What is school based management

What Is School-Based
Management?

What Is School-Based
Management?
November 2007

Education
Human Development Network

THE WORLD BANK
Washington, DC

© 2008 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
1818 H Street NW
Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000
Internet: www.worldbank.org
E-mail: feedback@worldbank.org

All rights reserved

1 2 3 4 5 10 09 08 07

This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. The
findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors
of The World Bank or the governments they represent.
The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations,
and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of The World Bank concerning
the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and Permissions
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission
may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages
dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the
Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470;
Internet: www.copyright.com.
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The
World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.

Cover photos, left to right: World Bank/Alfredo Srur, World Bank/Eric Miller, World Bank/Cart Carnemark

Contents

Preface vii
Acknowledgments ix

Introduction 1
School-Based Management Deﬁned 2
The Theory behind School-Based Management 4
A Few Caveats 4
A Typology of School-Based Management 5
Toward a Conceptual Framework for Analyzing School-Based Management 12
How School-Based Management Can Increase Participation and
Improve School Outcomes 15
Conclusions 16
References 18

Box
1 The Modest Entitivity of School-Based Management 6

Figures
1 Classiﬁcation of School-Based Management Reforms Implemented in Various Countries 7
2 The Autonomy-Participation Nexus 9
3A The Accountability Framework in the World Development Report 2004 14
3B The Accountability Framework in School-Based Management 14

Tables
1 School-Based Management in World Bank–Financed Education Projects
(Fiscal years 2000–2006) 2
2 Various Functions for which Responsibility Is Devolved in Select Countries 3
3 Selective List of Countries with School-Based Management Reforms 10

v

Preface

School-based management (SBM) has become a very popular movement over the past
decade. Our SBM work program emerged out of a need to define the concept more clearly,
review the evidence, support impact assessments in various countries, and provide some
initial feedback to teams preparing education projects. During first phase of the SBM work
program, the team undertook a detailed stocktaking of the existing literature on SBM. At
the same time we identified several examples of SBM reforms that we are now supporting
through ongoing impact assessments. An online toolkit providing some general principles
that can broadly be applied to the implementation of SBM reforms has been developed and
can be accessed on http://www.worldbank.org/education/economicsed.

See companion piece: What Do We Know About School-Based Management?

vii

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by a team consisting of Harry Anthony Patrinos (Task Team
Leader), Tazeen Fasih, Felipe Barrera, Vicente A. Garcia-Moreno, Raja Bentaouet-Kattan,
Shaista Baksh, and Inosha Wickramasekera. Signiﬁcant contributions were received from
Thomas Cook, Carmen Ana Deseda, Paul Gertler, Marta Rubio-Codina, Anna Maria
Sant’Anna, and Lucrecia Santibañez. Fiona Mackintosh provided excellent editing of the
content and Victoriano Arias formatted the document. The team received very useful
feedback from Ruth Kagia and Robin Horn.
The peer reviewers for this task were Luis Benveniste and Shantayanan Devarajan.
Excellent comments were received for an informal, virtual review from Erik Bloom.
During the authors’ workshop, held on March 6–7, 2007, excellent seminars were delivered
by Lorenzo-Gomez Morin (formerly Under-Secretary of Basic Education, Mexico) and
Thomas Cook (Professor, Northwestern University). The team received excellent feedback
from all participants, including Amit Dar, Shantayanan Devarajan, Ariel Fiszbein, Robin
Horn, Dingyong Hou, Emmanuel Jimenez, Ruth Kagia, Elizabeth King, Maureen Lewis,
Mamta Murthi, Michelle Riboud, Halsey Rogers, Leopold Sarr, Raisa Venalainen, and
Christel Vermeersch.
Thoughtful comments were received at the concept paper stage from the peer reviewers
as well as from Erik Bloom, Bong Gun Chung, Emanuela di Gropello, Ariel Fiszbein, April
Harding, Elizabeth King, Heather Layton, Benoit Millot, Michael Mills, Kouassi Soman,
Emiliana Vegas, and Raisa Venalainen. During an Education Sector Board meeting, the team
received useful comments from Martha Ainsworth, Regina Bendokat, Michelle Riboud,
and Jee-Peng Tan. The report was discussed during a decision meeting chaired by Nicholas
Krafft (Director, Network Operations, Human Development Network) in June 2007.
Written comments were received from Helen Abadzi, Regina Bendokat, Luis Benveniste,
Barbara Bruns and Shantayanan Devarajan.

ix

Introduction SBM is that decentralizing decision-making
Despite the clear commitment of govern- authority to parents and communities fosters
ments and international agencies to the demand and ensures that schools provide
education sector, efficient and equitable the social and economic benefits that best
access to education is still proving to be reflect the priorities and values of those local
elusive for many people around the world. communities (Lewis, 2006; and Leithwood
Girls, indigenous peoples, and other poor and Menzies, 1998). Education reforms in
and marginalized groups often have only Organisation for Economic Co-operation
limited access to education. These access and Development (OECD) countries tend to
issues are being addressed with great com- share some common characteristics of this
mitment in international initiatives, such kind, including increased school autonomy,
as Education for All, in which resources are greater responsiveness to local needs, and
being channeled to low-income countries the overall objective of improving students’
to help them to achieve the Millennium academic performance (OECD, 2004). Most
Development Goals (MDGs) for educa- countries whose students perform well in
tion. However, even where children do have international student achievement tests give
access to educational facilities, the quality local authorities and schools substantial
of education that is provided is often very autonomy to decide the content of their cur-
poor. This has become increasingly appar- riculum and the allocation and management
ent in international learning tests such as of their resources.
Trends in International Mathematics and An increasing number of developing
Science Study (TIMSS), Progress in Inter- countries are introducing SBM reforms
national Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), aimed at empowering principals and teach-
and Programme for International Student ers or at strengthening their professional
Assessment (PISA), in which most of the motivation, thereby enhancing their sense
students from developing countries fail to of ownership of the school. Many of these
excel. There is evidence that merely increas- reforms have also strengthened parental
ing resource allocations will not increase involvement in the schools, sometimes by
the equity or improve the quality of educa- means of school councils. Almost 11 percent
tion in the absence of institutional reforms of all projects in the World Bank’s education
(Hanushek and Woessmann, 2007). portfolio for fiscal years 2000–06 supported
Governments around the world are intro- school-based management, a total of 17
ducing a range of strategies aimed at improv- among about 157 projects (see Table 1). This
ing the financing and delivery of education represents $1.74 billion or 23 percent of the
services, with a more recent emphasis on Bank’s total education financing.
improving quality as well as increasing The majority of SBM projects in the Bank’s
quantity (enrollments) in education. One current portfolio are in Latin American and
such strategy is to decentralize education South Asian countries, including Argentina,
decision-making by increasing parental and Bangladesh, Guatemala, Honduras, India,
community involvement in schools—which Mexico, and Sri Lanka. In addition, a number
is popularly known as school-based man- of current and upcoming projects in the
agement (SBM). The argument in favor of Africa region have a component focused on

1

2 WHAT IS SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT?

Table 1 School-Based Management in World Bank–Financed Education Projects of increasing the access of the poor to better
(Fiscal years 2000–2006) quality education, it is by no means sufficient.
The SBM approach aims to improve service
Total SBM %
delivery to the poor by increasing their choice
Education projects (number)
157 17 10.8
and participation in service delivery, by
giving citizens a voice in school management
Education lending ($billion)
7.6 1.7 22.9 by making information widely available, and
by strengthening the incentives for schools to
deliver effective services to the poor and by
strengthening school-level committees and penalizing those who fail to deliver.
SBM. There are also two Bank-supported
SBM projects in Europe and Central Asia
(in the former Yugoslav Republic of Mace- School-Based Management
donia and in Serbia and Montenegro) and Defined
one each in East Asia and the Pacific (the SBM is the decentralization of authority
Philippines), and in the Middle East and from the central government to the school
North Africa (Lebanon). level (Caldwell, 2005). In the words of Malen
The few well-documented cases of SBM et al. (1990), “School-based management
implementation that have been subject to can be viewed conceptually as a formal alter-
rigorous impact evaluations have already ation of governance structures, as a form of
been reviewed elsewhere (World Bank, decentralization that identifies the individ-
2007a). In this paper, we focus on the con- ual school as the primary unit of improve-
cept of SBM and its different forms and ment and relies on the redistribution of
dimensions and present a conceptual frame- decision-making authority as the primary
work for understanding it. We define SBM means through which improvement might
broadly to include community-based man- be stimulated and sustained.”
agement and parental participation schemes Thus, in SBM, responsibility for, and
but do not explicitly include stand-alone, or decision-making authority over, school
one-off, school grants programs that are not operations is transferred to principals,
meant to be permanent alterations in school teachers, and parents, and sometimes to
management. students and other school community mem-
SBM programs lie along a continuum bers. However, these school-level actors have
in terms of the degree to which decision- to conform to or operate within a set of
making is devolved to the local level. Some policies determined by the central govern-
devolve only a single area of autonomy, ment. SBM programs exist in many different
whereas others go further and devolve the forms, both in terms of who has the power
power to hire and fire teachers and author- to make decisions and in terms of the degree
ity over substantial resources, while at the of decision-making that is devolved to the
far end of the spectrum there are those school level. While some programs transfer
that encourage the private and community authority only to principals or teachers,
management of schools as well as allow par- others encourage or mandate parental and
ents to create schools. Thus, there are both community participation, often as members
strong and weak versions of SBM based on of school committees (or school councils
how much decision-making power has been or school management committees). In
transferred to the school. general, SBM programs transfer authority
The World Bank’s World Develop- over one or more of the following activities:
ment Report 2004 (WDR 2004) presented budget allocation, the hiring and firing of
a conceptual framework for SBM (World teachers and other school staff, curriculum
Bank, 2003a). The WDR argues that school development, the procurement of textbooks
autonomy and accountability can help to and other educational material, infrastruc-
solve some fundamental problems in edu- ture improvements, and the monitoring
cation. While increasing resource flows and and evaluation of teacher performance and
support to the education sector is one aspect student learning outcomes (see Table 2).

Table 2 Various Functions for which Responsibility Is Devolved in Select Countries
Florida
EDUCO, PRONADE, PROHECO, ASP, PEC, AGES, (Monroe New York DSSP, COGES, FPESP,
Council Functions El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Mexico Mexico Brazil Chicago County) (Rochester) Australia New Zealand Mozambique Niger Kenya
Personnel Management
Paying staff salaries * * * * * *
Establishing incentives * * *
for teaching staff
Hiring/ﬁring teaching * * * * * * * * * *
staff (some)
Hiring/ﬁring * * * *
administrative staff (some)

Supervising and * * * * * *
evaluating teachers
Funding teacher * *
training
Pedagogy
Setting classroom * *
hours by subject
Selecting some * * * * * *
textbooks/curriculum
Method of instruction * * *
School calendar * *
Maintenance and Infrastructure
Building/maintaining * * * * * * * *
school
Buying school material * * * * * * * * * *
Budget
Budget oversight * * * * * * * * *
Budget allocation * * * * * * *
Establishing school fee * *
Monitoring and Evaluation
Administrative * * * *
activities
Pedagogical decisions * * *
WHAT IS SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT?

Note: Adapted from di Gropello (2006).
Source: Authors’ compilation from relevant literature.
3


The Theory behind School-Based the central government always plays some
Management role in education, and the precise definition
of this role affects how SBM activities are
Good education is not only about physical
conceived and implemented.
inputs, such as classrooms, teachers, and
SBM in almost all of its manifestations
textbooks, but also about incentives that lead
involves community members in school
to better instruction and learning. Educa-
decision-making. Because these community
tion systems are extremely demanding of the
members are usually parents of children
managerial, technical, and financial capac-
enrolled in the school, they have an incen-
ity of governments, and, thus, as a service,
tive to improve their children’s education.
education is too complex to be efficiently
As a result, SBM can be expected to improve
produced and distributed in a centralized
student achievement and other outcomes
fashion (King and Cordeiro-Guerra, 2005;
as these local people demand closer moni-
and Montreal Economic Institute, 2007).
toring of school personnel, better student
Hanushek and Woessmann (2007) suggest
evaluations, a closer match between the
that most of the incentives that affect learn-
school’s needs and its policies, and a more
ing outcomes are institutional in nature, and
efficient use of resources. For instance,
they identify three in particular: (i) choice
although the evidence is mixed, in a num-
and competition; (ii) school autonomy; and
ber of diverse countries, such as Papua New
(iii) school accountability. The idea behind
Guinea, India, and Nicaragua, parental
choice and competition is that parents who
participation in school management has
are interested in maximizing their children’s
reduced teacher absenteeism (for a detailed
learning outcomes are able to choose to
discussion see Patrinos and Kagia, 2007; and
send their children to the most productive
Karim et al., 2004).
(in terms of academic results) school that
SBM has several other benefits. Under
they can find. This demand-side pressure on
these arrangements, schools are managed
schools will thus improve the performance
more transparently, thus reducing opportu-
of all schools if they want to compete for
nities for corruption. Also, SBM often gives
students. Similarly, local decision-making
parents and stakeholders opportunities to
and fiscal decentralization can have posi-
increase their skills. In some cases, training
tive effects on school outcomes such as test
in shared decision-making, interpersonal
scores or graduation rates by holding the
skills, and management skills is offered to
schools accountable for the “outputs” that
school council members so that they can
they produce. The World Development
become more capable participants in the
Report 2004, Making Services Work for Poor
SBM process (Briggs and Wohlstetter, 1999)
People, presents a very similar framework, in
and at the same time benefit the commu-
that it suggests that good quality and timely
nity as a whole.
service provision can be ensured if service
providers can be held accountable to their
clients (World Bank, 2003a). In the case of A Few Caveats
the education sector, this would mean stu- Notwithstanding the basic theory of SBM,
dents and their parents. no theorist disputes the interdependence of
In the context of developed countries, governments, school administration, teacher
the core idea behind SBM is that those classroom behavior, and, in most cases,
who work in a school building should have parental attitudes. So by definition, putting
greater control of the management of what SBM into practice involves ensuring that
goes on in the building. In developing coun- all of these actors work together in a system
tries, the idea behind SBM is less ambitious, of mutual dependence. However, devolv-
in that it focuses mainly on involving com- ing power to the school level means that
munity and parents in the school decision- some groups outside of the school, such as
making process rather than putting them district or local education offices, are likely
entirely in control. However, in both cases, to lose some of their power, thus changing

WHAT IS SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT? 5

the power dynamics within each school. For By making the school the centerpiece of
instance, this might mean that teachers have educational policy change, SBM does not
to surrender some control over how they assume that the roles played by either the
run their classrooms or that local education government or by individual teachers will be
offices lose control over funds and, hence, negligible. Public schools will always exist in
the power that comes with that. Thus, des- some larger policy and administrative con-
cribing SBM in terms of the transfer of text that affects their operations. The key is
powers will inevitably make it difficult to to identify exactly what the government’s
implement because, while some stakeholders role in decision-making should be.
will gain, others will lose. This can be exac-
erbated by the fact that the powers that are A Typology of School-Based
most commonly devolved to the school level
Management
are those that matter most to schools, such
SBM has been introduced in countries as
as its administration (budgets and person-
nel), its pedagogy (curriculum and teaching diverse as New Zealand, the United States,
practices), and its external relations (with the United Kingdom, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
governments and the local community). As Guatemala, the Netherlands, Hong Kong
more decision-making reverts to school staff, (SAR), Thailand, and Israel. However, these
parents, and local community members, it is SBM reforms have been far from uniform
central and local government officials who and have encompassed a wide variety of dif-
are most likely to lose the authority that ferent approaches. As the definition of SBM
comes with making budgetary decisions and reflects, it is a form of decentralization that
with hiring and firing personnel, and many makes the school the centerpiece of educa-
are likely to resent the loss. For instance, in tional improvement and relies on the redis-
Chicago, decision-making authority over tribution of responsibilities as the primary
school management was transferred to local way to bring about these improvements.
school councils consisting of the principals, This definition leaves plenty of room for
teacher representatives, parents, and local interpretation, and the reality is that there
community members (Cook et al., 2000; are now many different kinds of SBM being
implemented. SBM reforms are shaped by
and Abu-Duhou, 1999). In some cases, local
the reformers’ objectives and by broader
community members took over one or more
national policy and social contexts.
school councils and then proceeded to use
SBM approaches differ in two main
them for their own political ends (such as
ways: the “who,” that is, to whom the
increasing community control over city
“decision-making authority” is devolved,
resources and their say in non-educational
and the “what,” that is, the degree of auton-
matters) rather than for the education of chil-
omy that is devolved. This is what we call the
dren. As a result, the mayor ended the SBM
autonomy-participation nexus. The various
experiment by reclaiming authority and
combinations of these two dimensions make
budgets and thus essentially making the local
almost every SBM reform unique. The South-
school councils redundant (Cook, 2007).
west Educational Development Laboratory
Also, SBM often requires teachers to play
(http://www.sedl.org) in the United States has
greater roles in the governance and manage-
an inventory of more than 800 SBM models
ment of the schools where they teach. While
(Rowan et al., 2004), and about 29 of them
this enlarges the scope of their job, it also
have been evaluated at least once (Borman
requires more time and energy from them
et al., 2003). Cook (2007) explains SBM as a
and can sometimes limit their traditional
construct of modest entitivity, in other words,
freedom to do whatever they want inside the
a model that cannot have a unique form in
classroom. Not all teachers appreciate having
all of the places in which it is implemented
to take on additional managerial roles and
(see Box 1), which means that SBM reforms
responsibilities, even when these changes
around the world are inevitably different from
are marginal (Cook, 2007; Wylie, 1996; and
each other. In the discussion that follows,
Whitty et al., 1998).


BOX 1. The Modest Entitivity of School-Based Management
In 1999, the United States Congress passed a Comprehensive School Reform Act, which outlined the 11
components of an autonomous local school. However, nobody argues that all of these 11 components
must be in place for a school to be considered as having adopted either comprehensive school reform
(CSR) or school-based management (SBM). Nor has anyone specified a minimum or core number of
attributes needed for a school to qualify for either label. However, it is obvious that as more of these
components are included in an SBM plan, the more radical will be the organizational change being
adopted. The reality in the U.S. is that, to varying degrees, schools can and do pick and choose among
these components. Depending on the school, one component can either be central or peripheral to
their school’s strategic plan, and it may be put into practice as its inventor intended, or be adapted in
ways that the inventor may not recognize or like. Given all of the possible combinations of these com-
ponents, it is clear that there are thousands of different ways to put together an SBM plan, and how this
is done can have important consequences for the school and for the reform as a whole.
A school may choose to make fundamental changes to all of its administrative, pedagogical, and
external relations functions or to change just a few of them. The key decision-making authority may stay
with the principal, or be shared with teachers, or shared with teachers, parents, and other community
representatives. The new decision-makers might choose as their major goal to modify the curriculum,
or to improve students’ social behavior, or improve students’ academic performance, or reduce teacher
turnover, or all the above. Performance monitoring may be central, peripheral, or nonexistent; and if it
exists, it may require quantitative data or just informal feedback. Parents may be asked to perform many
school roles or be involved only tangentially, and many parents may be involved or just a few.
The point is not just that each of the 11 components can each be made operational in multiple
ways but also that each component can be combined in literally thousands of ways across all of the
variants of all of the other components. The net result is that, whatever the achieved theoretical con-
sensus about SBM, it still has modest entitivity at the school level. It is not devoid of all entitivity since
the core concept can always be indexed as the degree to which change occurs in the locus of decision-
making favoring the whole-school level. However, the context in which SBM is put into practice is so
variable that one school’s SBM is unlikely to look like another’s.

Source: Cook 2007.

we explore the main forms taken by SBM, but which schools have only limited autonomy,
this is by no means an exhaustive typology. usually over areas related to instructional
methods or planning for school improve-
ment, as in the quality schools program in
The Autonomy Continuum Mexico (the Programa Escuelas de Calidad
The SBM programs lie along a continuum or PEC) (Skoufias and Shapiro, 2006; and
of the degree to which decision-making is Karim et al., 2004). When school councils
devolved to the local level—from limited start serving an advisory role, such as in
autonomy, to more ambitious programs Prince William County in Virginia (Drury
that allow schools to hire and fire teachers, and Levin, 1994) or in Edmonton, Canada
to programs that give schools control over (Wohlstetter and Mohrman, 1996; and
substantial resources, to those that promote Abu-Duhou, 1999), this can be classified
private and community management of as a “moderate” reform. As these councils
schools and those that may eventually allow become more autonomous—receiving
parents to create their own schools. Figure 1 funds directly from the central or other
depicts this continuum and presents some of relevant level of government (for example,
the countries that have implemented SBM lump-sum funding or grants) and hiring
reforms across this continuum of “weak” to and firing teachers and principals and set-
“strong” reforms. It should be noted, how- ting curricula—this is a much stronger type
ever, that we do not use the terms “weak” of SBM reform. Schools like these can be
and “strong” to classify any SBM system found in El Salvador (di Gropello, 2006)
as better as, or worse than, any other but and New Zealand (Wylie, 1996). At the end
simply to define the degree of autonomy of the continuum are local public educa-
awarded to the school level. For instance, tion systems in which parents have com-
we define “weak” SBM reforms as those in plete choice and control over all educational

Figure 1 Classiﬁcation of School-Based Management Reforms Implemented in Various Countries

WEAK MODERATE SOMEWHAT STRONG STRONG VERY STRONG/1

system is limited autonomy school councils councils have …and control parental or …and choice
decentralized to states over school affairs have been autonomy to substantial community models, in which
or localities, but mainly for planning established but hire/fire teachers resources (e.g., control of parents or others
individual schools and instruction serve only and principals, and lump-sum schools… can create a school
have no autonomy advisory role set curricula… funding)

Virginia (US)
Argentina Mexico Canada Chicago New UK Netherlands
Chile Czech Rep. Brazil Florida New York Zealand proposal
Thailand Spain El Salvador
Honduras
Nicaragua
Guatemala
Australia
Israel/2 Hong Kong
Cambodia/3

/1 These represent ratings in the continuum of autonomy and authority vested in schools by the various types of SBM reforms.
/2 Israeli schools have autonomy over their budgets. Locally controlled school budgets represent a small fraction of total public expenditures, because most expenditures are
controlled and made by the central government. There are no school councils or parent associations with any decision-making authority.
/3 Cambodian schools in the EQIP program receive cash grants and include parents and school staff in decision-making, but school councils have not been formally established.

WHAT IS SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT?
7


decisions, where schools are stand-alone units, Balanced Control SBM balances decision-
and where all decisions concerning schools’ making authority between parents and teach-
operational, financial, and educational man- ers, who are the two main stakeholders in
agement are made by the school councils any school. Its aims are to take advantage of
or school administrators. In these cases, teachers’ detailed knowledge of the school to
parents or any other community members improve school management and to make
can even establish fully autonomous pub- schools more accountable to parents.
licly funded private schools, as in Denmark The administrative control model can
and the Netherlands, and, in a few cases, never exist in its pure form since principals
fully autonomous public (charter) schools, can never operate on their own in practice.
as in some U.S. states (Abu-Duhou, 1999) Principals need other people to work for
and in the United Kingdom. It is interesting them and to help them to make decisions
to note that, to some extent, parents have a for the school. Existing models of SBM
similar degree of autonomy and choice in around the world are generally a blend of
both private schools and in publicly funded, the four models described above. In most
fully autonomous schools. cases, power is devolved to a formal legal
entity in the form of a school council or
school management committee, which
The Autonomy-Participation Nexus consists of teachers as well as the principal.
The other dimension is who gets the In nearly all versions of SBM, community
decision-making power when it is devolved representatives also serve on the committee
to the school level. In a simple world, the or group. As a result, school personnel can
following four models would be sufficient to get to know the local people to whom they
define who is invested with decision-making are ultimately accountable, and are thus
power in any SBM reform (Leithwood and more likely to take local needs and wishes
Menzies, 1998): administrative control; pro- into account when making decisions in the
fessional control; community control; and knowledge that local residents can monitor
balanced control. what the school professionals are doing to
Administrative Control SBM devolves bring about change. Although community
authority to the school principal. This involvement can improve program plan-
model aims to make each school more ning and implementation in these ways,
accountable to the central district or board occasionally school personnel involve com-
office. The benefits of this kind of SBM munity members only superficially in a way
include increasing the efficiency of expen- that does not complicate the lives of prin-
ditures on personnel and curriculum and cipals and teachers (World Bank, 2007b;
making one person at each school more and Cook, 2007). Parents and community
accountable to the central authority. members have roles to play in SBM, but
Professional Control SBM devolves the these roles are not universally clear and
main decision-making authority to teach- not always central. However, in some cases,
ers. This model aims to make better use the legal entity that has the main author-
of teachers’ knowledge of what the school ity to implement SBM is a parents’ council,
needs at the classroom level. Full partici- though they cannot operate successfully
pation in the decision-making process can without the support of teachers and the
also motivate teachers to perform better principal.
and can lead to greater efficiency and effec- The autonomy-participation nexus defines
tiveness in teaching. the essence of an SBM reform. Figure 2 uses a
Community Control SBM devolves the few of the more popular SBM reforms around
main decision-making authority to parents the world to illustrate this nexus.
or the community. Under this model, teach- The AGES program in Mexico gives mini-
ers and principals are assumed to become mal autonomy to school councils, which
more responsive to parents’ needs. Another are run mainly by parents (Gertler et al.,
benefit is that the curriculum can reflect 2006). Thus, in Figure 2, it lies close to the
local needs and preferences. X axis, that is, with little autonomy given to


parents. On the other hand, New Zealand Figure 2 The Autonomy-Participation Nexus
can be seen as being highly autonomous,
with most of the decision-making power
lying with parents (Wylie, 1996). Another Netherlands
New Zealand
extreme is the Netherlands, which in 1985 Chicago,
devolved decision-making power to school USA
principals to make schools more efficient.
At the same time, parents in the Netherlands Guatemala
can mandate the creation of a new school to
meet their own specific cultural and religious
El Salvador
needs. The city of Chicago in the United

Autonomy
States is a good example of a school system
in which combinations of community mem-
bers, teachers, and principals have been given
a high level of autonomy (Cook et al., 2000).
Mozambique

The Autonomy-Participation-
Accountability Nexus Mexico
PEC
There is another link to the autonomy-
Mexico
participation chain—accountability. In AGES
a number of countries, one of the main
objectives of introducing SBM is to make
schools more accountable and their man- principal teacher community/ combination
agement more transparent. Anderson (2005) parents
has suggested that there are three types Participation
of accountability in SBM. Those who
run schools must be: (i) accountable for
adhering to rules and accountable to the
education authorities; (ii) accountable for the school councils are accountable both to
adhering to standards and accountable to their central education authorities (vertical
their peers; and (iii) accountable for stu- accountability) and to the school commu-
dent learning and accountable to the gen- nity and donors (horizontal accountability).
eral public. SBM programs both strengthen If expanded, this program has the potential
and simplify these types of accountability to reduce petty corruption, as documented
by empowering those at the school level to in Transparency International (2005) and
make decisions collectively, thus increas- Patrinos and Kagia (2007). As can be seen in
ing the transparency of the process. Con- Table 3, a number of countries introduced
sequently, students’ learning achievement SBM with the explicit goal of increasing
and other outcomes are expected to improve accountability and increasing community
as stakeholders at the school level can moni- and parental participation in the decision-
tor school personnel, improve student making process. The accountability aspect
evaluations, ensure a closer match between of SBM reforms has also been highlighted
school needs and policies, and use resources in the WDR 2004 (World Bank, 2003a) as
more efficiently. a way to strengthen accountability rela-
By increasing transparency, SBM can tionships between the clients (parents and
also reduce corruption. For instance, the students) and the service providers (teach-
limited autonomy form of SBM in the PEC ers, principals, and the government).
program in Mexico is credited with increas- Thus, by its very nature, SBM has the
ing accountability and transparency as well potential to hold school-level decision-
as with preventing and limiting corrupt makers accountable for their actions. How-
practices in the management of educational ever, in many places, it may be necessary to
funds (Karim et al., 2004). This is so because build the capacity of community members,


teachers, and principals to create or augment list in Table 3 is not an exhaustive one since
a culture of accountability. a large number of countries are experiment-
ing with SBM at a project level, often with
the World Bank’s support. In addition to
School-Based Management Reforms those mentioned in the table, there are SBM
around the World projects in Lesotho, Pakistan, Kenya, Para-
As can be seen in Table 3, a wide range of guay, Serbia and Montenegro, and the for-
countries have experimented with or intro- mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The
duced SBM reforms. The impetus behind companion publication What Do We Know
most of these reforms has been political, About School-Based Management (World
financial, or a reaction to a natural disas- Bank 2007a) focuses on a subset of countries
ter or civil conflict rather than educational. in Table 3 that have conducted some type of
However, in all cases, the aim has also been impact evaluation and discussed the find-
to address difficult management issues. The ings of these evaluations about the impact

Table 3 Selective List of Countries with School-Based Management Reforms
Country Date First Implemented Objectives/Motivation of Reform Type of SBM*
Australia 1970s Increase efficiency through almost complete autonomy. Strong
Canada 1970s (Edmonton) Increase parental and community participation in education and grant Moderate
1996 (Ontario) schools more autonomy.
United States (Chicago, 1970s and 1980s Most reforms sought to increase efficiency, empower teachers, and Moderate to
Florida, Virginia, New York, involve the community in schools. Some reforms (such as Chicago) made somewhat strong
and others) improving student achievement an explicit objective.
Brazil 1982 Increase efficiency in school management, more democratic and Moderate
meritocratic process for electing school personnel, increase community
and parent participation.
Spain 1985 Democratize education. Somewhat strong
United Kingdom 1988 Give schools financial autonomy, increase school effectiveness. Strong
New Zealand 1990 Increase community autonomy and efficiency. Strong
El Salvador 1991 Increase access in rural areas, encourage community participation, and Strong
improve quality of schooling.
Nicaragua 1991 Increase community participation, obtain financial resources beyond Strong
government funding, and increase efficiency.
Hong Kong 1991 Increase accountability, participatory decision-making, and school Strong
effectiveness.
Netherlands 1992 Empower school principals in order to increase efficiency. Very strong
Czech Republic 1993 Make system more open, flexible, and democratic. Moderate
Guatemala 1996 Increase access, decentralize educational decision-making, increase Strong
community participation, and maintain linguistic diversity.
Mexico (AGES) 1996 Increase parental participation in rural schools. Moderate
Thailand 1997 Improve quality of education and increase the country’s competitiveness. Somewhat strong
Mozambique 1997 Increase access to higher quality education through decentralized Moderate
management and budget allocations.
Israel 1997 Improve public school system, school management, monitoring, and Somewhat strong
assessment.
Cambodia 1998 Improve education. Somewhat strong
Honduras 1999 Increase access in rural areas and encourage community participation. Strong
Mexico (PEC) 2001 Improve educational quality by granting more autonomy to schools. Moderate
* The classification of types of SBM is as follows: Very Strong – Full or almost full control of schools by councils, parents, or school administrators; full choice via possibility of creating
new public schools (i.e., charters). Strong – High degree of autonomy given to school councils over budget, staffing, etc. and control over budgets (i.e., schools receive lump sum funding
or grants). Somewhat strong – Councils have authority to hire and fire teachers and/or principals and set curricula but have more limited autonomy regarding finances and control of
resources. Moderate – School councils have been established but serve mainly an advisory role or have limited autonomy for planning and strategic purposes. Weak – Public school system
is decentralized to the municipal or regional level, but schools have virtually no autonomy to make any administrative or curricular decisions.


of SBM on school outcomes a nd the chal- spread in terms of how it is implemented in
lenges that analysts face given the limited practice, and both SBM and CSR focus on
evidence base. devolving strategic planning to the school
A particular pattern can be seen in the level, involving multiple groups in setting
level of development in those countries the school’s goals, changing teachers’ peda-
where SBM reforms have been introduced. gogic practices, and building stronger rela-
SBM reforms of the strongest type have tions between the school and parents and
been introduced and, to some extent, been the surrounding community. So CSR and
successful (or rather sustainable) in achiev- SBM are close to being synonymous, espe-
ing their goals in developed countries, such cially in practice.
as New Zealand, Australia, and Spain, or In the United States, the popularity of
in countries emerging from conflict situa- the concept of CSR eventually led to Congress
tions, such as El Salvador and Nicaragua, or passing a Comprehensive School Reform
a natural disaster, such as Honduras. Mean- Act in 1999. The Act outlined the 11 com-
while, developing countries, such as Mexico, ponents of a locally autonomous school
Brazil, and Pakistan are experimenting with (Borman et al., 2003; and Cook, 2007):
the weaker forms of SBM. Does this pat-
tern mean that certain community or social 1. Each school must adopt a model of SBM
structures need to be in place to support
that is known to be successful or has the
strong SBM? Only rigorous impact evalu-
promise of being so. This implies that a
ations of SBM reforms in a wide range of
number of empirically tested models of
countries will be able to confirm or reject
SBM already exist and that the major
this claim, but these do not yet exist.
task for a school is to select one from
this list, but this is not the case in most
The United States Model(s) of countries other than the U.S.
School-Based Management 2. Proven methods of teaching, learning,
Cook (2007) suggests that, in the United and management should be used in the
States, the idea of SBM has been discussed schools, whether as part of the adopted
since the 1960s (for a review, see Comer, CSR model or grafted onto it. It is not
1988). However, the idea really took off clear what “proven” means here, but
in the U.S. in the 1990s, prompted by the the reference is nonetheless impor-
Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) tant because the law implies that man-
movement and the legislation to which it agement change is not sufficient for
led. CSR makes three ideas central to the comprehensive school reform but that
reform: (i) school change should be radi- changes in teaching and learning are
cal rather than marginal, thus meriting also needed.
the label “reform” rather than “change”;
3. The methods for teaching, learning, and
(ii) to merit the label “comprehensive,” the
management should be integrated into a
reform should encompass the adminis-
coherent package.
trative, pedagogic, and external relations
aspects of school life; and (iii) the reforms 4. There should be continual professional
should be at the school level rather than development for staff. This component
at the district level or the classroom level. acknowledges that changing the ethos of
CSR has become more common than SBM a school is difficult. Principals and teach-
in educational theory in the U.S., though ers need to be trained to do new things
the two are closely related. The main dif- or to do old things in different ways.
ference is that SBM can be construed nar- 5. Staff should support the SBM initiative.
rowly to concern only specific aspects of One rationale for SBM is that if staff
governance or administration. This is less (or their representatives) have a say in
possible with CSR, which strongly implies deciding on school changes, this will
broad and fundamental change. However, make them more supportive of those
the narrower definition of SBM is not wide- changes.


6. Formal and informal responsibilities United States is that not all reforms can be
should be distributed widely within each fully funded from the public purse.
school. School principals have very dif- Nobody argues that all of these 11 com-
ficult and stressful jobs and are called ponents must be in place for a school to be
upon to make decisions throughout considered as having adopted CSR or SBM.
their working days. One purpose of Nor has anyone specified a minimum or core
SBM is to share decision-making within number of attributes needed to qualify for
the school as well as to shift decision- either label. Nevertheless, it is obvious that
making to the school. as more of these components are included in
7. Parents and the local community should an SBM plan, the more radical the organiza-
be involved in the school. The assump- tional change it will make. However, looking
tions here are that this will make teach- at the impressive list of components in the
ers put the children’s welfare before U.S. model, it is likely to be difficult to rep-
their own; that human, financial, and licate in developing countries. For instance,
material resources will flow into the no developing country has a database of 29
school by virtue of the parental support; kinds of SBM, all of which have been evalu-
and that more children will learn, both ated within their own political and cultural
at home and in the community, that circumstances (Borman et al., 2003). Also,
attending and doing well in school are low-income countries may not be able to
highly valued. afford to train staff to use SBM effectively.
8. There will be external technical support for For instance, in a recent program in the
whatever changes the school is making. Punjab province of Pakistan, the School
Committees component of the program
9. Measurable benchmarks should be used.
did not materialize as quickly or widely as
Central to most kinds of managerial
anticipated. One of the major reasons for
reform is developing interim goals and
this delay was the lack of civil society or non-
determining ways to measure them so
governmental organizations with the ability
that, if necessary, mid-course correc-
to help the school councils to build their
tions can be made.
capacity (World Bank, 2007b). These could
10. Annual evaluations are needed of how be a few of the reasons why developing
SBM is being implemented and of any countries prefer to introduce weaker forms
changes in student performance. These of SBM rather than stronger ones.
evaluations will measure how much
progress is being made toward organi-
zational goals (as SBM is about organi- Toward a Conceptual Framework
zational change). for Analyzing School-Based
11. Mechanisms are needed for finding addi- Management
tional human and financial resources A conceptual framework for SBM can be
from external sources. presented in the terms of the messages in
the WDR 2004 (World Bank, 2003a). The
While most school income is expected to WDR 2004 presented evidence that increas-
come from government and fees, changes to ing school autonomy and accountability
a school’s management goals and structures can help to solve some of the most funda-
will often require additional human and mental problems in education. According
financial resources that governments and par- to this evidence, while increasing resource
ents may not be willing or able to provide. In flows and other support to the educa-
the United States, these extra school resources tion sector is necessary to give the poor
are raised by: (i) parents who volunteer time greater access to quality education, it is by
or donate money to the school; (ii) soliciting no means sufficient. It is also necessary to
local businesses for cash and in-kind services; translate these resources into basic services
(iii) trying to raise funds from other civic that can reach the poor. Schools should be
organizations; and (iv) lobbying the govern- given some autonomy in using their inputs
ment. The assumption behind SBM in the and be held accountable to the users for


using these inputs efﬁciently. The literature short route in which the service providers
that promotes the use of SBM recommends are held directly accountable to the citizens
four tenets for improving service delivery or clients. The clients can improve service
to the poor: (i) increasing their choice and delivery by: (i) using their voice to ensure
participation, (ii) giving citizens a stronger that services are tailored to meet their needs
voice, (iii) making information widely avail- and (ii) by monitoring the providers. In
able, and (iv) strengthening the rewards cases where short route improvements are
for delivering effective services to the poor already being tested and/or where society
and penalizing those who fail to deliver is amenable to long route improvements,
(Barnett, 1996). these should be adopted.
The WDR 2004 framework for analyzing Theoretically, SBM models encompass
the provision of education services deﬁnes all of the four relationships of accountabil-
four aspects of accountability: ity as envisaged in the WDR 2004. Compact
refers to the long route of accountability,
1. Voice – how well citizens can hold politi- whereby the central government delegates
cians and policymakers accountable for responsibility to the line ministries, who in
their performance in discharging their turn delegate it to schools to perform vari-
responsibility for providing education. ous tasks. In this sense, in certain models of
2. Compact – how well and how clearly the SBM, the accountability of school princi-
responsibilities and objectives of public pals is upwards, to the ministry who holds
education policy are communicated. them responsible for providing the services
3. Management – the actions that create to the clients who in turn have put the poli-
effective frontline providers within orga- cymakers in power and thus have the voice
nizations. to hold the policymakers and politicians
accountable for their performance. In most
4. Client power – how well citizens, as cli-
cases of SBM, the management mechanisms
ents, can increase the accountability of
change under SBM reforms—the clients
schools and school systems.
themselves become part of the management
along with the frontline providers. Thus the
In the words of the WDR 2004 (World short route of accountability becomes even
Bank, 2003a), effective solutions are likely shorter as representatives of the clients—
to involve a mixture of voice, choice, direct either parents or community members—
participation, and organizational com- get the authority to make certain decisions
mand and control. The report goes on to for them and have a voice in decisions that
suggest that what successful education directly affect the students who attend the
systems share is a meaningful accountabil- school. The framework is presented in Fig-
ity system. The WDR 2004 framework is ure 3B, where the school managers, whether
presented as a three-cornered relationship they are the principal alone or a committee
between citizens, politicians, and service of parents and teachers, act as the account-
providers (depicted in Figure 3A). The ser- able entity.
vice provision and accountability relation- Thus, SBM can be a way of ensuring
ships between these actors is complex, as accountability and autonomy as envisaged
even within each group of actors there are in the WDR 2004 but with an added group
usually heterogeneous sub-groups, and the of agents, the school managers (in other
incentives and accountability relationships words, the group to whom the autonomy is
that work for one group may be differ- devolved). This group usually consists of a
ent from those that work for other groups. partnership of the various agents who can
When accountability fails, the failure can hold each other accountable to be able to
be tracked either to the long route or to the provide the services according to the needs
short route. Sometimes improving the long of the particular school. The success of this
route is a long-term process and, in some additional group of agents as the repository
situations, may not be doable. In these cases, of devolved authority for running schools
the WDR 2004 suggests strengthening the has yet to be established.


Figure 3A The Accountability Framework in the World Development Report 2004

long route of accountability

the state

politicians policymakers

compact
voice

citizens/clients short route providers

non-poor poor client frontline organization
power

services

Source: World Bank, 2003a.

Figure 3B The Accountability Framework in School-Based Management

long route of accountability

the state

politicians policymakers
compact
voice

citizens/clients providers

non-poor poor frontline organization
management

management
client power

client power

short route
services
school committee

clients providers

Source: Authors.


How School-Based Management instance, in the United States, many schools
Can Increase Participation and are locally controlled in the sense that a
school board of local residents officially sets
Improve School Outcomes
policy, but there may be no parental par-
Unlike in developed countries where SBM ticipation in these schools. In some cases,
is introduced explicitly to improve students’ wealthy individuals in a community may be
academic performance, how school decen- members of a school council simply because
tralization will eventually affect student they financially support the school.
performance in developing countries is less Particularly in developed countries,
clear. This section tries to define the ways in parental participation as members of school
which SBM can increase participation and councils or of the group that is implement-
transparency and improve school outcomes. ing SBM is distinct from community partic-
First, the SBM model must define exactly ipation. However, in developing countries,
which powers are vested in which individu- in particular in isolated small or rural com-
als or committees and how these powers are munities, parental participation tends to be
to be coordinated to make the plan work- synonymous with community participation,
able within both the school culture and since in these small communities almost
the available resources. However, the struc- everybody has a family member in school.
ture of authority needs to remain flexible The expectation underlying SBM is that
enough to enable school managers to deal greater parental involvement will mean that
with any unexpected events, which always schools will be more responsive to local
seem to emerge during implementation. demands (for example, for better teaching
Second, the success of SBM requires the methods or more inputs) and that deci-
support of the various school-level stake- sions will be taken in the interests of chil-
holders, particularly of teachers (Cook, dren rather than adults. A further hope is
2007). Also vital to the success of SBM is that involved parents will become unpaid or
for school principals to support the decen- minimally paid auxiliary staff who will help
tralization reform (De Grauwe, 2005). This teachers in classrooms and with other minor
is not a foregone conclusion, as principals activities (as happens, for instance, in the
will remain personally accountable for the AGES program in Mexico). Furthermore,
performance of their school but will no lon- even if parents are too busy working to help
ger have complete control over its manage- in the classroom, they can still encourage
ment. In effect, they are being asked to give their children to do their homework and to
up some authority without a corresponding show them, in this and other ways, that their
decrease in personal accountability. Once family really values schooling and academic
SBM is in place, principals can no longer achievement. Since parents are networked
blame the policies of the school district in various ways with community leaders,
when things go wrong. the further hope is that parental support for
The support of both local and national SBM will encourage local community lead-
governments is also required. SBM by defini- ers to put schools higher on their political
tion requires these governments to surrender agendas and thus provide the schools with
some power and authority to the school level, more material resources.
but they retain the right and ability to reverse Once the nexus of autonomy-participation
their earlier decision in favor of SBM if they and accountability has been defined and a
feel their power is being usurped. realistic management plan has been drawn
The final and most important source of up that has the support of all stakeholders,
necessary support is from parents and other then it becomes possible to expect better
community members. It is important, how- school outcomes. Thereafter, the hope is
ever, to distinguish between parents and that the school climate will change as the
other community members. While parents stakeholders work together in a collegial
are always part of the community that sur- way to manage the school. However, there
rounds a school, school councils do not is little evidence that this really happens
have to include parents as members. For in practice. Also, the possibility exists that


teachers and principals will come to resent the issue that there may be no culture of
being constantly monitored by parents and accountability within communities, mean-
school council members, which will cause ing that no one would think to question
relations within the school to deteriorate. any actions taken by the group running
At the same time, the teaching climate the school (De Grauwe, 2005). This can
of a school is predicated on, among many be a problem in places where the teacher
other factors, how motivated teachers are to is regarded as the ultimate authority by the
teach well, whether they know how to teach virtue of being the only “highly” qualified
well, how good the various curricula are, individual in a community. Finally, those
how eager pupils are to learn, and how much given the responsibility for managing the
parents actually support their children’s school may not have the capacity to do
learning in whatever ways are practical for so, which points up the need to build the
them. Any school that wants to improve its capacity of education stakeholders at the
academic record will have to work actively grassroots level to ensure that SBM reforms
on some or all of these factors. Sometimes, do not fail in their execution.
the obstacles to improving the quality of These caveats help to strengthen our
instruction are motivational, sometimes understanding of the pattern of SBM in
they are cognitive in the sense of what teach- developing countries (as discussed above). In
ers know, and sometimes they are social in particular, the caveats strengthen the notion
the sense of petty personal matters that can that the specific type of SBM introduced in
prevent teachers from behaving profession- any given country depends (or should ide-
ally. Ideally, under SBM, because those who ally depend) on the political economy of the
run the school are intimately acquainted particular country. For instance, strong SBM
with the individuals who work there, they reforms have been introduced, and have
will be able to identify the specific problems been quite successful, in those countries
that need to be fixed and use their authority where communities have been forced by
to find and implement solutions. some calamity such as war or a natural disas-
Some caveats must be mentioned about ter to come together as a group to find ways
SBM. Decentralization or devolution does to deliver basic services, including education
not necessarily give more power to the (as in the Central American countries).
general public because it is susceptible to
being captured by elites. As for the rela-
tionship between decentralization, pro- Conclusions
poor growth, and reduced corruption, While SBM is conceptually clear, there are
the evidence is mixed (see, for instance, many ways in which its components can be
Alderman, 1998; Faguet, 2001; and Fisman combined and implemented. Pragmatically,
and Gatti, 2002). Bardhan and Mookherjee this makes SBM a concept of only mod-
(2000 and 2006) and Bardhan (2002) sug- est entitivity, in other words, a concept that
gest that there may be numerous reasons cannot have a unique form in all the places
why local control over resource alloca- where it is implemented. There are numer-
tion or decision-making may not yield the ous ways to combine different degrees of
desired outcomes. First, local democracy autonomy, participation, and accountability
and political accountability is often weak to create a particular reform. Each variation
in developing countries and can lead to has to be appropriate for the particular cul-
capture of governance—at the various ture and politics of the country in question.
levels—by elite groups. Second, in more The difficulties of designing the ideal reform
traditional and rural areas with a history for a given set of circumstances have not
of feudalism, the poor or minorities may deterred countries from adopting SBM. Most
feel the need for a strong central author- countries have adopted SBM to increase the
ity to ensure that services are delivered to participation of parents and communities
them and not just to the more powerful in schools, or to empower principals and
local citizens. Third, and related to this, is teachers, or to raise student achievement


levels, or, by devolution of authority, to school management? What about the larger
create accountability mechanisms to make community? And is there a difference in
the decision-making process more trans- impacts by countries’ levels of develop-
parent. In any case, the hope is that giving ment? Does it matter if the form of SBM is
power to the people who are close to the strong or weak? Does the number and type
core of the service will increase the efficiency of functions devolved to school managers
and improve the quality of the service. This make a difference to the outcomes? Does it
report has focused on the concept of SBM matter which group is given the decision-
in its different forms and the conceptual making authority and over what functions?
framework for understanding it. The few Also, more cost-benefit analysis is needed.
rigorous empirical studies that have ana- As introduced in developing countries, SBM
lyzed to what extent SBM can measure up appears to be a relatively inexpensive initia-
to the claims of its proponents are reviewed tive since it constitutes a change in the locus
in World Bank (2007a). of decision-making and not necessarily in
The costs of reform are likely to be smaller the amount of resources in the system. If
than the benefits, thus increasing the appeal the few positive impact evaluations are true,
of the reform. Many SBM reforms have then SBM is a very cost-effective initiative.
multiple goals, which include participation For example, in Mexico, the rural school-
as an outcome rather than a way to achieve based management program is estimated
a goal such as improving learning outcomes. to cost about $6 per student, which, in unit
Other SBM reforms have aimed to encour- cost terms, is only about 8 percent of pri-
age parental interest in the school as a way to mary education unit expenditures.
supplement its recurrent cost financing. It is Another element that will need more
important to keep the goals of the program analysis as the study of SBM reforms evolves
clear, to ensure that adequate resources go over time are political economy issues, such
into the program to fulfill its specific goals, as the roles played by teachers’ unions and
and to build the necessary capacity at all political elites, and issues of governance.
levels. Complex reforms with multiple goals SBM, like any other kind of reform, requires
and limited resources in a constrained envi- some level of political support, which may
ronment can be very difficult to implement. be more important than the technical merit
Because of the dearth of widespread evi- of the planned reform in the success or fail-
dence on the impact and effectiveness of ure of a strong SBM reform. The extent to
SBM in practice, we still have a number of which a shared vision is a key element of
questions that must go unanswered until different types of SBM reforms is an impor-
more evidence is available. The increasing tant future research issue. However, teach-
number of evaluations going on at pres- ers and their unions may want to resist any
ent—in, among other places, Indonesia, SBM reforms that give parents and commu-
Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka—will nity members more power. How they will
teach us a lot about the effectiveness of SBM react to the reform is a crucial factor in its
in various contexts. As the knowledge base eventual success or failure.
grows, more attention needs to be given to In general, there are a number of steps
the specific outcomes that are produced by that national governments can take to
different forms of SBM. For example, do increase the probability that SBM reforms
administrative control SBMs work better will succeed. First, central governments
than, say, professional control SBMs, and in can make local education authorities more
what contexts? Does more autonomy need accountable by requiring them to involve
to be devolved to the school level to improve all school stakeholders in their discus-
intermediate and long-term outcomes? sions and to use their feedback to design
What sort of accountability arrangements policies and interventions that meet local
work best and under what conditions? needs. Meanwhile, national governments
What role do parents play in practice? should design prospective impact evalu-
Do they need to be active participants in ations of new programs before they are

What is school based management

What is school based management

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (9)

Similar a What is school based management

Similar a What is school based management (20)

Más de Guru Online

Más de Guru Online (20)

Último

Último (20)

What is school based management