The democratic deficit and school‐based management in Australia
| Published date | 22 March 2011 |
| Date | 22 March 2011 |
| Pages | 179-199 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116725 |
| Author | Megan Kimber,Lisa Catherine Ehrich |
| Subject Matter | Education |
The democratic deficit and
school-based management in
Australia
Megan Kimber and Lisa Catherine Ehrich
School of Learning and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to apply the theory of the democratic deficit to school-based management
with an emphasis on Australia. This theory was developed to examine managerial restructuring of the
Australian Public Service in the 1990s. Given similarities between the use of managerial practices in
the public service and government schools, the authors draw on recent literature about school-based
management in Australia and apply the democratic deficit theory to it.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is conceptual in focus. The authors analyse literature
in terms of the three components of the democratic deficit – i.e. the weakening of accountability, the
denial of the roles and values of public employees, and the emergence of a “hollow state” – and in
relation to the application of this theory to the Australian Public Service.
Findings – A trend towards the three components of the democratic deficit is evident in Australia
although, to date, its emergence has not been as extensive as in the UK. The authors argue that the
democratic principles on which public schooling in Australia was founded are being eroded by
managerial and market practices.
Practical implications – These findings provide policy makers and practitioners with another way
of examining managerial and market understandings of school-based management and its impact on
teachers and on students. It offers suggestions to reorient practices away from those that are
exclusively managerial-based towards those that are public-sector based.
Originality/value – The value of this paper is that it applies the theory of the democratic deficit to
current understandings of school-based management.
Keywords Schools, Educational planning and administration, Australia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Throughout the worldthe public sector is in crisis. A significant aspectof this crisis is a
failure, or potential failure, to deliver social outcomes and the de-professionalisation of
public employees. It is heightened by the privatisationof public goods and services, and
the redefinition of citizens as customers. In schools, managerial-inspired policies impose
greater contractual accountabilityon principals, at the expenseof professional and moral
accountabilities. In this paper, we are not denying that there are multiple forms of
accountability and that different types of accountability are appropriate in certain
situations (Jones, 1992; Martin, 1997; Mulgan, 2000a, b; Pillay and Kimber, 2009; Uhr,
1999). Our argument is that contractual accountability driven by the market is
problematic for public activities such as schooling[1]. The reason is that it can
de-professionalise teachers througha performance focus, and attempts to imposemarket
relationshipson public schools through a stress on parental(customer) choice of schools,
ignoring that that choice is limited by complex factors including parental income.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Democratic
deficit
179
Received February 2010
Revised April 2010
Accepted June 2010
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 49 No. 2, 2011
pp. 179-199
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578231111116725
Australia in the 1990s and 2000s has seen the appearance of a “democratic deficit”
(Kimber and Maddox, 2003; Costello, cited in Preston, 1998) in the public service. This
deficit highlights the weakening of professional accountability, the ignoring of the
roles and values of public employees, and the emergence of a “hollow state” (Rhodes,
1994). The hollow state has been described as the removal of public goods and services
from the public sector and the reduction of citizens to customers or clients (Rhodes,
1994). In this paper, we argue that we are witnessing the development of this deficit in
the schooling system, and its emergence is in part a consequence of the current
managerial and market understanding of school-based management. We contend that
contractual accountability, referred to as “the degree to which [actors] ...are fulfilling
their expectations of particular audiences in terms of standards, outcomes and results”
(Mulford et al., 2008, p. 20) might be strengthened but professional and moral
accountability are being weakened. It is argued that the focus on contractual
accountability and performance is de-professionalising teachers and has the potential
to reduce outcomes for students. The marketisation – or privatisation – of schools is at
the expense of those who are unable to pay, privatising public education and
conflicting with the notions of the school system as free, compulsory and secular.
In this article first we consider the democratic deficit in the public service and then
apply this theory to schools. While the situation in Australia might not be as grave as
in the UK, the recent launching of the federal government’s MySchools website that
provides school results on national literacy and numeracy tests, and compares these
results with statistically similar schools (thus establishing league tables) represent the
onward march of the democratic deficit. This discussion emphasises the public values
of democratic citizenship such as community, deliberative discussion, inclusion, and
social justice rather than the values of the market such as the individual, customers,
exclusion, and performance.
The democratic deficit
The theory of the democratic deficit was developed as a response to the argument
posited by those advocating managerial restructuring of the public sector. Briefly, the
proponents of the managerial position argue that the use of private sector management
practices within the public service will strengthen accountability, improve efficiency
by developing a performance focus, and clarify accountability lines, thus inculcating a
customer focus. Together, these practices are believed to enhance democratic
government (e.g. Kimber, 1999, 2000; Kimber and Maddox, 2003).
Managerialism, which is also termed “corporate managerialism”, “new public
management”, and “economic rationalism”, was introduced into the public sector in
many countries following the oil shock of the 1970s. Simply, managerialism entails the
introduction of private sector practices into the public sector and the removal of public
goods and services to the private sector.
Proponents of managerialism bring together the neo-classical economic theories of
public choice theory, agency theory, and transaction cost analys is with the
management theory, new public management[2]. Beliefs in individualism and in the
free market are central to proponents of these theories. These ideas can be thought of
as having been built on a particular reading of the work of Adam Smith[3], and on the
work of the utilitarians, James Mill and Jeremy Bentham (Borins, 1988; Boston, 1991;
Dietrich, 1994; Dinwiddy, 1989; Dunleavy, 1991; Ferlie et al., 1996; Groenewegen, 1996;
JEA
49,2
180
To continue reading
Request your trial