Networks of Innovation

Glatter presents four ideal-type models of educational governance: competitive market (CM), school empowerment (SE), local empowerment (LE), and quality control (QC). He examines their implications in reference to international research for key factors of governance and management: autonomy; accountability, intermediate authority and functions, and school leadership. Mulford presents key findings from the Leadership for Organisational Learning and Student Outcomes (LOLSO) Research Project in Australia, relating these to broader international research. The leadership that makes a difference in secondary schools operates indirectly, not directly, to influence student outcomes via organisational learning (OL) that creates a collective teacher efficacy. He also describes the “transformational” school principal and rejects “the great man or woman” theory of leadership. Shuttleworth presents key findings from an OECD/CERI “What Works” study published in 2000 that analysed innovation in school management in nine countries. It discusses the tension between “top-down” reforms and “bottom up” renewal through knowledge leadership. I.4. GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 66 NETWORKS OF INNOVATION – ISBN 92-64-10034-2 – © OECD 2003 1. Models of Governance and their Implications for Autonomy, Accountability and Leadership: (Ron Glatter)1 1.1. Models of governance in school education “Governance” offers an over-arching concept to establish a framework within which other common concepts relating to structure and process, such as autonomy and accountability, can be located. This paper presents a framework, developed from Glatter and Woods (1995) and summarised in Table 4.1, of different models of governance in school education. Four models are distinguished: competitive market (CM), school empowerment (SE), local empowerment (LE), and quality control (QC). These models should be seen as ideal types and are by no means comprehensive; in practice, each system will operate some composite of them. Sometimes they may complement and reinforce each other as they impact on localities and schools but their interaction is also likely to cause tensions which participants must seek to resolve. The framework provides a useful instrument through which to examine some key issues of structure and process in the governance of school education. Examples of policies characteristic of each model are shown first, and then specific features of each of them are identified against a number of issues of structure and process. Competitive market: The major perspective underlying the CM model is the analogy with the commercial market place. The school is viewed as a smallor medium-sized business with a high degree of autonomy and few formal links with the governmental structure. The main focus within the system is not on the individual school but on the relevant “competitive arena” (Woods et al., 1998), which will contain a group of (generally) adjacent schools in competition with each other for pupils and funds. The nature of this arena will vary depending on factors such as the socio-economic character of the area, including access to private transport, and the relative density of the population; where the population is very thinly spread there may be no arena at all. School empowerment: Policy-makers often claim that they are seeking to empower school-level stakeholders, in particular the head teacher or principal and other staff as well as parents. The delegation of functions to school level has been “legitimised by a discourse of empowerment” (Arnott, 2000, p. 70). The perspectives underlying this model (SE) might be political (in the broad I.4. GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP NETWORKS OF INNOVATION – ISBN 92-64-10034-2 – © OECD 2003 67 sense of dispersing power) and/or managerial. In some national contexts, the emphasis has been purely managerial based on the principle that decisions are best taken as closely as possible to the point of action, while in others the arguments have also been couched in terms of freedom and choice. Although the SE model is often in practice combined with CM, it is analytically distinct and the picture conveyed of the school is different. The focus in SE is more on the institution itself and the way it is run than on its competitive activities “against” other institutions. It encompasses ideas of participation, identification and partnership – the school conceived of as an extended community – and in this respect it contrasts with the CM model. The unit within the system that provides its “centre of gravity” is the school itself. Local empowerment: Some countries have been more concerned with devolution to local and municipal authorities than to schools, and this model needs to be represented explicitly within the framework. Although the LE Table 4.1. Models of Governance in School Education Source: Glatter and Woods (1995), Glatter (2002). Models Competitive Market (CM) School Empowerment (SE) Local Empowerment (LE) Quality Control (QC) Indicative policies Pupil number led funding e.g. by vouchers; More open enrolment; Published data on school performance; Variety of school types Authority devolved to school on finance, staffing, curriculum, student admissions; Substantial powers for school council/ governing body Authority devolved to locality on finance, staffing, curriculum, student admissions; Substantial powers for local community council/governing body Regular, systematic inspections; Detailed performance targets; Mandatory curriculum and assessment requirements Main perspective(s) Commercial Political and/or managerial Political and/or managerial Bureaucratic How the individual school is viewed As a small business As a participatory community One of a “family” of local schools As a point of delivery/ local outlet Main focus within the system The relevant competitive arena The individual school The locality as a social and educational unit Central or other state bodies Nature of schools’ autonomy Substantial Devolved Consultative Guided Form of accountability Contractual; consumerist Responsive; “dual” Responsive; community forum Contractual; hierarchical Purpose of performance measurement Inform consumer choice Provide management information Benchmarking across units Monitor and develop system Key school leadership role Entrepreneur Director and co-ordinator Networker Production manager Function of intermediate authority Minimal Supportive, advisory Strategic co-ordination Production supervision as agent of controlling body I.4. GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 68 NETWORKS OF INNOVATION – ISBN 92-64-10034-2 – © OECD 2003 model shares the term “empowerment” and some features with SE, there are also significant differences between them. As with SE, the justification for this form of empowerment can be in political or managerial terms or both. However, the perception of the individual school is different. The school is here viewed more clearly as one of a “family” of schools, as part of a local educational system and as a member of a broader community in which there are reciprocal rights and obligations. The contrast with the CM model is particularly evident. Martin et al. (2000 p. 12) have developed a framework which “contrasts a system of local education devolved according to the principles of community governance as against those of the market”, in which they compare “consumer” with “local” democracy. With the LE model, the main focus is on the locality as a social and educational unit and its representative bodies, though implementing representative local democracy satisfactorily is fraught with difficulties. Quality control: Under the pressures of global competition and growing demands on public expenditure, governments are increasingly seeking control over the quality of key school processes and products even in highly devolved and/or market-like systems. The major underlying perspective in the QC model is bureaucratic, laying down rules and requirements and operating through set procedures, controls and monitoring arrangements. The implied picture of the school is of a “point of delivery” of many of the educational “goods” on offer. The established targets – “product mix” and “product quality” – are set at either the central or state level, depending on the constitutional arrangements. Under the QC model, the units within the system which provide the “centre of gravity” are located within, or closely connected to, central or regional government. 1.2. School autonomy The above framework suggests differences in the nature of schools’ autonomy under each of the four models. The concept of autonomy is connected with the trend to devolve power to lower levels in many countries. Green (1999, p. 61) has described the variety of forms that this trend can take: “Decentralisation has variously meant devolving power to the regions, the regional outposts of central government (deconcentration), the local authorities, the social partners and the institutions themselves”. He maintains that clear differences remain between countries despite the trend, especially between those where most power lies at the centre (such as France and Japan), where regional control is strongest (such as Germany and Switzerland), where local control now predominates (the Nordic countries), and where substantial power has been devolved to schools and the market-place (Netherlands and the UK). I.4. GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP NETWORKS OF INNOVATION – ISBN 92-64-10034-2 – © OECD 2003 69 Clarification of forms and trends is thus needed in which key questions are autonomy for whom? Over what? Bullock and Thomas (1997) distinguish between the autonomy of the individual learner, the educator and the institution. They argue that the level of autonomy of one of these might be increased while at the same time being reduced for the others. That autonomy is a relative concept is also seen in considering the domains in which autono