Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT: A SURVEY ON THE EXTENT OF PRINCIPALS' KNOWLEDGE AND IMPLEMENTATION Rahmad

Sukor Ab. Samad University of Malaya Yong Lee Choo Sekolah Menengah Daerah Petaling

183

Abstrak Kajian ini meninjau tahap pengetahuan mengenai ciri-ciri pengurusan berasashan sekolah di kalangan pengetua, tahap pelaksanaannya dan hubungkait di antara jenis sekolah (Pusat Tanggungjawab, atau PTj, dan Bukan PTj) dengan pengurusan berasaskan sekolah. Hasil dapatan kajian diperolehi melalui kaedah soal selidik. Seramai 30 sampel dipilih sebagai responden dalam kajian ini. Borang soal selidik digunakan sebagai instrumen kajian. Statistik deskriptif dan statistik inferen digunakan untuk menganalisa dan seterusnya menjawab kesemua soalan kajian berkenaan. Hasil dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa pengetua mempunyai tahap pengetahuan yang amat tinggi mengenai ciri-ciri pengurusan berasaskan sekolah dan mereka melaksanakan kesemua enam ciri utama pengurusan berasaskan sekolah dalam pengurusan seharian mereka. Selain daripada itu, dapatan kajian juga menunjukkan bahawa tiada wujud hubungkait di antara jenis sekolah dengan pengurusan berasaskan sekolah.

INTRODUCTION According to one Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development report (OECD, 1987), there is a widespread concern in all OECD countries about the quality of education in schools. As a result, many countries have started restructuring and reforming education towards educational effectiveness and school development at the start of the 1990s. Just as in the West, this educational reform has also swept over Malaysia, with virtually every aspect of schools and their supporting systems undergoing critical examination. In 1993, with the inception of our Education Vision, the Ministry of Education introduced numerous reforms in the curriculum, pedagogy, administrative structures, governance, teacher training and retraining. Schools in Malaysia have shifted from a traditional centralized system of education to a relatively decentralized system of self-managing or school-based management to develop school-based initiatives and meet changing needs. This paper presents the findings of a study to determine knowledge of school-based management among school principals, which aspects of school-based

184

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

management they implement, as well as the relationship between type of school and school-based management. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Ogawa and White (1994) write of the difficulty in defining the concept of 'school-based management'. It is probably one of the most widely used terms, particularly in the USA, but it is also one of the most elusive (Murphy & Beck, 1995). For some, it is a proposal for shared decision-making within schools. For others, it is a method of increasing parental influence in school decision-making. But this is only one term among many. In the UK (England and Wales) the term 'self-governing school' is officially linked with policies that encourage alternative forms of autonomy. Thus, both local education authority (LEA) funded schools operating under the local management of schools (LMS) policy and grant-maintained (GM) schools, which are funded by central state authorities after having opted out of LEA control, are called 'self-governing' institutions, although they enjoy different degrees of freedom. Other terms predominating in this area include 'school-site autonomy', 'decentralized management', 'self-managing school' and 'sitebased management'. According to Caldwell and Spinks (1992), a self-managing school is a school in a system of education where there has been significant and consistent decentralization to the school level of authority to make decisions related to the allocation of resources. This decentralization is administrative rather than political, with decisions at the school level being made within a framework of local, state or national policies and guidelines. The school remains accountable to a central authority for the manner in which resources are allocated, (p. 4) Malen, Ogawa and Kranz (1990) noted that school-based management is a generic term for diverse activities and it is an ambiguous concept that defies definition. Both these views further underscore the lack of a specific meaning attached to this concept. Many combinations of features exist in different school-based management programs, and, as White (1989) has stated, numerous variations exist within districts and schools regarding the levels of authority, stakeholders involved and areas of control. Some examples of variations are: increased autonomy or freedom to function independently to a considerable degree which may or may not accompany increased authority at the school site; greater school-site accountability in some school-based management efforts but not others; the power to establish policy which may or may not accompany increase in the school's power to make other kinds of decisions; decisionmaking domains which differ enormously among different school-based management arrangements; extension of decision-making authority by districts and boards to the school in the major areas of budget and/ or staffing and/or curriculum, as well as other domains; the extent of decision-making authority within domains which also differs; the

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

185

distribution of authority at school sites which shows considerable variation as well and, finally, the degree of real power held by the councils whose presence do not necessarily guarantee interests of all groups are truly represented. After much debate, Levacic (1998) defines the generic 'school-based management' in terms of two elements: decentralization of decision-making responsibility to school level; and the sharing of decision-making power among key stakeholders at school level, such as head teacher, teachers, parents, students and other community members. Other variations exist, but this overview should suffice to reflect the differing interpretation of school-based management. Despite the differences, some common denominators can be identified. The consensus is that school-based management is a form of district organization, alters the governance of education, represents a shift of authority toward decentralization, identifies the school as the primary unit of educational change, and moves increased decision-making power to the local school site. So although a proliferation of terms may cause confusion among educationists and non-educationists alike, one should realize they all point in the same direction as Lewis (1989) has stated: the name is not as important as the shifts in authority that are taking place... No matter what the term... the school takes centre stage in today's education reform scene, (pp. 173-174) The final terms to be defined are 'PTj' and 'Non-PTj' schools. PTj means Pusat Tanggungjawab in Bahasa Malaysia. Generally, in Malaysia there are two types of Procedures Act (Akta Prosedur Kewangari) states that PTj schools receive their yearly school allocation through grant as well as warrant payment (financial allocation that must be used up in the current year) while Non-PTj schools receive theirs through the disbursement of Per Capital Grant (PCG- financial allocation disbursed to the schools through cheque payment, which must be deposited in the school accounts with the amount unspent in the current year allowed to be carried forward). The PTj system of financial management was piloted in stages in 30 selected schools in July 2000. Then, in 2001, it was extended to more schools and implemented in 200 schools in the country. Through this system, the schools concerned received their annual grant directly from the Ministry of Education. This system has decentralized resource management to the schools themselves; the schools manage their resources and expenditure, decide which vendors to purchase from and how much to spend within the confines of procedures outlined, reporting to the Accountant-General's Department with occasional monitoring by the Auditor General's Office. Development in School-based Management School-based management means that the school management tasks are set according to the characteristics and needs of the school itself and therefore school members have

186

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

a much greater autonomy and responsibility for use of resources to solve problems and implement activities for long-term school development. To set a context for examining the relationship between school-based management approaches and other schooling variables, we present a brief review of the contemporary restructuring in education towards increased school autonomy in several countries and the arguments for schoolbased management that characterize the current restructuring movement. At the core of restructuring lies the recognition of the need for fundamental reform. Elmore (1990) stated that it is generally agreed that restructuring had three main dimensions: changes in the way teaching and learning occur in school; changes in the occupational situation of educators, including conditions of entry and qualifications of teachers and administrators, and school structure, conditions of teachers' work in schools, and decision-making processes; as well as changes in distribution of power between schools and their clients, or in the governance and incentive structures of schools. Elmore concluded that before school restructuring can work, reformers had to confront the tensions between these dimensions. Educational reforms in the UK began in the mid-1980s and these combined both decentralization of management decision making to schools and stronger centralization of control over curricula and the monitoring of educational standards (Levacic, 1995). Unlike in the UK, public education in the US is a state responsibility. Here the approach to educational reform has been more piecemeal and decentralized. The US has three levels of government - national, state and local - with educational services delivery placed under local government in all states except Hawaii. The federal government plays a small, significant role by allocating a series of categorical grants designed to promote equality of opportunity. Guthrie and Reed (1986) reported that the term 'school-site management' was originally used by a New York State reform commission and was intended to cover a comprehensive approach to decentralization, with resources defined broadly to include matters related to curriculum, personnel and finance, with a greater measure of lay control at the school level. A significant concern in school management reform is the repeated failure of centralized structures to inspire in school personnel the prerequisite attitudes and behaviors for generating educational improvements. Mojkowski and Fleming (1988) echoed the findings of many other researchers and writers, noting that: ... a school improvement impetus and authority emanating from outside the school does not produce the responsibility and commitment necessary to sustain consequential improvement, (p. 2) The contemporary rationale for decentralized schooling, particularly school-based management, had developed partly in recognition of these problems and partly in response to research findings about more promising arrangements for improving education. A few assertions surfaced and they are now offered as the rationale for implementing school-

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

187

based management (Amundson, 1988; Malen et al., 1990; Marburger, 1985; Mojkowski & Fleming, 1988; White, 1989; Peterson, 1991). These assertions are as follows: i. The school is the primary unit of change. ii. Those who work directly with students have the most informed and credible opinions regarding what educational arrangements will most benefit those students. iii Significant and lasting improvement takes considerable time, and local schools are in the best position to sustain improvement efforts over time. iv. The school principal is a key figure in school improvement. v. Significant change is brought about by staff and community participation in project planning and implementation. vi. School-based management supports the professionalism of the teaching profession and vice versa, which can lead to more desirable schooling outcomes. vii. School-based management structures keep the focus of schooling where it belongs - on achievement and other student outcomes. viii. Alignment between budgets and instructional priorities improves under schoolbased management. The rise of school-based management was closely related to the pursuit of school effectiveness. Taking a leaf from modern management in industrial and commercial organizations in the 1980s, people in education started to see the need to reform school structural systems and management styles to improve quality of education. They also believed that all stakeholders of schools should share the decision-making power at the schooflevel, thusthe emergence of the shared decisTon-'maOng movement m school management reform. School-based management functioned under decentralization, the development of internal resources and the wide participation of school members in the decisionmaking process which closely accompanied the tenets of critical theory. Jane (1989) had emphasized that under school-based management the school is the major decision making unit, ownership is the major requirement of school reform and concerned members participate in decision making. Cheng (1996) suggested that school-based management assumed multiple educational goals in a complex and changing educational environment where goals include educational reforms, school effectiveness, adaptation orientation and the pursuit of quality. Livingston, Slate and Gibbs (1999) in their study noted that administrators agreed on the need for reform, the need for stakeholders' involvement in decision-making and that teachers possess the expertise necessary to make decisions about the school. All stakeholders play their roles in making decisions to ensure school success. As opined by Livingston et al. (1999), in contrast, under external control management such members had little autonomy or commitment because only the administrators made decisions without involving them. Many researchers had illustrated the diverse forms of school-based management and their implementation but very few explained the conception and theories of school-based

188

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

management and mapped its characteristics of school functioning from an organizational perspective. Caldwell and Spinks (1988, 1992), Mohrman and Wohlstetter (1994) and Cheng (1996) were examples of the few who pioneered in illustrating the whole concept right from the infancy stage till implementation and also recorded its performance and degree of effectiveness. This study is based on the work of educational researchers such as Cheng (1996), Sergiovanni (2001), Rodriguez (2000) and Hill and Bonan (1991) who regard schoolbased management as being driven by the need to improve student achievement and institute comprehensive educational changes. Based on Cheng's (1996) theory, the schoolbased management characteristics were mapped onto eight elements: school mission, nature of activities, management strategies, use of resources, role of school stakeholders, interpersonal relationship, quality of administrators and indicators of effectiveness. RESEARCH DESIGN Relying on the conception of school-based management by Cheng (1996) and the domains of site-based management by Rodriguez (2000) as well as Hill and Bonan (1991), we have developed a model to encompass all the relevant spheres of influence of school-based management that form the thrust of this research. We have chosen to model our framework after Cheng's work because our home country, Malaysia, shares many similar Oriental values with Cheng's homeland, Hong Kong. Cheng's work was tailored more towards Asian schools and we believe that Cheng's well-tested theory will be more applicable in the Malaysian context. Cheng's eight characteristics of school-based management as well as Rodriguez's three broad spheres of influence or domains of site-based management, namely budgeting, curriculum and personnel, together with Hill and Bonan's (1991) two domains namely goals and organizational structure when put together for comparison indicated several characteristics and similarities. In Figure 1, the fishbone framework we conceptualized is made up of a series of 6 elements namely school mission, management strategies, decision making style, use of resources, quality of administrators and the roles played by the school, administrator, teachers as well as parents. The four roles mentioned above are actually part of the characteristic under the heading of role differences. The first element is the school mission, which represents the school's organizational culture where all school members are guided and fully involved in the school educational activities. As such, schools under school-based management hold fast to the mission that represents a group of shared expectations, beliefs and values of the school, guiding school members in educational activities and the direction of work. This is the organizational culture that greatly affects school functioning and effectiveness. (Beare, Caldwell & Millikan, 1989; Cheng, 1996). Vivid and strong school organizational culture should be developed and shared by school members so that they are willing to share responsibility, work hard and be fully involved to achieve shared ideals. If we want our schools to

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

189

provide high quality services to meet our multiple and complicated educational needs, then school members should develop strong organizational culture. The second element reflects the various aspects of management strategies school administrators applied. Here, we focus on the assumptions school administrators have about human nature. It is assumed that humans have an innate liking for work and thus teachers are willing to work towards shared goals without being pushed. Consequently, such administrators would adopt democratic participation, professional development and work-life improvement to motivate teachers and students alike. At the same time, school administrators hold fast to the belief that their schools are places for preparing children for the future as well as places for all the stakeholders to live, grow and develop. School administrators also adopt technical and human leadership in guiding the school members towards achieving school goals, besides setting a good example to help members understand and appreciate the underlying meaning of various school activities, play the role of unifying diversity, develop the unique school culture and mission and motivate everyone to work for a better future.

Figure 1: Conceptual model of school-based management for Malaysian schools Source: Adapted from Y. C. Cheng (1993) Moreover, the school administrators mainly use expert and reference power to reward their staff in order to develop human resources and encourage commitment and initiative, besides paying special attention to staff professional growth. The administrators adopt sophisticated, scientific techniques and effective strategies for analyzing decisions, managing conflicts and making organizational changes. The third element in the framework is the decision making style. School-based management has profound implications for how and where decisions are made. However, effective decision-making is not an automatic consequence of decentralizing decisions. According to Wohlstetter and Mohrman (1994) schools that successfully introduced

190

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

changes in instructional practice had developed effective decision-making processes. Such schools have overcome three types of barriers to effective decision-making: autocratic principals or those who fail to utilize input; staff factionalism, including interdepartmental competition or divisiveness between advocates of reform and those who oppose; and staff apathy or unwillingness to get involved. Foundations for a shared decision-making structure rest on the stakeholders. Trust and commitment are important for involving stakeholders in developing shared organizational values; people live out the shared values on a day-to-day basis because conjecture and suspicion about actions are dispelled (Senge, 1990). When people gain a systems perspective by seeing underlying structures and connections, they understand the problems and pressures encountered in schools. Only those who understand the underlying structures of the system have more compassion and empathy for its complexities. They see how they and those in the organization know what they are talking about and how they connect to one another (Senge, 1990). Therefore, school leaders who help stakeholders develop shared organizational values, trust and a systems perspective set the foundation for shared decision-making. By enabling stakeholders to internalize the sources of power, motivation, self-esteem and humanness, school community members develop a deeper sense of responsibility to the work they share. Moreover, they have a strong commitment to school success. When school leaders willingly participate in shared decision-making, they collaborate with teachers and parents to improve instruction and the school climate. The fourth element, resource use, is of utmost importance because no school can function with limited funds and resources. Financial autonomy is one aspect of schoolbased management. Advocates of school-based management called for the government to allocate a lump sum of money to the schools, and not to determine how that money is to be spent. School-based financial management allows the school level stakeholders to decide how money will be disbursed and which vendors to patronize. Providing greater financial flexibility enables the empowered schools to purchase what they need from whoever they choose to meet their students' requirements. In Malaysia today, some established schools with good financial management have been given PTj status whereby they are given some autonomy or control over management of Ministry of Education allocated funds. These schools have greater flexibility in deciding their expenditure and preferred vendors based on the school and student needs as the Ministry believes that empowerment for school authorities to practise selfbudgeting creates a more effective school-based management in line with educational reform aspirations. The changes taking place in Malaysian schools are part of the national education reform advocated in the National Education Policy and these schools are categorized (based on the Auditor General's Office recommendations) as schools with good financial track record. As such, they are given PTj school status, which means they are given the authority to manage their own annual government-allocated funds (Per Capital Grant) and disburse the amount according to their own needs. In 2001, more than 200 schools have been conferred PTj status and before long, more schools will be given

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

191

full autonomy over funds and resources in a move from external control towards schoolbased management. The fifth element, or roles of the concerned school stakeholders (school, administrators, teachers and parents) are directly or indirectly determined by the government's school management policy and also the school mission, the school internal managing strategies, the curriculum and style of resource use. School-based management is aimed at developing students, teachers and the school according to the school's own characteristics and needs. Therefore, schools see themselves as engaged in a broad set of reform activities and have clearly written vision statements that often are developed collectively by school staff guided by the principal. Thus, there is school wide consensus about where the school is going and the principal assists in helping it get there. The final element of school-based management is the high expectation of the quality of the administrators, as participation and development are regarded as important in facing complicated education work and pursuing educational effectiveness. School-based management places increasing demand on professional development. Teachers need ongoing assistance with content and pedagogy as well as skills in group problem-solving, conflict resolution and time management. Thus, principals need help to make them understand how to embrace their new roles. Development activities must be designed to promote a sense of professional community and a shared knowledge base among the faculty. The administrators should be equipped with modern management knowledge and techniques to develop resources and manpower as well as learn and grow continuously and to discover and solve problems. Administrators need to have an open mind with broad views, willingness to learn and promote long-term development of their schools. Using this framework, the researchers hope that all the six characteristics of schoolbased management would build the foundation for effective management in secondary schools in Petaling District and pave the way towards educational reform as envisaged in the Malaysian Education Vision. Purpose of the Study The objective of the study is to examine how well school principals in Petaling District understand the characteristics of school-based management, which aspects of schoolbased management they implement as well as to examine the relationship between types of school (PTj and non-PTj) and school-based management.

192

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

METHODOLOGY
The study sample consisted of 30 principals from Petaling District in Selangor. The schools were randomly picked from a list of 74 secondary schools in Petaling District. The respondents in this study are secondary school principals who have at least a bachelor's degree from a recognized university and at least one year of experience heading the school. Procedure A survey using a structured questionnaire was used to conduct the study. This instrument was developed to determine the principals' knowledge and implementation of schoolbased management with reference to the model framework of school-based management as shown in Table 1. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. Section One collected demographic information on the respondents' gender, years of experience as heads of school and nature of their school. Section Two consisted of 31 items designed to ascertain respondents' knowledge of school-based management, the elements of schoolbased management they have implemented as well as the correlation between the types of school and school-based management. Table 1 Revised List of Non-dependent Variables in Part Two of the Questionnaire Variables 1 Item Numbers 1-3

4 5 6

School mission: aspects of shared expectations, beliefs and values of school, organizational culture and stakeholders participation. Management strategies: various aspects of management strategies such as the concept of human nature, concept of school organization, leadership style, use of power and management skills. Style of decision making: the style of making decision by the administrators as well as power-sharing or participation in various aspects of school management. Use of resources: how resources and funds are spent Role differences: the role played by the concerned school members in developing the school. Quality of administrators: the qualities possessed by the administrators such as their management knowledge and techniques.

4-14

15 -19

20 - 23 24 - 28 29 - 31

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

193

In Table 1, the six key characteristics of school-based management such as the school mission, management strategies, decision-making style, use of resources, quality of the administrators as well as school stakeholder roles were selected after conducting a Cronbach alpha reliability test on the original nine characteristics of school-based management. Then the items were built accordingly. Several statements were made for each corresponding characteristic and rated on a five-point Likert rating scale with one closest to external control management and five closest to school-based management. The respondents were given two weeks to answer and return the completed questionnaire. As shown in Table 1, items 1-31 from Part Two of the questionnaire measured the principals' knowledge of school-based management, determined which characteristics of school-based management they implemented as well as the relationship between the types of schools and school-based management. The respondents were required to rate their response to statements based on the five - point Likert rating scale. Data Analysis The data collected were computed using SPSS version 10.5. The overall average mean and standard deviation for all the six key characteristics of school-based management were analyzed to determine the principals' knowledge of school-based management. Then a scoring system and cut-off points were calculated and tabulated to determine the principals' level of knowledge of school-based management and which characteristics of school-based management they implemented. The relationship between type of school (PTj and non-PTj) and school-based management was determined by using the nonparametric technique, namely the chi-square test for independence. This technique was used because it involved categorical data. At the same time, it fulfilled a few assumptions of non-parametric techniques namely, the samples were small and randomly picked and it involved independent observation. To determine the relationship between the types of school and all the six characteristics of school-based management, cross-tabulation and chi-square test for independence were used to analyze the data. Results of the cross-tabulation between the types of school and school-based management and the Pearson chi-square value obtained (at a significance alpha value of 0.05) would indicate whether the relationship between the type of school and each characteristic of school-based management was significant.

RESULTS The data were analyzed and reported as shown in Table 2 with the mean scores arranged in descending order to show the respondents' knowledge of the characteristics of schoolbased management. Firstly, all the three items under the element of school mission show a mean score of between 4.40 and 4.73 with the statement 'Emphasizes participation in developing educational mission' having the highest mean score (4.73) and the statement

194

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

195

196

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

'Has a strong and unique organizational culture' having the lowest mean score (4.40). Thus, based on the scoring system with a cut-off point, the respondents are highly knowledgeable about this characteristic of school-based management, i.e. school mission. However, they are more aware of the importance of having a shared school mission that is developed and actualized by all the stakeholders rather than showing indication of their schools' having a strong and unique organizational culture. Under the management strategies category, five out of 11 statements elicited extremely high mean score of between 4.90 and 4.93, indicating that the respondents are very knowledgeable about management strategies that focus on teachers' professional growth, inspiring teachers to work well, seeing the school as a place for all stakeholders to grow and pursue development as well as providing excellent leadership to be an exemplary role model to school stakeholders in understanding school activities and uniting everyone towards achieving shared school goals. Two statements 'Adopt democratic participation, professional development and worklife improvement' and 'Apply expert and reference power in order to develop human resources and encourage members' commitment and initiative' show a moderately high mean score of 4.77 and 4.73 respectively. The final four statements namely 'Teachers are willing to serve for their shared goals and look for more responsibilities to take up', 'Use sophisticated scientific techniques in managing the school', 'Adopt scientific methods, various skills and effective strategies' and also 'Believe that the teachers have an innate liking for work' indicate a mean score of between 4.17 and 4.40. Thus, it can be concluded that the respondents' assumption about human nature of teachers as not born lazy and irresponsible and do not have an innate dislike for work is at the lowest rank (4.17) while the respondents' concept of school organization as a place to foster professional development ranked highest (4.93) under the characteristic of management strategies. Thirdly, the statements reflecting the respondents' decision making style have mean scores ranging from 4.00 to 4.80. Two statements highlighting the principals' willingness to welcome input and participation from teachers, parents and other schoolbased members in two areas namely 'Planning professional development for teachers' and 'Selecting textbooks and other instructional materials' showed a mean score of 4.80 and 4.67 respectively. Meanwhile, three statements touching on 'Deciding how school funds are spent', 'Establishing policies and practice for grading and evaluation' of students and 'Setting curricular guidelines and standards' for the school record a mean score of 4.27, 4.10 and 4.00 respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that the respondents are more willing to listen to input and welcome school stakeholder participation in planning professional

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

197

development for teachers (4.80) and slightly less willing to welcome input and participation by the same members in making decisions regarding the curricular guidelines and standards (4.00). Next, under the use of school resources, the four statements record a moderately high mean score of between 4.27 and 4.57. All the respondents strongly agree that their schools make their own decision on how funds from the Ministry of Education are spent, who to buy from and what to purchase (4.57). Meanwhile, they also agree but to a slightly lower extent that they allow the school stakeholders to make decisions regarding how the same funds are disbursed (4.27). Again, this finding is consistent with the earlier finding under the style of decision making. The earlier mean score of 4.27 for the statement 'Allow input and welcome participation in deciding how school funds are spent' is exactly the same as the mean score for the statement 'All school stakeholders decide how the money from the MOE is disbursed' (4.27), indicating a very reliable form of measure. Under the characteristic of role differences, whereby all the school stakeholders play different roles in the school organization, all five statements show a high mean score ranging from 4.70 to 4.80. The statement 'Principal and senior assistants always develop goals according to school's needs and lead all stakeholders towards achieving the goals' has the highest mean score (4.80) while three statements namely 'Teachers as partners, decision maker, developer and implementer', 'Parents as partner and supporter' and 'School plays active role in developing initiative, solving problems and facilitating the teaching and learning process' all have the same mean score of 4.70. Lastly, quality of administrators has three statements with 'Believe in life-long learning, always promote long-term development in school' recording an extremely high mean score of 4.93. Meanwhile, the statement 'Always read up on latest management knowledge and techniques' has a moderately high mean score of 4.63. An overall mean score of 4.61 further confirms that the respondents are highly knowledgeable about the characteristics of school-based management. Analysis of Characteristics of School-based Management Implemented By Respondents Table 3 is a compilation of the most outstanding characteristics of school-based management implemented by the respondents. They are arranged in descending order and have an extremely high mean score of between 4.80 and 4.93. A mean score of between 3.67 and 5.00 indicates a strong implementation of school-based management. Only four characteristics are listed in this table and altogether there are only nine statements reflected here. Each of the statements will be analyzed to obtain a clearer interpretation of the exact element of school-based management implemented by the respondents.

198

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

Table 3 List of Characteristics of School-based Management Implemented by Respondents

Characteristics of school-based management 1. Believe in life-long learning, always promote long-term development in school. 2. Pay attention to teachers' professional growth. 3. A professional leader to teachers, inspire them to work enthusiastically. 4. Unite everyone, clarify unclear goals, develop school culture and mission. 5. Provide technical and human leadership and set good example to appreciate the importance of school activities. 6. Regard school as a place for everyone to live, grow and pursue development. 7. Allow input and participation in planning professional development. 8. Principal and senior assistants always develop goals according to school's needs and lead all stakeholders towards achieving the goals. 9. Need to learn and grow continuously to discover and solve problems for school improvement. Mean 4.93 4.93 4.93 4.90 4.90 4.90 4.80 4.80 Standard Deviation .25 .25 .25 .31 .31 .40 .41 .41

4.80

.48

According to Table 3, only five statements (out of 11) under management strategies, one statement each under the elements of style of decision making (out of five) and role differences (out of five) and two statements (out of 3) record a mean score of 4.90 and more, whereas there is no statement under school mission (out of 3) and use of resources (out of 4) that have such a high mean score. In other words, only these nine statements reflecting 4 elements of school-based management are strongly emphasized and implemented. Firstly, all the three statements 'Believe in life-long learning, always promote longterm development in school', 'Pay attention to teachers' professional growth', and 'A professional leader to teachers, inspire them to work enthusiastically' record a mean score of 4.93 and a standard deviation value of .25. This means that the respondents strongly agree and do implement these three practices of school-based management which focus on the teachers' well-being and professional development. Next, another three statements namely 'Unite everyone, classify unclear goals, develop school culture and mission' (SD - .31), 'Provide technical, human, educational, symbolic and cultural leadership and set good example to appreciate the importance of school activities' (SD = .31) and 'Regard school as a place for everyone to live, grow and pursue development' (SD = .40) have similar mean scores but different standard deviation values. In other words, the first two statements highlighting the principal's role and responsibilities in school and the other statement on the principal's concept of school organization are factors the respondents also strongly indicated that they do implement. Finally, the remaining three statements namely 'Allow input and participation in planning professional development' (SD = .41), 'Principal and senior assistants always

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

199

develop goals according to school's needs and lead all stakeholders towards achieving the goals' (SD = .41) and 'Need to learn and grow continuously to discover and solve problems for school improvement' (SD = .48) also have similar mean scores of 4.80 but different standard deviation values. Thus, it can be concluded that the respondents agree that they do welcome teachers' participation in planning their own professional development and consult their senior assistants when developing school goals. Respondents also express the need to learn and grow continuously (lifelong learning) in order to improve thenschools. These findings are consistent with the earlier findings on the principal's emphasis on staff development to tap on human capital and becoming a wholesome leader to all school members.

Analysis of Relationship Between School Type and School-based Management Characteristics When all the non-dependent variables which are the key characteristics of school-based management are cross-tabulated against the dependent variable (types of school) and computed, the output indicating the Pearson chi-square test values are recorded in Table 4. This data will be used to determine if there is any significant relationship between the types of school and school-based management. To determine whether there exists a significant relationship between types of schools and each key characteristic of school-based management, the Pearson chi-square (x2) value needs to be .05 or less. In the case of the first variable, school mission, the x2 values are .690,1.000 and .241 respectively for each of the elements. The three values are larger than the significant level of .05; therefore we can conclude that the results are not significant. This means that the school mission of PTj schools does not significantly differ from that of non-PTj schools. The second variable, the management strategies adopted by the school administrators produces x2 values of .461, .509, .666, .343, .543, .543, .099, 1.000, .143, .111 and .502 respectively for all the 11 elements in it. All these values are larger than the significant level of .05; therefore we can conclude that the results are not significant. This means that the management strategies adopted by the administrators of PTj schools are not significantly different from those adopted by administrators of non-PTj schools. The third variable is the style of decision-making. The x2 values are .523, .475, .134, .719 and 1.000 respectively for all the five elements in it. The five values are all larger than the significant level of .05; therefore we can again conclude that the results are not significant. This means that the style of decision-making adopted by the administrators of PTj schools are not significantly different from the style of decision-making adopted by administrators of non-PTj schools.

200

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

Table 4 Crossbreak Table of Relationship Between Type of School and Characteristics of School-based Management
Characteristics of school-based management and types of school School Mission Emphasizes participation in developing educational mission. School mission is clear and shared, developed and actualized by everyone in school. Has a strong and unique organizational culture. Management Strategies Pay attention to teachers' professional growth. A professional leader to teachers, inspire them to work enthusiastically. Unite everyone, clarify unclear goals, develop school culture and mission. Provide technical and human leadership and set good example to appreciate the importance of school activities. Regard school as a place for everyone to live, grow and pursue development. Adopt democratic participation, professional development and work-life improvement. Apply expert and reference power to develop human resources and encourage everyone's commitment and initiative. Teachers are willing to serve for their shared goals and look for more responsibilities to take up. Use sophisticated scientific techniques in managing the school. Adopt scientific methods, various skills and effective strategies. Believe the teachers have an innate liking for work. Style of decision making Allow input and participation in: Planning professional development. Selecting textbooks and other instructional materials. Deciding how school funds are spent. Establishing policies and practices for grading and evaluation. Setting curricula! guidelines and standards. Use of resources The school decides how the money is spent, who to buy from and what to purchase. Able to self-budget and practice greater flexibility in the use of resources. Able to broaden sources of education resources, maximize purchasing power and utilize school personnel effectively. All school stakeholders decide how the money from the MOE is disbursed. X2 value .690 1.000 .241 .461 .509 .666 .343 .543

.543 .099 1.000 .143 .111 .502

.523 .475 .134 .719 1.000

.406 .333 .733 .648

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

Role differences Principal always develops goals according to school's needs and leads all stakeholders towards achieving the goals. All stakeholders always seek to broaden school resources. School plays an active role in developing initiative, solving problems and facilitating the teaching and learning process. Parents as partner and supporter. Teachers as partner, decision maker, developer and implemented Quality of administrators Believe in life-long learning, always promote long-term development in school. Need to learn and grow continuously to discover and solve problems for school improvement. Always read up on latest management knowledge and techniques.
* Significant atp < .05

201

.232 .361 .195 .593 .885

.766 .595 1.000

The fourth variable is the use of resources. The x2 values are .406, .333, .733 and .648 respectively for all the four elements in it. The four values are all larger than the significant level of .05; therefore we can again conclude that the results are not significant and that resource use by the administrators of PTj schools does not significantly differ from resource use by administrators of the non-PTj schools The fifth variable is the role differences of the school members. The %2 values obtained are .232, .361, .195, .593 and .885 respectively for all the five elements in it. The five values all exceed the significant level of .05; therefore we can also conclude that the results are not significant at all. This means that the role differences of the PTj school members are not significantly different from that of the non-PTj school members. The final variable is the quality of administrators. The x2 values are .766, .595 and 1.000 respectively for all the three elements in it. The three values are all larger than the significant level of .05; therefore we can again conclude that the results are not significant. This means that the quality of administrators of PTj schools does not significantly differ from that of non-PTj schools. In conclusion, all the results obtained indicate that no significant relationship exists between the type of school (PTj and non-PTj) and school-based management. Analysis of Responses to the Open-ended Item in the Questionnaire The open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire seeks the respondents' opinion on the effectiveness of these school-based management practices in helping school administrators meet current educational needs, attain educational effectiveness and promote school development. Their responses reveal a few pertinent facts about the actual feelings of the respondents and occurrences at the grassroots level (school level) in managing a school organization. Some of the respondents feel that human relations development should be part of the key characteristics of school-based management. They say that principals should maintain a good and healthy relationship with their staff. The relationship should be open and

202

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

cooperative, should emphasize team spirit and take the form of a partnership involving shared commitment towards school effectiveness. Respondents noted that administrators should display exemplary leadership qualities and be good role models. They state that a school organization whose head has excellent leadership qualities, adaptability and flexibility when carrying out curricular guidelines is an effective learning organization. This is because the head takes into consideration the school's needs when planning and implementing various school activities. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The research shows that secondary school principals in Petaling District display very high levels of knowledge of all the six characteristics of school-based management. Out of these six characteristics, they are extremely knowledgeable of the requirement of administrators to display certain qualities such as having the vision to promote longterm development, belief in lifelong learning and constantly improving knowledge of the latest management techniques. They could have this prior knowledge through exposure, reading up on their own or attending courses, seminars or in-service training programs. Moreover, the majority of the principals who have one to five years of experience are still comparatively young and may have attended management courses or training programs as teachers, heads of department or senior assistants prior to their promotion. These principals also record an equally high awareness of the differing roles of the school stakeholders. They acknowledge that the principal's role has changed from 'boss' to 'chief executive officer' and instead of enforcing Ministry of Education policies, the principal works collegially with the staff and shares authority with them. Hence, the principal typically moves closer to the educational process as an instructional manager and also moves higher in the district chain of command because of the increased authority and accountability shifted to the school. Meanwhile, the teachers previously excluded from decision-making and meaningful contact with one another are now invited to involve themselves to a significant degree in these areas. The parents who once were relatively underutilized are now encouraged to give input and provide training. Furthermore, the respondents responded positively to the concept of the school as a place to foster professional staff development. Other studies have shown that schools with strong organizational culture function effectively even when facing challenges (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1992). Principals should display technical, human, educational, symbolic and cultural leadership besides being good role models for school members to appreciate the underlying meaning of various school activities, unify the diversity among members, clarify uncertainty and ambiguity, develop the unique school culture and mission and motivate everyone to work for a better future (Cheng, 1996). The research shows that all six characteristics of school-based management are strongly implemented by the secondary school principals in Petaling District. From the six key characteristics, a list of nine outstanding elements of school-based management strongly implemented by the principals was compiled to clarify the extent of

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

203

implementation. It can be summarized that the principals in Petaling District implement these elements of school-based management in the following order: i. Believe in life-long learning and promote long-term school development. ii. Develop teachers' professional growth. iii. Be a professional leader to staff. iv. Responsible to unite all school members, clarify unclear goals and develop school culture and mission, v. Display multi-levels of leadership, to suit the school's situation and needs and be a role model to staff, vi. Understand the concept of the school organization as a place to foster student growth and also the development of teachers and administrators, vii. Allow teachers to participate in planning their own staff development. viii.Understand the role of the principal as a goal developer and leader, and lead school members towards their goals, ix. Understand the need to learn and grow continuously - to have the cutting edge to bring improvement to the school. All nine elements reflect a shift towards school-based management emphasizing effective leadership in managing change, a participative process for determining a shared vision, communication and support for that vision as well as the use of sophisticated management skills in facing global challenges. Principals are no longer managers who run schools according to whatever management skills they may have picked up from their predecessors or learning the ropes along the way. With expectations running high, complacency will not suffice. The research also shows there is no significant relationship between the type of school and school-based management. Despite the government's efforts to decentralize authority, principals do not appear to use that power effectively. This is supported by Wohlstetter and Mohrman (1994) who suggested that authority must be accompanied by a principal who facilitates participation, a cohesive school faculty, and a general desire of stakeholders to engage in reform. In addition, the principal's role undergoes the greatest degree of change under school-based management. Principals should not merely enforce policies but instead work collegially with their staff. They move higher in the chain of command as authority devolves to the school. Since school-based management challenges well entrenched patterns of institutional and individual behavior, it is diffuclt to change the role of school level personnel without changing the traditional district administrative roles. Unless top personnel initiate the change, principals are likely to falter in implementing school-based management. This probably explains why Malaysian schools, whether PTj or non-PTj schools, do not show any significant differences in school-based management. To conclude, new insights regarding the extent to which principals implement school-based management and the non-significant relationship between the types of schools (PTj and non-PTj) and school-based management have been established. These new insights provide an authentic context from which to conduct further research of school-based management in all secondary schools at the district and state levels.

204

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

REFERENCES
Akta Prosedur Kewangan 1957. (Akta 61). (Disemak 1972). Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perbendaharaan. Amundson, K. J. (1988). School-based management: A strategy for better learning. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators; National Association of Elementary School Principals; National Association of Secondary School Principals. Arahan Perbendaharaan (1997). Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perbendaharaan. Beare, H., Caldwell, B., & Millikan, R. (1989) Creating an excellent school: Some new management techniques. London: Routledge. Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1988). The self-managing school. London: Falmer. Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school. London: Falmer. Cheng, Y. C. (1993). Profiles of organizational culture and effective schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(2), 85-110. Cheng, Y. C. (1996). School effectiveness and school-based management: A mechanism for development. New York: Falmer. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Educational Planning Research Division, Ministry of Education (2001). Education in Malaysia. A journey to excellence. Kuala Lumpur: Author. Elmore, R. (1990) Introduction: On changing the structure of public schools. In R. Elmore & Associates (Eds.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of school reform (pp.1-28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guthrie, J. W., & Reed, R. J. (1986). Educational administration and policy: Effective leadership for American education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hill, P. T., & Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and accountability in public education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Jane, D. L. (1989, May). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational Leadership, 46(S), 45-53. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (2000). Buku panduan kewangan dan perakaunan sekolah (3rd ed.). Kuala Lumpur: Bahagian Kewangan, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Kerajaan Malaysia (1996). Rancangan Malaysia Ketujuh, 1996-2000. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia. Kerajaan Malaysia (2001). Rancangan Malaysia Kelapan 2001- 2005. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia. Levacic, R. (1995). Local management of shools: Analysis and practice. Philadelphia: Open UP. Levacic, R. (1998) Local management of schools in England: Results after six years. Journal of Educational Policy, 13(3), 331-350.

Jurnal Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

205

Lewis, A. (1989). Meanwhile, at the school. In Restructuring America's schools, (pp. 173-190). Arlington,VA: American Association of School Administrators. Livingston, M. J., Slate, J. R., & Gibbs, A. (1999). Shared decision-making and practices of rural school principals. Rural Educator, 21(1), 20-26. Malen, B., Ogawa, R.T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about schoolbased management? A case study of the literature: A call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Ed.) Choice and control in American education, Vol. 2: The practice of choice, decentralization and school restructuring. New York: Falmer. Marburger, C. L. (1985). One school at a time: School-based management-a process for change. Columbia, MD: The National Committee for Citizens in Education. Mohrman, S. A., & Wohlstetter, P. (1994). School-based management: Organizing for high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mojkowski, C, & Fleming, D. (1988). School-site management: Concepts and approaches. Andover, MA: The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands. Murphy, J., & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. OECD. (1987). Quality of schooling: A clarifying report. [Restricted Secretariat Paper] ED (87) 13,123. Ogawa, R. T., & White, P. A. (1994). School-based management: An overview. In S.A. Mohrman, & P. Wohlstetter, School-based management: Organizing for high performance (pp. 53-80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peterson, D. (1991). School-based management and student performance. NASSP ERIC Digest, 62, Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse in Educational Management. Retrieved January 27, 2006, fromhttp://www.ed.gov/pubs/OR/ConsumerGuides/baseman.html. Rodriguez, T. A. (2000). The implementation of site-based management across Texas: An empirical study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at El Paso. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principals hip. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn. Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1998). Supervision: A redefinition (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. White, P. A. (1989). An overview of school-based management: What does the research say? NASSP Bulletin 73(518), 1- 8. Wohlstetter, P., & Mohrman, S. A. (1994). School-based management: Promise and process. [Consortium for Policy Research in Education finance briefs]. Retrieved January 27, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/fb5sbm.html