Background Context Literature
Citation (APA) Greenlee, B. J. (2007). When school advisory councils decide: Spending choices for school improvement. Planning and Changing, 38(3), 222-244.
Background Context Literature
This paper addresses the role of governance structures. Parent and community involvement in decision-making is considered an essential component of successful school improvement. Stakeholders such as the parents collaborate with school professionals to provide greater access for influencing decision making of their child’s school.
Purposes This study examines the effects of a distributed school budget authority and reduced budgeting constraints: when school governance councils have the opportunity to make choices concerning the allocation of school accountability dollars, what do they choose? Furthermore, in considering spending alternatives in order to enhance school performance what choices do they make?
Research Design Methods Participation Subjects Population Sample Setting
The empirical study was in a large Florida school district. The school district’s demographics were comparable to state’s averages. The sample included school advisory council (SAC) projected budgets for 186 schools.
Data Collection Data on SAC budgets obtained from the school improvement plans for 2004/2005 posted on the school district’s website. The plans provided data on school demography, council composition including race and constituency, school improvement goals and action plans, and the proposed budget for accountability dollars.
Data analysis Data was examined and allocations were classified by the item or service. Using a data reduction, process items were sorted into categories. A line item analysis was done for the budgets to identify and classify all allocations, then entered into a database and coded into categories of spending. Three investigators independently analyzed and compiled item classifications and compared findings. This method provided multiple perspectives as opposed to a single perspective on the data. Peer review facilitation increased the trustworthiness of the interpretation.
Findings The study provides two major points: 1) SAC’s consider the spending priorities for their accountability funds. Schools allocate their budgets differently based upon the context and conditions they face. Choices are framed by each SAC’s understanding of the needs of the school within the framework of the resources available. Budget choices are not random, but value-laden because one idea will receive more while another idea will receive less. 2) There is not a systematic understanding of what works in school improvement spending. Budget decisions are arbitrary and are spent in traditional ways such as curriculum materials or supplies, and equipment. With providing more flexibility and control over resources for schools, school improvement initiatives resulted in little innovation or risk taking.
Conclusions SAC’s contend with the influence of parents/community leaders and the employment of interested school employees. School employees such as teachers and principals can sway their interests more and detract from the partnership given from parents for their part in decision-making. Other concerns are the motives guiding to improve educational opportunity for all students. Policy efforts as well as culture of the schools accountability for results are the issues. Can spending produce meaningful results?
Commentary Although California does not have student improvement plan, schools are required to involve parent/ community involvement in the school budget. The ongoing question of what is important or valuable. The extensive large study provided a greater understanding of what SAC’s value when taking into account student achievement and the financial budget. How monies are disbursed given the importance of improving student achievement in low socio economic performing schools, which is a consideration in my blog.
Nora Bader
Nora Bader
Nora Bader
