.IIIIIIIIIIIIII.LID “4wi IlllllHlllllllIlllllllllllllllllllhllllllHillillllllll 312930088116 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Study of Site-Based Management in Catholic Elementary Schools presented by Frances A. Nadolny has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for DoCtor of Philosophy degreein W1 Admin. J / 6// / //éf major professor 4, "’/j Date77‘ /j" MS U i: an Affirmatiw Action/Sq ual Opportunity Institution 0.12771 LIBRARY Michigan State 1 University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before daa due. :====== DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution cadmium-9.1 , iff_ ,wii , C-..v-' I s.‘ '- . \" A '. v“ 0*. A STUDY OF SITE-BASED MANAGEMENT IN CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BY Frances A. Nadolny A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1993 .u. 1.; e . .2 a: l e . I Ln. I we. .3 r; .3 a: G. C . ”V: a La C S 2 9 E .C C i . c . 4. A. u . .~. r. .r.. . 4‘ CA a ha 6..» him e. C I. e L . e A. t t. u e .. . C 3 "I C e . I. e S S E +. I?” W‘. F.- u\ A '1 F‘ \Hu +v S C r. S a S e r e v. a a S C . . t. ..I V. .7. L e a» I ..I a» e . a . S t .- nV. FL a» e. Av a. Q. .i« hit in 7. .u. .5” In L.- Q. PL n.‘ Qua Aug 5. I. e o A s A: Q. A a -\ a u h u .a a .D e. .s. 3. nu u.. to c. 6. en I. u. S. p” J. 2. .~. 2. Re .« ‘ u t. a e. 3. p” .u. a .. I. a a. A s . q .. c .. 1 :~ ..¢ 0. :u .\~ «on u . 0.. I. e .Id 6 a t \ v.. .—. I— on» e i v u. .. . .- u . u a ‘ a e .R I .- o o a e .an bl n\. e y be s-I e.. u .. V . 9-. I . D - ’3 II. . I - O I I. I. e . e \‘I ABSTRACT A STUDY OF SITE-BASED MANAGEMENT IN CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BY Frances A. Nadolny Purpose The purpose of this study was to define site—based management as it operates or fails to Operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. Since these schools were admittedly variant examples of site-based management, another purpose of the study was to describe and explain how site-based management utilizes human resources, using select indicators as a framework for analysis. The indicators were flexibility in decision-making, accountability, productivity, staff self-direction and control, and satis- faction. The study also examined certain school outcomes including student achievement, teacher commitment, teacher and student attendance and tenure, and parent participation. Methodology The study was a descriptive field study of two site- based managed Catholic elementary schools. Data collection occurred over a four-month period and included semi-structured and unstructured interviews; observation of all faculty, department, student, school board and parent committee meetings; closed—ended questionnaires; and analysis of documents. ‘L' . a e:--~:.;a6 is a :"F u-a—-ih. g..- a . A : el’ ~v-M'pV-c‘r-b ‘. --: :nfl'.—.b-A&IQU .....-i= ’3.” nonra.‘ .e»..v' a a-.. trad-Iv - . . C Mu: : 2:: "no“ rat” I.".- ‘~-‘hn-~‘ aw:- II-Iga ~.";,‘..‘ - a ‘ I- 4 4 ue.ouh .‘go.\.d-.¢l .J ._~_. I. 0' u ' ‘ -. “:‘FV ‘5" on. 5 p. --........_,‘.. p ‘ .' ' ' e a... s t . _‘. :3: "‘ Npfleu A. .—. . 'o_--' .Q‘ U--.:. »>‘ 'p~"’ - - ' 6’- ‘ V u.....|' ' 9 PA; I . '"-'4¢ \ I.‘ . D '- A~ ‘u'. ' ..;-.:. ~ 9 “2",1 N‘- . " u‘. v‘. A _.. D "g..- . I u...: C Fahue‘- . _,_~ 7 ‘ y~-ue¢d‘ “C 3:: s -, d..-:~.e to t‘h 1,“ .' u 2.7::‘11.’ H ‘ ‘ “3 rtCCucti._. flfiq" five {ESults HG! .. . i .t: V. ..:. 3 "‘1‘ VLL '39“? 5..-, 2-; ‘ .‘I i ‘N Tu‘ GI uh.‘h a‘+ ‘ J Lgenfl’: .1" p.._ ‘ Q... I i "‘9 Sf»: ‘ ‘ o L -_ , :0- I All I u ‘9. I e .‘.V. "'I h\ l V‘v“l‘v ' I°~" “undluc ‘z.. ‘a .~- “.‘..u,. Major Findings As operationalized in these two schools, site-based management is a function of the centrality of the principal, the empowerment of the teachers, and the local school com— munity's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. The prin— cipals assumed responsibility for balanced budgets, appro- priate curricula, and qualified personnel. They shared their responsibility with the teachers who participated, to varying degrees, in decisions about budget, curriculum and personnel. Finally, the local community made decisions and designed programs for its own students. The absence of bureaucracy enabled the participants to quickly diagnose and remedy problems peculiar to their schools. Regarding humanistic organization theory and decentra- lization theory, the study revealed that these schools were accountable to their publics, were costnefficient and aca- demically productive, and employed satisfied staffs. Positive results were found for select outcomes, including teacher commitment, parent and student satisfaction, teacher and student attendance and tenure, and parent participation. While the study did not prove that site-based management caused these results, neither was it disproved. Therefore, because they exist in two site-based managed schools, the possibility remains that they occur because of site-based management. im‘ gé'i V5: .0. . '2"’F‘~n'e v-nn bfiu' .C..- ...v . . . --o- I". V: A‘fi‘.~:“ C ' v 9 re. «0.4- 1 .. a d to h I ." 'II 3”,..AI’ A“ \" n D‘ I...“ "~“'"’ Vs...— . .V.' A" q \ :nr 4 "my .-..~ ul~.¢. ‘5“ 9... ... 1.5;. . " -- "“ .F-V'i§ a: . . eg‘na yUu-...3-_‘ I a. 1‘ ~53, 'F" 11": 'u .‘4' . eel-u ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Words will not completely convey my appreciation to the many people who have contributed their expertise and support! From Michigan State University, I wish to thank Philip Cusick, especially, and Daniel Kruger, Suzanne Wilson, John Suehr and Christopher Clark. Secondly, I wish to thank my Adrian Dominican Sisters, especially my dear friend, Maureen Fay. And finally, I wish to thank my parents, Irvin and Cecilia Nadolny, my family and my friends. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Purpose The Background The Reform Movement Organizational Structure Problems with Decentralization in Education Decentralization in Catholic Schools Summary Conceptual Framework Definition of Site-based Management Objectives of Decentralization Expectations of Humanistic Organization Theory Summary Exploratory Questions Methodology Sample Significance II. RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . 27 Literature and Studies Summary of Site-based Management Literature and Studies Studies: Humanistic Organization Theory Summary of Studies of Humanistic Organization Theory Descriptive Studies: Elementary School Practices Summary of Descriptive Studies of Elementary School Practices Chapter Summary " “P, f. —-~P .v-fl.’ _ - .. .. v. .1. .. -14 I e. L. .6 LI“; no : ..i|.l.ill..llil.. .. _.... P. l I. p. r _ .1 o. F; .2: I .u .. ... f v. 3 ~. .. e. r. 9 .J “4 r. r 9 t. e. r. C t. r be e t» A. k» r 1.. r E C .1 < n... C .1 .Pv 5. a Y. .J "v. re p. s. T .3 p” .1 r. .. e. e «:2. P. C a A: 3 an H. .14 Cu 2. 4.. in” n... h... n... ‘0 Ge :71 Hm Q» ha .3 8 CL 9 r. .2 :13 f a. a. S 3 T. :.. .2 E 1” E C. a S r. a .1 e C .2 .1 t T. l C e e e t. S 2. a t a .1 O .3 .l f l f C O .. E t t S a. C ... .3 t .. S C C e e r. p... .C D. C C O t u._ a O a r +. I P. .5; Po P. a 3. C C O C a O CIEECEEEH.033.12. X “sunken. EECIBU Ceaiat \u AirlncmcrEtO a. C. t S C r. .. C r. .. S t at. a we. no” ”a“ \. T . . 3. S w... I l. D. S 8 Me. a. B. A. t. S \To. Low .v. Mu F L A. b. D 3 ma... . .. .3 . . . . . . . Y. . .. MR“ an“ WC“ “VP” a.» 5-. Why —.~ g; m . h~h Qv ”4‘. m." vLU «\V M“. Nb. III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Theoretical Framework Exploratory Questions Method of Data Collection Sample Procedures for Implementation Entry Interviews Observations Questionnaires Document Analysis Summary Data Analysis Reliability and Validity Chapter Summary IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . 89 The Setting The Operationalization of Site-based Management The Budget The Curriculum Personnel Summary - The Operationalization of Site- based Management Humanistic Organization Theory and Decentralization Accountability Productivity Satisfaction Summary - Humanistic Organization Theory and Decentralization School Outcomes Teacher Commitment Parent and Student Satisfaction Attendance and Tenure Parent Participation Summary - School Outcomes V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - . - - . - . . . . 271 The Operationalization of Site-based Management Variations of Decentralization and Humanistic Organization Theory Decisions and Decision—Making Accountability Productivity Decisions, Performance and Satisfaction Staff Self-Direction and Control School Outcomes I . ‘ 5 fl. nu fi... . _ r r \.._ t C 9 3” P. .. .. I. an. n. — A; F. . . ~u1~5v v” —-. v.~ u» v _ —~ .1 a C C 1” : ._ . S“ S C C .. n... I”... u A. .‘I. —. n~. a... .1 ... «is. ‘u.. v. .. wt. R. ._ .3 v.. \. ax. a... I; v.. v . .1 A. . . o . u o «w ‘3 .1. fl. .. .3. .-. .II,-C‘ \.-.. Chow- .‘ h.‘ s.» ‘ "~ ' v~.\ Pr“h— 'v ‘e~. .\ in. 2. .§. ‘1 s u no 3... gun \ - :1“ > ‘ ‘ or V. .f\ 3 7.. \q . ~ .\. I. \ . . .. \L .4 Q .... I § 7% 2,. Insights Regarding Site-based Management in Catholic Elementary Schools Recommendations APPENDICES A. PLAN OF ACTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 B. INITIAL CONTACT LETTER TO PRINCIPALS . . . . . 301 C. INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO FACULTY AND STAFF . . . 302 D. INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO STUDENTS, PARENTS AND GUARDIANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 E. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 F. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 G. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 H. STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 I. CONSENT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 J. GUIDE FOR ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . 314 K. PARENT SATISFACTION SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . 315 L. PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . 318 M. STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY . . . . . . . . . 323 N. TEACHER COMMITMENT SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . 325 O. PROJECTED BOOK ORDER FORM 1990—91 . . . . . . 332 P. KWANZAA PROJECTED BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Q. CENTRAL OFFICE CURRICULAR TIME ALLOTMENTS . . 334 R. KWANZAA SCHOOL REPORT CARDS . . . . . . . . . 336 S. RAINBOW SCHOOL REPORT CARDS . . . . . . . . . 342 T. RAINBOW SCHOOL PROGRESS REPORT . . . . . . . . 346 U. KWANZAA SCHOOL PROGRESS REPORT . . . . . . . . 347 V. KWANZAA SCHOOL SURVEY — GRADES 7 & 8 . . . . . 348 W. RAINBOW'S "SCHOOLS WITHOUT DRUGS" PROGRAM . . 349 vii . v-\'\':“-’,' '(A “ _H n. ...L.- - -F- :12, -‘ .L... ‘- ' .9.-“D-V ‘ V Ifi.‘ ‘ l“ .e .- ... . . . an F ‘Qj ---4 ‘1 ‘v- v u‘o‘c—Av- d .. I .3..\...'\ vv-‘V‘ u“. .u... o H ;"'!|"'\ e 15- ”.1. i .. 31.". "‘ n‘vv—sp... I. '- N . ”b. o-.-..|._ .. F”I\-\ v- - ‘.'.. 5......— .. g" "A“... ' ‘v ~c l "' yap. AV _. 2“." '5“‘\‘—..‘, .. "'..-4I-y --............ . . (I) (I) X. RAINBOW SCHOOL READING LEVELS FOR MARKING REPORT CARDS Y. KWANZAA SCHOOL DECLARATION OF INTENT 1990—91 SCHOOL YEAR Z. RAINBOW SCHOOL GOALS FOR THE 1990—91 YEAR AA. KWANZAA SCHOOL BUDGET: 1989—90 BB. RAINBOW SCHOOL SIX—MONTH REPORT, DECEMBER 31, CC. UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTER BIBLIOGRAPHY 1990 viii 0 FOR THE SCHOOL 352 353 354 355 356 362 363 I ‘ ‘ _...~°‘ :‘I-“onn ~Iud-b ~4e~5il _, n‘]" p... ~4‘hEn...~ . r, E E l 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Field Methods of Six Select Researchers Acting as Complete Observers Meetings Observed During Field Study Parish Organizational Chart . . . . . . . Budget Summary by Percentage, Kwanzaa Catholic School, 1987-1991 . . . . . . . Budget Summary by Percentage, Rainbow Catholic School, 1987-1991 . . . . . . . . . . . Budget Expenditure Summary by Percentage, Kwanzaa's Local Public School District, 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Budget Expenditure Summary by Percentage, Rainbow's Local Public School District, 1987- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lay Faculty Salaries and Educational Degrees, Kwanzaa Catholic School and Rainbow Catholic SChOOl’ 1990-'91 e e e e e e e e e e e o e 0 Student Cost Information, Kwanzaa Catholic School, 1987-1991 . . . . . . . . . . . Student Cost Information, Rainbow Catholic School, 1987—1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentile and Stanine Scores for National Tests of Basic Skills Administered 1 March 1989 and 10 March 1990, Kwanzaa School . . . . . . . Percentile and Stanine Scores for National Tests of Basic Skills Administered 27 February 1989 and 26 February 1990, Rainbow School . . . Averaged NTBS Stanine Scores for Kwanzaa School Constant Students; Tests Administered 1 March 1989 and 10 March 1990 . . . . . . . . . . ix 0 65 76 92 123 124 125 126 129 233 234 241 242 244 n\u '- ”V4 ‘3 at. '0. r. .nu :. Co r; o; .5 C r ”l 3 o . a p . a” S r” n\c vi. be no .1 O. D. e H.. r. '0. V. ~: .7. u . "I 40 «1 in; O .G t» AV 5» .61.. A: cfiu b a 1‘ r {by a... .3 up. a» Q. r” nu e nu 3: Eu 3» A~u e A 5 .Hi. .\ . 7. A0 a n v. .3 a u a: a» 14 e a!» 2 «a. in» 7. up. ‘1- av. vi 5. 5. 3. | u a. u 2. . . - in q . 14. 15. 16. 17. Averaged NTBS Stanine Scores for Rainbow School Constant Students; Degree of Teacher Satisfaction at Two Site- based Managed Schools Percentage of Absences for Kwanzaa and Rainbow Faculties, 1987-90 Tests Administered 27 February 1989 and 26 February 1990 0 Teacher Tenure by Percentage, Rainbow Schools Kwanzaa and 245 250 263 264 r . . .., .~‘ :4 . u . ... L .M . ~. 1. , ,.. u .1. . . y .o s CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Theirgwfi: The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. The Background The Reform Movement The school reform literature of the last decade is filled with the argument that excellence in education can be achieved by changing the manner in which schools are organized and run (Goodlad, 1984; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Sizer, 1984). Several proposed models of structural change encourage a decentralized governance structure. Decentralized governance may be defined as that form of organization in which the power and the decisions now made by the superintendent and school board are shared with those who know and care most about the excellence of the education students receive——the teachers, the principal, the parents and citizens, and the students at each local school. (Marburger, 1985, p. 26) Advocates of a decentralized management structure argue . o-r; . ..- - ~~ ~ .. r- ...v ‘. . .4 ‘-~. .4. o. -.._ -r l .....,. 9'4 . «I. 7. hr. _.._‘._ ,. .¢---- u. ‘ ‘ . —o . " .- w~.r _ -} ‘Q’ ‘. ‘.... . v. v-...v. . . _ .. “x.- ,.p-. 7“ . _ H -.--vy- . . -. -A: .4 c I -. -. . I -.- ,- ' ‘ urn. ' _".V ..____., ..v I 4 u... , . -. ‘ . "'" '- A. r ’ 'l' ““—4_¢... . 'n. " ‘ . .' a " 1.-vo -- " \- at _ . l'._« a- "‘r‘ ‘y - 1"! -_ VH ‘ . V ~- ."u.,_ uh- _ ‘-.s,_“‘ _ ‘vw .4 . ' Q '~\ .. “ - .. _ ‘V‘_.'~ ’ ' .-. ....‘. q. .‘_.'_ ~ ' 4- a l, "‘. . .7“ ."\ y . ‘ 'h 4, rr ‘0. 4.. ' A‘s I ‘. .1. ' "..‘ '~ ‘r- “-.. r ‘ ' -.._ .- § \'\.\‘K‘:‘ ‘ ~" ‘2‘ 'V~ , ~ "~.4‘ “s. .'- n. ..," .“_‘._. ‘ ‘ .. ." ‘~- c. ....c. ‘-" . - E ‘x..._ .,_. It. ‘ D.- u ' -. ~'v- __ v-.._ n r: ‘ -“‘ r ‘V' ‘- .‘ -r“ .. - ‘ .‘§“ in" “.' " ‘-. 5...! -\ . . -, _ - N . I“. .A ‘m.. s.._a-. -\‘V. I ._‘ lr‘ “4 0.: ‘ '\ . . n‘ A . ~ ”4‘ .‘«,.. ‘ ‘v’.. -d‘ -".. ~,, _. ‘ ‘F ‘vh N‘.‘ ‘ ‘U’ 1 . .I. A " D- ..A ‘. ..“. 1" . y- " .vs' ~i ._". . . r . .‘ ‘ -“t~ I- — G ‘_“ C ’I l.‘ ,~ ‘A \ ._. v‘ t." r. a -_ ._ n A. d» -. I.. §“ . A ‘ ' a ~¥ .- "u‘ A ‘- ‘,-__ ‘ ‘_0 V '4 1 ‘ r “ ‘ . .' ,- \. .‘F r.-.’w _ “ ‘Lv '. A” -‘4‘H that more effective and efficient changes in education can occur if the decisions are made at each school (Goodlad, 1984) rather than at the district level (American Association of School Administrators, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1988) under the bureaucratic direction of the central hierarchy. The recurring rationale for decentralization is the "belief that the closer a decision is made to a student served by the decision, the better it is likely to serve the student" (Clune and White, 1988, p. 3). Proponents argue that decentralization enables local school personnel to diagnose, evaluate, and accommodate student needs and, in turn, to be accountable to the public for satisfying those needs. Successful decentralization is founded on ideas about the effective use of human resources. As Raymond Miles (1965) explains, the human resources model of management regards employees as "untapped resources" in the decision— making process. The logic of the human resources model argues that school staff should work in a decentralized environment and have opportunities for personal creativity and participation in decision-making. As the logic goes, because members of the staff are given opportunities to participate as contributors to the educational organization, decisions should be better and staff members should develop an improved sense of self-direction and control. The result Us. 7- , D .3; a _... .1; a. . i. . J. r. - .. «e. o. T; »_ ll .3 .a‘ fid. ~\v > . 1”“ r. v“ N c. v. a. .1 '. a. . . .. 4 2 ; : . s . z .. a4 .. .. . ‘ .7 . .. ~, 3. :g a“ o a .4; 2a *5 a; ,. .a. .5 .L. U... l. .. . . r. ... .n n. . u v D . .n‘ § . ‘1. '9 .,. ... . .. a .v. .. I. T. .fi 2, .. r“ .. .5 ... ... .2 .2 ~_ T. . ... 7.. .. ~ .. L. :» .. . ..e g a . ... c h ‘- .. I a l. ._ ~. A; A“ a. as “v .. . .‘ « .~_ (a g .. .v Ah . . t. .n‘ .h» v. . . . . n~ .., Z. X. ..... .2 will be increased performance in teaching and, subsequently, increased performance by students. Organizational Structure Mintzberg (1983) writes that "centralization is the tightest means of coordinating decision—making in the organization" (p. 95). In addition to coordination, Simon (1976) adds that centralized organizations rely on both the manager's expertise and his/her acceptance of responsibility for the decisions made. The majority of public school systems have centralized organizational structures. The decision-making powers reside with the superintendent and the central office staff whose knowledge of the entire district enables them to make informed and intelligent decisions about budget, curriculum and personnel. The superintendent initiates change, involves subordinates in some decision- making, and is accountable for the events within the district. At its best, centralization enables efficient decison—making; at its worst, it denies participation. The human resources model of management, which is also referred to as humanistic organization theory, has developed from the work of McGregor, Argyris and Likert (Bolman and Deal, 1984). It regards the employee as an innovative, responsible, and valuable contributor to the organization. According to this model, the manager's duty is to foster the employee's talents by creating an encouraging work . . ._ . . a r. o o :4 .44 . . . a n . . . o . . . wd , . 1 '. a z ‘ r; ~4 TH w r“ .. . . _. . . v . .i . .h r. o. . .. o .n. . ,. ‘¢ a, H; ;. ._ I . .u. . . .. r. . I. .. . . .o. .. ._ . L. \. .. .U . . .7 ;. ... . .. .3 . . .y .u. »h .. . —.. .. . r. :. :. . . o. . .. I. a _. . — L. .- . . s H .. r. .. L. . .. . . . .v. . v . . ., .. . . . L. .. a; .. . .. . . . .. . _. .. 4 L 6 .. ., r _ v. . .. ‘. Ce .4. at a. .. . . . ‘ rx :— .. ya ..~ ‘ v ..c p. .~ L. .5 x. . ... s h. . a r. . 1 ‘4 ‘- . . .. 7 c .. n 1.. I. I . « a .5 L. .., ... ._ . . ~ ..‘ a. 7.. a; .2 a a; To H. . . ... .. \.. :n .y ,4 \. us \ § .~ ~. .. s e .. . a ,. ~ . . L. .w‘ . .. _. . .. Li . L. .. 5 X . w \l - ;‘ a s. « ., pa .2 . ‘ ... .. . . :T _... .. p. ‘. . < .7. . p. .. at .. C: u. .vu. ,. .. vs .3 a. .. a. _..4 .a «. ... ... _ L r is. .1 .2 _ ... A. L. L. . -.. e. a“. ..: .x. \. a __ .: l. .. ... s u . x 6‘ .x x . . z. .. .. . . . x _. ., L. . t. 1. . . __ u . . \ . .. ;. .... environment, by allowing participation in all levels of decison-making, and by ensuring that there are opportunities for self-direction and control in the workplace. The model's focal point is the quality of the decisions (Miles, 1965). The theory suggests that when employees play a significant role in making decisions, those decisions will be better. A by—product of increased employee involvement, the argument continues, will be improved performance and greater satisfaction. Decentralization loosens the decision-making process and allows more members of the organization to be involved. The reasons for implementing decentralization are linked to the human resources model. Mintzberg (1983) argues that there are three reasons for decentralization. First, since it is impossible for one manager to understand all decisions, decentralization enables people who are closer to the decisions to make those decisions because they are more knowledgeable about the situation. Second, by decentralizing, an organization can respond to local conditions in less time. Processing of information and lines of communication are shortened because the local staff has the authority to make the decisions. Third, decentralization stimulates motivation and creativity because staff are encouraged to be innovative and actively involved in program planning and implementation. The current reform literature translates 1. O . Q. - I I i , . wq. P. .v ..o r» .r“ r” .. .. a. : :. .fia .Is .4; ..v .H w u la¢ .w. .. ~. 7. a; 2. .. . .h .. .3 a“ I .3 r. r. .. :. .t .. .. .. I .u a“ .Z .. .. .u. .. .- .u. r». Av nu p" «Iv - .». .r. . v . a. r . .a I. .. .u. -.'. -- ’ v- - _,‘,. :_.u-.... “y. I I .4 § . It . . ._ r. 1.. lo a o A .. . l. 3 T .. a. . . .3 .fiq » _ r . v . p . . 4 . . . . .. ~ . ... r C .L 3. .c 3 C . a .H‘ .nu »« J‘ . ‘ .‘J s~ F.- Axy Ft »4 qu \ ' r - rk. Lu .. A... C. vs pa .. a... n.- «4. .‘ .2 a: e. .2 »a Q. .. a .. .. a. a. r. {a ._ at .3 . 2‘ s. ‘0... . . 3v $4. .: ... .. ._ a. :2 a. ... .u .. . . . I . a L. a . .‘ . a .a a a < 5 e b a a . . a . a € x a. .. a. L. Q. .a r... L. .. .4. a.» . a .1 . u my . \ . ... .- .xv « s . . s . a .e . - \.. a . « ‘.. ... K... .J. L. .... .1. L. ... 5 decentralization and increased employee participation in decision-making into such terms as locally autonomous schools, teacher empowerment (Lieberman, 1988; Maeroff, 1988), and school—based management (Marburger, 1985). Proponents of decentralization theorize that education will be better when local educators, parents and community members have authority to make the budgetary, curricular and personnel decisions affecting student needs. Problems with Decentralization in Education Proposals for decentralizing schools do not seem to consider the degree of autonomy that currently exists. Two objections raised in the literature are addressed here. First, the argument for decentralization assumes that all decisions are centralized when, in fact, many are not. Meyer and Rowan (1978) argue that schools are both tightly controlled and loosely controlled. They argue that educational bureaucracies make most decisions, and therefore exercise tight control, about teacher and student classification including such determinants as room, grade and curriculum assignments, tenure levels and scheduling. However, Meyer and Rowan also argue that the bureaucracy neither controls nor evaluates actual instructional activities and outcomes. Instruction and outcomes are decoupled from the operating units. Decoupling, as the argument goes, allows the bureaucracy to control classification and ignore much of the uncertainty, conflict I . y r O r .4 Q. .r“ .. ,. . .a u . A H; S C .. . ... 3 ... S C .. I . r” a o. .. ._ . a. T .H. .3 a. . ..- .3 ._ p. 3. .E .3 .. .3 3 a“ I .. .. 7. .... ... 5. .. .«J .. . . .3 .. v. a“ a. ._ a. . . r“ a. .r. a. an .. .. a. :. ... .. .. : ... a. .3 .3 o. .o . .h a. .3 an 5. ¢ 7 c. L. 4. .2 J. 4. Q. 44 ... .. L. . . H. .. C. a. .n.‘ :. v. :. '- ~. -. q - o . . . .-a ..w .u. v. a a .- .-w No a-. .n. c. 1‘ . . ... a-.. .‘ ~ . fl"*-.~ ..~ .1 ‘~v¢¢~ "‘4 up. . L. ‘l . .h » N. .d : _. . 2.. a s .. .2 _ . . ... 3 I .z. z . . .w . . N .2. a S 3 t .2 .3 3 a. . . A . Q. .2 T a. v .u a. .2 3 . . \ ‘ A H. 5. .2. .... B . a. . 3 C .2 71‘ “ s .91. L .. $ . has» 9 ‘ ‘N q s ‘. «Ha ....: m h . «x» .. n .5 u flu :w . . .. . L. . . 2.. .s.n.¢ a“... VI N. .\. y. .s ‘ and inconsistency occuring in schools. Bureaucratic disengagement assumes the "logic of confidence [in which the] parties bring to each other the taken—for-granted, good-faith assumption that the other is, in fact, carrying out his or her defined activity" (Meyer and Rowan, 1978, p. 101). The argument concludes that decoupling and the logic of confidence have allowed educational organizations to operate successfully and with the support of external and internal constituents. As the argument is laid out, centralization and autonomy have struck an even balance in current educational organizations; proponents of decentralization rarely admit that a balance does exist. A second objection was raised by Cusick (1983) in his study of urban secondary schools. In this study Cusick's findings support Meyer and Rowan's argument that school bureaucracy is decoupled from instructional activities. Cusick examined the role of individual teachers in curriculum development and implementation and found that ". . . teachers were left alone to handle curriculum and instruction not as a faculty or department, but as individuals, each to himself, each allowed to create, implement, and evaluate his classes the way he saw fit" (p. 43). They designed their own curricula which interested the students and satisfied student needs. Therefore, their classrooms were orderly and students were happy: two values which, according to Cusick, administrators encouraged. By Y I I . . . v. u I . r.. .s ‘ . - .. ‘a . . . . p .. - 5 - . V. . . . . x. .. w . r .. . ... . . . .. .. . . . ,. . . . . . o .. _—a . a s. v‘. .4 .3 :4 4 . . . . ‘. ... . . . I. . u. L. . ~ ‘ .I r. a. u. . . . L .7 L. . v . r. .. . . . V. J. . . . . . v. .3 .3. .f. . . r” .. ‘. .3 a. 1 . _ a. .3 .. ... .. .. .. .. r“ .T .. . 2 .2 ... ... 7. .. .. .2 .. .3 .—_ . .. _ . L. . . ._ s: _ L. .. . ‘ C. J. .u. «4 y. C. . .. Z. . . v \a. I .5. . . .« a. s. a. .. .. L. .h . . . . 2. ._ . .7 s. .. .2 L. .2 ..u L. .. . I. .. ... v. .. ... ~ .. .. ... w. s. ... a. 3. .. . .. .. . . A .. . _. .. L. t. . L. . L. . .. .. .. .. . . . . n. . . . . .. C. vs L. T. p . ... ~. o . 2‘ v. . . ._. . I. _. . . . I. a L. 1.. L. .._ .. 2‘ . . r. _. 7. ~‘ .. . . . . .o . .. .-. . ... . . . . ... .. . ... g.. . L. x.. . .... . . . . p. . . .. . . . L. ,. . .. ... .s. . .... c; .\ 3.. ... .. giving teachers autonomy, the administrators apply the logic of confidence and presume that teachers present curricula that meet educational needs while maintaining order and good relations. The logical conclusion of teacher control of curriculum and good relations is the community's positive feeling for the school. There is a balance between the expectations of the bureaucracy and the practices of the individual teacher; there is no need for the faculty to work as a whole. Cusick riflects that the arguments for decentralization may really be attempts to upset this balance by converting teacher autonomy into group autonomy. As described, centralization permits local school autonomy, a fact often overlooked by decentralization advocates. In centralized school systems, central office staffs tightly control certain issues, but loosely oversee instructional and curricular issues. There is a balance between central office control and local autonomy. As a result, student needs seem to be met and the community is pleased with its schools. By refusing to acknowledge organizational relationships, decentralization proponents give the false impression that only decentralized organizations permit or encourage autonomy. Decentralization in Catholic Schools In organizations, management tightly or loosely controls decision-making. Often, centralization (tight control) and ~ . u .. . .. . .. .. , r ._ ' . A . v.5 >\ . ‘1 . . .. .. , ‘ § .. 4 —, . . . . b 2.. r. ,. ... .t v t L. ... . a. . .. . .\ 4. r. a. .c wa . . _. r.. a. A... .. ‘ ;. . .N_ ’n ..~.. K. ._ _. ‘. r. v. . . .c a; .a .. . ~._ . ... .. I re. v. ._ a \a A; .L 2. . . v. . z .. ».. rL ‘ ‘ —.. u A. 2. I. H. r. v . a. L. _. . a; h; .. v. a t ‘ a; L. r p. a». \ .. ._ .. _ . c 3 . a. _ L. ~ . v Q. \_. . .... .w in a . _. Z. . . L. . Z. .r ... .. ... _ ... i. vs :. .. a . _. . v. .. ._. .. ~ _— b. 8-. . ., ._. _ Z. _. ‘ «u. .., .Nsw. .‘. .. p. t. . . ., .. . .. t... .. ...._ z... decentralization (loose control) are portrayed as mutually exclusive "opposite poles" (Brooke, 1984). Site-based management operates between the poles of large bureaucracies on one end and individual autonomy on the other end. This fact encourages us to look for instances where the constraints of hierarchical bureaucracy and the freedoms of teacher autonomy are lessened. While some public school systems such as Dade County, Washington state, New York City, and Chicago are currently implementing models of decentralization, it seems more natural to turn to Catholic elementary schools which have operated with a decentralized management structure for the lcst twenty-five years. Local school boards, committees and parish councils have replaced bishops, priests and religious superiors as the responsible agents for the operation of Catholic schools (Drahmann, 1985). Catholic school systems differ from each other to some degree, but their basic governance structure is decentralized. The Vicar of Education in each school system is responsible for the academic and religious education programs. However, the Vicar delegates the responsibility for academics to the superintendent who oversees parish and diocesan academic programs. The superintendent may have a consultative board, depending on the diocesan structure. According to O'Brien (1987), a local Catholic elementary school may have one of three types of boards: a consultative . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . O ._ Q .. u. . ' . . . .. , .... , .. . _ . .3 . H .. .. . . .. .1 .. .. ... .. . r ,. _. C. . .. r. . . O ,u. I ... 1.. a... .. .|.. . . .— V. . . . .. ._ ., ., .. :N L. . .. . r. . v. w. . . v. . L. .. L. , . . I ._ _ . . . a. 3. I .5 we. ~. .. . e. ._ p» .. a . .L f. . .. T. «4 .. _ I .H ~¢ vb L. . . .. . T .. .u. . r. .. «J T. _.~ .. ... .. . . v. ._ .. \. L. a. .. .. . 7.. a .. L. .f ‘. I. . .. .. to r. v. T. .v . U ‘ _. _. .u. . v. .. L; . .. .. . ._. .. . .. ... .. . .. . . .. J. .. x. . . _. .. .. .\ .. 9 board, a consultative committee formally related to the parish pastoral council, or a board with limited jurisdiction. While O'Brien delineates the full responsibilities and differences in these bodies, this study focuses on the board's responsibility toward the local school. The board is responsible for planning, policy development, financing, public relations and evaluation. Comprised of the pastor, the school administrative staff, and elected members, each board makes budgetary, curricular and personnel decisions for its school. The central school office provides general guidelines for those decisions. Summary The Excellence in Education movement is calling for better quality in schools. Reformers, seeking to change the structure of educational organizations, are proposing models of decentralization. They theorize that, by restructuring the schools in a manner that allows the local staff to exercise its knowledge and expertise in budgetary, curricular and personnel decisions, the schools will better meet student needs. School organizations are viewed on a continuum with the bureaucracy on one end and teacher autonomy on the other. As the argument goes, site-based management operates between them. Catholic elementary schools are examples of decentralized organizations which have less bureaucracy and more local control. Therefore, a study of Catholic schools with their "tradition of decentralization and local school . . p. .. . .1 . .. 2 .. . . . . . . .. r. . w. .. . .. . .. .. .. _ : T. . . ._ .; .. .. ._ .2 . .. C .: _ .. . m. .‘ . . _ . ‘ v. H § . \4 .4 _. Q _~4 _~ s. r. ‘ _. .4 o .. .A _. .. V. ... .._ \§ w. M r. a» ‘ o. 5... y. I . .U _. . . .. L. ... C. a »‘ L. .3 .J. .‘ 2.. .2 i .3 .; . L. C. . .. .. .c .. ... .2 .< _ . . . .; .>.. .v . ‘ «. ..~ . ... L. , a a T .. .. x . E N. 3 Tc .2 .2 .. . a. .. u. . . h. a. ‘. —.. ‘: uh N C. s. ‘. “L. . v.. r.. ... . . ... J. p.. _. .. . . a. L. _. L. g. A» L. c. .‘ I ..s .5. I. . ... .L .._ .. ~ «. .. . s s . . . L. .. .. a.» L. .s .k .. .\ . « ... L. a.. I“ ~e. ‘4 sq. v~ r.. us ... 2. .. 2. . . . Z. s. . . . .‘ _ ... . a». . ‘; ... . . . .. s . .s~ .. ... . . . ;. ... . ;. . ~ ;. . L. . .. v. s . . \. ~ . ~. 1O autonomy has much to contribute to reform and research discussions on school organization" (Manno, 1987, p. 10). Conceptual Framework The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it Operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. Since these schools were admittedly variant examples of site—based management, another purpose of the study was to describe and explain how site-based management utilizes human resources, using select indicators from humanistic organization theory and decentralization theory as a framework for analysis. Definition of Site—based Management Site-based management is a form of decentralization. A review of the literature indicates that, while site-based management operates differently at each school or within each district (Clune and White, 1988; Marburger, 1985), definitions of site—based management include local school control, accountability and decision—making. Several definitions are given: 1. "Site-based management attempts to place maximum educational planning and accountability, and management of personnel and material resources, in the individual school centers" (Marburger, 1985, p. 25). Q‘v 11 2. "Site-based management is a process that involves the individuals responsible for implementing decisions in actually making those decisions" (AASA, NAESP, NASSP, 1988, p. 5). 3. Site-based management is defined as A system of educational administration in which the school is the primary unit of educational decision making. It differs from most current forms of school district organization in which the central office dominates the decision making process. Most decisions regarding expenditures, curricula, and personnel are made by school—site personnel in consultation with parents, students, and other community members. (Lindelow, 1981, p. 1) The operative definition for this paper is that presented by Lindelow. Objectives of Decentralization Successful decentralization demonstrates a more effective use of human resources. Site-based management is an attempt to satisfy three objectives for decentralizing an organization: flexibility in decision—making, accountability, and increased productivity (Brown, 1990). The first objective for decentralization is flexibility in decision—making which includes the ability to respond quickly, to motivate and to be innovative and creative (Brown, 1990; Mintzberg, 1983). The reform literature calls for shifting power to the local site where the principal, teachers and parents can be more actively involved in decision-making (Goodlad, 1984; Lieberman, 1988; Maeroff, 1988; Marburger, 1985). It is argued that this increased 12 involvement enables the local school to be more responsive to the students (Clune and White, 1988) and to take more ownership of the planning processes (AASA, NAESP, NASSP, 1988; Lindelow, 1981). Because school "programs originate in different ways and in different local contexts with no discernible model" (Clune and White, 1988, p. 11; David and Peterson, 1984; Marburger, 1985), reformers argue that the possibilities for creativity and innovation are endless. However, excessive group involvement could stifle individualism (Hansen, 1988). Accountability is the second objective of decentralization and may be described as a performance control, a monitoring of results which can be used to measure and/or to motivate (Brown, 1990; Mintzberg, 1983). According to the literature, site—based management includes elements of accountability. The superintendent "shares authority, information, and accountability" (Marburger, 1985, p. 41), particularly with the principal (Clune and White, 1988). However, the school remains accountable to the district and the state (Clune and White, 1988). The argument is that parental involvement is increased and becomes more meaningful because communication with the school is better (Clune and White, 1988). According to Lindelow (1981), this involvement should lead to increased support of schools. While parental choice of schools is not as prevalent in the public sector, its practice in the private sector causes the private school ~~I 5‘ -‘u-v ut ‘ . U. . w . .. . .. . . .. . . . A. - . .w u s. >~ . r . r. o v r _N‘ ' . _ .<_ . ‘ o. r. u. .. ... , . . ~. ~ vu- _ y a .. v. u. s. . n y. .. .an _ . ._ n. u\ ' gN x... . . .fl .. . .. w; . s. '. 7L. .»‘ J. ,1 :‘ .3 . ‘ L“ 8.. r: _ .. . . ... .1 .H. r: v .3 o ‘ .A . .2 7. L. . .. _ . ~ . . . . L. .. . - v. .. . . MM. .. e. 3‘ I 5. ... L. .‘ \r .' . . \ .| . T .. 4 _¢ . _ . :\ ..~_ \ s .. x ,. re. . . r. .3 .r; x» . _ . . t. H . . . y . .. .2 w .. .: E ;_ .. - z .3 . . .. .1 . ., : .. A. . «. .. e. x; s 1. .. n r. 9. ..~ u. .. N. ... v. p. H s‘ \. ¢n .. an. .v_. .. .. L. .1 .. . L». . . .a. ‘ C. .... u.. 5‘ . .w . . .. A v u . . . . w.“ .. ~_. ... 2. . . l. .. .. . ... . . . . .. . L . . . a L,. L. . . . .. . . s. 3. . a» . . . . ‘ . T. 2‘ L. ». .. (a .. . .. . L. . .. 4. ... .. L. x. L. . .7 ... .. .e. L. ... . . .. . . . .. ~. ... .. .V H 1. .~ ‘ . .. l ‘ . a p. 13 to have a public. And ". . . in order to service and to draw in tuition, it [the private school] must be in dialogue with its public about the nature of . . . the intellectual life of the school" (Grant, 1988, p. 4). Guthrie (1986) encourages an annual report which "lets clients and school district officials know how well the school is meeting its goals, how it deploys its resources, and what plans it has for the future" (p. 308). Increased productivity is the third objective of decentralization. It can be defined in terms of improved outcomes, reduced costs, and improved efficiency, that is, greater outputs in relation to lower costs (Brown, 1990). In educational terms, this takes the form of effective student performance, and efficient and equitable use of resources, both human and monetary. Proponents of site—based management "attempt to place maximum educational planning and accountability, and management of personnel and material resources, in the individual schools" (Marburger, 1985, p. 25). Two other proposed advantages are that "the resources of the school district are put more effectively where they are needed and site-based management conserves money" (Neal, 1988, p. 8). Reformers feel that decentralization will result in more effective and enduring reforms (AASA, NAESP, NASSP, 1988) and in program and curriculum development better suited to students' needs (Clune and White, 1988; Lindelow, 1981). They argue that the ... . . . .4. ‘. . . .H . .H. .. v. .» r;. r. 2. .. ~.. .» .. .. .. .. .. r. r” 2. ‘— —~ ..~ . .3 :- 14 ultimate educational output should be increased student performance. Proponents of decentralization assume that the school is the most meaningful unit of analysis in the learning process. Expectations of Humanistic Organization Theory The literature on site—based management has been linked to three indicators of successful decentralization. These indicators are flexibility in decision-making, accountability and productivity. The literature argues that decentralization encourages an effective use of human resources. As a form of decentralization, site—based management is an attempt to meet three expectations of humanistic organization theory. These expectations in the human resources model are: 1. The overall quality of decision-making and performance will improve as the manager makes use of the full range of experience, insight, and creative ability in his department. 2. Subordinates will exercise responsible self- direction and self—control in the accomplishment of worthwhile objectives that they understand and have helped to establish. 3. Subordinate satisfaction will increase as a by— product of improved performance and the opportunity to contribute creatively to this improvement. (Miles, 1965, p. 151) The three expectations have been named: 1) better decisions and performance, 2) more self—direction and control, and 3) increased satisfaction. Employee participation in decision-making is the first expectation of humanistic organization theory. Participation I I . I . . . . . . . . . . ... ... , . ._ .1 . o. . a ... . a e r r. I I . L. _. a ‘4 . ... . . .. o r . . .. r ~ I 2 H. v. .. . _~ H. .. . . . .. y. . u. . . t. ... . . . . . .. u. . . r. . 7.. r. .. . . .. ... .. .. .. v. . .. A. r. s. . L. ~. v. we .. t . v. . w . . . l .H. .uv . o. . . .. ..a . .._.. .V; . —. .4 ‘ .1; ... r. o. r. . .. r.. .s: .. {a L. >~ n.. >.. .. .. V a. . .u . .... r“ . ..4 .I .3 .h. . .u. o. .. 3‘. 7» I .v v. L. L. ...: .. . ‘ ..V . . ~.. . ._ Q. r». ... a. .. .3 ... .H r. . a. L. .. v. s. .. L. r... ‘ L. .. .3 .. .. a. ... .. .. n. r. «4 4. .. L. r. r.. ... L. e. . N. a; s . .. r. .. n. .H 1; .4. ... ._. r. . .. .1.. ..q .‘ .... .. a; L. ... Q. h\ .2 Ce 4 .. ‘ ... ’.. a . \4 A .I .... . ’x. .h .~. :. .‘ .pk « .2 Q. . . .. .. H. »~ ~ 2. 2‘ r.“ .. ... _. . . ‘ F. p. ... T» L. ‘ .. s. ‘. _. .. .. r .. ... . . a. ... fi. .. ... .. . .t .1 L. . ... .. . ... .u .. r. .. ... p. ., . .. ... .. .. a . ... . x . .—v 1‘ u . : . .. . v. . . e . . 5.. . a L. . . .‘ ... .. .. ... ... p. ... .. ... . .. .. . . 1 . a e .x. v . . . .—. o. e . ... ... ... . ~ . s. . .. \ ... u . . . « .. .. ... ... ... a . .. . . .. . .§ .. .. . . . 15 is encouraged because employees have experience, insight and creativity. The belief is that, by using employees' contributions, decision—making will improve as will performance. Site-based management literature supports both staff and parental participation in school decision-making (Carr, 1988; White, 1989). According to Lindelow (1981), an early advocate of site-based management, An essential element of site—based management is increased community and teacher involvement in decision- making. . . . All . . . plans to date include provisions designed to enhance parental, staff and sometimes student involvement. The actual extent to which parents and staffs are involved in school decision—making varies widely. (p.4) The argument for site—based management is that greater participation in decision—making will enable the staff to use its knowledge to design curricula and programs and to allocate resources which meet students' needs (Herman, 1989; Sergiovanni, Burlingame, Coombs, & Thurston, 1987). The conclusion of the argument is two-fold. First, student needs will be served (Clune and White, 1988). Second, staff will have a better sense of ownership of the educational process and will then be motivated to perform better in the classroom (Clune and White, 1988; Lindelow, 1981). The second expectation of humanistic organization theory is that employees will exercise responsible self—direction and control. The manager's duty is to "continually expand subordinates' responsibility and self—direction up to the limits of their abilities" (Miles, 1965, p. 151). Proponents ‘ V. .44 ... r“ A. . . ... . .. ... 1' Fr‘ ...d-«» 7‘ -..- -..-~.o-a v. . ;. . . ‘4 . ..a Q. L. .L .. 7k .» .¢ ~. - v. ~ \ ‘v ..s -‘ .-. .». r. ... v. w . .. ... 2‘ ... ~. .. s ... ._ .. a. ~ . T» w‘ .a .. 16 of site-based management believe that staff should "make decisions about curriculum, textbooks, learning activities, supplemental instructional materials and alternative programs" (Clune and White, 1988, p. 14; Marburger, 1985). According to the literature, local educational staff should not only be allowed control over curriculum and instructional programs; staff should also be allowed to identify and design programs for their own professional growth and development (AASA, NAESP, NASSP, 1988; Clune and White, 1988). The hope of site-based management is that, by giving teachers more opportunities for self—direction and control, the teachers perform better and are more satisfied. Satisfaction is the third expectation of the human resources model. Theorists regard satisfaction as a by- product of improved performance and participation in decision-making (Miles, 1965). Human resources theory argues that employees are more satisfied when they can contribute to decisions and have self-direction and control. Goodlad (1984) believes that "when teachers find themselves restrained and inhibited by problems of the workplace that appear to them not to be within their control, it is reasonable to expect frustration and dissatisfaction to set in" (p. 180). Proponents of decentralization argue that site-based management will improve teacher morale (AASA, NAESP, NASSP, 1988) and will enable teachers to "develop a sense of partnership and ownership" (Lindelow, 1981, p. 66). -. .. . . . . _ .. . s , Z . v .. ‘ . _. I. _ s . r. a. . ._ r . ..1. .. s ‘ . u r. v . . . . . c o . . r. '. . a ..u x. r. ... .2 .. x T. . .. _ . .. .. . . .. _, o . ._ .. . . . . ‘ x» .2 r. : ._ .. , .- .. .. .1 ... _ _ .. .. .. . . . . .. a. .... :4 .- I r. g A , . 2 ... . ._ .... _. .. L . . . x. . ~ . . ~., . L. . . .. s. .. .a a. r. r... s. .p. x. .. x . s a. v. .3 . .. J —. ... .... ._ —. v» _ ‘3 r. .‘ ... ... s. . ‘ >. .v r. . v. ~¢. . . X. . . x. x L. 2‘ .. ... é. .x. L. ... .... ... ... .. 7.. x. .. v. . ~. . . _ . . . . ... n. v. .. .3 .. ... .. .. ... ;. _. .. .. r, .\ ... .. .y ., ... ... .. ... .. . . ... .. ~¢ L. v. v. \. .. .. .f .s L. ... ... ~.. . . ... ... ... ... ‘ ~. ». p». ... L. .. Q. a... ... «a. x. ... ... 4. ,. y. .. .. ~ . .. s. s. ... .... .—‘ . \ .. < .. . q; .. .. .. . . .. ~., ... ‘4 .. ... .~. 5. L. . .c. s .— ... ... . . ... u. . ... ... .. ... . ... ... . a . ... ... _ ... _ - ~ .. . .. ,. . . ... .. ... .. s L. . . . \ L. . .~ 17 Summary Reformers are calling for changes in school structure and several cited reformers are basing proposed reforms for decentralization on the humanistic organization theory of management. Operationalized in schools, the decentralization model argues that there will be increased flexibility in decision—making, greater productivity by participants, and incresed accountability. The humanistic organization model emphasizes human resources and argues that there will be better decisions and performance, more responsible staff self-direction and control, and increased satisfaction. The argument is that site-based managed schools not only value their employees' contributions, they are also more efficient and productive. They have more satisfied staffs and are better managed organizations. The Purpose The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. Since these schools were admittedly variant examples of site—based management, another purpose of this study was to describe and explain how site—based management utilizes human resources, using select indicators from humanistic organization theory and decentralization theory as a framework for analysis. . (A n _ v. . . . '5. u. r. n ‘a - . .. u. .. ... .. . ‘ K. v. ._ . ’0 _ . . o. n. r. o a u w.. ‘w. ... r“ ~. .. r. . a. x .11 r. l. . 1 .. v u on v — u. ... H. ... H, p. r, u. __ o n . ... ... e. .. . . , . .. ~. . l; a. ‘. . a. ‘ .. . . s. ..o s. 2‘ PL r. . ... ... . .u. — 5. .. ..a r. . .H ... ... . .. . . . . ... .. .. . M.. .. v. . . . . g .. .. v. . .. .. ... ..4 .. sa ... .~ . ... ,. .. ,__ . — ... r. .—. . . -- F. uh. .u 18 Exploratory Questions The intent of the study was to describe two actual cases of site-based management using select indicators from humanistic organization theory and from decentralization theory. The indicators were flexibility in decision—making, productivity, accountability, decision-making and performance, responsible self—direction and control, and satisfaction. The research was guided by the following questions: 1. How is site—based management operationalized in these two schools? 2. What are the variations of decentralization relative to: a. Flexibility in decision-making b. Accountability c. Productivity 3. What are the variations of humanistic organization theory relative to: a. Decisions and performance b. Staff self—direction and control c. Satisfaction 4. What trends exist on the following school outcomes: a. Student achievement b. Teacher commitment c. Satisfaction: Parent, student d. Attendance: Teacher, student . n . v. n u n . ... . o r. v o m g ‘4 r... 1.. .... v. r. .. g A. i r... we. . a.” a. ..4 .~. .. ... ._ p. ,... .. .. A: . . .. .. .. ..n —__ . .. ... A .\v Q . n A .ga ‘ . ... .... v. I ... ... ... L. a. .... I .. .2 L. ... CV .. .... bx .. ... L. ... o. .. ,. . 4 ... 19 e. Tenure: Teacher, student f. Parent participation Methodology The purpose of this study was to describe and explain two actual cases of site—based management. The purpose was also to explain how these cases exhibited the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization theory using select indicators from these theories. To do so, a descriptive field study was undertaken. Descriptive field studies attempt to collect all the necessary details to provide a complete picture of a particular group, activity, or situation (Jones, 1985; True, 1989). The researchers become participants which enable them to understand the phenomenon under investigation (Firestone, 1987) by engaging in the group, activity or situation. One method of participation is that of complete observer in which the researchers do not interact with "informants" but observe them in their setting (Gold, 1957). As complete observers, the researchers are detached from the activity and record and analyze what is observed. However, the researchers may have raised questions which require clarification by the participants (Gold, 1957). They may then schedule unstructured interviews which allow adaptability by both researcher and participant (True, 1989). Another data source in field research is the semi—structured interview comprised of questions which guide researchers while still allowing . $ .1 .. l. . v. . . a ..w ._ Q . — I . L. ... . .. .. .... o .. r. ... ... . . .... aw. . r kn ’ i». ..a H. ... . .. r. H. ... .,. .... .. v. .. .. :4 a 4 r“ .H as. .. .. o. v. g. . .. .3 .. .3 2. , .a r... .. u” .. .H .. . .. ... . L. ... r. u. u .. ... . u. .. v“ . .. . . .. .. ... ... ... ~. ..A .H .—. a .. . r r“ . . ‘. ... ‘. ... m ... .. .. u. C. P. ... ... .. .... . . ‘ y x. b. . ... ..x .. \~ .. .w 20 them to probe (True, 1989). In order to present an accurate description, researchers may also choose to collect quantitative data through closed-ended questionnaires and document analysis. By using both qualitative and quantitative data, field researchers combine "methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon" (Denzin, 1978, p. 291). Through this process of triangulation, researchers have more confidence in the results and uncover the deviance in the phenomenon. One major drawback, however, is the difficulty of replication (Jick, 1984). Sample size is important in field research and quite often the sample is limited to one or two sources (Mintzberg, 1984). However, researchers indicate "that if the relationship holds for one group under certain conditions, it will probably hold for other groups under the same conditions" (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 106). The study describes and explains how site-based management utilizes human resources. The study is a descriptive field study. Data collection occurred between October 1990 and January 1991 with the researcher spending a period of two months in each school. The primary methods of data collection were semistructured and unstructured interviews. The interview questions were open—ended and were based on the research questions as specifically informed by the works of Brooke (1984), Brown (1990), Clune and White (1988), David (1989), I . 1 . _. a J . . . . r. .. m .- . ._ ... . .... r“ ~. r. o v.. ... .. ... _n .... .fl .‘ . .. . A. I .. _ . . v. .3 .. 3 _. \..I .5. v. u. .3 .. . . u 54 v .. . Vx . . ,r . . . . . . :. .3 .r. .H r. r. . . A. u. re. —. a. . A. a ‘ v ‘ _.\. A .C a. ._ no .H. .. ... .. .3 . . . .. .. ... a. 1. ... .. .— 3, ... ... .. . .. ... . . .a ... . .... A. .2 .1 ... .. ”n .3 ... .«4 . . .. . . i u . ... i .. ... x r\ o. s... u“ .2 .7 r L. C. .. w. e . >.. .. _. . 2.. ... .3 .3 .. v . .... u: s .. a. .T . .1 .1 e . . .. .. >. ... .3 ”a .3 .u .. .0 .. . . . .. .... .. “k. T. f .. A T A. L. a. r? .3 .«¢ .u ... ... L. .. .... x: .2 .. L. .. .. 1‘ .. \. . o C. u. .. v. is an. r.. N4. ‘— —. ~ v. w. n u A. ..i . _ s. x. b. .m a. u. .. a. a. .. .. ... .... .. ... ... .. 3.. .. ... ... .. .. ... . . .a. ~ . .. . . pg. . . >. .~. .. ~ . C. a; . g . . v. .... . . — . ... v.. . _. bu. ....» ...~. 2‘ 9 . . . . x .. ... \.~. . . r. . .u .... ”.H. H... “v... - . .... c... . .. ... . a .. ~ ... ~ . . . . ~ . 21 and Miles (1965). Individual interviews were conducted with all but two staff members of both schools. There were group interviews with members of the parent boards. All participants were informed that this was a study of site- based management in two schools. The interviews were tape- recorded and transcribed into written notes. By using pseudonyms the identities of all participants remained confidential. The researcher was a complete observer at faculty, department, student, school board and parent committee meetings held throughout the duration of her stay. The purpose was to determine the Operationalization of site-based management within the school. To this end, notes were taken during the meetings. Participants were informed of the researcher's presence and purpose by the Chairpersons of the meetings. Data to determine levels of satisfaction, commitment and participation were collected by closed-ended questionnaires. The questionnaires were informed by the works of Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley and Bauer (1990); DeRoche (1981); Frymier, Cornbleth, Donmoyer, Gansneder, Jeter, Klein, Schwab and Alexander (1984); and Mangieri (1984). In one school parent questionnaires were mailed, while at the other school parent questionnaires were distributed through the school office. Teacher questionnaires were distributed through the school offices. Questionnaires were returned in envelopes to the .. .. . . .G“ ... x.» . .. ... ... __ ... . . p. .2 . ... L. a . . ... . . .. L. —. N. . .2 .. .2 L. .. ... ~. .. _. ... . . ... 2.. .. N. .. 0.. ... .. s. ... ... _ ... ... ..... e. .. . .. .. .. x .. . . . 22 school office and collected by the researcher. A cover letter informed participants that a study of site-based management was being undertaken and requested their input on certain topics. Students completed questionnaires in their classrooms under the researcher’s direction. Participants were anonymous. Answers were tabulated on a frequency scale. The last method of data collection was an analysis of documents. These documents included student achievement records, local and district level policy books, newsletters, budgets, past meeting minutes, student and teacher attendance records, student enrollment records, teacher tenure records, and any additional records agreed upon by the researcher and the school administration. Individual identities remained confidential. Information was recorded on charts and tables. Sample The study sought to explicate site—based management as it operates and as it affords hope for educational improvement. A review of the literature indicated that site- based management operates differently at each school or within each district (Marburger, 1985). However, there are seven key elements of site—based management (David, 1989). These elements are: 1) Various degrees of site-based budgeting affording alternative uses of resources 2) A team operation affording groups to expand the basis of decision-making 3) School-site advisory committees with key roles for parents 4) Increased authority by school participants for . 7-- --.: .. . . ... - ~ r. e L. .: N4. .. .. v. ..4 ... . . ... .. ... .. ... '9 ‘5- .— S4 .. . s a it y. u‘ . ... .... \. ... L. ... ». . . L. ... Z ... ... ... L. -. vs ... Q. .0 ... ... 23 selecting personnel who are assigned 5) Ability to modify the school's curriculum to better serve their students 6) Clear processes for seeking waivers from local or state regulations that restrict the flexibility of local staffs 7) An expectation for an annual report on progress and school improvement. (p. 46) Not only did a number of Catholic schools have the elements of site—based management, but the schools also operated within a school system. Therefore, it was decided to use exclusively Catholic schools, not only because they were all site-based managed, but they offered several variations on the theme. The intent of this research was to examine and evaluate the effectiveness of these variations. The first step in securing a sample occurred in January 1990. The researcher met with an associate superintendent for a large metropolitan Catholic school district in order to identify Catholic elementary schools utilizing the elements of site-based management. Nine schools were identified and three were subsequently eliminated because critical criteria were no longer being met. The second step took place between January and June 1990. An introductory letter was sent to the six remaining schools requesting a meeting to ensure that the schools met the qualifications of site—based management and to establish their willingness to participate. One school withdrew prior to the meeting. Another school was eliminated because it did not have a school-site advisory committee, an element deemed essential to the true meaning of site—based management. Four .x. 24 schools remained and the researcher met with each principal during May and June. All four schools were qualified and two were selected with what appeared to be enough variation to be examples of the case. Glaser and Strauss (1967) indicate "that if the relationship holds for one group under certain conditions, it will probably hold for other groups under the same conditions” (p. 106). Therefore, we may argue that the sample size was sufficient. Two elementary schools from one Catholic school system were studied. Kwanzaa School was an urban school offering enrollment in kindergarten through grade eight; it had two special education classrooms. Ninety—seven percent of its 580 students were black. The majority of students were neither Catholic nor parish members. Their parents chose to send them to Kwanzaa rather than to their neighborhood public schools. Kwanzaa had two co-principals, both of whom have served in that position for eighteen years. There were twenty-five full-time teachers, two part—time teachers, and a full-time guidance counsellor. The local school board was a policy-making board. The Fathers' Club (athletics) and the Mothers' Club (service and fundraising) were additional parent boards with varying degrees of decision—making power. The principals sent monthly newsletters to the parents and parents received written reports of annual standardized testing. Parent-teacher conferences were held twice each year. The principals hired the teachers after the ..¢0 7' 7L. 25 prospective candidates had been approved by the diocesan central school office. Curriculum was determined by Kwanzaa faculty and administration. Rainbow School was a suburban elementary school offering enrollment from pre—school through grade eight. There were 454 students, eighty-three percent of whom were white. Seventy percent of the students belonged to the school's affiliated parish; the other thirty percent did not belong to the parish which did not necessarily mean that they were not Catholic. The principal had been at the school for twelve years. She had an assistant principal who was also a full- time teacher. The principal, the assistant principal and the full-time guidance counsellor operated as an administrative team. There were eighteen full-time and five part—time teachers. The local school board was a policy-making board. The P.T.A. and the Sports Board were other parent boards with varying degrees of decision-making powers. The principal sent newsletters to the parents monthly and parents received written standardized test score results. Parent-teacher conferences were held twice each year. The principal hired the teachers after they had been approved at the diocesan central school office. Curriculum was determined by Rainbow faculty and administration. 26 Significance Most literature on site—based management explains and examines the rationale for implementing site-based management at the local school level. Another portion of the literature gives examples of the kinds of decisions made in a site-based managed organization. However, there is very little descriptive literature explaining how site-based management flows through and within an organization. Very little is written to describe how site—based management Operates and what the trends in certain school outcomes are. Therefore, this study is significant because it addressed these issues. Since reformers are calling for a change in the structure of educational institutions, it is essential that researchers study structure, as it currently exists, in some organizations. The hope is that reformers will see both the advantages and disadvantages of site-based management and adjust their proposals in light of this research. .. .“ A \ so .4 -~.:.-:.' ‘ t‘..“-“' ‘ ‘ _ .- .... . CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. There are three bodies of literature which pertain to this research: 1) literature and studies about site—based management, 2) studies of humanistic organization theory, and 3) descriptive studies of elementary school practices. A review of the literature indicates that there are many definitions (AASA, NAESP, NASSP, 1988; Marburger, 1985) Of site-based management, all of which contain common elements including local school control, accountability and decision- making. The operative definition for this study is that presented by Lindelow (1981) who defines site-based management as A system of educational administration in which the school is the primary unit of educational decision-making. It differs from most current forms of school district organization in which the central office dominates the decision-making process. Most decisions regarding expenditures, curricula, and personnel are made by school—site personnel in 27 I I. . b . L. r. v. .. w . u .. . o. .. v. ... . v o. ... .... .. . . p. .u .. ._ . 2 . . _. . H t .r. a . r p. . ... ... v. _ . p. r” o .H. . ... . .3 .. ... . r. _. . . .. ..J .u. .H. ~.. .F. 4 . .4a in on y '- ... .... . . .. ... . v“ -. .. . . . . .. ... n” .. I «v —. ”I” u. I ‘1. ~ .1. ... . . .1 ,. v. .~ ... p - t u. I a 0 Cu. .‘ p . . . . . u. . . . u. l . A .V . . . .. . a s . .. . . . . . .. s. .. .. ,r. L. 3 — . ... .. ... . .. .. .. . a . A. . .‘_. . .. . .~.. . L. ... L. . v in ... ,7. ‘ .- .. ; a. l _ ... V n . . . L - .. . . . . F r. .. . _ . . ... ... .. ., . ... , . I g. . . N4 .... C. . ‘ .. .. r. L. . A. .: . . a. .2 _. ... .. .2 ._ ... .... . . .. ... .. . .C . . ... ¢ a . Vs .. .. . u ._ . . a. d .v . . . o .. ... .. . .. .s. u. a r \ - . s . .\ 28 consultation with parents, students, and other community members. (p. 1) While the review of literature indicates numerous variations (Carr, 1988; Clune and White, 1988; Marburger, 1985), there are seven key elements of site—based management (David, 1989). These elements are: 1) Various degrees of site-based budgeting affording alternative uses of resources 2) A team operation affording groups to expand the basis of decision—making 3) School—site advisory committees with key roles for parents 4) Increased authority by school participants for selecting personnel who are assigned 5) Ability to modify the school's curriculum to better serve their students 6) Clear processes for seeking waivers from local or state regulations that restrict the flexibility of local staffs 7) An expectation for an annual report on progress and school improvement. (p. 46) These elements are derived from decentralization theory which advocates flexibility in decision—making, accountability and productivity (Brown, 1990). Designers of site-based managed programs stress more involvement by principals, teachers and parents and less involvement by central office staff. Site-based management proponents posit that local involvement will produce more accountable educators who are striving for better student academic achievement (AASA, NAESP, NASSP, 1988; Lindelow, 1981; Marburger, 1985). The literature on site-based management is limited. In addition to definitive articles and operations manuals, there are two sources of written information: 1) reports and I ll] . o . o . . ' , . e . . . l \ .. . . .. . . v. 3 .. I .. . . ... _ ... . . . .. ... .. . ,. U . . .... .3 . _ .. . . . y. . . . . x . . . . ca. .«A. . . . _ r. N v . u. \ .... I. .. r. .. .w. .. . . . _. .... 2 v N . . .. ..., .. .. .2 o .. .. . . ... . . .. .. .... .. ~. _ w ... ... r” r. . . .... A . ... \H. ... s. .. n. 9.. . ‘ §. N» T. K» \\ . ._ : .. .. . r t _. .. .... _. ... ... .3 .. ... .. ... r, . \. ... .3 r ... «A Z L. _ ‘ , .7 .. .. ... v ,. ., ., .. .. .. ;. ... .. ... ... .. .. .. . . u I . . a... ... a“ ... o. 4 p. a . .. .. ... .__ v. .. .7 .. ;. W‘ .a‘ .\ .a. .. . \ I . ... .3 J. .. ... «. A. ~.. .... ... , .. ... ... ._ ... ... x? ... \. ... .. . .\ .. .r. .. .. .. .. .. .._ ., r .. .. .. .. ... .. . ... p. . . , .\ a. . .—. r. .— v. .. . . ... x . . T. ... p .- s. .v . x .a. \ .. A—. . . ... . . u . .... I. .. w . . ... a. s . . ... .~ ... ~ . . C. . .. . _ ..H ..n ".. u.” H. .. ... .... .... ... ... ... . .. a _ I.. .. ‘.. a s. \.. ..a ... ,. ... . .4 . . Ml. ... ... . .. l . 29 articles about school districts proposing and implementing site-based management and 2) studies. Proposal and implementational reports are useful for educators wanting to establish site-based management procedures. These reports include such topics as the Washington, D.C., public school district's request to begin site-based management (Federal City Council, 1989), implementation plans from Hawaii and Washington state (Hawaii State Department of Education, 1989; Washington Office of the State Superintendent, 1988), and examinations of the role of the teachers' union (National Education Assocation, 1988; St. John, 1989) in site-based managed districts. Recent journal articles and educational texts describe the variations in site-based managed school districts (Cistone, Fernandez and Tornillo, 1989; Dentler, Flowers, and Mulvey, 1987; Lindelow and Heynderickx, 1989). Because Dade County, Miami, has successfully implemented site-based management, its program is described here. Joseph Fernandez is Dade County's superintendent and Pat Tornillo represents the Dade County teachers. Together with Peter Cistone, from Florida International University, they wrote an article (1989) summarizing the evaluation reports of the first year of the Site-Based Management/Shared Decision—Making (SBM/SDM) pilot project in Dade County. Thirty-three schools participated in the project. Cistone et al. indicated that SBM/SDM allowed schools "to adopt a variety of programmatic .‘a-H .vl'"'-. fl ...uv""‘v-. -.f -v‘V;"" 7:. ..d‘..-t—‘~‘~ ‘ "H u “..A .-«Oul -A‘ V --—ID v- ......I § '0 V" .-.~ " ‘”:" -.t-‘ufl-‘~.‘_ g-.- - s4. —-“" 7‘... -- __.Q" C" ..-, ‘5. v. ‘¢ 30 innovations in response to their particular needs and interests" (pp. 398-399) including such things as organizational/schedule changes, bilingual education, community involvement, staff selection, staff development and staff assistance programs. In addressing one element of decentralization theory, the authors noted that the teachers were more active in decision-making and were in favor of shared decision-making; the principals sought more teacher involvement in decision-making. While Cistone et al. report that the principals felt that shared decision-making was time-consuming, the principals believed that SBM/SDM was worthwhile. Flexible decision-making was encouraged and decision—making bodies varied from school to school. Council membership varied and decisions included "curriculum, student management, scheduling, and school-community relations" (p. 400). Decision issues were generated by faculty committees and referred to the decision-making groups. Most decisions were made by majority vote. The description of Dade County's site—based management program is given so that the reader understands the type of site-based management literature that is generally available. In the last two years, however, studies of site-based management have increased. Eight studies will be presented. They describe 1) site-based management as a management system, 2) attitudes about shared decision-making, 3) participants in site-based management, and 4) specific I ‘ ... 9"" .1 "rd“ . III”! . _ . . . : .. .. .. Z ._ . . .... ... _ _ ... .... c. .... .... .. ... ... p. 3 .... f. .. .. .. ._ .. a. ..n s. .2 . . a A. r“ r“ .. .. .. ... .. a. ... s. L 4. .. ... 3 E .. 3. ... r I .. S v. I C o. :. ... S .3 .. .. H: C I 3 C ... ... .7. ... a. .3 .. .. L. .. 7. .. v. .... a. a. m. A. .r“ .«J r. C. ... .. ..I. ... e. .... .3 e. v. Q. .. ... .3 .. .2 ..v .. .. .. ... s. .3 ... ... .3 v. a. .. .c .3 . ... C. C. . ... .2 ... a. .. . . .. c. Q. r. . . .U .u i. .. at . . ‘ . 3. a. I v. .3 . .. .. a. .. .. .n .. .. ... ... .-r G. ... .. .. .. ...... a. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... r" i. .. (. ... .... .f. .4. e. ... .. .. ...u .. . . .. ... a. . . ... .. .... ... .... ... ... .-. ~ . C . .5. -. ... ..a u. s . . . -. n~ 31 aspects of site-based management. Lindquist and Mauriel (1989) contend that site-based management is a management system which is not being accepted by many educators. They argue that there is a "disparity between the theory and clearly articulated intentions of site-based management and the practice" (p. 403) of it in schools and districts. They presented two case studies which examined possible explanations for site-based management's failure to actualize decentralized decision—making. Concentrating on decentralization theory's elements of flexible decision—making, accountability and increased productivity, the authors studied delegation of decision- making authority, school site councils and advocacy in two school districts. They concluded that superintendents and school boards were reluctant to relinquish their decision- making authority or that site council members were reluctant to accept certain decision-making powers (Malen and Ogawa, 1990), particularly in budgetary, curricular and personnel matters. The authors wrote that "as of yet, there has not been a specific delegation of full and meaningful authority to make key decisions in all three areas of curriculum, budget, and personnel" (p. 413). Regarding site-council membership, Lindquist and Mauriel determined that membership differed, but all members received in—service about leadership and participative decision-making. The authors reiterated that site-councils were more advisory than .’ - ;~vo 0“? i» «D ( ) (I) -r> Ancn-fiww .‘v..'-.._.~-.. . ‘ .. .... V: ... _ 1... ..-..-c. ‘v-v-n..'fi; C "OO-v-b—a-~ . . ,. l.. '.:5 - 5.4 -..‘_ -‘ v v» "““r. ~ «1 .""'v-‘.. v ‘ -.. . .I ha ." ”\- --. a .....- - .- > - ‘~h—~_v~ ~m..‘g~. v..— ~‘,,_ ...vo « L— .-“‘"a.. 2" :‘a- ‘ “'J “'VVA. . 'll‘ .Q_ ‘ , “;- ‘ p-”.‘ ‘Q-_- ‘\~ " L‘H ‘ .-.' “ ‘:_~.-,‘ «....-.t‘ I;-‘~‘ ... ~‘ s‘s_“ ‘_.g' 0. q o v._: “V“ K .“ R. HV‘ -\ . ’ as.“ “- x A- ‘V‘.". ‘ D s»; ..._ :.~._,'.- ‘1‘.- s“‘_‘ V ~“ A». ‘A . ~ v N..\ ..A‘ Q . . " 5 . V ‘ *-‘_‘Q~. ‘n‘ n I ‘s L-AY~,. sv‘g.» '\ . s_‘ ‘~‘h “ ~‘ '5‘ ‘ , V‘ . - _ . it.“ . “:.A— ' V "._C. ‘x n \\~¥‘ 5. ~ q ‘ “‘ 32 decisive which was due, perhaps, to the skills and time commitment required for participation. Finally, Lindquist and Mauriel learned that only one superintendent and both principals advocated site-based management. They concluded that "if either the superintendent or the principal is reluctant to participate, the use of site-based management may be limited" (p. 413). The authors felt that site-based management will succeed when, and if, major changes occur in governance, organizational structure, role responsibility, and accountability. Two studies examined decision—making in relation to site-based management. Mutchler and Duttweiler (1990) believed that implementing shared decision—making in site- based management demanded an attitudinal and behavioral change as participants moved from hierarchical, centralized decision-making to participative, decentralized decision— making. To understand the problems occurring in this move, the authors surveyed 230 school districts and identified eight obstacles. Personal and interpersonal obstacles included resistance to new roles and responsibilities, fear of power loss, lack of participative skills, mistrust, and fear of risk-taking. Institutional obstacles included absence of clear definitions (Jenni, 1990); insufficient personnel, time and monetary resources; and limited hierarchical support (Lindquist and Mauriel, 1989). To overcome the obstacles, the authors recommended that: “ Q. _ n \ ~. I v f . .Q . y. .4 .. .. . a. ~. . .. . . v . . . . . . .. I 7 . ._ 3 .. .. ... a. . 3 .. . .2 7 f . r. .1 . _ . . . . I . c . v. aw. s- L. .u. L. ,. U .. 4 L. .V p. . N4 v d . Wk. .. .. a. .. .u . l. xl ~. Tc .2 .. ... ... .1 . ‘ .... Iv L. r. .. ‘. L. w. . . ... . ‘ ... pg .. a. ~. ‘. _ \— L. r». i. ~7 ,. .. sf .. _. «a r. ~a .. ‘ ... .. n .. a» . ‘ ... «J .‘a. o. .. ..a ... ... .. .~i \._ L. .. ..¢ ‘ rm .1 ‘\ .71. .u .. .. .. ... ... ... .; ~.. .. ~_ s. L. .. . . a. o. A. a“ m.. ... ..., ..1 .. ... . . ‘ ... ... ... . _ ‘q- -. u. . . . . .. l . _.~ «g e ‘ ..~ k x.\ n . g. 33 1) districts encourage the change to participative management, 2) districts develop collegial and collaborative cultures, 3) staffs receive in-service about participative management, and 4) all school and community personnel must be committed to shared decision—making. The second study of decision—making and site-based management was a dissertation by Higgins (1982) in which the author undertook an ethnographic study of one Florida high school "to identify the components and personnel involved in the decision-making process . . . and the factors which contributed to, or restricted, the implementation of site- based management" (p. 6). Like Lindquist and Mauriel (1989), Higgins felt a discrepancy existed between the theory of site-based management and its practice. In studying decision-making, he concentrated on the principal's and faculty's roles. He observed that the principal determined the "magnitude and scope” of the decision-making and that faculty involvement in decision—making varied from "consultation to suggestion to consent" (pp. 174-175). Faculty members made curricular decisions by giving approval to the principal's ideas and suggestions. Higgins described this process as consentaneous decision—making, that is, "sanction, subscription to, and acquiescence to the principal's actions" (p. 177). Because consentaneous decision—making is not the same as shared decision—making, Higgins concluded that the high school was not practicing 34 site—based management. Even though school personnel made various kinds of decisions, most of the processes did not involve shared decision—making. Higgins faulted the school's social system, from state leadership to district leadership to the principal, for providing imprecise directives and implementation policies about shared decision-making as advocated by site—based management theory. One element of site—based management is the existence of a school-site advisory committee. Since the governance powers of these committees varies, two studies examined site— councils. In the first, a study of sixteen school councils, Jenni and Mauriel (1990) examined council members' perceptions of three areas: 1) their influence over decision-making, 2) school personnel and community support of site-based management, and 3) their satisfaction with the accomplishment of site-based management goals and objectives. The authors felt that influential and satisfied participants in site—based managed decisions produced participants who were "more supportive and cooperative in getting these decisions implemented" (p. 4). Jenni and Mauriel reported that council members 1) felt they were influential in decision—making, 2) gave high ratings to site—based management, and 3) felt that site—based managed goals and objectives were being accomplished. The authors noted that goals and objectives, however, involved only the instructional supply budget and some extra-curricular 35 programs rather than major decisions about budget, curriculum and personnel. In the sixteen schools studied, Jenni and Mauriel concluded that site—based management was successful "though it does not seem to be affecting the major substance of curriculum and instruction" (p. 18) because the participants were not concerned about those issues. The authors attributed site—based management's success to council members' assistance with each school's communication and public relations efforts. An in-depth study of Salt Lake City's School Community Councils (Malen and Ogawa, 1990) gives more insight into council members' influence over decision-making. The researchers explained that decision—making influence was manifest when the actors' involvement at critical stages of the process (formation of agenda, etc.) enables them to preempt, select, modify, block or affect decision outcomes on subjects that are central to the organization or salient to the individual. (p. 104) They argued that the literature consistently finds no truth in decentralization theory's proposal that, at the building level, parents and teachers can play a significant role in significant educational decisions. The Salt Lake City School Community Councils were comprised of administrators, teachers, non-certified staff, and parents. The council's role and authority were clearly defined and included school improvement and action plans, distribution of discretionary funds, personnel review, and program assessment. Council training was provided and each member had an equal vote. However, Malen and Ogawa (1990) observed that the councils . ,. ~J ._ .n L. «g. .l n. . ~q. .a v. . v v. ._ ..t. I. a, r». ._. a” I. x; ... ‘s- 36 rarely discussed budget, curriculum or personnel; rather they discussed administrative and cursory topics. The researchers felt that parents and teachers discussed, advised and approved the principal's decisions, much like Higgins' description of consentaneous decision-making (1982). Malen and Ogawa described this deference as the principal's positional power in which he or she is perceived as having both knowledge and the ability to control information. According to the authors, council policies and procedures should have enabled teacher and parent members to participate fully, but they did not due to lack of clarity about their power (Mutchler and Duttweiler, 1990), their dependency on the administrators for information, and their fear of not being allowed to continue if they dissented. The authors concluded that the principals determined building policy and that "the Salt Lake City experience casts doubt on the viability of the decentralize—democratize approach to reform" (p. 113). The final three studies from site-based management literature are concerned with operations, factors of implementation, and theory. In a telephone survey, Clune and White (1988) examined site-based management in thirty—one school districts. They studied the following topics: organization and operation, objectives, roles, and administrative and implementation issues. In examining organization and operation, Clune and White found that "the ‘~~~.( "".y~ ‘-—on- H‘ v ._v . "‘r 4. ‘ “I.§ -.. .- . ' ~‘ "“- - -D . Ar ..‘_- ."‘ ’k “‘ ~ - »_~ ‘ ..,' r ‘ I. . v-‘. ‘s h . “‘- ~v ._ \ - V‘ ‘0 - \ c ‘ .a .,‘. V . a- '~ h“~ ,- -s -__ I ‘- ‘ . up ‘ a ‘«‘ . ”.- ‘ ‘ ‘. ...v. \_ S ‘4 x s - '5 “ _~ \_..‘ ‘ v. \‘. o a \‘ . w ‘-| . o. -.‘ \ - -_“ _ ~ A v: \ . ‘ \. 37 organization and operation of site-based management is extremely diverse" (p. 11). Budgetary decisions were most commonly decentralized to the local school, but some districts also made personnel and curricular decisions. The types of decisions and the degree of decision-making authority varied from school to school. The superintendent was influential in beginning site-based management and the site-council was an innovation in the organizational structure. Site-council membership and decision-making authority varied. Clune and White learned that the main objective of site-based management was school improvement and that participants felt a strong sense of ownership in the process. The authors examined how various roles changed due to site-based management. The principal had more authority and more responsibility, was more accountable, and was involved in shared decision—making. The superintendent became a technical adviser to the principal and communicated with him/her more frequently. School councils and school boards functioned collaboratively in an effort to address local student needs. Teachers were more flexible, made changes, and possessed more influence and authority. Communication with the principal was better. Clune and White learned that the districts were evenly split between teachers' unions being active and inactive. Regarding roles, the authors found that students were no more involved, but they seemed to benefit from new programs and activities; ,.,-¢>~ .p « p— H ....... fl- - , ¢.,-pv~ «Av-v 1 .. \ ...-..-.' .. .. . 4 ...--.,.,. - ~14 -‘ .- n uv-‘v‘li.l *1 ..l ,.... a _ —-—<' ’,_": ,‘ -...¢.-..--.. a... . . V “ :r‘ or 0......- ...-1 ‘_ _ . vv~.,. A 4 ~ " - f....,.‘_‘." A“ » .‘ .‘, .. 'I --- " .._ _ . '-.'.,I‘v . L ~ -' ‘ . ‘_ H ... , .'_'~ _-_- " 'w ’. « \- “r. -d_ 2" ~. ‘- v r ‘n. w o I. ‘ r "- v -A' '.. 3" -‘ .a a v. -\ a y‘- r N -. ,_ ‘u . . ‘ V‘ I. " . .‘n I - . Al "- v - . v , o v ‘- I.- ...~. ’ h‘_ ’o ’4 1*? . . ‘ u‘ ‘ , v s." ~ ‘ “a r . '- -. ‘1 . . ‘\ ~— ' aw- -“~ '1. ‘pc. . ‘ V' 38 parents were more involved; and communication between parents, community and school district personnel was better. In examining administrative and implementation issues, the researchers believed that school accountability to the district and the state remained and that superintendents and principals were more accountable to their constituents. However, Clune and White discovered that, while people felt positively about school~based management, there were no formal methods of program evaluation. Implementation problems were similar to those found by other researchers: lack of training (Mutchler and Duttweiler, 1990), fear of power loss (Lindquist and Mauriel, 1989; Mutchler and Duttweiler, 1990), little or no support from the superintendent (Lindquist and Mauriel, 1989; Mutchler and Duttweiler, 1990), and the teachers' desire for more decision—making authority (Malen and Ogawa, 1990). For future research, Clune and White encouraged an examination of site-based managed schools to determine how strong principals communicate and interact under shared decision—making. In a four-year longitudinal study of two Minnesota school districts, Jenni (1990) determined the factors affecting site—based management implementation. He found that: 1) school organizations changed once site—based management was introduced, 2) people within the organizations resisted the change, 3) site councils discussed topics rather than made decisions about them (Higgins, 1982; Lindquist and ‘l-l-v“ l- ._ — ..va-.—" -‘ .--,..-> "‘ 'u. r ,_ --..-.4~-' ,.....,A .' \ -- \ ..4..-‘ -' ‘ - ~~-r- ‘ ..4-0..._I - cr;~¢.,~ ' , ..—.i.-..u -. L .. _ ,.’_-.;’.- . . ...... _. r... 5‘ ~__, ”1 , - . ~- .14 . v p. y. . .. >4 -' .‘.- ’ < . , , A -..., . ‘ \.. ‘ ‘— .. . ~ - —.._ - . y --r __ ._ . . ‘ .“_ ..-"s- v«.' ~.._" h u,‘ ' . -1 ‘ > . ‘7. . ..., «if 1 ~. ~. \ ’- “ ~-r- .. v. , A ..‘v ‘ A -""s. . " ’ _‘ r ._. N ‘ .‘ku , ..-”:J- -., _" v. s . .. ‘ s. ‘q_ n.‘* 4 ”7.. ~ ~.“' a .7 " .4_ fl .‘ .“ r. ...' w.. ‘p -.. —\ o._ '- —‘ . \_‘. u“ 1.; ‘vfl “a. .. \M‘ “’r - ‘. ' . ‘. “.-v._ .“ o‘ > ..e u; - <. ’I '7‘. '. '< V. ~ 5. ,, ..‘. A «'- -‘*~ ’ w ‘ 5 " ». ‘ “ . .y_ '_¥ 7‘ ‘v'. V. v“ ‘ .‘ : K 4 '.\_ v‘A-»., .“‘ r a.“ .‘ .. o - .. ' -,_ .\, 4 . , l v n‘- " s.‘ - - x ‘v F. _ w‘ “ F. . \ “N .‘ ‘, 1 . ... .‘ '- ., .. ¢ .. . ~‘ .- -. . . \ ta, V - v n 39 Mauriel, 1989; Malen and Ogawa, 1990), and 4) organizational restructuring was difficult for several reasons. Those reasons included lack of implementation plans and schedules (Higgins, 1982), unclear lines of authority, insufficient training in participative decision-making, and vague statements of purpose (Mutchler and Duttweiler, 1990). Jenni presented his findings, but made no recommendations for future research. The concluding site-based management study was described by Smith (1985) in her dissertation presenting a case study of a site-based managed elementary school. She researched site-based management from three viewpoints: 1) theory, 2) one school's implementation, and 3) the author's analysis of site-based management in theory and in practice. In examining the power balance, Smith found that site-based management theory proposes that local school personnel make budgetary, curricular and personnel decisions; accountability will then increase. In actuality, Smith discovered the following improvements due to decentralized decision—making: "sharing information, recognition for individual achievement, increased flexibility, support for innovation, and extended opportunities for professional development" (p. 193). Regarding school governance, site—based management theory advocates that local school control leads to increased productivity in student achievement. Smith found that the local school council was important in changing attitudes and r "A yo 9 p '0: 9.9“ "" I‘.IUU 3159-}; .. u ”1". v.-. 5/ .. . ' ' A? . ‘.A":‘ ‘ v“ "' Vina—A I‘AV. ‘ A .A ‘, a.OF.F :~2 A. .. .onautvl“ “ o >- .... "z-“ro 3..-. body-ddv' ' ,, v. ...-:F":.. r. , 'I..‘~v.h‘--vl . . ‘ r‘ ..,,.,.. 5'... ‘::..n.ud ...: ' A . ., {"’ “‘Hy L"" ”V, c. n... "v-fid-4.- y¢ - “""""Y‘ z,“ , ‘::d:g5~1¢h .4...‘ A I ' l u("‘ :~.>'- . .‘H‘“‘" V- .-.. . "I. n.l’a 'V“ 0‘ "“ ~--~ ~--.._. . t": “"gd k. A _ v -..g...‘ ‘-‘: 3 A ' “A, a . ‘5'. L ) \~‘> ' t ‘V . ‘1' ".- ;.."VA 'T' {A “ ‘v-..:~“ V k. ‘v‘ ,. ...: 5,"! .," Q‘- P' CA V “ . ‘5‘ ’Jh §‘ ‘ \.-.I 1 ‘ v- . .. «..., S“e‘ziz ~.; *‘s. ..._ . . -._ . a -, A t... ‘dea . - "§ :: ‘V'tu g." ‘.. y I o . ” “1 -. . C :c'“c.rs ., t “'v~~ A E‘ s. A -c~' \ ”“*~ A"; ‘I-k‘ rm...- . I I" ( ”In , s¢.\: La ‘ . Immufin ..u.‘ Gnu“ -v. Cr». ~ A V"‘~~J‘ CL! . x...” A. ‘q‘rs . “‘:~. ‘3. L‘v. t ‘\.u L ,. o. ‘ G‘s . "‘Qr‘"V~ ~~-I,c ' \— HQ‘ . U»; ,Qap "H. CH >4 . Ca'cc w s“_ l -’ u t c“ u | SM n- Ve. . A" v3 ‘ s. «x ‘¢.,_c C) C ‘y r» - ~ v.‘“‘lr.~'_3 ' n HA J, 1 “5*“ PW. . _ "- r. I . ‘u‘ J ”Lu. t‘-, ‘ ‘ \ \ ‘ ‘xZL‘V Ahj‘ ' ~ 4 "“«Z’Cn- s.“ ‘r‘ . VJ P» - .. C e «yd _ r '\ ‘- " '-\ . . A.‘ \c‘ ‘ ‘ ”*3 ah:- a.- 44“ ..3 o‘,‘ s.iCJ 3‘ \- ~(. \4 40 values even though it was not the primary decision-making body. Site-based management theory proposes that increased participation and shared decision—making lead to better educational decisions and increased accountability. In practice, Smith learned that principal, faculty and parent collaboration motivated the participants to improve the learning environment. Finally, site-based management literature emphasizes the importance of both the principal's leadership and his/her role in advocating shared decision— making. Smith found that the data supported the proposal that "the principal provided the focus for school change and developed his authority through his effective leadership" (p. 200). Smith felt that site—based management provided the environment for principals "to make explicit and implement their own visions of good schools" (p. 203). According to Smith, site-based management gives freedom to people: The idea called 'school-based management' becomes what it is by the way it is used in a school. It can provide a perception of power for groups who care to improve their local site or entire system. It can also be nothing but words used without thought for their meanings. Rather than a product to be stamped onto a school, SBM is a loosely defined process to be suitably adapted by organizations searching for a motivating and effective governing system. The governing balance between central and local decision sites requires careful and continued attention from policy makers. SBM can be used to empower people to improve the climate of their school, to encourage independent thinking, and to put meaning into their work. . . . The potential of SBM for school improvement is found in the unutilized strengths of individuals who educate children. That includes the initiative in the leaders to create conditions for teaching and learning, the unused abilities of parents and community members, . . . and the skills of the teachers in direct contact with N" .C —H. A‘. h \ F U‘V‘ ‘ — y” . --.. .v- "" ' ~..4-~-" “ ,.~;r“ ". . «a? "“ ' . ..- . .‘....-~ - hi ' ‘._i, h . r,..~ ‘7 s‘-‘-4‘ ‘ _‘ . _\_ ,. . ~~aw§ y- H -'.\o A. . 7 ‘~Q‘— ' . .1... .. " ... ‘vb_. ' - . y. .-‘_ .‘ .... ‘ : y. ..p . ‘3 a ' V ‘ It‘s... - ;«-- - 7‘- ‘ ' ld-r -" ‘ -4L. H ..-: 4 ‘ \“ h‘ h-r‘ A ' a LA." .0 v-. "t: 3" r‘ V J‘ .‘I , . a , ., r I ~7- wk ... 1 . ' ‘ ‘ . l... .. “ ‘. v- ‘~. «8,. §‘ ‘ '- "V ~' — N; ‘ .t. q'\ ~ I,‘ ‘ .3 2“ ~.. " .-. in, f‘, -~.‘ :~:‘ ‘ ' 4‘ w'“ ‘ ‘l- 3" A a .1 .\ ' ~ . ~"‘ ._‘ Va _~‘\ 1. y fi"" "u x ’ ‘r‘ ... V .4. :«A ‘ . -~. . i._ -s ‘. ~. ‘ ~,_ 4.‘A" ~4.“~ \-v. 1 ea ' ‘ . 3‘ \ ‘... ‘v . ..~, “..\, ._.s." -.." \. --,.‘ p s.“ ‘ U“ 5 41 students. (pp. 207-208) To Smith, site—based management is a means to an end. Summary of Site-Based Management Literature and Studies A review of site-based management literature has been presented. In site—based management, the school is the primary unit of decision—making. Elements of site—based management include each school's authority to make budgetary, curricular and personnel decisions; shared decision-making; school-site councils; processes for procuring waivers from district or state regulations; and preparation of an annual report. These elements are derived from decentralization theory which advocates flexibility in decision-making, accountability and productivity. Site—based management literature is limited and includes three sources of written information: I) definitive articles and operations manuals, 2) reports and articles about school districts proposing and implementing site-based management, and 3) studies. Definitive articles, operations manuals, and proposal and implementational reports are useful for educators wanting to establish site—based management procedures. Site—based management studies described 1) site- based management as a management system, 2) attitudes about shared decision—making, 3) participants in site—based management, and 4) specific aspects of site-based management. Eight site—based management studies were presented and ”...er erg" ‘. a...a. .~-““' ‘.-.A.;-r_w;' v V 4..-.....v .A-AwJ ..-,,.-.y.-. ‘r‘ .A.....-..n._.~ --~ - -' ...-» v . ‘- t - -. ......h J... .4 .'~. .,.‘ ~ ...-.-.... ‘ ' ~u- .. ' '...\ . ~: ' ‘-~ . "v r ,_ a. .4 h. L N . - ... ‘ _ "‘.. AVA . 1.....- r - V‘““‘~ .... ' -PA ‘ .. '7- "' e ‘3‘., . '~ . ..v‘ - '. ‘os .. ‘~, ._ -u_ '\ '~~. - .. , ‘_’-\. “w; M.‘ r" .J-‘ y, 4.. “o - -. «g‘ .. ‘ ‘ e. I .- V' .‘ . y, ‘A . A s. _. - “’~ "‘3‘ L's - ' .._ ;.. .. ~§~p ‘_ In"‘ ..y ..v.. .n“ f»- . ~4 V‘. ) "<."‘. . “ «‘1 ‘« V i h «h V ‘A 5 'n \ “_ “ ~V~‘ ‘b‘N . .a v- “k . I r. .A~~ .- ~ :- N. ‘. ’. ‘4‘ ~. '1 v .5". \_ ,‘. ‘§. . o ~‘ -‘ ‘ . ‘l . ‘ '. N .‘- e .1 " u‘ \ ‘ . ‘l . . L- ‘ . V..‘ — -‘ ‘W . ‘ ._-. u \1 » h"‘s ‘ .. ~ D - v « x a. , "V W. . ‘kA 42 several trends in the results are noted. First, shared decision-making often did not occur because superintendents, administrators and school boards did not relinquish their decision-making authority. Second, school site councils functioned more as advisory groups than as decision—making groups. Lack of training in participative decision—making was a problem cited by several researchers. Third, unclear definitions and sketchy implementation plans created problems in the change from centralized to decentralized organizations. Fourth, most site—based managed schools did not make decisions about budgetary, curricular and personnel issues. Fifth, the implementation of site-based management depended on the principal's role as advocate or adversary of decentralization. Studies: Humanistic Organization Theory The purpose of this study was to define site—based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization theory. The literature on site-based management has been linked to three indicators of decentralization. These indicators are flexibility in decision—making, accountability and productivity. As the argument goes, decentralization demonstrates an effective use of human resources. Expectations of humanistic organization theory include improved decision-making due to increased employee .'- 43 participation in the decisions, responsible employee self—direction and control, and increased satisfaction. While site-based management literature is very limited, that is not the case when studying humanistic organization theory. Humanistic organization theory has developed from the work of McGregor, Argyris and Likert (Bolman and Deal, 1984). The employee is viewed as an innovative, responsible and valuable contributor to the organization. According to this model, it is the manager’s duty to foster the employee's talents by creating an encouraging work environment, by allowing participation in all levels of decision—making, and by ensuring that there are opportunities for self-direction and control in the workplace. The model's focal point is the quality of the decisions (Miles, 1965). The theory argues that when employees play a significant role in making decisions, those decisions will be better. A by-product of increased employee involvement will be improved performance and greater satisfaction. According to Perrow (1986), ”there is only a little empirical support for the human relations school" (p. 114). Historically, the main question in human relations studies was: What is the relationship between satisfaction and performance/productivity? Job satisfaction is defined as "the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the perception of one's job as fulfilling or allowing the fulfillment of one's important job values, providing these . .. x .‘I‘ 1““ . l ' I h—J H ..‘5 ~ -1 hr- 'v-' up 5- A A by) .1". ,,,.,.. . .. -o\ ..,~.'~ ,. ’ . .- .. .. - aid 51.... “2:3,. ¢.,_._ A "" .r-Ar . .— “"‘~ ......i._ ' p-y-Ar-.'-' ‘ - _, N >'."".a.._ . . h" ,r ~ VP ., .v~' .-_ "v~ ..‘ >- h .4 .._ _.‘ A" .._-- f-""' ... l ' 1. .- . _ .‘ ""' Ha- -'.-F~.' . A n‘ - ... .. “ ‘ I ~. . «.\ ' -. "- ~. v ““ ‘Vu ll 'I a. "f' _' ~, Q‘ 4. V‘nn“ ~‘F A“‘ AA ' H ‘r .‘ ,_....\ L o ‘V -. ‘§ ‘-u ..‘\ fr- 4“‘ L; 'v‘. - ‘V' v», .‘ ‘- >- -".4. . “‘~ "..., 5“ "~4- ~o. ’ I- 'a ‘V- ‘ "t q r '4‘ _ ‘4‘ \ , u- a_ I...‘ . J ‘1‘ 2v.' ‘- ‘K. ‘ . ‘ 5 »‘ a ‘ - ‘l‘d . v 1 n - a r" ‘ , - ‘ 1‘. - "- to_ ‘ . K- ‘~‘: ~- ..-‘ _. \ I» ‘ 1" _V,‘ - ‘ . ‘ .4 '1 .\ - ii- .~~"'p' ‘4 7-. v.“ ‘-¢ .“ ‘: .“.A Q. .- “v \ n’- "~- '~ d 44 values are compatible with one's needs" (Locke, 1983, p. 1342). Lawler and Porter (1980) and Ferrow (1986) summarized the literature on the relationship of satisfaction and performance. Early theorists felt that job satisfaction lead to greater productivity, but research did not support that theory. Vroom's study (1964) of satisfaction and performance found a consistent correlation between the two. However, more significantly, Vroom learned that satisfaction had more effect on attendance and turnover: satisfied employees had low absenteeism and little turnover. In a 1967 study, Lawler and Porter "showed that satisfaction depends on performance, but does not cause it," rather "satisfaction is caused by [performance]" (p. 277). Petty, McGee and Cavender (1984) concurred, but also concluded that dissatisfied employees tended to be less productive. The more researchers studied productivity and satisfaction, the more they realized that innumerable organizational variables affected the outcomes. Employee participation in decision—making was one such variable. And so, two new questions arose: What is the effect of participative decision-making on productivity (performance)? And, what is the effect of participative decision—making on satisfaction? Participative decision—making is defined by Locke and Schweiger (1979) as "participation in the process of reaching decisions" (p. 275). The content of the decisions varies as does the degree of participation from no "‘v“’-v»‘ ". - \ _ ..,._."‘_,_‘ ~., “~— . -... ' a a“..._,,_- . ..--,,‘.~ ‘ " “‘--..A. “ 'lr .. H "v. v '- "y‘x."" - fi ' \...-_‘~‘.‘.' ‘L' y 4‘ ‘ 'l I 4. . ‘v-‘ ”‘v.. , . ‘v‘l “' -V _ ._ I ., ’ ‘ — —~' -.. ‘7 “~.._‘—:.. “'6 t: \. 2"., ""'¢L.¢_, ... I N:- .[ "".‘_ V-u ~r—7' --... ~._ ‘ . ~ _ . - ~Awh ~ ‘ m . _“_. 7 ;‘—'_ w»- .‘ A “‘-‘~~‘ ‘ ~ . -., ‘h .- .‘I 1 “‘F_‘ . ‘ ‘, ._‘L: '- - ‘ “A. .i . ‘:v H N‘ ‘\ ‘o. 7‘ a -._ ... . “.. . .“V v; i‘d‘ «v. .4.~ ‘r . ‘.~I-.? ‘ ~ . '~ 5.7 s_.C. r. v- I — . ._ Ar .~ -‘vh . f .- .‘ "v‘ ‘I a u‘ r ' x. ‘ n .s._. . “ . ~‘,. 'u ~f‘ . ‘ ‘_’I‘ III" ‘ a“ ‘ -.~ , \ .~ \ "r’-‘ ' o u "' -.V “‘ ‘ ‘1 5‘ \ ‘.‘ ‘ . »‘ ‘ ‘. r . «‘- \ n~. ‘ .‘ ‘ I ‘1' F 45 participation to consultation to full participation. Ford, Armandi, and Heaton (1988) give several reasons for participation: People are satisfied when their opinions are valued; groups create more alternatives; participants understand the decisions and are less fearful; better communication occurs; participants are motivated and committed. These reasons were expanded by Miller and Monge (1986) who classified them as l) cognitive models of participation in which employees are valued for their expertise; participative decision-making leads to increased productivity; 2) affective models of participation in which the employees are motivated by their involvement; participative decision-making leads to satisfaction; and 3) contingency models of participation which "suggest that no single model of participation is appropriate for all employees in all organizations" (p. 733); the results of participation vary for each individual. Early critics of employee participation argued that "any structural arrangement that greatly increases the power of lower level participants may threaten the capacity of the organization to achieve its fundamental purpose" (Wexley and Yukl, 1977, p. 39). They felt that human relations theorists advocated an informal structure which "frequently results in role conflict and ambiguity for individuals, which in turn result in lower satisfaction and performance" (House and Kerr, 1973, p. 173). Mohr (1982) concluded that his research .4.._._. .. ’ I"... 2.. b"'.'. ’v. I I . “yo. -..r“ " ' . , ...... a 1" u - ”...;V . I . _ V- .' ‘ .- .- u”‘;r‘ N.-. ‘ ‘ A. J .-. __. ‘- . .. ‘. ~,, -4‘ . ..‘V. - I. . -( 1“ .— .- ..- y M" - I _ f—V‘. A V . ‘ .V-‘-‘ A 'n .v' ...i ' l h...‘ v. » . ‘ . 'r ‘ ..‘ ,.' 7‘ H ._‘ I .‘A ,_ ., ‘. .- ‘ ‘ "4‘-._ . I s .. _ ’ . a -' ~ I” - _ ‘( ‘ " 7'. I». K .‘. .-_. .“ . . ' .\‘ . _. - .2. 7' A r- I.” —V.. x n ‘ I . ._‘ .“ v.‘ .. “‘ .-.‘._ .,“" - . I V I . ._ ‘ .- '~.- 5“ . ‘ >- _ .~‘ '- -‘ .. ._r 4‘ .._ ‘ -’§. . . A. -' ‘ r o RV. L . ‘ ... .1 ‘ a . A” ‘ ' ~l~a~ ~__ '7 4 ~ b. _\ '\_ . ".- --"b—‘ h» \- ’1' . . 7. ’5 , .4- ._r -‘ .,‘ .‘ ‘3 § ,_‘| .‘~~ . (.4- ‘ v II .. -‘_ .. .. . a‘ v ’ -‘ N ‘. F‘ ‘4 \V‘ - ”.4 -,‘ <‘ . ‘ D ‘ - " ~$ k .' ... v, “¢L.. ~ . ._‘> ' .‘ -‘ -‘. ~— x. a ‘ d . . ‘0 ' — ‘-_.x v ‘ ':. K ‘ - ‘_ ‘ 46 "supports the . . . conclusion that the effect of participation on satisfaction, just as on employee performance, is unstable" (p. 141). However, other researchers found the opposite to be true. Regarding participation, productivity/ performance, and satisfaction, there have been several studies of studies. Filley, House and Kerr (1976) examined thirty-eight studies on participation. They found that shared decision-making lead to greater employee satisfaction and/or performance. Miller and Monge (1986) performed a meta-analysis of forty- one studies of the effect of participation on satisfaction (1953-1984) and twenty-five studies of the effect of participation on productivity (1939-1979). They concluded that "participation has an effect both on satisfaction and productivity. [The] analysis indicates specific organizational factors that may enhance or constrain the effect of participation" (p. 746). Locke and Schweiger (1979) examined seventy-five studies of participative and directive management. They concluded that neither is better than the other when considering productivity, but participative management was better than directive when considering satisfaction. In general, researchers agree that participative management positively affects both productivity and satisfaction. Most research about participation, productivity and satisfaction occurs in private sector organizations, but A "‘ ,7 .. .— ",~ . ' ...» J I . ...;r: 2’ ‘ .. ..A-fi* "‘ J . ... -'\ "" " < A - ‘ “ -JJ-J.- ‘ .,‘-Ar0 '7’. “.I“-A<. -vlr‘v 'L: ,- . r. . A..d-'\u .0- -u_ ‘ ‘,,- . -. ~-‘ .7 h .......1 .. _ -.. . , 4..._.‘. .. . .,\ .. - 'b—I.< ... " v..4~4, I "'I. 1 . 7". ‘ 7'--.--.‘. " A _ . "‘.‘~Q.., —' .. .. *..,' ~ «7 'W ‘ .-‘_ — L‘ .2; ,‘ ‘ - ..- . ,_ - ~'. 'v.‘_ " I -,.- a _rs. . -__‘ " ‘-‘-§| :-u .. '9 ~45 . ' ‘xa . \ h. .’ ..‘ .h V . ~~“~ ' V k‘s . ;~v. " x -.k‘ ' - .-. ~ . \- ' - 's. N... . ... o -- \4“ u- vv .- I. ‘5 n“‘ .r "¢\' ..V u. «h, Lo. " I ‘r- . ~’ a- .“|- 'l .s.‘ ... *7 . ‘ ~ 7'- ‘~ ‘ 4 "‘ —"‘- -,. .. 'I, ‘7‘ ‘s ‘a l -",V ‘ ‘ i ¢ .. . \‘ ' 'Q . I ._ 4 ’- \ "I t“ \ .A “n~ A \4 » , . . P K,‘ t. u \~ 4~ . \~ .- ,. ~V‘ ‘4 . \_ \V-V.‘ -‘ '. “' .I “. .‘sh -,~.'>_ ~. ‘-" 47 there have been studies in educational organizations. Duke, Showers and Imber (1981) examined studies of participation and educational decision—making and found support for the argument that teacher participation in decision-making results in higher job satisfaction. However, they also learned, from other studies, that 1) non—participative decision-making resulted in increased job satisfaction and 2) increased job satisfaction resulted when teachers participated in certain decisions and not others. These conclusions are supported by Conway (1984) who also examined similar educational studies. He found that proponents of educational shared decision-making promote the myth that Participation in organizational decisions increases satisfaction with the organization and the job. Although the cumulation of studies tends to support this proposition, there still occurs about one in three empirical studies that does not confirm the proposition. Satisfaction is a function of the type of decision that participants are involved in as well as their degree of involvement. Too much participation detracts rather than contributes. (p. 32) Neither is participative decision—making limited to school personnel only. Several studies (Comer, 1980; Jenni and Mauriel, 1990; Tangri and Moles, 1987) of parental involvement in shared decision—making and their satisfaction with the school indicate a positive relationship. In business, productivity is more easily measured than it is in education. Educational productivity concentrates primarily, but not exclusively, on improved student achievement, but it is difficult to relate achievement to any "J --:r‘_" ... I“ ... 4L...- ~ :rw (v \A u-.».A k~ - , . p .. ... r \ ‘ r-a H . ...a-..u -... “~--\,-' -A ...- - s 9 a. ¢.~~~.4-» ..a ...» v----r~p~ .. . ‘HFI wv» .. ...-u..u-sv ._ "-A.. A 7 .. ~V': v» ?’ ...s...v..- -... “-".:‘Y"~.. 4 "“‘o~.kA -.. .... . 'V-, l. _‘ "“- 4.. ‘ A..";_ ...r ‘ ._ .. '\ "8r ., . ‘\ <- “‘-c-a ‘ "‘P ’r .. ._,_ 4 ‘V 2 ‘ .a..‘ ._h ~.""‘ 'v‘_-_. v_ _ I .7 -\ ..’v ,. ... v ‘.‘~ ... ‘; r "s.~» a» ‘ ~~ .. '1, ~.'Vvv A. . “um: 'P . «.A“‘ .‘A ‘ 5-: .O . —‘_‘ ‘ -... . y _ p-.. _ 4. .- - ‘O ‘-u. "‘ -‘. 7» v» ~‘fA- . ‘. -~7-\,_ ”'4. ...v5 --. . ‘H .'fl. v“"" _’ “J -., .... K “ . 4‘- w." . ‘ ‘4‘ a -.4‘ -.‘A‘ . . ., v- 'V‘» ' u“ ...'> ”N. V‘ ‘ \ 1'. L.‘-. ‘v, ‘4' , N .‘ ., ‘ ‘M '- «H‘ .i‘ 48 one variable. An examination of educational shared decision— making and productivity by Conway (1984) highlighted two studies. One examined increased teacher participation in decision—making and increased teaching quality. The researchers learned that students regarded as effective teachers those "who were freed to teach rather than attend to administrative tasks, yet who were still consulted on issues that directly concerned the classrooms" (p. 29). Teachers who were more participative in decision—making were not rated as highly. In the second study of high teacher participation in high and average achieving schools (based on standardized testing), researchers found that there was no significant difference between the two. Conway wrote that "the cumulative evidence at this point in time seems . . . to indicate that mid-level participation is probably desirable for both effective teaching and student achievement" (p. 29). And Duke, Showers and Imber (1981) recommended that researchers locate "schools . . . in which teachers are involved in making school-level decisions and conduct longitudinal research on the relationship between teacher involvement and school outcomes" (p. 347). Summary of Studies of Humanistic Organization Theory A review of human relations literature has been presented. Humanistic organization theory views the employee as an innovative, responsible and valuable contributor to the (I) .. ..., .._‘ ‘ s. L; __;r a. , a v... -4 .‘v .‘ .u ”'- vn . y. " s ‘u . 'J ‘u 'n. y. “~. .— ‘. .',_, .,‘_‘_' ‘. .‘w ‘ “4 \ ._ V s... 's . ‘ N '. ‘a . a. ‘- -v. .'. ~ .,‘ ‘. e. “s _‘ ~. ‘. -\- ...-. 49 organization. The manager fosters the employee's talents by creating an encouraging work environment, by allowing participation in decision—making, and by providing opportunities for self—direction and control. Theorists contend that increased employee involvement will result in improved performance and greater satisfaction. Studies of the relationship of job satisfaction and performance indicated that better performance leads to increased job satisfaction. Participative decision-making and its relationship to satisfaction and productivity have been examined by numerous researchers. In general, they agreed that participative management positively affected both productivity and satisfaction. In educational organizations, the results were not as conclusive since there were studies supporting the positive relationship of teacher participation and job satisfaction as well as studies which questioned it. The latter studies raised issues about the degree of teacher involvement and the kinds of decisions they consider. Studies of teacher participation and improved productivity indicated that selective participation, rather than total participation, may result in improved teaching and/or student achievement. Authors encouraged continued research of these topics. Descriptive Studies; Elementary School Practices The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic .. ‘4‘, .‘V \ . ...,p ‘ .. _ ‘9 ".'=.\..u.l . . . .n..n ‘y‘ ’7-.. ‘ 1‘“- .A -O~-.- . .. .I, A “ \ ‘I-~ I» w. v1! . ~;:.,.r.,,,; . a.~u..L,.I .- . - -o ....-- .. ‘ - I u-Nx" ... _ -‘.¢.~u4.v J __. . ' .4 K _ V- "' I. av ‘v .‘Upr“‘ u 4“ . - -"I d d ‘ ... ‘.'. “..., _ _~‘. I "ua‘ _ . \ ‘ a '. ""w... .-. . -. ,‘ .. . -.,_ .._,A 4- g [.7 " ... « . v“‘--. . a .‘ r~ ‘ - ~ -".£.“\ .r v ..“"le b "“2.’ -- - r~ ’ ..~.“ ..-. \ "vr-,A ~.\ k 'N ~- c ‘ ‘f’xc a. 'R a .r.. ‘N ‘ '--._ x (7‘ -y L . . . ." " .... “as‘”' r "-.-‘. k7 s .1 " - '-., -4 ~ '. “ « ;-,- .‘~ FA‘A ‘ w L ‘\ '- “V~‘k‘,c‘ ' A 0‘. ~h' " ‘ ..A. I‘Ca_,: ‘— ‘bq‘v. '- . ._‘ . -..-: .~.A_. y"‘~44 Hr. "'.. ‘- -. . ... .4. §,' ‘ I. *1 d' ' -r -. ""ng .‘ ' _ ‘v ’V '. "‘1.‘ .' -o,~ A ‘\‘P, ‘ u . -" L? ~ "' r. ' r .... ~- .iv. '. ~ .,~ ‘ A V a. “u; .“ ‘ I -‘ 50 elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization theory. To do so, this study was a descriptive field study. Since descriptive field studies attempt to collect all the necessary details to provide a complete picture of a particular group, activity, or situation (Jones, 1985; True, 1989), a review of descriptive field studies of elementary schools will be presented. One study of a North American Indian residential school was conducted by King (1964) for his doctoral dissertation. He believed that Indian schools provided the opportunity for the dominant white society to impose its educational and social norms on the subordinate Indian society. Therefore, his purpose was to discover what "actually happens at Indian schools" (p. 1) especially regarding communication and interaction patterns. The school was comprised of one hundred sixteen students, beginners through grade four; it was possible for students to attend the school into their teen years. For one year, King became a full-time teacher at the school and moved, with his family, into the local community. As a participant observer, he collected data by conducting informal interviews, reviewing standardized test results, administering questionnaires and keeping an extensive journal of events, interactions and personal histories. Through his experience, King learned 1) that there was little communication or common understanding of n 1“ ""';,v 0 - l ... .-.. ~."‘~\r’rr r a... _. H .— . 'h 7 . ‘_.‘v r~‘ ‘ ""“M- .A \'s K “ V». .. “ .4 ! 'v 51 either white culture by Indian citizens or Indian culture by white citizens; 2) that the school organization was structured according to white societal norms rather than Indian norms; and 3) the school was a microcosm of larger society: white society dominates and Indian society adapts. Another field study of an Indian school was done by ethnographer, H.F. Wolcott, in 1967. This case study described how the formal educational system provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs often conflicted with the Indian culture's more informal system. The study occurred in a day school for Indian children who lived outside the village of Kwakiutl; the school employed six teachers. Like King, Wolcott became a full-time teacher because he felt that the "teacher role gives the fieldworker legitimate areas of inquiry among parents, particularly regarding expectations and hopes they hold for their children and how they expect the school to help" (p. 5). He kept a journal which included conversations, personal reactions, interactions, and travel experiences. As part of their classwork, students were asked to write daily journal entries from which Wolcott learned much about Indian culture and activities. In school, Wolcott kept a record of personal observations, devised sociograms, and examined standardized test results, attendance records, correspondences and publications. His research resulted in a description of the villagers' attitudes about education, the relationships between parents and teachers, the students' ( . . . x. .. .. .. . . . . . I .q 7‘ .3 r1 ... r“ v. .. _ . ... ..1 .. T L. . r. o. p“ «4. L, ... e. .. . «H .2. a. _. r. ... ... ... e. .C a s. _. .. ... L. . r“ .. . .... 3. ... y. .2 .. .3 r. .T .. .. . . e. s c r, . L. _ r. L. ;_ a. v. r. 4.. 1‘ _. s). L. .4 .. s. .1. r.. . . ... ... ... '. ... L. .c L. ..c L. .. is ’. vs w». .... .1. . c. L. r. ..y r“ .. .. .. r. ... .rc rx «1 I. .. wa. .. .. )~. ~a r. a r . .A . v r. ... .a c «\v 7‘ 1 .h. a. o . L. .. .. p . ... . ... . . . .ai .v .. . I» » u L. h v 1 v .. . q . “ ... ... r.. .v . . .. p. w. .. 4 .. .... .. v~ .... .. .. . ... .. ... .. .. .. aw . .4 . . ~ '1 ... .a . . ... .... .4. .. .u. a . ~. .~. . ‘ s ‘ ... .y. .4 . . . , 1. he 52 attitudes about teachers and about their own roles as students, and the students' classroom behavior. Ethnographic research in selected urban, elementary classrooms was done by Moore (1967) so that outsiders could experience urban classrooms first-hand and overcome the culture shock which often occurs. He organized teams of observers in several schools; the teams spent at least one day in each classroom of a given grade. Moore valued this type of research because the science of man must start with detailed observations of action itself. Then the investigator, after patient recording of the action and identification of the actors, may attempt to find an explanation for the behavior which he has observed. (p. 2) The observers described the classroom environment and recorded teacher and student actions, conversations and activities. Moore compiled the research into a book which detailed urban student life and educational processes. Through it, he encouraged new urban teachers 1) to challenge and stretch their own cultural beliefs and 2) to become anthropologists, willing to continue to learn others' ways. Another urban, elementary school field study (Rist, 1973) attempted "to show that the system of public education in the United States is specifically designed to aid the perpetuation of the social and economic inequalities found within the society" (p. 2). The study was longitudinal and occurred over a period of two and one—half years. The researcher was a participant and non—participant observer of . wr‘ nr . Au "|""'u'~d~ . F I _, :..~......-...... . ,. . ..., .. "A; ! ‘.—~I\. .. ....” u e- ‘0 u. A. ".‘. '\ fi .4 ."...Uw I‘D.) ’ I ‘ 7.,x.,‘ “ -. ~.— . ." ~-... J u, . H“"'“"I‘r- ’v ._ ‘ ‘ '~‘ ‘ ""vlt\_, .4. l" .r‘- r.; .' ' ~...' ~\ In.‘ ‘L~v .-J .0- .1- . . . "-'. 7 9.. _‘ ' d 5- ...u. v, .".'4 PM. _ --.: A"! x, ‘ u...» -..; ,. 4‘ ... .,_l -- ,. ~ - r "‘-.. ‘ _ \ , 7“ "“A . "uu. .“ ‘r- - 7.“ _»~‘ \ -‘-‘K“~ A . a ‘s- , “‘~""b‘ ‘. ‘,. .‘ I- ‘, '-.. ~" 6. ~.._ .‘r. . "'V ‘ v.‘ 5'“ ,_ V H a H‘ .,_A_ s...‘ \'>“' ‘ ‘s V ...- ... ~‘d- LU. . ... _ . "-w_ .‘-1' - ' "~- . 'l‘v 1. . .. "rp’ . ..- --4 v 4 —. ho..- ‘ .v . .... '. . p- ‘-._ L1 .' ‘Q ‘4 -. ‘- -‘ ‘ . v. '\ -‘. v p. . p ‘N C. t V A . i .‘h 3 ‘ . V. N . ' ~- «.. , ‘a. \ ' ( . ’u.. ’A - “e p" ‘_ 'w r" *4 .A ‘ K ( ‘, -*.‘ ~ 4 ‘ ‘ "a ~fi_~r‘. a ‘45 Q -‘ ... .— , ‘ ' F “ ~fi’l'v-- '4‘ .. . 'J " ‘ c . C. o s v‘ 53 a group of black children's school, home and peer experiences. For the first year, he observed kindergartners twice a week. He visited these same children when they were in first grade, but did not observe them again until they were second graders. Rist made formal notes after the observations and visitations; he ate lunch with the faculty and observed their conversations; he attended parent meetings, field trips, school assemblies; he was present for student medical exams, library periods, speech classes, lunch recess and change of class; he interviewed administrators, teachers and parents; and he visited children at home and participated in some of their leisure and sports activities. Through the study, Rist found that teachers gave deferential treatment to students expected to do well and this deference followed the children from grade to grade. In essence, the school created a caste system based on achievement or expectations of achievement (p. 91). These elementary school children learned that, like society, the middle class controlled the poor and the poor, in turn, adapted to the control. In the same vein, Ogbu (1974) undertook an extensive field study of minority children in which he argued that minorities failed in school because they were both reacting to and adapting to the limited opportunities "to benefit from their education" (p. 12). In other words, parents and students felt their job Opportunities were not commensurate 54 with their education, so there was no need to perform well in school. The study examined more than elementary school practices, but only that portion is presented here. The field research techniques included 1) visitations at churches, group meetings and activities, and homes in order to build rapport; 2) detailed surveys about parental educational achievement; 3) intensive taped interviews of entire families and less detailed student and other adult interviews; 4) meeting attendance and review of pertinent documents. In each elementary, junior and senior high school, Ogbu interviewed and observed students; examined records, reports, school board minutes, bulletins and memos; and attended meetings. The researcher learned that this minority group failed in school because "they are not serious about their schoolwork, and therefore make no serious effort to try to succeed in school" since they ”see a lack of opportunities for them to get good jobs with good wages when they finish school" (p. 97). Ogbu believed that the schools fostered this attitude when he identified a communication gap between the non-minority teachers and the school community: each group stereotyped the other and the educators neither understood the minority culture nor believed in the students' educational abilities. Finally, Ogbu discovered that the schools' guidance and counselling techniques provided inadequate and improper educational counselling which reinforced and severely limited the students' "long-range 55 educational and occupational goals" (p. 191). A field study of a rural elementary school (Johnson, 1985) described the social and cultural life of pre-school through sixth grade students. The researcher argued that the classroom is the place where children become members of a society which conditions them socially and culturally for their places in the larger society. Because children must adapt to a classroom way of life, Johnson referred to this adaptation as conditioning. By describing the entire culture of the school, from physical arrangements to personal interactions, the author showed how the elements of conditioning were always present and exerting pressure on the students to behave accordingly. He employed two methods of field research: minimal participation and observation. He observed each classroom for at least three days, described classroom events and activities, and kept frequency distributions on them. Johnson found that the school taught children to live in larger society through the following processes: First, students participated in a stratified society with specific initiation practices and rites of passage. Second, this stratified society valued, at different times, compliance, nurturance, competition, cooperation, independence and interdependence; the students either followed the norms or rejected them. Finally, even though schools have the power to condition children to many levels and kinds of cultures, this school immersed its ~ C , w ‘ .'_ J _.¢¢-«»vd . ... A ..~ Dr _ ~~r ._ A -.oJ. ----.‘-‘~ . . -A -v--‘ v.# . s 4 . - d.‘.\. J. _‘ . *O”' .';4~ 1“...“ v...,. . _ . r-p ., 'F‘ . .-V...... ’ 'N‘v- .. , 1‘ I1 ”r 1‘ ““" -~-a... , '.'. ;>-~,-,., r ' -'.--.—--‘.-1‘L A ‘r'a>.“~ ‘ , ' n-\ r o ..-...v_‘ -. .,, ‘ -vv. , -“va..7‘ . 2 ., _‘ ‘~ H~ r_, . 'w.‘ .u , r~s,. ‘* “' "“ o - -,_~_ ~ . A . .__L - ....'_‘ '-..."-—\I ~' .- — .‘I_ - 7‘ - " .._§~ .r ‘ r A. A . ‘O. -V‘A ....~ _v_~,~’ --‘ .... ..v » . -.>v. . q " ‘-.4 —.’ . _. A ‘A‘ ‘ ~ .: .";N -M. ,.. "4 “Ir? -. . . . _ n“ ‘. V a, u“). Lt-v->.. .. ‘ .A. ‘ ‘A . "' '. ~ ‘ ”:‘\"rr ‘ VV-o. I‘> ‘ , ‘u .._ l A ,. Av“; r'. -L. §‘.‘ ‘~‘c 'I- ‘* h-‘l‘ - “v r‘ 9 u ‘ 1 ~_ 5. ~‘ . .. § N e‘ . I. _ ‘2 ‘ 4 .b ‘4 II ".~b.\‘ i‘: ‘l. ‘ ‘7 «... ‘I v “ 5 N‘» V. ‘,' ‘-, A . 3' -‘ .4 .'.-~ ‘0. A .‘1. 56 students in a national, rather than local, culture. Johnson concluded that the school reflected the larger society's values and beliefs and trained its students to function within them. Peshkin (1986) conducted a field study of a fundamentalist elementary Christian school and examined the relationship between religious belief and educational practices in fundamentalist schools. To do so, he and two assistants became participant observers. For nine months, all three researchers observed the community, conducted written and taped interviews, attended meetings and activities, and administered questionnaires to students, teachers and parents. During the week, Peshkin lived with a charter-member family. As a result of the research, Peshkin learned that the school noticeably displayed, conveyed, and demanded expression of fundamentalist doctrine. Since this doctrine permeated everything, the researcher concluded that school personnel taught students to be intolerant of anyone with views opposite to theirs. Peshkin also felt that the school was a total institution characterized by separation, control and totality of life. Finally, he concluded that the students received a moral education, but he questioned whether or not they shared and appreciated other people's diversity, cultures and belief systems. Smith's doctoral research (1985) on site—based management was presented as a case study and was described . .. ,,.,.. _ . ~ " I“! '07 ‘flv V ‘ ...,- -' ~~ .> ‘ ‘ ~.~. ..- unvvvfi‘ V ’ ..... 1.: ..., . L'OI'U. v ‘- f- '-- up - .r' 'uu—q' ... -. ..4.-.» 1-... ~“-r‘r> 7, .-.-...”, _. ‘ A ‘r- ..~. -7 ‘ . ' “ \ x -n “‘"U. u.»J ‘ . v . . . .,-_ -v-». ,_ --.. dJ-u‘ . L :~r.- _r . > ... ....,'- 5. - ~.. ".zr —. ., “ k,‘ “ ._.' ‘~.. — _.V‘_-\. V N ' .. ‘hh ‘ . "" ., .., _ _ ... ‘\o . _" 7 ...-.4'v. g , ’rl"- x ‘v- L-‘. .- .. V. ' "“'-<‘, s- . ' v: , a 1 N, ~ ‘ 0 ~\ ». v .,\_ .. .._ ‘w _ ~ .....‘_ ,a.‘: y: "r g .‘ \« I" r " l a ‘ 5 ~— \—, ~V‘y _ ‘7 . I‘V ‘ ‘- fl - 8. ~'v~ “. ‘..s L5 V Q ‘-l. f~ ‘1- ‘ ”5—. ‘i . A‘. ._ r~ . v. v . .‘_ ~$~‘~"s ~ V‘“-. ~‘r . \ 1 'V~‘VA. - F ‘ N'A- .‘ g '- v fl ¢¥ ~ " a n ._. H.‘ v ‘ ‘s \‘. "' y - “4 s..'\l ‘ -v ‘ ‘ \ “t 'V K ‘4 ~‘ ._, \l Vs \ ,_ ‘4 »._.‘ _ ‘ . 'V a ... . a N- hr ~ It - 4‘ ‘ L. a ‘_ ‘. .‘ " ‘-‘-“ ‘.‘ I thl ‘7- ‘”L y x .. s ~ D “1 7._ , u \ ‘y " ‘ “o , 4 .. », ‘ 7' ‘ A 57 above. However, she used field research methods in one Boston elementary school to collect her data about the school's implementation of site-based management. The research methods included interviews, observations and participant observations, questionnaires, surveys, document analysis and informal discussions. The study was conducted from June 1982 to June 1983 with the researcher visiting the school one to four times each week. While Smith observed a number of the school's aspects, she concentrated on "how site-based management implementation . . . influenced the interactions among staff, community, and principal and among principal, central office employees, and policy makers" (p. 7). As mentioned above, Smith concluded that site-based management is an organizational technique useful for those educators who believe in its concepts. Summary of Descriptive Studies of Elementary School Practices A review of eight descriptive studies of elementary school practices has been presented. The aim of this section was to present the field research methods used by the researchers rather than to present detailed descriptions of their studies' arguments and results. Since descriptive field studies attempt to collect all the necessary details to provide a complete picture of a particular group, activity or situation, the researchers used a variety of data—collecting methods including formal and informal interviews, document ~7~r ....a..¢-~ 58 and test data review, questionnaires, journal-keeping, and collecting select quantitative data. They collected data as observers and/or participant observers in classrooms and faculty lounges, at meetings and formal and informal activities, and at homes and recreational events. Several researchers participated by becoming teachers in the schools and/or members of the local community. To varying degrees, the researchers immersed themselves in the schools' communities in an attempt to capture the true picture of what occurred there. Chapter Summary The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. Three bodies of literature pertaining to this research have been presented: 1) literature and studies about site-based management, 2) studies of humanistic organization theory, and 3) descriptive studies of elementary school practices. In site-based management, the school is the primary unit of decision-making. Elements of site—based management include each school's authority to make budgetary, curricular and personnel decisions; shared decision—making; school-site councils; processes for procuring waivers from district or state regulations; and preparation of an annual report. The ‘v‘ '....—,~> ~. -\~. '. 9“ . ...“- nr: w'\ A ‘ ‘ .4. .4 .....p ‘ -‘ ‘7“ ......‘,-~_‘. ’ ‘ n \-~ a»..\..~-~ ---~'~ :.o. r -l .1 o . -...‘ .40... -. . .. y ‘7 7 !~ \-v .4» -_ '. o 'I'~r-‘ _' .. .- -.....a __ - 1 P" ' éab ""“I 4- --..... ‘ "t« ‘ V... _1 y~, , ’ ""vv.‘ L‘ _. ‘ fiv-">', ‘ . H-d' "A.-t ‘ 'r-. ‘ ‘ . N . , .....,_V 1.7‘ ‘ w , > > - .,\ """u.," ‘ - .1..." 7‘ , '-.,_,_, .. .. ‘ on v ‘ > ‘N-.. ‘ r - ‘ ’ ._.v- . 5., .-__“I ‘ . . . -"~."‘ ..‘. Z _ .“_' "'-. “‘ “‘~._ “'Ii 5‘ r “‘ " . -'. - "‘ ~- .“"g‘.“r .. -—‘.. ‘- ~ .~ . - K“ v. . «. ‘*~.‘: r “‘~n1 Lr», ru‘w ~;"\. \ “‘AL 5-. V O ’1J,‘ . “ ‘ ‘ A ‘s w -‘ La" ‘7‘-. -v.‘ ... ~4.‘ .“_ “\-“‘r"‘ "3:, II a . . ‘\ a . "- ‘:.s. V‘ 1 .A L.‘ 'R -“ \ H.‘ ¢~-, 'n N. . s. x. ’- .‘ . J‘H -‘p‘ \_ .A‘ .r v- \ .‘ v H “V‘ -.- . 5‘ 'l ‘\ («‘g 3-. .- .. '. ~ , ‘. u..N"‘ ~* 'u‘ x ‘t b."- ‘v I~ \~‘u A: .‘ , ‘ ‘\ C, ‘ 1‘ ' \“‘ ) U 59 research on site—based management identified several trends. First, shared decision—making often did not occur because decision-making personnel did not relinquish their decision— making authority. Second, school site councils functioned more as advisory groups than as decision—making groups. Lack of training in participative decision-making was a problem. Third, unclear definitions and sketchy implementation plans created problems in the change from centralized to decentralized organizations. Fourth, most site—based managed schools did not make budgetary, curricular and personnel decisions. Fifth, the implementation of site-based management depended on the principal's role as advocate or adversary of decentralization. Humanistic organization theory views the employee as an innovative, responsible and valuable contributor to the organization. Studies of the relationship of job satisfaction and performance indicated that better performance leads to increased job satisfaction. Research indicated that participative decision-making positively affected both productivity and satisfaction. In educational organizations, the results were not as conclusive since there were studies supporting the positive relationship of teacher participation and job satisfaction as well as studies which questioned it. The latter studies raised issues about the degree of teacher involvement and the kinds of decisions they make. Studies of teacher participation and improved ,. - ..J . ....---- . ~.~ ’ _. ‘ .‘ ~ ‘ ‘ .1- ‘-.‘~~ ..--l ’."lv‘a,,: _‘ .. ' A“! ...... ‘ ._ '. ' ' f a ...A _ -. . I, ‘ ‘NV— ~. -_~_.v ..."n l. ' .a a V7 __Va~'.\ 1“ ‘ -“' -.. “r~.. ‘7‘ 'r‘ - ‘1 '. ‘. ‘— ‘ -.. "“'-. A - t ‘ \H“N -..vy. V7.“ ’ I ~.\vv_7: .P “ I‘ ‘~ ‘14 -‘ ~~ Pu". V ‘l“‘—l ' . . r ' . “‘3'“? 4.. q .. . —A'\v ‘ "~ r... A'- u‘" I “ w - ... .. ..’ ~ - ‘ '~» " 4" ..." a ' -o,_' ‘ ""A‘I . l‘ . ..." \ . v , Q It“ a 'V- . -..‘ \. ~"'~. . . '~‘ .._ - -_ ‘. ~.v.-.,A . . ‘x ...v _‘_ A ‘4 -‘ A ,~—r—‘~ .-.; -,_, .‘v‘ ‘ _ -. “‘k .0 ' \V A‘ .‘ g .. ~. '\ ‘4. . ‘5‘ ‘ u“ Rv‘r“ “*9 I. .“ r. "" .2.‘ A‘ ‘ ‘.- .~‘ ‘. 1‘ ’ 60 productivity indicated that select participation, rather than total participation, may result in improved teaching and/or student achievement. A review of descriptive studies of elementary school practices indicated that researchers used a variety of data- collecting methods to provide a complete picture of the groups studied. The methods included formal and informal interviews, document and test data review, questionnaires, journal—keeping, and collecting select quantitative data. Researchers collected data as observers and/or participant observers in classrooms and faculty lounges, at meetings and formal and informal activities, and at homes and recreational events. Several researchers participated by becoming teachers in the schools and/or members of the local community. In general, school—based management researchers describe, analyze and evaluate components of site—based management. And Smith (1985) examined one elementary school's implementation of site-based management and compared actual practice to site-based management theory. However, no researcher defines site-based management as it is operationalized in schools. That is the primary purpose of this study. Humanistic organization theory encourages employee involvement in decision-making. The literature indicates that there is a relationship between participation, job '4. I). ~~r~ H“ \ ....-.4» ...,- .. . A .— ...4...4~4-‘ “".79 b u— ' A-vvtvvh u m . ...-.. - .-,- .... 1!! I 1 cu. ...A ~ ... - _ - -R. . .. -n- - 1‘ ~>< ‘fi‘hl - ,_ v -. 7" . ._ . .1, r‘* ‘— ... - ..1. "r-«. L.V,. -rr.7., -L_ ' T‘ ‘ ‘x. “r7 ' -L': s:‘ ' . “-. R . a 'g- u u’ 61 satisfaction and productivity, though this is not as conclusive in studies of teachers. Because site-based management is a governance structure which encourages decentralized decision—making, the second purpose of this study is to examine how the Operationalization of site—based management exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. The research indicates that descriptive field studies of schools provide a description of events. Therefore, this is a descriptive study of two Catholic elementary schools. Its purpose is to define site—based management as it operates or fails to operate in these schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to describe and explain two actual cases of site-based management. The purpose was also to explain how these cases exhibited the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization theory using select indicators from these theories. To do so, a descriptive field study was undertaken. Theoretical Framework Descriptive field studies attempt to collect all the necessary details to provide a complete picture of a particular group, activity, or situation (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984; Jones, 1985; True, 1989). The researchers' roles are as participants which enable them to understand the phenomenon under investigation (Firestone, 1987) by engaging in the group, activity or situation. One method of participation is that of complete observer in which researchers do not interact with "informants" but observe them in their setting (Gold, 1957). As complete observers, researchers are detached from the activity and record and analyze what is observed. They observe the situation and 62 Aw A’ ...-‘r ..- .v'---' at «...: ‘r‘ nun .-vv' «3 Se '5’ any- ....‘ ...A A ‘V‘ '5 ., ,. v.A~-~ \r .4... v. ... 2‘ ._ e . .. .3 . 1; . . rk r- 24 ... 5 . v.1 'k. ‘— 2. . . ~ . ... ... x _. VA. . . s . n. .4« r1. v. ‘ v . 1 ... .. . a L. .I \ § ‘4 PM AA; ..fl .. . L. .. .u.. .w. s . 7. P4. .. . a: a 2.. u ‘ ... .. v. v. C. 4 . . . I ... . . . . . . a . - Q 7‘ ’5. . V v.. ... . . ... . ..- k.\ a-_ n .. 63 remain emotionally uninvolved in it (Borg and Gall, 1989). However, Goetz and LeCompte (1984) observed that this "dispassionate observer . . . acquires some role and status and becomes, to some extent, a participant, [which] need not be a liability" as long as the "consequences of being a participant" are noted (p. 143). While observing, researchers may raise questions which require clarification by the respondents (Gold, 1957); they may then schedule unstructured interviews which allow adaptability by both researcher and respondent (True, 1989). Another data source in field research is the semi-structured interview comprised of questions which guide researchers while still allowing them to probe (True, 1989). The semi— structured interview is objective, but enables researchers to explore the respondents' opinions and behaviors (Borg and Gall, 1989; Jones, 1985). In order to present an accurate description, field researchers may also collect quantitative data through closed-ended questionnaires and document analysis. Closed- ended questionnaires require specific answers and are easily tabulated and analyzed (Borg and Gall, 1989). Document analysis enables researchers to examine written materials in an objective and systematic manner and to substantiate data gathered from observations and interviews (Borg and Gall, 1989, Goetz and LeCompte, 1984). By using both qualitative and quantitative data, field 64 researchers combine "methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon" (Denzin, 1978, p. 291). Through this process of triangulation, researchers have more confidence in the results and uncover the deviance in the phenomenon (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984; Jick, 1984). Jick indicates that replication is a major drawback of triangulation. Sample size is important in field research and quite often the sample is limited to one or two sources (Mintzberg, 1984). However, Glaser and Strauss (1967) indicate "that if the relationship holds for one group under certain conditions, it will probably hold for other groups under the same conditions" (p. 106). Mintzberg (1984) concurs, In our work we have always found that simpler, more direct methodologies have yielded more useful results. What is wrong with samples of one? Why should researchers have to apologize for them? Should Piaget apologize for studying his own children, a physicist for splitting only one atom? (P. 315) In the Review of Literature (Chapter II), eight field studies were described in some detail. The researchers employed various combinations of qualitative and quantitative research techniques to procure data. The researchers tried to present a true picture of each situation. Table 1 summarizes the field methods of six researchers and, with one exception, depicts the process of triangulation. These researchers were selected because, like the author of this study, they were complete observers, not participant observers. )/-- ‘fif .15,‘ Table 1 Field Methods of Six Select Researchers 65 Acting as Complete Observers Researcher Study Sample Size Methods Used Moore (1967) Rist (1973) Ogbu (1977) Johnson (1985) Smith (1985) Peshkin (1986) Urban Classrooms Three elementary schools Societal Inequality One elementary school Minority Failures One elementary, one junior high, one senior high school Rural Schools One elementary school School—based Management One elementary school Fundamentalist Schools One elementary school Teams of observers Observer Participant observer Interviews Observer Interviews Surveys Document analysis Observer Participant observer Observer Participant observer Interviews Surveys Document analysis Observer Participant observer Interviews Questionnaires 66 Exploratory Questions The intent of this study was to describe two actual cases of site-based management using select indicators from humanistic organization theory and decentralization theory. The indicators were flexibility in decision-making, productivity, accountability, decision-making and performance, responsible self-direction and control, and satisfaction. The research was guided by the following questions: 1. How is site-based management operationalized in these two schools? 2. What are the variations of decentralization relative to: a. Flexibility in decision—making b. Accountability c. Productivity 3. What are the variations of humanistic organization theory relative to: a. Decisions and performance b. Staff self—direction and control c. Satisfaction 4. What trends exist on the following school outcomes: a. Student achievement b. Teacher effort/commitment c. Satisfaction: Parent, student d. Attendance: Teacher, student 4D . o .o *0 ~ “-~ u-a ~-~¢ . _,.A ». ~- - r- _. ““V-v JV V Av >- v «_ . \ ""‘» , \ ~~:..,-- r — ' "r . ..._ L~-l .... ‘.'~~‘ Y. . ....‘v , . - - v-‘__ ‘ ~-_.v«. ‘~ “‘1. “o. - '.~ ‘, ‘ ’*o f..._ ._ _ ‘;»., V "“" a. ...‘. ‘ , ..V' V ‘- “ a .‘>‘ "~‘ V- . 'e. , ‘vn.‘ ‘. p 4-- ..l V- A ‘nt y‘” . \l“ ’w. . ' ..v- 4x .¥.~ .‘s‘ N\ _ ~'\4 _ ‘V- r. ‘ 'v. ‘. ,_~, . ., ,‘ ... -I '\ \.:~.‘\ 5‘ ‘4 ~>__ 'u. —~ v , '4‘». \ . , .‘~:_ . >4 . ‘ \ ‘~. Lu ,. h M5,. ‘g. >.'& ‘. . Q) " ,- ya)‘. .4 ‘¢ "‘ fi -4 h ‘ “ C. V - r- _ '1" a ‘44-. i V‘ .4 5 . Q "- -.. 67 e. Stability: Teacher, student f. Parent participation W The study is a descriptive field study. A research sample was secured from January through June 1990. Field work occurred from October 1990 through January 1991 with the researcher spending a period of two months in each school (Appendix A). The primary methods of data collection were semistructured and unstructured interviews. Secondly, the researcher was a complete observer at all faculty, department, student, school board and parent committee meetings. Thirdly, data was collected through closed-ended questionnaires and by document analysis. Sample The study sought to explicate site—based management as it operates and as it affords hope for educational improvement. A review of the literature indicated that site- based management operates differently at each school or within each district (Marburger, 1985). However, there are seven key elements of site-based management (David, 1989). These elements are: 1) Various degrees of site—based budgeting affording alternative uses of resources 2) A team operation affording groups to expand the basis of decision—making 3) School-site advisory committees with key roles for VA... 4 . UV— -- 4.... ‘i 3 Z. O ru. v . b an» .“ fi \ ~ t L To a. h ~ . . .. . . 68 parents 4) Increased authority by school participants for selecting personnel who are assigned 5) Ability to modify the school's curriculum to better serve their students 6) Clear processes for seeking waivers from local or state regulations that restrict the flexibility of local staffs 7) An expectation for an annual report on progress and school improvement. (p. 46) Not only did a number of Catholic schools have the elements of site-based management, but the schools also operated within a school system. Therefore, it was decided to use exclusively Catholic schools, not only because they were all site-based managed, but they offered several variations on the theme. The intent of this research was to examine and evaluate the effectiveness of these variations. The first step in securing a sample occurred in January 1990. The researcher met with an associate superintendent for a large metropolitan Catholic school district in order to identify Catholic elementary schools utilizing the elements of site-based management. Nine schools were identified and three were subsequently eliminated because critical criteria were no longer being met. The second step took place between January and June 1990. An introductory letter (Appendix B) was sent to the six remaining schools requesting a meeting to ensure that the schools met the qualifications of site-based management and to establish their willingness to participate. One school withdrew prior to the meeting. Another school was eliminated because it did not have a school-site advisory “no-4603‘; n ”...... . '. ~. yy . .. «a .m- g ...-udH ..n .... Nags—u Arwn-u 9A”,- (Fifi... ‘Vd- U‘v-nv‘v ,. U) ‘ '1:er A, "“‘Jv ‘v‘ 9 v..- ‘tc ( l L E I) 3;,- ““ I Q'r‘ 69 committee, an element deemed essential to the true meaning of site-based management. Four schools remained and the researcher met with each principal during May and June. All four schools qualified and two were selected with what appeared to be enough variation to be examples of the case. Glaser and Strauss (1967) indicate "that if the relationship holds for one group under certain conditions, it will probably hold for other groups under the same conditions" (p. 106). Therefore, we may argue that the sample size was sufficient. Two elementary schools from one Catholic school system were studied. Kwanzaa School was an urban school offering enrollment in kindergarten through grade eight; it had two special education classrooms. Ninety-seven percent of its 580 students were black. The majority of students were neither Catholic nor parish members. Their parents chose to send them to Kwanzaa rather than to their neighborhood public schools. Kwanzaa had two co—principals, both of whom have served in that position for eighteen years. There were twenty-five full—time teachers, two part~time teachers and a full-time guidance counsellor. The local school board was a policy-making board. The Fathers' Club (athletics) and the Mothers' Club (service and fundraising) were additional parent boards with varying degrees of decision—making power. The principals sent monthly newsletters to the parents and parents received written reports of annual standardized A. 4 V; c: e "N ‘10 4 "v‘IAAD \ u . o nanow Inkybyvu- “...-.. ryr- . o ..x \a Va H. .6 CC _V v. ... L. .3 «1 LC 4... L» Q. .3 L. a. v. . v. I .3 .ru .r.. .r.. . ... Li. Y. L. up ..1 nu. ... .. .a ... 5 n... ..n .. I J o. ... a I t. .... i . 2v . s . _ at Q. .3. vs at Q. 2,. a6 5. ... rL ._ ..u 14 r“ .... .>.. C. . Q. . . u. C. «v ru r. In x.» L. C» . «\y A. C. .p.. . .«u «C «C A. . L . . . 9.. .11 . . 1 . 5. .c 7... 7 ‘ 3v u .fl rd ~ . w. .3 w. on .3 v . . . Q. .. . v. n. . AH; QC 9 .. Q. .3 :a .aw an. . . 9 . l . an.“ ‘ . u o . b . Q. . r u u... .we is L. v. .44 . . :u . . n... .. v a\~ ~ .. .h n F».- .‘ « o . an» *1. . . . v ~ . .>.. v‘ Cr» . a an a . ..ua u s w . : ~ v n .1: v . I... .. . ..u. . . ... . . . . a: 2. 2. v . . .. . a p. .. C. 5. In ._ i. .. - .. . ... x: .5. y. . ‘ ... .n» .L .1 Ana .H» '- ~ g .c .. A . ..s ... 1o. ... . . a u . .¢ ‘ . .. ~ . . s . ~ . .... ... Ll a . s . 7O testing. Parent-teacher conferences were held twice each year. The principals hired the teachers after the prospective candidates had been approved by the diocesan central office. Curriculum was determined by Kwanzaa faculty and administration. Rainbow School was a suburban elementary school offering enrollment from pre-school through grade eight. There were 454 students, eighty-three percent of whom were white. Seventy percent of the students belonged to the school's affiliated parish; the other thirty percent did not belong to the parish which did not necessarily mean that they were not Catholic. The principal had been at the school for twelve years. She had an assistant principal who was also a full— time teacher. The principal, the assistant principal and the full-time guidance counsellor operated as an administrative team. There were eighteen full—time and five part-time teachers. The local school board was a policy—making board. The P.T.A. and the Sports Board were other parent boards with varying degrees of decision—making powers. The principal sent newsletters to the parents monthly and parents received written standardized test score results. Parent-teacher conferences were held twice each year. The principal hired the teachers after they had been approved at the diocesan central school office. Curriculum was determined by Rainbow faculty and administration. 71 Procedures for Implementation The study is a descriptive field study which occurred from October 1990 through January 1991. The methods of data collection included semistructured and unstructured interviews, observations at meetings, closed-ended questionnaires, and document analysis. Entry The researcher spent two months at each school. Prior to the first research day, a letter (Appendix C) was sent to faculties and staffs describing the study's purpose and the procedures for data collection. Kwanzaa principals introduced the researcher to faculty and staff at lunch on the first day; the Rainbow principal did so at a faculty meeting two weeks prior to the researcher's starting date. In their newsletters, the principals informed parents and students of the researcher's presence and purpose (Appen— dix D). Each day, she arrived at school thirty minutes before the students and remained a minimum of fifteen minutes after they left. She also attended faculty and/or committee meetings held before or after these times. To obtain a true picture, participant observer studies require free access to all pertinent school happenings (Borg and Gall, 1989). At both schools, the researcher was free to move about as she pleased. However, since the study did not examine classroom operations, classroom visitations were limited, at the researcher's request, to those teachers ‘q r l. «D (1‘ nr ’- ‘ v . ‘ ”v- 1" 7....- ’4‘ 4" -v " ,._‘ ‘7 ‘ ~v ‘— ‘ .. -..~ w- i 7" 5 1“ a .u’ ' . . . . h.~pb. ' 7“. _‘ .-. ‘ ‘ ‘4 ~. .- ‘lh VI. . - x -. . 1‘ \- ...” ‘4- A- “I ~ ' . ‘v ‘ ‘ .. V .. r .. . v‘ v. ) a v , . ....F’O‘ D (l) \l' ) w l . ‘p ‘Hg. . ‘- .. I" ‘4 L. A. .,.~ I‘ \th‘ . I s "\‘ ‘§ :A ."v 1 s ' ..‘ ‘Ju‘ '\ -‘ \ x. 'N K H C v 8 .- ‘.“'p ‘ a k " ’c: ~‘. '.~» 'INP«‘ v N ‘. s: ‘ ’tu n 75 Observations In preparation for this study and to learn the techniques of participant observation, a field research methods course was taken in spring 1989. Observational techniques and reporting procedures were learned and practiced in a field study of emotionally and physically impaired children and adults. Critiques of three professional field studies were also required. As complete observer, the researcher is detached from the group and emotionally uninvolved in it (Borg and Gall, 1989; Gold, 1957). For this study, the researcher was a complete observer at all faculty, department, student, school board, and parent committee meetings which were usually held before or after school or in the evenings. The purpose was to determine the operationalization of site-based management within each school. To this end and using the interview questions as a guide, notes were taken during the meetings. Quite often, meeting participants invited the researcher to sit at the table with them, but their offers were declined in order to maintain objectivity. Generally, she sat six to ten feet away at the side and tried not to make eye contact with the participants. Table 2 indicates meeting attendance. In four months, the researcher observed fifty—two meetings. Kwanzaa's school board never met in two months and, even though the researcher called the president and the principals several times after she finished there, she was not invited I ‘ . ...-av . . UAAOVPH r3; ..‘J':..‘..~AS ti .. s V‘;“"~ 72., uvvnonnl 4. v8. 4 45 Q A“ . 'v““ ”- ‘I 1“..I“““AI. a \V“A.-‘ - 4 ‘7‘. ~~_ . "‘¢ . 'L.. . A ~ 6.. ‘ 13’s «A u..““' ..p. “4.4,, o..' “:9.fi ‘I- U- . . ‘4'”. 3.5:“. q ‘-‘ 3.. ~ ‘1‘..~(‘ \Hy- _ _ -.., ~ . '2.“th . . . ‘.“"v‘“‘ \,‘>’ . V. 4‘ '( :c'cn- A ~ A I v.1 ”n . . ”v. ‘I u A. . .“3 76 Table 2 Meetings Observed During Field Study Meeting Type Number Faculty Meetings 6 Curriculum Meetings 7 Special Topics 15 Student Council; Schools Without Drugs 10 (Student Meetings) Rainbow School Board Meetings 2 Rainbow School Board Sub-Committee Meetings 3 Parent Committee Meetings 9 Total 52 7‘ vs... .,. u. |~" H'V'P 't 77 to the budget approval meeting. In addition to meeting observations, a daily journal was kept in which the researcher recorded unplanned conversations, observations pertinent to the study, and answers for clarification. Each evening, journal notes were typed. Questionnaires Data to determine levels of parent, teacher and student satisfaction, commitment and/or participation were collected by closed-ended questionnaires which required specific information (Borg and Gall, 1989). The questionnaires were informed by the works of Bacharach et al. (1990), DeRoche (1981), Frymier et a1. (1984), and Mangieri (1984). Because the questionnaires were based on these works, no pretesting was done. The purposes of the parent questionnaires (Appendix F) were to determine satisfaction, commitment and participation. The introduction included a brief description of site-based management and directions for completing the questionnaire. Participation was voluntary and anonymity was assured. Each family received a questionnaire and, in two-parent families, both were encouraged to complete it. Questionnaires were returned to the school offices in envelopes provided by the researcher and addressed to her. Since Kwanzaa parents received important school . . H :¢;qro;b~a_r ‘1). .ubv....u.¢‘.a _ ‘ - . -Ar.ra‘ '9: nun. ...,h (v U s ’3':"’ “9.. a, ~o~»... 1.", 2‘”!- yA~..G_‘. . "“‘ .V‘va» . (I! C). ‘ ’ “five/1 {..,H- "I‘J‘V‘J .-s v . ; .v-;v~ "(3"; ~; .¢.I-u “'fi- .|‘ , ‘ P .. ‘6‘: ...”. ~ - ‘ A b... h- ““ «a- . ~"av A: '9'.A -~- “a", v‘ ‘ .4“ .,~ ,. ‘w‘ ‘ : M;‘V‘r,.' A "u.‘ \ "vvfl ‘_ ‘fi‘ - ~u ‘ ~.,_‘ v5“ ‘h “v“ .. Q ‘~. m...) . ‘u..i ' r ‘4' .H‘Qe ‘2. e \- ‘... “Id ‘kg r- _“ a \r P u ‘U- . .A‘ ~ V d.‘-.: "I,_‘. u£v.u.d 'Qr‘ “‘v; “'. “"1“lq M. ' "PCav é.‘.‘-~ r“ «A .4 H- xiv»... ‘L' , ‘ “‘q""‘:‘ C ’ ‘u ,- ‘0 N W A s 78 information by mail, four hundred sixty-three (463) questionnaires were mailed; four hundred thirty (430) were sent by third class mail and thirty-three were sent first class, as the school office does. A notation in the December parent newsletter indicated that questionnaires had been sent and requested their return. Fifteen parents subsequently asked for new questionnaires which they received. One hundred fifty-one (151) questionnaires were returned, but eleven were mismarked and invalid. Therefore, thirty percent of the families returned valid questionnaires. The total number of Kwanzaa respondents was one hundred sixty-seven (167). Rainbow students delivered important school information sent from the school office to their parents. Using this method, three hundred twenty-one (321) questionnaires were sent to the parents. One hundred ninety-five (195) questionnaires were returned, but eight were mismarked and invalid. Therefore, fifty-eight percent of the families returned valid questionnaires. The total number of Rainbow respondents was two hundred fifty (250). During the teacher interview a four-question survey was administered to determine satisfaction (Appendix E). The teachers also submitted written questionnaires (Appendix G) which determined their commitment. Participation was voluntary and anonymity was assured. Questionnaires were returned to the school offices in envelopes provided by the ‘ V ... - - Ov~v‘. van V. .44 ... ..4 r.\. . . V4 r.. ya r.. I xv ».. L. p.. .3 «a ... C» r. .«4 r.. L. N4 . . .: r. .y L. o . _. ... .. C» . . 1: .. a“ r.. .. . . . . Cu . . f. . .ru 0. vs 2». .- > . ;. v... ..s Lv .d» A v :w . 4 a v ..v .4 ._~ ‘ —. r. ..u L. . v r. ... 4; ~.. 7. ‘.. . . .u. .—- ”a ... L. 4 ..c ... ..s .u. . . Q o . ~... D. r.. ... O p. u. c. . v. e. 14 Po 4: r.. ... up. As v.. .. n. ... A. L. .. Ce L. s. v. v. «a ... ... ... .h «.. ..4 TV «4 ~., C. »o . . ... C. v« ‘ Axw rL. .... . :~ . u ‘ ~ . 79 researcher and addressed to her. Twenty-three questionnaires were distributed at Kwanzaa. Twenty were returned, but four were mismarked and invalid. Seventy percent of the Kwanzaa teachers returned valid questionnaires. Twenty-six questionnaires were distributed at Rainbow. Twenty—one were returned, but three were mismarked and invalid. Sixty-nine percent of the Rainbow teachers returned valid questionnaires. The purpose of the student questionnaire (Appendix H) was to determine satisfaction. A consent form (Appendix I) requesting permission to interview students was sent to the parents and returned to the researcher. Several parents requested clarification and this was done in person or by phone. Prior to completing the questionnaires, the students were informed that this was a survey to see how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with various school aspects. Participation was voluntary and anonymity was assured. First and second grade students individually and orally completed the questionnaire; the researcher asked the questions and used happy/unhappy faces to elicit responses. Other students completed the questionnaires in the hallways outside their classrooms; the researcher guided their work and the teachers were not present. Four Kwanzaa questionnaires were mismarked and invalid. One hundred sixty-one (161) Kwanzaa students, thirty percent, and two hundred forty (240) Rainbow students, sixty-two percent, completed valid questionnaires. 80 Document Analysis The last method of data collection was an analysis of school documents, including student achievement records, local and district level policy books, newsletters, budgets, past meeting minutes, student and teacher attendance records, student enrollment records, teacher tenure records, and other documents pertinent to the study. The principals permitted access to all materials. Generally, documents from July 1987 through January 1991 were examined and the researcher kept all identities confidential. This research phase provided a check-and—balance (Borg and Gall, 1989; Goetz and LeCompte, 1984; Jick, 1984) on the information received through the interviews and the observations. Using the exploratory and interview questions as a guide, specific information (Appendix J) was gathered and recorded about certain school outcomes including student achievement and teacher and student attendance and tenure. Both schools began using the National Tests of Basic Skills in 1988. Therefore, to analyze student achievement, test scores from spring 1989 and 1990 were studied. To determine trends in teacher and student attendance, first quarter 1990 attendance records were examined. Student turnover from two consecutive school years (1989 and 1990) was studied because that was the only specific data available. Teacher tenure data was gathered in the interviews. Policy statements, budget reports, and meeting notes and ... . a~ nrnq Dr’- ~r . I- .....i ...- A». ,- ,. #— r .._ L. A r~ 0.. ..x . . -— qr ~v -... v“‘-r ‘ A 'F‘ ‘i/‘A.— id» AV. ‘1‘“ v: A.- '---...4,,_ V ... - r . ‘.- . ,. . ...." ~.. ) N» s. ... V ._ "' .u. ‘ ." ‘s . p. 4.1 x _ ‘V-., . .- b .. ~‘* , .-v V . "~. " l 0‘ n M. _ ... -. ‘AJ‘ ‘ 4‘} r _‘ .‘.h-‘r:,i ‘ V‘\..W I .4 . ‘Q «‘ ' j t- ‘§ N\ ‘u‘ -_. .— ~.‘ —.. y, ‘w‘NU-u iv! v A \~‘§ .“A 'v‘ n. 5 s 5“ - -" : ‘ '4 § ‘Q'.‘ v u“ “‘7‘ _‘ .‘. v“~ . « .\. .h- - “v 3. s r\ .4 v‘ -‘IA 'IN - ‘~ g - "V “'4 ‘~ 7. u “I. ._ .. .... ._ ~.’ -‘ ‘ .. . .. Ls.-- ..~. ' v s , - 81 minutes from July 1987 through January 1991 were analyzed using the interview questions as a guide. The purpose was to determine budgetary, curricular, and personnel decisions made by the various organizations. Written notes were made about the decisions. Quite often, the notes were clarified in the unstructured interviews. :hnmnary This is a descriptive field study which occurred from October 1990 through January 1991. The researcher was welcomed into both schools and had access to all materials and school activities. The primary methods of data collection were semistructured and unstructured interviews of individuals and groups to determine the Operationalization of site-based management. Another data source was observation of all faculty, department, student, school board, and parent committee meetings. Closed—ended questionnaires were collected from parents, teachers and students to determine participation, satisfaction and/or commitment. Finally, school documents were analyzed for specific information about revenue and expenditures, student achievement, teacher and student attendance and tenure, and budgetary, curricular and personnel decision-making. - -..—. ~... .. I—xru‘ .....- A .. \— ~r~ >— ....‘w-J- ,,._., ._ ~.-....---. - . .. “..-. .o I! 6"; An- -.. -.. ‘r-o‘. . ‘Ar.'.. -~u..~<‘-k" '4 >.,. v:.. .." ‘1 ~ -'. ..;_.~ : . . . ~. 4. F4: .‘ x 91 ‘\‘ xi‘ w.— <4 ' ,4 «. -.. "v. 41 l .‘ 4‘ Vt, g,“ ‘ .. P!“ ‘4 ‘1 . ‘3 {P ’I V. s.“ ‘ - N ‘1 '71 ‘4} "V; ...“ - ' 1' v 82 Data Analysis Because a variety of methods was used, there were several methods for data analysis. Data was collected primarily through semistructured interviews. Using an interview guide, eighty-three individual or group interviews were conducted. All interviews were tape-recorded and then transcribed by the researcher into three hundred ninety—two (392) typed pages. There were several steps in the interview analysis process: 1) The researcher read all the interviews to determine general themes. Because she personally transcribed each interview this was the second reading. 2) Since each interview was conducted in the same manner, respondents' answers were naturally categorized by question. In a third reading, question by question, a categorical chart was developed to cross—reference responses and remarks pertaining to questions other than the one being addressed. 3) When presenting data on budgetary, curricular and personnel decisions, the researcher: a) reread the answers pertinent to each area b) categorized them according to (1) the types of decisions and (2) the indicants of humanistic organization theory and decentralization c) examined them for similarities and variations 83 d) presented the data Unstructured interview notes and observational notes were kept in a journal which the researcher reread and categorized according to budgetary, curricular and personnel decision-making. When analyzing minutes of meetings and other school documents, notes were made according to the three major decision—making areas. The researcher then had a way to substantiate the data about budgetary, curricular and personnel decision—making. Documents from 1 July 1987 through January 1991 were examined. Document analysis also included a review of student achievement records (1989 and 1990), current first quarter student and teacher attendance records, student enrollment records (1989 and 1990), and teacher tenure records. Using the exploratory questions, the researcher designed charts and tables on which to record the information. After analyzing the charts and tables, trends about certain school outcomes became evident. Parent, student, and teacher questionnaires and surveys were tabulated on frequency tables (Appendices K—N) and then converted to percentages. However, analyzing parent commitment questionnaires was problematic. The questionnaire replicated a questionnaire developed by Frymier et al. (1984) in which parents indicated their annual participation in certain school activities. The directions on my questionnaire were, "Indicate the number of times you 84 participate in each of these activities during the school year." Some parents used numbers while others used descriptive words such as, "once a week," "twice a month," or "each time." In some instances, the phrases were translated into numbers. For example, there were two parent-teacher conferences. If a parent responded "each time," the response was translated to "two." However, for other instances, the descriptive phrases were used on the tables. Therefore, the frequency tables use both numbers and words. After examining the frequency tables, trends about certain school outcomes became evident. Reliability and Validity Borg and Gall (1989) present Louis Smith's criteria to determine the validity of participant observation studies: 1. Quality of direct on-site observation. Participant observation reduces the group's ability to mask what is really happening. 2. Freedom of access. The researcher has broad access to events and materials in the setting. 3. Intensity of observation. The researcher spends a great deal of time at the site to acquire a complete picture. 4. Qualitative and quantitative data. The researcher collects both types of data. 5. Triangulation and multimethods. The researcher uses 54 z‘ < ..>. . q: ... ‘n‘ . y .u l. w 5 ~ . . p . .~ _. c v _. C a a . Q. is .; ... r. C 1‘ a. ... A... 2‘ C,. -. A. 54. Q. . .. ~.... e _ L» L. 4.... .... ‘1. g» a . .... C s ‘ g. . q u w .... >~ .n- s . . v I. ..x ..~.. 85 different kinds of data-collection techniques. 6. Sampling of data. The researcher procures a representative sampling. These criteria provide a means to judge the reliability and validity of this study: 1. Quality of direct on-site observation. The researcher conducted eighty-three interviews and observed fifty-two meetings. Interviews were tape—recorded and then transcribed. Notes were taken at all meetings. It is argued that a true picture of the schools was obtained through these methods. 2. Freedom of access. The researcher had free access to all school rooms, events, and documents. It is argued that the schools were viewed as they normally operated. 3. Intensity of observation. The researcher spent two months at each school. During these months, she attended school daily, arrived thirty minutes before the students, remained a minimum of fifteen minutes afer they left, and attended all faculty and/or committee meetings held outside the normal school day. While site-based management is a form of governance occurring all year, the researcher used specific interview questions to study site-based managed budgetary, curricular, and personnel decision—making. However, observation provided a means to view site-based management in practice and to substantiate some of the data. Since this study's focus was primarily on content rather than «A ’r nv“:,,_ .. p-4v--u' . ., . p... A — «7 v N~f‘ 'I_ b.v'.J\.\-‘ ' g f\ a .n ‘ --~ A .-. . ‘nx '- c ". ..- -y-..-..‘ q . \'~‘-‘r '~‘~'u-.-.. . . .'; ..-... ‘ "---v--:. ‘ . ~. - \ - V N . ... ~J‘w‘ '2‘.“ ..- .4 ,4 - "wgl .. "- v- ‘I “x .. 'V" a” "-a4 ‘H' ; r\‘ . v- .1 .A i~~-‘ a’ _ »‘V‘ 2v .. "~4‘~p‘ ‘o i . v.4 .. ~..A ' I.’~- _ ..V» -dlfi— vs- -' x» _ V I r .. \ \_ —_~,’ ‘ gr“ .‘ -‘ s“, \ p -.. 84".: A ‘7 L—"- «_"L_ '.‘?*.' ' ‘~ v- _‘ '— "~.' g ‘ « .-. Lu“ ‘5 ‘. ‘ u 5‘.‘ H ‘3- ‘4‘;_.- ‘. . .._ . .. “N‘K ‘ ‘\ I v ., ..K ‘ j.‘.~. 7» A p “ v w . §.N ‘ .‘ A s -4. “ g" ~4* ’s ‘\ a ‘~~.)—,'. » \ kI ;. ‘ ..." s n n . § A ‘ .. . V < a; 86 on process, it is argued that four months' field work provided valid and credible data. 4. Qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data was obtained through observations and tape-recorded interviews. Observational notes, journal entries, and transcribed interviews provided written quantitative data for analysis. As a result, data was complete and accurate. It is argued that this Qualitative and quantitative data enable objective analysis. 5. Triangulation and multimethods. Data was collected through semistructured and unstructured interviews, observations, questionnaires and document analysis. It is argued that this triangulation of methodology enabled the researcher to examine site—based management from several vantage points and to corroborate the various data. 6. Sampling of data. With the exception of two teachers, all faculty, administrators and staff were interviewed. All parents were asked to complete questionnaires. Of the total parent population, forty-two percent returned valid questionnaires. Parental permission for students to complete questionnaires was given to forty- two percent of the total student population. A commitment questionnaire was validly completed by sixty—eight percent of the total teacher population; one hundred percent of interviewed faculty participated in the satisfaction survey. In four months, all faculty, department, student, school .y.‘ 'sa r4 2" -‘A' u.-.A . - .. u p‘l-‘H \- «‘4‘ 0'»- -.. 4 “L r ..._ x . :‘_;";r. I‘d '- wit_ "-ru- V -..- ‘ <'\~’, .-~ ~‘ A \ . i 4'” ~.' ~\ 7‘, J“ ‘ , ...sr - - _ v “x Lw‘... -'_ - ..,_ "o. a‘ ‘5“ v s~¢ AVI- "“§‘. \ x. ‘ r. ~.~ ‘~ ~‘-\ ~C‘ >_ V A. < .4 ,- ‘1“ .. uhv,‘ - U ~‘. ‘ ~W- N..- «V. . ' ... ‘ d‘ 'v » v a, ‘; .“ ‘ - ~~r~ gr‘ - a . ‘. \—, ‘\‘~ \ ‘~’\‘ ‘- \"P . ~N'x ‘ 4 W- *N-‘ .. . \ F \ ‘ [1| 87 board, and parent committee meetings were attended. Notes were made using the exploratory questions as a guide. It is argued that a representative sampling was procured. Chapter Summary The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. To do so, a descriptive field study was undertaken. The study was guided by questions which examined the operationalization of site-based management, the indicators of humanistic organization theory and decentralization, and trends on certain school outcomes. The researcher was welcomed into both schools and had access to all materials and events. The primary methods of data collection were semistructured and unstructured interviews to determine the operationalization of site-based management. Another data source was observation of all faculty, department, student, school board, and parent committee meetings. Questionnaires were collected from parents, teachers and students to determine participation, satisfaction, and/or commitment. School documents were analyzed for information about revenue and expenditures, student achievement, teacher and student attendance and tenure, and budgetary, curricular and personnel decision— making. ~OOarnvv a. v: V ...-'5'- w] 5 Jul —u I a .. V ., ' v: «:5. ."I ..-... p- ‘ n . ”L V ~‘ 5 o .‘ _ A .0 .f‘rs_ " u... _‘L _, . ' ~s . .V ‘0’ fizs "-»Al “‘5” “35"": r; . “""‘vo.l Kt‘ c 4....- ..." Q 1"..." "“V Ni . * 4v 88 Because a variety of methods was used to gather data, several methods were used for data analysis. These methods included transcribed, written copies of tape-recorded interviews, observational notes, journal entries, frequency tables, and charts developed to facilitate examination of budgetary, curricular and personnel decision—making. The reliability and validity of the study is supported by the members' participation at the school sites, the objectivity of the tape-recored and transcribed interviews and other written data, the time spent daily at the school sites, the freedom of access accorded the researcher, and the data checks provided by triangulation in methodology. 9*CS‘ -;I :,~ “....‘H yw“v" ‘ h...:.: :0- ‘l f‘ .u... v~‘v flupq‘ ....4 A U fly“ a v-‘Vla “raga Mupy. .‘c‘._v‘ ."'V‘ .. F. ., re” -.. a \. av III ‘4 n ‘ . r VA“ V if: I CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. In site based-management, the local school becomes the center for educational decision making and decisions about budget, curriculum and personnel are made by administrators, teachers and parents. In this chapter, data is presented in three sections. First, this study argues that site-based management is a function of the centrality of the principal, the empowerment of the teachers, and the local school community's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. Second, because theorists link site-based management to humanistic organization theory and decentralization theory, this study examines the variations in the theories' indicants: flexible decision—making, accountability, increased productivity, better performance, more staff self-direction and control, and increased Satisfaction. Finally, trends on select school outcomes are Presented. In the presentation pseudonyms are used for all 89 vkho . ... . C""-°" 2a. ‘3: d . in... ~. . ‘ 3......U a.“. ' \ ..A’A‘ VIA ‘ “VHVV‘ I» A . .{ :3!" “‘ qr. ya...v“lv V- u :AWA‘VIN‘ '_ ~ ’ ‘I'V'M‘JOAAH v a 'c. rm ._ ..sene _ v Q.”figr§ r l ~54¢.___. h‘ (I) (D ’ I L . : 7‘.“'¢~4.. u. 'VAA ‘ - F, u \ ‘ . Q ugy‘v...‘\’" 'T ( ”(1 '1-‘_\ M .¥.' .“e; ‘5‘fllh a“. I I 42“; ' ‘-~ 5‘. «y. v be I) ‘ . Q .\ ‘I‘APA‘. l.‘ \u 90 proper names. Th in This field study took place in two Catholic elementary schools which are part of a large metropolitan Catholic school system. The urban school is almost all-black and non- Catholic, while the suburban school has a majority of white, Catholic students. Students are admitted to both schools according to the guidelines of federal law, but the schools reserve the right to establish admission policies based on student needs. As a result, the schools have an homogenous population which eliminates the need for specialized personnel, policies and procedures. The principals of both schools are responsible for their budgets. They establish them, monitor them, and solicit the funds for them. Since the schools operate under straitened circumstances, one of the principals' major responsibilities is procuring adequate funds to balance the budget. As a result, the school year revolves around a series of fundraising events, deadlines for grant applications, and tuition payments. The principals direct and monitor the fundraisers, prepare the grant applications, and solicit-- either directly or indirectly—-the parents' payment of tuition. Likewise, the principals are accountable for any deficit spending which occurs. The principals' primary financial goal is to operate with a balanced budget. r‘- n ... ‘ sn-u we. a » - -. -fi'- -s I A ‘ . a ..vuo 5v - 'x . a . w,» .'... ... ... L o u ...A...~ . ".A c' M. . U‘J'Qb s. r r -~ «~,. \ "-‘~-0¢ ...-A- 'v-.v.-‘-.‘ ”A. ....“ ‘ ..""‘v\— v... . ~T‘A‘ o- . <~~_\ ""~“‘*~ -v . . . ‘ ' _ . . r. .a_‘_“ ,. ‘ _ ‘_ . " .. \(' ~ '_-.- *~"' ‘-~.4. ’ .‘V'V'A - r ... T r-. o 1)...- .__ a. ‘ "T -_ "' '2 -.‘~ ...‘~“ V‘ - u :‘Ffi—VVN‘ vu .4‘44. - ""'\.r‘. ‘~~" x” 3 - " no .‘§\' .4 ‘A ’ 1- .- 7‘ "L \~~A .‘ " VJHL. "v “- I" ‘ ., “ I. ‘-P ' ‘ " l .5... ..~ _. _’ ““4 . ‘V II «AH “. ~.P~ - . -. \ “v . \I \ \- ‘Q. A 2' ,. "a h l - ' ‘ -‘r *’ ‘ 5‘) l e.. n~ -.T \‘V -._“ ' ‘ V fan‘ r~ V‘k.“ » “‘ .-.. . ... : C ‘1 ‘ _ ‘ a‘ .‘m K ‘- “ L'. .A‘ ". b- ‘u N’v,‘ ‘m._‘~ PV- 1‘ b . l - d‘ul \ N ‘A ~ \ ,. v ;A‘ ‘n \ ‘l. 4‘ 1'” 91 The curriculum in both schools is determined at the local school level and is basic: no languages are taught nor are there programs for the gifted. Several programs for students who need remediation are offered through the local public school districts. The Catholic central school office provides some guidelines about length and frequency of classes to insure that state curriculum requirements are fulfilled. Textbook selection is determined by each school's faculty and administration. If schools in this Catholic system have the same textbook for a certain subject, that happens by chance and not because it was dictated by the central office. Regarding personnel, the central office provides some administrative direction through a policy handbook. Principals and teachers in the system do not function under the same work rules. Since no teacher union exists, there is no obligation to insure teacher tenure, seniority, due process or unified salary scale. Teachers are accountable solely to the principals for fulfilling their professional responsibilities and obligations; the principals conduct annual faculty evaluations, monitor teachers' attendance, and encourage professional growth and development. Both schools have school boards whose purpose is to represent its constituency and advise the school administration regarding decisions that will assure the provision of quality Catholic schooling for all those children whose parents or guardians desire it. (School Policies and Rules Manual, 1988) The school board participates in the following activities: ‘a .- L: A 1 a. 4 u .- (J1 VP r v: r- ...v :‘r —- t--.u-‘ .‘~-~ ‘ y .. < V ‘5 '-~.‘“ -VV Ln (1) u C n n l | .' . ’4 L. ‘. A \ V A 92 1. Developing policies that are compatible with the school's philosophy and that will enable the school to reach its goal; 2. Recommending the annual budget and determining the sources of funding for it; 3. Reviewing administrative application of policy and budget; 4. Selecting the principal; 5. Membering and developing the committee/board itself, and 6. Evaluating the effects of its own actions on achieving the school's goals (School Policies and Rules Manual, 1988) The school board is one entity in the parish governance structure. The parish arganizational chart is given in Table 3. Rainbow parish adheres to the organizational structure, but Kwanzaa parish does not. board is more active than Kwanzaa's. Table 3 Parish Organizational Chart Rainbow’s school [Parish founcil] I I Worship Commission Commission I I Christian Service Education Commission Administration Commission 5 Committees: flouth Ministry ~Adult Education Gustice and Peace 'Catholic School Board “Religious Education Source: 2:1'2125 EDS BH]ES fQE IDE Catholic Scbggls Qf the Archdiocese of_Detroit prepared by the Catholic Schools Division of the Department of Education, 1988. . ‘J -u.¢~a--‘ -,-..- _ ‘5— 7'. w~4 ..-. s..- . '~~« pa . __T' “rag I -...>~-.‘... *‘vA - . - a‘h'H" . "““~‘ -.. :“‘"’~~-..~ “..IA N v.v,,v 2" ~>- ‘ . ‘ U ’5‘ ...V -..,3‘ ._,‘_. ' V- ... .._v' ’_v - k“, .';r‘.~ - .‘§ . ~, “I 4.‘ “' ‘5 A. ~ N r. 5_‘)-- ‘:>~_,‘ 5‘ ‘y- ‘-. “r. -‘i I“! «. ‘. .1" - N -.V «Y'V ‘4‘ ‘ R -. ha . L- \PP.: - ‘vvfil ‘ ‘Q. ‘n' h, k. "“- v s ‘ . -v ‘. I .\.~‘ ... \‘xA " '*» ‘4. . 'v' w.~ 4‘ P'. '“.“L— r; .. _ 7. v § ‘7 A ~‘s. ‘, L’s“ ‘L \‘ r a ‘g. V~ ‘ Q ‘h ._~ 3; i' .4 rm, “ K'v '- O ‘._‘ Lg . -‘ I 'V V‘ V - “ck." "4 .r ”‘\ ‘- .~,‘ in .. 4‘fi‘, «H m; ‘. ‘ V ‘ x n. -‘ -‘.L..‘ : - ‘~ ‘ § 5.9 4. ’# ~.‘~- ’. ., _ ~ ~W‘i ..y. ~ \‘r A. C. 93 The Operationalization of Site-based Management The argument in this study is that site-based management is a function of the centrality of the principal, the empowerment of the teachers, and the local school community's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. Site—based management is possible when the local school operates as an autonomous unit. That is, the control of the school resides at the local level rather than at the district level. Local school personnel, including administrators, teachers and parents, are committed to a common mission designed for their own students. The absence of bureaucracy enables the participants to quickly diagnose and remedy problems peculiar to their schools. As argued, the school site becomes the principal's "personal field" in which he or she manages the decision- making processes by determining the subject matter of the decisions, the participants in the decisions, and their degree of participation in decision—making. The principal accepts primary responsibility and assumes the central role which in less site—based managed schools is most commonly held by the district superintendent and staff. The absence of bureaucratic prescriptions enables the principal to maintain centrality and to develop a reciprocal relationship with the faculty and staff. As the argument continues, site—based management is possible when the teachers are empowered to participate in sic: f“ < v. GE be. . .3 C -... . U H v. a «:9 v i e .2 C. "a o . 1. ac .. a v . IP15. A: w». .... .. C t _ . e 4 . O S a. II.“ & .v 1‘ A nV‘ Hu- . . r. .5 on D» ...L .. . VN.‘ flu. A«w nu Flu "In AF.» «5‘ a 5» .HJ .: .2 I I ‘1‘ 3 a. a» ~43 .3 .«lu «an .._.u .ru .IL 94 decisions related to budget, curriculum and personnel. They have "opportunities for autonomy, responsibility, choice and authority" (Lightfoot, 1986, p. 9) in decisions about programs and policies affecting the needs of their students and themselves. Empowered teachers share their professional expertise and their creativity. They participate in decision-making and develop reciprocal relationships with administrators and students. The Budget Personnel in schools governed according to the site- based management model traditionally make decisions about budget, curriculum and personnel. Since these three decision areas are diverse, they will be considered individually. For each topic, there will be a delineation of the argument that site-based management is a function of the centrality of the principal, the empowerment of the teachers and the local school's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. The aim is to describe the behaviors associated with principal centrality, teacher empowerment and school autonomy and to illustrate how the functions relate to each other. Site- based budgetary decisions are explored first. Th ' h Pri ' l The argument is that site-based management is a function of the centrality of the principal which gives him or her the freedom to work in a decentralized fashion, uninhibited by .-‘~- r r"! 7' ~o-v“"‘ ,5 ._._--.ntv . --- r «w_ ‘7‘ ~4J4_'.A- w-«~> I ~ .- ~O~ ya. l a ..--... ... ~u 15.; ---v~.v 4'. ’y —~\,..- .. h;.uv‘¥~‘4 ‘ o - .. .4 ...- ‘;~ :.-,._ "-O~--. ; ::v~-~ .._ A. "‘ ‘ "ch‘ '; w— _‘ .. L ‘ v . «J -:"r-.. A .‘Q. 1A.,“ “ ."v-. u. “ _ .... "' a-V'L‘ .. ”“ r- -r» ~ ~ ~r. o"v; 7“? \ . a _ ..- ' . . -.. .. ‘v§_ a. .‘ _ V‘- § _ “ex.“ . ‘7 - a ._ ‘r- We 8.." -H _, . ‘b n ‘1'; A ‘ ‘1 .... '§ ~9‘ fl Pr_ x.“~—. .‘ ‘1 . ._L F'. I L. A.. A“ v " IA. ‘1‘ . . ... K ‘. ‘ 5". b '- ..s- ‘ .~ ~- ‘ I-‘_ - ‘-. 4C . n- ’ .. ~ y, ._ A \ - w P! u. -. F, .~~~;‘- »‘ , -“.‘\ ‘4 a u . .- _ ‘- u r. . s. ‘ , “s s,‘ .-v. _ - ‘N'V' “ r_ (‘5‘. '7 K. 95 bureaucratic regulations. It is the principal, not the superintendent, who holds the central position in terms of budgetary decision—making. The principal determines l) the subject matter of budgetary decisions, 2) the participants in those decisions, and 3) the degree of participation. The principal implements the decisions. The principal first identifies the subject matter of decisions and then determines participants and degree of participation according to the kinds of decisions that need to be made. At urban Kwanzaa Catholic School and suburban Rainbow Catholic School, budgetary decisions centered on three areas: 1) school budget preparation and monitoring, 2) parent clubs' budget preparation and monitoring, and 3) purchasing. In each area, the principals selected the participants and decided the degree to which the participants and they themselves were involved in the decisions. School Budget Preparation and Monitoring Creating and maintaining balanced budgets are among the top priorities for the principals at Kwanzaa and Rainbow schools. The principals have been preparing and monitoring the annual budgets for the last twelve to nineteen years. Parents and/or staff members or parishioners participated in creating the budget, determining the sources of income and monitoring the budget. However, the degree of participation varied between the two schools. Kwanzaa is administered by two co—principals; Sister a. . .i «C .wH K .. ,. ‘ ... It .1 .1 L. r. a. .‘i .. .2 a; r. . , c ‘ .... «a. H: r.. r.. .. LC ’. L. L. r». f» .w .» >~ .. pk. ... .. w. w: i. .. aw. r. ax.,Mw rig «4 ~ ?~ r. .. rl. r . . a r t L. {._ . pL. - h ; o u . I . V ~ a .o to 2. .2 LC ... .u ... A .. .. L. . . .. . L. a. a. u. .x .3 .. .3 r. C ..u a. .. .. . 5. ~. a. we . . 3. . . .. ... .4 2.; m ..fi P. u» A» .VL ‘ La . . s . A ... L. L. \ . ... ‘ pk. . . .r~ 1r» ZR . . ...... .u; .4 M... L. .H 5.. «xi. .7. s 2. ... .... ... .u. . . > d ~pr<-' ...;n- 96 Rita has the budgetary responsibilities. She makes most of the decisions in the budgetary process, but she receives input from her bookkeepers and department coordinators: I set up the first draft and then I take it to the business office. [The two bookkeepers] and myself basically and Sister Janet [the co-principal] we go over it: like any place I have problems of where are we going to get the money? Where do we need help? Then we go through that whole thing and we pretty much come up with a budget. As far as instructional expense, we have coordinators here and they prepare the budget with the teachers--like books needed, new series they want to put in. . . . The coordinators then complete a budget and hand it in. [One of them] helps me put it into a complete form for what is it going to cost us? One major expenditure item considered annually is the raise in teachers' salaries. The Kwanzaa principals believed that they "needed to be as just with the teachers" as they could. Since the central school office determines a salary scale based on education and years of experience, the principals decided to "aim for the archdiocesan salary." No one else participated in that decision nor challenged it. Once Kwanzaa's budget is prepared, it is presented to the local school board and then to the parish council where Sister Rita says, "It's questioned, naturally, but . . . very quickly approved because they know a lot has been done with the bookkeepers and myself." The school board president indicated that for years the board has "rubber stamped" the proposed budget and rarely questioned it. Budget preparation at both schools illustrates incrementalism (Wildavsky, 1986). Incremental budget preparation is a conservative process which focuses on a ‘fri— --4.‘ r" - ..vv - r ~~" ~4.0‘~a -. ‘\-- t4-J-‘V r- .._ ~----4 “rkvfi . 4L-‘. x--,.~ ._ ..l--v 'v-w-r . q 1.4-. r ‘- \ “ ~-‘ ”CO-4'— - - .7“! L. . ‘7- .. “r -. .._ v.4 ,. ..‘W ‘J ’r ‘t *A V.‘ ... "\- «A v-A‘ .... s, kn‘ 'V— A. r. vx.‘ - “Q‘ 4" N .[n‘ A 'g . ‘1 ,- ‘15- 7‘, § k~r ‘ “« -. q-‘ ‘ -“ >«‘,‘.’». .‘ 5“ “x. to"- , a .- ~ [ ‘ ‘V ‘ :. .‘_ >-V _ p. n‘ ' ‘.N “A .; ‘~\- ‘ s n k _ a . _‘_~« .4 . x u‘», . ‘- "« ‘t-~>~ u ‘~ A . \ .> L 5 u. ‘ § AP .4 ‘. s , \ 97 long-established base, those accepted budget items which are not intensely scrutinized from year to year. Because the budget process involves increasing and decreasing funds for budget items which are not part of the base, it is a political process. Since everyone conforms to the rules about the base and the funds for distribution and deduction, incrementalism indicates a stable and self-satisfied organization which adjusts to given conditions. Sister Barbara, Rainbow's principal, described her budget preparation: I prepare the budget with my secretary/bookkeeper and present it to the school board finance committee which then works on how we're going to generate those funds that we need. And then the school board has the final say-so at the school level and then it goes to the education commission which is another level and then the parish council finalizes it. . . . All along the way, [each committee] has the right to revise it. The salaries are always dictated to us by the parish administration commission, but [in preparing the remainder of the budget] we use the budget of the year before because we are really kind of a barebones operation and we know how much we spent . . . the year before. And so we raise it a certain percentage. For the 1990-91 school year, the school board wanted a five percent increase for the faculty rather than the parish- mandated four percent increase. The board members figured a way to fund the extra percentage increase and that plan was approved by the parish council. So there is room for negotiation. School board officers reported that Sister Barbara makes most of the decisions, but they give their input and she listens to them. In two months at Rainbow, there were two finance 5 ti‘ (n :3 ul‘ --“Y“ p-v a. - \_“ "eei‘an ... fi-‘ - \a‘ A ..., ”a-“ .... .A.‘» _;‘~.- ., '>-..~; -r_ - -—-.,__rp "« L~r .7 _ ‘.wv ~-‘ ." .,‘ 4..‘ .._‘ ‘ _\ .,\ ". h v- -” r. - .‘s‘ 5" ... v- .I‘ r- L. . - .’— ‘ ‘IN ,2 I“« ar. A ‘~‘ "'». _, \ ‘w ’- [_ \r‘ M .r ~— .‘« I»- <~ 8 v d ‘ ‘ ;._ _ 'u '4 v‘. M ~'~ -1 ‘A ‘.'\v-._ ‘k ' ‘ “ ’Q. 's v-_ 1;. ' , ~ — .£ _ \ \‘\ ‘A » ‘\. x c . ’. v. ‘- .\ ] x. K‘ ‘_ r. ‘k . s . ‘\ A‘ ~ " 98 committee meetings, one of which was the first meeting for formulating the 1991—92 budget. Raising teachers' salaries was again an issue and Sister Barbara wanted the salaries to be closer to the diocesan scale than they were. To do so, according to the committee members, tuition needed to be raised. Sister Barbara had several suggestions for improving the salaries without raising the tuition because she feared that "we'll lose people like crazy." Deliberations at the meeting were stalemated and Sister Barbara asked for time to present more accurate figures, though she indicated that she was skeptical that she could increase the teachers’ salaries and hold the tuition and subsidy at its present rate. As described, budget formulation is straightforward and the principals bear the major responsibility for beginning the process and seeing it to completion. In determining annual expenditures, the principals received input from various sources including faculty, support staff, parents and non-parents; central office personnel provided direction about increases in benefits and utilities costs. Decisions about generating income involved the same people, with the exception of the central office personnel. Finding sources of income is one of the major responsibilities of the principals. To finance Kwanzaa's $1.1 million budget, the co- principals and the women from the business office determined that their main sources of income were tuition, fundraisers, o . ..a . . a . f . p. Mi .. .r. .pun «a» .. u. ..ri y II .I T~«.~.4 ..h .Jvu». s..rgk_ . ..A . .w‘ v. L‘ ._ rs 99 a grant from the Catholic diocese, and the latchkey program. Sister Rita described what is involved in generating income at Kwanzaa: This year we didn't want to raise it [tuition] too much. We were able to do that. Our fundraisers—-our two candy sales--are very important to us as far as that's concerned. This year, [the Catholic Services Appeal donation was] cut back by five thousand dollars. Another thing we use in fundraising which has been good up to this year is our before- and after- school care. Now it's not supposed to be set up as a moneymaker, but on the other hand, the money that we take in does help us financially. . . . We have pictures and uniforms. I pick up everything that I can. tationery. Every bit adds up. Those are little things. The biggest thing is tuition. . . . We've been very lucky because we've been unhampered by either the school board or the finance committee [nonexistent] or the parish council or the pastor. . . . They haven't interfered at all. When the school board president was asked about the board's input regarding tuition increases, she responded: There again it's kind of a rubber stamp. [The principals say], 'We need to raise the tuition.’ We generally say, 'No you can't raise tuition.‘ They say, 'Oh but we have to raise tuition and here is why. We have to raise this money in order to give our teachers a two percent raise.‘ And then we all go, 'Oh my God, a two percent raise!‘ And we're ashamed that they're getting a two percent raise and we go, 'Okay, raise the tuition; go ahead; do it.‘ But there again, I think because we have been fortunate enough to have the same principals here for this vast number of years, they [the principals] know how far they can go. As a result, the co-principals, in consultation with the business office staff, decided that each child will pay $1730 for the yearly tuition and fees. This figure is eighty-seven percent of what it costs to educate one child; the other thirteen percent is generated through fundraising and grants. Kwanzaa parents had no input regarding the establishment of the tuition fee. ,. raw VI.-- .-. . A..._ r “ _ A. .,,_'.. -.vfi A~~~~ ...... ...I - . ...-.. v: .....‘v.. -i. ‘ ..—-‘-‘.‘ V_‘v 5“ 5-0 o-Ja~..--.1 ..., ~-A., «vfi ‘ ‘I--d..4-..--. "~.n '_ . .— A“ »-._a -n..-‘4 - -‘-"‘. ~‘. . ,. ‘ “-‘..‘~_' -- .... ‘\ A ._ V.._.” v .. ""‘*--.. ‘7 ' “n ,. V- p, ‘ .'~ :c».- .. ..‘_.."I ‘A. _~ ‘ 4 Ah.“ ‘-"‘“- ~. Viv. I '1 ‘ "1A- ., .‘ ‘ _ ”water: “"~:. ' «‘ "V‘-V .. "“n.q ‘ v.' ' ‘4 " ..Pr U be . ....» ‘. ~~rA -. ,...v- K‘_ V» \ ~. ~_-“ "! . V'.A ¢.“; - I a A ~ ‘ ’vr buy“ ..F V»- "‘~‘."":‘ "v . N 3 "are yyvk ‘ - "r. ..“:.;x s,» ‘ “V I7” V“. Au" !. - . ”at." u 4‘ « AI A \‘;~. ' Va «1“ . -"s ; \ ‘; . N‘, " ~r‘ h“ ' M ‘H’W ‘- . A. ~. ~' I .q s» ‘ ‘|Q V‘._ " 'w u‘ » .. ‘-I‘ v “‘h "\ . ‘ u 1‘- V 100 Once Rainbow's principal determines expenditures, the $900,000 budget goes to the school board's finance committee. This committee of five parents and the principal establishes tuition rates, determines the amount of subsidy to be requested from the parish, and establishes a level of fundraising. Two finance committee members recounted that they had to raise tuition for 1990-91, but the principal was against it. They raised the tuition to $1046 for Catholic children belonging to the parish. This represented fifty- eight percent of the cost to educate one child at Rainbow. lkni-Catholic children pay $1675, or ninety-two percent of the actnial cost. The remainder of the income comes from furujraisers and a $202,000 subsidy from the church. PrOcuring that subsidy included deliberate political activity durfling the budget-setting process. One finance committee m€W&Mer stated: This year our subsidy was much higher than what we thought. We decided that we're going to submit an unreasonable number knowing that it's not going to be accepted. The first one wasn't——it was definitely unreasonable. But we did get more than what we thought. That was the reason that we did that so that they [administration commission] would come back to us and say, 'Oh no. See what you can do.‘ And we still received more. There is a significant variation in the monitoring of thebudget at the two schools. At Kwanzaa, school board ‘menflxers indicated that they didn't "have the faintest idea" The principals, hCNV‘the budget was reviewed and controlled. t . . . . . 119 kJuSiness office staff and the priests indicated that .-.]‘v..v4 . .. t ~ .4 .I. _ . . . rk. I; w. L“ ~. L» r . .3 a. I V 1 my. :u Le 34 r . 2. .,. r. r. i: r.. «4 r“ r.. ... .4 .1 .l .n. w. .. .... .. L. L. .p.. re .v. r.. .. by .>.. €‘ L. e. L. e. a e e. L» «2 ... x. L. I... ...... .3 we. .. ... . . ...: ..V re .. »“ fii. .. .... a. «C ..-.n . . he 5. a; ..n ~. re s . f; ...n ... r. Cu ‘5. ... u. vi .‘ r . r“ .. Li .1 .3 \ .,. Ln ... .. A; Q. .x. s; I» r. L. _ \. p~ A~» aw» :4 v. nu. .u. \. ys pk. .y. 2. ..~ N.. u? 101 financial monitoring was the duty of the principals and the business office: Actually, I would say there is very little review. We know what we have to spend. [The bookkeeper] gives us an update, at least quarterly. And if I [the princi— pal] want it more than that, . . . she'll give me an in—between one. . . . Pretty much tha 's done by the administration and the business office and [the book- keeper]. They give quarterly reports to Sister. It's a close- knit thing because we talk in here [the business office]. And say that something that would throw the budget out of whack came across the desk, then we all talk and say, 'Now how did this happen? We're going to have to change this because of it.‘ . . . It doesn't get away from us because of the constant monitoring of it in here. At Rainbow the school board members actively participated in a monthly monitoring of the budget: Sister Barbara presents the budget monthly for review. We watch our figures very closely where we have prob- lems in the school. The biggest budgetary review is the 'six-month.‘ No doubt about that. We have that coming up in January. Every month we receive printouts from the parish of where we stand financially. . . . I [the principal] monitor it and then the finance committee of the school board monitors it. Every month, they get copies of those printouts. When there is a need for some kind of looking at the budget because there is a deficit, we, with the committee of that particular area [study it]. And then we do submit to the parish a six-month report at the end of December so they know where we stand and a projection for finishing the fiscal year. At the January finance committee meeting, the principal presented the six—month report and the deficit for the year appeared to be less than one thousand dollars. Sister Barbara went through the budget line-by—line and answered all questions posed by committee members. The principal also presented the six—month report at the school board and “w .. -, . r“ ~ .... «u ~- . 5’} AFvv-vv .- ..w -..- . r'vr~.r‘ 'OO-‘v.5.¢. . .. ~~ y. L- . \-.- ‘ _. .. A .. ‘2“ >, .. .. v' "~.4 . A " ‘r "‘v.. -. .. 1“... .- ~.-, i -1‘ \ .-_. a 5! ..- s" -.. ‘- V r“\ - ., - ~ k... ~ - A .__. _ _ _, S . “.‘~ N“ ‘s J ... '. L— ..., A ‘-.' ‘\ '. — fi.~ s . ~- -- N.’ "J‘ W 1‘4 .‘ ‘.“L. ‘I x. N‘. , 4 A .‘x 5' V‘ -Q . ._ _ ‘- s" -_7 r- ~ ~~n .- fl \ . - ‘ \ . _ ‘ s ._ v, ‘- ‘. - x ‘ \ ‘ a w - «s ”v. 9., .4 ‘ 5' n ‘ -‘ \- - x w " . s . \\ ‘ u" \ VI. “1‘ ~‘~ .4 ‘.w ~ .4 102 Education Commission meetings. While the presentations were not as specific as that presented to the finance committee, the committee members analyzed the budget by questioning the principal about it. mm r In school budget preparation and monitoring, fewer parents and non—parents are involved at Kwanzaa Catholic than at Rainbow Catholic. This may be due to the fact that Rainbow adheres to the parish governance model which involves a larger group of people. Kwanzaa parish has the same structure, but does not function under it as Rainbow does. As a result, the Kwanzaa principals, in consultation with the business office staff, accepted sole responsibility for balancing the budget. Their continuing rate of success enabled the principals to control the budgetary process. The Rainbow principal, on the other hand, operated within a bureaucracy which limited her central role in deciding who participates in the budget process. She was free, however, to determine the subject matter of budgetary decisions and the degree of board participation. Therefore, in keeping with the parish structure and in exercising her central position, she limited board participation to the following decisions: salary increase, income generation, final budget approval and monthly monitoring. The principal, with some assistance from her bookkeeper, assumed these financial responsibilities: budget preparation, approval of salary increases, approval of income generation and detailed re- ‘1' ‘~, , -‘JJ ...» 103 monthly monitoring. The principal actively participated in budget preparation and monitoring, but she did not have the budget control which she would like. In general, budgetary concerns are the same at both schools. However, the decision-makers had flexibility and were, therefore, creative and innovative in responding to the needs of each school. Parent Clubs' Budget Preparation and Monitoring Parent clubs existed in both schools. Their purposes varied, but each organization had its own budget. In all cases, the principals delegated much of their decision-making authority to the officers of each club. Kwanzaa School was seventy—one years old at the time of the study. For many of those years, it has had a very active Mothers' Club and Fathers' Club and a number of their customs and procedures have continued unquestioned. The purpose of the Mothers' Club is to be a service organization which provides assistance at school functions and offers recreational events after school. It is not intended to be a fundraising group, but some of the activities generated a profit which was donated to the school. For the last three years, the Mothers' Club gave an annual donation of two thousand dollars. According to the officers, when the principals prepare the school budget, they rely on the donation and estimate its amount and include that as ,.AA~~— _, v,..-\.« ...-»uvv“ Af" w vb‘v‘ r. i A . ' ...rw - .- s. RA. ...- ... "V. ---» .a. -.. .— --«- --- r ... ., " _ ~ .., "“ ~... "A q- _‘ ... v-44 Irv -_..‘ -~-«. AA 5x ~- ,. _ .V J— .— A‘-' ' , .~" ‘ . '5. f~-.. ': '-~.‘ ~" ». ,“ c. . Us " v.. v. u ..v- . "'\-. ‘ah \ 4“ \- . v ‘ “‘ sv" '4 e . ‘~Vh~’v \J ~. . (‘r "\ 1“ -..“ ‘ - u ,. . . ‘k’ ‘t ~. s '- ~I‘NbA 4 .v‘~ \- V x ‘\ .\», ~‘ r- ' . .- ‘~. -, . ‘Nfi ‘ _. ox ‘\ ~ . ‘ «“s x. F“ - a “ s. ‘ .¢ 104 necessary income to the school. The Mothers' Club has its own checking account and a treasurer's report is given at the officers' monthly meeting. The officers monitor the budget, not the principals. In fact, the principals did not know if the officers were accountable to anyone in authority. The purpose of the Kwanzaa Fathers' Club is to "promote and finance" the school's athletic programs; these do not include the daily physical education classes. The Fathers' Club administers the athletic program and holds fundraisers to generate income. The mainstay of the fundraisers is weekly bingo. The Fathers' Club annually requests that the principals prepare and submit an athletic budget which may or may not be approved by the Club officers according to whether or not the organization will be able to raise the necessary funds. The request for the current year was approximately $23,000. When working with the Fathers' Club, the principals allowed the organization’s members to direct the decision- making rather than doing so themselves. Like the Mothers' Club, the Fathers' Club has its own checking account and there is a treasurer's report at the monthly meetings. The membership monitors the budget rather than the principals. Once again, the principals did not know if the officers were accountable to anyone in authority. And yet, when the athletic director (who is also the physical education instructor) attempted to monitor his $30,000 budget for the extra-curricular athletic program, one principal opposed him: I used to go over there [the business office] and ask , .AY‘ -V‘ -..- ..n 4 ‘If‘ “C .. x «\v a; we 1 s c e e w». ..x. »a v . , . v . . .Lv . .. w. .... ,. .. p. \. \ s ‘ \~. 105 for the first two years [budgets] and Sister Rita didn't like that. . . . She said, 'Other coordinators don't go over there.’ And I said, 'Well, this is a large sum of money and sometimes I want to go over there and doublecheck on things.’ She said I was not allowed to go over there and all I could do is submit my check requests. At first I wanted to make sure that I spent every penny that was mine, that was ours. So now I keep close track in my private records and I try to spend right up to the last couple hundred dollars. Rainbow School also had two parent groups: the P.T.A. and ‘the Sports Board. All parents are members of the P.T.A. whose: twofold purpose is to create camaraderie among the parerH:s and to raise a sizable donation for the school's opera¢:ing expenses as well as funds for the part—time comptn:er teacher's salary and supplies. The Sports Board raises; funds for its $65,000 athletic program and administers the prnogram; this does not include physical education Classess. Additionally, the principal requires that the Sports; Board give a donation to the school. That donation was niune thousand dollars for the current school year. EBOth boards created their own budgets, subject to the aPPrOVnal of the principal and the school board finance commititee. During two months at Rainbow, the mandatory donathDD for the next school year was considered at two Sports; Board meetings and one finance committee meeting. Sports; Board members felt the donation was too high, while the FHfincipal and the finance committee felt that it was the grOuF>'s obligation to contribute financially to the school ratlmsr than being a self—serving (though self-supporting) -r- .¢~ 4,“- >--* ,i.‘ v rm ’“v ‘~-.. .3 ~‘. 5. 106 organization. Likewise, the principal disagreed strongly that one fundraiser used in the present year should be used again because of too few volunteers. Both topics were unresolved during the data collection, but it was obvious from the interactions that the principal controlled some budget formation and some methods of income generation. The parent clubs' budgets were monitored monthly by the principal, the finance committee of the school board and the treasurers of the clubs: I control all the finances of the school, but there are four organizations: the Sports Club, the P.T.A., the after—school care, the cafeteria. Those are the four areas of the school whose budgets are within our [school's] budget. So we always monitor that. I monitor it and then the finance committee of the school board monitors it. Each month the parish will generate a statement. We have our different expense numbers and income numbers assigned. Now I know, by the first week of the new month, exactly where we stand. And I know where we stand now. Summary. In preparing and monitoring the parent clubs' budgets, the principals gave the officers of the organizations much decision-making power. At Kwanzaa, the principals neither received nor reviewed the proposed budgets. For the Fathers' Club, the principals were required to submit a budget for review! The principals did not monitor the budgets, but expected to receive the amount of money each group allocated for the school and its operations. It is unclear whether any parish authority monitored the financial statements of the two groups. In addressing the ~-r>v — . —~r~ ....4. . .. v"‘ A '~r,n ~ L., 'r, ~ F ...- \_ ;-' ,_ “‘~-4_. .-. ‘ .— . ._, I 1 \_ ‘ x -V' .. v— _r _~-‘. 's .. k“ tvaks ‘— ,.. 'v ._ ‘ .- ‘1‘. . < " . s 's "a ‘ -\ _‘ .x ‘ l.._ 4“ s '- ‘ k v s ~ *\ a ‘ ’ x 107 central role of the principal, one questions whether this lack of monitoring is good business practice and a good example of site-based management. On the other hand, both organizations have traditionally functioned autonomously and the level of trust and honesty seems to outweigh any possible impropriety such as theft or embezzlement. Rainbow's principal exercised a more central role over the parent clubs' budgets. She allowed officers to prepare annual budgets, but she and the finance committee prepared the final budget. The principal and the finance committee also systematically monitored each budget monthly. To varying degrees the principals participated in the preparation and monitoring of the parent clubs' budgets. In both schools, the principals extended some decision—making power to the clubs' officers which enabled the participants to be productive and creative in reaching their goals. Faculty Purchasing The roles of the principal, parents and advisers in decisions about the annual operating budget and parent clubs' budgets have been presented. The argument for the centrality of the principal states that the principal determines the subject matter of decisions, the participants and the degree of their participation. In determining who was to participate in budget preparations and monitoring, the principals excluded the teachers. However, at both schools, rr» r. ...v ....i. . ~Aqa 5» fl‘\" --u a. _, . - ’ A c-..,¢-,‘ rp- 5-- ‘. ‘ J V 1L) I (I! J l 3 y s u“ a I" I ) ‘- _- . »‘1~‘\'_ QV,‘ ‘ \. ‘V » «.517 \ I~F. ~4‘ ‘ ‘4 “ ‘ a \A ‘ ‘ 8 .Q A wi, 57‘ b— n‘ .. .— ... r “ .f ‘s \'>._ \vk.L‘ ‘ ~ y u . '1“ u '\ .‘ ... « \ 108 the principals allowed the faculty to make budgetary decisions in two areas of purchasing: Chapter 2 funds and classroom monies. Similarly, maintainence staff made several budgetary decisions. By allowing the teachers and the maintainence staff to order materials and supplies, the principals assumed the role of business manager. Chapter 2 Funds; In generating whatever income they could, the principals applied for applicable federal grants. One grant is the Chapter 2 program for supplementary materials and equipment; the amount of money received is based on enrollment. The local public school district notifies the principal about the amount of Chapter 2 funding allocated to the school for the year. At Kwanzaa, Sister Janet announced to the teachers that Chapter 2 funds were available and solicited their requests for materials. She invited all teachers to Participate and they had the Option to respond or not. During the 1989-90 school year, the two junior high science teachers asked for nine new microscopes. Since the Kwanzaa Principals require a rationale for Chapter 2 purchases, the teachers indicated the following need: Last year . . . we had [only] nine working microscopes and that was hard to divide a class up so they could all use them. So now we have fifteen and you can have two students per microscope. Those are expensive. That took up most of it [Chapter 2 funds] and I got three geology-type of microscopes for examining solid Specimens. In addition to the student-centered rationale, the principals Q d .3 U s. E n.1,: a C. . L” an r“ 4...; .rL . . ... . . . - up“ .-. . . ~ . .L ... 3 an a . a. C by W :3 ‘1‘ Q. s e ..u a,» v. D». Ndi v; Q.» A v Au 3.. .n. .n i. C . .. . v. ... \\\ 109 wanted to be assured about the materials' usefulness. The principals then tried to purchase what the teachers requested: They [the teachers] always recommend what they would like. Again, we review that and we try to get every— thing we can. We feel that's most important. Like when they wanted the microscopes. I thought they were pretty expensive, but I went to the teachers and said, 'Andy and Mary, will you really use these?’ Because sometimes we've gotten materials and then they don't use them. I said, 'Now, you're going to really use these? We have microscopes, but you don't feel like you have enough.’ Andy thought that what we had was good, but he said we could use more. So I go back to the teachers and make sure that they're going to use the equipment. The remainder of the 1989-90 Chapter 2 money was used for audio-visual equipment and library books as requested by the librarians. For the 1990-91 year, the computer teacher requested a network environment because the twenty-five computers are "individually controlled and I felt that if it were networked, it would help me when I give instructions." She talked with the co-principals and . We thought maybe the government might [provide the funds]. . . and one of the co-principals took care of it and she was nice enough to come and report back to me and said that she was asking; she was working on it. She had some figures like maybe two or three thousand dollars and I could understand that after she mentioned the work that would have to be done to even power it. I didn't think of that. The unit would cost-~well, if it cost one thousand dollars, that would be a lot. But when you consider what is entailed in supplying adequate power and all the plugs, you know how much it would cost. But they are trying to do it if they can. She's asking and shopping around and maybe she could get somebody to donate the power part. The computer teacher was unaware of Sister Rita's comments to me that: Right now what we're trying to get in is a control ou- ur‘ ....” Ls ... 110 set—up in the computer room. But I don't know whether we can do a lot of that because it's quite expensive. It would take everything in Chapter 2. But here again, if the teachers have needs. At Rainbow, for the past three years, Chapter 2 funds were used exclusively to purchase computers and software. At the principal's request, the computer teacher selected all the materials. The computer teacher, in turn, received input from other faculty members to ascertain what kinds of software would be most useful: Every year I know we're going to get money from the state. And when I find out how much money that is, I can decide. Well, let's buy a computer or let's buy software or let's buy a printer or let's update. And I have at least a fifty percent say on it. I make the recommendations to Sister Barbara and if the money's there, we can do it. [In ordering soft- ware, I go to] the teachers who use the computers when I'm not here . . . and say, 'Okay, we've got the money. Here, what kind of software do we need? What kind of software do you want to see being able to be used on [my off—days] for your program?’ And I work it that way. The original decision to apply for Chapter 2 funds was made by the principals, but the teachers had discretionary use of those funds. The principals did not interfere. Because the principals were free to act autonomously, they allowed the teachers to make decisions which satisfied the teachers and their students. Classroom Moniesl The teachers did not have classroom budgets, but annually the principals allowed them to place orders, through a coordinator, for necessary books and supplies (Appendix O). The principals required that the requested items be needed. All orders for basic books and .. ._. v. r. . wk. .. :4 L. w. ... ... ... T r. .: ... L. ..u. r” ... n. ... .. r. _. ..c . .. ... .‘ . . .. ..A ... in .. ,k. ... .. .. .V .... .t. .‘ 111 supplies were always filled; at Rainbow, however, partner teachers shared sets of textbooks with each other. During the school year, classroom supplies such as chalk and staples were provided as needed. As one teacher said, "They furnish everything." Furnishing everything was not always the case, however, when the items under consideration were supplementary, or non-essential. The yearly budgets had been so precisely prepared that it was impossible to exceed the amount budgeted for instructional materials. The principals permitted the teachers to order items such as games, tapes or magazines for their classrooms and to submit these requests, along with their book and supply orders, to the department heads. At Kwanzaa, the department heads had the authority, from the principals, to eliminate or defend certain requests before the final order was sent to the principals: I compile it (Appendix P). I point out anything that I think is excessive. Teachers generally come to me and talk to me about it--we need this stuff for that class. I would talk to the principals. They could do it directly. They don't have to go through me, but they just seem to because I work on it. And I would go to the principals. . . . But a couple of years, it's been really outrageous. High. This will include run—off materials, ditto masters and so she [the principal] might give it back to me and say, 'See if you can cut this.‘ And I will go back to the teachers and say, 'Is this realistic?’ Department heads at Rainbow merely compiled the requests and submitted them to the principal. "The coordinator's in charge of getting a list of who needs what and then we send that through the office." vA ‘aL‘ ... 4... 2a .._ .. p». ..A ... .~. . . Va. ..¢ 112 In both schools, the principals made the final decisions about requests for supplemental materials. The criteria were twofold: Firstly, does it seem that the item is necessary to good teaching? (The Kwanzaa principals rely on the department heads to determine that initially.) Secondly, is there enough money in the budget? The teachers were accustomed to the procedure: They give us a certain amount of paper, copying materials and things like that that have to be paid for. It's not so much like saying, 'You have this much money to spend if you want to. No. You have this much material to use.’ As far as other things, they've just always said, 'If you need something small,‘ like a new top for my aquarium. They say, 'Okay, go ahead, get it. We'll pay you for it.’ There's a little electrical device. 'Okay, go ahead and get it.’ They've never said no for something small like that. (Kwanzaa teacher) We just put in what we think we need and if they have the money to buy, then they buy. And if not, then they don't [buy]. (Rainbow teacher) They [the teachers] have input into the supplies. There's a wish list and a needs list. Then I really end up making the decisions on what are the wish things we'll end up getting. (Rainbow principal) If there was no money, teachers often purchased their own supplementary materials, relied on donations, or did without: we're told at meetings that you can't get any extra-—like outside magazines--because the budget is set and there's no money for it. (Kwanzaa teacher) The very first day I was hired, they gave me a purchase order for the Teachers' Store and that was to get some resources for the science. But other than that, everything for the room has been out of my pocket. (Kwanzaa teacher) All the tapes for the listening center I bought myself. All the decorations are mine that I bought .. w “J .3 .L .5 y. s. 4. r.. .T y” i ,4 .3. .. ... . L. . r.. a. a. . .H. .5; .4 a. .3 .HC .»H CV 1‘; .... y. r“ J. n .r.. ... .3 .... C9 ;. Va A. r.. .wq. w“ b. a: .ru nu r. :9 v. p“ v~ .: u. A. .3 ~ r.. «. no .G ‘ s «1:4 C. a: «\V L. L. v.. Q.» A. .. .C .wa av 5.. ... L. “a n. r.. .3 .. ... ..i ... A. ..3 ..u .n,‘ L. .3 ~. wk 5... an - . . A: a. “h “h “w p“ .v .. .r.... .2 NA ‘ . ..-. ..A u. v; ml .‘ 5,. ..‘ at .4. . a . a Va A. ‘ a ‘ ‘ rs Cu 2' a: C. 2‘ Q. n». “L. .a .‘ ... 4... x; v. s. a. «u. IL; re. 1. as a . ... ..u ... L. ...u ... ... .. a ..u L. . . ..1 n C o I ... a ‘ \~ «x» .\h \ . ~‘ 7‘. 113 myself or that I made myself. . . . So I just purchased them myself. We have a certain amount of paper that we're supposed to get for the year and sometimes by springtime we'll be hurting for paper. But my father works for a paper mill and so if I need paper, I will just talk to him. (Kwanzaa teacher) I buy judiciously and when we wanted to set up the educational materials travelling kit . . . then we had to ask for donations for that from parents and we were able to link into another organization which wishes to remain anonymous. But a couple of parents were generous, so we did it. We raised about five hundred dollars for our budget for our supplies, for our classroom kit. (Rainbow teacher) There are things that i really would like, but I haven't asked for them because I know there's not [money]. And I've spent a lot of my own money. (Rainbow teacher) Summary; Faculty Purchasing. The faculties of Kwanzaa and Rainbow schools did not prepare the budgets, but they made decisions about Chapter 2 funds and classroom monies. In allocating Chapter 2 funds, the Kwanzaa co-principals merely asked the teachers to order necessary and useful materials. At Rainbow, the principal determined that computer equipment would be purchased with Chapter 2 funds. Once that decision was made, the computer teacher compiled the order. Teachers at both schools ordered their own books and supplies through the department chairs. In ordering supplementary materials, the teachers have learned to keep their requests small. Department chairs at Kwanzaa made decisions about the quantity and quality of materials, but both the Kwanzaa and Rainbow principals made the final 114 decisions. The principals functioned as "enlightened" business managers; they are enlightened in that they possess an expertise which enables them to determine--rightly or wrongly--the educational relevance of materials requested. Few bureaucratic structures in the process enable the principal and faculty to develop a reciprocal relationship. The principals allow the teachers to make important decisions. In making decisions, the teachers are resourceful and ingenious and, as a result, have the necessary supplies and materials. Maintainence Staff Purchasing The principals also allowed the maintainence staffs to make purchasing decisions. Monthly, in both schools, the maintainence staffs ordered essential supplies without the approval of the principals. Like the teachers, when these two men and one woman wanted something extra, they discussed it with the principals. At Kwanzaa, the maintainence staff was cleaning floors by hand. Knowing that the principal "likes hospital floors," they asked for a big machine that washes and vacs the water up. The salesman told her [the principal] that . . . this machine is high speed. It shines the floor much faster and better so she said okay. So we tried one. She liked it and she bought another. The decision to order the machine was the principal's, but the maintainence staff knew the politically correct maneuver to get her to agree to the purchase. At Rainbow, the maintainence engineer purchased . .- .~ 1‘ ' n... ’0 . . via Pr-u nun hr}. . P. "' 00 ~ nu. -A-d .r AF] . F “ ha. v..H-.‘V. 1 In D“ _‘ 1 I"? p - -._“- 115 materials which cost less than one hundred dollars. If the cost was greater than that, he generally discussed it with the principal. An example of this occurred during a two month period when the school had five volunteer workers. Taking advantage of the extra labor, the maintainence engineer decided that the gym/cafeteria should be painted: I talked to Sister Barbara about it, but I didn't tell her the official price yet because it was something that needed to be done and we had the man- power to do it now. So the little expense we spent on it is worth it because we got it painted for free. In six years of working with the principal, the maintainence engineer has learned when it is acceptable to make decisions that fall outside the realm of his normal decision-making authority. Summary: Maintainence Staff Purchasing; The principals authorized the maintainence staffs to order normal maintainence supplies. A request for extraordinary supplies or equipment most often required the approval of the principals. The principals continued to function as business managers, but they needed no board approval for expenditures falling within the budget's allowance. As a result, maintainence needs are satisfied. Summary - Principal Centrality and Budgetary Decisions Decision-making in the budget process at two site-based managed schools has been described. The principals assumed the role traditionally held by the district superintendent ’fI‘ .Y ,..ug wv. -'... v», . ....~ .V¢ -..», ,— - ...Y ..-- v ‘-A--\.;-r ~ u---~-v. up». ..., -._ All ‘I' (I) I V‘V‘r "’V“ --v.. 116 and, more specifically, by the district business manager. This role enabled the principals to determine the subject matter of budgetary decisions, the participants in the decisions, the level of participation and the degree to which the principals themselves participated in the decisions. In the two site—based managed schools, formulation and monitoring of the annual budget was primarily the duty of the principals and several advisory staff, though one school did have strong participation by parents and non-parents. Parent club officers established the budgets for their respective organizations. At one school, the officers monitored their own budgets; at the other school, club budgets were monitored by the principal and the school board. Teachers were authorized to make decisions about educational materials and supplies, though the principals gave final approval. Likewise, members of the maintainence staffs made certain budgetary decisions, some of which were subject to approval by the principal and some of which were not. This study argues that site-based management is a function, in part, of the centrality of the principal. By assuming the central role formerly held by the district superintendent, the principal is responsible for budgetary decisions. In site-based managed schools, budgetary decisions are made by a large number of on-site participants, all functioning under the direction of the principal. By assuming a central position in the budgetary process, the 117 principal is no longer a middle manager, but bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the budget remains balanced. That responsibility is shared with parents, non- parents, faculty and staff. The reciprocity of this relationship occurs when the principal, in turn, assumes responsibility for maintaining an adequately supplied school. Teacher Empowerment It is argued that site—based management is also a function of the empowerment of the teachers which affords them opportunities, in a iecentralized structure, to act autonomously, to exercise responsibility, to make choices and to possess authority in the decision—making process. Empowered teachers are valued for their professional expertise and creativity. However, empowered teachers are subject to the principal's authority as presented in the preceding section. The Kwanzaa and Rainbow teachers made budgetary decisions about Chapter 2 funds and classroom monies. By examining these budgetary decision areas, it is possible to see some of the behaviors associated with teacher empowerment in site—based managed schools. Chapter 2 Funds Chapter 2 funds are federal grant monies which are based on the school's annual enrollment. At Kwanzaa, the principal made a general announcement to the teachers that Chapter 2 funds were available and solicited their requests for 118 materials. Rather than order materials herself, the principal invited all teachers to participate and they had the option to respond or not. During the 1989-90 school year, the two junior high science teachers asked for and received nine new microscopes: six for normal classroom use and "three geology-type for examining solid specimens." It was the teachers' responsibility to determine which microscopes to order. The remainder of the 1989-90 Chapter 2 money was used for audio-visual equipment and library books as requested by the librarians. When asked how much input the faculty had into decisions about books and materials, the librarians responded that the teachers "make suggestions and we make decisions. . . . They usually suggest what they're going to use." At Rainbow, for the past three years, Chapter 2 funds were used exclusively to purchase computers and software. The principal relied on the computer teacher to select all the materials. The computer teacher, in turn, received input from other faculty members about the software most useful to them. Few Kwanzaa teachers accepted the invitation to use the Chapter 2 funds. Those that did were able to choose their own materials and took the time to do so. If Rainbow teachers used computers in their classrooms, they chose their own software with Chapter 2 funds. A‘ ‘- .«-.r "‘ -\~ 1 -.a~v~v“‘ OV‘ -*.:' ”....“ >A -.rw;r .v vkoo . (...-s - ‘ ”A \ V“ I. .4" .v 4 ‘r‘ar~r‘w ..a—g.‘-M 1 fi‘ - A ‘ . _"‘_V ~a.u..--‘4 ‘vV' ‘ - fiv- H‘- a '444-_“ . 1 '~;'.fi.‘- ..4‘..‘.__‘ TV ...- ~“‘_~..._\ ,‘ vs. r» . -~." ~—~~- .. ’A-s. - _ ~i. . \th‘Lp-A -- -Y ,.~..u.... ._. V . '~v.‘ 1. V;-.- 4.. ,._'I- -,_" ‘, . ‘ .‘ - ‘V 7‘» n... ...v '1‘... ‘VA“ . ,x y .4 nv-A La“;" . «g. “-. v~ LU L §v ‘I ‘ 1‘_.' 7‘ ._' q ‘4 v-x , .... v_- A.“U~ v ”w. ‘A ‘V‘. . .. ‘ . “’5 “§( q >\ H .‘ x‘ ‘x. 3*, N 1‘.“ ‘ ‘. "A [-HL. .. [~.‘V ‘n “K '1 s" . ‘. ‘ '~. '— -._-... y ‘ 'r' . . . ‘\. A . a _\‘N\ “w, ‘~.\_- ‘ ~‘. ..- “ ‘.L.." ‘4 v u ‘_ ‘ .q-x‘ .' ,. “‘ '5 ‘VJ ‘. .>_. ..w‘.‘ M‘- ' \ \ 119 Classroom Monies When considering classroom monies, teachers were obliged to order necessary books and supplies. And the teachers always received those books and supplies. This process of ordering and receiving necessary materials is an example of a balanced organization (Zaleznik, 1965). In a balanced organization, members have consistent beliefs about various organizational aspects such as having sufficient books and supplies. However, when the teachers requested monies for supplementary materials, a state of imbalance occurred because the materials were non—essential. This state created empowered teachers who were creative, autonomous and self- directed: If I wanted something for my room, I'd just go to the office and they'd give me a purchase order, as long as it's not something very large. But if I just wanted something small, that wouldn't be a problem. They'd take care of it. [But] I don't ask for very much. Maybe that's why I don't run into problems. I really don't ask for much. I've purchased a lot myself. (Kwanzaa teacher) My budget consists of when I want something, I just have to determine whether I feel it's really, really important. Most of it concerns dittoes, ditto books, and videos that I show to the kids on American history. And there's been no problem with that. All I do is I buy it and I send the receipt down to [the bookkeeper] and she takes care of it. (Rainbow teacher) When the teachers needed supplementary materials and supplies, they either purchased the items themselves and received reimbursement, or they requested a purchase order. In acting responsibly, the teachers indicated that they kept their requests small and essential. 120 Summary - Teacher Empowerment and Budgetary Decisions Decision—making in the budget process at two site—based managed schools has been described. The teachers were empowered as evidenced by the opportunities they had to act autonomously, to exercise responsibility, to make choices and to possess authority in the decision process. The opportunities for budgetary decision-making were limited to Chapter 2 funds and classroom monies. At one school, the teachers were free to accept or not accept the use of Chapter 2 funds; a minimal number accepted and ordered their own equipment. At the other school, the principal allocated Chapter 2 funds to a particular area and allowed the teachers to select the materials. Teachers requested and purchased supplementary materials for their classrooms as long as the budget allowed it. Even though there were few bureaucratic regulations, the teachers overcame other obstacles: because both schools operated in straitened circumstances, the teachers learned and practiced the politics of limits and restraint. This study argues that site-based management is a function, in part, of the empowerment of the teachers. Principals make some decisions and allow teachers to make others. In site-based managed schools, teachers are empowered to make budgetary decisions which affect their own students and classrooms. As a result, the teachers have (I) ‘v‘-~\vl u.-.‘.-v ‘~-. ‘-v-~- . ‘x, ul‘ ... ‘ . H xv- . a. 1, r .. \ . ‘Q A v“ 121 opportunities to be autonomous and responsible decision- makers who are valued for their professional expertise and creativity. The Autonomy of the Local School It is the argument of this study that site-based management is also a function of the local school community's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. The control of the school resides at the local level rather than at the district level. Local school personnel, including administrators, teachers and parents are committed to a common mission designed for their own students. The absence of bureaucracy enables the participants to quickly diagnose and remedy problems peculiar to their schools. Making budgetary decisions about expenditures and revenues means that some needs will be met and some will not. The affected areas include administrative needs, individual teacher and classroom needs, and maintaintence needs. By examining budgetary decisions, it is possible to see some of the effects of accepting and exercising autonomy in site—based managed schools. Expenditures Prioritizing expenditures is the first step in preparing an annual budget. The next step is to balance expenditures with income. Tables 4 and 5 present a budget summary by percentages for Kwanzaa School and Rainbow School. Tables 6 122 and 7 present a budget summary by percentages for the local public school districts in which Kwanzaa and Rainbow are located. Kwanzaa and Rainbow budgets separated textbooks and supplies (Instructional Materials and Administrative Expenses) from their Salary and Benefits categories. It was not possible to separate Kwanzaa and Rainbow's salaries and benefits. The public school districts included teacher salaries, textbooks and supplies in the Instruction category. Secretarial and support staff salaries and supplies are included in the Support(ing) Services category. The Other category included transportation services, cafeteria and community services. Benefits were listed separately from salaries. As noted above, incrementalism is a sign of a stable and self-satisfied organization. At Kwanzaa and Rainbow schools, as well as the public schools, all budget areas have remained constant for the years examined. The majority of the Catholic schools' budgets is reserved for teachers' salaries and benefits as indicated in Instructional Salary and Benefits. Less than four percent of the budget is earmarked for instructional materials and yet it was stated earlier that the teachers felt they had all the supplies they needed or wanted. By comparing the budgets from Kwanzaa, Rainbow, and Kwanzaa's public school district, it is evident that the schools expended seventy-two percent to eighty percent for all salaries, supplies, textbooks and benefits. Rainbow's Table 4 123 Budget Summary by Percentage, Kwanzaa Catholic School 1987-1991 Percentage of Budget Actual Projected 1987—88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91* IN ME. Tuition and Fees 80 84 82 80 Donations and Grants 6 6 7 8 Fundraising 10 6 7 7 Miscellaneous 4 4 4 S EXPENDITURES Administrative 12 12 12 13 Salary and Benefits Instructional 63 62 61 63 Salary and Benefits Instructional Materials 3 2 3 2 Administrative Expenses 2 2 2 2 Other Services/Programs 4 5 5 5 Plant Operations 15 15 14 13 and Maintainence Capital Expenditures 1 2 3 1 Source: Budget Reports, 1991. Kwanzaa Catholic Elementary School Archdiocesan 1987— *Rounding causes figures to be less than 100 percent Table 5 124 Budget Summary by Percentage, Rainbow Catholic School 1987—1991 Percentage of Budget* Actual Projected 1987—88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 Tuition and Fees 57 55 57 55 Subsidy from Parish 26 27 23 22 Fundraising 9 10 7 9 Miscellaneous 8 10 14 15 EN I Administrative Salary 11 11 13 14 and Benefits Instructional Salary 59 59 55 52 and Benefits Instructional Materials 4 4 4 3 Administrative Expenses 2 2 2 2 Other Services/Programs 9 8 11 12 Plant Operations 15 15 15 16 and Maintainence Capital Expenditures 1 1 <1 <1 Source: Rainbow Catholic Elementary School Archdiocesan Budget Reports, 1987-1991. *Due to rounding, figures do not equal 100 percent a-“ _ . .— r .‘~-v - . _. .--~~_ -aA-ly_ . .. ..-, .... ‘.< ‘14 ¢< ‘sAQ-JJ r.. . ,. , r v a..."‘“ . ._'.._‘ . “ \ . ~..‘ .. ‘u. .r‘ - ...r .h V- .. 1 ~‘ ‘ "N. “‘J ..r- . “‘u I ‘- ‘ ‘s 125 Table 6 Budget Expenditure Summary by Percentage Kwanzaa's Local Public School District, 1988 and 1989 Percentage of Budget* 1987-88 1988-89 EXPEND ITURES Instruction, All levels 46 45 Support Services, All levels 14 13 Benefits 12 14 All Plant and Maintainence Operations 15 15 Other 7 7 Buildings and Site Fund 2 2 Debt Retirement Fund 3 3 Source: in n ' . r I‘ ' o If 0' .o_ f . ‘q, -IQ‘Q 1'3“. *Rounding causes figures to be less than 100 percent .4. - i ...:J-4 V‘“L~. . I a- .._A‘ “'- -. --. V‘ s u,r . H-‘ A -r‘ ‘ a s -.,_‘- 126 Table 7 Budget Expenditure Summary by Percentage Rainbow's Local Public School District, 1987—1990 Percentage of Budget* 1987—88 1988-89 1989-90 EXPENDITURES Instruction, All levels 48 47 47 Supporting Services, All levels 36 36 34 Benefits 12 13 14 Other 3 3 3 Capital Outlays 2 2 2 Source: Comprehensixe_Annual_Einancial_Beports_of_the_School I' . E l :. / E E 1 : 1 1282 i 1923. *Rounding causes figures to be greater than 100 percent. V “REAP. V .: .VAAVV v~. . "v. ~ r‘fi“"\?‘ “Vv‘ ("1 "1 (D .._4 127 public school district expended ninety-five or ninety—six percent for those areas. Hiring and Retaining Qualified Teachers. Faculty salaries are major expenditure items. In site—based managed schools, local personnel negotiate salaries that will attract and retain qualified faculty members. Because teachers who are members of religious orders of women receive a lower salary than their "lay" peers, the data presented will describe only lay teachers' salaries. At Kwanzaa, the principals believed that salaries were "to be as just" as they could be. Therefore, they paid the lay teachers according to the archdiocesan scale which is based on education and years of experience. Paying a just wage enables urban Kwanzaa school to attract and retain quality teachers who could be attracted to other schools: [Regarding salaries] this school is very good as far as Catholic schools go. Comparing Kwanzaa to a lot of other Catholic schools, this is really a miracle considering where we are [in the city]. It's one of the highest paid, at least for me. . . . In places like the suburbs where you think they'd have the money, they don't pay their teachers as well—-which is one of the reasons why I stay. Even though Kwanzaa's principals provided good salaries, there were teachers who felt that the salary was inadequate for their expertise: I have thirty—two masters credits. But when I reached my twenty, I did not see a substantial increase. . . I don't expect any increase for my masters even though in public school that would happen. Raising teachers' salaries is also an issue at suburban \ e 128 Rainbow School because the principal and school board members realized that their teachers were not being appropriately paid and could subsequently be attracted to more lucrative schools: As a board, we feel that the teachers here are well underpaid and that's our number one priority. And when we start our budget, we start it with a very high per- centage as far as raises goes. By the time we're done, it's decreased and it's really upsetting to us because we know that they're worth more than they're being paid and we don't want to lose these people. . . . I hope they understand why they're not getting the money. Like Outer County, they get what? $40,000? And [our teachers are] just so good compared to these teachers that [sic] are complaining out in the city of Brook. Oh God, [our teachers] are just marvelous! (School board member) The teachers themselves would like a raise for graduate degrees. Some teachers left the school because they did not get that increase: We, unfortunately, don't get [a raise] for extra schooling, masters degree. I'd like to see that, of course. But we're aware of where the funds come from. Why it's not [raised]. If you don't like it, people leave. That's just the way it has to be. . . . It took me awhile to realize that the different schools are funded by what the different schools bring in. I have a friend in the exact same spot as me [sic] in schooling, in our masters. I'd say she makes about four thousand dollars more and she's in a Catholic school also. For the 1990-91 school year, the Rainbow school board figured a way to fund a five percent increase for faculty salaries rather than the parish—mandated four percent increase. During two months at Rainbow, salaries for the next school year were discussed at one finance committee meeting. The principal wanted salaries to be closer to the diocesan scale than they were at that time. And so the board -...v‘ A: :« ... ..-r-( , A .An.~ --\v- 5-..- .7 -v«.a- ‘AA'... ‘~,L‘ 129 initiated the long process to determine how much to raise the salaries and how to subsequently finance that raise. Table 8 lists lay faculty salaries and degree levels at Kwanzaa and Rainbow schools for the 1990-91 school year. Each school attempted to employ highly qualified lay faculty members by offering salaries competitive in the Catholic school market. Urban Kwanzaa has an average teacher salary that is $2,400 higher than suburban Rainbow. Both site-based managed schools negotiated salaries based on their own needs and their ability to attract qualified personnel in their respective geographic areas. Table 8 Lay Faculty Salaries and Educational Degrees Kwanzaa Catholic School and Rainbow Catholic School, 1990-91 Kwanzaa Rainbow Pupil-Teacher Ratio 24:1 25:1 Average Salary for Full-time Faculty Before Benefits $21,754 $19,323 Median Salary $21,500 $17,438 Number with BA, BS degrees 15 7 Number with MA, MS degrees 7 6 Source: Fourth Friday Reports, 1990—91, Kwanzaa School and Rainbow School. ..v 1’ rs. a _ 130 Addressing Student Needst All teachers and students have peculiar needs and site-based management enables local school personnel to allocate the budget to satisfy those needs. As stated above, the teachers at both schools received all basic books and supplies; at Rainbow, however, partner teachers shared sets of textbooks with each other. Supplementary materials were purchased as the budgets allowed and requests for such materials were approved by the principals. At Kwanzaa, to fulfill specific needs, the following materials were acquired: classroom microscopes and geology- type microscopes for the junior high students; library books, tape recorders, and religion videos for use throughout the entire school; a computer network environment; and supplemental reading and math texts. However, even though the principal stated that "academics come first," requests for certain supplemental academic materials were denied. Several Kwanzaa teachers were upset because they could no longer order weekly news—format—type magazines for their classes: We've had to cut down on extra reading material we've had in the past . . . for science and social studies and reading. We've been told that it would probably be best if we didn't order anything like that. We've never asked parents and they [the principals] say that they still don't want us to ask parents because tuition is too expensive and they don't want them to have to pay any more than that. At Rainbow, to fulfill specific needs, the following materials were acquired: computer hardware and software; new v w- '— .~u Cg. x 131 religion and spelling texts school-wide; math tapes for grade two; manipulatives for the kindergarten math program; new social studies books in grade six because the teachers said they "had to wait our turn;" and art materials, library books and supplementary reading texts. A tight budget at Rainbow meant that several items could be purchased only if the money for them was raised solely for that purpose. And so, two campaigns were held: 1) a penny drive which netted one thousand dollars to finance the furnishing of a pre-school classroom and 2) procurement of donations to purchase educational materials for a travelling classroom library on substance abuse. Local school administrators and teachers in site-based managed schools make decisions about the needs of their students. Because Kwanzaa and Rainbow schools operated in a decentralized manner, the school personnel procured, when possible, the materials pertinent to their programs and students. Capital Improvementst Each budgetary decision affected subsequent expenditure decisions. These decisions varied from school to school. However, at both Kwanzaa and Rainbow, academic and salary-related expenses took precedence over major capital improvements. At Kwanzaa, the decision to pay above-average salaries meant that energy—efficient window replacement and a new 132 heating system would have to wait: We can't get things done that we would want to do. We'd like to do windows. We're very desperate. We've tried to go through government funding or something like that. . . . And our heating system. If we could have general overhauling of it. However, school autonomy enabled the principals to rely on the school's reputation for procuring donations. A number of capital expenses were funded through those donations: I do have a friend who gave us money for our school. So that's over and above our ordinary budget. With those monies we had the gym painted. We've had carpet put in the school. The local principal had the authority to use donated funds for immediate school needs. According to the principal, Rainbow's budget is a "barebones operation." Other staff members described it as a "lean program" where "we've been encouraged to conserve." Because the principal believed that "academics always come first," major capital improvements, including new drapes throughout the school and energy—efficient window replacement, were postponed for the 1990-91 school year. School board members indicated that even the school's contingency fund had to be cut back: We originally had a contingency account which would cover that. But with budget cuts, you eliminate all that. . . . If we have a major crisis, we're hurt. But there was a contingency fund at one time up until the last few years. According to Sister Barbara, the year's contingency fund was five hundred dollars. Outside sources provided the means for some capital improvements: A lot of things we were able to do because we got II) ’ - v‘~~'- I... c. 'J 133 all the help from Chrysler's [job bank]. We had all these Chrysler workers here--a whole set for one whole year and they just did so many things to help us. . . . Their salaries were paid completely by Chrysler. They did community service . . . in non- profit—making places. One staff member related Sister Barbara's expertise in acquiring donations for a specific capital improvement project: If there's something the school needs and can't afford it, she's very good at fundraising. She gets peOple to donate money. All these water fountains out here. I'll never forget it. The water was warm; you couldn't drink it. I wouldn't touch that water at that time. She got people to donate money. She got all this money and she fixed all these water fountains. One thousand dollars it was and they donated money and they wanted those fountains and now we got all this nice cold water. While several school capital improvements had to be postponed, the Sports Board made budgetary decisions which almost seem extravagant: We have to prioritize what's more important. [This year it's] soccer and basketball uniforms. I wanted the kids looking sharp. I didn't want them wearing rags on the court or on the field. One of my priorities is the facilities. We've got probably one of the finest outdoor facilities in the entire archdiocese. It's nicer than most high schools. . . . It's a little ragged right now because of the wind and the weather. The flags have to be replaced because the wind has pretty much taken care of those. But we just had a burm built out here and it's going to be all planted. And we're going to put more bleachers in. That, to me, is a priority: to have a nice facility for the kids to play in. (Sports Board president) Local school personnel made decisions about the capital improvements needed at each school. Most often, academic needs had preference over capital improvements. When possible, the principals solicited extra funds for specific .44 ... 134 projects. Summary — Expenditures; Local school autonomy enabled school personnel to make expenditure decisions about salaries, student needs and capital improvements. In order to retain qualified teachers, the Kwanzaa principals decided to pay higher salaries than paid at most Catholic schools, and the principal at Rainbow was making a concerted effort to pay competitive salaries. However, the salary schedules for these site-based managed schools were not the same. Purchasing student educational materials was another major expenditure. Local personnel determined student needs and then used either school monies or their own funds to purchase the necessary materials. Finally, capital improvements were determined at the local level. These improvements were made as the budget allowed and were often postponed in favor of academic needs. Local school personnel diagnosed and remedied their own problems without interference from anyone at the district office. Revenues The sources of income varied at Kwanzaa Catholic and Rainbow Catholic (Tables 4 and 5). School autonomy not only enables local school personnel to make expenditure decisions but also revenue decisions. Kwanzaa received eighty percent or more of its income from tuition and fees and did not rely on parish funds for support. Rainbow, on the other hand, secured almost eighty percent of its income from tuition and 135 a parish subsidy. As a result, Rainbow School was dependent on parish funds and was subject to certain parish controls, such as reporting to the various levels of the parish structure. When Kwanzaa's principals and business office staff decided that eighty percent of the school's income should come from tuition and fees, they consequently decided that the remaining twenty percent would come from donations and grants, fundraising and miscellaneous items such as income from extra-curricular athletics, sales at the bookstore and the latchkey program. Locally, a great deal of effort was expended to raise $220,000. School personnel assumed responsibilites extraneous to purely educational activities: one of the principals wrote the grant for archdiocesan funds; the guidance counsellor was responsible for two candy sales; the guidance counsellor and a teacher were in charge of the licensed latchkey program before and after school; and, because the latchkey program was "just an extension of the day," a number of the teachers staffed it and were paid for their services. Some of the activites planned by the Fathers' and Mothers' Clubs to raise their portions of the revenue included weekly bingo, a fruitcake sale, an Easter lily sale, an auction, a Christmas store, and a fashion show. School autonomy not only means addressing local needs, but also working to fund those needs. For the most part, the active fundraisers were the parents, students and the a-“ \v v 4. 136 administrative staff; teachers participated by encouraging their students to sell or buy the products. At Rainbow, the decision by the principal and the school board to generate almost eighty percent of the school's income from tuition and parish subsidy consequently meant that the balance of the income would be procured through fundraising and miscellaneous items, such as P.T.A. and athletic income and cafeteria revenues. Again, much local effort was expended to raise the budgeted $180,000 and most of that effort belonged to the parents. Some of the fundraising activities for the year included a fruit sale, a Christmas tree sale, a Christmas store, a poinsettia sale, semimonthly euchre tournaments, a Las Vegas night, a week-end miIii-carnival, a resale shop, a coupon book sale and a cookbook sale. Rather than increase tuition, Rainbow's SChool board preferred to finance the budget through an endless series of fundraisers. §ummaryL In determining local needs, school personnel Ihust also determine how to finance those needs. The greatest revenue—generating item was tuition. When coupled with (grants or parish subsidies, the schools had almost eighty perCent of their incomes. To acquire the balance, both SchOols undertook fundraising activities which were geared toward and acceptable to the parents. Generating income h) . .. .. EECame a responSibility that was shared by administrators, 137 staff, parents and students. Summary — Exercise of Local School Autonomy and Budgetary Decisions Budgetary decision-making at two site-based managed schools has been described. The control of the school resided at the local level rather than at the district level. Local school personnel, including administrators, teachers and parents, were committed to a common mission designed for their own students. Local needs demanded different approaches for teacher salaries: the urban school paid a higher salary than the suburban school. Similarly, the two schools satisfied their peculiar needs for educational materials. Capital improvements differed from school to school based on the condition and age of the buildings. In both site—based managed schools, academic needs had priority over capital expenditures which were often postponed until funding was procured. Finally, the schools' personnel made decisions about generating income: one school relied on tuition, grants and fundraising, while the other school depended on tuition, parish subsidy and fundraising. As the argument goes, site—based management is a function, in part, of the local school community's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. The control of the school resides at the local level where personnel are committed to a common mission designed for their own students. Because there is little bureaucracy outside the school structure, 138 local school personnel design and maintain a budget that addresses the actual needs of their own students. The Curriculum Personnel in schools governed according to the site- based management model make decisions about budget, curriculum and personnel. Since these three decision areas are diverse, they are being considered individually. For each topic, there will be a delineation of the argument that site-based management is a function of principal centrality, teacher empowerment and local school autonomy. The aim is to describe the behaviors associated with principal centrality, teacher empowerment and school autonomy and to illustrate how the functions relate to each other. Site-based curriculum decisions are considered in this section. The Centrality of the Principal As the argument goes, site—based management is a function of the centrality of the principal which gives him or her the freedom to work in a decentralized fashion. It is the principal, not the superintendent, who holds the central position in terms of curricular decision—making. The principal determines l) the subject matter of curriculum decisions, 2) the participants in those decisions, and 3) the degree of participation. The principal implements the decisions. The principal first identifies the subject matter of the 139 decisions and then determines participants and degree of participation according to the kinds of decisions that need to be made. At urban Kwanzaa Catholic School and suburban Rainbow Catholic School, curricular decisions centered on four areas: goals and long—range plans, curriculum development, textbook selection, and reporting procedures about academic progress. In each area, the principals selected the participants and decided upon the degree to which the participants and the principals themselves were involved in the decisions. Goals and Long-Range Plans At both schools the principals established procedures for curricular goal-setting and long-range planning. There were school-wide goals and plans as well as goals for individual classrooms, grades and teachers. In some instances the administrators established goals and the faculties implemented them. At other times, the faculties determined goals and plans which were subject to the principals' approval. And finally, some decisions were made by the individual teachers alone or in consultation with their teaching partners; the principals were not involved. Kwanzaa SchoolL In site-based managed schools, the principals established procedures for curricular goal—setting and long-range planning. In two months at Kwanzaa, there was no evidence of long-range planning. However, only the two 140 co—pastors expressed any concern about that. One priest felt that the school had been operating effectively and he was not concerned about the lack of long—range planning: [Long—range planning] for the school has been let ride here. That has been pretty much unspoken in the control of the school people. On the other hand, there are some more rumblings, from the Council and the Council president, that the parish should have more of an input and a discussion of those goals. It should be. . . . Since the grade school has been running very effectively, we've just been diplomatic with it. The other priest, who is a member of the local school board, blamed the principals for the lack of long-range planning: At this point, they [the principals] are main- taining. . . . They don't have the energy or the interest or, possibly, the ability to think for the future. My role at school is to think for the future, to plan for the future. . . . In fact, I'm doing that, but the principals don't appreciate it. While no specific long—range planning occurred in two months, it seems that school policies adhered to the school philosophy which serves as a long-range plan and goal: Our program is designed to be intellectual, spiritual and practical, providing you with stimu- lating experiences that will help you to develop self-discipline and wholesome, positive attitudes toward learning and the reality of life's demands. The program aims to assist you to become responsible and self-motivated in your approach to learning and to feel successful, confident and productive in your contributions to school, family, and the community. (Revised Kwanzaa Student Handbook, 1990) During the 1989-90 school year, the principals invited any interested teacher to revise the student handbook, including the school philosophy: We do try to go through the teachers . . . like when we redid the student handbook. [They gave] any in- formation that they would want to feed into it. (Principal) I. A. Zu ..a 141 I guess that first they [the principals] see a need for a goal. Say that the goal is to revise the handbook. . . . Then they may say, 'Is there anyone who would like to be on this committee?’ Then they would have that special committee that would go and consolidate these things. Then they would come up with a draft and the draft would be presented and discussed. (Teacher) Interviewees indicated that the principals consistently involved the teachers in goal-setting: the principals expected faculty members to establish annual curriculum, classroom and grade level goals. For the most part, the teachers and the department chairs made goal-related decisions and informed the principals: In the beginning of the school year we get together. . . First grade teachers will get together with kindergarten teachers. And first grade teachers will get together with second grade teachers and we discuss, that way, the types of goals. What does kindergarten cover? What do we cover? What does second grade expect? We meet just among ourselves. . . . The principals go around from [meeting to meeting], but they couldn't possibly sit through them. . . . We submit meeting notes, what we discussed. We'll usually meet with our department heads and discuss the goals and plans that we have for the year. For instance, this year I started teaching English. So I met with my department head and she showed me . . . a list of the goals and objectives that have been in the past. We reviewed those and, if I wanted to add some, that was fine. But a little leeway is given in that area. However, Kwanzaa administrators and teachers criticized the goals' similarity from year to year. This similarity applied to classroom and subject goals and expectations: [Regarding classroom goals] At the beginning of the year, [the teachers'] expectations for the year for their students are given to the parents. We ask them . to let the parents know where they're going. One thing, I think, that happens is that our turnover isn't all that great so we have teachers who have been here for awhile. So some of the things you 142 probably would reconsider and go over, just go on. (Principal) Ideally, . . . that's how [the goals are] supposed to be made: The department head along with admini— stration sets these long—term goals, meets with the staff, and works together. I think that right now [the plan] really was made long ago down the road and that's just the way it's supposed to be. (Teacher) They gave me a copy of the kindergarten goals and they had obviously been established years before. (Teacher) At Kwanzaa, the principals assumed a central role in goal—setting and long-range planning. They determined the subject matter of decisions, the participants, their degree of participation, and the degree of the principals' participation in the decision—making. During the time of this study, long—range planning was limited to the teachers' revising the handbook. The principals also allowed teachers and department heads to determine annual curricular, classroom and student goals. There were two criticisms about long-range planning and goal-setting decisions: 1) the principals did not develop long-range plans and 2) classroom/grade goals did not change from year to year. Since the centrality of the principal enables him or her to determine which decisions to make, it appears that the Kwanzaa principals have not chosen to plan for the future nor to address the problem of goal similarity. Rainbow School. In assuming a central role, the principal established procedures for long—range planning and 143 goal—setting. In two months at Rainbow, three topics related to long-range planning and goal-setting emerged: the 1990-91 school goal, the teachers' personal goals, and the pre- school. By examining them, it is possible to determine how the principal decided upon the subject matter of decisions, the participants and their degree of participation. At Rainbow School the administrative team is an advisory committee comprised of the principal, the teaching assistant principal and the guidance counsellor. Annually, the principal calls that committee together to establish a school—wide goal and she did so in the summer of 1990: [The goal for the year is to] put in more of the student-centered learning and that, we, the admini- strative team, had to come up with. And we brain- stormed because . . . part of Barbara's [principal] job is to set goals for the school, to come up with ideas for goal—setting in the school. . . . [So we decided to make our program] more student—centered. We then presented that to the faculty and then the faculty had area meetings, curriculum meetings. And one of us sat on each one of the curriculum meetings and we set goals within each of the curri- culum areas. We're meeting once a month or once every six weeks . . . to work on that goal. We talk about . . . what we have done in our groups to make it more child-centered rather than teacher- centered. The principal began the annual goal-setting process by calling her administrative team together. This team developed a school-wide goal without faculty input and expected the faculty to implement it. The principal required the teachers to establish personal professional goals. Using these goals, the principal evaluated the teachers: The teachers set their own goals in their classrooms 144 which is what I use for evaluation of them as the year goes on. (Principal) As individuals we're responsible for establishing our own goals and writing them on a form to be submitted every year. And then we have a con— ference about that and if [the principal] has some goals for us, she brings them up at that time. (Teacher) For personal goal-setting, the principal required each teacher to compile his or her own goals. In some instances, the principal recommended a goal, but, generally, teachers determined their own goals. Maintaining enrollment is a concern to many Catholic school principals. This concern led to a discussion between the Rainbow principal and the kindergarten teacher and the subsequent establishment of Rainbow's pre-school program: Interviewer: What are the long-range goals or plans for Rainbow school? Teacher: I think the pre—school was the big plan last year. I don't really know if there's a big plan in the works for next year. Interviewer: Whose idea was the pre—school? Teacher: I think Sister Barbara and I had talked about it as far as getting enrollment. It's a way to feed into your enrollment. In fact, we were hoping to get it last year and it just didn't materialize. So I think it was . . . a joint thing we talked about. A lot was for enrollment. Interviewer: Did Sister Barbara have to present it to the school board after you talked? Teacher: Yes. Beforehand, I made up a survey and we sent it out to see who was interested and if they would come. And we got a response back. And we did that the year before and we just never got around to actually doing it because it was a lot of work getting it built. It didn't really materialize until last year. We wanted to plan [a pre-school]. What we were looking for was a way to increase the budget, to increase enrollment. And somewhere down the road 145 we hope it will help us. It was another develop— mental idea. (School board member) It is unclear whether or not the principal initiated the discussion about the pre-school. However, she discussed its feasibility with the kindergarten teacher and she initiated a needs assessment among the parents. The school board was also part of the decision-making process. At Rainbow, the principal assumed a central role in goal—setting and long—range planning. She determined the subject matter of decisions, the participants, their degree of participation, and the degree of her own participation in the decision-making. There were three decision areas: the annual school goal, the teachers' annual personal goals, and the pre-school. For the school goal, the principal gathered her administrative team members who determined the school goal which the teachers implemented. The principal required all teachers to write annual personal goals. Using these goals, the principal evaluated her teachers. In establishing the pre-school, the principal allowed a kindergarten teacher and the school board members to participate in decisions; she also had parental input. Goal-setting and long-range planning at Rainbow involved different groups depending on the project. Summary — Goals and Long—Range Planst At both site- based managed schools, the principals assumed a central role and established procedures for curricular long—range planning 146 and goal-setting. They had the primary responsibility of determining the subject matter of the decisions, the participants and the degree of participation. At Kwanzaa there was very little curricular long—range planning, if any. Because enrollment had remained fairly constant, the principals may have felt that curricular long—range planning was unnecessary and did not initiate it. The principals allowed teachers and department heads to establish annual curricular, classroom and student goals which were submitted to the principals for review. However, the goals were similar from year to year and the principals have not encouraged a change in that pattern. At Rainbow, the principal began the processes for long- range planning and goal—setting. For 1990-91, there were three such processes: an annual school goal, the teachers' personal goals and the pre-school program. Depending on the process, the principal allowed decisions to be made by administrators only with faculty implementation, by the teachers themselves, or by herself in consultation with some teachers, the school board and, to some degree, the parents. Because there were no directives from the central office, curricular long-range planning and goal—setting occurred when, and if, the principals saw a need for them. While this self-direction allowed the principals to plan and set directions for their own schools, there was no overt accountability. And so, since the centrality of the 147 principal enables him or her to determine which decisions to make, it appears that the Kwanzaa principals have not chosen to plan for the future nor to address the problem of goal similarity; very few people questioned those decisions. On the other hand, the Rainbow principal initiated processes which enabled decision-makers to be creative and innovative in responding to student and faculty needs at Rainbow School. In curriculum decisions, the principal's central role of determining the subject matter of decisions, the participants, and their degree of participation is key. Curriculum Development In assuming a central position, the principals of site- based managed schools became directors of curriculum and instruction. They directed and coordinated curriculum development. The Kwanzaa and Rainbow principals approached their curricular responsibilities in similar, but varied, ways. Kwanzaa School. The centrality of the principal enables him or her to decide the subject matter of curricular decisions, the participants in those decisions and the degree of participation. At Kwanzaa, curricular decision-making varied: principals made decisions and teachers made decisions. At times, the teachers implemented the principals' curricular decisions; at other times, the teachers designed and implemented their own curricula, 148 especially in the content areas extraneous to religion, reading, language arts, mathematics, science and social studies. A review of the Parent Involvement Survey (Appendix L, Question 8) indicated that ten percent of the parents made curriculum recommendations: I think the attitude has always been that the professionals knew what they were doing. We were interested, but we're interested lay people. We're not educators. We're not qualified certainly to come in and demand curriculum changes or program changes. We could perhaps ask, express an interest in, but I never felt that I was in a position as a parent [to demand curriculum changes]. I never felt that was even expected. (School board member) To determine the Kwanzaa principals' central role in curricular decisions, the data presents 1) curriculum decisions about basic subjects and 2) curriculum decisions about other-than-basic subjects and topics. Curriculum Decisions About Basic Subjects. The Kwanzaa principals established religion, reading, language arts, mathematics, science and social studies as the core curriculum. In doing so, they followed central office directives, "Downtown gives us what should be taught and the amount of time and we give a copy (Appendix Q) of this to the teachers at the beginning of the year." Subject area scope and sequence were determined by the selected textbook: You have a certain book to use and we follow the curriculum of that text. We have our texts. . . . We have the lists from the diocese which tells how many minutes of every day they should have. And some are shoulds and some are a guideline. . . . Some people follow straight from their books; some people add their own things. 149 Since the teachers selected their own textbooks, they were, in fact, making curriculum decisions. Some curriculum decisions were made at department or grade meetings: There are department heads and they work with the principals [to make curriculum decisions]. And the department heads meet with the teachers. Mostly in our grade meetings we decide things like that [curriculum]. We talk about what has been done, what needs to be done. ‘ [Curriculum decisions are) within the grade level too. They ive us a basic guideline and then you're supposed to go back to the department heads. And they're supposed to meet with us and say, 'You're responsible to teach x, y and z.' But I don't always see that happening. During two months at Kwanzaa there were three curriculum meetings. With the exception of one meeting, a co—principal attended and participated in the discussions. The teachers discussed substantive issues, including a proposal for subscriptions to two reading journals, establishing goals for a new reading coordinator, sharing ideas for creatively teaching social studies, and a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of teaching general science (rather than specialized sciences) in grades one through eight. Since no decisions were made, it was unclear how the decision-making process worked. Reading and language arts teachers were frustrated with the principals' decision to have a reading curriculum that followed the basal tradition: The way I was taught to teach reading is a lot different--opposite--of what I teach now. And 150 so I asked a teacher . . . and I was told not to . . do anything of what I knew to teach; just teach the way they [the principals] want. We have to use our basals. In fact, the litera- ture approach has not been superly [sic] accepted by the administration here. If you do it, or if you use it, it's mostly an enrichment kind of thing. . . . I've had such a negative response [when I make suggestions]. I'm afraid to say anything now. . . . It's not even like telling them; it's just a suggestion. . . . Sometimes I feel guilty when I use whole language. And I really shouldn't because that's where reading is now. And I hope when I get older, I can keep up with where reading is now and continue. At a reading department meeting, the principal asked the teachers to describe the new reading curricula; they presented the whole-language approach. When the teachers finished, the principal distributed and explained the following hand-outs describing her suggestions for reading: Four Steps to Successful Teaching, Recommendations for Helping Reading to be a Vital and Successful Instruction Time, A Guide for Faculty Discussion Between Grades, and a paper which listed the basal reading series levels and grades. The final sentence on that paper stated, "Literature texts are used for enrichment and as supplements." In the case of reading, the principal was central and made all curriculum decisions. At Kwanzaa Catholic, the principals maintained their central position and determined the core curriculum according to central office guidelines. Teachers decided some curriculum issues at department and grade level meetings. For reading, however, the principals were unyielding and 151 continued to have a school-wide basal reading curriculum, as the school has had for years. This decision dissatisfied several teachers. Curriculum Decisions About Other—Than—Basic Subjects and Topics. In examining the behaviors associated with principal centrality in curricular decisions, the computer, physical education, music and art teachers at Kwanzaa had more control over curriculum decisions than the classroom teachers. For the most part, they designed their own curriculum, informed the principals and did not rely on textbooks for direction: It's up to me as far as p.e. goes. . . . I think it's important now that we define what are the skills that should be taught at every level. And what is the sequence of skills? And so, I've tried to do that. I've tried to build a curricu- lum like that. But again that's pretty much my own doing. I have to [design my own art program] because there's no book. . . . But even for public speaking, there's no book. I literally create it and turn it in, not necessarily for approval, but to say this is what I'm doing. But [the former teacher's] method and my method of teaching is at two different opposite ends of the pole and so I'm gradually trying to get it over to teaching computers. Before, they were being entertained. . . . It's supposed to be learning about computers and so I have to start back with the very basic and I'm trying to gradually build it up. The principals allowed the teachers of music, art, physical education and computers to make substantive decisions about their respective curricula. During two months at Kwanzaa, a self-esteem curriculum 152 for sixth through eighth grade students was designed and implemented. Because seventh graders were departmentalized, they were instructed by teachers who have either seventh or eighth grade homerooms. Therefore, the principals gathered all seventh and eighth grade teachers for "a 'plan of action' meeting [which] will be a help in solving some of the problems surfacing [in the seventh grade] these days." The problems were related to the students' low academic achievement when they were sixth graders; the problems resurfaced in the current school year. And so, the principals called the initial meeting, but, after that, the teachers made most decisions. As the weekly meetings progressed, the problem's focus switched from remedying low academic achievement to developing positive self-esteem. The teachers developed a curriculum for a Self-Esteem Day which was expanded to include the sixth graders. The decision to include the sixth grade was problematic to one principal. After the teachers explained that the day would benefit all middle school students, the principal allowed the sixth graders to attend. The teachers also decided to include a parent in the planning process and, as a result, other parents and professionals gave presentations on Self-Esteem Day. The principals allowed the music, art, computer and physical education teachers to design their own curricula. When the opportunity arose for the teachers to design a 153 program to build student self-esteem, the principals gave all decision—making authority to the teachers. Summary - Kwanzaa Curriculum Development. At Kwanzaa, the principals directed curriculum development. They determined the subject matter of decisions, the participants, their degree of participation, and the degree of the principals' participation in the decision—making. There were two curriculum decision areas: those related to the basic subjects and those related to other-than—basic subjects and topics. The principals determined that the core curriculum of the school included religion, reading, language arts, mathematics, science and social studies. The principals also determined that the textbooks' scope and sequence would be the curriculum guide. However, the teachers selected the textbooks. A number of teachers disliked the principals' decision to have a school-wide basal reading curriculum. The teachers decided some curriculum issues at department and grade level meetings. However, for subjects and topics other than religion, reading, language arts, mathematics, science and social studies, the principals allowed the teachers to make curricular decisions. The music, art, physical education and computer teachers designed their own curricula and informed the principals about the content. One program, initiated by the principals to solve academic problems, was designed by teachers and parents and concentrated on building students' . , ’7'. I u.n‘-. ‘ “—‘v‘. 5.. 'r ,‘ ...» ‘ 154 self-esteem. The principals were curriculum directors who made curriculum decisions and determined when, if, and how to involve the faculty in curricular decisions. Rainbow School, The centrality of the principal enables him or her to decide the subject matter of curricular decisions, the participants and their degree of participation. At Rainbow School, the principal made final curricular decisions, but the teachers were involved in those decisions. A review of the Parent Involvement Survey (Appendix L, Question 8) indicated that sixteen percent of the parents had made curriculum recommendations: Really, the parents aren't consulted. . . . The parents give input, yes, but not the decisions. A lot of parents wanted a foreign language so Sister Barbara put out the word in her news- letter: If there are any parents who are interested in starting a foreign language program, give me your names and we'll have a meeting and we'll see what we can come up with. Last I talked to her, she said she does have a list of names and probably, in the new year, she'll get on that. To determine the Rainbow principal's central role in curricular decision-making, the data presents 1) curriculum decisions about subject areas and 2) curriculum decisions about special tOpics. Curriculum Decisions About Subject Areas. Rainbow School followed a basic curriculum of religion, reading, language arts, and mathematics; depending on the grade level, 155 science and social studies were included in the regular curriculum. Curriculum decisions for first through eighth grades were made according to which textbooks the teachers selected: As far as curriculum decisions, . . . they have been made by selecting basal series; the curriculum decision is basically there for you. [We decide by] subject area. They [the teachers] decide on the books and they review all kinds of books and we decide that's the curriculum we want to follow and Sister Barbara sits in on those meetings. [Curriculum decisions] are basically with the curriculum committees: the math teachers together, the English teachers together. That's all done in committees. And then Barbara sits in on those meetings, or if need be, the ad- ministrative team would meet and each one of us would be on one of the committees and work through it. However, the committee process is not always followed: When I came, I looked at the curriculum and said, 'There is no social studies [in the third grade]. I would like to have that.‘ And I talked to Sister Barbara about it. It was added to the report card as an academic subject, just on the word of a new person coming in. In this case, the principal allowed a teacher, new to the school, to introduce a subject into the third grade curriculum. During two months at Rainbow there were four curriculum meetings; the principal attended no meetings and it is unclear whether she received meeting reports. The teachers discussed and decided substantive issues including a parent meeting for reproductive health education, the school science fair, an evaluation of a social studies program, and a 156 discussion of new reading techniques and programs. Religion teachers discussed the process for selecting new textbooks. Several teachers felt a school—wide religion textbook series was unnecessary as long as the teachers "stuck to" and taught their given themes. However, there was no final decision. Pre-school and kindergarten curriculum decisions were made by the respective teachers after conferring with the principal: We talk with Sister Barbara and with each other. When we wanted to put in Math Their Way, we came to Sister Barbara and told her about it. And she read about it and decided that would be good. I made a decision several years ago to change the kindergarten [reading] to the Letter People. I went to Sister Barbara. I didn't have to meet with the reading teachers. The music, computer and physical education teachers developed their own curricula. Their interview statements were almost identical, ”It's left totally to my discretion. I constantly go back and let Sister Barbara know what I'm up to." At Rainbow, the principal allowed the teachers to make curriculum decisions and curricular decision-making was often arbitrary. First through eighth grade teachers made curriculum decisions based on textbook selection. Most decisions were made by faculty committees, but, in one instance, the principal permitted a teacher, new to the school, to introduce a subject into the third grade curriculum. Teachers contributed to curriculum committee 157 discussions and several decisions were made without consulting the principal. Pre-school and kindergarten curricular decisions were made by the respective teachers with principal approval. The music, computer and physical education teachers designed their own curricula and informed the principal. Curriculum Decisions About Special Topics. Because the Rainbow principal acted as the curriculum director, she authorized two supplemental curriculum topics: the Schools Without Drugs program and the Channel One television program. The principal delegated most of the decision-making powers for the Schools Without Drug program to the school counsellor. However, for Channel One, the principal retained the decision—making powers and consulted with the teachers. According to the principal, ". . . decision—making and values clarification [are taught] in religion class. And T. . . drug and alcohol [education] and sex education [are put] into the science programs" for grades five through eight. The Schools Without Drugs program was a supplemental substance—abuse awareness program which was directed by the guidance counsellor. The principal made no decisions, but was kept informed of all activities. The program's primary audiences were fifth through eighth grade students, though there were several activities for lower grade students. The guidance counsellor planned the yearly activities. However, she decided some matters with 1) the eight junior high 158 student committee representatives and/or 2) the nine parent committee members. In two months at Rainbow, there were five student meetings and two parent meetings. Student decisions included a discussion about student willingness to lead student discussions, arrangements for a school dance, and topics for the group's newspaper. Parent decisions were few because the group functioned more as an advisory and service \ committee than as a decision-making body. {1) Channel One is a n tional, professional news program for middle and high school students. Programs and television equipment are free to subscribing schools. Since advertising pays for programming and equipment, students view commercials in addition to the news broadcasts (Rukeyser, 1989). In various parts of the country, parents and educators opposed the commercials because the students were a captive and vulnerable audience (Thomson, 1989; Walsh, 1989). A lower-grade teacher brought a magazine article and told the principal about Channel One. The principal then invited a Channel One representative to come to talk with a small faculty group. Later, the representative spoke to the whole faculty and Sister Barbara and the fifth through eighth grade teachers decided to acquire Channel One. The parents were not consulted, though the principal presented the idea to the school board where several members felt they were deciding an issue that had already been decided: It's like this Channel One that's coming. She [the principal] came. She decided. The way 159 she presented it to the board is, 'This is what we are going to do.’ She has already made the decision. We think-~not we--it was voiced by some board members that she made a mistake on that: that she didn't bring it before the board first because it would have been approved anyway. But we're glad that we're going to have it. There's no doubt about it. But she missed that one. The principal allowed the guidance counsellor to make decisions about the substance-abuse awareness program. The guidance counsellor, in turn, shared some decision-making power with students and parents. In deciding to procure Channel One for the school, the principal and the participating teachers chose to acquire it. There was no parental input and several school board members were disturbed that they were asked to approve a decision that had already been made. Summary - Rainbow Curriculum Development. At Rainbow, the principal directed curriculum development. She determined the subject matter of decisions, the participants, their degree of participation, and the degree of her own involvement in the decision-making. There were two curriculum decision areas: those related to subject areas and those related to special topics. Faculty committees made most subject-area decisions, though an individual teacher made a curriculum decision for an entire grade merely by asking the principal. The textbooks' scope and sequence served as the curriculum guide; the teachers selected the texts. The pre-school and kindergarten teachers, with 160 principal consultation, designed their own curricula. The music, computer and physical education teachers also designed their own curricula and informed the principal. For Special curriculum topics, the principal delegated her decision—making power. The guidance counsellor directed the substance—abuse awareness program, but some decisions were made with student and parent representatives. The principal and teachers decided to subscribe to Channel One. To the dismay of scme school board members, there was no parent consultation. Summary - Curriculum Development; In site-based managed schools, the principals directed curriculum development. They determined the subject matter of decisions, the participants and the degree of participation. The principals allowed the teachers, and some parents, to make curriculum development decisions. Often, curriculum decisions were arbitrary: some decisions were made by the principals themselves; others were made by faculty committees; and others were made by individual teachers. At both schools, teachers used the textbooks, which they selected, as the bases for the curriculum, while the art, music, physical education and computer teachers were permitted to design their own curricula. The principals functioned as curriculum directors. Few bureaucratic structures in the process enabled the principals and faculties to develop reciprocal relationships. While the 161 principals themselves sometimes made curriculum decisions which were contrary to current educational theory and practice, for the most part, they allowed the teachers to make curriculum decisions based on the teachers' knowledge of curriculum theory and practice. The principals' independent authority over curricular decisions enabled them to give the teachers decision-making powers about curricular decisions pertinent to their local student bodies. Textbook Selection In assuming a central position in curriculum decisions, the principals of site-based managed schools determined textbook selection procedures. The Kwanzaa and Rainbow principals allowed their faculties to select textbooks. The principals provided several guidelines and were kept informed, but the teachers made the decisions. Both schools held a textbook review every five to six years. Held at either subject or grade committee meetings, the purpose of the textbook review was to determine the teachers' feelings about the books. If textbooks needed to be updated or changed, the department head or coordinator procured a variety of sample textbooks for evaluation. The interviewees expressed uniformity and little uncertainty in describing the text selection process: All those that [sic] teach that particular subject for that given area are given samples of the different companies' books and then they get together and they say what they like or don't like. And so they try to stick with one series [throughout 162 the school]. (Kwanzaa) Teachers will usually say, 'We're not finding this book that helpful. This or that is missing. We think this series would be better for us.’ (Kwanzaa) There is a committee that works on textbooks. Certain teachers that [sic] teach science get a group together, and [other teachers work] on math and on reading. And each group works on that. And then Sister [Barbara] sits in on those joint meetings. And they work on that together and decide which program they really like the best. (Rainbow) The Rainbow principal allowed one exception to the committee- decision format: Within one year I reached a conclusion on new science books [for junior high]. And Barbara concurred on that. (Science teacher) For whatever reason, the principals, more than the teachers, tried to have the same textbook publishers school- wide in a particular subject. The same was true of Rainbow's religious education coordinator who oversaw the parish and school's religion program. The principals discussed their desire for unified series and the teachers described the principals' inflexibility: We try to keep the textbooks coordinated. Now sometimes the coordinator and the teachers feel that a different text in a different grade would be better. And so they do that. Downtown [the central office] doesn't give us that direction any more. They used to tell us what texts to use. (Kwanzaa co-principal) Every now and then Rita gets very upset [that the math series is not the same]. She'll come to me and say, 'Why are you doing that? Math is the only one that is not the same.’ And I say, 'Well, they like that book and they're teaching it. And they know what they ought to teach and they can teach well with it. They [the textbooks] all cover the same thing. If you look through any series, they're the same.’ (Kwanzaa math department chair) I v. r .7; o. _ v. x .. . ... u. t. a e.“ ..I. J. V; VI. fix. Fe 8 P. .r. 1 C. e y” + c _. ,,_ .. H. 54.. .c a. m“ S .... C I ...d e 09 . u e S S 3 r1. .. c a... r. ..u ‘ N. m ...: Q e ..C a. S a .n. m? S .Q S e d .l .2 C L .H. .C .3 . r .. A e C 41. me me E L . ../. QC 1 .w 7. I C C ._ ".._ E .3 S .T. S C -.C T. C C E I S r. r.“ »C a Q S a a i i 2 f . S m x .7! l r... U .l a C (F. at F. I e 3 S e T. w. 3 L w! r u .. a E at .3 a c a a 3 Tc r e t O O r... I .3 e "I E .l t 5 A u C .2 . x C; .3 Dr S r -l .G a. .. I 3s . . r . . ...n C .. i E S . ... .l r e E H I C. S .. . is S m“ . . 3 r.. H. C . a ...l S C Ac .0 r W 3.. «C «c .l .3 [I u! e .. x .l e ... A: C e S .r.. r. .3 r. .d 7. . x E O n... 5. on C a... .. i [C A” .C C C. .2 . .3 .c .3 I C .C C. C cl .l .V ‘ ...». . i .l a. Q -l 5. v . .3 Wu a C . . C. 3 .. w ._ ; . 5 ac ... ... r C wi +.. .b .l Km ‘3 .7. .5 ..k A, Q.» a». ..i a: .C »\ Q» L. a .. ... .t : r. ... T. .. r a. 1‘ .3 Q; 2. .3 v. i .. ... a... i. .3 p‘ L. .«a .... w. .1 a. .. ... ;. ... . . y . at ... .y. z. ,r.. r... .T L. x . .2. .. .. .. p. .. ~. . ... ... . . 2‘ ... 1. 2‘ 5. 163 I didn't see why it wouldn't hurt [to have a different series], especially in [this] grade. Why [do we have] to have the same company as the rest? (Rainbow teacher) This year spelling is one of the things we're going to do because we've got about five or six spellers in this school and nobody agrees that this is the one we should have. So we've got a million of them and we really need to look at that, but the teachers do it. (Rainbow principal) At a faculty meeting, the Rainbow principal told the teachers that she wanted one school—wide spelling series. If the teachers could not select one, they were to present their top three choices and she would decide. She admonished them to ”look broader than your own class." Summary; At both site—based managed schools, the principals assumed a central position in curriculum decisions. They determined textbook selection procedures in which faculty committees were permitted to select textbooks. The principals established a guideline for textbook evaluation and selection: the textbook series for a particular subject was to be the same school—wide. However, there were times when the principals overlooked the guideline and allowed a variety of texts in a given subject area. Reporting Procedures About Academic Progress Because the principals had central roles in curriculum decisions, they established procedures for reporting student academic progress to parents. At both schools, the teachers made decisions about reporting procedures. The major, w. .... .V‘ I 4.4 a; r” ... 2.. a. i‘ .u C. .... n u s u ... t 1 I 3,. ; ... .3 o. -.1 e . ._ S, .. C t 3 r“ E i a. .l r e .a C .3 .1 C e S .. r a a 3 ...; 7.. . . ..... I f. E C S n E C F. C .9. C. e C .1 F. .c E ... .C Q C S T. -. S .3 i o S .2 r .3 S T. G, .i .3 . 3 a .... C t c c . I S - vi. f_ I v. r“ 3 me C C ‘3 .7. 7.. a c 3 e S .l .G .C A ...o . . r. a ..C .3 (3 «4. E e r. ...x. . 2 C. C C Z a. .T. e. .... e .. x U C S .. . 3 . a. M i I ...n I 5 S e . r“ t .1¢ mg .. mu A» .c ... .3 to r .3 I -l 1. 3 l P. .C I I .... f . . 3 E Z .t I at .3 w... E 3 so a. E ._ C .._. a. .3 .. X .... C. .3 r. Av .{v p. v. a. r. «e. .r. .V‘ r. .. .3 w». 7.. .2 .fiu .5 .3 r. . . .3 .C .2 Le Q. L. .2 .1 ...m ,. . A . p . .... a... 5. «,5. .H at. 1; r? r. ,A . . a. .. ...a. 2. ~. ~.. ... 164 permanent, academic report is the report card which both faculties designed for their schools. Secondary reporting procedures included interim progress reports, homework notebooks/sheets, and systematically sending student work to parents. In studying the principal's central role of determining decision topics, participants and their degree of participation, the proces. s for designing the schools' d) r. report cards and Kwanzaa's progress report will be examined. 1} Report Cards. Vince the Kwanzaa and Rainbow principals ( were autonomOLs, each allowed their teachers, by grade levels, to design their twn report cards. As a result, the cards were specialized according to grade level, subject matter, academic skills, and study and social habits. Kwanzaa School, comprised of grades kindergarten through eight, had six different report cards; Rainbow School, comprised of regular and developmental kindergartens through grade eight, had four different report cards (Appendices R and S). If necessary, the teachers annually revised the report cards: Before report card time, you're always given last year's copy of the report card. If there are any changes you want to make, you write them up. And anything we have ever suggested has gone into print every year. (Kwanzaa teacher) They get their own report cards. So we usually just put our stamp of approval on that because they do such a good job on it. (Kwanzaa principal) We have a report card committee and each year it's [report card] revamped or rediscussed. And, if there has to be any change made, . . . then .C ... .2 Le * C .«u :4 n. v. . .... S C .. . Q .d I 04 5. .w. .-. F. S C I C e . . u. .C 3 T. r. C ... v. .. a. : .r. a. E hug r“ fly. ”.1. Hive a... sh“ .N4 L.. .4 my .4. «4 yr.“ & y «H. .G ... P. 5 r. P. c. ... ”J .3 .3 C 7. e. . . ...n 1 1r.“ .3. r. r. 5 .3 ... .l .7. v. T. .C C C C a. at A. , c C :3 at 3 T. E W W 3. ... l C ..C ...,c 3. ... .._.. ... r; .pu A a «..v n v w y L. .. :4 .3 r. A.—.~ MY“ «—.‘ .nu VA .d .41. s 5 .G vllk (:4 v ' S 165 that's added in. (Rainbow teacher) Rainbow's religious education coordinator proposed a major report card change in religious studies. She asked the teachers to give an academic grade in addition to the customary effort grade. They agreed: They weren't giving any grades for religion, just effort. And a couple of the teachers came to me with some concerns about it. And I said, 'Well, why can't you give out a grade because you're not grading the person's faith? You're grading their understanding of the concepts of the religion.‘ . We had a meeting and we talked about it: about the difference between the grades and concept. And that [difference] would be clear. So it was a joint decision. So this year the religion teachers . . . came to— gether and we talked about it, stating what we felt on it. However, for one Rainbow teacher, report card decisions were not easily changed when she met with her colleagues: We were reviewing and going over the report cards and I said, 'Why can't we mark S and N?‘ [Satisfactory and Not Satisfactory] And I was told, 'No. This is always the way we do it.’ [grading with A, B, C, etc.] All right, so this [took place] five years ago. And, every year, I mention something [and I'm told], 'No, this is the way we do it.’ Since the Kwanzaa and Rainbow principals acted autonomously, each allowed their teachers to design their own report cards. This reciprocity resulted in reports that were specialized according to grade level, subject matter, academic skills, and study and social habits. At Kwaanza, these specialized reports spawned an unique progress report. Progress Reports. The centrality of the principal enables him or her to establish procedures for reporting ..- .-.. -.--uvr v. .3 ..4 3‘ e v; ‘ ...-yrs -..- van-‘4‘. Frr.‘ ~ro'p -u. ‘ 4 .... .j. ~\\ V s 166 student academic progress. At both schools, in the interim between report cards, academic progress reports were sent to parents. Rainbow's principal and teachers decided to send a standardized form (Appendix T), produced by the central office, to fourth through eighth grade parents of academically deficient students. This report was sent midway through the quarterly marking period. Kwanzaa teachers, however, felt the standardized form was inadequate. And so, the principals permitted the teachers to design a progress report (Appendix U) peculiar to Kwanzaa's sixth, seventh and eighth graders. Since the teachers felt the need for more frequent reporting, the Kwanzaa progress report was sent to all middle school parents every three weeks. The principal's autonomy allows him or her to make changes as needed. When Kwanzaa's teachers asked to design a progress report that suited their needs, the principals allowed them to do so. As a result, Kwanzaa parents received specific academic information every three weeks about their children's progress. Summary - Reporting Proceduresr Because the principals had central roles in curriculum decisions, they established procedures for reporting student academic progress to parents. At Kwanzaa and Rainbow schools, the report card was the major reporting instrument. The teachers designed the report cards and informed the principals. At Kwanzaa . "_"\‘A A'v‘ . v‘v' .. qr“: T' ; [’V 4 t . .‘\‘-. . '-‘ 167 Catholic, the teachers also designed an interim student progress report peculiar to their students. By allowing faculty members to design their own reporting instruments, the principals encouraged specialized, efficient and creative methods for informing parents about student progress. Summary - The Centrality of the Principal and Curricular Decisions Curriculum decisions at two site—based managed schools have been described. .he principals assumed a central role which enabled them to determine the subject matter of curricular decisions, the participants in the decisions, the level of participation and the degree to which the principals themselves participated in the decisions. In one site-based managed school, curricular long—range planning and goal—setting decisions were almost non—existent. However, school policies adhered to the school's phiIOSOphy which interested teachers had revised. The principals expected teachers to establish grade and subject goals. At the other school, the principal initiated three processes for long-range planning and goal—setting decisions: 1) the advisory committee developed a school—wide goal which the teachers implemented; 2) the teachers developed their personal goals; and 3) the principal and several teachers, with limited parental consultation, decided to establish a pre-school. In both schools, the principals directed curriculum an" 1 L .N ‘ "V-'v' u & --hAF x‘,_,A..4v ..-” 4;"‘3 a... .3 A .r- ....‘3 3 E H."‘V‘AAA‘ ~~~~t ' VJK .w A me E .3 168 development and gave decision-making authority to the teachers. However, at one school, the principals insisted on a basal—based school—wide reading curriculum. At both schools, the teachers used the textbooks, which they selected, to make curricular decisions about religion, reading, language arts, mathematics, science and social studies. The art, physical education, computer education and music teachers designed their own curricula, as did one school's pre-school and kindergarten teachers, with principal consultation. Teachers, parents and students developed several extra—curriculum topics. The decision to subscribe to Channel One was made by one principal and her teachers, with no parental consultation. Faculty committees evaluated and selected their own textbooks using the principals' guideline to keep the same textbook series schoolwide for particular subjects. In both schools, the teachers designed the report cards. When the teachers at one school proposed interim progress reports, the principals accepted the proposal and allowed the teachers to design a suitable report. This study argues that the principal is responsible for curriculum decisions. In site—based managed schools, curriculum decisions are made by a large number of on—site participants, all functioning under the direction of the principal. By assuming a central position in the curriculum process, the principal is no longer a middle manager, but C '2 .4 .f. ‘ l‘ T“ v W Y tilt 'uri. ”u Wrap huI v.4---yu- 3 . ,1”-.. ..4, 3“ ...r' -u‘...’ A. ... A-.rr_ "---vu- ~~~ II . . . . . . _ . . v; r. . r . T. m. . .3 . . a C .._. ... E u ...a i S C. L. «G :4 S . ..... U .»u C xi t» C m. 4 E L .. B S E S t u C C. E g .n u S C C C S e C e 1 5. {4 J; «L .w. av 7‘ Q» Flu 20 .‘L l «\V Y« O .7. C A... 3 r -l a r e .1 e L S e e ..w r .F .. C T. a m... r S Pu ... T. e C I 3 d .J t C .3 e 3 r C; .. i S e S C .K .. a a u T. W I C E S I a e r C E a . i a. a. : 3h u. S e T. a. r C r «L C. .» .. A e .3 r .. E .F .. E Ld S .5 S S .C «. Ma 7. ... ... « C S A. an e «C L .. ‘ + r .. .G v . ....u «(C .C a» 2.4 2.. ...... ...? s e a 2.. Q. . . . . :4 r . 2.. v . at . a a. v a . ‘ «... . .. .2 ._ _ ...? a . at. s » ... g . .2 ...q a: Oo- 4 169 bears the ultimate responsibility for meeting the students' curriculum needs. That responsibility is shared with teachers and, to some degree, with parents and students. The reciprocity in the relationship occurs when the principal, in turn, assumes responsibility for maintaining an educational environment which offers a stimulating and challenging curriculum. Teacher Empowerment It is the argument of this study that site-based management is also a function of the empowerment of the teachers which afforvs them opportunities, in a decentralized structure, to act autonomously, to exercise responsibility, to make choices and to possess authority in the decision— making process. Empowered teachers are valued for their professional expertise and creativity. However, empowered teachers are subject to the principal's authority as presented in the preceding section. The Kwanzaa and Rainbow teachers made curricular decisions about goals and long—range plans, curriculum develOpment, report card design and textbook selection. By examining these curriculum decision areas, it is possible to see some of the behaviors associated with teacher empowerment in site—based managed schools. Goals and Long-Range Plans Other than re—writing the school philosophy in the revised handbook, there was no evidence that Kwanzaa School . r . » . :4 in v z a . . . p v r. ‘J r. r“ .A *4 vs L4 C. .1 . ... ..ru r“ ...: «4, »4 «G *C . A «V .. v. ... «v. f: . r ‘ l CV ...n An A4 r *1. 5.4 by A(» pp A..v w y wr “ A 3r a n.” “L A V CV A 4 _. ...4 .‘4 a O mym v. v. n~ lg d an O! .1; in C C d .w p. m“ g .1 .1. ... C E E C I a... r S r d O E ...... Dir“ M. C ma. y. .C..... a t T. w” I t I Q 9 .H Hi I e 9 S t H 1.4 v.“ VPIH ' rib. . 1}. «I. . a . y ..A .. r .C . C O E S l e .3 r .a C ... E i I T t C no U .v I r . a 3 C a Z . a. a T. a Z S E S C. C a e e .8 H 0.. ".... C .(H r... C; C e ....“ C :1 T. .3 C. P. Hi. h” S i. C e . .f t I Q .l . I .d a I I K . is ...n e m; r. a . a rd .J f. n... a a L“ O S C y... e K e C .c 3 E . . . e C a; E .r.. .G .: 1. e e (T. I t . S .3 ”a C mu 9 ....» W H." I 1.. C: i 1.. . 5 0.. t ..r. .3. C rL ..w C 3 CT; (NJ . 1L . ‘ w ‘ ..u .. a «3 .— . x?“ a v I . A. «4. ..Q 170 personnel had developed any long—range plans. However, the teachers prepared their own classroom and subject goals: [A group of us] took care of ideas for the handbook . which is [a set of goals]. It's goals, not so much long-range planning. So we all have input as to what we'd like. And then, if you wanted to work on the handbook, you could. So we all had our Chance to give input into it. We passed out . . . a sheet of goals. . . . It said exactly what we expected of the students; what they were expected to have; how the sixth grade would work. And it was like goals and objectives; what we wanted to see from them; and what they can give to us. As far as my plans and goals, I set up a yearly plan and I have certain goals that I set up that I want to reach. At Rainbow School, the administrative team decided that child-centered learning would be the 1990—91 school-wide goal. The teachers were authorized to implement that goal within their own classrooms or subject areas: Classroom-wise, we put in our quarter plans and tell her [the principal] what they're going to be, what they're going to do that quarter. And we have our section meetings and we decide what kind of goals we're going to make. [At curriculum meetings] we talk about . . . what we have done in our groups to make it more child- centered rather than teacher-centered. And we share so that maybe I can pick up what the third grade teacher's doing and carry it over and use it in my class. Rainbow teachers were also responsible for writing personal goals at the beginning of the year: As a classroom teacher, I have my own decision- making. I have my own goals and project my own per quarter and then per year. I know basically what I want. For your own [goals], you're asked to write it out and sit with her [Sister Barbara] and she goes through your goals. V'VIY'S e . . v-V‘P‘. -.Au Ra :- 'A q-&:§‘-fi" ~ J -.- .\ 1L “ s'dv‘d- b . a\v .r. n\~ ‘ n \J v-r ‘ mu Cy 11‘ ‘kl. -. J «C ‘1‘ g; r «Q .1 v. c w e B i h S S 171 Rainbow's early childhood teachers expressed satisfaction at the principal's confidence in their decision- making abilities: Sister Barbara is wonderful with personal goals. She says that we've taught her so much about early childhood, that she trusts our professional development. When we wanted to put the Gesell testing in, she listened. She went to meetings. She decided it was a good thing along with the teachers. But the teachers were the ones who initiated it. Pretty much we make the decisions. . . . And we basically know what our goals are for preparing the children, having them ready. . . . But Sister Barbara has a lot of faith in us. . . . She pretty much gives us autonomy and considers us professionals and professionals in early childhood. Empowered teachers have responsibility and make decisions. The Kwanzaa and Rainbow teachers developed their own classroom and/or subject goals. At Rainbow, faculty members formulated their own implementation plans for the school's annual long—range goal. Making decisions about goals and long-range plans enabled the teachers to exercise self-direction and control within their individual classrooms. Curriculum Development At both schools, curriculum development in religion, reading, language arts, mathematics, social studies and science centered around teacher—selected textbooks. One teacher summed it up when she said, . . By selecting basal series, the curriculum decision is basically there for you. What I do with those series within my classroom is pretty autonomous. It would be my decision how to use those, how to utilize 4 ai‘ ..C J‘ \l& e r« $4 . l I ,. .... ,1 . . .n r . . . . .- .. . . ... . . I k. .l a; I .11 . . . M . r... a. .. . r“ E a. C. ...r f. s. .L. a. . x e . r 2.4 C I a . r C. W4 ... . a 3 a H... t r a e r. ( c . : . ... x .r. I. r c c n t d d o. a o a t r s .. . A I. A . .. I‘ x. R Am 3 9. AW Pl .. . C M. . .3 .1 U .1 .l 5.. T. T .d V t t a r 5 mm 3 X. C B U I . m”. 3 ... a. a. U (K C S a a I 5 a S m. 0 mm «W .l m WW. ... «..v .d .l 1. Cu y. . WM. 2. r. by FA. . I; ....AJ d Q. E «D .J WW. «d m» .l t Q.» n . f ..t . .. o. .C ..D .G v E Z 1.3 .l a. .4 .n. - .d .- ..-. T 1 . -. S .3 S I t a e t m“. .L C . i . . ...... K T. .7 t. C. .1. w.” .K C ... .n e S S ..J F C A . I 0.. ..-. o. 3 v. e a. a C. .. ,. H a a. A . C ...u r. a .. . a . .a w. 1K. no I. M 1 1C .. .l .3 I C. -.. .T. .2 O a S S -R S 5 .... P.. .... ... O ..P. S U ... C O z. I R E ... .... h S I o. C E T W 073 .J .L C ... . i I W 11 :. Z . . t a .8 2. I. ...... C m... f .l r . I 8 my» 2. v. . . a G v . w. m: .. M . . I. .C “1.. . my.” ..a . w i. . .._ ... a... . q a .4. a . up .. 172 those resources. However, the Rainbow religious education coordinator developed grade syllabi and the teachers constructed their own units: There is a basic curriculum for each level as to what is supposed to be accomplished. How they go about teaching it . . . is independent. They have a certain amount to cover. If they want to use bits and pieces from a variety of texts or use dittoes rather than following the text, . . that's fine as long as, in the end, your objective is met. (Religious education coordinator) I put my own activities and questions in [to a unit]. . . . I take a multi-text approach and would do that in whatever school I was in. (Religion teacher) Because the art, music, computer education and physical education teachers did not have textbooks, they designed their own curricula: I think [the principals] pretty much trust me on that [curriculum]. I guess it's up to me as far as physical education goes. . . . I've tried to build a curriculum [based on a sequence of skills]. But again, that's pretty much my own doing. (Kwanzaa) I am pretty much the decision—maker there on what works and what doesn't work and what I would like to do and what they would like to do. . . . When I'm making up a lesson plan, I take songs and games from a variety of books and sources to keep the interest going. I don't really like to teach [music] out of a book. (Rainbow) It's totally left to my discretion as a special subject teacher. (Rainbow) When planning curricular topics that were extraneous to the basic first through eighth grade academic curricula, the teachers planned their own programs and made the decisions. And so, after the principals invited the teachers to a planning meeting, it was the teachers who met regularly and .. . i: - NC . . 'r4 .0. c or ,4. W‘ v.0 IA *» . a,” u ‘ a '1' f C 2 i r .._ _. r C O , , e T . C E as .C w .l J ..J n. 2.. ma 3 C t r.“ . v . .. .4" I. 2 . . n: m C m ml. 5 .r“ "a“ e a a” «u .. .1 F I . ..H n. .d i 9 MW t .14 13 U Mo 5 . .... J 2 f. 1.5 r . ,. 1 2 I Z 2 i 4 I O S T. 9... 1r. 2 i k - l .l A. V. v ‘ W. y. “K. Q» . A u whl 2.- 134. WM. .u D.» . h. «a Cu I Q. Cu n. l «d WWW .U r v A; C, C, (x ..4 l a. m . .fiu r... r). r. J. 7 a... 4h NJ .7“ a. CV «Q. ii m r. A» 0; VJ »“ v C I?“ #l. I fig 2“ Arm QM» Ma)“ :34 r. HI A]. Any #L. 2; \WM u A“ v." \PU \ AU uh” QC - .r J . . .l. .. .. J: x»... .... ..l ... J .1 x «a r“ $.. flu If )h. v3 A; «\V firm Maw L,“ I!“ Qua AFU. CL We ‘Ifu . a... .L 3 Cu Afu «[v «\v 2» RV] n». .. . i i Q; » ,. 3v a; .ra .14 ..n; ...: (L. at a: ...v—n . N4 ... u s . e ..,. 173 designed Kwanzaa's middle school Self-Esteem Day which was described above. Pre-school, kindergarten and special education teachers made their own curriculum decisions and informed the principals about them: Any of the goals I've set, I've talked to Sister Janet. A lot of it is informal. Just letting them [the principals] know what's going on. (Kwanzaa special education teacher) It's really pretty much up to Tara and myself. The curriculum is play-based, thematic and inte— grated. . . . Our goal is greater independence, greater social skills. (Rainbow pre—school teacher) We use the Ginn reading. We use the primer in kindergarten and then we use Level One. And the teacher last year and I got together and we said, 'This is too much paper work. Let's get rid of that first book.’ I take books and I cut them up and I make manipulative activities that they do on trays which goes back to Montessori and the beginning sounds. I went to Sister Janet and said, 'Come in my room and see what we do: center time, working on trays, different activities, one—on—one.‘ And she said, 'Wow! This is really great!’ And I said, 'See, they're learning and they're doing different things and they're not sitting at their desks with pencil and paper.‘ She said, 'That's good.‘ And I said, 'Can I get rid of that book be- cause I would cover all the skills in it?’ And she said, 'Fine.’ And we did it. (Kwanzaa kingergarten teacher) Summary. Empowered teachers act autonomously, exercise responsibility, make choices and possess authority in the decision-making process. At both schools, the textbook series formed each subject's core curriculum and teachers made curriculum decisions when they chose their basal textbook series. Once the texts were chosen, the teachers . C v . . _ .. c . was i a c e .._. it .. . . .. .. h . if . 5 - S .. ..-. .. r L d e A“ a s . s a t c 3 o s . ... W a x A. ..C r e. .. ”C. C T F”: .3 C "a I Z I . f C -1 k. n. w. W t W .. V ., . A L v _ .A 7 3,. S I E ... . . a S .3 C C .K. e .. E .0 E C r r C 8 Z Wu 6 -l . t h. r C 3 r . u A; .u L... E .l a U a V L c r m J MC 6 l t a Q. n ...o NJV S A: A v »w an r. C v .8 a y Cu .ra. F1“ mm m“ . rd 0 on 7.4 «G nu; OH .9 ru Mfg. e. MIN cm. win PA. «a . PU r . ’NN :9 9. . nu. .5 ... . p]. l. . .. A V , Q» [bu . r 4; h n.,. J CL a» x . «1 -l uh (PM a» ., , . . Vv .‘ ,. ~ . .5 v . y. ‘ Cu v M Q T ... r v A: . . . . ”A S I. ..r _ 3 E Co 3 a a S n3 .. . 5 hi .1 n...“ Co .1. “raw W Ml. to DU Md. I d r. a. .u n“ 2V v .v .wu 9. ..S .5 no. I. .Cm “7 Nd. A; .. r.“ “W. V. . v Wm Nu . .. we. a». .. .n., “J pp... a...“ ...... 174 presented the material at their own discretion. However, select teachers had more autonomy in curriculum development. As long as they informed the principals, these faculty members made arbitrary curriculum decisions based on their own professional knowledge and expertise. While the teachers possessed varying degrees of decision-making authority and put various curriculum theories into practice, systematic curriculum development did not exist. Report Card Design and Textbook Selection As stated earlier, the teachers designed the report cards and revised them when necessary. Faculty committees chose the texts for their schools: Sometimes [we're all supposed to have the same series]. The same with religion. There was a debate a little. We all had Benziger and we talked about it at a meeting and I didn't like it. I'll speak for myself. And so then we ended up getting Silver Burdett in [grades] one, two and three. So that's a real flexibility that's allowed us. I appreciate that we aren't forced into this. Everyone in that department reviews the new series if we are implementing a new series in that field. We decided, but presented it to Sister Rita and Sister Janet and said, 'This is what we wanted to use.‘ We had excuses [from the principals] about, 'Why do you want to use this instead of what the kids in the rest of the school use?‘ It wasn't a problem after we explained. We're using what we want to use. (Kwanzaa special education teachers) At both schools, teachers designed the schools' report cards, chose the textbooks, and informed the principals of their decisions. The teachers planned the report cards so b}- :— E 3 .. d: v. «C i: Q .. L i 175 that they could efficiently report their students' progress. In selecting textbooks, each teacher evaluated prospective texts and voiced satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This provided an opportunity to display professional competency which, it seems, the principals seldom challenged. Summary — Teacher Empowerment and Curricular Decisions Curricular decision-making at two site-based managed schools has been described. The teachers were empowered as evidenced by the opportunities they had to act autonomously, to exercise responsibility, to make choices and to possess authority in the decision process. The opportunities for curricular decision-making included goal—setting and long— range planning, curriculum development, report card design and textbook selection. The teachers developed their own classroom and/or subject goals. At one school, there was a school goal and the teachers formulated their own implementation plans to accomplish it. The textbook series formed the core curriculum in religion, reading, language arts, mathematics, science and social studies. Since faculty committees chose the textbooks, they were, in fact, also making curriculum decisions. Art, music, computer education and physical education teachers developed their own curricula as did special education, pre—school and kindergarten teachers. Special extra—curricular topics were developed by the respective faculty members. The teachers also designed v- -‘ «1" .“‘l ... r J 4 ‘ ¢ ‘ . . i .a.‘ r. m . v « _ r4. .. V 1* . 0 _ . by C t i . ‘ ..u a» . v . s -s a S f — . a; F by r .G A .. i 1 C e P 4 w; e 1 1‘ WM; I . . 3 3 ~ . , .x Cu . 4. e . I t i. . C .5 O I. l -. . w t z a-.. y x . c «I» a? w . ..1 » ~ Q.» r; . . w.. A: .h .. v; r.« s . vL ...C L.» . . , _ ”I. .... A; ..-. 2.. A v «C . w A .y 7.. ~ . I . J. 2. Cx nxl a». e . L» A . rb. L» 176 the schools' report cards. As the argument goes, site—based management is a function, in part, of the empowerment of the teachers. In site—based managed schools, the teachers were empowered to make curricular decisions. The principals often provided direction and guidance, but, there were times when curriculum decisions were arbitrary and not systematic. As a result, in site—based managed schools, the teachers were autonomous and responsible decision-makers who, while valued for their professional expertise and creativity, were seldom questioned or challenged about their curricular decisions. U) The Autonomy of the Local chool This study argues that site—based management is also a function of the local school community’s acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. The control of the school resides at the local level rather than at the district level. Local school personnel, including administrators, teachers and parents, are committed to a common mission designed for their own students. The absence of bureaucracy enables the participants to quickly diagnose and remedy problems peculiar to their schools. Kwanzaa and Rainbow personnel attempted to establish academic standards and to identify and remedy curricular needs. By examining curriculum decisions, it is possible to see some of the effects of accepting and exercising autonomy in site-based managed schools. s .c r. V; 7!... 177 Kwanzaa Special Topics and Programs Local school control allows participants to make curriculum decisions pertinent to their students. Curriculum topics and programs peculiar to Kwanzaa School included the kindergarten program, Black History Month, the Self-Esteem Workshop, Chapter I and the sacramental programs. Each topic or program addressed a need identified by teachers, administrators or parents. Kindergarten Program. School autonomy allows administrators, faculty and parents to make curriculum decisions about their own students. The Kwanzaa kindergarten teachers were frustrated because they wanted a developmental kindergarten, while the principals and parents wanted, and had, an academic kindergarten: My philosophy is a little bit different from what is done here because I've always been taught to use the developmental appproach and I think this is more of an academic school, more of an academic approach. Some of the children need that and are ready for that. Some of them need developmental. Some of them are really struggling. When Christine came here, she could not believe, after talking to me, that she had to teach these kids how to read; that we had to do a letter a week and double up. We're already on F. By Christmas, we'll be finished with the alphabet and by January they'll be reading. . . . I would prefer a developmental kindergarten too. . . . I was told [by the princi— pals] that I had a developmental kindergarten, 'You have all those nice Montessori materials in your room and you're doing a fine job. You know what you're doing and we're happy.’ Department heads tended to agree with us in reading. First grade also agrees with us, probably the whole school. First grade knows that they have to cover five reading books. And if our kids come to them not knowing their letters and their sounds and not being 178 able to read the vocabulary from the first two books, they'll be doing what we've been doing all year. Parents are one hundred percent for what we're doing now. I've never had a parent say, 'You're moving too fast.’ The kindergarten teachers had taught at Kwanzaa for four years and two months, respectively, while the principals had been there for twenty—five years and twenty—one years. For years, the principals chose to have an academic kindergarten even though the teachers preferred developmental kindergarten. The parents were satisfied with the academic kindergarten. School autonomy enabled the administration and parents to have the kindergarten program most desirable for their children. Black History Month. Local school control allows participants to make curriculum decisions pertinent to their students. With the exception of eight children, Kwanzaa students were black. There was only one black teacher among the faculty and staff. For the last three years, the Moms' Club requested and sponsored a Black History Month contest: They [the principals] have been very, very flexible. Since we started this Black History, they've allowed us to expand some activities. . . . The school is now predominantly black. That's a very important month to black people and there was not any real established program for the students. They did activities in the classroom, but there was no real participation; nothing to make them really stand out. And so we asked, and were given permission, to have little art and essay contests. After the contests, the Club's officers sponsored awards presentations and invited civic leaders to speak. They also sponsored a play presentation, "Ishangi's Africa," for the 179 sixth through eighth graders. During 1990—91, the Moms' Club hoped to expand the focus of Black History Month: [We are] also going to approach the principals about a workshop to be set up, possibly on one of the teachers' in-service days, to bring in consul— tants to help Kwanz'a with a multi—cultural curri- culum and to introduce the staff to books and publishers regarding Black History. (Kwanzaa's Moms' Club Retreat Notes, October 19-21, 1990) Because the majority of Kwanzaa students were black, the parents felt their children should participate in Black History Month activities. Local school control and the absence of bureaucracU enabled Moms' Club members to present their concerns and plans to the principals, to receive their permisssion and to sponsor the activities. Self—Esteem Workshop. In autonomous schools, curriculum decisions revolve around identifying and remedying student needs. As mentioned earlier, the Kwanzaa teachers and one parent designed the middle school Self-Esteem workshop. The original intention was to prevent the seventh graders from failing academically. During two months, there were seven preparatory meetings, the workshop itself and one debriefing/evaluation session. At the first meeting, one principal asked what problems the teachers had with the seventh graders. Their replies included lack of motivation, schoolwork, homework assignments, concentration and values; and immature classroom behavior. Several of the six teachers felt that the problems 180 involved fifteen or sixteen children and not the entire class. As a result, the teachers decided to poll the seventh and eighth graders about their academics and developing a positive class spirit (Appendix V). Prior to the poll, however, the teachers decided to have a one-day workshop on self-esteem. After the poll, the teachers decided to include four topics in the workshop: self-esteem, accepting CU responsibility, peer pressure nd organization skills. They also decided to invite the sixth grade, to include eighth graders in planning part of the day, and to ask a parent to be part of the planning team. Another decision was to arrange for outside adult black speakers. The parent, who was a social worker, organized much of the workshop including preparing the student packets, arranging for sixteen adult speakers and/or group facilitators, and conducting the debriefing/evaluation session for teachers and speakers. The students wrote positive evaluations of the day. And school personnel decided to have class discussions on self-esteem topics one day each month. There was also agreement to begin immediate planning for a similar workshop for 1991-92. In autonomous schools, curriculum decisions revolve around identifying and remedying student needs at the local level. The principals had identified an academic problem and gathered the teachers to solve it. The teachers, in turn, invited a parent to their committee, narrowed the problem's 181 focus, and refined it after consulting with the students. Within two months, local school personnel had identified a student problem and planned and executed the solutions. Chapter 11 School autonomy allows participants to adapt to local needs. Chapter 1 is a federal remediation program offered by local public school districts for students living within the district and scoring six months or more below average in reading or math. At Kwanzaa, since more than seventy children qualified for the program, the principals agreed to participate and arranged to have classes on—site. One full—time public school teacher and one full-time paraprofessional staffed Kwanzaa's Chapter I program. However, there were several children who did not qualify but needed academic assistance. Kwanzaa school personnel asked the on—site Chapter 1 staff to make exceptions which they did: We've always had Chapter 1 teachers that [sic] will give us a little leeway. I'm not sure that's for publication. If we have a child that [sic] really would benefit, they'll help us get him in, but that's purely on their part. For kindergarten, we go by teacher recommendation. We can't really justify kindergarten. We're supposed to service them, but how do you say they're six months behind if they've never been tested? But we go to the teacher for those children. We have about twelve kindergartners. (Chapter 1 teacher) Last year, under the table, she [Chapter 1 teacher] took two of my kids who needed help. School autonomy allows participants to adapt to local needs. Even though a number of children qualified for, and 182 received, Chapter 1 services, Kwanzaa personnel identified others who were academically deficient. They circumvented the bureaucracy and asked on—site public school personnel to exempt these students from the qualification policy and to service them. On-site Chapter 1 personnel did so, probably illegally. In this case, school autonomy helped additional academically deficient students, but could have jeopardized a federal program for many other parochial school students. Sacramental Programs. Local school control allows participants to make curricular decisions pertinent to their students. Even though Kwanzaa was part of the Catholic school system and held daily religion classes, fewer than twenty percent of the student body was Catholic. Therefore, separate sacramental preparation was provided for Catholic second graders preparing for Penance and Eucharist and for Catholic eighth graders preparing for Confirmation: We [teach] Penance and Eucharist during religion [class]. We address all the children as Catholic children. . . . But each year it's been more and more outside of religion time that we've taught those children [Catholics]. At lunch time we've been doing it this year. So they have their regular religion period and then they also meet with us three days a week at lunch time. [When we make up the homeroom lists], we do a random type thing. We go through and split up [the former class list]. This year we gave Megan all the Catholics [because they are preparing for Confirmation]. In addition, Kwanzaa parish personnel offered a weekly catechumenate program for those children interested in .44. n «4.. an. .«a 183 becoming baptized Catholics. Thirty-minute classes were held during the children's spelling or handwriting classes. Local school control allows participants to make curriculum decisions pertinent to their students. All Kwanzaa students studied the Catholic religion daily, but Catholic children and those desiring baptism were prepared to receive the sacraments at special classes. This required children and teachers to study and teach during lunch or to surrender other class time. School autonomy is adaptable, but the solutions may not be completely desirable. Summary - Kwanzaa Special Topics and Programs. School autonomy allows administrators, faculty and parents to make curriculum decisions about their own students. Curriculum topics and programs peculiar to Kwanzaa School included the academic kindergarten program, activities for Black History Month, the Self—Esteem Workshop, Chapter I and the sacramental programs for the Catholic children or those desiring baptism. Each program was established to satisfy a need or to correct a deficiency. The absence of bureaucratic structures enabled problems to be identified and quickly solved, but sometimes with personal, professional or educational sacrifice. Rainbow Special Topics and Programs Local school control allows participants to make curriculum decisions pertinent to their students. Curricular :rcgra . ‘Qru-av. N‘uru— 1 value. 5A.. "Var: ..l» v ‘p ‘L h a" , :y,l Tn»; (I) (I) fit (D 184 programs peculiar to Rainbow School included the Schools Without Drugs program and the academic support program. Both programs addressed a need identified by school personnel. Schools Without Drugs Program. A substance-abuse awareness program, the Schools Without Drugs program, was established by the guidance counsellor and was directed toward fifth through eighth grade students. The guidance counsellor indicated that no other elementary school in the area had such a program. There was a student committee and a parent advisory committee. During two months, there were four student committee meetings and two parent committee meetings. The student meetings were led by the guidance counsellor. The topics included committee members being discussion leaders for a film on peer pressure, the committee-sponsored Valentine's Day dance, and articles for the Schools Without Drugs newspaper. The guidance counsellor also led the parent meetings which were discussions about 1) a heritage tree instilling pride in one's nationality and 2) the travelling audio-visual substance awareness library. It had been the counsellor's dream to have resource materials available for the teachers. She and the advisory board members selected such items as drug awareness books, self- esteem video tapes and games, and family interaction books (Appendix W). By January, these items circulated among the teachers at their request. 185 Local school control allows participants to make curricular decisions pertinent to their students. The goal of the Schools Without Drugs program was to educate students and parents about substance abuse. Observations lead to the conclusion that the program was the guidance counsellor's idea and, in its third year, provided a curriculum that was being cautiously presented so as to be accepted by teachers, parents and students. Academic Supporti School autonomy allows participants to adapt to local needs. For children needing extra academic assistance, Rainbow School had an academic support teacher. Prior to 1990-9l, she provided reading support only, but, during this year, she expanded her subject areas to accommodate more students: If the child has a reading problem, then they automatically go to her. . . . And then, if you feel that a child needs help in a certain area, then you recommend that they go there. In the event I see that Michael is struggling in a social studies assignment, I might say, 'Mike, would you like to go see Mrs. David?‘ Or they will ask if they can go see Mrs. David. It's not specifically [for] reading. My daughter was in it last year and she was struggling in her reading. And she was with Mrs. David all year. Now she's up to the middle of her grade so it really is a beneficial program and really helped her. The one-on-one really helped her to soar. The academic support program was established by Rainbow School personnel for their students. Parents are informed of their children's participation, but their permission is not .5- 4 . a», an. ..I. « *— A L. 186 required. Local school control enables teachers to identify academic problems and to procure immediate assistance for correcting the problem. Summary — Rainbow Special Topics and Programs. School autonomy allows administrators, faculty and parents to make curriculum decisions about their own students. Curriculum programs peculiar to Rainbow School included the substance- abuse awareness program, Schools Without Drugs, and the academic support program for children experiencing learing difficulties. Both programs were established to satisfy a need or to correct a deficiency. Summary - Special Topics and Programs. Local school control allows participants to make curricular decisions pertinent to their students. Each school had special curriculum topics addressing student needs. At Kwanzaa, the principals and parents expected, and had, an academic kindergarten even though the teachers felt it was too difficult for some children. Because the school was almost totally black, a parent group organized a Black History Month contest to make students aware of their heritage. A Self— Esteem workshop was planned to increase students' self- esteem, organizational skills, responsibility, and response to peer pressure. Kwanzaa provided a Chapter 1 program for approximately seventy children, but, at school personnel's request, Chapter 1 staff bent the rules several times so that .14 »—¢ . 187 academically slower students, though unqualified for the program, could participate. Catholic children and those desiring baptism received religious preparation at specially arranged times. Teachers often used their personal time to accommodate these students. At Rainbow, because the guidance counsellor felt substance awareness was important, she established the Schools Without Drugs program to educate students and parents about substance abuse. An academic support program was established to assist academically deficient students. At site-based managed schools, local school personnel, including administrators, teachers and parents, identified their school's curricular inadequacies, prepared solutions and implemented them, sometimes sacrificing personal comfort and professional and educational beliefs. Curriculum Standards School autonomy allows administrators, faculty and parents to make curriculum decisions about their own students. In the two site—based managed schools, it often seemed that one or two people identified curriculum standards and the other staff members complied with them. At other times, though, there were systematic reviews of standardized test scores to determine curriculum goals. Evidence of one or two people establishing curriculum standards is given below: I've just learned what's expected here at Rainbow 188 regarding English. So I teach according to that. [I learned it] from Sister Joyce. She said, 'This is what we want to do.’ For example, when I came, she taught fifth grade and so she showed me what she had done and what I was expected to do [as the sixth grade teacher]. . . . And then when she moved to seventh grade, I just know what she expects them to have and that's what I do. (Rainbow sixth grade English teacher) Like Renee' Matthews teaches [sixth grade] math. Towards the spring she'll say, 'Well, this is how much more time I have left. This is what I can cover. Which one would you rather that I cover among [the remaining topics]?' So, we cover the basics and then the extra is what we have a little p ssibility [of adjusting]. (Rainbow seventh grade math teacher) Likewise, rules for both schools' reading curricula were established years earlier. At a reading meeting, Kwanzaa's principal stated that the school's standard was that no first grader could be promoted to second grade without having mastered the primer level. The rule had been in effect since 1983 and was stated in the student handbook, "Specific reading and math levels are to be attained for promotion." At Rainbow, reading levels were problematic to one teacher who was surprised at their quarterly specificity (Appendix X). She felt that class demographics changed from year to year. Therefore, it was unrealistic to expect children to always be at a certain reading level at the end of each quarter. When she questioned the reading coordinator about the distributed copy of reading levels, the coordinator was unaware that had been done. The topic was brought up again thirteen days later at a reading meeting. The former coordinator indicated that, at one time, teachers had n.~ 189 recommended the levels. When the new coordinator asked if they were still valid, the teachers agreed that they were and the discussion ended. While the above vignettes describe arbitrary curricular decisions at the local level, there were times when each school systematically evaluated curriculum and made appropriate changes: Sister Cheryl [the guidance counsellor] would help us interpret what the [standardized test] results mean. And we try to come up with some strategies if we come up with some weaknesses overall in certain grade levels and certain subjects. Try to pinpoint what things needed to be worked on. An example would be story problems. We saw a weakness there. I know we strengthened the curriculum by looking for textbooks and other supplementary sources that could strengthen those areas. (Kwanzaa teacher) The institution of the social studies this year was the result of some of the scores that the third graders received in comparison to the national aver— age. Some of our focus in math has been because of the types of results the children received. So, basically, [we] gear a little bit of curriculum, not to the test, but to areas that showed weakness. (Rainbow teacher) However, the option to study standardized test scores to evaluate how the curriculum was meeting individual student's needs was left to each teacher's discretion. School autonomy allows administrators, faculty and parents to make curriculum decisions about their own students. At two site-based managed schools, curriculum standards were often determined by individual teachers or administrators. At other times, teachers used standardized test results for systematic curriculum evaluation. Local 190 school administrators chose not to have the faculty consensually agree on curriculum standards. The Daily Schedule Local school autonomy adapts to changing situations. Both schools used the central school office's guidelines (Appendix O) to determine weekly class minutes. Kwanzaa teachers and administrators allowed nothing to interfere with reading and mathematics classes: [The teachers] plan their schedule around the timing that's given [by the central office] so that they get all of the time in. Now in a few places, be- cause we have special teachers—~like art, physical education, computer--we might have to maybe go into their time a little bit, but not in reading or phonics. [I set up my Chapter 1 schedule] and the sixth, seventh and eighth grade was unreal. They [the teachers] did not want them out of reading or math. They only wanted them out of gym or art. We had to go by each child and look at their schedule. Teachers worked hard to meet the time requirements, but adapted their schedules when necessary: Whenever we have a change of schedule-—which is like every day--we make sure that every subject is put in. Like now we're putting in the extra music classes [for the Christmas program], but we make sure every academic subject is met that day for whatever length of time there is available. (Rainbow teacher) [Last year] I was teaching here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday: 8:30 until lunch. And I was working some place else in the after- noon usually. I simply came to her [the princi- pal] last year. . . . And I said, 'Is there a way for me to teach Monday, Wednesday, Friday?‘ And she said, 'Come up with a schedule.’ And I did. (Rainbow computer education teacher) School autonomy allows school personnel to make £ L» ’4 a; v-. 191 necessary changes. And so, in 1990-91, Rainbow teachers and administrators added twenty minutes to their daily schedules to accommodate new classes such as computer education or extended class time for music. The principal and teachers liked the change which added sixty hours to the school year. While local school control allows school personnel to make both curricular and budgetary decisions, there was no salary increase because no one suggested one. According to the principal, "There was no salary increase or anything. Sixty hours. In fact, nobody even mentioned it, which they would have had the right to do." In justice, it seems the principal's autonomous Position gave her the right and/or obligation to "mention" it. Local school autonomy adapts to changing situations. Daily schedules were adjusted to suit curricular and personnel needs. To accommodate additional courses, Rainbow staff added sixty hours to the school's annual calendar. No one challenged the increase nor requested a commensurate salary increase. Summary — The Exercise of Local School Autonomy and Curriculuar Decisions Curricular decision-making at two site—based managed schools has been described. The control of the school resided at the local level rather than at the district level. Local school personnel, including administrators, teachers and parents, were committed to a common mission designed for wmw .. gal-b». .. ..av-A; ~.--.- ' 'W on; I(\ 192 their own students. Local circumstances demanded different approaches to identifying and remedying student needs. One school had an academic kindergarten, while the other had both an academic and a developmental kindergarten. Special programs varied to accommodate ethnicity, self-esteem, drug awareness, academic deficiencies and religious beliefs. Individual teachers and administrators established each school's academic standards which colleagues enforced. Daily schedules were adjusted to suit curricular and personnel needs. School autonomy is adaptable, but the solutions may not be desirable as evidenced by personal, professional or educational sacrifice. Site-based management is a function, in part, of the local school community's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. The control of the school resides at the local level where personnel are committed to a common mission designed for their own students. Because there is little bureaucracy outside the school structure, local school personnel design and implement a curriculum tailored for their own students. Personnel Personnel in schools governed according to the site- based management model make decisions about budget, curriculum and personnel. Since these three decision areas are diverse, they are being considered individually. For ... ,4 A" 'r ... J. (J! 193 each topic, there will be a delineation of the argument that site-based management is a function of principal centrality, teacher empowerment and local school autonomy. The aim is to describe the behaviors associated with principal centrality, teacher empowerment and school autonomy and to illustrate how the functions relate to each other. Site-based personnel decisions are considered in this section. The Centrality of the Principal It is argued that site-based management is a function of the centrality of the principal which gives him or her the freedom to work in a decentralized fashion. It is the principal, not the superintendent, who holds the central position for personnel decision-making. The principal determines l) the subject matter of personnel decisions, 2) the participants in those decisions, and 3) the degree of participation. The principal implements the decisions. The principal first identifies the subject matter of the decisions and then determines participants and degree of participation according to the kinds of decisions that need to be made. At urban Kwanzaa Catholic School and suburban Rainbow Catholic School, personnel decisions centered on five areas: staff hiring, staff assignment, teacher performance, performance evaluation and staff development, and in-service. In each area, the principals selected the participants and decided the degree to which the participants and the Principals themselves were involved in the decisions. O — aiv «H» “v c. 194 Staff Hiring The Catholic School Office required that all teachers be certified. Many teacher—candidates established files at the central office. The central office, in turn, validated their credentials and published lists of potential employees, but did not hire them. In assuming a central role, the Kwanzaa and Rainbow principals hired teachers and support staff. Sister Barbara, Rainbow's principal, interviewed candidates and then invited the partner teacher to also interview them before she made the final decision: Barbara will interview and then she will get the partner of that teacher. And all three of us would sit. Then, after that, the person leaves and you have your input with Barbara and you say what you think. But in the end, it's her decision. At Kwanzaa, Sister Janet interviewed prospective candidates and consulted with Sister Rita: Janet usually does the interviewing. . . . Then she talks with me about it. But it pretty much is what she says. In assuming a central role, the principals hired their own teachers and staff. Rainbow's principal invited partner teachers to participate in the interviews, but she chose new teachers. At Kwanzaa, one co-principal interviewed and selected new teachers. Staff Assignment At both schools, the principals assumed a central role and assigned teachers to teach specific grades and/or subjects. They functioned as human resource managers. The 195 teachers requested grade transfers which the principals granted, if possible: In February, [the teachers receive a letter of intent] (Appendix Y) which asks if you are returning? Would you like to remain in the same grade? Would you prefer a change, if the change is there? We've had a lot of teachers here for a long time so pretty much they've stayed in the same area. (Kwanzaa) If [teachers want to switch], then they go and discuss it privately. I think the bottom line is really if the administration feels it's a good switch. (Rainbow) In general, the principals reassigned teachers when vacancies occurred. At times, teachers were honored that the principals had confidence in their abilities, while, at other times, teachers felt disadvantaged due to lack of seniority: It's like Barbara just seeing where we would fit the best. . . . I taught fifth and sixth grade for thirteen years. There was an opening in the junior high and Barbara asked me if I would take it and my initial response was, 'No.’ . During the summer, she asked me if I would move up to eighth grade. . . . I thought, 'Well, if she trusts me enough to take that, I'm going to do it. I'm going to try.’ It's been wonderful! So, it's just like trusting her judgment. (Rainbow) You don't really know when you leave in June [what you're going to teach]. . . . There are some teachers who have taught the same thing and I guess if you've been around here a long time, you have a little more leeway. I can only say for myself: I don't know what I'm teaching, who I'm teaching, or where I'm teaching. I just know I have a job. (Kwanzaa) At both schools, the principals assumed a central role, functioned as human resource managers, and assigned teachers to specific grades and/or subjects. The teachers assumed that the principals "knew best" and, at the principals' request, often took new positions with little argument or 1 ’9‘ .5- 196 disagreement. Teacher Performance The principals, in fulfilling their roles as educational leaders, directed and guided the teachers' performance in their classrooms. The principal's autonomy enables him or her to decide the subject matter of personnel decisions, the participants in those decisions and the degree of participation. At Rainbow, the decision about how a teacher teaches was left to each teacher: I suppose those [decisions] are ours to make. If there's a problem with it, Sister Barbara does come. Besides the formal time that she comes in to view us, she drops in every once in awhile. I guess [you can teach] any way you want to. And if Sister Barbara sees something that she doesn't like, you can discuss it, but I've never really had her say, 'You can't teach that way.’ Both Kwanzaa co-principals indicated that they allowed the teachers to make their own decisions about their teaching styles and methods: The method that is best for them is the method that will work. If it's not working, then we need to look at it to see what we need to do to make it work. Pretty much, they do their own thing. The teacher's the most important person. The method is second to a teacher. However, according to the teachers, the Kwanzaa co-principals maintained their central position, gave specific teaching suggestions, and monitored the teaching of reading: Teacher: When I was observed the first time, I thought I had the best lesson ever. I thought it was very good. It went very well. The kids were attentive. No one 197 was falling asleep or jabbing each other. And the first thing Sister Rita said was, 'Your books weren't stacked this way and that way and the papers weren't handed in.’ And I looked at her and said, 'Don't you want to know if they're learning anything? Doesn't that count for anything?’ I was really appalled. Interviewer: What if you disagree with the principals? Teacher: I'm verbal about it. But if she gives me a suggestion in terms of how seating should be, I say, 'Well, I can live with that. I'll try that.’ And I do try their suggestions and I will make that effort. Interviewer: But can you also talk with them? Teacher: Oh yes. And I say, 'Well, that's just not going to work for me.‘ She [Sister Janet] has a set pattern on how she wants reading taught and you follow that. Nothing new should be involved. She doesn't like any of the new reading techniques that are around today. Old basal. That's how she wants reading taught strictly. . . . Following the guidelines in the teacher's manual. One teacher defended the co—principals and said: They encourage you to use the five steps of reading. They encourage that you go through all those steps. They encourage that you use a lot of drill practice. They encourage, but they never say, 'You must do this.‘ The principals, in fulfilling their roles as educational leaders, directed and guided the teachers' performance in their classrooms. The principals' autonomy enabled them to decide the subject matter of personnel decisions, the participants in those decisions and the degree of participation. The Rainbow principal allowed the teachers to teach as they preferred. If she disagreed with a method, the teachers believed she would tell them so. The Kwanzaa co- principals, on the other hand, maintained a more central position and specifically directed their teachers, 198 particularly in the teaching of reading. The teachers complied with the principals' requests; often, they did so begrudgingly. Staff Development and In-Service The principal's autonomy enables him or her to design in-service programs for their teachers. At both site-based managed schools, this responsibility belonged to the principals and each neglected it. With the exception of an occasional speaker, in—service was limited to the central office workshop, Spectrum (a Catholic conference), or the Michigan Association of Non-Public School (MANS) convention. Teacher attendance at these meetings was mandatory. However, because Spectrum concentrated on religious subjects, some Kwanzaa teachers negotiated with the principals not to attend. The principals encouraged teachers to attend workshops throughout the year, but they provided few in— service opportunities at their schools: There are in-services that we just go to because we belong to the archdiocese. We all go to Spec— trum. We all go to the MANS convention. The teachers make their own decisions about what they go to during the year. However, . . . there are some teachers that [sic] I have told them they must go to such-and-such a class if there is a need for them to improve themselves in an area. (Rainbow principal) As far as staff development is concerned, we encourage them [the teachers] as far as taking courses. A lot of them are going on. . . . We are trying to get a speaker to come in just as a stimulus for the teachers, but we haven't been successful yet. (Kwanzaa principal) 199 We haven't had a lot of speakers. I miss that as input. (Kwanzaa teacher) Principal autonomy allows the principals to design in— service programs for their teachers. The principals at both schools were responsible for teacher in-service and each neglected it. The principals required mandatory attendance at annual central office workshops and encouraged teachers to participate in other workshops as they occurred. On occasion, there were speakers at faculty meetings, but the principals ne ther penducted any assessment nor developed any systematic in—.frvice programming. Summary — The Centrality of the Principal and Personnel Decisions Personnel decisions at two site-based managed schools have been described. The principals assumed a central role which enabled them to determine the subject matter of personnel decisions, the participants in the decisions, the level of participation and the degree to which the principals themselves participated in the decisions. At both schools, the principals interviewed and hired their own teachers and staff. One principal permitted partner teachers to participate in the interview process. The principals also assigned their teachers to specific grades and/or subjects. The assignments were made when teachers requested changes or principals filled vacancies. There was minimal faculty disagreement with new assignments. The principals directed, guided and evaluated their teachers' 200 performance. One principal allowed her teachers to teach as they preferred, while the other principals maintained a more central position and monitored their teachers. These principals made frequent suggestions about classroom methodology, particularly in the teaching of reading, with which the teachers complied. All principals neglected systematic staff development and in-service and relied on central office workshops to fulfill in—service needs. Site-based management is a function, in part, of the centrality of the princiyal. By assuming the central role formerly held by the district superintendent, the principal is responsible for personnel decisions. In site-based managed schools, personnel decisions are made by the principal with limited input by faculty members. By assuming a central position in the personnel process, the principal is no longer a middle manager, but is responsible for meeting the school's personnel needs. The principal maintains a reciprocal relationship with staff, parents and students by fulfilling their requests for maintaining an educational environment staffed by qualified and capable professionals. Teacher Empowerment This study argues that, in addition, site—based management is a function of teacher empowerment which gives opportunities to teachers, in a decentralized structure, to act autonomously, to exercise responsibility, to make choices a 2‘ 201 and to possess authority in the decision-making process. Empowered teachers are valued for their professional expertise and creativity. However, empowered teachers are subject to the principal's authority as presented in the preceding section. The only personnel decisions made by Kwanzaa and Rainbow teachers were their grade assignments and their professional performance. However, Kwanzaa School had two teachers, the Justinians, who exercised, and were allowed to exercise, considerable more power than the other teachers. Even though they did not make budgetary, curricular, or personnel decisions, their roles as empowered teachers will be described here. By examining this variation as well as the personnel decision areas, it is possible to see some of the behaviors associated with teacher empowerment in site— based managed schools. Staff Assignment Empowered teachers have opportunities to act autonomously, to exercise responsibility, to make choices and to possess authority in the decision—making process. Most Catholic school teachers are not unionized and neither were the Kwanzaa and Rainbow teachers. As a result, no one negotiated for them or ensured that they were given fair and just treatment. They each did that for themselves. At both schools, all teachers were originally hired for specific areas, but, over the years, some desired changes. Teachers made choices about which grades or subjects they (I) r- 1, r1 202 taught: I went down to the office one day and said, 'You know, these little second graders came up to show me their loose teeth . . . and I don't care that [their] teeth are loose. I can't share that with them. [I need to] move up to another grade.‘ That was my decision. I had taught all the English and my partner taught all the reading. So we talked and each of us wanted an English/reading block and connect the two. . . . It came from our desires which were expressed to the principals and they liked it and it was worked into the schedule. If possible, the principals accommodated requests for grade/subject changes. However, when classrooms closed, the principals reassigned teachers. Since empowered teachers act autonomously, some teachers used their power to negotiate a better arrangement for themselves. Given below are two sides of the same story: In June, they [the principals] said, 'You're going to teach sixth grade.’ . . . And I fussed and fussed and I wasn't happy. . . . In the summer . . . they asked me if I would like to teach fourth grade? And I said, 'Yes.' (Kwanzaa teacher) We went from three fifth grades down to two. So we had to ask Cecilia Irvin to go to the sixth grade. She was very upset about that. . . . I think she was really at the point of not signing the contract. (Kwanzaa co—principal) It seems that the principals made staff adjustments because they feared that the teacher would not sign her contract. The teacher used her power to her advantage. Empowered teachers have opportunities to act autonomously, to exercise responsibility, to make choices and to possess authority in the decision-making process. Kwanzaa C v 2 a ..pv v. N.( :4 .T A . ... {r 'U_‘. C. ..—v r. V 7. .4. H.181 . ...: . u: l a L. ... Nu. ‘ «mu Gui. . a 5. 3. . v. Q» ‘J v . .WJ m... ‘7‘"QOya “shy .4" V. 203 and Rainbow teachers negotiated their grade and subject assignments with their principals. In most cases, their requests were granted. Some teachers acted autonomously and convinced the principals to make decisions which best suited the teachers' personal placement desires. Teacher Performance Kwanzaa and Rainbow teachers were most empowered within their classrooms where they acted autonomously, exercised responsibility, made choices and possessed authority in the decision-making process. They made decisions about how to teach and implemented those decisions. This was especially true at Rainbow where the teachers felt that "the teachers decide how they're going to teach." They were open to suggestions, particularly from their peers: I think their partners do a lot for each other too. They look at each other and they learn from each other. You feel what's right. You know what's right. If anyone gets wind of anything you might not be doing quite right, it's brought to your attention, whether it's by your partner teacher or the principal. However, revitalizing old ways was not as easy as the Rainbow teachers made it seem: I am not happy with the way reading is being taught in the school. . . . However, as the new kid on the block, for the first year and a half I tried to keep things low—keyed. . . . I felt I had to get to know people better before I would have any influence. . The teachers . . . need updating in teaching reading. A lot of them are just teaching out of a basal the way it's been taught for eons. . . . Some [teachers] are trying very hard to get away from relying on that reader and other things. (Rainbow reading coordinator) (1‘ pr- .4 \_ " QNh 204 How to teach reading was a sore point at Kwanzaa where the principals demanded that it be taught their way. For other subjects, the teachers had mixed responses about the principals' directing their teaching: As long as . . . you have control of your class- room, anything that works for you works for them [the principals]. But as soon as you lose that control, then they'll step in. The teaching methods here are very different from other schools that I've been. . . . Here, it's very much more liberal. Teachers are allowed to do basically whatever they want. In this room I can do what I want as long as it looks like I'm doing what I'm supposed to do. With the exception of Kwanzaa's reading classes, the teachers were most empowered in their own classrooms where they acted autonomously, exercised responsibility, made choices and possessed authority in the decision-making process. They made decisions about how to teach and were free to implement those decisions. However, there was principal supervision, particularly at Kwanzaa, which makes it difficult to separate the central role of the principal from teacher empowerment. As long as teachers and principals balanced their roles, people were respected for their professional expertise. Unnecessary interference caused an imbalance and raised doubts about people's professional competency. The Justinians This section does not describe teacher empowerment in personnel decisions. Rather, it is the story of two o'rfi‘v - ...».- A-r-v- ‘1'“.- .1) ¢.. .4; ..., C r .7: ...? . r . r C i Q» L,. .4,» . . C. . R. 205 empowered teachers, the Justinians, at Kwanzaa School. Because their role had an impact on the Kwanzaa principals and staff and is important to the discussion of teacher empowerment and site-based management, it is presented here. Two women, from a religious order, the Justinians, were on Kwanzaa's staff. Both had doctoral degrees and together they had developed an educational theory and compatible teaching techniques. Their dream was to start their own school based on their educational philosophy. Basically, theirs was a positive, non-competitive approach to education; contractually, students were responsible for their learning and their relationships with one another. While the Justinians allowed the researcher to examine their materials, they did not permit the researcher to keep or copy them. They would not be interviewed because they felt their program was so different that it would take too long to explain. One co-principal commented that the teachers resented the Justinians because they participated or did not participate in certain school activities according to their philosophy's tenets. Two examples included 1) their students' bathroom privileges and 2) their students' participation in certain school functions. Except for emergencies, all Kwanzaa students used the bathrooms at specifically assigned times; the teachers supervised them. Because the Justinians believed in the students' learning responsibility, their children were allowed to use the 206 bathrooms as needed and unsupervised. Secondly, believing that competition should be avoided, the Justinians' students did not participate in school contests, such as the pumpkin- decorating contest, nor did they participate in the honor roll. In a number of schools, these two examples are the norm rather than the exception. At Kwanzaa, however, these examples were the exceptions and only the Justinians varied from the norm. When questioned why the Justinians were hired, Sister Janet said that the superintendent had called in the spring of 1988. He was familiar with the Justinians' educational approach and wanted to introduce it into the school system. If Kwanzaa School had two openings, he wanted them to work there. He brought them to the school to meet the principals and explore the school. The women spent one day in school and one overnight with the co-principals at the convent. According to Sister Janet, there was an interview, "so to speak," which consisted primarily of the Justinians talking about their program. Because the school is highly structured, it is my opinion that the Justinians would have observed that the two educational philosophies were diametrical opposites. However, later in the spring, the Justinians called and asked to be hired. At the time, there were only one and one—half openings, but Sister Janet hired them and adjusted the grade assignments. When asked, Sister Janet indicated that she could have refused them if she so 207 desired. And so, the researcher concludes that this is, in fact, an example of principal centrality in the hiring process. However, it seems to be an example of older religious women's desire to please those in authority. It seems that the Justinians knew that and knew that they had the superintendent's support. These two facts were the source Of their power. One Kwanzaa teacher believed in the Justinian philosophy. The others seemed not to understand it, but knew that those teachers were allowed to do things differently than they. One Kwanzaa non—teacher observed that a teacher's classroom should be his or her domain, but only the Justinians were allowed to function that way because they spoke up to the principals: One of the joys of teaching is that [the classroom] is yours. [Here] there is supervision and if there is any disagreement, the teacher doesn't last. The only exception to that . . . is the presence of other religious women [Justinians] who are in a position of . saying [to the principals], 'You can take this job and ----- .' . . . They have very strong views about how teaching should be done. And they're doing it. They also have the advantage of having a good re- lationship with the principals. The observations may be correct since one of the co- principals commented one day that the Justinians' philosophy is much different than ours. They think we're too structured, like a prison. And I don't feel that way at all. Whether it was true or not, the impression was that the Justinians possessed controls and privileges which the other teachers did not. ...o “v\ .nv 208 In selecting grade assignments, considered. However, no matter how it affected the other teachers. Cecilia Irvin, was forced to change grades because the Justinians, Kwanzaa for two years, refused being teaching partners in the had been at Kwanzaa for four years, seniority was usually the Justinians made their own choices One teacher, but she at to be split and insisted on For whatever fifth grade. in their favor and Irvin was reason, the principals decided directed to teach fourth grade. It seems that the Justinians were empowered women who made their own choices and decisions. The Kwanzaa principals allowed them more freedom than the other teachers. However, except for teaching reading, it is unclear whether the other teachers wanted more power than they had. One may speculate why the Justinians had more power. The co-principals may have allowed it because of their common commitment to religious life or because the Justinians had higher educational degrees or because they had the superintendent's support. For whatever reason, the Justinians acted autonomously to the benefit of their students and to the consternation of their principals. Summary - Teacher Empowerment and Personnel Decisons Personnel decision-making at two site-based managed schools has been described. The teachers were empowered as evidenced by the opportunities they had to act autonomously, 209 to exercise responsibility, to make choices and to possess authority in the decision process. The opportunities for personnel decision-making included grade/subject assignment and teacher performance. The teachers negotiated their grade and subject assignments with their principals and most requests were granted. The teachers were most empowered within their classrooms where they made decisions about how to teach and implemented those decisions. In one school, two teachers were more empowered than others in staffing, classroom management and disciplinary decisions. Site-based management is a function, in part, of the empowerment of the teachers. In site—based managed schools, the teachers were empowered to make some personnel decisions. Since they were not unionized and represented themselves, faculty members functioned as autonomous individuals seeking to be recognized for their professional expertise. For the most part, they received that recognition. The Autonomy of the Local School Site-based management is also a function of the local school community's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. The control of the school resides at the local level rather than at the district level. Local school personnel, including administrators, teachers and parents, are committed to a common mission designed for their own students. The absence of bureaucracy enables the participants to quickly diagnose and remedy problems peculiar to their schools. L w ; r»- 210 Personnel decisions included staff hiring, staff assignment, and staff development and in-service. By examining personnel decisions, it is possible to see some of the effects of accepting and exercising autonomy in site-based managed schools. Staff Hiring Local school control enables participants to make decisions about their own faculty and staff members. Kwanzaa and Rainbow principals interviewed and hired teachers who were qualified, suited to their schools, and with whom they, and others, were able to work. When the principals found a teacher candidate who satisfied their criteria, they sometimes made special arrangements to circumvent the central office's requirement that all teachers be Michigan certified: Our teachers are always certified. Right now, we have some in process. Like Christine came from Louisiana, so she's in process. Dr. James Ray has his PhD. and two masters, but he's in the process of being certified. Susan Randall just came from Ohio and she had Ohio and Pennsylvania certifica- tion, so she's in process from Michigan. I've had some teachers who've come from a different state, but this was an exemption from the state. If they come from different states and needed their requirements to be updated and didn't have time, I would sponsor them for that amount of time. The part-time Kwanzaa computer teacher was more than seventy years old and had limited experience teaching elementary students. In her first year at Kwanzaa, she was teaching without a contract. In two months, she could not control the older students, in particular, and the principals 2.. 211 knew there was a problem. One principal began visiting her classroom almost daily and the other had begun to look for a replacement. At the end of October, the computer teacher resigned. It seems that the principals may have suspected a problem from the beginning and did not present her with a contract binding them to an unsatisfactory agreement. Local school control enables participants to make decisions about their own faculty and staff members. At both schools, the principals interviewed and hired teachers who were qualified and suited to their schools. When needed, the principals made special arrangements so that prospective teachers would not be lost. In one instance, the principals hired a teacher, but did not offer her a contract. They monitored the situation and made changes without being contractually bound. Local school personnel, rather than district personnel, managed their own human resource relations. Staff Assignment School autonomy allows principals and teachers to make personnel decisions peculiar to their schools. While the principals at Kwanzaa and Rainbow functioned as human resource managers, they permitted the teachers to make decisions about their own placement. Annually, Kwanzaa teachers received a letter of intent (Appendix Y) in which they indicated whether or not they were returning and whether IV .3 212 or not they would like to teach another grade and/or subject. If a teacher requested a change, the principals accommodated that change. When classrooms were dropped, Kwanzaa principals relocated the affected teachers before hiring new teachers. Rainbow teachers had a more informal transfer process. They simply talked with the principal in the spring and she made the change in the fall. Local school autonomy enabled the principals to function as personnel dire t :2. The teachers requested transfers which the principals usually facilitated. Individual teachers did not request frequent changes, but, when they did, the local principals arranged the change with little difficulty. Staff Development and In—Service Local school control enables participants to make personnel decisions pertinent to their own school. As described above, personnel decisions provided limited opportunities for teacher empowerment and local school autonomy. Staff development and in-service is, perhaps, the area best suited to these two functions because teachers should be responsible for their own development and in- service should be tailored to each school's special personnel needs. It was not evident, at either school, that local school autonomy was important to staff development and in— service. The single most important in-service event at both Hl 213 schools was the annual conference or convention sponsored by the central office. Teacher attendance was mandatory and individual needs were met only if portions of the conference appealed to individual teachers. Kwanzaa teachers indicated that they could suggest agenda items for faculty meetings, but they were rarely in-service topics. Rather, the meetings concentrated on "what to do" about such things as report cards or open house. Kwanzaa teachers also indicated that they could suggest in—service speakers, but they disagreed about whether or not the principals would arrange for the speakers to come: Sister Rita and Sister Janet are very open and very receptive to anything that someone wants to bring in. . . . The staff is good for that here. If they come across . . . a speaker that they've heard is really good, they invite them and that is okay for meetings. It's just getting more people to do that. I write it every year on the end-of-the-year suggestion form that in—service meetings be held for teacher education programs. And they haven't done it. Rainbow teachers also had the opportunity to suggest speakers for in-service and, at the suggestion of a teacher, a CPR training session was offered in the fall. Even though Rainbow teachers answered a goal-setting, evaluation question about developing professional competence during the year (Appendix Z), there was no school plan to assist the teachers. The reading coordinator had a plan for determining personnel in-service needs, but had not implemented it during the first semester: 214 I want to talk with the teachers about it [a workshop] and find out: What do you want? What do you need? Do you want to spend the time doing this? Some of them may say, 'We spend enough time on our own doing these things. We don't want to stay after school one day to do this.‘ Perhaps she was reflecting the thoughts of staff members: in-service at the local level demands our time, our money and our commitment. Local school control enables participants to make personnel decisions pertinent to their own school. Designing specialized in-service programs for individual faculties is a function of site—based management. However, neither school operationalized that function. Therefore, both faculties received the same staff development as every other faculty within that Catholic school system. Summary - The Exercise of Local School Autonomy and Personnel Decisions Personnel decision-making at two site-based managed schools has been described. The control of the school resided at the local level rather than at the district level. Local school personnel, including administrators and teachers, were committed to a common mission designed for their own students. The principals managed their own human resources and interviewed and hired their own faculty and staff members. Likewise, they accommodated teacher requests for grade and/or subject changes. Finally, both schools had the opportunity to design their own staff development and . 215 in—service programs, but neither school did so. Rather, local school personnel participated in district-wide in— service programs. Site—based management is a function, in part, of the local school community's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. The control of the school resides at the local level where personnel are committed to a common mission designed for their students and faculties. Because there is little bureaucracy outside the school structure, local school personnel have the Opportunity to implement personnel decisions tailored for their staffs and students. Summary The Operationalization of Site—Based Management The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. As operationalized in these two schools, the argument is that site-based management is a function of the centrality of the principal, the empowerment of the teachers, and the local school community's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. Data about these functions and budgetary, curricular, and personnel decision—making has been presented. In two site-based managed schools, the centrality of the principals enabled them to determine the subject matter of H' 0(\ w H ; 216 budgetary, curricular, and personnel decisions, the participants in the decisions, the level of participation, and the degree to which the principals themselves participated in the decisions. The principals assumed roles traditionally held by district superintendents. They became business managers, curriculum directors, and personnel directors and were responsible for ensuring 1) that the budget was balanced, 2) that the curricula met students' needs, and 3) that the schools' personnel needs were met. However, the principals shared their responsibility, through the decision—making process, with teachers, parents and other school personnel. Even though the schools varied in their decision-making processes, shared responsibility created a reciprocity between the principals and their constituents. On the one hand, the principals allowed shared decision- making and, on the other, they assumed responsibility for l) maintaining adequately supplied schools, 2) providing educational environments which offered stimulating and challenging curricula, and 3) hiring qualified and capable professionals. Empowered teachers at two site—based managed schools had opportunities to act autonomously, to exercise responsibility, to make choices, and to possess authority in the decision process. The degree of decision-making power varied at the two schools. In general, teachers 1) made budgetary decisions which affected their own students and 217 classrooms; 2) made curriculum decisions in ways that were often arbitrary and not systematic; and 3) made personnel decisions about their own placement and performance. For the most part, teachers were valued for their professional expertise and creativity, but often neither they nor the principals challenged or questioned each other in the decision—making process. When a site—based managed school community accepts and exercises its autonomy, the control of that school truly resides at the local level where administrators, teachers and parents are committed to a common mission designed for their own students. The schools varied in budgetary, curricular and personnel decisions. However, because there was little bureaucracy outside the school structure, each school community concentrated on the needs of its own students and staffs. The absence of bureacracy enabled the participants to quickly diagnose and remedy problems peculiar to their schools. As a result, these local communities 1) established and maintained their own budgets, 2) designed and implemented their own curricula, and 3) implemented personnel decisions peculiar to their schools. Humanistic Qrganization Theory and Decentralization The purpose of this study was to define site-based management as it operates or fails to operate in two Catholic elementary schools and as it exhibits the combination of _: 218 humanistic organization theory and decentralization. In this chapter, data is presented in three sections. First, this study argues that site-based management is a function of the centrality of the principal, the empowerment of the teachers, and the local school community's acceptance and exercise of its autonomy. Second, because theorists link site—based management to humanistic organization theory and decentralization theory, this study examines the variations in the theories' indicants: flexible decision-making, accountability, increased productivity, better performance, more staff self—direction and control, and increased satisfaction. Finally, trends on select school outcomes are presented. This section presents data on site-based management and humanistic organization theory and decentralization. Operationalized in schools as site-based management, the decentralization theory argues that there will be flexibility in decision-making, accountability and increased productivity. The humanistic organization theory argues that there will be better decisions and performance, more responsible staff self—direction and control, and increased satisfaction. The argument is that site-based managed schools not only value the contributions of their employees, they are also more efficient and productive. They have a more satisfied staff and are better managed organizations. By examining budgetary, curricular, and personnel decisions r . . , . . I )i .\ 1v :1 .._ 219 in site-based managed schools, it is possible to see how site—based management fits with decentralization and humanistic organization theories. The data presented in the preceding sections described flexible decision-making, including the content of the decisions, the participants in the decisions and the degree of participation. And the data included in the teacher empowerment presentations described staff self-direction and control. Therefore, there will be no re-examination of these indicants of humanistic organization theory and decentralization. This section will present data about accountability, productivity and satisfaction in site-based managed schools. Accountability Accountability is an objective of decentralization. It is described as a performance control or a monitoring system which measures results and/or motivates participants. As the argument goes, site-based management includes elements of accountability. While the school remains accountable to the district and the state, local school personnel shares information with teachers, parents and students. The hope is that involvement is increased and becomes more meaningful because communication with the school is better. In turn, school support is increased. Data about budgetary and curricular accountability will be presented. E 220 Site-based managed schools are decentralized schools and, as such, are accountable to their constituents. Two methods of budgetary accountability are monitoring and information sharing. When describing the central role of the principal, one method of budgetary accountability, monitoring, was presented and described the extent to which parents, non-parents and teachers were involved in that process. Data indicated that, at one school, only the principals monitored the budget. At the other school, the principal, school parents and parish members monitored the budget. Faculty members were careful about spending money for supplies and materials, but they did not systematically monitor the schools' budgets. This section will describe a second method of budgetary accountability, information sharing, at two site-based managed schools. Information Sharing Sharing or withholding information can be a powerful form of control. At Kwanzaa and Rainbow schools, budgetary information was withheld, shared selectively, shared in detail or shared upon request; budgetary disclosure was oral or written. Fifty percent of the Kwanzaa faculty and staff did not know what types of budget information were released, if any. The pastor stated that no budget information was disclosed. He said, "That's not because it's being hidden. There is no process or system for releasing that a. P, .u ..nul (N A‘U 221 information." Several teachers commented: [No budget information is released to me.] The only thing that I hear about is Chapter 2. They tell us how much we're getting each year and how much we spent last year and how much we should be trying to spend this year. [No budget information is released] that I know of. . Sometimes at meetings it's mentioned that we only have so much money. I don't know. According to the principals and the bookkeepers, some budget information is, in fact, disclosed to select groups, including the school board, the parish council and the bishop's office: We show a summarized version to both the school board and the parish council. . . . We give the school board just a summary sheet of big topics of what is spent. What is spent on administration and salaries and all of this. Not the detail. . . Downtown [the bishop's office] gets the detail. To the board; we usually give them a copy of the breakdown. Like say your tuition: the amount of money and the amount of money for fundraising. We just go right down. We have account numbers and then the distribution. We do try to lump it more so they don't pick out a certain thing. Like if you put all your salaries together. Then they don't say, 'Well, how come so-and-so is getting this?’ And they can figure it out in their mind who's getting what, you know. Sometimes people say things, sometimes they don't. They didn't really say any- thing this time. They kind of looked it over and they seemed pleased with it. In an examination of Kwanzaa's documents, the 1989-90 budget, as presented to the school board, was found (Appendix AA). There was minimal written budgetary information in Kwanzaa's documents. One piece of information was a statement in the church bulletin (7 October 1990) which is seen by parish members only. In that statement, the Fathers' Club indicated that it had collected seventy-five percent of . . ‘. . ‘ ‘ 2148.3. each most ' ‘v‘lr ; n nz $0.9 Alizahc )The f. the cor I give through faculty heat'ng outstanc Where we kinds of Populati the pare declinin 222 the grade school's and high school's athletic budgets, an amount that was "well over fifty thousand dollars." In October 1990 the principals sent a letter to all parents stating that Kwanzaa Catholic would benefit from Chapter 2 funds and listed the areas where purchases would be made; no monetary figure was given. Officers in the Mothers' Club received a written projected budget for their organization and the Fathers' Club often indicated, in its newsletters, the amount of money which it needed to raise. Budget information, given verbally, was also minimal at Kwanzaa. One bookkeeper stated that parishioners, not the school parents, knew the amount of the annual Catholic Services Appeal (CSA) grant to the school: "They do make public how much they get from CSA. It is announced in the bulletin and from the pulpit during our CSA drive." And at each monthly meeting of both the Fathers' Club and the Mothers' Club, the treasurers gave oral financial reports to the members. At Rainbow Catholic, on the other hand, there was much more financial disclosure to teachers and board committees: [The finance committee receives the reports; so do the committees which have their own budgets.] And I give it to the teachers at different times throughout the year. In fact at this current faculty meeting, I'm going to give an account of our heating and lighting because the light bills are just outstanding. . . . So I'm just going to show them where we stand just so that they're aware of those kinds of things. At times I give it to the whole population here. There have been times when I've told the parents that, without dollars, because of our declining enrollment, . . . we will have a deficit. 223 And I always tell them when we have a deficit. I think they should know that and I always do it. Because the fruit sale always makes so much money and makes money over and above what was budgeted for it, they always know where that money is going. I tell them ahead of time where we propose to put it. (Rainbow principal) She [the principal] has shown us the budget at times, like on an overhead. Generalities. This goes here. This goes there. We're in the red or we're in the black. We need to watch. . . . She does advise us that way. She's pretty good about that. She lets us know what's going on. (Rainbow teacher) Sister Barbara does present it to us on an overhead. So we know textbooks, maintainence and personnel. We know the topics. . . . We see a grand total and the breakdowns. (Rainbow teacher) Sister Barbara will tell us at a staff meeting that there is a budgetary problem. Or that we need to go back and review the program. Or she will just ask us to take it easy. (Rainbow teacher) The bishop's office, which oversaw all parishes in the diocese, received an annual parish budget report; the school's budget was also included. Monthly, the school board finance committee received a copy of the complete budget-to— date (Appendix BB). Summarized bugetary information was given to other groups: [Budget information] is not released. It's very, very confidential. All school board members see the main budget, but they don't see the [exact] figures--the figures that come out at the finance meeting. That's not released. That's Sister Barbara's preference. The finance committee does know. It knows exactly where we stand to the penny. Then we make a general report to the school board. [For salaries] we group it. . Sister Barbara is very, very protective of her staff. Very protective. And names don't come out. Salaries don't come out, unless we start talking cuts. We want to know where we stand as far as approximately how much money we're going to receive if we do out a teacher or a staff member. (School board member) The school board gets it [a copy of the budget]. And 224 there is a percentage breakdown that shows how much of the budget is based on tuition, the percentage of tuition, and all other activities. It lets us know that the fundraisers are necessary and that kind of thing. (Parents' club member) While parents did not see the budget, interviewees volunteered that parents could request to see it. Disclosing budgetary information was not a problem at Rainbow: Very soon after the budget is submitted to the diocese, that information is available to . . . any parishioner who wants to come in and take the time to go through it and ask questions. And then those questions are normally referred to either me, Sister Barbara or the accountant. . . . So we have people who can handle those questions. (Rainbow pastor) I think if somebody is interested, that information is always available at the office. Sister Barbara would always sit down with somebody and go over it with them. (Athletic board member) You could get it if you wanted it. At the beginning of the year when she [the principal] has the first parent meeting, she talks about the budget then. But if you want to know about the budget, you wouldn't have a problem getting it from her. (Rainbow staff) There was a great deal of written financial information in Rainbow's documents. In her monthly newsletters to parents, the principal gave consistent and detailed financial reporting about various fundraising projects and activities. The P.T.A. and the Sports Board presented written financial statements at their monthly officers' meetings and P.T.A. newsletters included budgetary information. School board meetings were held each month and a Finance and Tuition Report was a regular agenda item. During two months at the school, a committee was formed to correct the cafeteria's deficit budget. The principal gave a detailed and specific 225 financial statement about the cafeteria's operations to each committee member. Summary The argument for site-based managed schools is that they are decentralized and, as such, are accountable to their constituents. Two methods of budgetary accountability are monitoring and information sharing. Earlier sections indicated that, at one school, only the principals monitored the budget; at the other school, the principal, school parents and parish members monitored it. Teachers spent money carefully, but they did not systematically monitor the schools' budgets. In this section, budgetary information sharing, an accountability procedure, has been examined at two site—based managed schools. The schools' principals shared financial information with their constituencies in different manners. The Kwanzaa principals sent an annual budget report to the bishop's office. School board members and parish council members received general, not specific, financial information; this did not seem to happen at regulary scheduled times. Faculty was rarely informed about the budget and parents knew nothing about it, except for the cost of their tuition and fees. Parent groups regularly presented oral financial reports to their members, but written financial accounts were minimal. The Rainbow principal disclosed specific budgetary ’1‘ ‘& Q5 #15 «\U 226 information to select groups which may be due, in part, to the parish monitoring and control procedures. The bishop's office and the school board finance committee were the only groups receiving detailed budget reports; the principal gave general financial information to faculty, school board members and parent clubs. The parent clubs regularly gave oral and written financial reports to their members. Complete and specific budgetary information was available to any person upon request. rr' 1 m Accountability is a performance control in which results are monitored and used to measure or to motivate (Brown, 1990; Mintzberg, 1983). Site-based managed schools are decentralized schools and, as such, are accountable to their constituents. Proponents of site—based management argue that local school accountability results in increased parental involvement due to better and more meaningful communication (Clune and White, 1988). Two methods of curricular accountability are monitoring and information sharing. When describing local school autonomy, one method of curricular accountability, monitoring test scores, was presented. Data indicated that there were times when each school systematically used test scores to evaluate curriculum and make appropriate changes. However, the option to study standardized test scores to evaluate how the curriculum was 227 meeting individual student's needs was left to each teacher's discretion. This section will examine a second method of curricular accountability, reporting procedures, at two site— based managed schools. Reporting Procedures Sharing information with parents, students, and teachers is one goal of decentralization and site—based management. Kwanzaa and Rainbow students received quarterly report cards which described their daily academic progress. Both schools participated in the diocesan-wide academic achievement testing program, the National Test of Basic Skills published by Testronics. Teachers used the test results to improve curriculum and to monitor both student and teacher performance. At the end of the school year, parents received printout copies of their child's test scores; parents were not informed about the schools' or grades' specific academic achievement. Both schools held mandatory parent-teacher conferences in the fall and optional conferences throughout the year. In addition to report cards, standardized test results, and parent—teacher conferences, Kwanzaa and Rainbow parents received other academic progress reports. Reporting to parents included sending schoolwork packets, homework notebooks or progress reports and making phone calls. Parents received daily, weekly, biweekly or monthly reports depending on the grade level: As far as the kids' schoolwork [is concerned], they [the teachers] send packets of papers home. 228 They gather these packs of papers for a two-week period and they send them home with the kids. That would be the daily work as far as the parents' knowing what the kid's doing in school. (Kwanzaa parent) [They have] homework notebooks in middle grades; the younger grades, I don’t know. My son's in the second grade . . . where he has an assignment sheet by day of all subjects. I love that. That is a very good policy. (Rainbow parent) At the first grade level, their work is sent home every day from the previous day. (Kwanzaa) The kids in [grades] four through eight have a homework notebook that they write in daily and it's a cumulative thing. And the teachers are free to write notes in it. Parents know about this. Parents sign it. We get notes back from parents. (Rainbow) I send their papers home every single week. I started that the very first week of school so they're [the parents] very knowledgeable about what their children are doing. And those papers are returned to me. I give them out on Monday and they are back by Thursday, signed and corrected. (Kwanzaa) And then sixth through eighth grade [teachers] decided that they wanted to keep all parents in- formed of children's progress. It would really save them a lot of time-—rather than sending something here, there and everywhere—-that every parent would know where the child was and could help them or call for an appointment. . . . So, then they [the teachers] started those three-times-a-quarter progress sheets (Appendix U) where they just check satisfactory or unsatisfactory and conduct and effort also. (Kwanzaa) Halfway through the quarter, we have a green slip (Appendix T). . . . It's like the kid knows that if he got a green slip, it's critical. But we do that [during] the fourth week into the quarter so they have enough time to do remedial [work] and to bring that grade up. It's an aca— demic report. (Rainbow) If a child is having problems, the teachers are expected, before report card time, to contact 229 the parents. I mean, you don't spring a failure on a parent. . . . If there's a drastic drop from what the child has been doing, notify parents right away. (Rainbow) The argument for site—based managed schools is that they are decentralized and, as such, are accountable to their constituents. Earlier sections indicated that teachers monitored standardized test scores to evaluate and change curriculum. Monitoring individual student‘s test scores and curriculum appropriateness was left to the teachers' discretion. Curricular reporting, an accountability procedure, has been examined at two site-based managed schools. The Kwanzaa and Rainbow faculties reported student progress to parents through report cards, standardized test results, progress reports and the systematic return of students' work to their parents. Teachers also reported student progress at parent-teacher conferences and through personal notes and phone calls. Summary Budgetary and curricular accountability procedures at two site-based managed schools have been described. Through these procedures, school personnel informed their constituents about the budget and the curriculum. Two accountability methods are monitoring and information sharing. Earlier sections described budgetary monitoring procedures, while the above sections described information sharing which differed at the two schools. In one school, 230 the principals gave general, rather than specific, financial information to school board members and parish council members. Almost no financial information was given to parents or teachers. At the other school, the principal gave specific financial information to select groups. This may be due, in part, to the parish monitoring and control procedures. The principal gave general financial information to faculty, school board members and parent clubs. Parent clubs regularly gave financial reports to their members. Curricular information sharing at two site—based managed schools involved faculty members reporting student progress to parents. Reporting instruments included report cards, standardized test results, progress reports and the systematic return of students' work to their parents. Teachers also reported student progress at parent—teacher conferences and through personal notes and phone calls. Accountability is an objective of decentralization and site—based management includes elements of accountability. While the school remains accountable to the district and the state, local school personnel shares information with teachers, parents and students. The hope is that involvement is increased and becomes more meaningful because communication with the school is better. Two site-based managed schools shared limited financial information with their constituents. In one school, the principals were almost solely responsible for monitoring and maintaining a 231 balanced budget. They were rarely questioned about their financial management. At the other school, the parish accountability structure enabled the principal to share financial information and ensured that the budget was monitored. Even though the schools had different accountability procedures, both maintained balanced budgets under the principals' direction. Curricular accountability, however, included more parental and teacher involvement. The faculty used test scores to evaluate the curriculum and regularly reported student progress to students and parents. at two site—based managed schools, constituents were more involved in curricular accountability than budgetary accountability. Later sections will present the trends related to parent satisfaction and commitment, both of which will increase in site—based managed schools, according to decentralization and humanistic organization theorists, because the constituents are involved. Productivity Productivity is another objective of decentralization. Decentralization proponents argue that increased productivity is a by—product of greater autonomy. Since site—based managed schools are autonomous, the argument is that those schools operate cost-efficiently and have good student performance. Data about budgetary and curricular productivity will be presented. 232 Budget As the argument goes, site—based managed schools are autonomous and, therefore, are financially productive. The efficient use of resources is a measure of productivity. One way to examine financial efficiency is to study student COSCS . Income Tables 9 and 10 indicate per-pupil spending and tuition rates at Kwanzaa and Rainbow schools. At Kwanzaa, the percentage of increase in tuition and fees over the last four years has been greater than the increase in per—pupil spending. This is also true at Rainbow, with the exception of the 1989-90 school year when per-pupil spending increased by twenty—six percent, while the tuition was raised only nine percent. Since neither school charges tuition and fees equal to the cost of per-pupil spending, the balance of income was generated by fundraising, grants and parish subsidy. Expenditures In these two site—based managed schools, per-pupil spending is less than that of their respective local public school districts. This is due, in part, to the fact that Catholic school teachers are generally paid less than their public school colleagues. Examining student costs in terms of programs and materials enables the reader to make a more knowledgeable comparison of Kwanzaa and Rainbow schools with 233 Table 9 Student Cost Information, Kwanzaa Catholic School, 1987-1991 Actual Projected 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 Enrollment 659 616 609 580 Cost Per Pupil $1677 $1800 $1913 $1998 Cost Per Pupil $3870 in Local Public School District* Tuition & Fees $1280 $1480 $1580 $1730 for 1 child** Source: Kwanzaa Catholic Elementary School Fourth Friday Reports, 1987—1990; Kwanzaa Catholic Elementary School Archdiocesan Budget Reports, 1987—1991. *"Per—Pupil Spending for Michigan Schools," DetroitiFree Press 9 June 1991: 6F. **Figure is an average of in—parish and out-of—parish tuition. 234 Table 10 Student Cost Information, Rainbow Catholic School, 1987-1991 Actual Projected 1987—88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 Enrollment 547 507 479 454 Cost Per Pupil NA $1379 $1738 $1797 Cost Per Pupil $5918 in Local Public School District* Tuition for $863 $1148 $1248 $1361 1 Child** Source: Rainbow Catholic Elementary School Fourth Friday Reports, 1987—1990; Rainbow Catholic Elementary School Archdiocesan Budget Reports, 1987-1991. *"Per Pupil Spending for Michigan Schools," Detroit Free Btess 9 June 1991: 6F. **Figures are averages of in-parish and out-of—parish tuitions. 235 the public schools. Kwanzaa Catholic offered enrollment and full—day classes to children in kindergarten through the eighth grades. The kindergarten through third grade classes were self— contained,while the others were departmentalized to various degrees. In addition to the regular education program, there were two Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) classrooms for eighteen children who were referred to Kwaanza by the local Catholic school district. The school had three full-time administrators, twenty—five full—time faculty and the pupil- teacher ratio was twenty—four to one. The daily curriculum at Kwanzaa included religion, reading, language arts, mathematics, social studies and science; no languages were taught and there were no programs for the gifted. There were full-time teachers for art, music and physical education/health; first through eighth grade students participated in art and music once a week and physical education/health twice each week. Kindergartners attended weekly gym classes with the physical education teacher, but art and music were conducted by the classroom teachers. A part-time computer teacher conducted weekly classes for all students except kindergarten; the computer lab had twenty-five Apple computers. Once a week, depending on the semester, seventh and eighth graders had classes in study skills and public speaking. The principals at Kwanzaa arranged for the following 236 services from the local public school district: 1) the Chapter 1 program for eighty-nine children in both the pull- out and after-school sessions, 2) a speech teacher for seventeen children, 3) a teacher consultant for two children, and 4) a social worker. Children needing speech, teacher consultant services and social work services met with these specialists one day a week. Chapter 1 classes in reading and/or math were offered weekly. Rainbow Catholic offered enrollment in pre-school through the eighth grades. Pre-school classes included three- and four-year old children and met twice a week for half day sessions. There were both developmental and regular kindergarten classes which met daily for half-day sessions. The two kindergarten teachers team taught. For the most part, first and second grade students were self-contained, but there was some exchange of teachers. Grades three through eight were departmentalized to various degrees. The school had two full-time administrators, seventeen full—time teachers and the pupil-teacher ratio was twenty—six to one. The daily curriculum at Rainbow included religion, reading, language arts, mathematics, social studies and science; no languages were taught and there were no programs for the gifted. There was a part—time academic support teacher who assisted children experiencing academic difficulty. The music teacher worked part-time and met students in developmental kindergarten through grade six once 237 a week. The principal taught music to the seventh and eighth grades and the music teacher served as her accompanist. The physical education teacher also worked part-time and taught first through eighth grade students once a week. One kindergarten teacher had gym class for the kindergartners once a week. Since there was no art teacher, the classroom teachers provided their own instruction, though there were several volunteer parents who assisted with instruction and the Picture Person program. The computer teacher was a part- time instructor wno met all children in the developmental kindergarten through the eighth grades once a week; because of the large number of students, class time varied from twenty to thirty minutes. There were eleven Apple computers in the lab. The principal at Rainbow arranged for the following services from the local public school district: 1) a speech teacher for six children, 2) a teacher consultant for one hearing impaired student, and 3) a school psychologist as needed. Speech and hearing impaired classes were offered twice each week. Instructional materials including textbooks, audio— visual equipment, library facilities, and science laboratory materials were available. However, at Rainbow, some students shared textbooks. Both schools had guidance counsellors; they were members of the administrative teams. Children participated in extra-curricular sports activities including 238 football, basketball, soccer, teeball and cheerleading. Summary Decentralization proponents argue that increased productivity is a by—product of greater autonomy. Since site-based managed schools are autonomous, the argument is that those schools operate cost-efficiently. By studying student costs at two site-based managed schools, it was possible to examine financial efficiency. This study argues that, in two site—based managed schools, there is no evidence indicating that the schools are not cost efficient. The cost to educate students at two site-based managed schools was lower than that at local public schools. Some of that is due, in part, to the lower salaries paid to Catholic school employees. However, students at the two schools were not academically deprived. They studied a basic curriculum and had access to a variety of additional programs and materials. Since neither school charged tuition and fees equal to the cost of per-pupil spending, the balance of the income was raised through fundraising events, grants and parish subsidy. As a result, both schools maintained balanced budgets. Curriculum Decentralization proponents argue that increased productivity is a by-product of greater autonomy. The argument is that site-based managed schools develop programs 239 and curriculum which are suited to their students' needs (Clune and White, 1988; Lindelow, 1981). As a result, student performance improves. Since previous sections described the development of programs and curricula, this section will describe student performance at two site-based managed schools. Beginning in 1989, the Catholic schools' central office decided to administer the National Test of Basic Skills (NTBS) published by American Testronics and both Kwanzaa and Rainbow complied with that decision. As a result, only test data from two years was examined: spring 1989 and 1990. National percentile scores for each grade and each student were reported and the researcher converted the scores to stanines. While data from three test years would allow more comparison, the data in Tables 11 through 14 present some indications of academic achievement at the schools. Total reading scores include word attack, vocabulary and comprehension skills; total language scores include spelling, language mechanics, and language expression skills; total math scores include computation and concepts and applications skills; and basic skills scores are averages of total reading, total language and total math scores. Tables 11 and 12 indicate the percentile and stanine scores of an entire grade's population for two years. For example, grade one students tested in 1989 were grade two students in 1990. The only grades examined were those taking 240 the NTBS tests for two consecutive years. The composition of any given grade may vary due to children transferring in and out of the schools. Table 11 indicates that, even though percentile scores varied in the two years, Kwanzaa students scored in the fifth and sixth stanines; grade one scored in the seventh stanine for total reading. For the most part, a class of students remained in the same stanine from one year to the next. The students tested in grades three and four were exceptions since they dropped from the sixth to the fifth stanine in reading, language and basics scores. Table 12 indicates that the Rainbow students performed in the sixth and seventh stanines; both second grade classes scored in the fifth stanine for total math. The students tested in grades four and five and in grades six and seven remained in the same stanines for all test areas each year. The students tested in grades two and three improved in all areas, while those tested in grades one and two did worse in reading, math and the basics. The other classes remained the same in some areas and performed better or worse in others. 241 Table 11 Percentile and Stanine Scores for National Tests of Basic Skills Administered 1 March 1989 and 10 March 1990 Kwanzaa School Total Rdg. Total Lang. Total Math Basics Ptl. Stan. Ptl. Stan. Ptl. Stan. Ptl. Stan. Gr. 1 (N=52) 78 7 70 6 59 5 72 6 Gr. 2 (N=55) 66 6 62 6 52 5 61 6 Or. 2 (N=58) 68 6 7 55 5 66 Gr 3 (N=59) 66 6 66 6 67(N=6l)6 66 Gr. 3 (N260) 63 6 65 6 58 5 62 6 Gr 4 53 5 52 44 5 50 5 (N=54) (N=54) (N=53) (N=53) Gr. 4 (N=80) 60 6 59 5 55 5 58 5 Gr. 5 (N=70) 63 6 58 5 63 6 62 Gr. 5 (N=69) 67 6 59 5 56 5 61 Gr. 6 (N279) 70 6 62 6 57 5 63 Gr. 6 (N=81) 70 6 62 6 57 5 63 6 Gr. 7 66 6 63 6 63 6 64 6 (N=75) (N=76) (N=76) (N=75) 242 Table 12 Percentile and Stanine Scores for National Tests of Basic Skills Administered 27 February 1989 and 26 February 1990 Rainbow School Total Rdg. Total Lang. Total Math Basics Ptl. Stan. Ptl. Stan. Ptl. Stan. Ptl.Stan. Gr (N=5 7 7~ 78 78 Gr 2 (N=s4) / 6 65 59 5 67 Gr. 2 (N=57) 74 6 61 6 55 5 67 Gr. 3 (N=47) 85 7 82 7 86 7 83 Gr. 3 (N=65) 76 6 78 7 79 7 78 Gr. 4 (N=60) 71 6 73 6 77 7 74 Gr. 4 (N=50) 74 6 67 6 73 6 71 6 Gr. 5 (N=47) 74 6 68 6 72 6 71 6 Gr. 5 (N=54) 80 7 75 6 76 6 76 6 Gr. 6 (N=49) 81 7 75 6 78 7 78 7 Gr. 6 (N=46) 80 7 73 6 79 7 77 Gr. 7 (N=43) 8l 7 76 6 78 7 78 243 Because the grade populations varied each year, test scores of the constant students were examined. Individual percentile scores were changed to stanines and then averaged to produce a score for each student group. Tables 13 and 14 present these scores in an attempt to show a consistency of academic performance at two site-based managed schools. The table shows each grade grouping's two-year test results. Table 13 indicates that students attending Kwanzaa School for two consecutive years generally performed in the fifth and sixth stanines. Those tested in grades one and two performed poorer the second year in reading, math and the basics. Students tested in grades two and three performed better in math and remained the same in the other areas. Those tested in grades three and four improved in reading and language, while students tested in grades four and five improved in language and did poorer in math. The remaining students received the same test scores on both tests. Table 14 indicates that students attending Rainbow School for two consecutive years generally performed in the sixth and seventh stanines. Students tested in grades two and three improved in language, math and the basics. Those tested in grades one and two did poorer the second year in reading and the basics, while those tested in grades five and six did poorer in language. The remaining scores in Table 14 stayed the same for both years. 244 Table 13 Averaged NTBS Stanine Scores for Kwanzaa School Constant Students; Tests Administered 1 March 1989 and 10 March 1990 Total Rdg. Total Lang. Total Math Basics Gr. 1 (N=38) 7 6 6* 7* Gr. 2 (Nz38) ON Gr. 2 (N=40) Gr. 3 (N=40) O\ C\ O\ Gr. 3 (N=39) 6 5** Gr. 4 (N=39) 5 5 5 5 Cr. 4 (N=34) 6 6* 5 6* Gr. 5 (N=34) 6 5 6 6 Gr. 5 (N=34) 6 6* 6* Or. 6 (N=34) 6 6* 6 Gr. 6 (N=38) 6 6 6* Gr. 7 (N=38) 6 6 6 6 * Higher score than class as given in Table 11 ** Lower score than class as given in Table 11 245 Table 14 Averaged NTBS Stanine Scores for Rainbow School Constant Students; Tests Administered 27 February 1989 and 26 February 1990 Total Rdg. Total Lang. Total Math Basics Gr. 1 (N=78) 7 6 6*): Or. 2 (7:38) 6 6 6* Or. 2 (Nfi35) 7* 5*i Gr. 3 (N=35) 7 7 Gr. 3 (N=45) 6 6** 7 6** Or. 4 (N=45) 6 6 7 6 Gr. 4 (N232) Gr. 5 (N=32) 6 6 6 6 Gr. 5 (N=35) 7 7* 7* 7* Or. 6 (N=35) Gr. 6 (N=38) Gr. 7 (N=38) * Higher score than class as given in Table 12 ** Lower score than class as given in Table 12 246 ESLJrnrnary Proponents of site-based managed schools maintain that t;r1€3 schools are decentralized and autonomous. Programs and CELIITIfiCUla are developed to meet their students' needs. As a ITEBESLJlC, student performance improves. This study argues t;kiaat:, in two site—based managed schools, there is no evidence ;ir1roved five scores, did poorer on five scores and stayed tlrlEE same on fourteen scores, while Rainbow constant students ‘irhICNroved three scores, did poorer on three scores and stayed t:}1€3 same on eighteen scores. In general, the schools matintained their academic standards for a two-year period. Efléliunary - Productivity Budgetary and curricular productivity at two site—based anaged schools has been described. Decentralization Fxrfbgoonents maintain that increased productivity is a 247 t>)r—product of greater autonomy. This study argues that, in 'Cxuca site-based managed schools, there is no evidence i11;f? their own supplies and materials. Parents did not pay a t:‘LJition equal to the per student costs. As a result, the k>£Ei.1ance of the income was raised through fundraising events, S3.I?eants and parish subsidy. Curricular productivity was measured by student F>€2rformance. Data from two site—based managed schools izacjicate that the schools are cost-efficient, but there are t;C)<3 many factors to attribute cost-efficiency solely to site- k>ea:3ed management. However, this study also argues that there 1.53 no evidence to indicate that these schools are not cost- ezifzficient, a fact that could be attributed to site-based the data indicate that the schools ma nagement. Likewise, fléEI‘ve good student performance which may relate to several §Jc:>aals of decentralization and humanistic organization theory: c:j1_<3se monitoring, consistent reporting, and increased the study argues that there is E3 evidence to indicate that these two schools are not Ei<::eademically productive, a fact that could be attributed to ES jL‘te-based management. Satisfaction Proponents of humanistic organization theory argue that E5&3tisfaction is a by-product of participative decision-making (INdLiles, 1965). As the argument goes, site-based managed S mo ozm u m 0000 u o ”wuoo mcnxpa: eoom hmcummh pcmunum 337 Grade 1 «1“ wcaflqfiomfionuflom may: . r- nmk mo QZu .0 nuv Emphasa pcm .0 ppm kwuhuso umH ”mezmzzoo mmmuuumh mmek # mmhaazoo. _ _ L acmmp< moans ...uozufiflfipvucccuum mmmwouwxu muuam Mo >kowmm: _ _ 7...._. muowumaamom npfis mouunwaooo momkHo>fiuowmwu weak wows wcfionwm Hugo mcofiuooufio mkoflfiom\mcouw«4 >nafiznaoo> wmaflo cw w>fiucouu< CCT cazakQEOU mka<= rabkw. w WUHCOEQ V a ZOHPxao BOHmm :O m>on< “Jm>u4 maonaEH mcflfiamuum pooauo pmcomok ouapo>¢uw EOOpQEQI meow". mcflxpnz L0whd20 umpflm. poems: «coEo>0paEHu\> HmDOU hmfiq mumzo whopmota acefifiouxuu< “mooo oszmuouwa2 wUHh<=mxh<2o cowuaawufluuaa muowoaoo «o Hmmwmmm muHoskm Auouma2 oszstozqumfl2 uzxqumm. name" he coflwmmumxu cwwufius mama” “o nonmmmhnxm Hugo zmnguzu. cowyng~ofiuwnn aowuunwuguuma mflmnxm nascaumau , _ _ l xoxhx;. xL0s\u:fiomom l 1 1_ llllfllllllll_ r Fm<. unavawm Hauo 1|, exOmxu l snmfiapnuos i _ evaozoo ” coflmcwcwumeoo , , ccfiumaflomuusn a noncOca , uHm . “Lomwm wllzwtxlblli _ coayaalozztwa salsa co atone Unnpua moamo _ i wuuquLANuusomvz oz~ouoawa2 m mozuMUm. cowwaofiufiawma mmmfiu _ mmhaazoo. zonofiqum. k v H m m n L w m m H ...-OOHmun Oszm<2.-.. 9:14.51. Co..u-:3«nc35 CDC-74:3 .912! .5 an... C525 . 3 5;... 25.: .Zi EmquG r525 afina< «oz wooonz caozm “coEw>oLnE~ oEcm-v canoe: “cwEm>0nnE~u \) ”“000 equ xummu acnmwaaIa unwauakuh uOOduo ammuo> mo Qzu nA caonw “cwEo>oLneH mucmu. convex “c95020kae~u\> “HmHA xomxu ucAH‘mmuk goon-Q ammuo>Losmn2 . I, 1 Lounyflpouxm _ _ _ m , Awoflmafloz :4 aofluaanoflouma WWI . w , , :OWONme. _ , l H Aflfifi.em: c mozmHoW. n W n ...mnohmmu ozwxx<2... ckonm ycoeo>OLQEH 050m“. noucum ucDHO>ouaE~u\) “hm”; mouzu uncuuaumlwnm-m "on: has A.um.mh£a .Lowzaeou .ofimzz .wpq nowmmflo afloaun>v opomauou ow mxooa NV wumfineouc~un meaflfiahuh noon-Q v m m auoaommmADmMcpuD muaum>xd. eoaozoo w Hmoumm mumoe sooazoo massacmlmm< H oomph . wfifinxm flange» T, _ 1 . H v r fl , l _ ” oOwquwufiukma fi1 _ _ y l cofiumiomtoUI Tlfl» L .4, “I » , I'IT'Y'IIIIII I»? .. l l _ _ l l mucoEcmflmu< . . l Leesuto-nflflzxm acduflhx » . h _, > w w , , fl _ l . l l mmzoaem a .) 1 l _ . cofiwmmaoawuaa l R U _ _ rgxflnbnoc>- 11:.1ll , A H mwoofio»a\mwcmEcwMWm< m l . H l coflmcocopmeouumflfiaxm fill- 1| - «i 1 hull! .ITlpl. Ill.’ 1 v . . _ , mozmfium. _ l l m mwc;Ecmflmmw 1-31:-n- l A emoupm fl 4 w w ( 45;”.3 no close ”Assad gusto I -II:IL - . (i r r 1 r y L! U n 9030200 n l l u v . ozHcooa “fio>o4 momuo fl . l mucoEcmfimm< , :|-:!\. mlo<2uxeCcU 3.... 55.32.: t. ......t,;_..r.. nd~CC CC..F»ECV«: U.3C.’ _ 2.59 C. CBCEAIQ .WFZMEZOU 3:5 fart.» 59ch 32.. 9:32p E 3:29: esozm c. _ 3330 :53 :00 ,. 330.? 9:99., 303w E E E B B 9 — 2353: 2:3 :00 .Iul _l £.< 9:25....» SEED: 33:933. _C9E.JJCE .U_QC_U=JCU CCU 3oz» 9.3Eoom 32:00qu .._—:5 5.32 owe—J 1.21... €1.15; w _ v n u 3.3.3.33... it; 0.53 a a l c TI 1 v n N a jITYIi ersz... Azafifl . _ *IO. 11 527.12.?! fir: n1: #5 _ . ‘4; 525:5: £12 r—b— .— .YI: €1.73 ....S.. CCV l -I I III- I _ . I lY . & _ I a; 593.? 3x11 £333 ?:E>Lm 7 w o - - fIII WIaII II; 3:53:31?! £9331 ...: : ...... .3... :. g 39:59.: .123335630 * m 23:59.53 35.3 1.....1 1.21;? v VI.¢. IIIb,IIL . _ I: C h: a C15» > E: 5:.J ,v I II.» l! 41 - I I .6- —. v. 3 Y IfIII—Ii- I..;..:r ..1._:21... "....v 1 _ JO . :Sirlora; 335.6 .1 3.31.... l 3...; :1... 2.. v . I :1C.fl _£_QoU «5:1 35:32 coU £39.55: ...:a.> 3.2.5.5: 9533. _ _ .“.I {v C. . )nfi r v > P _ , a l - I I l 4 I -.LI: : ., _ I_ . . Z . _ _ _ L I I In- - I . I - II_ . _ . v II 0 0 IOII ! 6 I IA £711.. .15 ' . m _ . r. 'l. . .. . . ,5 l ._ ,. 1-----L--I_IILII1 - o b O O I L _ . r .. A. .w. . _ U . l. .6 .-. I H. -IIIITIL_ 1.3.73.4... CC... f- I o - o -I I v | IL I I I I + - - o A ..., 2:14;. i... . ‘ $235.7... :. (4.625;.cm v n . N _ , l . . _ . _ r .II-.»- ..lpI--. r-.IIFI-I. .|¢-- I. ,. .,,. . a IF -I|.II- .. > . . . ... x 3.1;: _ in E: o. p.63co_.c_ III 1 :lIIl--I._Il_ Il...Lu/.J. I): fj....\ , p . “......ZgL. i» F; r.......r1. ” _ .vI'IHHIMI OIINi.io_.II—IL I VI. IWIJIN .I—IIL_ :55; ......TJGV/Lfif. .1 _ rI I- -I».Ial.l>.L fill ,IFIIIIHIII ......C m 2.1;: . v, :oae ,. L117...$324.41....L“Pg: "L: 51,: 5. _ ...,3:....<.:=;_ IIII.; .. I -II... .o. .x’ _ m... 1.. .../ .. ... ...... ._ .:.::%+.3..:1 5.2:: 723.351.. ......L ”.._.1...:.._,:£ ..2 .,,.:_.{:2., f, “HIArQ .L..:n.w;...#fi;./._ "5.2.3.1. T..:....a:....crfl. C 20...“... 5:23.32; , :53 1......mr. .I . . . . 325...: w .caEw>2—._u< f :VCIQI ,: r : :6; II :3: 20.3522. :Omhmo ”.0 mmeO_DIU~—< , I ; 2.3.x STUDENTS NAME, 344 Grades 1 - 3 I’Io. 0.5100 ".05000._. m.—.(O 020—0600 00:23:00 .~:0.0m..0...000._. "2:0EE0U .0:0_:00< . . . . . 00:00.00 20000.”. .9 . . . . . . . . . . . . «00:00.0 30:3 8: 0000 .: .................mm0_0:_:0_.:0:0:_ .0— ...0.0.::00_00...o . . . . . . «00:0 “003::— «0032.30 0_£O..O>Owc3 . Km . . 5:030:50 600.0020 00:53 0 o o o o o 0 o o o O o “co_&°~_uoh >abuowumhomc: PNM‘FW‘O . . . . . . . 0.0— 005E000. 0.:0E:u_0a0 >:0D . . . 0055000. 3330.00 2:05:930 >200 . . . . . . . . 00.3.0000 .0: 2:0E:m_000 >200 . . . . . . . . . . . 302058003 :0 0000.0 304 O DDDDUDDDDDDD 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fiuavcou >L°~U°*Wmfiomc3 A3330. 053023 0:: .0. 4.03 >.0.00mm:0m:0 0500 0._ 0: $0030... 0060: 0>000 of :_ 05:3 0.02:0 .00» ~:0>0.0 o. 0.: 5:3 20.00000 30:3 :0» :5 unac0~om 5000 000.0 20033 2:003m In; _00;0w I mhzmm:0 :0 :_ :00. .00» its ..000. 0.2. 520. 00.005 .m .00:0.0.:00 0 :00» .00 0.052 .:0_:0>:00 2050.03 .00» :_ 0.00_0:_ 00:.00:00 .05000. of .._:3 .3000 00» .01. 000:066000. 30:2.» 3 s .N ._0q_0:_.n_ 0.: 0. .0: 0:0 00:.00:00 .0,._002 of 0* 0202.0 00 0.00;» ..000. if 3000 «0:305 .— "03: 00005 347 APPENDIX U Kwanzaa School Progress Report 00:0:c-«w 0:002; 00:.0:u«¢ “€0.05 LII .-r.I IIIlI-t|llI tIrlI 0..J:¢¢_m .00....— rII.-I 0:50. .0. It 0...... E. 0.030. .0. 00:22.0 0000:; 00:25.0 0.30:.» ...—3...... 0:00....“ . IIIl IrII IVIr-IJVIIII III ..II #0958 Crag: 4rrt:w ER fIlIIII- .-i :lllIwIlL lIll, IIII -I r r Ra‘ssm Ul—5u‘m g—Shu U~._‘DL _ U523; U~.—IDL .- l , -l Ir .-I I. II III-.- r - . -. U—mzx U—VNC. U—GB I . -lrI IIII. 1:, Il. I..III r r I +IIIIIIIIIII.I v.1], III.lrI r- II IIIII. i I l h I Ctr—:6 _ Trix-.3 10.5028 k ..IlWI I fI I .III IIII. IAVII l IAV Ilmr II I I II! I n _ V: I _ Fmrq P: _ I I I I Ir. H! .4 -. .- VI-l.Ir VIr-Il IIII II-Il..loI . - I -III .I I 5.2:. I .51.... .8005... .m _ II o +l . l0_- I# II III: -III|IIIlrI 1; lllI,I.lY Il+ . _. l Ir,-r Il.- I I I I >-:»¢_x _ _I >-..v.: yacht—x I _ I I l . . ell . 4 .. « rllllr-ll lrlllllllll I l r ll~llll llll l 4. , r- -: l, .rl 1|. . I _ I quhwpn I 3.1:..w flolu—bu _ I I I l r . . l-b I l.l ll., rlllllrrr-ll r Irllll Iv I l-. I.I. . -l .--. _ . I 3&5. 2:: ER! I _ I _ _ I I 0 lI * ..f t. 9 II I IIIIIIIII II I I. III I“ II I I vl . _ ui___ssm I :1....;; uz~;;hsm I I I I _ - III l I 0 IIV .* .r rrlr.I VIII II III I. I I II. I -l..lrII I.II 'III I I _ _ 31C... I .3. .22. 23.—...... I _ _ _ w I - f M r I -I I I. lIIllI , -- II II-II - - I ,- I: - l -- IIIIIIIII II . I I 52::- fi ”.27.:- 925‘: I I I I --l- + l 4-. I--l-- II - l | I It I . _ I_ 120:: 13... 2. i=3...- _ I I Ill-l, r r lIV Irv NI lItII r If It 348 APPENDIX V Kwanzaa School Survery, Grades 7 & 8 NAME (OPTIONAL) What do you like about what you have done academically so far this year? If you could begin this school year over, what would you do differently? What can your teachers do for you to help you succeed? What do you like about what you have done to help create a positive spirit in your class? If you could begin this school year over, what would you do differently to help create a positive spirit? Which classmate would you like to see publicly congratu- lated for something he/she has done to create a positive spirit in your class? Explain. Rainbow's "Schools Without Drugs" 349 APPENDIX W Program Reference Material and Resources January 1991 Living Skills Books by Joy Berry —Every —Every -Every -Bvery —Every -Every Activity Books - Kid's Kid's Kid's Kid's Kid's Kid's Guide Guide Guide Guide Guide Guide to to to to to to Making Friends Family Rules and Responsibilities Handling Disagreements Handling Feelings Good Manners Handling Fights with Brothers or Sisters (Reproducible) -Let's Learn About Getting Along With Others —I've Got Me and I'm Glad Flash Cards -Drug Free Choices -Smart Choices Parent/Teacher Reference Book -Good Behavior by Stephen Garber (Over 1,200 sensible solutions to your child's problems from birth to age twelve.) Drug Alert Books by Paula Zeller -Focus -Focus -Focus -Focus -Focus -Focus -Focus -Focus ~Focus -The Drug on on on on on on on on on Marijuana Alcohol Cocaine and Crack Drugs and the Brain Nicotine and Caffeine Medicines Opiates Hallucinogens Steroids Alert Dictionary and Resource Guide The Self-Esteem Game (board game) -Play It Smart - Stay Safe from Drugs (Cassette and Book) Also available through the library are Berenstain Bear videos regarding: -Good Manners -Se1f-Esteem 350 Berenstain Bear Books: —The Trouble with Friends -Forget Their Manners -Get in a Fight -Learn About Strangers 152-My Great-Grandpa Joe -Health and Feelings 158-Health and Friends 301-My Other-Mother, My Other-Father -A Look at MENTAL RETARDATION 304-The Hundred Dresses —First Step -The Boys and Girls Book About DIVORCE c— -The Boys and Girls Book About DIVORCE c -The Best Little Girl in the World -A Place Apart —Mother Please Don't Die -Cages of Glass, Flowers of Time -The Boy Who Drank Too Much —Tunnel Vision -The Lottery Rose -The Late Great Me —Why You Feel Down and What You Can Do About It —The Kids Book of DIVORCE -Harriet the Spy c-2 -Don't Worry, You're Normal -Just My Luck —Fighting Invisible Tigers - A Student Guide to Life in "The Jungle" 304-Making Up Your Own Mind -Some Secrets Are For Sharing 362—When Your Parent Drinks Too Much -Different Like Me c-l -Different Like Me c-2 -It's O.K. To Say No To Drugs! -An Elephant in the Living Room, But I Didn't Make Any Noise About It -The Secret Everyone Knows -The Secret Everyone Knows -The Secret Everyone Knows -Mind Drugs -High on the Campus -Alcohol: What It Is, What It Does -Tobacco: What It Is, What It Does -Living With a Parent Who Drinks Too Much c—l -Living With a Parent Who Drinks Too Much c-2 -Alcohol: Facts for Decisions c-l —A1cohol: Facts for Decisions c—2 -You and Smoking (It's really up to you) —Drugs and People -You Can Say No To A Drink Or A Drug (What Every Kid Should Know) or'Io bUJN 351 —Drugs -To Smoke Or Not To Smoke -Smoking and You -Why Do People Take Drugs? (Let's Talk About) 392-Free To Be You and Me c—l (paperback) —Free To Be You and Me c- -Marlo Thomas and Friends c -Marlo Thomas and Friends c 494-"Why Was I Adopted?" 613.8—Rainbows and Jolly Beans (A Look At Drugs) 615-The Good Drug and the Bad Drug -You and Drugs (The play is yours) 616.86-Health and Drugs PRIMARY E-362—What's "DRUNK," Mama? 392-Purple Turtles Say NO, NO To Drugs -Splitting Up First Timers -I Was So Mad! -Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day —Where the Wild Things Are c-1 -Where the Wild Things Are c-2 -Where the Wild Things Are c-3 -Just Only JOHN c-l -Just Only JOHN c-2 E-394-Being Careful with Strangers (First Timers) -Never Talk to Strangers E-395-Getting Dressed (Teach me about) -Mealtime (Teach me about) —Staying Overnight (First Timers) 352 APPENDIX X Rainbow School Reading Levels for Marking Report Cards To be considered on level, a child must be in: Grade First Second Third Fourth Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter K Completed Animal Crackers In Lvl. 1 1 Level 2 Level 4 Level 52 Level 6 2 Level 62 Level 72 Level 81 Level 81 Completed 3 Level 82 Level 91 Level 92 Level 101 4 Level 102 Level 11 Level 11 Level 11 In Unit 1 In Unit 3 In Unit 5 5 Level 12 Level 12 Level 12 Level 12 In Unit 1 In Unit 3 In Unit 5 In Unit 6 6 Level 13 Level 13 Level 13 Level 13 In Unit 1 In Unit 3 In Unit 5 In Unit 6 353 APPENDIX Y Kwanzaa School Declaration of Intent for the 1990-91 School Year We are currently in the process of specific planning for the 1990—91 school year. Pertinent to this planning is the status of each staff member. Please indicate below your intentions for the next year so we will have a better idea of where we stand. We are not prepared at this time to issue a definite state— ment regarding next year's salary schedule, but this informa- tion will be presented as soon as the School Board reaches a decision. PLEASE CHECK: I wish to continue as a member of the staff. I would like to be considered for another grade. grade I will not be returning next year. Type of Degree (B.A.; B.S.; M.A.; M.S., or etc.) Hours earned past this Degree. Type of Certification (Provisional, Continuing, Permanent) and Renewal Date Check if you will have a change in your certification status by the fall. Name the certification status. Check if you will have a change in your type of Degree by the fall. Name the Degree status Number of years I have taught school including this present school year of 1989-90. Number of years at Kwanzaa including this present school year of 1989-90. NOTE: This is not a contract or an offer of a contract. Contracts will be issued later. *Please return this form to the administration office by FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1990. SIGNATURE DATE Comments: 354 APPENDIX Z Rainbow School Goals for the 1990—91 School Year NAME August, 1990 Rainbow School PhiIOSOphy Rainbow Catholic School is a Christian Faith community where everyone shares the responsibility of working toward fulfilling each other's needs with enthusiasm, respect and honesty. GOALS FOR 1990-91 SCHOOL YEAR A) I plan to implement the school philosophy by: B) I plan to develop my professional competence by: C) I plan to provide an effective program of instruction by: D) My personal philosophy of education is: 355 APPENDIX AA Kwanzaa School Budget, 1989—90 INCOME Tuition and Fees $ 969,145 Donations 4,000 Fundraising 65,000 Interest 5,000 Miscellaneous Income 11,355 Food & Stationery 2,000 CSA 75,000 $1,131,500 EXPENSES Administration Salaries $ 121,000 Contracted Services 3,000 General Expense 15,000 Staff Development & Hospitality 3,000 $142,000 Instructional Salaries 595,000 Textbooks 10,000 Instr. Mat./Supp1ies 10,000 Library/A.V. Materials 5,000 620,000 Benefits (3%) 200,000 Athletics 3,500 Food-Contracted Services 23,000 Plant Salaries 35,000 Contracted Services 20,000 Utilities 50,000 Supplies 15,000 Insurance 8,000 128,000 Capital Expenses Furniture & Equipment 4,000 Machinery 8,000 A.V. Hardware 3,000 15,000 $1,131,500 3556 APPENDIX BB Rainbow School Six-Month Report 1990 December 31, oo.eqew - oo.womw . LoL Le>o-seueo oe-em 50-xeueu om-mm 60“ um eme peso uzuwseu«-po>o etude ee-mm ene.ezmpazo mean: - Lm>o spree oo-om see.on ecsuzse euea-mpm echo mcosumssesmo ed vessecH “oz oo->ozo ozmz es _ «we m . .qqn.qeo _ mew moo _ see mos", “neezH eseu< enmeeem mmxeo nuke [L on..ez eme.LN oom.s mme mucumxoom - numnuo mm.oeko at oee.mz --- ooo.ms emk.ez muumnoum smsueam em.oeeo ---- eme.os eme.os ozm.e ”mum pm.oeee 2L eee.e 000.0” ooe.0m “mo.ss wheeze «n.0eko be Hog nun flog HoH COUCH umfiuo m.oqno ea ees ooe QOn ooe meosnmeueoo n.oeeo ---- 00m OOn ---: wcowmmLCvemm oeee emeo a: ..g;.. mzeexs emmemezH moeo --.- eem.me cem.me ess.qz peso .>.a.a.<.z ~.eono so mme.7 mee.cez “we.ezz usem ”Laue L.o0eo p. _mug.,_ “ourwmz exzms v ~ . r r 1.: r-n r I r 1. r~‘ L N I , ‘I I) L \ L x m 7 \o 1 | ‘ ' H ‘ l 1 I I ' " 4 I, ('J L_:\ "J ’4 ’1 ‘ lr‘ ' ‘ I" J IN \C’ N 1‘ - . - ’~ - - - - - . - - Q Q l ‘ I r r l I' v r . Q . ._4 (‘1 rx .._4 o 1' r ‘ " " ' 'J H L - rr a? C In In «N \o O (‘I O —-‘ O -4 -‘ ‘ r I (_ Q r~~ I\ O (”I M \3 C) In 0 \o \O I ‘ t” C‘ O ‘7 N N —-4 N In N c“ I" - - Q as Q A Q Q Q , < l L‘ ' ' ”D a? N \D N h N m 0‘ {I r‘I — - PI 7-4 { _ " I c ? r l l’ ’1 7 'r‘ (P (A (‘4 r I "‘ 7.4 L) Q 'n ‘V‘ (:3 (I) l’\- O . I , ~ v r ‘ p . 4 r 1" (p m ‘0 r} I.“ r") r I": P") "3 .7 -3 ‘3 O ) V — o l " 1 I“ '7’ -—" l'_\ H 9-1 m ‘3 f') v 4 *—‘ 7"» J O. O \7 1 II ' I: r] r; -4 - . r: --I m r”) r‘I q r. . - ..1 C) O. “I (:1 QI 1,, ’U K.” "J :1. v m .3 In a '0 L? (3 4‘ Q LI] L.) m w I” L.‘ r.) g h In 0 M” l- L; ”I '1’ .'. In «3 "‘ ‘ ”‘ ..) \ "I l!) (L ['1 >‘ (I) L) L) A," -.4 '3 r' ‘ U ,_I u) (0 '1‘ (1. L) (n m .. m, (.1 Iv“ .4 r'! L 7- D- 3" ”‘ I O u: L 5:} J' H i L: A) u H J W (I) ll la 0.. .H ‘ I: z: u 3 (I {I 0o 3 :3 Q. . . l_- q. «p q; (A u m "J '1' 3“ 93 ‘_J U 'V‘ ‘4 . - 1» 1- 1; C) L I... Q) j (j :__ u. {I} '1: . Q '1’ LI.) ’ " '1' 'o' a? If) m I 2‘. -4 O m m U) '1) I A —4 m L E5 ”'7 W V’ I °" L' (L. H. u E: L' '4 O J hi 0.) l-‘ l; '4 0 >3 :(J r” O ' ”‘3 S .4 3 :' B u I ...: l: (; I1! \4 l) ..1 ’1’ (‘3 r—J D H "‘4 A Q} m ’4 [J H J: k . . (I) ~ .I e: m u I.. '1! r: u u C1. C1. ;',, u (I. 6 La u CI. ~ ”‘ D- ' m “ '0 '4 ,. "' ..1' :2 L; "V 1 -l (I: L’ . -J ...4 ..-J E— ;’ ll) '0 (I: *1 ”J 0'4 5- -‘ {'3 Q 2 U . m H O. P) 0‘ ‘ j .. . _) ..4 u; ‘,' L". U 5) “3 Q! O f4 -‘ 7. U U '7.) Q) 0 ‘4 0" ’ W b) '4 U 0‘ I: Q a” ll ‘ _1 n. P. .-.; C Q) 1. C u x a {“I o m a.) C L! (I. D Q) ‘74 0’. a O 3 h) 3 ”In. on m mmaj);:_)u mmcnmodXDU QMPIO‘U’WV’UW fl ('3 "3 P, a H m m .0 .0 .0 —--I m M ,3 m .1 In \o r\ rr,‘ ‘3 _, In \D r\ m ’4 N ”1 \f- -4 *4 --4. _. ,1... -.: r; (‘J n: n; (‘4 N —-1 co co r\I N N I 3 O '7‘ N ‘1, q ,. I r ‘ ,:\ (I‘ ( ‘ f‘l ,~. (3 d h (3 5:) (D O r) C) I?) r "I f 3 >3 C,‘ O O ‘3 O V r: ) C) ( >) l_) r j. C‘ L) (D C) O O O ( \ C) (‘3 O C) C > O C O Q (g S r \ I » rx r~~. re r I r~~ r-~ rx r~ '\ r\ f\ r\ r\ r\ r» '\ N '\ r~~ '\ r\ N (E Ex 7"\ 4,200 1,633 Telephone 04.2 3558 qmzoukupmHmZH J1 ems emm.s omM.s Nee mueeuemes mLLs Queue m.NoL~ --- mem.z mem.s mew Lemuxozaeees n.~0sn --- me.qe “mm.ee emm LN seueme-smusewz e.~ose --- men.oL mee.oL 34m m semceusuue m.NoLe --- mne.m~ meo.m~ LNL LL xuzueumm smzuom e.~eze --- mee.zs mmo.zs eso es mascmewm .mpmumsm m.NoL~ so 0 eos.mos Amee.mm _ mesemzem N.sose --- mem.~m oem SN mmzuwsem .memunsm e.sose --- NMz.me mom ON mhwpumme muse-uuma ”.303“ --- oeo.e Nee A mumeueme mueusuwegm ~.Lose --- eqm.ee~ ems «ML mpuxumue L.Loze e_ ”Tee.eem_ mmHa<3mmm nmruJVquu moan mung uwhmqrwm pmnoum ampmooum GNPumwomm mewa Op ouLmuwuuqum a moms 7.: III” 4. II I \1 ;; I III w fl mm» om mUMPH4»P; mNmn III rpm :wm Hog pnuchcnouxm c.mom~ .7 A... I I .I . . III ”I: A ccn.~ Io..fl .Nnctqy rwcpv m flown 53% (2.3” .85.: 243,22, age? >1 TI .IJ A III. W}! i; I. o .n ., $4. 4%.; ,2, 1.99% m 22 . nIIII IllWlfilll Ifl.. .-, ,:.,.: .2; . A _ . .I . I . rI Czr m...t......v.v..m OhIrkf. War/(IL mow“ Iuchm nmwmonpm Ompumuomm mwwo .H ou