In 1990—after a stunted effort several years earlier—the Boston Public Schools and Boston Teachers Union began a cautious move toward a school-based management/shared decision-making (SBM/SDM) policy that would last. By 1993, within the context of an unusually ambitious teacher contract, 34 schools had formed school site councils (SSCs).
The initial results were mixed. Surveys and observations revealed that, by spring 1993, most councils were working diligently. Stakeholders communicated regularly and councils often used experienced facilitators to help establish group decision-making and procedural standards. Yet, there was no lasting effect on education. While council members developed the skills needed to collaborate, their efforts did little to improve schools. These findings corresponded with national research that noted improvements in perceptions about teacher work conditions and professionalism, and some improvement in parent involvement, but no impact on student achievement (Collins and Hanson 1991, Bryk et al. 1993).
- were responsible for setting the direction of the school through an educational plan, unprecedented hiring authority, and increased control in budgeting.
- could seek waivers regarding practices that impeded innovation in school reform.
- could access a wide variety of professional development activities.
After a long learning process (Malen et al. 1990), some school site councils today are beginning to focus on a number of issues related to improving student achievement. These issues include an educational mission, effective teaching strategies, genuine parent involvement, a student-centered curriculum, varied assessments, and high quality professional development.
A Collaborative Approach
The school system allocated substantial professional development funds to ensure school site implementation. In March 1994, a group of five local educational and business organizations—known as the SBM/SDM Collaborative—won the contract to provide the needed services to the school site councils. We are members of that team.
- Develop the capacity of each school site council to effectively manage the educational direction of its school.
- Help central office staff define supporting procedures, and develop a cadre of internal facilitators who would be available to each council.
In addition, each council participated in a day-long orientation and training session and its members attended a series of specialized workshops. Principals and headmasters could attend monthly seminars on how their roles would change under school-based management.
We resisted the tendency to focus exclusively on process skills such as meeting mastery, process facilitation, team building, and conflict resolution. We believe that before a council can effectively set and manage the educational direction of its school, its members need to understand the key issues in education and how they might apply the associated concepts and practices.
Profile of an Effective Council
Drawing from research on effective schools and school-based management, Collaborative member Leslie F. Hergert (1994) developed a process that council members can use to create a self-profile (see fig. 1). The profile outlines the critical elements of effective council operations, and it identifies setting the educational direction of the school as the council's central function.
Figure 1. Profile of an Effective School Site Council
IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING.
Educational Direction of the School
The School Site Council develops a manageable work plan each year focused on student learning.
The council spends its time on activities that have a significant impact on student learning.
The council has a shared vision and mission with the school that focuses on student learning.
The council oversees development and implementation of the school's educational plan.
The council ensures that the school regularly assesses itself and revises plans as needed.
ENABLING FUNCTIONS.
Meeting Mastery
School Site Council meetings are held at least monthly.
Meetings are scheduled in advance and members are notified of meeting times.
Members are in regular attendance.
Minutes are kept of all meetings and made available to members and key constituencies.
Members conduct work in between meetings, as needed.
Ability to Work Together as a Team
Council members effectively communicate with one another.
Members use consensual decision making.
Members resolve problems and conflicts effectively.
Members work together as a well functioning team.
The council regularly assesses itself.
Management of Team Diversity
The council composition is balanced, as specified in the contract, by role group and race/ethnicity.
The council uses its members' individual skills and areas of expertise.
All members participate in discussions and decisions, identifying different interests and working to bring them together.
The council works to ensure that all members feel included and valued.
Communications
The School Site Council seeks input from school constituencies (teachers, parents, students, community).
The council informs the school community of its activities and outcomes.
The council communicates with district and central offices.
Team Leadership
The principal/headmaster and the co-chair work together to lead the council.
The principal/headmaster works with the team members to clarify their roles and responsibilities.
The co-chairs ensure that all council members have the information they need to make timely decisions.
The principal/headmaster acts as a facilitative leader in decision-making.
Members share leadership and responsibility for the council's work.
Source: Hergert 1994.
The profile also identifies a series of practices that can help a council achieve its goals efficiently and effectively. They include: meeting management, working as a team, managing team diversity, communicating within the school and broader system, and developing team leadership.
Council members use the profile as a tool to help them think about their charge as a decision-making group and the skills they need to work together effectively. During orientation sessions, new council members complete their individual profiles and then compare their self-assessments with those of colleagues. Councils also can use the profile again later in the year to assess their progress.
One council expanded the profile to include an assessment of every constituency, not just the principal. It then circulated the profile to the entire school community and requested feedback on how everyone thought the council was doing. It then aggregated the results and used the feedback to develop an improvement plan.
The following comment typifies participant reaction to the profile. [It] helped us focus on what we need to do as a team. It is good to have a guide. It's as if we are in a jungle, a little lost, but now we have a map. It [doing the profile together] felt a little risky at first, but it was worth it.
- Parents, school partners, and students must become more aware and knowledgeable about educational issues; they must be enabled to participate if they are to be effective.
- Teachers must expand their focus beyond the needs of their class and begin to think about the school as a whole.
- Administrators (who traditionally are rewarded for keeping things under control) must share information and encourage thoughtful discussion and meaningful decision making.
Finally, the profile serves as a guide for designing training and technical assistance modules.
Focusing on Key Issues
Councils typically generate long lists of issues to address as they garner suggestions from a range of constituents who may or may not have a clear understanding of their charge. We used Glickman's Focus of Governance chart to help council members identify the important issues and focus on their purpose (see fig. 2).
Figure 2. Educational Impact of Decisions by Site-Based Councils
Boston Revisits School-Based Management - table
Zero-Impact Decisions | Minimal-Impact Decisions | Core-Impact Decisions | Comprehensive Impact Decisions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parking spaces | Textbook adoption | Curriculum | School budget |
| Lunchroom supervision | Parent programs | Staff development | Hiring of personnel |
| Faculty lounge | Inservice days | Coaching | Deployment of personnel |
| Sunshine fund | Small budgets | Instructional programs | Personnel evaluation |
| Adult recreation | Discipline policy | Student assessment | |
| Bus duties | Instructional budget | ||
| Refreshments |
Source: Glickman, 1993.
The chart depicts issues such as assigning parking spaces, lunchroom supervision, and bus duty as having zero impact on improving education. (These kinds of issues define some council agendas and may generate immediate, visible results.) On the other hand, issues such as school budgets, teacher and principal hiring policies, and personnel evaluation are likely to have a stronger impact on education. These are not quick-fix issues, and they inevitably require considerable research and hard decisions that may be controversial or unpopular.
- “What about parent programs? They are critical. We know that!” A statement like this can trigger a discussion of different types of parent involvement and which ones have the greatest impact on student learning.
- “Discipline is not a minimal impact issue!” This statement can result in a discussion of which issues directly affect teaching and learning and which indirectly support student success.
- “What is the difference between inservice and professional development?” This question can help a council begin to differentiate between one-shot events and an ongoing program for improvement.
As participants begin to discuss the relative merits and significance of various items, they also begin to construct their understanding of how the council can best spend its time. Once they have thought about the range of issues they might address, council members can tackle the next question: “What issues should we address in the next six months to a year?” These issues will form the agendas for future council meetings. Here's an example of one school struggling to set priorities. Setting Priorities: A Case Study. Council members brainstorm to develop a list of priority issues. Their initial list includes staff development, reading, school safety, student assessment, parent involvement, the budget, the three-year plan, 2nd grade math, and fund-raising. The group's consensus is, “We need to do all of these! They are all priorities.”The facilitator takes up the issue of overload, asking, “What would it take to focus in depth on one of these, such as parent involvement?” One participant suggests starting a parent class on curriculum. Another jumps to open houses. The facilitator redirects the discussion, asking, “What would it take to do the parent class on curriculum?”Council members contribute ideas: organizing, recruiting, course development, logistics, and more. Looking at the many tasks related to one issue helps council members see that their timelines must be expanded or their list shortened. There is too much to do, to do everything well.The group discusses the various issues and develops a list of its top five priorities. Discussion continues, rankings are assigned and averaged, and rankings changed. For example, while safety is initially at the top of each member's list, discussion reveals that a recent incident sparked widespread concern. Some council members don't know that the crisis has passed and steps have been taken to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. Safety drops to number eight on the final tally.The Council's final list is: three-year plan (1.2), parent involvement (2.4), staff development (2.6), and student assessment process review (3.6). Council members note that none of their issues is in Glickman's “Maximum Impact” column. They don't feel the system has given them the authority to make meaningful decisions in that column, so they shoot as high as they dare.
By using a process like the one described in this case study, councils are more likely to avoid allowing zero or minimal-impact agenda items to dominate their work. At the start of a school year, a council or subgroup can map out the number of meeting hours per month. They can review their list of priorities and identify which ones need to be addressed at a certain time of the year.
For example, developing the school budget requires time in March and April, and developing the annual plan requires time in April and May. Next, the council can schedule time each month for unexpected issues. This schedule helps to keep crises from sidetracking council priorities.
Signs of Progress
Although it is still too early to judge the effectiveness of Boston's school site councils, it is clear that many of them are serious about their charge to set educational direction. The majority of councils who meet regularly are addressing such issues as long-range planning, the teaching staff, test scores, report cards, and textbooks. This encourages us to further develop a process by which councils can identify and celebrate their successes and assess where they need more work.
These signs of progress also spur on our work with central administrators to address the administrative barriers councils confront as they undertake more responsibility at the school site.
