School-Based Decision Making

Historical Background

There are about 16,000 school districts in the United States, down from over 100,000 at the start of the 1900s. Most of the early districts, which consisted of one school in rural areas, were small, locally operated organizations that spawned favoritism, nepotism, and deception. These characteristics led to the call for reform, consolidation, and centrally controlled schools. This trend continued through the 1960s, when critics began to call on boards to be responsive to the needs of local communities.

The pendulum began to swing the other way, and considerable decentralization did occur in levels of authority. For instance, starting in the 1960s, in many locations, building-level administrators and faculty were granted increased autonomy and responsibility as site councils developed. At this time, decision making at school sites increased, and roles began to change.

During the 1970s and 1980s, there was something of a power shift back to the centralized model as states [Page 730]and the federal governments attempted to bring about top-down educational reform through legislation. The problem, now widely recognized, was that highly centralized educational organizations simply do not engender the desired outcomes, because they can easily become bogged down with trivia. The result was, and is, inertia, pessimism, inefficiency, cynicism, and long delays for making decisions of any kind, even on the smallest of matters. An equally significant concern was the repeated failure of centralized bureaucratic organizations to inspire the prerequisite attitudes and behaviors in school personnel for bringing about educational improvements.

Looking at the Practice

Early attempts to decentralize control over public schools in locations such as New York City in the 1960s were aimed at moving authority from large, central units to smaller, site-based boards. This innovation was an attempt to replace one form of bureaucracy with another, moving decision making closer to the level where decisions would be implemented. However, proponents believe that SBDM is considerably more that a new name for an old and recurring phenomenon. Supporters of this approach maintain that unlike previous approaches to decentralizing education, SBDM invokes fundamental changes. As one author points out, past forms of governance transferred control from large to small units, while SBDM changes entire district organizations by restructuring most roles in school systems.

...