Exceptional Proff 520
jsbfg0001
bridgingtheory.pdf
Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, September 2013, pp. 154–187. © 2013 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 1530–9576 (print), ISSN 1557–9271 (online) DOI: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576370107154
BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE
The Landscape of Public Management Reforms in Local School District Budgeting
AIMEE L. WILLIAMSON DOugLAS SNOW
Suffolk University
ABSTRACT: New Public Management (NPM) and New Public Service (NPS) are major reform approaches promoted and debated in the public affairs literature as competing alternatives to the traditional bureaucratic paradigm. Research has focused more on theoretical and prescriptive questions than on empirical analysis of these approaches in practice. The present study examines their application in the context of local school districts. Findings suggest that elements of both approaches are common in local school districts, with the efficiency goal of NPM dominating budgetary practices. Districts tend not to adopt these reforms comprehensively, however, and some elements are far more widespread than others. Findings identify political and management variables associated with NPM and NPS approaches, as well as economic variables associated with an NPS approach. Specifically, a recent failure to meet adequate yearly progress, based on federal No Child Left Behind legislation, is a significant positive predictor for both NPM and NPS, while a business official’s educational background in government has a negative association with both approaches. Findings also suggest that district poverty is negatively related to NPS and that the influence of district budget officials over the budgetary process is positively related to an NPM approach.
KEYWORDS: budgeting, education reform, New Public Management, New Public Service
contemporary public administrators face a variety of reform prescriptions, including New Public Management (NPM) and New Public Service (NPS), both of which are generally presented as competing alternatives to the traditional or bureaucratic paradigm.1 While NPM broadly encompasses the application of private sector practices to public administration, NPS represents an alternative approach emphasizing citizen engagement. Since these approaches are widely seen as system-changing strategies by their respective advocates, the adoption of either NPM- or NPS-prescribed practices could be indicative of a shift in the traditional paradigm of top-down management and control. Identification and
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 155
description of these practices as adopted are critical to understanding their impli- cations and to developing theory. This study addresses two research questions. First, to what extent have local school districts adopted NPM and NPS practices? Second, do the political, economic, and managerial characteristics of school districts explain the variations in their adoption of NPM and NPS practices? To answer these questions, we examine the theoretical roots of NPM and NPS, operationalize both concepts, identify the NPM and NPS practices currently in use in Massachusetts school districts, and identify the determinants of NPM- and NPS-related management approaches as actually practiced. The existing literature is more heavily weighted toward theoretical prescriptions than empirical analysis of practice. Our analysis addresses this gap by describing management approaches currently in use, comparing them to NPM and NPS ideal types, and identifying variables that help explain the variance in management approaches. As applied to public school districts, our research is indicative of the extent to which school reforms congruent with NPM and NPS are actually practiced, and it advances a link between public administration and education that could ultimately improve both fields (Raffel, 2007).
Literature Review
By the early 1990s, a set of management practices loosely known as New Public Management (NPM) had gained national currency. These practices took shape in the National Performance Review led by Vice President Al gore (1993), the gov- ernment Performance and Results Act (Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285), and, in government financial management circles, the governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting concept statement (1994). The economic stagnation of the 1970s, conservative challenges to liberal policies in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the lack of a generally accepted theory of public administration, and wider acceptance of competing theories all contributed to the acceptance of NPM, especially by policymakers (gruening, 2001).
NPM has a diverse theoretical pedigree. The packaging of NPM is relatively recent, but the contents are not. Public management draws from several important elements of institutional economics, including transaction-cost, principal-agent, and public choice theories, as well as traditional public administration (Barzelay, 2001; gruening, 2001; Eagle, 2005). Institutional economics, to which NPM is often linked, offers simple and elegant explanations of human behavior in political institutions. These explanations include the assumption of rationality, the use of market mechanisms to produce goods and services, analysis of the structure and cost of decision-making, adoption of the customer concept, and decentralization (Ostrom & Ostrom, 1971). By way of public choice, theories about the nature and behavior of firms and the behavior of voters as consumers (coase, 1937;
156 PPMR / September 2013
Tiebout, 1956), which have been around for a long time, have also been influen- tial. governments adopting the behaviors and incentives of private firms should utilize market mechanisms and incentives to meet customer demand. Drawing from its theoretical heritage, NPM can be defined as a methodology to structure government services to approximate the incentives of the private firm in order to satisfy customer demands for services. The two dominant goals of NPM are ef- ficiency and effectiveness (Lynn, 2001; Russell & Waste, 1998; Simonet, 2011; Thompson, 2000). Other important characteristics that provide means by which to obtain these two overarching goals include (1) responsibility to agency leadership, (2) a results-oriented focus, including strategic planning, specific objectives, and performance measurement, (3) a “customer”-driven approach, (4) entrepreneurial- ism and market-based incentives, including privatization, and (5) decentralization and flexibility. NPM advocates encourage the separation of policy decisions and service provisions, arguing that agency leadership should establish the organiza- tional mission and that lower-level personnel should be responsive to the mission and accountable, but given more flexibility (Osborne & gaebler, 1992).
NPM prescriptions ignited a strong academic reaction, including a body of alter- native prescriptions advocating a focus on citizen engagement. One of the clearest articulations of such an alternative approach came from Vincent and Janet Denhardt in their call for a New Public Service (NPS). The Denhardts argued that NPM ignored the duty of public officials and managers to build civic pride and responsibility by engaging the public as citizens, not customers (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000).
NPS has much in common with social capital theory. As articulated by Putnam, social capital fosters “norms of reciprocity,” encourages “social trust,” reduces opportunistic behavior, and creates a “template for future collaboration” (1995, p. 67). The value of social capital is implicit in the Denhardts’ conceptualization of NPS as “an alternative to the old public administration and the new public management” with two primary themes: “(1) to advance the dignity and worth of public service, and (2) to reassert the values of democracy, citizenship, and the public interest as the preeminent values of public administration” (Denhardt, 2004, p. 179). While the values of efficiency and effectiveness dominate NPM, citizenship and democratic values dominate NPS. The corresponding elements that lead to these values include “collective efforts,” “dialogue about shared values,” and “collaboration” (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003, pp. 42–43). NPS approaches do not ignore efficiency or effectiveness concerns, but prioritize citizen engage- ment, which is the means to define effectiveness, above efficiency. They aim to go beyond participation that focuses on the preferences of individual citizens to encourage citizens to focus on community needs and values, which are to be fostered and uncovered through dialogue and the responsibility of citizenship (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003).
NPS has positioned itself as an alternative to NPM approaches, and its advocates
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 157
clearly identify some of the differences. In fact, NPS’s key principles specifically reject some of the tenets of NPM. Whereas NPM advocates treating citizens as “customers” in its application of market forces to public services, NPS argues that it is important to “Serve citizens, Not customers” (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003, p. 42), explaining that a citizen focus encourages actions supportive of community interests, but a customer emphasis focuses on individual needs and desires. NPM values entrepreneurship as a means to innovation, while NPS specifically argues that public administrators should “value citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship” (Denhardt, 2004, p. 180).
Elements related to both NPM and NPS are clearly visible in the education literature. NPM’s influence on education reform, for example, is specifically acknowledged (Fusarelli & Johnson, 2004; Maxcy, 2009; Mulford, 2003; Nitta, Wrobel, howard, & Jimmerson-Eddings, 2009; O’Toole & Meier, 2004; Patrick & French, 2011; Schwartz, 2002). Similarly, NPS-related efforts, such as delibera- tive democracy (Mintrom, 2003) and the importance of schools as a civic invest- ment (glaser, Denhardt, & hamilton, 2002), have also been applied to school reform. When applied to public schools in practice, some of the reform elements are unique to an NPM approach, while others seem to bridge both approaches. Outcome-based accountability, including the use of performance measures, and market approaches reflect an NPM approach to schools (Mulford, 2003; Schwartz, 2002). Some decentralization elements, however, bridge both approaches.
Outcome-based accountability is a major NPM-related element that has ex- perienced more attention in recent years in the educational system, particularly with the passage of the No child Left Behind (NcLB) Act (Fusarelli & Johnson, 2004; Patrick & French, 2011). Outcome-based accountability and, specifically, performance measurement fit with a focus on results, but they also contribute to the proper functioning of other NPM elements, such as a market-based approach (Schwartz, 2002) and enabling citizens, or “consumers” in NPM lingo, to make informed choices. Some states have also adopted exit exams or new requirements for student promotion across grades (Maxcy, 2009).
generally, in the public education system, there has been an increase in market approaches, including user fees (Fusarelli & Johnson, 2004) and competition among schools and districts (Mulford, 2003), which often takes the form of school choice. School choice refers to a wide variety of programs that permit students and their parents to choose their school, rather than relying solely on geographic jurisdiction. charter schools, for example, are a manifestation of NPM reform approaches that have been growing across the country. Such schools typically represent a contractual relationship between a public charter authorizer and an independent body to provide public education, with funding dependent upon students choosing to attend the school.
In applying NPS to education, such approaches criticize the market orienta-
158 PPMR / September 2013
tion, performance measurement, and “customer” focus of NPM approaches as more of a self-interest than a community orientation. As glaser, Denhardt, and hamilton (2002) argue, an NPS approach would view public education as a “civic investment.” Their study suggests that a major benefit of this approach for public schools is the correlation between a civic investment perspective and a com- munity’s financial support for public education. Anecdotal evidence suggests, as one example, that districts can use group discussions with citizens to develop a mutually beneficial relationship between citizens and school administrators (Leighninger, 2005). A necessary precondition for effective citizen engagement is the transparency of district decision-making processes. With particular rel- evance to the current study, Willis asserts that school business officials have the “duty as stewards of the public’s money to make school finance more accessible, transparent, and easily understandable” (2010, p. 17). Willis further maintains that “school business officials play a vital role in building public trust, engage- ment, and support for making the critical decisions that affect public education” (p. 17). While not always acknowledged as NPS, such examples of related efforts are present in the literature.
Decentralization elements, however, have links across both approaches. School- based management and budgeting that embody decentralization refer to reforms seeking to decentralize decision-making authority to the school level (clover, Jones, Bailey, & griffin, 2004; goertz & hess, 1998; hansen & Roza, 2005). Integral components generally include school budgetary authority and school councils to involve principals, teachers, community representatives, or parents. While this fits squarely within an NPM approach, some elements, such as the influence of community representatives, also embody NPS approaches. School councils provide an avenue for the involvement of parents and other citizens in decision-making. Shatkin and gershberg, for example, find that parent participa- tion, specifically through school councils, is associated with school improvement: “building stronger schools and building stronger communities cannot be separately viewed—they are part of an iterative process” (2007, p. 606). Their analysis of four cases suggests that participation in school governance provides an “enhanced sense of mutual trust, understanding, and obligation between schools and communities” (p. 610). While Shatkin and gershberg focus on parent participation and school councils, they recognize that broader civic capacity can play an important role in improving parent participation.
An interesting aspect of the application of citizen engagement and participa- tion reforms in the education literature is that these efforts are not necessarily portrayed as distinct from NPM approaches, as is typically suggested in the public affairs literature. This makes it problematic to tease out distinctions between the customer focus of NPM reforms and citizen engagement efforts of NPS reforms. For example, the Shatkin and gershberg (2007) study described above couches
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 159
participation within the framework of school-based management reform, which also reflects NPM approaches. gold, cucchiara, Simon, and Riffer even define civic engagement to include “holding government and district officials accountable for system performance,” including the reporting of test scores and accountability for results, which fits more closely with the focus on the results element of NPM approaches (2005, p. 7). Their study, however, also notes that extensive reform moving quickly can be “an obstacle to civic engagement,” as simultaneous efforts crowd out the time for critique (p. 11). There is also a difference between citizen engagement and simply complying with school reform statutes. Relevant to the present study, Massachusetts law requires elected school committees to allow input from local school councils (Mass. gen. L. c. 71, § 59c) and to hold public hearings on the proposed budget (Mass. gen. L. c. 71, § 38N).2 These practices alone may serve to placate plural interests but do not necessarily provide the level of engagement that would build a pool of social capital.
In sum, we have seen the emergence of NPM-related reforms in public educa- tion, as well as calls for greater citizen engagement. The literature recognizes that powerful forces are driving this adoption, including state and federal policymak- ers, the presence of new actors (e.g., businesses) in the educational arena, and public demands to increase student achievement (Fusarelli & Johnson, 2004). The literature also recognizes, however, that stakeholder and political barriers curtail comprehensive implementation of such reforms (Schwartz, 2002).
Assuming tension between the forces for and against the adoption of various NPM and NPS practices, it is reasonable to expect diversity rather than orthodoxy in their adoption by school districts. Nevertheless, the adoption of a substantial number of either NPM or NPS practices could constitute an identifiable manage- ment approach. In turn, a management approach could be determined or at least heavily influenced by the external political and economic environment, as well as by internal management practices (Schick, 1966).
Data and Methods
The purpose of the present study is to examine the extent to which NPS and NPM approaches are present in school district management and budgetary practices and to identify determinants of the variance in the adoption of these approaches. given the heavy borrowing of NPM practices by the school reform movement and the persistence of the economic and political environment that gave birth to NPM, one would expect NPM practices to dominate school district management approaches. Variants of NPM adoption or a greater emphasis on NPS prescriptions would then require explanation. We hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1: NPM practices are more prevalent in school districts than NPS practices.
160 PPMR / September 2013
Hypothesis 2: Political, economic, and managerial characteristics of school districts explain the variation in the adoption of NPM and NPS practices across school districts.
To answer our research questions and test our hypotheses, we administered a survey to members of the Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials (MASBO) in April and May 2009.3 Survey invitations were sent to all MASBO members from public school districts and 179 usable responses were received, representing 73% of districts with MASBO members and 54.5% of the 328 non- charter, public school districts in Massachusetts.4 Our data are derived from a subset of the survey questions written to measure elements commonly associated with NPM and NPS approaches and factors anticipated as predictors of an agency’s adoption of such approaches, as well as other district characteristics available from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. We ran multiple analyses to examine the data in several ways. The findings reported include descriptive statistics on elements of NPM and NPS reform approaches present in local school districts, factor analysis to examine the implementation of these approaches in practice, and regression analyses to identify predictors for the two approaches.
SELECTiOn Of VARiABLES AnD MEASuREMEnT
As explained above, certain elements are widely noted as important to NPM and NPS approaches. This study incorporates a wide range of variables that tap major goals, influential factors, and practices related to both approaches. This section will briefly describe our selection of variables, but see Appendix A and Tables 1 to 4 for more details. To examine NPM, we included multiple variables to tap NPM’s dominant goals of efficiency and effectiveness. For example, we asked respon- dents if a primary goal of the school committee is to prepare a budget that will demonstrate effective and efficient use of budget dollars. We also included items on the importance of cost control for the school committee and the superintendent/ central office in making budgetary decisions. In addition to these Likert scale items, a multiple-choice item (see Table 1) identified primary values influencing the budget process and included separate options for effectiveness and efficiency/ fiscal accountability, among other variables related to both approaches.
Techniques for reaching these goals, as identified in the literature, include performance measurement, strategic planning coupled with decentralized decision- making, and other market-based approaches, such as entrepreneurship, user fees, and competition (hood, 1991; Osborne & gaebler, 1992; Simonet, 2011). To assess the impact of performance measurement influences, we included items on the influence of state standardized test scores (Massachusetts comprehensive Assessment System, or McAS) and a more general item about the status of
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 161
performance measures in the district. In order to assess the extent of centraliza- tion versus decentralization, we included items about the principal’s role in the budget process. We also included a series of items on the influence of various parties over budgetary decisions, including the school committee, superintendent, business official, principals, school council, teachers, teacher union/professional association, parents, and other citizens. To assess market-based practices, other variables tap the presence of competitive pressures from other schools and the use of fees by the district. Entrepreneurship is an option for the dominant values items (see Table 1).
NPS approaches, on the other hand, advocate a central focus on citizen engage- ment and dialogue (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003). To represent these elements, we included items to assess citizen engagement broadly in terms of district goals, factors in decision-making, and practices. Two additional items assess transparency in the budgetary process. We ask about the influence of school councils, parents, and other citizens on decision-making. We also include items that reflect more specific practices that would assist with citizen engagement, including the state of citizen forums/focus groups and citizen surveys. The items noted above on districts’ primary values also include an option for citizen participation.
Three categories of independent variables (in addition to control variables) were included for the regression analyses: political factors, economic factors, and management characteristics. Political factors have been found to play an important role, with influential politicians encouraging the adoption of NPM approaches (Simonet, 2011) and as a response to “concern about citizens’ disaffection with government” (Jones & Kettl, 2004, p. 463). In this study, state- and federal-level politics are controlled naturally, so we focus on a couple of major political factors at the school district level—political concern over district performance (failed AyP) and the political goal of increasing financial support for the schools through property tax overrides. Economic variables are also likely to play a role, but the direction is not necessarily straightforward. On the one hand, the adoption of management reforms is not free. Strategic planning, performance measurement systems, and decentralization carry transaction and dollar costs. A change in a budget system to program or performance budgeting, for example, could require significant investment of human and financial resources (Bourdeaux, 2008). Schick (1966) notes that an inadequate investment in internal control mechanisms may lead to a skewed emphasis on one set of practices at the expense of others. Decentralization, for example, may exist in form but not in actual practice. On the other hand, economic pressures may act as a stimulus to pressure government into reform approaches (horton, 2006; Jones & Kettl, 2004; Scott & Robbins, 2010; Simonet, 2011). We look at economic conditions in two ways: (1) the use of historical data on free and reduced-price lunch eligibility,5 and (2) a series of items asking which budget-related challenges the district has experienced recently,
162 PPMR / September 2013
is experiencing this year, or expects to experience over the next few years, and the responses were combined into an overall fiscal stress score. The free and reduced- price lunch eligibility data serve as a proxy for district poverty, while the fiscal stress score identifies recent or expected shifts in a district’s financial capacity. In addition to political and economic factors, the literature suggests that manage- ment characteristics play an important role in reform adoption. For example, Jones and Kettl (2004, p. 454) note that the increase in the number of public managers “educated in business schools and public management programs” has contributed to the growth of managerialism. Budget officials familiar with business practices could be better positioned to implement relevant changes. To consider this issue, we included a variable for the educational background of the school budget of- ficial and a series of two questions assessing the influence of the budget official’s expertise on the school committee and the superintendent/central office, which we combined into a budget official expertise index.
control variables include percentage of students with limited English profi- ciency, district size, and district location (rural, suburban, urban). These control variables, in conjunction with the free and reduced-price lunch variable listed under economic conditions, may have important implications for educational reform, as urban districts with high poverty and large percentages of students with limited English proficiency are likely to have greater challenges to overcome. Language barriers, for example, could make citizen engagement efforts particularly difficult. Diversity, broadly defined, has demonstrably mixed effects with regard to citizen participation in budgetary decisions (Marlowe & Portillo, 2006).
Data Analyses
This article reports the findings of three distinct rounds of analysis. First, descrip- tive statistics and correlations were examined to determine the extent to which elements of NPM and NPS are practiced among the survey respondents and the extent to which they are practiced in a manner consistent with theory. These analyses provided the details of the wide range of NPM and NPS variables noted above, including the prevalence of specific reform-related practices and important factors for districts in making budgetary decisions, as well as relative rankings among certain elements. Descriptive statistics are summarized in Appendix A.
Second, factor analysis was employed to confirm the presence of overarch- ing NPM and NPS goals and to develop dependent variables for the subsequent regressions. The descriptive findings, which will be discussed in more detail below, provided evidence of both NPM and NPS practices, but diversity in their application, especially with regard to specific practices we view as possible op- tions for implementing a reform approach. Based on the descriptive findings, and to minimize our own biases with regard to specific practices, we focused on the
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 163
broader variables for each approach in the second round of analysis, which ex- amined whether the indicators of NPM and NPS would load with any theoretical consistency on two latent variables. given the existence of significant correlations between variables associated with both NPM and NPS, and the theoretical as- sumption that the values included in the factor analysis were generally consistent with just two approaches—NPM and NPS—as anticipated by our indices, we used oblique rotation to extract two latent variables, allowing the extracted two factors to be correlated rather than orthogonal.
Finally, regression models were specified to identify predictors of an agency’s adoption of each approach. We retained the factor scores for the latent variables as dependent variables and specified multivariate regression models—with political, economic, management, and control variables as independent variables—in an effort to explain the variance in management approaches.
Results
consistent with the waves of analysis described above, our findings are reported in three sections. The first presents descriptive analyses of specific elements of the various approaches. The second focuses on each approach’s dominant values and related influential factors to assess consistency in the application of such elements in practice. The third identifies predictors for each of the two approaches.
DESCRipTiVE finDingS
Descriptive findings will be discussed briefly in the text below, but see Appendix A and Tables 1 to 4 for more details. Appendix A provides descriptive statistics for NPM- and NPS-related elements, while Tables 1 to 4 provide descriptive statis- tics for survey items that include NPM- and NPS-related elements but have more meaning as a ranking of the elements. These include the identification of primary values (Table 1), the state of managerial practices and policies (Table 2), satisfac- tion with budget practices (Table 3), and the extent of the influence of various parties over budgetary decisions (Table 4).
New Public Management Elements
The respondents overwhelmingly indicated that efficiency and effectiveness concerns are high priorities in making budgetary decisions. Responses show percentages in the 90s in agreement that a primary goal of the school committee is to prepare a budget that will demonstrate effective and efficient use of budget dollars and the importance of cost control for the school committee and the super- intendent/central office in making budgetary decisions. cost-control measures are the highest-ranking factor for the school committee. In addition, more than 80% of districts selected “Efficiency or fiscal accountability” or “Effectiveness” as the
164 PPMR / September 2013
most influential value during the present and prior three years (see Table 1). Assessing effectiveness within the NPM approach often involves specific objec-
tives along with performance measures (Kamensky, 1996). The present study finds that performance measures, including McAS scores and benchmarks to comparable jurisdictions, are relatively widespread and growing, but satisfaction levels with performance measures generally are quite low. McAS scores are a significant force behind budget decisions generally and an important factor for school committees, superintendents, and central offices specifically. About half the districts have re- allocated full-time equivalent positions because of low McAS scores. The majority of districts have performance measures and benchmarks to comparable jurisdictions in place or in the process of implementation (see Table 2). Of the nine managerial
Table 1. primary Values
Public agencies are generally known for having multiple, and at times competing, values that guide actions. Which of the following values would you consider to have the MOST influence on your budget process?
Current primary value: This
academic year (2009–2010
budget process) Prior primary value:
Three years prior
n % n %
Efficiency or fiscal accountability (e.g., providing services at lowest possible cost, wise use of taxpayer dollars) 83 52.9 60 38.2
Effectiveness (e.g., focusing resources toward most effective provision of services) 51 32.5 68 43.3
Accountability (e.g., focusing on standards-based accountability such as NcLB/McAS scores) 7 4.5 9 5.7
Equality (e.g., dividing resources equally among all students or schools) 5 3.2 4 2.5
citizen participation (e.g., determining resource allocation based on public interest, as expressed by engaged citizens) 2 1.3 3 1.9
Entrepreneurship (e.g., willingness to risk resources to strive toward innovative educational practices) 0 0 4 2.5
Social equity (e.g., focusing resources on students or schools with lower family incomes) 0 0 0 0
Other 9 5.7 9 5.7
Totals 157 100 157 100
Note: Multiple-choice items; n represents number of respondents selecting that value as dominant for either the current academic year or the three years prior.
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 165
T ab
le 2
. M an
ag er
ia l
p ra
ct ic
es a
n d
p ol
ic ie
s
T h in
ki n g a
b o u t
m a n ag
er ia
l p ra
ct ic
es a
n d p
o li
ci es
, w
h ic
h o
f th
e fo
ll o w
in g d
o es
y o u r
d is
tr ic
t a lr
ea d y
h a ve
i n p
la ce
, in
t h e
p ro
ce ss
o f
im p le
m en
ta ti
o n , o r
p la
n n ed
t o i
n it
ia te
w it
h in
t h e
n ex
t th
re e
ye a rs
?
C u rr
en tl
y in
p la
ce In
p ro
ce ss
o f
im p le
m en
ta ti
o n
P la
n t
o i
m p le
m en
t w
it h in
3 y
ea rs
N o p
la n s
fo r
im p le
m en
ta ti
o n
n %
n %
n %
n %
S tr
at eg
ic p
la nn
in g
12 0
78 .4
17 11
.1 10
6. 5
6 3.
9
S ch
oo l-
ba se
d m
an ag
em en
t 10
2 68
.5 13
8. 7
6 4.
0 28
18 .8
P er
fo rm
an ce
m ea
su re
s 77
50 .3
38 24
.8 14
9. 2
24 15
.7
B en
ch m
ar ks
a ga
in st
c om
pa ra
bl e
ju ri
sd ic
ti on
s 59
39 .6
29 19
.5 16
10 .7
45 30
.2
T ra
in in
g in
s ch
oo l-
ba se
d m
an ag
em en
t fo
r pr
in ci
pa ls
54 37
.0 17
11 .6
13 8.
9 62
42 .5
c it
iz en
f or
um s
or f
oc us
g ro
up s
on b
ud ge
ta ry
i ss
ue s
59 39
.1 9
6. 0
12 7.
9 71
47 .0
Z er
o- ba
se d
bu dg
et in
g 56
38 .9
8 5.
6 6
4. 2
74 51
.4
D ec
en tr
al iz
ed b
ud ge
t de
ci si
on -m
ak in
g 42
29 .6
14 9.
9 3
2. 1
83 58
.5
c it
iz en
s ur
ve ys
35 23
.6 13
8. 8
15 10
.1 85
57 .4
N o te
: V
ar ia
bl es
a re
l is
te d
in o
rd er
o f
co m
bi ne
d pe
rc en
ta ge
o f
di st
ri ct
s w
it h
th e
pr ac
ti ce
c ur
re nt
ly i
n pl
ac e
or i
n pr
oc es
s of
i m
pl em
en ta
ti on
.
166 PPMR / September 2013
practices and policies that we asked about, performance measures and benchmarks to comparable jurisdictions are the highest-growth areas, as measured by rates of districts in the process of implementation.
Satisfaction with regard to performance measures, however, is relatively low, ranking last of the eight items we included. Performance measures are also less influential than other factors, and mean responses to the performance measurement influence items fall in the neutral category or the somewhat-agree category.
Strategic planning is another important factor in school district budgeting, with 78.4% of districts having strategic planning in place and another 11.1% in the process of implementation. Large majorities of respondents indicated that the strategic plan is a somewhat or very important factor influencing the school committee and the superintendent/central office in making budgetary decisions. Satisfaction with long-term planning, however, is not as widespread as the use or importance of strategic planning.
Despite the dominance of some NPM elements in the findings, not all NPM elements appear to have an equally significant presence in local school district budgeting. Decentralization, entrepreneurship, and market-based incentives are elements that have been included in NPM approaches but are not widespread across local school districts. Both influence and control are highly centralized with regard to school district budgeting, including direct control over budgets. Principals exert influence on budgetary decisions, but to a much smaller extent than is reported
Table 3. Satisfaction with Budget practices
Thinking about budget practices overall, how satisfied are you with your district’s budget practices in the following areas?
n Mean SD
Satisfied/ very
satisfied (%)
Budget format(s) 156 4.12 0.880 83.3
Overall budget practices 156 4.11 0.920 82.0
use of technology 156 3.79 1.008 75.0
Role of principals in budget process 155 3.82 0.793 74.8
Long-term planning 156 3.21 1.027 44.9
Formulas for school, program, or department budgets 149 3.34 0.906 41.0
citizen engagement 155 3.30 0.831 40.6
Performance measures 154 3.20 0.874 39.0
Note: Range is from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) for all items. Variables arranged by percent satisfied and very satisfied.
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 167
for school committees, superintendents, and business officials. Actors at the top of the school district hierarchy have more influence over budgetary decisions than do actors toward the bottom of the hierarchy. For example, 98.7% of respondents indicated that the school committee has a moderate or great deal of influence, and 99.4% of respondents indicated the same for the superintendent, but as shown in Table 4, this drops off considerably as one moves down the hierarchy, and par- ticularly for external actors such as parents and citizens.
Principals have very little direct control over budgetary accounts, and transfers are heavily controlled by the district office. Respondents generally indicated that principals have control of a few small line items (e.g., instructional supplies and materials, small equipment, computers), but our interviews suggest that such items generally only amount to a very small percentage of the site budget. Despite the indicators of centralization in budgetary decision-making and control, districts reported high levels of school-based management in place, with over three-quarters of respondents indicating that school-based management is currently in place or in the process of implementation. Only 29.6%, however, reported having decentral- ized budget decision-making currently in place.
Several items tapped entrepreneurialism and market-based approaches. For example, user fees are a widespread practice in districts as a source of revenue to
Table 4. influence over Budgetary Decisions
How much actual influence do you think each of the following actors has over budgetary decisions?
n Mean SD
Moderate/ great deal
of influence (%)
School committee 159 3.67 0.499 98.7
Superintendent 159 3.93 0.278 99.4
District business official 158 3.52 0.605 94.3
School principals 158 3.22 0.664 89.3
Teacher union/ professional association 158 2.19 0.741 32.3
Teachers 159 2.45 0.623 49.7
School council 158 2.27 0.655 37.3
Parents 158 2.37 0.671 41.2
citizens 159 2.13 0.654 25.8
Note: Range is from 1 (no influence) to 4 (a great deal of influence) for all items. Survey item was adapted from similar items on u.S. Department of Education, Schools and Staffing Survey, Public School Principal Questionnaire.
168 PPMR / September 2013
fund or supplement programs. Moreover, almost 40% of respondents agreed that their district is subject to competitive pressures from other schools in the area (e.g., charter schools, private schools). While market-based practices are present, entre- preneurship is not a guiding force for local school districts, as only four districts selected entrepreneurship as the primary value guiding budget decisions over the prior three years, and no districts selected it for the year of the study.
New Public Service Elements
In terms of NPS elements, we find discrepancies between the values the business officials considered important to budgetary decision-making and actual prac- tice. In line with advocates of NPS, business officials reported that community involvement is an important factor for the school committee (80.5%) and the superintendent/central office (72.3%) in making budgetary decisions. Further- more, a large majority of districts agreed that they actively encourage dialogue with and among citizens during the budget process to foster understanding and consensus regarding budgetary decisions. Transparency is an important precon- dition for effective community engagement. Responses to our survey indicate that districts do a pretty good job in the area of transparency, or at least think they do, with about three-quarters of districts indicating that citizens can easily obtain and understand their budgets and that budget processes are generally transparent to citizens within their district.
When we move beyond importance and transparency to practice, however, community involvement indicators drop. As noted in the discussion of centraliza- tion above, parents and other citizens have relatively little influence on budget- ary decisions, nor do school councils. Feedback tools, such as citizen surveys or forums, are not widespread.
As shown in Table 3, of the seven practices asked about, citizen engagement ranked second to last in terms of satisfaction. Satisfaction with citizen engage- ment increases with transparency and the presence of practices designed to encourage citizen engagement, but even with the presence of such practices, satisfaction levels remain relatively low. For example, districts with citizen forums in place (M = 3.69, SD = 0.749) have significantly higher levels of satisfaction with citizen engagement than districts without such practices (M = 3.04, SD = 0.788), t(148) = 5.041, p < 0.001. The same is true for districts with citizen surveys in place (M = 3.57, SD = 0.778) as compared with those without (M = 3.21, SD = 0.843, t(145) = 2.227, p = 0.027. In both of these examples, however, the districts with the practice in place have a mean on the low end of the satisfied range.
As this section demonstrates, some elements of NPM and NPS (e.g., the values of efficiency, effectiveness, and community involvement) are widespread in local school district budgeting and management practices, while others (e.g., decentralization and the practice of citizen engagement) are notably lacking. The
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 169
next section moves beyond descriptive statistics to identify factors related to the approaches.
fACTOR AnALYSiS
As explained above, factor analysis was employed to examine the extent to which the dominant goals of NPM and NPS are present as a consistent approach in practice. The variables entered into the oblique rotation factor analysis produced the structure matrix in Table 5.6 component 1 includes eight items with loadings greater than 0.7, six of which fit primarily with the NPM literature. These items relate to the importance of the strategic plan, cost-control measures, and McAS scores to the school committee and the superintendent or central office in mak- ing budgetary decisions. These items reflect the strategic planning, efficiency, and focus-on-results elements of NPM approaches, respectively. component 2 includes one item with a loading greater than 0.7 and four additional items that load higher than 0.5, all of which fit with the NPS literature. These items represent the active encouragement of dialogue with and among citizens, public transpar- ency, the ability of citizens to obtain and understand the budget, and the actual influence of parents and other citizens over budgetary decisions—key areas of importance in the NPS literature. The correlation between these two factors is 0.106, p = 0.193.
Overall, component 1 tends to follow NPM, and component 2 tends to fol- low NPS, but there is a notable exception with the importance of community involvement variables. We anticipated that these two variables, which measure the importance of community involvement to the school committee and to the superintendent/central office, would load with the other community engagement variables, but they loaded on component 1 with the NPM-related variables.
DETERMinAnTS Of MAnAgEMEnT AppROAChES
As described in the methodology section, we used the saved factor scores as de- pendent variables and specified regression analyses with political, economic, and management variables to assess relationships with these alternative approaches. Descriptive statistics for independent variables are included in Appendix B. Multiple variables emerged as predictors for NPM factor scores in a model (see Table 6) that accounts for over two-thirds of the variance in NPM scores (F = 25.665, p < 0.001).
Political, management, and control variables all serve as the primary predic- tors of an NPM approach. Failed AyP (Adequate yearly Progress) is the political variable that emerged as a positive, significant predictor (B = 0.230, p = 0.045), meaning that districts with at least one school failing AyP the prior academic year (2008) are more likely to have an NPM approach. As for management variables—in this case school budget official variables—a strong predictor for
170 PPMR / September 2013
scores on the NPM factor is the budget official expertise index, which combines two items respectively assessing the importance of the budget official’s expertise to the school committee and to the central office/superintendent in making bud- getary decisions. This variable is significant and positive (B = 2.837, p < 0.001). A second management predictor, the government degree variable, represents the field of the business official’s highest degree, suggesting that districts with budget officials educated in government-related fields (e.g., public administration, political science) are less likely to pursue an NPM approach (B = –0.563, p = 0.014). One control variable, urban location, also emerged as a negative predictor for NPM (B = –0.498, p = 0.032).
The NPS model accounts for only 8.4% of the variance (F = 1.966, p = 0.039). This is far less than the NPM models, but the significant variables tell an inter- esting story. The three variables that emerged as significant predictors are failed AyP (B = 0.450, p = 0.015), free and reduced-price lunch eligibility (B = –0.253, p = 0.020), and government degree (B = –0.811, p = 0.026). With alpha relaxed to 0.10, the fiscal stress score (B = 0.033, p = 0.084) and business degree (B = –0.410, p = 0.081) emerged as two additional predictor variables.
Table 5. Structure Matrix of Selected npM and npS Approaches (Oblique Rotation)
Component
1 2
NPM-related elements*
Importance of strategic plan to school committee in making budgetary decisions. 0.730 –0.042
Importance of cost-control measures to school committee in making budgetary decisions. 0.795 –0.039
Importance of McAS scores to school committee in making budgetary decisions. 0.722 –0.042
Importance of strategic plan to superintendent and/or central office in making budgetary decisions. 0.745 0.056
Importance of cost-control measures to superintendent and/or central office in making budgetary decisions. 0.743 –0.022
Importance of McAS scores to superintendent and/or central office in making budgetary decisions. 0.779 –0.142
Demonstration of effective and efficient use of budget dollars as primary goal of school committee. 0.160 0.058
McAS scores are a significant force behind budget decisions. 0.243 0.141
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 171
Component
1 2
NPS-related elements*
Importance of community involvement to school committee in making budgetary decisions. 0.722 0.140
Importance of community involvement to superintendent and/ or central office in making budgetary decisions. 0.706 0.275
District actively encourages dialogue with and among citizens to foster understanding and consensus regarding budgetary decisions. 0.019 0.677
citizens can easily obtain and understand our budget. 0.013 0.606
Our budget decision-making processes are transparent to citizens in our district. –0.040 0.697
how much actual influence do parents have over budgetary decisions? 0.185 0.725
how much actual influence do citizens (not parents) have over budgetary decisions? 0.062 0.600
Preparing a budget that will meet information needs of parents/other community members as primary goal of school committee. 0.285 0.281
Eigenvalues 4.629 2.412
Variation explained 28.932 15.073
Total variation explained 44.005
Loadings > 0.5 in italics. *Factor analysis run with standardized variables.
Discussion
This study identifies elements currently playing a role in management and bud- geting in local school districts and encourages further analysis of school district practices with regard to public administration reform approaches. Most significant for public administration theory, the study finds that NPM and NPS reform ap- proaches, which are characterized as competing alternatives in the literature, are not implemented comprehensively and are not necessarily separate in practice. Our findings show that elements consistent with both approaches are prevalent in local school districts, but some elements are more widespread than others. These findings identify major gaps between theory and practice for practitioners and researchers to consider.
172 PPMR / September 2013
T ab
le 6
. R eg
re ss
io n
M od
el s
N P
M f
a ct
o r
N P
S f
a ct
o r
B
S E
B
S E
P ol
it ic
al F
ai le
d A
y P
0. 23
0* *
0. 11
3 0.
45 0*
* 0.
18 1
S ch
oo l
co m
m it
te e
go al
: O
ve rr
id e
(l n)
0. 03
9 0.
10 5
–0 .2
10 0.
16 8
E co
no m
ic F
is ca
l st
re ss
s co
re –0
.0 13
0. 01
2 0.
03 3*
0. 01
9
F re
e an
d re
du ce
d lu
nc h
(l n)
0. 07
1 0.
06 7
–0 .2
53 **
0. 10
7
M an
ag em
en t
ch ar
ac te
ri st
ic s
B ud
ge t
of fi
ci al
e xp
er ti
se i
nd ex
(l n)
2. 83
7* **
0. 18
0 –0
.0 75
0. 28
8
g ov
er nm
en t
de gr
ee –0
.5 63
** 0.
22 5
–0 .8
11 **
0. 35
9
B us
in es
s de
gr ee
0. 01
9 0.
14 6
–0 .4
10 *
0. 23
3
c on
tr ol
D is
tr ic
t si
ze (
ln )
0. 13
9 0.
08 9
–0 .0
65 0.
14 3
R ur
al l
oc at
io n
0. 08
5 0.
13 1
0. 33
6 0.
20 9
u rb
an l
oc at
io n
–0 .4
98 **
0. 22
9 0.
28 7
0. 36
5
L im
it ed
E ng
li sh
p ro
fi ci
en cy
( ln
) 0.
06 7
0. 10
6 0.
15 6
0. 17
0
R 2
0. 72
9 0.
17 1
A dj
. R 2
0. 70
0 0.
08 4
F 25
.6 65
** *
1. 96
6* *
M od
el S
ig .
< 0
.0 01
0. 03
9
n
11 7
11 7
N o te
: u
ns ta
nd ar
di ze
d co
ef fi
ci en
ts a
re p
re se
nt ed
, * p <
0 .1
0, *
*p <
0 .0
5, *
** p <
0 .0
1.
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 173
NPM elements are widespread, but few districts take a comprehensive approach. The dominance of cost control and efficiency is consistent in our findings. The current economic climate may be having a major impact on the dominance of cost controls and efficiency in local school districts. Massachusetts school budget of- ficials reported high levels of fiscal stress over the prior three years, in the current year, and expected over the next three years. In Massachusetts, state aid to schools (Mass. gen. L. c. 70) has been stagnant for a decade, while personnel costs continue to rise. The interviews we conducted identify the rising costs of health care and teacher salaries—which tend to increase due to annual step increases, education credits, and raises negotiated by collective bargaining—as major components of budget increases that can outpace revenues, forcing cuts in other areas.
Our results suggest that school districts also utilize market-based approaches, but only in a limited way. A good many school districts use fees as a source of revenue, but this may simply be a response to the volatility of state aid to school districts over the past decade and to local reluctance to raise property taxes to re- place state aid or meet increased costs. What might at first appear to be enterprising activity may actually be an attempt to replace declining state aid. A large minority of districts in this study reported that their districts are subject to competitive forces from other schools in the area (39.2%). Although this is not a high percentage compared to other indicators in the survey, it is high considering the historical perception of traditional public schools as not facing competition (chubb & Moe, 1990), but consistent with recent literature recognizing the competitive pressures now put on schools as a result of school choice reforms (May, 2007). charter schools, for example, have a significant presence in Massachusetts. During the 2008–2009 school year, 61 charter schools were operating in the state (MDESE, 2009). Performance measures, while widespread and growing, are less influential than we would have anticipated, given the context of NcLB legislation.
Decentralization of authority, advocated by both NPM and NPS, is conspicu- ously absent. This finding supports the literature suggesting that school-based budgeting only occurs “at the margins” and identifying a large gap between what is advocated and what is practiced (goertz & hess, 1998; Wohlstetter & Van Kirk, 1995). This gap may also reflect the fact that the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 calls for site-based management. Respondents may have interpreted our question on “school-based management” to indicate the areas of “site-based management” required by legislation, including the presence of school councils. Respondents may also be mistakenly linking the concept of school-based manage- ment to control over instruction and day-to-day school-level operations, but not including control over strategy and financial resources.
The lack of comprehensive implementation of NPM as prescribed is consistent with the acknowledgment in the broader NPM literature that NPM’s application has varied across agencies, nations, and sectors, and that its adoption has been
174 PPMR / September 2013
incremental or selective (horton, 2006; Schneider, 2007; Simonet, 2011; Weikart, 2003). This has also been the case in studies more specific to education. Schwartz’s study of schools in Israel, for example, finds that “there has been no comprehen- sive school management reform that includes all elements of NPM” (2002, p. 281). Rather, political opposition leads to the rejection or weakening of reform elements. The diversity of the NPM literature also provides some explanation for the partial application of NPM elements. This complexity makes it more chal- lenging to classify districts as NPM districts, but also for districts to incorporate all the various elements that have been criticized as contradictory. Practitioners and researchers should continue to examine this, as well as the implications of the piecemeal application of reform approaches.
Our regression analyses suggest that management variables, notably the extent to which districts rely on the school business official’s expertise and educational background, provide much explanation for the variance in NPM application. The relationship between the business official’s influence and a district’s adoption of NPM is logical. It fits with the literature (Bird & Wang, 2010) to envision that influential school business officials could be a driving force toward a district more focused on NPM, particularly with regard to district finance issues. We make no claims for causality, however; it may very well be that this is an endogenous variable and districts cede more influence to business officials as a manifestation of NPM in schools. Either way, throughout this study, and helping to explain this finding, we have found an incredibly tight relationship between a district’s focus on cost controls and its reliance on the school business official’s expertise.
Failed AyP is a positive, significant predictor for both approaches, signifying that districts turn to both NPM- and NPS-related efforts in response to academic or political challenges. We would need longitudinal data to determine causality, but such circumstances suggest that districts may act in response to standardized test scores that are lower than desired, as intended by NcLB. Districts may also reach out to parents and citizens to explain the meaning or reasons for the failure to meet AyP, which would manifest as higher NPS factor scores, or districts may feel a need to demonstrate greater fiscal accountability, which would fit with higher NPM factor scores.
however, it is surprising that an educational background in government is negatively related to both reform approaches, given the suggestion in the literature that education in public administration programs might lead to a greater reliance on reforms. With the case of NPM, there is a logical explanation, for, as compared with a business education background, the public administration literature tends to weigh more heavily toward criticism of NPM, while a business background would be relatively more conducive to an NPM approach. The interesting aspect is that the omitted category here is education, which means that there was no significant difference between a business background and an educational background. given
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 175
the history of school reform, which proposes marketlike mechanisms to overhaul traditional education practices and is at times quite critical of the efficacy of education schools in training school leaders, it is very surprising that this group emerged as more positively related to NPM approaches than those educated in schools of public administration and government.
NPS elements are considered important, but a gap exists between importance and practice. In terms of NPS elements, our findings are more complex. Most notably, we find discrepancies between the values that business officials consider important to budgetary decision-making and actual practice. Overall, districts consider community involvement to be very important and report having budget documents that are transparent and accessible to citizens; but community members have little actual influence on budgetary decisions, feedback tools for encourag- ing citizen involvement are not widely used, and budget officials report relatively little satisfaction with community engagement. Furthermore, key NPS variables split between the two components of the factor analysis, with the importance of community involvement variables loading with the NPM variables.
More than two-thirds of districts identified community involvement as im- portant or very important to school committee and superintendent/central office budgetary decision-making. These widespread levels of agreement, however, still fall behind several of the elements related to NPM (cost control, exper- tise of budget officials, strategic plan) in terms of importance ranking for the school committee and the superintendent/central office, respectively, in making budgetary decisions.
Moving beyond importance to practice, we find that parents, citizens, and school councils have relatively little actual influence over budgetary decisions. Feedback tools, such as citizen surveys or forums, are not widespread, which may be a contributing factor to the lack of actual influence by parents and other citizens. School councils are required by state law and were established specifi- cally to give teachers, parents, and other community members a role in school decision-making. Assisting the principal in “reviewing the annual school building budget” is one of the four main areas of responsibility for school councils outlined in state law (MDESE, 2009). Despite the state-mandated role of school councils, only one district reported that its school council has a great deal of influence over budgetary decisions. This finding fits with Marlowe and Portillo’s (2006) assertion that cynicism is common regarding citizen budgetary participation.
Political, economic, and management variables serve as predictors for an NPS approach. As noted above, failed AyP is a significant positive predictor for both NPS and NPM approaches, suggesting that districts look to citizen engagement, as well as NPM-related efforts, when facing political challenges. Results also suggest a negative relationship between district poverty (measured by free and
176 PPMR / September 2013
reduced-price lunch eligibility data) and an NPS approach, which is also consistent with the literature. Interestingly, if alpha is relaxed to 0.1, fiscal stress emerges as a positive predictor for NPS. While this may seem contradictory, it suggests the nuance between district poverty and more specific and perhaps temporary indica- tors of fiscal stress. Districts with higher levels of poverty may simply not have the financial capacity to fund public engagement practices. conversely, districts with generally low levels of poverty that are experiencing unusual fiscal stress (e.g., layoffs, elimination of programs) may see citizen engagement as an invest- ment to recoup citizen trust. It is possible, however, for a district to have both a student population of low socioeconomic status and a relatively high level of commercial wealth. An alternative explanation for the negative relationship may simply be that higher-income parents expect to participate more in their children’s education, regardless of the district’s financial resources. As in the discussion of NPM above, a government degree (and a business degree if alpha is relaxed to 0.10) serves as a negative predictor for NPS, meaning an education degree has a positive association with NPS.
In practice, NPM and NPS approaches are not necessarily distinct. In contrast to the literature’s assertion that these reform approaches are competing alternatives (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003), key elements of both are dominant across school districts, and two of the variables more closely aligned with NPS approaches (the importance of community involvement to the school committee and to the super- intendent/central office) loaded heavily with the NPM approach in factor analysis. conversely, this could also be interpreted to mean that the customer focus of NPM presents itself in terms of the district’s concern with community involvement. Districts may view citizen involvement as the means to assess citizens’ support or satisfaction, as opposed to any significant involvement in decision-making. In this light, it is arguable that the customer-focus element of NPM is limited to an acknowledgment of the importance of community involvement in practice, whereas the deeper citizen-engagement focus of NPS results in more community involvement and influence in practice.
It should not be too surprising that school districts choose elements from various approaches—presumably based on practical considerations, experience, and the economic and political environment—rather than from public adminis- tration theory alone. Jones and Kettl note “a mismatch among practice, theory, and instruction” with regard to NPM, as “most of the hard work has come from pragmatic officials cobbling together approaches to very hard problems” (2004, p. 465). In light of this, practitioners are an important, but relatively untapped, resource for the further development of reform literature. We need practitioners to let us know what works and what does not, as well as why they implement some reform elements, but not others.
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 177
With the dominance of NPM elements consistent throughout this study, what we see with the NPM regression model is a general tendency toward the NPM approach, and more comprehensive adoption when the district relies most heavily on budget officials for decision-making or faces the political challenge of failing to meet AyP. The NPS model thus identifies factors that cause a district to diverge from an NPM approach to incorporate greater efforts toward citizen engagement. This interpretation fits squarely with the perception of at least some scholars that NPM is the new paradigm to be challenged (Schedler, Jones, & Mussari, 2004).
COnSiDERATiOnS fOR fuTuRE RESEARCh
One recommendation stemming from this analysis is for researchers and districts to examine practices that involve community members. Is more effort focused on getting information about budget practices to community members, and less focus placed on obtaining feedback from community members? Are efforts focused on parents, or are members of the larger community also involved? how do we dis- tinguish between a customer focus and a citizen focus? Vigoda (2002) explains the difference between the NPM and NPS approaches as a shift from responsiveness (to clients) to collaboration (with citizens); this study supports that assertion and underscores the difficulty of translating it into practice.
Future researchers would be prudent to consider broadening the pool of re- spondents in terms of both position and geography. In this study, we have focused on school business officials in Massachusetts. This had significant value in terms of the level of access, high response rate, and ability to control state and federal political variables, but we recognize that it also brought some limitations. Re- sponses reflect the perspectives of school district business officials. Their leading roles in financial and operations management, and their interactions with a wide range of other actors in the district, the state education department, and municipal government, placed them in an ideal position to provide responses to the wide range of questions in the survey. There was a potential for response bias, however, as school officials’ perspectives on the budgeting process may differ from those of other actors in the school budgeting process (Bird & Wang, 2010), and some survey items lend themselves to a positive response bias. Future researchers should also consider such questions with regard to other functions, such as curriculum or professional development.
Despite these issues, school business officials remain an important source of in- formation about school districts due to their intimacy with district budget processes and their interactions with multiple actors. While they may have a natural bias in some areas (e.g., efficiency or other areas most related to their responsibilities and training), they may offer a more neutral perspective in other areas (e.g., more political issues or areas more focused on other actors’ responsibilities or priorities). We have also included items asking about school committee goals and the impor-
178 PPMR / September 2013
tance of various factors to the school committee and to the superintendent/central office (in separate items), as a way to identify potential biases. As demonstrated by the results, however, there was little difference in what factors were important to the different actors. It is possible that school budget officials have an inflated perception of their importance to other actors in the budgetary process. We do not believe this negates the significance of the finding that this influence is a factor in NPM districts, however, as there is no reason to believe there is a systematically inflated perception for NPM-focused districts. Broadening the respondent pool in future studies could help overcome such potential biases.
There are also generalizability limitations to focusing on one state at one point in time. In Massachusetts, the structure of school districts provides a close financial tie to municipal government. School committees are granted governance power by state law, but school aid, including local tax revenues and state aid, flows to municipalities first and then to school districts. Statute defines a school district as either the school department of a municipality or a regional entity (Mass. gen. L. c. 70, § 2). Three-quarters of the noncharter school districts in Massachusetts are municipal districts, accounting for 85% of enrollment. While this feature may hinder generalizability to other states with regard to schools, the close tie of school districts in Massachusetts to municipalities may improve our study’s generalizability to local government administration more broadly. Furthermore, conducting a survey at one point in time also limits a study’s generalizability. The economic conditions of the time can also have an impact on budgeting practices. This is a perpetual issue in public administration, however. In addition to economic conditions, public values (Kaufman, 1969) and reform approaches (Light, 1997) change over time. While this does not negate the value of cross-sectional analysis, it would be fruitful to repeat this study, or at least items from it, over time. Despite the acknowledged limitations, the high response rate (73%) resulting from the focus on school business officials in one state at one time provides alternative value. We leave it to future researchers to examine these issues, as well as other functions, across other actors and states.
Conclusion
This study is important for both academics and practitioners, as it attempts to merge the theoretical applications of public management reform approaches with the practical efforts of school district administrators. It helps move the literature from theoretical prescriptions to the empirical analysis of practice, providing an operationalization of NPM and NPS reform approaches for academics and iden- tifying practices that exemplify such approaches for practitioners.
In sum, this study explores the linkages between school district budgeting and public administration theory, finding that elements from both approaches are widespread across school districts, with the cost-control and efficiency elements
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 179
of NPM approaches tending to dominate school district budgeting practices. There are significant gaps between theory and practice, however, and districts tend to take a more piecemeal approach to reform. Political, economic, and management variables all appear to play a role in a district’s movement from the dominant NPM approach toward a more NPS approach. Perhaps most important, although the literature tends to compartmentalize reform approaches, they may be more complementary in practice than is acknowledged, suggesting that a dichotomous interpretation of reform approaches may be less appropriate than Vigoda’s (2002) depiction of an “evolutionary continuum.”
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of John crafton, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials, in performing this research.
notes
1. Throughout this article, these terms are used broadly to incorporate various related terms and reform efforts, such as “managerialism” and “reinvention” under NPM, and “participative democracy” under NPS.
2. School committee is the term used in Massachusetts to designate school boards. 3. Respondents had a variety of titles, including school business administrator, business
manager, director of finance, and assistant superintendent, among others. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with six school district business officials prior to the survey to help inform survey development. MASBO’s executive director helped us select and secure the in- terviews to provide a mix of urban, suburban, and rural districts ranging from Boston’s inner beltway to the northern and western parts of the state.
4. Not all Massachusetts school districts have any MASBO members, but a few have more than one. To avoid weighting our findings toward districts with more than one MASBO member, we only included data from one respondent from each district in our analyses. In the relatively few instances where two respondents were from the same district, we included data from the respondent whose job title most represented the senior business official of the district. We also removed the data from two respondents because they were from a charter and a private school. We conducted a representative analysis of the sample with regard to type of school district (municipal or regional), geographic region of the state, enrollment, spending per student, and reliance on state aid. Independent sample t-tests revealed no statistically significant differences between the means of respondents and nonrespondents. Variance in spending per student of respondents, however, is significantly different (p = 0.044) from nonrespondents.
5. We used a log transformation of district size, budget official expertise, override as a school committee goal, free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, and limited English proficiency data in the regression analyses due to the skewed nature of the original data.
6. For due diligence, the factor analysis was run with both oblique and no rotation, but it made almost no difference in the loadings.
References
Barzelay, M. (2001). The New Public Management. Berkeley: university of california Press.
180 PPMR / September 2013
Bird, J.J., & Wang, c. (2010). Role interdependency between superintendents and school business officials in budget building leadership practices and strategies. Journal of School Business Management, 22(1), 11–16.
Bourdeaux, c. (2008). The problem with programs: Multiple perspectives on program structures in program-based performance oriented budgets. Public Budgeting and Finance, 28(2), 20–47.
chubb, J.E., & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, Dc: Brookings Institution Press.
clover, M.W.; Jones, E.B.; Bailey, W.; & griffin, B. (2004). Budget priorities of selected principals: Reallocation of state funds. NASSP Bulletin, 88(640), 69–82.
coase, R.h. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. Denhardt, J.V., & Denhardt, R.B. (2003). The New Public Service: Serving, not steering.
Armonk, Ny: M.E. Sharpe. Denhardt, R.B. (2004). Theories of public organization (4th ed.). Belmont, cA: Thomson-
Wadsworth. Denhardt, R.B., & Denhardt, J.V. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving rather than
steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559. Eagle, K.S. (2005). New Public Management in Charlotte, N.C. Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State university, Richmond, VA. Fusarelli, L.D., & Johnson, B. (2004). Educational governance and the New Public Manage-
ment. Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 9(2), 118–127. glaser, M.A.; Denhardt, J.V.; & hamilton, L.K. (2002). community v. self-interest: citizen
perceptions of schools as civic investments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(1), 103–127.
goertz, M.E., & hess, A.g. (1998). Processes and power in school budgeting across four large urban school districts. Journal of Education Finance, 23(4), 490–506.
gold, E.; cucchiara, M.; Simon, E.; & Riffer, M. (2005). Time to engage? Civic participa- tion in Philadelphia’s school reform. Philadelphia: Research for Action.
gore, A., & Office of the Vice President. (1993). From red tape to results: creating a gov- ernment that works better and costs less. Report of the National Performance Review. Washington, Dc: gPO.
governmental Accounting Standards Board. (1994). concepts Statement No. 2, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. Norwalk, cT.
gruening, g. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of New Public Management. International Public Management Journal, 4, 1–25.
hansen, J.S., & Roza, M. (2005). Decentralized decisionmaking for schools: New promise for an old idea? Santa Monica, cA: Rand.
hood, c. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
horton, S. (2006). New Public Management: Its impact on public servant’s identity: An introduction to this symposium. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(6), 533–542.
Jones, L.R., & Kettl, D.F. (2004). Assessing public management reform strategy in an international context. In L.R. Jones, K. Schedler, & R. Mussari (Eds.), Strategies for public management reform (pp. 453–473). Bingley, uK: Emerald group.
Kamensky, J.M. (1996). Role of the “Reinventing government” movement in federal management reform. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 263–270.
Kaufman, h. (1969). Administrative decentralization and political power. Public Admin- istration Review, 29(1), 3–15.
Leighninger, M. (2005). Marrying citizens and educators in decision-making. School Administrator, 62(10), 48–49.
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 181
Light, P.c. (1997). The tides of reform: Making government work, 1945–1995. New haven: yale university Press.
Lynn, L.E. (2001). The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public admin- istration really stood for. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 144–165.
Marlowe, J., & Portillo, S. (2006). citizen engagement in local budgeting: Does diversity pay dividends? Public Performance and Management Review, 30(2), 179–202.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1995–2013). School councils.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2009). Massachu- setts charter schools fact sheet. Available at www.doe.mass.edu/charter/factsheet.pdf, accessed August 13, 2009.
Maxcy, B. (2009). New Public Management and district reform: Managerialism and deflection of local leadership in a Texas school district. Urban Education, 44(5), 489–521.
May, J.J. (2007). The market-driven age of education: challenges of urban school leader- ship. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 20(4), 28–34.
Mintrom, M. (2003). Market organizations and deliberative democracy: choice and voice in public service delivery. Administration and Society, 35(1), 52–81.
Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness. Paris: OEcD. Available at www.oecd.org/education/school/2635399. pdf, accessed June 9, 2013.
Nitta, K.A.; Wrobel, S.L.; howard, J.y.; & Jimmerson-Eddings, E. (2009). Leading change of a school district reorganization. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(3), 463–488.
Osborne, D., & gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1971). Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review, 31(2), 203–216.
O’Toole, L.J., Jr., & Meier, K.J. (2004). Parkinson’s law and the New Public Management? contracting determinants and service-quality consequences in public education. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 342–352.
Patrick, B.A., & French, P.E. (2011). Assessing New Public Management’s focus on per- formance measurement in the public sector: A look at No child Left Behind. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(2), 340–369.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. Raffel, J.A. (2007). Why has public administration ignored public education, and does it
matter? Public Administration Review, 67(1), 135–151. Russell, g.D., & Waste, R.J. (1998). The limits of reinventing government. American
Review of Public Administration, 28(4), 325–346. Schick, A. (1966). The road to PPB: The stages of budget reform. Public Administration
Review, 26(4), 243–258. Schneider, M. (2007). Do attributes of innovative administrative practices influence their
adoption? An exploratory study of u.S. local government. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4), 598–622.
Schwartz, R. (2002). New Public Management education reform: Politics, policy image and political-administrative systems. International Public Management Journal, 5(3), 277–295.
Scott, M., & Robbins, g. (2010). understanding e-government implementation from an NPM strategic reform perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27, 493–516.
Shatkin, g. & gershberg, A.I. (2007). Empowering parents and building communities:
182 PPMR / September 2013
The role of school-based councils in educational governance and accountability. Urban Education, 42(6), 582–615.
Schedler, K.; Jones, L.R.; & Mussari, R. (2004). Assessment of public management strat- egy. In L.R. Jones, K. Schedler, & R. Mussari (Eds.), Strategies for public management reform (pp. 1–15). Bingley, uK: Emerald group.
Simonet, D. (2011). The New Public Management theory and the reform of European health care systems: An international comparative perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(12), 815–826.
Thompson, J.R. (2000). Reinvention as reform: Assessing the National Performance Re- view. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 508–521.
Tiebout, c. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424.
Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540.
Weikart, L. (2003). Allocation patterns among the New Public Management mayors. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(1), 37–52.
Willis, J. (2010). Seeing public engagement differently. School Business Affairs, 76(10), 16–18.
Wohlstetter, P., & Van Kirk, A. (1995, April). School-based budgeting: Organizing for high performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Available at www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED384953. pdf, accessed January 19, 2010.
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 183
A p
p en
d ix
A . n
p M
a n
d n
p S
D es
cr ip
ti ve
S ta
ti st
ic s
V a ri
a b le
n M
ea n
S D
A g re
e/
im p o rt
a n t
(% )
N P
M I
nd ic
at or
s
E ffi
ci en
cy a
n d e
ff ec
ti ve
n es
s
D em
on st
ra ti
on o
f ef
fe ct
iv e
an d
ef fi
ci en
t us
e of
b ud
ge t
do ll
ar s
as p
ri m
ar y
go al
o f
sc ho
ol c
om m
it te
e 16
8 4.
76 0.
76 2
95 .2
Im po
rt an
ce o
f co
st -c
on tr
ol m
ea su
re s
to s
ch oo
l co
m m
it te
e in
m ak
in g
bu dg
et ar
y de
ci si
on s
16 4
4. 46
0. 82
4 93
.3
Im po
rt an
ce o
f co
st -c
on tr
ol m
ea su
re s
to s
up er
in te
nd en
t/ ce
nt ra
l of
fi ce
i n
m ak
in g
bu dg
et ar
y de
ci si
on s
16 2
4. 46
0. 95
3 90
.1
P er
fo rm
a n ce
m ea
su re
m en
t
M c
A S
s co
re s
ar e
si gn
ifi ca
nt f
or ce
b eh
in d
bu dg
et d
ec is
io ns
16
0 3.
40 1.
04 1
53 .1
R ea
ll oc
at io
n of
F T
E p
os it
io ns
b ec
au se
o f
lo w
M c
A S
s co
re s
15 8
3. 36
0. 94
6 50
.6
Im po
rt an
ce o
f M
c A
S s
co re
s to
s ch
oo l
co m
m it
te e
in m
ak in
g bu
dg et
ar y
de ci
si on
s 16
5 3.
97 0.
94 6
74 .5
Im po
rt an
ce o
f M
c A
S s
co re
s to
s up
er in
te nd
en t/
ce nt
ra l
of fi
ce i
n m
ak in
g bu
dg et
ar y
de ci
si on
s 16
2 4.
04 0.
99 3
79 .6
C en
tr a li
za ti
o n /d
ec en
tr a li
za ti
o n
P ri
nc ip
al s’
b ud
ge ta
ry c
on tr
ol i
nc lu
de s
a fe
w s
m al
l li
ne i
te m
s fo
r in
st ru
ct io
na l
su pp
li es
a nd
m
at er
ia ls
, s m
al l
eq ui
pm en
t, a
nd /o
r co
m pu
te rs
. 16
0 3.
59 1.
17 8
70 .0
P ri
nc ip
al s
ha ve
d ir
ec t
co nt
ro l
ov er
a ll
b ud
ge ta
ry a
cc ou
nt s
re la
te d
to t
he ir
b ui
ld in
g or
s it
e, b
ot h
no ns
al ar
y an
d sa
la ry
a cc
ou nt
s.
16 0
2. 45
1. 18
6 23
.1
P ri
nc ip
al s
m ay
m ov
e fu
nd s
am on
g bu
dg et
ar y
ac co
un ts
, w it
ho ut
a pp
ro va
l of
d is
tr ic
t bu
si ne
ss o
ffi ce
. 16
0 1.
82 1.
03 9
12 .5
(C o n ti
n u es
)
184 PPMR / September 2013
V a ri
a b le
n M
ea n
S D
A g re
e/
im p o rt
a n t
(% )
M a rk
et -b
a se
d a
p p ro
a ch
es
D is
tr ic
t is
s ub
je ct
t o
co m
pe ti
ti ve
p re
ss ur
es f
ro m
o th
er s
ch oo
ls .
15 8
2. 97
1. 22
1 39
.2 D
is tr
ic t
of te
n us
es f
ee s
as s
ou rc
e of
r ev
en ue
. 16
0 3.
53 1.
41 8
68 .8
S tr
a te
g ic
p la
n n in
g
Im po
rt an
ce o
f st
ra te
gi c
pl an
t o
sc ho
ol c
om m
it te
e in
m ak
in g
bu dg
et ar
y de
ci si
on s
16 5
4. 23
0. 95
4 86
.1
Im po
rt an
ce o
f st
ra te
gi c
pl an
t o
su pe
ri nt
en de
nt /c
en tr
al o
ffi ce
i n
m ak
in g
bu dg
et ar
y de
ci si
on s
16 2
4. 25
1. 03
4 85
.2
N P
S I
nd ic
at or
s
C o m
m u n it
y/ ci
ti ze
n e
n g ag
em en
t
Im po
rt an
ce o
f co
m m
un it
y in
vo lv
em en
t to
s ch
oo l
co m
m it
te e
in m
ak in
g bu
dg et
ar y
de ci
si on
s 16
4 4.
05 0.
92 5
80 .5
Im po
rt an
ce o
f co
m m
un it
y in
vo lv
em en
t to
s up
er in
te nd
en t/
ce nt
ra l
of fi
ce i
n m
ak in
g bu
dg et
ar y
de ci
si on
s 16
2 3.
86 0.
99 0
72 .3
D is
tr ic
t ac
ti ve
ly e
nc ou
ra ge
s di
al og
ue w
it h
an d
am on
g ci
ti ze
ns t
o fo
st er
u nd
er st
an di
ng a
nd
co ns
en su
s re
ga rd
in g
bu dg
et ar
y de
ci si
on s
16 0
3. 87
0. 91
9 71
.9
P re
pa ri
ng b
ud ge
t th
at w
il l
m ee
t in
fo rm
at io
n ne
ed s
of p
ar en
ts /o
th er
c om
m un
it y
m em
be rs
a s
pr im
ar y
go al
o f
th e
sc ho
ol c
om m
it te
e 16
6 4.
28 1.
02 5
84 .9
T ra
n sp
a re
n cy
B ud
ge t
de ci
si on
-m ak
in g
pr oc
es se
s ar
e tr
an sp
ar en
t to
c it
iz en
s 15
9 3.
91 0.
94 4
74 .2
c it
iz en
s ca
n ea
si ly
o bt
ai n
an d
un de
rs ta
nd b
ud ge
t. 16
0 3.
95 0.
86 0
80 .7
N o te
: R
an ge
i s
fr om
1 t
o 5
fo r
al l
it em
s.
A p
p en
d ix
A . C
on ti
n u
ed
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 185
A p
p en
d ix
B . D
es cr
ip ti
ve S
ta ti
st ic
s fo
r R
eg re
ss io
n V
ar ia
b le
s
V a ri
a b le
V a ri
a b le
d es
cr ip
ti o n
M ea
n S D
N P
M f
ac to
r sc
or e
c om
po ne
nt 1
s co
re s
sa ve
d fr
om f
ac to
r an
al ys
is .
–0 .0
4 1.
08
N P
S f
ac to
r sc
or e
c om
po ne
nt 2
s co
re s
sa ve
d fr
om f
ac to
r an
al ys
is .
0. 01
0. 98
F ai
le d
A y
P (
20 08
) 1
= D
is tr
ic ts
t ha
t fa
il ed
A y
P i
n at
l ea
st o
ne c
at eg
or y,
0 =
D is
tr ic
ts w
it h
no A
y P
fa
il ur
es 0.
50 0.
50
S ch
oo l
co m
m it
te e
go al
: O
ve rr
id e
A p
ri m
ar y
go al
o f
sc ho
ol c
om m
it te
e is
t o
pr ep
ar e
a bu
dg et
t ha
t w
il l
. . .
co nv
in ce
m
un ic
ip al
o ffi
ci al
s to
p la
ce a
P ro
po si
ti on
2 1
/2 o
ve rr
id e
on t
he b
al lo
t. (
L ik
er t
S ca
le
fr om
1 t
o 5)
2. 29
1. 17
F is
ca l
st re
ss s
co re
S um
m at
io n
of s
ur ve
y re
sp on
se s
fo r
fo ll
ow in
g it
em s
(p ot
en ti
al r
an ge
o f
0– 24
):
T hi
nk in
g ab
ou t
fi sc
al s
tr es
s, w
hi ch
o f
th e
fo ll
ow in
g ha
s yo
ur d
is tr
ic t
ex pe
ri en
ce d
re ce
nt ly
, i s
ex pe
ri en
ci ng
t hi
s ye
ar , o
r ex
pe ct
s to
e xp
er ie
nc e
ov er
t he
n ex
t fe
w y
ea rs
? (P
le as
e ch
ec k
A L
L t
ha t
ap pl
y. y
ou m
ay c
he ck
m or
e th
an o
ne c
ol um
n fo
r ea
ch i
te m
.)
. . .
D if
fi cu
lt y
B al
an ci
ng t
he B
ud ge
t, L
ay of
fs , D
ec li
ne i
n L
oc al
c on
tr ib
ut io
n, D
ec li
ne
in S
ta te
A id
, M id
F is
ca l y
ea r
B ud
ge t
c ut
s, E
li m
in at
io n
of A
ca de
m ic
P ro
gr am
s du
e to
F is
ca l
S tr
es s,
E li
m in
at io
n of
E xt
ra cu
rr ic
ul ar
A ct
iv it
ie s
du e
to F
is ca
l Is
su es
, In
ab il
it y
to P
ro vi
de S
er vi
ce s
at t
he L
ev el
o r
Q ua
li ty
E xp
ec te
d by
t he
c it
iz en
s in
o ur
c
om m
un it
y.
9. 32
4. 87
F re
e an
d re
du ce
d- pr
ic e
lu nc
h
el ig
ib il
it y
% o
f st
ud en
ts i
n di
st ri
ct e
li gi
bl e
fo r
fr ee
o r
re du
ce d
lu nc
h 18
.7 4
16 .2
6
(C o n ti
n u es
)
186 PPMR / September 2013
V a ri
a b le
V a ri
a b le
d es
cr ip
ti o n
M ea
n S D
B ud
ge t
of fi
ci al
e xp
er ti
se i
nd ex
M
ea n
of t
w o
su rv
ey i
te m
s: I
m po
rt an
t F
ac to
rs f
or t
he S
ch oo
l c
om m
it te
e (a
nd
se co
nd i
te m
, s up
er in
te nd
en t/
ce nt
ra l
of fi
ce ):
T hi
nk in
g ab
ou t
fa ct
or s
in fl
ue nc
in g
bu dg
et d
ec is
io ns
, h ow
i m
po rt
an t
ar e
ea ch
o f
th e
fo ll
ow in
g to
t he
s ch
oo l
co m
m it
te e
(s up
er in
te nd
en t/
ce nt
ra l
of fi
ce )
in m
ak in
g bu
dg et
ar y
de ci
si on
s? .
. . B
ud ge
t O
ffi ci
al
E xp
er ti
se (
L ik
er t
sc al
e fr
om 1
t o
5, I
nd ex
c ro
nb ac
h’ s
al ph
a =
0 .6
94 )
4. 45
0. 88
g ov
er nm
en t
de gr
ee D
um m
y va
ri ab
le f
or fi
el d
of h
ig he
st d
eg re
e, c
od ed
1 i
f in
p ub
li c
ad m
in is
tr at
io n,
go
ve rn
m en
t, o
r no
np ro
fi t
m an
ag em
en t
(e du
ca ti
on i
s re
fe re
nc e
ca te
go ry
) 0.
10 0.
30
B us
in es
s de
gr ee
D um
m y
va ri
ab le
f or
fi el
d of
h ig
he st
d eg
re e,
c od
ed 1
i f
in b
us in
es s
(e du
ca ti
on i
s re
fe re
nc e
ca te
go ry
) 0.
69 0.
46
D is
tr ic
t si
ze D
is tr
ic t
si ze
( nu
m be
r of
s tu
de nt
s) 34
72 .2
0 35
78 .1
2
R ur
al l
oc at
io n
D um
m y
va ri
ab le
f or
l oc
at io
n, c
od ed
1 i
f ru
ra l
(s ub
ur ba
n is
r ef
er en
ce c
at eg
or y)
0. 29
0. 46
u rb
an l
oc at
io n
D um
m y
va ri
ab le
f or
l oc
at io
n, c
od ed
1 i
f ur
ba n
(s ub
ur ba
n is
r ef
er en
ce c
at eg
or y)
0. 11
0. 32
L im
it ed
E ng
li sh
p ro
fi ci
en cy
% o
f st
ud en
ts i
n di
st ri
ct w
it h
li m
it ed
E ng
li sh
p ro
fi ci
en cy
2.
16 3.
58
N =
1 17
l is
tw is
e.
A p
p en
d ix
B . C
on ti
n u
ed
Williamson & Snow / BRIDgINg ThEORy AND PRAcTIcE 187
Aimee L. Williamson is an assistant professor in the Institute for Public Service at Suffolk University. She teaches courses in leadership, social change, and the foundations of public administration. Her research interests include public-private management distinctions, administrative reform, and education policy.
Douglas Snow is an associate professor in the Institute for Public Service at Suffolk University. He teaches courses in the fields of budgeting and financial management. His research interests include municipal stabilization fund management strategies, financial vulnerability, and state government budgeting.
Copyright of Public Performance & Management Review is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
