Robert Dixon 20/11/07
S
student performance has rarely been a primary goal of SBM. As a result decisions are made without student outcomes in mind.1
hared Sight Based Management
The concept of site-based management was taken from the Japanese car Manufacturer’s model in the mid1980s and the concept found its way into education. Researcher, Larry Cuban, wrote about first and second order change. First order change is when the current structure is reworked. Second order change requires starting over fresh to solve problems. He stated that schools have been stuck in the rut of making first order changes and sitebased management is second order change.
In the literature, site-based management was defined as authority for decisions on programs put in the hands of those who are directly affected and it involves all stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, principal, and superintendent, board of education, and community members). It is not seen as a means to an end, but as an on-going process to encourage growth in a school's programs and curriculum and to promote and improve student achievement. In its initial format SBM was for the most part a financial based model which used the behavior or performance incentive approach. Although sight based management as an entity never reached the potential hailed by its supporters, it did open the door to rethinking second order change. As open area schools were an attempt at a co-teaching model SBM is an attempt at decentralized sight based decision making. Both concepts recognized the weaknesses in the education system and tried to address them with a structural systemic approach. However, this all or nothing purist approach became an albatross around the neck of local schools. The focus of schools was lost in a myriad of policy groups and power grabs. Prioritizing policy detracted from a focus on academic achievement. The weak link between SBM and student achievement is not surprising given that improving
Though SBM can create opportunities for instructional improvements, it may not lead to meaningful changes in the classroom for a variety of reasons.2 For example, many view SBM as a desire change in itself rather than as a strategy to enrich student learning.3 Instead, meaningful improvements require a school community committed to SCHOOL-BASEDMANAGEMENT advancing teaching and learning.4 All too often, SBM teams fail to address curriculum and instruction because these topics tend to spur conflict. In addition, SBM teams often are constrained by timeandexpertise.5 Unfortunately failure to apply school management in these critical areas limits the teams' effectiveness because curriculum and instruction are precisely the spheres that affect student learning the most.6 There is no need to decentralize all aspects of school decision making. Like our governmental structure some powers are best managed from a central location and others flourish under a local or decentralized structure. No two schools are the same, schools are greatly influenced by the demographics of there population. Teachers in a differentiated outcome based structure are expected to meet students at there level on the educational continuum, thus school divisions must recognize the range of needs vary greatly across a division and provide a differentiated structure that allows schools to address needs based on the individual characteristics of their school while at the same time managing the general needs common to all schools in the division. Clearly research indicates that the initial failure of SBM was its inability to address academic and behavioral issues common to all schools but for many different reasons. Addressing the academic issues faced by many students today must be the central focus of schools as research reinforces a direct link between academic achievement and behavior.
It is incumbent on school divisions to recognize that this is the core issue schools need to focus on at a sight based level. Providing the autonomy and the resources to address these two areas at the school level will allow local control over key components of the system as a means of shaping a decentralized policy. SSBM (Shared Sight Based Management), coupled with the central concepts of outcome based assessment, differentiated instruction curriculum compacting, clustering, co-teaching, looping and a move toward a cognitive academic model is the umbrella that will provide the resources needed to reach this primary goal. The Munroe model has precisely defined its need as the academic development of students. Using the SSBM model Munroe has reallocated Student Service Unit Dollars7 to address needs that have characteristics unique to the demographics of the area and the school staff. Principally using this SSBM model Munroe has been able to institute a school wide outcome based, coteaching, differentiated program built on a cognitive academic model utilizing teacher interns.8 This long term methodical focus on academic development based on meeting students at there developmental level has had a real and measurable impact on academic growth, teacher engagement and re-engagement, staff satisfaction, resulting in a substantial reduction in the type and amount of student behavior. Larry Cuban’s statement, that SBM is not seen as a means to an end, but as an on-going process to encourage growth in a school's programs and curriculum, to promote and improve student achievement. This statement identifies many of the core problems that are systemic in schools today. All too often schools work on one aspect of an issue or another but the problems go much deeper than that. It is not student behavior, academic development, teacher engagement, it is not even school administration or school boards, nor is it the universities that are at the core of the problems in education. Each of these entities diligently fulfills the
mission, their nitch, in the system and goes about their business virtually in isolation of the other, perpetuating a system that has been in decline since the move to school consolidation in the early 1960’s. Schools and I use this word to include all above, need to adapt the concept of second order thinking, get back to the prime directive, and provide a strong academic program that meets the needs of all students regardless of abilities or disabilities. SSBM is a model that takes the ‘Give unto Cesar”, approach to school management. Schools need control over the areas that effect their student growth and development. The current system of duties and policies works well. The SSBM requirements that will allow for long term academic growth and development are small in number but very powerful in practice. -
Control over student service dollars7
-
Control over hiring and all staffing.
-
A mentoring program, that allows schools to select and train there future staff members.
The reality of schools in a diverse system is that their needs differ greatly. A system that allocated resources on a formula bases is failing to apply the principals of differentiation to its own decisions. Under the SSBM Model student services dollars are allocated to the school s a budget line that the school can access. This money, separate from formula funding provides the first pillar of equality to schools that have different needs. At Munroe the bulk of the money is allocated to the Teacher Intern Program8. This allows the school to team-teach in all classes in the school. Using the standard school division formula for staffing did not meet the individual school need, as well the preparation and marking work loads required to effectively run a true differentiated model are very high for teachers. This shared working environment reduces the teachers planning and preparation work load, increases productivity, teacher, student engagement and is an excellent example of co-teaching and mentoring.
Reducing the student to teacher ratio by fifty percent has enabled integration of all students, to significantly increase academic development and to substantially reduce the amount and severity of behaviors in the school. Note: In some situations, for individual student needs or for particular subject areas Munroe is also able to further reduce this ratio when the academic growth of students demands more support. The demographics of Munroe also demand particular supports are needed for the social emotional development of students, resourcing for families or individual counseling in the home or at school. To meet this high demand the SSBM model has allowed the school to allocate dollars7 to maintain a half time social worker who in conjunction with the school counselor address the multitude of reactive issues faced but our students as well as having the time to place strong emphases on prevention. Implementation of an SSBM model coupled with a school wide outcome based, co-teaching, differentiated program built on a cognitive academic model utilizing teacher interns 8 will flounder as will all systemic changes unless the personnel involved in the change have the skill to meet the demands of a system in transition.
Re-Thinking and Redefining Leadership SSBM, outcome based, co-teaching, differentiated program, cognitive academic mode are only concepts. These concepts need individuals to implement them, breath life into them. The development of an SSBM model requires control over staffing. Quality staffing decisions require Administrators who have a clear understanding of the school need and program requirements. To assess these skills in an interview is difficult at best and to a great extent a crap shoot.
The teacher Intern Program provides long term stable co-teachers, who have skills shaped to the individual need of the school, they also provide a pool of high quality teachers who have been evaluated on sight for a period of three to four years. Each Intern will have 3 – 4,000 hours of teaching in your school before they graduate. This pool of young teachers takes the guess work out of hiring and allows the school to meet its long term staffing needs with relative security of selection. The structure of the SSBM model dictates changes within the hierarchical structure the school itself. The whole concept of school hierarchy needs to be re examined. Under the SSBM model school structure moves away from a vertical model to more of a horizontal approach. Although each job basically remains the same and the authority structure remains in tact administrators need to recognize that there central objective in the school becomes the programming and mentoring responsibility and that requires a completely different skill set. This paradigm shift in administrative responsibility requires the system to set up whole new criteria for administrators, implementation of an SSBM model in a school needs to fill a central role in the system. There is a critical need for an individual to take responsibility to plan, develop and implement the core components of the school structure training program especially outcome based, co-teaching, differentiated programs built on a cognitive academic model as well as curriculum and mentoring aspects of change. One of the greatest disincentives in education today is the remuneration structure. People who are placed in a leadership role often are not the people who are skilled in program and academic areas. Rewarding, through monetary incentives, those who are not incline or who do not have the needed skill set to impact change only emphasizes the value placed on people management and diminishes the value of those whose skills lie in the academic development of children. School change will only occur in a model that provides a mentoring system. An administrator who can go into the classroom and successfully implement
an outcomee based differeentiated model,, will gain trust from their t staff throu ugh credibilityy, the only true form of poower that allow ws change. Finding ann administratorr who can impaact change through moodeling and maanage a facilityy, policy and public relaations is a tall order. o However, setting s the bar high with no monitory m reward willl serve to dissu uade those whoo do not have the skill seet from entering g the fray; servve to strengthen the pool, bring g passion to thee table and t those who accept a the provide greeat credibility to challenge. M model any other type two chhanges will The SSBM fail withouut this process. Teachers needd to see the program inn action, observ ve the changes and see and improvemeent in there claasses over a relatively long period of tiime before they will be prepaared to give upp the whole group g managem ment structure they currentlyy have in plaace.
Differentiaated
SSBM
Instructio on
Co ognitive Academicc Model
Cognitiv ve Academic Model M
Outcome Based Assessment Cognitive Academic Model
References 1. Olson, L. (1997). Power of the Purse. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-16/36sbb.h16 (12 October 1999). McNeill, L. M., & McNeill, M. S. (1994). When Good Theory Leads to Bad Practice: Some Considerations in Applying Shared Decision Making in School Settings. Theory Into Practice, 33, 254-260. 2. David, J. L., & Peterson, B. M. (1984). Can Schools Improve Themselves? A Study of School-Based Improvement Programs. Palo Alto, CA: Bay Area Research Group. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 262 119). Griffin, G. A. (1995). Shared Decision Making: Influences on School and Classroom Activity. Elementary School Journal, 96, 29-45. Prestine, N. A. (1994). Sorting It Out: A Tentative Analysis of Essential School Change Efforts in Illinois. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Zuckerman, D. W. (1993). Necessary But Insufficient: Three Linked Efforts To Restructure NYC Public Schools in 1990-1991. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA. 3. Bradley, A., & Olson, L. (1993). Special Report: From Risk to Renewal: The Balance of Power. Education Week, 9-14. http://www.edweek.org/ew/1993/22power.h12 (5 Jan. 2000) 4. Lawton, M. (1996). Study: Site Management Has No Effect on Scores. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-16/09site.h16 (12 Oct. 1999)
5. Summers, A. A., & Johnson, A. W. (1995). Doubts About Decentralized Decisions. School Administrator, 52, 24-32. 6. Cotton, K. (1992). School-Based Management. School Improvement Research Series. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/7/topsyn6.html (27 Apr. 1999) Smylie, M. A. (1994). Redesigning Teachers’ Work: Connections to the Classroom. In Review of Research in Education (pp. 129-177). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. 7. ASAP Student Support Units each A student support unit is valued at $25,500 (based on the funding received for two level two funded students) 8. Teacher Interns are teacher candidates from the University of Winnipeg who are placed in the resource program as second year students under a joint project with the university to complete there teaching practicum at Munroe Junior High School. From this block of candidates the resource program selects students to enter the Munroe Teacher Intern Program. Once selected the teacher candidates complete the three remaining years of practicum at Munroe. Munroe also contracts these pre-professionals for two-three additional days a week at a rate of $20/per/hr. These are reallocated ASAP Student Support Units Dollars. The interns also work full time (110 hrs/per/ month) in December, May and June. The Interns are trained extensively in outcome based assessment and are mentored in the differentiated model before been placed in the classroom as a co-teacher. They are required to mentor the differentiated model, and outcome based assessment to new teachers as part of their assignment. Once given an assignment the interns loop with their students until they graduate from Munroe Junior High School. By maintaining a 12-1 co-teaching ratio in each class, the interns allow a true differentiated model to function in every class in the school. i
i
Permission: You may use or download content for research or educational purposes, or for your personal, noncommercial purposes,
provided you keep unchanged all copyright and other notices with them. No other use of any content is permitted. You agree that you will only use this site and documents in compliance with all federal, provincial and local laws and regulations. You agree that you will make no use of the research that violates anyone else's rights, including copyright, trademark, and trade secret, right of privacy, right of publicity or other rights.
