Schools are socially constructed institutions. As such, nearly all aspects of school life are framed and created by those involved, particularly by those in a position of power. This is the case with school-site management and teacher empowerment as they are situated within the larger realm of school restructuring. At stake are issues of trust, responsibility, and efficacy. One’s world view, be it technical, practical, or emancipatory (Grundy, 1987) influences how one defines and enacts school-site management.

In this chapter, we take a comprehensive look at the literature on school-site management (SSM), what it suggests, and implications for changing roles, rules, and relationships within school settings. To do this, we begin by considering various definitions and configurations of school-site management, their underlying assumptions, and potential impacts on teacher empowerment. Second, case studies are analyzed in terms of their track record in relation to power distribution within SSM. This is followed by a discussion of benefits and limitations, as well as structural and organizational factors, that enhance or impede success of school-site management (SSM). The chapter ends with a discussion of issues for consideration. The primary purpose of this chapter is to evaluate with a critical eye the track record of school-site management, particularly focusing on the roles and possibilities for teachers.

Fullan (1998) has suggested that we must go beyond restructuring and begin "reculturing" if long lasting change is to occur in our schools. Reculturing implies changing the modes of operation, the "regularities," and the values of an organization. One aspect of schooling that is being changed in some situations is how and by whom decisions are made. We know that for students, motivation and learning is likely to increase through planning and involvement with one’s learning activities (Joyce & Weil, 1996), and the same holds true for teacher involvement in decision-making that affects the teaching and learning taking place in their schools and classrooms. It has been suggested that being involved in decision-making that affects teaching and learning conditions increases a sense of empowerment for teachers.

Bolin (1989) states that, "in a literal sense, to empower is to invest legally or formally with power or authority; to authorize or license" (p. 81). Power is implicit when discussing empowerment (Short & Greer, 1997). There are at least two distinct views of empowerment, each of which is influenced by how one perceives power. The first view is grounded in long-standing labor-management traditions of adversarial relationships--for one side to win, the other side must lose. This conception suggests that power is a limited commodity (Short & Greer, 1997) implying that for teachers to have power, administrators must lose power. This scenario of exclusion is not conducive to school-site decision making. Another view of empowerment suggests that power is an unlimited commodity, and that the more one involves others, the more power there is to be had (Short & Greer, 1997). This inclusionary view of empowerment does lend itself to school-site management. It is important to note that "empowerment is not a simple process nor one that can be accomplished overnight. Empowerment requires that principals, teachers, staff members, and parents all have mature judgment and the desire to make the school a learning place for all students" (Short & Greer, 1997, p. 13).

Cornett (1991) reminds us that "Teachers (and students) cannot be empowered by others…This type of empowerment smells of top-down, scientific, impositional practices that instead of reskilling, contribute further to deskilling" (p. 72). Definitions for school-site management can range from teacher involvement in school governance (Bolin, 1989; Bredeson, 1991) to serving in an advisory capacity for decision-making (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998). Some have defined school-site management as a process for improving working conditions and granting new respect to teachers (Maeroff, 1988b). Others have linked restructuring and leadership, the thrust of school-site management, to decision-making that affects the teaching-learning climate (Sergiovanni, 1992). While still others see school-site management as a form of teacher empowerment and "…see teacher empowerment as teacher revolution to overcome the existing administrative order and gain control of the profession" (Bolin, 1989, p. 81). In general, school-site management implies that teachers [and sometimes others] are involved in a meaningful way in making decisions that most affect them and their students.

Conley (1991) suggests that it is important to analyze teacher empowerment and school-site decision making through a political frame (Bolman & Deal, 1985), emphasizing an analysis of power-related issues within a given context. This implies that there needs to be a differentiation between authority and influence when considering the definitions, context, and effectiveness of empowerment and school-site decision making. "Authority deals with final decision making power, referring to the ability of an organizational member to say yes or no to a particular decision" (Conley, 1991, p. 253). This suggests that there is a legal or contractual right to make decisions. Granting authority to others usually necessitates creating a formal arrangement within the system that spells out new roles, responsibilities, and structures. "[I]nfluence, by contrast, stems from the capacity to shape decisions through informal or nonauthoritative means…"(Conley, 1991, p. 253). Further, Conley reminds us that influence is multi-directional and non-zero sum in nature, meaning that influence can be peer-to-peer, peer-to-boss, or other configurations and that no one necessarily loses influence because someone else has it. One can have influence without reorganizing the system.

Leithwood and Menzies (1998) suggest that there are at least four forms of SSM practice: administrative control, professional control, community control, and balanced control. In all of these forms there is generally a site council. However, the composition and purpose of the site council differs greatly depending on the form of SSM practice. They describe administrative control as typically achieved through the use of site councils that advise the principal. An underlying assumption behind this form of SSM is that there will be increased accountability and more efficient expenditure of resources. Professional control implies that teachers have had the authority to decide issues and is based on the assumption that teachers have valuable knowledge that can be useful in making decisions that directly affect classroom practices such as budget, curriculum, and possibly hiring new personnel. Another underlying assumption is that teacher involvement in decision-making will increase their commitment to implementing the decisions that are made. The third form suggested by Leithwood and Menzies is community control. In this form, the underlying assumptions are that there will be increased accountability to parents and the community and increased "consumer satisfaction" when the "curriculum of the school directly reflects the values and preferences of parents and the local community" (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998, p. 330). Their fourth form of SSM is balanced control. "[B]alanced control forms assume that professionals are willing to be quite responsive to the values and preferences of parents and the local community under conditions in which parents are in a position to act as partners with schools in the education of their children. Both parents and teachers, it is assumed, have important knowledge to bring to bear on key decisions about curriculum, budget, and personnel" (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998, p. 333).

Kowalski (1994) suggests that meaningful change is more likely to occur at the site level rather than at a district or state level. In order for stakeholders to feel part of and possibly influence key policy decisions, their involvement must extend beyond local implementation concerns (Bishop & Mulford, 1996, p. 194; see also, Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Maeroff, 1988a; Romanish, 1991). For change to occur, individual schools need regulation flexibility, and broad representation of the school community that will help to produce commitment needed to bring about lasting change (Kowalski, 1994, p. 200). Bredeson (1989) reminds us that dealing with technical concerns and issues needing resolutions, but not policies, is not shared governance. If one goal of SSM is teacher empowerment, Bredeson’s comment suggests that teachers should have authority, not just influence, in decision-making. Consistent with Senge’s (1990) concept of learning organizations, teachers deserve to be involved in collaborative activities that increase the likelihood of them seeing the larger picture, how they interact and impact, why particular policies exist, and how actions may contribute to long-term success. When considering systems thinking (Senge, 1990), school-site management increases the likelihood that schools will become self-correcting systems. Those closest to the situation, teachers and administrators, will have the information, power, and leverage to modify behaviors and operations that are counter-productive. Decisions that will improve student learning are best made at the local site, rather than by central office personnel or state-level policy makers.

The notion of school reform, as the fixing or fine tuning of what currently exists, is no longer enough. There needs to be a reconceptualization of the roles, rules, and responsibilities for administrators, teachers, students, parents, and the community if democratic education is to become a reality. Those involved must have a voice, not only to offer advice, but to be a part of actual decision-making. There needs to be a breaking down of the current "regularities" in schools and opportunities to recreate schools so that they reflect the multiple realities within our society today. "The promise embedded in clamors for restructuring is that there is potential for teachers to become liberated from the bureaucratic strangleholds and hierarchical power structures of the existing system" (Romanish, p. 56). If this is to occur, there needs to be on-going inter- and intra-school dialogue and research about what teacher empowerment and school-site management means and how it is operationalized in differing contexts.

Many assumptions about school-site decision making and teacher empowerment reflect the complexity of schools and society today, moving beyond the simplistic view of organizations and life perpetuated by bureaucracies. Yet, most schools still operate in a bureaucratic manner and are viewed as units within a larger bureaucratic structure controlled at the district, state, and/or national levels. This is problematic and must be addressed if democratic efforts are to be sustained. As the movement persists, there is a danger that rhetoric will build on bureaucratic assumptions and that "empowering teachers will be tied to increased productivity and teacher accountability rather than to democratic ends" (Romanish, 1991, p. 57). It is essential that there be a critical analysis of the assumptions, language, and actions of those involved so that the intent of developing democratic schools is not lost along the way.

Varvus (1989) reminds us that "…schools are fabricated by human beings… [implying that] they embody attitudes and interpretations which serve particular cognitive and political interests" (p. 88). One’s position in life and the culture of a school determine how school-site management and teacher empowerment are envisioned and operationalized. These terms would likely be defined very differently, and would have differing implications, for those who primarily view schools as a means for preparing young people to be competitive in a global market versus those who view the primary purpose of schooling as preparing citizens for a democratic society. Depending on one’s vantage point, some may view it as an attempt to increase a teacher’s workload and assist the administration without any financial accommodation (Walker & Roder, 1993). Additionally, one needs to be alert to the differences between compliance and commitment (Bolin, 1989, p. 91) in how these are envisioned and enacted as well as how the terms are situated within the larger context of school restructuring. Rather than asking the question, what do school-site management and empowerment mean, perhaps the question becomes what do those terms mean, to whom, and under what circumstances?

Whether or not increased scores on academic outcome measures is our goal, we cannot neglect the emotional and social needs of our students while they are in school. Thus, it is important to provide a climate that promotes the values of our society- -democracy, independent thinking, as well as learning to be a productive and cooperative member of society. One possible way to provide such a climate for students is to create an atmosphere of professionalism for all faculty and staff, including teachers and administrators. In this way, values we want to convey are modeled on a daily basis.

Benefits to Teachers. Teachers who have a sense of well being and take pride in their roles will set the tone for students. Williams (1990), speaks of the autonomy one is afforded as a motivation for going into the teaching profession. Autonomy implies a sense of control and independence in making decisions. School-site management provides an avenue through which teachers can gain a greater sense of control by providing them with the opportunity to participate in school governance.

Williams (1990) also contends that teachers need to be treated in a professional manner. At the present time, society holds teachers in low esteem (Bracey, 1997; Maeroff, 1988a). It would seem that societal perceptions would negatively affect teachers’ assessments of themselves and thus their level of investment in school processes. Teachers are the ones who have direct contact with the students through the classroom. They decide what is taught and how it is taught. If their professionalism is questioned or diminished, can we expect top quality in the classroom? Bredeson (1989) says that increased teacher involvement in the decision making process supports a sense of professionalism. When teachers become more involved in the decision making process, it follows that their attitudes toward their workplaces and toward themselves as professionals would improve.

Another argument put forth by Williams (1990) is that school restructuring cannot

succeed without the leadership of the teachers. Bredeson delineates a number of benefits of school-site decision making and teacher empowerment, including more positive teacher attitudes, greater enthusiasm on the part of the teachers, and more collegial support within the school. As teachers’ professional self-esteem increases and they feel that they are more empowered to influence the system in which they work, it makes sense that they would become more energetic and enthusiastic about school improvement. Enthusiasm would facilitate a more positive attitude toward teamwork, building consensus, and implementing programs they have decided upon. Additionally, likely results of participation in work teams and making decisions are improved communications and improved relationships among teachers and administrators (Wood & Caldwell, 1991), which also contribute to a climate conducive to success.

Working cooperatively and team building are skills and as such can be enhanced through professional development of teachers. Williams (1990) contends that professional development programs require the leadership of teachers. Teachers who develop needed team skills can influence others through action and through supporting others’ participation in professional development workshops.

Wood and Caldwell (1991) describe the school-site management efforts of the Greece Central School District in New York. The Greece Central School District is a large suburban district with a large population of minority and low-income students. School-site management efforts in this district involved peer elected committees. Administrative support was provided through compensation for the extra responsibilities. Professional development was provided to the leadership team through training in team building, group processes such as decision-making and conflict resolution, and ways to improve communications. A mission statement was formulated and goals were established. According to the results of questionnaires and interviews with teachers and administrators, positive outcomes included improved communication between teachers and principals, increased professionalism as evidenced by the amount of time spent discussing educational issues, increased shared-decision-making, development of teacher leadership, and improved relationships and feelings about their schools. This case illustrates the impact that well implemented school-site management can have on teacher attitudes, professional self-esteem, and professional skill development. It further illustrates the importance of teacher leadership in determining school climate and success.

Malen and Ogawa (1988) remind us that, even when the appropriate structures and elements are in place in a school system, SSM efforts can fail. These authors analyzed the site-based governance councils in Salt Lake City, Utah and concluded that decision-making power, at least on major issues, remained in the hands of the principals. For example, they found that the counsils [sic] rarely wrestled with the more salient issues such as budget or personnel. Additionally, even though structures were in place for shared decision-making, principals retained control in that they schedule meetings and set agendas.

We reviewed over 25 cases in which SSM was undertaken and attempted to evaluate these cases in light of the four forms of SSM control described by Leithwood and Menzies (1998). These forms are a) administrative control, characterized by principal or district office having the final decision-making power, b) professional control, which provides an avenue through which teachers have greater decision-making power, c) community control, which gives decision-making power to parents and community members, and d) balanced control, a form in which parents/community members and school personnel share equally in making school decisions. Of the cases we reviewed, 10 appeared to fall within a professional control form of SSM, at least ultimately (Berry, 1995; Daniels, 1990; Karant, 1989; Keedy & Finch, 1994; Short & Greer, 1997). We do want to emphasize that we classified some cases as professional based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. We classified 11 cases as administrative in form (Anderson, 1990; Bishop & Mulford, 1996; O’Sullivan, 1992; Ross & Webb, 1995; Short & Greer, 1997; Smylie & Tuermer, 1995; Welsh, 1987; Whitford & Gaus, 1995) even though in many (not all) cases the original or the stated intent was that decision-making power would be shared. It should be noted that we considered final administrative approval or veto power to fall within an administrative form of SSM. In the remaining cases, paucity of information precluded making a firm decision as to the form of SSM, or the decision-making power was shared but on a notably limited basis (Delehant, 1990; Karant, 1989; Short & Greer, 1997). The percentage of case studies that we judged to fall within the administrative, professional, or "undefined" is represented in Figure 1.

A thorough analysis of each of these cases is beyond the scope of this chapter. Thus we have chosen to highlight specific cases that illustrate various forms of SSM. We will also provide an analysis of cases that we considered to fall within a "gray" area in relation to Leithwood’s and Menzies’ framework and decision-making power. The section ends with a brief overview of a case in which schools implementing a SSM approach to school governance in a district are compared and student outcomes are discussed.

Administrative Design. Misunderstandings or mishandling of school-site management efforts will lead to adherence to an administrative form of SSM. The goal of either an administrative or a professional form of SSM can be to improve schools and conditions within schools. It must be stressed that school-site management that purports to share decision-making power must be careful to accomplish this goal. Administrators need to take care that the teachers, and others, involved in the SSM effort are given real decision-making power. In cases in which teachers expect to become empowered though a school-site approach to governance, but in reality were not given power to make decisions, dissatisfaction and cynicism prevailed.

Short and Greer (1997) recount a case in which a rural elementary school became involved in school restructuring efforts designed to empower teachers. Although the principal stated at the onset of the effort that he was committed to the project, there were several indications that this was not the case. For example, the first retreat to discuss empowerment was mandatory and during the first year of the SSM effort, Short and Greer state that " they [teachers] were being asked for their input but experiencing little involvement" (p. 82). By the end of the second year, interview responses indicated that confusion and concern about the effort prevailed. Short and Greer conclude their case analysis by saying:

Issues related to administrators or central office giving up traditional decision-making power was noted in many of the cases classified as an administrative form of SSM. For example, in one case the school improvement team developed action plans based on a needs survey. However, this plan had to be "endorsed" by the principal and "approved by the superintendent before implementation (O’Sullivan, 1992). In other cases, administrators turned decision-making power to teachers but later undermined the teachers’ efforts to wield their power. Welsh (1987) described a case in which teachers had spent over a year studying the role of developing a plan for department heads but central office, without consulting the teachers, implemented its own plan. Teachers felt betrayed.

Professional Design. Berry (1995) discusses a case in which the teachers’ decision-making power provided the driving force in school restructuring. Keels Elementary School (K-5) consisted of 570 students, 52% of which were on free lunch and 74% of which were nonwhite. Over a period of years teachers and site-level administrators initiated a variety of changes, including revamping existing curriculum, increasing the use of technology in the classroom, and developing large scale alternative assessments for their students. Two factors seem to have been significant in contributing to the success of the participatory decision-making initiative at Keels Elementary School. First, teachers themselves were instrumental in taking responsibility for empowering themselves. They worked many hours and put forth much effort toward school improvement. They identified problems then spent hours researching and developing plans. For example, the first-grade teachers were reported to have spent over 2500 hours combined in transforming their language arts program. Another factor that contributed to the success of the participatory decision-making efforts of the school was administrative support. Based on responses to interviews, Berry concluded that the principal and the vice-principal both played critical roles in "creating a culture of change" (p. 114). For example, teacher responses indicated that the principal was perceived as facilitative rather than controlling in her role as curriculum leader. Formal governance structures were not discussed in this case study. It appeared that structures were developed in response to need. The principal did provide for common planning time for teachers. Perhaps we can conclude that the success of SSM is more a function of the attitudes of faculty and administrators toward sharing decision-making power than of the structures themselves.

Balanced Design. A balanced form of SSM necessitates that structures be put in place that give parents and community members opportunities to participate in making major decisions. One example in the literature was Clinton Grove Elementary in Maryland (Foster, 1990). At this school a governance structure was established that included representatives from teacher teams, a support staff representative, three parent representatives and the principal (see Figure 1). Information about how parent representatives and the support staff representative were chosen was not given. Therefore, we cannot classify this case with any certainty.

The"Gray" Area. In some of the case studies we attempted to classify, teachers did appear to have decision-making power in salient areas but their power seemed too limited to fall within a professional design. Karant (1989), for example, recounted a case in which mentor teachers provide guidance to and supervise new teachers. As a part of the mentoring process, the mentor teachers also evaluate the progress of the new teachers and can make recommendations to the review board, made up of "union and management leaders" as to whether the teachers should be terminated or retained. Administrators’ supervisory responsibilities over the new teachers are described as minimal. However, responsibility for the supervision and guidance given to new teachers seemed to be the only area of decision-making granted these teachers. Additionally, after the first year, administrators take over full responsibility for supervising these teachers and also make all subsequent recommendations regarding retention and tenure. It seems that the review board made the final decisions about retention of new teachers, thus it was hard to make a judgement about exactly how much power the teachers actually had in the decision-making process. One might be tempted to consider this an administrative form of SSM except that the administrators did not have the final decision-making power in relation to retention of new teachers. Additionally based on the information presented, it appears that teachers’ decision-making power responsibilities are limited to evaluating and making retention recommendations about new teachers.

In another case study (Short & Greer, 1997), a principal "realized the primary program needed improvement" (p. 48). She expressed her dissatisfactions to the primary teachers, which resulted in three of the teachers working on a team with the principal, the media specialist, and the special education coordinator to plan multi-age, multi-grade classrooms. Subsequently, the school became involved in the Arizona Educational Restructuring Project just before the multi-age, multi-grade classrooms were established. The teachers did take ownership of the project. Although the principal identified the problems, the teachers were the ones who came up with the ideas about how to solve the problems they were experiencing in the primary grades. They were also supported in the planning and implementation of their ideas. On the other hand, there was no mention of how other teachers were involved in the restructuring. Nor was there any mention of teachers having decision-making powers in other areas of school concern, such as the budget or personnel.

A major problem with many of the case studies is they presented an incomplete picture of what actually transpired. Although the cases fell somewhere along the continuum between administrative and balanced designs, without more detailed descriptions, it is difficult to classify them with a reasonable degree of certainty. School districts as they are involved in restructuring efforts, need to more thoroughly document, not only successes, but also the processes involved. Additionally, it would be useful for districts that have multiple schools involved in SSM to document processes and outcomes comparing schools within their districts. For example, Etheridge (1995) studied SSM in seven Memphis City Schools and drew conclusions about the effectiveness of the SSM efforts based on comparisons between the schools. He used participant observation, interviews, inventories, school reports and achievement test scores to evaluate the effectiveness of the efforts made by these schools. The data collected over a three-year period displayed the following patterns:

a) only the "democratic" form of leadership could be associated with sustained

b) a democratic form of leadership was associated with teacher retention.

1. the exclusion of teachers from the decision-making process negatively affected teacher retention.
2. principal support of SSM affected teacher retention.
3. the commitment of school professionals negatively affected parent involvement.

This kind of information helps us to develop theories and policy that can inform and guide practice.

Some argue that the roles of school administrators, school boards, and legislatures elected to represent the people are undermined by the movement toward school-site decision making (Williams, 1990). In some cases, administrators may espouse a philosophy consistent with school-site decision making but, in essence, practice an authoritarian approach to school management. This leads to resentment on the part of teachers. Bishop and Mulford (1996) provide an illustrative example of such a case. They studied four Australian inner-city primary schools that were given school level budgetary decision-making responsibilities by the Directorate of School Education. Although teachers were given these responsibilities, they lacked power over a key variable that affects schools, namely the curriculum, and felt that they, therefore, lacked real power and autonomy. Release time and professional development opportunities were also lacking. The results of the study indicate that teachers believed that "the pressure of the job had increased considerably, to the point where there was a feeling that a lot of the joy had now gone out of teaching" (p. 200). Bishop and Mulford also found that teachers "unanimously held [the] view that their employer regarded teachers very poorly’ (p. 200). The bottom line in this case was teachers wanted to feel empowered to make decisions about key school issues, such as the curriculum. The Australian teachers did not feel they had central office support and this lead to mistrust and resentment. There must be a sense of trust for SSM to work effectively.

According to the literature we have read, however, many principals do view the concept of school-site management in positive terms. Kowalski (1994) surveyed principals and concluded from the results of the survey that they support the concept of school-site management, do not feel threatened by it, and supported teacher initiatives designed to increase teacher empowerment. We reviewed many articles authored or co-authored by school administrators that positively portrayed school-site management and teacher empowerment (Alvarez, 1992: Bernd, 1992; Gresso & Robertson, 1992; Grier, 1996; Hetzel, 1992; Holman, 1995; Stein & King, 1992). In most cases, the problems that we encountered in the literature were more a function of either misunderstanding the intent and processes related to school-site management or misuse of the processes. It is very hard to suddenly switch one’s thinking when encountering new or different approaches to doing one’s job. Past experiences have honed knowledge, skill, and even professional language that support the status quo.

Teachers may also misunderstand or acquire negative perceptions about the process. If teachers are given trivial tasks with which to deal and/or not given needed release time to accomplish tasks they may become resentful of the added duties. Feeling that they are only given token authority can lead to frustration, distrust, and disenfranchisement rather than productive problem solving (Bredeson, 1989; Bishop & Mulford, 1996). Teachers could also view the decision-making responsibilities as providing an opportunity to gain power without consideration of other teachers in the school. In effect, this only adds another layer to the existing hierarchy and is not consistent with the intent of a school-site management approach (Bredeson, 1989).

Whether the source of the problem is administrative disagreement with a school-site approach to decision making or administrator and teacher misunderstanding and lack of skill related to the process, the result is ineffectiveness in making important decisions and changes. Principals might disagree with teacher decisions, worry about the timeliness of decisions, or be concerned that only a few teachers are participating in making decisions and opt to make the decisions themselves out of frustration with the process. Additionally principals can worry about perceptions of the public or personnel in other schools, time needed to interface with others outside the school, and the highly developed communication skills needed to work with teachers, central office administration, and the public (Bredeson, 1989).

Another concern is related to employee rights as specified in union contracts. Williams (1990) suggests that school-site management may present a "fundamental problem for unions and may be in conflict with the employee rights as established by collective agreement" (p. 4). Examples of employee rights include such things as the hours teachers are expected to work and appropriate placement of teachers based on teaching certification. In the process of teachers gaining decision-making power, they must also be given the freedom to make decisions about things that have traditionally been outlined in or may already be contained in collective agreements. This may necessitate a restructuring of the agreement or release from specific guidelines contained in the agreements (Poltrock & Goss, 1991; Steinberger, 1990; Taylor & Levine, 1991; Williams, 1990)

Schools in Georgia that employed a school-site management approach to school governance were surveyed (Murray, et al, 1993) and factors that contributed to the success of this approach were identified. These included a collaborative climate, principal skill in communication, having a vision with written goals, staff development of skills needed to share in decision-making, and time allotment for working on decision-making teams and for training. Goldman, et al (1991) interviewed principals and teachers in 16 Oregon schools that they identified as using "restructuring or school-site management language as part of their project goals" (p. 5). Consistent with the Murray, et al findings, Goldman and his colleagues found that vision was a major factor in success. The case of Fredericks Middle School (Bondy, 1995) provides an illustrative example of the need for vision. The school experienced several stumbling blocks to success in implementing school-site management. One major stumbling block that was identified was the establishment of shared meaning. Initially, " procedures of SDM [school-site decision-making] rather than its purpose" was the focus. Focus was shifted from collective power of veto to collective responsibility. This shift produced a change in focus from day-to-day management to one that encompassed a vision for school growth. Other factors that were identified by Goldman et al as contributing to the success of the shared decision-making process were principals’ ability to create effective work groups, providing for meaningful work group assignments, and maintaining a non-authoritarian and collaborative leadership style.

Administration. Principals play a central role in creating a climate of change and support for teachers in their decision-making efforts. In order for principals to be effective in doing theses things, the role of the principal must be reconceptualized. Romanish (1991) states that we must "see administration in entirely different terms from what public schools have come to accept…" (p. 61). When employing school-site management, the principal no longer makes all decisions for the school. Principals must understand the importance of and be willing to share meaningful decision-making with teachers (Stein & King, 1992) which makes it necessary to lead in new ways. Being a school principal in a shared decision-making capacity makes understanding and skill in team building and group processes essential (Chamley, et al, 1992; Gresso & Robertson, 1992; Grier, 1996). The principal is now in a position of facilitating team decision-making, an "empowering leadership" position (Bolin, 1989). As a facilitator in the process, he or she now supports teachers in developing skills in information gathering, problem solving, and making decisions. This includes providing assistance to and time for teachers to participate effectively in decision-making efforts by providing avenues through which teachers can develop skills, engage in dialogue, and access needed information (Romanish, 1991). Table 1 delineates principal roles. As teachers gain support from their administrators, they will become more empowered in the decision-making process. Keedy & Finch (1994) compare the principal as an "enabler". Principals might consider four possible areas of teacher participation (Conley, 1991 ):

• Direction--making decisions about purpose and/or activity.
• Organization—making decisions about the structure of relationships such as setting schedules.
• Support—making decisions about the allocation of human resources such as assigning mentors.
• Monitoring—making decisions about the collection and evaluation of performance.

Teachers. Interviews with teachers and survey results (Bishop & Mulford, 1996; Goldman, et al, 1991; Murray, et al, 1993;) indicate that in order to feel valued and empowered, a necessary component of school-site management, teachers need to be given decision-making responsibilities that they consider to be meaningful. They want to be involved in making decisions about things that affect their classrooms, such as curriculum and instruction, but have little interest in involvement with more routine matters (High, et al, 1989). Another major factor influencing teachers’ interest in shared decision-making is trust and respect. Bishop and Mulford (1996) state that "feelings of empowerment were enhanced when teachers felt they could trust and were trusted by their principal to act in the best interests of their students and colleagues". (p. 198)

Romanish (1991), emphasizes the values of democracy in upholding the need for teacher empowerment. He believes that in our democratic society teachers have a right to participate in making decisions that affect their jobs. He outlines elements needed for empowerment in a democratic system. These include informed participation in decisions with access to information, the right to choose one’s representatives, procedural means for bringing about change, and genuine dialogue. The principal can lay the groundwork by providing a climate that fosters empowerment and democratic participation. Teachers must also accept responsibility. Teacher empowerment involves teachers’ willingness to develop skills, work with decision-making groups, build consensus, and be accountable for results of decisions made. According to Cornett (1991) "it is up to the individual teacher to fully engage in the task of enhancing these skills". (p. 73)

Through becoming empowered, teachers develop what Romanish terms as an ‘authentic voice’. Romanish stresses that "having a vote is not the equivalent of having a voice because those with a genuine voice have a say in what choices are offered for a vote" (p. 59). Having a say in what choices are offered implies taking responsibility for becoming well informed about what the choices might be and the implications of these choices.

Bredeson (1989) reminds us that the empowerment of teachers is a process that evolves slowly. It takes skill, time, and effort on the part of administrators to develop a climate conducive to shared decision making and it takes time and effort on the part of the teachers to develop the skills needed to be effective problem solvers, decision-makers, and researchers. For teachers to develop needed skills, they must understand their responsibilities and roles. Table 2, below, delineates the some of the roles and responsibilities that were specified in the case studies we reviewed.

Many factors, such as teachers being afforded release time and provided professional training, influence the success of a SSM effort. We the factors that gleaned from case studies in Table 3.

Court decisions pertaining to the definition of power in the context of schools have focused on who is considered to be in managerial positions and thus have bargaining power. Baldwin (1990) reviewed a series of court cases that dealt with this question in higher education institutions. Although decisions varied, several cases defined managerial positions as those which required that the employees "make and implement decisions, or have intimate knowledge of the labor relation policies of the employers" (p. 1077). This implies that school employees could be held accountable when making and implementing decisions.

Baldwin (1990) points out that in the final analysis, however, "decision-making and discretionary actions of public schools belong by statute to the local school board" (p. 1077). School boards, as representatives of the people, can delegate managerial prerogatives. The right to delegate power to school councils involved in school site management programs stems from a definition of site-based management that includes citizens as a part of the school council. Baldwin cited two court cases, in particular, that seem to be important in drawing the conclusion that school boards retain the right to delegate managerial power. In one case, Ridgefield Park Education Association v. Ridgefield Park Board of Education, the court maintained that the people were the true managers, providing justification for the school council (considered an extension of the board of education) to act in a managerial capacity. In another case, administrators in Rochester, New York challenged the right of the school council to act in a managerial capacity through faculty evaluations. The administrators felt that they had lost power and control in relation to faculty evaluations. However, the position of the school board to authorize the involvement of school-site council members was upheld.

Walker (1993) wrote "clearly, school administrators will have to cede a measure of power and much of their traditional role in order to empower school-based management committees. How much authority should unions be required to cede in return?" (p. 166) Unions have traditionally been in a position of protecting teachers through collective bargaining and contractual agreements. Union representatives must play a different role in schools where site-based management is employed. Providing leeway for teachers and administrators to collaboratively make school decisions may make it necessary for union representatives to allow deviations from terms of contracts (Poltrock & Goss, 1991) One example of a union taking a collaborative and facilitative position is seen in Dade County, Florida (Steinberger, 1990). She states that "since 1986, local schools and teachers in Dade County have been granted more than 300 waivers releasing them from school board rules and contractual provisions. Union representatives become involved in a different level of bargaining where the focus is on collaborative, managerial level decisions rather than wages, hours, and working conditions.

Walker (1993) cites legal developments that can impact the union’s position in relation to schools employing school-site management. He says, "according to the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, a union may lawfully exclude nonmembers from participatory management because they are merely incidental to and preparatory to collective bargaining." (pp. 166-167) Based on this, unions retain a power base in schools where teachers participate in school governance. Additionally, Walker cites a Supreme Court case that exempts unions from "financial responsibility or liability under both state and federal law for any negligence committed by the union while acting as a managing agent on a joint labor-management committee" (p. 167). Unions, thus, have more freedom to redefine their role in participatory management situations.

In addition to issues related to the definition and distribution of power, legal issues must be considered (Walker, 1993). One example of this is related to the confidentiality of personnel and student files. Empowerment of teachers and other stakeholders, such as community members, may necessitate that they have greater access to school records in order to make hiring or student placement decisions. This could create legal issues for schools. Another issue, according to Walker, is the possibility that teachers and/or parents that serve on school management teams could be held liable for committee decisions that violate constitutional rights. Accountability issues still need to be addressed. It is not yet clear, for example, who should be held accountable for meeting standards (Steinberger, 1990). Some would argue that if teachers are empowered to make decisions about curriculum and instruction, they should assume accountability for outcomes. On the other hand, can we expect teachers to take risks necessary to make innovative changes if they are saddled with full responsibility for the outcomes? Rather than creating a culture that fosters collaboration and informed risk taking, fear of retribution fosters defensive posturing and a return to status quo operating procedures.

Although school-site management appears to be accepted by most educators, at least in terms of rhetoric (Conley, 1991), there are several pertinent issues that need to be addressed if there is to be a movement beyond only influencing policies, rather than having authority to help create or enact them. One issue pertains to teacher professionalism and how that term is defined. According to Varvus, the longer teachers have been employed, the more alienated they feel. When dealing only with trivial tasks, teachers act as technocrats (Varvus, 1989, p. 90) This view of education "…interpret[s] the value of education primarily on the grounds of economic utility with an assessment of the students’ human capital potential serving as the end result" (p. 90) and suggests that "good" teachers are those who make sure that their students perform well on tests and other technical measures of school success.

However, when the end product of education is viewed as preparing citizens for participation in a democratic way of life, then teacher professionalism is defined very differently. This view of education suggests that teachers empower students, establish classroom communities, and model collaborative practices with other professionals.

Another issue pertains to current and past labor-management relations in a district. In some districts, union leadership and administrators have been able to negotiate creative and mutually beneficial processes for involving teachers [and others] in school-site decision making. Koppich & Kerchner (1988, 1990), for example, discuss the Educational Policy Trust Agreements in California school districts. These agreements address issues that are not traditionally within the scope of collective bargaining. Rather than focusing on teachers’ working conditions, these agreements "revolve around professional problems of schools as organizations—problems of student achievement, school restructuring, staff and career development, and teacher evaluation" (1988, p. 24). Thus, teachers and administrators work cooperatively in an effort to solve problems and improve schools.

Hollinger (1988) outlines four models of teacher involvement in the decision-making process. The first, the Principals’ Advisory Council, emphasizes the involvement of faculty in decision-making to improve the school climate. Teachers are elected to the Advisory Council by their faculties and have a voice, but not final approval authority, in school affairs. The second model, the Instructional Support Team. The goal of the Instructional Support Team is to improve instruction. Teachers have greater freedom and assume leadership roles in curriculum development and implementation. A third model employes School Improvement Teams. These teams focus on learning through setting school-wide goals and often given some budgetary authority. Last, the Teacher Lead Committee model "formalizes the involvement of teachers and the principal in the decision making process through contractual agreement" (p. 11). This model is designed to utilize teacher expertise and widen accountability beyond the principal.

"One of the most promising aspects of recent efforts to encourage teacher participation in decision making and empowerment of school faculties involves the granting of waivers that allow a school to overcome restrictions (real or imagined) imposed by federal, state, and local regulations and policies or by contracts negotiated by school boards and teacher unions. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have approved bargaining that will permit certain contract provisions to be suspended temporarily during school improvement programs." (Taylor & Levine, 1991, p. 397)

A third issue pertains to answering the question, who should be involved? This includes issues pertaining to voice, such as political and pragmatic concerns about representing voice. For example, how are voices silenced? How can voices be heard without either romanticizing them or portraying them other than how they were intended? How can the "dissident" voice also be included in discussions? Whose voices are heard and under what circumstances? Which teachers should be involved and under what circumstances? When is it appropriate to involve parents and/or students? When parents and students are involved, how many should be included? How should they be selected? Henry (1991) reminds us that typically when parents are asked to become involved, they are those who agree with how the school is being operated. Rarely are the voices of those who disagree, or those who have been disenfranchised from the system included in discussions, much less decision-making, about what should occur. To begin to hear what each other is saying and to value what they say, there needs to be a culture of trust and a spirit of genuine collaboration (Black, 1996). There "...has to be an acknowledgment that any effort to transform institutions so that they reflect a ...[different] standpoint must take into consideration the fears teachers have when asked to shift their paradigms (hooks, 1994, p. 36). There "...must be a setting for folks to voice fears, to talk about what they are doing, how they are doing it, and why" (hooks, 1994, p. 38) and this action alone runs counter to previous tendencies toward isolation of teachers where they guard their own teaching styles and classrooms from their peers and supervisors (Lortie, 1975). This is a shift from viewing teaching as an individual activity to viewing education as everyone's responsibility.

Another issue has to do with the current organizational and physical structures of our schools. Most schools are still bureaucratic organizations, meaning there is a valuing of authoritative leadership styles and a top-down reporting structure in place. This separation of teachers and administrators in some ways is like a tracking system that implies there are differing levels of ability. Taking this metaphor further, the "gifted" end up as administrators and the "mainstreamed" are the teachers. This has obvious implications for which positions are most valued in the schools and an argument could be made that it is a matter of patriarchy. Most administrators are male and most teachers, particularly at the elementary level, are female. This "tracking" suggests that males are better informed and prepared to make the important decisions. However, now that more principals are female, there is a change in perspective about what good leadership should be (Gutmann, 1990).

The traditional roles of principals and other leaders are changing and will continue to do so as restructuring encourages a renegotiation of these roles (Parkay, Shindler, and Oaks & , 1996). Many restructuring efforts call for the sharing of power within a school. School-site management and shared decision making are two of these initiatives pertaining to realignment of power within schools. One view of these is that they promote a sense of belonging and commitment (Shields et al, 1995). "People talk about school-site management in terms of giving up power. It’s not giving up power. It’s sharing power" (Janice Jackson as cited by Karen Prager, 1991). Another view suggests that changing roles fosters a sense of loss of power and choice, causing Principals to "...mourn the passing of the security, order, and predictability of the old systems"(Wildy and Punch, 1996, p. 2).

Teacher-leaders can experience anxiety about assuming power and needing to readjust their roles and positions. "The cycle of progress requires that a school staff redefines itself as a community responsible for setting and reaching its own goals and capable of managing its own resources. Such redefinition means nothing less than establishing new working relationships among all players" (Donaldson, 1993, p. 15). Redefining who is in charge and ultimately will be held accountable is a conflict-charged problem. "One of the fundamental problems of school restructuring is how to reconfigure who is responsible, and ultimately accountable, for what" (Darling-Hammond, 1995, p. 166) as cited in Parkay, Shindler, & Oaks (1996).

minimum standards and expectations that are usually tailored to the least

capable students in a class. It is the structure of the system that results in a

very small proportion of the time in school being spent on actively learning.

reward the kinds of leadership that are needed, and in fact it often rewards

(or at least promotes) good bureaucrats and public relations people instead of

good educational leaders (Reigeluth, 1987, p. 6).

Discussion

Our world has become increasingly complex, economically, technologically, and socially, as have our schools. Theobald & Mills (1995) suggest that there are at least five major influences that have challenged the wisdom of scientific/bureaucratic approaches to schooling and "legitimate" knowledge: a) a shift in the dominant world view from modernism to postmodernism; b) feminist influences challenging the legitimacy of male domination of decision-making circles; c) a valuing of constructivist approaches to curriculum and instruction; d) Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences; and e) the numbers of minority scholars who have reached prominence, causing a "rethinking about what constitutes objective, factual, truth" (p. 465).

Our student populations are increasingly diverse. Many people distrust the wisdom of state-determined educational policies (Apple, 1996). In order to respond to these rapidly changing times, new ways of viewing organizations, power, and productivity need to be developed. Senge’s (1990) systems approach emphasizes the inter-relatedness of all aspects of an organization. What happens in one place or to one person greatly influences other aspects and people within the organization. Leadership for organizations such as these must let go of preconceived notions of control and allow for the possibility and possibilities of self-organizing systems (Wheatley, 1986). This implies that leadership must be redefined and broadened in conception so that more people are involved, touched, and energized by the process.

Throughout the world there are calls for sustainable development (Bhasin, 1992) as people realize that there is a delicate balance between humankind and nature. As our resources and decision-making becomes increasingly centralized, we lose. We lose our resources, our autonomy, and our economic, political, and cultural independence (Bhasin, 1992, p. 28). Our nation was founded on principles of democracy that valued diversity, yet with increased centralization and control by a few, we become more homogenized. This leads to mindless work, less creativity, and increasing alienation and frustration (Bhasin, 1992, p. 29).

Teacher empowerment and school-site decision making need to be defined within the context of where and how they are being operationalized. As discussed earlier in this chapter, research has suggested that there are certain structural/cultural conditions that enhance the success of these concepts, including: trust, a collaborative climate, adequate time, equal access to information, on-going open communications, professional development, and facilitative leadership. It has also been suggested that other structural/cultural conditions impede progress in these areas, including: lack of time and resources; over-emphasis on mandated policies at the federal, state, or local levels; lack of group membership skills and/or professional development to achieve those; autocratic administrators; discord between teachers and administration; an unwillingness to break from traditionally held roles; and an unwillingness to share power.

Inherent within all discussions of teacher empowerment and school-site decision making is a notion of power—who has it and under what circumstances? Unless these issues of power are addressed in a forthright manner, little will change. Decision-making is about having the power to influence, advise, or have authority within the formal schooling structures. This needs to be negotiated within each setting. Discussions surrounding teacher empowerment and school-site decision making need to look beyond only school house walls and seek ways where influence, advisement, or authority can be achieved in real ways through representation on school boards, councils, and professional associations, as well as at the state and national levels. As we move rapidly into a world of increasing complexity, we need to call upon all of our intellectual resources, not only those of a few. School-site management can help to foster innovative ideas while modeling democratic practices. It is what we need for our schools to continue to improve.

Alvarez, D. S. (1992). Professional growth seminars encourage shared decision making, collaboration. NASSP Bulletin, 70-75.

Andersen, Beth & Klein, Frances (1990). A study of curriculum decision making in a time of site based management. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Boston, MA, April 16020, 1990. ED 321364.

Baldwin, G. H. (1990). Collective negotiations and school site management. West’s Education Law Reporter, 58(4), 1075-1083.

Bernd, Mac (January, 1992). Shared decision making requires effective instructional leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 64-69.

Berry, Barnett (1995). School restructuring and teacher power: The case of Keels Elementary. In The Work of Restructuring Schools: Building from the Ground Up (Lieberman, A, Ed.). Teachers College Press, pp. 111-135.

Bhasin, K. (1992). Alternative and sustainable development. Convergence, 25(2), 26-36.

Bishop, P. W., and Mulford, W. R. (1996). Empowerment in four Australian primary schools: They don’t really care. International Journal of Educational Reform, 5(2), 193-204.

Black, S. (1996). Share the power. The Executive Educator 18(2), 24-26.

Bondy, Elizabeth. (1995). Fredericks Middle School and the dynamics of school reform. In The Work of Restructuring Schools: Building from the Ground Up (Lieberman, A, Ed.). Teachers College Press, pp. 43-63.

Bolin, F. S. (1989). Empowering leadership. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 81-96.

Bolman, Lee G. & Deal, Terrence E. (1993). The path to school leadership a portable mentor. Corwin Press, Inc. Newbury Park, CA.

Bracey, Gerald W. (1997). Setting the record straight: Responses to misconceptions about public education in the U.S. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.

Bredeson, P. V. (1989). Redefining leadership and the roles of school principals: Responses to changes in the professional worklife of teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, March 27-31, 1989). ED 304 782.

Chamley, J. D., McFarlane, F. R., Young, R. I, & Caprio, E. M. (1992). Overcoming the superprincipal complex: Shared and informed decision making. NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 1-8.

Conley, S. (1991). Review of research on teacher participation in school decision making. In G. Grant (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, 17, 225-268. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Cornett, J. W. (Spring, 1991 ). Earnedpowerment not empowerment of teachers: The role of teachers’ systematic reflection in restructuring schools. Social Science Record, 28(1) 71-77.

Daniels, C. T. (1990). A principal’s view: Giving up my traditional ship. School Administrator, 47(8), 20, 22-24.

Delehant, A. M. (1990). A central office view: Charting a course when pulled in all directions. School Administrator, 47(8), 14, 17-19.

Donaldson, G.A. (1993). Working smarter together. Educational Leadership 51(2), 12-16.

Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-27.

Etheridge, C. P., Hall, M. L. A. (1995). Challenge to change: The Memphis experience with school-based decision making revisited. Interrupted continuity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, April 18-22, 1995). ED 386826.

Foster, Karen (1990, May). Small steps on the way to teacher empowerment. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 38-40.

Frase, Larry E. & Melton, Gerald (1992, January). Manager or participatory leader? What does it mean? NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 17-24.

Frase, Larry E. & Sorenson, Larry (1992, January). Teacher motivation and satisfaction: Impact on participatory management. NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 37-43.

Fullan, M.G. & Miles, M.B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan 73(10), 745-752.

Goldman, P. (1991). Administrative facilitation and school-site school reform projects. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, April 3-7, 1991). ED 332 334.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gresso, Donn W. & Robertson, Marsha B. (1992, January). The principal as process consultant: Catalyst for change. NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 44-48.

Grier, T. B. (1996). Chartering project teams: What to do and how to do it. NASSP Bulletin, 80(584), 96-102.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis? London: The Falmer Press.

Gutmann, A. (1990). Democratic education in difficult times. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 7-20.

Henry, M. (1996). Parent-School Collaboration: Feminist Organizational Structures and School Leadership. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Hetzel, R. W. (1992). Solving complex problems requires good people, good processes. NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 49-55.

High, R. M., Achilles, C. M., & High, K (1989). Involvement in what? Teacher actual and preferred involvement in selected school activities. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. ED 336 856

Holman, L. J. (1995). Should school-site committees be involved in the campus staffing process? NASSP Bulletin, 79(519), 65-69.

Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1996). Models for Teaching. Needham Heights, Mass.: Simon & Schuster.

Karant, V. I. (1989). Supervision in the age of teacher empowerment. Educational Leadership, 46(8), 27-29.

Keedy, J. L. & Finch, A. M. (1994). Examining teacher-principal empowerment: An analysis of power. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(3), 162-175.

Kowalski, T. J. (1994). School-site management, teacher empowerment, and unionism: Beliefs of suburban school principals. Contemporary Education, 65(4), 200-206.

Leithwood, K. & Mennzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy, 12(3), 325-346.

Lieberman, A. (1988). Expanding the leadership team. Educational Leadership 45(5), 4-8.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Maeroff, G. J. (1988b). Overcoming the crisis of confidence. New York: Teachers College Press.

Maeroff, G. I. (1988b). Teacher empowerment: A step toward professionalization. NASSP Bulletin, 72(511), 52-60.

Malen, Betty & Ogawa, Rodney T. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 251-270.

Murray, D. R. and others (1993). On the road to empowerment: A comprehensive analysis of teacher involvement in decision making processes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association (Clearwater Beach, FL, February 17-20, 1993).

O’Rourke, P. (1987). Shared decision making at the school site: Moving toward a professional model. American Educator, 11(1), 10-17,46.

Pajak, Edward & McAfee, Lewis (1992, November). The principal as school leader, curriculum leader. NASSP Bulletin, 76(547), 21-30.

Parkay, F.W., Shindler, J., and Oaks, M.M. (accepted for publication in 1996). Creating a climate for collaborative, emergent leadership at an urban high school: Exploring the stressors, role changes, and paradoxes of restructuring. International Journal of Educational Reform, 5.

Parkay, F.W., Shindler, J., Oaks, M.M., & Gmelch, W.H. (1996). A leadership team in transition: Responding to the ambiguities of school restructuring. Paper Presented at American Educational Research Association Conference. April 1996. New York, New York.

Poltrock, L. A. & Goss, S. M. (1991). A union lawyer’s view of restructuring and reform. Journal of Law and Education, 22(2), 177-186.

Prager, K. (1991). What is a "restructured" school? A framework to clarify means and ends. Issues in Restructuring Schools 1(Fall), 3-5, 16.

Reiguluth, C. M. (1987). The search for meaningful reform: A third-wave educational system. Journal of Instructional Development. 10(4), 3-14.

Romanish, B. 1991). Empowering teachers: Restructuring schools for the 21^st Century. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc.

Romanish, B. (Spring, 1991). Teacher empowerment: The litmus test of school restructuring. Social Science Record., 28(1), 55-69.

Ross, D. & Webb, Rodman B. (1995). Implementing shared decision making at Brooksville Elementary School. In The Work of Restructuring Schools: Building from the Ground Up (Lieberman, A, Ed.). Teachers College Press, pp. 64-86.

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. (1992). Reflections on administrative theory and practice in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 304-313.

Shields, P.M., Anderson, L., Bamburg, J.D., Hawkins, E. F., Knapp, M.S., Ruskus, J., Wechsler, M., & Wilson, C.L. (1995). Improving schools from the bottom up: From effective schools to restructuring. Final Report. United States Department of Education. (Report # ISBN-0-16-048103-1)

Short, P. M. & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts. Merrill: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Smylie, Mark A. & Tuermer, Ute (1995). Restructuring schools in Hammond, Indiana. In The Work of Restructuring Schools: Building from the Ground Up (Lieberman, A, Ed.). Teachers College Press, pp. 87-110.

Stein, R. & King, B. (1992). Is restructuring a threat to principals’ power? NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 26-31.

Steinberger, E. (1990). Teachers unions handling tricky turns on the road to reform. School Administrator, 47(8), 26-28, 30-31.

Taylor, B. O., & Levine, D. U. (1991). Effective schools projects and school-site management. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 394-397.

Varvus, M. (1989). Alienation as the conceptual foundation for incorporating teacher empowerment into the teacher education knowledge base. Presented at the National Forum of the Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges for Teacher Education. June 1989. Indianapolis, IN. ED 344 851.

Walker, P. A., & Roder, L. (1993). Reflections on the practical and legal implications of school-based management and teacher empowerment. Journal of Law and Education, 22(2), 159-175.

Welsh, P. (1987). Are administrators ready to share decision making with teachers? American Educator, 11(1), 23, 25, 47-48.

Wheatley, M. J. (1986) Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Wildy, H., & Punch, K. (1996). Changing power relations in a restructured school system. Paper Presented at American Educational Research Association Conference. April 1996. New York, New York.

Williams, R. B. (1990). Professional autonomy and collective bargaining: Conflict or compromise? Education Canada, 4-7.

Wood, F. H. and Caldwell, S. D. (1991). Planning and training to implement school-site management. Journal of Staff Development, 12(3), 25-29.

Note. The above principal roles and responsibilities were compiled form those identified in the literature.(Bolin, 1989; Frase & Melton, 1992; Frase & Sorenson, 1992; Gresso & Robertson, 1992; Grier, 1996; Hetzel, 1992; Pajak & McAfee, 1992; Romanish, 1991).

Table 2

______________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________