Exploring the Implementation of School-Based Management in Selected Public Schools in Cambodia: A Multiple Case Study

Exploring the Implementation of School-Based Management in Selected Public Schools in Cambodia: A Multiple Case Study Kheang Thida* 1, Luz Caroline Joy*2 0523 * 1 UNESCO, Cambodia, * 2 De La Salle University, Philippines The Asian Conference on Education 2012 2012 Abstracts The purpose of the study was to explore the implementation of school-based management in selected public primary schools in Cambodia with an emphasis on the rationales, devolution of decision making authority and challenges emerged. The study utilized multiple case study design which was grounded on triangulation as a data collection method. A total of 45 respondents who are principals, teachers, school support committees, the parents and community members from three public primary schools in different districts in Kampot province engaged in the study. The findings demonstrated various roles of the stakeholders in initiating and implementing schoolbased management centrally and locally. Participatory decision making approach has promoted the participation of key local stakeholders in decision making. The findings highlighted that the success of school-based management in Cambodia is particularly determined by principal leadership, the active participation of the local stakeholders and direct support from non-government organizations. The study concluded that to successfully accomplish the indicated objectives of school-based management, clear framework of policies, standards and accountabilities should be developed and greater autonomy should be decentralized to the school stakeholders. Leadership and management preparation or systematic professional development should be provided to school principals to help them acquire necessary skills and knowledge to implement the program effectively and more active involvement of relevant stakeholders would be ensured. iafor The International Academic Forum www.iafor.org 1027

1. Introduction Because of the recent challenges, complexities and competition caused by the innovation of technology and science, political and economical transition and societal change, schools are required to be more transparent, accountable and efficient. School governance and decision making needs to be changed to respond to the pressures (Sackney and Dibski, 1995). Greater decision making authority is devolved to local education stakeholders including school principals, teachers, parents and community members to determine the strategy that best meets the needs of the children (Gamge and Zajda, 2009). This new reform strategy is called school-based management which school operation lies in the hand of local stakeholders, but they have to comply with the centrally indicated framework, policies or regulations (Caldwell, 2005). Even though school-based management has been established since the 1960s, only recently has it become the centrepiece of the current wave of education reform (Sackneyand Diski, 1995). With technical and financial support from the World Bank, Cambodia has introduced school-based management program known as Education Quality Improvement Project (EQIP) since 1998 (World Bank, 1999). The primary aim of the program was to enhance the quality of basic education through participative decision making approach. The program furthermore sought to improve planning and resource allocation of scarce resources (Pellini, 2007) and to reduce the cost burden on the poorest families in order to decrease the dropout of the children in basic education. Shoraku (2008) noted that the program has made significant contribution to achieve Education For All (EFA) and Millennium Development Goals (MDG) for education in Cambodia. Despite the wide practice of school-based management in Cambodia, the coordinated national decentralized policy of school-based management is not clearly defined. The decision-making authority transferred from the central government to the school level remains ambiguous and the involvement of the local stakeholders in decision making is uncertain (Samith, 2003). This ambiguity leads to a downside of school-based management and unlikely produces its potentials (Wohlstetter and Odden, 1992). In addition, misunderstanding and tensions between the central level and local level likely happen. Chapman (2002) stressed that when lines of responsibility and authority for education management are confusing; weak and poor management of education possibly arises. 2. Literature Review 2.1. School-Based Management School-based management is a wide education reform strategy among policy makers globally. The definition of school-based management varies across countries particularly based on the nature and goal of the program (Caldwell, 2009), influenced by culture and political context (Gamage and Zajda 2009, p. 4). Sackney and Dibski (1995) viewed school-based management as a proposal to decentralize and de-bureaucratize school control in terms of shared decision making, involving parents and other stakeholders (p. 30). School-based management can also be defined as a form of decentralization by putting primacy on the individual schools that function to constantly improve and sustain the school effectiveness and efficiency within a given decision making authority and responsibility (Malen et al, 1990, p. 290). According to the expert of school-based management, Caldwell (2009), school-based management in a system of public education is the systematic and consistent decentralization to the school level of authority and responsibility to make decisions on significant matters related to school operations within a centrally determined framework of goals, policies, curriculum, standards, and accountabilities (p. 55). 1028

The literature has demonstrated that school-based management has been a global education reform strategy driven by several shared reasons (Grauwe, 2005). The first reason is that school-based management is evident to show democracy in which teachers and parents are given space to participate in decision making process. The second supportive reason proves school-based management to respond to the needs of local stakeholders. While authority for decision making is closer to the local people, the addressed can be met better. The third reason is that school-based management reduces the practice of bureaucracy in the system. Problems can be solved quickly among local stakeholders. Finally, school-based management allows for greater accountability by giving schools and teachers greater authority held directly to parents and the community. Because of the positive impacts of school-based management, many countries around the globe especially Asia and Pacific region have implemented various school-based management programs. School-based management in Hong Kong under the name of School Management Initiative (SIM), for instance, was introduced in 1991. It was aimed to improve quality of education by encouraging the participation of all concerned stakeholders (Wong, 2003). The program in addition promoted a quality culture, emphasizing on learner-centred, school-based and accountable strategy (Gamage and Zajda, 2009). In practice, schools were allowed to flexibly utilize the necessary resources and to clarify the functions and responsibilities for the delivery of education (Huen, 2003). In an attempt to improve quality of education and country s competitiveness, Thai government decentralized decision-making power over fiscal management, personnel management, utilization of resources monitoring and evaluation of the administrators to school board to take control over school management (Gamage and Zajda, 2009). The school board which is comprised of 7-15 members among of whom are teachers, parents, local community members, local authorities and alumni not exceeding two from each group, relying upon the school size was created to take over school operation (Gamage and Sooksomchitra, 2004; Santibanez, 2006). In 2001, Indonesia introduced school-based management nationwide, mainly focused on four aspects namely quality, equality, relevance and efficiency (Shoraku, 2008). Several approaches have been implemented to achieve the indicated desires. School approach placed more autonomy to the school principals while community approach connected both school and local community which in turn made significant contribution to the success of school management and student achievement (Indriyanto, 2003). The practice of school-based management in the Philippines was intended to improve shared governance, democratic decision making, accountability and transparency and communication among the stakeholders (Guzman, 2003). The central and regional levels devolve the authority for decision-making to school divisions in the provinces and municipalities among of which share educational responsibilities with relevant stakeholders such as local government units (LGUs) and parent-teacher associations (PTAs). The extant literature not only indicates the driving forces of school-based management, but also explains the general aims of school-based management. Although there have been various schoolbased management programs influenced by cultural, social and political factors (Santibanez, 2006), they may fall under any of the following aims which are (1) to involve parents and communities in schools; (2) to empower school administrators and teachers; (3) to build local level capacity; (4) to create accountability mechanisms for site-based agents and to improve the transparency of process by decentralization of authority; and (5) to enhance quality and efficiency of schooling which in turn raise learning quality (Gertler et al, 2007). 1029

2.2. Decision-Making Authority in School-Based Management The general principle of school-based management is that the authority for decision-making is shifted from the central government to the school level accordingly, made up of school principals, teachers, parents, in some case student and school community members (Barrera-Osorio et al, 2009; Cheng and Chan, 2000; Santibanez, 2006). However, these stakeholders with devolved decision making power have to comply with a set of framework, policies or regulations indicated by the central government (Caldwell, 2005, 2009; Grauwe, 2005). In general, the areas of decision making shifted to the school level vary, specifically based on the nature of the program, political and cultural context. Interestingly, in the review of various aspects for which responsibility and authority for decision- making decentralized to schools in different countries, Di Gropello, (2006) drew some practical aspects of decision making authority shifted to the school level stakeholders namely (1) personnel management, (2) instructional management, (3), budget management (4) maintenance and infrastructure, and (5) monitoring and evaluation. The review indicated that power for making decision over personnel management which transferred to the school level people include establishing incentives for teaching and non-teaching staff, recruiting and appointing teaching and administrative staff, monitoring and evaluating personnel, and funding professional development (Gamage, 2008; Gamage and Zajda, 2009; Herman and Herman, 1994; Nir and Miran, 2006). In Thailand, decision making over professional development for teachers and administrative staff has been empowered to manage at school levels (Gamage and Sooksomchitra, 2004). The principals can fund teachers for further professional advancement and supervise and evaluate them. According to Di Gropello (2006), instructional area is primarily concerned with setting classroom hours by subject, selecting textbooks/curriculum, setting the method of instruction, and setting the school calendar. Besides, Herman and Herman (1994) indicated that it is furthermore associated with determination of curriculum, testing and assessment procedures, student grading procedures. For example, the school principals in Taiwan (Lo and Gu, 2008), Hong Kong, Japan (Cheng and Chan, 2000; Huen, 2003), South Africa, Thailand, and Spain (Gamage and Zajda, 2009) are empowered to develop their own teaching-learning environment relevant to their needs and to supervise and evaluate the instruction- process of teaching and learning. Chapman (2002) supported that the school principals are empowered to supervise and monitor the teaching-learning process in the schools. School principals are therefore seen to have significant capacity to enrich the quality of teaching and learning (Grauwe, 2005). The study explains that the budget management is more focused on overseeing budget, allocating budget, and establishing school fees (Di Gropello, 2006). In more details, Herman and Herman (1994) specified the coverage of this area by including three main sub-areas namely determination of employee salaries; construction of building budget; and determination of expenditures of building budget such as supplies, equipment, staff development, co-curricular activities, maintenance, transportation, and food service. In some countries such as Hong Kong, Thailand, South Africa (Gamage and Zajda, 2009) and Israel (Gaziel, 1998; Nir and Miran, 2006), budget allocation is made the school level and approved by the school governing body. In the study of the budget resources of Israeli schools, Nir and Miran (2006) found two main issues involving in the budget dimension which affects the equity. The first issue is concerned with the distribution of budget from central government to school. The budget distribution is computed based on the population of students locating in the schools. Generally, schools with bigger population can increase the budget whereas smaller schools are unlikely to increase. It therefore negatively affects the pedagogical practice. The second issue is that giving schools permission to 1030

receive resources autonomously which may negatively impact the vertical equity among schools in considering the differences in their assumed ability to obtained resources form self-generated sources. The existing literature has presented that the decision making authority over maintenance and infrastructure is the responsibility of school level stakeholders who have to ensure that school building and environment are safe and friendly for student learning (Di Gropello, 2006). This usually include the areas of building or maintaining school and buying school materials In New Zealand, the school council made up of principals, teachers, parents, community and students can decide which type of infrastructure is established to help student learn better (Gamage and Zajda, 2009). In the aspect of monitoring and evaluation, the school level people have been empowered to make decision over two main aspects namely administrative and pedagogical activities (Di Gropello, 2006), more specifically staff, instruction, budget, curriculum and infrastructure (Gamage and Zajda, 2009). In general, the principals hold significant domination over the decision making in the area of monitoring and evaluation that can be found in many countries which implement schoolbased management program. Herman and Herman (1994) suggested that policy area should be made at school level. In this sense, the schools should be allowed to determine the building policies related to students, employees, and other matters which can be differed from the district or provincial policies. For example, in Australia, school level is allowed to set its own policies which suit the school while schools in Spain can develop the rules and regulations for organizing school (Gamage and Zajda, 2009). In summary, the focal practice of school-based management is the shift of authority for decision making from the central government to the local stakeholders namely principals, teachers, school board or school support council, parents, the community members and sometimes students. The general decision making authorities decentralized to the school are personnel management, budget management, instructional management, maintenance and infrastructure, policy development and monitoring and evaluation. 3. School- Based Management in Cambodia The contemporary education in Cambodia has commenced after the collapse of Khmer Rouge regime in 1979 (Chhin and Dy, 2009, p.113). All social infrastructures were immediately reconstructed and education development has been put bold emphasis. The then education system was shortened to a 10-year education system made up of four years of primary education, three years of lower secondary education and three years of upper secondary education to meet the urgent needs. The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) later added one more year to primary education to improve quality of education system. This education system was widely practiced from 1986 to 1996 (Pellini, 2007). An updated twelve-year education system containing six years of primary education, three years of lower secondary education and three years of upper secondary education has been nationwide implemented since 1996. The new system increased number of teaching and learning hours across all grade levels. With strong and continuous commitment of the MoEYS with regard to improving educational sector, the MoEYS introduced school-based management known as the Education Quality Improvement Project (EQIP) in 1998, financially and technically supported by the Wold Bank (World Bank, 1999). The overall goal of the program was to establish and implement a participatory approach to school quality improvement and performance-based resource management (Benvensite and Marshall, 2007; World Bank, 1999, 2004). The participatory 1031

approach specifically involved two beneficiaries. The primary beneficiaries of the grant were students and their families, teachers, and school directors, functioning as collaborators in developing quality improvement grants. Other stakeholders including the MoEYS personnel at national level, provincial and district level, NGOs, and other donors functioned as consultative role through National Committee on Effective Schooling and support to provincial management (World Bank, 1999). The project principally encompassed two objectives. The first objective is that all concerned schools should progressively display characteristics of effective schools which ultimately demonstrate improvements in student enrolment, attendance, student flows and achievements. The experience learned from the practices served as valuable sources to notify sector-wide policies to enhance teacher motivation, cost efficiency in education, reduce recurrence and dropout and expand the time available for teaching and learning (World Bank, 1999, 2004). In practice, school clusters were developed to identify problems and solutions in their own schools and in the development of cluster improvement plans to be used as the basis for preparing grant proposals. A school cluster grant program was initiated in Takeo province in 1998 with a pilot group of ten clusters and later expanded to include around 1,000 schools in three provinces between 1998 and 2004 (World Bank, 2004, 1999). A school cluster is a group of school geographically situated near each other that can provide mutual technical and material assistance to make teaching and learning more effective (Marshall, 2004; Pellini, 2007). The evidence has shown that the MoEYS has been in the process of decentralization of education by devolving closer decision-making authority and responsibility to local education stakeholders. However, little is known about the actual implementation of school-based management at school level. The national decentralized strategies or polices of school-based management regarding decision making authority and school autonomy are not clearly defined. The knowledge gap what is actually happening at school levels will hamper our ability to help those stakeholders effectively implement the program. 4. Statement of the Problem The study therefore sought to explore the implementation of school-based management in selected public primary schools in Cambodia. The study was aimed to establish the framework of schoolbased management in the selected public primary schools by examining (1) reasons for implementing SBM; (2) operational aspects of SBM; and (3) challenges in SBM. 5. Method Specifically, the research attempted to answer the following questions: 1. Why do schools engage in School-Based Management? 2. How are school-based management aspects operated in terms of decision making authority and participation of the stakeholders including principals, teachers, parents and community members? 3. What challenges do they confront in the implantation of School-Based Management? 5.1. Research Design The study is a qualitative case study which is essentially based on the Multiple Case Study Method expounded by Robert Yin (2003). According to Yin (2003), case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (p. 13). The author further explains that a case study inquiry relies on multiple sources with data needing to converge in a triangular fashion. 1032

5.2. Participants Grounded on purposive and convenient sampling techniques, forty five participants including six principals, twenty-one teachers (teaching and non-teaching), nine school support committee and nine parents of the students and the community members from three public primary schools in Kampot province, Cambodia were included in the study. The participating schools were selected on the following criterion. The schools (1) were established practitioners of school-based management accord to the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports; (2) had been practicing school-based management for at least five years; (3) contained large number of teaching and nonteaching staff and students; (4) were considered as outstanding and effective schools in the implementation of SBM and (5) were convenient for the researcher to conduct the study. Based on the indicated criterion, two public primary schools located in different districts were chosen. The key respondents were chosen based on the following conditions. The principals and teachers (teaching and non-teaching) must have a minimum of five years service in the school across grade levels. The school support committee members included in the study must have at least three years of experience in the school. The parents and community members selected for the study must have active participation in school activities. The parents referred to the parents who have child/children enrolled in the school while the community members are whoever lived in the community and participated in school. They all should be available during the conduct of the study. The participants were selected with the specified minimum years of experience because they likely knew better about the practice of school based management as well as school history. To protect the confidentiality of each school in the study, the researcher employed code names- A, B and C to represent the participating schools. 5.3. Instruments The instruments utilized in the current case study were mainly bounded on the triangulation method which included (1) interview, (2) internal documents and (3) data from parents and government. Indepth interview was the primary tool used to gather more comprehensive information of the study. The in-depth interview allowed the researcher to learn more about the facts and opinions of the events of the respondents. The researcher applied informal interview with director of district of education office and deputy director of provincial education office to further explore their perception of school-based management. The recoding tools were very significant for interview and transcription stages. In the context of this study, an audio-tape was mainly used to record the interview script appropriately. According to Yin (2009), documents become the most important sources in the case studies. The documents are helpful in verifying the correct spellings and titles or names of organizations that might have mentioned in the interview and provide other specific details to corroborate information from other sources. The documents are therefore stable, obstructive, exact and broad coverage. In this study, the researcher gathered letters, memoranda, agendas, announcements, minutes of meetings and other written reports, administrative documents, formal studies or evaluation of the same case and news clippings from the schools for analysis and validation. For validation purpose, the researcher carefully collected the data from parents and School Support Committee through interview to support the result of the study. The researcher approached various concerned government organizations to obtain some necessary documents regarding with the examination. For sure, the researcher visited the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS), provincial education offices and district education offices to receive some related documents of school-based management. 1033

5.4. Data Analysis The data obtained from the interviews, other related documents were analyzed into two main stages. The first stage was called within case analysis or single case analysis which was the process of studying the data of each individual case. In this stage, the data was processed, managed and transcribed into master units. The researcher therefore conducted critical reading of interview transcript, notes, documents, and other important materials. The researcher examined the emergent concepts and clustered them accordingly. The second stage was called cross case analysis which was used to compare and contrast the data in every single case. In this phase, the researcher established the patterns from all cases about the current practice of school-based management in Cambodian public schools. 6. Findings and Discussion 6.1. Rationales of School-Based Management The introduction of school-based management in the selected pubic primary schools in Cambodia is not different from what Grauwe (2005) identifies as influenced by the internal (national political reform, policies and strategy) and the external (international development agencies and education experts). The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) has shown commitment in improving education sector through various education reform initiatives. As evident, Education Strategic Plan (ESP) 2006-2010 and 2009-2013, originally established in 2000 emphasizes three key aspects: (1) equitable access to education services; (2) quality and efficiency of education services and (3) institutional development and capacity building for decentralization. The education reform has begun with technical and financial assistance from various international agencies. The World Bank and Asian Development Bank have played important role in supporting the process of education policy formulation. However, these organizations have no any direct influence or involvement at school level in which the SBM has been practiced. The joint efforts of the government and international development communities have brought various school-based management programs which include Education Quality Improvement Project, Priority Action Program and Program-Based Budget in 2001-2003, 2001-2006 and 2007 respectively. The implementation of school-based management has thus far aimed to (1) improve quality education by making necessary instructional materials available at schools; (2) to expand access to education by eliminating start-school fee year policies; (3) to promote the participatory decision making approach by delegating decision-making authorities to various local stakeholders and (4) to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of budget management at schools. In the practice of school-based management, the participatory decision making approach has been encouraged through the establishment of School Support Committee which has brought relevant key local stakeholders together. All schools have the School Support Committee which is composed of (1) a representative of local authorities at village or commune level or head of monk; (2) school principal; (3) one community representative who is admirable and charismatic; (4) one member of parent association; (5) one accountant (elected from among members); (6) one treasurer (elected from among members) and one secretary (elected from among members). The functions and roles of the committee include (1) enhancing the enrolment of children through education campaign and encouragement of parents; (2) taking part in revenue mobilization and budget through school development plan; (3) improving school maintenance and property; (4) involving in school construction and repair through fund raising and engaging parents; (5) preventing irregularities inside and outside the school; (6) participating in school planning and implementation and (7) monitoring student learning through community-parent meeting. 1034

As described by Grauwe (2005) that the participative decision making approach has promoted the concept of democracy among local stakeholders as they become participative in school development. The current study particularly supports the importance that community members and parents have been more involved in the school activities. The participation of these stakeholders signifies a characteristic of decentralized education system which has appealed the public and research support school management (Gamage and Zajda, 2009, p.3). It becomes noticeable that non-governmental organizations have played very important roles to support the school development and management through technical and financial assistance. For example, Volunteer Service Overseas, Non-Governmental Organization Educational Partnership, TIMA, SAWA, World Education and SVA have supported in the areas of school environment (building playground and gardens), life skill program and training, teaching and learning materials, and extra-curricular activities (sports). The extent to which the School Support Committee, parents and community members and nongovernmental organizations take part in school development characterizes the uniqueness of the participating schools. The school with active involvement of the School Support Committee, parents and the community as well as direct technical and financial assistance from various nongovernmental organizations proves better improvement in environment and infrastructure, instructional materials and staff involvement while the school with less or no direct support seems to have minimal improvement. The study indicates that in order to demand involvement and direct support from the organizations, strong school leadership is especially crucial as addressed by Grauwe (2005) that the principal capacity and leadership style is significantly related to quality of education and school improvement. He added that the principals engage the community in school activities and get them to understand the situation, constantly building trust. The findings especially demonstrated that the relation between school-based management and access to education, environment and infrastructure and instructional materials among participating schools. Access to education has been significantly expanded since the implementation of schoolbased management. The enrolment rate in the participating schools has considerably progressed to slightly over 90 per cent. The education statistics and indicators of MoEYS identified that there was a considerable increase in enrolment rate in primary school from 77.8 per cent to 92.1 per cent between the 1996/1997 and 2006/2007 respectively (Chhin and Dy, 2009, p. 117). Also, school environment becomes safe and friendly. It becomes evident that instructional materials are more available to support the process of teaching and learning at schools. The development of necessary teaching and learning materials has been made at school cluster which is a group of schools geographically located near each other in the same community and works to address the priorities for school development. In practice, teachers in the cluster assemble to design some important materials accordingly and exchange in the cluster. 6.2. Operational Aspects of School-Based Management The transfer of decision making authority from central government to school level decision makers is very fundamental in the practice of school-based management as a way to accomplish the desired objectives in education. A special attempt therefore was made in this study to examine various decision making authorities and responsibilities that are devolved to local education stakeholders and the extent to which those people take part in the decision making process. The findings demonstrated a similar practice of school-based management defined by Caldwell (2005) that school-based management in a system of public education is the systematic and consistent delegation of authority and responsibility from higher education level to the school level to decide on day-to-day school operation by complying with an indicated framework of goals, 1035

policies, curriculum, standards, and accountabilities (p.55). In this study, the extent to which power for each decision making area devolved to the school level people differs accordingly. One of many decision making authorities transferred to the school level stakeholders is planning and development. The principals and teachers reported that they have greater power to decide on what should be the agenda of the school operational plan and how this should be implemented. As indicated by the respondents that there are several regular meetings held at the beginning of the academic year that the principals, teachers and SSC assemble to develop the school plan by integrating the ideas collected from the participants, aligning them to the national education policies. Those stakeholders are free to go for their school vision-mission, structure, and date of various meetings grounded on their decision agreed by the participants. The findings are to some extent consistent with the suggestion by Herman and Herman (1994) that the local stakeholders should be allowed to make decision over the establishment of regulations related to students, employee, and other matters that differ from the given set of guidelines, but are relevant to the needs and practicalities of the context. The quality of learning greatly depends on the relevance of the curriculum and quality of instructional preparation and the degree of decision making given on how the instruction should be designed to assist the students learn productively. The findings indicated that even though the teachers have to use the curriculum designed by the MoEYS, they have been empowered to review and adjust the curriculum to the needs and relevance of the student. However, a few teachers went through the review and many of them mentioned the limited knowledge of the curriculum, time constraints and shortage of necessary resources. As reported by the teachers that some of the lessons and learning activities are not relevant to the needs of the children in the schools that the flexibility of choosing new learning lessons related to the interests and needs of the learners needs to be made. In addition, it becomes observable that the teachers have been empowered to develop necessary instructional materials, use transformative teaching approach, conduct classroom assessment, design extra-curricular activities and set flexible timetable for learning. Many elements mentioned by Di Gropello (2006) and Herman and Herman (1994) have emerged in the study, except the selection of textbook and curriculum which is decided by the MoEYS. The successful implementation of school management is driven by how the human resources or the personnel are placed to fit the school vision-mission, school structure and their expertise in the field. The findings presented that authority for decision making on personnel management and mobilization transferred to the principals remain weak. The principals claimed that they have no power to recruit or fire any staff in the school, but mobilize them as posted by the provincial office of education in accordance with needs of the school. The principals have been empowered to assign task and responsibility for teaching and non-teaching staff based on their expertise and to nominate the staff for promotion and award. The findings seemed contrary to what Di Gropello (2006) found in the practice of school-based management that the establishment of incentives for staff, recruitment and appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff, staff performance appraisal and funding professional development are made at school stakeholders. The findings indicated that the distribution of the budget known as Program-Based Budget to the schools is mainly computed on the population of the students regardless of school size, location, and needs. It is no doubt that the schools with larger population likely receive greater amount of budget whereas the schools with smaller population receive less budget. In other words, greater amount of budget may make considerable progress to the schools because their needs are better met. The main issue in budget management is that the budget allocation is centrally pre-determined and allocated into various codes and sub-codes leaving the school stakeholders minimal room to make decision but to comply with. This is contrary to the findings by De Gropello (2006) that the budget management is made by the location education stakeholders so that their needs are fulfilled. In 1036

addition, the principals and teachers mentioned that the budget usually arrives irregularly that some activities and programs are delayed. The study moreover found out that supplementary budget is contributed by donors, generous people in the community and parents of the students. The decision making authority over school environment and infrastructure has been greatly empowered to the local school stakeholders. It was agreed that there has been significant improvement of both classroom environment and around school environment. All participating schools have good learning classrooms which are well-designed with friendly atmosphere. Also, the school buildings have been established and renovated to provide safe and healthy learning space for learners and this eventually promotes student learning quality. It becomes noticeable that the schools surrounded by community that is supportive and participative as well as assistance from non-governmental organizations make better progress in terms of school infrastructure. The results seemed to put more emphasis on the leadership of school principals. Even though the study revealed that the authority for decision making over school assessment and evaluation which include instructional and non-instructional staff and budget expenditure, there has been little preparation and training organized for the principals. This new responsibility demands necessary skills and ability to effectively assess and evaluate. As indicated by the school principals that they have confronted administrative and pedagogical constraints which they have never experienced and they have received very minimal training. Noticeably, the school principals reported that they did not receive any school leadership and management preparation prior to their posting and minimal support has been provided to them when a new program is introduced. This has presented that the government failed to address the actual obstacles challenged by the principals and teachers to carry out the missions. The findings evidenced that with the transferred authorities for decision making, the degree of participation of local school stakeholders significantly varies. The principals play the leading role and responsibility in all aspects of school decision making. The teachers have most authority and responsibility on teaching and learning, planning and development as well as environment. The School Support Committee representatives, usually the director, have been empowered to take part in some aspects of school operation including planning and development, budget management and maintenance and infrastructure. The issue on the participation of SSC in school decision making is that many of them do not have the knowledge of school management and they seem to rely the principals and teachers to decide. For schools in which SSC representatives are knowledgeable about school management, the participation would be better. The parents do not have any participation in school decision making process, but they have taken part in various school activities such as opening school ceremony, fund raising, teacher-parent meeting, and awarding ceremony at schools. In order to better understand the participation of school stakeholders in school management, it is good to learn the models of school-based management developed by Leithwood and Menzies (1998) who categorized four models of SBM. The first model is known as administrative-control SBM in which the principals take most control and participation in the school operation. This is expected to improve the efficient expenditure. Second is professional-control SBM in which the teachers are given most participation and control over school operation in order to promote efficiency and effectiveness of teaching. Third is community-control SBM in which the parents and community dominantly control the school governance. It is believed that the parents and community have better understanding of the school operation. The last model is called balancedcontrol SBM in which the teachers and the parents and community have equal participation and authority to make decision over school management. It becomes obvious that professional-control SBM, community-control SBM and balanced-control SBM can make better use of teachers knowledge in decision-making and it in turn enhances the 1037

accountability to parents and community. In this study, there seems to be a mixed approach of school-based management. In principal, the participatory decision making approach which engages the principals, teachers, SSC members, parents and community in the school management is encouraged in the participating schools. However, the principals are the main decision makers who usually take most control over staff management and monitoring and evaluation, leaving marginal gap for the teachers and SSC members to make decision. Cheng and Chan (2000) noted that administrative control SBM has been adopted by many principals in Hong Kong. These principals actually do not decentralize the authority and responsibility power over the utilization of the resources to teachers and parents. 6.3. Challenges in School-Based Management The results of this study showed that several challenges have emerged in the practice of schoolbased management. First, even though the participation of teachers, School Support Committee and parents is perceived to have increased, it remains low. The principals indicated that it is sometimes difficult to get teachers and especially School Support Committee involved in school management though they all had agreed earlier. In addition, the knowledge and understanding of those people on school management is questionable and they seem to rely on the principals to decide whatever decision. For example, the representatives of School Support Committee acknowledged that some school management aspects are tough to understand and they would to leave this to the principals to take control. The principals also acknowledged that they have difficulty in dealing with this new responsibility. They were not familiar with the program and orientation was not organized that they had to go through error and trial along the way. Pre-determined guidelines which leave minimal space for the school to take part are considered as a big challenge. The evidence demonstrated that the school stakeholders find very minimal room to decide on budget management as the Ministry has already set the code and sub-codes how the budget should be allocated. As expressed by the principals and teachers that the budget given does not meet their needs and priorities because the Ministry has already determined the budget allocation. In addition, teaching and learning resources to support the process of instruction seem limited that the teachers have minimal flexibility to adjust the curriculum and other instructional materials to meet the needs of learners. It not only relates to the matter of minimal decision making over curriculum but also the availability of necessary teaching and learning resources to support the teaching-learning process. The findings indicated that many students still do not have enough textbooks and supplementary learning materials to use while the shortage of instructional materials becomes problematic. Culture and religion is found to have impact on the implementation of school-based management in two participating schools in which there is a mix of both Buddhist and Muslim students. The school principals and teachers sometimes find it more challenging to invite the parents of those children to participate in school activities. Moreover, Muslim students are sometime absent from classes due to religious practices and some of them especially girls drop out of school because their parents do not allow them to continue due to the religion practice. 7. Conclusion In exploring the implementation of school-based management in pubic primary schools in Cambodia, the study addressed the interrelationship among key stakeholders from the central level and school level. The central government represented by the Ministry of Education Youth and Sport works closely with the international development agencies to initiate the policies and framework of school-based management. The Ministry directly impacts the practice of schoolbased management at school level by providing technical and financial support and delegates 1038

various decision making authorities to the local stakeholders to take over school operation. At school level, the success of the school-based management lies in the hand of the school stakeholders comprised of principals, teachers, School Support Committee and parents. The participatory decision making has been encouraged with the lead of school principals who work to ensure the participation of relevant stakeholders in school management. The involvement of local community and non-governmental organizations is perceived to have influenced the success of school management. The practice of school-based management is believed to have improved the concept of transparency and accountability in education. The results of this study coupled with the extant literature of the field have drawn several major recommendations that should be taken into account for the progress of school-based management in Cambodia. First, it is recommended that framework of goals, policies, curriculum, standards, and accountabilities of school-based management should be clearly developed to guide the local education stakeholders in the implementation of the program. The legal guidance should provide greater authority and power to make decision making over school management school level people who are believed to have known the needs of learners better and been able to design more responsive strategies. The power for decision making over budget management, personnel management and the flexibility to adjust the instructional materials and curriculum should be greater devolved to those local people. Second, leadership and management preparation for school people, especially school principals should be conducted. More responsibilities have been transferred to school people, especially school principals and transparency and accountabilities are expected from them, but minimal support has been available. This has put many school principals in hot spot in which many problems have appeared without any appropriate solutions. In this regard, the school principals need to be equipped with necessary skills and knowledge through pre-service and in-service training. Third, a more participative decision making approach at school level should be enhanced. It has noted that the participation of teachers and School Support Committee in school management remain low. In this regard, the principals with the devolved power have to ensure that the teachers and School Support Committee are engaged in school management by reserving more space for them. In order for them to have a better understanding of school management and especially newly introduced program, orientation and workshop should be organized for them so that they would have a better awareness of the situation and prepared for the involvement. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank and acknowledge Asia Pacific Scholarship Consortium for providing financial support for this research and Open Society Foundations for the financial support to present the paper at ACE 2012. Also, acknowledgement goes to faculty members of Education Department, De La Salle University-Manila, the Philippines for comments and feedbacks on the study. References Barrera-Osorio, F. B., Fasih, T. & Patrinos, H. A. (2009). Decentralized decision-making in schools: The theory and evidence on school-based management. Washington, DC: World Bank. Benveniste, L. & Marshall, J. H. (2007). School grants and student performance: Evidence 1039

From the EQIP project in Cambodia (under review). Retrieved August 11, 2010 from http://www.sapere.org/cambodiadata.htm Caldwell, B. J. (2005). School-based management. Education Policy Series (3). Paris: UNESCO/International Institute for Educational Planning and International Academy of Education. Caldwell, B. J. (2009). Centralization and decentralization in education: A New Dimension to policy. In Zajda, J. & Gamage, D.T. (Eds.) Globalization, Comparative Education and Policy Research: Vol 8. Decentralization, School-Based Management, and Quality (pp. 53-66). doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2703-0. Chapman, D. (2002). Management and Efficiency in Education: Goals and Strategies. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Cheng, Y. C. & Chan, M. T. (2000). Implementation of school-based management: A multiperspective analysis of the case of Hong Kong. International Review of Education, 46 (3/4), 205-302. Cheung, W. M. & Cheng, Y. C. (1996). A multi-level framework for self-management in school. The International Journal of Educational Management, 10 (1), 17-29. Chhin, S. & Dy, S. S. (2009). Educational reform context and process in Cambodia. In Hirosato, Y. & Kitamura, Y. (Eds), Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects: Vol. 13.The political economy of educational reforms and capacity development in Southeast Asia (113-129). Di Gropello, E. (2006). A comparative analysis of school-based management in Central America (Working paper No. 72). Washington, DC: World Bank. Gamage, D. T. & Sooksomchitra, P. (2004). Decentralization and school-based management Thailand. International Review of Education, 50 (3/4), 289-305. Gamage, D. T. (2008). Three decades of implementation of school-based management in the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria in Australia. The International Journal of Educational Management,, 22 (7), 664-675. Gamage, D. R. & Zajda, J. (2009). Decentralization and school-based governance: A Comparative study of self-governing school models. In Zajda, J. & Gamage, D. T. (Eds.) Globalization, Comparative Education and Policy Research: Vol 8. Decentralization, School- Based Management, and Quality (pp. 3-22). doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2703-0 Gaziel, H. (1998). School-based management as a factor in school effectiveness. International Review of Education, 44(4), 319-339. Gertler, P., Patrinos, H. A. & Rubio-Codina, M. (2007). Methodolical issues in the evaluation of school-based management reforms. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Grauwe, A. D. (2005). Improving the quality of education through school-based management: Learning from international experiences. Review of Education, 51, 269-287. Guzman, A. B. D. (2003, September). School-based management in Philippines basic and higher education sectors: Rationale, practices and policy directions. Paper presented to The Third International Forum on Education Reform Education Decentralization Visited: School- Based Management, Bangkok. Herman, J. J. & Herman, J. L. (1994). Education quality management: Effective schools through systematic change. USA: TECHNOMIC. Heun, Y. (2003 September). Country report on school-based management in Hong Kong SAR. Paper presented to The Third International Forum on Education Reform Education Decentralization Visited: School-Based Management, Bangkok. Indriyanto, B. (2003 September). School-based management: Issues and hopes toward decentralization in education in Indonesia. Paper presented to The Third International Forum on Education Reform Education Decentralization Visited: School-Based Management, Bangkok. Keng, C. S. (2009). Basic education in Cambodia: Quality and equity. In Hirosato, Y. & 1040

Kitamura, Y. (Eds.), Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects: Vol. 13. The political economy of educational reforms and capacity development in Southeast Asia (131-152). Leithwood, K. & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy, 12 (3), 325-346. Lo, W. Y. W. & Gu, J. O. (2008). Reforming school governance in Taiwan and South Korea: Empowerment and autonomization in school-based management. International Journal of Educational Management, 22 (6), 506-526. Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about site-based management: A case study of literature- A call for research. In Clune, W. H. & Witte, J. F. (Eds.), Choice and Control in American Education Vol 2. The practice of choice, decentralization, and school restructuring (pp. 289-342). London: The Falmer Press. Marshall, J. H. (2004). EQIP school grants evaluation: Final report. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. Nir, A. E. & Miran, M. (2006). The equity consequences of school-based management. International Journal of Educational Management, 20 (2), 116-126. Pellini, A. (2007). Decentralization policy in Cambodia: Exploring community participation in the education sector (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere, USA). Retrieved July 20, 2010 from http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/978-951-44-6978-7.pdf Sackney, L. E. & Dibski, D. J. (1995). School-based management: Will it fly? In Cheung, W. K. & Ming, C. K. (Eds), Educational Leadership and Change: An International Perspectiv (29-42). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Samith, P. (2003 September). Country report on school-based management in Cambodia. Paper presented to The Third International Forum on Education Reform Education Decentralization Visited: School-Based Management, Bangkok. Santibanez, L. (2006). School-based management effects on educational outcomes: A literature review and assessment of the evidence base. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Shoraku, A. (2008). Educational movement toward school-based management in East Asia: Cambodia, Indonesia, and Thailand. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2009, Overcoming Inequality: why government matters. Retrieved July 25, 2010 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001787/178720e.pdf Wohlstetter, P. & Odden, A. (1992). Rethinking school-based management policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28 (4), 529-549. Wong, E. O. W. (2003). Leadership style for school-based management in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17 (6), 243-247. World Bank. (1999). Project appraisal document on education quality improvement project (Report No. 19065 KH). Retrieved Aug 12, 2010 from www.worldbank.org World Bank. (2003). World Development Report 2004: Making services for poor people. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2004). Implementation completion report: Education quality improvement Project (Report No. 29679). Retrieved Sep 23, 2010 from http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/wdscontentserver/wdsp/ib/2004/10/06/000012009_20041006 093930/Rendered/INDEX/296790KH.txt World Bank. (2008). What do we know about school-based management? Washington, DC: World Bank. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and method (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication. 1041