What is School-Based Management?

School-based management (SBM) is the decentralization of levels of authority to the school level. Responsibility and decision-making over school operations is transferred to principals, teachers, parents, sometimes students, and other school community members. The school-level actors, however, have to conform to, or operate, within a set of centrally determined policies.

SBM programs take on many different forms, both in terms of who has the power to make decisions as well as the degree of decision-making devolved to the school level. While some programs transfer authority to principals or teachers only, others encourage or mandate parental and community participation, often in school committees (sometimes known as school councils). In general, SBM programs transfer authority over one or more of the following activities: budget allocation, hiring and firing of teachers and other school staff, curriculum development, textbook and other educational material procurement, infrastructure improvement, setting the school calendar to better meet the specific needs of the local community, and monitoring and evaluation of teacher performance and student learning outcomes. SBM also includes school-development plans, school grants, and sometimes information dissemination of educational results (otherwise known as ‘report cards’).

Starting in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, SBM programs have been implemented and are currently being developed in a number of countries, including Hong Kong (China). The majority of the SBM projects in the current World Bank portfolio are in Latin American and South Asian countries, including Argentina, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Mexico, and Sri Lanka. There are also two Bank-supported SBM projects in Europe and Central Asia (in FYR Macedonia and in Serbia and Montenegro), and one each in East Asia and the Pacific (the Philippines), the Middle East and North Africa (Lebanon), and Sub-Saharan Africa (Lesotho). Other projects and programs have been introduced more recently in Madagascar, the Gambia, and Senegal.

Why is school-based management important?

Advocates of SBM assert that it should improve educational outcomes for a number of reasons. First, it improves accountability of principals and teachers to students, parents and teachers. Accountability mechanisms that put people at the center of service provision can go a long way in making services work and improving outcomes by facilitating participation in service delivery, as noted in the World Bank’s 2004 World Development Report, Making Services Work for Poor People. Second, it allows local decision-makers to determine the appropriate mix of inputs and education policies adapted to local realities and needs.

Impact of school-based management

Evaluations of SBM programs offer mixed evidence of impacts. Nicaragua’s Autonomous School Program gives school-site councils – comprised of teachers, students and a voting majority of parents – authority to determine how 100 percent of school resources are allocated and authority to hire and fire principals, a privilege that few other school councils in Latin America enjoy. Two evaluations found that the number of decisions made at the school level contributed to better test scores (King and Ozler 1998; Ozler 2001). Mexico’s compensatory education program provides extra resources to disadvantaged rural primary schools and all indigenous schools, thus increasing the supply of education. However, the compensatory package has several components. If one breaks the intervention up in its multiple components, then it is shown that empowering parent associations seems to have a substantial effect in improving educational outcomes, even when controlling for the presence of beneficiaries of Mexico’s large and successful conditional cash transfer program (Oportunidades, formerly Progressa). This is strong evidence of the positive effects of decentralizing education to the lower levels (Gertler, Patrinos and Rubio forthcoming). Various evaluations of SBM programs in the United States have found evidence of decreased dropout and student suspension rates but no impact on test scores.

References:

King, E. and B. Ozler. 1998. “What’s Decentralization Got to do with Learning? The Case of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform.” Working Paper on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Ozler, B. 2001. “Decentralization and Student Achievement: The Case of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform.” Working Paper on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank. 

Gertler, P., H.A. Patrinos and M. Rubio-Codina. Forthcoming. “Do Supply-Side-Oriented and Demand-Side-Oriented Education Programs Generate Synergies? The Case of CONAFE Compensatory Program” OPORTUNIDADES Scholarships in Rural Mexico.

[+/-] Selengkapnya...

[+/-] Ringkasan saja...

Teaching Mathematics Using Cooperative Learning

Below is an example of using cooperative learning to teach a math lesson based on the three major components of cooperative learning: "lesson preparation," "lesson instruction," and "lesson evaluation." In this example, five students with LD attend a third grade general education classroom for most of the school day and receive special education resource remedial assistance for mathematics skills. The cooperative learning activity in this example is taking place in the general education setting where the general and special education teachers plan and teach cooperative learning math activities collaboratively twice a week.

Lesson preparation

During "preparation" the cooperative learning math activity is designed; a description of "preparation" activities follows.

Establish objectives. In this example, the instructional objective for mathematics is: "Students will solve two-step story problems containing extraneous information with 90% accuracy." The collaborative objective is: "Students will encourage and support teammates and share materials when requested." The objectives are based on (a) school district special education curriculum guides, (b) students' Individualized Education Program goals for mathematics and social skills, (c) curriculum-based assessment of whole number computation, and (d) observations of group behaviors and interactions.

Structure the activity. In whole group instruction, the instructional objective will be addressed by reviewing with all students the steps of a story problem-solving strategy that was learned the previous week. Students will recite the strategy's steps using cue cards. Using the strategy, two story problems will be solved by the teachers who will recite the steps and verbalize their thinking processes as they work through the problems. Then, students will solve two story problems with the teachers. Next, students will review cooperative learning role responsibilities and explain ways to encourage and support each other. Rules about sharing also will be reviewed.

In the cooperative learning group, "numbered heads" will be used as the activity structure. Students will use their strategy cue cards to solve four story problems. Teachers will facilitate group work and interactions. Time will be allowed for group processing and students (when called on by group and number) will explain how their group solved a particular story problem.

Promote the elements of cooperative learning. Student roles will be assigned and bonus points will be distributed intermittently based on each group's demonstration of encouraging and supportive behavior. One strategy cue card will be distributed to each group, thus necessitating sharing of the card. A posttest will be individually administered containing four story problems to determine if students can solve the story problems independently using their cue cards. The reading level of the story problems will be controlled for different ability levels in the classroom.

Identify the roles and groups. Each group will include a timekeeper to monitor the time and keep the group on task, a materials person to manage the cue card, a writer to record the group's problem-solving responses and answers, and a spokesperson to lead the group during group processing time and to share the group's results with the teacher. The groups will consist of four students; only one student with LD will be a member of each group.

Table 2. Questions for Evaluating Mathematical Abilities in Cooperative Learning Groups

1.  Language/Vocabulary      -  Are students using new vocabulary words properly?      -  Do students possess prerequisite vocabulary?      -  Can students provide explanations in their own words for cooperative learning math activities, such as solving word problems and algorithms?

2.  Rules      -  Can Students explain to each other the rules that were taught during direct instruction, which must be applied in the cooperative learning activity?      -  Can students apply the rules to the cooperative learning math activity or do they require teacher assistance?      -  Can students use manipulatives to demonstrate rules?

3.  Strategies and Algorithms      -  Have students learned the strategies and algorithms?      -  Can students explain the strategies and algorithms to each other?      -  Do students require visual cures for remembering the strategies an algorithms?      -  Can students apply strategies and algorithms to a variety of problems?      -  Do students require teacher prompting and questions to help remember the strategies and algorithms?

4.  Connections      -  Can students explain how the new information relates to previously mastered math skills and concepts?      -  How do students explain the relevance of learning new math skills and concepts to everyday life?      -  How do students apply the new knowledge to activities that involve other disciplines (e.g., science, social studies)?      -  Can students depict math information using visuals, graphics, manipulatives, and abstract symbols?      -  Can students make connections between concrete-semi-concrete-abstract representations?

Lesson instruction

Implementation of the math lesson, in this example, requires direct instruction followed by the cooperative learning activity. The instructional steps are described below.

Provide an advance organizer. Explain the purpose of the lesson and the instructional and collaborative objectives. Describe the lesson's activities and the teachers' roles in the lesson. Remind students that they worked on a story problem-solving strategy last week and ask for a definition of a strategy.

Present the lesson. Have students refer to their strategy cue cards and repeat the strategy steps. Ask individual students to recite the steps, then ask students to repeat the steps without referring to the cue card, if possible. Next, model solving a story problem using the strategy cue card and verbalizing the steps. Have students imitate this process solving another problem at their desks. Ask for answers and explanations of how the problem was solved.

Explain the cooperative learning activity, using the "numbered heads" structure. Remind students that they can use a cue card to solve their four story problems. Review students' roles and responsibilities and ask for explanations of how students encourage and support one another. Provide directions for transitioning into cooperative learning groups, set a time, distribute materials, and review the task. Once students are in groups, serve as a facilitator by guiding students with questions (e.g., "What are the steps in the strategy?" "What do you do first?" "How do you determine extraneous information?") or providing further instruction if necessary. Reinforce groups for demonstrating appropriate collaborative behaviors. Provide time for group processing, and call on students by number and group to provide answers to the story problems.

Lesson evaluation

Evaluating the students' mastery of the instructional and collaborative objectives is critical. As mentioned earlier in this article, there are three types of evaluation. In this example, the first evaluation can be done during the cooperative learning activity: note evaluative comments that may assist in planning additional lessons or document individual student difficulty. For instance, evaluation questions like those in Table 1 can be used to determine mastery or potential trouble spots solving story problems. The second evaluation is individual and can be done following the group activity by administering a posttest. This can help teachers determine students' ability to solve story problems on their own and to apply the strategy. Finally, have students evaluate themselves during group processing to determine their abilities with the designated collaborative skills. This evaluation should be shared with the teacher to be sure that teacher and student perceptions of abilities match.

References:

http://www.ldonline.org/article/5932/

[+/-] Selengkapnya...

[+/-] Ringkasan saja...