Teacher empowerment and the implementation of school‐based reform

As increasing concern has been given to reshaping teaching and learning processes in schools, empowering teachers has become an important means of implementing school reform. The focus of this research was to investigate how the purposeful reform of school decision‐making responsibilities affects teacher participation and leadership in selecting critical needs to address during the school improvement process. Results indicate that involvement in the process of setting up decision making and selecting the content of school needs affect teachers′ agreement with selected needs. Teacher expertise and leadership opportunities were found to affect their participation in school decision making. Discusses results in terms of their implications for school reform.

[1]  Rodney T. Ogawa,et al.  Leadership as an Organizational Quality , 1995 .

[2]  Zhigang Wang.  Evaluating The Implementation Of Site-Managed Educational Programs: The Relationships Of Program Characteristics And Implementation Context With Level Of Implementation , 1995 .

[3]  K. Leithwood.  Leadership for School Restructuring , 1994 .

[4]  B. Malen.  Enacting Site-Based Management: A Political Utilities Analysis , 1994 .

[5]  Dianne L. Taylor,et al.  School-Level Effects of Teachers' Participation in Decision Making , 1994 .

[6]  C. Weiss,et al.  Principals, Shared Decision Making, and School Reform , 1994 .

[7]  Rodney T. Ogawa.  The Institutional Sources of Educational Reform: The Case of School-Based Management , 1994 .

[8]  S. Mohrman,et al.  New Boundaries for School-Based Management: The High Involvement Model , 1994 .

[9]  R. Heck,et al.  Teacher Involvement in School-Conducted Needs Assessments , 1994 .

[10]  Nona A. Prestine,et al.  Benchmarks of Change: Assessing Essential School Restructuring Efforts , 1993 .

[11]  R. Heck.  School context, principal leadership, and achievement: The case of secondary schools in Singapore , 1993 .

[12]  R. Heck,et al.  Organizational Culture and Performance: Proposing and Testing a Model , 1993 .

[13]  Mark A. Smylie.  Teacher Participation in School Decision Making: Assessing Willingness to Participate , 1992 .

[14]  K. Leithwood,et al.  Using the appraisal of school leaders as an instrument for school restructuring , 1991 .

[15]  M. Miles,et al.  Managing Reform: Lessons from Urban High Schools , 1991 .

[16]  Sharon Conley,et al.  Review of Research on Teacher Participation in School Decision Making , 1991 .

[17]  Karen Seashore Louis,et al.  Improving the Urban High School: What Works and Why , 1990 .

[18]  Ronald H. Heck,et al.  Instructional Leadership and School Achievement:Validation of a Causal Model , 1990 .

[19]  M. Fullan.  The New Meaning of Educational Change , 1990 .

[20]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide , 1997 .

[21]  S. Sarason.  Schooling in America : scapegoat and salvation , 1983 .

[22]  Ronald R. Edmonds.  Effective Schools for the Urban Poor , 1979 .

[23]  E. Hanson,et al.  Educational administration and organizational behavior , 1979 .

[24]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[25]  Paul Berman,et al.  Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. VII: Factors Affecting Implementation and Continuation. , 1977 .

[26]  S. Sarason.  Revisiting "The culture of the school and the problem of change" , 1971 .

[27]  N. Mouzelis,et al.  Planned Organizational Change. , 1969 .