Public school systems are increasingly experimenting with decentralized governance. This article examines the extent to which decentralized governance at the school site has an impact on instructional and curricular organization for disadvantaged pupils at the classroom level Using descriptive information gathered from four inner-city elementary schools in Chicago and Albuquerque, this study finds that strong professional control over program decisions remains intact regardless of the extent of parental empowerment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barr, B. , & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Brown, D. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. London: Falmer.
3.
Clune, W. , & White, P. (1988). School-based management institutional variation, implementation and issues for further research. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Policy Research in Education.
4.
Comer, J. P. (1980). School power. New York: Free Press.
5.
Comer, J. P. (1990). Home, school, and academic learning. In J. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: An agenda for our nation's schools. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
6.
Consortium on Chicago School Research . (1993). A view from the elementary schools: The state of reform in Chicago. Chicago: CCSR.
7.
Designs for Change . (1990). Chicago principals: Changing of the guard. Chicago: Author.
8.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urbanpoor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-24.
9.
Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power and urban public schools.Teachers College Record, 94(4), 682-710.
10.
Ford, D. (1991). The school principal and Chicago school reform. Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
11.
Hess, G. A. (1992). Restructuring schools, Chicago style: A midway report. Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
12.
Katz, M. B. (1992). Chicago school reform as history.Teachers College Record, 94(1), 56-72.
13.
Louis, K. S. , & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
Malen, B. , & Ogawa,R. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance council: A confounding case study.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 251-270.
15.
Moore, D. (1991). Chicago school reform: The nature and origin of basic assumptions. Chicago: Designs for Change.
16.
Ramos-Gomez, F. (1992). The limits of political empowerment. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago.
17.
Rogers, D. , & Chung, N. (1983). 110 Livingston Street revisited: Decentralization in action. New York: New York University Press.
18.
Wong, K. (1992). The politics of urban education as a field of study: An interpretive analysis. In J. Cibulka, R. Reed, and K. Wong (Eds.), 7he politics of urban education in the United States. London: Falmer.
19.
Wong, K. , & Flinspach, S. (1991). Effects of state funding strategies on instructional and curricular opportunities for the disadvantaged. Working paper series, Benton Center for Curriculum and Instruction, University of Chicago.
20.
Wong, K. , & Rollow, S. (1990). A case study of the recent Chicago school reform.Administrator's Notebook, 34(5-6).
