Paper Title:

Globalization and Decentralization of Management: A Study of the Feasibility of

Application of School- Based Management in Iran's Secondary Schools"

Yadollah Mehralizadeh (PhD): Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of

Shahid Chamran- Ahvaz, Iran

Hossain Sepacy (PhD)

Fatimeh Atashfeshan

Paper presented to the European Educational Research Association Annual Conference,

University of Crete, 22-25 September 2004

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to recognize the main barriers of school- based management (SBM) in Iran in general, and in public secondary schools of Ahvaz, in particular. In this relation with the help of Lawler theory (1992) and other researchers the subject of SBM is addressed. The main questions are: What are the Characteristics of the new system of SBM in Iran’s Secondary schools? To what extent do the secondary school principles, teachers and the local education authorities know about school-based management? To what extent do they agree with the application of school-based management? To what extent do they believe that school-based management is feasible for secondary schools? And what barriers hinder successful implementation of school-based management in Iran? Quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (interviews) approaches were taken for the data to be collected from secondary schools. The results indicated that: a- average knowledge of respondents about SBM were 3.09 of a 5 scale scoring, b-average agreements of respondents to running of SBM were 3.51 of a 5 scale scoring, c- average importance of application of SBM were 3.51 of a 5 scale scoring, d- average feasibility of application of present model of SBM in schools were 2.81 of a 5 scale scoring, e- The barriers hinder successful implementation of school based management in Ahvaz schools were "political and power factor (3.80), Structural and facilities factor (3.79), principles and teachers knowledge and information factor (3.72), Socio-cultural factor (3.52), management factor (3.24). It is concluded that the SBM scheme is not develop in a suitable way and require to be reconsidered by education policy makers. At the end some suggestion was made to smoothen the implementation of SBM in Ahvaz.

1

Key Words: School based management, Education system, Teachers, Principles

Introduction

School-Based Management (SBM) is rooted in the theoretical ideas of

participation, decentralization, authority delegation, and competition. It argues that all

schools teachers, pupils, families and other stakeholders in the school should get involved

in the process of decision-making. This paper will address the issue of globalization,

management decentralization, and the idea of school-based management in a formal

educational system. The main issue is the effect of globalization on decentralized

management models such as school-based management (SBM). The paper will also focus

on the model of school-based management utilized by Iran's secondary schools. Iran’s

Ministry of Education has put forward a new scheme for the application of SBM in

secondary schools since 1998, but so far none of the high schools has utilized this

scheme. The question is why does school-based management fail in Iran?

Through this study, we take a new look at school-based management through the

lens of an organizational model that has been found in the private sector to lead members

of organizations to become involved in improving organizational performance. The high-

involvement model stems from the work of Edward E. Lawler and his colleagues, and

stresses creating the capability of meaningful involvement in the organization and the

stake in its performance (Lawler, 1986; 1992).

Objectives of the study

1. What are the Characteristics of the new system of SBM in Iran’s secondary

schools?

2. To what extent do the secondary school principles, teachers and local education

authorities know about the school-based management?

3. To what extent do the secondary school principles, teachers and local education

authorities agree with the application of school-based management?

2

4.  To what extent do the secondary school principles, teachers and local education

authorities believe that school-based management is feasible for secondary school

management?

5. What barriers hinder successful implementation of school-based management in

Iran?

Globalization and decentralization of management

Globalization as a major phenomenon has changed organizations around us.

Organizations are now being forced to redesign themselves to ensure their prosperity in

the new global order. At its most organic and fundamental level, globalization is about

the monumental structural changes occurring in the processes of production and

distribution in the global economy. One of the fundamental debates regarding the nature

of contemporary economic, social, and educational change concerns he question of the

move from Fordism to post-Fordism. Over the past thirty years it is clear that in the

advanced economies there has been a fundamental shift from the production techniques

of Fordism, which generated the post-war economic boom, to a range of alternative forms

of production variously described under the heading of neo and post-Fordism.

(Mehralizadeh 1999). Based on a model developed by Brown and Lauder (1992, 1997)

the importance of the new economic transition namely neo-Fordism and post-Fordist and

their implication to skill formation and training is taken into account. Some of the main

characteristics of the new model of work and human resource management at the age of

globalization are: a flexible production system/small batch/nich markets; a shift to high-

waged, high skilled jobs; a closer integration of manual and mental tasks; a core of multi-

skilled workers linked to a sub-contract and semi-skilled labor; a proportional span of

control by the team leader; continuous quality control; high career path and promotion;

flexible specialization/multi-skilled workers; team work and participation with

autonomy; job rotation; and a life-long learning and learning organization.

The theories of educational system change and restructuring identifies a need for

improving the formal education system. Organizational theory suggests that in a

decentralized environment, employees that are responsible for decisions and are

3

empowered to make decisions have more control over their work and are accountable for

their decisions.  (Murphy, J.1991). In fact, effective employee involvement in the process

of organizational improvement requires the decentralization to these employees of power,

information, knowledge, skills, and rewards. In this study the importance of three

additional conditions, namely, an instructional guidance system, leadership, and

resources on restructuring school management is also evaluated (Wohlstetter, &

Mohrman, 1995).

Due to the globalization pressure in a growing number of countries, governments

have been devolving greater responsibility and authority not only to the lower levels of

the government but also directly to schools. The transfer often takes the form of

establishing school councils, where they don’t exist, and conferring upon them new

responsibilities and greater autonomy over school operations and pedagogical matters.

This type of reform has been established in very diverse settings, ranging from Colombia,

to the city of Chicago, El Salvador, New Zealand, the U. K., and Victoria, in Australia.

Each of these reforms has been made with the expectation that by bringing decision-

making power and accountability closer to those who teach and manage schools, schools

will become more efficient in allocating and using resources as well as more effective in

instructing students and keeping them in school.

Decentralization of the decision-making process in public schools has become one

of the major centerpieces in public school education reform. At the age of globalization

attempts have been made to increase the level of participation in decision- making

through the formal incorporation of various subgroups. Concerned with such issues as

granting greater power and authority to local communities as well as diffusing state

authority and increasing organizational efficiency, the decentralization movements of the

sixties and seventies saw the devolution of authority as an end to meet political and

administrative goals ( Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1996 ; David, 1989).

School based management theory (SBM)

One of the ways to make the system decentralized give them more authority. Lindelow

(1981) defines school-based management as a system of educational administration in

4

which the school is the primary unit of educational decision-making. It is assumed that

school-based management ensures the local control of decisions, equitable allocation of

resources, effective use of resources, teacher empowerment, and diversity resulting from

a market driven responsiveness to community needs. Making the school the focal point

and transferring the decision-making power to it create opportunities for leadership and

professional growth. Further, the local nature of goal setting will increase the

commitment to achieving those goals. Because the decisions are made closer to the

student being served, and the people most aware of the student needs are making the

decision, decentralization will result in programs more relevant to student needs.

(Fuhrman, S., & Elmore, R. 1995; Herman, J., & Herman, J. 1993; (Neal. R. 1991) . As

figure 1 shows SBM will affect the educational system through the delegation of power

and authority; the enhancement of the participation of staff, parents, and the community

in the administration of the school; thus, making schools more competitive and prone to

do research to make schools more effective.

A review of literature in different countries and places led to a numerous

convergent and divergent findings about the do's and don'ts of school-based management.

(Wohlstetter, 1995) observed that School-based management fails because: (1) SBM is

adopted as an end in itself; (2) principals work from their own agenda; (3) decision-

making power is centered in a single council, and it resulted in (4) business as usual.

Divergent results and critics identify a number of problems. Some arise from differences

in perceptions and objectives. Others result from seeing reality as not matching the

rhetoric. One view recognizes this as another example of translation of theories from the

business world to education belatedly and after the corporations have already abandoned

them. Peters and Waterman, in their book, In Search of Excellence (1982), pushed site-

based management for business. Now, these theories are being translated to education.

The calls for site-level management are coming now in a context of cuts in resources for

education. The conjunction of budget-chopping and site-based decision-making creates a

situation where the decision about what to eliminate gets pushed down to teachers and

administrators, and sometimes parents. This produces new conflicts as different teachers

and programs are placed in a position of competing for reduced resources. Some have

described this as "professional cannibalism."

5

This conflict also produces pressures that intensify the work of teaching. If

reduced resources mean the loss of a program or activity, the teachers face pressure--from

themselves and from colleagues, parents and students--to add to their workload rather

than lose the activity. These pressures are much greater when the decision is made at the

school level rather than on a system basis.

Figure 1: the effects of SBM

Principles of School-Based Management

Research on the private sector also points out that control over four resources

needs to be decentralized throughout the organization in order to maximize performance

improvement. In this relation Lawler and his colleagues (1992) have developed a theory

for school-based management as follows:

Power to make decisions that influence organizational practices, policies, and

directions.

School Based Management

ParticipationDelegation

ofPower

CompetitiveResearch

6

Knowledge that enables employees to understand and contribute to organizational performance including technical knowledge to do the job or provide the service; interpersonal skills, and managerial knowledge and expertise;

Information about the performance of the organization, including revenues,

expenditures, unit performance, and strategic information on the broader policy and

economic environment; and

Rewards that are based on the performance of the organization and the contributions

of individuals.

In relation to school-based management, Levacic (1995) has also developed a framework

for describing the constituent elements of a school-based management model, which is

helpful in guiding our understanding of the key features of SBM. Levacic’s framework

focuses on three essential elements of SBM: 1) the stakeholders to whom decision-

making power and responsibility are decentralized, (2) the management domains over

which decentralized power can be exercised and (3) the form of regulations that controls

what the local decision makers have discretion over and how they are held accountable

for their decisions and actions. (quoted from Karsten & Meijer, 1999:422). The

interaction between Lawler theory and Levacic theory is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: interaction between Lawler theory and Levacic theory

School Based Management

Power Information

Knowledge Reward

To Whom

What Domain

s

What Regulation

7

Models of SBM

From interaction between the relations figured above four models are developed

in schools with different socio-economic bases. These are the most prevalent models of

SBM. (David, J. 1990; Murphy, J., & Beck, L.1995) . While any particular situation may

have elements of more than one of these models, it is likely to have features of one more

than others. (Kuehn 2002).

Model 1 - Principal-directed site-based management, which may involve some

consultation with staff and/or parents, but is ultimately controlled and directed by the

principal and other administrators.

Model 2 - Some form of school-based committee that operates with a limited mandate,

but may have significant influence in that area. Examples of this type from the B.C.

context might be a school-based team for making decisions about special education or a

school committee that makes the decisions about expenditures from learning resource

funds sent from the district to the schools.

Model 3 - A parent committee operating somewhat as a board of governors. In many

cases these committees are elected, and are often part of reforms that eliminate or reduce

the role of a school board that covers many schools. In some situations where this model

has been adopted, there is a significant similarity to charter schools.

Model 4 - Collegial, participatory, democratic management, which involves all the staff

of the school in making the decisions, whether through committees or full-staff processes.

This is a model advocated in the U.S. by the two major teacher unions, the NEA and the

AFT.

An examination of these models reveals that they are rarely implemented in pure form

and typically confront obstacles along the path of implementation. The actual form

usually fluctuates due to strong influences of local context and policy.

8

Methodology of study

With respect to the research objectives a quantitative and qualitative method was

applied. Sample for the study were randomly selected from three groups in four local

zones in the city of Ahvaz: secondary school principals (n= 40), teachers (n=200) and

local education authorities (n=40). 20 interviews were also organized and from each zone

2 secondary school principals, 2 teachers and 1 staff in Local Education Authorities were

randomly selected for the interview. Data were collected through researcher designed

questionnaires, semi standard- interview forms, and related documents and materials. The

interviews were recorded and analyzed based on the research questions. The

questionnaires ranked with a Likert Scale (five ranging from-very agree (scored 5) to

very disagree (scored 1) and piloted with a sample of 200 people from three groups.

Reliability analysis calculated with the use of SPSS to find out the properties of

measurement scales and the items that make them up. Alpha (Cronbach) for total

questionnaire was /93.

After the pilot study a Factor analysis was calculated to identify underlying

variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed

variables related to the barriers of school-based management in secondary schools. Factor

analysis is often used in data reduction to identify a small number of factors that explain

most of the variance observed in a much larger number of manifest variables. Firstly, a

KMO test of sphericity is done to test the suitability of data for structure detection, and

the data were statistically significant (KMO- ./82, Sig: ./05). With the use of determining

the optimal number of components 5 factors are described which are named as:

management barriers of 6 items, information and knowledge barriers 5 items, structural

and organizing barriers 10 items, cultural barriers 5 items, power and political barriers 5

items. The Alpha (Cronbach) for each subscale consequently were /91, /80, /76, /60

and /75. To specify the method of factor extraction, principle factor component and

varimax method of factor rotation were used, and all factors whose given values exceed

40 were selected. The results revealed that 5 factors with 31 items altogether composed

52% of variance related to barriers of school-based management.

9

Results and discussion

What are the Characteristics of the new system of SBM in Iran’s secondary

schools?

In order to answer this question all the materials and documents related to

introduction, advantages, and characteristics of the new scheme of SBM compared to the

present system of secondary school management in Iran are verified. An Overview of the

Iran's Model of School-Based Management revealed that the education system in Iran for

years has faced with a number of problems. Historically, planning and management in

Iran is highly centralized. In 1998, in order to shift toward a decentralized education

management, the government launched a model of school-based management. According

to regulations published by the Ministry of Education, the process of implementing the

reforms is to be carried out by the General Director at province level, the Local Education

Authority at the local level, and principals at the school level. In this scheme the Ministry

of Education assumed new roles for all schools stakeholders, and some part of the affairs

formerly done by PEA and LEA were shifted toward schools. New powers were

delegated to school councils (school, teachers, and students) and schools principals. How

the new system of school-based management differs from the present system of high

school management is summarized in Table 1.

 

Table 1: Comparing Present secondary schools management and new scheme of SBM in Iran

Characteristic of old and new

system of SBM

Present

Education system

New scheme of SBM

1. Structuring the education system Ministry and PEA ( Province

Education Authority), LEA

Ministry and Province Education

Authority (PEA)

2. Staff promotions policy Ministry and PEA, LEA Ministry, PEA, Local Education

Authority (LEA) and Schools

10

3. Setting the curriculum Ministry Ministry, PEA

4. Certifying teachers Ministry and PEA, LEA Ministry, PEA, LEA and Schools

5. Expanding classroom hours by subject Ministry Ministry, PEA, LEA, Schools Council

and teachers council

6. Programming additional curricular and

extracurricular activities

Ministry and PEA, LEA Schools Council, teachers council and

students council

7. Establishing pedagogical methods Ministry and PEA, LEA Ministry, PEA, LEA, Schools Council

and teachers council

8. Formulating the annual pedagogical plan Ministry and PEA, LEA Ministry, PEA, LEA and Schools

Council

9. Selecting textbooks Ministry Ministry

10. Evaluating students Ministry Ministry, PEA, LEA, Schools Council

and teachers council

11. Academic requirements for accepting

and transferring students

Ministry Ministry, PEA, LEA and Schools

Council

12. Hiring and firing teachers and

administrative personnel

Ministry and PEA, LEA LEA and Schools Council

13. Setting student and staff obligations,

rights and sanctions

Ministry and PEA, LEA Ministry, PEA, LEA and Schools

Council

14. Setting and administering the school

budget

Ministry and PEA, LEA Schools Council

11

15. Setting school fees for goods and

services

Ministry and PEA, LEA Ministry, PEA, LEA and Schools

Council

16. Setting voluntary school fees Ministry and PEA, LEA Schools Council

17. Setting regulation of students transfer

among schools

Ministry and PEA, LEA Ministry, PEA, LEA and Schools

Council

18. Setting students Discipline regulations Ministry and PEA, LEA Ministry, PEA, LEA, Schools Council

and students council

19. Power and importance of schools council Very low Moderate

Briefly, the new scheme of SBM compared to the present system of education in

secondary schools differs in three main areas: the office of the administrative affairs is

now working under the supervision of the school council which has authority over the

hiring and firing of the principal; the vetoing power over the principal’s sanctions against

students, (but they do not have the right and the authority to modify the obligations,

rights and sanctions established for the principal, the student and the teacher by the

Ministry of Education).

Secondly, the school council with the cooperation of the teacher and student

council is responsible for and committed to the new innovations in teaching and

improving the quality of learning and the pedagogy in general. The entire school

curriculum; however, is developed by the Ministry of Education which must be followed

except for the extra curricula.

Thirdly, the school council is responsible for financing, setting and administering

the school budget, fees, as well as informing the community about the state of the

school's finances. They are not allowed to force students to pay tuition fees though, but

are allowed to motivate parents and other stakeholders to voluntarily help the school.

12

 To what extent do secondary school principals, teachers, and the local education

authorities know about, agree with, and believe in the feasibility of the school-based

management at secondary schools?

The majority of our interviewees vote for the importance of school

decentralization and shared decision-making, but they have barely heard of the new

scheme of the Ministry of Education related to SBM or its regulations. The results of the

questionnaires showed that sample average information about SBM in secondary schools

was 3.1 on the scale of 5. In fact, information had not been disseminated broadly so that

SBM participants could have made informed decisions about the school organization.

The majority of subjects agreed with the importance and the urgency of the delegation of

decision-making to school councils. So their agreement with SBM was 3.49 and the rated

Importance of SBM was 3.51. Meanwhile, they believed that the feasibility of current

SBM scheme launched by the government in Iran’s secondary schools was 2/81, which is

low. (see table 2).

Table 2: Sample’s views of application of SBM

MeanSD MinMaxNviews

3/14/.951523

9

Sample information and knowledge of SBM

3/491/011524

1

Rate of agreement of sample with SBM

3/511/031524

1

Importance of SBM

2/81/.931524

0

Feasibility of SBM in Iran’s Secondary

schools

13

These results revealed that the new scheme does not have suitable criteria to be

successful. In the following, in order to focus on these issues we have a look at the

factors and the ways that the barriers should be removed to make SBM feasible in

secondary schools.

What are the main barriers of School-Based Management in Iran?

Based on the theoretical framework of this research five main factors are

described as barriers of SBM; namely: management barriers, information and knowledge

barriers, structural and organizing barriers, cultural barriers, and power and political

barriers. Here after an explorative study (factor analysis results) and with reference to

theoretical model of the research, 5 hypotheses were tested. We hypothesized that in view

of secondary school principals, teachers and staff in the Local Education five main

factors such as management, information and knowledge, structure and organization,

cultural, power and political issues are the main barriers to running the SBM in secondary

schools. After the calculation of ANOVA to compare the views of our subjects, the

observed results showed that there are no significant differences among the views of

subjects. (see tables 3 and 4 and figure 3).

Table 3: One way analysis of comparison views of sample

Main Barriers Subjects N MeanStd.

DeviationMinimum Maximum F Sig.

Management Issues

Principles 35 3.28 .79 1.33 4.83

.139 .87

teachers 154 3.23 .79 1.17 4.83

Staff of LEA 30 3.30 .7 1.00 4.50

Total 219 3.24 .78 1.00 4.83

14

Knowledge issues

Principles 37 3.57 .75 1.40 5.00

1.446 .23

teachers 162 3.72 .72 2.00 5.00

Staff of LEA 30 3.87 .69 2.00 5.00

Total 229 3.72 .72 1.40 5.00

Structure issues

Principles 35 3.78 .63 1.90 4.60

.139 .87

teachers 157 3.78 .57 2.00 5.00

Staff of LEA 28 3.84 .59 2.40 4.90

Total 220 3.79 .58 1.90 5.00

Cultural issues

Principles 37 3.51 .73 1.40 4.80

.475 .62

teachers 160 3.56 .68 1.80 4.80

Staff of LEA 31 3.67 .53 2.60 4.80

Total 228 3.57 .67 1.40 4.80

Power and Political

Issues

Principles 34 3.86 .73 2.20 5.00

2.311 .10teachers 155 3.83 .68 1.80 5.00

Staff of LEA 31 3.54 .89 1.40 5.00

Total 220 3.80 .72 1.40 5.00

15

Figure 3: ranking main barriers from the views of Sample

Table 4: Ranking of main barriers in terms of their mean

Ma

xMinS. DMeanN

Barriers

5.001.40.723.80220Power and Political Issues

5.001.90.583.79220Structure Issues

5.001.40.723.72229Knowledge Issues

4.801.40.673.57228Cultural Issues

16

4.831.00.783.24219Management Issues

The Assessment of school-based management study, reported in this research,

explored the possibility that organizational and school performance improved by this

SBM scheme were limited because the reform had been inadequately conceptualized in

terms of present structure of schools, LEA, PEA and Ministry of Education in Iran. If we

look at the current centralized regulations, registration conditions, curriculum

development, hiring and firing of teachers and other staff, the school relationship with

students and parents, the structure of school organization, which is currently applied in

Iran’s secondary schools, it is difficult to talk about the application of the new SBM

program. For local stakeholders to use power to improve the education that is offered in

schools, the design of the organization must change in many ways to support the

informed and skilled application of this power, and to provide incentives for people to

make fundamental changes in how to enact their roles. The underlying assumption of this

research is that a true test of school-based management requires the reform to be

implemented as part of a systemic change. School-based management must include the

development of an organizational design that supports and values high levels of

involvement throughout the organization, with a simultaneous focus on fundamental

change to the educational program that supports new approaches to teaching and

learning.

It is said that, as a vital factor, school-based management is a popular political

approach to redesign education and to give local school participants, teachers, parents,

students, and the society at-large the power to improve their school. We find that

principals, teachers, and local education authorities diverge significantly with respect to

the amount of influence they have over school decisions once the scheme is implemented.

For the most part, local and national education authorities, as well as the principals in

secondary schools enjoy more influence, whereas teachers feel less empowered (and even

threatened) under the reform.

17

One of the key issues needing to be versified is that centralized management has a

long history in Iranian school management. For several decades, school management and

organization have been highly centralized, so that a scheme like SBM would not be able

to make a quick improvement culturally. In the education arena, school-based

management has been viewed largely as a political reform that transfers power (authority)

over budget, personnel, and curriculum to individual schools. Little attention has been

given to empowering school sites with control over information, professional

development (knowledge), or compensation systems (rewards). Furthermore, when SBM

programs are analyzed, the general conclusion is that the extent of decision-making

responsibility transferred to site teachers and administrators is limited. In the majority of

schools under study, principals are key players in the budgeting process. Although school

autonomy is the main target of SBM, this key component must be accompanied by a

robust staff development programs to provide the skills for those involved as how to

engage in effective discussions and informed decision-making. In addition, a principal

with leadership skills who allows shared decision-making must accompany such

autonomy. Principals must be strong instructional leaders, astute community organizers,

sharp managers, skillful facilitators, and optimistic visionaries of school environments.

Time to acquire decision-making skills and to use them is necessary for those involved

for the autonomy to be exercised. Leadership traits required for effective organizational

leadership were analyzed in this study by using a model of developmental leadership,

which focuses on five key activities adopted from Robertson, & Briggs, (1995). Teachers

mostly believed that their principals, at Ahvaz secondary schools, did not possess the

skills or the ability to develop a vision, commitment, teamwork, individual talents, and

opportunities.

While this research findings revealed that secondary school principals’ lack of

management skills to direct schools matters, the role of the principal is still pivotal in the

implementation of SBM. Within the framework of SBM the principal must be viewed as

a part of a decision-making team, not as a sole decision maker. Principals should also be

viewed as organizers, advisers, and consensus builders who provide the staff with current

research and relevant school information (David, 1989). In general, the principal should

be one who adopts a democratic style of leadership, actively seeking input from others

18

and believing that others have valid points and can make effective decisions. The results;

however, proved to be different from this assumption, and the subjects, particularly

teachers, asserted:

In our secondary schools, generally, principals do not let teachers have their

voice by following the traditional style of management. They usually work

from their own agenda and very often like to dominate and rule over the

whole school activities.

These are important factors affecting the implementation of SBM in Ahvaz

secondary schools. This study revealed a considerable uncertainty about the division of

responsibilities among the local council and the central authorities and about the policy

making function of the school councils within schools. Schools tended to vary also

because a despotic style in some schools paralyzed action and made change difficult.

Hence, the gap between policy and fact may be more than a lag in implementation; it

could be signaling a real impediment to change.

Our study revealed that school-based management regulations in Iran required a

redesign of the whole school organization that would go far beyond a change in school

governance. For SBM to work, people at the school site must have real authority over

budgeting, personnel, and the curriculum. Equally important, authority must be used to

introduce changes in the school functioning which, has actually an impact on teaching

and learning if SBM is to help improve school performance.

Conclusion

Although the regulations clearly state that the constituent groups that must be

represented on the school management teams are the principals, teachers, school-level

support staff, parents, the community and the pupils; the model faces major problems

such as delegation of power, principals, knowledge, information, and the system of

reward at present. In fact, teams are expected to create systems that will reward various

individuals such as administrators, teachers, and parents for successfully contributing to

the attainment of the standards while the national budgeting does not support this system.

19

This study provides a chance for the evaluation of the new government agenda in relation

to school-based management. In order to be successful the following recommendations

can be made:

This reform must first bring about a transformation of relationships among the

agents in the system -- school principals, teachers, parents (even students), and

government officials – and a real change in the school’s decision-making process

and operations.

The change must also affect what teachers do in the classroom if the link between

the administrative reform and learning is to be established.

There are; however, several reasons why practice might differ from the policies

set. First, the process of reform takes time to implement. Second, schools may

choose not to exercise their newly found authority, or they may lack the will or

appropriate resources to do so. Third, stakeholders may diverge in their

interpretation of how the reform applies to the school, perhaps a result of poor

communication from the central authority as well as among agents within the

school.

Finally, while power-sharing among the local stakeholders may be seen as an

aspect of the reform, the influence that the local, provincial, and national

education authorities insert makes it difficult to manage the sharing of power or to

delegate decision making to the lower direct stakeholders of secondary schools.

References

David, J.L. (1990). Restructuring in progress: Lessons from pioneering districts.

In R.F. Elmore (Ed.), Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of Educational Reform

(pp. 152-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuehn , Larry. (2002). School-based Budgeting/Site-based Management, A BCTF

Research Report , Section XII, 96-EI-04.

20

Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of Schools: Analysis and Practice.

Philadelphia: Open University Press quoted from Karsten, Sjoerd, and Meijer, Joost

(1999). School-based management in the Netherlands: The educational consequences of

lump sum funding. Educational Policy, 13, (3) 421-439.

Lindelow, L. (1981). School-Based Management. In S.C. Smith, J. Mazzarella,

and P.K. Piele (Eds.), School Leadership: A Handbook for survival. Eugene, OR:

Clearing house on Educational Management.

Lawler, E.E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring Schools: Capturing and Assessing the

Phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press.

David, J.L. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management.

Educational Leadership, 46(8), 45-53.

Mehralizadeh . Yadollah. (1999). what is the relationship between schools and the

demands of paid work? A case study of Rover and its partnership with Swindon schools.

PhD Thesis .Department of Education. University of Bath .

Odden, E.R., & Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Making school-based management work,

Educational Leadership, 52(5), 32-36.

Robertson, P., Wohlstetter, P. & Mohrman, S.A. (1995). Generating curriculum

and instructional changes through school-based management. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 31, 375-404.

Robertson, P.J. & Briggs, K.L. (1995). The impact of school-based management

on educators' role attitudes and behaviors. Working paper, Center on Educational

Governance. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Wohlstetter, Priscilla and Mohrman, Susan Albers. (1996). Assessment of School-

Based Management, (Volume I: Findings and Conclusions.) Studies of Education

Reform. University of Southern California, Center of Educational Governance. Available

from U.S. Government Printing Office, OERI sponsored.

21

Wohlstetter, P., & Odden, A. (1992). Rethinking school-based management

policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 52.

Priscilla Wohlstetter and Kerri Briggs, "The Principal's Role in School-Based

Management," Principal, November 1994, pp. 14-17.

Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Getting school-based management right: What works and

what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 22-24, 26.

22