Controlled autonomy: novice principals’ schema for district control and school autonomy
| Date | 02 May 2017 |
| Pages | 334-350 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2016-0032 |
| Published date | 02 May 2017 |
| Author | Jennie M. Weiner,Sarah L. Woulfin |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Controlled autonomy: novice
principals’schema for district
control and school autonomy
Jennie M. Weiner
Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, Connecticut, USA, and
Sarah L. Woulfin
Department of Educational Leadership,
University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to gain insights into how a group of novice principals, all in schools
that deployed principles of autonomy as mechanisms for improvement, conceptualized what the authors label
“controlled autonomy”–a condition in which school leaders are expected to both make site-based decisions
and be accountable to district oversight. The study aims to support more effective interactions between
school and district leaders around controlled autonomy to increase performance.
Design/methodology/approach –Using schema as a framework to guide the inquiry, this paper uses
qualitative methods and interviewing in particular to explore the questions of interest. Seven novice
principals were each interviewed three times over the year each interview lasting approximately one hour
(n¼21). Data were analyzed thematically using both inductive and deductive coding techniques.
Findings –Findings show that principals tended to group potential district supports into four categories:
operations, instruction, advocacy, and vision and their perceptions regarding the balance between their and
the district’s control over activities in each category was dynamic, varied and dependent on views relating to
issues as broad as values alignment to perceptions of bureaucratic efficiency.
Research limitations/implications –Because of the small sample size and methodological approach, it
may be inappropriate to generalize the findings across all controlled autonomy contexts. Further research in
additional settings is encouraged to support the proposed findings.
Practical implications –This paper has a number of implications for districts andschool leaders. Among
these is theneed for districts to better articulatethe parameters of controlledautonomy and for school leadersto
receivemore and more effective training and supportto effectively utilize autonomyas a mechanism for reform.
Originality/value –This work fills a gap in the research regarding on how principals conceptualize
controlled autonomy or, more specifically, how they view what school autonomy should look like relative to
district control and is this paper’s focus. It also provides insights into practice and potential means to enhance
a growing, but so far unevenly implemented and under performing reform initiative (i.e. controlled autonomy).
Keywords Autonomy, Leadership, Educational administration
Paper type Research paper
School leaders are increasingly viewed as a key mechanism of school improvement
(Murphy, 2008; Peck et al., 2013). As part of this framing, a number of countries across the
world (e.g. the USA, France, England, Spain, Lithuania, etc.), have moved to increase school
leader control around school operations and instructional practices to promote reform
(Honig and Rainey, 2012; Honingh and Urbanovič, 2013; Schleicher, 2012; Tulowitzki, 2013).
This shift situates school leaders as boundary spanners, operating between the school and
the larger policy environment and transmitting their aligned (or misaligned) values, ideas,
and rules (Honig, 2012). This role may be especially difficult given the current accountability
context (Day and Gu, 2007) in which school autonomy over school-level decisions must be
continually negotiated (Higham and Earley, 2013; Honig and Rainey, 2012; Marietta, 2015)
and exist within fluctuating external performance guidelines and control (Bottoms and
Schmidt-Davis, 2010; Marzano and Waters, 2006).
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 55 No. 3, 2017
pp. 334-350
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-03-2016-0032
Received 9 March 2016
Revised 16 November 2016
Accepted 17 November 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
334
JEA
55,3
Additionally, despite widespread efforts promoting autonomy as a mechanism for
improvement(Honig and Rainey, 2012), school leadersoften work within larger organizations
(e.g. Districts, Local Educational Agencies, etc.) that do not necessarily support their
autonomy (Honig, 2012; Honig and Rainey, 2012). Though these organizations can create
conditions for effective site-based decision-making (Bottoms and Schmidt-Davis, 2010;
Mendels and Mitgang, 2013) they insteadoften make overwhelming demandsand thus create
the feeling amongschool leaders that they aresimultaneously being micromanaged and hung
out to dry (West et al.,2014). Such findings also bring to bear questions about new and novice
principals’ability to negotiate theserelationships. In response, researchers (Honig et al., 2010;
Waters and Marzano, 2006; Lee et al., 2012) have called for districts and other oversight
agencies to re-conceptualize and reconfigure their work to better support school leader
autonomy,while others have called on principaltraining programs to prepareleaders to better
negotiate these relationships (e.g. Hess and Kelly, 2007). Yet, such studies remain mostly
speculative and often neglect how practitioners (i.e. school leaders) come to understand and
experience these sup ports (Rorrer et al., 2008; Trujillo, 2013).
This gap suggests a need for research on how school leaders come to understand and act
in relationship to their central office around autonomy initiatives. This paper takes up this
issue by focusing on how a group of novice principals, all trained to lead and working in
schools that deployed principles of autonomy as mechanisms for improvement,
conceptualized what we label “controlled autonomy”–a condition in which principals are
expected to make site-based decisions and be accountable to district oversight. This work
was guided by the following research questions:
RQ1. What are principals’schema of controlled autonomy?
RQ2. How do these schemas address the district’s role regarding control over different
areas of school activity?
Findings show that principals tended to group potential district supports into four categories:
operations, instruction, advocacy, and vision. and their perceptions regarding the balance
between their and the district’s control over activities in each category was dynamic, varied and
dependent on views relating to issues as broad as values alignment to perceptions of
bureaucratic efficiency. The paper begins with an overview of how autonomy has developed in
the USA as a mechanism for school improvement. It then shifts to districts’evolving role relative
to school autonomy and support. After introducing schema theory and discussing methods, the
findings are presented on principals’schema of controlled autonomy, or the district role, in
several categories of activity. The paper concludes with implications for research and practice.
Literature review
Autonomy as a mechanism for reform
As true in many countries (Higham and Earley, 2013), in the USA, the history of school
governance and local vs external control is long and circuitous. As early as the 1960s, local
communities, and often those comprised primarily of African-Americans, came together to
demand greater control of their schools to enhance equity and achievement (Goldstein, 2014).
Later, autonomy was fit into the larger push toward market-based solutions to school
underperformance including charter schools (Hassel, 2011; Lubienski, 2003). It was also a key
aspect of new public management promoting the application of private sector models to
improvepublic schools. AsLouis (2013) describes,new public management included“the belief
that the role of ‘central agencies’is to set goals and accountability measures, and then allow
‘lower/subsidiary units’flexibility in meeting the goals coupled with clear consequences for
failure to do so”(p. 551). In other words, controlled autonomy was, and continues to be, a strong
component of this movement in the USA and elsewhere.
335
Novice
principals’
schema
To continue reading
Request your trial