The purpose of this study was twofold: to examine (1) how shared decision making was operating in a large urban high school, especially in the administrative areas of personnel, finance, staff development and curriculum and instruction and (2) why shared decision making was operating in the manner it was.

A descriptive case study was conducted of the school’s organizational and administrative processes to determine staff involvement in decision making. Four central office department heads, two assistant principals, four department chairpersons, six teachers, four Faculty Council members, and four parent members of the Planning Council were interviewed to determine perceptions of shared decision making at the subject school. Data gathered from the different stakeholders were transcribed from tape recordings and entered into participant-by-involvement matrices. School documents were reviewed, and data retrieved were entered into documents used as sources of data matrix. The participant-by-involvement matrices and documents used as sources of data matrix were then stacked comparing involvement of stakeholders in the administrative areas of personnel, finance, staff development, and curriculum and instruction. Data emerged from these stacked matrices which provided the findings from which conclusions were drawn.

The data indicated that there was no model for shared decision making in operation within the school system or at the school level. Disjointed activities and responsibilities in the guise of shared decision making were parcelled out by the division superintendent to the schools to be implemented.

Opportunities for stakeholder participation were better organized and managed in the areas of staff development and curriculum and instruction. However, the same was not true in personnel and finance, as activities were isolated and disjointed; and stakeholder involvement was selective rather than inclusive.

The reason shared decision making activities were better organized and managed in the areas of staff development and curriculum and instruction was the superintendent mandated stakeholder participation in the two areas and the building principal extended the mandate to the school. While there was no mandate to include stakeholders in personnel and financial decisions, the building principal attempted to include selected stakeholders in isolated activities.