School-Based Management and Accountability - Case Study Example

Name Tutor Title: School-Based Management and Accountability Institution Date Table of contents The importance of school-based management (SBM) and its associated mechanisms 5 Decentralization and Decision-making 6 Accountability and Decentralization in school-Based Management 8 Rewards and authorities 8 Lessons learnt about what works in School-Based Management 9 Managing the change to School-Based Management 12 Assessment of the outcomes is fundamental to the successful execution of the School-Based Management programs 16 Conclusion 17 Bibliography 18 Introduction School-based management (SBM) is considered a rationale feature applied in many contemporary reforms. Although previous study indicated that poorly designed as well as implemented school-based management and its associated mechanisms had less or no positive effects, the contemporary research suggests that SBM can be used to develop instructional programs as well as result into advanced levels of student learning. In addition, school-based management (SBM) has turned out to be a popular reform that is adopted by various states and school districts across the globe, acting as driving force for improving schools and other institutions of learning. This is implemented through increasing school or institution accountability by ensuring that local school boards boost their students’ achievement, middle offices develop their administrative efficiencies, the unions of teachers empowers them and community groups to engage parents in the management of any institution (Woessmann 2001, p.74). Today, charter schools and the various forms of high-performance schools to a larger extent are achieved based on the idea of empowering the school-level participants in order to make the appropriate decisions on staffing, curriculum and budget. School-based management (SBM) described as the decentralization of relevant decision-making power to a school site is perceived to be the general strategies developed from the 1980s school reform movement. Overtime, various institutions of learning have put into practice SBM method in order to manage their school budgeting, curriculum setting, decision-making on the personnel and enthusiastically promoting it. School-based management (SBM) basically promotes the decentralization of different levels of power in the school. This implies that both accountability and decision-making undertaken on school management is extended to the teachers or school leaders and sometimes to the learners, parents and other community members of the school. However, the school-level planners are required to operate in a set of centrally-achieved policies. SBM is perceived to be the methodical devolution of school level powers and accountability in order to undertake decisions on important issues that are connected to the school management in a controlled structure of objectives, set of courses, norms, accountability as well as policies (Volansky & Friedman 2003). Educational decentralization is an international trend, however, if considered as a model it can greatly hide than it can reveal. Generally, it means the decentralization of specific authority to both the neighboring school levels and at the community level, though associated with two huge predicaments that keep on occurring. For instance, the main facets of power are normally maintained at the various geographical levels as well as the central level. In such a case, decentralization turns out to be a misnomer. Another issue examined is that when decentralization takes place, it more often than not refers to the structural elements that include the site-based councils, and thus omitting the daily capacities and the activities that would make it possible to work for school development. Therefore, a more carefully-developed external accountability system should be developed within the infrastructure. This is because schools perform to their best if they give an intimate attention to the performance measures. In addition, external accountability system provides data and the procedures that enable the required thorough standards and improved performance. Conversely, this kind of a system need to be largely and not entirely be rated on a philosophical capacity-building such as an idea of applying ‘assessment for learning’ or enabling the educators to develop into new assessment literate. This implies that there is no existence of an external formal accountability system that results into an increasing impact unless it is connected to a competence-building philosophy. Although it is the first and crucial goal, external accountability system must have the responsibility to either occur or operate in the persistently failing situations. As a result, the ability to balance accountability support and the associated accountability practices is noticeably a difficult call. However, this is a precise presentation of how sophisticated the external infrastructure is expected to be (Hutmacher 2001, p.238). Various school-based management programs undertake distinctive forms based on who has more power to make the required decisions. A consideration is also made on the level of decision making that is delegated to a given school level. Although part of the programs extend power to either the school leaders or teachers only, others have been identified with the ability to encourage or authorize parental as well as community participation often within the school committees. Studies indicate that SBM programs normally transfer authority to one or more activities such as budget allocation, curriculum development, infrastructure development, firing in addition to hiring of teachers and staff within school, setting of the school calendar to effectively achieve and manage the various needs of both the local community, monitoring and evaluation of students’ learning outcomes as well as teacher performance. School-based management programs have been put into practice and are still undergoing some developments in various countries with Hong Kong (China) inclusive. For instance, a number of School-based management projects within the modern World Bank portfolio are based in Latin American and some South Asian countries such as Argentina, Guatemala, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India, Mexico and Honduras (Viadero, 2000, p.2). The importance of school-based management (SBM) and its associated mechanisms Supporters of school-based management assert that it is important in improving educational outcomes due to various reasons. SBM improves accountability of principals and teachers to the students, parents as well as teachers. It is considered that accountability mechanisms identified with the ability to put people at their center of service provision greatly enhances the operation of services and the expected outcomes by facilitating participation the delivery of such services as examined in the 2004 World Bank Development Report World Bank of enabling services work for the poor people. In addition to its ability to enhance accountability, school-based management offers the local decision-makers with the opportunity to effectively determine the appropriate mix of both inputs and education policies that can be adapted to the local realism as well as needs (Ozler, 2001). SBM programs are also set a long range to the extent that the decision-making task is delegated to existing local level. This is from a less autonomy to increasingly complete programs with the capability to give schools full control over the substantial resources and the education systems which promote SBM through school budgets, choice, and private as well as community management of schools. Based on the World Bank report, decentralization and accountability have been identified as the key issues implemented within the school-based management. Decentralization and Decision-making Decentralization is considered as a significant process of re-assigning responsibilities as well as resultant decision-making authorities for the explicit functions. This is from the central to regional levels of both governmental and managerial units. For instance, instructive decentralization emerges to be a multifaceted process that concerns changes made in the manner through which school systems formulate policies, spend funds, design curricula, generate revenues, manage local schools and train teachers. Such transformations imply the fundamental shifts within the values concerned with the relationships between students and parents in regard to school management, communities to the central government and the main objective of public education. Therefore, one of the outstanding issues in the school-based management involves the transfer of certain or the entire decision-making powers to the relevant site-based actors. In addition to emerging as one of the leading and popular strategies applied in educational reform, decentralization has been considered as one out of the leading mechanisms of school-based management has to be contested. On the other hand, involving the school level performers in the decision-making as well as reporting can result into enticement to pay much attention to the school development issues. This suggests that when decentralization of decision-making is applied purposely to develop accountability, its major aim becomes to raise the voice of individuals who are nowhere to be heard within the context of the conventional school governance structures. It becomes apparent that creation of more proficient and cost-effective structures for school administrative structures is the closest main goal for decentralization. However, the 2004 World Development Report presents an argument that lack or inadequate information greatly weakens the client power to maintain providers accountable. This suggests that end users must have a system of the relevant information flow that enables them to realize their rights as well as the ways in which their service provider fares are evaluated with others (Caldwell 2003). A number of the contemporary studies on the successful decentralization implementation within schools have discovered that the close attention given on the learner as well as the use of the decision-making power is offered to the school in order to develop its academic study and instructional programs. This is significant in the development of both devolution and the restructuring process work. The availability of state curriculum contents as well as student performance standards enables in the reinforcement of the application of instructional decision-making. Such results do not provide amazing information. It is clearly presented that channeling the efforts that are unleashed within a SBM or the collective decision-making strategy that is directed to the fundamental aspects that determines the student success, for instance, program of study and the associated instructions. It also involves evaluating how schools actions affect the student achievement is considered to be the key driving features that determine the significance of SBM. However, it becomes so surprising that a number of SBM initiatives within the education sector have not been associated with this focus (Wohlstetter 1995, p.22). Accountability and Decentralization in school-Based Management Accountability is perceived to be an alternative and major ingredient of a developed decentralized school management. On the other hand, one of the shortcomings of the various efforts applied at school based management is considered to be the lack of accountability system. This implies that accountability is very important, and thus unless devolution of school management is strictly considered accountable for its outcomes, the likelihood that it may increasingly improve the learning results is low. Most of the studies on the school-based management as well as its restructuring conclude that accountability is so vital. Therefore, significance for the outcomes of various school practices assists in focusing on the purpose of power delegation and restructuring on the learners’ performance results. This stimulates the evidence on the practice as well as its associated impacts that are features of a professional community required to improve the school-based management programs. The outcomes include both the rewards for succeeding, for instance, meeting increases the targets and the authorization for consistently not achieving the intended objectives. Rewards and authorities One major reason that both compensation and authorities are effective shows that such elements provide an understanding that the outcomes are more significant, and thus underpinning the increasing attention paid by the schools on the core as well as the highly valued results such as those within the standards of measuring performance, particularly student achievement in the taken academic subjects. This suggests that compensation and sanctions call for educators' attention, and as a result putting more consideration on the priority results identified by the school-based management system. Based on the results from the contemporary research reports, it can be argued that effective performance of the school-based management is reflected in its ability to provide a sequence of the organizational situations observed at the school level. Therefore, schools are required to use make use of such conditions so as to implement and develop the measurement of schools that have direct impacts on the student achievement, for example, in the study and instruction programs. In addition, school-based management needs to be coupled with some school-level accountability for improved results. SBM must offer schools with the full control over their budgets (Fullan & Watson 2000, p.464). Lessons learnt about what works in School-Based Management Based on the educational arena, school-based management has largely been considered as the political transformation that facilitates the transfer of power or authority over budget, curriculum as well as personnel to various schools. However, less attention has been paid on task of giving more power to school sites with the direct power over professional development for knowledge or reward systems and information management. Additionally, well analyzed school-based management programs provides a general conclusion that the rate at which decision-making responsibility is transferred to the site teachers and administrators is perceived to be limited. The management experience from private sector indicates that in order for the school-based management to be effectively implemented, institutions are required to design plans which not only transfer the actual authority to the concerned school sites, but also to broaden the understanding of SBM so as to include the full control over, rewards as well as knowledge and information. For instance, decentralization of power has been considered the main focus of school-based management programs. However, it becomes important to know who at a given school site is given such power. This implies that power is normally shifted from the central administration to the council, for example, parents, administrators, community members and even students at a school site. As a result, school-based management empowers such groups that have originally not had more power in the management schools (King & Ozler, 1998). The idea of using school-based management as a vehicle for empowering classroom teachers with more authority has been a common practice. The type of powers that must be given to the school sites is also another area of concern in designing school-based management programs. This is because SBM programs normally delegate some control over personnel, curriculum decisions and budget. However, certain school-based management programs bound control to only more of such areas, for instance, budgetary powers given first priority in decentralization. Most of the private sector organizations have improved their performance through the establishment of small and self-managing production sectors with full power over their resources that make financial arrangements and personnel allocation. Due to this decentralization model, it becomes apparent that most of effective school-based programs are the ones in which schools are provided with lump-sum budgets to be allocated in accordance to the local needs, the required authority to hire as well as fire school staff, inclusive of the principals and teachers. Companies within the private sector have made use of the representative task teams so as to enable their operating units to access input into the decisions that are successfully done uniformly across the organization. This is aimed at achieving economies of scale, increasing the demands of a marketplace or the legal requirements. Therefore, institutions that implement school-based management are required to focus on such extra mechanisms for both participation and involvement. The implication of this is that SBM plans must create participative mechanism that is aimed at improving particular areas such as routine operations, curriculum and teaching. Devolution management plans within the private sector normally include elements that recompense employees in a collective manner for improved performance. The major lesson learnt from the private sector perspective provides an understanding that decentralized management is more effective, particularly if there is an agreement on the performance measures in addition to the units that can be easily held accountable for performance. Employees need to examine the existing relationship between pay and performance. However, such conditions are not common in education sectors or institutions. In addition, it is considered within the private sector that improved performance will result into greater profits, though, funding in the public education is not often affected by the existing evidence on performance (Wohlstetter 1995, p.24). Managing the change to School-Based Management The shift to SBM involves large-scale transformations in the educational organizations. This implies that successful decentralization calls for systems as well as processes to be redesigned in order for power, knowledge and information to build up at the operational levels various schools. A focus is to ensuring that rewards are dependent on the performance and contribution of the institutions practicing school-based management. The new recruitment practices are required so as to attract more people who will withstand the challenges of working within a decentralized setting. Additionally, development practices should be altered and largely supplemented in order to ensure that participants have the expected competencies. The ability to comprehend the need for change is the basic step in a school-based management revolution. The ability to have a vision of what the change entails as well as what that change will accomplish is considered to be the next. For example, the need to define high performance in such a manner that can be accepted by the various stakeholders who are expected to be partners in the effort is one way to plan for the change. Therefore, clear focus on the educational results structures the change to School-Based Management in a manner that replaces issues related to the beneficiaries and losers the power. Thus, developing a shared vision of an organization connects people together and creates goals and the criteria for the various change activities and continuous decision-making. Educational institutions and the schools within them ought to involve the entire of stakeholders in forming their visions and in giving it more substance at their local level (Evers & Katyal 2007, p.384). In the school-based management, creation and empowerment of the site council normally has been the focal change intervention. This is so because the council is required to make the necessary decisions in order to change the nature and effectiveness of the education that is imparted to students within the school. Therefore, councils develop into the change agents of educational programs, and thus need to be educated in accordance with the school requirements. For instance, they need to be taught on how to plan revolutionize plan as well as how to control the dynamics associated to such changes, including the general stages passed through the change process and the conflict that is connected with it. Additionally, as SBM change execution spread out, the committee will possibly generate other transform structures in order to extend and put into practice the new approaches and the responsibilities of various change groups will be well organized and raised. The role played by teachers in addition, changes in a more elementary way. While teachers have always been able to manage their own classrooms, School-Based Management reflects an expansion of its main focus to include the ability to participate in shaping the school environment, creation of educational vision that operates in collaboration with the other stakeholders in order to determine goals, objectives as well as taking responsibilities in resource sharing and utilization. This indicates that their power changes from personal control over their own classroom area in order to control exercise through a diversity of communal forums that includes councils, problem-solving groups and the different work teams (Holloway 2000, p.82). The transition to School-Based Management involves a wide-ranging reshuffling of various roles that should be accomplished thorough introduction of newly created skills as well as the associated competences. Therefore, this cannot be simply considered as the decentralization of power, but instead as the organization of new as well as imperative responsibilities for various stakeholders, and thus cannot achieve something unless its creation is well planned and more resources allocated for it. To ensure successful implementation of School-Based Management, stakeholders should be able to understand what SBM is and the ways in which it is implemented. This calls for each participant to understand his or her new, accountability, roles and responsibilities. School and community leaders must be very supportive of the School-Based Management and ensure that communication channels are kept open. In particular, SBM need enough time for it to succeed, for instance, researchers have recommended between three to fifteen years as the minimum time period of commitment to School-Based Management. Therefore, schools that are shifting to SBM system need to ensure that they have a very strong commitment to School-Based Management at the state, local and school structural levels from their onset. They also need to seek for a professional SBM consultant and be ready to admit that during the change period mistakes are made as well as compensate the stakeholders for improved performance (Caldwell 2003). School-Based Management is the confined competence-building that operates through an external structure. Although it has a structural aspect, SBM has a culture that is the basic driving force of change such as a culture that has a basic focus on the maintained development. Therefore, it is only when SBM greatly assists in local problem solving as well as in the enlistment of the various efforts made by all the stakeholders that it can emerge to be successful. The important implication of this is that school leaders are required to have the competence to make the necessary adjustments to the changing scope of SBM. Such leaders should be readily available to respond to the key initiatives since they can be determined occasionally at state, district and national levels. Studies indicate that the major factors for the shift to school-based management are demand for less uniformity, control as well as the related demand for more freedom and increased differentiation (Caldwell 2002, p.32). Another force is the interest in minimizing the rate and the cost incurred in managing a large and central bureaucracy, obligation to the practices of community empowerment and the desire and attain superior aspects of professionalism at a given school rank. School-based management is considered to be contentious within its early stages adoption. However, it invariably achieves more acceptances after a considerably short series of time to the extent that very the minority stakeholders seek out a return to the centralized approach within the school operations. According to Caldwell (2002, p.38) examines that three generations of studies have been in existence and that it is only within the third where support of effects on the results has come into view. It is only after specific conditions are successfully conformed that improved outcomes can be achieved. This has a signification that school managers need to be informed that self-management is not inevitably identified by the impact it has on the various education results of the concerned students. As a result, school leaders should put into consideration that various methods for establishing the relationship are established at diverse locations of their school functions. Assessment of the outcomes is fundamental to the successful execution of the School-Based Management programs More attention has been given to the evaluation of outcomes has become a perpetual aspect of the SBM in the contemporary school management. The improved attention given to the assessment of performance results is considered an element of the school development within all nations. This is in regardless of the level at which there has attention to the school-based management mechanisms. However, a focus on the outcomes is perceived to be a facet of accountability that invariably gives support to the introduction of the practice. This implies that SBM in the recent times is always examined in terms of how it affects student learning, particularly on basis of the evidences of how the relation to learning can be implemented. Scholars suggest that successful achievement of outcomes among students in their entire settings requires schools to have the capacity to make the necessary measurements on how their students are performing at certain point in time (p.366). They should determine the kind of learning experiences that are necessary in ensuring their students succeed and measure as well as report on their outcomes. For instance, benchmarking school performance through similar socio-economic conditions is considered a common practice within systems that are introduced with school-based management programs. Today, a number of teachers are developing into skilful professionals in data analysis about the performance of their students, in their own schools as well as in various schools through systems that are introduced with benchmarking. The implication for the school leaders and school systems is that development of capacity for measuring outcomes is only significant if the relationships involving SBM and the learning programs need to be established (Beck &Murphy1998). Conclusion School-Based Management (SBM) has turned out to be a trendy reform that is implemented by various countries within schools from all corners of the globe, acting as driving force for improving schools and other institutions of learning. Various institutions of learning have put into practice SBM technique in administering their school budgeting, set of courses. Make human resource decisions as well as excitedly advancing it. Successful implementation of School-Based Management requires stakeholders to identify what School-Based Management is as well as the various ways in which it is implemented. This calls for all the participants to be aware of their new, accountability, roles and duties. School and community leaders must be very supportive of the School-Based Management and make ensure that that all communication channels are readily available. The ability to comprehend the call for school-based management revolution is the initial approach in a school-based management change. The ability to have a vision of what the change entails as well as what that change will accomplish is considered to be the next. A clear focus on instructive outcomes structures the shift to School-Based Management in a manner that reinstates issues related to the achievement of power. Therefore, creation of a communal vision of an in a given organization brings people into unity, creates objects as well as the criteria for the various change activities and continuous decision-making. Well analyzed SBM programs give a general understanding that the rate at which decision-making accountability is shifted to the site teachers as well as administrators is perceived to be limited. Majority of the scholars suggest that successful achievement of outcomes among students in their entire settings requires schools to have the capacity to make the necessary measurements on how their students are performing at certain point in time. Bibliography Beck, L. & Murphy, J., 1998, Site-based management and school success, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, VA, 355-385. Caldwell, B. J., 2002, Autonomy and self-management: Concepts and evidence’ in Bush, T. and Bell, L. (eds), The Principles and Practice of Educational Management’. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Chapter 3, pp. 24 – 40. Caldwell, B. J., 2003, A theory of learning in the self-managing school’ in Volansky, A. and Friedman, I. A. (eds) (2003) School-Based Management: An International Perspective, Israel: Ministry of Education. Evers, C.W. & Katyal, K.R., 2007, Paradoxes of leadership: contingencies and critical learning, South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 377-390. Fullan, M. & Watson, N.,2000, School-based management: Re-conceptualizing to improve learning outcomes, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(4), 453 – 474. Holloway, J.H., 2000, The Promise and pitfalls of site-based management, Educational Leadership, p. 81-82. Hutmacher, W., 2001, Visions of decision-makers and educators for the future of schools: Reaction to the OECD scenarios’ in OECD What Schools for the Future? Paris: OECD. Chapter 12, pp. 231 – 242. King, E. & B. Ozler., 1998, What’s Decentralization Got to do with Learning? The Case of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform,Working Paper on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ozler, B. 2001, Decentralization and Student Achievement: The Case of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform, Working Paper on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank. Viadero, D., 2002, N.Y.C. school-based budgeting linked to test-score gains, Education Week, 21(43), 2 pages. Volansky, A., & Friedman, I. A., 2003, School-based management: An International Perspective. Israel: Ministry of Education. Wohlstetter, P., 1995, Getting school-based management right: what works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, p. 22-25. Woessmann, L., 2001, Why students in some countries do better: International evidence on the importance of education policy’. Education Matters, An international journal available on the internet at: < http://www.edmatters.org > summer, pp. 67-74. Read More