The Scope of School Autonomy in Practice: an Empirically Based Classification of School

The scope of school autonomy in practice: an empirically based classification of school interventions

Annemarie Neeleman, Maastricht University

Schools make a difference in student achievement. Ever since the first school effectiveness studies in the 1970s, an increasing knowledge base has pointed to ways to shape and improve school practices(e.g. Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2003; Scheerens, 2016). In recent decades, decision-making responsibilities have gradually been decentralized to schools in most education systems (e.g. Cheng, Ko, & Lee, 2016; OECD, 2012; Woessmann, Luedemann, Schuetz, & West, 2009). At the same time, re-regulation and more complex governance have intensified accountability (Helgøy, Homme, & Gewirtz, 2007; Theisens, Hooge, & Waslander, 2017). Both tendencies affect decision-making at the school level. Various studies have examined the distribution of autonomy and responsibilities among the key players in various policy domains (e.g. Eurydice, 2007; OECD, 2012, 2016). Nonetheless, despite theoretical knowledge of this distribution and the acknowledged impact of school policies on student learning (Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, Demetriou, & Charalambous, 2015), surprisingly little is known about how schools actually use their decision-making authority. What school interventions do schools consider and start in a context of increasing school autonomy, intensified accountability standards, and a growing available knowledge base? Which areas of school autonomy do schools exercise in practice?

To answer these questions, a study was carried out in the Dutch education system. Together with a few other systems, schools in the Netherlands “enjoy the greatest autonomy” (OECD, 2016). There is no national curriculum, which means that schools are largely free to choose what to teach and how to teach it. Dutch schools, furthermore, have extensive freedom on matters regarding the organization of instruction, personnel management, and resource management (OECD, 2012). Due to the high level of school autonomy, the Dutch education system is an exemplary setting to study the potential range of school interventions.

In a deliberate attempt to grasp the full potential range of actual school interventions, a digital questionnaire with open-ended questions was composed. For the same reason, a school intervention was broadly defined as a planned action that is intended to cause change in the school. The definition was purposely not confined to innovative or educational interventions, and it encompassed interventions that were seriously considered but not necessarily initiated. The questionnaire was distributed among school leaders, as the school leader is the person with the ultimate process responsibility for school operations (Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008)and, as such, the executive or “final arbiter” (Spillane & Lee, 2014, p. 435) of decision-making at the school level. Almost 200 (N=196) school leaders replied to the questionnaire, providing information on more than 700 (N=729) school interventions. Despite an extensive review of the literature, no existing classification was found to be adequate for capturing the full range of these interventions. Therefore, an empirically based classification of school interventions was constructed.

The classification presented in this study enables the identification, analysis, and comparison of the actual exercise of school autonomy in schools. It can be used on the local, national, or international level by policy-makers, training institutes, and researchers alike in their joint quest for “continuous improvement in the quality of education” (UNESCO Education Sector, 2016). Accumulating knowledge regarding the actual use of school autonomy—both within and across education systems—will further understandings of the potential levers of school improvement, school effectiveness, and educational change.

References

Cheng, Y. C., Ko, J., & Lee, T. T. H. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and learning: a reconceptualisation. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(2), 177-196. doi:10.1108/IJEM-08-2015-0108

Eurydice. (2007). School autonomy in Europe. Policies and measures. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Helgøy, I., Homme, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2007). Local autonomy or state control? Exploring the effects of new forms of regulation in education. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 198-202.

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., Antoniou, P., Demetriou, D., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2015). The impact of school policy and stakeholders' actions on student learning: A longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 36, 113-124.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

OECD. (2012). Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools. Paris: OECDPublishing.

Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership. Volume 1: Policy and practice. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Scheerens, J. (2016). Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness. A critical review of the knowledge base. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Spillane, J. P., & Lee, L. C. (2014). Novice school principals' sense of ultimate responsibility: Problems of practice in transitioning to the principal's office. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 431-465. doi:10.1177/0013161X13505290

Theisens, H., Hooge, E., & Waslander, S. (2017). How exceptional are the Dutch? Identifying general and country specific characteristics of governance in multi-layered polycentric education systems. Paper presented at the 2017 AERA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.

UNESCO Education Sector. (2016). Leading better learning: School leadership and quality in the Education 2030 agenda. Regional reviews of policies and practices: Division for Policies and Lifelong Learning Systems (ED/PLS), Section of Education Policy (ED/PLS/EDP).

Woessmann, L., Luedemann, E., Schuetz, G., & West, M. R. (2009). School accountability, autonomy and choice around the world. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.