Education Reform: School-Based Management Results in Changes in Instruction and Budgeting (Letter Report, 08/23/94, GAO/HEHS-94-135). School-based management allows individual schools more control over their budgets and instruction programs to meet the needs of their particular students. Such management initiatives have become common during the past decade, particularly in light of perceptions that district bureaucracies and school boards are unresponsive and impose restrictions that hinder the ability of individual schools to meet their unique needs. GAO examined school-based management initiatives in Dade County, Florida; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and Prince William County, Virginia. This report answers the following questions: Under school-based management initiatives, did administrators and teachers change their schools' instructional programs and budgets and, if so, how? What were key similarities and differences in districts' approaches? How were Chapter 1 programs integrated with school-based management initiatives? GAO found that in the three school districts, school-based management fostered innovation but did not lead to net budget savings or better student performance. --------------------------- Indexing Terms ----------------------------- REPORTNUM: HEHS-94-135 TITLE: Education Reform: School-Based Management Results in Changes in Instruction and Budgeting DATE: 08/23/94 SUBJECT: Educational programs Aid for education Federal/state relations Public schools Education program evaluation State-administered programs Children Comparative analysis Disadvantaged persons IDENTIFIER: Dept. of Education Chapter 1 Program for Educationally Disadvantaged Children Prince William County (VA) Dade County (FL) Alberta (Canada) ************************************************************************** * This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO * * report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, * * headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions * * of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are * * identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end * * of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the * * document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page * * numbers of the printed product. * * * * No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure * * captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble * * those in the printed version. * * * * A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document * * Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your * * request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, * * Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders * * for printed documents at this time. * ************************************************************************** Cover ================================================================ COVER Report to Congressional Requesters August 1994 EDUCATION REFORM - SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT RESULTS IN CHANGES IN INSTRUCTION AND BUDGETING GAO/HEHS-94-135 School-Based Management Abbreviations =============================================================== ABBREV ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act SBM - school-based management NELS:88 - National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 TQM - total quality management Letter =============================================================== LETTER B-250040 August 23, 1994 The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources United States Senate The Honorable David Durenberger Committee on Labor and Human Resources United States Senate The nation's schools are faced with adapting to the needs of growing numbers of poor and immigrant children, as well as with providing all children the skills and knowledge to meet the high educational standards demanded by our changing economy. These challenges to the schools, together with low public confidence in the effectiveness of our education system, have created a strong impetus for education reform. Giving schools greater control over decision-making, through school-based management (SBM), has been a widespread reform strategy. In addition, strengthening school control, as part of a systemic reform strategy,\1 is an objective of proposed legislation to reauthorize Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).\2 SBM initiatives have become common during the past decade, particularly in light of perceptions that district bureaucracies and school boards are unresponsive and impose restrictive requirements that hinder the ability of individual schools to meet their unique needs. SBM initiatives typically involve delegating some control over decision-making on budgets, personnel, or instructional programs to those most closely associated with the school, namely, school administrators,\3 teachers, parents, or other members of the community. The basic theory behind SBM is that allowing the people most closely associated with children to make decisions about a school will make the school more responsive to the children's needs and improve their learning. This report responds to your request for information on SBM; it answers the following questions: Under SBM, did administrators and teachers change their schools' instructional programs and budgets and, if so, how? What were key similarities and differences in districts' approaches to SBM? How were Chapter 1 programs integrated with SBM? To address these questions, we studied the SBM initiatives in three school districts: Dade County, Florida; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and Prince William County, Virginia.\4 We selected these districts because they had (1) gained considerable experience with SBM, ranging from 4 to 18 years,\5 and (2) given substantial budget, personnel, and instructional control to their schools, unlike the more limited approaches in many other districts. The districts varied from a suburban district, serving about 45,000 children, to a large metropolitan district, with about 300,000 children. (See table 1 for further comparative information for the districts we visited.) Table 1 Comparative Information on School Districts Visited Studen School ts Staff s ------------------------------------ ------ ------ ------ Prince William 44,861 5,040 61 County Dade County 302,00 38,000 279 0 Edmonton, 80,400 6,811 205 Alberta ------------------------------------------------------------ We also conducted a multivariate analysis of national data to obtain a broader perspective on what schools did when they had greater control. With this analysis, we sought to determine whether the extent of school control over the instructional program was associated with schools' use of innovative practices. (See app. I for further details on our scope and methodology.) -------------------- \1 Experts consider school control to be an important component of systemic education reform, enabling principals and teachers to determine the most effective instructional practices to help children meet high standards. See, for example, Marshall S. Smith and Jennifer A. O'Day, "Systemic School Reform," Politics of Education Association Yearbook 1990, pp. 233-67. As defined by Smith and O'Day, systemic reform involves all levels of the educational system--national, state, district, and school. Systemic reform seeks to set high standards for all students' achievement, allow flexibility for principals and teachers, and hold the system accountable for student outcomes relative to the standards. \2 Chapter 1 serves educationally deprived children--those whose educational attainment is below the level that is appropriate for their age--in relatively high-poverty areas. Chapter 1 is the largest federal program for elementary and secondary education; it serves over 5 million children and was funded at $6.9 billion in fiscal year 1994. \3 In this report, the term "school administrators" refers to both principals and assistant principals. The term "teachers" refers to both certified teachers and uncertified paraprofessional staff, often called teacher aides. \4 Our findings on the integration of Chapter 1 with SBM are based only on information from the two districts in the United States. \5 SBM has been implemented in all of the schools in Edmonton and Prince William County and in 156 of Dade County's 279 schools. RESULTS IN BRIEF ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1 SBM allowed school administrators and teachers to change instruction and budgeting in ways that they thought better met the needs of the children attending their schools. The changes made would have been more difficult, if not precluded, had decision-making in the district been centralized. However, their impact on student performance is unknown. Changes in instructional programs included adding all-day kindergarten, extended-day programs, special education and gifted-and-talented programs, and new courses. Changes in budgeting included adjustments in spending on staff, supplies, and equipment. Although adjustments resulted in more spending on instruction in some schools and more spending on administration in others, schools' budgets did not realize net savings. A key similarity in districts' approaches to SBM was that it operated with other district reforms as part of a broader reform strategy. Another key similarity was that each district sought to be less prescriptive about what schools should do and instead emphasize providing services to the schools. Key differences in the approaches to SBM included (1) how the district allocated funds to its schools and (2) whether schools or the district developed schools' budgets. The Chapter 1 program was largely not integrated with SBM in Dade County and Prince William County. Much control over Chapter 1 was centralized in the district offices. Proposed federal legislation to reauthorize Chapter 1 would decentralize some control over the program, moving it from districts to schools. Such decentralization could improve the integration of Chapter 1 with SBM. Proposed legislation would also include a new requirement for each school to develop a written plan for Chapter 1. If schools cannot meet such a requirement by adjusting plans that they already develop for district or state purposes; however, the requirement could hinder the better integration of Chapter 1 with SBM. BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2 SBM identifies the individual school as the primary place where improvement should occur and relies on redistributing control over decision-making as the main way to achieve improvements.\6 SBM initiatives, however, vary considerably in (1) the amount of school control over budget, personnel, and instructional program; (2) the manner in which that control is distributed among school administrators, teachers, parents, and other members of the community;\7 and (3) the degree of flexibility concerning district or union requirements. Previous literature questions the extent to which changes in decision-making arrangements actually take place under SBM and whether such changes really increase the control of teachers, parents, or other members of the community.\8 The SBM initiatives we studied decentralized substantial budget, personnel, and instructional control to the schools; distributed that control primarily among school administrators but also teachers; and afforded considerable flexibility concerning district or union requirements. The administration's proposed legislation to reauthorize Chapter 1 seeks to increase school control over the Chapter 1 program and to use it as a vehicle for schoolwide reform. Currently, Chapter 1 services and the children selected to be served are largely determined by district Chapter 1 offices. The proposed legislation would give schools primary responsibility to determine the kinds of services to provide under Chapter 1 and which children to serve. The legislation seeks to expand the involvement of school staff paid by Chapter 1 in planning for the school as a whole. The legislation also seeks to place district staff in a more supportive and less prescriptive role in relation to the schools. In addition, the legislation would require each school to develop a written plan that specifies how Chapter 1 funds will be used, along with other funds, to assist the children served to meet high educational standards. -------------------- \6 B. Malen, R.T. Ogawa, and J. Kranz, "What Do We Know About School-Based Management? A Case Study of the Literature--A Call for Research," Choice and Control in American Education Volume 2: The Practice of Choice, Decentralization, and School Restructuring, ed. W.H. Clune and J.F. Witte (New York: The Falmer Press, 1990), p. 290. \7 See P. Wolstetter and A. Odden, "Rethinking School-Based Management Policy and Research," Education Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1994), pp. 529-49. In this article, the authors discuss three forms of SBM: (1) "community control," which shifts school control to parent and community groups; (2) "administrative decentralization," which shifts control to school councils in which teachers have the majority; and (3) "principal control," which shifts control to principals and may not use a school council consisting of teachers. \8 For a review of this literature, see Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz. SBM ALLOWED SCHOOLS TO CHANGE INSTRUCTION AND BUDGETING ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3 In the districts we studied, the increased school control under SBM allowed school administrators and teachers to change their schools' instructional programs and budgets. SBM did not cause schools to make changes, a district administrator said, but gave them permission to make changes and deviate from district policy. Before SBM, he said, people did not feel they had such permission. SBM allowed a school's services, school administrators and teachers said, to be more suited to its students' needs. Before SBM, centralized decision-making resulted in districts' making decisions about instruction and budgets that were applied uniformly across schools. But SBM left these decisions to the schools, leading to variations between schools not permitted before. In addition, national data provide evidence that school control is associated with innovations in school practices. Our multivariate analysis indicated that principals who reported more control over instruction were more likely to report using several innovative practices than principals who reported less control. Another national study of teachers found a similar relationship.\9 Whether the changes made under SBM will result in improved student performance is unknown because the necessary data were unavailable. In addition, administrators and teachers in some schools had difficulty focusing on improving their instructional programs and, instead, were concerned with issues of school governance, that is, who had what power in their schools. Limitations in training and difficulty in adjusting to new roles were reported to be barriers to a focus on improving instruction. -------------------- \9 Testing Assumptions: A Survey of Teachers' Attitudes Toward the Nation's School Reform Agenda, prepared for the Ford Foundation by LH Research, Study #930012 (New York: 1993). SCHOOLS MADE CHANGES IN INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1 Under SBM, school administrators and teachers made a wide variety of changes in their schools' instructional programs. Some changes affected part of the school population, like adding new courses; others affected the entire school, like adopting an ungraded primary system or schools-within-a-school.\10 Other instructional changes included adding all-day kindergarten, extended-day programs, and special education and gifted-and-talented programs. The changes made often first required waivers from district or union requirements. (See app. III for a list of changes that required waivers.) A high school in Edmonton provides an example of an instructional change that affected the entire school--it changed its instructional program from one that emphasized vocational education to one that emphasized performing arts. Faced with declining enrollment under the district's school choice policy (the school's enrollment had declined to 850 students and had a capacity of 2,700), the school sold the tools in its shops and used the money to refurbish the school, turning the auto shop into a performing arts studio. The school's enrollment has increased during the last 6 years to about 1,500 students, a district official reported. In Prince William County, all-day kindergarten and extended-day programs are examples of instructional changes schools made under SBM. Before SBM, all elementary schools provided half-day kindergarten as a district policy. SBM leaves this decision to the schools. Some now offer all-day kindergarten and others choose not to. Extended-day programs were more difficult to arrange before SBM because the school board chose not to fund after-school bus service. With SBM, the decision to fund after-school bus service is up to each school, and more schools offer extended-day programs. Under SBM, adding new courses was motivated, in part, by the greater competition among departments to attract students, an administrator in Prince William County said. Attracting more students allows a department to hire more teachers and get more funding for supplies and equipment. In Dade County, adding new courses was motivated, in part, by the availability of extra funds.\11 For example, one school we visited in Dade County added art and music classes in kindergarten and first and second grades, but the principal planned to discontinue these classes the following year when new classroom space became available. Instead, he intended to use the funds to hire new teachers for other subjects, thus reducing class size in these subjects. -------------------- \10 Ungraded primary systems have no specific elementary grade levels. Children are allowed to progress through the curriculum at their own pace, rather than at a pace established by age and grade. In schools-within-a-school, children are clustered into separate schools or communities within a school so that the children can develop closer relationships with a small number of teachers and peers and, in some cases, focus on specific subject areas. \11 Schools in Dade County had extra funds available from salaries and benefits for teaching positions, which schools chose not to fill because of a lack of space for additional classrooms. Many schools in Dade County had student enrollments well above their intended capacity. SCHOOLS MADE CHANGES IN BUDGETING ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2 Schools changed how much they budgeted for staff, supplies, and equipment. This resulted in some schools' increasing instructional expenditures and others' increasing administrative expenditures. Because administrators and teachers could move funds from one purpose to another, schools' budgets did not realize savings. The ability to change their budgets allowed schools to meet needs as they arose, such as the need for a new computer, an additional teacher, or classroom furniture. Some budgetary changes, such as those related to teacher compensation, required waivers from district or union rules. Some schools in the districts we visited budgeted more for some types of staff and budgeted less for other purposes, including equipment replacement or supplies. Other schools reduced expenditures on some types of staff to fund projects such as computer labs or technology for media centers. For example, in Edmonton, two high schools of about the same size made different decisions on purchasing computers, a district administrator reported. One school chose to increase each teacher's class size, to save $50,000 to $75,000 per year in teacher salaries, and to use the funds saved for purchasing computer equipment. The school has since spent about $500,000 on computers and related equipment. The other school decided to emphasize small class size and has spent only about $10,000 on computer equipment. In addition, high schools, middle-grade schools,\12 and elementary schools varied in how much they budgeted for different types of staff. High schools and middle-grade schools typically added administrative staff--including assistant principals, administrative assistants, and clerical staff--to help with their greater business responsibilities. Elementary schools typically added instructional staff, including teachers and paraprofessionals. In school year 1992-93, for example, elementary schools in Prince William County funded 23 more teaching positions and 9 more administrative support positions than the district would have if decisions were made centrally. High schools in Prince William County funded 26 fewer teaching positions and 19 more administrative support positions than the district would have. (See fig. 1.) Figure 1: Schools Varied by Grade Level in Budgeting for Different Types of Staff (See figure in printed edition.) Note: These results reflect data for 61 Prince William County schools in school year 1992-93. -------------------- \12 Middle-grade schools include both junior-high and middle schools. IMPACT OF SCHOOLS' CHANGES ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3 Because data were unavailable in the districts studied, we could not determine whether the instructional and budgetary changes made under SBM have improved student performance. To make a valid judgment about the impact of specific changes, or of SBM as a whole, one needs to determine (1) how much children learned during the period in which they were enrolled at the school and (2) how much various features of the school contributed to that learning.\13 Reaching these determinations is difficult for a variety of reasons.\14 For example, many students leave or enter a school during a school year,\15 making it difficult to determine a school's contribution to their learning. In addition, many students have limited English proficiency and are often excluded from achievement testing because tests have not been developed or translated into their home languages. Furthermore, schools and districts make many changes each year--some as a result of SBM, others as a result of district or state mandates--making it difficult to separate the effects of SBM from other changes. -------------------- \13 A.S. Bryk et al., "Measuring Achievement Gains in the Chicago Public Schools," Education and Urban Society, Vol. 26, No. 3 (1994), pp. 306-319. \14 The difficulty in measuring the impact of SBM does not imply that school districts cannot be held accountable for student performance. Indicators of student performance and behaviors, such as achievement test results and data on student attendance and high school completion, can provide useful information about the overall direction of a district's educational program. \15 For more information on such students, see Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming Their Education (GAO/HEHS-94-45, Feb. 4, 1994). SOME SCHOOLS HAD DIFFICULTY FOCUSING ON IMPROVING INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4 Administrators and teachers in some schools had difficulty focusing on improving their instructional programs because of their preoccupation with issues of school governance or gaps in knowledge about effective instructional practices. Power struggles ensued in some schools while SBM was implemented, district and school staff said. Some principals did not want to share power with teachers, and some teachers sought to take power away from their principals, district and school staff reported. The districts' progress with SBM, one district official said, depends on the principal at a given school. Ineffective principals are "lost" under SBM, he said. The key issue is whether principals know about the instructional process--principals that do not are still doing the same things that they did before SBM, he said. In addition, many teachers were uninvolved or resistant to participating in SBM, district and school staff reported.\16 Limitations in training, difficulty in adjusting to new roles, and skepticism about SBM were cited as barriers to obtaining greater teacher participation and improving instructional programs. -------------------- \16 See appendix IV for examples of district and school staffs' remarks about SBM. NATIONAL DATA PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SCHOOL CONTROL IS ASSOCIATED WITH INNOVATIVE PRACTICES ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5 Our multivariate analysis of national data indicates that school control over instruction is associated with the use of innovative practices. Schools in which principals reported having more control over the instructional program were more likely than schools in which principals reported having less control to use five of the nine practices we analyzed. These five practices were (1) using mixed-ability classrooms, (2) providing teachers with training in adolescent characteristics and teaching strategies, (3) revising curricula to emphasize critical thinking skills, (4) having common planning periods for teachers in the same departments, and (5) team teaching.\17 The results of our analysis indicate that the likelihood of using each practice was about one-third lower at schools in which principals perceived they had less control over instruction. (Further details on the findings of this analysis appear in app. II.) The differences in use of innovative practices between the two groups of schools appear in figure 2.\18 Figure 2: Schools With More Control Over Instruction More Likely to Use Some Innovative Practices (See figure in printed edition.) In addition, a national study prepared for the Ford Foundation indicates substantial differences in the extent to which innovations took place in schools where teachers said that SBM had a major impact and in schools where teachers said SBM did not have a major impact (see fig. 3).\19 These innovations include the introduction of cooperative learning; mixed-ability classrooms; tougher graduation standards; authentic assessment using student portfolios, exhibits, and projects; essential school approaches, emphasizing subject matter depth, with teacher as coach and student as worker; accelerated approaches that challenge all students to achieve learning at high levels; efforts to synchronize classroom practices and school climate with the home culture and environment of students; discipline-based standards for learning, such as those suggested by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; teachers' substantial involvement in decisions over how school funds are spent; and ungraded classrooms. Figure 3: Schools Where Teachers Say SBM Had a Major Impact More Likely to Use Innovative Practices (See figure in printed edition.) Source:Testing Assumptions: A Survey of Teachers' Attitudes Toward the Nation's School Reform Agenda. -------------------- \17 The other practices, which were not related to control over instruction, included (1) classes organized for cooperative learning, (2) flexible time for class periods, (3) students assigned to the same homeroom or advisory teachers for all years in high school, and (4) schools-within-a-school with their own administrative staffs, such as alternative or magnet school programs. \18 Unlike the results presented in appendix II, the data used for this chart are not adjusted for the effects of other variables included in our multivariate analysis. \19 Testing Assumptions: A Survey of Teachers' Attitudes Toward the Nation's School Reform Agenda, p. 17. In this study, 41 percent of a nationally representative sample of teachers said that SBM had a major impact on their schools. KEY SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN DISTRICTS' APPROACHES TO SBM ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4 Districts' approaches to SBM had several key similarities and differences. Key similarities include (1) using SBM as part of broader district reforms and (2) trying to better respond to schools' needs by becoming less prescriptive and being more service-oriented to schools. Key differences among these SBM initiatives include (1) how districts allocated funds to schools and (2) how schools' budgets were developed. SBM PART OF BROADER DISTRICT REFORM EFFORTS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1 The SBM initiatives we studied operated as part of broader district reform efforts, reflecting districts' belief that this would enhance SBM's effectiveness. Each district's broader reform efforts sought to (1) establish goals or standards for all students, (2) develop curricula linked to those standards, (3) institute professional development programs to enable administrators and teachers to understand the curricula and effective ways of instructing students, and (4) create and implement student assessment systems based on the curricula.\20 Each district, however, implemented SBM before undertaking these reform efforts. Dade County's SBM initiative began as an effort to enhance teacher professionalism and was not initially connected to a broader district reform effort. Dissatisfaction with the limited extent to which school administrators and teachers used SBM to focus on improving instruction led district administrators to deemphasize SBM as a priority. SBM now operates as part of a broader reform effort that includes the Saturn School Project. The Saturn School Project allows planning teams, which include the school's principal and lead teacher, to design the instructional program and assessment system for new schools. Planning teams for the new schools are chosen on the basis of the merits of proposals the teams prepare. In addition to the broader efforts discussed above, Edmonton's SBM initiative also operates together with an open enrollment policy in which parents can choose what school their child will attend. Such choice provided an incentive for schools to make changes if student enrollment declined, particularly since principals' salaries were based, in part, on enrollment. District administrators in Dade County and Prince William County said that SBM could eventually lead to a school choice policy because variations in the instructional programs among schools would require giving parents and children the opportunity to choose between them. -------------------- \20 For more information on similar reforms, see Systemwide Education Reform: Federal Leadership Could Facilitate District-Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr. 30, 1993). DISTRICTS MADE EFFORTS TO BETTER RESPOND TO SCHOOLS' NEEDS ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2 Districts' efforts to better respond to schools' needs included (1) encouraging schools to request waivers from district and union rules and (2) reorganizing district offices to improve school services. DISTRICTS ENCOURAGED SCHOOLS TO REQUEST WAIVERS FROM REQUIREMENTS -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.1 Dade County and Prince William County encouraged schools to request waivers by adopting routine procedures for schools to request and obtain them.\21 On an annual basis, schools in Dade County and Prince William County could submit lists of requested waivers to their districts for approval. For the 1992-93 school year, 103 schools in Dade County obtained more than 320 waivers, and 32 schools in Prince William County obtained 71 waivers. Schools' waivers related to changing (1) instructional programs, (2) student assessment, (3) student discipline, (4) the organization of the school day or year, (5) staff positions, (6) teacher compensation, and (7) student transportation.\22 The majority of waivers in Dade County involved union requirements. These waivers were often for changing teacher compensation, providing pay supplements to teachers who assumed extra duties, like serving on a school planning team or working with student clubs after school. Because Virginia has no collective bargaining agreements, all of the waivers in Prince William County were from district requirements. These waivers were often for changing schools' instructional programs. (See app. III for a list of waivers obtained by schools under SBM in Dade County and Prince William County.) -------------------- \21 Schools in Edmonton were not required to follow a formal procedure to request and obtain waivers. \22 A list of waivers was unavailable for Edmonton public schools. DISTRICTS REORGANIZED OFFICES TO IMPROVE SCHOOL SERVICES -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.2 Each district we studied sought to better meet schools' needs for professional development, technical assistance, or other school services. To do this, each district reorganized district offices to improve the services they provided to schools. In Edmonton, the district established an office of consulting services that provides technical assistance to schools. Schools fund the office by paying it for its services. Schools also may obtain services from vendors outside the district, although the district discounts the price of its services to make them more attractive. The office of consulting services earned back about 60 percent of the funds for such services allocated to the schools, a district administrator said. In Prince William County, the district was making changes in how it provided services to schools in the categories of curriculum and instruction and printing. The changes in curriculum and instruction services included eliminating subject area supervisor positions and instituting instructional assistance teams assigned to clusters of schools. The district provided training in total quality management (TQM) to help its staff adjust to new roles,\23 but some staff still resisted these changes. The changes in printing services were intended to introduce competition from private vendors and to make the district's printing services self-funding. In Dade County, the district changed how it worked with its schools on curriculum and instruction. One of its goals was to better target professional development and technical assistance for research-based education reforms. The district established a new division of instructional leadership, intended to help schools choose research-based reform models and implement them. The office has staff trained in various reform models, including the School Development Program developed by James Comer and the Accelerated Schools program developed by Henry Levin. -------------------- \23 TQM is a management philosophy originally applied in an industrial setting. Some of the basic principles of TQM include understanding customer expectations, empowering employees at all organizational levels, and opening communication channels at all levels. For more information on the use of TQM in public schools, see Total Quality Education (GAO/HEHS-94-76R, Feb. 10, 1994). DIFFERENCES IN HOW DISTRICTS ALLOCATED FUNDS TO SCHOOLS CREATED DIFFERENT FINANCIAL INCENTIVES ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3 Differences in how districts allocated funds to schools created different financial incentives for schools' actions. In Edmonton and Prince William County, districts allocated most funds to schools on the basis of a per child amount, weighted according to student characteristics such as poverty, disability, or gifted-and-talented status. This created an incentive for more schools to offer special education and gifted-and-talented programs, given that children served by such programs brought additional funds to the schools. These additional funds could be used for special education and gifted-and-talented programs or for other purposes. The district in Dade County allocated funds to schools on the basis of a per staff amount. For each school, the district calculated the number of teachers and other staff it was entitled to receive on the basis of student enrollment; then the district multiplied the number of teachers and staff by an amount for salary and benefits. By allocating funds for benefits to schools, the district created an incentive for schools to hire part-time teachers, paid by the hour, because they received less costly benefits.\24 Schools could use the savings from reduced personnel costs for other purposes. One principal in Dade County said, however, that he chose not to hire part-time teachers because he thought they were insufficiently qualified. -------------------- \24 Teacher benefits were not allocated to schools in Edmonton or Prince William County. DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOLS' BUDGETS DIFFERED ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4 How schools' budgets were developed under SBM differed in the districts we studied. Either the school or the district developed schools' initial budgets. Schools' developing their own budgets seemed to promote greater teacher participation in school planning and decision-making than districts' developing schools' budgets. School administrators and teachers in Edmonton and Prince William County developed their schools' budgets, determining how much to spend on personnel, supplies, equipment, and services.\25 School administrators and teachers in these districts began the budget process by first specifying priorities for the school year in an annual school plan. These priorities were transferred to the budget that the school later submitted to the district for approval. In contrast, the district in Dade County developed schools' initial budgets, and school administrators decided whether to change the allocation of funds recommended by the district. Teachers on school planning teams we interviewed were seldom involved in determining budget allocations among personnel, supplies, and equipment, and lacked knowledge about their school's budget authority. -------------------- \25 Schools in these districts developed their budgets after the district determined the approximate total budget amount for each school on the basis of its estimated enrollment. CHAPTER 1 NOT INTEGRATED WITH SBM ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5 The Chapter 1 program was largely not integrated with SBM in Dade County and Prince William County. Much decision-making authority over Chapter 1 was centralized under district control, consistent with federal guidance. In Dade County, for example, the district specifies the subject areas and grade levels in which children receive Chapter 1 services, as well as the instructional approach schools use to provide services. In Prince William County, schools gained some decision-making authority under SBM in selecting instructional approaches, but the district specifies grade levels and the subject area for Chapter 1 services. Proposed legislation seeks to decentralize some control over Chapter 1, moving it from districts to schools, and to place districts in a less prescriptive and more facilitative role than in the past. This legislation would also require each school receiving Chapter 1 funds to develop a written plan. This new federal planning requirement, however, could hinder the better integration of Chapter 1 with SBM because it could fragment schools' planning efforts if a separate written plan for Chapter 1 is needed. Many schools already develop written plans to meet other district or state requirements. The proposed legislation does not indicate if schools will need to develop a separate plan for Chapter 1 or whether they could use a single, integrated plan for district, state, and federal purposes. Department of Education officials informed us, however, that the administration intends schools to develop a single, integrated plan. The decentralization sought in proposed legislation could improve the integration of Chapter 1 with SBM. But decentralization may be difficult to achieve because districts are slow to change their Chapter 1 programs. One reason for slowness is district concern about compliance with procedural and fiscal requirements. State and federal auditors tend to focus on such requirements in their monitoring efforts, rather than on program quality.\26 For example, auditors focused primarily on whether schools had the proper documentation for how funds were spent, district officials said, not on whether the funds spent met the needs of children targeted by Chapter 1 funds or whether schools had improved the performance of these children.\27 A second reason for slowness is that before a change can be made, agreement must be reached among multiple parties in the district and the state education agency with a stake in Chapter 1.\28 A reason for slow change in the future--specifically in terms of decentralizing control to schools--could stem from new requirements for Chapter 1 resulting from the program's reauthorization. For example, districts may be hesitant to decentralize control while implementing a new requirement that Chapter 1 be linked to state content and performance standards. -------------------- \26 See, for example, Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New Directions, Final Report of the National Assessment of the Chapter 1 Program, U.S. Department of Education (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1993), p. 173. \27 In a related study, Regulatory Flexibility Programs: What Happens When Schools Are Allowed to Change the Rules? (GAO/HEHS-94-102, Apr. 29, 1994), we found that compliance monitoring by state and federal auditors had a negative impact on districts' willingness to encourage schools to take advantage of regulatory flexibility in the Chapter 1 program. State education agencies and the federal government, however, have recently moved toward a new emphasis on the outcomes of programs. But some state and federal officials responsible for reviewing education programs may not be aware of requirements to examine outcomes. \28 See, for example, Local Program Design and Decisionmaking Under Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, SRI International (Menlo Park, Calif.: Dec. 1986). CONCLUSION ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6 SBM can increase school administrators' and teachers' control over their schools--an objective of systemic reform and proposed legislation to reauthorize Chapter 1. This increased control can allow school administrators and teachers to change their instructional programs and budgets to more quickly meet needs they identify. However, in using SBM to improve schools, districts should be aware that (1) SBM's effects on student performance are hard to determine and depend on the quality of the innovations that schools adopt, (2) some schools have difficulty focusing on improving instructional programs, and (3) the different approaches to SBM create different incentives for how schools change their instructional programs and budgets. SBM may also help districts and schools implement proposed changes to Chapter 1 that would give schools more control over the program. But for this to happen, additional steps will be needed to better integrate Chapter 1 with SBM. These include steps that would (1) help ensure that federal planning requirements are compatible with how schools plan and make decisions under SBM and (2) encourage districts to assume a less prescriptive role toward Chapter 1 services in schools.\29 -------------------- \29 We discuss how to accomplish this in Regulatory Flexibility in Schools: What Happens When Schools Are Allowed to Change the Rules? In that report, we recommend that the Secretary of Education assess the way federal and state officials review education programs and, as needed, promote changes in this process to be more consistent with schools' attempts to improve. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONGRESS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7 If the Congress includes a new Chapter 1 planning requirement in legislation to reauthorize ESEA, we recommend that the legislation specify that plans developed by schools for Chapter 1 should serve district, state, and federal planning requirements so that schools can develop a single, integrated plan rather than multiple plans. ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1 We carried out our study from August 1992 through June 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not obtain written agency comments on this report; we did, however, discuss its contents with Department of Education officials. We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. Please call Beatrice Birman, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7008 or Richard Wenning, Project Manager, at (202) 512-7048 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Linda G. Morra Director, Education and Employment Issues OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY =========================================================== Appendix I Our objectives for this study were to (1) determine what changes school administrators and teachers made, under SBM, in their instructional programs and budgets; (2) identify key similarities and differences in districts' approaches to SBM; and (3) describe how Chapter 1 programs were integrated with SBM. To accomplish these objectives, we conducted case studies in three school districts, using interviews, analysis of financial data, and document reviews. To obtain a broader perspective related to our first objective, we also used multivariate analysis to determine whether the extent of school control over the instructional program was associated with the likelihood of using innovative practices among high schools in a national survey. We conducted our study from July 1992 through June 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not obtain written agency comments for this report. However, we discussed its contents with Department of Education officials and made changes as appropriate. CASE STUDIES --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1 We conducted case studies of SBM initiatives in three school districts in the United States and Canada: Dade County Public Schools, Florida; Edmonton Public Schools, Alberta, Canada; and Prince William County Public Schools, Virginia. In the three districts, we interviewed school board members; teachers' union officials; superintendents; assistant superintendents (including the chief financial officer); federal program coordinators; and principals and teachers at elementary, middle-grade, and high schools. In addition, we analyzed financial data in Prince William County to quantify examples of changes in schools' allocation of resources. For this analysis, we used district data that allowed us to compare schools' budgeting of funds with what the district would have budgeted on the basis of a uniform formula.\30 We also reviewed waivers schools obtained from union and school board rules in Dade County and Prince William County and categorized them by purpose (see app. III). -------------------- \30 Data were unavailable to replicate this analysis for Edmonton and Dade County. DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1 Dade County Public Schools began implementing SBM in 1986, as part of a cooperative initiative, among the superintendent, school board, and the teacher's union, to promote teacher professionalism. SBM began as a pilot program in 33 schools and has been expanded, on a voluntary basis, to 156 schools. Dade County Public Schools encompasses Miami, Florida, and its surrounding metropolitan area; the district serves about 300,000 children in 279 schools. EDMONTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2 Edmonton Public Schools began implementing SBM in 1976 as an initiative promoted by its superintendent. His goal was to place budget authority in the schools--in his view, the point of key responsibility for educating children. SBM began as a pilot project in 7 schools and was expanded districtwide in 1979. Edmonton Public Schools is an urban district in Alberta, Canada, that serves about 80,000 children in 205 schools. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.3 Prince William County Public Schools began implementing SBM in 1988 as an initiative, promoted by its new superintendent, to improve student performance. SBM began as a pilot initiative in 5 schools and was expanded to all schools in 1990. Prince William County Public Schools is a suburban district outside of Washington, D.C., that serves about 45,000 children in 61 schools. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2 We used multivariate analysis to determine whether school control over the instructional program was associated with innovations in school practices among high schools included in the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88). DATA SOURCE, SCOPE OF ANALYSIS, AND LIMITATIONS ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1 For our analysis, we used the NELS:88 First Follow-Up School Administrator Survey. NELS:88 is a national longitudinal survey of a sample of eighth grade students, their parents, and their principals (or other school administrators) and teachers. The First Follow-up School Administrator Survey gathered information about the educational settings in which NELS:88 students were enrolled in the spring of the 1989-90 school year--their sophomore year in high school. We used the First Follow-up Survey because it contained information on school control, which was the primary independent variable of interest in our analysis.\31 The First Follow-Up school data file contains data on 1,062 public schools for which a school administrator questionnaire was collected. The NELS:88 First Follow-Up School Administrator Survey is not representative of high schools in 1989-90. Consequently, it is not possible to make statistical estimates for the nation's high school administrators from this survey. Nevertheless, we felt it was reasonable to use the data set for exploring relationships between school control and the use of innovative practices. -------------------- \31 National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, First Follow-Up: School Component Data File User's Manual, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, NCES 92-084 (Washington, D.C.: 1992). METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2 We used nine logistic regression models to estimate the relationship between school control over instruction and the use of nine different innovative practices, adjusting for selected school and district characteristics. The number of schools used in these analyses ranged from 768 to 777.\32 Two of the variables we used, the cooperation variable and the school control variable, were based on a composite score developed from multiple survey items. We used factor analysis to select the appropriate survey items to use in developing these variables. Factor analysis is a statistical technique that estimates the extent to which different items measure the same concept or underlying factor. Items that satisfactorily measure the same concept can then be combined to form a single, composite measure of that concept that is more reliable than any of its component items used alone. -------------------- \32 Between 285 and 294 schools were excluded because of missing information on one or more variables. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2.1 The following variables were used as independent variables in the models. Cooperation: This variable is a composite measure designed to reflect district cooperation with the school (reliability = .84). The variable is based on the summed values of responses to the questions: "How would you characterize your school's relationship with each of the following individuals or groups: superintendent, school board or governing board, and central office administrators?" Responses to these questions ranged on a 4-point scale from "conflictual" (1) to "very cooperative" (4). We categorized the summed scores for these questions into the following two groups: (1) "more cooperative" (88 percent of respondents with scores of 9 or more) and (2) "less cooperative" (12 percent of respondents with scores under 9). School poverty: This variable is based on the percentage of students in a school reported to be in the free or reduced lunch program. Responses were categorized into three groups: (1) 0 to 10 percent (40 percent of respondents), (2) 11 to 50 percent (48 percent of respondents), and (3) 51 to 100 percent (12 percent of respondents). Urbanicity: This variable reflects the degree of urbanization of a school's community. Schools were classified into the following three categories: (1) "urban central city" (33 percent of respondents), (2) "suburban" (53 percent of respondents), and (3) "rural" (14 percent of respondents). District size: This variable was based on the number of schools in a school's district. For each school, we categorized the number of schools in the district into four approximately equal-sized groups as follows: (1) 1 to 5 schools (23 percent of respondents), (2) 6 to 15 schools (27 percent of respondents), (3) 16 to 50 schools (25 percent of respondents), and (4) 51 or more schools (25 percent of respondents). School control over instruction: This variable is a composite measure designed to reflect the extent of principal control over the school's instructional program (reliability = .73). The variable is based on the summed values of responses to the questions: "How much influence do you as a principal have over setting curricular guidelines, influencing instructional practices, establishing homework policies, and creating new programs (such as dropout and drug prevention programs)?" Responses for these questions ranged on a 5-point scale from "no influence" (1) to "major influence" (5). We categorized the summed scores for these four questions into the following two groups: (1) "more influence" (56 percent of respondents with scores of 16 or more) and (2) "less influence" (44 percent of respondents with scores under 16). DEPENDENT VARIABLES: INNOVATIVE SCHOOL PRACTICES ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2.2 The following variables, used as dependent variables in our nine models, were coded dichotomously according to whether the administrator reported using the practice (1) or not (0). Team teaching: Interdisciplinary teams of teachers who share the same students (30 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). Common planning period: Common planning period for members of the same departments (19 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). Mixed-ability classrooms: Students from more than one curricular program/track are assigned to the same academic classes (65 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). Cooperative learning: Classes organized for cooperative learning where students earn group rewards for mastery of academic skills (28 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). Flexible time: Flexible time for class periods (9 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). Training: Training in adolescent characteristics and specific teaching strategies for secondary school students (65 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). Curriculum revisions: Curriculum revisions to emphasize critical thinking skills (63 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). Same homeroom: Students assigned to the same homeroom or advisory teachers for all years in high school (33 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). Schools in school: Schools-within-a-school with their own administrative staffs such as alternative or magnet school programs (19 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF NELS:88 ========================================================== Appendix II The logistic regression results for our nine models as adjusted odds ratios are summarized in table II.1. The odds ratio is a measure of association that compares the likelihood of an event occurring (for example, use of team teaching) in one group relative to another (for example, having more control compared with less control over instruction). The odds ratios presented reflect the net effect for each variable after adjusting for the effects of the other variables in the model. If no significant differences exist between two groups, their odds would be equal and the ratio would be 1.00. The greater the odds ratio differs from 1.00, in either direction, the larger the effect it represents. The odds ratios in table II.1 were computed in relation to a defined reference group (Ref) for each variable. Odds ratios that are significantly different from 1.00 at the 95-percent confidence level are noted in the tables. For example, the statistically significant odds ratio in model 6 for urban schools (4.01) indicates that schools in urban areas were about 4 times more likely to use alternative or magnet programs than schools in rural areas (after accounting for the other variables in the model). Table II.1 Logistic Results: Adjusted Odds Ratios Reflecting Association Between Independent Variables and Use of Innovative Practices Model 2-- Model 3-- Independent Model 1-- Common Cooperative variable Team teaching planning learning ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- Cooperation with district Less 0.99 1.15 1.65* More 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) School poverty 0 to 10 .86 .89 1.97* percent 11 to 50 .90 1.07 1.54 percent 51 percent 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) and more District size 1 to 5 .28* .68 .61 schools 6 to 15 .40* .96 .75 schools 16 to 50 .57* .79 .69 schools 51 schools 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) and more Urbanicity Urban 1.13 1.28 1.76 Suburban .99 .82 1.35 Rural 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) Instruction control Less .66* .60* .74 More 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) ------------------------------------------------------------ Model 4-- Mixed- Model 6-- Independent ability Model 5-- School in Variable classrooms Flexible time school ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- Cooperation with district Less 1.43 1.62 .82 More 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) School poverty 0 to 10 1.57 .72 .55* percent 11 to 50 1.05 .37* .56* percent 51 percent 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) and more District size 1 to 5 .74 .79 .34* schools 6 to 15 0.99 .73 .78 schools 16 to 50 1.00 .79 .85 schools 51 schools 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) and more Urbanicity Urban 1.50 1.23 4.01* Suburban .89 .69 2.41* Rural 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) Instruction control Less .65* .84 1.00 More 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) ------------------------------------------------------------ Model 9-- Independent Model 7-- Model 8-- Curriculum Variable Same homeroom Training revision ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- Cooperation with district Less 1.42 1.51 .83 More 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) School poverty 0 to 10 .92 1.21 1.20 percent 11 to 50 .95 1.08 .80 percent 51 percent 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) and more District size 1 to 5 .58 .91 1.03 schools 6 to 15 .92 1.03 .97 schools 16 to 50 .74 1.07 .98 schools 51 schools 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) and more Urbanicity Urban 1.43 1.96* 1.74* Suburban 1.01 1.15 1.44 Rural 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) Instruction control Less .78 .61* .63* More 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) 1.00 (Ref) ------------------------------------------------------------Indicates odds ratio is significant at the 95-percent confidence level. WAIVERS OBTAINED BY SCHOOLS ========================================================= Appendix III We reviewed the waivers schools obtained from district and union rules in Dade County, Florida, and Prince William County, Virginia. These waivers were for changes to schools' instructional programs, student assessment, student discipline, the organization of the school day or year, school staff positions, teacher compensation, and student transportation. WAIVERS OBTAINED BY SCHOOLS IN DADE COUNTY ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1 Of the 279 schools in Dade County, 103 obtained 320 waivers from school board and union rules during the 1992-93 school year. Examples of these waivers appear below. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.1 To implement a plan wherein teachers may develop unit plans and turn in a copy of the lesson plans to the administration through the department chairpersons (union rule). To provide allocations for courses in Spanish for Spanish speakers and Spanish as a second language (school board rule). To use 50 percent of textbook funds to purchase nonstate-adopted texts and the remaining 50 percent to select State Department of Education approved textbooks (school board rule). To implement a plan for teachers to grade first grade students as "Excellent," "Satisfactory," and "Needs Improvement" in place of using letter grades and change the report card term "Mathematics Application" to "Number Concepts" (school board rule). To require either elementary Spanish as a second language or elementary Spanish for Spanish speakers for all students in kindergarten through sixth grade (school board rule). To offer all students art, music, and physical education (school board rule). To provide additional academic experience on Saturday mornings (union rule). To develop and implement a youth savings account program (school board rule). To allow teachers to determine when it is necessary to have teacher-parent communication for the distribution of report cards based on attendance or performance of individual students (union rule). To implement a program wherein counseling services will be rendered by a resource teacher (school board rule). To require all students in grades six, seven, and eight to take physical education (school board rule). To provide a reading program for sixth grade using the whole language approach curriculumwide (school board rule). To require that all seventh grade students take either a fine arts course or a vocation course in place of one elective (school board rule). To provide graduate student assistants from the University of Miami to provide direct instruction to students (union rule). To allow promotion for selected students from kindergarten to a developmental pre-first grade to first grade (school board rule). STUDENT ASSESSMENT ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.2 To distribute school-generated report cards to students four times per year on the same day as the rest of the school system's computer-generated cards (school board rule). To provide an alternate report card to kindergarten students in the school's "Preventative Strategies Program" (school board rule). To implement a plan for teachers to write assessment criteria (union rule). To provide a local computerized system that permits a teacher to override computer-averaged grades in all cases (school board rule). To exempt selected students from final exams (school board rule). To require teachers to conduct individual parent conferences at the beginning of the school year and at the end of each grading period (union rule). STUDENT DISCIPLINE ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.3 To allow the school-based management team to select a teacher to handle school discipline (union rule). To allow teachers to assume administrative duties and responsibilities for discipline (union rule). To provide a salary supplement to a teacher dean to provide additional administrative support to the school relative to discipline strategies (union rule). ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL DAY OR YEAR ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.4 To allow paraprofessionals to have one of their two 10-minute breaks added to their duty-free lunch time (union rule). To hold biweekly meetings with teachers and Montessori personnel in addition to regularly scheduled faculty meetings (union rule). To add one administrative duty/common planning period following the workday. The workday shall include a maximum of five teaching periods for secondary school teachers (union rule). To use planning/preparation days, now designated as no-outside meeting days, for SBM training (union rule). To extend the school day 1 hour on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday for kindergarten and first grade students (union rule). To allow teachers to provide additional direct instruction during time gained from a change in the start and dismissal times (union rule). To dismiss pupils 1 hour early one afternoon a week so that this time can be used for staff development activities (union rule). To dismiss teachers who participate in professional growth courses during the summer session at 2:00 p.m. when no faculty meetings and in-service activities are held (union rule). To allow SBM council to schedule weekly meetings that extend beyond the regular workday (union rule). To allow departmental lunch meetings contingent on unanimous agreement among the members of the department (union rule). To allow two planning periods per month to be utilized for SBM council meetings (union rule). To authorize a decrease in the number of days of instruction in the school year for twelfth grade pupils (school board rule). To replace five teaching periods with six and add the words "to permit members of the foreign language department to teach an extra class without compensation" (union rule). To replace five teaching periods with six and add the words "with a maximum student load of 124 students" for the horticulture teacher (union rule). To designate teacher planning days for workshops that may be extended to full days, as needed. The total time, however, shall not exceed 2 teacher planning days per grading period (union rule). To allow staff meetings as deemed appropriate to be extended beyond the regular workday (union rule). To include in the workday a study/counseling period (union rule). To allow some teachers to deviate from the normal working and planning hours (union rule). To allow a work week to include a maximum of 25 teaching periods (union rule). To implement a plan whereby teachers and paraprofessionals may opt to supervise students in the cafeteria during their duty-free lunch period (union rule). SCHOOL STAFF POSITIONS ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.5 To have department and grade level chairpersons, coordinating lead teachers and lead teachers, team leaders, and other teachers conduct classroom observations using the official Teacher Assessment and Development System observation form (union rule). To allow teachers and lead teachers to assume administrative duties and responsibilities (union rule). To have a staff member assume the position of activities coordinator (union rule). To have SBM council interview all hardship, voluntary, and surplus transfer, as well as new applicants before being assigned to the school (union rule). To have teachers act in the role of a lead teacher (union rule). To have a teacher act in the role of helping teacher to the administration (union rule). To have an administrative assistant conduct classroom observations (union rule). To have a teacher function as a school-based visiting teacher/social worker (union rule). To give staff an opportunity to provide input into the hiring process of surplus teachers to the school (union rule). To have scheduling of employees as a joint responsibility of the principal and a committee designated as the scheduling committee (union rule). To amend the promotion requirements (school board rule). To increase the number of grade-level chairpersons (union rule). To allow schools to employ school site pool substitutes who are guaranteed a minimum of 180 days employment during the school year and who agree to perform daily emergency substitute work on a schedule (union rule). To waive provisions requiring priority consideration for personnel with a continuing contract or professional service contract (union rule). To assign a group of beginning teachers to peer teachers (union rule). To allow, annually, members of each department to elect department heads and members of the team elect team leaders (union rule). To permit teachers to be employed full-time for a 3-week period during the summer school program (union rule). TEACHER COMPENSATION ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.6 To allocate money and divide it among grade level chairpersons equally and to provide a supplement for the safety patrol (union rule). To allocate art, music, and physical education teacher positions at the same level as the prior year (school board rule). To pay only part-time teachers elected by the faculty to serve on the SBM team for more than 25 hours weekly for services rendered (union rule). To provide an annual salary supplement to teachers assuming the position of team leader (union rule). To give a maximum of four teaching periods and two administrative periods to the teacher assuming the position of facilitator (union rule). To approve release time to complete the tasks of middle school coordinator and core council chairperson (union rule). To attain a more equitable division of available supplement funds for varying amounts of increased responsibility before and after the regular school day (union rule). To strike existing elementary school supplements (except department chairperson supplements) and combine dollars to allow the SBM team to determine the method and amount of expenditure of funds (union rule). To redistribute district authorized supplements (union rule). To qualify University of Miami students who successfully complete the teacher preparation/professional development program and meet employment criteria for Dade County Public schools to receive credit for 1 year of teaching experience for salary purposes (union rule). To provide an annual supplement for performance of extra duties (union rule). To provide compensatory time for professional service spent beyond the regular duty day. Compensatory time will be taken on teacher workdays or planning time (union rule). To compensate teachers who volunteer for and provide internal coverage (union rule). To provide an annual salary supplement to each teacher who completes and presents a professional growth training module (union rule). To provide extra class supplements for use on a pro rata basis to compensate teachers for operating a Saturday school (union rule). To provide compensatory time for teachers who voluntarily give up their duty-free lunch to supervise students in the cafeteria (union rule). To include teachers and paraprofessionals as eligible to accrue compensatory time to be used on teacher workdays or Wednesdays after student dismissal (union rule). To provide compensatory time for teachers working on quality improvement projects (union rule). To provide 1 compensatory day per year for teachers who are members of the SBM committee (union rule). To initiate an annual supplement for the paraprofessional voting member of the SBM council (union rule). To initiate an annual salary supplement for the teacher selected as lead or coordinating teacher (union rule). To provide an annual salary supplement for the teacher serving as secretary of the SBM council (union rule). To provide an annual salary supplement for the teacher providing the after-school music program (union rule). To provide an annual supplement for a new department head for the noninstructional staff (union rule). To provide annual salary supplement for the person serving as elementary school assistant (union rule). To provide supplements for teachers assuming the duties of before school supervisor, parent publications coordinator, and facilitators (union rule). To select teachers to receive supplements through election by the teachers, administrators, and staff council (union rule). To redistribute intramural supplements to provide an annual salary supplement (union rule). To provide an annual stipend for a University of Miami graduate assistant to help coordinate and monitor a professional development program (union rule). To provide an annual supplement for the noninstructional staff member assuming the extra duties as club/activities sponsor (union rule). To provide an annual salary supplement for the union representative member of the SBM team (union rule). To provide an annual salary supplement for a teacher team teaching five periods of ninth grade world history (union rule). To raise the supplement paid to team leaders (union rule). To provide an extra teaching supplement to the counselor (union rule). To authorize additional supplements for the existing supplement for team leaders and the existing supplement for coordinator of teachers as advisers (union rule). To provide an annual salary for the SBM team chairperson (union rule). To designate the principal's secretary as lead secretary and provide an annual salary supplement (union rule). To provide an annual salary supplement for the position of assistant for discipline and for the teacher serving as lead teacher-liaison for attendance and discipline (union rule). To provide an annual supplement for teachers assuming the position of SBM steering committee members (union rule). To provide an annual salary supplement for the teacher serving as dean of students (union rule). WAIVERS OBTAINED BY SCHOOLS IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2 Of the 61 schools in Prince William County, 32 obtained 71 waivers from school board rules during the 1993-94 school year. Examples of these waivers appear below. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1 To develop and implement its own gifted-and-talented program. To provide uninterrupted instructional time. To continue and expand after-school cultural studies. To make foreign language a noncredit course to allow students an opportunity to experience it without being penalized if they fail. To establish a junior Reserve Officer Training Course program. To increase the number of elective courses available. To implement the International Baccalaureate Program. To offer a daily schedule of individualized instruction for some students. To pilot a new special education model. To pilot new courses, including a multicultural international literature course and a historiography-archaeology course, and offer special recognition on students' diploma for completion of multicultural courses. To offer foreign language at the first grade through partial immersion. To provide full-day kindergarten. To expand the exploratory arts course offerings in grades six and seven. To offer Physics I to ninth grade students. To restructure work-study opportunities by eliminating the industrial cooperative training program and redirecting students toward comprehensive marketing, business, and vocational courses. To offer a free summer school program for at-risk students to meet their unique needs. To provide extended-day academic support for students and to hire teachers to teach from 2:25 to 3:45. STUDENT ASSESSMENT ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2 To use report cards developed by the school. To develop specialized interim reports on student performance to address individual and department communication needs. To use alternatives to traditional student assessment methods. To develop and implement reporting tools for students in grades kindergarten through grade five that more accurately and effectively detail student growth. To extend development, piloting, and implementation of alternative reporting systems for kindergarten and grades one, two, and three. To exempt second graders from assessment using the standardized Iowa Test of Basic Skills. To exempt eleventh and twelfth grade students from taking final examinations, depending on grades and absences. To award prizes, grants, and incentives to individual students or programs for outstanding accomplishments. STUDENT DISCIPLINE ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3 To encourage attendance by issuing failures to students who miss more than 12 days of school. To encourage attendance by withholding credit if a student has 20 or more absences. ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL DAY OR YEAR ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.4 To extend media center hours after school and during the evening with staff supervision. To modify the school day (no early release on Thursday afternoons). To schedule the school day from 8:15 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. daily, except Thursdays. To increase the number of fall conference days from 2 half-days to 3 half-days and to schedule them to coincide with the end of the first marking period. To restructure the school day so that the core day contains five 50-minute periods and one 90-minute period that meets on alternate days. To change elementary conference days from October to November. SCHOOL STAFF POSITIONS ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.5 To create a computer technologist position. To create an assistant activities director position. To hire additional security personnel and maintain one teacher on special assignment position. To create an interactive technology specialist (certified teacher) position. To create a computer lab teacher position. To use a staff member to maintain working relationships with community or business resources. To continue to provide in-house services for gifted- and-talented students. To hire a half-time foreign language teacher to teach a new language program. To provide teacher coaching positions for a staff development program. To hire a computer technologist to provide assistance with the at-risk program and purchase needed supplies. TEACHER COMPENSATION ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.6 To compensate the coordinator of the student mentor program. To reimburse department chairpersons for time spent beyond the regular school day on the budget process and program planning. STUDENT TRANSPORTATION ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.7 To provide student transportation for the after-school tutorial program. SCHOOL AND DISTRICT STAFFS' REMARKS ABOUT SBM ========================================================== Appendix IV To provide the flavor of what we heard during our site visits, the following are some paraphrased remarks made by school and district staff about SBM. SBM means more empowerment of teachers; they have involvement in how money is spent on books, activities, and computers. SBM helps to foster more ownership among teachers. It is important that teachers feel comfortable to take risks. SBM allows school services to be more suited to the school's students. SBM has opened communication between administrators and teachers; teachers now have more input; sometimes the topics seem trivial but things now run more smoothly. Before SBM, they had a faculty council, but communication was mostly one way--from the administrators to the council. SBM has been a fundamental change; it has empowered teachers, giving them a chance to make their dreams a reality. But it also makes you feel you have 10 times the work. It's a lot of time in areas that you are not trained, like curriculum innovations. But any time you ask for help from the district, they send it. Before there was some question of the effectiveness of this help, but now it is better. SBM means a dramatic change from the old hierarchical top-down approach where teachers had very little voice. Now the district is willing to let schools do things to meet particular needs within the parameters of the Board's guidelines and policies. Before SBM, people were not given permission to deviate and the focus was on compliance. SBM did not cause schools to make changes, but gave them permission to make changes. The reason they went with SBM originally was to increase test scores; that hasn't happened. But there has been more communication between teachers and administrators. SBM gives teachers more of a say over what's going to happen in the school. SBM doesn't add to my work, though that was a fear that some people had at my previous school. Now, because of SBM, teachers have a say over the vending machines in the teachers' lounge, for example. Overall, everything is about the same under SBM, although staff are much more involved in discipline now and have lots of meetings. The hope was that SBM would revitalize the district and lead to real innovation, but this did not happen. Drawbacks to SBM are that it is a black hole in terms of time and that people were asked to change roles without preparation. The district's progress in implementing SBM depends on the principal at a given school. Ineffective principals are lost. The key issue is whether principals have knowledge about the instructional process. Principals that don't are still doing the same things that they did before SBM. SBM has been a powerful tool during the last 2 years. In dealing with budget cuts, SBM has provided the ability to go to schools and say "I need to cut your budget--but I'm not going to tell you how to cut it." The message sent to the schools was that they should figure out what they wanted to do, and then all that they did was argue about governance issues and what kind of vote was needed to approve pay supplements--all of this accomplished nothing. There was a value to what they did with SBM before, but it had no plan, no direction, no logical evolution. Schools need to focus on the product, not the process. They've done all the meetings on governance and now need to help the schools focus on how they will benefit the kids. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT =========================================================== Appendix V Beatrice F. Birman, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7008 Richard J. Wenning, Project Manager, (202) 512-7048 Patricia M. Bundy, Evaluator C. Robert Deroy, Senior Evaluator (computer science) Stephen J. Kenealy, Senior Evaluator Steve Machlin, Statistician Ellen K. Schwartz, Advisor Jay Smale, Social Science Analyst