The alienation or relevance of schools to their communities has become a major theme in current educational reform movements (Chapman et al, 1995; Sarason, 1996; McGraw, 1994; Heller & Edwards, 1992). This has led to waves of restructuring of schools toward community empowerment, site-based decision-making and the devolution of powers from central authorities to the schools themselves. The United Kingdom, New Zealand, many states in the United States of America and the state of Victoria in Australia, have all constituted localised governing bodies for public schools (Gannicott, 1997). With the new Western Australian School Education Act 1999 (Education Dept. of WA, 2000a) government schools in Western Australia will also have decision making groups constituted as School Councils. Although the powers of Western Australian state school councils are limited, council members will be drawn from the parent body, staff, and the community, and will have a voice in reviewing school policy, planning and financial arrangements, as well as evaluating the school’s performance (Education Dept. of WA, 2000b).

In all educational sectors since the1980's there has been a drive for new corporate forms of management, and entrepreneurial patterns are being advocated where organizations can be simultaneously tightly controlled and at the same time free-wheeling with the aim to create locally autonomous yet centrally cohesive institutions (Beare, 1988). Reid and Johnson (1993) see that the social and democratic agenda in Australia is increasingly yielding to an economic one. Schools find themselves immersed in a free market economy and exposed to the perils of competition. They are increasingly experiencing the pressures to become more market-driven than mission-driven. Tensions are heightened for independent schools as they endeavour to adopt more professional and effective governing processes while recognizing the expectations of community empowerment and development, which were often the basis for their foundation. Many schools have self-destructed under such stresses.

In this market driven environment the old feelings of being part of a community or of schools as an extension of the family, are being replaced by the view of parents as clients, customers or consumers and schools as providers of a service (Munn, 1993). Parents are likely to have increased and differing expectations and demand a higher level of satisfaction. On the other hand schools find that parents tend to be less willing and have less time than in the past to be involved on the practical level of the school, to "roll up their shirt sleeves" and give freely of their own energy and services (Sarason, 1996).

Schools must face not only this shift in expectations as a consumerist attitude on the part of parents replaces the more familial relationships of the past but also the challenge of a growing complexity of administration and management. Governance is viewed as pivotal in determining which schools improve and grow, and indeed whether they survive and independent school governance is already battling with these dilemmas. If the trend world wide is for government schools to emulate the governing structures of independent schools and envy their ideological and organically grounded sense of community then examining multiple views of governance processes within schools already operating with governing bodies can offer valuable insights that are applicable to the public sector as well (Chait, 1997; Aitken, 1992).

In this study, we examine the governance processes within purposefully selected schools that operate with governing bodies. We explore the roles, structures and practices of governance as viewed by constituents and develop an understanding of the issues, processes and dynamics for the people involved. We look specifically at the tensions and conflicts that develop along the borders between differing roles and how boundaries are managed and negotiated

Several researchers have spoken of independent school governance as an area worthy of study, however, very little research has been undertaken at the individual school level looking at the dynamics of governance (Hakim, et a1; Aitken, 1992; Chubb & Moe, 1990; James & Levin, 1989). The research sites for this study were purposefully chosen as schools that were similarly child-centred and outcome based in their approach to education. Importantly these schools had their origins in the period of the radical school and community empowerment movement which created large numbers of small alternative, schools here in Australia and overseas in the 1970’s and 1980’s. They are also schools that have been through varying degrees of stability. Their governing structures differ as to the level that stakeholders are involved in governance.

The multiple sites investigated (see Table I) were thirteen independent primary schools in Perth, Western Australia and one primary school within the Western Australian state school system termed an ‘alternative’ school (GAS). It is known as the alternative school because of the level of parent involvement in governance. Five of the independent schools identified themselves as Montessori schools (MS), one was a Waldorf School (WS) and the remaining seven were other small independent schools (OIS). They exhibited all six of Kane's (1992) characteristics of independent schools. They were self-governing and self-supporting to a large extent. They were also characterised by having self-defined curriculum, self-selected students, self-selected faculty and a small size. In contrast, the government school is characterised as being small and having self-selected students and staff but is not self-supporting. The school could be described as self-governing to a certain extent as most decisions are made locally. The community has some input into curriculum but they must abide by the overall policies and directives from the education department.

We chose to focus on primary schools as the level of parent involvement and the probability of a sense of community were thought to be greater than in large secondary schools. Although there are large government and independent primary schools in Western Australia, many of the primary schools are comparable in size to the independent schools. Schools of 300 students or less comprise 63% of all government primary schools and 80% of all independent primary schools (Education Dept. of WA, 2001).

This is a multi-stage study and in Stage One the interviews were with the schools’ principals (some have since resigned or been replaced) or with the very recent principals of the schools. In the case of the government school as well as the present principal, a recent past principal was interviewed as he was considered a key informant. He had been at the school in question for a considerable amount of time and had also had experience with the governance of other small independent and state school s in Western Australia and New Zealand. He is presently a principal in a more traditionally governed state school. The interviews with principals aimed to seek clarification about structures, processes and relationships related to school governance from the principals’ perspective.

In Stage Two five schools, including the government alternative school, were selected for more in depth investigation of the themes and patterns that had emerged in the first stage. The school’s inaugural principals and at least two early board members of these case study schools were then interviewed.

Table I. Research Sites Stage One

This qualitative study uses a focused semi-structured interview format. Establishing any perspective of governance issues requires access to views from different sources, as the experience of these issues will vary for different people (Patton, 1990). Therefore, we interviewed principals, early board members and present board members. This allows a glimpse of the processes at work and contributes to an emerging theory of why some issues are significant and relevant and how they change for different perspectives, voices, time periods and contexts.

The discussion points were sent to the participants prior to the interviews. They were modified slightly for the Stage Two interviews after analysing the data from the interviews of principals in Stage One and finding emerging from the data, themes related to boundaries, identity and expectations. The discussion points around which the interviews were structured related to the roles and the structures, the difficulties and successes, and the values and vision of the school. In the second stage participants were also asked how they saw the identity of the school and whether it had changed at all. In order not to force the data specific questions about boundaries were not asked. These issues were allowed to emerge from the conversations and in the participants’ own words.

Data analysis began alongside the data generation process primarily facilitated by the employment of QSR NUD*IST qualitative analysis software (Qualitative Solutions Research, 1997). The raw data from the transcribed interviews were categorised and coded and the related experiences investigated for structures, patterns and themes and what they revealed about boundaries, tensions and conflict.

The composition of school councils in the subject schools covered a spectrum from a direct democracy approach, through to representative government and appointed formats (see Diagram 1). At one end of the spectrum is one of the independent schools, OIS 2, which endeavours to run in the format of a direct democracy with all decisions, except financial ones, being made by consensus.

The government school, GAS 1, is placed on a spectrum towards the greater parent participation end.

However, although it has a representative council made up of elected community members and staff, and this council is allowed to have a say on issues of school development and be informally directed by a direct democracy group from the community, the school is controlled overall by a centralised and bureaucratic department. The council does not own the school and has no say on overall policies. Representatives of the school council do interview and select staff, including the principal and this is more involvement than other government school councils have at this time.

Two other independent schools, OIS 4 and OIS 6, are representative democracies but incorporate a direct voice from the school populace by including students on the boards and by not delegating to committees.

At the other end of the spectrum is the Montessori school, MS 5, which has a self-appointing board of community leaders, friends and ex-parents but does not include any representatives from the current parent body or staff. The principal and bursar sit on the board, but without voting rights. The Waldorf school, WS I, is partly representative and partly appointed as it has a board with the majority of members being nominated by other governing structures within the school. Two members represent the Foundation Council (who may or may not be parents), three are faculty nominated by the College of Teachers, and the Educational Administrator (Principal) is also a member. Three members are elected from the parent body. The office holders, however must be from the Foundation Council. This would be very similar to boards of the larger independent schools that have nominated members from various stakeholder groups, such as religious and alumni associations, and operate somewhat removed from the school community.

The remaining eight independent schools are in the centre of the spectrum in terms of the level of democratic representation for the parent body. They are characterised by being made up of representatives primarily elected from the current parent body, but also including the principal. In all cases but one out of these eight schools, principals had voting rights and in five cases an additional faculty member with voting rights was also on the council.

There had been no use of the word "boundaries" in the guided interview questions. However this theme emerged from the First Stage of interviews. Participants identified the difficulties around boundaries and roles as the most destabilising factors they had to deal with. It seems blurred boundaries or misunderstandings occurring around role division are issues, despite the availability of literature on the topic, and continue to cause confusion, conflict, disappointment and frustration (Block, 1998; Carver, 1997; Chait, 1997)

In theory, for most schools in the study, the responsibilities for decision-making were divided between the board and the principal, with the principal being responsible for educational and day-to-day decisions and the board for the financial and policy decision-making. Interestingly, only the principals from the government alternative school saw that the council or parents had the right to impact on decisions related to educational matters.

The other fifteen principals were clear that the dividing line should be along the educational boundary.

Keeping the educational boundary defended, and the borders clearly marked, was mentioned as a past, present or possible problem by all the current independent principal participants, except for the principal of the direct democracy school, OIS 2. In this school, although in theory parents could have an influence, in practice it was left to the students and staff.

The direct democracy school had been established for some time under just the one principal and as she pointed out nothing changes if she doesn’t want it to because of the need for consensus.

In the initial foundation period of the schools, when trust in the principal was almost unquestioned, it was less likely to be an issue.

The early board members also saw the boundaries as generally clearly drawn.

Although they acknowledged it wasn’t always so clear for others.

This difficulty with boundaries, although particularly related to division between the roles of the board and the principal, was also with staff, particularly around which areas are educational and thus, the province of the faculty.

Most principals recognised that ensuring clarity of role definition and defining the boundaries between responsibilities was difficult to accomplish.

Several early board members saw that it depended on strong leaders to protect themselves.

The early board members from the school with the appointed non-stakeholder board saw the board as the necessary protection.

Changing boundaries and maintenance of boundaries was specifically mentioned as problematic.

One participant felt the problem was organic to ‘parent-run’ schools where councils often can’t see the boundaries to their powers and don’t know how to cope with this level of responsibility.

Perhaps after all it is an art form and principals need to add this skill to their repertoire.

Conflict, identified in the research literature as creating schisms and causing some schools to self-destruct or be taken over by others, was also a factor that emerged from the interviews (Firestone, 1975).

Some of the tensions are between the principal and the governing body,

Or staff,

And some is between the parents themselves

When differences can’t be resolved then groups leave and the school must regroup.

If the school survives, then for a time at least it will be stronger and more cohesive.

There has been little study of the dynamics of trust in schools but it emerged here as an important theme as fourteen out of the eighteen principals identified trust as an essential element in their being able to do their job and the continued stability of the school (Tschannen-Moran, 1997).

However, they also understood the precariousness of their situation.

Some saw the conflict as inevitable and coming with the territory.

Boundaries are essential in all systems, they define the uniqueness of an organization and provide the territory within which groups or individuals operate. These borders can be defined by physically segregated environments, the internal rituals and expectations established over time, the roles people take, and formal documents and policies. (Mitchell, 1997). In that they have survived so far, all the schools in the study have been able to contain border disputes to continue with their objectives. However, the data from this study uncovered a widespread concern with division of roles, blurring of boundaries, and changing boundaries. What were not identified were any specific strategies that defended or reassessed them periodically. Individuals were left to operate within their marked territory while often the very people they thought would help them prevent incursions would be the ones moving the lines.

In Firestones studies, (1976, 1975) the generally accepted estimate for the average life-span of ‘parent-run’ schools was 18months. To outsiders the differences causing conflict may seem small but early discussion often only weeds out the gross differences. It then leaves gaps in interpretation around deeply held values and disputes will move into the political realm or even into wars.

Instead of solving these differences periods of crisis often led to groups leaving rather than surrendering and, in fact, four of the schools in the study grew out of the ashes of other schools. While purging the dissenters can help by leaving more unified survivors, exhaustion and loss of manpower often outweighs the benefits of unanimity.

Two critical elements identified from this study were board/principal relationships and maintaining a link and consensus of expectations with the stakeholders, particularly parents. A loss of trust and the pushing or incursion of boundaries often leads to conflict and shifting expectations. Expectations in this sense being what people have come to assume about the way the school operates or provides. These core expectations may change gradually over time without this change being recognised or acknowledged, or they may change suddenly as they are articulated for the first time and it becomes apparent that not everyone has the same viewpoint. Before such questioning it will be presumed that there is consensus from the undefinable everyone as to what it is the school values, the way things will be done and what will be able to be achieved.

An unanticipated or uncontained crisis will challenge the core expectations held by individuals or groups. A conflict may emerge around different interpretation of roles, the drawing of boundaries or what values mean in practice. Any of these disputes can threaten the continuance of the presumed consensus resulting in reassessment, disappointment and loss of trust. Whether they occur at board level or more generally throughout the school population, they must be dealt with effectively. Failure to do seriously threatens the stability of the school. Most boards or principals will deal with these crisis or conflicts by either adapting procedures and changing aspects of the school, or by dismissing the differences as not important or relevant (Beavis, 1992). There is danger in both of these tactics. Adapting them may irrevocably change the school’s identity causing further conflict. Dismissing them, unless satisfactory explanations are given and accepted, can fail to satisfy those who feel their expectations have not been met, resulting in further unrest or groups leaving.

In a healthy organization this tension is dynamic and promotes continual dialogue (Duca, 1996). Boards and principals need to develop such dialogue, determining the best means of defining and holding the core expectations and of maintaining them. If adaptation becomes necessary, changing ways of doing things, or moving any boundaries, must be negotiated with great care and consultation because of the potential for loss of trust and consensus. Even though it was recognised by many that clarifying boundaries and roles cannot be neatly reduced to generating definitive maps by drawing permanent ‘lines in the sand’, the importance of making some attempt to do so was nevertheless stressed by all.

The dilemma is that this very formalisation of roles and relationships can be detrimental, especially when trust problems are grounded in perceived value differences. The fact that values are hard to define and open to interpretation, means trying to pin them down and mandating procedures for action, can result in a greater sense of distance and differentiation promoting a generalised sense of distrust (Sitkin & Stickel, 1996). This then fosters the interpretation of even superficial differences as indicative of deeper value divergence and further loss of trust. Once distrust has set in it becomes impossible to know if it was ever in fact justified as it becomes widespread and self-fulfilling (Putnam, 1993).

Identity and expectations can be greatly challenged by any of the pressures discussed above but surviving has been most schools’ first priority and only now are some of them assessing changes made over time and focusing on how to prevent the undermining of their identities. Until now, none of the schools have spent time considering if congruence with their original founding aims has been maintained, although those with a specific philosophy such as Steiner or Montessori have this as a reference point.

This may be an essential consideration for all schools as it has been postulated that misaligned or diverging expectations between board members and school principals are frequently crucial factors in the deterioration of relationships often leading to otherwise avoidable leadership changes (Page & Levine, 1996). Of the fourteen schools in the study, ten had changed their principal within the last three years. Chait (1997) has an interesting metaphor for this dilemma.

As experienced doubles partners will tell you, it takes many years of practice to develop this level of skill in playing together. Some will never achieve any real partnership. In one of the schools studied, present parents are not involved in management at all. This reflects a concern about objectivity, confidentiality, and professionalism, as well as a desire to protect the schools from groups that may wish to radically change the vision or identity.

Moreover, in an arrangement where a body of part-time amateurs oversee the work of full-time professionals, further difficulties arise in terms of how this can be managed in practice.

For boards and others in the school-community, the very professionalism of the faculty can be an obstacle to equality of dialogue and good communication. As a concept, this professionalism, isolates individuals physically, attitudinally and linguistically from others. Teachers often reinforce this separation through the use of terminology , by hiding behind their authority or by erecting barricades of formality. In the schools in this study, however, teachers were seen to be continually vulnerable and often challenged.

Block (1998) claims the principal should be at the core of leadership and decision-making activities because he/she is well informed and can focus daily on the school’s mission and operations. For several principals although in theory this was so, in practice it was a difficult role.

Many of the studies and papers reviewed refer to the difficulties that result from parents with children enrolled in the school being board members (Firestone, 1975; Page & Levine, 1996; Seldin, 1998). Our study indicates that even dedicated board members can find it difficult to separate their parental and council roles. This often leads to conflict, factions and pressures detrimental to the school's stability. There is also the question of expertise and effective management.

Only one of the schools recognized these difficulties by formally implementing training, orientation and evaluation of the board. Some of the others did have "starter" packs or simply gave new board members handbooks or the school prospectus.

The task, as described by the principals in this study, seems almost impossible. Principals, must not only be skilled in a multitude of areas such as education, finances, collaboration, management, administration, industrial relations, business, public relations and so on, but, deal with many varying and changing expectations and demands. Competing desires must be balanced and principals may need to add juggling to their list of necessary skills. The empowerment of parents, with their different and changing expectations, must be managed along with their own need to know their boundaries and to act within them. All of this while being flexible, not drawing those lines too definitely and coping with long, demanding hours.

As Chait (1997) puts it, an analogy of the difficulties of such relationships is that of a marriage with the added hazard of the principal having more than one spouse at a time and over time. Boards often choose to act individually rather than collectively, resulting in a principal having to adjust to many different partners with different "rhythms, tunes, and styles" Not only that but they have to look both ways; it is no wonder they sometimes "tread on toes". Boards may then choose to seek a new partner (p 3). It is not surprising then that principals are often left feeling overwhelmed, undervalued and burnt-out. As one board member saw it,

Then there is the problem of confusing decision-making environments, which are perpetuated by having rotating participants and little growth toward fully matured and functioning groups.

As one principal participant put it, it becomes your whole life and is not for everyone

The study so far has explored the difficulties and issues of school governance for the various participants but this needs to be extended to explore possible means of coping with these dilemmas and tensions. There may never be any clear cut strategies or structures to offer a "fits all" set of solutions but by exposing and considering the conflict and problems that arise, we may at least allow them to be pursued and investigated.

The merits of community empowerment were acknowledged by most of the interviewees, however, the data revealed that the independent schools have been moving further from this base at the same time as the public sector is moving toward it. Although conflict most often occurred around the educational boundary and about where the lines should be drawn, only the principals from the state alternative school accepted that parents had the right to cross into educational decision-making. The other principals and the board members saw themselves, and their staff, clearly on one side and the council and parents belonging on the other. As well, the pressures to be professional and competitive were in effect moving management to the realm of the principal as well.

The difficulties that arose in determining the division of roles and the maintenance of boundaries have implications for those evaluating or establishing governing structures in any sector. The results from this study indicate the need for schools to have clear and visible goals and to create ways to maintain identity and expectations in the face of constantly changing personnel and constituents. Consensus cannot be assumed but must be regularly re-established. The setting of clear and definable outcomes that are strategic and selective but also easily discernible should help board members and principals to see over boundaries without having to cross them or feel the need to fortify them.

Most importantly schools need to be aware of the tension between the desire to be mission driven and the pressures to be market driven and consider what governance structures might best contend with these conflicting demands. It seems, from this study, that the mechanisms in place for the governance of these schools had not been considered as part of their overall identity and values. Given the interplay between organisational design and values, future work should begin to study more explicitly the relationship between values and design (Starke & Dyck, 1996). More importantly is it possible to make a change in one area without affecting the other.

The schools in this study have survived over many years despite many crisis, breakdown of trust and boundary problems. Those involved in governance need to acknowledge that conflict is continuing and will always be an issue to contend with. What is important is acknowledging the issues and designing ways to keep the dialogue open and ongoing.