SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT POLICIES: Some Evidence from an Exploratory Study Armando Loera Varela March 2000
INTRODUCTION
Decentralization, that is, the transfer of resources, responsibilities, and accountability from the central level to subordinate or local levels, is a widely applied policy in Latin America. Most of the region’s policy makers view decentralization as a way of improving the system’s efficiency and quality, and, above all, the participation of educational stakeholders. There is no single model of decentralization, however. History, power structure, legal framework, and degree of technical competence are all recognized factors that influence the operational models of decentralization1. Moreover, once the policy is implemented, it begins to show context-related meanings2. Consequently, each national case of decentralization implies an important variation in a global policy trend3. In any case, decentralizing an educational system implies restructuring the way the system is organized, the type and number of stakeholders involved in the educational policy arena, and the funding of the system. In addition, decisions should be made taking into account the level of decentralization that should or can be established. In the case of Latin America, most experiences have attempted to decentralize from the national level to the state or department level. Very few countries have decentralized to the municipal level4. Moreover, for many the decentralization rationale necessarily implies to ground the most significant decision-making process at the school and, consequently, there are ongoing efforts in several countries to promote school-based management as a form of radical decentralization intended to improve quality and equity5. In the schoolbased management cases, the rationale focuses on a new distribution of the 1
Puelles, Manuel, "Estudio teórico sobre las experiencias de descentralización educativa", Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, N.3, Septiembre-Diciembre, 1993, pp.13-40.
2
Novick, Silvia, "Una nueva agenda para la descentralización educativa", Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, N. 4, EneroAbril, 1994, p. 11-27.
3
For a comprehensive and comparative analysis see Pereyra, M.A., et al. Globalización y descentralización de los sistemas educativos: Fundamentos para un Nuevo programa de la educación comparada, Barcelona: Ediciones Pomares, 1996.
4
Burki, S.J., G. Perry, and W. Dillinger, Beyond the Center: Decentralizing the State, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1999.
5
Countries like Nicaragua, Chile, Colombia, and some Brazilian states such as Minas Gerais.
2 decision-making powers, for both the school and the community. In most of these cases, the decisions have been related to personnel management, planning and structure, and resources. School-based management usually demands the development of a school improvement plan designed by the school actors (principals, teachers, and, in some cases, parents)6. The focus of the decentralization debate, and at the decentralization level, has been on issues of expected consequences rather than on the conditions for this policy to be successful. The process of decentralization has therefore been seen as a recipe that can fit everywhere7. However, some critical evidence begins to appear regarding the conditions for the policy. For instance, a recent comparative analysis8 of seven countries shows that the outcomes of decentralization in the region seems related to increasing inequality in the system. Furthermore, contrary to expectations, most systems do not show significant improvements in efficiency or quality9. At the same time, there is no strong evidence demonstrating that social participation is improving10. Why is decentralization not improving the systems as expected? Obviously, several factors have been missing in the argument about why the system should improve once the critical decision-making process is undertaken at the local level. One of the factors that clearly has not been taken into account in the decentralization argument is the culture of the school itself, or what will be referred to here as institutional social capital. In this paper, the Mexican decentralization experience at the state level is considered to focus on this factor, specifically on elements of what has been recently recognized as social capital at the institutional level. It will be argued that because of the school history itself, specific actors, and the parents’ experience in becoming involved in school decisions, policies such as school-based management may promote further inequality within the education system. These policies will be welcomed mostly in those schools that are currently performing better, but will not work as well or will be rejected by those schools where the social capital is lower. Consequently, it will not be enough to give permission to the schools to decide on their own resources. Previously, it had to be ensured that the culture of the
6
Tanne, C. and Cheryl D. Stone, "School Improvement Policy: How Administrative Functions of Principals Changed Where SiteBased Management is Practiced?" Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 6, N.6, March 1, 1998.
7
A particularly naïve perspective on this is presented by Lockheed, M.E, A.M. Veerspoor, and associates, Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1991.
8
Di Gropello, Emanuela, "Los modelos de descentralización educativa en América Latina", Revista de la CEPAL 68, Agosto 1999, pp. 153-170. Education Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 251-282.
9
However, there are positive assessments of decentralization in Chile and Minas Gerais, a Brazilian State. In both cases, the efficiency and quality of the system have improved, see Espínola, Viola, Autonomía Escolar: Factores que contribuyen a una escuela más efectiva, Washington, D.C. BID, 2000, working paper.
10;
For the case of Nicaragua, see Rivarola, Magdalena and Bruce Fuller, "Nicaragua’s Experiment to Decentralize Schools: Contrasting Views of Parents, Teachers, and Directors, Comparative Education Review, vol. 43, N. 4, pp. 489-521.
3 organization was well suited for school actors to make decisions, reach a consensus, and see themselves as a community.
I. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The current policy trend for decentralization has to be seen as a change in the relationship between the state and the educational site11. Pursuant to this view, new changes in the structure of the education system are needed for legitimating further control by the central state. The rhetoric of decentralization is based on improving quality, furthering the democratization of the education system, and promoting the efficiency of resources12. However, decentralization is not a linear process. It has different theoretical grounds and different consequences. Furthermore, it may have internal contradictions in the promotion of the goals of democratization and the improvement of quality and efficiency13. Moreover, if some see decentralization as a way to refine the control of teachers, schools, and communities,14 it can also be seen as a complex process wherein a new distribution of power between the actors of an educational system may effectively occur15. A critical aspect of the differential impact of decentralization is how it is implemented. This implies the changes the policy undergoes from being a general policy to becoming the actual practice of different educational actors16. In this sense, there is an important trend that sees the organization of the school as a critical variable17. This view has an empirical foundation in the efficient-school research that characterizes the best schools (those schools where students reach higher achievement scores). These schools are described as having clear academic and social behavior goals, order and discipline, high expectations by teachers and parents, teacher efficacy, pervasive caring, public rewards and incentives, administrative leadership, and community support18. The challenge from the policy 11
Popkewitz, T.S., El Estado y la administración de la libertad a finales del siglo XX: Descentralización y distinciones Estado/sociedad civil, en Pereyra, M.A., et al., Globalización y descentralización de los sistemas educativos: fundamentos para un nuevo programa de la educación comparada, Barcelona: Ediciones Pomares, 1996.
12
For the rationale in the Mexican case, see Dettmer, J. y A. Loyo, El debate sobre la educación básica, en Gutiérrez, E., El Debate Nacional, N.5, La Política Social, México: Editorial Diana, 1997.
13
Lauglo, J., Formas de descentralización y sus implicaciones para la educación, en M.A. Pereyra, Globalización y descentralización de los sistemas educativos: fundamentos para un nuevo programa de la educación comparada, Barcelona: Ediciones Pomares, 1996.
14
Popkewitz, Th. S., Sociología política de las reformas educativas, Madrid: Ediciones Morata, 1997.
15
Senén González, S.N. y A. Arango, La descentralización educativa ¿política educativa o política fiscal?, en O. Oszlak, Estado y sociedad: las nuevas reglas del juego, V.1, Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1997.
16
Aguerrondo, Inés, La Escuela como organización inteligente, Editorial Troquel, Buenos Aires, Argentina 1996.
17
Savedoff, W. S., La organización marca la diferencia: Educación y salud en América Latina, Washington, D.C.: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, 1998.
18
Joyce, Bruce, Hersh, Richard, McKibbin, Michael, The Structure of School Improvement, Longman, New York, N.Y., 1983.
4 perspective, however, is to shape most or all of the schools with these characteristics19. Reshaping the organization of the school is the most difficult issue an educational policy may face20. There are many ways in which teachers and principals may reduce the participatory aims of national policies. These include showing the contradictory goals of educational reforms21, the modalities in which some teachers use their acknowledged autonomy22, and the manner in which principals become weak leaders in a confusing environment where there is a prior history of democracy23. The reshaping effort is even more difficult when the policy makers are not aware of the actual organization of the school, its current culture. Nonetheless, transforming the environment, the structure, and the goals of the management at the school level could be considered a window of opportunity in the achievement of new balances between efficiency and equity24. One of the critical factors to be taken into account is the readiness of the school culture to work as a community, that is, to reach a consensus, to have a democratic environment, and to have an inclusive perspective regarding actors and issues. This is what may be described as the social capital of the organization. The notion of social capital has been influenced by Bourdieu’s work on social judgment and the economy of cultural goods25. This concept has been used to explain how policies to promote the parents’ choices have consequently improved educational inequality26. A growing body of specialized literature focuses on the 19
Gajardo, M., Cooperación Internacional y Desarrollo de la Educación, Santiago, Chile: Agencia de Cooperación Internacional, 1994.
20
De la Torre, Saturnin (editor), Cómo Innovar en los Centros Educativos: Estudio de casos, Madrid, España, 1998; Garagorri Xavier y Muncio, Pedro, Participación, Autonomía y Dirección en los Centros Educativos, Madrid, España, 1997. 21
An excellent ethnographic account of this is presented by Santos Guerra, Miguel Ángel, El Crisol de la Participación: estudio etnográfico sobre la participación en Consejos Escolares de Centro, Editorial Escuela Española, Madrid, España, 1997
22
Contreras, José, La Autonomía del Profesorado, Ediciones Morata, Madrid, España, 1997; Cerda, Ana María, Aránguiz, Gabriel, Cid, Soledad y Miranda, Hugo, Los Docentes y los Procesos de Descentralización Pedagógica, Programa Interdisciplinario de Investigaciones en Educación, Santiago, Chile, 1994. 23
Lentijo, Perpetuo, Cancela, Cristina y Martiné, Eduardo, La Conducción Escolar y Transformación Educativa: el directivo escolar frente a la transformación del Sistema Nacional de Educación, Aique Grupo Editor, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1995. 24
For an interesting account on the debate between efficiency and equity grounded in school management, see Davies, Lynn, Equity and Efficiency? School Management in an International Context, London: The Falmer Press, 1990.
25
Bourdieu, P., Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, London: Routledge, 1986.
26
A study based on the English case is Gewirtz, Sharon, S.J. Ball, and R. Bowe, Markets, Choice and Equity in Education, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995.
5 concept of social capital,27 and some studies are relating this concept to the schools’ features. There are at least three major traditions involved in understanding this concept. The first is the tradition that sees social capital as the glue that holds societies together, and that permits common cultural identifications, a sense of belonging, and shared behavioral norms28. The second tradition considers social capital to be the social structure in the community29. From this perspective, Coleman and Hoffer30 defined it as the network of relationships surrounding a person. Using field research, they applied the concept to explain the reason why religious school students showed stronger social networks in their communities than public school students. Moreover, they found a direct correlation between this feature and academic achievement. Following the same line of thought, Ramsay and Clark31 found that high social capital in the community explained the success of school management as being deeply related to the parents’ participation. The third tradition of social capital, and the one that is the most relevant to our study, considers trust to be a special characteristic of organizations32. In this regard, trust has been considered the foundation of school effectiveness33. In a study on trust in schools over a decade, Hoy34 found that school climates of trust allow individuals to focus on the task at hand and, consequently, to work and learn more effectively by taking risks to be innovative and by communicating with clarity. Furthermore, healthy and open school climates are characterized by protecting teachers from unreasonable community demands; principals who are friendly, supportive, open, and guided by norms of equality; teachers who are committed to the students, who respect one another’s competency, and who take their work seriously; and, finally, the school’s orientation toward academic excellence, where 27
The World Bank in particular has implemented a project with the IRIS Institute of the University of Maryland to see how social capital may explain issues of growth and inequality in economic and social development. See the Working Papers of the Social Capital Initiative, on the Internet site of IRIS and the World Bank.
28
Seragedin, I. and C. Grootaert, Defining Social Capital: an integrating view, in P. Dasgupta and I. Seragedin (ed) Social Capital: a multifaceted perspective, Washington, DC. The World Bank, 2000.
29
Coleman, J. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital," American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1988, pp. 95-120.
30
Coleman, J., and T. Hoffer, Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities,” New York: Basic Books, 1987.
31
Ramsay, W. And E.E. Clark, New Ideas for Effective School Improvement: Vision, Social Capital, Evaluation, New York: The Falmer Press, 1990.
32
The institutional view is based on Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.
33
Cunningham, W.G. and D.W. Gresso, Cultural Leadership, Boston: Allyn Bacon, 1993.
34
Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J., and L. Witkoskie, "Faculty trust in colleagues: Linking the principal with school effectiveness,” Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 26, pp. 38-45
6 there is a shared belief that everyone is able to learn effectively35. In another study on trust in schools, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy36 found that trust in the principal comes directly from the principals’ behavior, and a climate of professionalism among teachers supports that trust. Similarly, leader authenticity is highly correlated to trust in the principal, and teacher authenticity is correlated to trust in their colleagues. In this regard, in an interesting suggestion, although not using the notion of social capital, Le Tendre37 describes how the notion of community is built into Japanese schools, and how it can be related to a positive learning environment. As Turner38 has pointed out, the different notions of social capital are likely to be related to the different layers of complexity in social relationships. A search for Latin American field studies on social capital resulted in only one survey applied in Colombia to measure social capital as social networking39. No studies were found regarding the institutional or school perspective.
II. DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY
The field study reported here was undertaken as a baseline for assessing the impact of a school-based management policy in a Mexican state regarding issues of social climate. No attempt was made initially to measure aspects of institutional social capital at the school level, but selected variables related to this notion will be considered in this report. This section will describe the setting of the study. Decentralization was formally established in the Mexican educational system in 1992,40 but implementation was different in each state. In the case of the state of Chihuahua, it was not until the beginning of 1997 that a specific program began promoting one of the school-based management strategies in Latin America, called a “School Project.” This program was supported by the State Department of Education and implemented by a new agency called the Coordination of Research and Academic Development (CIyDA, for its Spanish acronym)41. The School Project42 35
Hoy, W.K. and D. Sabo, Quality Middle Schools: Open and Healthy, Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA., 1997.
36
Tschannen-Moran, M. and W. Hoy, "Trust in schools: a conceptual and empirical analysis,” Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36, N. 4, 1998, pp. 334-352.
37
Le Tendre, G., "Community-Building Activities in Japanese Schools: Alternative Paradigms of the Democratic School," Comparative Education Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1999, pp. 283-310.
38
Turner, J., The formation of social capital, in P. Dasgupta and I. Seragedin (ed.), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, Washington: The World Bank, 2000.
39
Sudarsky, John, Colombia’s Social Capital: the national measurement with the BARCAS, Washington, DC, 1999. Presentation paper for the Inter-American Development Bank.
40
For an actual description of the process, aims, and challenges of the Mexican decentralization process, see Tatto, M.T., Education Reform and State Power in Mexico: The Paradoxes of Decentralization, Comparative Education Review, August, 1999, Vol. 43, No.3, pp. 251-282.
41
To see a detailed account of the decentralization process in the state of Chihuahua and the policy environment in which this organization implemented the school project policy, see: Loera, A. and F. Sandoval, La Innovación Educativa en el Proceso de
7 program was expected to open the organizational climate at the school level, developing the strongest sense of academic community among members (teachers, authorities, students, and parents), promoting democratic leadership, and, above all, improving the learning environment for the students. At the same time, improving learning conditions for the poorest students was stated as a goal since their school project could be used by teachers and parents to obtain resources that otherwise were beyond their economic capabilities. Furthermore, the program was promoted only among public schools with scarce resources. It should be noted that schools under the school project program accepted it on a voluntary basis. A training sub-program on school projects for supervisors, principals, and teachers was available for those schools that requested it. In order to participate in the program, the principal had to send a draft of the school project and a statement of needs to implement the project. After receiving the draft, the CIyDA could support the project by providing the resources to implement it. At the time of the study, 72 basic education schools were participating in the school project program. By the end of 1998, at the highest point of the program, almost 300 schools were involved in it, 80% of them being primary schools. At the same time, most of the 3,000 primary public schools in the state were aware of the opportunity to design school projects on a voluntary basis. This assumption was proved empirically since all of the control sample schools (schools with no project) knew about the policy. The school project program was the leading effort to implement a school-based management policy at the state level, in order to give meaning to the pedagogical and management dimensions of decentralization at the institutional level. Its aim was to improve autonomy in the decision-making process at the school level, by giving support and resources to principals and teachers for the plan to improve academic conditions. The final goal was to develop a community effort to improve the students’ academic achievement. Generally speaking, the school project was framed considering five points: the school’s diagnosis, the project’s academic objective, the strategies to be implemented by the principal and the teachers as a team, a budget and list of resources needed to develop the strategies, and a statement by the academic team indicating its accountability to the project, in terms of themselves and the community. If requested, both the principals and the teachers could receive on-site
Descentralización en el Estado de Chihuahua, en Federalismo e Innovación Educativa, María del Carmen Pardo (coordinadora), Colegio de México, México, 1999. 42
I should note that as director of the CiyDA, I was the official in charge of carrying out the program as well as designing and implementing this study.
8 training43 on how to design these school projects. School project materials and information were distributed to most public schools, especially those in rural and marginal urban areas44. From a historical perspective, it should be said that this was the first policy designed in Chihuahua to empower teachers to develop their own academic projects.
III. METHODOLOGY
In February of 1998, the study was carried out with all of the primary schools participating in the program. The main purpose of the research project was to describe the schools’ initial situation in terms of school climate, and comparing the schools working under school projects with similar schools that were not participating in the program. At the time of the field research, no attempt was made to measure social capital. However, for purposes of this paper, those variables related to social capital will be used to test the hypothesis that schools able to work under the school project had greater social capital than those schools unable or unwilling to work under the school project. The study was based on questionnaires for principals, teachers, students, and parents. In addition, two achievement tests were applied to all fifth graders. A qualitative follow-up study with observations was carried out in May and June of the same year. This paper only contains the data gathered from the questionnaires. Although no systematic analysis of the qualitative data has been undertaken, some initial results corroborate the quantitative findings reported in this paper. The central questions of the study were: Do factors related to institutional social capital cause significant differences between schools with projects and schools with no project? Do factors related to institutional social capital cause significant differences in academic achievement? The theoretical design of the sample consisted of selecting all the schools that at the time (March 1998) had designed school projects, as a sort of experimental group, with a similar number of schools acting as the control group. The control group schools had to be similar in size, student socio-economic status, and location (urbanrural). The key dependent variable was academic achievement in mathematics and language (Spanish). I decided to test only fifth grade students as well conduct interviews with them because they were old enough to report on teaching strategies 43
A computer simulation model ("Escuela Anhelo") as well as other materials used in training may be found at http://members.xoom.com/geppe/.
44
CIyDA published a journal for teachers called: Foro21, with 37,500 copies in each number. This journal was distributed to most of the 3,000 elementary schools in the state.
9 and new changes in the schools (since most of them had been at the school for several years). In addition, we had well-designed tests to measure achievement at the fifth grade level. It was decided that the questionnaires be applied to the principals, all teachers, all fifth grade students, and their parents. All but four of the schools that had designed school projects agreed to participate in the research project. Therefore, the final experimental group consisted of 68 schools instead of 72. In addition, because of operational problems,45 not all of the control group schools participated in the study. Moreover, because of several circumstances, we were unable to interview all of the teachers, students, or parents. Some teachers declined to be interviewed because they did not agree with the study or they did not want to give information to a "government against the interest of teachers." Some students were not present at the school on the day the research team applied the instruments. Finally, some parents were not at home on the day the team visited. The actual sample consisted of 124 schools, 124 principals, 741 teachers, 1,939 fifth grade students, and the 1,754 parents of those students (90.5% of the target group). As we may see in Table 146, the size of both groups is close enough to make comparisons. In an attempt to achieve a more exact account of the similarities and differences, I weighted the control group (with no project) in such a way that it could make up 50% of a theoretical sample. No major differences were found in the non-weighted analysis. Therefore, none of the data presented here are weighted. In addition, it should be noted that there are different data ranges missing for a diverse set of variables. The questionnaires were designed and pre-tested for clarity and conceptual soundness in 12 schools. Four different questionnaires were developed for principals, teachers, students, and parents, respectively. In addition, two tests to measure academic achievement in mathematics and language (Spanish) were applied. These tests had already been designed and pre-tested by the Evaluation Department of the Mexican Ministry of Education. The questionnaires were designed to look for many different factors at the school and classroom level. Summing up all of them, we found 767 variables, distributed in the following manner: 146 corresponded to principals, 339 to teachers, 187 to parents, and 95 to students. This did not take into account academic achievement tests. The data were analyzed in three ways. First, all the variables from the database were analyzed to identify significant differences between schools with projects and schools with no project. For the nominal type variables, chi-square analyses were performed. For the linear variables, t-test analyses were run. A p of .05 or less was 45
Reported operational problems included principals who did not agree to participate upon the arrival of the research group, schools with no fifth grade, schools with no teachers available the day of the study, etc.
46
All tables are found in the Annex.
10 established as a criterion of significance. All data from the principals, teachers, students, and parents were analyzed in this manner. Secondly, factor analysis and selected structural modeling using SPSS’s AMOS were performed to look for potential variables and the way in which the variables may have arrange in some causal modeling. No predictors of social capital at the institutional level were found, nor did any of those factors fit any structural modeling. Third, a list of significant variables related to factors of institutional social factors was selected. The presentation of the findings in this paper is based on these selected associated variables to social capital factors and on some factor analyses that could be relevant.
IV. FINDINGS
No significant differences were found between the schools with projects (experimental) and the schools with no project (control group) in terms of socioeconomic status or place of residence (urban/rural). As already stated, both groups had similar information on the school management program. In addition, all of them had similar opportunities to receive training on project design. Therefore, we may say that for purposes of this paper, these groups are comparable. Social capital, as a characteristic of institutions such as schools, consists of a trusting environment, where members share goals, where there is an open and participatory decision-making process, and where there is a sense of community among all members. There is a culture of trust, states Sztompka,47 when normative coherence, stability, transparency of social organization, familiarity of social environment, and accountability exist. Among the consequences of these conditions, it is likely that optimism in the agency of the group, high aspirations, and orientation toward success will be found. At the school level, these dimensions become the following: 1. Teachers’ exchange and collaboration, that is the social networking capability within the institution. This includes communication skills and the capacity to work as a team. 2. Satisfaction between principals and teachers regarding their relationship, which means having a manageable level of conflict with authority. 3. Participation by both parents and community actors in school decisions, which expresses both aspirations and accountability. 4. A positive climate, which implies the characteristic optimism of successful institutions, specifically involving some notion of manageability of internal conflicts. 5. The schools’ autonomy, in the sense that a strong community will feel able to deal with its own problems without necessarily needing support from higher authorities. 47
Sztompka, Piotr, Trust: a sociological theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
11
Clearly, this set of institutional dimensions of the schools’ social capital is not intended to include all probable notions of social capital. It will be mostly related to aspects such as organizational climate and the ability to work as an academic community. No direct measures of trust or social networking were considered. Consequently, the study is a first exploration of issues related to social capital, and we expect to identify some initial evidence on the topic. Further research must to be done, however, considering a more complete indicative set of social capital. 1. Teachers’ exchange and collaboration The degree of the principals’ satisfaction with their teachers was measured using a Lickert-type question with the following possible responses: highly satisfied, moderately satisfied, moderately unsatisfied, and completely unsatisfied. Trying to control for the tendency toward positive answers, these options were reduced in a dichotomy manner: totally satisfied and not totally satisfied. Principals reported being satisfied with their teachers, although in a moderate degree (see Table 2). Moreover, the principals from the schools with projects reported a more systematic and permanent exchange between teachers regarding pedagogical issues (X2=9.172; df=3; p=.02) (see Table 3). Therefore, the data provided by the principals seem to support the notion that school projects are likely to work were there were teachers’ exchange and collaboration. Consequently, it seems that this voluntary policy will be accepted mostly where these conditions are already built into the school. 2. Satisfaction between principals and teachers regarding their relationship Most teachers support an optimistic view of their performance. Different principals see these notions in opposite ways. For instance, regarding the relationships among teachers, almost half of the principals saw the teachers’ relationships as systematic and permanent while the other half saw the teachers’ relationships in a nonsystematic way (Table 4), though no association pattern was found. Regarding the principals’ notion of the teachers’ level of satisfaction with their pedagogical performance, they stated a moderate position (see Table 5), confirming the predominantly moderate trend in the schools in the sample. The acknowledged level of conflict in most schools from the principals’ perspective was high (Table 6), since most of them (68.3%) were unsatisfied with the teachers’ attitudes in cases of conflict. However, the teachers stated high degrees of satisfaction about most of the aspects related to their job and the institutional level (as shown in Table 7). The lower degrees are related to actors outside the school: parents, supervisors, and society at large. Since teacher satisfaction is an important variable for the notion of social capital, a factor analysis of its sources was run (see Table 8). One source of
12 satisfaction was the institutional one, where teamwork, principals, other teachers, and supervisors are important. On the other hand, a more open perspective emerges from the other group of teachers, who feel that their confidence comes from cooperation with parents, students, and society at large. It appears from the data that acknowledgement from other teachers is very important for both groups. These findings are important in the sense that school-based management policies need more legitimate and democratic leadership. In Mexico, the teachers do not choose the principals, and the principals do not select the teachers. It seems that these policies have to have some management device to build better social networks within the school. Some of these management devices could involve the way teachers and principals are selected. 3. Participation by parents and community actors in school decisions The principals stated that authorities from the communities had little participation; they had complete participation in only 4 cases, and in 10 cases the school supervisors had much participation; in 15 schools, they had some participation. It seems, therefore, that social capital at the community level is very low in the entire sample, although it could be greater in the schools with projects, relatively speaking. A factor analysis was carried out and two models were identified regarding the decision-making process at the school (see Table 9). The first one follows the formal structure of the educational system, through formal authorities. The second one seems to be based on actual teacher participation in a more horizontal manner. These findings are strengthened by the results of another factor analysis on how major academic decisions are made at the school (Table 10). It shows that in some schools, formal authorities make the decisions, and in others, the decisions are made in a more participatory and democratic way. Institutional social capital should be greater in these last schools. In schools with projects, parents are more likely to think that they have to have an opinion on school matters, that the Social Participation Council really works, and they state that they have made proposals for school improvements. All of this is then related to the perception teachers and students have regarding these schools as places of open and democratic participation (see Table 11). A note of clarification is needed here, however. In Mexico, although there are laws enforcing the Social Participation Council, these really do not work, mostly because of opposition by the Teacher’s Union. It is probable that parents may refer to an open environment for participation based on their belief in the Social Participation Council’s work. Teachers, as well as principals, are better informed on this, and clearly none of them talk about their existence, much less their efficiency.
13 As the data show, there is an interesting correlation between school actors regarding the main features that distinguish schools with projects and schools with no project. Interestingly enough, the data obtained from the principals are the poorest at making these distinctions. The teachers’ data, on the other hand, are richer. Student and parent data support the general picture drawn by teachers: schools with projects have better teaching and more learning. One associated set of factors is strongly related to the notion of social capital: a trusting, open, supportive, and inclusive environment. 4. A positive climate The principals stated the likely positions of teachers in a situation of conflict. Most of them expect a satisfactory position, even though an important segment is not as optimistic (as shown by the data in Table 6). Having a satisfactory position includes having an open and transparent position for analysis and a rationally based search for a solution. Having an unsatisfactory position includes hiding information and being closed to searching for rational solutions. On the other hand, schools with projects have teachers with more teacher training courses, who receive positive verbal feedback from their authorities, who are more satisfied with their principals’ treatment, and who are confident enough to discuss their pedagogical problems at their formal teachers’ meetings, these problems being mostly related to student discipline and classroom management problems. On the other hand, teachers from schools with no project see themselves as lacking enough economic compensation for their job (Table 12). Clearly, the culture of the schools with projects can be characterized as having a higher degree of trust, a key factor for the notion of institutional social capital. Interestingly, the results show important differences between schools with projects and schools with no project regarding teaching strategies. Moreover, schools with projects have teaching strategies that can also be characterized as caring and effective (Table 13). They are more likely to help low achievers, to be more informative regarding performance, to be more oriented toward a team approach to pedagogical problems instead of an authoritarian one (such as looking for support from the supervisors), to take the community’s interests more into account, to be more confident in formal committees focusing on academic discussions, to be more open to discussing their own teaching strategies, and to be less traditional in their teaching. All these factors show a more active, accountable, open, and self-confident group of teachers working in the schools with projects. They are important elements in the notion of institutional social capital. An important set of factors regarding student attitudes toward learning and the school were found to be strongly related to schools with projects (Table 14). Some of the factors associated with the notion of institutional social capital are: -
The students ask parents to participate in their school. The students believe that they can learn important things from their teachers. The students feel that they are each treated differently.
14 -
The students have trust in their teachers. The students like their teachers.
Some additional results confirm the teaching strategies stated by teachers in schools with projects, such as: -
The students are more likely to understand their teachers’ explanations. The students are more likely to work in their classroom solving problems.
Finally, the most important finding related to students is academic achievement48. Both in language and mathematics, the schools with projects show higher mean achievements (Table 15). However, it should be stated that no significant predictors of academic achievement were found after running several regression analyses. 5. The school’s autonomy The principals stated that schools with projects are less likely to use official tests for assessing students (Table 2). One interpretation of this finding is that the use of their own tests is a demonstration of some degree of autonomy from the central offices. Usually supervisors try to ensure the use of central tests because of economic reasons49. The fact that a school may reject the use of these tests may express confidence in their pedagogical skills as well as some institutional power. In order to analyze how principals manage the decision-making processes in their schools, the following aspects were considered (Table 16): a) the internal working norms; b) the decisions made by the technical school committee; c) the memoranda from the supervisors; d) the school project; e) the annual master plan; f) the decisions made by the parents’ committee; and, g) the agreements between the principals and the teachers. The data show that there are two general management methods in the sample. On the one hand, management is based on agreements between the principal, the teachers, and the parents. On the other hand, the management is based on rules and authority (supervisors). It is interesting to point out that the school project has much weight in those schools where the management is strongly funded on norms and authority. This might mean that the school project program was implemented mostly in those schools where supervisors had more influence, thereby reducing their relative autonomy.
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
Decentralization policies have been applied as a new understanding of what the national state should do in the field of education. Quality and efficiency have been concepts used in the leading arguments in favor of this trend. Once the general 48
From an institutional perspective, academic achievement findings were the most important goal of this research project.
49
The selling of these tests is an acknowledged business for the central office and the supervisors.
15 decentralization argument is accepted, it is hard not to accept a radical perspective that sees that in order for decentralization to be meaningful, it should be grounded in the school itself. The perspective of school-based management supports this principle. One form of school-based management, the one most commonly found in Latin America, is to design and implement school projects as devices to empower the teachers’ decision-making, and eventually the school community as a whole (with principals, teachers, parents, and students working together toward a common goal). The idea seems to be more than relevant where centralized and authoritarian decision-making structures have been so well established for so long, that accountability for quality and equity has been weakened and even corrupted. However, these policies seem to be selective in their operation. Not all schools are ready to accept them or to deal with their consequences. As the findings of this research show, in the case of Chihuahua, Mexico, the school project, a form of demonstrating a certain level of school autonomy and school-based management, was undertaken mostly in those schools where: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12)
the teachers have more significant and permanent exchange and collaboration; the principals have a higher level of satisfaction with the teachers; there is a positive climate based on trust; the attitude in case of conflict is satisfactory; there is more participation by teachers and parents in the school’s decisionmaking process; the teachers have a high level of satisfaction with the principal; the teachers take longer to discuss student discipline; the teachers are more likely to analyze classroom management problems; the teachers develop more egalitarian strategies (trying to actively help underachievers); the parents have more positive attitudes toward the school; the students like the teachers; and consequently, the students achieve higher scores in language and mathematics tests.
These are the schools with higher institutional social capital. It is likely that schoolbased management policies are received voluntarily in schools where institutional conditions are already well formed and decisions are already made as a team, based on democratic leadership, in an open and supportive environment. In summary, trust among the different actors seems to be the key element to characterizing this environment. From the analysis of our data, this is the common element to the perspective of the principals (despite their general optimistic perspective), teachers, parents, and students. Schools with projects have environments where actors are self-confident and have trust in one another.
16 However, our analyses do not support the hypothesis that social capital factors may be a predictor of student achievement. Nevertheless, trust is a commodity that is unequally distributed among the schools. If this is the case, school-based management policies should try to compensate for different institutional social capital before or at the same time the policy is implemented. Otherwise, the data seem to show that the already existing differences between the best schools, the ones with superior conditions for academic achievement, will tend to become wider over time. In this way, an empowerment policy becomes a policy for promoting further inequality, and even an elitist one. Consequently, new policies should be carried out with the awareness that social capital factors may be influencing the acceptance and implementation of these policies. Policies that try to equalize social capital among schools are likely to deal first with changing the structure of the decision-making process from a close and authoritarian one to a more open and democratic institution. The challenge now is to find out whether trust is a good that public policies may create, facilitate, or promote. If so, what policies can be implemented by the state to improve the schools’ social capital? The results show that these policies may become the initial intervention to provide the schools with real autonomy and, consequently, to give a realistic sense to the notion of school-based management as a tool for effective improvement in quality within an egalitarian framework.
17
ANNEX Table 1 INFORMANT
ACTUAL SAMPLE
% WITH PROJECTS
% WITH NO PROJECT
SCHOOLS
124
PRINCIPALS
124
TEACHERS
741
STUDENTS
1939
PARENTS
1754
68 54.8% 68 54.8% 405 54.6% 1085 55.9% 995 56.7%
56 45.2% 56 45.2% 336 45.4% 854 44.1 759 43.3%
FREQUENCY
VALID PERCENTAGE
Completely satisfied Not completely satisfied
43 78
35.5% 64.5%
Total
121
100%
Table 2. Degree of principals’ satisfaction with the teachers
Table 3. PRINCIPALS
Finding
Teachers’ exchange and collaboratio n
Schools with projects have a more systematic and permanent exchange, although not necessarily based on a plan Schools with projects are less likely to use official tests for student assessments
Schools use official tests for student assessments
Pearson Degree of Significance Number of chi-square freedom (two-sided) valid cases 9.172
3
.02
122 (with projects=66; with no project=56)
7.77
3
.05
96
18 Table 4. TEACHERS’ EXCHANGE AND COLLABORATION Constant and systematic Frequent, but not based on a plan Infrequent, occasional Practically non-existent
Table 5. TEACHERS’ LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THEIR PEDAGOGICAL PERFORMANCE High general satisfaction Some general satisfaction Very few achieve some satisfaction Nobody is satisfied
Table 6. TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES IN CASES OF CONFLICT
FREQUENCY
VALID PERCENTAGE
58 51 11 2
47.5 41.8 9.0 1.6
FREQUENCY
VALID PERCENTAGE
23 92 4 1
19.2 76.7 3.3 .8
FREQUENCY
VALID PERCENTAGE
Satisfactory for the principal
38
31.7
Unsatisfactory for the principal
82
68.3
Table 7. Degree of teacher satisfaction Being a teacher School organization Principal’s style of work Students’ academic achievement Teamwork Acknowledgement from the other teachers at the school Parents’ cooperation Supervisors’ style of work Acknowledgement from society in general
Mean (1-4) 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.3
19 Table 8. Factor analysis regarding teacher satisfaction School organization Principal’s style of work Teamwork Supervisors’ style of work Acknowledgement from the other teachers at the school Parents’ cooperation Students’ academic achievement Acknowledgement from society in general Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Quartimax with Kaiser Normalization.
1
2
.865 .865 .744 .630 .493
Table 9. Components Following supervisors’ directions Following principal’s directions Lack of clear structure in the organization Technical School Committee Teachers work in teams Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Quartimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Table 10. FACTOR ANALYSIS ABOUT THE WAYS DECISIONS ARE MADE Principal and vice-principal make major decisions Only the principal makes major decisions The principal and a group of teacher make major decisions Decisions are made by consensus within the School Technical Committee Decisions are made by consensus within a group of teachers Decisions are made by majority vote within the School Technical Committee Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
.448 .781 .706 .682
1
2
.777 .729 .640 .854 .774
1
2
.759 .720 .718 .749 .745 -.408
.524
20 Table 11. Parents
In favor of schools with projects
Tell their child that his/her school is good (chisquare)
Parents are more likely to tell their child that his/her school is good (Pearson chisquare=7.028; df=1; p=.008) Parents are more likely to ask children for help at home (Pearson chi-square=5.777; df=1; p=.01)
Parents ask children for help at home (chi-square)
Parents think that they have to have an opinion on school matters (chisquare) Parents state that the Social Participation Council really works (chisquare) Parents state that they make proposals for school improvement (chi-square) Kind of topic on which there is more cooperation between the school and the community (chisquare)
In favor of schools with no project
Parents are more likely to think that they have to have an opinion on school matters (Pearson chisquare=13.940; df=3;p=.003) Parents are more likely to state that the Social Participation Council really works (Pearson Chisquare=9.768; df=3;p=.02) Parents are more likely to state that they make proposals for school improvement (Pearson chisquare=6.983;df=1;p=.008) Parents state that there is more cooperation between the school and the community on drug issues, cultural activities, and sports activities (Pearson chisquare=13.813; df=6;p=.03)
Parents state that there is more cooperation between the school and the community regarding health, nutrition, and environmental issues
21 Table 12 . Variable and analysis Teacher training courses (t-test)
Positive verbal feedback from authorities (t-test)
In favor of schools with projects A higher average of teacher training courses (mean of 4.33 courses vs. 2.49; f=16.629; p<.00005) A slightly higher rate of positive verbal feedback from authorities (mean of 1.16 vs. .99; f=4.663; p=031)
Lack of economic compensation (t-test) Degree of satisfaction with principalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s treatment (ttest)
Student discipline is fully discussed at teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; meetings (chi-square) Teachers discuss classroom management problems in their meetings (chi-square)
In favor of schools with no project
More frequent lack of economic compensation (mean of .24 vs. .14; f= 20.563; p<.00005) The same mean for degree of satisfaction (an average of 3.36; but with lower standard deviation) (mean of .68 vs. 78; f=5.85; p=.01) Teachers take longer to discuss student discipline (Pearson chisquare=12.663; df=2; p=.002) Teachers are more likely to analyze classroom management problems (Pearson chi square=6.449; df 2; p=.04)
22 Table 13. Variable and analysis Teachers look for help for low achievers Teachers tell low achievers that they may fail the grade (chisquare) Teachers may look to have meetings with previous teachers of low achievers (chi-square) Degree of satisfaction with the way that supervisors handle teaching problems (chi-square) Extracurricular activities take into account the culture of the community (chi-square) Civic activities take into account the culture of the community (chisquare)
In favor of schools with projects Teachers are more likely to look for help for low achievers (Pearson chisquare=9.798; df=1; p=.002) Teachers are more likely to tell students that they may fail the grade (Pearson chi-square=7.541; df=1; p=.006) Teachers are more likely to look to meet with previous teachers of low achievers (Pearson chi-square=4.055; df=1;p=.04) Teachers are more dissatisfied with the way supervisors handle teaching problems (Pearson chi-square=10.640; df.3; p=.014) Teachers are more likely to take into account the culture of the community in extracurricular activities (Pearson Chisquare=15.619; df=3;p=.001) Teachers are more likely to take into account the culture of the community in the school’s civic activities (Pearson Chisquare=7.807; df=3; p=.05)
Teachers are more likely to teach additional content to the official curriculum (chi-square) Teachers use tests designed by the supervisors’ office (chi-square) Teachers’ perception of degree of conflict (chi-square) Teachers make academic decisions within the School Technical Committee (CTE) (chi square)
In favor of schools with no project
Teachers are more likely to teach additional content to the official curriculum (Pearson chi-square=10.921; df=3;p=.01) Teachers are less likely to use tests designed by the supervisors’ office (Pearson Chi square=16.347; df=3;p=.001) Teachers are less likely to perceive conflict (Pearson Chi square=12.321; df=3;p=.006) Teachers are more likely to make academic decisions within the School Technical Committee (CTE) (Pearson Chi-square=7.614; df=3;p=.05)
Academic decisions are formulated in annual working plan (t-test)
It is more likely that teachers state that academic decisions are formulated in the annual working plan (a mean of 3.61 vs. 3.51; f=11.766; p=.001)
Teachers’ use of blackboard (ttest)
Teachers are more likely to use the blackboard as a dominant tool for teaching (a mean of 3.55 vs. 3.44; F=10.147; p=.002)
Actors taken into consideration regarding teaching strategies (chisquare)
It is more likely that principals and other teachers may participate in decisions related to teaching strategies (Pearson Chi square=12.132; df3; p=.007)
23 Table 14. Variable and analysis Understanding of teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s explanation in language class (chi-square)
Students ask parents to participate in school activities (chi-square) Students believe that they can learn important things from their teachers (chisquare) Students work in the classroom solving problems (chi-square) Students state that the teachers treat them individually (chi-square) Students state that doing homework is an interesting task (chi-square) Students believe that they are taken into account by their teachers (chi-square)
Students believe that they can trust their teachers with personal problems (chi-square) Students state that what they like most about their school are the teachers
In favor of schools with projects Students are more likely to state that they understand their teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s explanation in language class (Pearson chi-square=7.600; df=3;p=.05) Students are more likely to ask parents to participate in school activities (Pearson chisquare=11.334; df=3;p=.01) Students are more likely to believe that they can learn important things from their teachers (Pearson chisquare=8.317; df=3;p=.04) Students are more likely to work in the classroom solving problems (Pearson chi-square=7.735; df=3;p=.05) Students believe that their teachers treat them individually (Pearson chi-square=12.102; df3;p=.007) Students are more likely to state that doing homework is an interesting task (Pearson chisquare=7.658; df=3; p=.05) Students are more likely to believe that they are taken into account by their teachers (Pearson chi-square=18.489; df3;p<.0005) Students are more likely to believe that they can trust their teachers with personal problems (Pearson chi-square=14.067; df=3;p=.003) Students are more likely to state that what they like most about their school are the teachers (Pearson chisquare=7.637;df=2;p=.02)
In favor of schools with no project
24 Table 15. Subject matter Language Mathematics
Mean
t and significance (two-tailed)
Number of students
no project=42.55 with projects=44.48 no project=39.44 with projects=41.52
-2.609 p=.009 -2.669 p=.008
838 1085 838 1090
Table 16. Factor analysis on school decision-making process Agreements between principal and teachers Agreements with parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; committee Decisions by the technical school committee Annual master plan Memoranda from supervisor Internal working norms School rules School project Extraction method: principal component analysis Rotation method: Quartimax with Kaiser normalization
COMPONENT 1 .862
2
.792 .707 .533
.491 .489
.508 .793 .760 .601 .575