Given the range of implementations, the high expectations, and the differing levels of commitment at the school level, it isn't surprising that results have been disappointing and inconsistent. In a review of 200 documents describing site-based management, in the United States, Canada and Australia, Malen, Ogawa and Kranz (1990) found this management style does not achieve its stated objectives to: a) change school policy, b) broaden decision-making, and c) improve instruction or student achievement.
There are some positive effects, for example, Levine and Eubanks (1992) found,
In districts that practice school-based management essentials, research studies find a range of positive effects, from increased teacher satisfaction and professionalism to new arrangements and practices within schools.... There are only a few examples of second-order change (pp. 67-68).
This study is also typical in addressing implementation issues, rather than looking at the effect on students.
Mohrman (1994) reported on a Dade County study that actually looked at the impact on students.
A recently published evaluation of the School-Based Management/Shared Decision Making Program in the Dade County, Florida public school district, which began piloting the program in 1987 in thirty-two schools (by 1989 all schools participated), is not any more encouraging (Collins and Hanson, 1991). On the one hand, evaluators reported statistically significant differences between project schools and nonproject schools for the overall district on some measures. Project schools had higher scores on more than half of the ten factors assessed by the Purdue School Climate Evaluation. Student attendance in project schools was somewhat better than in nonproject schools. In addition, the evaluation showed that suspension rates in project schools were lower than the district in general. Also, dropout rates in project high schools declined over the three-year period of the project.
The same study found,
On the other hand, the evaluation showed that little or no difference existed between project schools and nonproject schools on other important measures. Project schools fared no better than nonproject schools on school report cards, staff attendance was no better, and student performance on standardized achievement tests did not change during the project.
The study focused on school-to-school comparisons and didn't evaluate the schools based on the individual school goals. This can lead to interpreting good results as inconclusive or poor. For instance, the study reports no improvement in achievement results, when the increased retention of at risk students could have been expected to reduce the achievement results.
Delaney's study of three Edmonton Public schools provided anecdotal evidence that school-based management facilitated improvement. Each school provided examples of how they exploited features of school-based management to meet the needs of their students (1995).
Addressing the issue of demonstrating that changes in atmosphere, satisfaction and involvement positively affect learning, Brown (1990) concluded:
How schools produce learning remains an intriguing black box.... Do principals supervise their teachers differently?... Is it possible that equality of educational opportunity . . . is attained in some way? How? . . . Does schoolbased management actually "make a difference" on these dimensions? Clearly, many more research resources are needed to investigate these topics (pp. 265-266).
The search for a universal answer begs the question, Why would we expect individual schools to develop common solutions to their problems or to have common challenges?
Neal first tries to avoid showing school-based management improves learning by relying on consensus. In his words, "If all the main partners and stakeholders in the schools (students, parents, teachers, administrators, and board members) all believe that decentralized management is better than centralized management, then chances are that they are right."
He then goes on to explain that scientific proof is unavailable, "On the surface, such a demand sounds reasonable. After all, just pleasing everybody is not enough. Unfortunately, at this time there is no clear empirical evidence which proves that school-based management enhances student learning."
Murphy (1991, p155) agreed in part. He found outcomes were difficult to measure and avoided. Also, he found that research has tended to concentrate on process.
Further, Neil suggests that since a component of school-based management, parental involvement is associated with improved student performance, the same result should be expected with school-based management. He adds,
However, there is some evidence, which indicates that school-based management does improve student learning. School-based management requires the meaningful involvement of parents in the affairs of the schools. ... but the most important reason is that parent involvement has a powerful effect on student achievement. Not only do children whose parents are involved do better throughout their entire school careers, but schools that work well with families have lower dropout rates and higher test scores. In 1981, the National Committee for Citizens in Education (NCCE) published The Evidence Grows.
In 1987, NCCE did an update, The Evidence Continues to Grow: Parent Involvement Improves Student Achievement. It includes 49 studies that, taken together, place the conclusion beyond dispute. Programs that include strong parent involvement produce students who perform better than otherwise identical programs that do not involve parents (Henderson & Marburger, cited in Neal, 1991, p. 44) (1991, pp. 43-44).
Mohrman (1994) concludes that the inconsistent results are expected,
The variety of strategies employed in the name of school-based management presents difficulties in assessing the relative effectiveness of both general programs and specific strategies. These variations, combined with the problem of ambiguity, help to explain the lack of broad, comparative assessments of SBM programs. (p. 55)
Sackney and Dibski (1995) sum up the results of the various studies of the effectiveness of school-based management this way,
A number of writers (e.g., Brown, 1990) have made the connection between SBM and school effectiveness. The evidence does not substantiate such a claim. School effectiveness is not contingent upon SBM. That is not to argue against the suggested link. It should be easier for empowered schools to engage in improvement activities; however, what we know to date is that school personnel tend to continue to behave as they did under the previous structure. What is required, as we have argued previously, is for the cultural norms, values, assumptions, and belief systems to change. Only then will SBM realize its potential.
This is consistent with a study by the Center on Organization and Restructuring that found no relationship between restructuring and authentic pedagogy. (Cited Elmore, 1995, p. 24)
The results are precisely what should have been expected. The schools where a change in policy, broadened decision-making and improved instruction and student achievement are needed, aren't the schools that are ready for school-based management. If you impose school-based management on a school and community that hasn't been working toward shared decision making, the change will be resisted. The skills needed to make locally managed schools work have to be developed. In addition there is no reason to expect a school or district that is making poor decisions, to immediately make better decisions when a change is imposed.
This is supported by Murphy (1991) who found that local councils paid little attention to teaching and learning (p. 50), school improvement plans didn't focus on the core issues of curriculum and instruction, there was no change in instructional delivery (p. 154), and no real change in the hierarchy, administrative structure or distribution of power (p. 141).
The schools and districts that voluntarily adopt school-based management will be formalizing changes that have already been made. Also, the new organization will incorporate what they are doing and allow them to build on their accomplishments.
There is still a need to evaluate school-based management. Global change hasn't been found and shouldn't be expected, because school-based management results in local change. However, each school will have goals that should be stated and measurable. Neal suggests that schools should be evaluated on the basis of these results. The results may include improving student achievement, but may not (1991, p. 32).
The research should be asking does school-based management allow a school to set its own goals and allow a school to allocate resources to meet its goals. Further, do these goals move school and student performance toward the outcomes expected for school-based management?
To answer this question it is necessary to look at schools where site based management includes significant control of resources. It is important that the programs have been in place for some time to allow for the learning and relationship building, needed to make effective decisions, to occur.