The impact of School-Based Management on school health

ADAM E. NIR

Policy and Administration in Education

School of Education

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Jerusalem 91905

Israel

Phone: 972-2-5882060

fax: 972-2-5882045

E-mail:msanir@mscc.huji.ac.il

The impact of School-Based Management on school health

ABSTRACT What are the influences of school-based management (SBM) on schools’ organizational

health? The following study attempts to assess the effects of SBM on schools operating

in a centralized system of education. A longitudinal study is performed and the health

qualities of 28 schools are measured in three sequential years, before introduction of

SBM in schools and in the two years that follow.

The results indicate no significant changes when comparing the integrated index for

school health between the three years. However, significant differences appear when

the various subsets of school health are compared. The results indicate that teachers

put more emphasis on children’s outcomes. Yet, at the same time, teachers report

having a lower morale and increased bureaucratic load in comparison to the

circumstances that existed in their school prior to the introduction of SBM. It is

suggested that a school-based managed school is not only a place to foster student

growth but also to foster the development of teachers. Therefore, emphasis should be

placed equally on all the components of school health if SBM is to increase the

professional autonomy of educators along with the effectiveness of the school.

Key words: School-Based Management; Organizational Health; Teachers;

Elementary schools; Autonomy; Decentralization.

Dr. Adam E. Nir is Head of Policy and Administration in Education program, The

School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel;

972-2-5882060; msanir@mscc.huji.ac.il

INTRODUCTION

Is school-based management (SBM) good for school health? Does SBM positively

affect the internal qualities of school atmosphere? Although SBM has become a central

theme of the restructuring efforts in many western centralized educational systems

(Devos et al., 1998; Robertson et al., 1995), little is known about its direct effects on the

quality of schooling and on school dynamics. Therefore, by employing a longitudinal

research design, the following study, which focuses on the Israeli educational system,

intends to evaluate the effects of SBM on school health and to determine if SBM

implemented in a centralized system of education by Ministry of Education officials is

considered beneficial by teachers at school level.

School-based management and school health

SBM is intended to increase authority at the school site (Clune & White, 1988) and to

maximize delegation of decision-making authority to schools within a centrally

coordinated framework (Boyd, 1990, p. 90). The growing public support for

decentralization is based on arguments claiming that schools will design and implement

programs that better correspond with the particular needs of children if their autonomy

is increased (Chubb & Moe, 1988; Wohlstetter et al., 1994). Furthermore, SBM is

assumed to have substantial merits, particularly in the flexibility that it offers to schools

(Brown, 1990), enabling them better and more quickly to meet local needs. Based on

the premise that those closest to a situation should make the decisions (David, 1989b, p.

46), SBM enables schools to tailor educational decisions to the needs of the local

community they serve (Fusarelli & Scribner, 1993, p. 1; Clune & White, 1988, p. 14)

and is assumed to enhance their performance and the quality of education provided for

children. Therefore, SBM is considered influential to school effectiveness (Brown,

1991; Brown, 1992).

However, the empirical research investigating the link between SBM and the quality of

school performance has been rather scarce (Summers & Johnson, 1994). The available

empirical evidence suggests that the impact of SBM on school effectiveness has been

fairly limited and that SBM does not guarantee school improvement (Malen et al.,

1990). It has been found that schools involved in SBM do not look much different from

schools that have not been involved with SBM (Glickman, 1990) and that school

effectiveness has not been contingent upon SBM. Rather, school personnel have

continued to behave as it did under the previous structure (Sackney & Dibski, 1994).

Although much ambiguity is associated with SBM (Jenni & Mauriel, 1990, p. 3) and its

impact on school effectiveness and internal dyna mics, there exists a large body of

literature arguing for the impacts of SBM on the organizational health of schools

(Johnes, 1995; Caldwell & Wood, 1992; Cross & Reitzug, 1996; Bernas, 1992; Frazer

& Rumbaut, 1993; Sagor, 1996).

Organizational health, a metaphor used to describe the climate of the school (Hoy &

Barnes, 1997), taps the technical, managerial and institutional levels of an organization.

The technical level refers to the degree of morale, bureaucratic load and academic press

that characterize s a school. The managerial level refers mainly to the principal’s

behavior and to the degree to which he/she is achievement oriented, supportive,

provides adequate resources for teachers and is able to influence his/her superiors. And

finally, the institutional level refers to school’s ability to cope successfully with outside

forces (Hoy & Feldman, 1987).

SBM is assumed to change the quality of school health since under SBM, schools gain

greater control and autonomy over their budget, their educational goals and processes,

their curriculum, the evaluation processes they conduct and their personnel. These

issues are the building bricks of school’s technical, managerial and institutional aspects

and, therefore, changing their quality is assumed to affect school’s organizational

health.

This assumption is strengthened by research findings that provide evidence for the

relation between SBM and variables typically used to describe the technical, managerial

and institutional levels of school’s health, although the empirical evidence is rather

mixed.

The managerial level: Many studies that focused on managerial variables have

demonstrated that the leadership style of the principal is a key factor in the success of

SBM (Yanitski, 1998; Delaney, 1997; Brouillette, 1997; Wholstetter, 1995).

The findings show that principals find it difficult to relinquish authority while retaining

responsibility (Lindelow & Heynderickx, 1989; Brown, 1990) and that SBM did not

lead to a significant change in principals’ leadership style nor in the traditional patterns

of influence in school (Daresh, 1992, p.115). The studies indicate that SBM affects

significantly principals’ job and workload (Cranston, 2000; Dempster, 2000, Epps,

1992; Duttweiler & Mutchler, 1990b; Murphy, 1994) yet at the same time, it challenges

current relationships between principals and teachers (Cross & Reitzug, 1996) and

improves these relationships only when teachers are empowered (Valente, 1999).

Findings suggest that SBM have little or no effect at all on the quality of relationships

between principals and their superiors (Malen et al., 1990, p.11; Murphy & Beck,

1995).

Moreover, empirical evidence supports the assumption that SBM provides schools

greater control over the allocation of resources (Young, 1995; Odden & Wohlstetter,

1995; Neal, 1994). However, although some schools provide teachers with all the

resources they request (White, 1992), teachers’ autonomy in general and in using the

resources in particular depends greatly upon the principal and therefore varies

significantly among schools.

The technical level: The evidence regarding the impacts of SBM on morale, on schools’

outcomes and on teachers’ bureaucratic load, which are among the technical aspects

assigned by Hoy & Feldman (1987) to school health, are rather mixed.

Some studies report that SBM positively affects morale (White, 1989; White, 1992;

Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985; Levin, 1988; Smith, 1993, p.6; Lange, 1993; Neal,

1991; Weiss, 1992). Other studies report, however, that morale increased in the initial

levels of implementation of SBM but soon returned to depressed levels that existed in

schools prior to the introduction of SBM (Duttweiler & Mutchler, 1990a, p. 34; Carnoy

& MacDonnell, 1990; Collins & Hanson, 1991). This evidence corresponds with

findings showing that SBM promotes inter-school competition (Polansky, 1998) and

that schools where teachers are empowered are characterized by greater organizational

conflict and lowered school climate (Short & Rinehart, 1993). This finding may be

explained in considering that although the empowerment of teachers is viewed as a

means of making schools more professional and autonomous organizations (Nyberg &

Farber, 1986; Hill & Bonan, 1991; White, 1992), collaborative decision making in many

ways can be a burden (Boyd, 1992, p. 521).

Much controversy is also associated with the effect of SBM on school outcomes. While

some researchers present evidence indicating that SBM improves school outcomes

(Collins & Hanson, 1991; Hill & Bonan, 1991; Duttweiler & Mutchler, 1990a; Malen et

al., 1990), other researchers provide evidence showing mixed effects (Summers &

Johnson, 1995) or no effect at all (Dempster, 2000; Leithwood & Menzies, 1998;

Reitzug & Capper, 1996; Murphy & Beck, 1995, p. 131). The existing empirical

evidence suggests that the likelihood that SBM will lead to improved school outcomes

is extremely problematic (Murphy & Beck, 1995, p. 157). At the same time, other

studies show that the amount of workload and the number of bureaucratic missions that

teachers experience under SBM tend to increase (Leithwood et al., 1996; O’Connor &

Clark, 1990; Wylie, 1997; Campbell & Neill, 1992).

The institutional level: Much ambiguity characterizes the impact of SBM on school-

community relations. Some researchers claim that SBM improves the relationships

between school and parents (Ng, 1999) and eliminates destructive district-school

relationships (Cross & Reitzug, 1996). Others claim that SBM leads to increased

expectations and pressures that parents impose on school (Polansky, 1998; Farber &

Ascher, 1991) that promote conflict between school and its social community.

Hence, the theoretical claims and empirical evidence presented so far show that SBM

affects the technical, managerial and institutional levels of school and foster the

assumption that schools implementing SBM will be characterized by a different quality

of organizational health and culture (Cheng, 1996a; Robertson & Briggs, 1998;

Reynolds & Cuttance, 1993; Caldwell & Wood, 1992). However, in considering that the

evidence is rather mixed, it is difficult to establish a solid theoretical foundation and

therefore to anticipate how SBM will affect school health in terms of cause and effect.

The introduction of SBM in the Israeli educational system

Traditionally, the Israeli educational system featured a high degree of central control to

ensure maximum equality within the educational system, which has been a main

concern since Israel became independent in 1948. This means that Israel’s 1,800

elementary (grades 1-6) and junior high schools (grades 7-9) are managed by a

centralized bureaucracy located in Jerusalem around the Ministry of Education, headed

by a Minister and run by a Director-General. Based on the assumption that

centralization best ensures equity, the Ministry of Education is responsible for

educational policy and national goals, the budget, the curriculum and for monitoring

schools through a central control supervisory and superintendency network. In addition,

it controls the recruitment of teachers, teachers’ salaries and curriculum development

and the outputs through national minimum tests and matriculation exams.

In the last decade, however, the Israeli educational system has decentralized rather than

centralized its control patterns. This trend was initiated by the Ministry of Education

although the country is small and therefore relatively easy to control (Inbar, 1986). The

move towards decentralization was initiated for two main reasons: firstly, central

officials turned to decentralization as a last resort after realizing that all the other control

mechanisms have failed (Gaziel & Romm, 1988). Secondly, educators in Israel have

long recognized the negative pedagogical effect of strong centralization, curriculum

uniformity and the fragmented nature of the system (Vollansky & Bar-Elli, 1995).

Hence, in 1992 the Minister of Education commissioned a steering committee to

explore the possibility of extending the scope of school autonomy and local level

accountability and introducing SBM in Israel. This was done after a number of central

initiatives to decentralize the educational system, carried out during the 70s and the 80s,

ended with no significant changes in schools’ autonomy and authority.

The committee recommended introducing SBM to the Israeli Educational system, based

on a set of guidelines:

1. Schools will develop a clear definition of focused goals; 2. Schools will develop a

clear work plan that corresponds with their defined goals and present the plan at the

beginning of the school year to the superintendent to the district and to community

members; 3. Schools will use and implement extensive monitoring and assessment

methods; 4. Schools will be granted full independence in using their budget; 5. Schools’

authority with respect to personnel matters will be broadened; and 6. There will be a

governing body for each school (Recommendations 5 and 6 were postponed). The

authority delegated to schools is followed by a set of binding regulations: SBM schools

have to operate in accordance with the education laws and regulations of the General

Director and with the national curriculum. They have to keep collective labor

agreements, they are not allowed to decrease weekly class hours and they have to

comply with the financial guidelines determined by the local authority on the basis of

the guidelines defined by the Ministry of Education (The Minister of Education, 1993).

Although SBM intends to increase schools’ autonomy, it is interesting to note that

schools cannot introduce SBM unless a contract is signed between the municipality

within which they operate and the central office. In some instances, schools are forced

by the municipality to introduce SBM after a contract has been signed in order to create

unity and facilitate city-level administration. The Municipality of Jerusalem was the

first to sign a contract in 1997. This led to a gradual introduction of SBM to 60 of the 74

elementary school in the city over a period of four years. Schools were tempted to

follow this initiative since they received a significant and immediate increase of their

financial resources. Principals who introduced SBM had to participate in a one -year

training program initiated and carried out by the Ministry of Education officials before

introducing SBM in their school. During their training principals were given guidelines

regarding the expected featur es of school’s annual plan focusing mainly on the quality

of school’s tasks and evaluation processes and discussed issues related to budget

management and to the accountability of local-level educators. One immediate outcome

of this training process is the uniform pattern that characterizes the implementation of

SBM in Israeli elementary schools.

Implications for research

In considering the multifarious effects that SBM is assumed to have on schools, two

implications for research arise. Firstly, while the compelling logic of decentralizing

school systems has created a wave of highlighted expectations of significant

improvement in school performance, these changes have so far failed to materialize

(Davies & Hentschke, 1994). Moreover, existing evidence on the impacts of SBM on

school processes and internal dynamics is diverse. Therefore, it is difficult to establish a

directional hypothesis regarding SBM and school level factors. Secondly, in considering

the slow pace characterizing change processes in education (Inbar, 1975) and the

relatively long period of time needed before SBM effects may be evident (David,

1989a), it is argued that studies attempting to evaluate the impacts of SBM on schools

should utilize a longitudinal design. Although efforts to adopt SBM have been

widespread, there has been surprisingly little empirical research oriented towards

gaining a better understanding of the process and outcomes of these reform efforts using

longitudinal research designs (David, 1989a). Although single shot studies may provide

useful circumstantial evidence, such research designs cannot account for the effects of

SBM, especially when change processes are in progress.

These implications suggest that a pre/post-research design is required if the effects of

SBM on school internal dynamics are to be assessed. Therefore, using a three-year

followup, the present study is designed to evaluate if, and to what extent, the

introduction of SBM in schools has substantial effects on the organizational health of

schools operating in a centralized system of education.

METHOD

Data collection: Since the purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of SBM on

school health, a three-year study of 28 elementary schools located in Jerusalem was

conducted. These schools were chosen because, at the time the study was conducted,

these were the only schools in the country that planned to implement SBM in the

following year. Ten schools belong to the Orthodox stream of the Israeli national

educational system and 18 schools belong to the national non-Orthodox stream. The

first measurement took place in May 1998, a few months before these schools

implemented school-based management. The second and the third measurements were

performed in May 1999 (the schools’ first year of SBM) and in May 2000 (the second

year of SBM).

Within each school, a minimum of 10 teachers were randomly selected and asked to

complete the measuring instrument. A total of 934 teachers were studied over a period

of three years: 92.2% of the teachers of the sample are women; 84.4% have a teaching

certificate and a bachelor’s degree and 15.6% have a teaching certificate and a masters

degree. Ages range between 25 and 60 years, although the age of the majority of

teachers in the sample (62.1%) does not exceed 40. And, 41.8% of the teachers in the

sample are religious and belong to the Orthodox stream in the Israeli society, while

58.2% belong to the secular stream and define themselves as non-religious. The same

teachers completed the measuring instrument in all three measurements in

approximately 87% of the cases.

The introduction of SBM is assumed to induce change in schooling by affecting

primarily the organizational features of those particular schools. Therefore, the school is

used as the unit of analysis. This is done also because health and climate studies center

on organizational properties rather than on the personal qualities of individuals

(Sirotnik, 1980; Hoy & Barnes, 1997). Therefore, teachers’ responses were averaged so

that all individual-level data were aggregated to the school level (e.g., mean score for all

teachers in a school for each health subset). Since the subsets of the health index vary in

number of items, teachers’ scores for the items of each subset were averaged rather than

added (Hoy et al., 1991, p. 164) to enable standardization. In considering that the

purpose of this study was to determine whether SBM causes significant changes in

school health, the scores of the subsets were averaged each year for the entire group of

schools studied.

In addition, we controlled for personal characteristics of teachers that have been shown

to be important in other studies. These variables are important additions to our model

but are treated as exogenous. Figure 1 presents the research model employed in this

study.

________________________________

INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

_________________________________

Measures:

Teachers’ personal characteristics: The ana lysis involved controls for teachers’

personal characteristics. The variables studied were: teachers’ age, gender, level of

education, length of teaching service in general and in current school in particular,

marital status and religiousness.

School organizational health was studied using the Organizational Climate Description

Questionnaire (OCDQ-RE) developed by Hoy & Clover (1986) for elementary schools.

This instrument focuses mainly on the principal’s behavior and on the degree to which it

is supportive, directive or restrictive and on teachers’ behavior and on the degree to

which it is collegial, intimate or disengaged. Since this instrument is not designed to

address qualities of school’s institutional level or other aspects significant to SBM and

to school’s organizational health (such as resources available for teachers, the

principal’s influence on superiors and teachers’ belief in students’ ability to succeed), an

additional four sub-scales adopted from the Organizational Health Inventory (OHI)

developed by Hoy & Feldman (1987) were employed. In considering that this

instrument was originally designed to address the organizational health of secondary

schools, 20 elementary school principals were asked to appraise, based on the items’

face validity, the relevance of these items for elementary schools. They all agreed that

the items are relevant for elementary schools especially after introducing SBM.

In order to confirm the validity and stability of all the subsets employed, a principle -

component factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed for the entire sample.

After omitting items with item loading lower than .50 and those loaded in more than one

factor, 37 four -point Likert type items were left forming a seven factor solution, with

item loading above .50 (see appendix A). The seven sub-scales are:

1. Consideration, referring to a principal’s behavior as friendly, supportive, open and

collegial (Cronbach a coefficient = .91); 2. Morale, referring to a collective sense of

friendliness (Cronbac h a coefficient = .88); 3. Institutional integrity, referring to a

school’s ability to cope with the demands and external pressures inherent in schools’

environment (Cronbach a coefficient = .87); 4. Bureaucratic load, referring to the

number of tasks that teachers have to perform in addition to teaching (Cronbach a

coefficient = .90); 5. Principal influence, referring to a principal’s ability to influence

the actions of superiors (Cronbach a coefficient = .87); 6. Academic emphasis, referring

to teachers’ belief in their pupils’ ability to succeed (Cronbach a coefficient = .87); and

7. Resource support, referring to the supplies and instructional materials available for

teachers in school (Cronbach a coefficient = .88). A 4-point Likert type scale is used

throughout the questionnaire. Sub-scales 1,5 and 7 were used to assess schools’

managerial level whereas sub-scales 2,4 and 6 were employed to evaluate schools’

technical level.

Data analysis: The data are analyzed in two sequential stages: In the first sta ge, the

results of each sub-scale are aggregated for each school and a repeated-measure

procedure is used to assess whether differences exist between the scores before and after

the introduction of SBM in schools. In each of these analyses, teachers’ personal

background data is controlled and used as a covariate. In the second stage, the results

for each health sub-set are aggregated across the entire sample, and paired-sample t-

tests are used to determine the source for the differences found using the repeated-

measure procedure. Although in the process of aggregation individual school data is

lost, the standard deviations for each of the sub-scales obtained for the distribution

across 28 schools range between .20 and .32, indicating that the variance among

schools’ individual scores is relatively low.

To avoid inflation of the confidence level and a type II error when performing three

sequential t-tests for each of the organizational health variables, a Bonferroni

confidence level is used for each of the comparisons (for a review on Bonferroni critical

value procedure: Harris, 1995, p. 316). This means that for each comparison, a 98.34%

confidence level is used so that the total confidence level used for the set of three

comparisons will not exceed 95%.

Interviews: Since the current literature on SBM lacks a solid theoretical foundation that

may be used when attempting to interpret research data, interviews with 10 teachers

were additionally conducted to better enable the interpretation of the quantitative

findings. Teachers were randomly chosen from 10 schools of the 28 schools studied,

with a single teacher from each school.

At the beginning of each interview, the teachers were presented with a general question:

“Do you feel that the introduction of SBM in your school led to significant changes?”

Next, the evidence from the quantitative analysis regarding the seven health variables

was presented and teachers were asked to offer their interpretation for the results based

on their experiences.

RESULTS

The results reveal that changes have occurred in some aspects of schools’ organizational

health over a period of three years during which SBM was introduced in these schools.

However, these changes are diverse in terms of their implications for organizational

health, and may indicate influences other than the introduction of SBM that schools

experienced during this period of time. Moreover, although a longitudinal research

design was employed and three sequential measurements were performed over a period

of the three years, it may still be difficult to identify the effects of SBM in considering

the slow pace characterizing change processes in schools.

These limitations suggest that the findings reported here should be treated with caution

and that no single comprehensive conclusion regarding the impacts of SBM on school

health may be established (see Appendix B for descriptive statistics).

Consideration : Consideration refers to a principal’s friendly, supportive, open and

collegial behavior. A repeated-measure procedure, used to assess the extent to which

teachers perceive their principal’s consideration to be different before and after the

introduction of SBM in schools, reveals no statistically significant differences (Wilks’

Lambda = .909; F = 1.208; for a review on Wilks’ Lambda criterion: Marriot, 1990, pp.

462-5). The results reflect that teachers perceive their principals as relatively

considerate both before the introduction of SBM (mean = 3.06) and in the two years that

followed the implementation of SBM (means = 3.08 and 3.19).

In considering that under SBM, schools are expected to increase the quality of their

performance, it is rather surprising that the introduction of SBM in schools did not

encourage principals to become more friendly, supportive, open and collegial as means

for increasing teachers’ efforts and school outcomes. One possible explanation is that in

the first two years SBM does not lead to changes in school principals’ leadership style

which may be evident in their attitude towards subordinates. This explanation is in line

with findings showing that SBM does not change significantly principals’ leadership

style (Daresh, 1992, p. 115). Therefore, it may be argued that principals continue to

behave as they used to before implementing SBM, and they tend to maintain similar

interactions with their subordinates, based on their previous leadership assumptions.

Morale: Morale refers to a collective sense of friendliness that exists among school

members. A repeated-measure procedure reveals statistically significant differences in

the morale of teachers before and after the introduction of SBM in schools (Wilks’

Lambda = .474; F = 13.335; p< .001). Paired t-test comparisons used to determine the

source for these differences reveal that morale has deteriorated over the three years. As

Graph 1 shows, morale was high in the year prior to the introduction of SBM and in the

following year. However, in the second year of SBM, the results reflect a sharp and

statistically significant drop in teachers’ morale in comparison to the year before SBM

was introduced in their school (t = 5.398; df. 26; p< .001).

__________________________

INSERT GRAPH 1 ABOUT HERE

__________________________

A possible explanation for these results is that the introduction of SBM increases

internal pressures and the struggle for resources among teachers. This explanation is

supported by earlier studies reporting that SBM promotes int er-school competition

(Polansky, 1998) and increases organizational conflict (Short & Rinehart, 1993).

Moreover, according to our findings, teachers’ morale significantly decreased only in

the second year to SBM. This pattern corresponds with other research findings

(Duttweiler & Mutchler, 1990a, p. 34; Carnoy & MacDonnell, 1990; Collins & Hanson,

1991) showing that morale increased with the initial levels of implementation of SBM,

but soon returned to depressed levels that existed in school prior to the introduction of

SBM. This pattern may be a result of a gap that exists between teachers’ initial

expectations of SBM and their actual experience.

Institutional integrity refers to the school’s ability to cope with the demands and

external pressures of parents and other members of the school’s community. A

repeated-measure procedure reveals statistically significant differences in institutional

integrity before and after the introduction of SBM (Wilks’ Lambda = .571; F = 9.029;

p< .001). The paired t-test comparisons reveal that prior to the introduction of SBM,

teachers perceived schools’ ability to cope with external pressures to be the lowest in

comparison with the following years. Statistically significant differences are obtained

when comparisons are performed between the year prior to the introduction of SBM and

the second year of SBM (t = -4.031; df. 26; p< .001), and between the first and second

year of SBM (t = -4.001; df. 25; p< .001). As Graph 2 shows, there exists a steady

increase in the perceived ability of schools to cope with parental demands and other

external pressures after the introduction of SBM.

___________________________

INSERT GRAPH 2 ABOUT HERE

____________________________

Following research findings, showing that SBM improves school-parents relationships

(Ng, 1999) and eliminates destructive district-school relationships (Cross & Reitzug,

1996), SBM seems, according to our findings, to improve schools’ ability to cope with

external pressures and parental demands.

This finding may be explained in considering that under SBM, schools are more flexible

and better able to meet local needs and demands and to produce educational plans that

correspond with parental’ expectations. Such circumstances decrease the potential for

conflicts between school and parents. At the same time, SBM grants schools increased

formal authority they can exert in their interactions with parents and increases their

legitimacy in using it, both highly influential to the perceived ability of school-level

educators to confront external pressures.

Bureaucratic load: This variable refers to the number of tasks that teachers must

perform in addition to teaching. A repeated-measure procedure reveals statistically

significant differences in the bureaucratic load perceived by teachers before and after

the introduction of SBM (Wilks’ Lambda = .483; F = 12.858; p< .001). Paired t-test

comparisons revealed that teachers perceive an increase in the amount of paperwork

they have to perform in addition to teaching, when comparisons are made between the

circumstances that existed in schools prior to the introduction of SBM and the first (t = -

2.795; df. 25; p< .01) and second year of SBM (t = -4.697; df. 26; p< .001). As Graph 3

shows, a significant increase in the perceived bureaucratic load occurs immediately after

SBM is introduced in schools and it continues to increase steadily.

__________________________

INSERT GRAPH 3 ABOUT HERE

__________________________

This finding allows for the conclusion that an opposite relation between the bureaucratic

burden that teachers perceive on the job and the declared increase in school autonomy

exists. The assumed increase in school autonomy seems to produce a larger workload

and amount of paperwork that teachers must process and has been recognized as an

undesirable consequence of SBM (Leithwood et al., 1996; O’Connor & Clark, 1990;

Wylie, 1997; Campbell & Neill, 1992). This finding may be explained in considering

that SBM is basically a change-oriented initiative implemented in public schools which

have long been identified as loosely coupled systems where the various components,

while responsive to one another, preserve their own identity through some degree of

separateness (Weick, 1976). Alignment of strategic activities that schools implementing

SBM need to conduct requires coordination among staff accustomed to a high degree of

independence (Timperley & Robinson, 2000). Since coordination is made possible

through documentation of the various activities performed by teachers, teachers

experience an increase in their workload and in non-teaching assignments.

Principal influence: A key element in assessing the impact of SBM on the image of

school principals’ authority as perceived by teachers refers to the extent to which

teachers perceive their principals as capable of influencing the actions of superiors.

A repeated-measure procedure used to assess the extent to which teachers perceive their

principals’ influence on superiors to be different before and after the introduction of

SBM to schools reveals no statistically significant differences (Wilks’ Lambda = .885; F

= 1.558). The results reflect that teachers perceive their principals to have had a steady

and moderate influence on superiors before the introduction of SBM (mean = 3.15) and

in the two years that followed the implementation of SBM in their schools (means =

3.17 and 3.06).

In line with previously reported evidence (Malen et al., 1990, p.11), our findings

suggest that teachers do not regard the introduction of SBM in the school as an increase

in principals’ influence on superiors. This may be explained in considering that in

centralized systems of education, the authority that is delegated to the school level may

be taken back by senior officials since powers still rest with the central authority (Bray,

1985). Therefore, SBM is not considered to significantly change the extent to which

principals may influence superiors.

Academic emphasis: This variable is used to assess the extent to which teachers’ believe

in children’s ability to succeed. A repeated-measure procedure reveals statistically

significant differences in teachers’ academic emphases before and after the introduction

of SBM (Wilks’ Lambda = .453; F = 14.508; p< .001). Although paired t-test

comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences between teachers’

perceptions before SBM is introduced (mean = 2.98) and the first year of SBM (mean =

3.03), there is a sharp increase when comparing teachers’ academic emphases before

SBM is introduced and the second year of SBM (t = -5.713; df. 26; p< .001).

____________________________

INSERT GRAPH 4 ABOUT HERE

____________________________

Since teachers’ beliefs in students’ ability to succeed are in many cases a self-fulfilling

prophecy, the results suggest that the introduction of SBM in schools have the potential

to encourage teachers to increase their efforts while teaching. This finding is hardly

surprising considering SBM schools are assumed to better adjust educational processes

to students’ needs, and are therefore, expected to increase their effectiveness.

However, it is important to note that the evidence reported in earlier studies regarding

the effect of SBM on student’s outcomes is mixed. Moreover, the present research

studied schools that had experienced SBM for only two years and focused on teachers’

perceptions regarding students’ performance rather than on actual behaviors and

outcomes. For these reasons it is difficult to determine, based on our data, whether in

the Israeli educational context this prophecy will eventually be fulfilled and a different

and more effic ient culture of learning and teaching will eventually be created.

Resource support: SBM grants Israeli schools increased resources along with the

authority to decide how to use these resources and enables them to invest their budget in

activities they consider most important. One basic premise for SBM is that it enables

schools to become more efficient and to better direct supplies for instructional activities.

A repeated-measure procedure reveals statistically significant differences in the amount

of resources available for teachers before and after the introduction of SBM (Wilks’

Lambda = .741; F = 4.199; p< .05).

When a set of paired t-test comparisons is used to determine the source for these

differences, a sharp increase is evident in the amount of resources available for teachers

in the first year of SBM in comparison with the year before SBM was introduced (t = -

2.376; df. 25; p< .01). However, in the second year of SBM there is a sharp decrease in

the amount of resources available for instructional purposes, to the same level that

existed prior to the introduction of SBM in schools.

__________________________

INSERT GRAPH 5 ABOUT HERE

__________________________

Since the amount of resources granted schools in the Israeli educational system changed

dramatically before and after the introduction of SBM, but not between the first and

second year of SBM, the results reflect a cha nge in school strategy related to the

distribution of resources.

Based on the assertion that self managing school are most likely to develop a school-

wide vision and practices consistent with that vision (Fullan, 1996; Siskin, 1997;

Hannay & Ross, 1997), it is possible that in the second year of SBM, principals prefer

to concentrate resources and devote them to vision-driven purposes rather than allow

their use for various activities teachers wish to conduct. Therefore, at the teachers’ level,

the introduc tion of SBM to schools does not significantly change the amount of

resources available for their disposal, although the amount of resources available at the

school level is actually increased.

Interviews: To better enable the interpretation of the findings discussed above, ten

randomly chosen teachers working in SBM schools were interviewed. All the teachers

interviewed share the notion that, so far, the introduction of SBM in their school did not

lead to dramatic changes. When asked to assess why, different explanations emerge:

“Our school is constantly introducing new ideas and new change initiatives. SBM is just

one initiative among many.” “We have had SBM for two years. Although this is a

substantial amount of time, it is possible that more time is required before its impacts

will be identified.” “In one of the meetings we had just before the school year started,

we were told that our school is among the schools that will introduce SBM. Nobody

asked for our opinion about this initiative, not then and not now. We are expected to

become involved in the implementation of SBM in our school and not in planning and

designing the process.” Hence, the large number of initiatives that schools introduce, the

lack of teacher influence and the lack of time are considered among the factors that

moderate the perceived impacts of SBM.

Next, teachers were asked to offer their interpretation to the findings obtained in the

quantitative study for the organizational health variables.

Principal’s consideration: Teachers tend to agree with the findings showing that SBM

did not lead to a significant change in principals’ consideration. Some interviewees

relate this to the fact that most of the change initiatives are directed toward teachers

rather than toward the principals: “Our school is constantly bombarded with various

programs and initiatives. However, they are all directed towards the teachers and

therefore are less likely to significantly affect the principal’s attitude and behavior.”

Other interviewees provide a different explanation: “Our principal has always been and

remained a nice person. However, she is task oriented and a dominant person, and now

she continues to run the school as she used to run it in the past.”

Principal’s influence on superiors: Most of the interviewees agreed that it is difficult

for them to assess if their principals’ influence on superiors has changed since SBM was

introduced in their school, as they are not fully aware of all the interactions between

principals and superiors. However, based on teachers’ interactions with school

superintendents, they conclude that their principal’s influence on the superintendent did

not change significantly: “The superintendent continues to monitor our teaching and to

write her reports as she did before.” “Eventually, my career and tenure are determined

mostly by the superintendent. My principal is asked for her recommendations, but she is

not the one who actually decides.” The limited influence on superiors that principals are

considered to ha ve corresponds with the notion that SBM did not increase principals’

authority regarding central policy issues: “Decisions that refer to the most important

issues in schooling, such as curriculum and personnel, are still made by the Director

General.”

Morale: When teachers are asked to explain why SBM seems to negatively affect their

morale they offer a range of explanations. They all point out the increased demand for

accountability and for students’ outcomes as the main factor: “We are not yet sure what

we as teachers are going to gain from SBM. However, it was made very clear to us by

our principal that under SBM, we cannot blame anyone for low achievements and lack

of efficiency but ourselves.” The increased emphasis on the need to improve outcomes

seems to have additional negative side effects on teachers’ morale: “Now we have to

struggle for resources. In some cases, this produces tensions among the teachers and

negatively affects their willingness to cooperate with each other.” Another teacher said:

“SBM is among a the number of large-scale projects that were introduced to our school

in the last years. However, no efforts are made to cultivate the teachers who become

more and more fatigued over the years.”

Academic emphasis: Teachers say that SBM is translated at the school level as an

immediate demand to increase efforts and to express increased accountability for

students’ outcomes. However, “some teachers in our school talk the talk but fail to walk

the walk and, therefor e, I don’t expect that our school’s effectiveness will dramatically

change in the future.”

Resources: As mentioned earlier, schools were tempted to follow the SBM initiative

since they received a significant and immediate increase of their financial resources.

And indeed, teachers tie SBM to a sudden prosperity in the amount of resources that

was made available for their disposal after SBM was introduced in their school. “We

always got what we needed. When SBM was introduced, our school got much more

money and we were encouraged to request anything that might be useful for teaching

and learning. However, this only happened once and stopped in the second year. It is not

clear to me how the money is spent this year.” Another teacher said: “This year our

principal decided that all the extra money will be used to renovate the computer

laboratory, leaving little money to support teachers’ initiatives. I wonder what will be

next year’s excuse for not distributing more money to the teachers.”

Bureaucratic load: Teachers express a view that supports the quantitative evidence

showing that SBM increases the amount of paperwork they have to process. Several

explanations are offered: “One way to save energy and to increase efficiency is by

distributing teaching materials among teachers. Every teacher is expected to document

new ideas and activities and distribute his work among the rest of the teachers.” “Our

principal wants us to document almost everything we do. I know that she reads and files

everything. I assume that this is done so that she may better monitor our work.” “Since

SBM was introduced to our school, we are expected to constantly update the parents.”

Institutional integrity: Increasing parents’ awareness regarding the internal processes

conducted by school seems to be related to schools’ institutional integrity: “Parents are

involved and have a good idea about the various activities that our school conducts.

Parents are familiar with our school’s policy and are aware that our policy is not

negotiable.” The majority of the teachers who were interviewed confirmed that schools

are better able to cope with external pressures after introducing SBM: “Now our school

initiates many more programs designed to better meet the specific needs of our

children.”

DISCUSSION

According to Hoy & Feldman (1987), the seven aspects of health fit together to form a

general health index for schools. The higher the score, the healthier the organizational

dynamics in the school.

The aggregated scores computed for the school health in dex reflect that the schools

studied are characterized by moderate organizational health. Comparisons of the

integrated health scores between the three measurements performed reveal no

statistically significant differences.

However, in spite of arguments claiming that the impacts of SBM may be evident only

after a relatively long period of time (Wissler & Ortiz, 1986; Casner-Lotto, 1988;

Sickler, 1988; David, 1989b), significant differences do appear when comparisons are

made on the organizational health subsets investigated. Some of the changes seem to be

related in some sense to the tendency toward increased effectiveness that SBM is

assumed to foster. The most prominent expression of this tendency is teachers’

perceptions reflecting higher expectations for children’s achievements, which

undoubtedly is an important although insufficient component of school effectiveness.

Nevertheless, the picture from the teachers’ perspective after the second year of SBM is

not encouraging. It seems that teachers feel that the quality of their work atmosphere

has deteriorated significantly. Teachers report having a lower morale and increased

bureaucratic load in comparison to the circumstances that existed in their school prior to

the introduction of SBM, being both attributes of the technical level of school health. At

the same time, they don’t perceive their principals to be more considerate, nor do they

have an increased amount of resources that they can use in their teaching.

From the teachers’ point of view, SBM seems to create a burden rather than an

opportunity to increase their professional and personal autonomy and to improve the

quality of the social interactions they experience in school.

Since teachers operate on the front lines and are responsible for the quality of schools’

educational processes and outcomes, their contentment is highly important. Therefore,

emphasizing school outcomes should not be treated as the only worthwhile goal,

assuming that SBM is expected to increase school effectiveness by inducing change in

the professional perceptions of teachers and in the culture of teaching and learning. The

flexibility granted to schools by SBM should also be used to conduct various activities

intended to improve the quality of the school’s climate so as to enable teachers to

realize their ambitions and needs. In this sense, organizational effectiveness is more

likely to be achieved if teachers experience a school atmosphere that increases their

commitment to their colleagues and to the school rather than if the y are obliged to

comply with some formal constraints imposed by the introduction of SBM in their

school.

Much depends on the internal dynamics of the school and on the supportive conditions

(Robertson et al., 1995) that exist in the school context. A number of studies have

demonstrated that school performance often depends on whether the school’s internal

processes can motivate its members (see Cheng, 1996b, p. 48). According to our

findings, more attention should be paid to the technical level of school health and to

improving teachers’ morale. Moreover, efforts should be made to limit to a minimum

the bureaucratic load on teachers. In considering the significance of the principal in

motivating teachers, principals’ consideration for teachers is a highly important means

for the improvement of the school atmosphere.

It should be acknowledged that a school-based managed school is not only a place to

foster student growth but also a place to foster the development of teachers (Cheng,

1996b, p. 53). Emphasis should be placed equally on all the components that affect the

quality of the school’s health if SBM is expected to increase the professional autonomy

of educators along with the effectiveness of the school. It is, therefore, argued that

neglecting teachers’ psychosocial and professional needs while introducing SBM in

schools will most likely create the illusion of personal and organizational autonomy,

which will dissolve in time.

REFERENCES

Bernas, T.G. (1992). Documenting the implementation of school based

management/shared decision making in a non-chapter 1 Elementary school.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA, April, 20-24.

Boyd, W.L. (1990). Balancing control and autonomy in school reform: The politics of

Perestroika. In: J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational reform movement of the

1980’s, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Pub. Co

Boyd, W.L. (1992).The power of paradigms: Reconceptualising educational policy and

management, Educational Administration Quarterly, 28: 504-528.

Bray, M. (1985). Education and decentralization in less developed countries : A

comment on general trends, issues and problems, with particular reference to

Papua New Guinea, Comparative Education, 21 (2): 183-195.

Brouillette, L. (1997). Who defines democratic leadership?: Three high school

principals respond to site-based reforms. Journal of School Leadership ,

7 (6): 569-591.

Brown, D.J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management, New York:

Falmer Press.

Brown, D.J. (1991). Decentralization, California: Crowin Press, Inc.

Brown, D.J. (1992). The recentralization of school districts. Educational Policy,

6 (3): 289-297.

Caldwell, S.D. & Wood, F.H. (1992). Breaking ground in restructuring, Educational

Leadership , 50 (1): 41-44.

Campbell, R.J. & Neill, S.R. (1992). The use and management of secondary teachers’

time after the Education Reform Act 1988. Warwick: Warwick University.

Carnoy, M. & MacDonnell, J. (1990). School district restructuring in Santa Fe, New

Mexico. Educational Policy, 4 (1): 49-64.

Casner -Lotto, J. (1988). Expanding the teachers’ role: Hammond’s school

improvement process, Phi Delta Kappan , 69: 349-353.

Cheng, Y.C. (1996a). School based management mechanism for school effectiveness

and development, School Effectiveness and School Improvement,

7 (1): 35-61.

Cheng, Y.C. (1996b). School effectiveness and school-based management,

London: Falmer Press.

Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. (1988). Politics, markets and the organization of schools.

American Political Science Review, 82: 1065-1087.

Clune, W.H. & White, P.A. (1988). School-based management: Institutional variation,

implementation and issues for further research, Center for Policy

Research in Education, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Collins R.A. & Hanson, M.K. (1991). School based management /shared decision

making project. Miami, FL: Dade County Publich Schools, Office of

Educational Accountability.

Cranston, N. (2000). The impact of school based management on primary school

principals: An Australian perspective. Journal of School Leadership,

10 (3): 214-232.

Cross, B.E. & Reitzug, U.C. (1996). How to build ownership in city schools,

Educational Leadership , 53 (4): 16-19.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Wise, A.E. (1985). Beyond standardization: State standards

and school improvement, Elementary School Journal, 85: 315-335.

Daresh, J.C. (1992). Impressions of school based management: The Cincinnati story.

In J.J. Lane & E.G. Epps (Eds.), Restructuring the schools: problems and

prospects (pp. 109-121). Berkeley, CA: McCatchan.

David, J. L. (1989a). Synthesis of research on school-based management, Educational

Leadership , 46 (8): 45-53.

David, J. L. (1989b). Restructuring in progress: Lessons from pioneering districts,

Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.

Davies, B. & Hentschke, G.C. (1994). Locating US and English schools in the context

of organizational autonomy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Delaney, J.G. (1997). Principal leadership: A primary factor in school based

management and school improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 81 (586): 107-111.

Dempster, N. (2000). Guilty or not: The impact and effects of site-based management

on schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (1): 47-63.

Devos, G., Van den Broeck, H., & Vanderheyden, K. (1998). The concept and practice

of a school-based management contest: Integration of leadership

development and organizational learning, Educational Administration

Quarterly, 34 (Supplemental): 700-717.

Duttweiler, P.C. & Mutchler, S.E. (1990a). Organizing the educational system for

excellence: Harnessing the energy of people. Austin, TX: Southwest

Educational Development Laboratory.

Duttweiler, P.C. & Mutchler, S.E. (1990b). Recommendations for implementing school

based management / shared decision-making. Insights on Educational

Policy and Practice, 21: 1-4.

Epps, E.G. (1992). School based management: Implications for minority parents. In: J.J.

Lane & E.G. Epps (Eds.), Restructuring the schools: problems and

prospects (pp. 143-163). Berkeley, CA: McCtchan.

Farber, B. & Ascher, C. (1991). Urban school restructuring and teacher burnout.

ERIC/CUE Digest, Number 75, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urba n

Education, New York, NY.

Frazer, L.H. & Rumbaut, M. (1993). School based improvement: What is needed for

successful implementation? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA, April 12-16.

Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systematic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan,

77: 420-423.

Fusarelli, L.D. & Scribner, J.D. (1993). Site -based management and critical

democratic pluralism: An analysis of promises, problems and probabilities.

Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for

Educational Administration, Houston, TX.

Gaziel, H.H. & Romm T. (1988). From centralization to decentralization: The case of

Israel as a unique pattern of control in education. European

Journal of Education , 23 (4): 345-352.

Glickman, C. (1990). Pushing school reform to a new edge: The seven ironies of school

empowerment, Phi Delta Kappan , 72 (1): 68-75.

Hannay, L.M. & Ross, J.A. (1997). Initiating secondary school reform: The dynamic

relationship between restructuring, reculturing and retiming. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 33 (suppl. Dec.: 576-603).

Harris, M.B. (1995). Basic statistics for behavioral science research. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Hill, P. & Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and accountability in public education .

Santa Monica, CA. Rand.

Hoy, W.K, Tarter, C.J. & Kottkamp, R.B. (1991). Open schools / Healthy schools.

London: Sage.

Hoy, W.K., & Barnes, K.M. (1997). The organizational health of middle schools: The

concept and its measure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Hoy, W.K., & Clover S.I.R. (1986). Elementary school climate: A revision of the

OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly , 22 (1): 93-110.

Hoy, W.K., & Feldman. J.A. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its

measure, Journal of Research and Development in Education , 20 (4): 30-37.

Inbar, D. (1975). The educational planning system: Change and tension. Futures,

7 (2): 119-128.

Inbar, D.E. (1986). Educational policy making and planning in a small centralized

democracy. Comparative Education, 22:271-281.

Jenni. R.W. & Mauriel, J.J. (1990). An examination of the factors affecting

stakeholders assessment of school decentralization . Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Johnes, G. (1995). School Management: How much local autonomy should there be?

Educational Management and Administration, 23 (3): 162-167.

Lange, J.T. (1993). Site-based decision making: A resource for restructuring,

NASSP Bulletin, 77 (549): 98-107.

Leithwood, K., Menzies, T., Jantzi, D. & Leithwood, J. (1996). School restructuring,

transformational leadership and amelioration of teacher burnout. Anxiety

Stress and Coping: An international Journal, 9: 199-215.

Leithwood, K. & Menzies, T. (1998). A review of research concerning the

implementation of site-based management, School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 9 (3): 233-285.

Levin, H. (1988). Accelerated schools for at risk students. New Brunswick, NJ: Center

Research in Education, Rutgers University.

Lindelow, J. & Heynderickx, J. (1989). School based management. In: S.C.Smith &

P.K. Piele (Eds.) School leadership: handbook for excellence (2nd Ed.),

University of Oregon, ERIC Clearing house on Educational Management,

Eugene, pp. 109-134.

Malen, B., Ogawa, R.T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school based

management? A case study of the literature – a call for research. In: W.H.

Clune & J.F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American Education:

Vol. 2. The practice of choice, decentralization and school restructuring.

London: Falmer Press.

Marriot, F.H.L. (1990). A dictionary of statistical terms. 5th edition. N.Y.: Wiley.

Murphy, J. (1994). Transformational change and the evolving role of the principalship:

Early empirical evidence. In: J. Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping

the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 20-53).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Crowin.

Murphy, J. & Beck, L.G. (1995): School-based management as school reform,

California: Corwin Press Inc.

Ng, S.W. (1999). Home -school relations in Hong Kong: Separation or partnership.

School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10 (4): 551-560.

Neal, R.G. (1991). School based management: A detailed guide for successful

implementation. National Educational Service, Bloomington, IN.

Neal, R.G. (1994). School based management: The advantage of lump-sum transfers.

School Business Affairs, 60 (6): 34-38.

Nyberg, D. & Farber, P. (1986). Authorit y in education, Teachers College Record ,

88: 4-14.

O’Connor, P.R. & Clark, V.A. (1990). Determinants of teacher stress. Australian

Journal of Education, 34: 41-51

Odden, E.R. & Wholstetter, P. (1995). Making school based management work.

Educational Leadership , 52 (5): 32-36.

Polansky, H.B. (1998). Equity and school based management: It can be done.

School Business Affairs, 64 (4): 36-37.

Reitzug, U.C. & Capper, C.A. (1996). Deconstructing site-based management:

Possibilities for emancipation and alternative means of control. International

Journal of Educational Reform, 5 (1): 56-59.

Reynolds, D. & Cuttance, P. (1993). School Effectiveness. London: Cassell.

Robertson, P.J. & Briggs, K.L. (1998). Improving schools through school based

management: An examination of the process of change, School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 (1): 28-57.

Robertson, P.J., Wohlstetter, P., & Mohrman, S.A. (1995). Generating curriculum and

instructional innovations through school-based management, Educational

Administration Quarterly, 31 (3): 375-404.

Sackney, L.E. & Dibski, D.J. (1994). School-based management: A critical

perspective, Educational Management and Administration,

22 (2): 104-112.

Sagor, R. (1996). Local control and accountability: How to get it, keep it and improve

school performance, CA: Corwin Press Inc.

Short, P.M. & Rinehart, J.S. (1993). Teacher empowerment and school climate.

Education (Washington D.C.), 113 (4): 592-597.

Sickler, J.I. (1988). Teacher in charge: Empowering the professionals,

Phi Delta Kappan, 69, p. 354-358.

Sirotnik, K.A. (1980). Psychometric implications of the unit of analysis problem (with

examples from the measurement of organizational climate), Journal of

Educational Measurement, 17 (Winter): 245-282.

Siskin, L.S. (1997). The challenge of leadership in comprehensive high schools: School

vision and departmental divisions. Educational Administration Quarterly,

33: 604-623.

Smith, W.E. (1993). Teachers’ perceptions of role change through shared decision

making: A two-year case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Summers, A.A. & Johnson, A.W. (1995). Doubts about decentralized decisions. School

Administrator 52 (3): 24-26, 28, 30, 32.

Summers, A.A. & Johnson, A.W. (1994). A review of the evidence on the effects of

school-based management plans. Paper presented at the conference on

Improving the Performance of American Schools: Economic Choices.

National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

The Minister of Education, (1993). The introduction of School-Based management to

schools: Recommendations of steering committee. The State of Israel:

The Ministry of Education, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Timperley, H. & Robinson, V. (2000). Workload and the professional culture of

teachers. Educational Management and Administration, 28 (1): 47-62.

Valente, M. E. (1999). The relationship of organizational health, leadership and

teacher empowerment. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23.

Vollansky, A. & Bar-Elli, D. (1995). Moving toward equitable school-based

management. Educational Leadership , 53 (4): 60-62.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.

Weiss, C.H. (1992). Shared decision making about what? A comparison of schools with

and without teacher participation. Occasional Paper No. 5. National Center

for Educational Leadership, Cambridge, MA.

White, P.A. (1989). An overview of school based management: What does the research

say? NASSP Bulletin, 73 (518): 1-8.

White, P.A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under ‘ideal’ school-site autonomy,

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 14: 69-82.

Wissler, D.F. & Ortiz, F.I. (1986). The decentralization process of school systems: A

review of the literature, Urban Education, 21: 280-294.

Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Getting school-based management right: What works and what

doesn’t. Phi-Delta -Kappan, 77 (1): 22-24.

Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. (1994). Charter schools in the United

States: The question of autonomy, Educational Policy, 9 (4): 331-358.

Wylie, C. (1997). Self managing school seven years on: What have we learnt?

Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Yanitski, N.W. (1998). Site-based decision making in schools. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

San Diego, CA, April 13-17.

Young, R.L. (1995). What is the most effective structure? Site-based budgeting is best.

School Business Affairs, 61 (6): 38-42.

Figure 1: The research model

Year 1998 Year 1999 Year 2000 First Measurement Second Measurement Third Measurement Prior to implementing Schools’ first year Schools’ second year SBM in schools with SBM with SBM N = 28 schools N = 28 schools N = 28 schools

Personal Background Data

School’s Organizational Health

Personal Background Data

School’s Organizational Health

Personal Background Data

School’s Organizational Health

Figure 2 : Teachers Morale (N= 28 Schools)

3.063.1

2.64

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

1998 1999 2000

Years

Figure 3 : Institutional Integrity (N= 28 Schools)

2.642.71

3.03

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

1998 1999 2000

Years

Figure 4 : Bureaucractic Load (N= 28 Schools)

2.86

3.023.18

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

1998 1999 2000

Years

Figure 5 : Academic Emphasis (N= 28 Schools)

2.943.03

3.32

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

1998 1999 2000

Years

Figure 6 : Resource Support (N= 28 Schools)

3.1

3.253.09

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

1998 1999 2000

Years

Appendix A: Seven-Factor solution for the 37 organizational health items of elementary schools

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The principal goes out of his or her way to show appreciation for teachers .81 The principal compliments teachers .80 The principal treats teachers as equals .77 The principal listens and accepts teachers’ suggestions .76 The principal goes out of his or her way to help teachers .75 The principals uses constructive criticism .68 The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers .67 The principal accepts questions without appearing to snub or quash the teacher .64 The principal discusses classroom issues with teachers .53 Teachers help and support each other .81 Teachers exhibit friendliness to each other .78 Teachers have fun socializing together during school time .74 There is a feeling of trust and confidence among the staff .70 New teachers are readily accepted by colleagues .64 Teachers help and support each other .59 Teachers are proud of their school .56 Teacher accomplish their work with vim, vigor and pleasure .56 Teachers invite faculty to visit them at home .55 The school is vulnerable to outside pressures .82 A few vocal parents can change the school policy .77 Community demands are accepted even when are not consistent with the educational program .72 The school is open to the whims of the public .68 Teachers feel pressure from the community .62 Administrative paperwork is burdensome at this school .82 Clerical support reduces teachers’ paper work .80 Teachers are burdened with busy work .71 Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching .67 The principal is able to influence the actions of his or her superiors .67 The principal’s recommendations are given serious consideration by his or her superiors .66 The principal gets what he or she asks for from superiors .65 Students are co operative during classroom instruction .72 Student seek extra work so they can get good grades .69 Students neglect to complete homework .68 Students try hard to improve on previous work .66 Teachers are provided with adequate materials for their classrooms .81 Teacher receive necessary classroom supplies .80 Supplementary materials are available for classroom use .74

Appendix B: Descriptive statistics: Means, Standard deviations for the three data points (N = 28 schools) School factor 1 factor 2 factor 3 factor 4 factor 5 factor 6 factor 7

N M sd M sd M sd M sd M sd M sd M sd

1 t1 10 2.74 .33 2.51 .35 2.63 .45 2.60 .57 2.53 .57 2.54 .49 3.00 .51

t2 10 3.08 .38 3.10 .41 2.71 .42 3.02 .48 3.17 .48 3.03 .50 3.25 .44 t3 10 3.19 .42 2.64 .48 3.03 .41 3.18 .37 3.06 .38 3.32 .46 3.09 .49 2 t1 10 3.08 .50 3.07 .39 3.09 .64 2.86 .62 2.96 .65 3.25 .60 2.76 .52

t2 12 3.14 .56 3.11 .42 2.60 .65 3.09 .61 3.22 .48 3.28 .39 3.31 .34 t3 11 3.04 .62 3.20 .52 2.94 .68 3.21 .61 3.40 .59 3.53 .26 3.54 .47 3 t1 10 2.68 .51 3.07 .39 3.43 .43 2.80 .51 2.75 .34 2.85 .33 2.89 .16

t2 10 2.90 .55 2.63 .45 3.00 .66 2.89 .33 3.04 .50 3.08 .40 3.13 .25 t3 10 3.24 .49 2.68 .40 2.81 .61 3.25 .38 3.13 .52 3.56 .36 3.37 .23 4 t1 25 2.76 .24 2.89 .56 3.09 .60 2.79 .68 3.38 .68 2.92 .38 3.38 .43

t2 25 2.35 .37 2.44 .50 3.01 .43 2.81 .56 2.50 .64 2.73 .42 2.88 .44 t3 25 3.23 .49 2.90 .46 2.97 .52 3.23 .51 2.90 .59 3.28 .40 2.70 .40 5 t1 10 3.00 .63 3.05 .41 2.53 .24 2.94 .88 3.04 .25 2.58 .55 2.76 .45

t2 10 2.39 .59 3.13 .39 2.75 .28 3.57 .72 2.86 .32 2.63 .56 2.94 .38 t3 10 2.60 .55 2.95 .36 3.50 .30 2.73 .56 2.75 .29 3.06 .47 2.78 .40 6 t1 11 3.17 .65 3.32 .39 2.70 .39 2.75 .52 3.30 .56 2.61 .54 3.10 .41

t2 11 3.10 .32 3.29 .42 2.42 .42 2.75 .37 2.89 .45 2.75 .37 3.15 .45 t3 11 3.48 .36 2.23 .44 2.75 .45 3.33 .36 3.14 .40 3.37 .32 3.30 .39 7 t1 10 2.60 .48 2.98 .52 3.23 .63 2.43 .50 3.35 .63 2.96 .49 2.70 .46

t2 10 2.98 .45 2.41 .49 3.08 .55 2.95 .48 2.81 .55 3.36 .46 2.74 .43 t3 10 3.07 .41 3.03 .46 3.11 .43 2.75 .52 3.08 .51 3.29 .43 2.75 .40 8 t1 11 3.12 .51 3.13 .43 2.95 .47 3.31 .41 3.36 .50 3.22 .37 3.37 .35

t2 11 2.73 .47 3.22 .43 3.15 .45 3.19 .45 3.40 .37 2.94 .23 3.33 .42 t3 11 3.23 .40 2.98 .50 3.16 .61 3.40 .40 3.20 .40 3.36 .24 3.31 .47 9 t1 11 3.13 .28 2.78 .45 2.58 .69 2.84 .66 2.86 .42 2.56 .54 2.85 .35

t2 11 3.08 .42 3.10 .37 2.71 .70 3.02 .26 3.17 .24 3.03 .72 3.25 .68 t3 11 3.55 .41 2.43 .54 3.33 .61 3.25 .61 3.08 .61 3.10 .55 3.04 .51 10 t1 13 3.69 .35 3.27 .35 2.23 .64 3.08 .63 3.40 .70 2.92 .29 3.67 .58

t2 13 3.29 .51 3.14 .46 2.68 .24 2.96 .53 3.31 .71 2.85 .52 3.54 .56 t3 13 3.35 .63 2.70 .56 3.25 .45 3.28 .49 2.53 .62 3.26 .43 2.46 .55 11 t1 12 3.57 .67 3.42 .66 2.35 .49 2.97 .46 3.45 .53 3.11 .59 3.26 .71

t2 12 2.96 .72 3.13 .71 2.51 .44 3.49 .65 3.13 .46 2.92 .36 3.25 .75 t3 12 3.14 .68 2.70 .51 3.54 .38 3.23 .61 2.96 .54 3.23 .23 2.92 .53 12 t1 10 3.04 .48 3.10 .73 2.51 .73 3.00 .62 3.25 .48 3.06 .50 3.37 .63

t2 10 3.04 .54 3.19 .41 2.92 .58 3.13 .56 3.00 .58 3.03 .52 3.60 .77 t3 9 2.88 .32 2.77 .28 2.96 .28 3.31 .38 3.04 .47 3.61 .52 2.77 .43 13 t1 9 3.22 .68 3.22 .25 2.34 .36 2.46 .56 3.25 .38 2.91 .69 3.38 .60

t2 10 3.35 .52 3.59 .54 1.97 .47 2.59 .68 3.59 .53 3.18 .62 3.43 .71 t3 11 3.32 .46 2.28 .37 2.72 .16 3.11 .38 3.25 .45 3.67 .41 3.21 .50 14 t1 10 2.38 .22 2.84 .25 2.05 .26 2.50 .64 2.54 .51 3.14 .23 2.58 .19

t2 10 2.90 .22 3.22 .44 2.71 .11 2.53 .45 2.94 .38 3.25 .50 2.52 .27 t3 10 2.89 .35 2.42 .31 2.53 .37 3.00 .51 2.97 .39 2.83 .19 2.86 .30 15 t1 10 3.67 .57 3.39 .37 2.10 .60 2.79 .51 3.25 .65 3.33 .62 3.67 .62

t2 11 3.46 .30 3.31 .22 2.07 .61 2.68 .25 3.25 .44 3.16 .23 3.67 .61 t3 10 3.64 .29 2.06 .33 2.94 .31 3.25 .51 3.13 .45 3.79 .28 3.41 .35 16 t1 11 2.76 .58 3.03 .40 2.71 .46 2.50 .60 2.96 .65 2.96 .35 3.29 .72

t2 11 2.96 .44 2.77 .34 2.68 .30 2.70 .53 2.94 .60 3.00 .25 3.52 .35 t3 11 2.56 .22 2.90 .27 3.18 .27 2.81 .48 3.08 .70 3.47 .42 3.20 .39 17 t1 10 3.34 .81 3.22 .34 2.66 .48 2.77 .82 3.50 .55 3.23 .53 345 .70

t2 10 3.71 .72 3.52 .79 2.20 .63 2.78 .61 3.81 .80 3.33 .42 3.44 .58 t3 10 3.60 .29 1.91 .36 2.30 .37 3.73 .49 3.43 .55 3.52 .57 3.38 .52 Table 1 continued School factor 1 factor 2 factor 3 factor 4 factor 5 factor 6 factor 7

N M sd M sd M sd M sd M sd M sd M sd

18 t1 10 3.07 .54 2.82 .41 2.17 .45 2.75 .34 2.97 .54 2.78 .37 2.89 .37

t2 11 2.81 .23 2.71 .35 2.93 .36 2.75 .50 2.38 .38 2.81 .43 2.43 .29 t3 12 3.40 .45 2.50 .37 2.86 .56 2.47 .40 3.14 .53 3.22 .44 2.76 .46 19 t1 10 2.17 .38 3.16 .31 2.66 .39 3.07 .39 2.79 .47 3.00 .53 2.96 .53

t2 10 2.54 .79 3.31 .47 3.48 .72 3.65 .53 3.67 .72 2.85 .33 3.67 .72 t3 10 2.38 .52 3.29 .27 3.43 .67 3.25 .21 2.84 .54 2.95 .23 3.01 .53 20 t1 10 2.93 .48 3.16 .54 2.80 .44 3.56 .58 3.19 .44 3.17 .46 3.17 .77

t2 10 3.03 .46 2.94 .44 2.93 .46 3.63 .33 3.44 .42 3.31 .50 3.25 .59 t3 10 3.03 .40 2.60 .40 3.69 .49 3.36 .27 3.27 .73 3.19 .33 3.07 .31 21 t1 9 3.44 .42 3.14 .34 3.20 .22 2.75 .55 3.44 .41 3.03 .50 3.22 .41

t2 9 3.32 .36 3.09 .32 2.67 .34 2.88 .48 2.96 .57 2.78 .43 3.17 .36 t3 9 2.57 .46 2.91 .49 3.06 .73 3.09 .48 2.71 .77 3.30 .59 3.11 .76 22 t1 10 2.69 .62 2.43 .46 2.86 .61 2.64 .62 3.11 .52 2.69 .48 2.71 .62

t2 10 3.25 .45 3.14 .44 2.83 .61 3.25 .65 3.56 .46 3.00 .38 3.33 .41 t3 10 3.58 .22 2.64 .56 2.38 .50 2.96 .56 2.83 .10 2.30 .56 2.93 .35 23 t1 10 3.19 .76 3.03 .59 2.47 .78 3.36 .57 3.44 .64 2.89 .40 3.44 .68

t2 10 3.40 .72 3.16 .50 2.67 .71 3.25 .59 3.66 .53 3.10 .45 3.79 .58 t3 10 3.86 .45 2.16 .46 3.17 .60 3.47 .69 3.15 .43 4.00 .00 3.69 .51 24 t1 11 3.04 .71 3.29 .31 3.03 .72 2.75 .55 3.46 .79 3.00 .81 3.21 .77

t2 10 3.24 .53 3.40 .37 3.18 .71 3.23 .45 3.44 .49 3.08 .35 3.61 .46 t3 11 3.28 .33 3.02 .11 3.10 .46 3.38 .46 3.05 .33 3.56 .51 3.20 .33 25 t1 9 3.38 .36 3.26 .33 2.17 .16 2.35 .76 2.67 .26 2.80 .19 2.63 .32

t2 10 3.33 .39 3.41 .36 1.90 .81 2.39 .59 3.18 .49 3.03 .19 3.00 .42 t3 10 3.70 .46 2.24 .40 2.59 .42 3.23 .61 3.13 .47 2.97 .45 3.48 .33 26 t1 10 3.41 .38 3.05 .49 2.04 .40 2.71 .38 3.31 .59 3.18 .45 3.19 .67

t2 10 3.58 .31 3.11 .46 2.85 .51 3.05 .61 3.33 .44 3.35 .54 3.28 .44 t3 10 3.44 .35 2.45 .41 3.07 .71 3.44 .59 3.31 .43 3.55 .39 3.35 .69 27 t1 13 3.08 .37 2.96 .35 2.63 .55 3.28 .45 3.09 .62 2.98 .55 3.20 .51

t2 13 3.14 .35 3.13 .26 2.42 .42 2.91 .15 3.35 .42 3.06 .40 3.33 .46 t3 13 3.45 .63 2.50 .40 2.95 .55 3.58 .45 3.45 .62 3.67 .55 3.28 .51 28 t1 13 3.51 .81 3.38 .34 2.78 .48 3.58 .82 3.11 .55 2.94 .53 2.93 .70

t2 13 3.21 .72 3.16 .79 3.02 .63 3.45 .61 2.93 .80 3.10 .42 3.30 .58 t3 13 2.84 .29 2.91 .36 3.53 .37 2.97 .49 2.85 .55 3.11 .37 2.65 .52 factor 1= Consideration; factor 2 = Morale; factor 3 = Institutional integrity; factor 4 = Bureaucratic load; factor 5 = Principal’s influence; factor 6 = Academic emphasis; factor 7 = Resource support. t1 = before implementing SBM; t2 = schools’ first year in SBM; t3 = schools’ second year in SBM.