School autonomy: Necessary but not sufficient

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Evidence Base

Australia and New Zealand School of Government

Subject: Management

GET ALERTS

eISSN: 1838-9422

DESCRIPTION

10
Reader(s)
16
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Related articles

VOLUME 2015 , ISSUE 1 (March 2015) > List of articles

  • |

School autonomy: Necessary but not sufficient

Dahle Suggett *

Citation Information : Evidence Base. VOLUME 2015 , ISSUE 1 , ISSN (Online) 1838-9422, DOI: 10.21307/eb-2015-001, March 2015 © 2105.© The Australia and New Zealand School of Government

License : (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Published Online: 27-February-2017

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

School autonomy has become increasingly significant in the politics of education, as well as a central feature of education systems’ reform policies in Australia and globally. This review examines the spectrum of evidence on the impact of school autonomy on student academic achievement, and the features of autonomy that improve or constrain achievement, and discusses the implications of these findings for future policy. There is no definitive or simple conclusion from assessing the impact of autonomy on student achievement, but neither does the evidence reject the contribution of autonomy. Rather, the evidence points to autonomy as a key and necessary component of a mature and high-performing system, as it is in other areas of public administration. However, the wider institutional context matters, and parallel policies like accountability and leadership development need to be in place. Crucially, and counter to popular conception, more rather than less systemic support is needed for the potential of school autonomy to be realised.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

  1. Academies Commission 2013. Unleashing Greatness: Getting the Best from an Academised System,
  2. Ainley, J and Gebhardt, E 2013. Measure for Measure: A Review of Outcomes for Australian Education, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne. 
  3. Ainley, J and McKenzie, P 2000. School Governance: research on educational and management issues, International Education Journal, 1(3): 139–151. 
  4. Anand, P, Exworthy, M Frossini, F and Jones, L 2012. Autonomy and Improved Performance: Lessons for an NHS Policy Reform, Public Money and Management, 32(3): 209–216. 
  5. Arcia, G, Macdonald, K, Patrinos, H and Porta, E 2011. School Autonomy and Accountability, System Assessment for Benchmarking Education for Results, Regulatory and Institutional Framework, World Bank, Human Development Network, Washington, DC,
  6. Australian Public Service Commission 2009, Policy Implementation through Devolved Government, Contemporary Government Challenges, Australian Government, Canberra,
  7. Betts, J and Tang, Y 2011. The Effects of Charter Schools on Student Achievement, University of Washington, Centre on Reinventing Public Education 
  8. Blackmore, J, Bigum, C, Hodgens, J and Laskey, L 1996. Managed Change and Self-Management in 'Schools of the Future'. Leading and Managing, 2(3): 195–220 
  9. Blanchenay, P, Burns, T and Köster, F 2014. Shifting Responsibilities - 20 Years of Education Devolution in Sweden: A Governing Complex Education Systems Case Study, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 104, OECD Publishing, Paris, dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz2jg1rqrd7-en 
  10. Bloom, N, Lemos, R, Sadum, R and Van Reeden, J 2014. Does Management matter in schools? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 20667,
  11. Bossert, T, Beauvais, B and Bowser, D 2000. Decentralisation of Health Systems: Preliminary Review of Four Country case studies, Major Applied Research 6, Technical report 1, Partnerships for Health Reform, Harvard School of Public Health,
  12. Branch, G. Hanushek, E and Rivkin S 2013. School Leaders Matter: Measuring the Impact of Effective Teachers, Education Next, Winter: 63–69. 
  13. hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/school-leaders-matter-measuring-impact-effective-principals 
  14. Burke, C 1992. Devolution of Responsibility to Queensland Schools: Clarifying the Rhetoric, Critiquing the Reality, Journal of Educational Administration, 30(4): 33–52. 
  15. Caldwell, B 2012a. Review of related literature for the evaluation of empowering local schools, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra,
  16. Caldwell, B and Hayward, D 1998. The Future of Schools: Lessons from the Reform of Public Education, Falmer Press, London and Washington DC. 
  17. Caldwell, B and Spinks, J 1998. Self-managing Schools and Improved Learning Outcomes, Report to the Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra. 
  18. Caldwell, B and Spinks, J 2013a. Leading the Self-Transforming School, Seminar Series 223, Centre for Strategic Education, Melbourne. 
  19. Caldwell, B and Spinks, J 2013b. School Devolution and Accountability, Submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission from Education Transformations, Melbourne,
  20. Caldwell, B, Gurr, D, Hill, P and Rowe, K 1997. The Schools of the Future Programme in Victoria, Australia: The Principal Perspective, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. 
  21. Carnoy, M and Rothstein R 2013. What do International Tests Really Show about U.S. Student Performance? Paper Economic Policy Institute, Washington DC,
  22. Centre for Program Evaluation, University of Melbourne and Selby Consulting 2013. Evaluation of the Independent Public Schools Initiative, Final report, commissioned by The Department of Education Western Australia,
  23. Chubb, J and Moe, T 1990. Politics, Markets and America's Schools, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. 
  24. Cobbold, T 2012. Charter Schools are not Good Advertisement for School Autonomy, Education Research Brief, Save our Schools,
  25. Commonwealth of Australia 2013. Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013, Revised Explanatory Memorandum,
  26. Custers, T 2008. Selecting Effective Incentive Structures in Health Care: A Decision Framework to Support Health Care Purchasers in Finding the Right Incentives to Drive Performance BMC Health Services Research, 8:66,
  27. Department of Education 1998. Assessing the Impact: The Final Report of the Co-operative Research Project, Leading Victoria’s Schools of the Future, Melbourne. 
  28. Department of Education and Communities (NSW) 2012. Final Report of the Evaluation of the School-Based Management Pilot, Student Administration and Program Evaluation Bureau.
  29. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2008. Blueprint for Early Childhood Development and School Reform: An Overview, Melbourne
  30. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2009. Signposts: Research Points to How Victorian Government Schools have Improved Student Performance, Paper 6, Education Policy and Research, Melbourne,  
  31. Department for Children, Schools & Families (DCSF) 2009. The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes, Research Report DCSF-RR108, Nottingham, England
  32. Di Liberto, A, Schivardi, F, and Sulis, G 2013. Management Practices and Students’ performances, Working Papers, LUISS Guido Carli, Rome Italy,
  33. Dinham, S 2014. The Worst of Both Worlds: How the US and UK are Influencing Education in Australia, 2014 Walter Neal Oration, Australian College of Educators, Western Australian Branch, Perth, October. 
  34. Dixon, M 2011. Victoria as a Learning Community, Extended Special Lecture, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, November, Melbourne. 
  35. Dynarski, S, Hoxby, C, Loveless, T, Schneider, M. Whitehurst, G and Witte, J 2010. Charter Schools: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education, Brown Centre on Education Policy at Brookings, Washington DC,
  36. Education and Manpower Branch and Education Department 1991. Department Handbook on Educational Policy in Hong Kong 1965-1998. Government Printer, Hong Kong,
  37. Elmore, R 2004. School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice and Performance. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA. 
  38. Eurydice European Unit 2007. School Autonomy in Europe: Policies and Measures, Eurydice, European Commission, Brussels,
  39. Eyles, A, and Machin S, 2014. The Introduction of Academy Schools to England’s Education, Center for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, CESifo Area Conference on Economics of Education, www.cesifo-group.de/dms/ifodoc/docs/...2014/.../ee14_Machin.pdf. 
  40. Gamage, D 2008. Three Decades of Implementation of School-Based Management in the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria in Australia, International Journal of Educational Management, 22(7): 664-675 
  41. Gobby, B 2013. Enacting the Independent Public Schools program in Western Australia, Issues in Educational Research, 23(1): 19. 
  42. Gove, M 2012. Transcript of speech on Academies, 11th January,
  43. Hanushek, E 1996. Measuring investment in education, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4): 9-30. 
  44. Hanushek, E, Link, S and Woessman, L 2013. Does School Autonomy Make Sense Everywhere? Panel Estimates from PISA, Journal of Development Economics, 104(C): 212–232. 
  45. Hargreaves, D 2010. Creating a Self-Improving School System, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham. 
  46. Hattie, J 2009. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Taylor and Francis. 
  47. Higham, R and Earley, P 2013. School Autonomy and Government Control: School Leaders' Views on a Changing Policy Landscape in England, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(6): 701–717. 
  48. Honig, M and Rainey L 2012. Autonomy and School Improvement: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?’ Educational Policy, 26(3): 465–95.
  49. Hopkins, D 2013. Exploding the Myths of School Reform, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne. 
  50. Hopkins, D, Munro, J, and Craig W 2011. Powerful Learning: A Strategy for Systemic improvement, ACER Press, Melbourne. 
  51. Hoxby, C and Murarka, S 2009. Charter Schools in New York City: Who enrols and how they affect their students' achievement, NBER Working Paper 14852, National Bureau of Economic Research,
  52. Hutchings, M, Francis, B and De Vries, R 2014. Chain Effects: The Impact of Academy Chains on Low Impact Children, The Sutton Trust, London,
  53. Jensen, B 2012. Catching Up: Learning from the Best Systems in Asia, Grattan Institute, Melbourne,
  54. Jensen, B 2013. The Myth of Markets in School Education, Grattan Institute, Melbourne,
  55. Jensen, B 2014. Turning Around schools: It Can Be Done, Grattan Institute, Melbourne,
  56. Jensen, B and Reichl, J 2011. Better teacher Appraisal and feedback: Improving Performance, Grattan Institute, Melbourne,
  57. Kay, A 2010. What Happens after Big Reforms: Implementation Lessons from UK Health Care Policy, Policy Briefs: Implementation Challenges, Policy Brief No 9, Crawford School of Economics and Government, ANU, Canberra. 
  58. Leithwood, K, 2007. What We Know About Educational Leadership. In J Burger, C Webber, and P Kleinck (eds) Intelligent Leadership: Constructs for Thinking Educational Leaders, Springer, Dordrecht. 
  59. Leithwood, K. and Menzies, T 1998. A Review of Research Concerning the Implementation of Site-Based Management, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3): 233–285 
  60. Levin, B 2010, How to Change 5000 Schools: A Practical and Positive Approach for Leading Change at Every Level, Harvard Education Press 
  61. Machin S, Vernoit, J 2011. Changing School Autonomy: Academy Schools and their Introduction to England’s Education, Centre for the Economics of Education, London School of Economics, London,
  62. Machin, S and Wilson, J 2008. Public and Private Schooling Initiatives in England: The Case of City Academies, in: Chakrabarti R, Peterson P (eds.) School Choice International. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 221–241. 
  63. Malen, B, Ogawa, R and Kranz, J 1990. Site-based management: Unfulfilled promises, The School Administrator, 47(2): 30–59. 
  64. Mannion, R, Goddard, M and Bate, A 2007. Aligning Incentives and Motivations in Health Care: the Case for Earned Autonomy, Financial Accountability and Management, 23(4): 401–420. 
  65. Mazano, R, Pickering, D and Pollock, J 2001. Classroom Instruction that Works, Research Based Strategies for increasing Student Achievement, ASCD, McREL. 
  66. Miron, G, Evergreen, G and Urschel, J 2008. The Impact of School Choice Reforms on Student Achievement, Education and the Public Interest Centre Boulder and Education Policy Research Unit, Tempe,
  67. Mourshed, M, Chijioke, C, and Barber, M 2010. How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better, McKinsey and Company,
  68. Mulgan, G 2007. Innovation, Improvement and the Empowered User in Public Services’. In P. Diamond (ed) Public Matters: The Renewal of the Public Realm, Politico’s Publishing, London, pp. 177–197. 
  69. National Agency for Education (NAE) 1997. The Responsibility for Schools - a Challenge to Municipalities, Skolverket, Stockholm. 
  70. National Audit Office 2007. The Academies Programme, www.nao.org.uk/report/the-academies-programme. 
  71. National Audit Office 2010. Department for Education: The Academies Programme, England,
  72. Nethercote, J 2003. Australian Experience of Public Sector Reform, Australian Public Service Commission, Occasional Papers, Australian Government, Canberra,
  73. OECD 1994. Effectiveness of Schooling and Education Resource Management: Synthesis of Country Studies, Directorate of Education, Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, Education Committee, OECD, Paris. 
  74. OECD 2001. Devolution and Globalisation: Implications for Local Decision-makers 26 October, OECD Publishing, Paris . 
  75. OECD 2005. School Factors Related to Quality and Equity Results from PISA 2000, OECD Publishing, Paris,
  76. OECD 2010a. PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV), OECD Publishing, Paris, dx.doi/10.1787/9789264091559-en. 
  77. OECD 2010b, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46581035.pdf. 
  78. OECD 2011. School Autonomy and Accountability: Are They Related to School Performance, PISA in Focus 2011/9, OECD Publishing, Paris,
  79. OECD 2012. Education Today 2013: the OECD Perspective, OECD Publishing, Paris, dx.doi.org/10.1787/ edu_today-2013-en. 
  80. OECD 2013. PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV), PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en. 
  81. OECD 2015..Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen, OECD Publishing, Paris, dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264225442-en. 
  82. Osborne, D and Gaebler, T 1993. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Plume, New York. 
  83. Pont, B, Nusche, D and Moorman, H 2003. Improving school leadership, Volume 1, Policy and Practice, OECD Publishing, dx.doi.org/10.178/9789264044715-en. 
  84. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) 2008. Academies Evaluation: 5th Annual Report, DCSF Publications, Annesley, England,
  85. Pyne, C 2014. Launch of the Australian Government’s Independent Public Schools initiative, Transcript, Ringwood Secondary College 3rd February, Melbourne,
  86. Raymond, M 2009. Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States, Centre for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) Report,
  87. Reardon, S 2009. Review of how New York City’s Charter Schools Affect Achievement, National Education Policy Centre,
  88. Sahlberg, P 2014. Facts, True Facts and Research in Improving Education Systems, Paper, British Education Research Association, London, May. 
  89. Sandals, L and Bryant, B 2014. The Evolving Education System in England: a Temperature Check, Research Report, Department for Education, England,
  90. Schutz, G, Woessmann, L and West, M 2007. School Accountability, Autonomy Choice and Equity of Student Achievement: International Evidence from PISA 2003. Education Working Paper No 14: Directorate of Education, OECD,
  91. Summers, A and Johnson, A 1996. The Effects of School Based Management Plans, in Hanushek, E 1996. Improving America’s Schools: The Role of Incentives, National Academy Press, Washington DC,
  92. Toma, E and Zimmer, R 2012. Two Decades of Charter Schools: Expectations, Reality and the Future, Economics of Education Review, 31(2): 209–212. 
  93. Townsend, T 1996. The Self-Managing School: Miracle or Myth, Leading and Managing, 2-3, pp. 174–194. 
  94. Trimmer, K 2013. Independent Public Schools: A Move to Increased Autonomy and Devolution of Decision-Making in Western Australian Public Schools, University of Southern Queensland eprint,
  95. Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission 2013. Making the Grade: Autonomy and Accountability in Victorian Schools, Inquiry into School Devolution and Accountability, summary report, July,
  96. Whitty, G, Power, S and Halpin, D 1998. Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market, Australian Education Review No. 41, ACER,
  97. Woessmann, L, Luedemann, E, Schuetz, G and West, M 2008. School Accountability, Autonomy, Choice, and the Level of Student Achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003, OECD Education Working Papers, OECD Publishing, dx.doi.org/10.1787/246402531617. 
  98. World Bank 2007. What is School-Based Management? The World Bank, Washington DC,
  99. Wylie, C 1999. Ten Years On: How Schools View Educational Reform. New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington, .
  100. Wylie, C 2007. School Governance in New Zealand - How Is It Working? New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington,
  101. Wylie, C 2012. Vital Connections: Why we need more than self-managing schools, New Zealand Council for Educational Research,
  102. Wylie, C 2013. Improving Learning Opportunities: Why Schools Can’t Do it on Their Own, SET No. 1, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington,

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS

  • |