{"id":189,"date":"2024-10-11T16:28:14","date_gmt":"2024-10-11T10:58:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/edu.cmb.ac.lk\/journal\/ijsse\/?page_id=189"},"modified":"2024-10-18T10:36:44","modified_gmt":"2024-10-18T05:06:44","slug":"article-3","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/edu.cmb.ac.lk\/journal\/ijsse\/article-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The implementation nature of School-Based Management on the development of small schools in Sri Lanka"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column width=”5\/6″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

The implementation nature of School-Based Management on the development of small schools in Sri Lanka<\/h3>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”black” style=”shadow” border_width=”2″][vc_column_text]G. D. H. Kosala1<\/sup>, T.W.V. Indigahawela2<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/sup>Sri Jayawardenapura Zonal Education Office, Sri Lanka<\/p>\n

2<\/sup>Faculty of Education2<\/sup>, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

The purpose of this article is to explore the implementation of School-Based Management practices related to developing small schools in Sri Lanka. A case study was conducted on purposively selected one small school in the Colombo District to accomplish this objective. The primary objectives of the research were to analyze the school-based planning process and explore the collaborative decision-making process within the school. Various data collection methods were utilized, such as interviews, focus group discussions, observations, and document analysis. Additionally, relevant tools for data collection were used, and data triangulation was carried out to ensure accuracy. The collected data was then analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. The school efficiently employs school- based planning procedures while actively engaging the community in decision- making. The principal guides the school in adopting a participatory decision-making approach for school activities. Despite facing numerous obstacles, such as inadequate government funding, limited student enrollment, competition from neighboring schools, and parents’ socioeconomic status, the school’s growth is hindered. In order to overcome these challenges, it is crucial to further strengthen the leadership skills of the principal and the School Development Executive Committee in terms of management. It is essential also to consider the consolidation of nearby schools to share resources and boost student enrollment effectively. Additionally, there needs to be a system in place to introduce more advanced co-curricular activities and teacher development programs at the school level.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong><\/em>School-Based Management, Small schools, School-based planning, Development<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The School-Based Management (SBM) policy aims to decentralize decision-making and administrative power to each specific school, thus promoting openness and responsibility by actively involving the school community. Further, respective countries can formulate limits in school management and decision-making to localize SBM through national education policies (Caldwell, 2005). Sri Lanka also introduced the School Based Management initiatives based on the recommendation of the National Education Commission that delegates power, authority, and responsibilities to the school principal and a committee comprising members of staff, past pupils, and parents (National Education Commission, 1997). In 2006, Sri Lanka introduced SBM as a program for school improvement (PSI), and from 2018 onwards, this program was renamed the Enhanced Program for School Improvement (EPSI) (Ministry of Education, 2018).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the school system in Sri Lanka has experienced division in the number of students due to variations in factors, including teaching staff, available facilities, and the socioeconomic background of parents, which is problematic (National Audit Office, 2020). Considering the number of students in these schools in Sri Lanka, it is observed that the number of students in 51 percent of the total number of schools is less than 200, of which 2971 schools have 100 or fewer students (Ministry of Education, 2021). Furthermore, the code of instructions on school structure has highlighted the criteria for shutting down schools with low enrolment due to the financial burden it imposes. However, it is argued that closing schools should not be the immediate solution as there are unique circumstances in certain areas that justify the presence of these schools. This perspective is emphasized in a report by the National Audit Office in 2020.<\/p>\n

In Sri Lanka, categorizing schools into small schools needs to be clearly defined. In 1992, the National Education Commission characterized small schools as those having less than one hundred or one hundred and fifty students. Similarly, in 2020, the Ministry of Education specified that any school with fewer than 100 students is deemed small. For the context of this study, small schools are identified as public schools with a student count of 100 or less.<\/p>\n

Enhanced Program for School Improvement is implemented in all schools, and it is essential to establish a School Development Society (SDS) to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved in terms of enhancing the quality of education in every school. This can be accomplished by setting up a School Development Executive Committee (SDEC) and a School Management Committee (SMC) within each school. In this case, the school’s decision-making party is the School Development Executive Committee, and the School Management Committee implements those decisions. An SDEC should mainly contribute to school planning, curriculum and co- curricular activities, school-based teacher development, school maintenance and development, school capital asset management, and community relations. In addition, the School Procurement Committee and the Technology Evaluation Committee are implemented to ensure transparency in the school’s activities (Ministry of Education, 2018).<\/p>\n

In applying development to schools, school development is a method of strengthening the overall functioning of schools and improving the mechanisms of imparting education in the classroom and the wider school environment (Molbeak & Hedegaard-Sorensen, 2023). Education facilitates acquiring knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits. Quality education includes appropriate skill development, gender equality, and provision of relevant school infrastructure, equipment, educational materials, resources, and scholarships (UNESCO, 2018). In this study, development is characterized as transforming schools into institutions that deliver high-quality education to cultivate well-rounded citizens with knowledge, skills, and positive attitudes. This transformation includes ensuring that all students have equal opportunities to succeed.<\/p>\n

The Ministry of Education in 2020 and The National Audit Office in the same year have uncovered issues surrounding the evaluation of schools with a small student population. Some of the issues were the issues of declining enrollment rates, poor academic performance, insufficient teaching staff, classrooms with zero students, limited student access due to environmental factors, underutilization of school facilities, challenges in securing funding, and outdated principals and teachers. Wakishta (2014) stated that research in Sri Lanka has been limited, with most studies centering on identifying the factors leading to small school closures.<\/p>\n

Hence, developing such schools is crucial in ensuring equity and equal opportunities for all students through delivering high-quality education. While the government and other stakeholders have made efforts to enhance school facilities and implement programs, school-based management must be maintained to ensure their continuous growth and success.<\/p>\n

Moreover, it should be asked to what extent the school-based management program that has been introduced into the school system by handing over the school to the school stakeholders is being implemented in small schools. Even if such a program has been introduced, it is problematic whether it will be used for school development. It is necessary to determine the program’s contribution to developing schools with low numbers of students. It should also be asked whether the reasons for the school’s current situation have been discovered and, if necessary developmental measures have been taken.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the study aimed to identify the nature of school-based management programs in the development of small schools. To achieve this goal, the study focused on the following objectives.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. To examine the nature of the school-based planning process<\/li>\n
  2. To examine the participatory decision-making processes associated with<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Literature Review <\/strong><\/p>\n

    School Based Management and Small Schools in Sri Lanka<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Since 2006, the Ministry of Education has introduced the Program for School Improvement as a School-Based Management initiative in Sri Lanka. It has been regularized through circulars, and currently, 54\/2023 is the implementing circular issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of Education, Sri Lanka (Ministry of Education, 2023). It was expected to overcome financial management difficulties in schools and increase transparency and accountability of school management. Every school was required to establish a School Development Society and forming a School Development Committee (SDC) and School Management Committee (SMC) was mandatory for the decision-making and implementation process. There is also the School Procurement Committee and Technical Evaluation Committee to ensure transparency in purchases and effective utilization of funds (Ministry of Education, 2018).<\/p>\n

    The Sri Lankan school system consists of four categories (1AB,1C, Type 2, and Type 3) based on the grades in the particular school classes. Table 1 depicts the distribution of schools based on number of students (Ministry of Education, 2021). From the total number of public schools in Sri Lanka, which is 10146, it is observed that 51 percent have 200 students or less, and 29 percent have 100 students or less (Ministry of Education,2021).[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Table 1<\/strong><\/p>\n

    School distribution in Sri Lanka based on number of students<\/em><\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    National Education Commission in 1992 defined small schools in Sri Lanka as \u201cSchools with less than hundred or one hundred and fifty percent of students located adjacent to popular schools in remote rural areas, in hill and plantation areas, in new villages, and sometimes in crowded urban environments\u201d( National Education Commission,1992). The Ministry of Education also defined small schools <\/em>as 100 or fewer students (Ministry of Education, 2020). the National Committee for Drafting a New Education Act (2009) regarding the situation of small schools has further stated that those schools mainly serve the children of impoverished people and the resources for those schools are not enough, and those parents make very few requests (Ministry of Education, 2020). Accordingly, this study defines small schools as public schools with several students of less than or equal to 100.<\/p>\n

    According to Kularatne (2015), the school system in Sri Lanka is divided into popular schools and small schools, and the number of students in popular schools is gradually growing, while the number of students in small schools is gradually decreasing and facing the threat of closure (Ministry of Education, 2020). As mentioned in Ekanayake and others (2012), problems such as lack of resources, learning disabilities, low achievement levels, low motivation, lack of role models, lack of opportunities, disadvantageous conditions in society, and social injustice are seen in small schools and difficult and disadvantaged areas. It has been mentioned that people will be able to see a new world from these schools and that these schools will contribute to the school community and the children (Ministry of Education, 2020). The Ministry of Education has stated that there has been an adverse situation regarding the quality of education in small schools, and the school system should be reviewed. However, since these schools serve economically disadvantaged people, it has been further mentioned that these schools should first be made places that can attract students. (Ministry of Education, 2007).<\/p>\n

    Barnett (1996) proposed four primary approaches for providing services to poor individuals under a school-based management system, which are creating opportunities for low-income individuals to choose and participate in schools, giving them a voice in decision-making processes, providing them with access to information on school performance when required, and emphasizing the importance of schools that cater to the needs of disadvantaged communities (Osorio et al., 2009). Research conducted in India has indicated that schools with complex and disadvantaged communities also resort to school-based management, but they must be supported by providing resources (Guha, 2021). 1999-2003 was introduced as an era in which the school structure was changed as a remedy due to the disparities in the structures of schools in Sri Lanka; a problem was created in children getting equal learning opportunities. The restructuring of schools has been proposed occasionally, and the Ministry of Education has also taken steps to achieve this with the assistance of the World Bank. In this case, schools with fewer students have been merged, schools have been closed, or the schools have been developed considering the number of students in the school to avoid wastage of resources (Jayaweera, 2001).<\/p>\n

    Numerous initiatives have been implemented over time to enhance the quality of small schools, but they could have been more effective. In response to the necessity for transformation in small schools, the National Institute of Education has established a comprehensive resource module and carried out a trial intervention in specific small schools, achieving successful implementation (National Institute of Education, 2013).<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Although the literature review has provided recommendations for implementing them in the development of small schools, no inquiry has been made regarding the practical use of the current school-based management program. Therefore, it is important to study the applicability of existing school-based management for developing small schools.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Towards a quality education through SBM<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Characteristics of school-based management include an effective school consisting of inputs, processes, and outputs. The school’s inputs are resources, policies, vision, mission, clear quality goals, competent staff, high achievement expectations, focus on goals, students, and transparent management. The process includes the decision-making process, organizational management, program management processes, and teaching and learning processes. Outputs <\/em>are the school achievements generated by the learning and management process. Output is measured by school performance and includes efficiency, quality, productivity, efficiency, innovation, quality of work life, and work ethic (Nursalim et al., 2021).<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Accordingly, the concepts of educational equity, leadership and governance, accountability, participation, and achievement of school outputs under school- based management are investigated below.<\/p>\n

    Ensuring that all students receive an education can be considered equity in education. Equity means that every student, regardless of their background, language, race, economic profile, gender, learning ability, disability, or family history, can receive the support and resources they need to achieve their educational goals (WGU, 2021). According to the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2007), three factors are related to the equity of an education system. That is, access to and progress in learning, educational inputs, or resources are measured through per-pupil cost or level of resources (physical and human) and achievement of outcomes (school completion and university enrollment) (Wehalla, 2014). There is an inherent risk between educational equity and SBM, and there are significant differences between schools with relatively low and high socio-economic backgrounds, mainly because of parental donation practices. After the introduction of SBM, providing more funding to schools with lower socio-economic backgrounds compared to other schools can moderate differences and inequalities between schools (Nir & Miran, 2006).<\/p>\n

    The primary factor for the success of school-based management is the leadership role of the school principal. Harman and Harman (1993) mention that the principal is the head of decentralization and restructuring. Also, Vander Westhuizen (1997) has defined the leadership role of the principal as the ability to achieve common ideals, interact with stakeholders, and direct and advise them (Botha, 2006).<\/p>\n

    Under school-based management, granting autonomy does not mean that the school is not subject to any control. The effectiveness of SBM depends strongly on the school’s accountability to the community and the pressure that the community itself can exert on the school (Grauwe, 2004). Also, the school must operate within the government’s control and accountability framework. It must comply with the Education Ordinance, Education Regulations, other relevant ordinances, the relevant Code of Ethics, and the instructions the Education Authority gives occasionally. The performance of schools is subject to public monitoring, and internal and external accountability mechanisms must be implemented (Hong et al. Bureau, 2019).<\/p>\n

    By decentralizing centralized power, the participatory decision-making process is implemented in the school. This prevents the disorganized decision-making that was previously practiced in schools. Transparency and openness regarding the school’s affairs is a positive feature. However, some administrators feel that their daily tasks have increased (Balasooriya, 2004). Research conducted on primary schools in Queensland, Australia, has indicated that increasing community participation leads to school ownership, diverse and expert decision-making input, and teacher professional development (Cranston, 2001). According to Balasuriya (2004), by giving decentralized decision-making power to the school, the school can provide learning resources based on the needs. It has been mentioned that it is an advantage that can be achieved by school-based management. Also, this study has introduced resource management as a part of school-based management, which has shown that there has been an improvement in the decision-making process and the availability of learning resources (Balasooriya, 2004). Accordingly, there is an opportunity to develop schools through the increased participation of stakeholders in school activities. In this research, the focus should be on increasing the school’s results through the participatory approach.<\/p>\n

    There are various positive and negative criticisms regarding the impact of school- based management. In most developing countries, only a minority of school principals are solid and well-trained. Central policymakers have struggled to adequately train all school principals, particularly in remote areas where principals often feel isolated and need more support from the administration. SBM has made school life difficult by increasing principals’ administrative and management workload to the detriment of their role as educational leaders. In addition, many management decisions, especially financing and personnel issues, are complex. As far as the community is concerned, the school board or council plays a crucial role in SBM. In communities with many social and political tensions, the school board has sometimes become a tool for elites to build their power, leading to more significant inequalities. In countries such as New Zealand and Australia, minority groups are observed to be underrepresented in school boards (Grauwe, 2004).<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    School Based Management concept and global practices<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The school-based management concept is practiced in different countries worldwide and includes decentralized management, shared decision-making, school empowerment, and school site autonomy (Cotton, 1992). Caldwell (2005) highlighted that school-based management decentralized the decision-making power and responsibility to the school level; in considering the focus areas under SBM, Clune and White (1988) defined areas of authority as curriculum, budget, and personnel. Malen et al. (1990) focused on budgeting, personnel, and strategic planning. Decision-making in all three other areas frequently occurs under strategic planning. However, it is often the exclusive function of school committees, and sometimes all functions are given authority. Schools have a council or board where the principal, teachers, parents, the community, and sometimes students are members. Through this, they can intervene in the school’s decisions, but sometimes, the principal has the decision-making authority (Summers & Johnson, 1996). Furthermore, Gaziel (1998) stated that according to a study done in Israel, greater autonomy has led to the positive motivation of teachers and, thus, a higher level of school achievement (Grauwe, 2004).<\/p>\n

    A survey conducted on school-based management within West Papua’s target schools found notable advancements in student administration, school-centered pedagogy, handling of school funds, and cultural and environmental affairs (Nursalim et al.,2021). Hong Kong Education Bureau (2019) stated that schools are given more responsibility, greater autonomy, and flexibility in their day-to-day operations, resource management, and planning for school development.<\/p>\n

    Leithwood and Menzies (1998) identified four school-based management models based on different characteristics. However, in practice, some countries combine one or more features. The Administrative Control model empowers the principal, and the school is more accountable to the Central Education Authority. In the Professional Control model, SBM assigns critical decision-making power to teachers. The aim is to use their ideas at the classroom level better. In the community control model, the central decision-making authority is the parents or the school community. Community needs are more responsive in this model school. According to the balance control model, decision-making authority is balanced between parents and teachers (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998).<\/p>\n

    Although the organizational structures were similar in most countries, the objectives differed. In the early 1990s, school-based management began in Hong Kong, Asia. Although the claim that all schools are independently managed is controversial, Sri Lanka has now integrated this concept into its education policy. Korea is an example of a country that officially values SBM, while Indonesia, for example, is implementing the concept to some degree and piloting it in Nepal. In addition, SBM has been implemented at a minimum level in Arab countries (Grauwe, 2004).<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Methodology<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Researchers can adopt a single-case or multiple-case study design depending on the problem. In cases where there are no other cases for replication, the researcher can adopt the single-case design. However, the disadvantage of a single case study is the inability to generalize the conclusions, especially when the events are rare. One way to overcome this is to triangulate the study with other methods to establish process validity. Also, the detailed qualitative information obtained in empirical studies helps explore or describe the data of the natural environment but also helps to explain the complexities of real situations that cannot be captured by experimental or survey research (Zainal, 2007).<\/p>\n

    One educational zone in the Western Province was selected as the study population. This zone was used for the study as it was easily accessible to the researcher. The total number of schools in this Education Zone is 87, of which 14 have less than 100 students. That is, 16 percent of the total number of schools in the zone are small schools. This education zone also consists of three divisional education offices. A small school was selected from the particular zone in the Colombo district as the sample. This is a type 3 school which has 87 students and six teachers. Abepala (2011) has mentioned that there is no specific number of the size of a sample in the qualitative research method. The sample will be the number that the researcher thinks is sufficient to get the information to be revealed. The sample selected to achieve a specific objective is called the purposive sample. Observation, interview, focus group discussion, and documentary analysis were used to collect data related to the study.<\/p>\n

    This study observed the school’s current situation, including school premises, school document maintenance, school activities, and resource management. A structured observation schedule was used to reduce complexity while maintaining consistency of observational data acquisition. According to Glasier(1985), Structured observation is a technique where a researcher observes an event or series of events in their natural environment and reports on their findings. This method involves a neutral observer who documents their observations without bias. The observation schedule is developed based on the National Level Program for School Improvement monitoring tool and the ”How Quality is Our School?” criteria book. Focus group discussion was conducted with selected School Development Executive Committee members, and an interview method was used to collect data from the principal. Lederman (1990) notes that focus group discussions help obtain educational and instructional effectiveness data. This can also be done effectively by following a few simple steps in a focus group discussion. Here the ideas of one data provider can influence the response stimulation of another (Jarrel, 2000). Data was collected from the principal according to an interview schedule, and open questions were asked. The advantages of interviews include gathering detailed information about research questions. Moreover, in this type of primary data collection, the researcher has direct control over the interview and can clarify specific issues if necessary (Dudovskiy, 2022). Further, a pre-arranged list of documents was used to collect data from the school’s existing documents.<\/p>\n

    Thematic analysis was used for data analysis. In qualitative data analysis, patterns and themes are understood explained, and the process and procedure followed to generate themes. Braun Clarke (2006) has cited thematic analysis as one of the most essential and prominent qualitative data analysis strategies. While conducting qualitative analysis, researchers must be able to learn and practice various stages of thematic analysis strategies such as familiarization with data, coding, classification, comparison, and category and theory building. Here, structural coding was used for data coding. Structural coding <\/em>is a first-round method that codes data according to research questions or topics (Saldana, 2013).<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n

    School Profile<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The school profile is analyzed first to reveal the background. This school has around a hundred years of history and is situated in a village with transport facilities to the town. This is a type 3 school with 87 students and six teachers. The socioeconomic backgrounds of the school community, including parents, were low- income earners with low levels of education. 60% of the students were residing within walking distance of the school. There are other Type 3 and 1C schools within the catchment area also. Student mission to grade 1 of the school between 2019 and 2023 is depicted in Figure, 1and it showed an overall decline.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Figure 1<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Grade 1 student admission from 2019-2023<\/em><\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    Table 2 below presents the flow of students in the school. No student dropouts are highlighted in the school, and the total number of students has decreased annually.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Table 2<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Student flow between 2019 and 2023<\/em><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/em>\"\"<\/p>\n

    (Source: School Documents)<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In this regard, the nature of the following school-based planning measures, school curriculum implementation, human resource management, physical resource management, student access and participation, welfare and support services, school and community, school financial management, and school performance in the areas of school leadership and management were focused.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    SWOC analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n

    It was observed that while implementing school-based planning in the school, the suggestions of all the school’s stakeholders are taken, and the school’s existing problems are identified first. SWOC analysis has been used to identify the school’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges. It is significant to have an academic staff and a principal who are optimistic about the school’s activities as strengths. Also, the positive attitude of the School Development Executive Committee and the School Development Society and community support are among the strengths identified by the school. Among the weaknesses identified by the school are the low level of literacy of the parents, the need for more community awareness about the school, and parents who are not concerned about students’ nutrition. The presence of televisions in the classrooms, the availability of internet facilities, and the support of various government agencies are among the opportunities the school has. Among the challenges faced by the school are the presence of other schools around the school, drug problems and abuse of students, low socioeconomic environment, etc. Also, in the targeted interview, the school development executive committee members stated that they would ask and discuss their opinions while preparing the annual implementation plan and include. The proposals adopted by the school development executive committee should be included in future planning.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    School plan preparation and monitoring<\/strong><\/p>\n

    It was observed that the school’s mid-term plan and annual implementation plan have been carried out using the previous analysis according to the standard models. Strategies to bring children to school in the school catchment area, create school premises free of dengue mosquitoes, create a safe and attractive learning environment, improve the health and physical development of students, increase opportunities to use the library, develop attitudes and values in students were certain activities that school has focused on planning. The zonal education office has approved these plans within the due period. Also, according to the annual plan, the budget has been prepared and approved. These works are at a very satisfactory level. Regarding monitoring the plan, completing the activities planned during the year, and re-planning, the executive committee members stated, “We are checking whether the activities of the last month have been fulfilled and then the next month’s activities are discussed.” Further, the committee stated that since the planned activities were based on priorities, the school implemented them anyway.<\/p>\n

    The principal mentioned that more money is needed for the school’s development activities because financial grants are given based on the number of students. In addition to government funding, donations from individual organizations have helped the school. The funds were stated to be used only for relevant and necessary purposes.<\/p>\n

    Activities in which the school has used school-based learning grants are as follows,<\/p>\n