Funded by the Canada-Newfoundland COOPERATION Agreement on Human Resource Development, Enhancing Local Involvement in Education Through Quality Leadership was undertaken by the late Dr. Austin Harte and this author. The project consisted of two interrelated sub-projects, namely, the Exemplary Models of Parental and Community Involvement Project and the Pilot School Councils Project. This article presents the research outcomes of the Pilot School Councils Project. The complete study is available from the author.

The purpose of the Pilot School Council Project was to undertake applied research on the implementation of seven pilot school councils in Newfoundland and Labrador. The seven pilots provided a means to test the conditions needed for the effective f unctioning of school councils in the province. It was intended that the research results and recommendations be disseminated to groups such as the Department of Education and other individuals or organizations with an interest in school councils.

In most western industrialized countries during the 1990s and the latter part of the 1980s there has been almost universal agreement that education is in crisis and that reform is needed. The means of achieving reform has focussed largely on two initiatives, namely increasing parental involvement and implementing school-based decision making. The two initiatives have generally been linked in a new structure, usually called school councils.

A shift of authority from school boards to the school site as a facet of school reform encompasses a wide variety of models. While there is no standard definition which describes this type of reform, the concept implies some shift in responsibility to the school and/or community for decisions which affect the school. It is referred to in a number of ways including: site-based management, school-based budgeting, decentralized decision making, collaborative school management, local school management, and school-based governance.

Both Hess (1994) and David (1989) explain school-based management as a central element in two strategies aimed at school improvement, namely increasing school autonomy by "giving school actors more power to determine the program of their school" (Hess, 1994, p. 207) and increasing parental involvement at the school level by sharing the authority to make decisions among teachers, parents, students and community members.

The evolution of "bottom up" influence in school reform and the variety of restructuring models currently being used to achieve this end are evidenced on the international, national and provincial scene. Examples of advisory models with limited aut hority and management models with substantial authority are evident. Some models are composed of school personnel only; others include parents, students and members of the community. All shift some degree of authority to the school site.

Over the past several years, Great Britain, New Zealand, some areas of Australia and much of the United States have embraced various degrees of devolution of authority to the school site as a major part of their school reform efforts. To date, the best two documented examples of school-based management and school councils are found in Kentucky and the city of Chicago. In Kentucky, as set out in the Kentucky Education Reform Act (1990), school-based management and the creation of school councils were central to state-wide education reform (Steffy, 1993). The Chicago School Reform Act paved the way for the implementation of decentralization reforms in the city's schools in 1989-90. A central feature of the reforms was the requirement that local school councils be established in each school.

In Canada, the concepts of shifting authority to the school site and increasing parental and community involvement are receiving increased attention. In an overview of education in Canada, Lewington and Orpwood (1993) maintain that "across the coun try, the tide of education reform now runs towards greater local autonomy for schools" (p. 65). Generally, changes in the amount of authority shifted from central office to the school site have not been as far-reaching in Canada as in other countries. In a number of provinces provincial governments have enacted legislation that provides for the establishment of parental advisory bodies at the school level. The author argues that, with the possible exception of Quebec, legislation in each of these provinces tends to create the impression of a transformation in the structure of the system.

As of September 1995, the status of school councils varied across Canada. Some provinces, including Newfoundland and Labrador, have introduced or are piloting experiments in the concept. The Edmonton Public School Board has initiated a program of school-based management (Brown, 1990). Nova Scotia is midway through a two-year pilot of three models with increasing degrees of authority. Six provinces and the Yukon have enacted legislation regarding councils. All accord advisory status to councils except Quebec and the Yukon, which give considerable decision-making authority to their councils. Legislation is pending in four other provinces with indications that the status of councils will be advisory in most. All provinces embrace the concept of school councils as one facet of the movement to increase parental and community involvement.

Research on council implementation is in the emergent stage because this reform is recent. The literature overwhelmingly supports involvement of the superintendent and the school board in the decision to adopt the concept of school councils. Whitaker and Moses (1994) state that "the leadership culture and support of the district have far greater impact on the success of site based management than the operational details of the process" (p. 63).

The principal as well as the superintendent is viewed as a key figure in the success or failure of school council implementation. The changes to their role are substantial (Barth, 1991; Donahue, 1993; Goldring, 1993; Hoyle, 1994). Boyd and Chapman (1986) cite the president's report of the Victorian Primary School Principals Association which captures much of the changed role of the principal: "The principal is relocated from the apex of the pyramid to the centre of the network of human relationships and functions as a change agent and a resource" (p. 3). A principal who is unwilling to relinquish security or adjust roles will impede the successful implementation of a school council. The literature also corroborates the view that teachers must support the council concept for successful implementation. Whitaker and Moses (1994) state, "teacher organizations, which should be at the forefront of restructuring, have sometimes been culprits and have been stubborn in opposing change" (p. 44). The importance of training for all stakeholders in school councils is advised (Brown, 1990; Harrison et al, 1989; Herman & Herman, 1993; Whitaker & Moses, 1994).

In summary, increased involvement of stakeholders in education and a shift of authority to the school site are part of a reform movement worldwide. The success or failure of these initiatives is not yet clear. However there is evidence that success depends on involvement of the school board at the outset; support of the principal and teaching staff; training for all stakeholders; clearly established areas of responsibility; and gradual introduction of the concept of school councils.

The pilot study on school councils examined a number of issues pertaining to the successful establishment and operation of school councils, including authority, objectives and functions, composition, responsibilities, communication, school boar d involvement, training and processes to facilitate effective decision making, team building and problem solving.

In the selection of schools, consideration was given to the commitment of administration, staff and parents to the concept, and geographic and demographic representation including school size and type (i.e., elementary, secondary, all grade). The following schools were selected for participation in the pilot study:

The principal at each school was responsible for the establishment of the council. By the end of September 1994, the parent, the teacher, and where applicable, the student representatives, were elected to the councils. Each school board was invited to appoint a liaison person to the council. The council members then appointed the community representatives.

The project provided guidelines and procedures which gave a contextual framework for the operation of school councils and their respective boards. This document supplied specific information on items such as: the nature of school councils, the proposed framework for councils, objectives and functions of councils, the protocol agreement between the school council and the school board, roles and responsibilities of key players, and sample constitution and by-laws.

A four-day training session in Total Quality Management (TQM) was conducted by the National Quality Academy for all school council members from October 22-25, 1994 in St. John's. At the session, members were provided training in effective decision making, team building, consensus building and problem solving. Throughout the project, teleconference sessions were held with the councils, principals and chairpersons respectively. The teleconferences provided an opportunity for councils to exchange information on the challenges and progress of the councils.

A variety of qualitative data was collected through interviews, focus group sessions, observations, document analysis and process forms. A final evaluation survey was administered to corroborate the qualitative data.

The pilot school council study disclosed a vast number of issues which range from macro levels of provincial restructuring to micro levels of day-to-day school management. Many of these issues, already evident in the research literature, will be discussed under the following headings: scope of school councils, educational restructuring and issues internal to the council.

The scope of school councils refers to the purpose, functions, and the authority of councils.

In addition to the data collected through interviews, focus groups, observations and surveys, the mission statements designed by each pilot school council indicated how councils interpreted their purpose. Councils incorporated two main themes in their mission statements, namely, a commitment to seek the involvement of all members of the school community and a commitment to improve student achievement through improving the quality of education for students. Despite early consensus on the purpose , councils did not address how to achieve those purposes until seven to eight months into their mandate. At that stage, the use of school profiles emerged as the means of focussing on school improvement, and development of a communication implementation plan emerged as a means of involving parents and the community.

Pilot councils were faced with the task of deciding how to carry out their functions so as to achieve their objectives. A number of council members mentioned that councils should monitor the school's performance and hold the school accountable to the wider community. Increasing parental involvement was considered key. Disseminating information on school issues to constituents and providing school staff with a better understanding of the perspectives of other stakeholders were viewed as important. Presenting concerns and providing advice to the board on school-related issues were also identified as functions.

Though the pilot school councils began the process of crystallizing their views on functions, they were not able to reach clear conclusions though some did distinguish between policy-setting and day-to-day management, pointing out that councils should not be involved in the latter. The problem of defining functions was further exacerbated by lack of specificity regarding authority of councils. The problem persisted for the duration of the pilot project with no clarity by the end of the year. When council members were questioned in the final focus group, their responses were unsure and vague. In the surveys, however, in which possible functions of councils were delineated, council respondents overwhelmingly agreed that councils should have decision making on every item with the exception of hiring. Items on which there was agreement included: school budgets, scheduling, professional development, staff requirements, and instructional practices.

In summary, councils agreed that the main objectives of a school council should be to improve student achievement and to assure the involvement of students, parents, community members and educators. However, councils were unable to delineate specific functions. Almost all participants in this study, both at the school board and the council levels, claimed there is a need to define the functions of school councils specifically in legislation. The broad, general statements as presently describe d in various documents are vague and caused frustration and confusion on the part of participants as councils and boards worked to understand their roles in the context of school councils. However, many felt that if councils were to be advisory, the need to delineate functions is not as important.

One of the major issues which arose during the pilot year was whether school councils should be advisory to the school board or decision making at the school level.

Council members pointed out that if councils are to attempt to improve student achievement, they must have the authority to set policies to achieve their goal. Parent and community representatives in particular were adamant that councils should be decision making. They felt people would not be willing to make the time commitment required of council members unless their contribution would make a difference. One council member reflected the concerns of many others:

Many principals, chairpersons and council members were strongly of the opinion that decision-making authority for councils should be set out in legislation.

Most school board superintendents expressed frustration and confusion about the role of councils. They felt boards did not have a clear understanding of the mandate of councils and that roles and responsibilities were not sufficiently clear.

Some boards appeared to be more open to according decision-making authority to councils than others. Some had already embraced the participatory philosophy of councils and had given some authority to school sites. One superintendent said, "The school operates on a philosophy of local empowerment already. I don't think any of us believe that it is ever going to work and produce the kind of effects that we want...if parents do not perceive themselves as having a genuine role in decisions at the school level." Others displayed less enthusiasm for the concept but acknowledged the need to involve parents for the purpose of improving student achievement. Many superintendents commented that as the number of school boards decreases, school sites will, of necessity, become more responsible for local decisions. A major concern of superintendents was the absence of legislation and the question of legal responsibility if councils were accorded decision-making authority. One superintendent expressed the view that the board role would become that of training people to make good decisions.

The formal contract negotiated between each pilot council and its respective school board which delineates the lines of responsibility for the board and the council is the school protocol agreement. The lack of clarity regarding the mandate of coun cils resulted in confusion and frustration on the part of councils and school boards. Some councils spent the year concentrating on the negotiation of a protocol agreement and were left with no time to address substantive issues.

Most councils and school boards agreed that each school council should not be required to negotiate its own protocol agreement since this was too time consuming. They felt a template of a generic protocol agreement, defining the general relationshi p between councils and school boards, including areas of authority, should be provided. Provision for adjustments where warranted could be made at individual school sites.

In summary, there was a division of opinion between the school boards and the school councils on the question of the authority of councils. In the view of some school boards, as expressed by superintendents or assistant superintendents, school councils should act in an advisory capacity only, while others agreed that councils should have some decision-making responsibility. Most school councils wanted decision-making authority enshrined in legislation. This dichotomy accounts in large part for the difficulty in working out protocol agreements. The problem was exacerbated by the lack of specificity regarding the mandate of school councils.

Where school councils have been successfully introduced, they have been part of a total reform package. School councils in Newfoundland and Labrador were piloted in an educational vacuum, that is, in the absence of other education reforms. Furthermore, they were piloted in a structure different from that for which they were intended, namely, fewer school boards, each of which would be responsible for many more schools. All school board superintendents and assistant superintendents pointed to this anomaly, and many claimed that the role and authority of councils will evolve more naturally and easily with the consolidation of school boards. Many claimed there is no need of school councils in the present structure.

When interviewed, school board superintendents and assistant superintendents stated they had decided to become involved in the pilot council project in order to have input at the formative stages of council development. Despite consultation sessions with each superintendent prior to implementation and direct representation of boards on councils, boards wanted more and earlier involvement. Superintendents recommended that, as full implementation proceeds, all school boards will need to be directly involved.

Perceived lack of support from the school board was often mentioned by school council members. Perceptions of the boards' encouragement of school councils varied with the source of the response. When surveyed, the majority of school board representatives and principals responded that the board had provided a great deal of encouragement to the council. The majority of teachers and parents thought that the board offered some or little encouragement. The survey revealed that two boards were perceived as particularly encouraging toward the councils and two boards were perceived as resistant.

In keeping with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education (1992) , the pilot school councils consisted of a broad-based membership representing a number of interests in the school community. The core membership consisted of:

For the purpose of liaison during the pilot year, school boards were represented on council by assistant superintendents, or in one instance, a school board trustee.

All council members called for balanced representation. However, a problem arose in the definition of the term. Many principals and teachers felt under represented, whereas parents and community representatives felt that the composition was appropriate . Many teachers argued that, if they were to be held accountable for the quality of education at the school, the number of school staff on council, namely principal and teachers, should equal the number of non-school staff on council. Councils were consulted and though there was consensus by six councils on the pilot composition, they were willing to accept modification somewhat by increasing teacher representation to three and decreasing to one the community representation. Council members were hesitant to accept further modification of the composition, given one of the objectives of school councils, namely, increasing parental and community involvement. However, chairpersons recognized that teachers might be reluctant to participate if they felt under represented but felt this perception could be addressed by involving teachers who were non-council members on committees. Chairpersons also felt that the manageable size of the council's present composition facilitated consensus decision making.

Guidelines recommended that participating high schools include student representation on council. Those principals and chairpersons whose councils had student representatives strongly endorsed the concept. They found the students' perspective a valuable contribution to discussions. Everyone, including students themselves, suggested there be two student representatives on council for peer support.

Focus group discussions revealed that councils were almost unanimous in their opinion that a school board representative is not necessary on council. While individual contributions were noted, council members believed the principal could carry out any duties associated with the school board such as reporting policies. It was also pointed out that as more schools have school councils, it will not be possible to have a board representative on each council. However, council members were concerned with how councils will communicate with boards in larger structures.

Variations in membership were piloted at different sites to gain information. One alternate model piloted a principal/vice principal team at a site. This combination was favourably judged as both members of the school administration could share council work and information with teachers.

Six of the seven pilot councils served an individual school. The seventh pilot council was a unique model as it served three schools: one high school and two elementary schools. It was thus termed a "systems" council. The systems council was composed of the principals of each of the three schools, a parent from each school, two students from the high school, two community representatives and a board representative. It was advantageous to have a unified voice on district issues which affected the three schools and the principals applauded the opportunity it gave the three of them to meet regularly to discuss matters pertaining to all three schools. However, attention to district matters and to issues common to the three schools prevented issues at individual schools from surfacing. Each individual school did not feel adequately represented by one parent and one teacher yet the already large council made it difficult to increase representation from the three schools.

In summary, the issue of balance between school personnel and parents /community emerged as a major issue. The differing viewpoints reflect two visions: one of councils as school-based bodies controlled by school professionals, the other as community-based bodies giving parents and community members input into setting the school's policy and direction. The administrative team concept and the concept of a systems council have merit.

All council members who were surveyed were asked to what extent they understood their roles on the council. In all councils, those who had the most clearly defined roles, namely the principals and chairpersons, were more certain of their duties than teachers, parents, students and community members.

Council members indicated they did not always think of themselves as representatives of stakeholder groups, but rather as members of a cohesive group trying to accomplish the collective goal of enhancing student achievement.

The data from the pilot study revealed consensus that the principal chair the council only if necessary and that the principal have the right to vote when decisions are taken.

Consensus decision making was favoured as the internal decision-making process of all pilot councils. However, with the exception of one council, no major policy issue emerged to test the commitment to consensus. The vast majority of council members felt they had input into the decision-making process. Councils established committees to distribute the workload and involve non-council members in council activities. Almost all council members felt that they were cooperating as a group and were working effectively as a team.

Effective communication between council members and stakeholder groups is critical if councils are to function well. Communication with stakeholder groups was a challenge in the pilot year as councils struggled to define their role. As a result , the extent and means of communication with the various stakeholder groups varied considerably between councils. At one end of the continuum, a number of councils paid a great deal of attention to this issue and employed varied forms of communication. At the other end of the continuum, some councils communicated only informally with stakeholders through conversations with parents and community. Council members were cognizant of the fact that they needed to be aware of the views of their particular stakeholder groups. Even those that expended considerable efforts to communicate with their stakeholders were dissatisfied with the amount of input received. Some councils stated that parental involvement in the school had decreased in the pilot year. Most indicated that in future, the links between stakeholder groups and council would have a higher priority.

Communication to teachers was more systematic. Generally teachers were informed of council activities at staff meetings by the principal and/or teacher representatives on the council. These individuals would also provide information to teachers on an informal basis. Members of five councils indicated that minutes of council meetings were made available to teachers. Teachers also received the council newsletters which were sent to parents.

Communication between councils and school boards was important to the development and support of the pilot councils. When interviewed, all of the school board superintendents or assistant superintendents maintained that effective communication between the council and the board is critical. For the most part communication flowed through the school board representatives on the councils who acted as a liaison between the two groups. A concern for future councils is the method of communication when boards no longer have a representative on each school council.

Councils, being pilots, found various ways to communicate with each other including teleconferences, STEM~Net and informal contact.

In summary, communication among council members was adequate. However, communication with other stakeholders, especially parents, community and the school board, was not sufficient in scope.

All respondents thought the team-building aspect of training was the most valuable portion of the training provided. It was suggested that a block of time is more effective than several short training sessions. It was also maintained that it is essential to provide both orientation training for new councils and continued training to incorporate new council members and to retrain current members.

Superintendents and assistant superintendents mentioned the need for training at the board level as well.

The main goal of educational reform has been to improve student achievement and the quality of teaching and learning. The means of achieving this goal, provincially, nationally and internationally, has focussed largely on two initiatives, namely increasing parental involvement and implementing school-based decision making. These two initiatives have generally been linked in a new structure, usually called school councils. The research to date, as well as the experience of the pilot school councils in Newfoundland and Labrador, is inconclusive as to the success of school councils as a means to achieving either of these goals.

School councils in the pilot study were unanimous in their view that the main objectives of school councils should be to improve student achievement and to assure the meaningful involvement of students, parents, community members and educators in the school. The success councils will have depends on a number of issues both macro and micro in nature. The authority of councils is of foremost importance with members of councils claiming the need for decision making at the school level. The position of school boards varies on the issue of councils as advisory or decision making. Functions are dependent on the type of authority; where councils are decision-making, it was recommended that the functions be outlined in legislation. There seemed to be less need for this if councils are to be advisory.

School board input and involvement is also a necessary component for success of school councils. The issues internal to the council were resolved at the council level through consensus. These issues included: councils composition, roles and responsibilities, working style, communication and training.

Barth, R.S. (1991). Restructuring schools: Some questions for teachers and principals. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2), 123-128.

Boyd, W.L., & Chapman, J. (1986). Decentralization, devolution, and the school principal: Australian lessons on state wide educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(4), 28-58.

Brown, D.J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. London: The Falmer Press.

David, J.L. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational Leadership, 46, 45-53.

Donahue, T. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time and culture in school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 298-305.

Goldring, E. (1993). Principals, parents, and administrative superiors. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 29(1), 93-117.

Harrison, C.R., Killion, J.P., & Mitchell, J.E. (1989). Site based management: The realities of implementation. Educational Leadership, 46(8), 5-58.

Herman, J.J. & Herman, J.L. (1993). School based management: Current thinking and practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

Hess, G.A., Jr. (1994). School-based management as a vehicle for school reform. Education and Urban Society, 26, 203-219.

Hoyle, J.R. (1994). Can the principal run the show and be a democratic leader? NASSP Bulletin, 78 (558), 33-39.

Lewington, J., & Orpwood, G. (1993). Overdue assignment: Taking responsibility for Canada's schools. Toronto: Jon Wiley and Sons.

Steffy, B.E. (1993). The Kentucky education reform: Lessons for America. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing.

Whitaker, K.S., & Moses, M.C. (1994). The restructuring handbook. A guide to school revitalization. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.