School-based management for conflict resolution in education

¶ … Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution

Conflict management and resolution through Site-based Management

School-based management (SBM), or decentralized management, is fast growing in popularity in many of the U.S. school districts as this is seen as an efficient way to resolve and manage conflicts. The reason why people believe that this system can resolve conflicts is because it is the principals and staff of the schools that makes all the decision regarding the curriculum, asset and finance distribution and the methods of teaching. This means that they make an informed decision based on the patterns they are observing amongst the students, teachers, community and the staff. So even though the conventional methods allow the district education boards to set academic objectives, in modern times, without a SBM setup, there is very little that can be done to efficiently attain any academic aims and objectives (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

The SBM setup has been able to resolve and manage conflicts in a better way because district public education boards were too rigid and unaware of the students' demands and needs. Hence the transfer of power was considered necessary after numerous researches confirmed the above fact. The school administration will not only be more in-tuned with what the students needed and how to solve their problems or conflicts but would be more satisfied with the academic investments they make because they'll be based upon their own decision and knowledge. Also, the distribution of sources, capital and finances would be more efficient, informed and organized under the school administration. This shift of decision making authority from the district board to the school administration has produced significant results for effective and customized conflict resolution strategies (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

In the past 3 decades, SBM setup in order to design better conflict management strategies has grown and expanded into three main categories: The first is the Principal authority, the second managerial decentralization or the authority of the teachers and the third is where the community and parents of the children have the ultimate authority. The first type where the principal has the authority, the parents and teachers can express their opinions and suggestions but the principal's decision is considered to be final. In the second type where the teachers have control, a committee of teachers is made up by voting from all the faculty members and this committee then makes the decisions of what the school needs and how can they get it. Parents can also be a part of committee at times. The third type of SBM setup is built because of the belief that the parents and the community will decide what is right for the children and the community in the long run. These three types of SBM have significantly maneuvered the education system to a place where we can see schools being more managed and organized as well as being more capable of molding the students in the academic setting to attain higher achievement levels (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

These three forms of SBM setups have uniformity on the following administrative tasks: they all have committees made up of either administrative representative, or community members, or faculty or students that are nominated by their peers. These committees either exist for giving recommendations to the principal (who is the head of the committee) or have the power of making the decisions. There are various groups and secondary councils made that help implement the decisions of the committee, give suggestions, analyze student performances and/or decide the curriculum. So to say it in short, the common features of all SBM setups is that there are numerous foundations setup to make informed and harmonized discussions on what needs to be done regarding solving conflicts and what would be the most efficient way to do it (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

The SBM is successful in not only setting up an effective teacher and classroom management but it also allows the administration and faculties to focus on one primary target, which in this case is conflict management or resolution. This also allows the school administration to carry out successful monitoring, analysis as well as utilize the assets and capital in attaining an efficient design or structure of practical conflict resolution strategies. The SBM by allowing community members to initiate an inspection process helps school administrations analyze and calculate the improvements made and conflicts resolved over a period of time. This inspection process in the long run will help the schools develop a coherent and functional strategy for adaptability to upcoming or potential conflicts as well (Bryk et al. 1998a; Sebring and Bryk 2000).

The changing role of Principals

With the implementation of the SBM setup, most of the authority rests on the shoulders of the principals who are involved, directly or indirectly, with all the workings of the school administration. One of the greatest advantages for the principals is the freedom to choose the kind of teachers they want to hire in order to attain the goals that they have in mind. This is very important because previously the teachers were designated by the district authorities and weren't always equipped to manage the tasks that the principals had in mind. This will allow the principals to implement a preventive conflict management strategy by employing teachers that work well within the dynamics already set by the principal. Additionally, the funds that are under the control of the schools with the SBM setup allows the principals to make sure that the teachers are satisfied with their pay-scales and that teachers, who do not possess adequate skills to survive in the SBM setup, are given special training. This is another preventive conflict resolution factor and is one of the main differences between why SBM is such a success for resolving conflicts (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

Irrespective of what type of the SBM setup was chosen, the principals made sure that they got all the parties involved. They got the parents, the community, investors and related agencies to contribute financially as well as give in their suggestions on how to improve the academic structure of their schools so that they could share their authority with the consumers and the investors in the industry of education. They also got the committees involved by encouraging their contributions, analyses and suggestions so that the overall managerial approach would be an all-inclusive facilitative one. This all-inclusive effort and outlook made the overall administration more of a team exhibition than a one-man show and it made everyone feel like they could voice their reservations and problems with the likelihood of them being solved adequately (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

One of the main executive conflict management focuses of the principles in successful SBM setups was to fulfill the demands of the parties involved. This encompassed making sure that the equipment and accessories needed by the teachers are provided to them at appropriate times and in appropriate amounts so that they are satisfied and happy with their working conditions. Alongside this, the principals that have seen the most success with the conflict management strategies under the SBM structure have been the ones who have paid attention to the public support facilities for the students and class management strategies. One of the other main conflict resolution successes of the principals was that they were able to make sure that each component of the school administration and staff only dealt with what they were related to or responsible for. This helped the teachers, staff and students along with other peripheral networks to improve and experiment with what they needed, resulting in constant growth, cooperation and expansion of the school. This attention given to fulfilling the demand of the parties involved resulted in fewer conflicts and gave them an incentive to genuinely contribute to and aim for the success and accomplishment of the principal's vision for the school (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

In addition to that, the principals were able to act as buffers between the outside world of ideas and strategies and the internal networks of the school which allowed the school to make networks without much initiation forced from teachers (Sebring and Bryk 2000). Of course, the principals also encouraged teachers to initiate and create networks where they thought the school would benefit.

Other ways where the principals had eminent control was in the involvement of not only local community members and corporation but also foreign/international communities, schools and corporations, to promote the school across borders in a positive outlook and energy, to discourage and ban any trade of illegal substances within the school, to instigate cooperation and international and local disciplinary attitudes amongst the students as well as the teachers (Bryk et al. 1998b). Forming this bridge between other institutions has proven to be really fruitful for the growth and innovation of conflict management strategies within the schools (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

Numerous researches have, however, broadly highlighted that the site-based or school-based management was not very successful when the principals were misguided in attaining personal targets and didn't pay attention to the institutions' goals (i.e. Lindle 1996). Also, the conflict management design under the SBM structure does not work well under dictatorship; in fact when the principal becomes too domineering, the researches showed obvious instances of dissatisfaction amongst the staff and decreased incentive from the students to work and engage in the learning process. The conflict management design under the SBM structure is heavily dependent upon the contribution of the committees and cannot succeed without it. Numerous studies have shown that the most ineffective principals have been the ones who have appointed committees but haven't given them enough authority over the real executive tasks or enough room to perform and contribute to the overall managerial structure. The problem, as highlighted in numerous studies, with this approach is that there is an obvious tussle for authority between the principal, the teachers and the peripheral agencies like the investors. This tussle has a negative effect on the overall organization, planning, internal and eternal relationships / networks, attainments of goals, conflict resolution and management, image of the institution, curriculum making and successful teaching strategies as well as decreased levels of contribution from the teachers and the parents. These findings prove that the SBM setup is not a solitary or stand-alone solution and growth and improvement within the education industry can only be achieved with a thought-provoked and targeted mind set before the implementation of SBM (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

The role of Parents/Community in the SBM setup

One of the most interesting and influential features of the SBM setup was the incorporation of parents' and community members' input in the academic administration in order to resolve conflicts within and outside the schools. The parents were willing to contribute more as they felt that having the authority or a major part in the decision-making or conflict-resolution process guaranteed that their input will not go unnoticed. There have been numerous instances highlighted by several research studies on how most of the members in certain school district committees consisted mostly of parents and the community members with minimal faculty members (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

In addition, the authority that was given to the parents in the third form of the SBM setup guaranteed them power over the hiring of the principal, designation of funds, curriculum structure, improvisational and expansion-based strategies needed to help in the growth of the school and resolve the important and most pressing conflicts within the educational community. Most of these committees laid down the foundation for better and more efficient communication between the school administration and the parents/community (Ryan et al. 1997; Wohlstetter et al. 1997b).

Furthermore, The biggest advantage that most researchers noticed by the increase in the participation of the parents was that the overall opportunity and ideas of growth for resolving conflicts within the schools increased and transformation from theory to practice was achieved more efficiently and effectively (Bryk et al. 1998b). However, the fact of the matter is that many parents are still reluctant or don't have enough time or knowledge to confirm effective and consistent contribution in the conflict management branch of the school (Arnott and Raab, 2000).

Lastly, the analysis of the efforts put in and results achieved by the conflict management structure under the SBM setup has shown numerous factors that are responsible for the failure of this system. These factors are: irresponsible funding; complete dependence upon the efforts of the principal which adds pressure on him/her; the personal objectives of the principal which come in the way of the objectives of the institution; the dictator-like approach of the principal; lack of an effective organizational structure, lack of effective conflict-resolution strategies, lack of conflict management, leadership, communication setup; and, an unbalanced distribution of responsibilities with the burden resting on the shoulders of certain groups or individuals (Arnott and Raab, 2000; Smith, 2002; Wohlstetter, 1995).

As noted above the impact of site-based management has far reaching implications and many parents and school administrators believe that this new system may answer the problem of inappropriate conflict resolution strategies. However, improper knowledge and execution of site-based management has created additional problems for schools striving for student achievement and effective conflict-resolution strategies in both urban and suburban settings alike (Smith, 2002). This paper will study the impact of efficient conflict resolution strategies on rich suburban and poor urban school districts that have adopted site-based management as a tool for better decision-making structures.