Teacher Empowerment as Perceived by South Carolina Teachers and Principals

Joyce A. Beckett, Anderson, SC School District

Jackson L. Flanigan, Clemson University
An excellent organization is not about power, it is about empowerment.
(Cunningham & Gresso, 1993)
(Return to Contents) <Contents.htm>

Introduction

Educators have been concerned about ways to improve the educational process since
public education became a national issue in the 1950s. However, the educational reform
was driven by external agents, not educators (Murphy, 1992). Sarason (1990) pointed out
that school systems have been inundated with a multitude of failed "innovations" that
were supposed to cure the ills of the school system. None of the innovations, however,
had an effect on fundamental school reform. He maintained that the failure of past
attempts reform was due, at least partially, to the fact that these innovations had a top-
down orientation which removed the persons responsible for implementation of the
innovations from the initial decision making process.
Recent research implied that the hierarchal, top-down approach should give way to a
process of shared decision making (Blase & Blase, 1994; Cunningham & Gresso, 1993;
Goldring & Rallis, 1993; Kreisberg, 1992; Payzant & Gardner, 1994; Sarason, 1990).
This approach was given several different labels: empowerment, shared governance,
participatory decision making, site-based management, cooperative management, and
shared decision making (Richardson, Lane & Flanigan, 1995). Whatever the label, the
intent was a basic paradigm shift away from the top-down process of decision making
that had been so prevalent in our schools. The shift was toward restructuring of schools
that provided a climate which promoted governance forms that had teacher decision
making at their core (Blase & Blase, 1990).
Cunningham and Gresso (1993) supported this view indicating that the only way
education will improve is if an invitation is issued for ideas from the people who work in
the schools. These people are influential in determining which reforms are acceptable.
Indeed, only those reforms that are found acceptable will be the ones that will have a
positive effect on the school.
Arthur G. Wirth implied that establishment of the education system necessary for the
21st century was in its infancy. He believed that most of the "factory-era" administrative
styles that had been used in schools are "dysfunctional" (Cunningham & Gresso, 1993, p.
264). Reform efforts should be geared toward more participation from the stakeholders
involved. The most promising efforts seek to invigorate the education systems by
adopting participative styles of management that support local creativity, autonomy, and
problem solving (cited in Cunningham & Gresso, 1993, p. 264).
Payzant and Gardner (1994) indicated that school administrators need to include all
manner of participants in the decision making process -- teachers, other staff members
and parents -- in order to decide how the school will be organized, what will improve
teaching and learning, and how resources should be allocated. Decisions in these areas
should not be ones that are made centrally and handed down to the site for
implementation (Payzant & Gardner, 1994, p. 10). In fact, Wood (1984) saw shared
decision making as a collaborative approach where all stakeholders work together as
equals to identify, analyze and solve problems that face the organization (p. 63).
Newmann and Wehlage (1995) posited that structural changes in the school, when
combined with "certain human and social resources" (p. 52), will enhance the school
professional community which, in turn, elevates student achievement. Topping their list
of structural conditions necessary to promote learning was shared governance which,
they maintained, increased teachers' influence over practice and policy within the
organization.
If significant change in a school was strongly impacted by involvement of all sectors of
the school community in the decision making processes, then two primary factors
appeared to surface that enabled shared decision making to be initially implemented and
ultimately successful: creation of an environment conducive to change and a redefinition
of power. First, a culture of community based on trust and one which values every
individual must be established (Cunningham & Gresso, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1994). Such a
culture welcomes the input of all stakeholders and allows for the change process to
develop. This does not mean that the structure of the organization must be sacrificed to
promote culture. It does mean that focusing on organizational structure alone stifles the
cultural environment in which change and progress are nurtured.
Second, power within educational institutions must be redefined. Power relationships
need to change (Sarason, 1990). Kreisberg (1992), stated that, "Predominant theories of
power define power in terms of the ability to control others, to impose one's will on
others. Power is viewed in terms of relationships of domination" (p. 21). Kreisberg
labeled this type of power as "power over" and maintained that most social institutions
operate in a "power over" fashion. However, the "power over" concept is incongruous
with shared decision making. A "power with" concept (Kreisberg) came into play when
shared decision making was adopted. The "power with" concept involved a
relinquishment of control by the formal leader and a redistribution of the decision
making process to include all stakeholders. This view of power appeared to create some
difficulties among traditional administrators. Newmann and Wehlage (1995) reported
that in many schools the level of control exerted by the principal stifled the contributions
of faculty and parents in shared decision making .
Shared decision making calls for decisions to be reached by consensus, with the principal
being a member (not a leader) in the decision-making group. Consensus is different from
gathering input. Consensus implies agreement within a decision-making group. Interests
of leaders and followers are the same. Consensus involves negotiation, compromise,
collaboration and a sharing of purpose and values. Input implies gathering information
and opinions from members of a group in order for a decision to be made by the person
in power. Many principals follow the transactional model of leadership which could
allow for some input on decisions, but it would not allow for consensus. Burns (1978)
defined transactional leadership as a relationship between leaders and followers that had
an eye toward exchanging one thing for another. Many other principals practice the
transformational model of leadership which Burns defined as a relationship of "mutual
stimulation and elevation" (p. 4). This model would allow for increased input on
decisions from followers and more opportunity for consensus. Moral leadership, the most
evolved model described by Burns, was defined as a relationship based not only on
power but on "mutual needs, aspirations, and values" (p. 4). This model of leadership is
the most conducive to shared decision making and is able to produce social change.
Shared decision making became an important element in current research and practice
that pertained to durable and meaningful school reform. The platform for successful
implementation of shared decision making is enhanced by the combined factors of an
environment conducive to change and a redefinition of power. Shared decision making is
identified as a critical element in the restructuring process (Blase & Blase, 1990;
Cunningham & Gresso, 1993). If this is the case, then middle schools in South Carolina
that are participating in restructuring efforts (i.e., South Carolina Associate/Partner
Schools) should produce evidence of shared decision making. This study was designed to
examine the impact of shared decision making as one of the strategies of change in the
educational restructuring process in selected middle schools in South Carolina.
The primary purpose of this study was to measure dimensions of shared decision making
in each of thirty-seven South Carolina Associate/Partner Schools at the middle school
level to determine if there was agreement between the perceptions of randomly selected
teachers at the schools and the principals of those schools as to the utilization of shared
decision making within their institutions.
Findings
The Teacher Involvement and Participation Scale, Version 2 (TIPS 2) data were gathered
from thirty-four middle level schools that were designated as Associate/Partner Schools.
The population of the original schools was divided into two distinct groups: 37 principals
and 1,812 certified, full-time faculty members. Of this population, all thirty-seven
principals were invited to respond and a restricted random sampling of the faculty
members was surveyed. A total of four hundred instruments was sent to faculty
members. The schools surveyed ranged in size from a faculty of 20 to a faculty of 107.
The collection period ran six weeks with intermittent follow-up contacts to prompt
response. The response rate was 62 percent for teachers (248 of 400) and 91.9 percent for
principals (34 of 37).
Of the thirty-four principals who responded, ten were female and twenty-four were male.
Of the teachers who responded, 218 were female and twenty-six were male. Two
instruments were returned with no gender marked. Twenty-six (76 percent) of the
principals reported that they were between forty and forty-nine years of age; seven (21
percent) reported that they were fifty to fifty-nine years old; and one reported to be sixty
or older. Thirty-one ( 13 percent) of the teachers were twenty to twenty-nine years old;
sixty-eight (27 percent) were thirty to thirty-nine years old; 109 teachers (44 percent)
were between forty and forty-nine years of age; and forty (16 percent) reported being
fifty to fifty-nine years old. There were no responses from teachers that indicated age
sixty or older.
One principal and thirty-six ( 15 percent) teachers indicated that they had one to five
years experience teaching. One principal and fifty-one (21 percent) teachers reported six
to ten years experience. Two principals and thirty-nine (16 percent) teachers had been in
the profession eleven to fifteen years. Five principals (15 percent) and forty-nine (20
percent) teachers had sixteen to twenty years experience. And twenty-five (74 percent)
principals reported being in education more than twenty years while seventy-two (29
percent) of the teachers made the same claim.
The responses to the question regarding years of experience at that school appeared to be
more widely distributed and yielded no significant difference among the principals and
the teachers. Four principals and four teachers reported that the current year was their
first year at that school. Nine principals (26 percent) and ninety-seven (39 percent) of the
teachers had one to five years experience at their particular school. Ten principals (29
percent) and sixty-eight (28 percent) reported being at their school for six to ten years.
Three principals (9 percent) and thirty-nine (16 percent) teachers had eleven to fifteen
years at that school. Five principals ( 15 percent) and twenty (8 percent) teachers
answered that they had been at their school for sixteen to twenty years. And three
principals (9 percent) and eighteen (7 percent) of the teachers have had more than twenty
years experience at their same school. Two teachers chose not to respond to the question.
In response to the question "To what extent do teachers participate in shared decision
making at your school?" fifteen teachers (5 percent) responded "very little" while there
were no responses in that category from principals. Seven principals (21 percent) and 120
(49 percent) of the teachers reacted to "somewhat. " Twenty-seven (79 percent) of the
principals and 1 12 (45 percent) of the teachers indicated that teachers were "very much"
involved in shared decision making at their school. One teacher response was missing.
Responses to the Open-ended Statement
The open-ended item found on the TIPS 2 was completed by sixteen of the thirty four
principals (47 percent) and by seventy-four of the 248 teachers (30 percent) who returned
the survey. Participants in this study were given the opportunity to complete the
following open ended statement: "I would improve Shared Decision Making at my
school by ...." The responses were copied word for word and separated into principal
responses and teacher responses. They were then analyzed for content by three
individuals who were familiar with the process of content analysis. Discussion of the
findings is presented first for the teachers, then for the principals, with a comparison
between the groups following.
The responses recorded for the seventy-four teachers who completed the open ended
statement fell into seven general categories. Some respondents made more than one
statement on the issue and, therefore, were counted in more than one category. There
were six items of this nature for a total of eighty responses.
The highest response category for teachers involved a desire to be included in the
decisions on budget, hiring of personnel and evaluation of personnel. Twenty-four
statements were made in one or more of these areas. These statements correspond with
the statistics derived from the dimensions of Budget and Staffing that were analyzed
earlier in this chapter. These two dimensions denoted dissatisfaction with the level of
teacher participation as viewed by the teachers. Twenty-four teachers felt strongly
enough about the lack of teacher input into decisions in these areas to remark on them.
Seventeen teachers referred to the fact that the decisions that were ultimately made were
not the decisions that the teachers had agreed upon in discussion. They suggested that
when the administration did not stick to the agreed upon decision or did not return to
them to explain why a decision had been changed, the attitudes of those teachers who
valued shared decision making were undermined and the attitudes of those who
questioned shared decision making were enforced. They felt that their input was not
considered important.
Concern was expressed by at least several teachers over the limited participation of the
teachers in the decision making process. Complaints were that the same key people from
the faculty were always involved, that participation was not broad enough, and that those
who refused to participate had to understand that they were held accountable for
decisions made by those who agreed to participate. Another component that these
teachers felt was detrimental to the success of shared decision making was the lack of
information to make quality decisions. They felt that they lacked information on which
decisions they could actually make and which decisions were governed by outside
influences.
Seventeen teachers referred to the fact that the decisions that were ultimately made were
not the decisions that the teachers had agreed upon in discussion. They suggested that
when the administration did not stick to the agreed upon decision or did not return to
them to explain why a decision had been changed, the attitudes of those teachers who
valued shared decision making were undermined and the attitudes of those who
questioned shared decision making were enforced. They felt that their input was not
considered important.
Principal Responses to the Open-ended Statement
Principal responses cited staff development as being the most critical area necessary to
improve shared decision making at their schools. One-fourth of those who make remarks
did so regarding staff development. The statements were succinct: "more training
needed," "continued staff development activities and varied experiences," "continued
staff development," "continuing staff development in this area." This was a cross-gender
issue. The need for more reliable information upon which to base decisions was
mentioned, ". . . ensuring that everyone has all the information they need to base
decisions on. " This was identified by female administrators only.
Wider participation in the decision making process was noted by both male and female
administrators. Not only was it designated desirable for teachers to become more
involved, but one female principal suggested that students should be more involved in
making decisions.
Individual responses included the areas of more time needed to accomplish shared
decision making, "clearly stated district policies stating the role of the school and the
staff within the school concerning decision making," more involvement of staff in "site-
based budgeting, planning, and teacher selection--as well as administrative selection,"
"putting more emphasis on the process," and "having professional staff members be more
positive".
Individual responses included the areas of more time needed to accomplish shared
decision making, "clearly stated district policies stating the role of the school and the
staff within the school concerning decision making," more involvement of staff in "site-
based budgeting, planning, and teacher selection--as well as administrative selection,"
"putting more emphasis on the process," and "having professional staff members be more
positive"
Both groups in this study mentioned the following concerns when they completed the
open-ended statement: staff development, involvement in budget decisions, involvement
in staff selection, time, wider participation, and clarification of which issues are available
for shared decision making.
Both teachers and principals saw a problem when it came to getting the full faculty to
support the vision of the school. Teachers indicated that while many of them (83 percent)
had extensive say in developing the vision of the school only sixty-nine percent of them
felt the vision was actually supported by the faculty. Principals agreed. Ninety-one
percent of them said that teachers had extensive input in developing the vision but
support for the vision dropped to seventy-six percent. A significant cant number of
teachers did not support the vision that they helped develop.
There was also significant difference about setting standards for discipline. Teachers
clearly felt secure with their involvement in setting standards for their own classrooms
but claimed little responsibility for contributing to school-wide decisions concerning the
way discipline would be handled. Principals, on the other hand, felt that teachers were
"frequently" or "almost always" involved in these decisions (85 percent).
Opinions differed about whether the procedures and structures needed to support the
process of shared decision making within a school were in place. Principals, again, held a
more positive perspective than the teachers. Teachers expressed concern regarding access
to information needed to make informed decisions; they felt they did not always have the
opportunity to be represented on a school-wide decision making council; there was not
enough time allowed to participate in shared decision making; decisions were made
without everyone being in agreement; and decisions were made without everyone
accepting the proposal to some extent. A number of experts (David, 1994; Miller, 1995;
Weiss & Cambone, 1994) consider these components crucial to the overall success of
shared decision making. The absence of them can undermine the process.
Discussion of the Findings
The theory put forth in this study held that creating a climate/culture of trust and
collaboration between teachers and administrators was one of two essential conditions
necessary for the success of shared decision making. The other necessary condition was a
realignment of power as viewed by administrators and teachers. Teachers had to accept
new responsibility and accompanying accountability. Principals had to be willing to
relinquish traditional authority. There was evidence that middle level teachers were
active, to varying degrees, in all dimensions, so it is apparent that some efforts toward
establishing a conducive climate/culture and realigning roles of power are being made.
However, a climate/culture of trust is not yet firmly established in these schools and the
power elite have not fully deferred to the pluralists.
Weiss (1995) found that shared decision making failed to produce significant changes in
the twelve high schools she studied. This was due to what she felt was a feeling of
skepticism among the teachers. The teachers in her study doubted that their authority was
real and felt as if they weren't being taken seriously--an indication, in my opinion, that a
climate/culture of trust did not exist. The teachers in this study echoed that feeling when
they reported in the open-ended statement that they might make one decision in
committee only to find out that a different decision was enacted. They indicated that they
seldom received feedback about why such switches occurred. Some reported making
decisions and then wondering what ever happened as a result of them. Decisions, as one
teacher put it, should not be a victim of "What ever happened to ...." Not providing
feedback and failure to enact decisions are sure ways to undermine the process of shared
decision making. Genuine interest can rapidly deteriorate when teachers feel their input
doesn't matter. Any trust that had been established in the climate/culture of the school
becomes eroded.
Conway and Calzi (1996) suggested that a "dark side of shared decision making" (p. 45)
has begun to surface in recent years. They argued that while teachers may feel more
professional and may develop collegiality as a result of shared decision making, there is
no proof that participation in making decisions translates to better productivity in the
classroom. In fact, they maintained that when given the chance to make decisions,
teachers tended to be self-serving. It would be better, according to them, to strike a
balance in shared decision making that empowers teachers to have input in key issues
that affect their professional affairs and empowers administrators to make decisions
affecting the entire school organization. In other words, shared decision making may not
be the proper vehicle for all decisions.
The teachers in this study may have been addressing similar concerns when they
complained of lack of information on issues presented for decision and called for a clear
delineation of which decisions were theirs to make. The principals as well as the teachers
commented on the futility of entering into the decision making process when the decision
made was cast aside due to state or district policy, district goals that differed with school
goals, or to the philosophy held by the building administrator. The participants appeared
somewhat frustrated with the process, especially when the district did not totally support
site-based management. Lack of total support represents failure to complete power
realignment.
Time devoted to shared decision making was another factor teachers frequently
mentioned in response to the open-ended statement on the survey. Teachers appeared to
feel overwhelmed and rushed by the decision making process. Miller (1995) maintained
that the enormous amounts of time necessary to participate in shared decision making
drained energy from teachers and eventually diverted their attention from the classroom.
The practice among principals in this study was to consistently over-rate the involvement
of their own teachers was interesting. Several teachers commented on the lack of
representation on school-wide decision making councils. They felt that the same few
people were repeatedly being asked to make decisions that affected the entire group.
Therefore, involvement in decision making may be occurring but it is not nearly as wide
spread as the principals seem to think. Teacher involvement was not as great as principals
indicated. The principals of these schools may be falsely convincing themselves that they
have created a trusting environment and have relinquished power when they have not.
What they may have done is establish a small community of leaders on their faculties
instead of involving the full faculty.
Conclusions
Even those who are now suggesting that shared decision making may have its drawbacks
support the continued use of the process in the schools. They urge administrators to hold
firm in its use despite obstacles. They also recommend sustained staff development to
help teachers widen their perspectives of education; to prepare them for the conflict and
stress that often results when groups gather to make decisions; to help instill a sense of
ownership in school reform.
This research showed that shared decision making was being utilized in the
Associate/Partner Schools that had made a commitment to do so. The implication is that
the process still needs refinement. Perhaps these schools should analyze the process for
themselves and strike a balance. Deciding which areas are appropriate for teachers'
involvement would be the first step. The schools could decide that some decisions should
be left to the administration with the teachers acting as consultants--input versus
consensus in some instances. As the teachers gain expertise, other areas of shared
decision making could be included.
References
Blase, J., & Blase, J. R. (1994). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Conway, J. A., & Calzi, F. !996). The dark side of shared decision making. Educational Leadership,
53(4), 45-49.
Cunningham, W. G., & Gresso, D. W. (1993). Cultural leadership: The culture of excellence in
education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
David, J. L. (1994). School-based decision making: Kentucky's test of decentralization. Phi Delta
Kappan, 75(9), 706-712.
Goldring, E. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1993). Principals of dynamic schools: Taking charge of change.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Kreisberg, S. (1992). Transforming power: Domination, empowerment, and education. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Miller, E. (1995). Shared decision-making by itself doesn't make for better decisions. The Harvard
Education Letter, 11(6), 1-4.
Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage. G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison, University of
Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Payzant, T. W., & M. Gardner, M. (1994). Changing roles and responsibilities in a restructuring school
district. NASSP Bulletin, 78(560), 8- 17.
Richardson, M. D., Lane,K. E., & Flanigan, J. L. (1995) School empowerment. Lancaster, PA:
Technomic.
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. I. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, C. H., & Cambone, J. (1994). Principals, shared decision making, and school reform. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 287-301.
Wood, C. J. (1984). Participatory decision making: Why doesn't it seem to work? The Educational
Forum, 49(1), 55-63.
1, 1998 (B. Boyd, personal communication, July 29, 1998). Openings appear to be linked