School-based management

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
School-based management theory and practice in selected school districts
Physical Description:
xi, 193 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Simpson, Fred McCall, 1947-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
School management and organization -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Educational accountability -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 189-192.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Fred M. Simpson.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000063261
oclc - 04205515
notis - AAG8459
System ID:
AA00002212:00001

Full Text










SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT:


THEORY


AND


PRACTICE


IN SELECTED


SCHOOL DISTRICTS


FRED


SIMPSON


A DISSERTATION


PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE


COUNCIL


THE UNIVERSITY


OF FLORIDA


IN PARTIAL


FULFILLMENT


OF THE REQUIREMENTS


FOR THE DEGREE


OF DOCTOR 0


F PHILOSOPHY


























To Joanne


Baker


Simpson,


my wife


without


whose


this


sacrifices,


study


could not


encouragement,


have


been


confidence


completed.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation


to the chairman of his committee,


Dr. Michael Nunnery,


the consideration, assistance, and encouragement which he

gave to the writer throughout the pursuit of the Doctor of

Philosophy degree and particularly during the preparation of


this study


The writer also wishes to thank the other


members of his committee, Dr.


Myers, and Dr.


Ralph Kimbrough, Dr.


Simon Johnson, as well as Dr.


Robert


William


Alexander,


who served on the committee until his retirement.


Special


thanks is due Joanne Simpson,


wife of the


writer,


for her understanding and support throughout the


course of the writer's studies, not to mention her restraint

during some trying moments.


Finally,


the writer wishes to express his appreciation


to his typist,


Carol Giles,


for her rapid and consciencious


work during the preparation of this study.












TABLE


OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LIST


OF TABLES


ABSTRACT


CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


. .a . . .S 1


Background
The Problem
Definition
Procedures


and Justifi


cation


Study


. 1


. . . . 6


of T


erms


. . 4 8


. . . 5 *11


Organization


Remainder


tudy


S . 15


SCHOOL-BASED


MANAGEMENT:


CONSTRUCT


DESCRIBED


IN THE


LITERATURE


. . . -17


Introduction


Decision-making


Curriculum
Financial
Personnel


. . 4 . S 17


Considerations


Considerations
Considerations
Considerations


Community-Involvement


Consid


erations


. 71


The Literature


in Retrospect


. . . 75


THREE


PRESENTATION


OF DATA


C S. S S . *80


ion-mak in


Curriculum
Financial
Personnel
Community-


onsi


Consid
Consid


Considerations
derations .
rations
rations


Involvement


Consid


* . .
* a .


erati


ons


FOUR


DISCUSSION


OF THE


DATA


Decision-making


Considerate


Curric


ulumn


considerations


Financial


nsiderations


S S 4 0 .


Decis


ons












TABLE


OF CONTENTS


(Continued)


Page


APPENDICES


Appendix

Appendix

Appendix


REFERENCE

REFERENCES


* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

* S S S S S S S S S S 5 5 S S U a a a

* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S a a 5 5 5 S


NOTES


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH










LIST


OF TABLES


TABLE


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of School


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of School


Level


personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of School


Level


personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of School


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic-


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


Pers


onnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of School


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions of
Regarding


School


Level


personnel


Characteristic


. . .* 104


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


* . .106


Perceptions


of School


Level


sonne


Regarding


Characteristic


S. . . 103


S. 108


Page










LIST


OF TABLES


(Continued)


TABLE


Perceptions


of School


Level


personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions of
Regarding


School


Level


Characteristic


sonnel


. . 119


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of School


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


S 123


Perceptions


of Central-Office


Level


personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of School


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Perceptions


of Central-Office


evel


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


S. . 131


Perceptions


of School


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


S . .114


. . . 118


122


.. . 126


S. . 128


S. . 132


Page









Abstract


ssertation


University


Requirement


Presented


Florida


s for the


Degree


Graduate


Partial Ful
of Doctor of


filament


Council
of the


Philosophy


SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT:


THEORY


AND


PRACTICE


SELECTED


SCHOOL DISTRICTS


Fred M.

August,


Simpson

1977


Chairman:


Major


Michael


Department:


Many


educators


Y. Nunnery
Educational Administration and


have advocated


Supervision


school-based management


as a means of


providing the


accountability


demanded


by the


public;


and,


in several


school


districts,


efforts


have


been


made


to implement


management


systems


in which


decision-


making


responsibility was


school-based.


Florida


districts


have moved


this


direction


in response


legislative


mandate.


In spite of


this


activity,


literature


con-


trained no clear description


evidence


construct


school-based management


nor was


practices


there


being


examined

two-part


within such a

study was und


literature was


done


to


theoretical


ertaken.

derive


framework.


First,

a series


Thus,


a review of


salient


this


relevant

charac-


teristics


describing the


construct


school-based manage-


ment.

derived


Second,

from th


indicators of

e literature,


those

were


characteristics,


comDared


also


to practices


-- F


B









literature


searched


included research and authori-


tative


opinion


decision-making theory,


administrative


decentralization,


organization


theory,


management


theory,


school


district


decentralization.


From the


literature,


characteristics and,


collectively,


related


indicators


were derived


mary means


by the


data


process of


collection


logical


for the


analysis.


study


pri-


of practices


school


districts was


structured


interview with a


systematic


item guide.


sample


persons


Additionally,


where


in each


district


appropriate,


using


school


dis-


trict


documents


were


examined,


general


observations


were


made.


persons


interviewed


included


school


board


members,


teachers,


central-office


citizens'


level


advisory


administrators,


principals,


council members.


data


from the

logical


field s

analysis


tudy were


compared


by the


inspection


processes


characteristics


construct


derived


from the


literature


to determine


extent


congruence.


conclusions were as


follows


In regard


to deci


sion making,


construct


school-based management was


characterized,


in both


theory


practice,


the central-office


effective


level


delegation


school


of authority


site,


from


retention


ultimate


authority


over


schools


at the


central -office


- L









In regard


to curriculum,


construct was


charac-


terized,


responsibility


broad


theory,


delegation


for curriculum to


participation


decision-making


school-level


planning


personnel,


curriculum at the


school


level,


setting


of broad objectives


stan-


dards


central-office


staff


for which


school


staff


is held accountable.


practice,


however,


broad


parti-


cipation


planning


did not


include


extensive


involvement


of pupils.


area


finance,


the


construct


school-


based management


was


placement


characterized,


final


theory,


decision regarding


budgetary


matters


at the


school


level,


broad


participation


planning


and administration


budget,


and


centralization


efficiently


handled


of financial

centrally.


functions

In practice


which are more

e, however, it


was


perceived


that


there was


only


partial


placement


of final


budgetary


decision-making responsibility


school


site,


with


restrictions


decisions


school


use


staffs,


funds and


fairly broad


vetoes modifying


participation


in budgetary planning,


except that


parent


pupil


involve-


ment was minimal,


appropriate


centralization


financial


functions.


Relative


to personnel.


I-- 1I


constructt


was charac-


* .









school


by the


principal and


a service


role


for the


central-office


staff.


In regard to


community


involvement,


the construct


school-based management was


characterized,


in both


theory


practice,


by wide and


extensive


citizen participation


school affairs.














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Background and


Justification of


Study


Decentralization

began appearing to an


is a

ever


term which in


increasing


early


degree


1970's

litera-


ture of


educational administration.


nation's


school


districts


continued


grow


size


through


process of


consolidation,


forces


for decentralization


continued


grow


in strength.


Jacobs


(1972)


listed


forces which


saw


creating


a rationale


for decentralization.


first was


trend


toward


diversity


educational


values,


needs,


expectations


by pupils,


parents,


teachers.


second


was the


more


trend


power


for the


control


community


over the


school


educational


exercise "


process.


third was


trend


toward


increased


accountability


educators


public


(pp.


2-3).


These


trends


pointed


toward a


demand


from the


public


for the


schools


to be more


responsive


needs of


communities


that


they


served.


Cawelti


(1974),


in a


study


of 46


school


districts,


found


that


"responsiveness"


was


reason most


often


given by the


leadership of


decentralized


districts


for why the


dis-


tricts


were


orlan 7.Ar1


that Tnmnn0 _


rcP cr nn ncc


t.T yi^


I l l


I I Ia-









administrative


culum and


efficiency,


instructional


to provide


improvement


for greater curri-


23).


degree


to which-decentralization


taken


place


varied


widely


from district


to district,


as has


nature of


(1975)


cited a


power which has

categorization


been


decentralized.


designed by


Allan


Staples


Ornstein


which


classified


community.


tralization,


the

first


power-distribution between


category was


" in which the


school


"administrative


power remains


with


and


decen-


central


administration and


board of


education.


administration


broken


down


into


smaller units,


and


power


is given to


administrators at


lower


levels.


second


category was


"community participation,


" in


which advisory


committees are


formed


from


community


served


by the


sub-unit.


Power


still


lies with


administrators and


is not


transferred


community.


third


category was


"community


control,


in which


community


has decision-making power over many


aspects of


program,


abridging that


the administrators


(pp.


4-5).


Approaches


chosen


districts


for decentralization


have


taken many


forms.


The most


common


type of


decentrali-


zation


division


school


district


into


smaller


sub-units,


usually


geographic areas,


which are administered


an area,


deputy,


or assistant


superintendent


and,


in some









Chicago,


Detroit,


Philadelphia


are


examples


districts


which have


used


some


form of


this


approach.


1970's,


however,


support


began


to grow for


a form of


decentraliza-


tion which


places


focus


activity


at the


school


site.


This


approach


called,


among


other things,


school-


based management.


There


have


been


several


states


that


have


tried


implement


legislature.


concept--one,


In 1973,


Florida,


Florida


action


Legislature


of the state


passed a


series of


legislative


enactments


which mandated that the


school


districts


state


be organized


in such a manner


as to place


increased responsibility


for program development


evaluation at


school


site.


Some


elements of


acts


are as


follows:


236.,


Florida


Statutes:


Florida


Educational


Finance


Program


--This act


intended


to guarantee


that


every


child


state of Florida


will


receive


educational


opportunities


appropriate


to his


needs


which are


equal


those received


other child


state,


regardless


of local


geogra-


phic or economic


factors.


Implicit


in the act


prio-


rity that


local


school


will


unit


accounta-


ability.


228.165


Florida


Statutes:


Annual


Report


Progress--This


act further


affirms


that the


school


unit


- -


accounta-


v-


--


__~_








informed annually


educational


progress


school


which his


or her children are attending.


230.22(b),


Florida


Statutes:


School Advisory Committees--


This


intended


can influence

establishes


to provide a means


educational


one or more


school


progress o

advisory


by which


their


committee


citizens


schools.

es in each


school


district,


which


to be


broadly representative of


community


and which


include


parents and


students


as members.


237.34,


Florida


Statutes:


Comprehensive


Information


Accounting


Reporting


System--This


requires


that the


Florida


Commissioner of


Education


develop


plans


for the


design and


implementation of


a comprehensive management


information


and assessment


system.


further establishes


that the main


unit


information


and assessment


is the


individual school.

expenditures of al


Each district

state, local,


is to account for

and federal funds


all

on a


school-by-school


basis,


and all


expenditures must


re-


ported


on a


school-by-school


basis


as well.


Included


this


part


act was the


requirement


that


by the


1976-77


fiscal


year,


current


operation


funds of the


Florida


Education


Finance


Program had


to be expended


basic


program-cost


categories


each


school


that


generates


funds.









school-based management.


However,


in spite of


legisla-


tive


enactments


in the


state of


Florida,


there has


been


little


definitive


information in


literature as to what


school-based management means.


being


More


decentralized with regard to


specifically,


decisions


what was


relative


finance,

Nowhere


selection


staff,


literature was an


or to choices of

y explanation pr


curriculum?


esented as


to how these


types


of decision are


handled


under


a school-


based management


arrangement.


Furthermore,


there was


little


authoritative opinion about


However,


literature was


replete with information


relating to


such things


as decision


making,


organizational


theory,


decentralization,


and manage-


ment


principles.


This


information


related


the area of


school-based management,


nowhere


was


consolidated


into a


coherent


whole.


In sum,


leadership


in at


least


one


state,


Florida,


had committed


itself


to developing


statewide


program


utilizing the


principles


school-based management,


literature


did not


present


a clear picture of


construct.


Therefore,


an investigation


which


described the


construct of


school-based management


tion and


based


examined application of


on related fields of


construct


informa-


in practice


was


needed


to expand


general knowledge


the area and


to aid


in dealing


with a


practical


problem about which


very










Problem


Statement


Problem


problem in


this


study was


twofold:


first,


derive f

describe


rom the

the co


literature


nstruct


ose


characteristics which


school-based management,


and


second,


compare


practi


ces


selected


Florida


school


districts


with


characteristics


to determine


extent


to which


those


practi


ces


were


consistent


with


construct


as derived


from the


literature.


Delimitations


following


constraints


were


effect


this


study:


In regard


school-based management,


development


review of


construct


literature,


including research


authoritat ive


opinion,


was


confined


areas


of decision-making theory,


administrative


decentralization,


organizational


theory,


management


theory,


and administrative


decentralization.


characteristics


which


describe


construct


focused


on the


areas


decision making,


curriculum,


finance


, personnel,


community


involvement.


.. The


field


study was


limited


four


selected


school


districts


state


of Florida.


data


coll


section


field


study was


confined


I










stratified


random pattern


from the


district.


Included were


superintendent;


a board member;


chief


administrator


in the areas of


finance,


personnel,


and


curriculum in each


district;


and


principal;


teachers;


and a member of


citizens'


advisory


council


one


school


at each of


three


levels


(elementary,


junior


high/middle


school,


high


school)


each


district.


Thus,


there


were


people


interviewed


each


district,


or a


total


interviewees.


interviews were


structured


to ascertain the


perceptions


respondents


practices


district.


Limitations


study


described herein,


which


in essence


was


field


study


based


on a


theoretical


construct


derived


from


authoritative


literature,


suffers


from the


usual


weaknesses


of such a


study.


More


specifically,


theoretical


frame-


work


limited in


that


there


was


no external


judgment


posed


on the


decisions


researcher


in regard


scription offered.


Furthermore,


field


portion


study


suffered


from the


weaknesses


sample,


in that


study


was


conducted


in only


one


state and


that


districts were


selected


participate


primarily


criterion of


and their reputed


degree


their willingness to


of development


school-based management


operation


their


systems.


Any


penera i zat-on hsvnnd


I l


P- nr, rti


annr


ho trrnn


hP S=tat-


ox/on








than


conclusive,


of gathering


data,


in nature.


in addition


Secondly,


primary technique


to examination


district


documents and general


observations


was


structured


interview.


It must


same weaknesses


recognized


as does


that the


study using


study


such a


technique,


i.e.,


dependent


upon


degree of


accuracy with which


respondent


perceives


situation and reports


it to the


researcher.


Definition


of Terms


For the


purpose of


this


study,


following


defini-


tions


were accepted:


Administrator.


person


designated


by the


policy-


making


body


school


district to


carry


practice


management.


Central


office.


A group of


personnel


have


respon-


sibility to manage and


coordinate


the activities of


school


district as


a whole.


Characteristic.


A general


statement


about


a particular


aspect


acteristic


phenomenon


of decision making


under consideration,


"Effective


.e.,


a char-


decisionmaking


responsibility


delegated


from the


district


level


to the


school-site


level.


Chief.


An individual


who


head


a particular


area


activities


carried


school


district.










Citizen 's


advisory


council.


A group of


individuals,


many


of whom are


lay people


or pupils,


who


interact


with the


staff


at a particular


school


to help develop and


evaluate


program


provided


there.


Concept.


"An abstraction


formed by


generalizations


from particulars"


Construct.


(Kerlinger,


concept


1973,


28).


. deliberately


con-


sciously


invented


or adopted for a


special


scientific


purpose"


(Kerlinger,


1973,


29).


Curriculum.


plan for providing


sets of


learning


opportunities


to achi


eve


broad goals


and related


specific


obj ectives


an identifiable


population


served by


a single


school


center"


(Saylor


Alexander,


1974,


Decentralization.


"The


movement


decision-making


power to a


unit


nearer the


place


action


fixing


responsibility


for decision-making


upon


people of


(Morphet,


Johns,


Reller,


1974,


346-7).


Delegation.


"The


process


placing responsibility


decision making


lowest


level


where


necessary


informa-


tion,


skill,


experience


exist


to make


a satisfactory


decision"


(Watkins,


1972,


395).


District A.


A school


district which


served


1977


approximately


pupils


school


centers


elemen-


.tnhnRnn-


nlnn I nr


h- ah


unit"


ta ; Tv


C~ dn r *


c?/i kn \^ c


kr' rr-


<" n 1^ ^ ^^ I


I


I









school).


Many


pupils were


transient.


There


were


approximately


trict A had an


teachers


unusual


employed


geographic


district.


arrangement,


Dis-


in that


10,000


pupils


were


spread


over


a district


over


100 miles


long with only one major road


serving


District


A school


district which


served


1977


approximately

elementary sc


138,000


hools,


pupils


27 middle


in 147


schools,


school


centers


20 high


schools,


special


education


centers).


There were approximately


7,300


teachers and approximately


4,300


non-instructional


personnel


employed


district.


District


A school


district which


served


in 1977


approximately

elementary sc


110,000


hools,


pupils

junior


high


school

schools,


centers

17 high


(94

schools,


exceptional


child


schools).


There


were


approximately


6,000


teachers and approximately


5,000


non-instructional


personnel


employed


district.


District


A school


district which


served


1977


approximately


22,000


pupils


school


centers


elemen-


tary


schools,


middle


schools,


junior-senior high


schools,


senior


high


schools).


There were


approxi-


mately


1,100


teachers


and approximately


non-


instructional


personnel


employed


district.


Indicator.


An observable manifestation of


a charac-










Management.


The practice of


coordinating time, re-


sources, and personnel to


best meet the goals of the organi-


zation and the needs of its members.


School-based management.


An administrative arrangement


whereby decision-making responsibility is shifted away from


the district level


to the school-site level


(Pierce, 1976,


176).


Staff development.


The provision of aid to facilitate


the upgrading of professional skills for school personnel.

Procedures


In order to carry out the investigation of the extent

to which school-based management exists in practice, as


derived from the relevant scholarly


necessary to,


literature,


first, review the scholarly


it was


literature and


derive the salient characteristics of school-based manage-


ment; and second,


to undertake a field study,


in which the


focus was to determine the extent to which these character-


istics were present in practice.


The processes and proce-


dures by which these two activities were carried out are

described in the sections that follow.

Determination of Characteristics of School-Based Management


A thorough review of the literature was done to derive

salient characteristics which described the construct of


1 T


fl ni p' fl I I -i a rl -m a rr n' n L* 4r I .J ..


/-r -* *t -









theory,


management


theory,


and


school


district


decentrali-


zation.


salient


characteristics


were


derived


by the


process of


logical


analysis.


derivation of


these


characteristics


can be


illustrated by


considering the


following


example


of a characteristic


school-based


management:


School-based manag


extensive
affairs.


citizen


ement is marked
participation i


by wide and
school


Cremin'


(1965)


argument


that


educators


are obligated to


better


inform and


involve


public


education of


youth


110)


provided


support


for thi


characteristic of


school-based management.


Brownell


(1971)


provided


addi-


tional


support with his


statement


that


encouragement


citizen


participation


school


affairs was one


of the


clear


factors marking


decentralized


districts


288).


Derivation of


characteristics


was


followed


by the


derivation from the


literature,


also


logical


analysis,


indicators


for each


characteristic,


which could be observed


would help


of the


to determine


characteristic


relative


in practice.


presence


example


or absence


an indica-


tor


for the


characteristic


derived


above


Citizen's
perceived


school


advisory
by the p


councils


are


participants)


effective


operation at


(as
every


center.


SuDDort


for this


indicator was


deri vsd


frnm tunn


Smniirnrs


1S:









should


included


in a


district


for


appropriate


participa-


tion by


citizens.


They


listed


citizen's committees


as one


in which


that


participation might


encouraged


168).


Second,


Longstreth


(Note


stated


that


advisory


councils


should


available


every


school


to aid


citizen


participation


Field


11).


Study


Selection


sample


districts


Four districts


for comparison


state


with the


of Florida


characteristics


were


derived


selected


from the


literature.


These


districts


were


selected


by three


Crl-


teria.

were c


First,


considered


only those

Second,


districts

only those


willing to


participate


districts whose


leader-


ship contended that


they


school-based management


developed


were


considered.


strong


Third,


system of


only those


districts

districts


that


people knowledgeable .about the


state and about


different


school-based management


agreed were


school-based were


considered.


four dis-


tricts which


were


included


were


the only


ones


to meet all


three criteria.


Data


collection


primary means


of data


collection


was


structured


interview.


documents


Additionally,


were


where


examined,


appropriate,


general


school


observations


district


were made.


r


-- v










derived


indicators


describing the


construct


school-based management--was


prepared and administered to


personnel


selected


in a


pre-determined


pattern


in each


district.


(See Appendix A


a copy


interview


guide.)


tricts,


central


office


superintendent,


each of


and


chief


four dis-


administrator in


curriculum,


personnel,


and


finance


were


interviewed.


remaining


interviewees were


determined by the


sequence


selected


in which


according to a


districts


formula


were


studied.


Each


district


was


issued a number,


determined by the


order of


visitation.


Thus,


number of


the


first


district


was one,


that


second


district was


two,


so on.


first


district,


then,


first


school


board member


listed


1976-77


Florida


Educational


Directory was


selected.


school


level,


first


school


listed in


each of


three


levels


(elementary


school,


junior


high/


middle


school,


and high


school)


was


selected;


and


interviews


were


conducted


with


principal,


with


first


and tenth


teachers


listed on


faculty roster,


and


with


first


member


listed on


list


of citizens'


advisory


council


members.


second


district,


same


pattern


was


followed,


except


that


second board member,


second


cnrhnnl n-a-


0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ fl4 tn~-*t r nnn- .


-a.- -


d srnik


1 n^r l -


>^^


.


- I


1


*Ik









selected


each


district to


interviewed,


or 68


alto-


gether.


event


that


a person


selected


by the


pattern


was


available


interview,


next


person


down


list was


interviewed.


Treatment


data


from the


field


study


data


collected from


field


study were


compared


by the


processes of


logical


analysis


and inspection


to the


indicators of


characteristics


construct


derived


from the


literature


to determine


extent


to which


prac-


tices within


each


district


studied


were consistent with


them.


responses of the


interviewees were


compared with


indicators


to determine


degree


agreement


among


interviewees.


The


data


were


compared


by the


level


at which


respondent


contact with


schools


(central


office


or school


and among


each of


site),


levels


position held,


schools


indicators was


across


to determine


present.


district


degree

the i


Finally,


lines,


to which


indicators


each


characteristic were considered


collectively to


determine


relative


presence


or absence of


character-


istic


itself


with regard


construct


school-based


management.


Organization


Remainder of


Study


In Chapter


attention


given


description


the construct


of school-based management


as derived


from a









presentation


data


from the


field


study portion


investigation.


Chapter


contains


a discussion and inter-


pretation


of the


data.


Chapter


V contains


a summary


study


and the


conclusions


reached.














CHAPTER II


SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT:


THE CONSTRUCT AS


DESCRIBED IN THE LITERATURE


Introduction


As one peruses the scholarly


literature,


the author


tative opinion, and the limited empirical research done with

regard to the construct of school-based management, certain

salient characteristics and indicators of these character-


istics tend to emerge,


i.e.,


there is a certain common


pattern in the thinking of the writers in regard to this


emerging construct.


The characteristics and associated


identifiers relative to school-based management can be


grouped into five major categories:

derations, curriculum considerations


tions,


decision-making consi-

financial considera-


personnel considerations, and community-involvement


considerations.


In the sections that follow,


using these


five major categories,


the salient characteristics and


associated identifiers are described and supported.


instances where the literature was unclear or nonexistent,

the researcher drew from what seemed to be logical and

appropriate authoritative literature related to decision


making, organization theory, and other


like sources.










Decision-making Considerations


If one accepts the constructs put forward by Daniel


Griffiths,


this first category would be considered the most


important of the five.


Griffiths


(1959)


stated as his first


proposition of his theory on decision-making that


The structure of an organization is
determined by the nature of its deci-


sion-making process.


The issues of


organizational structure such as


"span


of control" can be resolved if viewed
as the outgrowth of a particular type
of decision-making process. (p. 89)


The decision-making process,


then,


determines how an


organization operates, and is indeed the key to under-


standing the organizational structure (Griffiths,


1959, p.


80).


Based on a review of the literature,


three major


characteristics in regard to decision-making matters seem to


mark school-based management.


follow,


In the paragraphs that


each of these is described along with indicators


which show their relative presence in a given situation.


Effective Decision-Making Responsibility


Is Delegated


from the District


Level to the School-Site Level.


Pierce (1976) stated that the


"essence of school-site


management i


a shift of


decision-making responsibility from


the school district to the school site"


176).


literature is replete with support for this characteristic

of school-based management.









We may


that


decentralization


the degree of
in a company


managerial
is the


greater:


greater the number of


decisions


made


lower down


the management


hier-


archy.


The more


made 1
archy.
sum of


important


ower down


decisions


the management


For example,


capital


be approved


without


hier-


greater the


expenditure


by the


consulting


that


can


plant manager


anyone


else,


greater the
in this fie


degree
Id.


decentralization


. The


more


made a
which


functions


lower


permit


to be made


less d
permit


levels.


only


affected


Thus,


operational


separate


decentralized


than


financial


branch
those


personnel


y decisions
companies
decisions


plants


are


which also
decisions


at branch


plants.


less


checking


required


on the


decision.


Decentralization


greatest when no


checking
superiors


at all must


have


to be


be made;
informed


s when


decision after


made;


still


less


superiors


have


decision


to be
made


consulted


before


fewer people to


be consulted,
the management


degree


lower


hierarchy,


decentralization.


they


are on


greater the
p. 107)


Since


school


site


lowest


level


the management


hierarchy,


a management


arrangement


which


places major


decision-making


authority there


is one


having


a high


degree


decentralization.


Such an


arrangement would


decision-making


power near to


point


implement at ion,


which is


sunnnor-tI-i widsl v


hv thp


frt TI 1l r sr


(1 qstrj


PivnP'T .t










A decision should always be made at the


lowest possible level and a


scene of action


as possible


close to the
Moreover,


a decision should always be made at a
level insuring that all activities and
objectives affected are fully considered.
The first rule tells us how far down a


decision should be made.


The second


how far down it can be made,


as well


which managers must share in the deci-
sion and which must be informed of it.


199)


Griffiths,


Clark,


Wynn, and lannaccone (1962) believed that


the role of an administrative staff was to create an effec-

tive decision-making process which would permit decisions in


the organization to be made


"as close to the source


effective action


as possible"


62).


Jordan (1969)


said


that it is a generally accepted rule that decisions should


be made as cl


ose


to the point of implementation


as possible


did several other authors.


Griffiths et al.


(1962) believed that the ideal educa-


tional administrative model was


"flat. "


described a


flat model of administration


having the following


characteristics:


The number of authority


levels and line


officers are kept at a minimum


Individual school units are granted
greater autonomy.


The building principal becomes


a key


figure in the educational enterprise,









since


ficer responsible


tional
school.


program of


one administrative of-


for the
children


total


educa-


in his


Administrative


responsibilities are


diffused


among many persons


number of
reduced.


even


though


line administrators may


Specialists become service arms of
the classroom rather than line of-
ficers.


Line administrative officers


generalists


with


broad areas


sponsibility.


become
of re-


From that


description


first


indicator of


this


charac-


teristic


can


deriv


that


building principal


educational decisionmaker


for


school ,


with


broad decision-making


powers


which are


subject


veto


who are most


staff.


familiar with


educational


problems


professionals


pupils


school


- the


principal and


teachers


- are


given more


responsibility


for the


development


educational


pro-


gram of


those


their


between


school.


school s


The needs of


are not always


an individual


same.


school and


Therefore,


in a


school-based management


program,


principal


ele-


vated


level


of the most


influential


educational


managers


in a


school


district


(Pierce,


1976,


176).


This


indicator


additional


support


the writings


of other


authors.


Dale


(1965)


wrote that


one of


q. A *


charac-


central-office


that


wrote










corporation


that


administrative


unit


that


usually


covers


entire


company


broken


down


into


smaller


admin-


istrative

compared


units.


Eac

head


h


headed


"a manager who may


of a smaller enterprise.


Usually


fairly


complete


control


over


basic


line


functions"


343).


Simon


(1957)


used


an argument


similar to


that


Pierce


stating


that


superior can


make more


accurate


decisions


than a


subordinate only


information


which


decision


them both.


This


to be based


may well


equally


case


accessible


facts


be much more apparent


subordinate


238).


That


this


important


can


seen


considering


statement


Barnard


(1938):


The
sist
not


fine


of executive


s in not


deciding


now pertinent,


estion


in not


signing
s that


con-
are


dec hiding


maturely,


not making


decis


ions


that


cannot
making
make.


be made


cisions


effective,


that


others


in not
should


Thus,


in order


an administrative


arrangement


to be


effective,


it must


devised


that


correct


person


gets


to make


decis


ion.


Thomas


(1971)


stated


that


that


person -is


"chief


principal


principal.


management


In his


position"


one with


best


view


principalship


education


knowledge


since


about what


1


I









comes to answering


questions,


solving problems,


pre-


paring


long-range


plans


(pp.


4-6).


Monahan and


Johnson


(1973)


agreed


that


central-office


staff


cannot meet the


legitimate,


divergent


needs


society


(pp.


29-30).


Viering,


in his


1970


dissertation,


excerpted


six other


authors who


stated


that


principalship


the key


execu-


tive


position in


education


(pp.


62-65).


In short,


decision


making


from the


district


level


regarding the


programs of


individual


schools


likely


suffer


from what


Zenke


(1975)


called


"bureaucratic


arteriosclerosis"


53).


condition


can be remedied


by recognizing


that,


as Griffiths


et al.


(1962)


stated,


principal


"educational


policy


developer of


highest order"


188)


"accountable


for the


total


educational


program in


building


which he


chief"


188).


second


based


on the


indicator of


idea of


this


getting the


characteristic

decision made a


also


s near to


child as


possible and on having


person with


best


information make


This


indicator


that


principal


delegates


decision-making


responsibility


regarding


school


program


other


staff


members.


This


indicator


reflects attempts


take advantage


specific talents


staff members


to have


subject


program area


experts


make


decisions


those areas.


_ _









the classroom"


176)


that teacher


support of


plan,


which


is essential


success


of school-based


management,


will


influence over


increased


school


policy


by their


176).


being given more


idea receives


much support


from the


literature.


Candoli


(1974)


stated


that


best


educational


decisions


are made


as close


student


as possible


Obviously,


person nearest


to the


pupils


is the


teacher


classroom.


Goodlad


(1971)


spoke


directly to


issue.


I am arguing
rationality


cess.
first,
most 1
ledge


seco


persons
decision


ns.


only
in the


essential


whether the


.ikely to


have


are making the


somewhat


greater


decision-making


pro-


criterion are,


persons
the re


decis


whether or not


to be


held ac


groups


levant


know-


ions and,


are


countable


for the


He added


later


same


article:


Teachers must


be held accountable


must


ing when
make ins


cantly


accept accountability


their de


tructional


limited


and regulations.


grees


learn-


of freedom to


decisions are
inappropriate
(p. 7)


signifi-


laws,


rules,


Sullivan


(1975)


suggested


that


teachers and


principal


should act


as co-partners


in curriculum development


at the


local


level.


Although


recognized


that teachers often


lack the


training


experience


to make


type of


deci-


slons


necessary under


a management


arrangement


decentralized










15).


South


(1975)


likened the arrangement to a colle-


gial theory of organization


Based on a study by Stogdill and Scott,


one might expect to find increased delegation to teachers as


a natural result of


increased delegation to the principal.


In their


1957 study of 25 naval organizations,


they found


that when superiors in large organizations delegated author-


ity freely to their subordinates,


the subordinates felt


increased responsibility and,


in turn,


delegated freely to


their subordinates down to the lowest levels of supervision.


In small organizations,


this situation does not continue--


first-line supervisors restrict delegation (pp.


352-353).


The Central-Office Staff Retains the Ultimate Authority Over


Schools to Ensure that Organizational


Goals Are Being


Met and to Provide Coordination; However,
Decisions Made at This Level Is Limited.


the Number of


Drucker (1954)


said:


The term "decentralization"


is actually


misleading though far too common by


now to be discarded.


It implie


s that the


center is being weakened;


could be more of


a mistake.


but nothing
Federal de-


centralization requires strong guidance
from the center through the setting of
clear, meaningful, and high objectives


for the whole.


The objectives must de-


mand both a high degree of business per-
formance and a high standard of conduct


throughout the enterprise.


The issue involved here is,


214)


in the words of Griffith et al.


. F. I- I 9 -. I-


(Stogdill, 1974)


/ 1/ A /


ff 1 .-









decentralization,


rather the


emphasis


placed on


one or


other"


same


49).


idea as


Monahan and Johnson


placing the management


(1973)


referred


arrangement


on a


continuum between


centralization and


decentralization


22).


There are


indicators


this


characteristic


sug-


gested by the


literature.


first


was


stated by


Dale


(1965)


as a characteristic


of decentralization.


that


"centralized


controls


are


designed


ensure


that


chief


executive


can


find


how well


delegated


authority


responsibility


are


being


exercised"


343).


Examples of


these


controls


include


budget


report


statements of


goals,


curriculum plans,


staffing patterns


to be


submitted


district


office


periodically.


Allen


(1964)


expressed


the need


for these


controls:


Balance


decentralization


with appropriate


centralization.
tralization must


private ce
central i
to guide,


Every move
be matched


*ntralization


intelligencee must
coordinate, and


toward


decen-


an appro-


authority. A
retain authority


control


the opera-


ting


elements


so that


they will


proceed


ward a
whole,
pulling


dent


common


end


every wh
s. The


objective
loosely a


ich


as an integrated
associated entities


way to


their indepen-


centralized authority must


establish


overall


for the company


tives


objectives and


as a whole


on the needs of


because


enterprise


policies
perspec


exist


only at t
corporate


ment


e top.
plans


Dlannine


When


guide
its


properly


stated,


each operating


own


targets. (


these


ele-


212)


A A


*





27


"'as much freedom as possible, as much intervention as neces-


sary"


91).


He explained that increased delegation to


the periphery "must be balanced by adequate control from the

centre if decentralization is not to lead to incoherence by


default"


91).


The purpose of maintaining these controls,


it is clear,


is to ensure that the basic goals of the organization will

provide limits within which the decision-making parties, in


the school unit will operate.


Candoli


(1974)


spoke directly


to this point in saying "Building objectives must relate to


systemic goals and objectives"


Jordan (1969) also


stated that:

Complete decentralization of decision-


making may result in the loss


of admini-


strative control of the organization, fo
decisions must be made in the context of


the accepted goal


of the organization.


The degree to which these controls will be exercised is

the subject of the second indicator of this characteristic.

Too heavy use of them will result in a lessening of the


effectiveness of the decentralization.


The literature is


clear on this point.


Viering (1970) related comments by John C.


vice-president of Massey-Fergusen,


Staiger,


who said that delegation


of authority must be real--not merely on paper, and that









long as


boundaries


decisions made


general


by the manager


guidelines


fall


within


district


poli-


cies,


they


should not


vetoed.


Decentralization of


deci-


sion making


impl


delegation of the


necessary


authority to


make


them.


As Newman


(1973)


said,


Control
not mean


of the
that


necessary resources


services must


corn


does
e under


the managerial


control


the manager ac-


countable


have
are


the
used,


for the
final co
within


programme,


ntrol
police


he must


on how and when they


es


setting


general


delineation of


such


useage.


is a critical mistake


for an organization


give


respon-


sibility to an


employee


fail


give


him the neces-


sary authority to carry


(Allen,


1964,


206).


However,


with


that


authority


comes


burden of


ac-


countability.


Longstreth


(Note


differentiating


between a


"boss"


and a


"manager,


" stated


that


a manager:


(he) must be willing
delegated responsibility a


to assume the


authority.


He must


prepared


to be held accountable


for the results


those


duced a negative


the actions
decisions


outcome


fer to another unit in th
or an outright dismissal.


result


taken
rhich
in a


even


pro-
trans-


organization
(p. 2)


Monahan and


Johnson


(1973)


summarized


issue


stating


that when responsibility


and authority


are


delegated


to a


person,


'they


should


left


there


until


shown


to be


error.


Changing


or constant


checking,


will


result









actions


taken,


they


should


willing to


have


their


accountability


checked


an auditing procedure- (p.


25).


second


indicator of


characteristic


then,


that


central-office


staff


does


veto


decisions made


school


site


which


are within district


guidelines,


they


hold


principal


accountable


those


decisions


their


consequences.


This


increased accountability


professional


educators


fact,


one


important


aspects of


school-based management


(Pierce,


1976,


176).


Both of


these


indicators


demonstrate


that,


school-


based management,


fewer


fewer decisions


are made


school-district


office.


central


office


functions


improve


decisions made


at the


school


level


through


auditing the


program and


other


aspects of


the administrative


process,


e.g.,


providing


services


to keep


school


personnel


informed


training to


various

improve


options


open


talents


them and


providing


decisionmakers


levels.


This


in accordance with a


widely


accepted


tenet


administrative


theory,


down by Griffiths


(1959)


effectiveness


inversely proportional


decisions


which he


a chief


must


concerning the affairs of


is not


tive


to make


to monitor the


make


certain


mum level.


function


deci


executive
number of


personally make


organization.


chief


sons;


execu-


function


decision-making process


that
(o. 8


performs at the opti-


1 /









office and


school


site


that


subject


third


characteristic of


this area


school-based management.


Central-Offi
Supportive


ce Staff Functions
Partnership with t


in a Facilitating,
e Staff at the School


Site.


Monahan and


Johnson


(1973)


offered


a set


criteria


by which


one


can


determine


whether or not


a decision needs


to be


decentralized:


Criteria


for Centralization-Decentralization


Solutions


Decentralization:


Individual


unique


solutions are


situations.


needed because


Examples:


staffing patterns


a different


students


individual


program because


in a given


school.
nature


area.


Decisions are


How to


needed


spend funds


'equently.
allocated


Example:
within


schools.


Decisions


are
need


needed'


quickly.


suspend a


stud


Example:
ent for gross


misbehavior


Centralization:


A uniform solution


teacher


teacher s
Screening


salary


alary


required.


schedule
schedule.


candidates


and


Examples:
placement


legal


qualifica-


tions


required


law.


. Decisions
available


based
at a


on information


central


which


location.


is all


Examples:


where


to place


a new school.


how to deploy the


school


busses.


Broadly needed


services


very


specialized


nature
a.


e.


Example:


psychological


services.


-- w










first


indicator


for this


characteristic


can be


drawn


from this


primary


delineation.


criterion


Decisions


"whether


are made


proposed


according to


individuals


possess


ability


necessary


information which will


enable


them to make


decision"


(Jordan,


1969,


26).


Thus,


indicator may


stated--those


decisions


which,


judgment


central-office


and


school


staffs,


can


more


efficiently


made


school


site


are


delegated,


while


those


best


made


centrally


are


retained


central


office.


Obviously,


degree


delegation


authority


in an


administrative


area


depends


on the management


function with


which one


is concerned


(Dale,


1952,


117).


prime


criterion


stated


which


above,


determines


degree


efficiency with


which


delegation is, a

it can be made at


any particular


level.


Such activities


recruitment


personnel


for the


district


as a whole


can


be most


efficient.-


ly carried out


tion with unions


central-office


letting


staff,


contracts.


as can negotia-


Because


advantages


best


group


handled at the


rates,


many purchasing


central-office


level.


functions are


decision


regarding the


staffing


pattern


to be


used at


school


site,


however,


best


handled at


school


site,


r'hnin o nf +ha nnv


.1+.- t'-,fl -nr, #lrTn


_* -
/^ -. t /- -f -^ ^ -- ,4 -I iw -k -A I a^


LI 1.










Relative


to the


point,


Pierce


(1976)


stated:


School-site


need


Rather,
station


does


management would


a central


it would


free


to spend more


best,


such as


eliminate


administration.


central admini-


time on
carrying


those


things


on financial


transactions
insuring that


perform
rial,
remain


with


external


district


med properly.
auditing, and


agencies and


activities


are


Many financial,
testing functions


resr


being
monito-
would


central


administration.
personnel plan


gated


,onsibility
Most pro


ting,


the school


gram planning


however,
site. (


would be


and
dele-


176)


It is


clearly


stated


literature,


then,


that the cen-


tral-office


staff


can


perform some


functions


better than


can


school


staff,


eve


n in highly


decentralized


situations


(Staples,


1975,


11).


The main


purpose


central-office


staff


in a


school-based management


arrangement


is to provide


neces-


sary


services


school


staff


to enable


to carry out


goals


and objectives.


This


subject


second


indicator of


characteristic.


that


central-


office


staff


provides


school


staff


expert


nforma-


tion and adv


support


guide


them


their planning.


Dale


(1965)


considered


this


point


to be


one


primary


characteristics


a decentralized


organization--


"Provision


specialists


is made


to aid


for utilization


decentralized


a centralized


operations"


staff


343).


HP R-t-t'r


- -


71 0, nnn 4


I It S ii a C f am v^ T


-A-1--4


/^FI nnTnrr -ri


I I I I 1 1










companies.


The main difference i


s that manager is not


responsible for obtaining the capital used in running the

operation--it is allocated by the parent organization (1965,


343; 1967,


. 112).


To provide coordination between


these units, it is often necessary to have central-staff

groups to help with planning and to provide services to the


units


(1965,


343;


1967,


114-115).


school systems


which have moved to


school-based management fit Dale


definition of a divisionalized organization rather well


First,


divisionalized organizations may be decentralized by


geographic location, by product, or by a combination of the


two (1967,


110-111).


Most


school systems are organized


into units by a combination of the two--geographically,


meet the population pattern of the community; and product,

to provide educational programs for different age groups or


needs.


As stated in the first characteristic,


the principal


is given the authority to run the school in at least a semi-


autonomous manner.


He or she receives the fund


to be bud-


geted in the school from the central-office level, according

to a formula determined by the goals and objectives of the


district as a whole.


The manager of a unit in a division-


alized organization is judged on the basis of the unit's


profit and loss statement


(1965,


343;


1967,


pp. 109-110),









as a


whole.


Coordination


between


schools


provided


central-office


staff,


whose


purposes


are


to guide


schools


in coordinating


their activities


with


the other


schools


school meet


the

its


district


own


objective


to provide

es, as is


services


done


to help each


divisionalized


companies,


stated above.


There


is much


support


for this


function


the central


office


literature.


Candoli


(1974)


stated that


there


is a responsibility


at the central-office


level


to advise


participate


with


school


staff


planning


at the


school


level,


as well


as to


provide


technical


assistance


which


needed


Jacobs


(1972)


described a


program-


development model


use


Cincinnati


Public


Schools:


fundamental


for more
initiated


This
lized


thrust


educational


local


does


concept


programming,


a supplement


to a


the model


programming to


school


preclude
recogni


program


level.
centra-


zes


development


for the


local


school.


A partnership was


said


to exist


process of


program


development;


that


shared


responsibility


exists


between


local-school


staff


community


and the


central


office with


staff


specialists


South


(1975)


described


role


change of


the central


office


under


school-based management


thus:


. -frnm n hoi n


d-i r? at 1 70o


oIJa 1 iiat+Y I


rll4 |i !r










Results ar
station and
form of ma


trict


are


e


to be


achieved


collaboration--the


nagement.


on-call


Resources


for work


groups"


through


consul-


collegial


the
(p.


dis-
6).


Moore


(1975),


in a


discussion


various


problems


brought


so closely


local-school


in the


unit


decision-making


involving


process,


teachers


recognized


need for centralized


experts:


(However),


access


local


school


to stimulating


actors


ideas


o require
different


instructional and/or organizational


stra-


tegies in
which are


order to


considered.


expand


pool


Again,


ideas


the need be-


comes


clear


technical


r adequate
assistance


within or external


support
services


school


services
either
system.


These


considerations


regarding the


decision-making


area


school-based management


deal


essentially with


basic


mind-set


leadership


in a


school


district


regarding


level


at which


effective


decision making


should


take


place.


They


are,


accordingly,


rather


general


in scope.


remaining


four


areas


of considerations,


dealing with basic


activities


educational


enterprise,


are more


specific


in orientation and are


grounded


characteristics


described


tion


this


fact,


section.


specific


Much


remaining


applications of


these


descrip-


general


statements


to the


areas


in question.


Curriculum Considerations










Decision-Making Authority


Placed at


School


the Area of


Curriculum Is


Level.


stated


earlier,


definition


curriculum ac-


cepted in


this


study was


that


Saylor and Alexander


(1974),


learning


defined it


opportunities


plan


to achieve


for providing


broad


sets of


goals and related


specific objectives


for an


identifiable


population served by


a single


school


center"


Implicit


this


definition


tailoring


plan


for the


school


question.


The authors


All


spoke


that point


important


follows:


in curriculum theory


curriculum planning


role of


individual


improvement
school.


and
is
It


is here
thus the


that
plan


curriculum plan


should be


tailor-ma


unfolds;
de for


the school,
desirable


that


school


insofar


center.


feasible and


>ersons
(p.


associated


with


The educational


enterprise


one


which


widely


divergent


groups


pupils


with


widely


divergent


needs


come


together


one


institution


undergo


socialization


process


been formalized


our culture.


procedure


how this


process


take


place


subject


interpre-


stations


just


as widely


divergent


as the


subjects


upon


whom


to be carried


out.


point


at which


this


situation


becomes


reality


local-school


site


(Goodlad,


1975,


62).


11 -


t nn r \


t 3










Moving


greater
only at


ally, c
be loca
ages an
tional
thought


defined as


program.
local


planning


school


adaptation
the local


orrective
lly made


under the


control


purportedly permits


to local needs


school


site.


Addition-


adaptive measures


on school


d other centrally


programs


curriculum pack-


developed


in the manner more


as custom engineering.


such,


instruc-
technically
Therefore,


localizing program planning


to the
form of


school
school


site


constitutes


district


the act of overtly
responsibility in
organization. (p.


placi
the su


an element


decentralization,
ng decision-making


b-units


i.e.,


school


Jacobs


(1972)


believed


that,


similar reasons,


decentra-


lization


authority


for program development


to the


local


school


inevitable.


He argued


that


standardization


"antithetical


to diversity"


School


communities


raise many


cross


pressures


for the


individual


school.


Unless


they


are


given adequate


authority to


make


the appro-


private


responses,


the


schools


cannot


respond


to those


cross


pressures


Pierce


(1976)


stated that


school-based


management moved


school and


program


closer to


parents


children who attended


In a


single


school


unit,


he contended,


SCO


problems which are


con-


fronted


and the number of


people


involved


in any


one meeting


are


reduced,


thus


simplifiying the


task


school


being responsive


needs of


community


176).


indicator of


this


characteristic


that


goals


-- 1 4


sensed


can


,g


1


II








the methods


instruction are


determined


school


staff.


Both


these


are well-supported in


literature.


Citizen's


Committee


on Education,


appointed


Florida


Governor


Reubin Askew


1971,


studied


concept


of school-based management.


Among


other principles


seen as


being


characteristic


school-based management were that


"Specific


educational


objectives


school


are


people


associated with


school"


"Organization


instruction


determined at


school


level"


(South,


1975,


Candoli


(1975)


considered both


stating:


our conviction


buildings
tele and


and
that


serve
that t


varieties f
individual


delivery
clientele
their own


it's
what


been
the


and also
vidual b
livery s
tele and


that


exactly the


here
ound


are


two of


sam


enough


throughout


buildings


systems most


should


suited


indigenous


staff


our effort


systemic g
to provide


buildings to
systems most
individual


community.


oa


e clien-
differences
our city
d develop
their


strengths


Therefore,


to strongly indic
is and objectives


capacity


, devise
suited


ate


indi-


programs and de
to their clien-


strengths.


Caweit i


largest


(1974)


school


found


in his


districts


study


that,


nation's


ose


districts whose


leadership claimed


to have


decentralized,


most


leaders


stated


that


building was


level


where


decisions


regarding


goals


objectives


local


school


were


Tr ,i r~ A


inn 4- 4 1., A ._r.. 4 4 .. a 2 .. .. -- r1 __


our


are


mar rl 1


T-f- t^ac c E c- n


s-1 -4










building


level


in a majority


cases,


indicating that


program and


instruction


decisions


were


made


local-


school

Hansen


level


(1975),


those

in a


district


study


s (pp.


inspired


6-7).


Patterson


by Cawelti'


asked


and

the


same


questions


in Madison,


Wisconsin,


found


that


there


also


building


situations


school


staffs


128).


administrators


made


Viering


Ohio


decision


(1970),


school


both


in a study


districts


over


of between


10,000


30,000


pupils


found


that


a majority


them


believed


that


principal


school


should


determine


objectives


courses


content


courses.


They


also


believed


that


should


approve


teacher methodology


108).


Another


indicator which


was


supported


three


these


studies


was


that


determination


material


s to


e used


instruction


prog


ram


shouZd


made


local-school


level.


(Cawelti,


1974,


Patterson


Hansen,


1975,


128,


Viering,


1970,


108).


question


ove


of who


decisions


should


involved


subject


second


making


charac-


teristic.


Broad


Participation
he Resultant


Marks


Planning


Decision Making


Curriculum and


School


Site.


Saylor


and Alexander


(197,4)


listed


following as


w










center


community


(such as


administrators,


educators),


external


resource


participants


specialists,


(including


curriculum specialists


from district


offices,


community


educators


resource


specialists,


parents),


and


teachers


(pp.


42-43).


That


statement


gives


some


idea


extent


to which wide


participation must


sought.


As was


stated


decision-making


area,


principal must


delegate


responsibility


authority to


appropriate


people


if he


hopes


take advantage of


various


talents


avail-


able


to him.


indicator of


this


characteristic would be


that


teachers


actively


participate


process


curriculum


development


school.


They


are


educational


profes-


sionals


with


most


intimate knowledge


the needs


population with which


they


are


dealing.


Many writers,


some


of whom were


quoted


in the


decision-making


section,


have


spoken


importance of


getting


effective


decision-


making


authority


as close


to the


student


as possible,


that

the


a major goal


decision making


school-based management


to increase


teacher.


Another


indicator of broad involvement


that


pupils


are


included


respected members


planning


group.


stated above,


Saylor


and Alexander


(1974)


considered


T.ltni, 1


+^\ ^n


Tr f r


, n /* ^


- -- -


L--


- ------------------ C- -


-^ r -_ *










movement


might


indicate


that the


general


public


is asking


that


traditional


board at


top and


organizational


pupil


pyramid with


bottom be


school


reversed


54).


Link and


Simpson


(Note


found,


in a review of


research regarding


pupil


involvement


curriculum develop-


ment


since


1970,


that


an overall


consensus


existed as to the


desirability


involving


students


curriculum-


planning process


to an


increased


degree


Stemnock


(1970)


reported that


some


boards


education


include


pupils


as non-voting members,


that


others


have


formalized


their


pupil


involvement


experiments


into


board


policy.


San Diego


and Atlanta are


reported


as employing


pupils on


curriculum-


writing

use of


teams.

pupils on


Saylor an

planning


d Alexander


councils


(1974)


also reported


curriculum task


forces


high


schools


and middle


schools


and of


parents


representatives of


their children


elementary


schools


97).


third indicator of


this


characteristic


that


parents


planning

(1976) i


and other


process


indicated


interested


resultant


that moving


citizens are


included


Pierce

process


school


level


would


encourage


parent


participation


increasing the


number of


opportunities


available.


It would


A -^ n -I A-


,nC~~ a A


a - A-


- r -


- .


decision making.


decision-making


nfnl


9










would have


to be consulted;


chances


of a parent's


being


able


to affect


school


policy


increased because of


having to compete


with fewer people.


That


increased ease,


combined with the


natural


proprietary


feelings


which


people


have


for their


"own"


school,


should make


it much


easier to


elicit


asked


parent


to become


participation


involved at


school


district


than if


or area


they were


level


176).


Kimbrough and Nunnery


(1976)


stated


that


"processes


should be


included


for the


appropriate


participation


parents


other citizens


planning


activities


and estab-


lishing goals"


. 168).


They


noted


that


this


usually


done


by the


creation


parents'


or citizens'


advisory


councils,


parent-teacher organizations,


and the


like.


(This


concept


treated


in more


depth


section


relating to


community-involvement


considerations.)


A fourth indicator


states


that


central-office


staff


offers


support


services


school


staff


endeavors


to meet


district


standards


and


goals


school


unit.


This


function


central


office


been


discussed


earlier


decision-making


section.


It receives


addi-


tional


support


from Kimbrough and Nunnery


(1976),


who


stated


that


"modern


instructional


programs must


supported by


appropriate


supervisory


services


by well-organized


nP TVs1rv


nrna r'^mc;"


( nfr T


171 -1 09


Sirh'h


a nno niir' fi l rnm


f[-I -


i










program and


techniques;


sets


resource


to aid


teachers


libraries,


special books;


learning


disabilities and


with


staffs of


child


their in

such aids

experts i


psychology,


structional


films and


n such fields


available


local


school


staff


planning


carrying


instructional


programs


are


examples of


services


which


are


included


under this


indicator.


One of


the major purposes


decentralization


activities


been


to get


decision making


educa-


tional


process


closer to


people


who are


served by


It had


birth


consolidation


school


districts,


which had

1890's (S


been


taples,


occurring


1975,


United


This


States


trend,


since


which


because


growing


tricts


population and


had


decreasing numbers


inevitable result


of school


increasing the


dis-


size


existing


school


district


made


logistics


for close


citizen


involvement


in schools


difficult


to work


out.


Since


many purchasing,


service,


and managerial benefits


accrue


from


utilizing the


larger school-district


arrangement,


principle


decentralization


came


to be


utilized.


This


created


semi-autonomous


public


employees


units,


could be


which


closer contact with


arranged and


retention


by the


district


benefits


more


efficient


size


- a a iI -I -I __ _


f -. -I a i


Ir_ *


1









creation


more


equal


standards


of educational


offerings


are


examples


of benefits


district-level


involvement


decentralized


situations.


The managerial


role of


the central-office


staff


subject


final


characteristic


this


area.


Central-Office


Staff


Sets


Broad


Objective


Standards


for the


able


District


Which


School


Staff


Is Held Account-


to Meet.


As was


tion,


discussed

important


earlier in

to realize


the decision-making


that


sec-


school-based manage-


ment


does


bring


about


total


abdication


power


central-office


staff


school-center staff.


Al-


though


implicit


construct


that


power


dis-


persed


various


school


sites,


there must


also


some


power retained at the

coordination for the


central-off i

organization


level


to provide


as a whole and


insure a


degree


equality


standards


of educational


programs


offered


various


schools.


Villers


(1954)


stated


that


one of


the main


obstacles to


faced by


decentralized


organization


control


decentralized


units


89).


Although


goal


school-


based management


is to


achieve an


organizational


status


which


will


allow


individual


schools


to move


to meet the


particular needs of


their particular communities,


this


problem of co


ntrol i


no less


applicable


to this


type of










total


school


program lies


with


school


board,


that


responsibility


cannot


shifted.


Alexander,


Corns,


McCann


(1969)


expressed


point


follows:


school


agencies
state bo


state


boards


at the


are


local


ard and the


school


officer


strative agencies.


level,


these


ministrative


but

The
tive


cannot

courts


administrative


level


office


are


Just


boards may
functions
granted 1


commonly


functions


into two cat
ministerial.


powers


here


judgment on


just


as the


the chief


state admini-


as at


delegated ad-


by the
egislat


divide the


local


:egories,
The mea
is those


legislature
ive powers.

administra-


school


discretionary and
ning of discretionary


acts


part


of such responsibilities


tion
ment


school


building


which


board.


could
site,


of a particular teacher or the


chase of
greatest
classifi


these
cation


a certain
portion o


type


school


f a board's


as discretionary.


scretionary powers


is only


and restrictions


a b


limited by the


require


Examples
e loca-
employ-
pur-


bus.


powers


In exercising
board of edu-


requirements
As has been


pointed


in the


agencies, the
with a board's


though


case


courts
exerci


judgment


board's action


authority,

Ministerial


or is

acts


the exercise of


fically ministerial


state


will not
se of di


unwise


violates


an ultra


education


interfere


scretion


even


except where


law,


abuses


vires act.


neither require nor
subjective judgement


duties may


permit
Speci-


requirements


that
port,


a board


obtain a


prepare a budget


education.


a board


can


subordinate


Courts


publish an


signature


annual financial


on a


re-


contract,


approval by the


have


generally


delegate ministerial


employees


or the


hel
powe


school


board of
d that
rs to


district,


Local


state


board


school









Thus,


board


of education


given


directives


by the


legislature


area


curriculum,


well as


in other


areas of


school


operation,


which


required


follow.


Coincidentally,


community which


represents


board


responsibility to


to provide


a program which


meets


desires


expressed


by that


community.


Obviously,


to carry


this


responsibility to


different


interested


parties,


there must


directives


issued


by the


board which


are


to be


followed by


various


school


centers.


These


directives


are


part


discretionary powers


board


which are mentioned


above


passage


from Alexander


et al.


within


(1969).


area


How these directives


the ministerial


are


powers,


carried


which,


falls


as was


also


pointed out


passage,


be delegated.


superintendent


chief


school


executive officer of


district,


board


who


serves


(Alexander et


al.,


1969,


124),


or her


staff


determine


guidelines


to be followed


in carrying


these


directives,


and,


pending


on the


strategies


school


will


district


adopted


organization,


to meet


decide which


guidelines.


In a


school-based management


arrangement,


strategies will


left


school


staff


as much


possible;


but the


central-office


staff


will


retain what


Dale


referred


to as


"functional


supervision.


In an


edited work .


urnt-e an


. .-










applicability to


described


school


functional


(T)he
tain


central
functions4


operations


as


decentralization as well,


supervision

zed staff s


al


in their


industrial relati


sibly manufacturing


supervision may


company
programs


seeing that


furnishing
advice, set
procedures,


which


follows:


specialists main-


over divisional


supervision"


fields of exp
ons, finance,


sales.


formulation


cover


objectives,


policies,


line management'


decisions


administrative


:ting up


standards,


,ertise,


Functional


such


major
and


approval
carried out,
technical
systems,


plans


controls and measurement


performance,
key personnel
assignment.
1958, pp. 612


concurring


and
(Dale
-613)


in change
in Richa


selection of
s in their


rds


Nielander,


The above


discussion,


when related


to curriculum,


provides


this


basi


for the


characteristic.


inference


first


two


these


indicators of


indicators


that


district-wide


policies


regarding


educational


standards


curriculum


goals


exist


some


form


and


are


made


known


school


staffs.


These


policies


would be


writing


would take


form of,


perhaps,


a policy manual,


a curri-


culum guide,


tor relates


or a series


closely to


memorandums


first.


second indica-


that monitoring


procedures


are


established and


personnel


are


provided by


central-office


staff


ensure


that


policies


are


fol-


lowed and


standards met.


These monitoring


procedures


could


be handled


either of


two ways.


First,


central-office


and


pos-










programs at the


school


centers


(singly


collectively).


Second,


process


could be


left to


careful,


personal


attention


central-office


staff


persons


responsible


for each area


program


district-wide.


They would


closely monitor operations


each


school


center and


inter-


with


personnel


at those


sites.


Perhaps


some


com-


bination


above might


exist,


but the


placement


that


responsibility


somewhere


at the


central-office


level


essential.


basic point


that these


policies and guidelines,


which are


by the central-office


staff,


are objectives


standards within which


school-center


staff


must


operate.

to develop


Within

the p


those


guidelines,


program which


they


the

feel


school

best s


staff


uits the


free

needs


of their


school


population and


their own


talents


re-


sources.


The freedom to


develop an


individual


program for a


school


center


is often


blocked by the


lack of


resources to


carry


it out


or by


effective


lack of


resources


commitment


may not


agree with


those

the


resources

priorities


some

the


other area


community


which

the


school


concerned.


Indeed,


disparity


between allotment


of funds
* *r -


for various


budgetary


1- -


areas


-I


the


priorities of


* r.


' "


_










budget"


119),


concept


school-based management


must


include


provisions


funding the


programs which are


developed at the


school


sites.


Accordingly,


the next


area


considered


that


financial


considerations.


Financial


Considerations


Longstreth


(Note


concluded


that most


educational


cisions


have a


very


definite


effect


on the budget


Since


school-based management


places


a heavy


emphasis


making


decisions


at the


school


site,


consideration must


given


budgeting


process


ensure


that


com-


patible


with


decisioning process.


one


considers the


area


financial


considerations,


three


characteristics


emerge


as being


descriptive


school-based management.


Within


Broad


District


Guidelines,


Final Decision


Regarding Budgetary
School Level.


Matters


Is Made at


Local-


Much


support


for this


characteristic


already


been


cited


decision-making


section,


under the


charac-


teristic


that


"effective


decision-making responsibility


delegated


from


district


level


school-site


level.


Obviously,


this


first


characteristic


essentially


application


cial


that


considerations.


general


There


principle


however,


area


additional


finan-


evidence


which adds more


specific


support.


Pierce


(1976)


stated


that


,,t,,a


I.. -- 2 -


-- -- -


- -a-.


S- -


i A









Longstreth


(Note


contended


that


one needs


control


resources


decisions


responsibility


one


Hamilton


and authority


to make


(1975)


doesn't


decentralized


held that


mean a


"delegation of


thing unless


control


resources


goes


along with it"


146).


Thomas


(1971)


believed


that


"decentralization of


management


possible


only where there


decentralization of


management


resources"


Newman


(1973)


commented that


delegation


must, include all necessary resources


carry


it out


88),


and added that


control


necessary resources means


that


one must


have


final


control


within


specific


guidelines


91).


first two


indicators


this


characteristic


can


derived


from these


statements


first


one


that


principal


receives


unearmarked


funds,


which


are


generated by


school


according


the allocation


formulas,


and


responsibility


for


budgeting


these


funds;


however,


principal


must


periodically


report


central


office


the money


being


used.


Jordan


(1969)


stated


that:


Large sch
buildings


ool


elementary


districts


at both
levels


lized methods
Under this ar
principal is
the complete


of his


the
have


in budget


'rangeme
called
budget


building.


nt


with multiple
secondary and


used


decentra-


development.
each building


upon
for t
. 118


to develop
he operation
)










of the school


119).


Further support for this indicator


comes from a discussion of divisionalization by Dale (1965).

He stated that the manager of a divisionalized company (a

position which was shown to be much like that of a school


principal in the decision-making section)


dent of a smaller company,


is like the presi-


except that "he is not respon-


sible for obtaining the capital he uses.


him by the parent company.


It is allotted to


Then he is judged on his profit-


and-loss statement"


343).


Once again,


the principal is


in a very similar position.


A sum of money is allocated,


and the principal is judged on how effectively it is used to

develop a program within the limits of the funds available.

South's (1975) report on the findings of the Florida Gover-

nor's Committee on Education said that the committee con-

sidered it to be a basic premise of school-based management

that "Decisions on how funds for instruction are to be spent


are made at the school center"


Viering (1970) cited


a model of a flat organization developed by Robert E.


Wilson,


in which the principal of a school was expected to


run a nearly completely autonomous unit within the framework


of system-wide guidelines.


Included within the purview of


the principal's power was the development and administration


of the budget of the school


18).


Allen (1964)


listed






52


make final decisions on most activities that are included in


approved programs"


212).


Morphet, Johns, and Reller


(1974) stated that the budget should be controlled at the

school level with special services at the district office


352).


The second indicator


related to the fact that the


principal must be given real authority.


It is that the


budget


not subject to veto by the centra


office staff


long as district po


licies


are not violated.


Although the


principal is expected to report on the budget at regular


intervals,


the principal may expect that it will not be


changed without his or her approval.


The auditing pro-


cedures are present to protect the district against incom-

petence and to provide a basis for an advisory stance by the


central-office staff,


quested.


if it becomes necessary or


As was cited earlier, Monahan and Johnson


re-

(1973)


stated that it is important that people who accept responsi-

bility be willing to allow their accountability to be veri-

fied by an accounting process; but that it is equally impor-

tant that once authority is placed with a person, it should


be left -there until it is found to be in error (p.


Constant overriding of the decisions of


a person placed in


authority will undermine that authority until the person is










a project


which


they


have


developed


vetoed at the


dis-


trict


level


lack


funds


Placing the


budgeting


responsibility


at the


school


level


and removing the veto


threat


hoping


should


encourage


programs


their


greater


having


staff


involvement


access


in devel-


budget


and,


in fact,


input


into


formation


should


encourage more


realistic


planning,


well.


third


indicator of


this


characteristic


is that


within


district


policies


and guidelines,


funds


allocated


school


site


can


be moved


from


one


account


another


meet


program


needs.


(Jacobs,


1972,


15).


accounts


have, after

them at the


all,


been


school


developed and


level,


amounts


according to


allocated


first


into


indicator


this


characteristic,


which refers


"unearmarked"


funds


being

that


allocated


principal must


school.

be given


Jacobs

the r


(1972)


ight to


further stated

reorganize


aspects


program,


if he


or she


sees


fit,


and


that the


necessary


resources must


be available


to do


26).


ability to


redistribute


funds


as necessary


when


conditions


change allows


that


kind


flexibility.


The final


indicator of


this


characteristic


that


monies


which


are


saved


during


school


year


staff


ingenu-


sacrifice


remain


attached


school


and may


4~~ .A a


- J -


41










Florida,


schools


12).


Monahan


Johnson


(1973)


also


described


such an arrangement.


They


argued


that


economy


becomes


a more


personal


thing


staff


school


under this


kind


system


. 36).


Staff


members


know that


saving money


in one


area


can


make


available


funds


needed for


another area;


or that


they


can,


by mutual


agreement,


decide


to spend


less


on an area


year


or two


to buy


some


badly


needed,


expensive,


equipment.


A more


economical


system


should


arise


from


such


thinking.


There


is one other


study which


related


s charac-


teristic


of budgetary


power at


school


level.


Seward


(1975)


compared


centralized


decentralized


budgeting


concluded


that


decentralized


budgeting wa


more


diverse


primary target


lessening


school-based management)


equitability


that


disbursement


there


funds


was


in a


decentralized


district;


that


there


were


more


effectively


written

calender


policies

. more e


regarding


extensive


budget,


school-site


a more


inclusive


involvement,


budget


better


budget


reporting


community


under


decentralized


system


1969-A).


Data


from this


study


conclus ic


that


potential


benefits


budget


program based at


school


into


level may


second


considerable.


characteristic


findings


relative


also


finance, i


lead


that









Planning


Level


and Administration


Is Marked


Broad


Budget at


School


Participation.


Like


last


characteristic,


much of


support


this


characteristic


has already


been


cited.


second


indicator of


first


characteristic


decision-making


considerations--


"the


principal


delegates


decision-making


responsibility


regarding the


school


program to other


staff


members.


Pierce


(1976)


pointed


empha


placed


strengthening the


role


teacher


planning


as being


concept


of school-based management


176).


Others


noted


goal


of having


educational


deci


sons


made


as close


Morphet


pupils

. Johns


possible


and Rellar


(Candoli,

(1974) re


1974;


Commend


Goodlad,

ed not o


1971).


*nly


school-wide


community-wide


participation


in budget


development


478).


Further


support


can be


implied from


statements


made


Jordan


(1969)


An obvious


between


interrelationship also


instructional


exists


program in a


school and


budget


for that


scho


local


budget
school


is to
level,


be developed at


great


bulk


program will
level. (p.


developed at


that


119)


reverse might


also


true,


that


case,


then arguments


which


were


used


support


broad


partici-


pation


planning


curriculum should also


hold true


for planning


of budget.


Thus,


statements


Saylor










that


parents


other


interested


citizens


included can


used


to support


the contention


that the


same


groups


should


included


planning


of the


budget.


warning


the dangers


decentralized budgeting,


Jordan


(1969)


spoke of


these


groups


as being


involved


problem and


cautioned


that


staff members


might


be called


upon


spend


planning to


unnecessary


amounts of


detriment


building .personnel may


time


instructional


lack the


specialized


udgetary

program; that


skills


needed


groups


formulate an


from both


effective


inside and


budget,


that


outside might


cause


pressure


favoring


one


school


over


another,


or that


local


school


programs might


reflect


local


interests,


rather than


those


district


a whole


119).


(Longstreth


(Note


dealing with


points made


Jordan,


both rebuffed Jordan's


points


offered


further


support


for the


involvement


of staff,


citi-


zens,


pupils,


He argued


that,


central-office


while


there


staff


danger of


budget planning.

too much staff time


being tied


in budgeting,


alternative of


attempting to


make


educational


decisions without


regard


to the


budget


potentially more


disabling (p.


That


staff


members at


school


site may not


have


special


skills


necessary to


design a


budget


can


offset


utilizing


"management


4-L -


*O


,I n 5


rr


. .-


I


- _- _


- -










staff


at the


local


school (pp.


8-9).


In time,


skills


will be more


apparent


at the


local-school


unit,


requiring


less


dependence on


central-office


staff.


Finally,


argued


that the


schools are


in business


serve


local


interests


their clientele


regarding


educational


programs.


He stated:


want


De serve
cedures
* -


tives


local


special


interest


I mentioned,


for outlining


for the


attention


year,
local


groups


in our pro-


school


objec-


we pay particular


self


interest.


We do


this


cause


are


is our conviction


business


tele regarding
clientele incl


zens, and
the blend


U


taxpayer


satisfy


educational
de students


rs.


program and


that we


our clien-


programs.
parents,
job is to


costs


Our
citi-
find


that most


nearly satisfies
So in effect we
faction of local


their collective


would
self


that


interest


desires.
satis-


coupled


with


satisfaction


of district-wide


interests


are our


stated


goals.


Although


nature and


important


quality


to maintain


offerings at


some


differe


uniformity

nt schools


within


a district,


such


uniformity


can


be carried


too


far.


words


Ralph


Waldo


Emerson


(1865)


"A foolish


consistency


is the ho

held that


bgoblin


children are


title minds"

different


(p.

and


52).

have


different


belief

needs,


school


leaders


can


provide a


difference


emphasis while


maintaining


a uniformity


opportunity


from school


school.


best


to get the


blend


activities that


u










program and

indicator of


budget

this


priorities.

characteristic


Accordingly,


that


teachers,


:irst

citizens,


pupils,


principal


central-office


developing


staff


budget


members


fo r


work with


school.


second


indicator follows


from this one,


according


to the


attitude


toward


delegation which is


held


in a


school-


based management


concept.


that


principal


does


veto


staff


requisitions


for materials


within


budgetary


limits


that


particular


program


and


within


district


guide


nes.


same arguments which


support


premise


that the


central-office


principal


also


staff


provide


does


support


veto


for the


decisions


principal's


showing


same


restraint with regard


staff.


QOnce the Y


dollar


amount


for a


program is


established
a


teachers


principal,


is necessary


for the


principal


defer to


teachers'


superior


knowledge


pupils


under their tutelage and of


their


subject


areas


materials


necessary to


teach


them.n


To do otherwise


work against


best


basic


principle


knowledge make


of having the


decision.


person with


Such action not


only


is a


logical


contradiction


terms


efficiency,


also


quite


possible


that


could


serve


to undermine


morale of


teachers at the


school.


S S S


mrm r( *


-- _


* ->.










Although Most Financial Decision Making Within District


Guidelines Rests at the Local-School Level,


Certain


Financial Procedures and Services Remain Centralized.


As part of a study of big city decentralization,


John W.


Polley (1972) claimed that in decentralized


financing the guiding principle is to allow as much

responsibility and control over expenditures as possible

at the school level and to use the central-office level

for revenue raising and "perhaps certain special services"


75).


(As was stated in the decision-making section,


decen-


tralization does not mean that the central-office staff


should be disbanded.~

be carried out which

district level. The


On the contrary,


there are duties to


can be more efficiently handled at the


first indicator relates to this point.


It is that (the purchasing and accounting functions are per-


formed at the central-office


level.) (Longstreth


(Note 1)


stated that technical assistance i


s provided to the school-


site staff to ensure that some expenses have not been


omitted in the formulation of their budget


12))


This


indicates that central-office accounting procedures are in


effect.


Pierce (1976) commented on school-based management


as follows:


(it)


free(s) the central administration


spend mor


e time on those things it













monitorial,


would


remain


auditing, and
the responsib


tral administration.


testing
ility of
176)


functions
the cen-


Again,


accounting


purchasing


functions are


considered


duty


central-office


staff.


(Jordan


(1969)


also


supported


this


view when he


stated


that


"The


accounting and


purchasing


functions


are


still


performed at the


central-


office


level,


assessment


needs


program pro]ec-


tions


are made


building


level"


118).


The


group-


purchasing power of


district to


central


bulk prices


office,


on many


which


items,


enable


makes


s the


logical


that the


purchasing


function be


central-office


levelS


The avoidance of


duplication of


effort


sharing


services


accountants makes


placing the accounting


function at the


central-office


level


a reasonable


economical


decision


(Hamilton,


1975,


146).


second


indicator of


characteristic


that


requisitions


and budgetary


fall


limits


within


district-policy


vetoed by


guidelines


central-office


staff.


support


for this


indicator


same as


that


for the


point


that


principal


does


not veto


staff


requ1-


sitions within


school.


final


indicator


to do with another


aspect


relationship


between


central-office


staff


and


- .4 -- -


are


f -r I_ _


J / f


I~


A


ri









was


stated


previously that


central


control


district


Villers


eliminated by


(1954)


school-based management.


said:


A policy
tv, based


may be
ability
table
is not


sential,


decentralization


concept


entrusted with


that
full


for certain assignments,


only


risk entailed


excessive
therefore,


magnitude.
for control


authori-


individuals
responsi-


is acce


failure


to be


es-
ex-


ercise


d at


such frequent


intervals


nece


ssary to


prevent


excessive


damage


case


of a failure


to perform.


A system of


which


audits


enables


provides


protection


central-office


staff


for the


district,


to be aware


when a


breakdown i


s imminent


least,


to find


about


before


a major crisis


develops.


Steps


can


then be


taken


either provide


remove


scribed


school


cause


use of


staff


technical


Longstreth


problem.


program audit


advice or to


(Note


in Alachua


County,


Florida:


We make a
in terms


program audit
of the effect


at .the
veness


school


level
pro-


grams
We use
visory


using


variety


achievement


council
school,
programs


accreditation


system which will


program


test


evaluations
subjective


district


reports,


provide


information
results, cit


sources.
izen ad-


the operation


evaluations


staff


just
some


many


personnel,


about


indication


other
of


success.


decisions made


educational


managers


in the









commitment


to avoid


interference


with


development of


program at


school


level,


basis


there


for ad-


visement


asked of


them;


"check


valve"


exists


to permit


early


detection


trouble and to


insure


that


district


guidelines


are


being


followed.


Many


possible


dangers


a decentralized manage-


ment


system can


be reduced


or totally


eliminated


by the


simple


expedient


of having


able


personnel


in the


schools to


develop and run


programs.


obvious,


then,


that the


next


area


concern


for the


concept


of school-based manage-


ment,


that


of personnel


considerations,


very important


one.


Personnel


Considerations


Castetter


(1976)


spoke


importance of


per-


sonnel


function


education:


generally


human


quality


nece
well


physi
tion
as it


The
will


endeav


conceded
or is cl


of personnel


ssary to


who


that


success


osely related
perform the


achievement


conditions


cal


and mental


to the
tasks


purpose,


which affect


well-being.


is as applicable to the
is to any organization


extent
depend


personnel


and
dis
(p.

Although


upon
charge


there


to which


en


public


largely upon
gaged in the
effectivene


individual


little


and


direct


This assump-


school s
of human


education


the quality
educational


with


group


systems
effort.
succeeds


process


which they
responsibilities.


information


their










systems


, a perusal


that


literature allows


extraction


of two characteristics


which


describe


personnel


function


in a


school-based management


setting.


Staffing o
Principal
Building.


School


to Meet


Determined
Programmatic


by the
Needs


Building
of That


was


stated


earlier,


Candoli


(1974)


said


that


each


building


own


unique


needs,


client


ele,


faculty


talents


building


principal,


as the


educational


manager responsible


operation


that


building,


person


Therefore,


principal,


best able


experts


or unit


to know what


were


manager,


agreed


should


those


qualities


belief


play the


entail.


that the


leading role


selection


staff


school.


Grieder,


Pierce,


Jordan


(1969)


said:


One might u
involvement


se
as


he degre(
a rough


e of principal
indicator of t


actual
system.


statu
Too


S


of principals


often


they


are


in a
mere


school
inter-


mediaries


tion
pals


between


central


building unit.


fact,


and not


administra
If princi-


in name


only,


able
in s


heads
that
taff


their schools


they


have


recruitment


the
and


leading


s irrefut-


role


selection


their respective


schools


274)


They


carried


their


reasoning


on to


say that


same


obser-


vations


are


applicable


department


heads


individual


school


s (p.


274),


which


supports


earlier


aspects


.-I.. 1 .. -, -,, ., -.s- ~ -----~. I.


LJ--- -A L__T_


I


1 ^, J










making.


Dale


(1965)


commented


that


staffing


is part


personnel


function,


that


only


certain


phases of


come


under the


subject


personnel


it relates


department.


Although he


industry,


comments


spoke on the


are appli-


cable


area


educational administration.


"Every


manager,


" he


said,


president


company,


must


handle


some


phases


staffing,


even


though


personnel may


provide at


least


technical help


in every


case"


401).


area


selection,


decentralization


is well-established.


Dale


(1965)


continued:


Again,
makes
except


the
the


pers
final


in cases


onnel
deci


where


department


sion


seldom


on selection,


large numbers of


people must be hired at
line managers would not


one
have


time


the time


interview them all.


More


commonly,


even


case


it merely


of rank-and-file


screens


a few whom it


promising


Then


the applica
considers t


immediate


employees,
nts and picks
he most
e supervisors


make


a choice


among these


few.


401)


Castetter


(1976)


stated


similar opinions:


In order to


coordinate


recruitment


planning


operations


should be


given


effectively, consideration
to centralizing recruit-


ment


screening


and


decentralizing


selec-


tion.
action,


When


decentralized


however,


plans


phases of


are


into


recruitment


selection must


sistent


tied


executive action.


together
(p. 191)


con-


Viering


(1970),


in his


survey


school


administrators,


found that they


believed


that,


in a


district


decentralized


v










deciding whether to


retain or terminate


teachers,


over when


substitute


teachers


should be


used,


and over deciding con-


tinuing-contract


status


for teachers


82).


Patterson and


Hansen


(1975)


held that the


responsibility


for making


deci-


sons


on assignment


teachers


a particular


building


should

(1962)


at the


stated tha


building

t the pr


level


incipal


. 128).


should


Griffiths


"play


et al.


a leading role


in the

Pierce


selection

(1976) co


staff


nsidered


for the


building"


an important


point


. 177).

that v


Also,


erson-


planning


delegated


school


site


in a


school-


based management


setting


176).


From the


above


e characterist

selection and


level.


from these


cation guidelines,


school


information,


can


termination


also


then,


derived.


of staff


ssible


data--within


principal

according


plans


first


that


based a


to derive


indicator


control

t the


second


and

the


developed a


certifi-

staffing

t the


building


level.


There


however,


more


specific


support


for this


second


indicator


literature.


Longstreth


(Note


stated


that,


whereas


before


decentralization


prin-


cipals were


allocated


specific numbers


personnel


various categories,


practice


under


school-based manage-


n- ~~ ~ 1 -%n.- -- Ai


over


building


indicator


pattern


accreditation

can manipulate


m A^ I *


_ *


1 *


rrl


'I










school


Patterson and Hansen


(1975),


their


survey


"makes


in Madison,


decision


Wisconsin,


found


install a


plan


that the


such as


principal


differentiated


staffing within a building"


128).


Dickey


(1977)


scribed


situation


follows:


Under the
principal
cisions h
develops


decentralized


confronted


never


had


budget.


student-teacher ratios


budge
with


to make


t


process,


educational
before as h


the
de-


e


decision between low
nd no teacher aides;


and higher


aide


for ea


student-teacher ratios with an
ch teacher is a difficult one


a principal


to make.


who


school


system is better qualified
decision? (D. 17)


to make


such a


Monahan


Johnson


(1973)


explained


that when a


school


given financial autonomy,


is the


case


with school-based


management,


needs


can be


determined


school


site,


and


then


staffing


can


be handled


accordingly.


there


need


in a


particular program area,


resources


can be


diverted


to obtain


people


necessary to


correct


52).


Another aspect


above


the


indicators


personnel


area


function which


staff


relates


development.


Since


selection-termination function and the


determina-


tion


staffing pattern


are


based at the


school,


important


that


staff


development,


which can affect


the other


so dramatically,


based


there also.


Patterson


Hansen


(1975)


stated


that the


responsibility


for carrying










that the


decision about


which


teachers


need


special


super-


visory


assistance


was


believed to


properly placed


with


principal


Griffiths


(1962)


also


said


that


these


responsibilities


s lay with


principal


180).


Accordingly,


final


indicator of


this


character


stic


that


determination


collectively


and


ndividual ly,


lie


needs

s with


for

the


staff,


building


principal.


However,


as quoted


earlier,


Dale


(1965)


implied


that


personnel


function


shared


effort,


with a


personnel


department to carry


functions


which


across


indivi-


dual


school


boundaries and to


provide


technical


assistance


to line managers


who


handle


other


aspects


function


for their own


unit.


nature


this


relationship


that


subject


second


characteristic.


Personnel


in a Se


Carrying


Economic
School S


Matters,


rvice


- -


and


Central-Office


Capacity


Functions


for th


Which


Organizational


---Staff


e Local-School
Are Beyond th
Capabilities o


Operates
Staff
e Effici
f the


staff.


ent


trend


throughout


literature


regarding


school-


based management


been


that


the main


decision-making


responsibility


and authority


at the


school-building


level,


services


that the


to make


central-office

decisions made


staff


provides


building


support

g level


-C r *.


-- ^ 1 -r


development


both


mAnn


q **


, *


*


_ __ I I


;taff. -


Staff


ent










specialists at the central-office level


district's program needs.

tions is no exception. S

personnel area would be s


to handle or


to better meet the


The area of personnel considera-


)ome tasks to be accomplished in the

;o time consuming for the principal


so expensive to hire someone to carry it out


to make the performance of the task at the building level


impractical.


Since many of these tasks do not require any


special knowledge of local conditions at the school


to be


carried out or are uniform in application across the dis-


trict,


they can be effectively centralized.


The services


which are presented as indicators under this characteristic


are examples of these


tasks.


The first indicator to be considered deals with the


area of recruitment.


Dale


(1965) and Castetter (1976),


previously quoted, referred to the centralized nature of


this function.


Dale (1965) continued:


The extent to which personnel handles re-


cruitment varies among


companies,


almost all large ones it will recruit all


candidates for rank-and-file jobs,


plant,


or office, and for some of the lower and


middle management jobs as well.


up the line,


As one


the line managers are


likely to take on more of the recruitment


task.


. 401)


Morphet, Johns, and Reller (1974) also stated that the re-

cruitment process is conceived to be a centrally planned


but in










second


indicator


one


those


tasks which


carried


in a


uniform manner over the


entire


school


dis-


trict.


Staff benefits,


salary,


contract


conditions,


like are


generally part


collective-bargaining


individual 's


contract


and are,


contract and/or

therefore,


centrally


determined.


Dale


(1952)


listed all


above


as being among the


types


personnel


decisions which


remain


centralized,


even


in very


decentralized


organizations


189).


To handle


them at the


building


level


would create


chaos


district.


staff


second indicator


provides


then,


district-wide


that


staff


benefits


and contract


conditions.


third


supervisory


indicator


assistance.


to do with


Although


staff


development


amount


type


these


services


are


to be determined by the


building princi-


pal,


unlikely


technical


that the


expertise


in all


principal


will have


program areas


to be


time


able


provide


these


services


alone.


almost


as unlikely that


that


expertise will


present


anywhere


on the


staff.


Also,


probable


that


there will


similar needs


different


schools;


and


central-office


staff


would be


able


to plan


a coordinated effort to meet


those


needs,


which


would


save


both


time


and money.


Thus,


task


central-


fl-I-EC


4- -.


central-office


/-^ 4n .


_* 1- _


1 .


1


1










staff provides the


technical


assistance


coordination


staff


development


supervisory


assistance


teachers.


The final indicator of


the characteristic has to do


with evaluation of staff.


Even though there


no direct


support in the literature,


implied that the building


administrator should be


res


ponsible for this function.


Support does exist for the premises that the principal has


control


over


selection and termination of


staff and that he


also


the primary determiner of staff


supervisory assistance.


development and


Using this kind of logic,


it logi-


cally follows that the last indicator of personnel consi-


derations


that


thin


collective-bargaining


contract


and the


policies


school


district,


building


prin-


cipal


vidual staff


members


responsible


evaluation


because


basis


indi-


this


evaluation


that


final


decis


terminate


or not


terminate


employment


suggest


program


pro fessiona


improvement


is made.


Although the local knowledge of the staff at the


building level


considerable and effectively utilized


under school-based management,


there


is another group of


people who can offer more and different input into the


development of a program for a school.


Outside the actual


primarily









concept


school-based management


makes


provision


tapping this


source of


information and advice.


Community-Involvement


Considerations


Lawrence A.


Cremin


(1965)


said


describing the


public


school


situation


United


States:


I have


portrayed


educational


one


prof


of inherent


the public
financial


poss


the
essio


relationship


n and


lay public


strain and tension,


esses


authority.


ship, it seems
is obligated,


assist


interest


to m
both
t of


public


sophisticated body
(p. 110)


ultimate


Given


in which


egal


this


that


in its


service


developing
opinion a


relation-


profession
interest a


performs,


an ever more


bout


education.


years


later,


Alvin


Toffler


(1975),


while


talking


about


economic


planning,


expressed


similar


sentiments,


which can


be applied


to educational


planning


well:


For the more
dominated the


farther


less
the


centralized,
planning pr


moves


public
less, n


away


remote,


'ocess


from


participation


ot more,


industrial mentality


ciency


comes


ignoring the


formation


need
can


from


the
there


efficacious


thinks


become
local,


expert-
, the
the
it,


becomes.


that


centralization


ever-increasing need


in the


for negative
continually


mushroom into


feedback
formed,


can
and


di
onl


e


system, a
feedback


be corrected
sasters. Th
v come from


involved


effi-
power,


ecially the


that


poor plans


before errors


at vital negative


an


public.


educated,
p. 100)


This


need


to educate


public


about


involve


them in


the operation


school


systems


basis


for the


area


between


wf









describe


this area


considerations:


School-based


management


is marked


by wide and


esini


tion


school


affairs.


Cremin's and

information and i


Toffler's


involvement


statements


regarding public


education have


adequate


support


(1971)


tralized


parent


in the


listed


writings of


as one of


district


and


from a


citizen


educational


factors


centralized


experts.


differentiating


one


participation in


Brownell


a decen-


"encouragement


school


serving


their area"


288).


Pierce


(1976)


felt


that


school-based


management,


as an alternative


to greater


choice


between


schools,


would


offer


"greater voice


school


affairs"


176)


continued:


consumers


ability in
ticipation
students'


would


education


given


greater responsi-


by -increasing their par-


in educational


performance


site management


to change


than
(p.


would


school


decisions.


declines,
encourage


When


school-
parents


s program rather


simply withdraw their children.
176)


South


(1975)


reported


that the


Florida


Governor's


Committee


listed


parents'


participation


school


decision making as a


basic


principle


of school-based management


Stiles


(1975)


believed


that


crux


decentralization


direct


involvement


and professionals


decision making


policy


"people,


agreements


parents,


and the


pupils,


resolution


extensive


citizen


partici a-










Public


school


administrators must


always


remember that the


schools are


subject to


public


be


control.


included
parents


activities and


Therefore


for the


processes


appropriate


other citizens
establishing g


should


participation


in planning


oals.


This


usually


been


attempted


through


citizens '


committees,
cooperative
(p. 168)


parent-teacher organizations,


school


studies,


so on.


Longstreth


(Note


added


another crucial


element to the


picture:


Locally


from


determined


expressed


needs


concerns


come


into


student


planning
groups,


teacher groups,


which
which
body,
zens


are


citizens'


operational


include r
teachers,
in the sch


every


representativess


parents,
tool commu


inity.


advisory
school


from


interest


councils
and
student
d citi-


The added


dimension


course,


that


these


planning


groups


should


established


every


school.


Such an


idea


would


seem consistent with


tenor of


concept


school-based management


a whole.


first


indicator


then,


that


izens'


advisory


councils


are


effective


perceived


par


cipants)


operation


every


school


center.


for the


This


school


council


(Jacobs,


would


serve


1972,


as a goal-setting group


an advisory


evalua-


tive


group


(Monahan


Johnson,


1973


, p.


25);


and,


Stiles


(1975)


said


earlier,


a decision-making


problem-solving


group


Another area


citizen


involvement


education









information


public


to what they


are


doing


and how


well


they


are


doing


was


also


pointed


earlier,


Seward


(1975)


found


that


districts


decentralized to the


school


level


centralized


better reporting to


districts


1969-A).


the community than


Patterson and Hansen


(1975)


stated


that


it was


responsibility


school,


in their decentralized


district,


"develop a


plan


for re-


porting


individual


to patrons


school


in the


community the


meeting the


extent


goals"


to which an


128).


light


foregoing,


second


indicator,


then,


is that


periodic


made


reports


publ


regarding


This


progress


another


school


area


in which the


citizens'


advisory


council


could help.


final


indicator of


characteristic


is implied


nature of


citizens'


advisory


council


and by the


reasoning


behind


school-based management.


that


citizens'


advisory


council


is made


representatives


each


interest


group


community


served


school.


obvious


that,


a goal


school-based management


to better meet


needs


various


groups


in each


school's


unique


population,


purpose of the


citizen's advisory


council


advise the


school as


what those


needs


are


and how to meet


them,


there


must


representation on


the


committee


each


ne various


are


each


__


v










Literature


in Retrospect


Considering the


teristics


literature


indicators


collectively,


emerged


charac-


to describe


construct


of school-based management.


following


is an


enumeration


characteristics,


listed


category;


and,


in each


instance,


characteristic


followed


indicators.


Decision-making


Considerations


Effective
from the


decision-making


district


level


responsibility i
o the school-site


delegated
level.


building principal


educational


decisionmaker


maki
the


for the


ng powers which
central-office


school,


h are


with broad


subject to


decision-


veto


staff.


The


principal


delegates


decision-making


re spon-


sibility regarding the


school


program to other


staff


members.


central-office


staff


retains


ultimate


authority


over


schools


ensure


that


organizational


goals are


being met
number of


to provide


decisions


made


coordination;
at this level


however, t
s limited.


Centralize
the chief


control


executive


s are
can


designed
find out


ensure


how well


that


dele-


gated authority
cised.


responsibility


are


being


exer-


The central-office


staff


does


veto


decisions


made at


school


site


which


are


within


district


guidelines,
for those d


they


hold


decisions and


principal


accountable


their consequences.


central-office


supportive


staff


op


partnership with


rates
the s


in a


taff


facilitating,
at the school


site.


mt ~ ~ I -. ,S- La A A


I


_1


mi^_


-- A- t


-- E L










central-office


staff
guide


expert
them i


staff


provides


information and advice
their planning.


for the


school


to support


Curriculum


Considerations


Decision-making


placed at


authority


school


the area of


curriculum is


level.


goals


by the


people


objectives
involved i


that


school are determined
school.


The
mine


program and methods


d


by the


people


instruction are


involved


that


deter-


school


determination
instructional


of the materials
program are made


level.


to be
at the


used


school


Broad participation marks the
the resultant decision making


planning
at the s


of curriculum and


school


site.


Teachers
curriculu


actively participate


m


development


process


school.


Pupils


are


included


as respected members


planning group


Parent


other


planning


making.


central-offi


school


staff


standards and the


interested


process


ce staff
as it e


goals


and


citizens
resultant


offers


support


endeavors to meet


by the


school


are


included


decision


services
district


unit.


central-offic


standards


for the


held accountable


e staff


sets


broad


district which


objectives and
school staff


to meet.


District-wide


dards


are made


Monitoring p
are provided


policies


curriculum go


known


regarding
als exist


school


procedures are


educational


in some


stan-


form and


staffs.


established and


central-office


-- *


staff


personnel


ensure


-A_1 L *


'1 I













Financial


Considerations


Within broad


garding
level.


district


budgetary matt


guidelines,
ers is made


final


at the


decision re-


local-school


principal


generated
formula,


these


by t
and h


funds;


receives
he school
as the re
however,


unearmarked
according


sponsibility


funds, which are
to the allocation


budgeting


principal must peri-


odically report to
is being used.


central


office


how the money


budget


office


subject


staff,


long


veto


as district


by the c
policies


entral-
are not


violated.


Within


allocated


district poli
o the school


cies
site


guidelines,


can


be moved


funds


from one


account


to another to


meet


program needs.


Monies


which


are


saved


ingenuity or sacrifice
and may be added to th


during


a school


year


remain attached to


following year


staff
school


s budget.


The planning
school level


and administration


is marked


broad


of the budget at
participation.


Teachers,


citizens,


members work with


pupils, and
e principal


central-office


staff


developing the


budget


for the


school.


The principal
materials, if


does


not veto


staff


within budgetary


particular program and


within


requisitions


limits
district


for that
guidelines.


Although most


financial


decision making within


district


guidelines
procedures


rests


at the


services


school
remain


level,


certain financial


centralized.


purchasing


and accounting


functions are


performed


at the


central-office


level.


Requisitions which


lines


budgetary


fall


within


limits


are


district-policy guide-
not vetoed by the


central-office


staff.










Personnel Considerations


The staffing of a school is determined by the building


principal
building.


to meet the programmatic needs of that


Control over selection and termination of


based at the building level.

Within accreditation and certification guidelines,
the principal can manipulate the staffing pattern
at the school according to plans developed at the
building level.


c. Determination of


development needs for the staff,


both collectively and individually, lie
building principal.


In personnel matters,


s with the


the central-office staff operates


in a service capacity for the local-school staff,


carrying out functions which are beyond the efficient
economic and organizational capabilities of the school
staff.


The central-office staff recruits to fill needs
reported by the building principal.


The central-office staff provides for district-wide
staff benefits and contract conditions.


The central-office staff provide


s the technical


assistance and coordination for staff development
and supervisory assistance for teachers.


Within the collective-bargaining contract and the


policies of the school district,


the building


principal is primarily responsible for the evaluation
of individual staff members because it is on the
basis of this evaluation that the final decision
to terminate or not to terminate employment or to


suggest a program of
made.


professional improvement is


Community-Involvement Considerations


School-based'management is marked by wide and extensive


staff is









perceived


school


participants)


operation at


every


center.


Periodic
are made


reports


regarding the
public.


progress


school


citizens'


sentatives


served by the


advisory


each


council


interest


group


made
in th


up of


repre-


community


school.














CHAPTER
PRESENTATION


III
OF DATA


In four


Florida


school


districts


reputed


to have


school-based management


were held


systems


with key personnel


in operation,


interviews


central-office


level


at the


school


level


to determine


degree


to which


characteristics


derived


from the


literature


were


operation-


alized.


questions


asked


during the


interview corre-


sponded


indicators


which had


been


determined


for each


of the characteristics of


school-based management.


(Appendix A


shows the


interview


guide,


with


question


relating


res


to each


ponses of


indicator.)


interviewees


sections that


are


follow,


reported according to


position


which


they


occupied


school


district.


Additionally,


Appendices


B and


show the


responses


district


process


level


of conducting


school,


respectively.


interviews,


observations were


made;


and,


where


appropriate,


local


school


district


docu-


ment s


were examined


with


intent


providing


a means of


verification of


data


received


through


interviews.


In no


instance did


these observations


or documents


reveal


.... -- 1-- -i-- --


* -
- - -A-. -


r A Cc m r 1









Decision-making


Considerations


noted


Chapter


first


characteristic


rived


from the


literature


concerning


school-based management


in relation


to decision making was


that


effective


decision-


making


responsibility


school-site


delegated


level.


Tables


from the


1 and


district


show the


level


responses


central-office


personnel,


this


level


respectively,


characteristic.


personnel


indicators


indicators,


can be


school-level


relative to


seen from


tables,


refer to


principal


being the


educational


decis


ionmaker for the


school


and


delegation


decision-making


responsibility


by the


principal


to other


staff members.


can


seen


Table


there was


almost


universal


agreement


central-office


level


with


regard to the


presence of


first


indicator--that the


principal


key


educational


decisionmaker


for the


school.


Of all


respondents,


only


one


board member


felt


that this


was


case.


When


considered


by the


school-site


respondents,


there was


similar


support.


Table


shows,


respondents,


or 94%,


felt that the


principal


was


the key


educational


deci


sionmaker for the


school.


three


re-


mining respondents were citizens'


advisory


council members,


one of


whom answered


"no.


" and two


of whom answered


. It 1J 1


SI

































































1 U
C -J
54W


' r



5 4





u)





(12


E
0
O




U)
-,

*0





to
Ou



OH
Hrl





HCO
CbO

I vl

* C
Prt

vcu
(rlM











*rO
0 *0
**1 *










01W
H *r9
FH M
,0 vl
4"*





















Table


Percept ions


of School


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Position
Indicators Citizen Advisory Total
Principals Teachers Council Members Group

N % N % N % N %

a. Principal key educational decisionmaker

Yes 12 100 24 100 9 75 34 94

No 1 8 1 2

Don't Know 2 19 2 4

b. Principal delegates responsibility

Yes 12 100 22 92 9 75 43 90

No 1 4 1 2

Don't Know 1 4 3 25 4 8


Note.


Characteristic


as follows


Effective


decision-making


respon


sibility


is delegated from the


dis-


trict


level


to the school-site


level.









considered


shows


other ways,


that there


as well.


was-agreement


Reference


this


to Appendix


indicator among


districts;


and,


as can be


seen


from Appendix C,


same


held


true among


levels


schools.


Although


same


degree


unanimity


did not


exist


perceptions of


principal's


delegation of


responsibility


to subordinates,


Table


1 shows


that the


preponderance


central-office


respondents


(70%)


agreed


that


indicator


was


present


their


school


districts.


remainder of


responses


were


evenly


divided


between


"no"


"do not


know.


school-site


level,


more agreement


existed;


respondents,


or 43


of 48,


felt that


under


school-


based management


practices


the


principal


delegated


responsi-


ability to


subordinates.


remaining


responses,


answered


Appendix


districts


"no,


shows


answered


" and


answered


that


that


not know.


the majority


principals


Reference


respondents


delegated


in all


responsibility


to subordinates


(76%


in Distirct A,


in District


in District


Appendix


majority of


in District


indicator was considered


respondents among


school


can be


present


levels,


seen


by the

well.


second


characteristic


decision-making area


dealt with


retention


ultimate


authority


over schools


nf -r onncnw rnoo 1vi4 rr f


r-ovrr--~ 'I -r^<''F /"*


h-, 1-lh-


af=f


nnn-M r-n ct a -










show the


responses


the central-office and


school-level


personnel


with


regard


indicators


this


second


characteristic.


first


indicator,


that


centralized


controls


exist to


keep


the


chief


executive


informed,


re-


ceived


unanimous


support


from the


personnel


at the central-


office


level.


At the


school-site


level


as well,


there


were


no respondents


felt that the centralized


controls


exist.


There was,


however,


a group of


teachers and


citizens'


advisory


council members,


which made up


respondents


this


level,


who answered


not know"


rela-


tive


this


indicator.


remainder of


sample


felt


that the controls


districts and


reveals


and at


school


that the


levels


exist.

levels,


In regard

reference


preponderance


schools


answers


were


to agreement

to Appendices


in all


affirmative.


among


B and


districts


Most


fluctuation


which


occurred both


among


districts


and among


levels of


schools


was


to responses


"do not know"


category.


second


indicator of


this


characteristic,


that the


central-office


staff


does not


veto


principal's


deci


sions


holds


him or


her responsible


for them and


their conse-


quences


also


found


support


in the


districts.


Reference


Table


shows


that,


with


exception of


a curriculum chief


," S -


. I tr


1


*

































U 4-4
C Q
ffl *'-
ax:
*U

n-


*t





















Table


Perceptions


of School


Level


Personnel


Regarding


Characteristic


Position
Indicators Citizen Advisory Total
Principals Teachers Council Members Group

N % N % N % N %

a. Centralized controls exist to inform chief executive

Yes 12 100 17 72 10 83 39 82

No -

Don't Know 7 28 2 19 9 18

b. Central-office staff holds principal responsible for decisions

Yes 12 100 18 76 9 75 39 82

No 1 4 3 25 4 8

Don't Know 5 20 5 10


Note.


Characteristic


as follows:


The central-office


staff


retains


the ultimate


authority


over


schools


ensure


dination;
limited.


that


organizational goals


however,


the number of


are


decisions


being met


made


and to provide


at this


coor-


level










school-based management


their districts.


Table


shows


tended


that the


answer


personnel


"yes"


at the


relative


school-site


this


level also


indicator


persons


dents,


members)


interviewed,


teacher


said


or 8


and


"no"


2%).


citizens'


(all


remaining


advisory


teachers)


said


respon-


council


"do not know.


Regarding


agreement


among


districts,


Appendix B


shows


that,


with


exception


of District


over 90%


responses


were


affirmative.


In District


respondents


answered


"yes,


" while only


answered


"no.


However,


answered


know,


" which


had a


great


effect


response


pattern.


Appendix


C shows


a similar pattern among


school


levels.


both


junior


high/middle


school


level


high school


level,


preponderance


respondents


answered


"yes,


" while


elementary


school


level


showed a


smaller majority.


that


group,


answered


"yes,


" while


both


"no"


know"


categories


responses


19%.


third


characteristic


school-based management


derived


from


literature


area


decision-making


considerations


was that


central-office


staff


operates


a facilitating,


supporting


partnership with


school-site


staff.


Tables


and


show the


responses


central-


nffi n'


1 Pt'wa


ThoPrcrnnno1


-d nr1 1 ri n r r a


Vt^/^1 _~ <-' i4-


Tnnn V^ r-^--A























0)
C








*p


*H
44


4-4
n3
'4-4
(U
4-,
cn


1)
'C


'C








*H
PI





OT
0)









*r4
C

















OO
*4
04


*I



C)


n-I
=r

4i
5:4





*r-*

+^
0
04








04

,Co
a'


bO



n*-I

*H
*rl
0

4-4




* *
CU (
HU*H
00