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.




No comments:
Post a Comment
Give Your Comment Please!