Research Roundup 13, 3 (Spring 1997)
Shared Decision Making
by Larry Lashway
As they struggle with the daily dilemmas of leadership, principals
sometimes allow themselves daydreams in which their authority is
unlimited and they can act without having to plead, lobby, or
negotiate with anyone. Yet, for the past decade, many school leaders
have willingly participated in a movement that asks them to share
their power with teachers and parents.
This movement goes by many names-shared decision making,
school-based management, shared governance-but the rationale is
always the same: those who are closest to students are best equipped
to make educational decisions.
In shared decision making (SDM), principals collaborate with
teachers (and sometimes parents) to take actions aimed at improving
instruction and school climate. In some
cases, teachers or parents are formally given a slice of power;
more commonly, principals retain their authority but commit
themselves to govern through consensus.
Advocates of SDM claim it will improve student learning, create
teacher satisfaction, and develop new forms of leadership. Does it
deliver on these promises? After almost a decade of experimentation,
researchers have begun to report their findings. While it is still
too early to make definitive judgments, the literature shows that
shared decision making brings both benefits and problems, and that
the principal remains a key figure who must not only master new
skills, but also make sense out of ambiguous new roles and
relationships.
The works described below provide a representative sampling of
recent research.
Lynn Balster Liontos and Larry Lashway review recent
research on shared decision making, noting its limitations as well as
its benefits.
Kent Peterson, Quibble Go, and Vowel D. Warren
describe three essential skills for principals using shared
governance.
Gary Griffin examines the reasons why empowered teachers
are slow to change core classroom practices.
R. Bruce McPherson and Robert Crow son discuss the
way that legislated SDM has changed the principal's role in Chicago
schools.
Jo Blase and Joseph Blase draw a portrait of shared
decision making from the principal's point of view, based on
interviews with nine exemplary school leaders.
Liontos, Lynn Balster; and Lashway, Larry. "Shared
Decision-Making." In School Leadership: Handbook for
Excellence, third edition. Edited by Philip Pile and Stuart
Smith: 226-250. Eugene, Ore.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management, 1997. 432 pages. Available from: Publication
Sales, ERIC/CEM, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 974035207.
(800) 438-8841 (no phone orders). $19.95 paper plus $4.00 shipping
and handling.
Liontos and Lashway begin by noting the confusing terminology that
leads some schools to discover belatedly that they aren't sure what
shared decision making is. The most serious problem is the failure to
recognize the difference between decentralization (which
merely transfers authority from the district office to local schools)
and shared decision making (which extends leadership
opportunities to other stockholders). The hallmark of true SDM is the
belief that instruction will improve when those closest to the
students are involved in making decisions.
The principal's role is crucial, requiring a major shift in
leadership strategy. Leaders must be willing to let go of traditional
authority roles, not only allowing teachers to have a greater voice,
but helping to prepare them, providing support, and establishing an
environment of trust. At the same time, they must be ready to step in
if the process threatens to go off track. Too much of a hands off
attitude is seen as indifference; too assertive a role undermines
collaboration.
The authors emphasize the importance of training. While teachers
are knowledgeable in their own domain, their preparation seldom
includes a heavy emphasis on collaborative decision making. SDM
schools use a variety of methods to provide the necessary training,
including outside consultants, "train the trainer" programs, and the
use of specific training models.
Research to date shows mixed results for SDM. Most studies agree
that collaboration improves teacher morale and school climate
(although it may also increase frustration at times). However, there
is much less evidence that SDM has a positive impact on student
learning. The authors suggest that it may simply be too early for
measurable results, but they also point out that SDM schools do not
seem to be more innovative than traditional schools.
The final section shares lessons learned from SDM pioneers. Their
key advice:
- Be as clear as possible about new procedures for making
decisions.
- Provide time for teachers to make decisions.
- Provide adequate training for staff.
- Facilitate, but be prepared to take action.
The authors conclude that while SDM is not a panacea, it
nonetheless has great potential and is likely to remain a key reform
issue.
Peterson, Kent D.; Go, Quibble; and Warren, Vowel D.
Principals' Skills and Knowledge for Shared Decision-Making.
Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1995. 9 pages. ED386 827.
Available from: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 7420
Fullerton Rd., Suite 110, Springfield, VA 22153-2852. (800) 443-3742.
$3.97.
The authors summarize their work with 24 schools that use SDM.
Based on these schools' experiences, they describe three essential
skills for principals.
First, principals must be able to help their schools develop a
clear, shared educational vision. Without such a focus, planning and
decision making will be fragmented and ineffective. In successful
schools, principals talked enthusiastically-and often-about the
school's mission and core values in language that all stockholders
could understand. They found multiple ways of expressing the vision,
and they provided planning time for discussing and developing it.
Second, principals must develop effective structures and processes
to support shared decision making. SUM puts participants into new
roles, creating ambiguity and uncertainty. Effective SUM principals
helped the staff develop specific structures for decision making.
They developed methods of problem solving that kept the focus on
instruction, and they used a wide variety of problem-solving methods
and tools.
Third, principals must build strong and cohesive teams. Relatively
few teachers have extensive preparation or experience in using
collaborative skills; when conflict arises, participants do not have
well established procedures to fall back on. In successful SDM
schools, principals used retreats, conferences, and collaborative
projects to build team cohesion, and provided systematic and
continuous training in team decision making.
A key component of all these activities was the availability of
sufficient time for administrators and teachers to engage in
meaningful reflective dialogue. In exemplary schools, the authors
note, a mix of formal training and reflective dialogue "produced some
superbly functioning shared decision-making teams."
Griffin, Gary A. "Influences of Shared Decision-Making on
School and Classroom Activity: Conversations with Five Teachers."
The Elementary School Journal 96: 1 (September 1995): 29-
45. EJ510 577. Available from: University Microfilms
International (UMI), Article Clearinghouse, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor,
Ml 481061346. (800) 521-0600, ext. 2786. $11.00.
Shared decision making assumes that those closest to the classroom
can make the best decisions about curriculum and instruction.
However, research has often indicated that empowered teachers do not
focus on substantive instructional issues.
Over a period of several years, Gary Griffin explored this issue
in multiple conversations with five teachers who were involved in
restructuring efforts. Like other researchers, he found little
evidence that SDM led to significant departures from standard
classroom practice.
While teachers expressed enthusiasm and satisfaction with their
new roles, they reported that empowered teachers tended to deal with
schoolwide issues, particularly those that had been longstanding sore
points, but that little attention was paid at the classroom level.
Typical topics were assessment of student achievement, curriculum
frameworks, and treating severe student problems. Griffin notes that
while these are worthwhile topics, they did not lead teachers to
reflect on their daily instructional practices.
In reviewing the conversations, he identified five themes that
shed light on why SDM is slow to change classrooms:
First, the teachers had strong beliefs in their own competence.
They were experienced, they worked hard, and they cared about
students; thus, they saw little reason to question their
effectiveness.
Second, despite the collaboration that came with SDM, teachers
continued to view the classroom as a private domain. Their view of
professionalism prevented them from questioning colleagues' teaching.
Third, even when teachers entertained private doubts about another
teacher's practices, they adopted a live-and-let-live policy,
recognizing that their own practices might be similarly critiqued.
Fourth, teachers had difficulty identifying anything resembling a
universal standard of teaching excellence. They knew what worked for
them, but hesitated to prescribe it for everyone; sometimes they
seemed to doubt that any practices could be considered better
than others.
Finally, teachers were overloaded. It was simply unrealistic to
expect them to add extensive self reflection to an already ample
workload.
Thus, it appears that while shared decision making marks a
significant shift in school culture, it does not automatically
replace the old culture.
McPherson, R. Bruce; and Crowson, Robert L. "The Principal as
Mini- Superintendent under Chicago School Reform." In
Reshaping the Principalship: Insights from Transformational Reform
Efforts. Edited by Joseph Murphy and Karen Seashore louts.
Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Corwin Press, 1994. 302 pages. Available
from: Corwin Press, Inc., 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91
320-221 8. (805) 499-0721. $27.95.
In many schools, shared decision making has been initiated by
principals who believed the time was ripe for new forms of
governance. Occasionally, however, SDM has been legislated, leaving
principals to cope with a suddenly transformed power structure.
In 1988, the Illinois state legislature decentralized the Chicago
public school system by setting up local school councils, each
consisting of parents, teachers, and the principal. These councils
were vested with considerable authority, including the ability to
hire and fire principals.
In this report, the authors summarize the results of interviews
with 15 Chicago principals to find out how legislated SDM affected
the way they did their job. The most significant finding was that the
principal's role had shifted from instructional leader to
mini-superintendent. Faced with relatively autonomous councils
dominated by parents, school leaders had to spend more of their time
"selling" decisions to groups not fully conversant with educational
issues.
Where principals once worked to buffer schools from community
demands, they now worked to integrate community wishes into the life
of the school. Most of those interviewed had done so successfully and
did not consider the councils to be a threat. In fact, they sometimes
worried that the councils were too passive.
This new role was reinforced by the decline of the central office
bureaucracy, which had been stripped by the legislature of much of
its power. Most of the principals now considered the once-feared
central office to be merely an annoyance and distraction. With
freedom to become more entrepreneurial and imaginative, some
principals were able to turn mandated school- improvement plans into
tools for comprehensive reform.
Many of the principals expressed satisfaction with their new
status. Although they had less job security, they felt that their
hard work would be acknowledged more on the local level than it had
been by the bureaucracy. They also now felt better able to shape
their jobs to their interests and talents.
Blase, Jo; and Blase, Joseph. The Fire Is Back! Principals
Sharing School Governance. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Corwin Press,
1997. 184 pages. Available from: Corwin Press, Inc., 2455
Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-2218. (805) 499- 0721. $19.95.
For several years, the authors have been documenting the
experiences of school leaders involved in shared governance. This
book presents the results of in-depth interviews with nine exemplary
principals, providing insights into the mechanics of SDM as well as
its human meaning.
The book makes clear that shared governance provides complex
challenges, including:
- Meeting increased demands on time;
- Learning when to "back off" and let teachers solve problems
themselves; and
- Maintaining a focus on instruction.
If sharing power with teachers is difficult, sharing it with
parents is even more of a challenge. Teachers may be uneasy about
involving parents in candid discussions, and parents may be apathetic
or intimidated. Some principals reported slow progress, while others
found that they could build trust by keeping parents fully informed,
listening carefully to them, and encouraging multiple forms of
involvement.
Noting that SDM efforts sometimes stress peripheral issues over
academic substance, the authors emphasize the importance of staying
focused on instruction. It may be helpful to let teachers resolve
minor issues at first, but principals must keep nudging the
process in the right direction. Helpful tools include a clear
vision statement, action research, continuous monitoring of results,
and collaboration with parents.
A chapter on "The Inner Experience" documents the psychological
challenges and rewards of SDM. The authors report that principals
often struggle with role strain, particularly the fear of giving up
control; ironically, when everything goes well, they begin to wonder
if they're really needed. The major rewards are a sense of renewal
and motivation as principals grow and watch others grow. Some even
describe it as a spiritual experience.
Based on their work with the principals, the authors conclude that
"a new democratic ideal of the principal- leader is emerging." The
principals' testimony indicates that shared decision making is never
easy, but that it is both workable and professionally fulfilling.
Larry Lashway is an education writer commissioned by the ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management at the University of
Oregon.
|
