mers with democratizing the decision-making process in public schools, a preoccupation that is evident not only in this coun try but also many nations throughout the world. Borrowing from the pr ivate sector, the underlying assumption behind decentralization is th at educational improvement is only possible if those closest to th e point at which decision are enacted become the architects of these decisions. Thus,
2 of 24school-based management or participatory decision-m aking is viewed as a means to formally incorporate the voices of paren ts, teachers and the community in the management of their schools. This paper discusses the findings of a recently conducted study on school-ba sed management in thirty of New Jersey's poorest districts (referred to as the Abbott Districts). These districts have begun a process o f complex reform after the State's Supreme Court ruled that the state had failed to constitutionally provide a thorough and efficient e ducation for its poorest students by the absence of parity funding. Populat ed by primarily black and Hispanic students, and representing most of the larger urban communities in the state, students in these distric ts exhibit performance levels significantly below that of the state averag e. The results of the study indicate that (1) genuine autonomy has been u surped by an intensification in state power and authority, (ii) state elites have provided little opportunity for districts and SBM teams to b uild capacity; (iii) the level of democratization or opening-up of decision making to local community members has been minimal as the teams bec ome teacher dominated; and (iv) in the absence of clear guidel ines from the State, conflict over the appropriate role of SBM members, principals, central office staff and local school boards has emerged. T he paper on the basis of these findings explores some policy options that need to be considered both at the state and local levels as school commun ities move toward more decentralized governance structures. IntroductionEducation remains one of the primary means through which social mobility is attained. Yet, the many discourses on the state of educationa l institutions suggest institutions that are imperiled for a variety of reasons. This crisi s in public education is viewed as more pronounced in communities peopled by the poor of La tino and AfricanAmerican descents than in white affluent communities. While the problems of these educational systems have been framed in many different ways, on e argument that has been consistently forwarded centers on the endemic paral ysis of their central bureaucratic structures in responding to efforts of change. Co nsequently, a popular policy solution has focused on the devolution of power and authorit y from these central bureaucracies to less formal and rigid structures i.e. schools. How ever, the history of the decentralization movement reveals noticeable ideological shifts behi nd the purpose of school-based management (SBM).During the sixties, attempts were made to increase the level of participation in decision-making through the formal incorporation of various subgroups. Concerned with such issues as granting greater power and authority to local communities, diffusing state authority and increasing organizational efficiency, the decentralization movements of this era saw the devolution of authority as a means of m eeting political and administrative ends (David, 1989; Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1996). T he eighties however, witnessed a change in the purposive intent behind decentralizat ion. This change resulted from the pervasive influence of the reform movements that do minated the educational landscape of this period. During the eighties, there was a br oad call for the implementation of
3 of 24comprehensive educational changes changes that ad dressed professional development and instruction, the replacement of bureaucratic re gulations with professional responsibility and accountability, and the developm ent of high standards for teachers as well as students (David, 1989). The focus of scho ol-based management thus became inextricably interwoven with concerns about student achievement. The growing popularity of school-based management a s a reform strategy is evidenced by the fact that in 1993 over 44 states practiced some form of decentralized governance (Herman & Herman, 1993). Within the broader global context, decentralization became an integral component of the reform movements in co untries such as New Zealand, Canada, Britain, Spain, and Wales (Hanson & Ulrich, 1994; Leithwood & Menzies, 1998). Ironically, at the same time that increasin g numbers of school districts, states, and nations were adopting decentralization policies in the hope of bringing about improvement in student achievement, the evidence su ggested that school-based management was less powerful a source of school imp rovement than its advocates believed. Indeed, the evidence continues to show t hat the impact of school-based management is more apparent in the areas of governa nce and organizational structures than in changed classroom practices and improved st udent achievement (Summers & Johnson, 1991; Wohlstetter & Mohrman 1996).Notwithstanding this trend, several arguments have been advanced by proponents of decentralization in support of the superiority of t his form of governance arrangement over centralized structures (Murphy, 1991). First, it is argued that decentralization gives communities, parents and teachers a stake in local educational decision-making. Second, decentralization is seen to contribute to the evolu tion of greater levels of professional commitment by allowing teachers to exercise a voice in decision-making. Third, the suggestion is proffered that the creation of decisi ons at levels that are closest to students, results in better outcomes, as those making the dec isions are more acutely aware of the needs of these students. Fourth, decentralization is viewed as a mechanism that has the potential to promote greater efficiency in the util ization and expenditure of resources. This is achieved, since the decisions are being mad e by those closest to the point where services are being delivered, thereby resulting in a greater match of services to needs. Fifth, since bureaucracies are perceived to be inef fective in meeting the needs of students, decentralized structures are considered to have the potential to be more responsive to student needs than are bureaucratic organizational forms.The Theoretical Underpinnings of School-Based Manag ementThe above arguments on the advantages of this form of school governance reveal some important theoretical assumptions. Undoubtedly, the notion of decentralization in educational decision-making and governance issues a ppeals to the social democratic principles of egalitarianism whereby local communit ies acquire a voice in institutional building and operation (Seddon, Angus & Poole, 1990 ). If this principle is actualized through the creation of democratic decision-making structures, a significant shift in the realignment of power relationships can be expected to occur. Specifically, grass root groups functioning in some combination with schoolbased leadership ideally would replace the dominance enjoyed by educational bureau cratic elites in local school governance matters. Devolution of authority thus en ables the education constituency to become more inclusive and less narrowly restricted to technocrats. By accomplishing this, the balance of power between educational elit es on the one hand, and local
4 of 24community and school-based actors on the other, is redistributed to the advantage of the latter group (Seddon, Angus & Poole, 1990). Theoretically, this redistribution of power corresp onds to a re-conceptualization of the organizational unit deemed to be most important adm inistratively for the improvement of learning. Under the old governance model, central o ffice units were considered to have the administrative responsibility for ensuring that the conditions needed to promote learning were in place. With decentralization, the school as a subunit now assumes this role.Organizational and economic arguments have also pla yed a role in framing some of the assumptions on which the concept of decentralizatio n of authority structures in educational settings is grounded. Some organizatio nal theorists argue that a decentralized environment is optimal for efficiency in operations since employees who are empowered to make decisions have more control over their work and hence become more accountable for decisions (Murphy, 1991). The prem ise of these arguments is that by flattening the decision-making process, and bringin g it closer to the site where client needs are met, the effectiveness of the organizatio n is improved, as employees based on their knowledge and interactions with clients can r eshape their products and services based on an understanding of client needs.Miron (1996) posits to the contrary however, that t he incorporation of corporate principles of decentralization as reflected in the ideology of shared decisionmaking ought to be approached with caution by educators. According to Miron, corporate downsizing and decentralization of decision-making represented a strategic response by capital to the global fiscal crisis. However, the relative complexity of schools' institutional processes when compared to those in t he corporate world implies that the importation of the logic of capital' into educatio nal institutions can create a set of discursive practices, as well as mask some of the m acrostructural and micropolitical processes that are in play. In a similar vein, Ball and Smyth have advanced a c ritical political-economic perspective on school-based management (Ball, 1993; Smyth, 1993 ). Both have advanced the notion that decentralization ought to be understood within the context of resource availability, social responsibility, and accountability. From th ese writers' perspectives, the social democratic principles on which decentralization is premised, and which appear appealing to constituencies whose voices have been rendered m ute by educational elites, belie some of the hidden motivation behind those at state and governmental levels who push this form of governance. Specifically, the argument is posited that the devolution of authority from central sources, especially at the state level serves to legitimize state agencies in many ways. First, it gives the appearance that th ese agencies are sensitive to local needs. Second, by shifting decision-making respons ibilities to the schools, these agencies can distance themselves from failed policies by bla ming schools for poor management and flawed decision-making. This works in the favo r of state elites by insulating them from the consequences and contradictions that are g enerated by the formulation of poor policies.Moreover, both Ball and Smyth view the devolution o f authority to local schools as placing unfair burdens on schools in instances of r esource scarcity. Under these conditions, schools are placed in the unenviable po sition of having to make decisions on how to distribute scarce resources. However, in d oing so, decentralization serves an
5 of 24important conflict management function. Welier's re finement of the latent functions inhering in decentralization amplifies this underly ing thesis of the political-economy perspective (Weiler, 1990). Weiler argues that dece ntralization has two latent functions: one that serves to legitimize certain socio-politic al arrangements, the other that allows for the management of conflict. Welier suggests that i n policy contexts that are potentially highly conflictual, such as education policy arenas decentralization is politically instrumental in helping to diffuse and manage confl ict (See also Anderson & Dixon, 1993; Seddon, Angus & Poole, 1990).The opposing theoretical arguments that have been p resented in this paper imply that decentralization is far more complex in its implica tions for schools than is popularly understood. Not-with-standing the problems that ar e associated with highly centralized structures, the lack of any substantive data on the significant impact of decentralized forms of educational governance on student achievem ent coupled with the problems that have been encountered with the decentralization mov ement, suggest that closer intellectual scrutiny of this concept is warranted (Anderson & Dixon, 1993; Gordon, 1992; Wohlstetter & Odden, 1992).Purpose of StudyIn 1998, in its culminating decision on the legal c hallenges to the State of New Jersey's funding and educational policies with respect to th e state's poorest districts, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the implementation of a series of remedial measures aimed at redressing the long standing disparities between poor and affluent school districts. The decision referred to as Abbott V, sets out an ambit ious agenda for reform that includes changes in instructional programming through the ad option of whole school reform models, expansion of early childhood programming an d schoolcommunity social agency linkages, as well as improvement in facilities ( Abbott v. Burke 1998). According to regulations published by the New Jerse y Department of Education, the process of implementing the reforms ordered by the State's Supreme Court is to be guided and led by teachers, parents, community and other s chool level staff through the formal establishment of school management teams. The regu lation states that the purpose of these teams is to ensure participation of staff, p arents and the community in school level decision making and to develop a culture of coopera tion, accountability and commitment (New Jersey Department of Education, 20 00). To that end, the school management teams are expected to guide and lead dec isions on curricular, instructional, personnel and budgetary matters.This study in light of the preceding discussion on the unresolved theoretical and empirical issues plaguing the notion of participato ry decision-making, as well as New Jersey's current policy guidelines governing the im plementation of decentralization, raises and seeks to answer the following questions with re spect to school-based management in the state's thirty poorest districts. First, what i s the level of democratization that has occurred in these systems? This question is answere d through the posing of two related concerns; the extent to which participation in deci sion-making reflects the major constituencies that are intended to be on the schoo l-management teams; and the degree to which the process allows for the legitimate exercis e of decision-making and authority. Second, how has school-based management resulted in the successful devolution of authority from centralized to decentralized localit ies? The questions as they are posed,
6 of 24speak more to the issues of whether school-based ma nagement in its empirical form is consonant with the assumptions of democratizing dec ision-making and hence the social-democratic principle of egalitarianism and l ess with the effects of this form of governance on student achievement. MethodSample, Instrumentation and Data CollectionThis study employs a mixed method research design. In April 2000, a questionnaire was mailed to a randomly drawn sample of 140 elementary and middle schools' school management teams. Included in the survey were ques tions on team membership and composition, the extent to which factors identified as germane to a team's ability to function, such as training, and group coalescence i nfluenced the legitimate exercise of decision-making and the quality of support provided to the teams by the State Department of Education. The survey elicited a response rate o f 51%. The school management teams in the study represented four different cohorts of schools. These cohorts correspond to the timeframe in which the schools begun to impleme nt whole school reform. According to state regulations, schools had three y ears within which to begin their whole school reform process. Schools that started the pr ocess within the first year of the Court's decision were referred to as Cohort 1 schools. Sim ilarly, schools that begun in the second year were designated as Cohort 2 schools, schools d uring the middle of the second year mid-year cohort schools, and during the third year, Cohort 3 schools. In our sample there were 15 Cohort 1 school teams, 14 teams representin g Cohort 2 schools, 6 teams from mid-year Cohort schools, and 32 teams belonging to the third Cohort of schools. Five teams failed to identify their cohort status. Knowi ng the cohort status of the team is important to the study at hand, since Cohort 1 scho ol management teamsthat is teams belonging to schools who started the reform process a year after the Court rendered its decision in 1998had very little time to engage in quality planning. In addition to surveying the school management team s, two focus groups were held. The purpose of both focus groups was to gain an underst anding of the processes that were involved as authority got devolved from the central offices to the schools. The first focus group was held with one central office representati ve from six school districts. These districts were chosen to reflect the racial composi tion of their student bodies, their geographical locations in the State, their governan ce structures and when they were classified as being an Abbott District. A second, less formally structured focus group discussion was held with three superintendents in O ctober of the same year. These superintendents were executive members of the state wide association of urban superintendents.Data AnalysisThe data analysis involves the use of descriptive s tatistics and the statistical testing of associational relationships, through the use of Chi Square and Analysis of Variance. Standardized residuals are reported when significan t chi-square values were found. These residuals allow us to identify the categories that are making a significant contribution to the significant chi square value. Following Haberma n's guideline, it was inferred that where the standardized residual for a category is g reater than 2, that category is strongly
7 of 24contributing to the significant chi square value (H aberman, 1984). Tukey post hoc testing was done for those Anovas that were found to be sig nificant. Data gathered from the focus groups data was subjected to a qualitative an alysis. FindingsDegree of democratization of school-based managemen t in the Abbott Districts The New Jersey Department of Education guidelines s tate that the constituent groups that must be represented on the school management teams are the building principals, teachers, school-level support staff, parents, and community. The inclusion of students is an optional requirement that is left to the discret ion of the individual school. Groups or individuals excluded from membership on a team are Board of Education members and district employees who wish to serve in the capacit y of a parent or community representative. According to the regulations, no o ne group can constitute 50 percent or more of a team's total membership. Membership on a team is secured either through an electoral process or by selection. The minimum numb er of years that a given member can serve on a team is two, however, to ensure continui ty in the event of an election or selection, teams are allowed to stagger membership.Murphy and Beck (1995) suggest that school based ma nagement typically assumes one of three ideal forms; administrative control SBM (in t his model the principal is the primary decision maker), professional control (teachers are the primary decision makers) and community/parent control (community members and par ents comprise the major decision making groups). A fourth though less popular form is defined by Malen and Ogawa as balanced control (Hanson & Ulrich, 1994; Malen & Og awa, 1988). In this model an attempt is made to establish a balance in decisionmaking among all stakeholders. Within the context of New Jersey, it is clear from the regulations that the Department of Education promulgated that the attempt was to creat e a model that approximated a balanced control form of SBM. The guidelines state d that the model to be adopted by schools was one, which restricted the membership of any given stakeholder group to less than 50 percent of the total membership. In actuality however, the findings from the present study indicate that SBM in New Jersey is regressing towards a teacher-dominated fo rm of SBM. Of the sixty-nine teams with valid responses on membership composition ther e were 17 teams in which the teaching staff members represented more than 50% of the total membership and 13 teams on which teachers made up half or 50% of the total membership. Thus, 43% of the teams had at least half of their membership drawn from th e teaching staff. The dominance of teachers on the school management teams cut across all cohorts. However, proportionately more of the teams that were dominat ed by teachers were apt to be in schools belonging to the first cohort.With respect to representation from other stakehold ers, while more than 90 percent of the teams reported having at least one parent member, a bout 26 or approximately 38% of the teams were at the time of the study without communi ty representation. The twenty-six teams reporting no community presence were proporti onately distributed among the various cohorts, although slightly more 43% or 6 ou t of the 14 second year cohort teams in the study indicated that they had no community r epresentation. On the other hand, only 7 teams had no in school-support staff representati on. The data provided by the teams in
8 of 24the study reveals that most teams lacked student re presentation. Indeed 58 teams or roughly 83% of the teams reported that there was no student membership. In examining the degree of representation of the ma jor constituencies on the teams, the proportions for each group were calculated on the b asis of the size of the team. On the whole the median proportion for teachers was .47, f or parents .22 and for community members. 07. This implies that on half of the teams teachers made up 47% or more of the teams' membership, parents 22% and community st akeholders 7%. In-school support staff, and school administrators constitute the rem aining percentages. Parent and community groups thus accounted for about 29% of th e total memberships, while seventy-one percent of the teams' membership are dr awn from school-based personnel. These findings suggest that the evolution of school -based management in the Abbott districts has resulted in some instances, in struct ures, which deviate from what was originally intended. The balanced model, which was initially proposed, has not been the dominant form. Whether or not, school-based management has success fully resulted in democratizing the process of decision-making by incorporating the voi ces of key constituent groups remains therefore questionable in light of these findings. Even in those instances in which parental participation is secured, the dominance of school-b ased personnel has overshadowed the voices of parents. Kildow's case study of one team 's functioning described how the parent member frequently deferred to school-based m embers on all issues, and viewed herself as less empowered to make decisions when co mpared to her school-based counterparts (Kildow, 2000). What these findings s eem to suggest is that the social empowerment' of parents and communities that propon ents of this form of governance arrangement imply is attendant with participatory d ecision making has not occurred in the New Jersey reforms. Barriers to the legitimate exercise of decision-mak ing The primary responsibility of the teams is to devel op a plan that will guide the school's implementation of its whole school reform model. The teams are also responsible for ensuring that their schools' curriculum and instruc tion are aligned to the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards. They are expected to engage in a needs assessment process based on a review of student performance da ta on the statewide assessments and on the basis of this review make recommendations fo r curricular and instructional improvement. Teams are also required to ensure tha t there is a program of professional development for teachers in their individual school s linked to the school's whole school reform model. Each school is further responsible f or the development of a technology plan that is submitted to the Department of Educati on for approval. In addition to these responsibilities, the teams are also expected to en sure that there are programs and activities that are linked to the cross content rea diness standards in the core curriculum standards, as well as develop a school based reward system for teachers, administrators and parents who contribute to students successfully meeting these standards. Finally, the teams based on a majority vote and with state depar tment approval (through the School Review and Improvement Team) are responsible for ap proving a school budget and may recommend the appointment of a building principal, teaching staff member and instructional aides.The teams were asked to rate their abilities to fun ction effectively along several
9 of 24 operational dimensions that previous literature has identified to be important influences on a team's capacity to successfully govern. These dimensions include: clarity about roles and responsibilities, membership commitment, understanding of a shared mission, meeting schedules, attendance at meetings, effectiv eness in communicating with the larger school community and active as opposed to to ken participation in decision making. Overall, the teams in the present study ex hibited ambivalence in their evaluation of their abilities to effectively govern. Teams wer e unanimous that their membership was committed (86%) and that individual interests did n ot supersede the goals and mission of their work (88%). Neither did teams report that con flict among members posed a barrier to their ability to operate effectively (91%). Ind eed, ninety percent of the teams reported that they were able to deal constructively with dif ferences in opinions among themselves when these differences arose. However, when an exam ination of the association between team composition and the identification of barriers that impede the teams' abilities to function effectively was done, some interesting fin dings emerged. Teams that lacked community representation were mor e likely to indicate that individual members' self interests took precedence over team m atters. A chi-square value of 8.75 was found to be significant, and the standardized r esiduals showed values of 2 or greater for teams with poor community representation and th e identification of problems with individual self-interests. Also, teams with no com munity representation indicated that they were less likely to explore alternatives when making decisions than teams with community representation (Chi-Square value of 8.118 was found to be significant at the .044 level). Again, standardized residuals were la rger for these teams. On the other hand, teams without community representation were less li kely to report problems with attendance at meetings than those with community re presentations (Chi Square value of 6.109 was found to be significant at the .05 level) The data also showed, that teams who were cajoled to start their whole school reform pro cess early, that is cohort 1 teams, were significantly more likely to report problems with c ommitment, than those teams that started the process much later (Chi Square value of 9.456 was found to be significant at .045 level).Table 1 Association between Community Representation, Cohort Status and Factors Impacting a Team's Ability to Successfully Govern Relationships2Values Significance Level Community representation and Problems with individual interests taking precedence over team matters 9.640.01 Community representation and teams exploration of alternatives when making decisions 8.118.04 Community representation and attendance at meetings6.109.05 Cohort status and members commitment9.456.05
10 of 24 Note: Total number of teams in analyses of communit y representation: 69; number of teams in cohort analyses: 47.With respect to role clarity, about one-third of th e teams (31%) indicated that they were unclear as to their roles and responsibilities. Abo ut the same percentage (33%) also reported difficulties in communicating with their l arger school communities. Securing adequate involvement from all potential constituent groups was raised as another problem area affecting the ability to govern. The experien ces of teams in the larger school districts are instructive on this issue. According to these teams, the restrictive clause in the regulations which preclude in-district employee s from serving in the capacity of a parent or community representative has hampered the ir abilities to recruit membership, as a significant number of local residents have an emp loyment status with the school system Lawler (1986) argued that legitimate participation has four requirements: knowledge and skills, power, information, and rewards. This fram ework has been used by Wohlestetter et.al (1994) to explain variations in implementatio n and effects among SMTs operating in different contexts. In surveying the teams in the Abbott districts attention was paid to three of these requirements, knowledge, skills and information. Teams were asked to rate on several scales their level of knowledge, previou s experience and comfort in the ten areas of their responsibilities. It is reasonable to assume that the experiences, which members on the school management teams bring to the ir new roles are likely to impact qualitatively on the kinds of decisions that are ma de, and the teams comfort in doing so. Data on the number of team members who have had pri or experiences in the 10 areas for which they are responsible indicate that overall ve ry few teams are composed of members who have had prior involvement in any of these area s. As can be seen in Table 2, experience is weakest in the areas of school-based budgeting, technology planning, school-based hiring decisions and developing reward systems. Teams had proportionately more members, who prior to joining the teams had some experience with curriculum alignment and needs assessment.Table 2 Percent of SMT Members with Prior Experience in Each Area of Teams' ResponsibilitiesAreas of ResponsibilityPercent of Members with Prio r Experience Aligning Curriculum 41.7% Conducting Needs Assessment37.1%Working on, or reviewing professional development programs 32.2% Involved in developing school-based reward systems3 0.0% Involved in school-based hiring decisions19.9%Worked on developing a technology plan16.8%
11 of 24 Involved in school-based budgeting (zero-based) budgeting decisions 9.8% Number of teams responding: 66It is quite conceivable, that although Team members may lack the experience base for making decisions, that nevertheless, they may have an informed knowledge base that can be drawn upon in decision-making situations. Each Team was asked to indicate the degree of knowledge it possessed as an entity in ea ch of the 10 areas of responsibility. These responses are summarized in Table 3. About o ne third of the Teams felt that their knowledge base on how to align curriculum, review t est score data and determine program and curricular needs on the basis of this r eview, as well as determine what actions need to be taken to improve academic achiev ement in their schools was substantive. On the other hand, a significant prop ortion (over 75%) felt that they had only some or no knowledge on how to 1) develop a pr ofessional development program that is related to the implementation of the reform (2) develop a technology plan, 3) make decisions with regard to hiring school personn el, 4) develop a school-based budget and 5) develop school based reward systems. Signifi cant differences were found among the cohorts. Teams belonging to the first cohort w ere more likely to report lack of knowledge with respect to developing school-based b udgets than teams belonging to the second, mid-year and third year cohorts. Third-yea r cohort teams were also more likely to report having less knowledge on creating profess ional development programs than the second year cohorts.Table 3 Areas of Responsibilities: Percent of Teams Reporti ng Minimal KnowledgeAreas of SMT Responsibility Percent of Teams Reporting Minimal Knowledge Aligning Instruction to the Core Content Standard55 .4% Deciding what actions needed to be taken on the bas is of test score data 59.1% Reviewing test score data as part of a needs assess ment processDetermining program needs on the basis of test scor e reviews 62.1%66.7% Making curricular decisions on the basis of test sc ore data 66.7% Developing school-based reward systems75.8%Developing a professional development program that is linked to the implementation of the reforms 79.4%
12 of 24 Making school-based personnel decisions with respec t to hiring 80.3% Developing a technology plan 80.6% Developing a school-based budget based on zero-base d budgeting procedures 82.1% Training is a critical component in the development of the knowledge and capacity of teams to function effectively in making quality dec isions. To that end, teams were asked to rate the adequacy of training they received arou nd the major substantive areas for which they have responsibilities. Twenty-three tea ms reported that they received no training around any of the areas for which were giv en responsibility. Overall, the teams who provided feedback, were more favorable in their ratings of the training received in areas related to curriculum, test score analysis an d school-based professional development, than they were in their evaluation of the training provided around school-based hiring decisions and developing school -based reward systems (see Table 4). Table 4 Percent of Teams Rating Training Received to be at Least Adequate Area of Training SupportPercent of Teams Ra ting Training to be at Least Adequate Roles and responsibilities of the teams59.0%Developing acceptable standards for professionaldevelopment 56.8% Curriculum Alignment 53.2% Use of test scores for decision-making51.1%Analysis of test scores 50.0% Technology planning 38.9% Developing school-based reward systems28.6%Hiring procedures for school-based personnel24.5%Developing school-based budgets21.1% Number of teams responding: 47Given the fact that teams lack the knowledge and ex perience to adequately fulfill their responsibilities, and given the unevenness in their satisfaction with the training that they have received, how comfortable are the teams in mak ing the decisions that are expected of them? Data provided by the teams in the survey indicate that teams feel more comfortable in making decisions related to curricul ar and instructional issues than they do in making decisions that involve technology, school -based budgets, school hiring decisions and reward structures. For example, more than sixty percent of the teams
13 of 24reported that they are uncomfortable in creating re wards for teachers, and more than 80% indicate that they would be similarly uncomfortable in determining rewards for their building administrators. Forty-percent of the team s indicated that they would not be comfortable in making decisions involving the hirin g of a principal and a similar percent 44% expressed discomfort in making teaching appoint ments. In some of these decisions making areas teams are r equired to vote on whether or not they wish to have input. At the time of the survey, onl y 21% of the teams had voted to provide input into the hiring of their building pri ncipal and 26 % for input into the appointment of instructional aides. Data culled fr om the focus group discussion reinforced the notions that some teams are reluctan t to get involved in hiring and budgeting decisions. According to the central offi ce administrators in the focus group, while some teams initially wanted to select personn el for their buildings, they experienced discomfort when the process of selectio n begun, especially in those instances when they had to make decisions about staff on thei r own level. These results parallel similar findings reported by Jones') study of teach er decision-making preferences in Texas (Jones, 1997). Jones found that teachers exp ressed a desire and were more involved in areas concerning curriculum/instruction and student services than staff, personnel and budget management.Decentralization provides the impetus for the creat ion of a new institutional culture within schools. It also presupposes that some soci alization occurs whereby all actors are socialized to their new roles and responsibilities. However, our discussion so far suggests that the exercise of legitimate decision-m aking has been constrained by the teams' inexperience, uneven knowledge base, and the absence of adequate training to build capacity.Devolving power from central to decentralized struc tures: Decreasing autonomy or increasing centralization?The New Jersey Department of Education has created a structure, the School Review and Improvement Team (SRI) that ostensibly functions in the capacity of an overseer of the reform process, ensuring that the implementation of SBM is progressing according to the guidelines set forth in the regulations. The School Review and Improvement Team is comprised of Department of Education personnel from the Divisions of Student Services and Finance. Each school in an Abbott district is assigned to a team that is based at one of the State's Program Improvement and Regional Cen ters. The SRI Teams have a wide range of responsibilities to include working with t he districts and building principal to ensure the effective implementation of whole school reform and school-based management; consulting with the school management t eams to ensure that all of the SMT responsibilities are effectively fulfilled; serving as liaisons between the schools and the Whole School Reform model developers, and consultin g with the Superintendents on the transfer or removal of teachers and principals.There are two related issues that one may surface r egarding the balance in power between the State and the local sites in the reform process First, according to David (1989), a policy cornerstone of successful decentralization i nvolves the accompanying of local autonomy with simultaneous relief from onerous rule s and regulations (See also Herman & Herman, 1992, Hill & Bonan, 1991). The extensive regulatory role played by the School Review and Improvement Team in the decentral ization process in New Jersey
14 of 24seems to stand in contradistinction to David's obse rvation. In fact, the question can be posed as to whether or not the regulations governin g the role of the SRI teams have the potential to undermine local autonomy and thereby r esult in an intensification of power at the State level, rather than a real gain of power a t the school level? The strong regulatory presence of the Department of Education through the School Review and Improvement Teams far exceeds and is different from the decentr alization and centralization tendencies that many state reform strategies have exhibited (B oyd, 1992; Levacic, 1995; Levin, 1997).These strategies evident in other reform efforts ha ve combined shifts in authority to local schools with state control over setting and monitor ing standards. However, the School Review and Improvement Teams' roles extend beyond o ne that is primarily of a monitoring nature. The SRI among other responsibi lities approves decisions made by the local schools, decides when a team can assume n ew responsibilities in the areas of budgeting and personnel (if teams decide by a major ity vote to assume these responsibilities) and approves transfers or firing of principals and teachers. In effect they have assumed an external governance role thereby ad ding another bureaucratic layer to the reform. One may argue that the SRI structure, w hich the Department of Education has put in place to provide field-based assistance to t he schools and their respective management teams, virtually places the Department o f Education in the position of assuming responsibility for the success of the refo rms. Thus, the NJDOE may not be able to distance itself from any failed policies as sociated with the reforms. This broad notion of shared responsibility that is being advocated here implies that state, local districts, and schools are equally contributi ng to the successful implementation of the reforms. Since the SRI is the primary state re source that is being directed to support the schools, the question as to how effective this field assistance has been is relevant to raise. The School Management Teams in the study we re asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction with the support provided by the SRI t eams in the areas stipulated by the regulations. The following discussion presents the Teams responses. At the time of the survey more than one third of the teams had not yet had a meeting with their SRI facilitator. Furthermore, several of the teams wer e unfamiliar with the roles and responsibilities of the SRI and sought clarificatio n from the researchers. Thus only 41 of the 72 teams were able to provide feedback on the S RI teams. Among the districts providing feedback, there was a high level of dissa tisfaction with the support that the SRI teams have provided. Seventyone percent of the s chool management teams reported that their SRI facilitator attended meetings irregu larly, and 56% noted that the technical assistance provided was unsatisfactory. While, about 56% of the school management teams sta ted that their SRI provided assistance with general implementation issues, 54% noted that the SRI teams provided no assistance with the actual development of their imp lementation plans. Furthermore, more that 58% of the teams were dissatisfied with the he lp received from their SRI Teams with problems encountered during implementation; and an even larger percent 68% indicated that their SRI team provided minimal assistance in working with the model developers. An equally substantial number of the teams (25 or 6 8%) noted that their SRI did not help in identifying areas for training, neither were the SRI facilitators helpful in assisting them in the identification of experts that can help with the problem of student achievement. With respect to the budgeting process, more than 61 % of the school management teams reported that they were dissatisfied (or unsure of how satisfied they were) with the
15 of 24 assistance, which their SRI facilitator provided in the development of the school budgets. Overall, only about 38% of the teams reported gener al satisfaction with the support, which they have received from the SRI Team that has been assigned to them. When cohort status is entered as the main effect in several one-way ANOVAS in which evaluations of the SRI various responsibilities are treated as the dependent measures, several significant findings were found. According to the data furnished in Table 5, the impact of cohort status on the teams' evaluation of the SRIs was significant in six areas. (See Table 6) These were: help in implementation, p roviding satisfactory technical assistance, providing assistance with the school's implementation plan, helping with the model developers of the various whole school reform models, providing assistance in school-based budgeting and overall support. Resu lts of the Tukey post hoc testing reveals that schools belonging to the first cohort were significantly more dissatisfied with the support, which they received from their SRI fac ilitators than Cohort 2 Teams. As was noted earlier, Cohort 1 school management teams beg an their school reform process within a year of the Court's decision. Moreover, t hese teams had minimal time to engage in quality planning.Table 5 Percent of Teams Reporting Satisfaction with their School Review and Improvement Teams in Key Areas of Support Area of SupportPercent Reporting Satisfaction Assistance with implementation 56% Review of the school's budget 50% Support with resolving problems 42% Assistance with implementation plan41%Assistance with the development of the school's bud get39% Technical Assistance 36% Attendance at meetings 29% Support with the Model Developers26%Identifying for the schools, experts who can help w ith student achievement 18% Identifying areas for training 15% Overall Satisfaction with the SRI Teams38% Number of teams responding: 37Table 6 ANOVA Results for the Main Effect of Cohort Status
16 of 24 Dependent VariablesDf(B)/ Df(W) MS(B)/MS(W) F SRI Team attends meetings. 2 35 6.9822.329 2.996 SRI hashelped inimplementation. 2 33 6.7751.915 3.538* Technicalassistanceis satisfactory. 2 33 8.9971.956 4.599** SRI hasprovidedassistance withimplementation plan. 2 33 7.5892.115 3.521* SRI hashelpedin problemsolving. 2 30 5.6991.917 2.973 SRI hashelped withthe ModelDevelopers. 2 32 6.4441.806 3.568* SRI hashelped toidentify areasfor training. 2 32 3.7211.353 2.750 SRI hasidentifiedexperts that canhelp with studentachievement. 2 32 3.6431.581 2.304 Team is satisfiedwith assistancefrom SRI inschool-based budgeting 2 32 10.836 1.966 5.513** Satisfied withOverall supportfrom the SRI 2 33 7.6872.046 3.757* Post Hoc testing based on TUKEY; *p< .05; **p<. 001Information provided during the focus group session suggests that two factors were contributing to the ineffectiveness of the SRI team s. The first, relates to the instability of
17 of 24team members. All of the districts in the focus gr oup concurred that during the early phases of the reform there was a high turnover of i ndividuals on the SRI teams. A second contributing factor identified by the districts is the knowledge base and experiences brought by the SRI facilitators. There was general agreement that the SRI facilitators lacked the experiences and knowledge base around th e change process in general and reform within the urban context in particular. SRI team facilitators were described as being inexperienced and who for the most part seeme d to be learning from the districts and schools rather than the other way around. Th ese findings on the relative ineffectiveness of the SRI teams are not new. An e arlier study on factors impacting on the implementation of the reforms pointed to proble ms with the SRI teams and had suggested that the State Department of Education ne eded to closely evaluate the way in which these teams were functioning (Walker & Gutmor e, 2000). The overall impact of the SRI teams' ineffectiveness is evident in the fa ct that slightly more that 48% of the school based management teams noted that the absenc e of technical support has posed a challenge to their ability to function.Understanding the Process of Devolving AuthorityThe focus group discussions with central office per sonnel knowledgeable about the devolving of authority to the school management tea ms as well as discussions with school superintendents provide additional insights into the myriad of issues the districts are facing as the shifts in the distribution of pow er and authority occur. All the districts in the focus group prior to the Abbott rulings had beg un to create opportunities for participatory decisionmaking in their systems. I n some instances, these opportunities were more formally structured with the establishmen t of what is defined as school core teams. Thus, districts did not express aversion to devolving authority to the local sites and indeed endorsed the process as a means of creat ing structures that were more inclusive of the voices of their various constituen ts. However, the districts did provide comments on what were perceived to be salient issue s that adversely affecting the effective implementation of SBM.First, there was unanimity among the districts that the vagueness and lack of specificity in the state's regulations led to confusion and misint erpretations on the part of the school management teams as to their roles and responsibili ties. This they pointed out was further exacerbated by the ongoing changes to the guideline s that occurred annually. A second related concern dealt with the issues of competing power and authority in the areas of school operations and curriculum. Prior to the mos t current form of the regulations there were no statements by the DOE clarifying the overal l roles and responsibilities of the building principal. This resulted in the school ma nagement teams erroneously assuming that they were responsible for operational issues w ithin their local schools. A compounding factor contributing to the position of the principal vis-avis the teams was the leadership skills of some principals. District representatives noted that in schools led by weak principals, the school management teams eme rged as centers of power. Respondents cited examples of situations in which t hese principals had abdicated their responsibilities to the Teams, and in so doing were sometimes unaware of critical decisions made by the teams. The importance of properly clarifying the role of t he principal in decentralized structures has been underscored in some of the literature. Ac cording to Meadows (1990) one of the essential problems with some forms of school-based management is that the group makes
18 of 24the decision but the leader or principal alone is a ccountable. Research has demonstrated that principal leadership plays an important role i n the successful devolution of authority. For example, Leithwood et.al (1999) found that prin cipal leadership is quite central to teams that have the greatest influence on school pr actices. According to the Leithwood study, the principal's role is both symbolic and in strumental. Leithwood noted that school-based management tended to have a greater im pact in schools in which principals facilitated the development of the teams, helped to focus the teams' activities on educationally substantive issues and engaged in a s hared or distributive leadership role with the teams, than in schools in which the revers e was true. The second area of contestation occurred over matte rs of curriculum. In this arena, central office curriculum staff was pitted against the scho ol management teams. According to the regulations, the school management teams have c onsiderable responsibilities for ensuring that the curriculum in their buildings as well as instruction is aligned to the core content standards. However as the districts noted, these curricular issues were previously resolved at the central office level in response to the state's adoption of the Core Curriculum Content Standards (which predated the mo st recent Abbott rulings). However, there was uncertainty among the teams abou t the relationship between the enacted curriculum based upon the district's aligne d curricular frameworks on the one hand, and their responsibility for curriculum in th eir schools on the other. The confusion experienced by the teams with regards to their role s and responsibilities for curricular and instructional matters was perceived to be further c ompounded by the inability of the SRI teams to provide clear directions and meaningful gu idance to the resolution of these issues. As discussed earlier concerns about the effectivene ss of the School Review and Improvement Teams have been expressed by not only t he teams, but central office personnel and superintendents as well. Apart from the many issues that were previously mentioned, one extremely problematic area for the d istricts, which surfaced in the interviews with the superintendents, is the SRIs re view of transfers. The guidelines state that any request for transfers must have the approv al of the SRI teams. Superintendents complained that this process has not worked efficie ntly, and that the slow response of the SRI teams has created bottlenecks within their orga nizations. Yet in spite of these difficulties, all the distric ts concurred that their school management teams have demonstrated commitment and diligence in their efforts to develop quality implementation plans. Most of the districts indica ted that their local teachers unions have been instrumental in helping the reform process. H owever, as the districts observed, the rushed timetables for decision-making, the inconsis tencies and poor guidelines emanating from the DOE and the ineffectual role of the School Review and Improvement Teams have all served to undermine the successful devolut ion of authority to the local school sites.Discussion and ConclusionsThe findings in this study raise a number of policy concerns regarding how authority gets devolved from central to local structures. The firs t is the apparent tension between policy statements developed by state elites and the enviro nments, which they seek to influence. The regulations regarding membership composition cr eated two sets of problems for the schools. First, the regulations made it clear, that no community member employed by a
19 of 24school district could serve on a school management team in the capacity of either a parent or community representative. However, in districts in which the public education sector tends to play a significant role in the employment of local residents, this regulation meant that a substantial section of the community would b e excluded from serving on these teams. Second, the regulations stipulated that no one group of stakeholder could constitute a majority on the teams. However, if sch ools are precluded from recruiting memberships from significant pockets within their c ommunities, then the goal of attaining balanced representation is difficult to a ttain. Indeed, the study found, that in effect, among the teams studied, there was regressi on towards a teacher-dominated form of school-based management. The preclusion of impor tant community voices on these teams resulted in less than favorable outcomes. As noted, teams without adequate community representation were less likely to explor e alternatives before arriving at decisions, and more prone to the intrusion of narro w individual interests over group goal. In democratic situations, broad based participation allows for the expression of different viewpoints thus increasing the likelihood of inform ed decisions being made. Policies that do not have as an important corollary the building of capacity among local actors are likely to encounter difficulties during implementation. Moving from centralized to decentralized structures imply tha t at some point during the process, those to whom power is being devolved, will develop the n ecessary prerequisite skills that will allow them to effectively develop and execute decis ions. The present study found, that teams lacked the experience, knowledge, and skills, and were not provided with adequate training that would have allowed them to make effec tive decisions. Furthermore, in the case of the first cohort of schools, the strict tim elines imposed by the state on these schools to arrive at important decisions regarding their schools instructional programming resulted in decisions that were authori tatively rather than democratically made. In some cases, these schools' implementation plans were summarily rejected by State elites (Walker, 2001; Walker & Gutmore, 2000) More importantly, when authority is being shifted o r redistributed among various power sites, it is important that the spheres of responsi bility be thoroughly clarified. In the New Jersey case, no clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the teams, building principals, central offices, and local school board s were made. This led to contestation over areas of responsibilities. In addition to clar ifying roles, questions as to how the time of teams can be constructively and efficiently used to bring about educational improvement in their communities ought to be fully explored. When teams lack the capacity to effectively govern, and when there is c ontestation over spheres of influence circumscribing the boundaries of each group's respo nsibilities is necessary. In the case of the current study, it is felt that the roles and responsibilities of the school management teams ought to be more circumscribed by state polic y. The regulations give the teams a broad set of responsibilities that cover most of th e processes inhering in teaching and learning as well as the management of their schools However, as was seen, not only do the teams lack the knowledge and experience to fulf ill some of these tasks, but neither are they comfortable in carrying out some of these func tions. Further, the rushed timetables for making decisions have made it impossible for th e teams to engage in quality planning. When policies that seek to promote increased school responsibility for decision-making include as a precondition the ability of state elit es to approve or disapprove decisions that are made by democratically constituted teams, these policies in effect undermine the very
20 of 24principles on which the concept of decentralization is premised. As was seen in the case of New Jersey, in reality what has occurred is an i ntensification and consolidation of power at the state level. In this case, the school systems do not enjoy genuine autonomy, and in reality have only limited discretion over th e reforms. Thus, decentralization in the Abbott districts has come to function as Ball descr ibes it as a mechanism for delivering reform rather than a vehicle for institutional init iative and innovation' (Ball, 1993:76). Clearly, a deconstruction of decentralization withi n the New Jersey context, unmasks the apparent contradictions in the policy governing who le school reform through participatory decisionmaking. This is borne out not only by the data provided in this study, but the continuous challenges that have been made to the manner in which the Department of Education has reacted to decisions ma de at the local site (See Walker & Gutmore, 2000).Ball (1993) and Smyth (1993) have both suggested th at state elites and other interest groups may push for decentralization motivated more by protecting their self-interests than any deep-seated belief in social democratic pr inciples. In such instances, communities unwittingly grant these groups legitima cy. By assuming responsibility for implementing poor policies, parents, teachers and t he community buffer state elites from any adverse consequences caused by such policies. State elites are thus able to avoid their social responsibilities under the guise of de centralization. Moreover, as Miron (1996) suggests, one of the unanticipated outcomes of decentralization, is the reinforcement of calls by economic elites for marke t-based solutions to the problem of urban education. Thus, with the failure of decentr alization the case for privatizing public education can be more forcibly made. The issues, w hich have surfaced in this paper if not addressed substantively at the policy-making le vel, do not augur favorably for empowering local communities to assist in rebuildin g their educational institutions.ReferencesAbbott v. Burke, 153 N.J.480 (1998).Ball, S (1993). Selfmanagement and entrepreneuria l schooling in England and Wales. In J. Symth (ed.), A socially critical view of the self-managing schoo l pp.68-81. London: The Falmer Press.Boyd, W.L. (1992). The power of paradigm: Reconcep tualizing educational policy and management. Educational Administration Quarterly 28, 504-528. David L. Jane. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational Leadership 46(8), 45-53, May. Haberman, S.J. (1984). The analysis of residuals i n cross-classified tables. Biometrics 29, 205-220.Hanson, E.M., and Ulrich, C. (1994). Democracy, de centralization and school-based management in Spain. La Education 118, 319-334. Herman, J.J., and Herman, J.L. (1993). School-based Management:: Current Thinking and Practice. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Hill, P. T. and Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and Accountability in
21 of 24Public Education. Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthu r Foundation, Institute for Education and Training.Jones, R.E. (1997). Education, 118 (1) 76-83. Kildow, M. (2000). A case study of decisions made b y a school-management team in the initial phase of whole school reform. Unpublish ed doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, New Jersey.Leithwood, Kenneth, Menzies, Teresa. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy 12 (3) 325-346 May. Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of Schools: Analysis and Practice Philadelphia: Open University Press.Levin, N. (1997). The lessons of International Refo rm. Journal of Educational Policy 12(4), 253-266.Malen, B., Ogawa, R & Kranz, J. (1992). Site-based management: Disconcerting policy issues, critical policy choices, in J.J. Lane & E.G Epps (eds.), Restructuring the Schools: Problems and Prospects Pp.185-206. Berkeley: McCutchan. Meadows, B. J. (1990). The rewards and risks of sha red leadership. Phi Delta Kappan (Mar) 545-548.Mohrman, S.A., Wohlstetter, P. & Associates. (1994) School-based Management: Organizing for High Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Murphy, J. (1991 ). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing t he phenomena New York: Teachers College Press.Murphy, J., & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based Management as School Reform: Taking Stock Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Newman, Fred M. (1993). Beyond common sense in ed ucational restructuring: The issues of content and linkage. Educational Researcher 22 (2), 4-13. Seddon, T., Angus, L., & Poole, M. (1990). Pressure s on the move to school-based management. In J. Chapman (Eds.), School based deci sion-making and management (pp 29-54). London, UK: Falmer Press.Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in sc hool decision making:: Assessing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 14 (1), 53-67. Symth, J. (ed.), (1993). A socially critical view of the self-managing schoo l .. London: The Falmer Press.State of New Jersey. Chapter 19A: Implementation of Court Decision in Abbott versus Burke, June 1998.Summers. A.A. & Johnson, A.W.. (1991). A Review of the Evidence on the Effects of School-Based Management Plans. Panel on the Econom ics of Educational Reform and
22 of 24 Teaching. Washington, DC.Walker, E. M., and Gutmore, D. (2000). The Quest f or Equity and Excellence in Education: A Study on Whole School Reform in New Je rsey Special Needs Districts. Center for Urban Leadership, Renewal and Research, Dept. of Educational Administration and Supervision, Seton Hall Universi ty, New Jersey. Washington, D.C. Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Getting school-based manag ement right, Phi Delta Kappan September.Wohlstetter, P. & Mohrman, S.A. (1996). Assessment of School-Based Management, (Volume I: Findings and Conclusions.) Studies of Ed ucation Reform. University of Southern California, Center of Educational Governan ce. Available from U.S. Government Printing Office, OERI sponsored.Wohlstetter, P. & Odden, A. (1992). Rethinking sc hool-based management policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28 (4), 529-549.About the AuthorElaine M. WalkerAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Leadership, Management and PolicyCollege of Education and Human ServicesSeton Hall UniversityEmail: email@example.comElaine Walker is an Associate Professor in the Depa rtment of Leadership, Management and Policy in the College of Education and Human Se rvices at Seton Hall University. Her research has focused on the impact of reform po licies on the transformation of urban school systems. 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, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: email@example.com .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver
23 of 24 Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers California State UniversityStanislaus Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisUC 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 email@example.com Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.firstname.lastname@example.org Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx
24 of 24 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 email@example.com 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)American Institutes for ResesarchBrazil(AIRBrasil) firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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 E11-00281
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 10, no. 33 (August 04, 2002).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c August 04, 2002
Politics of school-based management : understanding the process of devolving authority in urban school districts / Elaine M. Walker.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
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 33series Year mods:caption 20022002Month August8Day 44mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2002-08-04