Topics in Education: Shared Decision Making

The world is an ever-changing place. In a constant quest to make things better, we continually search for new avenues that can take us to newer and higher destinations. Such is the case in the world of education. Throughout the history of American public education, many issues have been addressed in an ever-present effort to reach for a better, more effective system of education. After all, an educated public is crucial to the continued success and leadership of a nation such as ours.

One of the most up-front issues being faced in education today has to do with the question of power and authority in decision making. The management of schools in America has often shifted back and forth between periods of centralization and decentralization of power. A new approach, born in the 1980's, is one which tilts the shift of power towards decentralized decision making, more specifically: in the schools. This 'reform', known as Shared Decision-Making (SDM) or School Based Management (SBM) (and a host of other names), has become a major issue for debate. It offers a newer spin on an old concept. Indeed, SDM "invokes fundamental changes in the way schools are managed, and alters the roles and relationships of everyone in the school community."

So, what is Shared Decision-Making? BJ Meadows defines SDM as a process of making educational decisions in a collaborative manner at the school level. Teachers, parents, school staff, as well as administrators all have a say in how policies and programs should affect their schools. This is based on the premise that those closest to the children and where "the action is" will make the best decisions about the children's education.

As mentioned earlier, SDM involves a fundamental change in basic school roles and responsibilities. As such, the goals of SDM itself are difficult to achieve effectively. Such monumental changes in process cause a lot of conflict, and a lot of trial and error, with its implementation. Many issues arise out of this process of making SDM work.

First, there's the issue of power and authority. A strong commitment to the goal must be present on all sides. For administrators, they must be willing and committed to give up some managerial powers traditionally entrusted to them. Teachers must be willing to sacrifice more time and energy into working on issues and topics not within the realm of their usual everyday travails. Parents must also find time and commitment to be involved even moreso in topics affecting their children's education. All of these issues within the framework of SDM can and do cause a lot of conflict in making it work. In essence, a strong commitment towards this new process must be present in order for it to work.

Another factor in the success of SDM is time and patience. Nothing worthwhile happens overnight. All participants in this new method of management must enter the process with the notion that effective change does not occur overnight. All too often, new processes, or new ways of doing things, get shelved due to lack of patience for the process. With a firm commitment, participants in the shared decision-making process must keep this in mind when trial decision-making projects don't go exactly as planned.

Other such issues arise as obstacles to the success of SDM. Much literature on the subject warn schools to set realistic expectations, include experienced people with proper qualifications and knowledge, clarify roles, and a host of other possible impediments to the success of SDM. Indeed, much has been written on this topic and is available in articles both online and in bookstores.

Literary Essays on Shared Decision-Making

School-Based Management, by Kathleen Cotton

The NW Regional Educational Laboratory provides a web site (nwrel.org) with many articles on a variety of topics concerning the world of education, including SDM. One such article, "School-Based Management" discusses SDM objectively. The essay aims to provide a background of SDM, its history, give some observations and recommendations, and connect SDM to student performance.

Kathleen Cotton was (she passed away in July 2002) a distinguished writer primarily for NWREL. As an author, it was her job to "synthesize research findings into highly readable and usable publications."School-Based Management" does just that. The article is both objective and comprehensive in its analysis of SDM. It takes from a wide variety of resources in providing a good overall picture of the issue, analyzing the premise of shared decision-making, describing the hurdles to its achievement, and making recommendations for the successful implementation of SDM. Ms. Cotton carries the distinction of being the most published writer for the Regional Education Library, and her reputation is quite good.

The article begins with a quote portraying the basic premise of School-Based Management: "The ultimate power to change is-and always has been-in the heads, hands, and hearts of the educators who work in the schools."Right from the beginning we tend to believe that this article leans in favor of shared decision-making. Ms. Cotton's aim is to inform, as well as make a case for effective school management. This is evidenced in her end quote: "The more control a school has over those aspects of its organization that affect its performance-the articulation of its goals, the selection and management of its personnel, the specification of its policies-the more likely a school is to exhibit the qualities that have been found to promote effectiveness."

The article is well written, and well organized. After a short introduction, she attempts to give a general all-encompassing definition for school-based management. In doing so, she presents terms and definitions related to the topic. She discusses decision-making authority, school site accountability, autonomy, and the degree of power held by councils. She concludes this section of the article with a general inclusive definition of what school-based management is and does:

-It is a form of district organization

-It alters the governance of education

-It represents a shift of authority toward decentralization

-It identifies the school as the primary unit of educational change, and

-It moves increased decision-making power to the local school site

Next, she moves on to the history and rationale behind SDM, reaching far back to the beginning of the 20^th century, when schools were "small and locally operated." She briefly delves into the back and forth nature between centralization and decentralization through to the 1980's, the decade when SDM, as we know it today, was born. Here, Ms. Cotton provides the rationale for the implementation of decentralized schooling. The rationale is based upon research findings about more promising arrangements for improving education. They draw upon the work of many, and are as follows:

- The school is the primary unit of change.

-Those who work directly with the students have the most informed and credible opinions as to what educational arrangements will be most beneficial to those students.

-Significant and lasting improvement takes considerable time, and local schools are in the best position to sustain improvement efforts over time.

-The school principal is a key figure in school improvement.

-Significant change is brought about by staff and community participation in project planning and implementation.

-SDM supports the professionalization of the teaching profession and vice-versa, which can lead to more desirable schooling outcomes.

-Alignment between budgets and instructional priorities improves under SDM.

Next in the discussion, the author tackles the issue of changing roles under SDM. "School-based management and shared decision-making strategies directly challenge and seek to change the complex and well-entrenched patterns of institutional and individual behavior that...have remained untouched by top-down reforms." Indeed, she argues for the changing roles of those within the district organization, the school employees (most importantly the principal), teachers, students, parents and community members, as well as the school board. This section is very well done, and surely coincides with the principles of SDM.

Following the altering of roles, the author brings us to obstacles that may be faced in the successful implementation of a school-based management program. She begins this argument with the notion of time. She believes that this is the greatest source of trouble for SDM programs. "The activities associated with school-based management require school staff to devote additional hours each day on top of an already hectic schedule. The stress produced by these extra time demands has led to pessimism and burnout in some settings, particularly on the part of teachers."

Other barriers to SDM include the setting of unrealistic expectations. SDM teams tend to take on too many projects during the first two years that it is difficult to effectively complete them all. She recommends the 'full-institutionalization' of a SDM process takes as long as five years. Other typical problems associated with SDM exist, such as lack of knowledge of school operations, lack of group process skills, lack of clarity about their role, and incongruence between decisions desired and decisions allowed. In the latter situation, the types of decisions the SDM team is allowed to make are not usually the ones they care and feel knowledgeable about.

Next, Ms. Cotton discusses the attitudes that exist towards SDM on the part of school staff members, parents and students, principals and teachers alike. Here, once again, she draws upon research findings of schools with SDM programs. She continues along this train by linking SDM to student performance, which is the ultimate goal of school-based management. She concludes that so far, researchers have found no direct link-positive or negative-between school-based management and student achievement.

She uses the indicators, or non-indicators, of a link between SDM and student performance, to offer recommendations for implementing and operating school-based management efforts in districts and schools. Here, she makes suggestions to everyone with the ability to impact the success of SDM in schools. She implores the states to encourage SDM programs in its schools. She asks for commitment and support from superintendents. Finally, she implores schools and their personnel to become more familiar with SDM. Communicate the willingness to share power. Know that there are a lot of ups and downs in this process and be patient and ready for it to take up to five years for it to become successful.

Overall, this article was an excellent way to learn about school-based management. It is well written and draws from many, many sources from within the world of education research. Although I've learned different aspects of SDM from other sources, I believe this one to be the most comprehensive and cohesive.

Shared Decision-Making, by Lynn Balster-Liontos

The next article to be discussed is from a web site called ERIC Digest (www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed). It is yet another education-related web site offering informative information on topics in education. "Shared Decision-Making", by Lynn Balster-Liontos is primarily concerned with identifying and defining the term SDM. Ms. Balster-Liontos is another educational researcher whose work has covered topics from at-risk students and their families to social services and school collaboration to shared decision-making. She's been published on several educational journals and web sites.

As mentioned earlier, it seems the author's purpose here is to define the concept of shared decision-making. She draws from many sources, some of which were cited in Ms. Cotton's essay. This article however, is not as objective and comprehensive as the former.

The author begins her essay with the premises and goals of SDM. She uses a similar argument to our previous author, but pinpoints the objectives more succinctly and purposefully. "Student success and achievement must be kept in the forefront of our thinking as the reason to implement site-based shared decision-making. Using SDM as a means to shift accountability or abolish a 'top-heavy central office staff' will simply make SDM another buzzword. Everyone who helps make decisions must be held accountable for their results."

She continues to draw on the work of Lange to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of SDM. In the studies of schools with SDM programs, it was found that trust between faculty and administration as autonomy is achieved and good decisions were made as a result. However, the author contends that a heavier workload and the frustrations associated with slow group work may pose the greatest barrier to an effective SDM program. Echoing the statements of Cotton, she too believes that time is the greatest obstacle to SDM success.

Again like our first author, Ms. Balster-Liontos lays out recommendations for the successful implementation of an SDM program. Although not as specific and involved as the recommendations made by Cotton, this author's suggestions differ somewhat:

-Start small; go slowly- the author points out the need to begin choosing single projects or issues to work on from the outset. This will give way to the possibility of quicker success and confidence in the process.

-Agree on specifics from the outset- such as authority, types of issues to be addressed, etc.

-Be clear about procedures, roles, and expectations

-Let everyone be involved- "the more accessible the process was to all teachers, the more positive feeling they had for the process"

-Build trust and support

The author finishes her discussion by stressing what she believes to be the most important aspect of effective SDM. Choosing the right issues to focus on would be the most practical way to begin a successful SDM program. "Schools should pick a single, uncomplicated issue, then slowly build on the number and complexity of issues." With that said, issues relative to faculty concerns should be resolved first.

This article was well written, short, and easy to follow. It views SDM objectively and offers insight into what makes for a successful SDM program. The author concludes, "SDM is neither a panacea for all of America's educational problems nor a quick fix...this valuable resource must be viewed in the context of restructuring, as a piece of the larger puzzle that hopefully will produce change in our schools."

The Limits of Shared Decision-Making, by Larry Lashway

The last article discussed here is also from ERIC Digest. It is written by Larry Lashway, a senior research analyst and writer for ERIC Digest. He has written extensively on school leadership with an emphasis on visionary leadership, accountability and principalship. Mr. Lashway, not surprisingly, offers the negative side of SDM. "While it is premature to make definitive judgements, early studies suggest that enthusiasm [with regard to SDM] should be tempered by realism."

He begins his analysis of SDM by discussing the "predicted effects" of SDM as opposed to its goals. He lays out three basic predictions of SDM. Its primary purpose, he notes, is "to improve teaching and learning." Next, SDM should promote equality and make the school a more democratic workplace. The result of this will be increased job satisfaction. Finally, SDM will create new forms of leadership, both on the teacher's side, and in the 'letting go' of leadership by administrators.

Next, the author considers the correlation between SDM and teaching and learning. He begins by noting that there is little consistent evidence that SDM increases student achievement. This is due to several aspects of the SDM process:

-SDM efforts seldom address the core issues of teaching and learning

-SDM frequently shows a tendency to focus on trivial issues, such as bus supervision, parking, etc.

Lashway argues that teachers involved in SDM processes seldom examine daily classroom practices on their agenda. He also offers that when SDM schools do launch significant reforms...the innovation usually came from a principal against the opposition of many teachers. He goes on to contend that SDM often creates conflict among teachers.

Lashway concludes his article speaking of lessons learned from SDM. Like the other authors, he points out the necessities of an effective SDM program. Unlike the others, though, he seems quite pessimistic towards the concept of shared decision-making, which is not surprising considering his background in leadership. Although the author has spent much time in the classroom, clearly his heart is in his present life: with the administrators.

Conclusions

Clearly, much has been learned about shared decision-making from these articles. These articles, coupled with the real-life account of the beginnings of SDM in chapter 7 of Teaching in America provide both a first hand view of the struggle towards SDM as well as the principals behind it.

Those closest to everyday life inside the school see firsthand some of the problems that exist within the school. It is a good idea to solicit input from these 'workers in the trenches', as they are privy to many of the problems that endure in the school environment. All too often, decision-makers make decisions on things they do not ever see firsthand or have any contact with. Input from school workers, mainly faculty members (but not only faculty members) can surely have a positive impact on the effectiveness of the school to educate. SDM is a worthwhile endeavor.

Of course, anything worth the effort is not without difficulty. Some of the main obstacles brought up by these authors have been valid. Teachers have little time as it is, not having to spend more of it on higher level tasks. Setting far reaching goals from the outset can be detrimental to the process. As with anything, taking on too much can lead to complacency and not provide the desired affect. As mentioned in the essays, SDM calls for the identification of new roles for everyone involved in the process. Traditional roles are hard to break out of for anyone.

In the end, however, creating and maintaining a successful SDM program is a meritorious notion, as long as goals are clearly and continually set. The obvious desired outcome of a successful SDM program is better student performance. It is vital to keep this in mind.

The authors mentioned earlier gave recommendations for succeeding with an SDM program and they are valid and noteworthy. All three writers mention the role of the principal as being very important in this endeavor. The principal actually moves higher in the district chain of command and thus becomes a leader, the spokesman for the process. They become facilitators rather than directors, chief executive officer rather than boss. Commitment to achieving the goals of an SDM should emanate from the principal, encouraging others to get on board.

Identifying issues to be addressed is another important issue for SDM. Throughout these articles, an issue that came up over and over again was that of the SDM either taking on too much at the outset, or tackling issues that don't involve the classroom. Choosing issues to match the expertise of SDM members would increase involvement as well as the opportunity for better outcomes. With success comes confidence. After dealing with several smaller, more concentrated issues, the SDM team will begin to develop a trust and confidence in working together. This can only lead the school to higher places.

In the book, Teaching in America, one chapter discusses SDM in its infancy. Rochester, New York. The story in the chapter lasted ten years. SDM was implemented, shot down, then implemented again. Throughout the chapter, the reader is taken on highs and lows. At the end, the author presents a reflection on the ten years, leading the reader (presumably an educator) to decide for him/herself whether or not the painstaking efforts by Hector, Maria, and a host of others were worth it.

The end result of this important chapter in the history of American education is yes, it was all worth it. Nancy Collins, a retired teacher from the Rochester school district made some observations about the trials and tribulations of the past ten years. At the time, she had been removed from the action, retired for two years, and was able to look back objectively. She noted that bureaucracy seemed to be prevalent and in the way of reaching the goals of student achievement. However, she also mentioned that the mentoring program (borne out of SDM) had been a good thing, and the students had achieved somewhat higher scores on state exams.

The most telling thing noted by Nancy was that the teacher's time should be organized so that they had more time for preparing and collaborating. Indeed, maybe this should be a primary issue for organizers of an SDM program.

Sources:

Meadows, B.J. "The Rewards and Risks of Shared Leadership." 1990

Bauer, Scott C., "Myth, Consensus and Change" 1992

Cotton, Kathleen, School-Based Management, December 1992

NWREL Report, September/October 2002, www.nwrel.org/nwreport/2002-09

Balster-Liontos, Lynn, Shared Decision-Making, ERIC Digest, Number 87, 1994

Lashway, Larry, The Limits of Shared Decision-Making, ERIC Digest, Number 108

Weiss, Carol, 1995