2.6 RATIONALE FOR SHARED DECISION MAKING
2.6.4 THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL IN SHARED DECISION MAKING….23
dependent on the head of the school and thus in “recent years the role of the principal has come to be seen as critical in implementing shared decision making” (Blase &
Blase, 2001, p.1). Principals are faced with the challenge of tapping teachers’ expertise and experience to facilitate shared decision making (Blase & Blase, 2001). Principals not only maximize the operation of the school by utilizing teacher leaders according to their talents and interests, but also allow teachers to experience a sense of achievement (Lovely, 2005).
Principals who advance teacher empowerment through shared decision making possess particular character traits. According to the literature, such principals are visionary, provide teacher recognition, are visible, are decisive, support shared decision making and demonstrate trust (Clift, Veal, Holland, Johnson & McCarthy, 2005; Hatcher, 2005;
Blase and Blase, 2001; Melenyzer, 1990). The principal’s trust and respect for teachers is a prerequisite for teachers engaging in shared decision making (Melenyzer, 1990).
Furthermore principals are required to demonstrate their support for staff development and decisions taken by teachers. In addition principals are required to allocate adequate time for teachers to collaborate and share in decision making (Blase and Blase, 2001).
In essence, the role of the principal in decision making is to facilitate change, and not be the sole authority or policy maker. To accomplish this, principals need to be “reflective,
24
open to change, and a risk taker” (Clift et al, 2005, p. 101). In the practice of school leadership, the role of the principal is critical because s/he is the decisive link between government policies for school transformation and its implementation in schools (Hatcher, 2005).
Before a school engages in shared decision making, Blase and Blase (2001) advocate that principals together with teachers and school governance structures should consider essential criterion to facilitate the transition towards shared decision making. Before engaging in shared decision making there is a need to understand the motive for this action, contextual factors that might complicate the effort to share decision making, and existing barriers to shared decision making within an institution. Similarly in line with Blase and Blase’s thinking Botha indicated that the “principal was the most important and essential stakeholder” for effective shared decision making (2006, p.351). Thus, as much as the necessary conditions as well as the support structures are in place to practice shared decision making, there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of this practice against the school and learner performance. While shared decision making promotes leadership, the question of whether it has a knock-on effect on teaching and learning needs to be examined.
2.6.5 ADVANTAGES OF SHARED DECISION MAKING
There is much debate on the value of shared decision making. Further to this, shared decision making and its links to the promotion of democracy and a collaborative working environment is investigated. The move towards decentralisation of decision making requires a style of leadership by principals as well as schools providing the context and opportunities for educators to share in decision making must have as its ultimate aim a more effective teaching and learning process. Increased participation of educators in decision making will be of little value if it does not impact positively on the teaching and learning process. Thus, it is essential that resultant benefits or lack thereof in sharing decision making is delved to provide an indication of whether the hype created over sharing decision making at a school level is valid, or far too much importance is placed on sharing of decision making as a means of democratising our schools.
As a means of democratising our schools, “education leaders are now being asked to surrender power and share power with rather than holding power over teachers in the belief that this power sharing will release the great potential of teachers to effect
25
improvements of schools and student achievements” (Blase & Blase, 2001, p.5).
However, research has indicated that there is little empirical evidence to suggest that there is a positive correlation between shared decision making and student performance (Blase and Blase, 2001; Lashway, 1997; Weiss, 1990). Weiss (1990) accordingly suggests that one possible reason for this is that shared decision making has not been properly implemented. Teachers are of the opinion that they devote much time and energy to trivial decisions instead of giving attention to matters which they consider vital.
While there are studies that indicate that shared decision making does very little to upgrade student achievement, there are other researchers, such as Calhoun & Allen, and Newmann cited in Blase and Blase (2001), who identify a positive relationship between shared decision making and student achievement. For shared decision making to be practised there is a need for a collaborative working environment. A large national survey in the United States conducted by Newman and Wehlage (1995) disclosed that in schools where collaborative work cultures foster professional learning communities, there is an increase in learner performance. Rice and Schneider cited in Blase and Blase (2001) report that “greater participation in decision making yields greater productivity, job satisfaction, and organisational commitment” (p. 153). In addition, shared governance and decision generates a commune of leaders who demonstrate independence, interdependence and resourcefulness (Blase and Blase, 2001). Blase and Blase report that in the United States throughout the 1990s education leaders have been advised to “share power rather than holding power over teachers in the belief that this power sharing will release the great potential of teachers to effect the improvement of schools and student achievement” (2001, p. 5). To this effect the role of the principal as an effective leader in the shared decision making process “is now widely regarded as a pivotal and essential dimension contributing to a successful relationship between SBM and school improvement” (Botha, 2006, p. 34)
Gorton and Alston’s (2009) research has indicated that the benefits of using shared decision making approach in terms of outcomes is not conclusive and this is further articulated by Davies et al cited in Chikoko (2009) who stress that “there is no automatic link between decentralisation and improvement of quality” (p.210). However, studies conducted by Straus (1996) reveal that students’ achievement in Mathematics and teacher morale were significantly higher in the five schools in her study that looked at educators who were involved in shared decision making. Furthermore, amongst
26
teachers shared decision making resulted in a positive morale and greater job satisfaction. In addition better decisions were usually taken when teachers share formal and informal knowledge, creative ideas and experience (Blase & Blase, 2001).
However, despite these advantages of shared decision-making, there are some major challenges to the process as well. It is to an examination of some of these challenges that I now turn.