This study explores, from a critical-theory perspective, the relationship of power among stakeholders in either a mandated or voluntary elementary-school-site decision-making body (SSDMB). The purpose is to describe, explain, and clarify complexities regarding the influence exerted by parents on the decision-making process in two selected elementary schools. A case study format is used with a naturalist methodology that includes semistructured interviews, nonparticipant positioned observations, focus groups, and document analysis. Findings suggest: (1) no relative difference between mandated and voluntary school-site decision-making bodies; (2) parent participation in school governance is defined by socioeconomic status; (3) principals remain key to school governance implementation; (4) participating parents do feel more connected and informed, but become trustees of the status quo; and school-size decision-making bodies are not an effective reform strategy. Parents are restricted by their own involvement in the dominant school culture, by authoritarian/administrative state controls, and by effective, organizationally vested principals. There must be a change in the system that addresses conventional organizational thinking. If SSDMBs remain a narcissistic strategy of middle-class populists, schools will not change and a potentially radical strategy will be nullified. Contains 70 references. (MLH/Author)