Although, the literature has indicated inconsistent results from the implementation of school based management, comparisons tend to be made against external standards and other schools. They also involve district aggregates and assume that the schools will allocate resources to improve relative to an external standard. This study looked at goals (results) the schools thought were important and the schools' ability to meet them. The criteria used to determine if the schools have been successful were the indicators identified by the schools in their budget documents.
The study has quantitative and qualitative characteristics. The examination of results achieved was quantitative. Results and tasks were be analyzed using a constant comparative approach to establish similarities and differences among schools.
Public, budget documents were used to examine the goals and outcomes for the 196 schools. These documents allowed the measurement of achievement using internal goals. As well, ethical problems, such as confidentiality, were minimized by the public nature of the information. The alternate approach would have been to use interviews and questionnaires, to generate confidential information on school goals and achievement. This alternative would have required interviewing several people in each school and it is doubtful that the information gathered about the goals would have been more accurate than the public statement of goals included in the documents.
The schools reported the tasks under each District priority, so these were the initial 7 meta categories. In the end I found 114 classifications under 4 meta categories. Most of these were included in 16 larger groupings.
In addition to the school generated results, all of the schools reported targets and outcomes for provincial achievement or diploma exams, and selected items from the District Attitude Survey. All schools were assumed to have these District mandated results whether stated explicitly or not.
Two of the outcomes for School Based Management relate to involving staff, parents and the community in decisions about curriculum, program and organization. There were 711 results, 30.8%, directed to the involvement of these groups. Of these 11.4%, focused on staff involvement. Another 7.7%, aimed to involve staff, parents, peers, and students in program delivery and curriculum decisions, for the school or individual students. A further 6.5%, indicated a desire for more community involvement in the schools. Most of the results were directed to providing opportunities for involvement and schools reported success rates of over 80%. However, the indicators for success used when evaluating the staff results were related to staff satisfaction with their involvement and the success rate was only 49%.
The tasks undertaken by the schools to improve involvement were primarily efforts to improve communication. Schools also made organization changes to facilitate involvement and involved the parents and community members in program delivery. As well six of the schools planned to provide professional development activities for parents. However, only two of the 30 schools were going to involve parents in planning activities. The role identified for parents and others in the budget process, by 5 of the 30 schools, was developing expectations for the schools and students.
Another expectation of School Based Management is an environment supportive of professional growth and collaboration. There were 73 results, 3.2%, aimed at expanding professional development activities. The task analysis shows that 22 out of 30 schools identified professional development activities and 25 out of 30 identified collaborative efforts directed to improving program delivery, as ways of improving student achievement.
Of course, student achievement couldn't be ignored and School Based Management is expected to lead to long term academic improvement. The schools had 443 results, 19.2%, related to student achievement. The classifications included use of tools, learning growth, expectations for learning, meeting individual student needs, and the scope of the programs. The task analysis shows that some of the activities, such as teaching testing skills and practice tests, were designed to provide immediate improvement in test results, other activities, such as teaching problem solving and critical thinking, are of longer term benefit. 29 schools identified activities to improve program delivery in the classroom and 20 identified activities directed to improving student skills. Further, 28 schools indicated they would make organizational changes to improve student achievement.
In addition to improvements in student achievement and involvement students, staff, parents and the community, in the school, an expectation School Based Management is all of these stakeholders will have a positive attitude toward the school. The school generated results concerning the school environment, 920 or 39.9%, generally had attitudes toward school and satisfaction with the school as measures of success. Generally, the schools wanted to improve their responsiveness to those involved with the school, be supportive of the school community, communicate well, provide a safe environment in which to learn and work, and have a well behaved student body. All of the schools involved in the task analysis identified activities related to communications and 28 of the schools were undertaking school level activities to improve school community relations and 25 schools were going to do things at the school level to improve the health and safety of staff and students. The range of success for results related to the school environment was from 56% (attitudes in school) to 82% (activities related to health and safety) with an overall success rate of 70%.
Two other expected outcomes for School Based Management weren't directly addressed through results. The expectation that there will be strong instructional leadership that focuses on educational concerns and the expectation that the staff will be positive role models. Evidence of a focus on educational concerns can be seen in the results and activities aimed at improving student achievement, but saying it is a result of strong leadership would be an assumption. Similarly, there were only one or two activities and results that mentioned staff behaviour. The behavioural expectation is that the staff will model collaborative learning and problem solving. While some of the activities were collaborative, the sense was this was a new approach for the staff, not internalized behaviour to model for students.
The last two expectations for School Based Management are related, that schools are efficient, and effective in their budget based allocation of resources. This is demonstrated by the schools' success, and effectiveness in meeting their goals.
Looking at the school generated results, the schools were successful 70.7% of the time. The success rate for results that stated a school would do something were higher than the success rates for results that required changes in attitude or levels of satisfaction. The range of success rates was from 49.2% related to staff satisfaction with their involvement in decision making to 88.1% implementing activities related to community involvement.
Just to summarize the finding related to the school generated results. The schools were reasonably successful engaging in activities to achieve results consistent with the expectations for School Based Management, the District Priorities, and the Provincial expectations. Particularly those regarding involvement of the school community in the school and improving student achievement. Which leads us to outcomes. These are embodied in the District mandated results. The outcomes included satisfaction with school communications, courses, environment, organization, and staff. As well the schools were, for the first time, required to have targets for the percentage of students meeting the standard for Provincial and District achievement tests. The success rates for the results required by the District were mixed.
Looking at the satisfaction survey results for elementary schools illustrates this. Most schools, 118-133 out of 148 had targets over the prior year's result. Over half of the schools exceeded the prior year's result for satisfaction with courses and staff. However, the average result was lower than the prior year for satisfaction with staff. The only result to exceed the target was for satisfaction with organization, but only 3 schools exceeded the prior year's result. Of course, none of the results were below the 84% satisfaction level.
The junior high school results were more intelligible. Targets were exceeded for satisfaction with communications, and organization, by 64% of the schools. However, the results were lower than the prior year for satisfaction with courses, environment, and staff. All results were over 70%.
The pattern for the high schools was similar to the junior high schools'. Results exceeded targets and prior years results for satisfaction with communication and organization, but were lower for satisfaction with courses, environment, and staff. None of the results were below 75%.
The biggest improvement was in the level of satisfaction with school communications. It was up over 11% for junior high schools and up 7% for high schools. These results are consistent with the emphasis on communications indicated by all of the schools in the task analysis.
The achievement test results are also problematic. For 12 of 18 subjects tested more than half the schools exceeded their targets for the percentage of students meeting the standard. Also, this target was exceeded for 13 of the 18 subjects. In addition, the average prior year's result for the percentage of students meeting the standard was exceeded for 7 of 9 subjects. However, the Provincial expectation that 80% of the students meet the standard was exceeded for 4 of 18 subjects. But, the Provincial expectation of 15% for students achieving excellence was met or exceeded for 11 of the 18 subjects. Summing up, some schools did better on some subjects and the district average improved for some subjects. As well, most of the results were within 5% of the target or the prior year.
Just to muddy the water a little bit more. The year 3 results for language arts were well below targets, even though the same schools exceeded there targets for the percentage of students achieving excellence and meeting the standard for science and social studies. Suspecting this was a consequence of resource allocation, I examined the budgets for the 30 schools used for the task analysis. I found that all 30 schools identified specific actions to improve language arts, and science and/or math. So, the schools' effort to improve language arts results didn't result in improved outcomes for language arts. Although, improved reading comprehension and writing skills may explain the improved social studies and science outcomes. Two explanations for this were inexperience in setting targets and the language arts and math tests were Provincial, while the science and social studies test were District. Also, some of the schools cited large percentages of special needs students, when explaining the language arts results.
Looking at achievement testing from the school perspective, the outcome is largely dependent on the students in the school or class. Since one additional student meeting the standard moves the class percentage about 4% and most school percentages 2%, if student enrolment is left to chance the results are essentially random. So, the most effective way of improving a school's results is to control entry into the school or the class. In this district, there is a junior high that suspends students for not completing their homework, schools that won't take students outside of their catchment area unless they have a high enough average, and streaming of high school students based on marks. Another district requires a bond before a student is allowed to repeat a course. My son's school, that created a niche market by offering 10 level English and Mathematics courses to students who would normally be placed in 13 level English and Mathematics courses, is changing its mission. Instead of "placing students in the most challenging program", they will "ensure that students are challenged appropriately".
One of the reasons restricting access is a good strategy for the schools is that achievement testing doesn't measure what occurs in the school or the task the school undertakes. Students come into a classroom with a certain set of skills and knowledge. During the year, aided by the teacher, the student is supposed to add to that set of skills and knowledge. However, the achievement tests don't measure the learning growth, they only measure cumulative achievement. Therefore a school can increase its measured performance by admitting students with a relatively high level of achievement. Clearly, student achievement isn't a good outcome measure for evaluating school or student performance, if learning is what policy makers wish to occur in schools. This suggests some questions for policy makers.
The first question policy makers should ask is " Should school performance be evaluated using outcome measures. All of the schools in this study undertook activities directed to achieving the results desired by the District and the Province. Evaluating the schools using outcome measures only rewards the desired behaviour in schools that were successful in terms of the outcome measure.
The second question, if outcomes are kept as performance measures, is "Does the outcome measure what we want to occur?" Further, if two outcomes are negatively correlated, such as student-retention and achievement test results, what constitutes improvement and how are the outcomes weighted for evaluation purposes.
The third question is particularly important for advocates of school based management and citizen participation, "Who chooses the outcomes to be measured." There is also the corollary, "Who decides how to weight the outcomes that are measured?" In Alberta, school councils are expected to advise the principal on programs and curriculum. But, several schools were aligning their curriculum with the Provincial curriculum. In language arts aligning the school curriculum with the tested curriculum means reducing the amount of time spent on verbal skills, which are officially part of the curriculum. As well some schools were having their students do practice exams, so they would be comfortable writing the achievement tests. The questions that need to be asked, if local control means anything, are "Will alignment of the delivered and tested curriculum meet the student needs?" and "Would the time spent doing practice tests be better spent on learning?" My son's school, which is doing well on the achievement test, is adding 50 minutes a week to the time spent on core subjects and consequently reducing the time spent on options by 200 minutes a week. If a school council thinks the time spent on options is important, can it say no? Getting back to the study, the schools generated about 12 results each, in consultation with staff, students, and parents, that would make the school more effective in meeting student and community needs, in a manner consistent with the District expectations. If schools are managed locally, shouldn't they be evaluated on the basis of the school generated results, rather than the District or Provincial mandated results?