School-based management (SBM) has a variety of names in the educational field: site-based management; school-based budgeting; collaborative school management; shared decision making; and shared school governance to mention a few. In this article the two terms, school-based management and site-based management are used interchangeably.

The literature on SBM abounds with definitions which attempt to explain the concept. The author has found the definition proffered by Herman (1991) to be a rather straightforward one:

At the present time education in Newfoundland and Labrador is a highly centralized operation with the Department of Education controlling the school curriculum and the monies allocated to the 27 school districts throughout the province. In turn, these 27 districts control the monies available to each of their schools and the staffing available to each school, having responsibility as well for consulting services and the overall maintenance and upkeep of the school buildings in their jurisdictions. In recent years there has been considerable talk of having more input at the local building level into the decision-making process. However, for the most part, this has been sporadic and ad hoc with some districts experimenting with site- based decision making pilot initiatives. To the author's best knowledge, nothing has been attempted on a provincial scale even though the recent Royal Commission (1992) has suggested that school-based management is one such model of participatory school administration that schools should be considering.

With the impending school reform initiatives, it appears that the number of school districts will be reduced from 27 to 10. This translates into larger school districts and the obvious, inherent danger is that these larger districts may tend to be come even more centralized than they are at the present time. For example, the board which is rumored to replace St. John's Roman Catholic, Avalon North, Avalon Consolidated, Conception Bay South, Ferryland, and Western Avalon Roman Catholic will have responsibility for in excess of 35,000 students. Hence, it is suggested that the need for decentralizing the decision-making process to the building level would become even more crucial if stakeholders (parents, students, teachers, and the community at large) are to feel that they have the opportunity for meaningful involvement.

It has been stated that school improvement should be the underlying reason for schools operating under a school-based management model (Delaney, 1995). When the Edmonton Public School District made the transition to all of its approximately 200 schools in 1980, the term "school improvement" was not used in the process. However, by schools being responsible for decision making in the areas of curriculum, staffing, and budgeting, the implication was that it would indeed lead to an improvement in the teaching and learning process (Delaney, 1995).

In recent years there has been considerable attention paid to the school improvement process in this province with many schools and boards having established school improvement teams and co-ordinators. Specifically, this has involved schools designing mission statements, strategic and operational plans, as well as specific action plans to bring about improvements at the building levels. The latest initiative, that of school councils, is one for which the provincial government is to be commended. The approach has been a somewhat methodical and cautious one with the establishment of a provincial pilot consisting of seven school councils throughout the province. The suggested modus operandi for these school councils according to the government's own guidelines is that these councils should be primarily advisory at this particular point in time (Department of Education and Training, 1995).

According to David (1996), "reasons for initiating site-based management run the gamut...". She further elaborates on those reasons:

The author contends that the major stakeholders in education - students, parents, teachers, and the community at large - are primarily interested in school-based management as a vehicle for school improvement. As for other reasons such as political reform, governance per se, or government's sometimes hidden agendas regarding the weakening of school board power, the author further contends that the stakeholders as listed above, could not care less. However, the enhancement of the school as a vehicle for student learning is what will ultimately convince stakeholders of the merits of school-based management.

There currently exists an extensive debate in the SBM literature as to whether or not this form of school governance results in raising academic achievement levels in schools. Detractors of SBM constantly whine about the paucity of empirical evidence linking SBM to increases in student achievement (Allen, 1993; Cuendet, 1993; Levin, 1992; Malen, Ogawa, & Kranz, 1990; Skaruppa, 1994). On the other hand, proponents view SBM as a very positive and successful vehicle of school improvement (Caldwell & Spinks, 1988; David, 1989; Herman, 1991; Levine & Eubanks, 1992; Neal, 1991).

There appears to be a tendency among educators to view school improvement in terms of academic achievement only. School improvement, suggests this author, is a much broader, more holistic concept than academic achievement. It certainly encompasses academic achievement but is not limited to only academic achievement. Proudford and Baker (1994) posited the following very useful definition of school improvement: "an ongoing process linked to an educational philosophy and clearly articulated goals rather than an ad hoc implementation of discrete classroom and school-wide initiatives" (p. 33). They also stated that there are three broad dimensions to this process: "namely, the approach to curriculum, the dynamics of school improvement, and the outcomes of school improvement" (p. 22).

Although the literature on SBM and school improvement appears to be conflicting and inconclusive, there is considerable optimism regarding the potential of school-based management. David (1989) exemplified that optimism:

School-based management is not a panacea for all the educational ills facing our schools today. "That school-based management is no `quick fix' is evidenced by the fact that it took 10 years to accomplish in Dade County [Florida].... It takes at least five years for tangible results to be achieved" (Shelton, 1992, p. 2). In a similar vein, Brown (1990) acknowledged that although the concept had "some attendant problems [there were] also possibilities for the improvement of schools" (p. 9).

The Edmonton Public School District in beginning their transition to SBM in 1976 started with a pilot project of seven schools. In 1989 the concept was expanded to the other approximately 200 schools in the district. As of 1996, the concept h as been well institutionalized but that is not to say that all is perfect in Edmonton Public. However, educators in that district are generally pleased with SBM and would definitely not want to return to the days of centralized decision making (Delaney, 1995).

As mentioned earlier, there appears to be no concerted effort provincially for schools to adopt school-based management. There are isolated pilot initiatives by certain boards (e.g. Appalachia R.C. School Board) which are presently attempting to implement site-based decision making. A provincial effort is needed if SBM is to receive the attention that it deserves and that may or may not happen as the school reform efforts intensify over the next several months. What are some of the challenges and obstacles which may stand in the way of Newfoundland and Labrador schools going the SBM route?

This province has a history of centralized decision making in education. A mindset exists that school boards need to control every aspect of an individual school's operation, especially its finances. Teachers and school administrators perceive themselves as educators and not business managers, hence the attitude on the part of educators that finances are "low on one's priority list". Similarly, business managers may be of the opinion that educators, particularly building administrators, lack the expertise and the motivation to really "worry about" the money situation in their schools.

Edmonton Public experienced many roadblocks in its attempts to convert to SBM and "one of the most obvious obstacles at the time was the resistance on the part of central office personnel who worked in the area of school finances" (Delaney, 1995, p . 57). Because of their control over finances, these individuals wielded considerable power over the schools and perceived their very existence and employment threatened by the introduction of school-based management. Whether or not similar opposition would surface in Newfoundland and Labrador should schools decide to embark on the road to school-based management is totally speculative at this point in time. Appropriate in-service with a clear definition and understanding of roles and functions of the major players such as district business managers and school building administrators would obviously help to allay various suspicions that may arise in school board offices.

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing those involved in attempts to have schools convert to school-based management would be to come to an understanding of the new roles that are associated with all stakeholders. In the past the majority of "stake holders" have been passive recipients of what school and district administrators have decided was "appropriate and wise" for all involved in the education business. SBM is premised on the basis of stakeholders becoming active participants in the decision -making process, a leap of gigantic proportions for many of those "stakeholders"!

The roles of central office personnel and the school principal are ones which undergo significant transformation when the decision-making is decentralized and schools begin operating under a school-based management model. In a study by Koerner (19 91) several nationally-honored principals in the United States were asked to share their thoughts on the principal's role in school-based management. They perceived a pending role change, seeing SBM as a shift in control from the centralized power structure to the people most affected by the school. They believed, furthermore, that although principals would continue to be decision makers and organizers they must also be bridge builders among local groups and must involve parents and teachers in decisions that affect the student.

This may cause considerable stress for principals who have not been used to working in a "shared decision-making mode" and for the teachers and parents working with these principals. Appropriate in-servicing in the areas of collaborative decision making, conflict resolution, consensus and team building are essential if principals are to be successful in making this transition.

The importance of the school principal in school-based management cannot be overstated. In a recent study the leadership style of the school principal was the primary factor contributing to a successful relationship between school improvement and school-based management (Delaney, 1995).

Central office personnel undergo significant role changes under school-based management. Hirsh and Sparks (1991) quoted a superintendent whose message regarding the nature of his job and that of his staff was to assist in the attainment of long range goals: "Once we sign off on your mission and objectives... it's our responsibility to provide you with the resources and support you need to get the job done. If you fail, we also have failed" (p. 16). They further spoke of this altered relations hip:

School-based management is by no means the perfect system. However, as Odden (Mohrman & Wohlstetter, 1994) has stated, "school-based management should be conceived as a part of an overall systemic education reform, not as a reform in and of itself, and that decentralized decision making provides the conditions that allow school-site teachers and administrators to design changes in school organization and curriculum that ultimately will improve student achievement" (p. xii). The process of school improvement is complex and arduous. School-based management may help to facilitate that process.

Allen, E.L. (1993). School-based management, shared decision making, and school improvement in the School Renewal Project (Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 1156A.

Brown, D.J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. Bristol, PA: Falmer.

Caldwell, B.J., & Spinks, J.M. (1988). The self-managing school. London: Falmer.

Cuendet, P.D. (1993). The goals, goal fulfilment, related outcomes, and obstacles of school-based management (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2177A.

David, J.L. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational Leadership, 46(8), 45-53.

David, J.L. (1996). The who, what, and why of site-based management. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 4-9.

Delaney, J.G. (1995). The relationship between school-based management and school improvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta.

Herman, J.J. (1991). Introduction to school-based management. School-based management: Theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Hirsh, S. & Sparks, D. (1991). A look at the new central-office administrators. The School Administrator, 8(48), 16-19.

Koerner, T. (1991). Restructuring, reform, and the national goals: What do principals think? NASSP Bulletin, 75(533), 39-49.

Levin, B. (1992). School-based management. The Canadian School Executive, 11(9), 30-32.

Levine, D.U., & Eubanks, E.E. (1992). Site-based management: Engine for reform or pipedream? Problems, prospects, pitfalls, and prerequisites for success. In J.L. Lane & E.G. Epps (Eds.), Restructuring the schools: Problems and prospects (pp. 61-79). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Malen, B., Ogawa, R.T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literature--a call for research. In W.H. Clune & J.F. White (Eds.), Choice and control in American education: Vol. 2. The practice of choice, decentralization and school restructuring (pp. 289-342). Bristol, PA: Falmer.

Mohrman, S.A., & Wohlstetter, P. (1994). School-based management: Organizing for high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Neal, R.G. (1991). School-based management: A detailed guide for successful implementation. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Policy Statement on School Councils in Newfoundland and Labrador (1995). St. John's, NF: Department of Education and Training.

Proudford, C., & Baker, R. (1994). Looking at school improvement from a contextual perspective. School Organization, 14(1), 21-36.

Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, and Secondary Schools (1992). Our children, our future. St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Shelton, M.M. (1992). Site-based management: Panacea or buzzword? Streamlined Seminar, 10(6), 1-4.

Skaruppa, C.L. (1994). School-based management: One school's experience (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 2420A.

Author Biographical Note

Jerome G. Delaney received a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Educational Administration at the 1995 Fall Convocation of the University of Alberta. His dissertation examined the relationship between school-based management and school improvement. Jerome has served as a teacher and school principal with the Appalachia R.C. School Board based in Stephenville. He is presently a junior high teacher at St. Kevin's School in the Gould's. His e-mail address is: jgdelane@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca