Autonomy and accountability in schools serving disadvantaged communities
| Pages | 589-604 |
| Published date | 07 August 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0065 |
| Date | 07 August 2017 |
| Author | Esther Dominique Klein |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Autonomy and accountability in
schools serving disadvantaged
communities
Esther Dominique Klein
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
Abstract
Purpose –Increased school aut onomy and accountability have been a common de nominator of national
reforms in otherwise hetero geneous governance syst ems in Europe and the USA. The paper argue s
that because schools serving disadvantaged communities (SSDCs) often have lower average performance,
they are more often sanc tioned or under closer s crutiny, but might als o receive more additio nal
resources. The purpos e of this paper is to therefore analyze whether SS DCs have more or less autonomy
than schools with a more adv antageous context in fou r countries with heteroge neous autonomy and
accountability poli cies.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper is based on the data from the Programme for International
Student Assessment 2012 school and student questionnaires from Finland, Germany, the UK, and the USA.
The choice of countries is based on different governance models described by Glatter et al. (2003). The data
are used to identify SSDCs and analyze the reported autonomy in resource allocation and curriculum and
assessment. Using regression analyses, patterns are analyzed for each country individually. They are then
juxtaposed and compared. Differences are related back to the governance models of the respective countries.
Findings –The results indicate an association between the communities the schools are serving and
the autonomy either in the allocation of resources, or the curriculum and assessment. SSDCs appeared to
have a little more autonomy than schools with a more advantageous context in Finland, Germany, and the
UK, but less autonomy in the USA. The comparison suggests that in the USA, autonomy is rather a reward
for schools that have the least amount of need, whereas in the other three countries it could be a result of
strategies to improve schools in need. The paper discusses possible explanations in the policies and support
structures for SSDCs.
Originality/value –The effects of increased school autonomy and accountability on student achievement
have been discussed at length. How different accountability policies affect the autonomy of schools with the
highest needs has so far not been studied. The study can be understood as a first step to unravel this
association. Following steps should include in-depth investigations of the mechanisms underlying increased
or diminished autonomy for SSDCs, and the consequences for school improvement in these schools.
Keywords Governance, Autonomy, PISA, Accountability, International comparison,
Schools serving disadvantaged communities
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Within current movements that are aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
schooling, increased autonomy forschool sites is considered a driverfor school improvement
as part of a competitive system with parental choice, as a leverto increase commitment, or to
place responsibility overthe processes in the hands of thosewho know best what their schools
need. While the effects of school autonomy are ambiguous (Hanushek et al., 2013),
comparative research suggests that autonomy has positive effects when it is accompanied
with systematic bureaucratic accountability (e.g. Wößmann et al., 2007; OECD, 2011).
When autonomy is combined with accountability, and accountability is used to identify
(and remedy) schools whose results are below expectations, it is also plausible that poor
results in the accountability measures have an impact on the autonomy of individual
schools. For instance, high-needs schools might be governed more tightly by the external
administration (Anderson et al., 2012; Finnigan, 2007), have the perception that structural
restraints give them less room to maneuver (Higham and Earley, 2013), or receive additional
funding that increases their autonomy (Tillmann and Weishaupt, 2015).
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 55 No. 5, 2017
pp. 589-604
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0065
Received 10 June 2016
Revised 30 November 2016
29 March 2017
Accepted 4 April 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
589
Autonomy and
accountability
in SSDCs
One group of schools whose chances of not meeting standards and thus being
“high needs”are considerably high are schools serving disadvantaged communities
(SSDCs). Accordingly, in an education system in which school autonomy is coupled with
accountability, it is conceivable that SSDCs have more or less autonomy than schools with a
more advantageous context, and that the association between the context and the autonomy
is systematic rather than random.
The goal of this paper is to analyze the autonomy of SSDCs in different governance
regimes with heterogeneous autonomy and accountability policies. Taking educational
governance as a framework, the paper uses cross-sectional data from the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 school questionnaire to look at the
self-reported autonomy of schools in Finland, Germany, the UK, and the USA.
The paper attempts to answer two questions. The first question is whether there is a
positive or negative association between the context of schools and their autonomy –or
whether policies aimed at SSDCs have a positive or detrimental effect on the autonomy of
these schools. The second question is whether the level of autonomy of schools can be
explained with their average performance, which would be an indicator that autonomy and
accountability policies are coupled.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Autonomy and accountability
Cheng et al. (2016) define school autonomy as decentralization of authority “by relocating
power structures from central or regional offices to school sites to enable school
stakeholders to make their own decisions about resource use and school operations in a
rapidly changing academic environment”(p. 179). School autonomy can be differentiated by
the type of autonomy and the area in which schools have autonomy. Brauckmann (2012),
for instance, distinguishes between devolved autonomy (schools are free to make decisions)
and delegated autonomy (schools have to make decisions within a frame set by the
authorities). Cheng et al. (2016) further differentiate functional, structural, and cultural
autonomy. OECD’s PISA differentiates the area of autonomy: autonomy in curriculum and
instruction, and regarding resources (see Section 5).
In most European countries, especially teachers have enjoyed a reasonable amount of
freedom regarding how they are teaching. At the same time, school autonomy over contents,
budgets, or personnel, is not a tradition (Eurydice, 2007), and has only recently been
relocated to individual schools (if at all). Comparably, many decisions regarding US schools
are made in the districts instead of the schools (Anderson et al., 2012), and teachers have less
autonomy over their classrooms than in other countries (OECD, 2016a).
Arguments in favor of more autonomy for individual schools are that their problems
can best be solved by those directly involved rather than a far-away authority (e.g. Honig
and Rainey, 2012), and that autonomy increases democracy and the empowerment of
people involved in education (Elmore, 1990; Eurydice, 2007). Studies trying to unravel the
association between school autonomy and the outcome of schooling have inconsistent
results (e.g. Hanushek et al., 2013). The PISA studies suggest that autonomy over
curriculum/assessment has a greater influence on results than autonomy over resources
(OECD, 2011).
Other studies suggest that autonomy is associated with better outcomes when it is
supplemented with systematic accountability that focuses schools on common standards
(e.g. Wößmann et al., 2007). In most countries that have increased school autonomy, we can
also observe an increased external accountability of different forms. Knapp and Feldman
(2012) distinguish between bureaucratic accountability toward those in chargeof the system,
market or consumer accountability, and political accountability, meaning accountability
toward the “broader community interests”(Knapp and Feldman, 2012, p. 672).
590
JEA
55,5
To continue reading
Request your trial