As school superintendents; board members; legislators; and communities of teachers, principals, and parents examine decentralization as a fundamental strategy for systemic school restructuring and improvement, the experiences of districts across the nation suggest that the following seven areas should receive consideration:
As governance functions are decentralized, districts must establish clear decision-making parameters for local schools and central offices. Schools also must receive provisions for waivers from regulations. Otherwise, well-meaning and dedicated teachers, principals, and parents will become engaged in the task of restructuring, only to find that they have little authority to institute substantive change.
Decentralization implies fundamental changes in the way decisions are made and resources allocated. In true decentralization, funds are distributed directly to local schools or, at the very least, schools exercise authority over key resources. It means little to adopt site-based management, for example, without simultaneously releasing authority over the resources (material and human) needed to actualize school-initiated improvements. Too many school districts have embraced the rhetoric of decentralization without doing the tough work of (a) redistributing authority over the budgeting process and over decisions about professional development, curriculum innovation, special programs, and other activities, and (b) building the leadership and decision-making capacities for the new roles that decentralization implies.
Decentralization results in new roles and responsibilities at both the local and central level. As roles are redefined, accountability systems and evaluation procedures also must change to reflect new performance expectations. Rewards and incentives should be linked to student performance at the building level (National Governors' Association, 1989). Additionally, as individual schools become more autonomous, states and districts should establish appropriate measures to assess outcomes and link rewards and sanctions to results.
Since site-based management and downsizing of central administration entail redefined roles for local and central staff, extensive professional development and time for planning must be an integral part of a successful decentralization initiative. Otherwise, teachers, principals, and central staff will experience frustration and anxiety as they take on new duties for which they have little capacity or experience. Rather than increasing morale and effort, decentralization - badly managed - can result in frustration and dissatisfaction (David, 1989).
In particular, decentralization has far-reaching implications for the leadership and management capacities of principals. In decentralized districts, schools become mini-school districts. In order to be successful, principals need to be strong instructional leaders, astute community organizers, sharp managers, skillful facilitators, and visionary shapers of positive school cultures. Few districts have instituted professional development systems to support principals in these new roles.
By design, centralization is meant to ensure equity and uniform standards as well as coordinated delivery of educational services and programs across all schools within a district. Researchers are finding that when districts decentralize, individual schools become more compatible with neighborhood traditions, needs, and values (Cibulka, 1991). A related phenomenon is that decentralization increases the fragmentation and complexity of city schooling, which paradoxically expands administrative burdens, bringing pressure to recentralize (Wong, 1990). Moreover, in decentralized districts, individual schools tend to become isolated fiefdoms that compete intensely with one another for resources and recognition (Leibenstein, 1987). Building principals feel as if they are on their own, lacking traditional hierarchical protections (Crowson & Morris, 1990). Recent experiences and findings also show that as districts decentralize, local schools become increasingly autonomous, yet at the same time, fiscal and political pressures may cause superintendents to make unilateral decisions to close schools, cut budgets, and eliminate programs. This pronounced dissonance between local autonomy and centralized, crisis-driven decision-making is one of the unresolved issues surrounding the decentralization of large urban school systems.
What then is the appropriate role of the central administration in districts that are decentralizing? What is the appropriate role of central administration in assisting the grassroots levels to carry out effective school redesign while at the same time responding to fiscal pressures that have broad implications for locally initiated school improvements? More attention needs to be given to the effective adaptation of the central administration to decentralization.
Decentralization is designed to bring decision-making closer to the student and the learning environment of the classroom. However, decentralization brings with it the possibility of extreme inequalities - the possibility that local communities, including parents and educators, may not have the knowledge and resources to adequately protect the quality of education provided to their children. Just as centralization has failed as a full guarantee of the rights of all, so may decentralization prove inadequate to the same task. How do we keep local empowerment from becoming, in a worst case scenario, abandonment? How do we ask society to accept educational responsibility for all children and, at the same time, empower those closest to the child to ensure access, quality, and equity? How do we make sure that those closest to the child have the knowledge and resources to be accountable for outcomes? These are tough, unresolved equity questions of an era of decentralization.
In some cases, decentralization has become a battle for power or an empty transfer of power from one person or group to another. Even worse, decentralization may allow norms of mediocrity to replace high standards as disgruntled teachers "take over" the school, or it may allow working conditions issues to dominate decisions about resource allocation (Daniels, 1990). Decentralization should be used as a tool for improving the quality and equality of schooling - a tool for redesigning the core activities of teaching and learning and a tool for restructuring the school/community environment so that children succeed. If decentralization fails to improve the quality and equality of schooling, and hence fails to significantly increase the educational attainment of urban children, then it will become just another fad - a fad that broke with promise onto the educational scene but did not produce accountable schools in which children of all backgrounds are provided (a) the opportunities to acquire the knowledge and skills needed for full participation in contemporary society, and (b) the protective, supportive learning environment needed to ensure success.
Copyright © 1995, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
Contact: info@ncrel.org
Posted on April 26, 1995
URL: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/go/93-1comm.htm
References