Recent Policy Developments Designed To Boost Educational Achievement

Recent Policy Developments Designed to Boost Educational Achievement
1
Recent Policy
Developments Designed to Boost
Educational Achievement
The Concept and Implementation of School Based-Management:
Comparative Study Between Malaysian Cluster Schools and UK
Autonomous Schools
by
Mohamed Yusoff bin Mohd. Nor
EDITORS:
Hjh Nor Asiah bt Hj. Ibrahim
Hjh Nor Hasimah bt Hj. Hashim
Shadhana Popatlal
2
CONTENTS
Page
Abbreviations and Defnitions 3
Figures and Tables 4
Acknowledgments 5
1 Introduction 6
2 Purpose 7
3 School-Based Management Concept 8
4 Recent UK and Malaysian Schooling System 11
5
Malaysian Recent Policy Innovation to Boost Educational
Achievement
14
6
School-Based Management in Malaysia under the Cluster
Concept
15
7 Issues and Challenges 17
8 Rationale for using SBM in Cluster Schools 19
9 What is Autonomous School in UK: An Overview 23
10
The Level of Autonomy in Malaysian Cluster Schools as
Compared to UK Autonomous School
27
11 Potential Benefts of SBM 28
12 How to Implement SBM Effectively 29
13
The Implementation of School-Based Management in Malaysian
Cluster Schools
29
14 Discussion: Implication for Policy and Practice 31
15 Conclusion and Recommendations 31
16 References 33
3
Abbreviations and Defnitions
CS Cluster Schools The excellent schools among their cluster in
terms of management as well as pupils good
personality outcomes
DfES Department for
Education and Skill
The central government department
responsible for planning and monitoring
the education in England. DfES publishes
guidance to assist LEAs and schools to
implement legislation and other regulations.
EPRD Educational Planning
and Policy Research
Division
A division under MoEM
EDMP
2006
-2010
Education
Development Master
Plan
EDMP 2006 2010 is the recent policy as well
as strategic plan for Malaysia Educational
Planning aimed at producing excellent human
capital with frst class mind.
ERA Education Reform
Act 1988
United Kingdom Education Reform
IQEA Improving the
Quality of Education
for All
The project aimed to strengthen a schools
ability to provide quality education for its
entire pupil by building upon existing good
practice.
LEA Local Education
Authority
LEA are locally elected county, which have a
statutory duty for provision and organization
of public education services in their area.
LMS Local Management
of School
LMS refer to the set of measures by which
LEA control of schools was diminished
and the autonomy of schools enhanced, and
which were set in train by the 1988 Education
Reform ACT.
MoEM Ministry of
Education Malaysia
Ministry of Education Malaysia
SA School Autonomy School autonomy refers to self managing
school
SBM School-Based
Management
School-based management is a strategy for
improving schools that involves a diverse
group of stakeholders.
4
SDP School Development
Plan
School development plan summarises the
relationship between aims, resources and
planning, which are placed in the separate
categories of staff, premises and curriculum.
SMS Self Managing
Schools
Self Managing School refers to School
Autonomy
Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of the Concept and
Implementation of SBM in Malaysia Cluster
Schools and Experience UK Autonomous Schools
16
Figure 2 SBM Implementation: Malaysian Cluster Schools 20
Figure 3 SBM Implementation Strategies 30
Table 1 Level of Readiness Malaysia Cluster Schools Head
Teachers to Become Autonomy School
22
Table 2 An instrument to measure and compare the
element of autonomy between Malaysian Cluster
Schools and UK Autonomous School
26
Table 3 The Result of Level of Autonomy in Malaysian
Cluster Schools as compared to UK Autonomous
Schools
27
5
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Gerard Lum, Dr. Bob Burnstow, and all lecturers of Kings
College, University of London as well as all participants of Cohort 4, Malaysian
Cluster Schools Head Teachers for providing valuable input and bestowing me with
added confdence to complete this writing.
Last but not least, my gratitude goes to my wife and children for their continuous
support, care, love and understanding, without which this study would be incomplete.
6
The Concept and Implementation of School Based-Management:
A Comparative Study between Malaysian Clusters Schools and UK
Autonomous Schools
1. Introduction
Educational reform has been a worldwide movement since the last two decades.
Many developed countries led by the United Kingdom (UK) have transformed their
educational systems since the end of the 1980s
1
(Caldwell, 2002; Bush & Bell, 2002;
Levacic, 2002). In the present decade, educational reform appears to be accelerating
rapidly in most developing countries to boost educational achievement. The most
current and popular reform for many developing countries is decentralised school
management or just simply known as School-Based Management(SBM)
2
.
An increasing number of developing countries are introducing SBM
reforms policy aimed at empowering principals and teachers, or to strengthen
their professional motivation, thereby enhancing their sense of ownership of the
school (World Bank, 2007)
3
. Many of these reforms have also strengthened parental
involvement in the schools, at times by means of school councils or in the UK by
school governing bodies
4
(Levacic, 1995; Caldwell, 1988; Creese, 1999; Bush,
2002; Holt et.al., 2002).
Similarly, in the last two decades, the Malaysian Education System at
macro level has also embarked on an innovative scheme known as the restructuring
of education management and administration, curriculum and assessment policy.
Formulating, reviewing and updating the education policy is part of the important
processes of enhancing the quality of the Malaysian Education System in line with
the current development of the world, which is becoming even more competitive. It
is also in line with the desire of making Malaysia a centre for educational excellence,
which would accelerate the efforts of achieving the status of a developed nation by
the year 2020 (MoEM, 2005).
However, some of policy changes and innovations implemented in
developing countries, for example in the Malaysian education system, often fail to
1
Refer to ERA 1988, this reform introduction of National Curriculum and associated National Assessment
at Key Stage in students school careers.
2
School-based management is a strategy for improving schools that involves a diverse group of stake
holders.
3
see World Bank Report 2007
4
The legally required boards of lay and professional people who are elected or appointed to govern a
school or college and have the fnal say over school policy and staffng appointment.
7
achieve the desired target because of inferior planning, poor implementation strategy
as well as the lack of monitoring system at all levels of implementations. According
to educational researchers (EPRD, 2000; Fullan, 2006) this phenomenon happened
due to the lack of understanding on the concept and strategy for implementations of
that particular program at micro and sub micro level.
2. Purpose
Based on the issues presented in the Introduction section earlier, this essay is
written with the purpose of discussing and analysing the concept and strategy of
implementation of SBM in Malaysia which is one of the recent policies development
that is formulated to boost educational achievement, specifcally focusing on the
Malaysian Cluster Schools of Excellence Programme. This study will take into
consideration the success and viability of implementation of the Autonomous School
Policy in the United Kingdom. The data and information for this study is based on
library research undertaken at Kings College, London (KCL) as well as input from
Head Teachers (HT), Deputy HT, and Assistant HT and teachers in several schools
in London for the duration of school placement program. The input also came from
the Malaysian Cluster Schools principals who had attended the Postgraduate Course
at KCL.
3. School-Based Management Concept
Based on the literature explored, several defnitions had emerged on decentralisation
of the school management. SBM is also known as site-based management
(particularly) in the USA in the past, delegated or devolved management, school
autonomy
5
or local management school
6
(LMS) in Britain (Yancey, 2000; Buss and
Bell, 2002).
According to Myers et.al. (1993), SBM is a strategy to improve educational
achievement by transferring signifcant decision making authority from federal, state
and district offces to the individual schools. SBM provides principals, teachers,
students, and parents greater control over the education process by giving them
responsibility in decision making pertaining to budget, personnel, and curriculum.
Through the involvement of teachers, parents, and other community members in
formulating key decisions, SBM could create a more effective learning environment
for children.
5
he ictionary defnition of atonomy derived from the ree is selfgoverning and hence fnc he ictionary defnition of atonomy derived from the ree is selfgoverning and hence fnc-
tioning independently without the control of others (West, 1992)
6
LMS refer to the set of measures by which LEA control of schools was diminished and the autonomy
of schools enhanced, and which were set in train by the 1988 Education Reform ACT.
8
Oswald (1995) defned SBM as the decentralisation of decision making
authority to the school site, focusing on aspects such as the management of budget,
curriculum and instruction, and personnel decision. The concern of this study is to
identify the extend of the defnition as offered by Myers (1993) and Oswald (1995)
could ensure that the school management is able to run the school independently
such as the organizational structure, power, knowledge, information and reward
(Murphy, 1997; Wohlstetter and Mohrman, 1996). The combination or the package
of the authority signifes the transfer of real change to the school institution.
Lisa and Marianne (2000) pointed out that SBM is one of the strategies in
providing people with more opportunities to make decisions that determine the goals
and future direction of the school. They added that there are several terms commonly
used to describe this school governance model, i.e. ecentralization, restructuring,
site-based management, participatory decision making, shared decision making, and
school-based decision making.
Two comprehensive defnitions of SBM are offered by Malen, Ogawa and
Kranz (1990); Hallinger, Murphy, and Hausman (1992), respectively. Malen, Ogawa
and Kranz stated that:
School-based management can be
viewed conceptually as a formal alteration
of government structure, as a form of
ecentralization that identifes the individual
school as the primary unit of improvement
and relies on the redistribution of decision
making authority as the primary means
through which improvement might be
stimulated and sustained.
(page no.?)
Fullans defnition (1999) is quite different from the others. According to
Fullan, SBM is clearly not just a structural reform, or not even just an educational
reform. There are two more fundamental elements that are required. First, within
the educational system, the strategy must focus on the preparation and support
of trained teachers, the fostering of leaders and supervisors, and the availability
of books and learning materials. It may be necessary to rely heavily on learning
materials as the capacity of teachers and supervisors is building up. Second, parents
and local communities are both means to better education, and more basically, a
component of local development. In this sense, the goal is not school development,
but social change towards greater equity and responsibility. In comparision with
others, clearly Fullan (1999) focused more on capacity building in education system
which involved structure, people and technology.
9
The most current, broad and focussed on student achievement defnition of
SBM comes from the World Bank (2008). According to the World Bank defnition,
SBM in almost all of its manifestations involves community members in the school
decision making process. Because these community members are usually parents of
children enrolled in the school, they have an incentive to improve their childrens
education. As a result, SBM can be expected to improve students achievement and
other outcomes as these local people demand closer monitoring of school personnel,
better students evaluations, a closer match between the schools needs and its
policies, as well as more effcient use of resources.
As a conclusion, SBM is a strategy to improve education by transferring
signifcant decision making authority from central government, state and district
offces to individual schools. SBM provides principals, teachers, students, and parents
greater autonomy to control the education process by giving them responsibility in
making decisions pertaining to the budget, personnel and curriculum. Through the
involvement of teachers, parents, and other community members in key decision
areas, SBM can create a more effective learning environment for students because
all of them have their own expectations towards their school.
4. Recent Developments in the UK and Malaysian Schooling System
The landmark for the educational reform in the UK is the Education Reform Act
1988 (ERA) which introduced a series of changes to the schooling system. This
reform had introduced the National Curriculum and associated National Assessment
at the Key Stage in students school careers. Legislation was intended to raise the
standard and improve the quality of teaching and learning. It had the explicit aim of
encouraging the operation of market forces by increasing both parental choice and
the emphasis on value for money (Mortimore, 2007; Sammon, P., 1999).
In line with the above reform, the Education Reform Act 1988 (ERA)
had delegated responsibilities for the LMS to empower school governors of all
secondary schools and large primary schools later extended to all primary schools
the management of their own budgets. LEA had to delegate at least 85 per cent of
their budget to schools.
According to the HT respondents that were interviewed, they strongly agreed
that ERA 1988 brought about far more fundamental changes to LMS. Governors now
had full powers to hire school staff, whereas previously they could only recommend,
after which LEA then appointed their chosen candidates. They had extensive power
over the public funds of the school through local fnancial management (LFM).
Interview results of most Deputy HT as well as assistant HT suggested that Head
Teacher and School Governors are required to work together to ensure that pupils
10
received the best possible education through the optimum use resources. However,
the current development had shown that many governing bodies are looking into
cost-beneft analysis of the budget allocation; the detailed deployment of resources,
monitoring of the effectiveness of decision making, and evaluation of the schools
major activities of caring and learning. (David Oldroyd, Danuta Elsner and Cyril
Poster, 1996).
In the UK schooling system, the concept of SBM, or more specifcally the
autonomous schools policy, has moved to the centre stage with the release of a
White Paper that contains the plans of the Blair government for its second term
(DfES, 2001). SBM was one of several thrusts in the 1988 Education Reform of
the Thatcher government, extending to all schools in Britain a practice that had
successfully pioneered in several authorities as Local Financial Management.
The Blair government went further by requiring the Local Education Authorities
to decentralise a larger part of their education budgets to the school level (now
approaching 90 per cent across all authorities). The Blair government had previously
abandoned the contentious reform of the Thatcher government that created a number
of grant-maintained schools, moving beyond self-management to self-government.
These schools had a majority vote of parents in favour of a change in status (Caldwell,
2002).

Researchers (Malen, Ogawa, & Kranz, 1990; Hallinger, Murphy, and
Hausman, 1992) who had conducted studies on the implementation of SBM revealed
that there are so many variations on its practices. But in recent situation, based on the
interviews and observations in the school placement program in the UK, it is obvious
that under the system, the central authority would transfer its authority to the LEA.
LEA would then transfer it to the board of governance which would then transfer it
to the school board. The school board would delegate it to the principal, and from
principal to other members of the school community such as teachers and parents,
or two or more of these. In addition, schools and districts implementing SBM vary
widely in the way the decision making process is distributed. A school may have an
active school council made up of teachers, parents, and the principal who is involved
in drawing up the budget, hiring and fring, and determining the curriculum.
In the Malaysian education system, the idea of decentralisation was mooted
more than a decade ago. However, the adoption of the concept is highly questionable,
and it is not well-received especially at the political level (Rahmad & Abd. Rahman
et.al., 2008). The Malaysian public educational management is highly centralised
with the Ministry of Education at the centre; exercising power and authority over
the State Education Departments, District Education Departments, Teacher Training
Institutions and schools. The management structure of the educational organization,
including school is predominantly bureaucratic with hierarchy of authority levels.
11
The main rationale for such a system and structure is the need for strong
central control which is believed would contribute towards nation building
(Malaysian Education Act, 1996). This notion is based on the school of thought
which believe that the national curriculum, national assessment and national
policy implementation would bring about unity in diversity for a young country
like Malaysia. But the strong wave of educational reforms has placed tremendous
pressure on the government, especially the Minister of Education to reconsider the
adoption and implementation of decentralisation of education. Some aspects of the
reform movement have been implemented in the Malaysian schools, such as the
effcient and improvement in quality assurance for schools, cluster school concept
and self-managing school
7
.
5. Recent Policy Innovation to Boost Educational Achievement in
Malaysia
The recent Malaysian Education Management System aims in developing, improving
and strengthening the level of effciency and effectiveness of management in all
aspects of administration, including monitoring and evaluation, curriculum and
assessment, personnel, information and communication, research and development
(R&D), fnance and infrastructure.
To accomplish the above policy of intend, the government launched the
most and current policy development which is very signifcant with the recent policy
development to boost the educational achievement which is known as EDMP
8
2006
-2010. The ultimate goal of EDMP is to provide access, equity and quality education
for all, which are the prerequisites for education for sustainable development. The
plan promotes two main approaches namely to provide equal opportunity for all and
to develop excellence of educational institutions.
In the frst approach, the MoEM is committed in ensuring that all citizens
receive fair and equal educational opportunities regardless of location, race, ability
or ethnic background. The MoEM will ensure all students master the reading,
writing and arithmetic skill (3Rs) and that no student will drop out from school due
to poverty or locality.
In the second approach, special attention will be given to excellent schools
to sustain and achieve greater success. The MoEM will identify excellent schools in
the respective clusters of national schools, national-type schools, fully residential
schools, premier schools, technical schools, national religious secondary schools,
centennial schools, smart schools and schools in Putrajaya and Cyberjaya.
7
SBM actually exists in Malaysia as it is being practiced by the private schools
8
EDPM was launched by the previous Prime Minister in January 2006
12
As an innovative approach, the MoEM identifes their niche areas
9
and
introduces various programs to build upon the strengths and competitiveness of these
particular schools. These schools, known as cluster schools are given autonomy
in their niche areas to enable them to become a model for other schools in the same
cluster. The model school will also serve as a showcase at international level
10
.
However, the concept and scope of authority in cluster schools is still debatable
among the various groups of stakeholders as they still question the rationale and
viability of this policy.
6. School-Based Management in Malaysia under Cluster School Concept
Cluster School Concept is one of the signifcant thrusts in the EDPM 2006-
2010 which attempts to accelerate excellence of educational institutions which is
closely related with the SBM implementation. As a researcher in education, there is a
need to analyse to what extent the feasibility and viability of the SBM implementation
would transform the Malaysian education system as world class.
Based on the literature (Fullan 2006), the failure of the educational
reform in most developing countries is not because of the weakness of the policy
but the failure of the implementer to translate the policy reforms into action plan
to become a reality. The viability of the educational change depends on to what
extend the concept and strategies of implementation are understood and viewed
similarly among interest groups such as decision makers, policy planners, policy
implementers, stakeholders and interest groups.
The objectives and purpose of the educational reforms in Malaysia in the
2006 Cluster School concept are to enhance schools to global level status, to enhance
students learning outcomes and actively fostering the attributes of a good school in
one or two niche areas. In terms of the teaching professionalism, this concept would
help transform teachers into true professionals. Not the least important but even
crucial is to allow the head teachers to be true leaders in determining the destiny of
the school, in terms of its character, ethos and accountability for the progress of the
school in order to upgrade students achievement. However, the problem lies mostly
on the policy implementers and interest groups who do not fully understand the
concept nor the best strategy to accomplish the desired policy. As an interest group to
education, we need to have very clear conceptual framework. Figure 1 below shows
the conceptual framework to be discussed further.
9
In the UK schooling system, this is known as Specialist Schools
10
The government has approved a sum of RM30 million to cluster schools to further improve their
achievement in their niche areas.
13
Figure 1: The Conceptual Framework of the SBM and its Implementation
with reference to the Malaysian Cluster Schools and Experience
of the UK Autonomous Schools
For the purpose of discussing the above issues, experiences of the UK
schooling system would be the point of depart of the implementation model. The
decentralised school policy in the UK is signifcantly similar with the schooling
system in Malaysia because of the historical background as well as policy
development for both the countries. However, caution ought to be given so as not to
duplicate the British Education System for both countries faced different issues and
problems.
7. Issues and Challenges
The challenge to the MoEM in education management is to overcome issues and
problems due to its structure that is hierarchical in nature, i.e. highly centralized,
heavy at the top (sector, division) but small at the bottom (district, school),
bureaucratic issues for both, as well as ineffcient and ineffective management of
resources and personnel, and the implementation of certain policies.
The concern for both policymakers and educators in Malaysia is whether
SBM in cluster schools is an effective strategy for improving schools. Specifcally,
the concern is to identify to what extent does SBM through the implementation of
cluster schools policy, are viable in terms of:
school capacity and level of readiness school authority
effciency in term of value for money
effectiveness in term of student learning outcome
equity in term of equal opportunity for all
14
If all the above aspects exist, the question to follow suit is to what extent does
this Recent Policy Development contribute to Boost Educational Achievement?
As an educationist, we might say that although the SBM concept and its
implementation is an ideal policy to increase school effectiveness and improvement,
we have to take into account various factors and variables. These contributing
factors to school improvement can be easily identifed, but at the same time facing
problems in managing change in the school organization could be problematic due
to lack of information and understanding the rationale for change. Not withstanding,
these issues might become stumbling block in organization if not handled carefully.
Based on literature review, a number of issues and concerns have also emerged
from a decade of experiences in the UK, Australia, United States and Canada
(Caldwell, 1990). One of the critical issues is whether equity can be maintained
with lump-sum allocation to school on a per pupil basis. Most respondents that were
interviewed stated that the allocation is not enough to manage the schools especially
to provide resources and good facilities. Furthermore, the manner in which resources
are allocated must be refected in what actually transpires in the classroom as far as
learning and teaching is concerned.
According to the respondents, SBM has the potentials to provide schools with
the fexibility in order to meet the needs of the students. This potential can only be
realized should the central, state and district delegate full authority to the schools
to make decisions and carry out improvement activities, particularly in the areas
of curriculum and instruction. Shifting power to the school site presents a direct
challenge to the traditional pattern of governance and can often ignite power struggle.
Majority of respondents claimed that, in order to use SBM effectively, schools and
districts must be committed to the goal of school improvement and should devote
a great deal of time and effort towards learning the new roles. There is a need to
know through pilot project implementation the pros and cons of SBM in terms of
school capacity, effectiveness and effciency as well equity or equal opportunity.
While welcoming the trend towards greater autonomy for schools, further research
is needed before we can formulate any theory concerning the relationship between
school autonomy and school effectiveness under the SBM concept of cluster school
policy.
8. Rationale for Using SBM in Cluster School
The rationale why MoEM needs to change from the very centralised management to
a decentralised one is because every school has different capacities and opportunities
to develop and fulfll the stakeholders expectations towards the school achievement.
The management of the school must fulfll the stakeholders desires especially the
15
parents
11
which is the frst interest group who reap the beneft from the effectiveness
of the school policy and would perhaps be in a risky situation if the school fails to
deliver the national target
12
based on their expectations.
This strategic innovation is among the six strategic thrusts for future
educational development with the human capital development as its core. Under the
sixth thrust, namely striving for excellence in educational institutions, the EDMP
proposes granting greater autonomy to schools. One of the purposes of the policy is
to give the opportunity to schools to excel in one niche area at the international level.
Therefore, in the pilot implementation of the cluster school concept, clear defnition
is needed, review of evidence must be transparent, using impact assessments in
various countries as guidelines and provisions of some initial feedbacks to assist
teams preparing educational projects.
After several discourses among the experts in education
13
, autonomy is given to
cluster schools to develop:
several niche areas in which schools have the capacity to develop;
innovative approach to enhance the current strength in schools;
capacity to select human resource;
strength of support staff in terms of numbers and skills;
ways to utilize school facilities to generate income;
means to select 10% of the students from overall enrolment;
creative ways to implement the National Curriculum;
freedom to offer subjects which are not in the national curriculum with
reference to CCD;
examination and assessment based on curriculum offered; and
income generating means and fnancial management.
However, the crucial and critical aspect would be to what extent the Head
Teachers, senior teachers and the community in school understand and support
whole heartedly the concept of cluster school. So this comprehensive study is to
measure the level of readiness amongst the Head Teachers to embrace the cluster
school concept. This study would introduce a simple framework in accomplishing
School-Based Management through the cluster school concept as shown in Figure
2 below:
11
In the UK this policy was based on parental choice policy
12
In the UK schooling system league table practice to rank the school performance using CVA measures
13
Refer to the committee adviser report for cluster school appointed by the Minister of Education
16
Figure 2: Implementation of SBM in Malaysian Cluster Schools
The above framework shows the relationships between implementation of SBM with
fve major aspects of SBM, namely the understanding of the concept of school-based
(what, why and how), management, training and development of the staff, Head
Teachers competencies to lead the school effectively, school capacity and decision
making process. These factors actually contribute to the effectiveness of the cluster
school implementation because this particular characteristic is part of autonomy
given by MoEM to the Cluster School of Excellence Programme.
To ensure that Head Teachers are competent to manage the change involving
this innovation, a sample of them were exposed to leadership and management
in theory and practices in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. Thus the need to
measure the level of competencies as well as readiness of the Head Teachers after
very huge exposures to SBM locally and internationally would be appropriate to
justify the investments into the project.

Based on the above mentioned features of autonomy given to cluster schools,
a survey was conducted. The objective of the survey is to measure the level of
readiness among the 30 Principals under the Cluster School of Excellence (Cohort 4)
who participated the KCL programme. Specifcally, the survey would try to measure
the level of readiness before and after the participants attended the two-month
programme at Kings College, London which was to equip them with the necessary
skills and knowledge to undertake the cluster schools concept.
Table 1 shows the result of the survey among the 30 Malaysian Cluster
Schools Principals regarding the level of readiness before and after they attended the
course at Kings College, London for the duration of three months, i.e. from May to
July 2009.
20

means to select 10% of the students from overall enrolment;
creative ways to implement the National Curriculum;
freedom to offer subjects which are not in the national curriculum with reference to
CCD;
examination and assessment based on curriculum offered; and
income generating means and financial management.

However, the crucial and critical aspect would be to what extent the Head Teachers,
senior teachers and the community in school understand and support whole heartedly the
concept of cluster school. So this comprehensive study is to measure the level of readiness
amongst the Head Teachers to embrace the cluster school concept. This study would
introduce a simple framework in accomplishing School-Based Management through the
cluster school concept as shown in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Implementation of SBM in Malaysian Cluster Schools

SBM Implementation Concept
Understanding SBM clearly
Training for Development
Head teacher Competencies
School Capacity
Decision Making
Effective Cluster School
17
Table 1: Level of Readiness of Malaysia Cluster Schools Head Teachers to
Become Autonomy School
1: very low 2: low 3: middle 4: high 5: very high
Before Program After
Program
Mean (sd)
N=30
Item
Mean (sd)
N=30
3.40 (0.855)
Capability to identify several niche areas which
I want to develop in my school
4.46 (0.507)
3.33 (0.660)
Capability to identify an innovative approach
to enhance the current strength
4.76 (0.430)
3.60 (0.855)
Ability as a Head Teacher and person of
authority to select human resource
4.56 (0.568)
3.53 (0.819)
Capability to determine the number of support
staff who have the potential to support the
school vision
4.56 (0.568)
3.43 (0.935)
The confdence to utilize school facilities to
generate school income
4.46 (0.571)
3.66 (0.802)
The confdence as being an authority to choose
10% of students from overall enrolment
4.76 (0.504)
4.16 (0.746)
The competence to implement the National
Curriculum
4.70 (0.534)
3.03 (1.033)
The ability as a person in authority to
offer subjects which are not in the national
curriculum with reference to CCD
4.20 (0.714)
3.43 (0.971)
The ability as Chief Educational Leader to
choose specialist areas to be implemented in
my school
4.60 (0.563)
3.70 (0.952)
The confdence to use the examination and
assessment results based on curriculum offered
4.76 (0.430)
3.50 (0.861)
The capability to generate income and running
the schools fnancial management
4.33 (0.711)
3.90 (0.844)
The confdence to manage the budget provided
by the MoEM
4.73 (0.520)
In general the results of the survey showed that there is obviously a sizeable
difference in the means in the items between before and after they attended the
course at KCL in terms of abilities, confdence, as well as capabilities to manage the
18
school given limited autonomy. However, the results showed that Head Teachers in
the sample were still less confdent in offering subjects which are not in the national
curriculum with reference to Curriculum Development Centre (4.20), as well as
the capability to generate income and fnancial management (4.33) as compared to
other aspects. Interestingly, the result showed that HT are very highly confdent in
identifying innovative approaches to enhance the current strength in their schools.
They are very confdent as being a person in authority to choose 10% students
from the overall enrolment (4.76). They are also very confdent to use examination
and assessment results based on the curriculum offered (4.76) and to manage the
budget provided by the MoEM (4.73). As a conclusion, all the HT used in this study
basically has confdence in managing and leading the cluster schools. Another aspect
the HT would need to explore in aspiring to be a learning leader is their intrinsic
drive for life long learning and grabbing the opportunity to ft in as much skills and
knowledge as possible in their school set up through professional development.
9. What is Autonomous School in UK: An Overview
According to most of the HT interviewed, the main assumption underpinning self-
management is that decision for individual within the educational system should
be made by people within school rather than by national or local politicians or
offcials. Their arguments are in line with Bushs (1999) view that principals, staff
and governors are able to tailor spending to perceive requirement of their pupils
better than the national and local decision-makers.

An OECD synthesis of studies pertaining to autonomy in nine countries
gave a cautious welcome to self-management and concluded that it is likely to be
benefcial:
Greater autonomy in school [leads] to greater
effectiveness through greater fexibility in and therefore
better use of resources; to professional development selected
at school level; to more knowledgeable teachers and parent
so to better fnancial decision; to whole school planning,
and implementation with priorities set on the basis of data
about student [outcome] and needs.
(Quoted in Thomas
and Martin, 1996: 28)
The recent policy in the UK is the delegation of responsibility for school
budgeting and staff appointment from the LEA to each individual schools governing
body and senior management team. According to Levacic (1995) the justifcations
for school-based management in the UK can be summarised as follows:
19
Increased effciency in schools;
Increased school effectiveness through improvement in quality teaching
and learning; and
Greater responsiveness to clients and more consumer choice.
Karstanje (1999) and Levacic (1995) introduced the main domains of decision
making in Autonomous Schools which are:
School organization: structure, differentiation, decision making processes,
capacity, class size;
Curriculum: teaching method and assessment;
Staff: regulations on qualifcations, appointment and dismissal, in-service
training, appraisal, pay and conditions of service, including methods of
performance management;
Financial and resources management: spending decision, size of staffng
establishment, premises, information system, fnancial assets and liabilities;
and
External relations: admissions policies, pupil recruitment, relationships
with other organization.
Bush and Bell (2002) asserted that evaluating the effectiveness of school
autonomy is diffcult because it takes on different form and its nature can vary within
and between educational systems. However they concluded that certain elements
might be delegated to autonomous schools. They are:
Knowledge (decision relating to curriculum, including decision relating to
the goals or ends of schooling);
Technology (decision relating to the means of teaching and learning);
Power (authority to make decision);
Material (decision relating to the use of facilities, supplies and equipment);
People (decision relating to the allocation of people in matters relating to
teaching and learning, and the support of teaching and learning);
Time (decision relating to the allocation of time); and
Finance (decision related to the allocation of money)
(Caldwell and Spinks, 1988)
In addition, Thomas and Martin (1996) suggested fve items which could be
included in the above list. They are:
Funding (decision over fees to be charged for the admission of pupils and
other income generating matters);
Admission arrangement (decision over which pupils are to be admitted to
the school);
Assessment (decision over how pupils are to be assessed);
20
Information (decision over the selection of data to be published about the
schools performance); and
School governance (decision over the power and composition of the
governing body)
Based on the elements proposed by Karstanje (1999), Levacic, (1995), Bush
and Bell (2002) and Thomas and Martin (1996), an instrument was built to get data
and analysis to investigate how far these elements exist in Malaysia as well as in
the UK autonomous schools. The respondents of the study comprised of HT, DPT
and AHT of UK autonomous schools under the school placement program and 30
HT of the Malaysian Cluster School who attended a two-month course at KCL. The
purpose of the study was to know the level of autonomy practiced by both countries.
Table 2: An instrument to measure and compare the elements of autonomy
between Malaysian Cluster Schools and UK Autonomous School
1 : very low, 2 : low, 3 : middle, 4 : high 5 : very high
Malaysia
United Kingdom
Low High
Domain of Decision Making (Karstanje,
Levacic) model)
Low High
1 2 3 4 5
To what extent an item below exist in
Msia UK school
1 2 3 4 5
School organization
Curriculum
Staff
Financial
External Relation
Low High
Domain of Delegation (Bush and Bell
model)
Low High
1 2 3 4 5
Msia UK school
1 2 3 4 5
Knowledge
Technology
Power
Material
People
Time
Finance
21
Low High
Domain of Delegation (Thomas and
Martin Model)
Low High
1 2 3 4 5
Msia UK school
1 2 3 4 5
Funding
Admission
Assessment
Information
School Governance
10. The Level of Autonomy in Malaysian Cluster Schools as Compared to
the
UK Autonomous School
Based on a simple survey and backed up by document analysis, interviews as well as
observations, it is concluded that the level of autonomy practised between Malaysia
and the UK schools is as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3: The Result of Level of Autonomy in Malaysian Cluster Schools as
Compared to the UK Autonomous School
Area of SBM
Malaysia Clusters
Schools
UK autonomous
School
School organization High Very High
Staff Very Low Very High
External Relation External Relation High High
Knowledge High High
Technology Very High Very High
Power Low High
Material High High
Finance Very Low Very High
Personnel Low High
Curriculum Very Low Very High
Assessment Middle Middle
Staff development Very High Very High
School Development Middle Very High
Planning High High
Organizing Very High Very High
Leading Very High Very High
Controlling Very High Very High
22
Based on Table 3 above, it is concluded that the level of autonomy in the UK schools
are greater than in the Malaysian Schools in most areas. In Malaysian schools,
certain areas such as organizing, leading and controlling revealed high in scores
ranking as compared to other aspects. However, in areas such as staffng, curriculum
development as well as fnance autonomy, the scores obtained are low. Based on these
results, this study strongly proposes that MoEM need to consider on broadening the
scope of autonomy of the Malaysian Schools to boost the educational achievement
because SBM could offer several potential benefts.
11. Potential Benefts of SBM
According to the World Bank Reports (2007), SBM has some potential benefts only
at marginal cost. These benefts would include:
More input and resources from parents;
More effective use of resources since those making the decisions for each
school are intimately acquainted with its needs;
Better quality education as a result of the more effcient and transparent use
of resources;
A more open and welcoming school environment since the community is
involved in its management;
Increased participation of all local stakeholders in decision making processes,
leading to a more collegial relationship and increased satisfaction; and
Improved student performance as a result of reduced repetition rates,
reduced dropout rates and better learning outcomes.
Based on information from the HT, DHT, AHT as well the staff from several
autonomous schools in London, it can be concluded that all of the six benefts
mentioned above exist in their schooling system. It is shown that SBM is viable and
desirable because all of them know better than other entity about their school. As
professionals, they have the integrity to ensure that their schools are run effectively
and effciently. However in Malaysian educational system, it is strongly proposed
that R&D need to be carried out by a third party to identify the viability of the SBM
so as to avoid biasness as well as to ensure reliability of the results obtained.
12. How to Implement SBM Effectively
The feasibility, practicality, desirability and the viability of school management
system depends on the needs of the stake holders involved. Based on this rationale,
every school has to know the expectations of the various stakeholders in the
organization. Certainly, the school heads cannot manage the school effectively
without getting the mandate from its stakeholders. SBM can only be implemented
properly after all parties in the schooling system fully understood the effectiveness
23
and the effciency of the system. However, based on the experiences of several
countries, the implementation of the decentralised policy is not as easy as it sounds
because it tends to be problematic with the quality assurance due to the nature of the
mechanism for assessment and benchmarking.
To ensure that SBM implementation is desirable to all the parties, especially
the interest groups, it is important to have a written agreement that specifes the roles
and responsibilities of the school board, superintendent and district offce, principal
and SBM council. The agreement should explicitly state the standards against which
each school will be held accountable. James Gutrie (1986) states that each school
should produce an annual performance and planning report covering how well the
school is meeting its goals, how it deploys its resources, and what plans it has for
the future,
13. The Implementation of School-Based Management in Malaysian
Cluster Schools
The scope and approach of the SBM implementation in Malaysia is still new and
limited to certain areas. Most developing countries are still looking for an ideal SBM
model. In the Malaysian context, the concept of SBM is debatable, and was not well-
received, especially at the political level. Certainly, this could be due to the fact that
Malaysia is a multi racial country with diverse cultural and religious composition
of its people. Inevitably, any policy implementation would be concerned on how
to create unity in the diversity. As a result, the educational reform in the Malaysian
educational system needs to be changed dramatically to ensure that no one is left
behind. There should be equal opportunity to access quality education in order to be
versatile in the competitive age in the main stream of the education system.
SBM in Malaysia can be achieved if it can transform ineffective schools to
become effective schools in terms of improved teaching and learning. The feasibility
and the viability of the implementations of the Cluster School concept in Malaysia
depends on the principal and staff understanding the SBM concept in its true sense
and utilising all of the internal and external mechanism available at their disposal.
The frst step to be taken by MoEM is to set the criteria in selection of Cluster Schools
and to ensure the particular schools are ready. Secondly, provide structured training
and relevant exposures on leadership and management at the National Institute of
Educational Leadership and Management (IAB) to all principals of cluster schools.
The provision of SBM in the Malaysian Cluster Schools does not mean
that all decisions are made at the school level. Instead, it means that the schools
are provided with some fexibility in decision making in those areas most likely to
improve pupil learning as well as in the niche areas which they want to develop.
24
The matrix below shows the current issues, strategies and programme
implementation in order to meet the challenges of the changing educational
environment.
Figure 3: Implementation Strategies
Issues Strategies Programmes
Hierarchical
and centralized
organization structure
Increasing autonomy and
decentralizing the process
of decision making in
educational organization
Restructuring the
states and districts
education offces
Planning and
Implementing:
o Cluster Schools
Concept
o Autonomous
School Concepts
o Premier School
Concept
Improving School
Management
for Leadership
Competencies
Plan and implement
continuous training
through short term and
long term courses.
Train current principals
and Head Teachers
through Educational
Leadership and
Management Course
14. Implications for Policy and Practice
When policy makers adopt SBM as a dynamic change and innovation in the system,
they need to plan for change at all levels of the educational system. In the Malaysian
context, the organization at the ministry, state, district and schools must understand
the concept of SBM and the rationale why the policy should be embraced. Previous
school reforms often failed because of misunderstandings among policy makers,
policy planners, policy implementers as well as the stakeholders and interest groups
rather than policy problems per se. The reasons for implementing SBM must be the
underlying factors in the strategies implementation. At the same time, the ministry
of education should establish a steering committee to monitor the implementation
of SBM.
25
15. Conclusion
SBM has the potentials to provide schools with the greater fexibility they need to
meet the needs of pupils. However, for these potentials to be realized depend on the
extent the central, state and district education offces empower the schools to make
decisions and carry out improvement activities, particularly in the areas of curriculum
and instruction. Shifting powers to the school site present a direct challenge to the
traditional pattern of governance, and can often ignite power struggle. For SBM to
be implemented effectively, the schools and districts must be committed to school
improvement plans and devote a great deal of time and effort towards learning the
new roles.
Any educational change and innovation in policy planning must be well
planned
14
to ensure that it is practical and desirable to all interest groups and
stakeholders in education. This is critical and crucial as Fullan (2006) had posed
this question Why does Educational Reform Often Fail?; it is because the failure
to relate between the researcher and the decision maker. As a result, there is a gap in
terms of concept and understanding between the decision maker and the implementer.
Because of that, there is a need to review the current structure of educational
administration, policies and the management practice to increase effectiveness and
effciency of educational management.
The viability of SBM implementation depends on the ability of school
governance in decision making, problem solving as well as how dynamic all parties
and community members are, especially in the early years of implementation. The
high impact of sustainability of SBM also depends on the principals leadership
skills and of course the ability of all stakeholders to play their roles, high values of
responsibility, accountability and integrity. The successful implementation of SBM
requires several preconditions to be met at local level such as:
A strong support from school staff;
School and district community must be given administrative
training;
Understand the new role and channels of communication;
Financial support must be provided to make training and time for
regular staff meeting available;
Central offce administration must transfer authority to principals;
and
Principal must share the authority with teachers and parents.
14
Planned change involved identifed performance gap set objective identifed sorce of resistance
monitoring etc.
26
References
Apodaca, T., Mary,T., & Slate, J. R. (2002). School-Based Management: View from
Public and Private Elementary School Principals. Educational Policy Analysis
Archives,10 (23).
Audit Commission. (1993). Adding up the sums: Schools Management of their
Finance, London: HMSO.
Bush, T., & Bell, L. (2002). The Principles and Practice of Educational Management
(eds). London: Paul Chapmen Publishing.
Caldwell, B.J., & Spinks, J.M. (1990). The Self-Managing School. London: The
Falmer Press.
Caldwell, B.J. (2002). Autonomy and Self-Management: Concept and Evidence,
in Bush, T., Bell, L. (eds) The Principles and Practice of Educational
Management. London: Paul Chapman:.
Creese, M., & Earley, P. (1999) Improving School and Governing Bodies. London:
Routledge.
Myers, D., & Stonehill, R. (1993). Consumer Guide: Offce of Research. Offce
of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of the U.S. Department of
Education.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change force: The sequel. London. Routledge Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2006) Change forces: Education in motion. www.michaelfullan.ca
Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-based Management: Reconceptualizing to
Improve Learning Outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,11
(4): 453-73.
Guskey, T.R., (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. California: Corwin
Press, INC.
Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., & Hausman, C. (1993). Conceptualizing School
Restructuring: Principals and Teachers Perceptions. In C. Dimmock (ed.),
School-based Management and School Effectiveness. London: Routledge.
27
Hamel, G., (2007). The Future of Management. Boston: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Holt, G. et.al. (2002). Education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland:A Guide
to The System. NFER.
Hopkins, D., (1987). Improving the Quality of Schooling: Lessons from the OECD
International School Improvement Project. London: The Falmer Press.
Karstanje, P., (1999). Decentralisation and Deregulation in Europe: Towards a
Conceptual Framework. In T. Bush, L. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter and P. Ribbins
(eds), Educational Management: Redefning Theory, Policy and Practice.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Cotton, K. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS) www.nwrel.org/scpd/sir/
Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of School: Analysis and Practise.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lisa, A., & Marianne R. (2000). The Promises and Problem of School-Based
Management.
Malen, B., Ogawa, R.T. & Kranz, J. (1990). What Do We Know About School-based
Management? A Case Study of the Literature: A Call for Research. In W.H.
Clune & J.F. Witte (eds.) Choice and Control in America education, Volume
2: The Practice of Choice, Decentralization and School Restructuring. New
York: The Falmer Press.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2006). EDMP 2006-2010, Putrajaya: Educational
Planning and Policy Research Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (1996). Malaysian Education Act 1996. Kuala
Lumpur: National Publisher.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2005). The National Education Policy: Pre-
School to Post-Secondary Level. Putrajaya: Educational Planning and Policy
Research Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Mortimore, P. (2007). The Road to Improvement: Refections on School
Effectiveness. London: Taylor & Francis.
28
Murphy, J. (1997) Restructuring Through School-based Management: Insight for
Improving Tomorrows Schools. In T. Townsend (ed.), Restructuring and
Quality: Issues for Tomorrows Schools. London: Routledge.
Myers, D., & Stonehill, R. (1993). School-Based Management. Education Research
Consumer Guided, 4.
Oswald, L. J., (1995). School-Based Management. ERIC Digest, 99.
Prasch, J. C., (1990). How to Organize for School-based Management. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rahmad & Abdul Rahman. (2008). School-Based Management: A Model of
Implementation for Malaysian Primary School. In Proceeding of ICEI 6-8 May
2008. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia.
Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (2006). The International Handbook of School
Effectiveness Research. London: Routledge.
Thomas, H., and Martin, J. (1996). Managing Resources for School Improvement.
London: Routledge.
Townsend, T. (ed.) (1997). Restructuring and Quality: Issues for Tomorrows
School. London: Routledge.
World Bank. (2007). What is School-Based Managemen?. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
29
ANNEX 1
The National Institute of Educational Leadership and Management (IAB) seek to
fnd answers to the question:
To what extent does Cohort 4 participants who have attended a two-month course
at Kings College, London have achieved the ability and confdence to lead Cluster
Schools.
Please answer the items on both sides: on the left hand side as the indicator of your
level of confdence before attending the KCL course and on the right hand side, after
you have attended the KCL course. PLEASE use the scale 1 to 5 below on the items
provided.
1: very low 2: low 3: middle 4: high 5: very high
Before Training at KCL After Training at KCL
Low High Item Low High
1 2 3 4 5
Identify with several niche areas
that I want to develop in my school
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Identify with an innovative approach
to enhance the current strength
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Have the ability as a head teacher
and authorized person to select
human resource
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Determine the number of support
staff who have the potential to
support the school vision
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Have the confdence to utilize school
facilities to generate own income
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Have the confdence as the school
authority to chose 10% of pupils
from overall enrolment
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Demonstrate competence to
implement the National Curriculum
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Have the ability as the authority to
offer subjects not in the National
Curriculum with reference to CCD
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Ability as Chief Educational
Leader to choose specialist areas to
implement in my school
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Have the confdence to use
examination and assessment based
on the curriculum offered by CDC
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Capable to generate income and
fnancial management
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Show confdence to manage the
budget provided by the MOE
1 2 3 4 5
30

Recent Policy Developments Designed To Boost Educational Achievement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recent Policy Developments Designed To Boost Educational Achievement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recent Policy Developments Designed to Boost Educational Achievement

You might also like