DOCUMENT RESUME EA 023 144 ED 334 665 AUTHOR Hill, Paul T.; Bonan, Josephine Decentralization and Accountability in Public TITLE Education. Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA. Inst. for Education and INSTITUTION Training. SPONS AGENCY John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Chicago, IL. ISBN-0-8330-1151-0; RAND-R-4066-MCF/IET REPORT NO PUB DATE 91 NOTE 105p. Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (342) PUB TYPE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. EDRS PRICE *Accountability; *Decentralization; *Educational DESCRIPTORS Change; Elementary Secondary Education; *PaAicipative Decision Making; *Public Education; *School Based Management; Suburban Schools; Urban Schools ABSTRACT Although only a few dozen school systems have formally embraced site-based management, thousands of districts across the country are experimenting with it in some form. The study described in this report attempts to distill the experience of pioneering school systems, so that citizens and educators in other localities can benefit from it. During the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years, a RAND research team studied five major urban and suburban school systems that had adopted site-based management: Columbus, Ohio; Dade County, Florida; Edmonton, Alberta (Canada); Jefferson County (Louisville), Keoltucky; and Prince William County, Virginia. Newspaper and scholarly accounts of site-based management in other communities were also considered. The report draws five major conclusions: (1) though site-based management focuses on individual schools, it is really a reform of the entire school system; (2) site-based management will lead to real changes at the school level (3) site-based only if it is a school system's basic reform strategy; schools are likely to evolve over time and to develop distinctive characters, goals, and operating styles; (4) a system of distinctive, site-based schools requires a rethinking of accountability; and (5) the ultimate accountability mechanism for a system of distinctive sit%.,-based schools is parental choice. These findings have specific implications for the entire school community. An appendix provides an overview of the five districts studied. (MLH) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** Decentralization and Accountability r.4 in Public Education Paul T. HUI, Josephine Bonan LS. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION con, .1 of Educationti Research and imp/moment EDU5,ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (Eruc) Vnie document hos bean reproduced as cr organ.zatlon the person received Iron- originating it 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality Points view ty opinions Slated in this docu . rntmi do not necessarily represent official OE RI position or policy "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY /11/11j TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES BEST COPY AVAILABLE INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." A Alt 2 The research described in this report was supported by funds from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and by RAND's Institute for Education and Training. ISBN: 0-8330-1151-0 The Report is the principal The RAND Publication Series: publication documenting and transmittiug RAND's major research findings and final research results. The RAND Note sponsored research outputs other general reports for of distribution. Publications of RAND do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the sponsors of RAND research. Published 1991 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 '.3 R-4066-MCF/IET Decentralization and Accountability in Public Education Paul T. Hill, Josephine Bonan Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Institute for Education and Training RAN D PREFACE This report is the first publication of RAND's Institute for Education and Training. The institute aims to broaden the scope of traditional educational research to include the roles and interests of employers and the broader community, as well as conventional educational insti- tutions. Site-based management applies ideas derived from business decentralization of initiative and participatory decisionma'ringto public schools. It also implies changes in the roles of people outside the schools: parents, the community, and the elected school board. Because of its potential for changing the relPtionships of schools to the community, site-based management is a r propriate subject for the institute's first study. The report is written for people who want to understand how site- based management will affect their own schools and how they can contribute to the process. It speaks to school superintendents, board members, business and community leaders, parents, teachers, and principals. The research on which the report is based was funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. SUMMARY Site-based management, one of today's most widely discussed educa- tional reforms, involves shifting the initiative in public education from school boards, superintendents, and central administrative offices to individual schools. The purpose of site-based management, like the movement toward participatory management in business, is to improve performance by making those closest to the delivery of servicesteachers and principalsmore independent and therefore more responsible for the results of their school's cperations. Though only a few dezen school systems have formally embraced site-based management, thousands of districts across the country are experimenting with it in some form. This study attempts to distill the experience of school systems that have led the way, so that citizens and educators in other localities can benefit from it. During the 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 school years, a RAND research team studied five major urban and suburban school systems that had adopted site-based managementColumbus, Ohio; Dade County, Florida; Edmonton, Alberta (Canada); Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky; and Prince William County, Virginia. We also tracked newspaper and scholarly accounts of site-based management in other communities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Montgomery County (Maryland), Salt Lake City, Tampa, and Indi- anapolis. The report draws the following five major conclusions: Though sit .-based management focuses on individual schools, it 1. is in fact a reform of the entire school system. Schools cannot change their established modes of operation if all of the expectations arid controls of a centralized system remain intact. School boards, superintendents, and central office staffs must commit themselves to long-term decentrahzation and enable the schools to use their independence for the benefit of students. Site-based management will lead to real changes at the school 2. level only if it is a school system's haFic reform strategy, not just one among several reform projects. Site-based management is the basic process whereby a school staff and community define needs and coordinate efforts to mcet them. It vi cannot be just one of several uncoordinated projects operating in the school or in the school system. Site-managed schools are likely to evolve over time and to 3. develop distinctive characters, goals, and operating styles. After an initial period of floundering, in which many school staffs con- cern themselves with labor-management and budget issues, schools that are free to solve their own problems will develop specific and well-defined missions, climates, and methods of instruction. These need not be unique or innovativemany schools may develop as frank imitations of an existing model appropriate for their situation. But schools are likely to become less and less alike. The challenge for school boards and superintendents will be how to assist schools and guarantee quality in a system whose basic premise is variety, not uni- formity. A system of distinctive, site-managed schools requires a rethink- 4. ing of accountability. Though state legislatures and school boards will remain ultimately responsible for the schools, they must find ways of holding them accountable without dominating local decisions or standardizing prac- tice. The basis of a site-managed school's accountability must be its ability to define and maintain a distinctive character, not its compli- ance with procedural requirements. The accountability issues for a site-managed school are the following: Are the school climate, curriculum, and pedagogy well matched to the students to be served, and does the school deliver on its promises about the experiences it will provide students? A distinctive school ultimately lives on its reputation, which is based on its constituency's overall impression of its performance. The ultimate accountability mechanism for a system of distinc- 5. tive site-managed schools is parental choice. Choice underlines the need for each school to offer a coherent social and instructional climate and to prove that it can deliver on promises. For a decentralized school system, choice creates a :-.'.centralized accountability process in which the individual school carries the bur- den of product differentiation and proof of performance. Even school systems that cannot move all the way to full parental choice can make individual schools the focus of accountability by basing performance goals on each school's mission and strategy. vii These five findings have specific implications for the entire commu- nity in which a school is located: Businesses, civic leaders, and other lay supporters of the schools must understand that site-based management represents a pro- found change in the ways that schools do business. It will not always work smoothly or produce quick results. The school board must commit itself to site-based management as its basic strategy of reform, and the superintendent must pro- mote it as a primary task. The teachers' union must agree to collaborate with the superin- tendent, preparing teachers to accept greater responsibility and intervening in schools frozen by internal conflicts. The traditional control mechanisms of the school system's cen- tral office must relax and its responsiveness to schools request- ing help must increase. Teachers and principals in each school must move beyond nor- mal short-term preoccupations with their working conditions to issues of climate, curriculum, and pedagogy that fit the needs of the neighborhood and the studf!.,,,, oody. Teachers and principals must develop a new culture of accounta- bility in which they take the initiative to inform parents and the general public about what they intend to provide students and how they will ensure that students succeed. Like many other ideas that call for a cha N in organizational and hool systems has pro- human behavior, the decentralization of gressed slowly and with difficulty. This is not to say that site-based Rather, school boards and central offices management has failed. have failed to recognize that their structures, operations, and cultures must change along with those of the schools if site-based management is to improve students' education. But the difficulty of decentralizing is not an argument for rejc-zting the concept. The situation that motivated site-based management in the first place still obtains. Past efforts to control schools in detail from the outside, by contract, court decree, regulation, and financial incentives, have made schools more responsive to higher authorities than to the stu- dents and parents they are supposed to serve. Many principals and teachers, because they do not feel free to make full use of their profes- sional rAgment, have come to concentrate on ta3ks that are discrete, hounded, and noncontroversialthat is, the implementation of pro- skillsrather than on grams and the imparting of specific facts and cognitive development, the integration of ideas, and students' per- sonal growth. If site-based management is to work, however, school staff must come to take more initiative and responsibility in serving their students. Citizens concerned about school performance naturally ask, What if site-based management doesn't work? Won't we have destroyed the central offices and have nothing left? The answer is that site-based management has already worked in many schools in the sense that staffs are taking the initiative in serv- ing students' needs and taking responsibility for results. Those schools must not be reregulated simply because other schools ere School systems must continue to help finding the task difficult. hoo1s become strong competent organizations, not clones of a cen- ;ral model or products of external regulation. fi AMNOWLEDGMENTS We owe a debt of gratitude to the hundreds of peopleschool administrators, teachers, union officials, and school board mem- berswho shared their experience with us. We are particularly grateful to Frank Petruzielo and Lynn Shenkman of the Dade County Public Schools and Peter Gerber of the MacArthur Foundation, whose suggestions influenced the design of the study. Though responsibility for the final product is ours alone, we benefited from comments by Donald Thomas of Harold Webb Associates, James Harvey of James Harvey & Associates, Jane David of the Bay Area Research Group, Michael Kirst of Stanford University, and Gail Foster of the Tous- saint Institute.