DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 373 414 EA 026 023

AUTHOR Murphy, Joseph

TITLE Principles of School-Based Management.

INSTITUTION North Carolina Educational Policy Research Center,

Chapel Hill.

SPONS AGENCY North Carolina State Board of Education, Raleigh.

PUB DATE. Feb 94

CONTRACT 0800000738

NOTE 27p.

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Decentralization; Elementary Secondary Education;Governance; Local Government; Organizational Change;

*Participative Decision Making; *School BasedManagement; *School District Autonomy

IDENTIFIERS *North Carolina

ABSTRACTSchool-based management (SBM) is a strategy to

decentralize decision-making authority to the individual school site.

This document describes the principles of SBM, of which devolution of

authority is the fundamental concept. Local control and shared

decision-making are manifested in five educational operations: goals,

budget, personnel, curriculum and instruction, and organizational

structures. This report describes changes in the roles of state

policymakers, district administrators, principals, and teachers. The

five conditions necessary to facilitate SBM include readiness, time,

professional development, adequate material resources, and support.

In addition, support from all educational stakeholders, from good

working structures and from public legitimization are all necessary

for the successful implementation of SBM. In conclusion, school-based

management: (1) is a difficult intervention to get under way; (2)

creates additional administrative burdens for teachers; (3) offers

hope for improving certain dimensions of schooling; and (4) does not,

in and of itself, lead to improvement in student learning. (LMI)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

* from the original document.**********i.AA::*AA.***************************************************

OLINPOLICY

'CH CENTERU.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION!

Otke a Echrcauoneel Rematch end Improvement

EDUCATIONAL. RESOURCES INFORMATIONdCENTER (ERIC)

. Tr..., aocurnent nal WWI rOroluced as,eCtive0 from tne Pitmen or oegantlattonongma tong it

C tA.not chilly's now bash made to ImplOv'Cara/u0 0o guSINy

Pcunts of Yrew or opm0ns stated In troll clOCtrmenl 00 n01 necesfaray reptewnt otficattOE RI Denson or party

PRINCIPLES OF

SCHOOL-BASED

MANAGEMENT

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

School of EducationThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

2BEST COPY AVAILABLE

For further information regarding this report, contact:

Tanya M. Suarez, DirectorNorth Carolina Educational Policy Research Center105A Peabody Hall, CB #3500School of EducationThe University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, NC 27599-3500(919) 962-2655

The North Carolina Educational Policy Research Center operates under contract No. 0800000738 with the NorthCarolina State Board of Education. The funding source for the contract is Chapter 2 of the Elementary and SecontiaryEducation Act. The objective of the contract is to better enable the State Board of Education to assist local educationagencies in improving student achievement.

PRINCIPLES OF

SCHOOL-BASED

MANAGEMENT

JOSEPH MURPHY

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

FEBRUARY, 1994

4

1.1111111111.11.1111

PRINCIPLES OF SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT

JOSEPH MURPHY

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

COMMISSIONED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA EDUCATIONAL POLICY RESEARCH CENTER

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

FEBRUARY, 1994

Executive Summary

School-based management (SBM) is a strategy to decentralize decision making authority tothe individual school site. This initiative is a part of the larger school restructuring movementwhich began around 1980 based on the following assumptions about reform: educational prob-lems arf; attributable more to the failure of the system of schooling than to the shortcoming ofindividual educators; empowerment (of students, teachers, and parents) is a more effective toolthan prescription; and bottom-up, school-based solution strategies will lead to more satisfyingresults than will top-down, mandated ones.

Devolution of authority is the fundamental concept in SBM. Under this system of gover-nance, schools become deregulated from the district office and gain control and responsibilityover their own affairs. Decision-making is shared at the local school site between teachers,parents, other community members, and sometimes students. Typically, local control and shareddecision making are manifested in five educational operations: goals, budget, personnel, curricu-lum and instruction, and organizational structures.

State policymakers, district administrators, principals, and teachers alter their roles in schoolsto accommodate the changes from traditional educational processes and operations to SBM.State policymakers experience a shift away from the historical role as monitor of the educationalprocesses to three major responsibilities: (a) assuming the lead role in establishing a new visionof education and translating that vision into desired student outcomes; (b) supporting efforts toempower parents and professional educators to nurture the evolution of new forms of gover-nance and organization; and (c) holding schools and schools systems accountable for what theyaccomplish.

The purpose of the central office changes from monitoring and regulating to facilitating andserving schools. Experience with SBM shows that the central office structure may change by:(a) dividing into smaller regional units; (b) reducing size of staff; (c) reassigning employees to

5

support activities in individual schools; (d) transferring responsibilities to the school level; or(e) distributing centralized tasks over a larger number of people.

The principal's role is altered in three fundamental ways: (a) delegating leadership responsi-bilities and developing collaborative decision-making processes; (b) enabling and supportingteacher success through a democratic, participate, and consultative management style; and (c)extending the school community by expanding their public relations activities with externalconstituents and working with the governing board and parents.

Teachers' work changes structurally and conceptually with SBM. Teachers take on ex-panded responsibility by participating in formal decision making and making school structuresmore flexible. Some teachers also fill new professional roles (i.e., teacher-facilitator or coordi-nator). The conceptual dimensions of teachers represent a significant shift in conventional waysof thinking about teachers. New dimensions include teacher as colleague, teacher as decisionmaker, teacher as leader, and teacher as learner.

Five conditions are necessary to facilitate SBM. Readiness is an important antecedent tosuccessful implementation of SBM and is fostered by: (a) developing trust among the staffmembers; (b) developing a sense of direction or purpose that is widely communicated andinternalized by all stakeholders; and (c) committing to take risks and to the right to fail.

Time is also important to successful implementation of SBM. Start time is needed to getSBM initiatives underway. In addition, the pool of available time needs to be expanded forlearning new roles, and working with new constituents. Cooperative work time among teachersis also needed to develop a professional culture and common agenda for the school. Finally, anappropriate amount of time is required so that complex changes can unfold and begin to producedesired outcomes.

Professional development is a key for successful implementation of SBM initiatives. Profes-sional development activities need to be integrated with the local SBM agenda. Further, profes-sional development which includes capacity building activities (i.e., communication skills, groupprocess, planning, and decision lnalcing skills) are of critical importance in SBM.

Adequate material resources are also key for successful implementation of SBM.Policymakers at the state and district levels need to be attentive to issues of funding under SBM.Material assistance is most valuable when it is .hanneled into two important support areas: timeand professional development. Although the amount of money cannot be adequately determinedoutside the context of specific reform initiatives, there are periods when infusions of additionalmaterial resources can exert a significant influence (e.g., start-up funds, professional develop-ment programs).

Finally, support from all educational stakeholders, from good working structures and frompublic legitimization are all necessary for the successful implementation of SBM. Superinten-dents act as gatekeepers for change at the district and school levels, offering their endorsementsand willingness to commit valuable tangible and intangible organizational resources. Principals

ii

are the catalysts for change at the school level as they support efforts to decentralize the gover-nance and management of schools. Support also comes in the form of well-developed workingstructures. Structural principles include: (a) there is no universally appropriate working struc-ture from site to site; (b) it is desirable to have overlap of personnel on the structures used forplanning and implementing SBM; (c) a school-wide steering committee helps bring coherence tothe overall SBM agenda; (d) a coordinator or facilitator can sharpen the focus of SBM activity;and (e) maintaining the stability of these working structures can greatly enhance their effective-ness. Support is also the regular acknowledgment of the work SBM schools are doing, whichserves to legitimize labors. The most important types of legitimization are recognizing staffexpertise and helping educators have access to and become intelligent consumers of research.

School-based management is a difficult initiative to get underway. New roles for teachers,parents, and students make the change process problematic. Analysts have found that participa-tory governance creates additional administrative burdens for teachers and for administratorsoften taking both groups further away from the central issue of schooling. However, SBMoffers hope for improving certain dimensions of schools, such as local autonomy, diversity,responsiveness to individual students and community needs, and parent relations.

iii

PRINCIPLES OF SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

During th_ mid-to-late 1980s, the educa-tional reform movement that had commencedaround 1980 began to change form and texture.Up to that time, reform initiatives were informedby the belief that schooling could be improved ifstandards were raised, more effective prescrip-tions and regulations written, and educators,from the boardroom to the classroom, asked to domore. As the prevailing assumptions underlyingthe excellence movement came under attack, anew belief system began to take rootone thatwould grow to support what has become knownas the restructuring movement. Central to thisperspective on school improvement are the fol-lowing assumptions about reform: educationalproblems are attributable more to the failure ofthe system of schooling than to the shortcomingsof individual educators; empowerment (of stu-dents, teachers, and parents) is a more effectivetool than prescription; and bottom-up, school-based solution strategies will lead to more satis-fying results than will top-down, mandated ones.

While subject to criticism for a perceivedlack of conceptual clarity and definitional speci-ficity, the school restructuring movement none-thelessor perhaps because o f this very ambigu-itybegan to flourish, becoming a clearinghousefor a wide assortment of improvement efforts.Chief among these are initiatives to: (1) expandopportunities for parents to play a more vital rolein the education of their children, especiallyproposals to enhance parental voice and choice;(2) decentralize control over education from thestate through the district to the individual schoolcommunity; (3) professionalize teaching, bothat the state and federal levels and at each indi-vidual school site; (4) replace the behavioralunderpinnings of learning and teaching with

constructivist principles; and (5) infuse moremarket sensitive measures of accountability intothe schooling process, while de-emphasizinghistorically entrenched bureaucratic controls.

Of all the reform measures of this era, nonehas received as much attention as school-basedmanagement (SBM). Primarily a strategy todecentralize decision making authority to theindividual school site, SBM can also facilitatethe empowerment of parents and theprofessionalization of teachers. The purpose ofthis paper is to explore this improvement strategyin more detail. In the first section of the paper,SBM is defined, with particular detail given tokey areas of educational decision making. Inaddition, a proposal is made for coupling SBMwith powerful views of learning and teaching.The next two sections focus attention on makingSBM work as an improvement strategy. Thesecond part of the paper examines how the rolesof key educational stakeholdersstatepolicymakers, district office personnel, princi-pals, and teachersmust change to make SBMa reality. The final section explores five condi-tions that nurture the successful implementationof SBM: readiness, time, professional develop-ment, resources, and support.

WHAT IS SCHOOL-BASEDMANAGEMENT?

The consistent aim which links the changesand proposals for change into a coherentpolicy shift is to dismantle much of thecentral administrative structure and handover to individual schools responsibilityfor curriculum planning and, ultimately,forfinancial andpersonnt . management(Watt, 1989, p. 19)

1

8

Local Control and Shared Decision Making

School-based management has been charac-terized in a number of different ways. One of themost comprehensive definitions has been pro-vided by Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz (1989).

School-based managemen t can be viewedconceptually as a formal alteration ofgovernance structures, as a form of de-centralization that identifies the indi-vidual school as the primary unit of im-provement and relies on the redistributionof decision-making authority as the pri-mary means through which improvementsmight be stimulated and sustained. (p. 1)

Devolution of authority is the fundamental con-cept in SBM. Under this system of governance,schools become deregulated from the districtoffice. The basic message is one of expandedlocal control and influence, of schools beinggiven greater responsibility for their own affairs.The strategy of improvement is bottom -up change.School-based management is thus primarily analteration in organizational arrangements inschool districts. Authority and influence passfrom higher to lower levels of the organization.Structural changes often accompany this devolu-tion of authority.

Concomitantly, SBM usually includes aninternal redistribution of the authority decentral-ized to the local school site from the state and thedistrict office. Increased influence at the localschool site is shared with teachers, parents andother community members, rnd sometimes, stu-dents. Thus shared decision making among keystakeholders at the local level becomes a defin-ing characteristic of SBM.

Domains of School-Based Management

Local control and shared decision makingtake on meaning as they play out in the real worldof five educational operations: goals, budget,personnel, curriculum and instruction, and orga-nizational structures. The more control a schoolexercises over each of these areasand the morewidely that control is dispersedthe more ex-tensive the pattern of SBM.

Goals

Decentralization of authority providesschools with more control over the direction theorganization will pursue. Both the goals and thestrategies for reaching them are primarily deter-mined at the site level. Equally important is thefact that the individual school exercises consid-erable discretion over the values upon whichcollective action is to be taken. This controlhelps each school develop a unique culture thatis consistent with the needs of the community.

Budget

Control over the budget is at the heart ofefforts to decentralize authority. Without theability to allocate resources by local actors, theother dimensions of SBM lack force. Decentral-ized budgeting often means the allocation offunds to the school in a lump sum rather than forpredetermined categories of expenditures (e.g.,a certain amount for books, a certain amount forsalaries). This allows the school, rather than thedistrict, to determine how funds will be em-nloyed. The larger the ratio of lump sum funds tomonies restricted by categories, the greater theamount of decentralization. The freedom todetermine whether funds will be spent inside oroutside the district represents another dimensionof budgetary control. For example, in highlydecentralized districts, schools can purchaseneeded professional development services eitherfrom the district's staff development unit or from

2

private contractors. The ability to roll over unspentmoney is the final element of site-based controlof funds. In conventional accounting practice inschool districts and often within states, fundbalances revert to the central office or the state.When budget authority is fully decentralizedschools are able to carry over budget surpluses.

Personnel

Closely connected to budgetary discretion iscontrol over the defining of roles and the hungand development of staff. In the least aggressivemodel of SBM, the allocation of teaching posi-tions is determined at the district level. Withinthis constraint, and subject to state regulations,members of the local school community exercisenearly full control over filling these slots. Teach-ers are no longer sent to the school from thedistrict office. Teachers and administrators in-terview candidates, make the final ch&ce, andpass their selection back to the district. Undermore nearly comprehensive models oflocal con-trol, the allocation of professional positions isnot predetermined. While schools are still free toselect personnel, they also have the option ofusing funds budgeted for teachers for other pur-poses. For example, they can take money allo-cated for a teacher and use it to purchase booksand materials or to hire two or three paraprofes-sionals. In the most advanced cases of decen-tralization, authorityeither full or partialforthe employment of the principal is held by teach-ers and/or members of the local school commu-nity.

Curriculum and Instruction

"Within a school-based management sys-tem, the school site has near total authority overcurriculum matters. Within broad outlinesdefined by the board [and the state], the indi-vidual schools are free to teach in any mannerthey see fit" (Lindeiow, 1981, p. 122). School-based curriculum means that each school staff

decides what teaching materials as well as thespecific pedagogical techniques that are to beused. It also means that the principal and teach-ers at the local level determine their own profes-sional development needs and contract withwhomever they wish to meet those needs.

Organizational Structures

Structures within which the educational pro-cess unfolds represent a final area of control forteachers, administrators, and parents under SBM.These groups are free to alter the basic deliverystructure in schools, to develop alternatives tothe model of the individual teacher working withgroups of 25 to 35 students in 50-minute timeblocks. At the elementary level, schools arecreating educational programs that dramaticallychange the practices of grouping children by agefor classes and by ability for instruction. At thesecondary level, a number of decentralizedschools are experimenting with alternative pro-grams, core curricula, and outcome-based edu-cation.

IMPLICATIONS FORSTAKEHOLDER ROLES

All stakeholders will need to develop a clear,broader concept of their future roles in order toovercome persisting attitudes, and loyalties toprevious traditions, styles and routines of a hier-archical, centralized school system. (Burke, 1992,

P. 44)

State Policymakers

In this era of restructuring, the roles of statepolicymakers as well as the perspectives theybring to school improvement look significantlydifferent than in the past. (Murphy, 1990, p. 14)

3

to

Under SBM, analysts discern a shift awayfrom the state's historical role as monitor of theeducational process. In its stead, a new tripartiteset of responsibilities is emerging. First, stateactors tend to assume the lead role in workingwith all stakeholders in the educational processto establish a new vision of education and totranslate that vision into desired student out-comes. Second, they try to supportthrough aswide an array of methods as possible - -efforts atthe district, school, and classroom levels to em-power parents and professional educators and tonurture the evolution of new forms of gover-nance and organization. Third, they hold schoolsand school systems accountable for what theyaccomplish. Operating in this fashion, statepolicy actors are less involved in the micro-levelmanagement of the educational enterprise. In-stead, they play a key role in charting the courseand in assessing the results rather than in moni-toring processes or effort. Parents, professionaleducators, and students in each school in turnbecome freer to direct their own destinies.

What is particularly important here is thatstate policymakers send fewer, clearer, and moreconsistent messages to schools engaged in SBM.For example, schools are often befuddled when,in the midst of implementing SBM, the statemandates a new curriculum or statewide assess-ment system. It is also important that statepolicymakers model expectations for teachers,principals, and parents at the local school. Be-cause, by definition, SBM promotes variety,actors at the state (and district) level must beprepared to accept the fact that schools will lookdifferent from each ether. Finally, policymakersneed to ensure that systems that support LEAs- -for example, teacher and administrative train-ing- -are brought into alignment with the under-lying principles of SBM.

In a 1990 article in Education Week, JaneArmstrong of the Education Commission of theStates (ECS) summarized the comments of more

then three hundred participants from two work-shops sponsored by the ECS and the NationalGovernors' Association. She listed thirteen stepsthat policy-makers can take to facilitate schoolrestructuring initiatives such as SBM:

1. Develop a vision of desired student out-comes and a vision of a restructurededucation system.

2. Build a coalition of business, commu-nity, education, and political leaders.

3. Gain public and political support.

4. Provide flexibility, encourage experirr en-tation, and decentralize decision-making.

5. Shift state and local education agencyroles from enforcement to assistance.

6. Restructure teacher and administratoreducation.

7. Provide ongoing development opportu-nities for every teacher and administra-tor.

8. Hold the system accountable.

9. Give all students every chance to learnand contribute.

10. Use policies as catalysts to promote andsupport restructuring.

11. Identify pilot restructuring sites.

12. Reallocate existing resources for restruc-turing.

13. Use technology to support restructuring.

A similar set of "state actions to launchrestructuring" has been described by Jane Davidand her colleagues in the National Governors'Association's 1990 report, State Actions to Re-structure Schools: First Steps. They recommendthat policymakers promote a vision, spread theword, build statewide support for restructuring,invite school and district participation, provide

4 I1

support (flexibility, time, and assistance), shiftthe state role (away from compliance and towardobjectives, assistance, and outcomes), focus onresults, and maintain visibility. In addition,unlike the reforms of the early 1980s, they re-mind us that

for each state, the beginning steps ofrestructuring: are exploratory. This isuncharted territory with no road maps.Inside schools, districts, and state agen-cies, leaders and educators are learningby experimenting. (David, 1990, p. 35)

District Office

Under school-based management. . . thecentral office role . . . shifts from that of"telling" to "facilitating" individualschool action. (Sackney & Dibski, 1992,p. 6)

Efforts are underway in a variety of commu-nities to overhaul district operations to supportschool-based reform efforts. Reports from thesedistricts reveal shifts in the purpose, structure,and nature of the work of central offices.

Purpose

The main purpose of the district office be-comes one of serving and facilitating local schoolsuccess. In meeting this new objective in restruc-turing districts, as Hirsh and Sparks (1991) state,"central office departments are shifting frommonitoring and regulating agencies to servicecenters for schools (p. 16)."

Structure

Consistent with their newly emerging mis-sion, central offices in SBM districts are under-going four types of structural change. In somecases, most often in large, heavily centralizeddistricts, there has been a dismantling of the

larger bureaucracy into regional units. ForiYxample, in the late 1980s the superintendent ofthe Milwaukee, Wisconsin schools decentral-ized the school system by dividing the bureau-cracy into six service delivery areas. Parallelchanges have been made in Dade County, Florida;Cincinnati, Ohio; and Dallas, Texas.

A reduction in size of central office staff is asecond type of structural change sometimesfound in SBM districts, often accompanied bythe elimination of entire layers of the centralhierarchy. For example, the first year of theChicago Reform Act (1988-1989) saw a 20percent reduction in central office staff, from3300 positions to 2660 positions. In Dallas, twolayers of the bureaucracy were removed whenone deputy superintendent replaced two associ-ate superintendents and the assistant superinten-dents for elementary and secondary education.In Cincinnati, the number of central office ad-ministrators dropped from 127 to 62. In addi-tion, 27 non-administrative support-staff posi-tions were eliminated, as were 50 clerical jobs.

Employees who previously occupiedmiddle-management roles at the district officeare sometimes reassigned to support activities inindividual schools. In other cases, the moneyused to fund these positions is freed up to supportnew initiatives at the site level. In Chicago, theshift in central office staff generated $40 mil-lion, which was directed to the schools. Thestreamlining of staff in Cincinnati is expected tosave $16 million over the 1992-1993 and1993-1994 school years, all of which is targetedto flow directly to schools. In addition, many ofthe former Cincinnati central office administra-tors who do not retire will move to positions atthe school level.

Finally, as this flattening of the hierarchicalstructure occurs, responsibilities and tasks his-torically housed at the district office level areoften transferred to schools and responsibilities

5 12

that are currently centralized are distributed overa larger number of people. Consistent with theshifting purpose discussed earlier, the job ofmiddle level managers becomes centered onproviding services directly to schools.

Nature of the Work

What empirical evidence do we have aboutthe nature of the work being performed by dis-trict office personnel in SBM districts? There isevidence that the most prominent feature ofchange in the nature of central office work isaway from "traditional roles of director, control-ler, and monitor to enabler, facilitator, and helper"(Mojkowski & Bomberger, 1991, p. 51). Con-sistent with the redefined purpose of districtactivity discussed earlier, some central officedepartments are becoming service centers forschools. In helping support school-based re-form, the function of central office personnelchanges from attempting to ensure uniformityacross schools to "orchestrat[ing] diversity toensure that the common educational goals of thesystem are met, even if in many different ways"(Schneider, cited in Clinchy, 1989)a changethat one superintendent we worked with de-scribes as moving from managing a school sys-tem to developing a system of schools.

Central office personnel in restructuring dis-tricts are spending less time initiating projects.They are serving as liaisons between the schoolcommunity and district office, performing asbrokers of central-office services. In the sampleof decentralizing districts in Kentucky, the cen-tral office facilitative role has meant less empha-sis on telling, more advisory work and consulta-tion, additional legwork in securing informationfor schools, and becoming more of a transmitterof information rather than a developer of strate-gies. In Riverside, California, decentralization"as it involved central office changed communi-cations patterns inside and outside the office toone of listening; changed decision-making to

consensus; [and] changed workstyle to facilita-tion" (Wissler & Ortiz, 1988, pp. 94-95). In athird district in the Midwest, SBM caused centraladministrators to begin managing and leading inmore of a partnership arrangement with teachers,rather than as initiators or directors.

For many employees there is a sense of lossassociated with decentralization, which is rootedin a diminished perception of authority, influ-ence, power, and status, as well 'n a perceiveddistance in the relationship between central of-fice personnel and school staff. Consequently,many district employees have a particularly dif-ficult time adapting to dece.itralization.

Principal

In order to survive in such a decentral-ized environmen4 principals will have toexhibit different skills and behaviors thanis now the case. (Guthrie, 1992, p. 28)

Largely because new legislation and otherexternally generated expectations have alteredthe contex :education, principals in most SBMenvironments believe that their roles have beenaltered in fundamental ways. We group thesechanges under the following three headings:leading from the center, enabling and supportingteacher success, and extending the school com-munity.

Leading from the Center

There is considerable evidence that princi-pals who are taking the SBM agenda seriouslyare strugglingoften against long odds and oftenwith only mixed successto redefine their lead-ership role. For example, in their study Earleyand his colleagues (1990) report that"[a]pproximately two thirds of the cohort be-lieved they had become more consultative, moreopen and more democratic. Heads spoke ofbecoming increasingly aware of the need for

13

more participative management and for staffownership of change" (p. 9). Nearly all the workin this area concludes that the attempt to reshapepower relationships--to redistribute authority toteachers, parents, and occasionally studentsisat the very core of this redefinition. Two tasksform the foundation of these redesigned powerrelationshipsdelegating authority and develop-ing collaborative decision-making processes.

Delegating leadership responsibilities. Onthe first issue, delegation of authority, initialstudies convey both the importance and diffi-culty of sharing power. First, they affirm thatempowering others represents the biggest changeand poses the most significant problems forprincipals. Second, they impart a sense of howhard it can be for the organization and the com-munity to permit the principal to let go. Existingroutines, norms, and expectations are often sol-idly entrenched. Attempts to delegate control, onthe other hand, are often quite fragile. Third,these studies underscore the centrality of a trust-ing relationship between the principal and theteachers in making genuine delegation a possi-bility. Fourth, they reveal that only by learningto delegate can principals in SBIvi reform effortsbe successful. Finally, work on the evolving roleof school leaders under decentralization indi-cates that, even given the great difficulties in-volved, principals do have an array of availableskills and tools that are effective in moving awayfrom hierarchical control and in empoweringteachers to lead.

Developing collaborative decision makingprocesses. Principals in decentralized schoolsspend considerable energy creating alternativesto traditional decision making structures andforging a role for themselves consistent with therecast authority relationships that define thesestructures. Certainly the most prevalent changehere is the principal's role in tit- development ofa variety of formal models ofsite based decisionmaking. In addition, to foster the development of

professional school cultures, principals in someof these schools are taking a stronger role sup-porting the development of powerful informalnetworks.

Enabling and Supporting Teacher Success

Foundation. Enabling and supportingteacher success encompasses a variety of func-tions. What appears to be as critical as thefunctions themselves are the bases for the activi-ties and the ways in which they are performed.To the extent that there is an emerging empiricalpicture of principal leadership in decentralizedschools, it seems to be one that is grounded notso much on line authority as it is "based onmutual respect and equality of contribution andcommitment" (Prestine, 1991, p. 27). It reflectsa style ofmanagement that is democratic, partici-pative, and consultative. Group-centered leader-ship behaviors are often crucial. The ability toorchestrate from the background is often para-mount.

Functions. This foundation provides thecontext for a set of five functions often per-formed by principals in schools emphasizingshared decision making: (1) helping formulate ashared vision; (2) cultivating a network of rela-tionships; (3) allocating resources consistent withthe vision; (4) providing information to staff;and (5) promoting teacher development. Bound-ing all of these functions are efforts of principalsto support and affirm teachers' leadership and to

create the framework for teachers to enhancetheir own growth and expand their own roles.

Extending the School Commur ity

Reports from nearly all sectors of the decen-tralizationmovementconfirmthat: (1) thebound-aries between schools and their communities arebecoming more permeable; (2) environmentalleadership is becoming more important; and

7 14

(3) principals are spending more thne with par-ents and other members of the school than theyhave in the past.

Promoting the school. Perhaps the mostdramatic shift for the principals in schools en-gaged in SBM reform efforts has been their needto expand the public relations activities withexternal constituents. In this new context, theentrepreneurial role of the principal is enhanced.In nearly all SBM sites, there is a renewedinterest on the importance of client perceptionsof schools and a new emphasis on obtaining andretaining students. In short, because the publicimage of schools becomes a much more salientissue under SBM, more and more time of princi-pals in decentralized schools is being directedtoward public relations and the promotion of theschool's image and to selling and marketing theschool and its programs to the community.

Working with the governing board andparents. Investigations of SBM portray a pic-ture of principals who are heavily involved inwork with governing boards--boards that in manycases came into existence as part of the SBMagenda. While such "direct participation ofparents [has] made parental beliefs, values, andperceptions more central in the lives of profes-sional educators" (Hallinger & Hausman, 1993,p. 138), it also represents opportunity costs forprincipals. Principals sometimes argue that edu-cating the school council can be a full-time job.There are also hints that principals in SBMschools extend the school community by work-ing more directly with parents and justifyingschool processes and outcomes to communitymembers.

Teachers

Analysts concerned with the role of teachersenvision significant changes in the work theyperform in decentralized schools. These alter-ations cluster into two categories: structural andconceptual changes.

Structural Redesign

Expanded responsibilities. At one level,teachers under SBM are taking on new responsi-bilities. They are assuming control over deci-sions that were historically the province of oth-ers, especially administrators. Changes in thisarea are of two types--"those that increase teach-ers' right to participate in formal decision mak-ing [and] those that give teachers greater accessto influence by making school structures moreflexible" (Moore-Johnson, 1989, p. 2). Numer-ous examples of expanded teacher responsibili-ties are available from school districts that areengaged in SBM effurts.

Team approaches to school management andgovernance are particularly good collective ex-amples of expanded responsibilities for teachers.For example, in the Cincinnati, Ohio schoolsystem, an equal number of teachers and admin-istrators now comprise the committee that deter-mines the allocation of teachers to individualschools. The formalization of teacher participa-tion in decision-making forums from which theywere previously excluded (e.g., principal andteacher selection committees, facility planninggroups) has been accomplished in Dade County,Florida; Hammond, Indiana; and other districtsemploying school-based models ofmanagement.Through expanded participation in collectivedecision-making models and professional sup-port groups, teachers in schools emphasizingshared decision making have also begun to exer-cise considerable influence over the type ofevaluation procedures employed. Individualteachers sometimes assume greater responsibil-

8

15

ity for the mentoring and supervision of theirpeers -- especially beginning teachers-- evaluat-ing the work of principals, providing profes-sional development to their colleagues, and de-veloping curricula for the school. In short, bothindividually and collectively, teachers in decen-tralized schools are accumulating new responsi-bilities that extend their role beyond the confinesof their own classrooms.

New professional roles. Some teachers inSBM schools are not only adding new responsi-bilities to their current jobs but are also beginningto fill new professional roles--work redesignactivities that may significantly alter the basicrole itself. For example, a master teacher maycontinue to work three or four days a week in hisor her own classroom but may also spend one ortwo days working with colleagues in their class-rooms or with peers developing student assess-ment materials. A teacher-facilitator or coordi-nator may actually leave the classroom for asemester or a year to create professional develop-ment activities or curriculum materials for peers.

Conceptual Redesign

In trying to understand the conceptual core ofrestructured teacher work in decentralizedschools, the classification system developed byMcCarthey and Peterson (1989) is helpful. Ac-cording to these analysts, the categories ofteacheras colleague, teacher as decision maker, teacheras leader, and teacher as learner capture theessence of the new roles for teachers in decentral-ized schools. In addition, a number of analystshave emphasized the idea of teacher as general-ist. Each of these conceptual dimensions repre-sents a significant shift in conventional ways ofthinking about teachers. In conventional prac-tice, teachers are entrepreneurs of their ownclassrooms. They orchestrate their own opera-tions almost totally independently of their peersand engage in few leadership or decision-makingactivities outside their own cubicles. They are

viewed as pedagogical specialists whose func-tion it is to deliver educational services to theiryoung charges. Little time and energy are avail-able for or devoted to self-renewal and profes-sional growth.

Analysts sketch a very different portrait ofthe teaching function under SBM. According tothem, teachers are professionals who engage inregular and important exchanges with their col-leagues. Teachers participate in decisions affect-ing the entire school and frequently performleadership tasks. They understand that to per-form in this fashion they need to be more colle-gial, to develop more interdependence with p eers ,and to share their knowledge with others in avariety of settings. They realize that by engagingin learning themselves they "are more likely tofacilitate in their students the kind of learningthat will be needed in thenext decade" (McCarthey& Peterson, 1989, p. 11).

CONDITIONS TO FACILITATESBM

The "leap from report to reality" is anarduous one at many levels. (Sabatini,1993, p. 3)

Readiness

Shared decision making yields many divi-dends in its mature stages. A key problemis getting there. (Weiss, Cambone, &Wyeth, 1992, p. 363)

Trust

This first set of enabling conditions is de-signed to foster the development of an organiza-tional culture that will support SBM. Readinessis an important antecedent to the successfulimplementation of SBM. Not everyone will becomfortable with SBM. Some in fact will be

9

16

quite skeptical of what they are likely to perceiveas another round of lofty pronouncements, flur-ries of activity, and marginal improvements.The likelihood of personal loss, especially forthose who currently control school systems, willbe feared by others. Some will be concerned bythe potential of SBM to aggravate existing ten-sions in the system. A .amber of students ofSBM have concluded that trust is a bedrockcondition for change. One major strategy fornurturing this sense of trust is to focus on theinterpersonal dimensionsrather than the tech-nical aspectsof change. Other guidelines ex-tracted from current decentralization efforts in-clude: helping people clearly see the advantagesof change; recognizing and accepting resistance;allaying concerns and fears about the unknown;and developing strong working relationshipsam Jng groups. The lesson for schools engaged inshared decision making is that the developmentof trust must be addressed directly, often, andregularly, especially in forums that strengthenpersonal relationships among staff members.

Direction

Readiness also includes a sense of direction,or purpose, that is widely communicated andinternalized by all stakeholders in the changeprocess. It appears especially necessary to createwhat one might call "a sense ofthe possibilities,"i.e., a belief that something different is possiblealong with some conception about what thosepotentialities are. The idea of a school is so wellgrounded in the minds of educators and parentsthat, when provided meaningful opportunitiesfor change, they are often at a loss about what todo. Teachers and administrators carry emotionalbaggage that predisposes them to act in certainways. A good deal of organizational sedimentreinforces the status quo, making it difficult tosee different ways of organizing and acting.Schools have operated within such a confiningweb of externally imposed rules and regulationsfor so long that, even when they are removed, it

is hard to imagine how things might be different.For all ofthese reasons, a sense of direction mustbe forged on the anvil of dreams and possibilitiesof what schooling might become. Systematiceffortsthrough readings, discussions, and visitsto other schoolsto expand people's view ofwhat can be done will facilitate the developmentof a sense of direction for restructuring schools.

The development of a sense of the possibili-ties is the first step in establishing direction forSBM efforts. The creation of a large scale planof operation is the second. In effect, a long-termplan of operations is needed that captures possi-bilities in ways that allow people to direct theirenergies and assess their progress. Plans toimplement SBM efforts work best when they:(1) clearly delineate the new roles and responsi-bilities everyone must fulfill in support of theplan; (2) focus on teaching and learning; (3) ad-dress the entire system, i.e., are integrative andsystemic in nature; and (4) reach the routinedaily activities of the school and classroom.

Risk

Finally, readiness entails a commitment totake risks and to the right to fail, conditions notnormally a part of the culture of schools. Will-ingness to take risks in turn is composed of atleast three ingredientsthe sense ofthe possibili-ties noted above, incentives to change, and strongorganizational support.

Time

A clear and unequivocal message fromthe Bridgetown experience was the needto develop strategies for reschedulingtime. Extra time was needed to plantogether, work out new relationships,establish goals and objectives, undertakenew projects and develop new skills.Sustaining this effort in the face of the

1017

constant pressure of time was a signifi-cant concern. (Wallace & Wildy, 1993,p. 15)

Analysts regularly emphasize the importanceof time in implementing SBM. Four aspects ofthis implementation issue receive a good deal ofscrutiny. To begin with, reformers argue, time isneeded to get SBM initiatives under way; theyshould be phased in slowly. Districts often beginwith pilot projects and volunteer schools beforeextending shared decision making efforts moregenerally. A yearlong planning process--withtime for lengthy discussion and analysis- -seemsa desirable goal.

A second time-related theme is that the poolof available time needs to be expanded. Time isneeded for learning new roles, personalizingschooling, and working with new constituents.Case studies on SBM initiatives suggest that timecan be expanded by adding to the total time poolavailable (e.g., providing time for retreats beforethe school year begins) and/or by reconfiguringthe school day or teacher tasks to reduce the loadon staff (e.g., providing an extra preparationperiod, grouping students differently to providedevelopment time for teachers).

A third dimension of time illustrated in re-views of SBM schools is cooperative work time."Teachers must have time that is expressly allo-cated to the development of common agenda forthe school and in which the development ofprofessional culture and trusting personal rela-tionships can occur" (Louis & King, 1993, p. 244).Various analysts provide guidance for how ex-panded time for planning and work should bespent by teachers working collaboratively. Spe-cific examples include: common planning timesfor same-grade-level or team-based teachers;work sessions and retreats for teachers, adminis-trators, and parents to assess school operations;regularly scheduled, cooperatively oriented pro-fessional development activities.

Finally, there is the issue of an appropriateamount of time required for results, the need todevelop a time frame that is sufficient to ensurethat complex changes can unfold and begin toproduce desired outcomes. Districts that havebeen successful in empowering professionalsand in decentralizing operations have often taken5 to 10 years to do so.

Professional Development

Many of the staff members of [SBMJschool teams have little or no prior expe-rience in running their schools. They . . .

recognized their need for access to infor-mation and training that would enablethem to fulfill their new roles. (Jewell &Rosen, 1993, p. 10)

Undertaking new roles and working in schoolsthat are organized and managed in different waysrepresent immense new challenges to educatorsand community members. It is not surprising,therefore, that nearly every analyst identifiesprofessional development as a key variable in theformula for successful implementation of SBMinitiatives.

Integrating Activities

Efforts need to be made to ensure that profes-sional development activities are integrated withthe local reform agenda rather than remaining afreestanding set of activities. Reviewers alsonote that professional development is effectiveto the extent that it centers on opportunities forstaff members to work collaboratively and on anongoing basis. Recent work helps extend thedefinition of professional development appro-priate for SBM--from passive consumer behav-ior to active participation in school-based re-search and substantive dialogue; and from anindividual activity to a collaborative endeavor.

Capacity Building

Case studies of SBM paint a picture of schoolcommunities that are unprepared to engage in theactive, collaborative task of shared decisionmaking and that are unfamiliar and uneasy withthe new roles that this work entails. They directattention to the importance of capacity buildingacross an array of interrelated process areas.Since SBM increases uncertainty, helping schoolstaffs learn to deal with stress becomes impor-tant. Also, because increased cooperation en-hances the potential for conflict, skills in conflictmanagement are in great demand in schoolsengaged in shared decision making.

Under SBM, a premium is placed on commu-nication, yet many educators do not demonstrategood communication skills. Other collaborative,skills--group process, planning, anddecision- making --are also of critical importancein SBM. Reviewers report that staffmembers areoften ill-prepared for interactive work with otheradults. For example, Louis and King (1993)found that teachers in their study "were con-sumed with the immediate crises of lurchingfrom day to day" (p. 228) and that their groupprocess skills were poor, "resulting in a great dealof wasted time in staff meetings" (p. 229). Inaddition, work in the area of SBM demonstratesthat most teachers have not received training inleadership and are therefore poorly prepared toexercise such responsibility outside of their ownclassrooms. Training in all these skill areas isneeded if SBM efforts are to be given a chance.

Collaborative Inquiry

Dexterity in collaborative inquiry--a combi-nation of personal reflection and organizationalanalysisis conspicuous by its absence amongmany teachers and administrators. The toolsneeded to operate as a learning organization willnot magically appear at schools engaged in SBMactivities. The potential for confusion and mis-

trust is large. Without training in the processskills discussed above, there is little reason toassume that SBM initiatives will succeed.

Resources

Resources required for change take a varietyof forms. One that has received considerablescrutiny in the school improvement literatureover the years has been that ofmaterial resources.In the area of SBM, the primary message is thatsuch assistance is most valuable when it is chan-neled into two other important support areas- -time and professional development.

A second lesson concerning material re-sources is that, while additional funding can be ofreal assistance, it is not imperative. The questionof how much money -- usually expressed in termsof additional funding - -is desirable is still openand is likely never to be answered outside thecontext of specific reform initiatives.

There are periods in the life cycle of SBMinitiatives when infusions of additional materialresources can exert a significant influence. Forexample, start-up funds, even small amounts, areof critical importance. Other influential lifecycle periods are more contextualized, such assecuring a grant to facilitate the development ofconflict resolution skills at one school and prob-lem framing skills at another. Analyses alsodemonstrate that the amount of total support isless significant than the ability of the school tomap resources onto the school vision and plan.

The general message in this area is twofold.Policymakers at the state and district levels needto be attentive to issues of funding under SBM.Given that the real costs of staff development andtime are left out of discussions of additionalfunding, these stakeholders should be leery ofclaims that restructuring education is largely abudget-neutral proposition. At the same time,studies show that even small amounts of addi-

12

19

tional resources that are well integrated with aschool's vision can have dramatic effects on thestructure and process of schooling.

Support

It would appear that not only is strongadvocacy by the superintendent needed,but also a similar level ofcommitment bythe building principal. (Lindquist &Muriel, 1989, p. 412)

Superintendent

If attempts to implement SBM are to besuccessful, a school system will need a good dealof patience, wisdom, and trust; and considerablesupport and direction from all educational stake-holders, especially formal school leaders. Stu-dents of SBM are reaffirming a lesson learned inearlier studies of school improvement: the su-perintendent is often the sustaining force inchange efforts. Superintendents, even in decen-tralized systems, act as gatekeepers for change atthe district and school levels. Without theirendorsement and support, their willingness tocommit valuable tangible and intangible organi-zational resources, the seeds of decentralizationare likely to fall on barren ground. On the otherhand, in districts where shared decision makingis occurring, there is invariably a superintendentwho endorses the concept.

The superintendent in his or her gatekeepingrole can quickly legitimize, or call into question,reform efforts. Affirmation that SBM schoolscan act differently than other schools and/oroutside the standard district policy and regula-tory framework seems to be critical. Superinten-dents are also ideally positioned to provide po-litical support and protection to schools engagedin SBM efforts. Because others inside andoutside of the school system often take their leadfrom the superintendent, the presence (or ab-sence) of visible support is likely both to color

how others view this reform experiment and ,odetermine whether they, in turn, act in a support-ive, neutral, or hostile manner. Finally, superin-tends 'ts are in a unique position to ensure thatsufficient tangible resources flow to restructur-ing schools. They do this in a general way bysignaling--or by not signaling--that specialprojects require special funding at times. Theydo it in more specific ways by helping schoolssecure resources for SBM activities at the schoollevel.

Principal

A number of analysts have noted the capacityof principals to significantly hamper districtefforts to decentralize the governance and man-agement of schools. Others have describedprincipals' ability to squelch restructuring initia-tives bubbling up from the teaching core. And,as discussed in detail earlier, almost all reviewersfind supportive principals in the vanguard ofsuccessful SBM efforts.

Working Structures

As Hallinger and Hausman (1993) remindus, "If important decisions about educationalprograms [are] to be decentralized to the schoollevel, there needs to be a structure and process inplace . . . to ensure that these decisions [are]made in a participatory manner," (p. 139) and toensure that the complex work of shared decisionmaking is conscientiously addressed.Well-developed working structures represent animportant support mechanism in all cases whereSBM is progressing favorably. The subthemes inthis area are as follows: (a) there is no univer-sally appropriate working structure; what is re-quired or useful at one site may be unnecessaryat another; (b) it is desirable to have extensiveoverlap of personnel on the structures used forplanning and for implementing SBM; (c) sometype of schoolwide steering committee (e.g., aSchool Leadership Council) helps bring coher-

13

20

111112ence to the overall SBM agenda; (d) the use of acoordinator or facilit,.,,or can significantly sharpenthe focus of SBM activities while reducing reli-ance on formal administrative channels; and(e) maintaining the stability of these workingstructures can greatly enhance their effective-ness.

Legitimization

A final form of support often enjoyed bySBM schools is regular acknowledgment for thework they are doing, a legitimization of theirlabors. In most cases, a reasonable level ofexternal affirmation bolsters locally based re-form initiatives. Types of legitimization varyacross the sites. The most important are thosethat recognize staff expertise and those that helpeducators have access to and become intelligentconsumers of research.

Four general categories of external acknowl-edgment are discernible in studies on SBM:recognition and visibility from the media; par-ticipation in forums where teachers share whatthey are learning with others in formal presenta-tions; opportunities to work with colleaguesfrom other schools; and acting as a learninglaboratory for educators from other schools.Internally, legitimization comes to individualswhen site-based peers begin to look to them forexpertise and when managing the SBM processtaps hidden strengths and talents.

SUMMARY

Over the last few years a number of thingshave been learned (and relearned) about theimplementation of SBM. First, it is a difficultintervention to get underway. Sharp differencesof opinion at the school level about new roles forteachers, parents, and stuc nts under SBM oftenmake the change process problematic (Gips &Wilkes, 1993; Smith, 1993). Most studies in this

area underscore "the recurring problem of draw-ing all team members into equal partnership inschool-based management/shared decision-mak-ing" (Jewell & Rosen, 1993, p. 9). "Powertransformation through collaborative decisionmaking requires more than will. It requirescontinuing negotiation, skill, and knowledge tomake institutional change and . . . we are un-schooled in ways to do this" (Sabatini, 1993, p.8). What reviewers often find "is that the tradi-tional, rational bureaucratic organization maystill be well and active even though structuralchanges have taken place" (Sackney & Dibski,1992, p. 5).

Second, there is a downside to SBM. Specifi-cally, a number of analysts have found that"participatory governance creates additional ad-ministrative burdens for teachers" (Wong, 1993,p. 15) and administrators (Murphy, 1994), oftentaking both groups further away from the centralissue of schoolinglearning and teaching.

Third, SBM offers hope for improving cer-tain dimensions of schooling. For example, intheir review Sackney and Dibski (1992) con-clude that "SBM facilitates local autonomy, di-versity, and responsiveness to individual studentand community needs" (p. 15). Wong (1993), inturn, finds that "new governing structures canimprove social relations among low-incomeminority parents, teachers, and pupils by creat-ing a climate of trust and understanding thatfosters staff morale and student aspirations andenhances parental support for teacher's work"(p. 2).

Finally, and most importantly, as we havediscussed in detail elsewhere (Murphy, 1991), itappears that SBM in and of itself does not leadto improvement in student learning.

14

21

[Mere is little or no evidence that [site-based management] has ony direct orpredictable relationship to changes ininstruction and students' learning. Infact, the evidence suggests that the imple-mentation ofsite-based management re-forms has a more or less random rela-tionship to changes in curriculum,teaching, and students' learning.(Elmore, 1993, p. 40)

Given this fundamental problem and the difficul-ties noted above, a number of thoughtful analystshave asked whether "[p]erhaps there are more

productive ways to spend the 'reform energy'that is loose in the land" (Weiss, et al., 1992, p.365). Although the author shares this concern,reading of the reform literature leads to theconclusion that what is needed is a marriagebetween SBM and our most powerful concep-tions of learning and teaching. Specifically,"revisions in organizational and governance struc-tures should be more tightly linked to revisionsin curriculum and instruction. Reforms should`backward map' from the student" (Murphy,1991, p. 74). Stated alternatively, SBM should'wrap around' the core technology" (Murphy &Hallinger, 1993, p. 255).

1111115

.2

REFERENCES

Armstrong, J. (1990, March). A Road Map for Restructuring Schools. Education Week, 9(27),24.

Burke, C. (1992). Devolution of responsibility to Queensland schools: Clarifying the rhetoric,critiquing the reality. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(4), 33-52.

Clinchy, E. (1989, December). Public school choice: Absolutely necessary but not whollysufficient. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(4), 289-294.

David, J. L., Cohen, M., Honetschlager, D., & Traiman, S. (1990). State actions to restructureschools: First steps. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.

Earley, P., Baker, L., & Weindling, D. (1990). 'Keeping the raft afloat': Secondary headshipfive years on. National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.

Elmore, R. F. (1993). School decentralization: Who gains? Who loses? In J. Hannaway & M.Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 33-54). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Gips, C. J., & Wilkes, M. (1993, April). Teacher concerns as they consider an organizationalchange to site-based decision making. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe AmericanEducational Research Association, Atlanta.

Guthrie, J. W. (1992, August). The emerging golden era of educational leadership: And thegolden opportunity for administrator training. The Walter D. Cocking Memorial Lecturepresented at the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration, TerreHaute.

Hallinger, P., & Hausman, C. (1993). The changing role of the principal in a school of choice.In Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring schooling: Learningfrom ongoing efforts(pp. 114-142). Newbury Park: Corwin.

Hirsh, S., & Sparks, D. (1991, September). A look at the new central-office administrators. TheSchool Administrator, 48(7), 16-17, 19.

Jewell, K. E,, & Rosen, J. L. (1993, April). School-based management/shared decision-making:A study of school reform in New York City. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Atlanta.

Lindelow, J. (1981). School-based management. In S. C. Smith, J. A. Mazzarella, & P. K. Piele(Eds.), School leadership: Handbook for survival (pp. 94-129). Eugene: ERIC ClearingHouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.

1623

1MEM.ir Nal

Lindquist, K. M., & Muriel, J. J. (1989, August). School-based management: Doomed to failure?Education and Urban Society, 21(4), 403-416.

Louis, K. S., & King, J. A. (1993). Professional cultures and reforming schools: Does the mythof Sisyphus apply? In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring schooling: Learningfrom ongoing efforts (pp. 216-250). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1989, May). What do we know about school basedmanagement? A case study of the literaturea call for research. Paper presented at theconference on choice and control in American education. Madison: University ofWisconsin-Madison.

McCarthey, S. J., & Peterson, P. L. (1989, March). Teacher roles: Weaving new patterns inclassroom practice and school organization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Mojkowski, C., & Bamberger, R. (1991, March). Developing leadersfor restructuring schools:New habits of minds and hearts. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education,Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Moore-Johnson, S. (1989, May). Teachers, power, and school change. Paper presented at theConference on Choice and Control in American Education. Madison: University ofWisconsin-Madison.

Murphy, J. (1994). Transformational change and the evolving role of the principal. In J. Murphy& K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reformefforts. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York:Teachers College Press.

Murphy, J. (1990). Restructuring America's schools. Charleston: Appalachia EducationalLaboratory.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1993). Restructuring schooling: Lc zning from ongoing efforts.In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring schooling: Learningfrom ongoing efforts(pp. 251-271). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Prestine, N. A. (1991, April). Completing the essential schools metaphor: Principal as enabler.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Chicago.

Sabatini, A. (1993, April). Observing the tortoise: Collaborative decision making amongstakeholders at one comprehensive high school in New York City. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.

17

4

Sackney, L. E., & Dibski, D. J. (1992, August). School-based Management: A criticalperspective. Paper presented at the Seventh Regional Conference of the CommonwealthCouncil for Educational Administration, Hong Kong.

Smith, W. E. (1993, April). Teachers' perceptions of role change through shared decisionmaking: A two-year case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Atlanta.

Wallace, J., & Wildy, H. (1993, April). Pioneering school change: Lessons from a case studyof school site restructuring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Atlanta.

Watts, J. (1989). The Devolution of Power: The Ideological Meaning. Journal ofEducationalAdministration, 27(1), 19-28.

Weiss, C. H., Cambone, J., & Wyeth, A. (1992, August). Trouble in paradise: Teacher conflictsin shared decision making. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 350-367.

Wissler, D. F., & Ortiz, F. I. (1988). The superintendent's leadership in school reform.Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Wong, K. K. (1993, April). Linking governance reform to schooling opportunities for thedisadvantaged. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Atlanta.

18 25

AMENIMMICINI

Introducing the Center

The North Carolina Educational Policy Research Center wasestablished in 1991 through a contract to the School ofEducation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillfrom the State Board of Education. The mission of the Centeris to strengthen the information base for educational policydecisions in North Carolina to enhance outcomes of schoolingfor children. The Center seeks to accomplish this mission by:

conducting policy research and analyses;

preparing research reports examining broadpolicy issues, policy briefs providing conciseinformation about specific issues, and quarterlynewsletters;

disseminating research-based information oneducational policy issues to North Carolinapolicymakers, educators and communityleaders;.

providing a forum for the discussion ofeducational policy issues; and,

training future educational leaders in theconduct and use of policy research.

26

School of EducationThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

27