The introduction to parental participation in school-based management, ideally, tends to build partnerships with local parents involving in the mechanism of school-based decision-making. The aim of this study was to investigate how the school insiders try to collaborate with parents on the school affairs committee, the so-called school governing body, in a Taiwanese elementary school. This committee, including senior staff, teaching staff and parental representatives, would determine the school's educational needs and priorities, deploy the resources and develop a management plan. The principal, assuming the role of the chief executive officer (CEO) of an enterprise, would play an essential role in the committee, assisting it in formulating the school development plan, while securing its implementation with the collective support of the whole staff. The mechanism of the highest decision committee, in my view, seemed to be modeled after the organisation of the English school governing body but with different sources of members. This was the first time the school parental association empowered to select representatives to become commissioners of the school affairs committee. Specifically, this kind of approach to school management could be related to a new formula distribution of school decision-making mechanism, forcing the school to share its decisions in a "collaborative" manner, which ensured that the school could correspond to customers' (i.e. parents') needs (Spence, 1996). Concretely speaking, this article tended to analyze how teacher delegates and parental representatives interacted at the local school affairs committee in Taiwan. More specifically, this study focused on potential conflicts and collaborative relationships between school members and lay participants.(33 words) This project was basically of an ethnographic approach, via participant observation, interviews, and collecting written documents, under the lens of micro-politics in order to portray the reality of parental participation in school management. (128 words) According to my qualitative data revealed, however, teachers may encounter professional crisis with external demands and pressures. As Andy Hargreaves (2000) maintains, "if teachers want to become professionally stronger, they must now open themselves up and become more publicly vulnerable and accessible" (p. 232). On the other hand, such top-down process of mandating educational change may be viewed as a learning opportunity whereby educational practitioners need to re-learn how to cope with external pressures and develop new professional techniques and communicational skills through in-service workshops and training (Bailey, 2000). In order to achieve "real" partnerships with parents, the school has to empower parents' right and provide sufficient information on school operation and management so that the parental delegates could feel a sense of "authentic participation" in school-based management. Bailey, B. (2000). The impact of mandated change on teachers. In N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, learning and the realities of reform (pp. 112-128). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. London: Routledge.Bastiani, J. (1993). Parents as partners: genuine progress or empty rhetoric? In P. Munn (ed.) Parents and schools: Customers, managers or partners? (pp. 101-116). London: Routledge. Blase, J. (1987). Political interaction among teachers: sociocultural contexts in the schools. Urban Education, 22(3), 286-309.Blase, J. (1991). The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Burns, T. (1961). Micro-politics: mechanisms of institutional change. Administration Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281. Caldwell, B. (1990). School-based decision-making and management: International developments. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp. 3-26). London: Falmer Press. Dale, R. (1989). The state and education policy. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Deem, R. (1994). Free marketers or good citizens? Educational policy and lay participation in the administration of schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42(1), 23-37. Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-12. Hargreaves, A. & Goodson, I. (1996). Teachers' professional lives: aspirations and actualities. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers' professional lives (pp. 1-27). London: Falmer Press. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Professionals and parents: a social movement for educational change? In N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change: teaching, learning and the realities of reform (pp. 217-235). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Hoyle, E. (1988). Micro-politics of educational organisations. In A. Westoby (Ed.), Culture and power in educational organizations (pp. 252-269). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Leung, P. & Yuen, M-T. (2001). Parent-teacher conferences in a secondary school: a case study. Pastoral Care, March, 28-30.Seddon, J., Angus, L., & Poole, M. (1990). Pressures on the move to school-based decision-making management. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp. 29-54). London: Falmer Press Shimahara, K. & Sakai, A. (1995). Learning to teach in two cultures: Japan and the United States. New York: Galard. Spence, B. (1996). The need for in-service education. In A. McClelland & V. Varma (Eds.), The needs of teachers (pp.82-97). London: Cassell.Verhoeven, J. C. & Heddgegem, I. V. (1999). Parents' representatives in the new participatory school council in Belgium (Flanders). Educational Management and Administration, 27(4), 415-429. Vincent, C. (1996). Parents and teachers: Power and participation. London: Falmer Press.Educational Studies