Shared Decision-Making: Beliefs and Practices of Principals at the U.S./Mexico Border, 5(7)
jslate@utep.edu
University of Texas at El Paso
Kenneth H. Brinson, Jr.
ken_brinson@ncsu.eduNorth Carolina State University
Abstract
One hundred and forty four school principals from an urban county in a Southwestern state along the U.S./Mexico border were surveyed regarding their views of shared decision-making. Using Glickman’s model (1993) of shared decision-making, participants responded about their shared decision-making beliefs and about their decision-making practices at school. Differences were noted among elementary, middle, and secondary school principals in their minimum-impact decisions, in their core-impact decisions, and in their comprehensive-impact decisions. For example, high school principals (29.2%) reported less involvement in decisions about instructional materials than elementary (57.8%) and middle school (43.3%) principals. Although shared decision-making practices were evident at all three school levels, areas were present in which school leaders could improve in shared decision-making to enhance learning for all students.
Introduction
Shared governance is viewed as decision-making at the local school level by a leadership team made up of administrators, teachers, parents and other interested stakeholders to take actions aimed at improving instruction and school climate. Therefore, deciding, sharing, and reflecting together as a team is labeled shared decision-making (Sergiovanni, 1994). Schlechty (1997) reported that shared decision-making varies from school to school, but generally involves budgetary issues, curriculum, and assisting the principal with staffing responsibilities. Advocates of shared decision-making claim it will improve student learning, create teacher satisfaction, and develop new forms of leadership (Schlechty, 1997). Does it deliver on these promises? After almost a decade of experimentation, researchers (Goodlad, 1984; Sergiovanni, 1994) continue to report their findings. Though too early to make a definite judgment, researchers have reported that shared decision-making brings both benefits and challenges, and that the principal remains a key figure who must not only master new skills, but make sense out of ambiguous new roles and relationships (Lipham, Rankin, & Hoeh, 1985). Consequently, the purpose of shared decision-making is part of the school reform movement: the purpose is to improve effectiveness and student learning by increasing staff commitment and ensuring that schools are more responsive to the needs of their students and community (Goodlad, 1984).
Common beliefs about shared decision-making are that SDM is preferable to central office management. Thus, people closest to the students have the clearest understanding of how to best meet the needs of the student. Another belief is that ownership in a decision enhances the quality of that decision and the likelihood of a successful outcome. The belief that teachers are professionals who possess expertise to make key decisions about schools and schooling are important. Therefore, over the span of time, all parties (i.e., teachers, administrators, parents, and community members) must be involved in decision-making if the school is to succeed (Livingston, Slate, & Gibbs, 1999), "particularly when decisions to be made are concerned with perceptions, attitudes, and values, all stakeholders are important information sources" (Short, Short, & Brinson, 1998).
Statement of the Problem
Given the rapid demographic growth and majority representation of Hispanic students along border schools, we believe it is important to look closely at the demographic traits that describe these students, identify areas of greatest need, and how schools meet those student needs. A failure to do so, many educators and Hispanic leaders report, will have troubling consequences not only for minority children but also for the country as a whole (Tinajero & Spencer, cited in Loustaunau & Sanchez-Bane, 1999).
Though some information exists regarding educational leaders’ views of shared decision-making practices (e.g., Livingston, Slate, & Gibbs, 1999), no studies were located in which the views of minority principals concerning shared decision-making beliefs and/or practices were obtained. The views of minority school principals regarding these issues would be helpful, if shared decision-making is to be implemented, as desired by many, in schools across all of America.
Purpose of the Study
Methods and Procedures
Participants were from an urban county in a Southwestern state along the U.S./Mexico border. This particular county is composed of eight school districts and 206 school campuses, with approximately 153,710 students. The ethnic breakdown of students was: 3.0% African-American, 84.0% Hispanic, and 12.0% Caucasian students. Approximately 198 principals (27 secondary schools, 37 middle, and 134 elementary schools) were contacted to be included in the study. Of the 144 principals who responded, their demographic characteristics are as follows: 90 elementary school, 30 middle school, and 24 secondary school principals; 48 White, non-Hispanic principals, 70 Hispanic principals, and 26 principals who did not report this information; 50 males, 76 females, and 18 principals who did not report this information. With 144 respondents out of the 198 principals who were contacted for this study, a return rate of 72.7% was obtained.
Selection of Participants
Following contacts with administrative personnel at each school to obtain their consent, phone calls were made to the principals by the senior researcher. Principals, in addition, were informed of the purpose of the study, read the informed consent statement, and given the opportunity to participate or not in the study. For principals who agreed to respond to the survey, the items and scoring format were read out loud. Principals were also given the opportunity to respond to each survey item. Finally, participants were asked several demographic questions.
Instrumentation
A modified version of the School Beliefs and Practices Survey (Livingston, Slate, & Gibbs, 1999) was administered to the principals identified for this study. This survey had three sections. In the first section, demographic questions were presented. The second section consisted of five items on a five-point Likert scale to which subjects responded regarding their beliefs about shared decision-making, and a five-point Likert scale ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. In section three, there were nine statements concerning the individual(s) who made decisions in the school concerning selected school practices related to teaching and learning. For each of these nine statements, subjects were provided with five possible choices: a team (committee of teachers), a team (committee of teachers and administers), a team (committee of administers), the principal, and personnel from the central office. That is, respondents were asked to indicate which one of these choices were involved in making decisions at their site regarding selected school practices.
Procedures
Following contacts with administrative personnel at each district, phone calls were made to principals. Principals were informed of the purpose of the study, read an informed consent statement, and given the opportunity to participate in the study. For principals who agreed to respond to the survey, the items and scoring format were read out loud. Consequently, principals were given the opportunity to respond to each survey item. The phone survey took about thirty minutes of the administrator’s time. To save time for the principal, the researcher offered the opportunity for a fax copy to be sent to the principal if he/she wished to respond at a later time.
Results
Principals indicated strong agreement with the statement that teachers are professionals who possess expertise to make key decisions about schools and schooling, with 100, 90, and 100 percent agreement at the elementary, middle, and high schools. Interestingly, middle school principals indicated the lowest level of agreement with this section. On item one, site-based management is preferable to central office management; elementary principals indicated 96.7%, whereas high school principals (95.9) and middle school principals (86.6) indicated a less strong belief about this statement. All of the findings, as reported by principals from all three levels, were above the upper quartile. Overall, school principals in our southwest state at the elementary, middle, and high school levels indicated strong agreement with the belief statements related to shared decision-making. The percentage agreement with each of the section two items by school level is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Percent Agreement to Belief Items as a Function of School Level
| Survey Item |
|
|
|
| 1. Site-based management is preferable to central office management. |
|
|
|
| 2. People closest to the student have the clearest understanding of how to best meet the needs of the student. |
|
|
|
| 3. Ownership in a decision enhances the quality of that decision and the likelihood of a successful outcome. |
|
|
|
| 4. Teachers are professionals who possess expertise to make key decisions about schools and schooling. |
|
|
|
| 5. Over the long haul, all parties (i.e., teachers, administrators, parents, and community members) must be involved in decision-making if the school is to succeed. |
|
|
|
Section three of the School Beliefs and Practices consisted of nine items of practice in shared decision-making. These items were grouped around decisions that have minimum, core, and comprehensive impact on the instructional program as described by Glickman (1993). Minimum to core to comprehensive decisions have an increasing degree of impact on the instructional program, thus, prioritizing decisions in their relative importance to school staffs.
Daily school activities that affect the instructional program in a marginal manner are noted in this study as minimum impact decisions. Three examples of minimal impact decisions were included in the survey: (1) decisions that relate to the daily schedule, (2) decisions relating to the choosing of instructional materials, and (3) decisions relating to the development of rules or policies. Principals indicated teacher involvement in decisions about the daily schedule at the elementary, middle, and high school levels with decreasing participation from high school to elementary levels. Conversely, the principal assumes more responsibility at the middle school (23.3) as compared to elementary (17.8) and high school (16.7) based on the schools in this study. Principals reported no participation from central office personnel at the elementary and high school level, but middle school principals indicated 3.3%.
Commonality was apparent when principals responded to how instructional materials are chosen at their school. Teachers and administrators are involved in decisions about instructional materials. High school principals indicated (29.2) less involvement in decisions about instructional materials than elementary (57.8) and middle schools (43.3). Middle and high school principals do not report central office personnel, whereas elementary principals did indicate 1.1 percent. Interestingly, all three levels of principals reported involvement from a combination of all participating, with 18.9, 40.0, and 29.8 percent agreement at the elementary, middle, and high schools.
In decisions affecting school rules or policies, the percentage of response from all three groups of principals indicates a committee of teachers and administrators develop school rules with reports of 45.6, 50.0, and 41.7 percent at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Elementary and middle school principals reported no involvement by committees of administrators, whereas high school principals (4.2%) did report involvement. Again, all three levels of principals reported involvement by a combination of all participating in the development of rules, 32.2, 36.7, and 41.7 percent at the elementary, middle, and high schools, respectively. Table 2 reflects the responses of the principals with regard to decisions that minimally impact the school’s instructional program.
Table 2
School Practices as a Function of School Level and Minimal Impact
| No./Item/Level | Committee of Teachers | Committee of Teachers and Administrators | Committee of Administrators | Principal | Central Office Personnel | Combination |
| 12. Decisions relating to daily schedules in my school are developed by: | ||||||
| Elementary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Middle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| High |
|
|
|
|
||
| 10. Instructional materials for my school are chosen by: | ||||||
| Elementary |
|
|
|
|
||
| Middle |
|
|
|
|||
| High |
|
|
|
|||
| 14. Rules or policies that affect my school are developed by: | ||||||
| Elementary |
|
|
|
|
||
| Middle |
|
|
|
|||
| High |
|
|
|
|
||
Core impact decisions have a strong influence on the school’s instructional program. On the Beliefs and Practices survey, the core impact items related to the school’s activities as follows: (1) implementing a new instructional program or changing an existing program, (2) professional growth and development of the school, and (3) expenditures relating to instructional budgeting. Principals in the study indicated that decisions were made collaboratively in existing programs when schools are considering implementing new programs or changing an existing program with 55.6, 70.0, and 50.0 percent from elementary, middle, and high school levels. Yet, (31.1, 30.0, and 41.7) all levels of principals reported that the decision was made by a combination of all methods: elementary, middle, and high school, respectively.
The third core impact decision surveyed dealt with the instructional budget. Teachers and administrators were reported to be involved in decisions relating to instructional expenditures with 65.6, 66.7, and 54.2 percent with elementary, middle, and high school levels. All three levels of principals indicate a more varied involvement of teachers, principals, central office and various combinations of personnel in expenditure decisions relating to instruction with 23.3, 26.7, and 33.3 percent at elementary, middle, and high school levels, respectively.
Table 3
School Practices as a Function of School Level and Core Impact
| No./Item/Level | Committee of Teachers | Committee of Teachers and Administrators | Committee of Administrators | Principal | Central Office Personnel | Combination |
| 7. When my school implements a new instructional program, changes are determined by: | ||||||
| Elementary |
|
|
|
|
||
| Middle |
|
|
||||
| High |
|
|
||||
| 9. The professional development program in my school is developed by: | ||||||
| Elementary |
|
|
|
|
||
| Middle |
|
|
|
|||
| High |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13. Expenditures relating to the instructional program in my school are developed by: | ||||||
| Elementary |
|
|
|
|
||
| Middle |
|
|
|
|
||
| High |
|
|
|
|||
Comprehensive impact decisions have a maximum influence on the school’s instructional program. Three maximum-impact decisions on the Beliefs and Practices Survey were (1) decisions relating to changes in the school’s mission statement, (2) decisions about the employment of a teacher at the school, and (3) decisions relating to personnel evaluation procedures. More than half of the principals reported that teachers and administrators participated in decision-making when changing the mission statement with 54.4, 63.3, and 50.0 at elementary, middle, and high school levels. Yet, principals indicated a combination of personnel in decisions that relate to changes in the mission statement: 32.2, 36.7, and 41.7 percent with elementary, middle, and high school, respectively.
Principals reported varied responses on personnel issues of teacher employment and evaluation procedures. At the elementary level, principals indicated committees of teachers and administrators made 53.3% of the decisions about teacher employment, yet 24.4% were reported made by principals. At the middle school level, principals reported a higher level of participation of 66.7% where teachers and administrators make decisions relating to teacher employment, with 13.3% being made by principals as the key players. High school principals reported 33.3% of the decisions relating to teacher employment were made by teachers and administrators. Apparently, high school principals also felt that principals were also key players in the decisions concerning teacher employment (25.0), and they also reported various combinations of personnel were involved in teacher employment (25.0).
Personnel evaluation procedures presented a variety of responses on the Beliefs and Practices Survey by principals at all three levels. Administrators at the school and central office were viewed to have exclusive responsibility for decisions relating to personnel evaluation procedures at all three levels with 42.2, 43.3, and 33.3 percent at elementary, middle, and high schools. Elementary and high school principals reported central office participation in decision-making relating to personnel evaluation of 15.6 and 16.7, whereas middle school principals reported less involvement with 6.7 percent. Interestingly, all three levels of principals indicated very little involvement from committees of teachers and administrators with 11.1, 6.7, and 8.3 percent at elementary, middle, and high school levels, respectively. Table 4 indicates school practices as a function of school level and comprehensive impact decisions.
Table 4
School Practices as a Function of School Level and comprehensive Impact
| No./Item/Level | Committee of Teachers | Committee of Teachers and Administrators | Committee of Administrators | Principal | Central Office Personnel | Combination |
| 6. Changes in the mission statement of my school would undergo revision by: | ||||||
| Elementary |
|
|
|
|
||
| Middle |
|
|
||||
| High |
|
|
||||
| 8. When a teacher is employed at my school, the decision is made by: | ||||||
| Elementary |
|
|
|
|
||
| Middle |
|
|
|
|||
| High |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11. personnel evaluation procedures in my school are determined by : | ||||||
| Elementary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Middle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| High |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion
All principals at each level of our study agreed that ownership in a decision enhances the quality of that decision for schools to be successful. However, when asked if site-based management was preferable to central office management, elementary, middle, and high school principals agreed at the 96.7%, 86.6%, and 95.9% levels, respectively. These U.S./Mexico border principals appear to value ownership in decision-making but do not agree on the value of local decision-making as a group.
When the results of our border school principals are compared with the rural school principals in Georgia, the trend of beliefs and practices vary in some areas. All principals at all three levels in both areas agreed that ownership in a decision enhances the quality of that decision at the level of 100.0%. Conversely, the Georgia rural principals reported lower percentages at all three levels respectively at 92.3%, 100.0% and 80.0% when asked if teachers possess expertise to make key decisions. Border principals, however, reported 100.0%, 90.0%, and 100.0%, respectively, when asked about teacher expertise in decision-making. More confidence in teachers’ ability to make decisions in the border community appear to be present than was present among the principals in rural Georgia. U.S./Mexico border principals also reported higher confidence (100.0%, 93.3%, and 100.0%) in the ability of people closest to the students as having the clearest understanding of how to best meet the needs of the students than principals in rural Georgia (80.8%, 84.6%, and 100.0%).
Principals’ responses to school practices as a function of school level and minimal impact (Table 2) suggested high committee of teachers and administrators involvement with developing schedules, rules and policies in the border schools. The committee of teachers and administrators was the primary schedule developer with 51.1%, 53.3%, and 54.2% at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, respectively. In contrast, Georgia rural principals reported the administrator to be the major schedule developer with 30.8% at elementary, 50.0% at middle, and 70.0% at high school. Again, in Georgia, schools appear to become more diverse and complex from elementary to high school, therefore the principal assumes more responsibility in the minimal impact area where the border principals may follow a different path of more collaboration. Livingston, Slate, & Gibbs (1999) believed that if we were to value enhanced learning opportunities through better decision-making, this area would appear to be one in which greater teacher collaboration is needed for Georgia. These U.S./Mexico border principals appeared to have developed further in the area of teacher collaboration at all three school levels at their schools.
Glickman (1993) reported that participation in decisions that directly influence teachers’ work, teaching, and learning are the most important areas of participation for teachers (See Table 2). The selection of instructional materials found high involvement of a committee of teachers and administrators in making these decisions. This involvement was supported by the findings in Table 1, where the border administrators agreed that all persons should be involved in the decision-making process, and that the people closest to the students have the clearest understanding of how to meet students’ needs. These findings in the border school principals were in agreement with the Georgia rural results on the selection of instructional materials being made by a committee of teachers and administrators.
School practices in the core impact area (Table 3) found committees of teachers and administrators working together to improve school programs. These findings support Schlechty’s (1997) view of teachers as leaders and inventors with the focus of their work on improved achievement for students. Border school principals were aligned with their responses to Georgia rural school principals on the improvement of school programs with decisions made by committees of teachers and administrators. The Georgia principals, though, reported more central office involvement in determining professional growth programs than the border principals with only 4.2% at the high school level, where Georgia reported 3.8% at elementary, 7.1% at middle, and 20.0% at the high school level. Livingston, Slate, & Gibbs, 1999 (1999) reported that central office involvement might be influenced by state requirements that staff development money be directed towards teacher induction and test results.
School practices in the Comprehensive Impact area (Table 4) found teachers and administrators working collaboratively in establishing the school’s mission in these border schools. Yet, in contrast, the principal appeared to be a major participant in making decisions about teacher employment and in personnel evaluation. Border principals, though, did report that a committee of teachers and administrators had an advisory voice in the employment of teachers. Apparently, our border principals may believe in shared decision-making but are reluctant to release their authority in the area of teacher employment or personnel evaluation for their schools.
Apparently, principals’ control of staffing in U.S. border schools may be an administrator’s way of controlling the success of student learning. When compared with the principals from rural Georgia, the results were the same as the border principals in the area of teacher employment. Principals in both areas reflected the same reluctance to release their control of school staffing with their teachers. Both the border principals and the Georgia rural principals were incongruent with principals’ reported beliefs listed in Table 1 for both studies. Administrators in rural Georgia and on the U.S./Mexico border might consider the position of Schlechty (1997), who found that having every participant in shared decision-making enhances the effort toward successful schools.
In contrast, Georgia rural principals reported more decision -making with committees of teachers and administrators in the area of personnel evaluation than the border principals. Georgia principals reported that shared decision-making by committees took place at 30.8%, 35.7%, and 40.0% levels, respectively in personnel evaluation procedures where border principals reported less committee participation. Border principals reported at 11.1%, 6.7%, and 8.3% levels, respectively, in the area of committees of teachers and administrators making decisions on personnel evaluation. Border principals and central office personnel appeared to have a more major role in staffing and personnel evaluation procedures than committees of teachers and administrators. The importance of all stakeholders participating in staff employment and personnel evaluations is reflected in Glickman’s (1993) stance on the critical need for shared decision-making. As U.S. border schools meet the challenge of a diverse and growing minority population with special needs, changes may be considered in this area of shared governance.
Conclusion
Given the focus on educational reform in the research literature (Candoli, 1991) and in public school discourse, the extent to which shared governance is actually occurring at the school level is important to ascertain. In agreement with Schlechty (1997) and Glickman (1993), shared decision-making is necessary to optimize student learning. Knowing what principals believe about school governance and the actual decision-making practices that occur at each level is essential as our schools change to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse clientele (Gonzalez, Macias, & Tinajero, 1998). Accordingly, these researchers’ findings from elementary, middle, and secondary school principals located along the U.S./Mexico community will be informative to university faculty members in educational leadership; educational researchers; and policy-makers who have an impact on the redefining of schools as we enter the age of shared governance. Principals’ perceptions of shared governance appeared to represent schools that are moving toward collaborative school governance with teachers and administrators working together for school improvement. Being an administrator is the easy part; being an effective educational leader is the real goal.
References
Deal, E. D., & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America’s schools: A guide for school-based action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gonzalez, M. L., Macias, A. H., & Tinajero, J. V. (1998). Educating Latino students: Guide to successful practice. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing.
Goodlad, G. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lipham, J. M., Rankin, R. E., & Hoeh, J. A. (1985). The principalship: Concepts, competencies, and cases. New York: Longman.
Livingston, M. J., Slate, J. R., & Gibbs, A. (1999). Shared decision-making and practices of rural school principals, Rural Educator, 21 (1), 20-26.
Loustaunau, M. O., & Sanchez-Bane, M. (Eds.). (1999). Life, death, and in-between on the U. S.-Mexico border: Asi es la vida. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Schlechty, P. C. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Short, P. M., Short, R. J., & Brinson, Jr.,
K. (1998). Information collection: The key to data-based decision making.
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
Author Notes
 |
Mary T. Apodaca-Tucker
John R. Slate Kenneth H. Brinson, Jr. |
Mary T. Apodaca-Tucker, Ed.D., is an El Paso, Texas native
with over 30 years of experience teaching and working as an administrator
within the El Paso area. She has also worked as an area superintendent
for the Austin, TX Independent School District. Dr. Tucker recently
completed her doctoral dissertation titled “Elementary Principals’ Views
of School-Based Management in the United States: Results from the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999” in
May, 2001. She can be reached at mtucker919@aol.com
Dr. John R. Slate is a Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations at the University of Texas in El Paso. He teaches quantitative and qualitative research design and analysis courses and program evaluation courses at the master’s and at the doctoral level. Dr. Slate’s research interests involve educational reform. Recent publications have been in areas of school size and student achievement; block scheduling; and factors related to academic success. Dr. Slate may be reached via email at jslate@utep.edu or through snail mail at UTEP, COE 501D, El Paso, TX 79968.
Kenneth H. Brinson, Jr. ken_brinson@ncsu.edu is an Assistant Professor in the Educational Research and Leadership Program at North Carolina State University. He received his Ph.D. under the tutelage of Don Willower at Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include educational job searches, the public school superintendency, and issues surrounding school culture and climate.