Decision Making in School-Based Management Leadership Councils.pdf

7/27/2019 Decision Making in School-Based Management Leadership Councils.pdf

1/14

The Urban Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1994

Decis ion Making in School -BasedManagement Leadersh ip Counci ls : TheImpact of Counci l Membership Diversi tyPeter J . Robertson and Sophia S . KwongS c hoo l - bas ed m anage m en t ( S B M ) is a po ten t ia l ly v a l uab l e re for m m ec han is m i n u r bans c hoo l d i s t r i c t s i n wh i c h eac h s c hoo l s e r v es a un i que m i x o f s tuden ts d r awn f r om aheterog ene ous popula t ion. Bec ause S BM usu al l y re l ies on leadersh ip cou nc i l s thatfun ct ion as the dec is ion-making bodies fo r indiv id ua l schools , i ts ef fectiveness as are form mechanism u l t ima te l y dep end s on the qua l it y o f these counc ils . T h is researchexp lores h ow co unc i l dec is ion-mak ing qu a l i t y i s a f fec ted by f i ve d ime ns ions o f coun c i ld iversi ty . Resu l ts i nd i cate tha t d i vers i ty i n terms o f coun c i l mem ber ro les and ten ure i nthe d i s t ri c t is re la ted to cou nc i l dec is ion-mak ing qua l it y ; w h i l e e thn ic and ge nde r d i ver -s i ty and d i ve rs i ty i n counc i l exp er ience are unre la ted to dec is ion processes . Potentia lex p l ana t i ons f o r t he s e f ind i ngs a r e d is c uss ed .

S choo l decen t ra l i za t i on has been p romoted and suppor t ed by schoo l p rac t i -t i oner s , po l icym akers , educa t i on resea rcher s , and co mm uni ty l eader s a s a nec -essary school - res t rc tur ing s t ra tegy . Borrowing f rom the pr ivate sector ' s pract iceo f pa r t i c ipa t i ve managemen t , s i t e - o r s choo l -based managemen t sh i f t s fo rmaldec i s ion -mak ing au tho r i t y away f rom the cen t ra l admin i s t r a t i on and t o t heschoo l l eve l . The move i s away f rom the r i g id , ru l es - and con t ro l -o r i en t edbureaucra t i c h i e ra rch i es t o l oose r , more i n fo rmal , va lue -d r iven o rgan i za t i onstha t a re m ore respons ive t o t he i r loca l marke t s and env i ronm en t s .W hi l e so l i d empi r i ca l ev idence t o suppor t t he e f f i cacy o f the r e fo rm i s l ack -ing , much has been wr i t t en abou t t he t heo ry and t he expec t ed ou t comes o fdecent ra l iza t ion . Speci f ica l ly , the l i t era ture poin ts to severa l ra t ionales forschoo l decen t ra l i za t i on . F i r s t , by decen t ra l i z ing , s choo l s wou ld be more re -spons ib l e fo r t he i r own per fo rman ce , t he reby m ot iva t ing teachers , adm in i st r a -t o r s , pa ren t s , and t he com m uni ty to w ork t oge the r in deve lop ing a s choo l cu l -t u re t ha t encourages c rea t i ve and i nnova t ive so lu t ions t o add res s t he p rob l em o f

Peter J. Robertson and Sophia S. K wo ng, School of Public Administration, University ofSouthern California,Los A ngeles, CA 90089.41

0042-0972/94/0300-0041507.00/0 9 1994 Human Sciences Press, Inc.


2/14

4 2 T H E U R B A N R E V I E W

poor s tudent achievem ent (Smith and O 'D ay , 199 1; Hi l l and Bonan, 1991) .Second, i t is argued that the personnel who know the cl ients best (e.g. , theteachers) are better jud ge s of the cl ients ' need s (Do yle, Co oper, and Tracht-m an, 1991). Third, research on participative management show s that w orkersare frequently m ore satisfied with their jo bs and/or m ore productive (C otton,Vollrath, Fro gga tt, Le ngn ick-H all, and Jennings, 1988), and this is esp ecia llylikely wh en information, kno wle dge , and rewa rds are decentralized along w ithpo w er (Mohrm an, L awler, and M ohrman, 199 1). Last, as the typical mechan ismfor participation in decis ion making is an electe d school coun cil that involve steachers, administrators, and ofte n parents, students, and com m un ity m em ber s(Malen, O gaw a, and Kranz, 1990), decentral ization provide s an oppo rtunity tosecure a g reater range o f participation by individuals at the local scho ol level inthe gove rnance o f their scho ol. This typ e of representation addresses the con-tention that the decis ion-making proce sses of man y educational system s are tooisolated, that is , that the decis ion makers do not understand the real needs ofthe individual schools and the communities they serve.

In the pas t decade, schools across the country have implemented var iousforms of school-based management (David , 1989; Ogawa, 1992) . Whi le someare mandated by local or s tate policies (e.g. , Chicago, I l l inois , and Kentucky),others were developed as a result of agreements between school dis tr icts andteache rs ' unions (e .g. , L os An geles , California, and Ro cheste r , N ew York). InL os An gele s, decentralization resulte d from a 1989 collective-bargaining agree-ment between the Los Angeles Unif ied School Dis t r ic t (LAUSD) and theUn ited Teac hers Lo s Angeles (U TL A). T he implementation of decentralizationin Los A ngeles is a two -step process . In the f irs t s tep, referred to as the shared-decision-making ( S D M ) phase, each school elects a local leadership councilm ade up o f sch oo l adm inistrators, teachers, classifie d personnel, parent/com -munity members , and, in some cases (e.g. , high schools) , s tudents . These rep-resentatives are electe d annually b y their constituents or participate through e xofficio s tatus (e.g. , the school principal and the union s teward, who serve asco-chairs for the council) . Un der SD M , the leadership coun cil is given theresponsibili ty for a l imited range o f decis ions in f ive areas (s taff dev elopm ent,student discipline guid eline s, scheduling o f sch ool activities, guidelines for theuse of school equipment , and som e local budg et funds) .

If a school so chooses , i t can seek addit ional control over i ts operations bysubmitt ing a propo sal to m ov e into the sec ond s tep of decentralization: school-based management (SBM). The proposal must delineate in detai l the changesthe school in tends to implement and how the recommended changes wouldimprov e s tudent achievement . Schools that m ove into the SBM phase are ableto take charge of managing virtually any aspe ct of their operation and m ayapply for waivers of exis t ing policies that would preclude the implementation


3/14

MANAG EMENT LEADERSHIP COUNCILS 43

of their proposals. The proposals must be approved by the Los Angeles Boardof Education, the UTLA, and a central council made up of members of thedistrict and the union.

School-based management is seen by many as a critical reform mechanismthrough which school improvement can occur. Its potential seems particularlyhigh for large urban school districts such as Los Angeles that include veryheterogeneous student populations, with each individual school serving aunique mix of those students and attempting to address their particular needs,challenges, and difficulties. However, while SBM has the potential for enhanc-ing school quality in the LAUSD, the degree to which the schools can suc-cessfully implement changes and develop strategies that will improve studentachievement depends largely on their leadership councils. The extent to whichthese councils can have a positive impact on school functioning will be largelydetermined by the quality of their decision-making processes. Hence, a betterunderstanding of the factors that influence council decision-making effective-ness would be valuable for predicting the changes likely to result from thedecentralization effort and for taking steps to ensure that beneficial conse-quences do in fact occur. This study explores the relationship between demo-graphic diversity among members of the leadership councils and the nature andquality of the decision-making processes used by those councils. The purpose isto gain a better understanding of the potential difficulties and benefits associ-ated with school-site decision making under conditions of group heterogeneity.

R E L E V A N C E O F C O U N C I L D I V E R S IT YThe topic of diversity in organizations is a timely and important focus of

discussion. The management of a changing work force has been a salient sub-ject in administration classes, business human resources departments, and gov-ernment agencies. Morrison (1992) discusses four reasons why executives pro-mote the value of diversity in their business operations: to keep and gain marketshare, to reduce costs, to increase productivity, and to improve the quality ofmanagement in their organizations. Furthermore, she argues, the ability to cap-italize on the contributions of individuals from different backgrounds is un-doubtedly linked to overall organizational performance. Government agenciesalso promote a better understanding of the workplace in a multicultural environ-ment for similar reasons, for example, to better serve constituents with varyingexpectations due to differences in ethnicity, gender, age, and other character-istics (Farr, 1992). However, although recruitment to diversify the workplacehas been in practice for many years, empirical evidence indicating the conse-quences of diversification is limited.In the Los Angeles Unified School District, the diversity of the student pop-


4/14

4 4 T H E U R B A N R E V I E W

ulation is a prominent issue. Not only does the LAUSD enroll a large numberof children, but the children comprise an extremely ethnically diverse group. Inthe fall of 1991, a total of 628,989 students were enrolled in the district, with13.1 percent identified as white, 14.8 percent as African-American, 64.4 per-cent as Latino, 5.6 percent as Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.9 percent as Filipino,and .3 percent as American Indian (based on figures from the LAUSD's Infor-mation Technology Division). This diversity, combined with poor studentachievement scores, leads to the contention that those governing the schoolsystem, especially in the central administration, do not adequately understandthe varying needs of the different student groups. Thus, it is argued thatbroader representation in the decision-making process by teachers, parents,community members, and even students themselves wil l enable a greater ex-pression of viewpoints that more accurately reflect the needs of the students. Asa result, the most relevant problems can be identified and appropriate solutionsdevised. Moreover, because relevant constituents have had a voice in the deci-sion process and are committed to the decisions adopted by the school leader-ship councils, these solutions are more likely to be implemented.

In the LAUSD and elsewhere, then, school-based management is adoptedbecause of the anticipated benefits for school-level decision making. The litera-ture on group decision making supports the contention that a diversity in groupmembership can have positive consequences for the decision-making processand quality. In heterogeneous groups, the different points of view held bymembers from different backgrounds can generate more diverse recommenda-tions regarding problem solutions (Shaw, 1976), thus enhancing the probabilityof selecting an effective course of action. For example, Wanous and Youtz(1986) found that differences in viewpoints spark more in-depth discussions,leading to higher quality decisions. Groups with members from varying culturalbackgrounds can also benefit from different values and norms regarding effec-tive group interactions. For example, groups composed of people from culturesthat reflect collectivist (rather than individualistic) orientations are likely to dis-play more cooperative as opposed to competitive behavior (Cox, Lobel, andMcLeod, 1991). Furthermore, when membership diversity reflects the repre-sentation of multiple constituent groups, participation in the decision processcan generate a broader-based commitment to the decisions made. It can alsoenable a better understanding of the potential barriers and sources of resistanceto the implementation of these decisions. This knowledge and commitment arecritical factors that help ensure that the decisions made will be successfullycarried out.While these benefits of heterogeneous groups have been espoused, the litera-ture also indicates that diversity can create some problems for group decision-making processes. Opposing viewpoints from members based on differences in


5/14

M A N A G E M E N T L E A D E R S H IP C O U N C I L S 4 5

values , goals , and perspect ives ca n create a perpetual conf l ic t i f the group i sno t we l l managed . In t u rn , t h i s con f l i c t can h inder dec i s ion -mak ing e f fec t i ve -ness (Maier , 1967) , g iven a tendency for such groups to gravi ta te toward sub-op t ima l compromise so lu t i ons . Mul t i cu l t u ra l g roups can exper i ence commu-nicat ion breakdowns (Cox, 1991) , for example , as a resu l t o f cu l tura l andl anguage d i f fe rences t ha t i nh ib i t a sha red unders t and ing . Turnover may beh igher i n such s i t ua t i ons as we l l (Cox , 1991) . F ina l l y , W anous and You tz(1986) poin t out that a greater d ivers i ty in the so lu t ions offered to a problemcan som et imes l owe r accep t ance o f t he dec i s ion as we l l a s g roup me m ber s a t is -f ac t i on .

Thus , r e sea rch sugges t s t ha t d ive r s i ty m ay w e l l be a tw o-edged sword . I tcan y i e ld benef i t s wh ich a g roup can d raw on t o enhance t he qua l i t y o f i t sdec i s ion -m ak ing p roces ses , bu t i t can a l so p roduce ba r r ie r s w h ich se rve t o im-pede e f fec t i ve dec i s ion mak ing . To t he ex t en t t ha t s choo l -based managemen tresu lt s i n a b roader r ange o f pa r t ic ipa t ion i n a s choo l ' s dec i s ion -mak ing p ro -ces ses t h rough l eader sh ip co unc i l mem bersh ip d ive r s i ty , t he qu a l i ty o f dec i s ionma k ing , and o f counc i l func t i on ing mo re gen era l ly , is l i ke ly t o be a f fec t ed . O fcourse , t he ne t e f fec t o f a g iven l eve l o f d ive r s i t y on t he func t i on ing o f anypar t icu lar counci l cannot be predic ted , but across counci l s , g reater hetero-gene i t y i s expec t ed t o have a m easu rab l e impac t on co unc i l p roces ses and ou t -com es . The pu rpose o f th i s s t udy , t he re fo re , i s to i nves t i ga te the na tu re o f t here l a ti onsh ip be tween mem bersh ip d ive r s i t y and cou nc i l func t ion ing .

To exp lo re t h i s r e la t i onsh ip , w e e xam ine t he l eve l o f d ive r s i t y i n f i ve demo-g raph i c charac t e r i s t i c s o f l eader sh ip counc i l members . Two o f t hese , genderand e thnic i ty , are the character i s t i cs most of ten the focus of the l i t era ture con-ce rn ing i nc reased d ive r s i ty i n o rgan i za t i ons . I t i s wide ly as sum ed tha t d ive r s i t yin t e rms o f t hese two charac t e r i s t i c s wi l l i n f l uence g roup func t i on ing . Twom o r e f e a t u r e s h a v e t o d o w i t h t h e e x p e r i e n c e b a s e o f t h e c o u n c i l m e m b e r s - -f i r s t , i n t e rms o f t he amoun t o f t ime t hey have se rved as members o f t hecounc i l , and sec ond , i n t e rms o f the am oun t o f time t hey have been as soc i a tedw i t h t he L A U S D . D i v e r s it y in t h e a m o u n t o f e x p e r ie n c e m e m b e r s h a v e ( a n d,imp l i c i t ly , i n t he kn ow ledge , exper t i se , and /o r i n fo rmal s t atu s t ha t o f ten goesa long w i th am oun t o f exper ience) i s r e l evan t to t he func t i on ing o f mos t t ypes o fg roups i n work o rgan i za t ions . T he f i na l cha rac t er i st ic i s t he " ro l e" o f t he coun-ci l member , that i s , the cons t i tuent group that she or he represents . Not a l lg roups i n o rgan i za t ions a re m ade up o f i nd iv idua l s who rep resen t o the r peop l e ,ye t t he re a re m any w h ich do f i t t h is mo ld . S ince a key fea tu re o f t he l eader sh ipcounc i l s i s t ha t t hey were des igned t o i nco rpora t e such rep resen t a t i on , ro l ed ive r s i t y i s ce r t a in ly an i s sue re l evan t t o counc i l p roces ses and ou t comes .These f i ve aspec t s o f coun c i l d ive r s it y wi ll be exam ined fo r t he i r re l a ti onsh ip t of ive facets of counci l opera t ions . S ince the var iab les associa ted wi th counci l


6/14

46 THE URBAN REVIEW

opera t i ons a re de r ived f rom the da t a , t hey wi l l be desc r ibed be low a f t e r weiden t i fy t he s am ple and t he sou rce o f the da t a .R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S

S amp l eThe sample fo r t h i s s t udy cons i s t ed o f 57 schoo l s f rom the Los Ange l es

Uni f i ed S choo l Di s tr i ct . In M ay 1992 , a su rvey was s en t t o a ll members o f t hel eadersh ip counc i l s a t 156 LA U S D schoo l s , i nc lud ing al l 78 s choo l s t ha t had ,a t t ha t t ime , sh i f t ed t o t he S BM phase o f decen t ra l i za t i on , a s we l l a s 78 ran -dom ly se lec t ed S DM schoo l s. A to t a l o f 1 ,071 su rveys were r e tu rned f rom 110schoo l s. Ou t o f t h is g roup , on ly t hose s choo l s tha t re tu rned comp le t ed su rveysf rom a t leas t 75 pe rcen t o f t he i r counc i l mem bers w ere i nc luded i n t he p resen tanalys i s . F i f ty-seven schools , wi th a to ta l of 682 surveys , qual i f ied for inclu-s ion .

Mea s u r e sVarious character i s t i cs of the funct ioning of the leadersh ip counci l s a t the

sample s choo l s c ons t i tu t ed the de penden t va r i ab les i n th i s s t udy . The mea su resfo r t hese va r i ab l es were de r ived f rom da t a acqu i red t h rough t he su rvey men-t i oned above . The su rvey i n s t rumen t cons i s t ed o f 126 i t ems ( l l 5 subs t an t i vei t ems and l l pe r sona l / demograph i c i t ems) . Responses t o t hese i tems w erebased on a 4 -po in t L ike r t - t ype sca l e . Response op t i ons fo r some i t ems were" C o m p l e t e l y D i s a g r e e , " " S o m e w h a t D i s a g r e e , " " S o m e w h a t A g r e e , " a n d" C o m p l e t e l y A g r e e , " a n d f o r o t h e r i t e m s t h e y w e r e " N e v e r , " " S e l d o m , " " O f -t en , " and " Always . " F ac to r ana lyses o f t he subs t an t i ve su rvey i t ems y i e lded ase t o f 12 fac to r s , each o f wh ich fo rmed the bas i s fo r a s ca l e measu r ing someaspect of indiv idual , counci l , o r school funct ioning . For th i s s tudy, f ive scalesfocus ing on t he opera t i ons o f t he l eader sh ip counc i l were used as measu res o fthe dependent var iab les . Scale scores were f i rs t ca lcu la ted for each indiv idualresponden t a s t he average o f he r o r h i s r e sponses on t he i t ems on t ha t s ca l e .S ca l e s co res were t hen av eraged ac ros s the i nd iv idua l mem bers o f each schoo lcounc i l t o y i e ld s ca l e s co res fo r each schoo l . The f i ve s ca l es and t he i t emscompr i s ing t hem a re i den t i f i ed i n Append ix A and desc r ibed be low.

De cis ion-m aking effect iven ess (6 i t ems , w i th a re l iab i l ity coe ff ic ien t of .74)re fe r s t o the p roces s an d metho ds used by t he counc i l t o ma ke dec i s ions e f fec -t i ve ly , fo r examp le , t he ex t en t t o w h ich consensus dec i s ion mak ing i s u t i li zed .Problem -solv ing ef fect iven ess (6 i t ems , w i th a re l iab i l i ty coe ff ic ien t of .72)focuses on t he t echn iques used by t he members t o so lve p rob l ems e f fec t i ve ly ,fo r exam ple , t he acqu i s it ion o f r e l evan t i n fo rmat ion and resou rces . N oneduca-


7/14

M A N A G E M E N T L E A D E R S HI P C O U N C I LS 4 7

t o r i nvo lv e m e n t ( 7 i t e ms , w i th a r e l i a b i li t y c oe f f i c i e n t o f . 75 ) me a su r e s thel e v e l o f p a rt ic i p a ti o n a n d d e g r e e o f i n f l u e n c e o f c o u n c i l m e m b e r s w h o a r e n o tp r o f e s s iona l e duc a to r s , f o r e xa mple , t he de g r e e to wh ic h pa r e n t s t a ke r e spon-s ib i li t y f o r a s s ign ing the m se lve s t a sks w i th in the c ou nc i l . C o unc i l e f f e c t ive ne ss( 11 i t e ms , w i th a r e l i a b i l i t y c oe f f i c i e n t o f . 86 ) a nd c ounc i l i ne f f e c t ive ne ss (4i t e ms , w i th a r e l i a b i li t y c oe f f i c i e n t o f . 55 ) a r e me a su r e s o f t he ove r a l l qua l i ty o fthe c ounc i l s . W hi l e c oun c i l e f fe c t ive ne ss f oc use s on pos i t i ve a spe c ts , c oun c i li n e f fe c t iv e n e s s f o c u s e s o n p r o b l e m e l e m e n t s.

Th e p r e d ic to r va r i a b le s f o r t h i s s tudy w e r e a s e t o f me a su r e s o f t he d ive r s i tyo f c o u n c i l m e m b e r s h i p . A g a i n , c o u n c i l d iv e r s it y w a s m e a s u r e d i n t e r m s o f fi v ec ha r a c t e r is t i c s , na me ly , ge nde r , e thn ic i ty , l e ng th o f t ime a s a m e m be r o f t hec o u n c i l , l en g t h o f t e n u r e in t h e L A U S D , a n d r o le . S u r v e y r es p o n d e n t s w e r ea ske d to p r ov ide the r e l e va n t de mogr a ph ic in f o r ma t ion , a nd th i s i n f o r ma t ionwa s the n u se d to c a l c u la te me a su r e s o f d ive r s i ty . Th e se me a su r e s w e r e c a l c u -l a t ed a s f o l low s .

Ge nde r d ive r s i ty wa s c a l c u la t e d by sub t r a c t ing . 5 f r om the pe r c e n ta ge o fw o m e n o r m e n o n a c o u n c i l ( w h i c h e v e r w a s h i g h e s t) . T h i s i n d e x c o u ld t h u sr a n g e f r o m z e r o . i n w h i c h c a s e t h e re w e r e a n e q u al n u m b e r o f m e n a n d w o m e n( g r e a te s t d ive r s i ty ) , t o . 5 , i n wh ic h c a se a l l t he me m be r s o f t he c ounc i l we r e o fthe sa me ge nde r ( l e a s t d ive r s i ty ) . E thn ic d ive r s i ty wa s c a l c u la t e d by f i r s t c om-p u t i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f m e m b e r s o n a c o u n c i l i n e a c h o f f o u r c a t e g o r i e s ,na me ly , wh i t e , H i spa n ic , Af r i c a n - Ame r ic a n , a nd As ia n /P a c i f i c I s l a nde r .( W h i l e t h e s u r v e y a l so i n c l u d e d a n " o t h e r " c a t e g o r y , t h e n u m b e r o f r e s p o n d e n tside n t i f y ing the m se lve s a s " o the r " wa s so sma l l t ha t it wa s no t u se f u l t o i nc ludeth i s c a t e go r y in the c a l c u la t ion o f e thn ic d ive r s i ty . ) Ne x t , f o r e a c h sc hoo l , t heva r i a nc e a c r os s the se f ou r pe r c e n ta ge s wa s c om pu te d . Ag a in , i f t he r e we r e a ne q u a l n u m b e r o f c o u n c i l m e m b e r s i n e a c h c a t e g o r y ( g r e a t e s t d i v e r s i t y ) , t h ev a r i an c e w o u l d b e z e r o . T h e v a r i a n c e w o u l d b e h i g h e st i f al l c o u n c i l m e m b e r swe r e o f a s ing le e thn ic i ty ( l e a s t d ive r s i ty ) . The me a su r e s f o r t he r e ma in ingth r e e d ive r s i ty va r i a b le s we r e c a l c u la t e d in a ma nne r s imi l a r t o t ha t u se d f o re thn ic d ive r s i ty . F o r t ime on the c ounc i l , t he th r e e c a t e go r i e s we r e l e s s t ha n 1ye a r , 1 t o 2 ye a r s , a nd ov e r 2 ye a r s . F o r t e nu r e in the d is t r ic t , t he f ou r c a te go -r i e s we r e l e s s t ha n 5 ye a r s , 5 t o 9 ye a r s , 9 t o 15 ye a r s , a nd mor e tha n f i f t e e nye a r s . F o r c ou nc i l r o l e , t h e f ive c a t e go r i e s we r e p r inc ipa l , t e a c he r , c l a s s i f ie dp e r s o n n e l , p a r e n t o r c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r , a n d s t u d e n t . I n e a c h c a s e , h i g h e rsc o r e s r e f l e c t e d le s s d ive r s i ty on the c oun c i l i n t e r ms o f t ha t c ha r a c te r i s ti c .

Ana l y s e sThe r e l a t ionsh ips be twe e n the f ive p r e d ic to r va r i a b le s a nd e a c h o f t he f ive

de pe nde n t va r i a b le s we r e a s se s se d th r ough mu l t ip l e r e g r e s s ion . S inc e h ighe r


8/14

48 THE URBA N REVIEW

s c o r e s on t he m e a s u r e s f o r the s e f i ve va r i a b l e s ind i c a t e d less d i ve r s i t y , ne ga t i ver e g r e s s i on c o e f f i c i e n t s i nd i c a te t ha t g r e a t e r d i ve r s it y i n t ha t va r i a b l e w a s a s s oc i -a t e d w i t h m o r e f a v o r a b l e p e r c e p t i o n s o f c o u n c i l o p e r a t i o n s . F o r e a c h r e g r e s -s i on , t he m u l t i p l e R 2 i nd i c a te s t he e x t e n t t o w h i c h t he ov e r a l l he t e r oge ne i t y o ft h e c o u n c i l m e m b e r s h i p a p p e a r e d t o i n f lu e n c e t h a t f a c e t o f c o u n c il f u n c t i o n in g .

R E S U L T ST a b l e 1 p r ov i de s t he s t a nda r d i z e d c oe f f i c i e n t s f r om t he f i ve r e g r e s s i ons .

O n l y t w o o f t he r e g r e s s i ons y i e l de d s i gn i f i c a n t ove r a l l re s u l ts . F i r s t, c ounc i ld i v e r s i t y e x p l a i n e d 4 3 p e r c e n t o f t h e v a r i a n c e i n t h e n o n e d u c a t o r i n v o l v e m e n ts c a l e (p < . 01 ) . D i v e r s i t y w i t h re ga r d t o ro l e s a nd t e nu r e i n the d i s tr i c t w e r et he ke y m e a s u r e s i n t h i s r e g r e s s i on , a s t he c oe f f i c i e n t s f o r bo t h o f t he s e va r i -a b l e s w e r e s i gn i f i c a n t ( p - - - . 05 ) . H ow e ve r , t he e f f e c t s w e r e i n oppos i t e d i r e c -t i ons , i nd i c a t i ng t ha t g r e a t e r d i ve r s i t y i n t he r o l e s he l d by t he c ounc i l m e m be r sw a s a s s o c ia t e d w i t h i n c r ea s e d i n v o l v e m e n t b y th o s e w h o w e r e n o t p r o f e s si o n a le d u c a t o r s , w h i l e t h e ir i n v o l v e m e n t decreased w h e n t h e a m o u n t o f e x p e r i e n c e inL A U S D b e c a m e m o r e d i v e r s e . T h e s e s a m e t w o v a r i a b l e s , w i t h t h e s a m e s i g n s ,w e r e s i gn i f i c a n t i n t he de c i s i on - m a k i ng e f f e c t i ve ne s s r e g r e s s i on , i n w h i c h at o t a l o f 28 pe r c e n t o f t he va r i a nc e w a s e xp l a i ne d ( p < . 01 ). T hus , c ou nc i ld e c i si o n m a k i n g w a s p e r c e i v e d t o b e b e t te r w h e n t h e r e w a s m o r e h e t e r o g e n e i tyi n te r m s o f ro l e s h e l d a n d m o r e h o m o g e n e i t y in t er m s o f L A U S D t e n u re . T w oo t he r va r i a b l e s a p p r oa c he d s i gn i f i c a nc e i n t h is r e g r e s s i on ( p -< . 10) . Bo t h ge n -de r a nd e t hn i c d i ve r s i t y ha d a m a r g i na l l y ne ga t i ve i m pa c t on c ounc i l de c i s i on -

T A B L E 1 .Results fro m Multiple Regressions of Measures o f Council Functioning on

Council Diversity MeasuresDependent V ariables

Diversity De cision - Pr ob lem -Predictor Making So lvin g N on ed uc ato r Co unc il CouncilV a r i a b l e s E f f e c t i v e n e s sEffectiveness Inv olve m ent Effectiveness IneffectivenessGender .208* .077 .110 .162 -. 1 0 8Ethnicity .228* .164 .153 .052 -. 0 5 7Time on council .045 -.1 38 -.0 78 -.1 84 .055District ~n ure .308** .266* .262** .009 .026Role - .3 61 '** - .12 2 - .663*** - .16 6 .117MuR iple R2 .2 78 ** * .145 .432*** .075 .029*p ~ .10** p -- .05*** p < .01


9/14

M A N A G E M E N T L E A D E R S H IP C O U N C I L S 4 9

making e f fec t i venes s . On ly one o the r va r i ab l e app roached s i gn i f i cance i n anyof the remain ing three regress ions . Divers i ty in d i s t r i c t t enure a l so had a mar-g ina l l y nega t i ve impac t on counc i l p rob l em-so lv ing e f fec ti venes s .

D I S C U S S I O NThese r esu lt s sugges t , f i rs t , t ha t g rea te r he t e rogene i t y am ong cou nc i l mem -

ber s i n t e rms o f t he amoun t o f exper i ence t hey had i n t he d i s t r i c t nega t i ve lya f fec t ed "g roup p roc es s " ( i . e . , de c i s ion mak ing , p rob l em so lv ing , and pa t t e rnso f i nvo lvem en t ) bu t d id n o t a f f ec t the qua l i t y o f counc i l " ou t com es" ( in pa r t icu -lar , those assessed by the counci l ef fec t iveness scale) . S ince the l arge major i tyo f t he members o f t he l eader sh ip counc i l s had over n ine yea r s ' exper i ence i nthe d i s t r ic t , g rea t e r he t e rogen e i t y imp l i ed a g rea t e r num ber o f l e ss exp er i encedmembers . There fo re , t hese f i nd ings can be i n t e rp re t ed i n one o f two ways .F i r s t , i t cou ld be t ha t t he counc i l mem bers d i s coun t ed t he va lue o f t hose i nd i-v idua l s wi th m ore l im i t ed exper i ence , so t ha t a g rea t e r p resence o f t hese i nd i -v idua l s genera t ed t he pe rcep t i on t ha t t he cou nc i l was opera t ing l e s s e f f ec t i ve lythan i t m igh t o the rwi se hav e been . Al t e rna t i ve ly , it cou ld be t ha t r e l a t ive i nex -per i ence d id ac tua l l y have a nega t i ve impac t on counc i l func t i on ing , so t ha tcounc i l s w i th m ore ho mo geneo us m emb ersh ip i n t e rms o f l eng th i e r d i s tr i c t t en -u re may , i n f ac t , have been us ing a more e f fec t i ve g roup p roces s . E i t he r o rbo th o f t hese exp l ana t i ons may he lp exp l a in ou r r e su l t s . Of cou rse , i t i s a l soin t e res t ing t o no t e t ha t t he a mo un t o f t ime spen t s e rv ing on t he counc i l d id no tgenera t e s imi l a r e f f ec t s . Apparen t l y , counc i l exper i ence was no t r e l evan t a s ade t e rminan t o f t he qua l i t y o f counc i l func t i on ing . P e rcep t i ons o f counc i l p ro -ces s and ou t com es were bo th i ndependen t o f t he mix o f such exper ience am ongc o u n c i l m e m b e r s .

Ro l e d ive r s i ty demo ns t ra t ed a pos i t ive impac t on two va r i ab l es. F o r one o ft hese , n onedu ca to r i nvo lvem en t , t he r esu lt s were f a i r l y s t ra i gh t fo rward . S inceteachers were the group wi th the l arges t representa t ion on the counci l s , fo l -l owe d by p r i nc ipa ls , g rea t e r ro le d ive r s i t y occu r red wh en t he re were m ore c l as -s i f ied pe r sonne l , pa ren t s , c om m uni ty me mb ers , a nd /o r st uden ts on t he coun-c i l s . S ince t hese were t he members whose i nvo lvemen t was t he focus o f t hei tems compri s ing th i s scale , i t i s no t surpr i s ing that , as thei r membership in-c reased , so d id t he l eve l an d q ua l i t y o f t he i r pa rt ic i pa ti on . W i th l e ss num er i ca ldominance by t he p ro fes s iona l s t a f f , t he o the r members may have f e l t l e s st h rea t ened and t hus more wi l l i ng t o vo lun t ee r t he i r op in ions and s e rv i ces . Asfo r dec i s i on -m ak ing e f fec t i venes s , t he r esu lt s i nd i ca t e t ha t g rea te r i nvo lvem en tby peo p l e o the r t han p ro fes s iona l s t a f f was s een as hav ing a pos i ti ve impac t onthe counc i l . Th i s wou ld sugges t t ha t t he d i f f e rences i n exper i ences and v i ew-poin t s ref lec ted in the var ious ro les were seen as cont r ibut ing to ra ther thanh inder ing counc i l dec i s i on -mak ing p rocesses . F u r the rmore , s i nce ro l e d ive r s i ty


10/14

50 THE URBAN REVIEW

ge ne r a t e d the s t r onge s t re l a t ionsh ips f ou nd in t he a na lys is , i t a ppe a rs t ha t r o l e -ba se d d i f f e r e nc e s ha d mor e r e l e va nc e to s c hoo l - l e ve l de c i s ion - ma k ing p r o -c e s se s t ha n a ny o f t he o the r sou r c e s o f d ive r s it y .

A su r p r is ing f ind ing f r o m ou r a na lys i s is t ha t ge nde r a nd e thn ic d ive r s i t y ha da min ima l impa c t on the se f a c e t s o f c ounc i l f unc t ion ing . S inc e the ma jo r i t y o fm e m b e r s o n m o s t o f t h e c o u n c i l s w e r e w o m e n , g r e a t e r g e n d e r d i v e r s i t y t y p -i c a l ly me a n t mor e ma le me mbe r s . L ike wise , g r e a t e r e thn ic d ive r s i t y u sua l lym e a n t m o r e p e o p l e o f c o l o r s e rv i n g a s c o u n c il m e m b e r s . H e n c e , t h e o n e c o e f f i -c i e n t a pp r oa c h ing s ign i f i c a nc e f o r e a c h o f t he se va r i a b le s sugge s t s t ha t , a s t hen u m b e r o f m e n o r p e o p l e o f c o l o r in c r e as e d , d e c i s i o n -m a k i n g e f f e ct i v e n e ss w a ssome wha t r e duc e d . Howe ve r , t he se r e l a t i onsh ips we r e no t s t r ong one s , a ndthus , t h i s c onc lus ion shou ld be a c c e p te d t e n t a t i ve ly . F u r the r mor e , t he r e we r eno o the r f i nd ings wh ic h wo u ld sugg e s t t ha t ge nde r o r e thn ic d ive r s i t y ha d a nimp a c t on the c ounc i l one wa y o r t he o the r . A l l i n a ll , c ounc i l m e m be r s s e e m e dto be l i e ve tha t c ounc i l f unc t ion ing wa s l a r ge ly i nde pe nde n t o f e i t he r ge nde r o re thn ic c ompos i t i on .

W hi l e c ou nc i l d ive r s i t y wa s f oun d to ha ve a s ign i f ic a n t e f f e c t on d e c i s ion -ma k ing e f f e c t ive ne s s a nd none duc a to r i nvo lve me n t , suc h e f f e c t s we r e no t i c e -a b ly a bse n t f r om the r e ma in ing th r e e s c a l e s . O ne r e a son tha t d ive r s i t y wa sun r e l a t e d to the p r ob le m - so lv ing e f f e c t ive ne s s s c a l e ma y b e tha t the i t e ms c om -pr i s ing th i s s c a l e we r e p r ima r i ly o r i e n t e d towa r d a s se s s ing a c t iv i t i e s t ha t t her e sponde n t s e nga ge d in i nd iv idua l ly , r a the r t ha n a c t iv it i e s o f the c oun c i l a s aw h o l e . D i v e r s i t y m a y b e m o r e l i k e l y to a f f e c t c o u n c i l p r o c e s s e s th a n t h e s eind iv idua l a c t iv it i e s. A s f o r c ounc i l i ne f f e c t ive ne s s , pa rt o f the p r ob le m m a yha ve be e n w i th t h i s s c a l e i t se l f . I t s re l i a b i li t y c oe f f i c i e n t wa s the l ow e s t o f t hef ive s ca l e s a nd be low .70 , w h ic h i s a c om m on c u to f f po in t f o r a de qua te s c a ler e l ia b i l it y . To som e e x te n t , t he s c a le wa s a l so a " hyb r id" i n t ha t th r e e o f t hei t e ms f oc use d on c ounc i l p r oc e s s c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s , wh i l e t he r e ma in ing i t e m a s -se s se d the c ounc i l ' s impa c t on the s c hoo l . Th us , t he l a c k o f r e l a ti onsh ip be -twe e n d ive r s i t y a nd th i s s c a l e ma y ha ve be e n , i n pa r t , a me thodo log ic a l a r t i -f ac t .

Th e m os t su r p r i s ing o f t he se th r e e w e r e t he r e su lt s f o r the c oun c i l e f f e c t ive -ne s s s c a l e . S inc e ove r a l l c ounc i l qua l i ty w a s l i ke ly to be d e t e r mine d , a t l e a s t i npa r t , by the na tu r e o f me mbe r pa r t i c ipa t ion a nd the qua l i t y o f c ounc i l de c i s ionm a k ing , one m igh t ha ve e x pe c t e d d ive r s i t y t o a f f e c t t h is va r i a b l e a s we l l . A p-pa r e n t ly , howe ve r , d ive r s i t y c ou ld a f f e c t c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t he c ounc i l ' s g r ouppr oc e s s w i tho u t ha v ing a n e f f e c t on i ts ou t c om e s f o r t he s c hoo l . I n o the r wor ds ,e ve n though c ounc i l me mbe r s ' e va lua t ions o f p r oc e s s c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s we r e a f -f e c t e d by the a m oun t a nd type o f d ive r s it y w i th in t he g r oup , t he i r ove r a l l e va l -ua t ion o f t he be ne f i t s o f t he c ounc i l r e ma ine d inde pe nde n t o f d ive r s i t y i s sue s .One e xp la na t ion o f t he se r e su l t s migh t be t ha t t he pe r c e ive d be ne f i t s o f t hec o u n c i l w e r e d r i v e n p r i m a r i ly b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f s c h o o l - l e v e l d e c i si o n m a k i n g


11/14

MANAG EMENT LEADERSHIP COUN CILS 51

t o more cen t ra l i zed dec i s ion mak ing . Regard l es s o f t he amoun t o f d ive r s i t yp r e s en t a n d i t s i m p a c t o n t h e c o u n c i l 's g r o u p d y n a m i c s , t he m e m b e r s m a y h a v eas ses sed t he e f fec t i venes s o f t he counc i l l a rge ly in t e rms o f t he i r eva lua t i on o fthe ben ef i ts o f decen t ra l iza t i on .

Al l in a l l , the resu l t s of th i s ana lys i s indicate that , for th i s sample o f schooll eader sh ip counc i l s , dem ograph i c d ive r s i t y am ong the m embers o f the counc i l sd id no t have a n overw he lming im pac t on t he na tu re o f the cou nc i l s ' ope ra t ions .In t e rms o f p rev ious r esea rch on t he consequences o f g roup d ive r s i t y , t heseresu l ts d o no t p rov ide s t ra igh t fo rward ev idence e i the r fo r t he case t ha t d ive r s i tyhas a po s i t ive impac t or for the case that i t has a ne gat ive impa ct . In fac t , therei s som e ind i ca ti on t ha t d i f f e ren t t ypes o f d ive r s i t y have d i f fe ren t types o f e f -fec t s , som e pos i t i ve and some nega t i ve , a l be i t r e la t i ve ly l im i t ed i n bo th cases .

F o r t hose wh o a re pa r t i c ipa t i ng on t he l eader sh ip counc i l s o r w ho o the rwi sehave a s t ake i n t he i r e f fec t i venes s , t hese f i nd ings shou ld p robab ly be cons id -e red good n ews . S choo l -based man agem en t r e s ts on t he as sumpt ion tha tb roader pa r t ic ipa t ion i n s choo l dec i s ion m ak ing by a m ore d ive r se s e t o f peop lewi l l enhance t he qua l i t y o f those dec i s ions . In t he Los A nge l es Un i f ied S choo lDi s t r ic t , " b roader pa r t i c ipa t i on" was de f ined as m ore rep resen t a ti on o f a g rea t e rrange o f cons t i tuen t s . Acc ord ing t o ou r r e su l t s, t h is t ype o f d ive r s it y was i n f ac tpos i t i ve ly r e l a t ed t o dec i s ion -mak ing e f fec t i venes s . Other t ypes o f d ive r s i t ytypical ly advocated for greater inclus ion in organizat ional decis ions , in par t icu-l a r gender and e thn i c i t y , were no t exp l ic i t ly add ressed i n the LA U S D ' s decen -t ra l iza t ion des ign . A concern f requent ly expressed , of course , i s that d ivers i tya long t hese d imens ions may make dec i s ion mak ing more d i f f i cu l t , i f no t i nt e rms o f ou t comes , t hen a t l eas t i n t e rms o f t he con f l i c tua l na tu re o f t he p ro -cess . Yet our f indings indicate that , in th i s sample as a whole , the counci lmem bers d id no t pe rce ive any such nega t i ve consequences . W e m igh t conc ludetha t , fo r now , t h i s l ack o f nega t i ve consequences was a pos i t ive s i gn . The n ex ts t ep , t hough , i s t o l ea rn how to cap i t a l i ze on g rea t e r d ive r s i t y among counc i lmem bers so t ha t the coun c i l s and t he i r s choo ls can t ake fu l l advan t age o f t hein fo rmat ion , va lues , and pe r spec t i ves he ld by a l l o f t he i r members . Our f i nd -ings leave us opt imis t ic that th i s wi l l be poss ib le to accompl i sh .

REFERENCESCot t on , John L . , Vol l ra t h , Davi d A . , F roggat t, Ki rk L . , Leng ni ck-Ha l l, M ark L . , an d Jenni ngs ,

K enn eth R. (1988). Em ployee part ic ipa tion: Dive rse form s and di fferent outcom es. Academy ofManagement Review 1 3 : 8 - 2 2 .Cox, T aylor H. , J r . (1991) . T he mul t icul tura l organiza t ion. Academy of Management Executive 5:3 4 - 4 7 .

Cox, Tayl or H. , J r . , Lob e l , Sha ron A. , and M cLeo d, Pop py L . (1991). E f fect s o f e thn i c g roupcul t u ra l d i f ferences on coo pe ra t ive an d com pe t i ti ve behavi or on a g roup t a sk . Academy of Man-agement Journal 3 4 : 8 2 7 - 8 4 7 .


12/14

5 2 T H E U R B A N R E V IE W

David, Jane L. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational Leader-ship 46 : 45-53 .Do yle, Dennis, Cooper, Bruce S., and Trachtman, R. (19 91). Taking Charge: State Action onSchool Reform in the 1980s. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute.Farr, Cheryl. (1992). Building and supporting a multicultural workforce. Public Management 74:

2 0 - 2 6 .Hill, Paul T., and Bonan, Josephine. (1991). Decentralization and Accountability in Public Educa-

tion. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Maier, Norman R. F. (1967). Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: The need for an in-tegrative function. Psychological Review 74: 239-249.Malen, Betty, O gawa, Rodney T ., and Kranz, Jennifer. (1990 ). What do we know about school-

based m anagement? A case study of the liter atu re- -A call for research. In W illiam H. Clune andJ. F. Witte (eds.), Choice and Control in American Education, Vol. 2: The Practice o f Choice,Decentralization, and School Restructuring (pp. 289-3 42). London: Falm er Press.

Mohrm an, Susan A ., Lawler, Edward E. , and Mohrm an, A llan M . (19 91). Applying employeeinvolvement in schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14: 347-360 .

Morrison, A nn M . (1992). The Ne w Leaders: G uidelines on Leadership Diversity in America. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ogawa, Rodney T. (1992). School-based management: Efforts to distribute power, information,rewards and knowledge. Unp ublished ma nuscript, Un iversity of Utah, S alt Lake City.

Shaw, M arvin E. (1976). A n overview of small group behavior. In J. W. Thibant, J. T. Spence,and R. C. Carson (eds.), Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology (pp. 335-368). Morris-town, NJ: General Learning Press.

Smith, Marshall S., and O'Day, Jennifer. (1991). Systemic school reform. In Susan H. Fuhrmanand Betty Malen (eds.), The Politics of Curriculum and Testing (pp. 233-267). Bristol, PA:Falme r Press.

Wanous, John P., and Youtz, Margaret A. (1986). Solution diversity and the quality of groupdecisions. Academy of Management Journal 29: 149-159.

A P P E N D I X ADepen dent -Var iab le Sca les and I temsD E C I S IO N - M A K I N G E F F E C T I V E N E S S9 T h e C o u n c i l m a k e s d e c i s io n s b y r e a c h i n g c o n s e n s u s .9 A l l m e m b e r s o f th e C o u n c i l h a v e a n e q u a l o p p o r t u n it y to p a rt ic i p a te i n

d i s c us s i ons .9 T h e r e i s s u f f i c ie n t t i m e a t m e e t i ngs f o r t he Counc i l t o f unc t i on w e l l.9 Cou nc i l de c i s i ons a r e m a de in a t i m e l y f a s h i on .9 W he n pe o p l e b r i ng up ne w i s sue s t o t he Co unc i l , t he y a r e p r e s e n t e d c l e a r ly .9 T h e C o u n c i l i n f o r m s p a r e n t s a b o u t t h e s c h o o l ' s g o a l s a n d ac t iv i ti e s.P R O B L E M - S O L V I N G E F F E C T I V E N E S S9 I d i s c us s i t e m s on t he C ou nc i l ' s a ge nda w i t h t he pe o p l e I r e p r e s e n t ( e . g . ,

o t he r pa r e n t s , t e a c he r s , e t c . ) be f o r e t he Counc i l m a ke s de c i s i ons .


13/14

MANAGEM ENT LEADERSHIPCOUNCILS 53

9 I ge t r e l e va n t i n f o r m a t i on to he l p the Counc i l m a ke de c is i ons a bou t ho w t h isschool i s run .

9 W he n a p r o b l e m e x i s t s w i t h i n t he Cou nc i l , I w o r k t ow a r d a s o l u ti on .9 Co unc i l m e e t i ngs a r e he l d a t t i m e s tha t a ll ow m e t o a t te nd .9 I w o r k c o o p e r a t i v e l y w i t h o th e r s o n ta s k s n e e d e d b y t h e C o u n c il .9 I a c t i ve l y s e e k ou t re s ou r c e s I ne e d ( e . g . , i n f o r m a t i on , c oope r a t i on , a nd

s e r v ic e s ) r a t h e r th a n w a i t to h a v e t h e m g i v e n t o m e .N O N E D U C A T O R IN V O L V E M E N T9 P a r e n t s ' i de a s a bou t i m p r ov i n g s c hoo l e f f e c t i ve ne s s s i gn i f ic a n t l y i n f l ue nc e

d e c i s i o n s m a d e b y t h e C o u n c i l .9 P a r e n t s t a ke r e s pons i b i l i t y f o r a s s i gn i ng t he m s e l ve s t a s ks w i t h i n t he Coun-cil .

9 I i n v o l v e c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r s o t h e r t h a n p a r e n ts i n a v a r i e ty o f a ct iv i ti e s a tt he s c hoo l .

9 P a r e n t / c o m m u n i t y in v o l v e m e n t i n t h e s c h o o l h a s in c r e a se d s in c e t h e C o u n -c i l w a s f o r m e d .

9 C l a s s i f i e d pe r s onn e l a re a c t i ve , c on t r i bu t i ng m e m be r s o f t he Cou nc i l .9 T h e c o m m u n i t y c a n a n d d o e s i n f lu e n c e d e c is i o n s t h a t i m p a c t t h is s c h o o l.9 S c hoo l s t a f f r e gu l a r l y r e c ogn i z e t he c on t r i bu t i on t ha t pa r e n t s m a ke t o t he

s c hoo l .C O U N C I L E F F E C T IV E N E S S9 C o u n c i l m e e t i n g s a re a v a l u a b l e u s e o f ti m e a n d e n e r g y .9 R e a c h i n g c o n s e n s u s is t h e m o s t e f f e c t iv e f o r m o f d e c i si o n m a k i n g .9 I n g e n e r a l, t h e q u a li t y o f d e c is i o n s m a d e a t m y s c h o o l h a s i n c re a s e d n o w

t h a t S D M / S B M i s i n p l a c e .9 T h e C o u n c i l p r o v i d e s th e m o s t e f f e c t iv e f o r m o f l e a d er s h ip a t t h is s c h o o l.9 1 a m h a p p y w i t h th e d e c i si o n s m a d e b y t h e C o u n c i l in th e a r e a o f s t a f f

d e v e l o p m e n t .9 T h e g o a l s o f t h e sc h o o l ca n b e a c h ie v e d w i th o u t S h a r e d D e c i s i o n M a k i n g /

S c h o o l - B a s e d M a n a g e m e n t .9 S h a r e d D e c i s i o n M a k i n g / S c h o o l - B a s e d M a n a g e m e n t h a s h a d a p o s i t i v e i m -

p a c t o n m y s c h o o l .9 S t a f f m e m be r s a t t h is s c hoo l a pp r e c i a t e t he c on t r i bu t i on t ha t t he Co unc i l

m a k e s t o t h e s c h o o l .9 I a m h a p p y w i t h t h e d ec i si o n s m a d e b y t h e C o u n c i l i n t h e s c h e d u l in g o fschool ac t iv i t i e s .9 T he C ounc i l ha s be e n i n s t r um e n t a l i n r e s o l v i ng p r o b l e m s a t t h is sc hoo l .9 S h a r e d D e c i s io n M a k i n g / S c h o o l - B a s e d M a n a g e m e n t h a s t h e p o t e n ti a l t o

m a k e a p o s i t i v e o v e r a l l i m p a c t o n m y s c h o o l .


14/14

54 THE URBAN REVIEW

C O U N C I L IN E F F E C T I V E N E S S9 I m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n s a t m y s c h o o l s e e m t o h a v e b e e n m a d e b e f o r e t h e C o u n -

c i l m e e t s .9 C o u n c i l d e c is i o n s a r e d o m i n a t e d b y a f e w m e m b e r s .9 T h e p r i n c i p a l a t m y s c h o o l h a s th e m o s t i n f l u e n c e o v e r w h a t g o e s o n a t

C o u n c i l m e e t i n g s .9 T h e C o u n c i l ha s c re a t e d n e w p r o b l e m s a t t h is sc h o o l .

Documents

Decision Making in School-Based Management Leadership Councils.pdf