CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

By Syeda Nazish Hasan,

M.S. Department of Education, University of Karachi

1. What is a conflict

       A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war.

       A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.

       Psychology A psychic struggle, often unconscious, resulting from the opposition or simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses, desires, or tendencies.

Three Elements to Understand Conflict

Just as it is useful to be able to label the type of conflict, it also helps to know that most conflicts, large or small, interpersonal or international, follow pretty much the same pattern, characterized by three important elements.

Conflict arises when we discover our differences and perceive them as a threat to our needs. It is fuelled with the usually strong emotional response we give to this perception — our combustibility — and sustained by the unequal distribution of power between human beings. Difference, Combustibility and Power are the key elements present in every conflict.

Perceiving differences as a threat	Conflict arises when we perceive differences as a threat to what we most value or when we believe these differences will prevent us from meet our basic needs.
Combustibility	Some people have a strong facility to make sparks fly in their interactions with other people. Other people have a strong facility to make sparks grow and turn them into a fire (big combustibility). Finally, some people have a certain control of their emotions and leave sparks to extinguish by themselves.
Power abuses	The unequal power distribution among people and the different ways we use our own power influences considerably the number and nature of our conflicts.

 

 

 

Bell and Hart's Eight Causes of Conflict

 According to psychologists Art Bell and Brett Hart, there are eight common causes of conflict in the workplace. Bell and Hart identified these common causes in separate articles on workplace conflict in 2000 and 2002.
The eight causes are:

1. Conflicting resources.
2. Conflicting styles.
3. Conflicting perceptions.
4. Conflicting goals.
5. Conflicting pressures.
6. Conflicting roles.
7. Different personal values.
8. Unpredictable policies.

 1. Conflicting Resources

We all need access to certain resources – whether these are office supplies, help from colleagues, or even a meeting room – to do our jobs well. When more than one person or group needs access to a particular resource, conflict can occur.

If you or your people are in conflict over resources, use techniques like Win-Win Negotiation or the Influence Model to reach a shared agreement.

You can also help team members overcome this cause of conflict by making sure that they have everything they need to do their jobs well. Teach them how to prioritize their time and resources, as well as how to negotiate with one another to prevent this type of conflict.

If people start battling for a resource, sit both parties down to discuss openly why their needs are at odds. An open discussion about the problem can help each party see the other's perspective and become more empathic about their needs.

2. Conflicting Styles

Everyone works differently, according to his or her individual needs and personality. For instance, some people love the thrill of getting things done at the last minute, while others need the structure of strict deadlines to perform. However, when working styles clash, conflict can often occur.
To prevent and manage this type of conflict in your team, consider people's working styles and natural group roles when you build your team.

 3. Conflicting Perceptions

All of us see the world through our own lens, and differences in perceptions of events can cause conflict, particularly where one person knows something that the other person doesn't know, but doesn't realize this.

If your team members regularly engage in "turf wars" or gossip, you might have a problem with conflicting perceptions. Additionally, negative performance reviews or customer complaints can also result from this type of conflict.

Make an effort to eliminate this conflict by communicating openly with your team, even when you have to share bad news. The more information you share with your people, the less likely it is that they will come up with their own interpretations of events.

Different perceptions are also a common cause of office politics. For instance, if you assign a project to one person that normally would be someone else's responsibility, you may unwittingly ignite a power struggle between the two. Learn how to navigate office politics, and coach your team to do the same.

4. Conflicting Goals

Sometimes we have conflicting goals in our work. For instance, one of our managers might tell us that speed is most important goal with customers. Another manager might say that in-depth, high-quality service is the top priority. It's sometimes quite difficult to reconcile the two!

Whenever you set goals for your team members, make sure that those goals don't conflict with other goals set for that person, or set for other people.

And if your own goals are unclear or conflicting, speak with your boss and negotiate goals that work for everyone.

5. Conflicting Pressures

We often have to depend on our colleagues to get our work done. However, what happens when you need a report from your colleague by noon, and he's already preparing a different report for someone else by that same deadline?

Conflicting pressures are similar to conflicting goals; the only difference is that conflicting pressures usually involve urgent tasks, while conflicting goals typically involve projects with longer timelines.

If you suspect that people are experiencing conflict because of clashing short-term objectives, reschedule tasks and deadlines to relieve the pressure.

6. Conflicting Roles

Sometimes we have to perform a task that's outside our normal role or responsibilities. If this causes us to step into someone else's "territory," then conflict and power struggles can occur. The same can happen in reverse - sometimes we may feel that a particular task should be completed by someone else.

Conflicting roles are similar to conflicting perceptions. After all, one team member may view a task as his or her responsibility or territory. But when someone else comes in to take over that task, conflict occurs.

If you suspect that team members are experiencing conflict over their roles, explain why you've assigned tasks or projects to each person. Your explanation could go a long way toward remedying the pressure.

You can also use a Team Charter to crystallize people's roles and responsibilities, and to focus people on objectives.

7. Different Personal Values

Imagine that your boss has just asked you to perform a task that conflicts with your ethical standards. Do you do as your boss asks, or do you refuse? If you refuse, will you lose your boss's trust, or even your job?

When our work conflicts with our personal values like this, conflict can quickly arise.

To avoid this in your team, practice ethical leadership: try not to ask your team to do anything that clashes with their values, or with yours.

There may be times when you're asked to do things that clash with your personal ethics. Our article on preserving your integrity will help you to make the right choices.

8. Unpredictable Policies

When rules and policies change at work and you don't communicate that change clearly to your team, confusion and conflict can occur.

In addition, if you fail to apply workplace policies consistently with members of your team, the disparity in treatment can also become a source of dissension.

When rules and policies change, make sure that you communicate exactly what will be done differently and, more importantly, why the policy is changing. When people understand why the rules are there, they're far more likely to accept the change.

Once the rules are in place, strive to enforce them fairly and consistently.

  

Stages of conflict are evident, and can be tracked as they occur.

1. Tension Development - Various parties start taking sides.
2. Role Dilemma - People raise questions about what is happening, who is right, what should be done. They try to decide if they should take sides, and if so, which one.
3. Injustice Collecting - Each party gathers support. They itemize their problems, justify their position and think of revenge or ways to win.
4. Confrontation - The parties meet head on and clash. If both parties hold fast to their side, the showdown may cause permanent barriers.
5. Adjustments - Several responses can occur, depending on the relative power of each party:
• domination - when one party is weak and the other strong
• cold war - neither party decides to change, but attempts to weaken the other
• avoidance - one party may choose to avoid the other, while the conflict continues
• compromise - each party gains a little and loses a little
• collaboration - active participation resulting in a solution that takes care of both parties' needs

The 8 Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution
by Dudley Weeks, Ph.D

1.                               Create an effective atmosphere

-determine an appropriate time and place (i.e. do not meet in your office)

-establish ground rules (i.e. take risks, maintain confidentiality, listen w/ respect)

2.       Clarify perceptions

-talk to the right person, agree to be direct, open and honest

3.                               Focus on individual and shared needs

-allow for give and take

4.       Build positive shared power

-use “I” messages and practice active listening

5.       Look to the future, then learn from the past

-talk about dealing with conflict in advance

6.       Generate options

7.       Develop “Doables”: The stepping-stones to action

8.       Make mutual-benefit agreements

 Characteristics of Successful Agreements

1. Balanced

2.  Clear

3.  Fair

4.  Realistic

5.  Specific

6.  Concise

7.  Forward looking and

8.  Commitment to return if there is a future problem

Administration, Management and Organization by Sadaf Naz

Any student of management is usually confused about the difference among administration, management and organization. This is a common problem. Basically it’s all about the fault of definitions. Therefore it is felt to describe them with examples.

Actually these all are inter-dependent and inter-related terms. As it can clearly observed that these all are concerned with the institution.

Institution can be small or big or may have single owner or may have board of governance.

When any institution have to set some goals, and for achieve these goals it describes some rules and regulation this is called ADMINISTRATION, when these activities are organized, and maintained to attain set goals, this is called ORGANIZATION, and the department, who organize these goals are considered as MANAGEMENT.

Let’s discuss this in an example:

When Pakistan got freedom, there are some goals which were targeted; those goals were to obtain a place where Muslims can practice Islam according to the Quran and Hadith. This was settled by Administration, who were the leaders of Muslims, like Muhammad Ali Jinah, Liaquat Ali and so on. When they distributed this work in parts by maintain some institutions, this is considered as Organization, we can say they organized the tasks, and the institutions, which made for attainment of the goal is called Management.

Let’s think over this:

Government decided to facilitate people by providing higher education. Therefore she made a governing body to decide the aims, objectives, rules and regulations, system of university, fields for study and so on. This governing body will be considered as ADMINISTRATION. When this administration will design the aims, fields and rules, it needs personnel to achieve the aims and implement the rules, the people who perform this task will be considered as MANAGEMENT. When management performs their works, they are actually organizing the university.

Conclusion:

 Administration: group of people, who decide tasks.

Management: group of people, who work to achieve these tasks.

Organization: the process (by management) to achieve the tasks.

Administration and educational administration

 Administration

 The word Administration is compound of two words, Ad and Minister. Ad refers to “to” and Minister means “Service”. Therefore we can take the meaning of Administration is “to service” or “To serve”.

Administration is actually a process to maintain a system, design rules and regulations and chose a particular path to attain specific goals.

Administration takes as a government of public affairs, duties and services and directing the management. Its actually the executive part of government, in which persons are collectively interested to execute laws and the superintendence of public affairs.

George Washington says:

“The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government.”

Educational Administration

 This is defined by Ordway Tead as “a comprehensive effort to direct, guide and integrate associating human strivings, which are focused towards some specific ends or aims.” Indeed Educational Administration is considered a comprehensive effort to achieve some specific educational objectives or targets.

Educational Philosophy sets the goals, Educational psychology describes the objectives, but Educational Administration provides the way to achieve the goals on the basis of prescribed principles. It is actually the dynamic side of the education.

Educational Administration discusses the three sides of Education.

 

1-    Human Resources:

The human elements include:

        1- Students

2-    Parents

3-    Teachers

4-    Employees / personnel

 In personnel from top to bottom, federal to district, schools to universities and all boards of educations are included.

2-Material Resources:

 There are three types of material require for any educational institution. Money, Furniture and building, equipments and instructional material.  In equipments laboratory items, library material and sports goods are included, furthermore instructional material consists of audio visual aids and other related tools.

3- Laws and Needs:

 Educational administration on the ideas side has the responsibility to make rules and regulation according to the need ad interest of the country. The curriculum, guidelines, Aims of education all are designed by the educational administration.

The integration of these whole three parts into a whole is actually the Educational Administration.

French, Hull and Dodds consider educational administration as a lens. If it is a poor lens, the image is blurrred and obscure and no one in the school or community gets a clear picture of what the school is trying to do. IF it is a good lens, the school becomes a clear cut and vivid projection of the ideals we hope to bring into being.

 

Students record

Organizational chart of Technical Education

Organizationa chart of UOK

Body of University of Karachi

Better Schools: Resource Materials for School Heads by UNESCO

About the Modules Preface General Introduction Contents Introductory Module Module One Module Two Module Three Module Four Module Five Module Six Module Seven Copyright Home Visit our website		Principals are in the front line of the battle to create an environment for quality education. But school heads in Africa work under the most difficult conditions, and are often not well-prepared for the tasks they must undertake. At the very least, an effective principal will be able to: • manage and deploy school resources efficiently • allocate school accommodation appropriately • ensure satisfactory standards of maintenance and cleanliness of school facilities • guide curriculum implementation and change • organise staff development in school • create a professional ethos within the school by involving promoted staff in decision-making. During 1992, seven Ministries of Education in Africa (in Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe), assisted by a further four (in Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Zambia) produced training modules intended to help school heads in Africa improve their managerial and professional leadership skills. The materials were drafted by writing teams in each country, and critiqued at two regional workshops (Kenya Education Staff Institute, April 1992 and National Teachers' Institute, Nigeria, June 1992). They were then trialled among school heads and inspectors, teacher trainers and district officials in seven countries. The set of seven modules listed below was finally launched at a Commonwealth Africa workshop hosted by Botswana's Ministry of Education in March 1993: Module 1 Self-Development for Educational Managers Module 2 Principles of Educational Management Module 3 Personnel Management Module 4 Managing the Curriculum and Resources Module 5 Financial Management Module 6 Monitoring School Effectiveness Module 7 The Governance of Schools These materials were designed to be used in any English-speaking education system in Africa; country-specific versions may be available for some systems. The materials can be used in a variety of contexts: for self-study, distance learning, by peer groups and in workshops, and as a basis for coursework in institutions and faculties of education. They attempt to introduce school heads to important aspects of managing a school, from the most basic to more complex tasks, in a very practical way. The modules were prepared under the Training and Support Programme for School Heads in Africa supported by Ministries of Education in Africa, the Commonwealth Secretariat, Unesco, SIDA and GTZ. Editing, design and production of the training modules was co-ordinated by the Commonwealth Secretariat Education Programme. Related publications are listed on the back cover, and are available from the Commonwealth Education Programme.

Decentralization and Education

Definition

Decentralization is defined as the transfer of decision-making authority closer to the consumer or beneficiary. This can take the form of transferring powers to lower levels of an organization, which is called deconcentration or administrative decentralization. A popular form of deconcentration in education is to give additional responsibilities to schools. This is often called school autonomy or school-based management and may take the form of creating elected or appointed school councils and giving them budgets and the authority to make important educational decisions. Deconcentration may also take the form of empowering school directors or directors and teaching faculty to make decisions within the school.

Another form of decentralization, called devolution, entails transferring powers to lower levels of government. Most often, education responsibilities are transferred to general-purpose governments at the regional or local levels. Examples are the decentralization of basic education to local (district) level governments in India and Pakistan. In rare cases additional responsibilities are given to single-purpose governments, such as the local school district in the United States. When education responsibilities are transferred to general-purpose governments, the elected governing bodies of those governments must make decisions about how much to spend on education versus other local services.

Measurement

The measurement of education decentralization is especially difficult. Economists often measure decentralization to lower levels of government by looking at the percent of educational revenues that come from local (or regional) sources, or, alternatively, by looking at the share of educational resources–whatever their origin–that local governments control. Using these measures, education is highly centralized in countries such as Greece, Italy, and Turkey and highly decentralized in countries such as Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

However, these measures may be misleading when central governments mandate educational policies or programs that require the local government to allocate its revenues in a certain way. Mandating reductions in class size or the creation of special education programs, for example, reduces the degree of power the local government has to allocate its own revenues or resources. In the United States, the federal and state governments influence local education resource allocation both through unfunded policy and program mandates and through the use of conditional grants-in-aid, which require local governments or school districts to match federal or state funding for certain purposes. The combination of these mandates and conditional grants results in local school districts having discretionary expenditure control over only a small portion of their revenues and budgets.

An alternative means of measuring education decentralization is more subjective and entails (1) identifying the major decisions made regarding the finance and provision of education and (2) answering the question, who makes each decision? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has developed a methodology for measuring the degree of education decentralization. This methodology divides educational functions into four groups: the organization of instruction, personnel management, planning and structures, and resources. The content of each group is given in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Some educational functions are decentralized even within centralized systems, and others are centralized even within decentralized systems. An OECD survey of its members, for example, shows that, even in centralized systems, schools make most of the decisions about the organization of instruction. On the other hand, in many countries most personnel-management decisions are made at a central level.

Measuring decentralization by answering questions concerning who makes decisions in what areas does not provide an easy answer as to how decentralized one country's education system is relative to another's. Not all decisions are equally important. Indeed, one decision-making area is far more important than the others. Teachers and other school staff represent about 80 percent of total recurrent education spending in developed countries and more than 90 percent of total recurrent education spending in many developing countries. Research on learning also demonstrates that teachers and their ability to teach are the single most important factor in the school that affects learning. Thus, a shortcut for determining whether one country is more decentralized than another is to compare the countries' policies in personnel management. Countries that allow school councils to select school directors and allow schools to recruit, hire, and evaluate teachers have already achieved a significant degree of decentralization even though school finance may still be highly centralized and teachers may be paid according to a national pay scale.

Rationale

The rationale for education decentralization tends to be associated with four distinct objectives: democratization, regional and/or ethnic pressures, improved efficiency, and enhanced quality of schooling. Several countries with a history of authoritarian government have decentralized government in the name of democratization. More specifically, decentralization in these countries is designed to increase the voice of the local citizen and to empower the citizen to more fully participate in decision-making at the local level. Democratization has been the rationale for transferring education responsibilities to local governments in countries as diverse as Poland and Brazil.

In other countries, there have been pressures from regionally based ethnic and language groups to develop their own curriculum, teach in their own languages, and manage their own schools. A good example of this is Spain, where initially the Basque and Catalan regions gained the right to manage their own educational systems, followed later by other regions.

One of the potential benefits of decentralization is increased accountability to the citizen/beneficiary, resulting in improved efficiency in the use of school resources. The improved efficiency results from two effects. One effect is the better match between services provided and the preferences of citizens. The other effect is increased output relative to resources or expenditures. Chile is an example of a country where education was decentralized to local governments primarily in the pursuit of greater efficiency.

When education is decentralized in pursuit of democratization, or in response to regional/ethnic pressures, it is usually just one of several services being transferred to local or regional governments. In addition, educators often resist decentralization for these purposes, fearing greater inequality in spending and educational outcomes. On the other hand, when education is decentralized in pursuit of greater quality, it is usually done as part of a larger reform promoted by educators themselves. An example of this can be found in several large U.S. cities where school councils and school directors have been given greater decision-making autonomy. At the same time, however, the performance of schools is carefully monitored, and schools are held accountable for improved performance to both parents and system administrators.

These four objectives account for most, but not all, of the reasons for education decentralization. Some countries have transferred the finance and delivery of education to lower levels of government to help solve the central government's own fiscal problems. Argentina, for example, transferred education from the national to the regional governments in order to reduce central government fiscal deficits. Since the education sector employs more personnel than other sectors and also requires large recurrent salary expenditures, it is a tempting target to decentralize for fiscal reasons. Other countries have given local governments the authority to run their own schools as a means of circumventing central government bureaucracies in order to rapidly increase enrollments in remote areas. El Salvador provides an example of decentralization to remote rural communities for this purpose.

Implementation

Like other education reforms, decentralization can result in political winners and losers. The potential winners are those gaining new decision-making powers, while the potential losers are those losing those powers. Two of the potential losers–civil servants and teacher unions–are sufficiently powerful that that they can effectively stop decentralization processes. The civil servants working in education ministries have perhaps the most to lose, because some of their jobs become redundant and their power to influence the allocation of resources may be diminished. In countries where corruption in government is a serious problem, reduced power will be also reflected in a reduced ability of civil servants to extract financial or in-kind rents. The leaders of national teacher unions also lose power to the extent that salary negotiations, teacher recruitment, and teacher promotion are moved from national to lower levels of government. Union members may also fear lower salaries if the funding of education is moved to local governments with fewer sources of government revenues. In countries where being elected head of a teacher union is an important stepping-stone to a political career, decentralization of labor negotiations is likely to reduce the political importance of leading the national union.

The implementation of education decentralization reforms can either be rapid or slow. Legislative or constitutional changes that immediately transfer responsibilities from the national to lower levels of government run the risk that lower levels of government will lack the required administrative capacity required to manage the system well. The result may be disruption in the delivery of schooling to children that adversely affects their learning, at least for a time. A more gradual decentralization can allow powers to be transferred to lower levels of government as those governments gain administrative capacity. The difficulty with gradual decentralization is that it may never occur at all, as the potential losers marshal their forces to fight the policy change.

In some countries with serious problems of internal conflict, weak public bureaucracies, or very weak government finances, one finds de facto decentralization of education. In these cases, the central government abdicates its responsibility for financing and providing public education, especially in remote areas, so local communities organize and finance their own schools and recruit and hire their own teachers. In Africa, the countries of Benin and Togo provide examples of community control and finance of schools resulting from the lack of central government supply. In other cases, the central government finances an inadequate number of teachers and other school resources to ensure schooling of adequate quality. In these cases, parents may form school councils to raise revenues to hire additional teachers, construct and equip school buildings, and provide other school resources. By virtue of their important role in funding education, parents and school councils may exercise significant decision-making power.

School Finance

The financing of decentralized education can be very complicated in systems where two or three levels of government share financing responsibilities. The choices for financing education in such systems can be framed as follows: (1) central versus local funding, (2) conditional versus unconditional grants, and (3) negotiated versus formula-driven grants. The choices made concerning education finance are extremely important as they determine both the degree of effective control local governments have as well as the implications for efficiency and equity.

The single most important choice is whether the level of government providing education (in most cases, the local government) is expected to generate its own revenues for education from its own tax and other revenues sources or if it will receive the bulk of the required educational revenues from a higher level government. Local government capacity to generate revenues (i.e., its tax base, or its fiscal capacity) tends to vary widely across local governments within regions or countries. Thus, requiring local governments to raise all their own revenues for education ensures an unacceptably high degree of inequality in spending per child. Countries where local governments finance education from their own source revenues (e.g., Brazil, the United States) have adopted intergovernmental grants to help even out spending inequalities. In the case of Brazil, the central government provides additional financing to ensure each jurisdiction spends a minimum amount per student. In the case of the United States, school finance policies vary by state, but in general they, too, ensure a minimum level of spending and, in some cases, put a cap on the maximum amount a local school district can spend.

Most countries have made the choice to fund a large portion of primary and secondary education spending from either the regional or national government budgets. This funding can be provided in one of two ways. Monies can be transferred from the central government to either the general fund of the local (or regional) government or to a special education fund of the local (or regional) government. In the former case, the local or regional government receives funding sufficient to cover a large portion of expected education expenditures, but the local or regional government makes the decision of how much to spend on education. In the latter case, the local or regional government is required to spend the grant monies on education only. Requiring grant monies to be spent on education ensures adequate education spending but reduces the expenditure autonomy of the local (or regional) government.

Once a decision is made to transfer monies to lower levels of government, a further decision needs to be made as to how to determine what amount of money should be transferred to each receiving government. The basic choice is whether to negotiate that amount between governments or to determine the amount using a capitation formula. Negotiation has political advantages in that it allows central governments to reward their political allies, and thus it is often popular. Capitation formulas, however, are more equitable and may also provide incentives for educational performance. Chile, for example, determines how much it provides to each local government based on a formula that includes indicators of educational cost, educational need, and student average daily attendance. Since local governments receive more revenues if more students are enrolled and attending regularly, the formula has encouraged those governments to undertake campaigns to keep children in school.

Effects of Decentralization

It is extremely difficult to disentangle the effects of education decentralization policies from other variables simultaneously affecting educational outcomes, and there have been few rigorous attempts to do so. Two studies that did attempt to isolate the effects of devolution in Central America concluded that it increased parental participation, reduced teacher and student absenteeism, and increased student learning by a significant, but small, amount.

School–Based Decisionmaking

School-based decision-making is a concept based on the fundamental principle that individuals who are affected by the decision, possess expertise regarding the decision, and are responsible for implementing the decision, should be involved in making the decision. This concept often is attached to the broader school-system reform efforts of decentralization and school-based management (SBM), where decision-making authority is shifted from the district to the local school level. Some educators use the terms shared decision-making and school-based management interchangeably; others see shared decision-making as a component of SBM or decentralization. In general, the goal of school-based decision-making is to "empower school staff by providing authority, flexibility, and resources to solve the educational problems particular to their schools" (David, p. 52).

Key Elements

School-based decision-making rests on two well-established propositions:

1. The school is the primary decision-making unit; and its corollary; decisions should be made at the lowest possible level.
2. Change requires ownership that comes from the opportunity to participate in defining change and the flexibility to adapt it to individual circumstances; the corollary is that change does not result from externally imposed procedures. (David, p. 46)

These propositions recognize that those closest to the technical core in education systems, because of their access to information concerning students' diverse characteristics, needs, learning styles, and performance levels, are better positioned to make decisions about educational programs than those farther removed from the teaching and learning process. Thus, decisions concerning curricula, instructional technologies, and other school initiatives will be most effective and enduring when carried out by those who feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for those decisions.

For school-based decision-making to work, four key resources need to be present to develop the capacity to create high performance organizations:

1. Knowledge and skills in new instructional strategies; interpersonal, problem-solving, and decision skills for working together as a team; business knowledge for managing the organization, including budgeting and fiscal planning; and assessment strategies for analyzing, interpreting, and acting on school performance data.
2. Information about the performance of the organization, including student performance data, budgets, and demographic-trend data.
3. Power and authority to make decisions, especially in the areas of curriculum and instruction, staffing and personnel, and resource allocation and budgeting.
4. Rewards for high performance, including intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, such as salary adjustments, professional development opportunities, performance-based pay, group or team-based rewards, and public recognition for their accomplishments.

Scope of Decision–Making

In general, three areas of decision-making can be school based: budget, personnel, and curriculum. Regarding school finances, under school-based decision-making models, schools receive either a lumpsum budget or some portion of the district budget from which they may make decisions regarding personnel, equipment, materials, supplies, and professional development. Although budget authority implies a new level of autonomy, because personnel expenditures account for approximately 85 percent of the district budget and other fixed costs cover an additional 5 to 10 percent, few discretionary dollars actually remain for school-level allocation. Therefore, staffing expenditures and decisions regarding staffing structures and assignments are key to schools making decisions that might substantively affect the school's operation and effectiveness.

In terms of personnel decisions, schools are afforded flexibility and the power to determine how best to staff their schools. Personnel decisions typically fall in two areas: determining staffing needs based on the school's mission and educational plan and selecting people to fill the positions. Schools are afforded the latitude to decide whether their personnel funds are best spent on teachers, instructional aides, specialists, or clerical support. Once determinations are made regarding staffing needs, schools are actively engaged in the selection of new school personnel.

In the third decision area, decisions regarding the curriculum and instructional strategies are determined at the school level within a framework of district or state goals, while attending to the school's unique mission and needs. School-level personnel draw on their professional expertise and localized knowledge in making decisions that affect the school's educational program and instructional system. School personnel monitor the effectiveness of their programs and their students' academic performance. Decisions pertaining to budgeting, staffing, and the instructional program are often restricted and controlled, however, by district policies regarding matters such as class size, tenure, hiring, firing, assignment, curriculum initiatives, textbooks, and assessment procedures.

Decision-Making Structures

To operationalize school-based decision-making, structures at the school level need to be implemented to facilitate the involvement of key stakeholders in the decision-making process. Schools embracing shared decision-making typically develop councils consisting of representative stakeholders in the school, such as teachers, parents, support personnel, and administrators. The school's governance structure is supported by guidelines that specify representation, terms of membership, council size, meeting format, and delineated lines of authority. Frequently, site councils further disperse involvement through the use of subcommittees. Subcommittees allow greater numbers of teachers to participate in the formal decision-making process and reduce the overall burden of extended involvement of others.

In addition to decision-making governance councils, schools that embrace shared decisionmaking understand that reaching collective agreement and consensus around difficult decisions require extended discussions, off-site meetings, and collective planning. Thus, schools that engage in shared decision-making at an authentic level set aside time for teachers to meet and places for them to congregate and talk. In addition, school schedules are often redesigned to facilitate teacher interaction by structuring common planning periods.

Effectiveness of School-Based Decision-Making

Although school-based decision-making is often the centerpiece of school reform, there remains little empirical evidence that relates it to improved school performance. Most of the evidence of effectiveness of decision involvement at the school level focuses on teachers and administrators. Studies exploring organizational variables have generally found positive relationships between decision involvement and organizational outcomes, such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational change. In addition, studies have found that participation enhances communication among teachers and administrators, contributes to the quality of teachers' work lives, and assists in professionalizing teaching and democratizing schools. Other research on school-based decision-making has generally been descriptive, and yet a substantive body of research has not yet explored causative relationships between school empowerment and school improvement or student achievement. Nonetheless, the combined effects related to participative structures that are democratic and collaborative and focus mainly on issues of curriculum and instruction are likely to bring about change at the classroom level.

Clarity of purpose and access to information

Schools that are active in decision-making have a vision statement that focuses their decision-making process on the technical core of schooling–teaching and learning. Determining the school's vision is a schoolwide effort affording the faculty the opportunity to understand the power of their commitment to decisions they make. Those involved in decision-making understand the necessity of using school-based and student-centered data to inform their decisions. In districts where data are limited or not disaggregated at the school level, the decision-making process is limited and curtailed to issues that hold less promise of impact on the school's educational program.

Power and authority relationships. Frequently, when decision-making authority is delegated, the degree of authority given to the site is often limited and ambiguous. In schools where there is confusion over decision-making authority, issues addressed at the school level tend to focus on secondary-level issues, such as school climate, scheduling, safety, and parent involvement, rather than on primary concerns, such as instructional programs and strategies, student achievement, and school performance. In order to focus on the primary issues affecting school success, decision-making authority in the areas of curriculum, staffing, and budgeting must be real and authentic.

Administrative support and the role of central office personnel. District-level support of school-based decision-making is critical to its success. Superintendents play instrumental roles in moving central offices from a directive function toward a service orientation and resource support network. This shift in roles from a bureaucratic orientation to a service organization is often difficult and misunderstood by those occupying various roles in the district office and in the schools.

Policies at the district, state, and federal levels. In a similar manner, decision-making latitude is often restricted at the school level by various state and federal policies or mandates. Under school-based decision-making, schools are encouraged to make decisions regarding the curriculum and supporting instructional strategies. These decisions should be made within a framework of district goals or the core curriculum required by the district or state. Yet schools are often limited by state mandates affecting their educational programs and are similarly restricted by compliance requirements related to federally funded programs within their school or district. Thus, these competing and often contradictory policies constrain school-based decision-making.

Conclusion

School-based decision-making provides a framework for drawing on the expertise of individuals who are interested in and knowledgeable about matters that affect the successful performance of students. This process depends heavily on the district's leadership to define the parameters of decision-making, to define overarching goals, and to provide the information and professional development necessary to make effective, long-lasting decisions.