Since the mid-1980s restructuring of school governance has been taking place in such countries as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Great Britain, as well as in several Canadian provinces (Davies, 1987; Dixon, 1992; Greenwood & Hickman, 1991; Elliott & Marshall, 1992; Simpkins, Thomas & Thomas, 1987).  Inherent in these restructuring efforts are proposals for more parent and community involvement in school-related decision making (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler & Brissie, 1987; Nardine & Morris, 1991).  Generally, there appears to be dissatisfaction with traditional "top-down" authority and a move to a "bottom-up" approach in which a greater portion of the decision making lies with those who have most to gain from the system, i.e., the students, parents and general community (Davies, 1991; Stouffer, 1992).

 The movement towards greater local involvement in and control of education has been spurred by the claim that increased parent participation, in a sustained manner, has a positive effect on educational achievement (Flaxman and Inger, 1992).  This is supported by the notion that "schools cannot educate children alone and need the support, if not the active collaboration, of parents" (Moles, 1987, p. 137).  Education is being increasingly viewed as a family/school/community partnership.  Stouffer (1992) reports that this partnership not only results in improved student achievement but also in an enhanced sense of pride in community and school, a greater willingness to "buy into" rather than sabotage educational decisions, and mutually beneficial support for both parents and educators when dealing with difficult students and situations.

 In Canada, most provinces and territories have legislated some form of parent and community involvement at the school level.  There is, however, considerable variation in legislation as to the structure and decision-making authority of local parent- and community- based groups.  In British Columbia, for example, while the Parent Advisory Council (PAC) is officially recognized through legislation as the voice of parents, it serves solely as an advisory body providing input to the school principal and staff on school programs, policies, and activities.

 The report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, and Secondary Education, "Our Children - Our Future" (the Williams Report), recommends the establishment of school councils through government legislation.  These councils would comprise of parents of children registered at the school, teachers, church representatives, other community members and the school principal as an ex officio member.  They would be unlike the present Parent-Teacher Associations or the Home and School Associations in that their authority would be much more extensive.  For example, the proposed councils would have a direct say in school level decisions related to such issues as curriculum, funding and staffing as well as being able to advise other levels of governance, particularly the school board, on matters of concern to them, most notably in the areas of policies and practices of the school.  They would also assume responsibility for seeking ways to further increase parent involvement in school life, and for assessing and communicating the school's overall performance.

 The Williams Report recognizes that there are difficulties inherent in the implementation of effective school councils in Newfoundland and Labrador.  It maintains that because many school administrators are not accustomed to public input in school decision making, many will be skeptical about the value of school councils.  Also, because many parents lack direct experience in school decision making, especially in some areas of the province, many may not want to get involved.  The report claims that in order for the proposed model of governance to be successful, these problems will have to be addressed and that changes in attitudes and expectations will be necessary among both administrators and parents.

 The recommendation of the Williams Report to establish school councils has the potential for a dramatic shift of power or control within the educational hierarchy.  While the authority and power of all those involved in education, from the Department of Education to the classroom, may be altered through greater parent involvement, it is undoubtedly the principalship position that will be impacted the most.  The establishment of a school council will, it is anticipated, pose a "power dilemma" for many principals.  On the one hand, principals may exercise considerable influence over the school council and, in doing so, play an instrumental role in directing the decision-making process using a supportive council as a source of increased authority and power with respect to the school board members, central office professional staff and other agencies.  As Hodder (1994, p. 99) reports,
 

 Not only will individuals in the principal's position continue to hold on to the legal authority presently experienced, but they will be empowered through the legislated authority given to school councils.  As ex officio members of council, it appears that the authority of principals will extend downward on the traditional pyramid but, also, upward.  In the future when principals approach school boards, they will likely be perceived as acting on behalf of an entire community and not just themselves or a few teachers, students, or parents.

 On the other hand, principals may have the most to lose in terms of control over the decision-making process to a local body which may be determined to "run" the school.  Either way, the principal's legal and traditional authority and power base will be altered.

 This paper reports on how principals in two selected regions in the province responded to the recommendation of the Williams Report with respect to the establishment of School Councils.  More specifically, it reports principals' views on such issues as increased parent and community involvement in education, the membership of the proposed school councils, the role of the principal on the school council, and on how the implementation of school councils may impact on the role of the principal.
 

 The data were collected using two methods - the focus group and the individual focussed interview.  A focus group is a small (6-12 member), relatively homogeneous group that meet with a trained facilitator in a ninety to one-hundred twenty minute discussion in a nonthreatening, relaxed environment about a selected topic.  While it does not generate quantitative data, information, or numbers that can be projected to a larger population, according to Bertrand, Brown and Ward (1992, p. 198), the focus group provides in-depth insights through interaction with a number of interviewees.  Brodigan (1992, p. 1) states "The important assumption is that information produced under these circumstances will be richer, more complete, and more revealing than that which can be obtained in, for example, a series of individual interviews".  Stewart and Shamdasani (1990, p. 19) maintain that group interaction leads to synergism, snowballing, stimulation, spontaneity and security.

 The focussed interview is similar to a focus group but lacks the interaction which might influence the responses.  On the one hand, the interviewee may feel more vulnerable in an individual situation and less likely to express controversial views without the screen of a group; on the other hand, the interviewee will not be overshadowed by any dominant group member or group opinion.

 Principals with the Roman Catholic and Integrated School Boards for the Burin Peninsula were brought together for a full-day of focus group sessions.  The principals were divided into two groups - primary/elementary principals and all grade/high school principals.  Each group met for two ninety-minute sessions and with the help of a moderator were taken through an interview guide.  Sessions were taped and later transcribed.  The transcriptions were then analyzed and checked for replication of themes both within and across the two groups.  In addition to the focus group sessions, interviews were held with thirteen individual principals on the Avalon Peninsula.  An attempt was made to interview principals representing schools of varied sizes, grade levels, and setting (i.e. rural, urban).
 

Current Parent and Community Involvement

 A variety of models of parent involvement currently exist in the districts in which the research was conducted.  These range from schools or zones with Parent Advisory Committees or Home and School Associations (both active and not so active) to schools with no formal involvement other than the typical parent/teacher interviews.  Many schools, especially primary/elementary, use parent volunteers, for example, to assist in the library, for extra supervision on outings, and to help children with reading.  Parents are also involved in program planning teams where special needs children are involved.

 The majority of principals who participated in the focus groups as well as those interviewed individually were dissatisfied with the current level of parent and community involvement.  They felt, even where parent associations do exist, that these are not functioning well.  The functions of parent associations, with few exceptions, appear to be limited to those traditionally associated with PTAs/Home and School Associations such as fundraising and providing parent volunteers for co-and extra-curricular activities.

 There was general agreement among all principals that it is common for parent interest to be high when an association is first formed, but for it to dwindle as time passes.  It was also generally agreed that parents who are contacted are willing to help on an issue-by-issue basis but are unwilling to make a long-term commitment.  One principal commented, "...participation seems to be directly tied, one-to-one correlation, to upheaval and issue".  Another commented "...what's lacking is a commitment... that education is important.  It's the school's job."

 All principals felt that an extensive public relations campaign both to change the perceptions of parents towards schools and to "educate the entire community on what the purpose of this council will be" would be necessary before school councils could work effectively.  This, it was suggested, would ensure that the community would appreciate the importance of participation and that "appropriate" parent and community representatives were chosen.  Generally speaking, both primary/elementary and secondary principals in the study felt that parents who are interested and involved are in the minority, and are usually the parents of children who are achieving well.  Those involved, they maintained, are the same parents who are often involved in other community volunteer activities.  It was felt that communities as a whole have a problem attracting volunteers and that a small group within communities is carrying the whole load and "spreading themselves out".  The time requirement on the part of council representatives was felt to be significant.  One principal commented that "the government can't legislate that we've got to have a school council... if we can't get parents to serve".

 A major concern expressed by many of the primary/elementary principals related to the qualifications and expertise of the parents particularly those who live in small communities.  Some principals felt the parents in small communities would not be capable of taking responsibilities or making decisions on professional matters.  This concern can be summarized in the following comment by one primary/elementary principal, "I think this goes a little bit too far beyond [parent involvement] and gives too much power, too much control to people who are not trained".  Concern was also expressed in both focus groups, as well as in the individual interviews, and again more frequently by principals from small communities, about which parents might end up on school councils.  Considerable fear was expressed that school councils would attract only those parents with personal agendas or those who tend to dominate local organizations.

 One recurring theme among the primary/elementary principals was the belief that the situation in small communities is different from that in larger ones.  One principal felt parents would be unwilling to serve on a decision-making council for fear their friends or relatives would hold them responsible for unpopular decisions.  Concern was also expressed that where one school served many small communities, one community might dominate the school council.  The problem of finding enough capable parents and community representatives who are not already overextended running the rest of the community in small communities was raised repeatedly.
 

Membership on School Councils

 All principals felt that parent representatives on school councils should be nominated by the parent body and that an election be held if necessary.  It was suggested that a large percentage of parents would need to vote to avoid the situation of a small group of parents electing someone with a particular agenda.  Some principals felt the parents elected to the council should have a child in the school (they felt that direct link would maintain the interest of the parent).  The point was made that there should be a cross section "from the uneducated right up to the top".  The point was also made that at times teachers or clergymen may also be parents and that one might consider excluding parents who are employed with the school from the eligibility list for nomination as a parent representative.

 All principals agreed that teachers should be represented on the council.  Most felt teachers should be elected by the other teachers.  The opinion was expressed that it might be difficult, particularly in a small school, to find a teacher willing to be a council member.  It was suggested that it might be necessary to provide substitute teachers to compensate for meeting times or to move to hiring support staff for school supervision and extra-curricular activities.  Concern was expressed that a teacher would be in a conflict of interest position when voting on issues that might contradict school or board policy, or when a teacher representative took a position contrary to that of the school administration.

 While no one objected to church representation on school councils, there did not appear to be any significant support for their participation.  Some did express concern, however, that a council could become "cumbersome" if a number of religions in a given area each demanded representation.

 Opinion was divided on student representatives.  One principal was adamantly against the idea.  Most felt, however, that having student members at the high school level, and perhaps even at the junior high level, could serve a useful purpose.  There was some concern expressed about students being involved in discussions pertaining to staffing.

 The principle of community involvement was generally accepted though, as previously mentioned, two principals felt all council members should have a vested interest in the school.  Where schools serve several communities, principals tended to support representative from each community served.  Others felt, however, that representation of all communities, as with all religions, would be unwieldy.  It was suggested that each town or community council might appoint a community representative.  One principal suggested that community involvement could be viewed from a broader perspective.  He suggested that, "you could choose the community representatives from the point of view of bringing particular skills, background or knowledge to your council".  He further added "we want to create a society where we have the perception that the school is ...in the interest of the entire community".

 The issue of appointment versus election was debated.  On the one hand, appointments were seen as a possible way of getting balance on the council in terms of such issues as skills and gender.  On the other hand, appointments were considered suspect.  Appointees were considered "people who don't have the same interest level as people who are elected" and are thought to be liable to political influence.
 

The Principal and the School Council

 All principals agreed that they should be ex officio members of the council.  There were, however, differences expressed with respect to the exact role of the principal.  Most felt that the principal should be a voting member but should not chair the council, thus ensuring that the council agenda should be driven by the council as a whole.  This view arose from two considerations - firstly, it was felt the recommendations coming from the council would be viewed as having more validity under this model; secondly, this model would relieve the principal of the burden of the responsibility of directing the activities of the council.

 Principals generally felt that implementation of school councils would result in a loss of autonomy.  They are worried that councils would force them to take actions with which they, as principal, might disagree.  For example, one suggested that a council could conceivable vote to allow certain volunteers into the school with whom they would feel uncomfortable.  Another suggested that a council could restrict fundraising, or eliminate or add certain programmes.  The possibility of conflict between the directions given by the school board and those given by the school council was also raised.

 Some principals were positive about changes in their role under the council.  One principal stated, "I've served on many councils ...I have hardly ever witnessed the situation where it went down to a vote; it was always consensus".  One principal asked, "Who would go on a committee with one person having veto over the decisions?"  "Conceivably you could have a principal who would overrule everything and that's where your council goes down the drain".

 When discussing the issue of accountability principals expressed fear that councils would have the power, but that principals and schools would have the accountability.  One principal expressed the opinion that some accountability should be placed on parents, who spend nineteen hours with the children as opposed to the five hours they spend in school.  Two principals felt that school councils would reduce the responsibilities on the school staff, "because the school council is ... taking some responsibility for what is actually happening in the school, ...it's not your and my problem any more, it's ours".  Another said "we'll have a direct and broader based support".  There was the perception among a majority of principals that school councils will mean more work and major time commitment.  Some resent the fact that they might be forced to participate in councils and have to make this time commitment without added financial benefits.  They fear that, depending on the leadership qualities of council members, principals may have to be the driving force behind the council - "instigating meetings, ...drafting a policy on their own, trying to get the others to support it".  They believe that the councils ability to function will depend largely on the principal and that other aspects of the school will suffer if they devote too much time to nurturing councils.  One principal suggested that an eleven-month work year for principals may be envisioned by the government.  However, one principal was not worried about the time factor.  If unnecessary demands on the principal's time for such matters as fund-raising are eliminated, time would be available for more educational concerns.

 In the focus group session with the all-grade/high school principals, it was suggested that the implementation of school councils would result in "a change in the understanding of what a principal is going to be expected to do".  They talked about principals "becoming managers", and about "redefining the principal's role as one of public relations".  The idea of more support from the school board, perhaps in the form of administrative assistants for schools, to free principals from the "nitty-gritty" things was mentioned.  
 

 The current level of parent involvement in the two districts and individual schools which participated in this study would appear to fall at best within what Swap (1993) describes as the "School-To-Home Transmission" model of home-school relations.  While generally schools do not appear to view parent involvement as interference (as in Swap's "Protective" model of home-school relations), parent involvement is predominantly determined on school terms.  While parents are encouraged to become involved in their children's education, participation of parents in the life of the school is limited to the traditional role of support of the school in student academic and behaviour matters, and support of special events and fundraising.  Parents are expected to play a supportive but subordinate role in decision making affecting school policy, programs and practices.

 There was general agreement among the principals who participated in this study that more parent and community involvement in education would be beneficial to schools and, more particularly, to students.  There was, however, a difference of opinion between primary/elementary and the high school principals with respect to whether implementation of school councils is the route to follow. While the majority of high school principals might be described as "conditionally positive", the primary/elementary principals would be better described as satisfied with maintaining the status quo with minor improvements.  Even when it is allowed that councils might be the direction to take, the probability of effective school councils was questioned.

 While there was general agreement with the proposed membership, principals expressed reservations about the level of expertise of parents and community members to work on school councils, especially in smaller communities.  Concerns were also expressed about finding the "right" parents and about the potential for parents with "personal agendas" to dominate council membership.  The need for parent and community education with respect to the role of school councils recurred throughout the research.  To change current attitudes among parents and community with respect to their role in schooling, Department of Education and school boards, it was repeated, must create a public awareness campaign highlighting the importance of school councils, and the importance of parent and community involvement.

 School councils were also seen as adding another level of bureaucracy.  Fear was expressed that the proposed model of school councils would represent a move back to the old local school boards of the 1950s.  This, it was felt, could possibly even diminish current levels of parent involvement if those parents who have been content to perform the more traditional PTA/Home and School functions are not interested in being involved as school council members.   While a minority see the school council as empowerment of the principalship, the majority of principals, especially among those in primary/elementary schools, worry about the impact the establishment of councils will have on their role as school administrators.  Concerns focussed on the increased workload, the demands for accountability, and the loss of autonomy which principals anticipate will result as councils become involved in the policies and practices of the school.  Many fear that, in order to survive, the principal will be forced to assume a more political role and, in doing so, further erode any opportunities for instructional leadership.

 The findings of this study support the claim by the Williams Report  that strong barriers to effective school councils and increased parent involvement prevail within our education system.  Traditional approaches to parent and community involvement in schooling appear to be the predominant mode with parents and community playing, at best, supportive roles.  The effectiveness of school councils, it would appear, will depend upon a number of factors including clear delineation of roles, extensive training for both school council members and school administrators, and the availability of resources to support a new role for the school principal.

 Bers, T. (1989).  The popularity and problems of focus-group research.  College and University, 64(3), 260-268.

 Bertrand, J., Brown, J. and Ward, V. (1992).  Techniques for analyzing focus group data.  Evaluation Review, 16(2), 198-209.

 Brodigan, D. (1992).  Focus group interview:  Applications for institutional research.  Association for Institutional Research.  ED 342 325.

 Davies, D. (1991) (January).  Schools reaching out:  Family, school and community partnerships for student success.  Phi Delta Kappan, 376-382. 

 Davies, D. (1987).  Parent involvement in the public schools:  Opportunities for administrators.  Education and Urban Society, 19(2), 147-163.

 Dixon, A.P. (1992).  Parents:  Full partners in the decision-making process.  NASSP Bulletin, 76 (543), 15-18.

 Elliott, C.S. & Marshall, S.J. (1992) (June).  Participative decision-making and educational reform in Australia.  A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for the Study of Educational Administration, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. 

 Flaxman, E. & Inger, M. (1992).  Parents and schooling in the 1990s.  Educational Digest, 57(9), 3-7.

 Greenwood, G.E. & Hickman, C.W. (1991).  Research and practice in parent involvement:  Implications for teacher education.  The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 279-288.

 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (1992).  Our children - Our future.  The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the delivery of programs and services in primary, elementary, secondary education.  St. John's,  Newfoundland:  Queen's Printer.

 Hodder, R. (1994).  The balance of power:  A study of attitudes and perceptions related to the establishment of school councils.  Unpublished master's thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.  St. John's, Newfoundland.

 Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Bassler, O.C. & Brissie, J. (1987).  Parent involvement: Contributions of teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics.  American Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 417-435.

 Moles, O.C. (1987).  Who wants parent involvement?  Interest, skills and opportunity among parents and educators.  Education and Urban Society, 19(2), 137-145.

 Nardine, F.E. & Morris, R.D. (1991) (January).  Parent involvement in the states: How firm is the commitment?  Phi Delta Kaplan, 363-366.

 Simpkins, W.S., Thomas, A.R., Thomas, E.B. (1987).  Principal and Change:  The Australian Experience.  Published by the University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.

 Stewart, D. & Shamdasani, P. (1990).  Focus groups:  Theory and practice.  Applied Social Research Method Series.  Vol. 20, Sage Publications.

 Swap, S. (1993).  Developing home-school partnerships:  From concepts to practice.  New York, N.Y.:  Teachers College, Columbia University.

 Stouffer, B. (1992).  We can increase parent involvement in secondary schools.  NASSP, 76(543), 5-8.