The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, and Secondary Education, "Our Children - Our Future" (1992), recommended increased local involvement in educational decision making through the establishment of local school councils (Recommendation 15). As a result of these recommendations, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador legislated that school councils be established in all schools in the province. The purpose and functions of school councils are set out in legislation (Education Act, Bill 48,1996, Section 26) as follows: "to develop, encourage and promote policies, practices and activities to enhance the quality of school programs and the levels of student achievement in the school". Councils are to advise on the quality of teaching and learning, facilitate parent and community involvement in teaching and learning, and advise the board on matters of concern to the school and community. School councils are further mandated to approve, support and promote a plan for improving teaching and learning in the school, approve and monitor activities for the raising of funds, assist in monitoring and evaluating standards, and conduct meetings with parents and members of the community on matters within its responsibility.

In 1997-98, a survey was conducted with chairpersons of school councils in five school districts in the province. The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of councils in carrying out their mandate as set out in legislation.

School councils

Research indicates that school councils deal with operational matters in their early stages (Collins 1996; Lindle 1995). However, the research on the effectiveness of school councils with regard to the mandate of increasing student achievement and school performance remains inconclusive.  Sebring et al. (1995) report that Chicago teachers "offer very positive reports about improvements in their own teaching, their opportunities for professional growth, their experiences with colleagues and their own commitment "(p.4) and "are also positive about parents and community relations" (p.5).  However, teachers "do not necessarily see corresponding student results"  (p. 5). Kannapel et al. (1995) pointed out that it is not sufficient to accept that a school with a school council is operating under a true shared decision-making model because many councils may serve as a rubber stamp to principals: "It remains to be seen whether the plans, policies, and programs now being developed by councils are more effective at improving student achievement than those developed by principals or teachers alone" (p. 22).

Based on a review of over 80 empirical studies between 1985 and 1995, Leithwood and Menzies (1998) question the efficacy of school councils and their conclusion is that "there is virtually no firm, research-based knowledge about the direct or indirect effects of school councils on students... There is an awesome gap between the rhetoric and the reality of this initiative" (p. 48). Based on a study designed to estimate the nature and extent of influence of councils on schools, Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (1998) concluded that, at best, the influence of councils on school and classroom practices is unlikely to be more than mildly positive. They do argue that there are two purposes to which councils might contribute: 1) the creation of educational systems with greater internal learning capacities (which would require a dramatic shift in government enactment of policy to allow widely distributed responsibilities for solving organizational problems) and 2) an opportunity for engaging with other members of the wider community in conversations about community values . Leithwood (1998) cautions that "we should not underestimate their [school council] 'opportunity costs' -- the time that could be spent productively in other ways" (p.37).

Site based decision making

A shift of authority from school boards to the school site as a facet of school reform is referred to in a number of ways, including site-based management, school- based budgeting, decentralized decision making, collaborative school management, local school management, and school-based governance. There can also be great variation in the amount of authority delegated to the school site. The authority devolved may be limited to advising or it may include full management of school affairs. There is also considerable variation in governance patterns though normally governance is passed to a school-based decision-making body, variously known as councils, committees, teams or cabinets.

Over the past several years, Great Britain, New Zealand, some areas of Australia and much of the United States have embraced various degrees of devolution of authority to the school site as a major part of their school reform efforts. Generally changes in the amount of authority shifted from central office to the school site have not been as far- reaching in Canada as in other countries. In a number of provinces provincial governments have enacted legislation that provides for the establishment of parental advisory bodies at the school level. Lewington & Orpwood (1993) argue that, with the possible exception of Quebec, legislation in each of these provinces tends to create the impression of a transformation in the structure of the system. They continue:

In reality, there is less here than meets the eye, since the ministry and/or the school board still retains central control over curriculum and funding. Parents, teachers and principals, though more involved in decisions than in the past, are still no more than advisors, at best, in budget and staffing decisions at the local school (p. 66).

O'Connell and Yadegari (1996) explore the efforts of shared decision-making teams (SDM) on student achievement. In most districts SDM teams had been in operation for a school year when the survey was conducted.  Forty-nine per cent reported that their teams had made decisions that had already had an impact on student achievement, and an additional 28.7% indicated that their teams had made decisions that could have an impact on student achievement in the future. The most frequently made decisions were in the area of some type of modification of the instructional program. The next most-frequently reported decision was in the area of raising academic standards.  About two-thirds indicated that an evaluation strategy was in place to measure the effects of changes implemented. These evaluations will make it possible to see if SDM results in changes that really improve student achievement.

Bauer, Bogotch and Park (1998) analyse the relationship between site council practices and outcomes. The results suggest that the devolution of power from traditional authorities to site-based teams may result in the enhanced influence of these teams. What site teams do with this influence, whether it results in better decision- making or improvement in teaching and learning, depends on what happens at the school site and on how the site-based teams practice site-based decision-making. Seitsinger (1998) explores a multiple case perspective of school-site decision making.  He concludes that participating parents do feel more connected and informed but become trustees of the status quo, and school-site decision-making bodies are not an effective reform strategy.

Importance of Training to School Councils

The importance of training for all stakeholders in school councils is advised (Brown, 1990; Harrison et al., 1989; Herman & Herman, 1993; Lewis (1989), Murphy (1989), Whitaker & Moses, 1994). Budgeting and planning are the areas of site-based decision making most frequently decentralized. Curriculum planning is also often delegated. While districts set curriculum and instructional plans, there may be significant variation among individual schools to customize and enhance district goals and objectives (Herman & Herman, 1993; Whitaker & Moses, 1994). Involvement in hiring and assignment of employees is the most controversial function (McWalters, 1992). Cohen (1983) states that "the success of any site based management program will depend on the amount of latitude individual schools have to adopt new policies or develop innovative solutions to problems" (p. 12).

Parent and Community Involvement

The value of parental and community involvement in education is now acknowledged by most researchers, for example Epstein (1992), Henderson (1981, 1987) and Henderson and Beria (1994). Researchers continue to advocate parental involvement in all forms, including school councils (Wallace, 1996; Etheridge, Hall and Etheridge, 1995; Danyluk, 1996; Skau, 1996; O'Toole, 1995; Patrick, 1995; Gariepy, 1995). Henderson (1994) also cites school councils as a valuable vehicle for parental involvement. Research has been directed most frequently at the involvement of parents in the learning of their own children through homework programs. Increasingly research is becoming directed at the wider role that parents can play, firstly as volunteers at the school, both behind-the-scenes and in the classroom, and most recently as members of policy-making bodies.

In 1998 and 1999, quantitative research in the form of a telephone survey of 1997-1998 school council chairpersons in five districts was undertaken (79.8% of chairs were reached). In order to determine the kinds of activities in which school councils are engaged and to examine the processes which enable councils to undertake their mandate or hinder them in its pursuit, council chairpersons were asked to respond to 17 questions on the following topics: council meetings, committees, decision-making, issues addressed, training, barriers, and support. Among the 80% of chairs surveyed, a majority of councils were in the first year of operation during the time period examined by the survey.

SPSS was used for statistical analysis of the school council chairs' survey. The survey was based on a similar survey designed for the Newfoundland School Council Study (1994-96). The unit of analysis will be the school council.

Committees

The majority of councils (71.6%) have established committees.  The most common committees are: financial (57.5%), fundraising (43.8%), parent involvement (27.4%), school improvement (23.3%), communications/publicrelations (23.3%), curriculum (21.9%), and constitution/bylaws/protocol (12.3%). The majority (86.3%) have committees which include council members, parents and teachers as members.

Issues Addressed

The issues addressed by councils most frequently are operational details, school improvement, school buildings, parent involvement and fundraising:
 

• Of the 102 councils, all but 7 (93.1%), chose operational details as an issue addressed. Just less than half of those councils (48.4%) flagged it as one of the three issues taking the most time, with about one quarter (25.3%) identifying it as the most time-consuming issue.
• The school building was an issue for 95 councils (93.1%), with 41.1% considering it as one of the three issues taking the most time.
• School improvement was addressed by 92 councils (90.2%). Fifty per cent considered it as one of the three issues taking the most time.
• Parent involvement was addressed by 92 councils (90.2%), with 17.4% considering it as one of the three issues taking the most time.
• Fundraising was an issue addressed by 82 councils (80.4%), with 31.7% considering it as one of the three issues taking the most time. There is no accurate way to determine whether these councils approved fundraising, fundraised themselves, or combined these two activities. Comments indicate that at least some councils have a committee which fundraises and other schools have parent groups separate from council which do so.

Although operational details are still a concern of councils, only one quarter of the chairs considered it to be one of the most time-consuming issues, while almost half considered school improvement to be one of the most time-consuming.

Other issues addressed by a significant number of councils were: school policy (71.6%), computers (72.5%), school climate (69.6%), extracurricular activities, (62.7%) bussing (60.8%), student discipline (57.8%) and school scheduling (36.3%) but few considered any of these issues as one of the three taking the most time.

Although not a major focus for many, a number of councils addressed issues until now reserved to school administration and staff, issues such as curriculum delivery (51%), professional development (31.4%) and teaching assignments (24.5%).

A number of councils addressed issues related to education reform, namely, restructuring (14.7%), lack of funding/resources (19.6%) and staff cutbacks (6.9%). A majority who chose these issues felt they were one of the three most time-consuming issues taking the most time.

Other issues addressed by fewer than 6% of councils include: school safety, cafeteria, budgeting, school board cooperation and communication, school board elections, council member roles, library, school population, staff appreciation, union situation, regional zone council, crisis intervention/pastoralcare, evaluation process and graduation. Chairs who named these issues often considered them one of the three issues taking the most time.

In summary, the predominant issues occupying councils, in decreasing order, are: operational details, school building, school improvement, parent involvement and fundraising. There is a shift in emphasis, as councils get more established, from operational details to issues closer to their legislated mandate, that is, school improvement. The establishment of committees of the councils indicates that the mandate of increasing parental and community involvement is also in development.

Site-based decision making

On one end of the spectrum, a few chairs (6.9%) felt their councils had a great deal of decision-making authority. On the other end, others (30.4%) felt they had little or no authority. The rest felt they shared authority. Many of them (45%) felt authority was shared with the principal, while others felt authority was shared with various combinations of the school board, the school community, staff and parents. A few felt the amount of authority and how it is shared depend on the issue being discussed. Comments often made a distinction between decisions that could be made at school level and decisions that required approval from the school board or government. Generally, chairs were more likely to consider their council having some degree of authority on decisions made at the school level. Several chairs added comments that indicated dissatisfaction with the amount of authority they felt they had; for example, the extent of their authority is unclear; their school board tells them they have no authority; the school board makes the decisions; their principal is resistant to relinquishing any authority, and their school board is not supportive.  A few chairs made comments that indicated satisfaction with the amount of authority they were accorded; for example, the principal is supportive; there is strong agreement between council and school; the school board seems to value council input, and council and staff reach consensus. A few chairs indicated they were satisfied with an advisory role.

There was no significant correlation between districts and amount of authority chairs felt their councils had. In every district there were some chairs who felt they had a great deal of shared authority, and others who felt they had little or were advisory only.

When asked what it would take for councils to succeed, over one quarter (26.5%) of chairs felt increased authority was needed.  Limited legislative power, lack of cooperation from the school board, and conflict with the principal about decision making were barriers to council success perceived by some chairs. Some comments indicated dissatisfaction with the authority accorded to councils. It was said, for example, that councils are figureheads with no authority and that the chair interprets more authority from the Act than School Board does.

The site-based nature of school councils, to date, is largely advisory ; however, chairpersons expressed the belief that more decision making will be necessary for councils to succeed. There appears to be no initiative on the part of school boards to devolve more authority and, in some cases, school boards and principals are perceived as barriers to the ability of councils to function and make decisions.

Training

Most councils (85.3%) had some training; almost half (47.1%) had two or more sessions. All districts provided some training. About 80% of councils received some training on their legislated functions and on running meetings, taking minutes etc.

About 65% received some training on board policies. The school board provided the training in all but four cases, where it was provided by the principal.

Fifty per cent of chairs were satisfied with the training provided, although in all cases negative comments were made about some aspect of training. In two districts the number of chairs who were satisfied greatly outnumbered those who were not. In two other districts, the number of dissatisfied outnumber the satisfied. In the remaining district responses were equal.

When asked what training they would like, 20.5% of chairs asked for training that would better define the role of councils. Another 15.7% of chairs felt more or better training was needed. Other comments and suggestions included: the need for more training and at times more suitable to work schedules; training for new members; training on writing protocol agreements, running meetings, issues in curriculum delivery and multi grading, and training in conflict resolution.

There was a wide range of comments in response to the question of what chairs considered positive about the training. These included:focus on practical approaches and solutions, useful materials for future reference, opportunity to compare issues between councils, interaction with more experienced councils, contact with the school board, openness/sharing of information, and insight into purpose/role. One chair suggested high school councils should be trained separately from elementary school councils.

The experiences of school councils as expressed by chairpersons is reflective of the research on school councils, namely, that training is necessary, should be systematic and must address the purpose of councils.  Chairpersons supported the need for improvement in this area.

Factors Helping and Hindering Councils

Most chairs (86.3%) felt their council was working well together. Most (88.2%) felt their principal was supportive. Most (77.5%) felt the support of the school board was helpful. There was no significant correlation between districts and council perception of the support of the school board, though in the case of one district, where all but one chair was surveyed, more councils felt board support did not helpthan did. While a majority of chairs (65.7%) felt training helped them somewhat, over a quarter (30.4%) felt it did not. A few chairs mentioned sharing of ideas between school councils in the district is helpful. A majority of chairs (61.7%) felt the establishment of school councils has led to increased parental involvement.

Barriers mentioned most frequently were lack of training (62.8%), lack of clearly defined role (50%), difficulty in getting parents to serve on council (48%), lack of time (40.2%) and not dealing with educational issues (30.4%).¹

Other barriers mentioned included: restructuring; lack of cooperation from the school board, limited legislative power, lack ofresources/funding, lack of parental/community involvement, conflict with the principal about decision making, too much expected of the school council in the allotted time, lack of government and community support, lack of communication between school council and staff, and lack of council member commitment.

Lack of training, lack of a clearly defined role, and the difficulty of getting parents to serve on council are the greatest barriers. Lack of time is also a significant barrier.

Future Success of School Councils in Newfoundland and Labrador

A majority of chairs (89.2%) feel school councils will succeed. The needs most frequently mentioned are: parent involvement/cooperation (35.3%), increased authority (26.5%), school board support/commitment (19.6%), government cooperation/support (19.6%), principal cooperation/support/leadership (16.7%), staff involvement/cooperation (16.7%), and a defined/understood role (14.7%).²

Process

Chairs had many varied comments on the school council process. The three comments heard most frequently, which corroborated results of questions on training and factors helping/hindering councils, were: school board interaction/support/commitment /communication is needed (6.9%); regional/provincial networks are helpful (5.9%), and more training is needed (3.9%).

Conclusion

Councils are moving away from operational to more substantive issues. Some councils are beginning to address educational issues more directly related to their mandate to enhance the quality of school programs and the levels of student achievement, such as school improvement and curriculum delivery.

The theme of inadequate training prevailed in the responses and was the most often cited barrier. The other major barriers are: lack of a clearly defined role, difficulty in getting parents to serve on council, and lack of time.

Chairpersons generally expressed satisfaction that councils were working well and believed they will be successful in achieving their mandate provided they have more decision making ability.

Councils are involved in many issues; however, the focus on school improvement is not evident. It is not clear why this is the case.  With so many concerns about lack of time, it seems that council members should want to direct their attention to how their schools are performing and achieving. However, many other issues appear to circumvent what should be the focal enterprise of school councils.

The issue of decision making has been a major focus on research on school councils and is evidently an issue for councils in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a need to analyse the legislation mandating and governing school councils to determine the limits of the authority of school councils. Whether councils have advisory or decision making roles, and whether those roles are different in certain areas, can only be established within the parameters of legislation.

Bauer, S.C., Bogotch, I.E. and Park, H. (1998) Modeling site-based decision making: The relationship between inputs, site council practices, and outcome. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Brown, D.J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. London: The Falmer Press.

Cohen, M. (1983). Instructional management and social conditions in effective schools. In A. Odden & L.D. Webb (Eds.), School finance and school improvement (pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Collins, A., Cooper, J. & Whitmore, E. (1995).  Enhancing local involvement in education through quality leadership: Pilot school council project. Report and Recommendations. St. John's, NF: Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Collins, A. & Whitmore, E. (1996). Enhancing local involvement in education through quality leadership: Pilot school council project. Report and Recommendations No. 2. St. John's, NF: Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Danyluk, J.J. (1996) Parents as partners: From theory to practice. Alberta Counselors, 22(1), 11-13.

Epstein, J.L. (1992). School and family partnerships. Baltimore, MD: Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children's Learning.

Etheridge, G.W., Hall, M.L. & Etheridge, C.P. (1995) From volunteer to advocate: The empowerment of an urban parent. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(2), 110-119.

Gariepy, R. (1995) Parents-as-partners role welcome. ATA News, 29(13), 4.

Harrison, C.R., Killion, J.P., & Mitchell, J.E. (1989). Site based management: The realities of implementation. Educational Leadership, 46(8), 5-58.

Henderson, A.T. (1994). School-based management: An ideal setting for community education. Community Education Journal, 21(2),7-8.

Henderson, A.T. (Ed) (1987) The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improves student achievement. An annotated bibliography. National Committee for Citizens in Education special Report.Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, AT. (Ed) (1981). Parent participation-student achievement: The evidence grows. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, A.T., & Beria, N. (1994) A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Herman, J.J. & Herman, J.L. (1993). School based management: Current thinking and practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

Kannapel, P.J., Moore, B.D., Coe, P. & Aagaard, L.(1995). Six heads are better than one? School-based decision making in rural Kentucky. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 11(1), 15-23.

Leithwood, K. (1998) Educational Governance and Student Achievement. Orbit, 29(1), 34-37.

Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998) Research on School-based Management and School Councils. Orbit, 28(2), 46-48.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. & Steinbach, R. (1998) Do School Councils Matter? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 424 644)

Lewington, J., & Orpwood, G. (1993) Overdue assignment: Taking responsibility for Canada's schools. Toronto: J. Wiley.

Lewis, A. (1989) Restructuring America's schools. Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators.

Lindle, J.C. (1995) Lessons from Kentucky about school-based decision making. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 20-23.

McWalters, P. (1992). Handing accountability and authority to the schools. The School Administrator, 1(49), 9-10.

Murphy, J.T. (1989). The paradox of decentralizing schools: Lessons from business, government and the Catholic Church. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(10), 806-812.

Newfoundland and Labrador Bill 41 (1997). An act to revise the law respecting the operation of schools in the province. St. John's, NF: Queen's Printer.

O'Connell, R.W., & Yadegari, S.A. (1996) The efficacy of the shared decision-making team as a means for improving student achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED405 378)

O'Toole, G.C. (1995). Hearing the voices of parents: Advocating active parental involvement in schools. Indirections, 20(2), 24-36.

Patrick, D. (1995) Together we're better: A guide to parent-teacher partnerships. OPSTF News, 9(3), 15-17.

Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary and Secondary Education. (1992). Our children, our future? The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, Secondary Education (ISBN0-920769-89-6). St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sebring, P.B., Bryk, A.S. & Easton, J.Q. (1995) Charting reform: Chicago teachers take stock. A report. Illinois: Consortium on Chicago School Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED390 948)

Seitsinger, R.M. (1998) Elementary schools with mandated or voluntary school-site decision making: A multiple case perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420 924)

Skau, K.G. (1996) Parental involvement: Issues and concerns. AlbertaJournal of Educational Research, 42(1), 34-48.

Wallace, W. (1996) The offer we can't refuse? Times Educational Supplement, No. 4155, Feb. 16, 2-3.

Whitaker, K.S., & Moses, M.C. (1994). The restructuring handbook: A guide to school revitalization. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Wohlstetter, P. & Mohrman, S.A. (1996) Assessment of school-based management. [Volume I: Findings and conclusions.] Studies of Education Reform. University of Southern California, Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 530)

Barriers to school council effectiveness

Barrier	Yes (greatest) %*	No % *
Lack of training	62.8 (13.7)	37.3
Lack of clearly defined role	50 (10.8)	50
Difficulty in getting parents to serve on council	48 (15.7)	52
Lack of time	40.2 (11.8)	57.8
Not dealing with educational issues	30.4 (3.9)	68.6
People who are not cooperating	25.5 (7.8)	74.5
Difficulty in getting teachers to serve on council	22.5 (.1)	77.5
Unfocussed meetings	8.8 (.1)	91.2

* May not add up to exactly 100% due to missing responses, rounding etc.

More Comments made in response to factors needed for success:

Staff involvement/cooperation (15.7%).

Cooperation from the community (9.8%)

Council member time/commitment (11.8%)

More/better/ongoing training (11.8%)

Increased public awareness (6.9%)

Good communication with school board (3.1%)

Financial support from government (2%)

Performance evaluation of councils (1%)

²See Appendix II for other factors mentioned.