Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program

The Politics of School-Based Management: Understanding the Process of Devolving Authority in Urban School Districts

Kelly Scott
8.14.2002

Elaine M. Walker, Education Policy Analysis Archives
August 4, 2002

In recent decades, decentralization has become a popular education reform strategy. It assumes that educational improvement will occur when the makers of decisions are close to the decisions' impact. In theory, school-based management (SBM), a method of decentralization, also brings parents, teachers and concerned citizens into the decision-making fold. But when put into practice in New Jersey's poorest school districts, it only muddied the governance waters and diluted accountability, writes author Elaine Walker. In her study of SBM in thirty New Jersey districts, Walker found that: 1) state power and authority usurped local autonomy; 2) districts and SBM teams were given little room to build capacity; 3) SBM teams became teacher-dominated, thereby minimizing parental and community participation in decision-making; and 4) without clear guidance from the state, SBM engendered conflict among the groups whose voices it was intended to amplify. The paper concludes with policy options that states and localities ought to consider before jumping on the SBM bandwagon. This brief report is available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n33.html.

Tags: New Jersey
Kelly Scott
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]