Decision-Making Structures and Processes

This article discusses decision-making structures and processes in the U.S. Public School systems. Decision-making structures model a variety of approaches in the educational system. Many schools use a model of site-based decision-making or school-based management. These structures often involve numerous stakeholders in differing levels of authority. The process varies in each system and often between each campus. Identified and explained are different structures and processes for the campus decision-making model.

Keywords Community; Continuous learner; Decentralization; Decision-making; Participation in decision-making; School - based management; Stakeholders

School Administration & Policy > Decision-Making Structures & Processes

Overview

It is imperative that a school has an effective decision-making structure and process to be able to provide a quality educational experience for the community's students. Decision-making methods are developed and determined through the collaboration of the school's administration, board, community leaders, and parental involvement. Thus the approach varies, contingent on the needs and preferences of the school personnel and community.

Leadership strategies differ primarily in the role of the leader in relation to employees/teachers, parents, students, and the community. The leader can function as an authoritarian, develop teamwork, or engage all levels of personnel in the process. There are various names for these leadership strategies such as hierarchical, transformational, facilitative, instructional, visionary, contributory, site-based management, or shared decision-making.

Essentially the decision-making structures range from top-down to ground-based approaches. These two basic models function from opposite ends of a decision-making spectrum. One is a passive model where faculty and staff wait to be told the policy change, where improvement is needed, or how and what to do about it. The other is collaborative with the staff and faculty, allowing them to be more active in evaluating their own situation, clarifying the circumstances, and suggesting initiatives (Morehead, 2003).

Five Structures in Decision-Making

The decision-making process is often organized by the administrator around five different structures, all with different levels of centralized authority.

The fifth structure is a top-down, centralized approach which can be referred to as the Hierarchical decision-making structure. This structure involves a unilateral decision which has the administrator making the decision without consulting or involving faculty in the decision (Hoy & Tarter, 1993). This leadership strategy usually consists of a senior management team, often including the superintendent, and/or assistant superintendent(s), and several principals. This can result in school policy being made by the head of school and a few senior members of staff thus contradicting the hypothesis that everyone can contribute. This structure has the head and a small fixed team identifying and discussing an area for change. The senior management team either presents their deliberations at a full staff meeting for further discussion or directly instructs staff to implement their action plan.

The fourth structure is recognized as an Individual Advisory. Here the administrator consults individually with pertinent faculty having expertise to assist in the decision. The administrator then makes a decision which may or may not reflect their opinions (Hoy & Tarter, 1993).

The third possible structure is the Group Advisory in which the administrator solicits opinions of the entire group, discusses the implications of group suggestions, and then makes a decision which may or may not reflect the group's desires (Hoy & Tarter, 1993).

The second structure is the Group Decision involving participants in the decision-making and a group decision using parliamentary procedures. All members share equally as they evaluate; attempting consensus although a decision is usually made by the majority (Hoy & Tarter, 1993).

The first structure is a Group Consensus involving participants in the decision-making process. In this process, all group members share equally as they generate and evaluate a decision with a complete consensus required before a decision can be made (Hoy & Tarter, 1993).

Applications

The successful application of these decision-making structures is conditional on the decision situation (Hoy & Tarter, 1993). Structures one and two reflect the ground-based approach (which can be referred to as the contributory model) or a decentralized form of organization. It is task-orientated and has the head and those closest to the situation explore the problem together. In this scenario no one has imperatives about their sphere of work drawn up without input. A feeling of ownership of the decisions made and consequently, a vested interest in putting those decisions into practice generates a contributory atmosphere. It also means that everyone may be involved at some stage as each committee may have a different membership and includes those most affected.

School-Based Management

Many names are used to identify the ground-based, decentralized model of School-based Management (SBM) including: “site-based management, school-site autonomy, school-site management, school-centered management, decentralized management, school-based budgeting, site-based decision-making, participation in decision-making (PDM), responsible autonomy, school-lump sum budgeting, shared governance, the autonomous school concept, school-based curriculum development, and administrative decentralization” (Clune & Whilte, 1988 as cited in Rodriguez & Slate, 2005b, p. 4). The ground-based/decentralized model or school-based management (SBM) has many different forms but the basic concept is that each school campus sets its own policies, controls its own budget, and choices are made by groups or committees of school and community representatives. These decisions or policies are not to conflict with district or board policies thus the extent of the power of SBM varies between districts and campuses (Cuban, 2007).

Public attention has spotlighted academic results, higher standards for students and teachers, and SBM which includes teacher participation, parent participation, and community participation in school decision making. Under these initiatives, all stakeholders including teachers, staff, parents, and community members have opportunities to become empowered through SBM committees (Bauch & Goldring, 1998).

SBM attempts "to raise the level of involvement of stakeholders in the governance and management of schools" (Robertson, Wohlstetter, & Mohrman, 1995). The involvement of diverse stakeholders is thought to provide a number of benefits to the school by allowing "the school to craft its own decisions, making the best possible use of the resources available to the local unit. SBM also provides a greater range of individual participation in the decision-making process, facilitating a richer base for decision-making and one that should provide empowerment for implementation" (Brown & Cooper, 2000, p. 78). Empowering those with the most investment at the local campus should provide the ability to affect how the school is performing. SBM should additionally enhance school performance and, thus student achievement.

Process of SBM

The SBM process requires: “a clear purpose and a long-term commitment by the superintendent and the school board. SBM effectiveness requires control over a large portion of the school budget and the district office's investing in training so those involved understand their roles and options. Without these pieces, SBM can become an empty and time-consuming process of writing strategic plans. Through SBM comes joint ownership for school outcomes to stakeholders, but such ownership necessitates technical know-how and determination not present in some school communities. The right balance between district direction and school flexibility takes time and patience” (Cuban, 2007, The Right Balance). Emphasis is on collaborative school governance, although there is greatly varied implementation from campus to campus (Rodriguez & Slate, 2005a). The campus or school district will be challenged through this process to become a learning organization in the course of understanding the past, using research, managing the change process, and taking action for improvement.

Generally, the three domains of SBM are: budgeting, curriculum, and personnel. Goals and organizational structure are developed to direct the functionality of the committees (Rodriquez & Slate, 2005b). The overall vision and direction of the institution are formulated and defined by the school board while SBM is often used in developing the school improvement plan and operational issues.

Budgeting occurs when a lump sum of money is allocated to the campus allowing SBM to decide how the money will be dispersed thus creating greater flexibility regarding how the campus money is spent and where they purchase (Rodriquez & Slate, 2005b). Selecting curriculum which meets the objectives set by board and district administration is placed with SBM committees to determine instructional materials including the selection of textbooks, learning activities, and supplemental instructional materials (Rodriquez & Slate, 2005b). The hiring of staff and faculty moves from the central office to the school campus where committees may interview and make final decisions which are then sent back to the central office.

SBM Decision-Makers

The central premise of SBM is a delegation of decision-making members from the central office of a school system to the school level to the stakeholders at the school campus level through the creation of formal structures of committees (Rodriguez & Slate, 2005a; 2005b). SBM basic committee make-up includes stakeholders such as teachers, parents, and administrators, additionally some committees may include community and business representatives (Rodriguez & Slate, 2005a).

The superintendent's and the principal's job in SBM is to facilitate rather than dictate. The superintendent's job also includes the traditional role of supervising and monitoring schools as well as reporting to the school board regarding school activities and performance. SBM must be tied to authentic reform "in how educators interact with one another and in how they teach their students" as well as "augmented by organizational conditions that encourage interactions among stakeholders, and far reaching curricular and instructional reforms that can guide those interactions" (Latham, 1998, p. 86). When the central office is on the same reform page as an SBM committee, district administrators can locate and provide resources and services that no SBM committee alone could acquire easily or in sufficient supply (Cuban, 2007).

A major component of SBM is faculty involvement in shared decision-making, which occurs by placing faculty members on committees. However, Hoy and Tarter (1993) note that always involving faculty members may be as unthinking as never involving them. Participation using the right strategy and linked to the right situation can improve the quality of decisions and promote cooperation of faculty and administration (Hoy & Tarter, 1993). This creates an environment where faculty feel valued and are enabled to contribute to the development of the school, which in turn promotes job satisfaction and development of a long-term commitment to their schools (Morehead, 2003). Expanding involvement to all staff members encourages genuine participation in school decision-making that can be difficult at times. Often one's own long held personal theories are extensively modified through the effective operation of this process (Morehead, 2003).

A faculty member's involvement on a committee should consider the following questions:

• Is there a personal stake in the decision outcome?

• Do I have expertise to contribute to the decision?

The decision-making involvement process is the degree to which administrators give teachers the authority to make decisions and their actual participation in the process (Hoy & Tarter, 1993).

The principal considers the most effective strategy for collaborative decision-making by matching personnel with the appropriate situation. The principal judges the following administrative roles for collaborative decision-making (Hoy & Tarter, 1993):

1. "The principal is an integrator when bringing teachers together for consensus decision making. Here the task is to reconcile divergent opinions and positions.
2. The principal as parliamentarian facilitates open communication by protecting the opinions of the minority and leads teachers through a democratic process to a group decision.
3. The principal as educator reduces resistance to change by explaining and discussing with teachers the opportunities and constraints of the decisional issues.
4. The principal as consultant solicits advice from teacher-experts. The quality of decisions is improved as the principal guides the generation of relevant information.
5. The principal as director makes unilateral decisions in those instances where the teachers have no expertise or personal stake. Here the goal is efficiency" (Hoy & Tarter, 1993, p. 8).

Faculty empowerment through SBM also considers the role of parents in participatory decision-making creating a communal school environment that values democratic discourse. Dominant themes in school restructuring have been parent participation and teacher empowerment in school decision-making (Bauch & Goldring, 1998).

Within schools is a professional culture which parents may be reluctant to violate. SBM creates opportunities for parental involvement in campus-wide or school-wide decisions. There has been little evidence that professional-client relationships have been significantly altered (Bauch & Goldring, 1998). Some states have legislated SBM including parental involvement. This has transferred some authority to parents and the community holding teachers and principals more accountable for what goes on in the schools (Bauch & Goldring, 1998). SBM and other types of school improvement plans involve parents in governance matters creating a balanced power relationship as teachers and parents work together effectively (Bauch & Goldring, 1998).

Further Insights

Policies on shared decision-making are determined by the superintendent and school board using the following suggested guidelines (Boehlje, 1995):

1. "Maintain public accountability.
2. Develop trust based on collegiality, collaboration, and consensus.

Participants of SBM must trust that the administration and board value their work and views even when asked to adjust a decision.

3. Establish the scope of authority of decision teams.

The focus of shared decision-making teams should be on developing and implementing a plan for student learning within the parameters of the district's goals.

4. Determine the membership of the shared decision-making teams.

Team members may include faculty, students, parents, business, or community representatives reflecting diversity in cultural, ethnic, and economic areas." (Para. 4)

As shared decision-making is established through carefully crafted policies, trust and confidence is fostered. The effectiveness of the shared decision-making approach lies with the policies' accountability provisions. According to Fowler (2000) when involved in adopting a new policy, three key questions should be answered in the affirmative:

1. "Do we have good reasons for adopting a new policy?" (Fowler, 2000, p. 278). The motives for new policy need to be determined.
2. "Is this policy appropriate for our school or district?" (Fowler, 2000, p. 279).
3. "Does the policy have sufficient support with the key stakeholders?" (Fowler, 2000, p. 279).

Members of an SBM committee should plan for decisions, communication, and implementation.

Faculty members involved in extensive participation in the decision-making process should expect involvement in the process as early and as long as possible. Extensive collaboration is maximized when teachers or other administrators are brought into the process as early as possible to share in the definition, the elaboration of the problem, and are then involved in each succeeding step of the cycle (Hoy & Tarter, 1993).

Teacher knowledge and skill base must broaden and deepen as compared to the traditional teacher role. The knowledge and skill of the teacher are expanded in areas as a continuous learner, an expert to collaboration, in teaching and learning, in the knowledge and skills of community, in the change process, and in moral purpose (Fullan, 1995).

Viewpoints

School decision-making initiatives that include SBM have expectations that there are strong-minded adults who know and care for our children, who have opinions, believe in our youth, and the future of this country (Meier, 1999). However, there is concern that an overemphasis on teachers in decision-making could lead to a corresponding weakening of the heart of the teaching, meaning qualities such as 'caring' and 'compassion' (Bauch & Goldring, 1998). A loss of the heart of teaching might thus diminish school improvement.

Public education is a public good, which benefits the whole society. Superintendents and administrators work for the community who directly supports public education by taxes paid, therefore, they are "responsible to, and should be accountable to, all the taxpayers--not just the parents" (Spillane & Regnier, 1998, p. 183). The creation of a balance of power that encourages the interests and understandings of stakeholders who care the most for the children and know them the best encompasses the whole community. Our future is to create schools that are "more personal, more compelling, and more attractive than the internet or TV -- schools where youngsters can always find interesting and powerful adults. To create such schools, we must increase, not decrease, local decision-making powers while we limit the size and bureaucracy of our schools" (Meier, 1999, p. 25).

As a final point, are we to make schools better by turning decisions over to those closest to the schools? Do we make schools better through superintendents who centralize district decision making? Either/or thinking by school board members, superintendents, faculty, parents or the community comes and goes with many educational fads. School improvement lies neither in centralized leadership nor school-based management to make a marked difference in school operations or student outcomes, as is historically evidenced (Cuban, 2007).

Terms & Concepts

Change Process: Transformation through understanding and managing models of system change.

Community: Relations and understanding between parents, business, social agencies, and organizations including local and state, with regard to schools.

Continuous Learner: A professional constantly engaged in self-improvement through the intellectual and emotional habits of critical reflection and action (Fullan, 1995).

Decentralization: A form of organization that identifies school-based management in that the power and the decisions that are made by the superintendent and school board are shared with those who are closest to the students: teachers, the principal, parents, citizens, and students.

Learning Organization: An organization learning and growing from the past, through research, in understanding and applying change, and measuring improvement.

School-based Management (SBM): A process in which a measure of formal authority in decision-making at the district level is distributed to the campus level. Also called Site-based Management.

Stakeholders: Any individual, group, or organization who has a vested interest whether financial, social, or otherwise in the educational organization. Anyone in a community may have something at stake, including students, parents, alumni, parent organizations, businesses, community organizations, school personnel, local and state policymakers, ethnic and cultural organizations, neighborhood organizations, service groups and religious organizations.

Bibliography

Bauch, P., & Goldring, E. (1998). Parent - teacher participation in the context of school governance. Peabody Journal of Education, 73 , 15-35. Retrieved Wednesday, March 21, 2007, from EBSCO Online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=396820&site=ehost-live

Boehlje, B. W. (1995). Share the decision-making. Education Digest, 60, 12. Retrieved March 31, 2007, EBSCO Online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9503072895&site=ehost-live

Brown, B. R., & Cooper, G. R. (2000). School-based management: How effective is it? National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 77-85.

Cuban, L. (2007). No more magical thinking: Leading from top or bottom. School Administrator, 64, 6. Retrieved March 21, 2007, EBSCO Online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24204086&site=ehost-live

David, J. (1995). The who, what, and why of site-based management. Educational Leadership, 53 , 4-9. Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9601043063&site=ehost-live

Fowler, F. C. (2000). Policy studies for education leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fullan, M. (1995). The school as a learning organization: Distant dreams. Theory Into Practice, 34 , 230. Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9602064319&site=ehost-live

Hoy, W. K & Tarter, C. J. (1993). A normative theory of participative decision making in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 31 , 4-20.

Jianping, S., Cooley, V. E., Reeves, P., Burt, W. L., Ryan, L., Rainey, J., & Wenhui, Y. (2010). Using data for decision-making: Perspectives from 16 principals in Michigan, USA. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 56, 435-456. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=55023778&site=ehost-live

Latham, A. (1998). Site-based management: Is it working?. Educational Leadership, 55 , 85-86. Retrieved Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=590592&site=ehost-live

Lawler, E. S., de Young, C. A., & Hagman, H. L. (1941). Budgeting in public schools. Review of Educational Research, 11, 172-177. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18793242&site=ehost-live

Mayer, A., Donaldson, M. L., LeChasseur, K., Welton, A. D., & Cobb, C. D. (2013). Negotiating site-based management and expanded teacher decision making: A case study of six urban schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 695-731. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91668485&site=ehost-live

Meier, D. (1999). The company they keep. The American School Board Journal, 186, 25. Retrieve March 21, 2007, from Database: H.W. Wilson - EDUC.

Morehead, G. (2003). Getting the climate right. Education Review, 16 , 86-90. Retrieved Wednesday, March 21, 2007, from the Education Research Complete database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12157244&site=ehost-live

Spillane, R. R., & Regnier, P. (1998). The superintendent of the future: Strategy and action for achieving academic excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Rodriguez, T. A. & Slate, J. R. (2005a, Fall). Site-Based Management: A Review of the Literature Part I: Past and Present Status [computer file]. Essays in Education, 15, 171-185. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol152005/Slate1.pdf

Rodriguez, T. A. & Slate, J. R. (2005b, Fall). Site-Based Management: A Review of the Literature Part II: Past and Present Status [computer file]. Essays in Education, 15, 186-212. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol152005/Slate2.pdf

Suggested Reading

Beck, L., & Murphy, J. (1998). Site-Based Management and School Success: Untangling the Variables. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 9 , 358-385. Retrieved from EBSCO Online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5306609&site=ehost-live

Enderlin-Lampe, S. (1997). Shared decision making in schools: Effect on teaching efficacy. Education, 118 , 150. Retrieved from EBSCO Online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9711215355&site=ehost-live

Holloway, J. (2000). The Promise and Pitfalls of Site-Based Management. Educational Leadership, 57 , 81-82. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3162331&site=ehost-live

MacPherson, R. J. S. (1996). Educative accountability: Theory, practice, policy and research in educational administration. Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier Science.

Sergiovanni, T. J., Kelleher, P., McCarthy, M., & Wirt, F. (2003). Educational governance and administration (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wohlstetter, P., & Smyer, R. (1994). Models of high-performance schools. In S. A. Mohrman, P. Wohlstetter, & Associates (eds.). School-Based Management Organizing for High Performance (ed. by). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.