School-Based Management in Learning Environments - Essay Example

School Based Management Name Institution School based management Introduction School based management (SBM) refers to a stratagem to enhance education by conveying significant decision making authority from federal and regional offices to individual learning institutions (Briggs & Wohlstetter, 2003). SBM offers principals, educators, learners, and parents with extensive authority over the learning process by giving them an obligation for decisions concerning budget, workforce, and the curriculum. The educators, parents, and other stake holders are involved in the decision making process; SBM creates more efficient learning environments for learners (Leithwood & Sun, 2012). This paper seeks to discuss SBM and the kinds of leadership and institutional leadership that are necessary for its implementation. School based management is a standard feature for majority of the existing reforms. Past research demonstrated that inappropriately designed and improperly executed SBM does not have significant positive effects. Current research has shown that SBM can enhance institutional programs and lead to production of high levels of learning. Leadership holds a significant role in the achievement of institutional goals. Kinds of Leadership and Institutional Leadership Since over 50 years ago, school-based management has been a common restructuring implemented by states and institution districts all over the country as a tool for school enhancement. SBM has been utilized as a method of enhancing school responsibility; by regional administrators to enhance the learning outcome, by central offices to enhance organizational competence; by educators unions to empower them; and by the community to involve parents in school matters (Evers & Katyal, 2007). In the current times SBM is viewed as a general feature for enhancement of current school curricula. Various schools hold distinct levels of empowering their participants. There are various arguments as to whether SBM is the most effective way of enhancing learning institutions. SBM has been common over the last decades; however, there have been significant alterations in reformers’ outlook on the vitality of SBM. Up to about 3 decades ago, SBM was the most adopted and executed as a sole reform to remedy various issues in schools. The adoption of SBM was made in response to issues that arose in the management theories and the belief that SBM was solely designed to cause changes in the school system. Successful SBM implementation requires the management of a school to have common vision which focuses on teaching and learning that is in line with student outcome. There should be a decision making authority that is able to change the significant areas of schooling. The development of educators’ knowledge and abilities should be oriented towards improvement. Also, there should be a framework for collecting and conveying information in relation to school preferences (Hopkins, Harris, Stoll & Mackay, 2011). There should be financial and non-financial rewards that acknowledge efforts made towards achievement of the goals. There should be shared school, leadership amongst administrators and educators. A school that successfully implements SBM has external sources of income. Active vision Schools that successfully implement SBM have an active, lively vision which focuses on teaching and learning that is in line with district and federal regulations for student achievement. School vision outlines the purpose, the way forward, and offers high expectations for student outcome. Schools do not require SBM in the establishment of a relevant vision that is in line with state and district regulations and whose main aim is teaching and learning. Nevertheless, research of administration indicates that effective SBM institutions had the highest probability of having a vision that is related to district and federal standards, utilize the vision to monitor decisions, and to review the vision frequently to make sure it corresponds to school operations. Various reports put emphasis on the significance of a vision that is regionally defined and linked to high anticipation for learner outcome and instructional control system (Fullan & Watson, 2000). An institutional control system includes state curriculum standards such as Virginia standards of learning and state subject matter standards. An example of state assessment includes the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). Such systems contribute to the development of curriculum and standards in schools. It is reported that high standards are vital for school reformation because of the role they play towards achievement of the vision. Other studies give reports that their role is not too limiting. These who take part in SBM believe that they are lithe enough for adoption in the school setting. Visions that are in line with instructional guidance mechanism lead to production of goals and a general understanding of the schools’ condition that has high likelihood of teacher, and parent acceptance (Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008). When a school integrates external goals with the internal principles of the focused the endeavors of school staff and assisted them in identifying what was most significant for learning outcome (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Schools that have successfully executed SBM have a vision that highlights the vitality of teaching and learning. Moreover, it is not inclusive of other insignificant matters. Schools with a vision which is established putting focus on student learning led to development of a more efficient professional community. Schools that wish to have successful implementation of SBM ought to have a pertinent and an active vision. In most cases, schools that have failed in the implementation of SBM tend to have limited the number of contributors in the action of generating the vision. Stakeholders should take part in the consensus of school affairs (Valentine & Prater, 2011). Successful SBM was majorly linked to a common agreement concerning the schools mission. Meaningful Decision-making Authority Schools that have succeeded in implementing SBM have decision making power in aspects of budget, workforce, curriculum, and they utilize the power in the creation of meaningful enhancement in teaching and learning. In various SBM plans, the process of reformation had restrained effect because schools did not have the power to cause the necessary changes in significant areas. Where SBM is successfully implemented, power to make necessary changes is available and it is applied in aspects that affect both the teachers and the educators. When educators, principals, and other stakeholders have the authority to make decisions that have direct influence on students, there is morale for involvement in SBM. The most significant aspect is the authority over budget (Dugan, Bohle, Woelker & Cooney, 2014). This is an aspect frequently assigned to schools in SBM plan; however, there were obstructions that restrict its potential for transformation. For instance, schools may have power over just restricted amount of funds or face hindrances from district or federal level concerning the utilization of funds. Nevertheless, majority of successful SBM schools have identified ways of redirecting funds to support the plans for enhancement of student achievement. The power to assign funds to the support of student achievement is a significant aspect in schools aiming for change. Research has portrayed that successful SBM schools utilize this power to make vital changes in the curriculum especially in the area of content delivery to learners. The most significant aspect is power to recruit and enroll staff. SBM is most significant when schools utilize their decision making power to select a workforce that support and agree with the vision of the institution. Institutions that struggle with SBM are not likely to concentrate on teaching and learning in their dialogues and as a substitute focus on procedures (Marks & Printy, 2003). In the struggling institutions, the most common discussed issue is power distribution and matters of maintenance. Such schools rarely discuss matters concerning curricula and instruction. For example, a school may spend more than one year discussing issues relating to voting, proxy presentation, and the authority of the administrators. Such discussions are not evitable; however, remaining at this stage causes the school to miss the chance of making meaningful transformation (Blimpo & Evans, 2011). Research has revealed that majority of SBM schools have extensive power of action in form of autonomy from the district to educator authority. Nevertheless, research has demonstrated that autonomy by itself is not sufficient. SBM institutions that utilize autonomy effectively put emphasis on high quality education in their vision had effectual workforce and the ability to work as a team. Contrastingly, institutions that lack focus on student achievement and the ability to work as a team are not effective in the use of their power to establish change. Power distribution Schools that have succeeded in SBM Implementation have broad dispersion of authority throughout the learning the institution through establishment of decision making structures (Patrinos, 2011). Successful SBM schools disperse authority past the principal or a single board to include various stakeholders in the institution decision making role. Such schools divide power amongst persons by developing frameworks, work teams, and stable committee. In addition, there ought to be teams that focus on specific programs such as technology or expertise development. Work teams may be permanent while others may be temporal. Each team focuses on specific issues that are beneficial to the institution (Grissom, Kalogrides & Loeb, 2014). Majority of schools that have not succeeded in SBM concentrate power within the council. This type of power concentration burdens the council participants with extreme demands, lead to conflict generation, and distrust amongst the members. In such as case, majority of the people do not show commitment to decisions made by the empowered group. The Development and Use of Knowledge and Skills For a school to succeed in SBM implementation, the process and knowledge and expertise development should be a continuous process aimed at developing oriented improvement; leading to development of proficient learning community (Patrinos, 2011). So as to succeed in SBM, schools ought to select professional development activities that meet the needs of the learners. Successful SBM schools provide training to a collection of school-level members such as parents, and community stakeholders to assist them in becoming more competent members in the school activities. Professional development plans are established in SBM schools with the aim of capacity building in the achievement of school goals instead of individual goals. Such schools are not restricted to designing one-shot training periods; however, they have many training sessions that are inclusive of follow-up sessions. Collecting and Communicating Information Successful SBM schools have numerous systems for data collection and information conveyance systems to all stakeholders. Such institutions collect and disseminate substantial information to a wide variety of stakeholders in the institution and in the community. In addition, such schools spend considerable time collecting information that relates to their goals which assist in the identification of creative strategies to enhance learner performance. There should be well developed channels for evaluating and communicating and the data collected is utilized in making informed decisions in the school (ten Bruggencate, Luyten, Scheerens & Sleegers, 2012). Such schools have access to different kinds of information collected which is vital in the information-framework of the school. For a school to succeed in SBM, it has to put considerable attention to data collection because it plays a significant role in guiding actions for the role of enhancing learning outcome. Successful SBM schools rely on both official and casual communication channels to direct information flow in and out of the institution. Schools that struggle with SBM implementation have limited communication channels and tend to rely majorly on official documentation which includes memos and newsletters (Hallinger, 2013). The successful schools are also characterized by an established customer service orientation. Rewards for Progress Successful SBM schools utilize both financial and non-financial rewards for the acknowledgment of personal and team development towards school goals. SBM demands for extensive efforts from teachers, administrators, and the employees. Rewards are used in the recognition of individual and whole team efforts. The principals of such institutions frequently recognize personal and group efforts (Blimpo & Evans, 2011). Conclusion This paper discussed School Based Management and the kinds of leadership and institutional leadership that are necessary for its implementation. School based management (SBM) is a strategy utilized in the enhancement of education by delivering vital decision making authority from federal and district offices to individual schools . Leadership is a significant aspect in the achievement of institutional goals. For a school to succeed in SBM implementation, a school ought to have institutional leadership that has rewards for progress, proper methods of collecting and conveying information, continuous professional training, active vision, and proper decision making process. References Blimpo, M. P., & Evans, D. K. (2011). School-based management and educational outcomes: lessons from a randomized field experiment. Unpublished manscript. Briggs, K. L., & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Key elements of a successful school-based management strategy. School effectiveness and school improvement, 14(3), 351-372. Dugan, J. P., Bohle, C. W., Woelker, L. R., & Cooney, M. A. (2014). The Role of Social Perspective-Taking in Developing Students’ Leadership Capacities. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(1), 1-15. Evers, C., & Katyal, K. (2007). Paradoxes of leadership: Contingencies and critical learning. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 377-390. Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-based management: Reconceptualizing to improve learning outcomes. School effectiveness and school improvement, 11(4), 453-473. Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2014). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 0162373714523831. Hallinger, P. (2013). A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 126-149. Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2011, January). School and system improvement: State of the art review. In keynote presentation at the International Congress of School Effectiveness and School Improvement Conference, Limassol (pp. 5-7). Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership a meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational administration quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. Patrinos, H. A. (2011). School-based management. B. Bruns, D. Filmer and HA Patrinos, Making Schools Work: New Evidence on Accountability Reforms. Washington DC: World Bank. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational administration quarterly. Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The Influence of Principal Leadership on Classroom Instruction and Student Learning A Study of Mediated Pathways to Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663. ten Bruggencate, G., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Modeling the Influence of School Leaders on Student Achievement How Can School Leaders Make a Difference?. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 699-732. Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership and student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 0192636511404062. Read More