Education Reform: School-Based Management Results in Changes in
Instruction and Budgeting (Letter Report, 08/23/94, GAO/HEHS-94-135).

School-based management allows individual schools more control over
their budgets and instruction programs to meet the needs of their
particular students.  Such management initiatives have become common
during the past decade, particularly in light of perceptions that
district bureaucracies and school boards are unresponsive and impose
restrictions that hinder the ability of individual schools to meet their
unique needs.  GAO examined school-based management initiatives in Dade
County, Florida; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and Prince William County,
Virginia. This report answers the following questions: Under
school-based management initiatives, did administrators and teachers
change their schools' instructional programs and budgets and, if so,
how? What were key similarities and differences in districts'
approaches? How were Chapter 1 programs integrated with school-based
management initiatives? GAO found that in the three school districts,
school-based management fostered innovation but did not lead to net
budget savings or better student performance.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-94-135
     TITLE:  Education Reform: School-Based Management Results in 
             Changes in Instruction and Budgeting
      DATE:  08/23/94
   SUBJECT:  Educational programs
             Aid for education
             Federal/state relations
             Public schools
             Education program evaluation
             State-administered programs
             Children
             Comparative analysis
             Disadvantaged persons
IDENTIFIER:  Dept. of Education Chapter 1 Program for Educationally 
             Disadvantaged Children
             Prince William County (VA)
             Dade County (FL)
             Alberta (Canada)
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

August 1994

EDUCATION REFORM - SCHOOL-BASED
MANAGEMENT RESULTS IN CHANGES IN
INSTRUCTION AND BUDGETING

GAO/HEHS-94-135

School-Based Management


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
  SBM - school-based management
  NELS:88 - National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988
  TQM - total quality management

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-250040

August 23, 1994

The Honorable Edward M.  Kennedy
Chairman, Committee on Labor
 and Human Resources
United States Senate

The Honorable David Durenberger
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate

The nation's schools are faced with adapting to the needs of growing
numbers of poor and immigrant children, as well as with providing all
children the skills and knowledge to meet the high educational
standards demanded by our changing economy.  These challenges to the
schools, together with low public confidence in the effectiveness of
our education system, have created a strong impetus for education
reform.  Giving schools greater control over decision-making, through
school-based management (SBM), has been a widespread reform strategy. 
In addition, strengthening school control, as part of a systemic
reform strategy,\1 is an objective of proposed legislation to
reauthorize Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (ESEA).\2

SBM initiatives have become common during the past decade,
particularly in light of perceptions that district bureaucracies and
school boards are unresponsive and impose restrictive requirements
that hinder the ability of individual schools to meet their unique
needs.  SBM initiatives typically involve delegating some control
over decision-making on budgets, personnel, or instructional programs
to those most closely associated with the school, namely, school
administrators,\3 teachers, parents, or other members of the
community.  The basic theory behind SBM is that allowing the people
most closely associated with children to make decisions about a
school will make the school more responsive to the children's needs
and improve their learning. 

This report responds to your request for information on SBM; it
answers the following questions: 

  Under SBM, did administrators and teachers change their schools'
     instructional programs and budgets and, if so, how? 

  What were key similarities and differences in districts' approaches
     to SBM? 

  How were Chapter 1 programs integrated with SBM? 

To address these questions, we studied the SBM initiatives in three
school districts:  Dade County, Florida; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;
and Prince William County, Virginia.\4 We selected these districts
because they had (1) gained considerable experience with SBM, ranging
from 4 to 18 years,\5 and (2) given substantial budget, personnel,
and instructional control to their schools, unlike the more limited
approaches in many other districts.  The districts varied from a
suburban district, serving about 45,000 children, to a large
metropolitan district, with about 300,000 children.  (See table 1 for
further comparative information for the districts we visited.)



                           Table 1
           
              Comparative Information on School
                      Districts Visited


                                      Studen          School
                                          ts   Staff       s
------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Prince William                        44,861   5,040      61
 County
Dade County                           302,00  38,000     279
                                           0
Edmonton,                             80,400   6,811     205
 Alberta
------------------------------------------------------------
We also conducted a multivariate analysis of national data to obtain
a broader perspective on what schools did when they had greater
control.  With this analysis, we sought to determine whether the
extent of school control over the instructional program was
associated with schools' use of innovative practices.  (See app.  I
for further details on our scope and methodology.)


--------------------
\1 Experts consider school control to be an important component of
systemic education reform, enabling principals and teachers to
determine the most effective instructional practices to help children
meet high standards.  See, for example, Marshall S.  Smith and
Jennifer A.  O'Day, "Systemic School Reform," Politics of Education
Association Yearbook 1990, pp.  233-67.  As defined by Smith and
O'Day, systemic reform involves all levels of the educational
system--national, state, district, and school.  Systemic reform seeks
to set high standards for all students' achievement, allow
flexibility for principals and teachers, and hold the system
accountable for student outcomes relative to the standards. 

\2 Chapter 1 serves educationally deprived children--those whose
educational attainment is below the level that is appropriate for
their age--in relatively high-poverty areas.  Chapter 1 is the
largest federal program for elementary and secondary education; it
serves over 5 million children and was funded at $6.9 billion in
fiscal year 1994. 

\3 In this report, the term "school administrators" refers to both
principals and assistant principals.  The term "teachers" refers to
both certified teachers and uncertified paraprofessional staff, often
called teacher aides. 

\4 Our findings on the integration of Chapter 1 with SBM are based
only on information from the two districts in the United States. 

\5 SBM has been implemented in all of the schools in Edmonton and
Prince William County and in 156 of Dade County's 279 schools. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

SBM allowed school administrators and teachers to change instruction
and budgeting in ways that they thought better met the needs of the
children attending their schools.  The changes made would have been
more difficult, if not precluded, had decision-making in the district
been centralized.  However, their impact on student performance is
unknown.  Changes in instructional programs included adding all-day
kindergarten, extended-day programs, special education and
gifted-and-talented programs, and new courses.  Changes in budgeting
included adjustments in spending on staff, supplies, and equipment. 
Although adjustments resulted in more spending on instruction in some
schools and more spending on administration in others, schools'
budgets did not realize net savings. 

A key similarity in districts' approaches to SBM was that it operated
with other district reforms as part of a broader reform strategy. 
Another key similarity was that each district sought to be less
prescriptive about what schools should do and instead emphasize
providing services to the schools.  Key differences in the approaches
to SBM included (1) how the district allocated funds to its schools
and (2) whether schools or the district developed schools' budgets. 

The Chapter 1 program was largely not integrated with SBM in Dade
County and Prince William County.  Much control over Chapter 1 was
centralized in the district offices.  Proposed federal legislation to
reauthorize Chapter 1 would decentralize some control over the
program, moving it from districts to schools.  Such decentralization
could improve the integration of Chapter 1 with SBM.  Proposed
legislation would also include a new requirement for each school to
develop a written plan for Chapter 1.  If schools cannot meet such a
requirement by adjusting plans that they already develop for district
or state purposes; however, the requirement could hinder the better
integration of Chapter 1 with SBM. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

SBM identifies the individual school as the primary place where
improvement should occur and relies on redistributing control over
decision-making as the main way to achieve improvements.\6 SBM
initiatives, however, vary considerably in (1) the amount of school
control over budget, personnel, and instructional program; (2) the
manner in which that control is distributed among school
administrators, teachers, parents, and other members of the
community;\7 and (3) the degree of flexibility concerning district or
union requirements. 

Previous literature questions the extent to which changes in
decision-making arrangements actually take place under SBM and
whether such changes really increase the control of teachers,
parents, or other members of the community.\8 The SBM initiatives we
studied decentralized substantial budget, personnel, and
instructional control to the schools; distributed that control
primarily among school administrators but also teachers; and afforded
considerable flexibility concerning district or union requirements. 

The administration's proposed legislation to reauthorize Chapter 1
seeks to increase school control over the Chapter 1 program and to
use it as a vehicle for schoolwide reform.  Currently, Chapter 1
services and the children selected to be served are largely
determined by district Chapter 1 offices.  The proposed legislation
would give schools primary responsibility to determine the kinds of
services to provide under Chapter 1 and which children to serve.  The
legislation seeks to expand the involvement of school staff paid by
Chapter 1 in planning for the school as a whole.  The legislation
also seeks to place district staff in a more supportive and less
prescriptive role in relation to the schools.  In addition, the
legislation would require each school to develop a written plan that
specifies how Chapter 1 funds will be used, along with other funds,
to assist the children served to meet high educational standards. 


--------------------
\6 B.  Malen, R.T.  Ogawa, and J.  Kranz, "What Do We Know About
School-Based Management?  A Case Study of the Literature--A Call for
Research," Choice and Control in American Education Volume 2:  The
Practice of Choice, Decentralization, and School Restructuring, ed. 
W.H.  Clune and J.F.  Witte (New York:  The Falmer Press, 1990), p. 
290. 

\7 See P.  Wolstetter and A.  Odden, "Rethinking School-Based
Management Policy and Research," Education Administration Quarterly,
Vol.  28 (1994), pp.  529-49.  In this article, the authors discuss
three forms of SBM:  (1) "community control," which shifts school
control to parent and community groups; (2) "administrative
decentralization," which shifts control to school councils in which
teachers have the majority; and (3) "principal control," which shifts
control to principals and may not use a school council consisting of
teachers. 

\8 For a review of this literature, see Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz. 


   SBM ALLOWED SCHOOLS TO CHANGE
   INSTRUCTION AND BUDGETING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

In the districts we studied, the increased school control under SBM
allowed school administrators and teachers to change their schools'
instructional programs and budgets.  SBM did not cause schools to
make changes, a district administrator said, but gave them permission
to make changes and deviate from district policy.  Before SBM, he
said, people did not feel they had such permission.  SBM allowed a
school's services, school administrators and teachers said, to be
more suited to its students' needs.  Before SBM, centralized
decision-making resulted in districts' making decisions about
instruction and budgets that were applied uniformly across schools. 
But SBM left these decisions to the schools, leading to variations
between schools not permitted before. 

In addition, national data provide evidence that school control is
associated with innovations in school practices.  Our multivariate
analysis indicated that principals who reported more control over
instruction were more likely to report using several innovative
practices than principals who reported less control.  Another
national study of teachers found a similar relationship.\9

Whether the changes made under SBM will result in improved student
performance is unknown because the necessary data were unavailable. 
In addition, administrators and teachers in some schools had
difficulty focusing on improving their instructional programs and,
instead, were concerned with issues of school governance, that is,
who had what power in their schools.  Limitations in training and
difficulty in adjusting to new roles were reported to be barriers to
a focus on improving instruction. 


--------------------
\9 Testing Assumptions:  A Survey of Teachers' Attitudes Toward the
Nation's School Reform Agenda, prepared for the Ford Foundation by LH
Research, Study #930012 (New York:  1993). 


      SCHOOLS MADE CHANGES IN
      INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Under SBM, school administrators and teachers made a wide variety of
changes in their schools' instructional programs.  Some changes
affected part of the school population, like adding new courses;
others affected the entire school, like adopting an ungraded primary
system or schools-within-a-school.\10 Other instructional changes
included adding all-day kindergarten, extended-day programs, and
special education and gifted-and-talented programs.  The changes made
often first required waivers from district or union requirements. 
(See app.  III for a list of changes that required waivers.)

A high school in Edmonton provides an example of an instructional
change that affected the entire school--it changed its instructional
program from one that emphasized vocational education to one that
emphasized performing arts.  Faced with declining enrollment under
the district's school choice policy (the school's enrollment had
declined to 850 students and had a capacity of 2,700), the school
sold the tools in its shops and used the money to refurbish the
school, turning the auto shop into a performing arts studio.  The
school's enrollment has increased during the last 6 years to about
1,500 students, a district official reported. 

In Prince William County, all-day kindergarten and extended-day
programs are examples of instructional changes schools made under
SBM.  Before SBM, all elementary schools provided half-day
kindergarten as a district policy.  SBM leaves this decision to the
schools.  Some now offer all-day kindergarten and others choose not
to.  Extended-day programs were more difficult to arrange before SBM
because the school board chose not to fund after-school bus service. 
With SBM, the decision to fund after-school bus service is up to each
school, and more schools offer extended-day programs. 

Under SBM, adding new courses was motivated, in part, by the greater
competition among departments to attract students, an administrator
in Prince William County said.  Attracting more students allows a
department to hire more teachers and get more funding for supplies
and equipment.  In Dade County, adding new courses was motivated, in
part, by the availability of extra funds.\11 For example, one school
we visited in Dade County added art and music classes in kindergarten
and first and second grades, but the principal planned to discontinue
these classes the following year when new classroom space became
available.  Instead, he intended to use the funds to hire new
teachers for other subjects, thus reducing class size in these
subjects. 


--------------------
\10 Ungraded primary systems have no specific elementary grade
levels.  Children are allowed to progress through the curriculum at
their own pace, rather than at a pace established by age and grade. 
In schools-within-a-school, children are clustered into separate
schools or communities within a school so that the children can
develop closer relationships with a small number of teachers and
peers and, in some cases, focus on specific subject areas. 

\11 Schools in Dade County had extra funds available from salaries
and benefits for teaching positions, which schools chose not to fill
because of a lack of space for additional classrooms.  Many schools
in Dade County had student enrollments well above their intended
capacity. 


      SCHOOLS MADE CHANGES IN
      BUDGETING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Schools changed how much they budgeted for staff, supplies, and
equipment.  This resulted in some schools' increasing instructional
expenditures and others' increasing administrative expenditures. 
Because administrators and teachers could move funds from one purpose
to another, schools' budgets did not realize savings.  The ability to
change their budgets allowed schools to meet needs as they arose,
such as the need for a new computer, an additional teacher, or
classroom furniture.  Some budgetary changes, such as those related
to teacher compensation, required waivers from district or union
rules. 

Some schools in the districts we visited budgeted more for some types
of staff and budgeted less for other purposes, including equipment
replacement or supplies.  Other schools reduced expenditures on some
types of staff to fund projects such as computer labs or technology
for media centers.  For example, in Edmonton, two high schools of
about the same size made different decisions on purchasing computers,
a district administrator reported.  One school chose to increase each
teacher's class size, to save $50,000 to $75,000 per year in teacher
salaries, and to use the funds saved for purchasing computer
equipment.  The school has since spent about $500,000 on computers
and related equipment.  The other school decided to emphasize small
class size and has spent only about $10,000 on computer equipment. 

In addition, high schools, middle-grade schools,\12 and elementary
schools varied in how much they budgeted for different types of
staff.  High schools and middle-grade schools typically added
administrative staff--including assistant principals, administrative
assistants, and clerical staff--to help with their greater business
responsibilities.  Elementary schools typically added instructional
staff, including teachers and paraprofessionals.  In school year
1992-93, for example, elementary schools in Prince William County
funded 23 more teaching positions and 9 more administrative support
positions than the district would have if decisions were made
centrally.  High schools in Prince William County funded 26 fewer
teaching positions and 19 more administrative support positions than
the district would have.  (See fig.  1.)

   Figure 1:  Schools Varied by
   Grade Level in Budgeting for
   Different Types of Staff

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  These results reflect data for 61 Prince William County
schools in school year 1992-93. 


--------------------
\12 Middle-grade schools include both junior-high and middle schools. 


      IMPACT OF SCHOOLS' CHANGES
      ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE
      UNKNOWN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Because data were unavailable in the districts studied, we could not
determine whether the instructional and budgetary changes made under
SBM have improved student performance.  To make a valid judgment
about the impact of specific changes, or of SBM as a whole, one needs
to determine (1) how much children learned during the period in which
they were enrolled at the school and (2) how much various features of
the school contributed to that learning.\13 Reaching these
determinations is difficult for a variety of reasons.\14 For example,
many students leave or enter a school during a school year,\15 making
it difficult to determine a school's contribution to their learning. 
In addition, many students have limited English proficiency and are
often excluded from achievement testing because tests have not been
developed or translated into their home languages.  Furthermore,
schools and districts make many changes each year--some as a result
of SBM, others as a result of district or state mandates--making it
difficult to separate the effects of SBM from other changes. 


--------------------
\13 A.S.  Bryk et al., "Measuring Achievement Gains in the Chicago
Public Schools," Education and Urban Society, Vol.  26, No.  3
(1994), pp.  306-319. 

\14 The difficulty in measuring the impact of SBM does not imply that
school districts cannot be held accountable for student performance. 
Indicators of student performance and behaviors, such as achievement
test results and data on student attendance and high school
completion, can provide useful information about the overall
direction of a district's educational program. 

\15 For more information on such students, see Elementary School
Children:  Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming Their Education
(GAO/HEHS-94-45, Feb.  4, 1994). 


      SOME SCHOOLS HAD DIFFICULTY
      FOCUSING ON IMPROVING
      INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

Administrators and teachers in some schools had difficulty focusing
on improving their instructional programs because of their
preoccupation with issues of school governance or gaps in knowledge
about effective instructional practices.  Power struggles ensued in
some schools while SBM was implemented, district and school staff
said.  Some principals did not want to share power with teachers, and
some teachers sought to take power away from their principals,
district and school staff reported.  The districts' progress with
SBM, one district official said, depends on the principal at a given
school.  Ineffective principals are "lost" under SBM, he said.  The
key issue is whether principals know about the instructional
process--principals that do not are still doing the same things that
they did before SBM, he said.  In addition, many teachers were
uninvolved or resistant to participating in SBM, district and school
staff reported.\16 Limitations in training, difficulty in adjusting
to new roles, and skepticism about SBM were cited as barriers to
obtaining greater teacher participation and improving instructional
programs. 


--------------------
\16 See appendix IV for examples of district and school staffs'
remarks about SBM. 


      NATIONAL DATA PROVIDE
      EVIDENCE THAT SCHOOL CONTROL
      IS ASSOCIATED WITH
      INNOVATIVE PRACTICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5

Our multivariate analysis of national data indicates that school
control over instruction is associated with the use of innovative
practices.  Schools in which principals reported having more control
over the instructional program were more likely than schools in which
principals reported having less control to use five of the nine
practices we analyzed.  These five practices were (1) using
mixed-ability classrooms, (2) providing teachers with training in
adolescent characteristics and teaching strategies, (3) revising
curricula to emphasize critical thinking skills, (4) having common
planning periods for teachers in the same departments, and (5) team
teaching.\17 The results of our analysis indicate that the likelihood
of using each practice was about one-third lower at schools in which
principals perceived they had less control over instruction. 
(Further details on the findings of this analysis appear in app. 
II.) The differences in use of innovative practices between the two
groups of schools appear in figure 2.\18

   Figure 2:  Schools With More
   Control Over Instruction More
   Likely to Use Some Innovative
   Practices

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In addition, a national study prepared for the Ford Foundation
indicates substantial differences in the extent to which innovations
took place in schools where teachers said that SBM had a major impact
and in schools where teachers said SBM did not have a major impact
(see fig.  3).\19 These innovations include the introduction of
cooperative learning; mixed-ability classrooms; tougher graduation
standards; authentic assessment using student portfolios, exhibits,
and projects; essential school approaches, emphasizing subject matter
depth, with teacher as coach and student as worker; accelerated
approaches that challenge all students to achieve learning at high
levels; efforts to synchronize classroom practices and school climate
with the home culture and environment of students; discipline-based
standards for learning, such as those suggested by the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics; teachers' substantial involvement
in decisions over how school funds are spent; and ungraded
classrooms. 

   Figure 3:  Schools Where
   Teachers Say SBM Had a Major
   Impact More Likely to Use
   Innovative Practices

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:Testing Assumptions:  A Survey of Teachers' Attitudes Toward
the Nation's School Reform Agenda. 


--------------------
\17 The other practices, which were not related to control over
instruction, included (1) classes organized for cooperative learning,
(2) flexible time for class periods, (3) students assigned to the
same homeroom or advisory teachers for all years in high school, and
(4) schools-within-a-school with their own administrative staffs,
such as alternative or magnet school programs. 

\18 Unlike the results presented in appendix II, the data used for
this chart are not adjusted for the effects of other variables
included in our multivariate analysis. 

\19 Testing Assumptions:  A Survey of Teachers' Attitudes Toward the
Nation's School Reform Agenda, p.  17.  In this study, 41 percent of
a nationally representative sample of teachers said that SBM had a
major impact on their schools. 


   KEY SIMILARITIES AND
   DIFFERENCES IN DISTRICTS'
   APPROACHES TO SBM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Districts' approaches to SBM had several key similarities and
differences.  Key similarities include (1) using SBM as part of
broader district reforms and (2) trying to better respond to schools'
needs by becoming less prescriptive and being more service-oriented
to schools.  Key differences among these SBM initiatives include (1)
how districts allocated funds to schools and (2) how schools' budgets
were developed. 


      SBM PART OF BROADER DISTRICT
      REFORM EFFORTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

The SBM initiatives we studied operated as part of broader district
reform efforts, reflecting districts' belief that this would enhance
SBM's effectiveness.  Each district's broader reform efforts sought
to (1) establish goals or standards for all students, (2) develop
curricula linked to those standards, (3) institute professional
development programs to enable administrators and teachers to
understand the curricula and effective ways of instructing students,
and (4) create and implement student assessment systems based on the
curricula.\20 Each district, however, implemented SBM before
undertaking these reform efforts. 

Dade County's SBM initiative began as an effort to enhance teacher
professionalism and was not initially connected to a broader district
reform effort.  Dissatisfaction with the limited extent to which
school administrators and teachers used SBM to focus on improving
instruction led district administrators to deemphasize SBM as a
priority.  SBM now operates as part of a broader reform effort that
includes the Saturn School Project.  The Saturn School Project allows
planning teams, which include the school's principal and lead
teacher, to design the instructional program and assessment system
for new schools.  Planning teams for the new schools are chosen on
the basis of the merits of proposals the teams prepare. 

In addition to the broader efforts discussed above, Edmonton's SBM
initiative also operates together with an open enrollment policy in
which parents can choose what school their child will attend.  Such
choice provided an incentive for schools to make changes if student
enrollment declined, particularly since principals' salaries were
based, in part, on enrollment.  District administrators in Dade
County and Prince William County said that SBM could eventually lead
to a school choice policy because variations in the instructional
programs among schools would require giving parents and children the
opportunity to choose between them. 


--------------------
\20 For more information on similar reforms, see Systemwide Education
Reform:  Federal Leadership Could Facilitate District-Level Efforts
(GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr.  30, 1993). 


      DISTRICTS MADE EFFORTS TO
      BETTER RESPOND TO SCHOOLS'
      NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Districts' efforts to better respond to schools' needs included (1)
encouraging schools to request waivers from district and union rules
and (2) reorganizing district offices to improve school services. 


         DISTRICTS ENCOURAGED
         SCHOOLS TO REQUEST
         WAIVERS FROM REQUIREMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.1

Dade County and Prince William County encouraged schools to request
waivers by adopting routine procedures for schools to request and
obtain them.\21 On an annual basis, schools in Dade County and Prince
William County could submit lists of requested waivers to their
districts for approval.  For the 1992-93 school year, 103 schools in
Dade County obtained more than 320 waivers, and 32 schools in Prince
William County obtained 71 waivers. 

Schools' waivers related to changing (1) instructional programs, (2)
student assessment, (3) student discipline, (4) the organization of
the school day or year, (5) staff positions, (6) teacher
compensation, and (7) student transportation.\22 The majority of
waivers in Dade County involved union requirements.  These waivers
were often for changing teacher compensation, providing pay
supplements to teachers who assumed extra duties, like serving on a
school planning team or working with student clubs after school. 
Because Virginia has no collective bargaining agreements, all of the
waivers in Prince William County were from district requirements. 
These waivers were often for changing schools' instructional
programs.  (See app.  III for a list of waivers obtained by schools
under SBM in Dade County and Prince William County.)


--------------------
\21 Schools in Edmonton were not required to follow a formal
procedure to request and obtain waivers. 

\22 A list of waivers was unavailable for Edmonton public schools. 


         DISTRICTS REORGANIZED
         OFFICES TO IMPROVE SCHOOL
         SERVICES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.2

Each district we studied sought to better meet schools' needs for
professional development, technical assistance, or other school
services.  To do this, each district reorganized district offices to
improve the services they provided to schools. 

In Edmonton, the district established an office of consulting
services that provides technical assistance to schools.  Schools fund
the office by paying it for its services.  Schools also may obtain
services from vendors outside the district, although the district
discounts the price of its services to make them more attractive. 
The office of consulting services earned back about 60 percent of the
funds for such services allocated to the schools, a district
administrator said. 

In Prince William County, the district was making changes in how it
provided services to schools in the categories of curriculum and
instruction and printing.  The changes in curriculum and instruction
services included eliminating subject area supervisor positions and
instituting instructional assistance teams assigned to clusters of
schools.  The district provided training in total quality management
(TQM) to help its staff adjust to new roles,\23

but some staff still resisted these changes.  The changes in printing
services were intended to introduce competition from private vendors
and to make the district's printing services self-funding. 

In Dade County, the district changed how it worked with its schools
on curriculum and instruction.  One of its goals was to better target
professional development and technical assistance for research-based
education reforms.  The district established a new division of
instructional leadership, intended to help schools choose
research-based reform models and implement them.  The office has
staff trained in various reform models, including the School
Development Program developed by James Comer and the Accelerated
Schools program developed by Henry Levin. 


--------------------
\23 TQM is a management philosophy originally applied in an
industrial setting.  Some of the basic principles of TQM include
understanding customer expectations, empowering employees at all
organizational levels, and opening communication channels at all
levels.  For more information on the use of TQM in public schools,
see Total Quality Education (GAO/HEHS-94-76R, Feb.  10, 1994). 


      DIFFERENCES IN HOW DISTRICTS
      ALLOCATED FUNDS TO SCHOOLS
      CREATED DIFFERENT FINANCIAL
      INCENTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Differences in how districts allocated funds to schools created
different financial incentives for schools' actions.  In Edmonton and
Prince William County, districts allocated most funds to schools on
the basis of a per child amount, weighted according to student
characteristics such as poverty, disability, or gifted-and-talented
status.  This created an incentive for more schools to offer special
education and gifted-and-talented programs, given that children
served by such programs brought additional funds to the schools. 
These additional funds could be used for special education and
gifted-and-talented programs or for other purposes. 

The district in Dade County allocated funds to schools on the basis
of a per staff amount.  For each school, the district calculated the
number of teachers and other staff it was entitled to receive on the
basis of student enrollment; then the district multiplied the number
of teachers and staff by an amount for salary and benefits.  By
allocating funds for benefits to schools, the district created an
incentive for schools to hire part-time teachers, paid by the hour,
because they received less costly benefits.\24 Schools could use the
savings from reduced personnel costs for other purposes.  One
principal in Dade County said, however, that he chose not to hire
part-time teachers because he thought they were insufficiently
qualified. 


--------------------
\24 Teacher benefits were not allocated to schools in Edmonton or
Prince William County. 


      DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOLS'
      BUDGETS DIFFERED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

How schools' budgets were developed under SBM differed in the
districts we studied.  Either the school or the district developed
schools' initial budgets.  Schools' developing their own budgets
seemed to promote greater teacher participation in school planning
and decision-making than districts' developing schools' budgets. 

School administrators and teachers in Edmonton and Prince William
County developed their schools' budgets, determining how much to
spend on personnel, supplies, equipment, and services.\25 School
administrators and teachers in these districts began the budget
process by first specifying priorities for the school year in an
annual school plan.  These priorities were transferred to the budget
that the school later submitted to the district for approval.  In
contrast, the district in Dade County developed schools' initial
budgets, and school administrators decided whether to change the
allocation of funds recommended by the district.  Teachers on school
planning teams we interviewed were seldom involved in determining
budget allocations among personnel, supplies, and equipment, and
lacked knowledge about their school's budget authority. 


--------------------
\25 Schools in these districts developed their budgets after the
district determined the approximate total budget amount for each
school on the basis of its estimated enrollment. 


   CHAPTER 1 NOT INTEGRATED WITH
   SBM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The Chapter 1 program was largely not integrated with SBM in Dade
County and Prince William County.  Much decision-making authority
over Chapter 1 was centralized under district control, consistent
with federal guidance.  In Dade County, for example, the district
specifies the subject areas and grade levels in which children
receive Chapter 1 services, as well as the instructional approach
schools use to provide services.  In Prince William County, schools
gained some decision-making authority under SBM in selecting
instructional approaches, but the district specifies grade levels and
the subject area for Chapter 1 services. 

Proposed legislation seeks to decentralize some control over Chapter
1, moving it from districts to schools, and to place districts in a
less prescriptive and more facilitative role than in the past.  This
legislation would also require each school receiving Chapter 1 funds
to develop a written plan.  This new federal planning requirement,
however, could hinder the better integration of Chapter 1 with SBM
because it could fragment schools' planning efforts if a separate
written plan for Chapter 1 is needed.  Many schools already develop
written plans to meet other district or state requirements.  The
proposed legislation does not indicate if schools will need to
develop a separate plan for Chapter 1 or whether they could use a
single, integrated plan for district, state, and federal purposes. 
Department of Education officials informed us, however, that the
administration intends schools to develop a single, integrated plan. 

The decentralization sought in proposed legislation could improve the
integration of Chapter 1 with SBM.  But decentralization may be
difficult to achieve because districts are slow to change their
Chapter 1 programs.  One reason for slowness is district concern
about compliance with procedural and fiscal requirements.  State and
federal auditors tend to focus on such requirements in their
monitoring efforts, rather than on program quality.\26 For example,
auditors focused primarily on whether schools had the proper
documentation for how funds were spent, district officials said, not
on whether the funds spent met the needs of children targeted by
Chapter 1 funds or whether schools had improved the performance of
these children.\27 A second reason for slowness is that before a
change can be made, agreement must be reached among multiple parties
in the district and the state education agency with a stake in
Chapter 1.\28 A reason for slow change in the future--specifically in
terms of decentralizing control to schools--could stem from new
requirements for Chapter 1 resulting from the program's
reauthorization.  For example, districts may be hesitant to
decentralize control while implementing a new requirement that
Chapter 1 be linked to state content and performance standards. 


--------------------
\26 See, for example, Reinventing Chapter 1:  The Current Chapter 1
Program and New Directions, Final Report of the National Assessment
of the Chapter 1 Program, U.S.  Department of Education (Washington,
D.C.:  Feb.  1993), p.  173. 

\27 In a related study, Regulatory Flexibility Programs:  What
Happens When Schools Are Allowed to Change the Rules? 
(GAO/HEHS-94-102, Apr.  29, 1994), we found that compliance
monitoring by state and federal auditors had a negative impact on
districts' willingness to encourage schools to take advantage of
regulatory flexibility in the Chapter 1 program.  State education
agencies and the federal government, however, have recently moved
toward a new emphasis on the outcomes of programs.  But some state
and federal officials responsible for reviewing education programs
may not be aware of requirements to examine outcomes. 

\28 See, for example, Local Program Design and Decisionmaking Under
Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, SRI
International (Menlo Park, Calif.:  Dec.  1986). 


   CONCLUSION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

SBM can increase school administrators' and teachers' control over
their schools--an objective of systemic reform and proposed
legislation to reauthorize Chapter 1.  This increased control can
allow school administrators and teachers to change their
instructional programs and budgets to more quickly meet needs they
identify.  However, in using SBM to improve schools, districts should
be aware that (1) SBM's effects on student performance are hard to
determine and depend on the quality of the innovations that schools
adopt, (2) some schools have difficulty focusing on improving
instructional programs, and (3) the different approaches to SBM
create different incentives for how schools change their
instructional programs and budgets. 

SBM may also help districts and schools implement proposed changes to
Chapter 1 that would give schools more control over the program.  But
for this to happen, additional steps will be needed to better
integrate Chapter 1 with SBM.  These include steps that would (1)
help ensure that federal planning requirements are compatible with
how schools plan and make decisions under SBM and (2) encourage
districts to assume a less prescriptive role toward Chapter 1
services in schools.\29


--------------------
\29 We discuss how to accomplish this in Regulatory Flexibility in
Schools:  What Happens When Schools Are Allowed to Change the Rules? 
In that report, we recommend that the Secretary of Education assess
the way federal and state officials review education programs and, as
needed, promote changes in this process to be more consistent with
schools' attempts to improve. 


   RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONGRESS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

If the Congress includes a new Chapter 1 planning requirement in
legislation to reauthorize ESEA, we recommend that the legislation
specify that plans developed by schools for Chapter 1 should serve
district, state, and federal planning requirements so that schools
can develop a single, integrated plan rather than multiple plans. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We carried out our study from August 1992 through June 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
did not obtain written agency comments on this report; we did,
however, discuss its contents with Department of Education officials. 
We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees, the
Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.  Please call
Beatrice Birman, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7008 or Richard
Wenning, Project Manager, at (202) 512-7048 if you or your staff have
any questions about this report.  Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix V. 

Linda G.  Morra
Director, Education
 and Employment Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

Our objectives for this study were to (1) determine what changes
school administrators and teachers made, under SBM, in their
instructional programs and budgets; (2) identify key similarities and
differences in districts' approaches to SBM; and (3) describe how
Chapter 1 programs were integrated with SBM.  To accomplish these
objectives, we conducted case studies in three school districts,
using interviews, analysis of financial data, and document reviews. 
To obtain a broader perspective related to our first objective, we
also used multivariate analysis to determine whether the extent of
school control over the instructional program was associated with the
likelihood of using innovative practices among high schools in a
national survey. 

We conducted our study from July 1992 through June 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We did not
obtain written agency comments for this report.  However, we
discussed its contents with Department of Education officials and
made changes as appropriate. 


   CASE STUDIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

We conducted case studies of SBM initiatives in three school
districts in the United States and Canada:  Dade County Public
Schools, Florida; Edmonton Public Schools, Alberta, Canada; and
Prince William County Public Schools, Virginia.  In the three
districts, we interviewed school board members; teachers' union
officials; superintendents; assistant superintendents (including the
chief financial officer); federal program coordinators; and
principals and teachers at elementary, middle-grade, and high
schools.  In addition, we analyzed financial data in Prince William
County to quantify examples of changes in schools' allocation of
resources.  For this analysis, we used district data that allowed us
to compare schools' budgeting of funds with what the district would
have budgeted on the basis of a uniform formula.\30

We also reviewed waivers schools obtained from union and school board
rules in Dade County and Prince William County and categorized them
by purpose (see app.  III). 


--------------------
\30 Data were unavailable to replicate this analysis for Edmonton and
Dade County. 


      DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

Dade County Public Schools began implementing SBM in 1986, as part of
a cooperative initiative, among the superintendent, school board, and
the teacher's union, to promote teacher professionalism.  SBM began
as a pilot program in 33 schools and has been expanded, on a
voluntary basis, to 156 schools.  Dade County Public Schools
encompasses Miami, Florida, and its surrounding metropolitan area;
the district serves about 300,000 children in 279 schools. 


      EDMONTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2

Edmonton Public Schools began implementing SBM in 1976 as an
initiative promoted by its superintendent.  His goal was to place
budget authority in the schools--in his view, the point of key
responsibility for educating children.  SBM began as a pilot project
in 7 schools and was expanded districtwide in 1979.  Edmonton Public
Schools is an urban district in Alberta, Canada, that serves about
80,000 children in 205 schools. 


      PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY PUBLIC
      SCHOOLS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.3

Prince William County Public Schools began implementing SBM in 1988
as an initiative, promoted by its new superintendent, to improve
student performance.  SBM began as a pilot initiative in 5 schools
and was expanded to all schools in 1990.  Prince William County
Public Schools is a suburban district outside of Washington, D.C.,
that serves about 45,000 children in 61 schools. 


   MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

We used multivariate analysis to determine whether school control
over the instructional program was associated with innovations in
school practices among high schools included in the National
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88). 


      DATA SOURCE, SCOPE OF
      ANALYSIS, AND LIMITATIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

For our analysis, we used the NELS:88 First Follow-Up School
Administrator Survey.  NELS:88 is a national longitudinal survey of a
sample of eighth grade students, their parents, and their principals
(or other school administrators) and teachers.  The First Follow-up
School Administrator Survey gathered information about the
educational settings in which NELS:88 students were enrolled in the
spring of the 1989-90 school year--their sophomore year in high
school.  We used the First Follow-up Survey because it contained
information on school control, which was the primary independent
variable of interest in our analysis.\31 The First Follow-Up school
data file contains data on 1,062 public schools for which a school
administrator questionnaire was collected. 

The NELS:88 First Follow-Up School Administrator Survey is not
representative of high schools in 1989-90.  Consequently, it is not
possible to make statistical estimates for the nation's high school
administrators from this survey.  Nevertheless, we felt it was
reasonable to use the data set for exploring relationships between
school control and the use of innovative practices. 


--------------------
\31 National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, First Follow-Up: 
School Component Data File User's Manual, National Center for
Education Statistics, U.S.  Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, NCES 92-084 (Washington, D.C.: 
1992). 


      METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2

We used nine logistic regression models to estimate the relationship
between school control over instruction and the use of nine different
innovative practices, adjusting for selected school and district
characteristics.  The number of schools used in these analyses ranged
from 768 to 777.\32

Two of the variables we used, the cooperation variable and the school
control variable, were based on a composite score developed from
multiple survey items.  We used factor analysis to select the
appropriate survey items to use in developing these variables. 
Factor analysis is a statistical technique that estimates the extent
to which different items measure the same concept or underlying
factor.  Items that satisfactorily measure the same concept can then
be combined to form a single, composite measure of that concept that
is more reliable than any of its component items used alone. 


--------------------
\32 Between 285 and 294 schools were excluded because of missing
information on one or more variables. 


         INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2.1

The following variables were used as independent variables in the
models. 

  Cooperation:  This variable is a composite measure designed to
     reflect district cooperation with the school (reliability =
     .84).  The variable is based on the summed values of responses
     to the questions:  "How would you characterize your school's
     relationship with each of the following individuals or groups: 

  superintendent,

  school board or governing board, and

  central office administrators?"

Responses to these questions ranged on a 4-point scale from
"conflictual" (1) to "very cooperative" (4).  We categorized the
summed scores for these questions into the following two groups:  (1)
"more cooperative" (88 percent of respondents with scores of 9 or
more) and (2) "less cooperative" (12 percent of respondents with
scores under 9). 

  School poverty:  This variable is based on the percentage of
     students in a school reported to be in the free or reduced lunch
     program.  Responses were categorized into three groups:  (1) 0
     to 10 percent (40 percent of respondents), (2) 11 to 50 percent
     (48 percent of respondents), and (3) 51 to 100 percent (12
     percent of respondents). 

  Urbanicity:  This variable reflects the degree of urbanization of a
     school's community.  Schools were classified into the following
     three categories:  (1) "urban central city" (33 percent of
     respondents), (2) "suburban" (53 percent of respondents), and
     (3) "rural" (14 percent of respondents). 

  District size:  This variable was based on the number of schools in
     a school's district.  For each school, we categorized the number
     of schools in the district into four approximately equal-sized
     groups as follows:  (1) 1 to 5 schools (23 percent of
     respondents), (2) 6 to 15 schools (27 percent of respondents),
     (3) 16 to 50 schools (25 percent of respondents), and (4) 51 or
     more schools (25 percent of respondents). 

  School control over instruction:  This variable is a composite
     measure designed to reflect the extent of principal control over
     the school's instructional program (reliability = .73).  The
     variable is based on the summed values of responses to the
     questions:  "How much influence do you as a principal have over

  setting curricular guidelines,

  influencing instructional practices,

  establishing homework policies, and

  creating new programs (such as dropout and drug prevention
     programs)?"

Responses for these questions ranged on a 5-point scale from "no
influence" (1) to "major influence" (5).  We categorized the summed
scores for these four questions into the following two groups:  (1)
"more influence" (56 percent of respondents with scores of 16 or
more) and (2) "less influence" (44 percent of respondents with scores
under 16). 


         DEPENDENT VARIABLES: 
         INNOVATIVE SCHOOL
         PRACTICES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2.2

The following variables, used as dependent variables in our nine
models, were coded dichotomously according to whether the
administrator reported using the practice (1) or not (0). 

  Team teaching:  Interdisciplinary teams of teachers who share the
     same students (30 percent of respondents reported "currently
     using"). 

  Common planning period:  Common planning period for members of the
     same departments (19 percent of respondents reported "currently
     using"). 

  Mixed-ability classrooms:  Students from more than one curricular
     program/track are assigned to the same academic classes (65
     percent of respondents reported "currently using"). 

  Cooperative learning:  Classes organized for cooperative learning
     where students earn group rewards for mastery of academic skills
     (28 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). 

  Flexible time:  Flexible time for class periods (9 percent of
     respondents reported "currently using"). 

  Training:  Training in adolescent characteristics and specific
     teaching strategies for secondary school students (65 percent of
     respondents reported "currently using"). 

  Curriculum revisions:  Curriculum revisions to emphasize critical
     thinking skills (63 percent of respondents reported "currently
     using"). 

  Same homeroom:  Students assigned to the same homeroom or advisory
     teachers for all years in high school (33 percent of respondents
     reported "currently using"). 

  Schools in school:  Schools-within-a-school with their own
     administrative staffs such as alternative or magnet school
     programs (19 percent of respondents reported "currently using"). 


RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
OF NELS:88
========================================================== Appendix II

The logistic regression results for our nine models as adjusted odds
ratios are summarized in table II.1.  The odds ratio is a measure of
association that compares the likelihood of an event occurring (for
example, use of team teaching) in one group relative to another (for
example, having more control compared with less control over
instruction).  The odds ratios presented reflect the net effect for
each variable after adjusting for the effects of the other variables
in the model.  If no significant differences exist between two
groups, their odds would be equal and the ratio would be 1.00.  The
greater the odds ratio differs from 1.00, in either direction, the
larger the effect it represents. 

The odds ratios in table II.1 were computed in relation to a defined
reference group (Ref) for each variable.  Odds ratios that are
significantly different from 1.00 at the 95-percent confidence level
are noted in the tables.  For example, the statistically significant
odds ratio in model 6 for urban schools (4.01) indicates that schools
in urban areas were about 4 times more likely to use alternative or
magnet programs than schools in rural areas (after accounting for the
other variables in the model). 



                          Table II.1
           
            Logistic Results: Adjusted Odds Ratios
                Reflecting Association Between
               Independent Variables and Use of
                     Innovative Practices

                              Model 2--      Model 3--
Independent    Model 1--      Common         Cooperative
variable       Team teaching  planning       learning
-------------  -------------  -------------  ---------------
Cooperation
with district

Less           0.99           1.15           1.65*

More           1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)

School
poverty

0 to 10        .86            .89            1.97*
percent

11 to 50       .90            1.07           1.54
percent

51 percent     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)
and more

District size

1 to 5         .28*           .68            .61
schools

6 to 15        .40*           .96            .75
schools

16 to 50       .57*           .79            .69
schools

51 schools     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)
and more

Urbanicity

Urban          1.13           1.28           1.76

Suburban       .99            .82            1.35

Rural          1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)

Instruction
control

Less           .66*           .60*           .74

More           1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)
------------------------------------------------------------
               Model 4--
               Mixed-                        Model 6--
Independent    ability        Model 5--      School in
Variable       classrooms     Flexible time  school
-------------  -------------  -------------  ---------------
Cooperation
with district

Less           1.43           1.62           .82

More           1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)

School
poverty

0 to 10        1.57           .72            .55*
percent

11 to 50       1.05           .37*           .56*
percent

51 percent     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)
and more

District size

1 to 5         .74            .79            .34*
schools

6 to 15        0.99           .73            .78
schools

16 to 50       1.00           .79            .85
schools

51 schools     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)
and more

Urbanicity

Urban          1.50           1.23           4.01*

Suburban       .89            .69            2.41*

Rural          1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)

Instruction
control

Less           .65*           .84            1.00

More           1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)
------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Model 9--
Independent    Model 7--      Model 8--      Curriculum
Variable       Same homeroom  Training       revision
-------------  -------------  -------------  ---------------
Cooperation
with district

Less           1.42           1.51           .83

More           1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)

School
poverty

0 to 10        .92            1.21           1.20
percent

11 to 50       .95            1.08           .80
percent

51 percent     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)
and more

District size

1 to 5         .58            .91            1.03
schools

6 to 15        .92            1.03           .97
schools

16 to 50       .74            1.07           .98
schools

51 schools     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)
and more

Urbanicity

Urban          1.43           1.96*          1.74*

Suburban       1.01           1.15           1.44

Rural          1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)

Instruction
control

Less           .78            .61*           .63*

More           1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)     1.00 (Ref)
------------------------------------------------------------
Indicates odds ratio is significant at the 95-percent confidence
level. 


WAIVERS OBTAINED BY SCHOOLS
========================================================= Appendix III

We reviewed the waivers schools obtained from district and union
rules in Dade County, Florida, and Prince William County, Virginia. 
These waivers were for changes to schools' instructional programs,
student assessment, student discipline, the organization of the
school day or year, school staff positions, teacher compensation, and
student transportation. 


   WAIVERS OBTAINED BY SCHOOLS IN
   DADE COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Of the 279 schools in Dade County, 103 obtained 320 waivers from
school board and union rules during the 1992-93 school year. 
Examples of these waivers appear below. 


      INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.1

  To implement a plan wherein teachers may develop unit plans and
     turn in a copy of the lesson plans to the administration through
     the department chairpersons (union rule). 

  To provide allocations for courses in Spanish for Spanish speakers
     and Spanish as a second language (school board rule). 

  To use 50 percent of textbook funds to purchase nonstate-adopted
     texts and the remaining 50 percent to select State Department of
     Education approved textbooks (school board rule). 

  To implement a plan for teachers to grade first grade students as
     "Excellent," "Satisfactory," and "Needs Improvement" in place of
     using letter grades and change the report card term "Mathematics
     Application" to "Number Concepts" (school board rule). 

  To require either elementary Spanish as a second language or
     elementary Spanish for Spanish speakers for all students in
     kindergarten through sixth grade (school board rule). 

  To offer all students art, music, and physical education (school
     board rule). 

  To provide additional academic experience on Saturday mornings
     (union rule). 

  To develop and implement a youth savings account program (school
     board rule). 

  To allow teachers to determine when it is necessary to have
     teacher-parent communication for the distribution of report
     cards based on attendance or performance of individual students
     (union rule). 

  To implement a program wherein counseling services will be rendered
     by a resource teacher (school board rule). 

  To require all students in grades six, seven, and eight to take
     physical education (school board rule). 

  To provide a reading program for sixth grade using the whole
     language approach curriculumwide (school board rule). 

  To require that all seventh grade students take either a fine arts
     course or a vocation course in place of one elective (school
     board rule). 

  To provide graduate student assistants from the University of Miami
     to provide direct instruction to students (union rule). 

  To allow promotion for selected students from kindergarten to a
     developmental pre-first grade to first grade (school board
     rule). 


      STUDENT ASSESSMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.2

  To distribute school-generated report cards to students four times
     per year on the same day as the rest of the school system's
     computer-generated cards (school board rule). 

  To provide an alternate report card to kindergarten students in the
     school's "Preventative Strategies Program" (school board rule). 

  To implement a plan for teachers to write assessment criteria
     (union rule). 

  To provide a local computerized system that permits a teacher to
     override computer-averaged grades in all cases (school board
     rule). 

  To exempt selected students from final exams (school board rule). 

  To require teachers to conduct individual parent conferences at the
     beginning of the school year and at the end of each grading
     period (union rule). 


      STUDENT DISCIPLINE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.3

  To allow the school-based management team to select a teacher to
     handle school discipline (union rule). 

  To allow teachers to assume administrative duties and
     responsibilities for discipline (union rule). 

  To provide a salary supplement to a teacher dean to provide
     additional administrative support to the school relative to
     discipline strategies (union rule). 


      ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL
      DAY OR YEAR
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.4

  To allow paraprofessionals to have one of their two 10-minute
     breaks added to their duty-free lunch time (union rule). 

  To hold biweekly meetings with teachers and Montessori personnel in
     addition to regularly scheduled faculty meetings (union rule). 

  To add one administrative duty/common planning period following the
     workday.  The workday shall include a maximum of five teaching
     periods for secondary school teachers (union rule). 

  To use planning/preparation days, now designated as no-outside
     meeting days, for SBM training (union rule). 

  To extend the school day 1 hour on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and
     Friday for kindergarten and first grade students (union rule). 

  To allow teachers to provide additional direct instruction during
     time gained from a change in the start and dismissal times
     (union rule). 

  To dismiss pupils 1 hour early one afternoon a week so that this
     time can be used for staff development activities (union rule). 

  To dismiss teachers who participate in professional growth courses
     during the summer session at 2:00 p.m.  when no faculty meetings
     and in-service activities are held (union rule). 

  To allow SBM council to schedule weekly meetings that extend beyond
     the regular workday (union rule). 

  To allow departmental lunch meetings contingent on unanimous
     agreement among the members of the department (union rule). 

  To allow two planning periods per month to be utilized for SBM
     council meetings (union rule). 

  To authorize a decrease in the number of days of instruction in the
     school year for twelfth grade pupils (school board rule). 

  To replace five teaching periods with six and add the words "to
     permit members of the foreign language department to teach an
     extra class without compensation" (union rule). 

  To replace five teaching periods with six and add the words "with a
     maximum student load of 124 students" for the horticulture
     teacher (union rule). 

  To designate teacher planning days for workshops that may be
     extended to full days, as needed.  The total time, however,
     shall not exceed 2 teacher planning days per grading period
     (union rule). 

  To allow staff meetings as deemed appropriate to be extended beyond
     the regular workday (union rule). 

  To include in the workday a study/counseling period (union rule). 

  To allow some teachers to deviate from the normal working and
     planning hours (union rule). 

  To allow a work week to include a maximum of 25 teaching periods
     (union rule). 

  To implement a plan whereby teachers and paraprofessionals may opt
     to supervise students in the cafeteria during their duty-free
     lunch period (union rule). 


      SCHOOL STAFF POSITIONS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.5

  To have department and grade level chairpersons, coordinating lead
     teachers and lead teachers, team leaders, and other teachers
     conduct classroom observations using the official Teacher
     Assessment and Development System observation form (union rule). 

  To allow teachers and lead teachers to assume administrative duties
     and responsibilities (union rule). 

  To have a staff member assume the position of activities
     coordinator (union rule). 

  To have SBM council interview all hardship, voluntary, and surplus
     transfer, as well as new applicants before being assigned to the
     school (union rule). 

  To have teachers act in the role of a lead teacher (union rule). 

  To have a teacher act in the role of helping teacher to the
     administration (union rule). 

  To have an administrative assistant conduct classroom observations
     (union rule). 

  To have a teacher function as a school-based visiting
     teacher/social worker (union rule). 

  To give staff an opportunity to provide input into the hiring
     process of surplus teachers to the school (union rule). 

  To have scheduling of employees as a joint responsibility of the
     principal and a committee designated as the scheduling committee
     (union rule). 

  To amend the promotion requirements (school board rule). 

  To increase the number of grade-level chairpersons (union rule). 

  To allow schools to employ school site pool substitutes who are
     guaranteed a minimum of 180 days employment during the school
     year and who agree to perform daily emergency substitute work on
     a schedule (union rule). 

  To waive provisions requiring priority consideration for personnel
     with a continuing contract or professional service contract
     (union rule). 

  To assign a group of beginning teachers to peer teachers (union
     rule). 

  To allow, annually, members of each department to elect department
     heads and members of the team elect team leaders (union rule). 

  To permit teachers to be employed full-time for a 3-week period
     during the summer school program (union rule). 


      TEACHER COMPENSATION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1.6

  To allocate money and divide it among grade level chairpersons
     equally and to provide a supplement for the safety patrol (union
     rule). 

  To allocate art, music, and physical education teacher positions at
     the same level as the prior year (school board rule). 

  To pay only part-time teachers elected by the faculty to serve on
     the SBM team for more than 25 hours weekly for services rendered
     (union rule). 

  To provide an annual salary supplement to teachers assuming the
     position of team leader (union rule). 

  To give a maximum of four teaching periods and two administrative
     periods to the teacher assuming the position of facilitator
     (union rule). 

  To approve release time to complete the tasks of middle school
     coordinator and core council chairperson (union rule). 

  To attain a more equitable division of available supplement funds
     for varying amounts of increased responsibility before and after
     the regular school day (union rule). 

  To strike existing elementary school supplements (except department
     chairperson supplements) and combine dollars to allow the SBM
     team to determine the method and amount of expenditure of funds
     (union rule). 

  To redistribute district authorized supplements (union rule). 

  To qualify University of Miami students who successfully complete
     the teacher preparation/professional development program and
     meet employment criteria for Dade County Public schools to
     receive credit for 1 year of teaching experience for salary
     purposes (union rule). 

  To provide an annual supplement for performance of extra duties
     (union rule). 

  To provide compensatory time for professional service spent beyond
     the regular duty day.  Compensatory time will be taken on
     teacher workdays or planning time (union rule). 

  To compensate teachers who volunteer for and provide internal
     coverage (union rule). 

  To provide an annual salary supplement to each teacher who
     completes and presents a professional growth training module
     (union rule). 

  To provide extra class supplements for use on a pro rata basis to
     compensate teachers for operating a Saturday school (union
     rule). 

  To provide compensatory time for teachers who voluntarily give up
     their duty-free lunch to supervise students in the cafeteria
     (union rule). 

  To include teachers and paraprofessionals as eligible to accrue
     compensatory time to be used on teacher workdays or Wednesdays
     after student dismissal (union rule). 

  To provide compensatory time for teachers working on quality
     improvement projects (union rule). 

  To provide 1 compensatory day per year for teachers who are members
     of the SBM committee (union rule). 

  To initiate an annual supplement for the paraprofessional voting
     member of the SBM council (union rule). 

  To initiate an annual salary supplement for the teacher selected as
     lead or coordinating teacher (union rule). 

  To provide an annual salary supplement for the teacher serving as
     secretary of the SBM council (union rule). 

  To provide an annual salary supplement for the teacher providing
     the after-school music program (union rule). 

  To provide an annual supplement for a new department head for the
     noninstructional staff (union rule). 

  To provide annual salary supplement for the person serving as
     elementary school assistant (union rule). 

  To provide supplements for teachers assuming the duties of before
     school supervisor, parent publications coordinator, and
     facilitators (union rule). 

  To select teachers to receive supplements through election by the
     teachers, administrators, and staff council (union rule). 

  To redistribute intramural supplements to provide an annual salary
     supplement (union rule). 

  To provide an annual stipend for a University of Miami graduate
     assistant to help coordinate and monitor a professional
     development program (union rule). 

  To provide an annual supplement for the noninstructional staff
     member assuming the extra duties as club/activities sponsor
     (union rule). 

  To provide an annual salary supplement for the union representative
     member of the SBM team (union rule). 

  To provide an annual salary supplement for a teacher team teaching
     five periods of ninth grade world history (union rule). 

  To raise the supplement paid to team leaders (union rule). 

  To provide an extra teaching supplement to the counselor (union
     rule). 

  To authorize additional supplements for the existing supplement for
     team leaders and the existing supplement for coordinator of
     teachers as advisers (union rule). 

  To provide an annual salary for the SBM team chairperson (union
     rule). 

  To designate the principal's secretary as lead secretary and
     provide an annual salary supplement (union rule). 

  To provide an annual salary supplement for the position of
     assistant for discipline and for the teacher serving as lead
     teacher-liaison for attendance and discipline (union rule). 

  To provide an annual supplement for teachers assuming the position
     of SBM steering committee members (union rule). 

  To provide an annual salary supplement for the teacher serving as
     dean of students (union rule). 


   WAIVERS OBTAINED BY SCHOOLS IN
   PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

Of the 61 schools in Prince William County, 32 obtained 71 waivers
from school board rules during the 1993-94 school year.  Examples of
these waivers appear below. 


      INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1

  To develop and implement its own gifted-and-talented program. 

  To provide uninterrupted instructional time. 

  To continue and expand after-school cultural studies. 

  To make foreign language a noncredit course to allow students an
     opportunity to experience it without being penalized if they
     fail. 

  To establish a junior Reserve Officer Training Course program. 

  To increase the number of elective courses available. 

  To implement the International Baccalaureate Program. 

  To offer a daily schedule of individualized instruction for some
     students. 

  To pilot a new special education model. 

  To pilot new courses, including a multicultural international
     literature course and a historiography-archaeology course, and
     offer special recognition on students' diploma for completion of
     multicultural courses. 

  To offer foreign language at the first grade through partial
     immersion. 

  To provide full-day kindergarten. 

  To expand the exploratory arts course offerings in grades six and
     seven. 

  To offer Physics I to ninth grade students. 

  To restructure work-study opportunities by eliminating the
     industrial cooperative training program and redirecting students
     toward comprehensive marketing, business, and vocational
     courses. 

  To offer a free summer school program for at-risk students to meet
     their unique needs. 

  To provide extended-day academic support for students and to hire
     teachers to teach from 2:25 to 3:45. 


      STUDENT ASSESSMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2

  To use report cards developed by the school. 

  To develop specialized interim reports on student performance to
     address individual and department communication needs. 

  To use alternatives to traditional student assessment methods. 

  To develop and implement reporting tools for students in grades
     kindergarten through grade five that more accurately and
     effectively detail student growth. 

  To extend development, piloting, and implementation of alternative
     reporting systems for kindergarten and grades one, two, and
     three. 

  To exempt second graders from assessment using the standardized
     Iowa Test of Basic Skills. 

  To exempt eleventh and twelfth grade students from taking final
     examinations, depending on grades and absences. 

  To award prizes, grants, and incentives to individual students or
     programs for outstanding accomplishments. 


      STUDENT DISCIPLINE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3

  To encourage attendance by issuing failures to students who miss
     more than 12 days of school. 

  To encourage attendance by withholding credit if a student has 20
     or more absences. 


      ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL
      DAY OR YEAR
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.4

  To extend media center hours after school and during the evening
     with staff supervision. 

  To modify the school day (no early release on Thursday afternoons). 

  To schedule the school day from 8:15 a.m.  to 2:45 p.m.  daily,
     except Thursdays. 

  To increase the number of fall conference days from 2 half-days to
     3 half-days and to schedule them to coincide with the end of the
     first marking period. 

  To restructure the school day so that the core day contains five
     50-minute periods and one 90-minute period that meets on
     alternate days. 

  To change elementary conference days from October to November. 


      SCHOOL STAFF POSITIONS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.5

  To create a computer technologist position. 

  To create an assistant activities director position. 

  To hire additional security personnel and maintain one teacher on
     special assignment position. 

  To create an interactive technology specialist (certified teacher)
     position. 

  To create a computer lab teacher position. 

  To use a staff member to maintain working relationships with
     community or business resources. 

  To continue to provide in-house services for gifted- and-talented
     students. 

  To hire a half-time foreign language teacher to teach a new
     language program. 

  To provide teacher coaching positions for a staff development
     program. 

  To hire a computer technologist to provide assistance with the
     at-risk program and purchase needed supplies. 


      TEACHER COMPENSATION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.6

  To compensate the coordinator of the student mentor program. 

  To reimburse department chairpersons for time spent beyond the
     regular school day on the budget process and program planning. 


      STUDENT TRANSPORTATION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.7

  To provide student transportation for the after-school tutorial
     program. 


SCHOOL AND DISTRICT STAFFS'
REMARKS ABOUT SBM
========================================================== Appendix IV

To provide the flavor of what we heard during our site visits, the
following are some paraphrased remarks made by school and district
staff about SBM. 

  SBM means more empowerment of teachers; they have involvement in
     how money is spent on books, activities, and computers. 

  SBM helps to foster more ownership among teachers.  It is important
     that teachers feel comfortable to take risks. 

  SBM allows school services to be more suited to the school's
     students. 

  SBM has opened communication between administrators and teachers;
     teachers now have more input; sometimes the topics seem trivial
     but things now run more smoothly.  Before SBM, they had a
     faculty council, but communication was mostly one way--from the
     administrators to the council. 

  SBM has been a fundamental change; it has empowered teachers,
     giving them a chance to make their dreams a reality.  But it
     also makes you feel you have 10 times the work.  It's a lot of
     time in areas that you are not trained, like curriculum
     innovations.  But any time you ask for help from the district,
     they send it.  Before there was some question of the
     effectiveness of this help, but now it is better. 

  SBM means a dramatic change from the old hierarchical top-down
     approach where teachers had very little voice.  Now the district
     is willing to let schools do things to meet particular needs
     within the parameters of the Board's guidelines and policies. 

  Before SBM, people were not given permission to deviate and the
     focus was on compliance.  SBM did not cause schools to make
     changes, but gave them permission to make changes. 

  The reason they went with SBM originally was to increase test
     scores; that hasn't happened.  But there has been more
     communication between teachers and administrators. 

  SBM gives teachers more of a say over what's going to happen in the
     school.  SBM doesn't add to my work, though that was a fear that
     some people had at my previous school.  Now, because of SBM,
     teachers have a say over the vending machines in the teachers'
     lounge, for example. 

  Overall, everything is about the same under SBM, although staff are
     much more involved in discipline now and have lots of meetings. 

  The hope was that SBM would revitalize the district and lead to
     real innovation, but this did not happen. 

  Drawbacks to SBM are that it is a black hole in terms of time and
     that people were asked to change roles without preparation. 

  The district's progress in implementing SBM depends on the
     principal at a given school.  Ineffective principals are lost. 
     The key issue is whether principals have knowledge about the
     instructional process.  Principals that don't are still doing
     the same things that they did before SBM. 

  SBM has been a powerful tool during the last 2 years.  In dealing
     with budget cuts, SBM has provided the ability to go to schools
     and say "I need to cut your budget--but I'm not going to tell
     you how to cut it."

  The message sent to the schools was that they should figure out
     what they wanted to do, and then all that they did was argue
     about governance issues and what kind of vote was needed to
     approve pay supplements--all of this accomplished nothing. 

  There was a value to what they did with SBM before, but it had no
     plan, no direction, no logical evolution.  Schools need to focus
     on the product, not the process.  They've done all the meetings
     on governance and now need to help the schools focus on how they
     will benefit the kids. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

Beatrice F.  Birman, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7008
Richard J.  Wenning, Project Manager, (202) 512-7048
Patricia M.  Bundy, Evaluator
C.  Robert Deroy, Senior Evaluator (computer science)
Stephen J.  Kenealy, Senior Evaluator
Steve Machlin, Statistician
Ellen K.  Schwartz, Advisor
Jay Smale, Social Science Analyst

