Contexts of Educational Administration, Essay Example

Over the past few decades, a number of studies have shown that SBM has made great contributions towards significantly improving student performance (Sharpe, 1996; O’Neil, 1995; Gamage, 1996b, 2003; Badur, 2012; Badur, 2010). Badur (2012) affirms that passing on the responsibility to schools in making decisions and managing resources can contribute towards enhancing students’ performance and educational outcomes. Concerning the outcomes of implementing SBM in schools, especially in cases where district officials delegate the decision-making authority to schools, the clearest outcomes were that people enjoyed their work and were more dedicated to it, according to O’Neil’s (1995) claims. Furthermore, SBM also resulted in schools to establish a more collaborative, corporative and much closer functioning relationships between students, parents and staff. Therefore, SBM encourages the community to participate more in schools in making the right decisions, which in turn grants empowerment for individuals affiliated with the local school, thereby resulting in improved school performance, enhanced teaching and learning, and better achievements (Sharpe, 1996; Gamage, 1996a, 1998a; Brown and Cooper, 2000).

The ways in which schools use their power to make decisions in order to improve student performance, and can similarly determine the impact of SBM about improving student outcomes (Odden and Wohlstetter, 1995; Gamage, 2002a). A number of studies have recognized the ways in which SBM can promote enhanced student and school performance, especially Odden and Wohlstetter’s  (1995) and Badur’s (2012) studies. They pointed out that a given school’s stakeholders, where the implementation of SBM has been a success to enhance student and school performance have the power over the likes of the school curriculum, staff and the budget. The success of implementing SBM in their schools have enabled stakeholders to use their new authority and power to implement changes that directly impact on teaching and learning practices. Badur (2012) further identified other conditions such as, training and professional development opportunities to enhance teacher’s and other stakeholder’s problem-solving, management and teaching skills; sufficient information in order to come up with informed decisions based on student performance, satisfying the community and parents, and school resources; as well as establishing creative communication among the community and parents.

Past and present research by Badur (2012), Shatkin and Gershberg (2007) and Rodriguez and Slate (2005) also support the idea that SBM has led to improved school and student performance. For example, it was concluded by Rodriguez and Slate (2005) that SBM has been a highly important factor for schools and its stakeholders, such as teachers and administrators, among others, since the early 1990s. They support this idea with adequate flexibility, ownership and autonomy of school functions; SBM can offer the required conditions for attaining numerous goals and maximizing schools’ effectiveness. Likewise, a case study by Shatkin and Gershberg (2007) based on numerous schools operating in US states, discovered that enhancements in student and school performance occurred when the decision-making authority in schools were passed onto parents who were given the necessary training, and when school head teachers actively facilitate involving parents into this process (Badur, 2012).

Certainly, there is plenty of research that has always recognized a positive connotation between student performance and community/parent involvement (Williams et al., 1997; Gamage, 1993, 1998, 2006, 1994; Brown and Cooper, 2000; Blank, 2004; Sheldon and Voorhis, 2004). For example, Gamage’s (1998) empirical study of schools that have successfully implemented SBM, in which 75 teachers were interviewed reported much improved teaching and learning environments, besides enhancements in student performance/achievements and outcomes being attained through teachers and parents who are close to their students forming an ideal partnership. In addition, both parties being commitment to improving student performance also found that their learning experiences were more fun, interesting and enjoyable. Moreover, Sheldon and Voorhis (2004) have confirmed that numerous researchers are backing this notion of how parental and community involvement can help schools to improve significantly, and the quality of education young learners receive, besides their academic performances and achievements.

Often when one thinks of school improvement, he/she thinks of improving standardized testing; however, school improvement is so much more than test scores. Consequently, many factors play a dominant role in how change can be promoted.  Culture tremendously affects school based management. Many educators define school improvement as the enhancement of teaching practices and the overall culture of the student body. Certainly, school improvement includes many changes in management and teaching practices, but those changes must be customized to meet the needs of certain cultures and races. Yet, changing the culture of the student body can prove more difficult, according to Durrant & Holden (2006). Many students are just not concerned with doing well on standardized testing, or academics at all for that matter. For this reason, Durant & Holden (2006) believes that communicating high standards to students from the very first day of school is imperative. When students understand that they may not learn the same as their classmates, they are encouraged display their talents. Students should never be forced to be robotic. By allowing them to be different, teachers help to instill tolerance in their students. For example, Griggs & Dunn said:

“The concept of cognitive or learning styles of minority and other students is one easily over-simplified, misunderstood, or misinterpreted. Unfortunately, it has been used to stereotype minority students or to further label them rather than to identify individual differences that are educationally meaningful” (p. 148).

Many researchers have linked culture and learning style and convey that culture can affect a student’s learning style.

By recognizing these differences, educators are making a positive stance in creating change. For example, a study conducted found that personal relationships are very important to students of this origin. This is exemplary in the fact that many Mexican students seek to build a personal relationship with their teachers. If that relationship is not established, these students are not comfortable and susceptive of their teachers. Likewise, Native-American students tend to have very acute visual discrimination and use imagery and reflective thinking patterns. As a result of these characteristics, Native-American students perform better when they are given quiet time to think and are provide with visual aids. While male white students value independence, accuracy, and critical thinking. As a result, they perform better when challenged by competition and objectivity. Knowing that students from different cultures learn differently, teachers must make efforts to differentiate instruction and assessment.

Nevertheless, teachers, students, and stakeholders must remember that test scores are not the only way to measure the success of a school. By implementing teacher leadership, schools are taking a more holistic approach to improving their schools. When teachers have a direct role in the practices they are using, they are more likely to work more diligent to make the program a success.

Student learning is directly correlated with both the student’s and teacher’s culture. With that being said, the teacher must play a role in making decisions about teaching practices and the daily operations of the classroom. It has been found that African-American teachers are more motivated and interested when they have autonomy of their classrooms. Yet, the teacher’s role is directly dependent upon the role of the principal. When principals want to see the culture and environment of their schools improve, they willingly give over more authority to teachers. When teachers are in control of their classrooms, they can directly link student success or failure to their teaching methods. However, African-American teachers may have more difficulty than Caucasian teachers in centering their classrooms around competition and accuracy, the strategies that prove more successful for white students (Griggs & Dunn, 148). Consequently, all teachers will have to strive to reach all learning styles in their classrooms. When students score low, teachers feel they have failed too. Teachers are instrumental in building the culture of a school and exposing students to other cultures. Teachers who are passionate about their jobs inspire student to do their very best. According to Muijis & Harris, “Schools badly need the leadership of teachers if they are to improve” (2006).

Teacher collaboration is very important. When teachers collaborate, the students, teachers, and school benefit. Research has proven that when new teachers are paired with veteran teachers for support, they are less likely to quit at the end of their first year (Durrant & Holden, 2006).  Usually, teachers work in isolation, but in recent years more collaboration has been occurring. Although cooperative teaching began in the early 80s, it is just gaining popularity in the general education classroom. Many teachers are territorial, but remember that the students are more important. In today’s classroom general education and special education teachers work side by side. According to Allington, “In developing and implementing cooperative teaching, school professionals experience great changes in the way they go about their daily work. To overcome the inevitable fears and stresses associated with change, the educators involved must feel that they are responsible for the change and that its success or failure lies directly with them” (Allington, 2002). Teachers want to be included in the decision making process.

References

Allington, R. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction: From a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. Phi Delta Kappa, 83, p. 740-747.

Bandur, A. (2010). The challenges in globalizing public education reforms: research-based evidence from Flores primary schools. Global Journal of Human Social Sciences, 11(3), pp. 9-14.

Bandur, A. (2012). School-based management developments: challenges and impacts. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(6), pp. 845-873.

Blank, M.J. (2004). How community schools make a difference. Schools as Learning Communities, 61(8), pp. 62-65.

Brown, B.R. and Cooper, G.R. (2000). School-based management: how effective is it? National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Buletin, 84(616), pp. 77-86.

Durrant, J. & Holden, G. (2006). Teachers leading change: Doing research for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York: The Albert Shanker Institute. Available: http://www.shankerinstitute.org/education.html

Gamage, D.T. (1993). A review of community participation in school governance: an emerging culture in Australian education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 41(2), pp. 134-49.

Gamage, D.T. (1994). Is community participation in school management becoming an international phenomenon? Canadian and International Education, 23(2), pp. 73-83.

Gamage, D.T. (1996a). School-Based Management: Theory, Research, and Practice. Colombo: Karunaratne and Sons Ltd.

Gamage, D.T. (1996b). The impact of school-based management and new challenges to school leaders. Perspective in Education, 12(2), pp. 63-74.

Gamage, D.T. (1998). How community participation promotes efficiency, effectiveness, and quality in education. Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 12(3), pp. 313-323.

Gamage, D.T. (2002a). Management of smaller schools and teaching principals: Australian case study. Educational Practice and Theory, 4(1), pp. 77-91.

Gamage, D.T. (2006). School-based management: shared responsibility and quality in education. Education and Society, 24(1), pp. 27-43.

Griggs, S. A., and R. Dunn. (1989). “The Learning Styles of Multicultural Groups and Counseling Implications.” Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 17: 146–155.

Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 961-972.

O’Neil, J. (1995). On tapping the power of school-based management. Educational Leadership, 53(4), pp. 67-70.

Odden, E.R. and Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Making school-based management right. Educational Leadership, 52(5), pp. 32-37.

Rodriguez, T.A. and Slate, J.R. (2005). Site-based management: a review of the literature. Retrieved on 10^th November 2014 from www.usca.edu/essays/.

Sharpe, F.G. (1996). Towards a research paradigm on devolution. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(1), pp. 4-23.

Shatkin, A.L. and Gershberg, I. (2007). Empowering parents and building communities. Urban Education, 42(6), pp. 582-615.

Sheldon, S.B. and Voorhis, F.L. (2004). Partnership programs in US schools: their development and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), pp. 125-148.

Williams, R.C., Harold, B. et al. (1997). Sweeping decentralization of educational decision-making authority: lessons from England and New Zealand. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(8), pp. 626-632.