The aims and origins of decentralization are examined and its effects on school flexibility, accountability, and productivity are explored in some depth. Administrators and others tell their stories. This volume offers an analysis of how school-based management works.

First published in 1996. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

In summarizing findings on the principal's role in the school, this monograph assumes that the principal is a pivotal figure in the school and is the one who most affects the quality of teacher performance and student achievement. The author concludes that the studies reviewed demonstrate that the principal is a key factor in the success of the school. The booklet is divided into eight sections that examine studies related to the principal and (1) diversity versus uniformity in educational goals, (2) traditional versus nontraditional educational values and attitudes, (3) centralization versus decentralization in organizational relationships, (4) directiveness versus supportiveness in leadership behavior, (5) authoritative versus participative decision-making processes, (6) managerial versus instructional tasks as the principal's primary responsibility, (7) programmed versus adaptive approaches to change, and (8) interaction versus insularity in relations with the public. (Author/JM)

It is possible to give a concrete meaning to the usually vague concept of decentralization by examining four core components. First, at the crux of decentralization is a downward shift in decision-making power. Administrative decentralization entails shifts internal to the institution. Political decentralization shifts authority to external forces such as community boards. These two strategies are not mutually exclusive. Second, studies of bureaucracies demonstrate that decentralization is compatible with strong leaders provided that leadership is exercised at lower levels in the administrative hierarchy. Third, decentralization requires the rejection of existing reward structures in favor of a system of incentives that establishes meaningful connections between professional conduct and rewards. Fourth, it is important to design a division of responsibility for ends and means among the district and schools that diminishes the role of explicit rules. Most school districts reflect few of these four principles, and their efforts and decentralization are often marginalized and incomplete. Experiences to date with site-based management, the most common attempt at decentralization, demonstrate the difficulty in producing authentic decentralization. (Contains 51 references.) (TEJ)

This report presents the findings and recommendations of an examination of the implementation of a major form of school-based management (SBM). It is based on case studies of the science and mathematics departments of 10 high schools and 9 middle or junior high schools in 12 school systems, almost all of which are urban school districts. The study found that implementation often falls short of the ideal. It did not find dramatic changes resulting from SBM. However, those schools and faculty members that took advantage of their added flexibility under SBM were able to achieve numerous small-scale improvements. The report provides a series of recommendations for school districts and individual schools to increase the likelihood of successful implementation of decentralization efforts such as SBM. The findings and recommendations cover such issues as (1) the extent of decentralization of budgeting expenditure and personnel decisions, (2) the role of site councils and department heads, and (3) communication and training needs. Appendixes list participating schools and districts and contain a literature review. (Contains 117 references.) (Author/SLD)