Educational Authorities and the Schools: Organisation and Impact in 20 States [1st ed.] 9783030387587, 9783030387594

Citation preview

Educational Governance Research 13

Helene Ärlestig Olof Johansson  Editors

Educational Authorities and the Schools

Organisation and Impact in 20 States

Educational Governance Research Volume 13

Series Editors Lejf Moos, Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark Stephen Carney, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Editorial Advisory Board Stephen J. Ball, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK Neil Dempster, Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, QLD, Australia Olof Johansson, Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden Klaus Kasper Kofod, Department of Education, Aarhus University, Copenhagen NV, Denmark John B. Krejsler, Danish School of Education (DPU), Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark Romuald Normand, Research Unit CNRS SAGE, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Marcelo Parreira do Amaral, Institute of Education, Universität Münster, Münster, Germany Jan Merok Paulsen, Teacher Education, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway Nelli Piattoeva, Faculty of Education & Culture, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland James P. Spillane, School of Education & Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA Gita Steiner-Khamsi, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Michael Uljens, Faculty of Education, Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland

Educational Governance Research Aims and Scope This series presents recent insights in educational governance gained from research that focuses on the interplay between educational institutions and societies and markets. Education is not an isolated sector. Educational institutions at all levels are embedded in and connected to international, national and local societies and markets. One needs to understand governance relations and the changes that occur if one is to understand the frameworks, expectations, practice, room for manoeuvre, and the relations between professionals, public, policy makers and market place actors. The aim of this series is to address issues related to structures and discourses by which authority is exercised in an accessible manner. It will present findings on a variety of types of educational governance: public, political and administrative, as well as private, market place and self-governance. International and multidisciplinary in scope, the series will cover the subject area from both a worldwide and local perspective and will describe educational governance as it is practised in all parts of the world and in all sectors: state, market, and NGOs. The series: –– Covers a broad range of topics and power domains –– Positions itself in a field between politics and management/leadership –– Provides a platform for the vivid field of educational governance research –– Looks into ways in which authority is transformed within chains of educational governance –– Uncovers relations between state, private sector and market place influences on education, professionals and students. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13077

Helene Ärlestig • Olof Johansson Editors

Educational Authorities and the Schools Organisation and Impact in 20 States

Editors Helene Ärlestig Centre for Principal Development Umeå University Umeå, Sweden

Olof Johansson Centre for Principal Development Umeå University Umeå, Sweden

ISSN 2365-9548     ISSN 2365-9556 (electronic) Educational Governance Research ISBN 978-3-030-38758-7    ISBN 978-3-030-38759-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

When I was asked to write this foreword for Olof Johansson’s and Helene Ärlestig’s new edited book Educational Authorities and the Schools: Organization and Impact in 20 States, I was not only pleased but also overwhelmed about what one puts down in the limited space of a foreword, considering the magnitude of the book. The book revolves around an explosive cocktail of context, central authorities, and their relationship with individual schools. Beginning with context, I think that two factors mainly affect education in the twenty-first century: (1) the unprecedented demographic shifts and reformations of populations all over the world as we know it and (2) the recent transitions of world economy from agriculture and manufacturing to information and computers and now into biogenetics. These two factors are currently shaping and making the international educational context in which educational authorities are organized and impacting educators, students, and societies. Indeed, the interplay of these issues is quite evident throughout the book. Even more so, nowadays, it is probably well-accepted that the educational policy of a single nation-state cannot (anymore) be examined and/or studied without looking at the totality of educational policy worldwide. This development is rather recent but not ephemeral; it is here to stay. Furthermore, I would dare say that the final educational policy decisions are the result of supranational entities, such as the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank, and others, which (oftentimes) have little to do with local policies and the actual people on the ground as well as the cultures, contexts, and structures that shape and make their education systems. In short, globalization means a redefinition of the relationship between what is national vs. international, what are public institutions vs. private institutions, and what is economic prosperity vs. poverty. In my view, this is the educational policy context in which this book, Educational Authorities and the Schools: Organization and Impact in 20 States, unfolds. The various chapters in the book tackle educational context, governance, and leadership issues mostly in Europe (Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden) but also in Canada (Alberta and Ontario) and the USA (California, Minnesota, and South Carolina), Australia, New Zealand, the African continent (Kenya, South Africa), and Singapore.

v

vi

Foreword

In their introductory chapter, Olof Johansson and Helene Ärlestig begin the journey with an interesting title “Governing Chains for Support, Control and Intervention” in their effort to describe and analyze national education agencies’ organization, functions, and influences at the local school level in 20 countries/ regions around the world. As they mention, besides describing the agencies’ organization and function, they were also interested to get a theoretical perspective on governance and the kind of support they provide to schools or, I would add, about control and intervention. This tendency for control and intervention indeed highlights the very organization and existence of educational authorities worldwide in relation to individual schools and their degrees of freedom. Is it about loosely coupled relationships between the schools and their governing contexts, or is it a tightly controlled relationship geared toward monitoring and accountability? This is the very relationship that is being explored within the various chapters comprising this worthwhile volume. The authors of the chapters present important points such as the historical evolution of the agencies as well as the subsequent changes in their mission, with a focus on the period after the millennium. They also describe linkages between the educational authorities, agencies, and local levels and, finally, discuss possible power structures, discretionary authority for the local school district and the schools in relation to state or national policy, and their importance for the quality of the school system. I don’t think that within the space limitations of a foreword one can elaborate in an in-depth analysis what is described in each chapter, however, suffice to state that the ongoing discussion about the relationship between context and governance, on the one hand, and the schools, on the other hand, is right at the epicenter of this book. This is what makes it a worthy contribution on this ongoing debate, which is resurfacing at a higher and more in-depth level, in an effort to “bring context out of the shadows of leadership,” as Hallinger would have put it. Furthermore, as Nicola Alexander and Karen Seashore Louis very aptly describe in their chapter about Minnesota in the USA, “the U.S. national policy pendulum tends to swing between devoting more resources to one set of value preferences over the other.” Then, they go on to discuss the main dilemmas, which I believe are currently evident in almost every educational system around the world. What should we strive for: equity or efficiency or centralized or decentralized educational structures? And is it about academic results or about creating future citizens in the world who are able to (first and foremost) function as civilized persons of the world and not just as potential members of the work force? But then who am I to place all of the above in an either-or situation as opposed to stressing that, yes(!!), education systems of the twenty-first century ought to be about equity, efficiency, decentralized and accountable notions of governance, and both academic and citizenship results. All are important if we want today’s students to function optimally as tomorrow’s citizens in an ever-changing world and an ever-­ growing and diversified, both culturally and biologically, student population. At the same time, educational authorities around the world have to deal with (1) the pressures and trends between relinquishing power to the local level and keeping it for

Foreword

vii

themselves; (2) providing funding at the local level, but also keeping money for social justice and equity concerns; and then (3) the ever-increasing challenge between giving more power at the local level and then asking for more responsibility, thus increasing the accountability pressures on the individual schools and their leadership. These issues are recurrent themes of almost all chapters in this volume. However, Cathy Wylie from New Zealand, which has a highly decentralized system of self-managed schools, informs us that this framework was set up in 1989 in an effort to bring schools and their communities closer so that the national agencies would govern from a distance. In short, she describes what other countries are trying to do, which is to provide for more local control to the individual school, based on the principle that those in the “front lines” and the “trenches” know best; instead, according to Wylie, their highly decentralized school system has created “systemic issues around the variability between schools, difficulty in getting improvement and greater equity for disadvantaged students, and too much fragmentation and operation of schools and government agencies in silos.” Is that what they were after? To put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a free lunch: one gets something good, but then there is a cost attached to it. For instance, the possible unintended effects of policy-making need to be thought of as well. In essence, educational authorities around the world are increasingly being asked to do just that: define and constantly redefine the threshold between how much of this or the other policy and when have we gone too far to the detriment of society at large, as we visualize it within our context. Moreover, as our colleagues Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir, Börkur Hansen, Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, and Femke Geijsel from Iceland inform us, it is mainly about the educational authorities gaining the necessary level of trust from the local school level so that one’s actions are not seen with suspicion from the other level. This is a balancing act indeed between more power and more responsibility between the various levels. Then, the editors write about their own country, Sweden, with the interesting title “High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability.” In this chapter, they vividly describe the major contextual changes and influences that are going on in Europe (and many other parts of the world) between the tensions created by the recent massive migration in Europe coupled with an increased focus on academic results and a more liberal and market-oriented view on how to lead educational organizations. As both authors contend, Sweden is faced with the challenges of how much choice and voice to allow for the parents and students. As they mention, this new focus on freedom of choice has led to more diverse and segregated schools, similar views as echoed by the New Zealand author. To sum it up, schools have become more socially homogenous both among the high-performing and among low-performing schools, with little accountability toward society. Is that what a society is after when it puts together its national and regional educational authorities? In a similar vein, the authors from England, Philip Woods, Amanda Roberts, Joy Jarvis, and Suzanne Culshaw, voice out their concerns about “the moral demands entailed in autonomy and the importance and challenges of exercising principled autonomy and critical reflexivity as an integral feature of autonomous practice, especially in the context of pressures in the school system to conform to performative and competitive logics.”

viii

Foreword

In this regard, they introduce the interesting notion of “ethical autonomy.” Again, we observe the ongoing dilemma between centralized and less centralized governance structures and authorities and the intended and unintended effects. At the same time, Maie Kitsing and Hasso Kukemelk, when writing about Estonia, underline the fact that they have moved from a top-down approach toward an inclusive and evidence-based governance education system, stressing that the decentralization and democratization of the school system in society led to evidence-­ based decision-making. This change, however, came about at a similar cost as in other countries, where the interplay of context and leadership is continuous. The cost (and the opportunity?) is having better and more informed preparation of school leaders in order to be able to function within the new contextual parameters. The same holds for Germany, as Stephan Huber informs us, where there is a proliferation of extensive professional development programs for agents on all governance levels in the school system among the 16 states of the Federal Republic of Germany. Thus, educational leadership is finally in the forefront among many European countries (excluding the UK, where there is a long history of school management). Following, Charles Webber and Jodi Nickel write about school improvement in Alberta, Canada, where, as they mention, “the system still wrestles with meeting the needs of diverse learners and with contentious issues such as some opposition to standardized testing and legislation on gay-straight alliances.” On the other hand, they note that Alberta’s system is blessed with high-quality teachers and positive relationships among the province’s educational stakeholders. They go on to mention that the system is based on “a clear set of values and on public and alternative organizational structures for reorientation in response to constantly changing economic, demographic, cultural, and pedagogical influences.” Then, Brenton Faubert and Elan Paulson “echo” similar ideas while writing about Ontario, Canada, where also the usage of the concepts of centralization, coordination, and hard/soft power as a sense-making framework has been put in place. However, as they mention, some high-profile issues and conflicts provide opportunities for “considering the value of counterbalancing voices and the risks of silencing alternate ideas and innovations to address complex educational challenges.” Again, the interplay of outside as well as inside forces at the school level comes into play, where an edupreneurial leader is needed, as Pashiardis and Brauckmann would have put it. However, when we travel to California, USA, it seems that the chapter author, Rollin Nordgren, is trying to show us “the California way,” which attempts to de-­ emphasize testing as well as place more power and responsibility on local authorities, specifically school principals. In my view, educators in California have gone through “childhood illnesses,” and now they want a way out. However, in the road toward maturity, every educational system needs to go through the same childhood illnesses toward adolescence and adulthood. Similarly, Hans Klar, Kathryn Lee D’Andrea, and Seth Young, when describing the situation in South Carolina, USA, stress that it is important to understand how the lack of interaction between education authorities and practitioners around the development and implementation of the

Foreword

ix

policy can result in conflicts, again indicating the struggle between the center and the periphery. Furthermore, David Gurr describes the complexity of Australian school education when identifying the usual suspects: funding, government control of education, the influence of student testing programs, parental choice, and school quality. Similar issues are further described by Lucy Wakiaga with regard to Kenya, where, as mentioned, the education governance structure is reflective of the devolved system of government, even though education is (still) a preserve of the national government rather than a shared responsibility with the county government. Once again, the struggle between the center and the periphery is in the forefront. Additionally, Rajkumar Mestry and Petrus Du Plessis remind us that during the apartheid era in South Africa, schools catering for the white population group received substantial funding, whereas schools for the other population groups received a smaller portion of the education budget. Since the dismantling of the apartheid regime in 1994, the democratic government devolved education to local communities. It seems to me that the hope was that the devolution of authority would lead to a healthier and more democratic relationship between schools and communities. Thus, depending on the state of evolution of an educational system, different views regarding the issues of centralized and decentralized forms of governance will be applicable. Some may see it as neoliberal ideas which lead educational systems into greater inequalities and inefficiencies. On the other hand, some may see it as a return to democracy and more local control by the people around the schools. Based on the above descriptions and analyses, I believe that this book is both timely and important in our quest for more in-depth explorations, comparisons, and knowledge between the outside and the inside of a school’s context at the micro, meso-, and macro-levels. Thus, the book would be very useful to policy-makers, practitioners, as well as researchers around the world. Professor of Educational Leadership, Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus 2 May 2019

Petros Pashiardis

Contents

1 Introduction: Governing Chains – Support, Control and Intervention for Local Schools��������������������������������������������������������    1 Olof Johansson and Helene Ärlestig Part I The Nordic Countries 2 Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance��������������������   19 Lejf Moos 3 Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational Governance ����������������������������������������������������������   37 Mika Risku and Meng Tian 4 Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment and Role of the National Agency in Education������������������������������������������������������   55 Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir, Börkur Hansen, Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, and Femke Geijsel 5 Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-­Management Strategies, and Reorganizational Processes of the State Authorities in Norway ��������������������������������������������������������   75 Kirsten Sivesind and Guri Skedsmo 6 Sweden: High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability ������������������   93 Helene Ärlestig and Olof Johansson Part II The Middle European Countries 7 England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England������������������������������������������������������������  111 Philip A. Woods, Amanda Roberts, Joy Jarvis, and Suzanne Culshaw

xi

xii

Contents

8 Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented to Inclusive and Evidence-Based Governance ����������������������������������������������������������  131 Maie Kitsing and Hasso Kukemelk 9 France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer and Ownership in the Implementation of Reforms����������������������������������������������������������  151 Romuald Normand 10 Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role and Function in School Governing and Quality Management����������������������������������������������������������������������  169 Stephan Gerhard Huber 11 Scotland: The Scottish School System����������������������������������������������������  189 Tom Hamilton Part III The North American States – Canada and the US 12 Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta ������������������������������  209 Charles F. Webber and Jodi Nickel 13 Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education Governance in Ontario, Canada����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  231 Brenton Faubert and Elan Paulson 14 California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower Principals and De-emphasize Testing����������������  251 Rollin D. Nordgren 15 Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State��������������������������������������������������������������  269 Nicola A. Alexander and Karen Seashore Louis 16 South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict and Cooperation in South Carolina������������  289 Hans W. Klar, Kathryn Lee D’Andrea, and Seth D. Young Part IV Commonwealth Countries 17 Australia: The Australian Education System����������������������������������������  311 David Gurr 18 Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation of the 2010 Constitution������������������������  333 Lucy A. Wakiaga

Contents

xiii

19 New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools����������������������������������������������������������������������  351 Cathy Wylie 20 South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation and Impact of Policies in South Africa��������������������  371 Rajkumar Mestry and Petrus Du Plessis 21 Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model ��������������������������������  389 A. A. Johannis, Chloe Yi-Xiang Tan, Shamala Raveendaran, and David Wei-Loong Hung 22 Comparative Analysis of Central Aspects����������������������������������������������  409 Olof Johansson and Helene Ärlestig

About the Contributors

Nicola A. Alexander  is associate professor in the Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of Minnesota and president-­ elect of the National Education Finance Academy. She is particularly interested in notions of fairness, including issues of adequacy, equity, and productivity as they relate to PK–12 education. She has published in books, monographs, and journals, including American Educational Research Journal, Educational Policy, Journal of School Business Management, and Journal of Education Finance. She is author of Policy Analysis for Educational Leaders: A Step-by-Step Approach. Contact: [email protected] Helene  Ärlestig  works as professor and director for the Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Sweden. Her research interest concerns organizational communication, pedagogical leadership, quality assurance, and principal’s professionalism. She is involved in several international comparative studies about principals’ leadership, for example, the International Successful School Principal Project (ISSPP) and the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN). She is a former convener for network 26 Educational Leadership in the European Educational Research Association (EERA). She has a background as principal in compulsory schools. Her recent publication, with Christopher Day and Olof Johansson (2016), is A Decade of Research on School Principals: Cases from 24 Countries. Dordrecht: Springer. Contact: [email protected] Suzanne Culshaw  is a full-time PhD student in receipt of a studentship from the School of Education at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. She is a qualified secondary school teacher. She obtained her master’s degree in education with distinction in Educational Leadership and School Improvement from Cambridge University. Her doctoral research is exploring what it means to be struggling as a teacher. Contact: [email protected]

xv

xvi

About the Contributors

Petrus  du Plessis  is a professor and HOD in the Department of Educational Leadership and Management with a special interest in education leadership, financial management, and education law. Before joining the University of Johannesburg in 2002, he was a teacher for 22 years, of which 8 years as principal. He also serves as IDSO (inspector of education) for 3 years. He is also coordinating the principalship courses with the Matthew Goniwe School of Leadership and Governance and is also on the task team for establishing the Leadership Institute on the Soweto Campus. His research focuses on leadership and educational law issues. In addition, he serves on the executive committee of the Centre for Education Law and Education Policy in South Africa and on the executive committee of the journal Education as Change. His interests include expansion of school leadership and coaching school leaders with a focus on teaching and learning. He has written books on teaching and learning, marketing in schools, as well as financial management in schools, has published many papers in his field of interest, and has attended a number of invited conferences worldwide. Contact: [email protected] Brenton  Faubert  is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Education, Western University. He conducts most of his research in the context of K–12 education in the overlapping areas of education finance, administration, governance, and policy. He began his career as a classroom teacher and later worked in various education research and policy roles, including the Ontario Ministry of Education; the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada; and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. He completed his PhD at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, in the areas of educational administration and comparative, international, and development education. Contact: [email protected] Femke Geijsel  works as professor by special appointment in educational science at the University of Amsterdam, on behalf of the Netherlands Academy of Leadership and Management in Education (formally known as NSO), and as associate professor at the Radboud Teachers Academy, Radboud University Nijmegen. Her scientific interests particularly concern transformational, distributed, and pedagogical leadership development, roles and impact, school improvement and organization, teacher learning, and collaboration. Her recent publication, with W. Schenke, J. van Driel, and M. L. Volman (2017), is “Boundary crossing in R&D Projects in Schools: Learning Through Cross-Professional Collaboration” (Teachers College Record). Contact: [email protected] David  Gurr  is an associate professor in educational leadership within the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne. He has a 40-year background in secondary teaching, educational psychology, school supervision, and school leadership research. He is a member of several international research networks including the International Successful School Principalship Project and is a fellow and former vice president of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders and received its highest award, the Gold Medal, in 2014. He is

About the Contributors

xvii

coeditor of International Studies in Educational Administration, an associate editor of the Journal of Educational Administration, and a past editor of Leading and Managing. Contact: [email protected] Tom Hamilton  is an honorary professor at the University of Stirling and is currently senior adviser at the Omani Government’s Specialist Center for Professional Training of Teachers. After teaching in various Scottish schools, he spent 15 years in teacher education and was associate dean of education at the University of Paisley (now University of the West of Scotland). Thereafter, he spent a dozen years with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, ultimately as director of Education, Registration and Professional Learning. He has worked extensively internationally on a variety of topics but particularly on ethics and integrity in education for the Council of Europe. Contact: [email protected] Börkur Hansen  is a professor at the School of Education, University of Iceland. He finished his BA degree in education and psychology from the University of Iceland in 1982 and his PhD from the University of Alberta in 1987. His major research interests are in the areas of leadership, school management and development, and educational governance. His recent publications, with A.  Björnsdóttir (2017), are “Mat kennara á félagslegum tengslum í grunnskólum og samband þeirra við námsárangur og starfshætti” [Social Relations in Four Compulsory Schools in Iceland and Their Relationship to Student Achievement and Teaching Practices] (Tímarit um uppeldi og menntun [Icelandic Journal of Education], 26(1–2), 111–132) and, with H. Þ. Svavarsson, H.  Guðjónsdóttir, H.  Ragnarsdóttir, and S. Lefever (2016), “Leadership and Diversity in Icelandic Schools” (Nordic Studies in Education, 35(2), 159–172). Contact: [email protected] Stephan Gerhard Huber  is head of Research and Development, member of the University Leadership, and head of the Institute for the Management and Economics of Education (IBB) of the University of Teacher Education (PH) Zug (Switzerland). Professor Huber is also a member of the School of Education (ESE) at the University of Erfurt, senior research fellow of The Hong Kong Institute of Education, and adjunct professor of the Institute for Education Research, Griffith University, Brisbane. He held guest professorships at the Universities of India, Austria, Switzerland, and Cyprus, is member of the academic advisory boards of different national and international associations and institutions, is editor in chief of EAEA, and member of the editorial board of several journals. He is also head of the national interdisciplinary research consortium of the Young Adult Survey of Switzerland of the Swiss Federal Surveys of Adolescents. His areas of interest are organization and system change, education management, school effectiveness, school improvement, and professionalization of teachers and school leaders. He conducts qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method, international comparative research. For more than 10 years, he has hosted and chaired the World Education Leadership Symposium (WELS.EduLead.net). Contact: [email protected]

xviii

About the Contributors

David  Wei-Loong  Hung  is a professor and dean of Education Research at the National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University. His major research interests are learning, in particular, social cultural orientations to cognition and communities of practice. He is also head of EduLab at OER, an initiative designed to surface and spread ground-up ICT-based pedagogical innovations. He is currently a contributing editor of British Journal of Educational Technology. His recent publication is, with L.  Wu and D.  Kwek (Eds.), Diversifying Schools: Systemic Catalysts for Educational Innovations in Singapore (Dordrecht: Springer, 2018). Contact: [email protected] Joy  Jarvis  is currently professor of Educational Practice at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. She is a UK national teaching fellow and is interested in facilitating the professional learning of staff in teaching in Higher Education. She works with new and experienced colleagues to enhance practice development. Before coming into Higher Education, she was a teacher of deaf children and young people, working with families and schools to build inclusive, effective environments for learning. Her focus is now on working with colleagues to create university programs that are also inclusive and effective. Her teaching is mostly with experienced teachers in schools and universities who are undertaking doctorates in education. Her current research involves developing resources to support staff and students to explore disciplinary thinking and learning. Contact: [email protected] A.  A.  Johannis  is a research fellow in the Office of Education Research at the National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University. He obtained his BA from Oxford University and his PhD in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley. His major research interests are education policy, citizenship and character education, social studies education, and the philosophy of education. His recent publication is, with C. Tan and D. Hung, “The Problem of Integration: How Schools Can Fill the Skills Gap” (2018) in D.  Hung, L.  Wu, and D.  Kwek (Eds.) Diversifying Schools: Systemic Catalysts for Educational Innovations in Singapore. Dordrecht: Springer. Contact: [email protected] Olof Johansson  is a senior professor of political science and works at the Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Sweden. His research interests are school leadership, principal training, school governance, school effectiveness, and school improvement and also values and ethics in relation to school leadership. He is working with large research projects, which all have international counterparts: the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP), National Policy Meets Local Implementation Structures, and European Policy Network on School Leadership. In 2015, he was the principal investigator for the Government of Sweden in relation to “principals working conditions and pedagogical leadership.” He received the Donald Willower Centre Award for Excellence in research in 2010. Contact: [email protected]

About the Contributors

xix

Maie  Kitsing  has worked at the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research since 2001  in various positions  – head of Supervisory Division and of General Education Department and, since 2006, advisor of External Evaluation Department. Her main responsibilities include coordination of the PISA Study and the evaluation of educational institutions. Since 2006, she has been the Estonian representative in the PISA Governing Board. In earlier years, she has worked for 15 years as a teacher and a headmaster and 7 years as a school inspector. In the last decade, Maie has been engaged in scientific research. Contact: [email protected] Hans W. Klar  is an associate professor in the College of Education at Clemson University. Prior to completing his doctorate at the University of WisconsinMadison in 2010, he held a variety of teaching and educational leadership positions in Japan, Australia, and China. At Clemson, he led the South Carolina Successful School Principals’ Project and co-directed a leadership coaching initiative called the Leadership Learning Community. He is also a member of two collaborative research projects centered on the development of rural school leadership capacity, the Palmetto Priority School Project and the Rural Innovative School Leadership Networked Improvement Community. Contact: [email protected] Hasso Kukemelk  is an associate professor of educational management within the Institute of Education at the University of Tartu. He has a 37-year background in secondary teaching, school leadership, educational psychology, and school management research focused mainly to models of excellence last years. He has been on several decision-making positions in the university (dean, head of the institute, head of the department of research and the university institutional development, etc.). He was Fulbright scholar in New  York State University (Buffalo State College) and fulfilled duties of responsible editor of special issue on school management of Estonian Journal of Education. Contact: [email protected] Kathryn Lee D’Andrea  is a professor of practice in the College of Education at Clemson University. She completed her doctorate at Clemson University in Education Leadership with an emphasis on policy and state politics. Prior to serving as a professor of practice, she held a variety of positions in K–12 districts, including teacher, principal, district coordinator, assistant superintendent, and superintendent. She serves in leadership positions on state-level committees focused on high school transformation, accountability, and digital learning. Contact: [email protected] Rajkumar Mestry  is currently emeritus professor in the Department of Education Leadership and Management and previously served as head of the department at the University of Johannesburg. His field of expertise includes education leadership and management with a special emphasis on social justice and equity. His forte is in human resources management and school financial management in education. He has been rated as a researcher by the National Research Foundation and currently

xx

About the Contributors

serves on the executive committee of the Education Association of South Africa. He also served on the executive committee of the South African Education Law Association. He has published extensively nationally and internationally in accredited journals and has coauthored and edited multiple books and chapters. He was awarded the Research Medal in 2012 and Medal of Honor in 2017 by the Education Association of South Africa. Contact: [email protected] Lejf  Moos  is professor emeritus at the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University. He has for many years taught and done research on school development, school leadership, and educational governance. He has published widely in Danish and internationally. He is a member of several journal editorial boards and was the chief editor (with John MacBeath) of the journal Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. He founded and is editing (now with Stephen Carney) the Springer book series Educational Governance Research. He is former president of the “International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement” (ICSEI), the “Nordic Educational Research Association” (NERA), and the “European Educational Research Association” (EERA). Contact: [email protected] Jodi Nickel  is professor in the Department of Education at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and past president of the Canadian Association for Teacher Education. Her research interests include teacher education, reflective practice, professional identity, and literacy. She has coauthored the book Educational Foundations in Canada with A. Edmunds, J. Nickel and K. Badley (Toronto, CA: Oxford University Press, 2015). Contact: [email protected] Rollin D. Nordgren  is a former teacher and administrator at both the middle and high school levels in Florida, USA. He received his bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD degrees from the University of South Florida. For 8 years, he was an associate professor of Urban Education at Cleveland State University (Ohio) and for the past 9 years has been professor of Educational Leadership at the National University (California). Currently, he is dean of the School of Education, Piedmont College, Demorest, GA. He is author of 3 books and over 40 articles and book chapters on school reform, urban schooling, and curriculum. Nordgren’s research focus is progressive school reform, leadership, and urban education. Contact: [email protected] Romuald Normand  is professor at the University of Strasbourg, France (Research Unit SAGE (Societies, Actors and Government of Europe)). He works on comparative education policies, school management, and leadership. He is convenor of the network 28 “Sociologies of European Education” at the European Educational Research Association. He is member of the editorial board of the British Journal of Sociology of Education and coeditor of the Routledge series “Interdisciplinary Studies in European Education.” His latest book is, with M. Liu, L. M. Carvalho, D.  A. Oliveira, and L.  LeVasseur (Eds.) (2018), Education Policies and the Restructuring of the Educational Profession: Global and Comparative Perspectives (Singapore, Springer). Contact: [email protected]

About the Contributors

xxi

Elan  Paulson  is director of the Doctor of Education (EdD) in Educational Leadership program and teaches in the Master of Professional Education (International Education) program at Western University, Ontario, Canada. Her research and teaching interests include sustainable reform in higher education, leading and managing five educational technologies, and leading collaborative teaching and learning in online environments. She consults for the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), serves as associate director of the Consortium for the Study of Leadership and Ethics in Education (CSLEE), and reviews for peer-­ reviewed journals, including the International Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Futures in Education. Contact: [email protected] Shamala  Raveendaran  is a research associate at the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Her foray into education began as a secondary school teacher that gives her an insider perspective of the constraints and affordances of education in Singapore schools. She is currently involved in a research project that pertains to a meta-analysis of innovation projects undertaken by schools within the Singapore education system. She counts herself as a student of education with deep interests in the Bourdieusian theories of social capital and habitus. Her research interests include the role of social capital and networks of teachers, schools, and sustainability of educational innovations. Her recent publication is, with Y. Toh, P. Chua, D. Hung, and A. Jamaludin, “Significance of Educational Leadership: Case for Singapore Schools Today” (2018) in T. S. Koh and D. Hung (Eds.) Leadership for Change: The Singapore Schools’ Experience (Singapore: World Scientific). Contact: [email protected] Mika Risku  works as the head of the Institute for Educational Leadership at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. His research interests cover the field of educational leadership from various perspectives with the common element of examining the relationship between the changing operational environments and the evolvement of organizations and their governance. His recent publication is, with P. Kanervio and S.  Pulkkinen, “Finnish Superintendents Are Striving with a Changing Operational Environment” (2016) in L. Moos, E. Nihlfors, and J.M. Paulsen (Eds.) Nordic Superintendents: Agents in a Broken Chain (Heidelberg, New  York, Dordrecht and London: Springer International Publishing, 65–98). Contact: mika. [email protected] Amanda  Roberts  is an independent educational consultant. Her subject, pedagogic, and professional knowledge has been developed through experience in a variety of educational roles, including leadership positions in four secondary schools culminating in headship. She subsequently formed a successful consultancy company, providing support for leadership and learning in numerous contexts. She went on to hold a variety of roles at the University of Hertfordshire, UK, which supported the development of her expertise in diverse areas such as quality enhancement and curriculum design. Her work now focuses principally on leadership

xxii

About the Contributors

(including student leadership) and coaching. Her current research focuses on the use of creative methodologies for exploring leadership experience and identity development. She has a particular interest in the use of collage to both enhance and explore human agencies. Her latest book is Collaborative School Leadership: A Critical Guide, coauthored with Philip Woods and published by SAGE in 2018. Contact: [email protected] Karen Seashore Louis  is a regents professor and the Robert H. Beck chair in the Department of Organizational Policy, Leadership, and Development at the University of Minnesota. Her most recent books include Linking Leadership to Student Learning (with Kenneth Leithwood, 2011), Educational Policy: Political Culture and Its Effects (2012), Reach the Highest Standard in Professional Learning: Leadership (2016, Corwin Press), and Positive School Leadership (2018, with Joseph Murphy). Contact: [email protected] Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir  is an associate professor at the School of Education, University of Iceland. She completed her BEd and MEd in education and special education from Iceland University of Education and her PhD from the University of Exeter in 2006. Her main research interests are in the area of educational leadership and school development, physical environment, and inclusive education. Her recent publication is, with A. Morris, P. Skoglund, and T. Tudjman, (2017), “Knowledge Partnerships Between Schools and Universities: Modelling the Process of Connection and Relations” (2016), Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/174426417X14872517690770). Contact: [email protected] Sigríður  Margrét  Sigurðardóttir  is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Akureyri, Iceland, and a PhD student at the University of Iceland. She finished her teacher training education in Denmark in 1998 and her MEd from the University of Akureyri in 2010. She has experience as a compulsory school teacher and a principal. Her research has been on school leadership and professional development and school improvement. Her recent publication is, with R. Sigþórsson, “The Fusion of School Improvement and Leadership Capacity in an Elementary School” (2016), Educational Management Administration & Leadership (44(4), 599–616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214559230). Contact: [email protected] Kirsten Sivesind  is associate professor in the Department of Education, University of Oslo. Her research focuses on curriculum history, comparative curriculum analysis, general didactics, and education policy and governance. She has participated in several international and national research projects. She has also been a track leader in the National Graduate School of Education in Norway, responsible for PhD courses and workshops. Currently, she coordinates a five-country study: Policy Knowledge and Lesson Drawing in Nordic School Reform in an Era of International Comparison. Contact: [email protected]

About the Contributors

xxiii

Guri Skedsmo  is professor and leader of the Institute for Research on Professions and Professional Learning (IPP) at Schwyz University of Teacher Education in Switzerland and associate professor in the Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Norway. Her main research interests are in the areas of educational governance and leadership, school development and change, as well as professionalization of school leaders. Contact: [email protected] Chloe  Yi-Xiang  Tan  is a research assistant with the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, Office of Educational Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Her research interests include informal and o­ ut-of-­classroom learning, student motivation, cognition, and learning. Her recent publication is, with A. A. Johannis and D. Hung, “The Problem of Integration: How Schools Can Fill the Skills Gap” (2018) in D.  Hung, L.  Wu, and D.  Kwek (Eds.) Diversifying Schools: Systemic Catalysts for Educational Innovations in Singapore (Dordrecht: Springer). Meng  Tian  is a lecturer/assistant professor in the Department of Education, University of Bath, UK. Her research interests cover distributed leadership, leadership for social justice, and school leaders’ professional development. Before taking the post in the UK, she also worked in China, Finland, and Switzerland as an educational leadership researcher. Contact: [email protected] Lucy A. Wakiaga  is senior lecturer and program leader in the School of Education, Tangaza University College, Nairobi, Kenya, where she completed her MEd in Leadership and Administration. She has over 20 years combined K–12 and higher education teaching experience. She is currently involved in various administrative and academic committees at Tangaza University College and is a co-­convener of the Tangaza University College’s monthly faculty lecture series where academic staff share ongoing research. She has published in the areas of higher education revitalization, school leadership preparation, pedagogy in higher education, and early childhood program evaluations. Her research interests include school leadership preparation, evaluation of principal preparation programs, evaluation of principals, teaching and learning in higher education, and evaluation of early childhood programs. Her latest work examined the status of school leadership preparation in Kenya. Contact: [email protected] Charles  F.  Webber  is professor of Education at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Canada. His current research addresses cross-cultural leadership development and student assessment. Prior to his current appointment, he was dean of Continuing Education and Extension at Mount Royal University. He also has served as dean of Human, Social, and Educational Development at Thompson Rivers University and as professor and associate dean in the Faculty of Education at the University of Calgary. Contact: [email protected]

xxiv

About the Contributors

Philip A. Woods  is director of the Centre for Educational Leadership and professor of Educational Policy, Democracy, and Leadership at the University of Hertfordshire, UK, as well as former chair and current council member of the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS). His work focuses principally on leadership as a distributed and democratic process and on issues of governance, equity, and change toward more democratic and holistic learning environments. He is author of over 130 publications and has wide-ranging experience and expertise in leading, managing, and participating in projects funded by organizations including the British Academy, UK government, and European Union. His latest book is Collaborative School Leadership: A Critical Guide, coauthored with Amanda Roberts and published by SAGE in 2018. Contact: [email protected] Cathy  Wylie  is a chief researcher at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Her particular interests are the impact of policy on schools and student learning, educational leadership, and school improvement. She has led a regular national survey of principals, teachers, school trustees, and parents since 1989 to provide ongoing pictures of what is happening and has undertaken a range of more qualitative studies and mixed methods evaluations to provide shared understandings for both policy and practice. She has led the development of research-based tools for formative use in schools that also provide aggregated national pictures. She received the McKenzie Award from the NZ Association for Research in Education in 2010 for her contributions to research and education and contributes to a range of advisory groups for government and education organizations. Contact: Cathy. [email protected] Seth  D.  Young  completed his doctoral studies in Educational Leadership at Clemson University in 2018. His research is focused on the political engagement of school leaders in South Carolina. He currently serves as a high school principal and has 15 years of experience working in various capacities at both the middle school and high school levels. His current school has been recognized for excellence in academic achievement by several organizations at both the state and national levels. He regularly presents at state and local conferences on topics relevant to educational leaders. Contact: [email protected]

Contributors

Nicola  A.  Alexander  Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA Helene Ärlestig  cccccUmeå University, Umeå, Sweden Suzanne Culshaw  University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK Kathryn Lee D’Andrea  College of Education, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA Brenton Faubert  Faculty of Education, Western University, London, ON, Canada Femke Geijsel  University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Radboud Teachers Academie, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands David Gurr  Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Tom Hamilton  University of Stirling, Stirling, UK Börkur Hansen  School of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland Stephan Gerhard Huber  University of Teacher Education, Zug, Switzerland David  Wei-Loong  Hung  Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Joy Jarvis  University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK A.  A.  Johannis  Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Olof  Johansson  Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden Maie Kitsing  Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, Tartu, Estonia xxv

xxvi

Contributors

Hans W. Klar  College of Education, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA Hasso Kukemelk  Institute of Education, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia Karen  Seashore  Louis  Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA Rajkumar  Mestry  Department of Education Leadership and Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Lejf Moos  Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark Jodi  Nickel  Department of Education, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada Rollin D. Nordgren  School of Education, Piedmont College, Demorest, GA, USA Romuald  Normand  Research unit SAGE (Societies, Actors, Government in Europe), University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Elan Paulson  Western University in Ontario, London, ON, Canada Petrus  Du Plessis  Department of Education Leadership and Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Shamala  Raveendaran  Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Mika Risku  University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Amanda Roberts  University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK Anna  Kristín  Sigurðardóttir  School of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland Sigríður  Margrét  Sigurðardótir  Faculty of Education, University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland Kirsten Sivesind  Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Guri  Skedsmo  Institute for Research on Professions and Professional Learning (IPP), Schwyz University of Teacher Education, Goldau, Switzerland Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Chloe Yi-Xiang Tan  Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Meng Tian  Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, UK Lucy A. Wakiaga  School of Arts and Social Sciences, Tangaza University College, Nairobi, Kenya Charles F. Webber  Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada

Contributors

xxvii

Philip A. Woods  University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK Cathy  Wylie  New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington, New Zealand Seth D. Young  College of Education, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

Chapter 1

Introduction: Governing Chains – Support, Control and Intervention for Local Schools Olof Johansson and Helene Ärlestig

Abstract  How schools become successful is important for the individual students as well as the local community and the national state. A vast quantity of research has looked at what happens in schools and classrooms. At the same time, national governance and politics as well as local prerequisites are well-known to influence schools and their results to a high degree. Societal priorities, problems and traditions provide variety in how governance is executed. There is a lack of publications that give an international overview of the similarities and differences between school agencies and how their work influences schools.

1.1  Introduction How schools become successful is important for the individual students as well as the local community and the national state. A vast quantity of research has looked at what happens in schools and classrooms. At the same time, national governance and politics as well as local prerequisites are well-known to influence schools and their results to a high degree. Societal priorities, problems and traditions provide variety in how governance is executed. There is a lack of publications that give an international overview of the similarities and differences between school agencies and how their work influences schools. This book describes and analyses national authorities and agencies’ organisation, functions and influences on local schools in 20 countries around the world. Besides describing the agencies’ organisation and functions, we were as editors interested in gaining a theoretical perspective on governance and support for schools. Please note that by ‘state’, we mean a country or a state within a country. In the description and analysis of the countries, the authors were asked to write their chapters in relation to the following themes: O. Johansson (*) · H. Ärlestig Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_1

1

2

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

• The organisation of school authorities in the state and the role of the government in public education. • A description of the development of the authority and agency structure with a focus on the period after the millennium. • A description of the different authorities’ and agencies’ mission, place and importance in the system and a connection and explanation of their analysis in relation to theoretical models. • A report on the discussion today. Are there any special trends or criticisms in the discussion that will change an agency’s structure in the near future? • A description of the link between authorities, agencies and the local level, as well as power structures, degrees of discretion for the local school district and schools in relation to state or national policy and their importance to the quality of the school system. To be able to answer these questions, the authors need to write about the governing chain in their respective country from both a theoretical and descriptive perspective. The concept of the stability and rigour of the governing chains has been challenged, and some researchers consider the chain to be broken (Moos et al. 2016; SOU 2015:22). A view that comes forward in this book is that the chain is still present but often has deficits. It is necessary to have a more nuanced understanding of how actors on various levels in the governing chain contribute to support, control and interventions. The links in the chain are joined in a way that the political decisions on one level do not dictate in detail what the next level should do (SOU 2015:22). There is always space for understanding and interpreting political and administrative intentions, which here is called ‘the governing chains intervening space’. In the intervening space, administrators on different levels try to adjust the political intentions of the law to what they think is right in their situation and organisational level. The rationality of the law in the governing process is adjusted to the level of the organisation, that is, state, regional or local. If the governing chain is vertical from top to bottom, we find that the intervening spaces operate on a horizontal level, for example, at the school board level or local school level. (Moos and Merok Paulsen 2014) This means that in the intervening space, laws are transformed into practice, routines and actions which later will be called the policy of the school board or local school. (Lindensjö and Lundgren 2014). Therefore, various levels of the same organisation will have competing policies explaining and interpreting the same law. Some policies will be more general and abstract, and others will be concrete and detailed. When many different polices are linked to the same law, we talk about low accuracy of the law. This is inevitable to capture complex societal issues. In cases like that, we then sometimes get researchers who try to understand the meaning of central aims and concepts in the law to make it powerful enough to make a change in the society. One such example is laws on equity in relation to schools. Equity almost always means creating equal opportunities for all children’s learning. Transnational policies on the ‘equity’ theme can be found in all democratic states. A recent research report by the Swedish Expert Group in Public

1  Introduction: Governing Chains – Support, Control and Intervention for Local Schools

3

Economy, ESO1 presented new policy proposals for equity linked to implementation of the law. These research policy proposals on existing laws can be very powerful in policy formation process and for changes in the law-making process. Sometimes the suggestions are too radical for the political system and stay as policy proposals with no impact on the law-making process. Sometimes these policy ­proposals can be viewed as the seed for policy trends that are discussed on different levels in regard to the effects of the law’s interpretation and its intentions. In sum, we are interested in how the organisation of school authorities uses their authority structures to get their mission implemented in the system and how these power structures influence the quality of the school system and the individual school. In this first chapter, we discuss policies related to the governing chain, the relation between political intentions and organisational understanding and policy implementation. We also touch on leadership for teaching and learning and the global impacts on students’ learning.

1.2  Theoretical Foundation of the Project The theoretical framework and study design of the different chapters must all display how the authors understand the policy concept. Policy, in a very formal meaning, can be equal to the legal system. However, in a practical way, policy is always a complement to the law, explaining how different administrative levels work with and practice the law. Our early reading of the country chapters shows that all of the countries have formal legal educational structures decided by state parliaments. The strength of the legal system can differ but is often described as a governing chain from the government to individual classrooms (Leithwood and Louis 2012). How tight the chain is varies in relation to the accountability regime that is in place. For example, in most Scandinavian countries, the accountability regimes are soft, while other countries have more firm inspection systems and clearer governing chains (Skedsmo and Mausethagen 2017). The chain can be tight in relation to certain regulations and looser in relation to others. Despite that, it is fair to say that in most countries, the governing chain has what we called intervening spaces above. There are clear differences in how agencies work in relation to administrative and political structures, cultures and global influences. When the influence is global, it is often described as transnational and the effects as diffusion between countries (Karvonen 1981). How power is used and distributed between different levels and how control and autonomy are balanced are underlying topics in each chapter. Policy can be seen and viewed as processes in the educational organisations on different levels and understood as the glue between legislation and actual actions on different levels in the organisations’ governing chain. When policies are viewed as processes, educational decisions are interpreted and transformed into actions in the

 https://eso.expertgrupp.se/rapporter/2019_1-lika-for-alla/ retrieved 2019.11.11

1

4

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

intervening spaces—actions which are not always regulated in detail by law, a situation in which local structures, cultures and civil servants’ interpretations affect the decisions on all levels of the governing chain. One early publication of political scientists Jefferey Pressman and Aron Wildavsky (1984) was called Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland; or, Why It’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All. Pressman and Wildavsky point to the fact that laws are implemented by persons who have different understandings of the meaning and sometimes do not view the decision as important for putting into ­effective action. In schools, this happens all the time in relation to the teacher’s freedom to teach. There is a drift in understanding every time an implementation process goes from political decision to administrative process. Figure 1.1 shows the relationship between political intentions and organisational understanding. Usually, political decisions concerning schools are intended to improve teaching and learning. How well the leaders in the schools understand the intentions of the decision will affect the way they decide to present the policy. For instance, if the understanding is low, leaders can understand a new policy on quality as a new control measure, but after some discussion and deeper reading, the policy’s intention to focus on improvement activities can be seen as support to improve teaching and learning. This is again an example of how interpretation on each level affects the relationship between intentions and outcomes. The higher the level of understanding is in the implementing organisation, the more likely it is that the policy will be understood as support. There is a large amount of implementation, institutionalism and neo-­ institutionalism research. These studies vary from the idea of putting political ideas into action as a rational process to critical research in relation to New Public Management and New Public Governance (Moos et al. 2016). The latter are theories influenced by societal changes and ideas of efficiency. Another example is new institutionalism, which focuses on the effects of new ways of handling decisions in and about public policy actions. The focus is on how the people in the organisations together interpret the lawmakers’ intentions within different created structures and cultures. Rules, functions and practice create identity and meaning. Other perspectives include rational actors and the role they play in the structure and culture of the community. Almost all agree that the variation within states and between states can Fig. 1.1  The relationship between political intentions and organisational understanding

1  Introduction: Governing Chains – Support, Control and Intervention for Local Schools

5

be attributed to the political system on national, regional and local levels and to local interpretations of a law’s intention and conversions of content into policy (March and Olsen 2006). An additional aspect to understand in the role of authorities and agencies is their work with both stability and change. Often the change is incremental, even if the political ambition is to create school improvement directly after a reform has been decided. Often reforms are presented as urgent solutions for meeting identified deficits and global recommendations. Over the last 50 years, many Western d­ emocracies have moved in a neoliberal direction with increased privatisation and competitive markets (March and Olsen 2006). There has been a huge increase in literature about school improvement, which can be helpful in relation to how agencies act and have changed their governing methods (Leithwood and Louis 2012). One recent development is to acknowledge trust in and between different governing levels as well as the increased focus on professions and their freedom to act when laws are implemented. In the literature, the concept of implementation is often used when describing these actions within an organisation (SOU 2018:83). When analysing how new political ideas and societal changes are put into practice, the authors were encouraged to interpret the political intention within the legal system. The focus is not on problems in the governing chain; instead, it emphasises the political intentions and expectations for change in the system. In a final section in each chapter, the authors describe the tendencies for development and policy drift they find in their countries. The chapters give a picture of the differences between the political intentions and expectations and the administrative reality. By studying implementation and processes on all levels of the governing chain, it is possible to understand more about the support and challenges of a local school system. To understand the complexity of agencies’ work and its effects on the local level, several perspectives are necessary. Some researchers argue that …policies rarely tell you exactly what to do, they rarely dictate or determine practice, but some more than others narrow the range of creative responses (Ball et al. 2012, p3).

The term they use to describe what we called the glue in the intervening spaces above is enactment. Ball et al. use the following language and focus more on the will, rights and responsibilities of individuals in an organisation to be creative and work for the best possible results within given parameters. Enactment or, as we prefer to call them, effecting processes are dependent on the bureaucratic structure and culture of the educational structure and must work in such a way that they can create trust for the actions and interpretations of different policy decisions, but trust must be followed by accountability (Leithwood 2018). Government law or policy decisions become an implementation process, which, in regard to a state agency, transforms into an effecting process. The effecting process includes interpretations and adjustments to structures and cultures on each level that have to deal with the policy before it becomes possible to implement it at the next level down. When the state agency is ready to send it down to the local level, the government decision becomes a state agency demand for implementation,

6

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig • Government proposal to the parliament - effecting process in relation to proposal from a state commission = implementation • Parliamentary decision – effecting process • Government proposal to the Agency – effecting process • National Agency for Education – effecting process • Regional agency for education – effecting process

Intended Policy

• Municipality council – effecting process • School board – effecting process

• The school and its principal – effecting process • The teacher in the classroom – effecting process

The Policy drift

• What's left of the policy intention is made into action

Fig. 1.2  The co-variance between implementation and effecting in a drifting policy

and when it reaches the school board, a new effecting process starts. When the state agency sends a demand for implementation to the school level, a new effecting or enactment process will start. Due to several interpretations and effecting processes before a policy decision becomes an activity in the local school, there has probably been a substantial drift away from the policy’s original idea and intention. Figure 1.2 shows the drift as going in one direction, but the drift in law understanding can also go back and forth. This is becoming truer with increasing external control and higher transparency on how different levels interpret the same policy. A situation exists in which formal hierarchies can be bypassed to be sure that the next level get the message (Johansson and Nihlfors 2014). Therefore, the question becomes, ‘What’s left of the policy intention when it is put into action in the classroom?’ To answer that kind of question, another type of project must be constructed that focuses on the policy drift in the governing chain. In this project, the focus is on the lawmakers’ intentions with their governing processes. It is also interesting how principals and teachers at a local school will view the intentions of the policymakers. As can be seen in Fig. 1.3, the relationship between the school professionals’ views and the policymakers’ intentions are two different dimensions influencing the successful or unsuccessful implementation of policy into practice (Gu et al. 2018). One dimension represents whether it is actually the intention of the policymaker to implement the decision or whether the decision is only symbolic and politically expedient. The other dimension represents whether education professionals believe the intention of the political community is a real or symbolic decision.

1  Introduction: Governing Chains – Support, Control and Intervention for Local Schools

7

Is the intention of the political community to implement the decision? Yes Does the learning community believe that the political community want to implement the decision?

Yes

A real decision

No

A real decision seen as a symbolic decision

No A symbolic decision seen as a real decision A real symbolic decision

Fig. 1.3  Typology of political decisions. (Adapted from Johansson and Bredeson 1999, p. 58 and Gustafsson 1987)

Depending on the clarity given by both politicians and professionals, there can be situations in which all cells are used. One example is if the political community decides on an important reform with a substantial cost increase but does not provide extra resources. In such cases, the professionals will think that the political community does not want the reform implemented, even if it is an important election promise to the electorate. The professionals will characterise the reform law as ‘a real symbolic decision’. If such a decision should be viewed as ‘a real decision’, the learning community must see that resources are supporting the decision. In that way, the understanding of the learning community in relation to the political intentions always affects the implementation process (Danzig and Black 2019). Change occurs not solely in relation to new reform decisions; it can also be linked to the concepts of improvement and successful and/or effective schools. The state agencies’ role in school improvement is crucial, especially in an era of comparison and competition both within and between states. The international community of school leadership researchers has been using the terms ‘successful’ and ‘effective’ interchangeably and with not much agreement as to what these two terms really mean in a particular context. In fact, what successful and effective mean seems to depend on (1) the degree and level of centralisation/decentralisation of the education system of a specific country, (2) the accountability and evaluation mechanisms in place and (3) the ability of parents to choose schools for their children (Pashiardis and Johansson 2016). The country chapters will attend to these challenges and display how the agencies’ work on school improvement in their country might vary with the political structure and culture of each country. More specifically, successful and effective school leadership is enormously varied in its conceptual foundations, depending on where researchers and practitioners live and work as well as from where they receive their epistemological influences (Ärlestig et al. 2015). These processes can be described and analysed in effecting terms. School leaders, for example, are not limited to bureaucratic functions, as used to be the case; on

8

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

the contrary, they have an increasing repertoire of roles and responsibilities. One such role is to lead the schools’ teaching and learning program or take charge of creating the necessary vision, culture and structures for the school to improve in a safe environment (Moos et al. 2011). Driving this book and the collection of perspective presented here is the view that successful schools are those that can facilitate student mobility in a society. In effect, through the school, every student gets a chance to develop irrespective of the social class to which he or she belongs, the ‘social class ceiling’ breakdown within a successful school. This is done through the creating the learning processes and putting positive social systems in place, thus creating something like a jump board from which everybody can jump onto educational processes that might lead to success for an individual and his or her fellow students (Pashiardis and Johansson 2016). It can also be described as an equality challenge in which academic and social focus and optimism in the school should lead to great hope for the future of all children (Wu et al. 2013). In what way do organisations enable or constrain schools in relation to sustainability and improvement of students’ learning? This also addresses the difficult issue of how far one can use national arguments in a text in the country/state without acknowledging the transnational nature of contemporary policy flows (Pashiardis and Johansson 2016). Policymakers are influenced by and dependent on networks of policy actors from a range of organisations, including supranational governments such as the EU; supranational organisations such as the OECD and World Bank; international consultancy companies such as McKinsey and Company or PricewaterhouseCoopers; and a range of other policy actors such as NGOs (Moos 2013). These international organisations all present results and try to mirror what is efficient and best practice, and their reports affect the state or national policymakers and their ideas. It is more questionable if the reports affect the local level, that is, school districts and local schools (Johansson and Bredeson 1999). Effects from these agencies occur first when the state policymakers have made changes in regulations and policies, which in most countries is a very slow process. Some of the systems analysed in the book have a very clear hierarchal tradition, and others have a clear, decentralised democratic administrative system. There are clear links to New Public Management and New Public Governance theories as well as relationships to global actors such as the OECD and other organisations for comparing countries’ efficiency and quality of education. This makes the different chapters even more interesting because the nations and states all have different political systems that cannot be understood using only one common theoretical frame. Most of them have elections to a parliament that can make binding decisions for the education sector. However, the political culture and the system of control of political policy intentions differ in terms of how and why education authorities are constructed the way they are. Among the explanations, we will also find organisational and governance theories that problematize how centralisation, decentralisation and deconcentrating meaning affects how states influence transfer to the local or regional level. Of course, this will be an interesting

1  Introduction: Governing Chains – Support, Control and Intervention for Local Schools

9

aspect when comparing Germany or France with small countries like Norway and Scotland (Ärlestig et al. 2015).

1.3  Organisation of Chapters – The Country Case Studies After this introductory chapter, which gives the theoretical rationale for the book and describes the organisation of chapters, there will be 20 chapters which will describe and analyse each state in relation to how authorities and agencies approach, enable and constrain school districts and schools’ work based on different theoretical constructs. The chapters will be grouped in clusters with similarities in organisation. These clusters of chapters will be followed by concluding chapters that highlight theories and effects on schools in the clustered countries. What influences state agencies have on schools in the different states is another interesting comparison, as well as how the organisation and tasks among the agencies are related to governance from policymakers down to the individual schools. In the concluding chapter, we will reflect on each group of countries, in relation to theories of policy, implementation and organisation. Our intention is to develop a comparative analysis of the function of state education authorities and their relation to the school on a local level. Of special interest are the different state authorities and agencies for education and their functions, such as their normative and regulating functions, support to school improvement, special pedagogical support, inspections and follow-up on reforms. We will also highlight the trends described in relation to governing of education in all the 20 states and look for similarities and differences as well as for general tendencies of changes that can be explanations in relation to variations in global policy and give a hint about the way forward. The chapters will be presented in groups. Some of the countries qualify for several groups. In those cases, we have been pragmatic to avoid some groups becoming too big.

1.3.1  The Nordic Countries In Chap. 2, Lejf Moos writes about the level of Denmark’s educational governance and the national and policy context. This is followed by more detailed descriptions of the national governance players/agencies and analyses of the preferred model of governance, the contract. An important source of inspiration, the transnational agency, is included in the description of the development of a contemporary national governance model. A critique of the basic features of the models is given, building on the concepts of disintegration, competition and incentivization. A discussion on how practitioners deal with and enact policies in their professional life completes the chapter.

10

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

In Chap. 3, Mika Risku and Meng Tian examine how Finland is developing its educational governance to meet the challenges of its changing operational environment. For our examination, we applied two theoretical frameworks on education policy development. Applying different theoretical frameworks, they were able to examine and describe the evolvement of Finnish state and local educational institutions and their transformation from centralised, norm-based and system-oriented governance into a decentralised, information-based and results-oriented form. In addition, they found that the distinction between interpretation/translation and implementation/enactment proved purposeful for understanding education policy development. In Chap. 4, Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir, Börkur Hansen, Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir and Femke Geijsel write about educational governance in Iceland and the establishment and role of the national agency in education. They explore development in education policies in Iceland, especially changes in governance during the last 20  years and the establishment and role of the national agency. Furthermore, they look into who the main players in the field are and shed light on the major challenges that affect educational governance in Iceland. The recently established Directorate of Education is the only national agency in the country. Although rooted in the Nordic model of education, neo-liberal emphasises in policies, together with instability in educational governance, have ruffled the education system. For that purpose, the state level must take more responsibility to support the work of the local and school levels. In Chap. 5, Kirsten Sivesind and Guri Skedsmo disentangle the organisational structures of national policies for basic education in Norway and examine how state boards and agencies fulfil their institutional responsibilities and roles within the education system. In the last two decades, state authorities have encouraged national reform programs to create innovation and change across policy realms and levels. They have also enacted changes by reorganising their own administrative apparatus at the national level. By investigating the current reorganisation of state agencies, the chapter also demonstrates how gap management is employed at the state level to enable or constrain the ways in which school reforms change policies and practices. Chapter 6 describes Sweden’s high policy ambitions with soft accountability. The structure and culture contribute to a well establish governing chain that has deficiencies that directly affect the local school. The chapter shows that there are three apparent system in place at the same time Old Public Management (OPM), New Public Management (NPM), and New Public Governance (NPG).

1.3.2  The Middle European Countries In Chap. 7, Philip A. Woods, Amanda Roberts, Joy Jarvis and Suzanne Culshaw examine the school system in England, concentrating on developments since 2010. During this period, a radical refashioning of the school system in England has taken place as large numbers of schools have moved from being the responsibility of local

1  Introduction: Governing Chains – Support, Control and Intervention for Local Schools

11

authorities to becoming ‘independent’, though still state-funded, academies operating within the framework of and accountable to national authorities. The chapter explores the claimed institutional and professional autonomy integral to the idea of a self-improving school-led system influential in the national policy driving this change. Maie Kitsing and Hasso Kukemelk provide a clear overview in Chap. 8 of how Estonia started with the order-oriented school governance culture typical of the Soviet period and, after making difficult decisions, turned towards a modern inclusive and evidence-based governance education system. The state provided broad autonomy to schools and heads to make decisions regarding the content of the ­education they provide through the learning environment and administration system. The Lehrplan school approach was changed to a curriculum-based approach, and the teachers had to start selecting the learning material and content for themselves. School development was linked to institutional self-evaluation procedures and materials. Municipalities as the owners of the schools are involved in school governance via different smart administrative bodies to achieve the targets of the national strategy, ‘Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020’. In Chap. 9, Romuald Normand describes France, which has a tradition of centralised governance and has yet much resisted neo-liberal influences and travelling policies. The chapter examines how the French Ministry of Education is currently implementing reforms which, despite some oppositions and resistance, lead to a kind of French ‘third way’ inspired by New Public Management and accountability principles. This enacting policy reveals not only an implementation gap due to bureaucratic guidelines and the lack of local autonomy but also attempts from interest groups and professional bodies to buffer international influences according to their own values and ideologies. The emergence of national agencies in this new landscape is at stake, while the French Ministry of Education regularly meets challenges to reduce the implementation gap. In Chap. 10, Stephan Gerhard Huber analyses the Federal Republic of Germany, which comprises 16 states, each having its own school system. The governing of each ‘state’ is organised according to a rather traditional bureaucratic governing model over three to four levels. In this chapter, the organisation of educational state agencies in Germany and their role and function as to quality management is analysed and critically discussed, and current developments and future trends are identified, among them professional development programs for school leaders and supervisors. The specific tasks related to improving failing schools and school turnaround are outlined. The Scottish school system is described by Tom Hamilton in Chap. 11. The chapter outlines the politics of Scotland within the United Kingdom and how they affect education. A summary of the structure and organisation of the education system is given. International influences are considered and analysed, particularly in relation to policymaking by the Scottish government. Various theoretical frameworks are used for analysis, and the chapter concludes by considering the limitations of minority government on education.

12

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

1.3.3  The North American States – Canada and the US In Chap. 12, Charles F. Webber and Jodi Nickel analyse the province of Alberta, Canada, which is regarded as having a strong education system that serves a highly diverse student population well. This report regarding Alberta’s education system begins with a comparison of competing perspectives on the current condition of education and school improvement and then summarizes Murphy’s (2013) ­framework for school improvement. After presenting the organisational framework in Alberta and the drivers that have shaped educational change in the province, the report applies Murphy’s architectural framework to summarize the building materials, construction principles, supports and integrative dynamics in Alberta. The report concludes with a summary of key strengths and challenges in Alberta’s education system. Admittedly, the system still wrestles with meeting the needs of diverse learners and with contentious issues such as opposition to standardized testing and legislation on gay-straight alliances. In Chap. 13, Brenton Faubert and Elan Paulsons describe and analyse the province’s K-12 public education governance system in the province of Ontario, Canada. Using the concepts of centralisation, coordination and hard/soft power as a sense-­ making framework, the chapter describes the three-tiered formal authority structure as well as the constellation of school agencies that compose the wider education governance system. Conceived by the authors as an ‘echo chamber’, the centralisation that characterizes the province provides a structure for amplifying and reinforcing dominant narratives about educational goals, while other agencies contribute tenuous coordination efforts that nuance those narratives. In Chap. 14, R. D. Nordgren describes an ambitious reform agenda of California, which is the most populous state in the U.S., a reform that has the potential to be a pivotal point in the nation’s school accountability movement. For the past 30 years, the U.S. has been hyper-focused on standardized testing, and all major school reforms introduced since the 1980s have utilized test scores as the primary measure of success--or failure. Initiated in 2013 and foreshadowing a similar but less ambitious national reform, ‘The California Way’ attempts to de-emphasise testing as well as place more power and responsibility on local authorities, specifically school principals. A discussion of the political/ideological background for the reform attempts to underline the importance of its continuance and its potential impact on school reform across the U.S. In Chap. 15, Nicola A. Alexander and Karen Seashore Louis describe and analyse Minnesota’s school system. The U.S. national policy pendulum tends to swing between devoting more resources to one set of value preferences over the other. Three key tensions have repeatedly emerged in the policy landscape of the United States: (1) choosing between equity and efficiency, (2) varying reliance on centralised versus decentralised structures and (3) switching between ‘civic’ and market-­ driven policy levers. We choose to highlight Minnesota because it illustrates many of the policy tensions and contradictions apparent on the national landscape. These trends exist in the context of an increasingly diverse student body, stable or shrink-

1  Introduction: Governing Chains – Support, Control and Intervention for Local Schools

13

ing school budgets and expanding demands on the purpose of schools. While systemic reform has been the mantra for many U.S. states, Minnesota legislators have tended to tinker around the edges and emphasise voluntary rather than mandated change. Chapter 16 is called ‘Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict and Cooperation in South Carolina’ and is presented by Hans W.  Klar, Kathryn Lee D’Andrea and Seth D. Young. They write that school leaders in the United States today are expected to implement an ever-increasing flow of policies enacted by education authorities at the federal, state and district levels. These policies are developed under the assumption that their implementation with fidelity will ameliorate the challenges policymakers perceive to exist in schools. Thus, in order to realise the benefits of education authorities’ influences on schools, it is necessary to better understand how this dilemma between policy and practice can be resolved. The purpose of this chapter is to describe and analyse the development and implementation of an education policy initiated by state-level education authorities in one U.S. state. We conclude the chapter with an example of a policy recently developed and implemented with more cooperation and offer recommendations for successful policy implementation in the future.

1.3.4  Commonwealth Countries In Chap. 17, the Australian education system is described by David Gurr. The chapter describes the complexity of Australian school education, identifying dominant and peripheral institutions and major issues such as funding, government control of education, the influence of student testing programs, parental choice and school quality. The dominant institutions are the federal government and six state and two territory governments. The state and territory governments are responsible for government education, which accounts for two thirds of all students, whilst 32 dioceses govern a Catholic system that accounts for one fifth of all students. Matters such as funding clearly have a direct impact on schools, and state/territory governments and dioceses often mandate matters that will have a direct impact on schools. It is less clear how service organisations impact schools, but generally, their impact will be indirect. ‘Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya after Promulgation of the 2010 Constitution’ is the title of Chap. 18, written by Lucy A. Wakiaga. She writes that Kenya’s education system is undergoing major reforms, especially regarding the curriculum and the human resource aspects. The reforms are aimed at fulfilling Kenya’s national and international goals of education, which are assumed to ultimately support the realisation of the nation’s development goals. The education governance structure is reflective of the devolved system of government, even though education is a preserve of the national government rather than a shared responsibility with the county government. This chapter examines Kenya’s education governance structure using the top-down and bottom-up perspectives.

14

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

Cathy Wylie writes in Chap. 19 about New Zealand, which has a very decentralised system of self-managed schools. Each of the 2431 state schools is governed by parent-elected boards of trustees, who employ the principal. Boards are legally responsible for the school’s smooth running and are accountable to the government through annual reporting. The national curriculum provides a framework which is not prescriptive. The Ministry of Education is responsible for policy and funding at the national level and has 10 regional offices to support policy rollout and schools. Included in this chapter are accounts of the three key national policies, as well as the factors that helped or hindered their realisation in schools. Chapter 20 is on South African education authorities. During the apartheid era in South Africa, education was organised along racial lines. The apartheid policy of separate development partitioned the country into racial lines where each population group and homeland designed specifically for blacks had their own departments of education, 18 such departments that centrally governed public schools. All decisions regarding school education were taken by the respective departments of education, and schools had no authority to take decisions. After the dismantling of the apartheid regime in 1994, the democratic government devolved education to local communities. The education challenge in South Africa is demonstrated by the fact that education is seen as a priority at all levels of government. This chapter focuses on how South African education authorities have introduced far-reaching policies to improve the standards of school education. In Chap. 21, David Wei-Loong Hung describes Singapore’s education system as a centralised–decentralised model. The chapter covers the historical development of Singapore’s education system and the introduction of major policies and initiatives. It then discusses the future of Singapore’s education, which must be guided by what we frame as ‘purposeful learning’. Unfortunately, it appears difficult to leave behind some of the institutional features and cultural attitudes that made the successes of earlier phases possible. In our model, we hypothesise that the middle or ‘meso’ layers of each level of the system are the highest points of leverage to sustain ultimate change throughout the whole system. Nevertheless, major system change over time is not a matter of simple multiplication. Our Scaling Change through Apprenticing and Ecological Leadership (SCAEL) model shows it has to be an iterative process that encourages organic changes with respect to local conditions. In Chap. 22 Olof Johansson and Helene Ärlestig makes comparative analysis of central aspects in each of the four groups; the Nordic countries, the middle European countries, the north America; US and Canada and finally the Commonwealth countries. In the chapter similarities and differences are highlighted and commented on as well as the used theoretical models.

References Ärlestig, H., Day, C., & Johansson, O. (2015). A decade of research on school principals: Cases from 24 countries. Dordrecht: Springer.

1  Introduction: Governing Chains – Support, Control and Intervention for Local Schools

15

Ball, S., Maguire, M., Braun, A., Hoskins, K., & Perryman, J. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge. Danzig, A. B., & Black, W. R. (2019). Who controls the preparation of education administrators? Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Gu, Q., Day, C., Walker, A., & Leithwood, K. (2018). How successful secondary school principals enact policy. Leadership and Policy in Schools., 17(3), 327–331. Gustafsson, G. (1987). Decentralisering av politisk makt: En studie av en svensk byråkrat i kontakt med sin omvärld. [decentralization of political power: A study on a Swedish civil servant in contact with the society. In Swedish]. Stockholm: Carlsson. Johansson, O., & Bredeson, P.  V. (1999). Value orchestration by the policy community for the learning community: Reality or myth. In P. T. Begley (Ed.), Values and educational leadership (pp. 51–72). Albany: State University of New York Press. Johansson, O., & Nihlfors, E. (2014). The Swedish superintendent in the policy stream. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(4), 362–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2014.945652. Karvonen, L. (1981). Med vårt västra grannland som förebild: en undersökning av policydiffusion från Sverige till Finland. Dissertation, Åbo Akademi. Leithwood, K. (2018). Postscript: Five Insighs about school Leaders’Policy enactment. Leadership and Policy in Schools., 17(3), 391–395. Leithwood, K. A., & Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lindensjö, B., & Lundgren, U. P. (2014). Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning (2. Ed.) [education reforms and political governance, in Swedish]. Stockholm: Liber. March, J., & Olsen, P. (2006). Political since, political institutions, comparative politics. In R. Rhodes, S. Binder, & B. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moos, L. (2013). Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic model? Dordrecht: Springer. Moos, L., & Merok Paulsen, J. (2014). School boards in the governance process. Cham: Springer. Moos, L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (2011). How school principals sustain success over time. Dordrecht: Springer. Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., & Merok Paulsen, J. (2016). Nordic superintendents: Agents in a broken chain. Dordrecht: Springer. Pashiardis, P., & Johansson, O. (2016). Successful school leadership: International perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland: Or, why it's amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes (3.rd ed., Oakland project series). Berkeley: University of California Press. Skedsmo, G. & Mausethagen, S. (2017). Nye Styringsformer i utdanningssektorn – spenninger mellom resultatstyring og faglig – profesjonelt ansvar [New governing forms in the education sector – tensions between governing by results and professional responsibility, in Norwegian] Nordisk Pedagogisk Tidskrift. 101:2, 179–179. SOU 2015:22 Rektorn och styrkedjan. [The Principal and the Governing chain, in Swedish]. SOU 2018:83 Styra och leda med tillit. Forskning och praktik. [Governing and leading trough trust. Research and practice, in Swedish]. Stockholm: Fritzes. Wu, J. H., Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2013). Enabling school structure, collective responsibility, and a culture of academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304698.

Part I

The Nordic Countries

Chapter 2

Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance Lejf Moos

Abstract  The levels of educational governance, and the national, policy context, are described cursorily in the first part of this chapter. This is followed by more detailed descriptions of the national governance players/agencies, and by analyses of the preferred model of governance, the contract. An important source of inspiration, the transnational agency, is included in the description of the development of a contemporary national governance model. More detailed analyses and a critique of the basic features of the models are given in the next section, building on the concepts of disintegration, competition, and incentivization. The last section discusses how practitioners deal with and enact policies in their professional life: how they ‘do governance.’

2.1  The Educational System: Agents and Relations The 98 municipalities in the Danish educational system contained by 2017/18: 1276 public primary schools (with 533,000 students) and 551 independent schools (with about 117,000 students) (Primary 2018). There are 173 independent upper secondary schools, with approximately 60,000 students (UpperSecondary 2018). Tertiary education, gradual, masters and doctoral programmes are not included in this description. The Danish educational system is rather diverse and complex. It is administered by several ministries, agencies, and municipal authorities, with institutions of diverse statuses: public, semi-public, and private. Each public primary school (folkeskoler, with students in Kindergarten Class through grade 9) is governed by a school board and a school principal, with teams of assistant principals. They are part of the municipal educational system, governed by the Municipal Council and a School Administration led by a Superintendent, which, in turn, are accountable to the ministry agencies and ministry of education. Until the beginning of this L. Moos (*) Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_2

19

20

L. Moos

­ illennium, these relations were seen as a chain of governance. Today, this has been m transformed into a group governed through contracts. Essentially, independent schools are governed through contracts with the agencies and ministry.

2.1.1  The National Level This description is short and superficial. One example of this is that the Ministry of Finance is a very important player here, because it designs the general guidelines for all public administration, and thus also for the administration of the educational system. One aspect is the design of group-management, the contracts, which will be discussed later, and another is the administration of teachers’ working conditions and wages. Those general frameworks used to be negotiated between ‘Local Government Denmark’ and the teachers’ unions at the national level, and through detailed negotiations at municipal and school level, as part of ‘The Danish Model’. In 2013 a governmental lockout of teachers led to Act 409, which restructured this model, so parts of the negotiations were to be made by the government, and parts were made by the schools, by school principals and individual teachers. Governance of the Danish educational system is part of the public-sector administration, and therefore guided by the same principles. For more than 40 years the main focus has been on establishing a balance between local authority and central steering. The model has often been labelled ‘neo-liberal New Public Management (NPM)’, and for many years it has been the preferred model of the Ministry of Finance and the Agency for Modernisation and Public Administration,1 which is, as mentioned, in charge of developing and operating public administration. From the 1990s onwards, the agency developed this model of governance at many levels, each of them building on a theory of group management: Management by Objectives and Results (MBO/MBR). It also necessary to mention that two ministries are responsible for education: The Ministry of Education is primarily responsible for the folkeskoler, primary and lower secondary school, and the general and vocational upper secondary school. The Ministry of Higher Education and Science is mainly responsible for higher education, the tertiary level at universities (where most research on learning, teaching, and schools is carried out) and university colleges, where teacher education is located. It is worth mentioning the self-steering school model that was developed over the first years of this new millennium: upper secondary schools – and universities – are governed by a board with appointed members. In the first instance members were appointed by the Ministry, later they were co-opting/appointing new members themselves. Leadership and the professionals in schools are accountable to the school board, within frameworks and for aims prescribed by the ministry. The same

 https://modst.dk/english

1

2  Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance

21

model is used for independent primary schools that are accountable to their school boards, and not to the municipal authorities, as the public folkeskoler are. At present around 18% of pupils attend those schools. The administrative model may also be seen as a co-operative/group model with contract steering and MBR. Those contract aspects are also used a softer mode of governance in the relations between public schools, municipal authorities, and ministry through the ‘Quality Report’ (Undervisningsministeriet 2007). School principals negotiate the aims, means, and results with the authorities. In many places, results are linked to economic rewards for the principals.

2.1.2  The Municipal Level In principle, municipal governance, like all levels of public administration, is divided into an elected authority, the Municipal Council with its working, political committees, and an appointed administrative office, such as the school administration. A structural reform enacted by Parliament in 2007 reduced the number of municipalities from 271 to 98, based on a 30,000-inhabitant guideline (Sundhedsministeriet 2005). The reform resulted in many municipal mergers, which reconfigured the structure of municipal governments and chains of command, created new positions, and altered relations within the government and the community. Currently, many municipalities are structured to reflect the public-administration sectors’ tasks; however, they are also characterized by a tall hierarchy that unifies management oversight. Approximately 60% of all municipalities have a combination of traditional organizational structures and new business-oriented enterprise/group units. Christoffersen and Klausen’s examination of municipal government structures (2012) found that many municipalities had formed a few political committees, each headed by a director, which now govern all institutions. This means that each director is now responsible for a broader range of activities. They also report other combinations of activities that fall under the municipal schools’ umbrella, including preschools, leisure institutions, social affairs, Danish education for immigrants, adult education, culture, and more. Since the reform was instituted in 2007, a trend of expanding middle management positions has been evident throughout the governance system, from transnational to national, to two-layer municipalities, and down to the institutional level (schools) (Moos 2014a). A study of school boards and school superintendents in Nordic countries (Moos et al. 2016b) found that the traditional chain of governance has been broken, because the Parliament and the Ministries have developed very detailed and compulsory national learning outcomes standards and tests as a foundation for contract governance. Only technical and financial issues, and the implementation of school regulations, are left to municipal authorities to decide. This may be one of the consequences of contract governance, that political agents at lower levels of the educational system have no say in the aims and measures of schooling. The traditional focus on

22

L. Moos

local participation in school development, which is still alive in Finland, has been eliminated in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (Moos and Paulsen 2014).

2.1.3  Trends in Educational Governance When viewed from a national perspective, the overall picture of educational governance in Denmark is far more complex than it was 20 years ago. Currently, there are several main models of governance. First, the public model may be traced from the national government through the municipal government. Second, the enterprise model may be traced from the Ministry of Education directly to self-governing school boards. The enterprise model reflects a decentralization of power from the national to the local school-board level, in which the boards are given considerable autonomy to manage local finances, staffing, and school operations. This model of governance is also viewed by critics as a move to circumvent local, municipal influences and interference (Moos et al. 2016b). However, in many respects, this governance model builds on Denmark’s long tradition of independent schools, particularly with regard to free and primary schools, and upper secondary schools that reflect the governance of universities. Hence, not only is bypassing municipal councils and administration a well-established practice, but it also seems to be an emerging trend, in terms of expanding free schools, and structures developed to implement national-­ level reform initiatives, regulations that govern curricula, and quality-assurance mandates. The Danish process of modernizing or restructuring the public sector, including public education, is characterized by a simultaneously loose and tight coupling of relations between central government agencies and local agents. On the one hand, the central government promulgates fewer regulatory prescriptions for municipal governments and schools, with regard to finance, personnel management, and day-­ to-­day administration. On the other hand, the central government has increased the mandates for fixed curricula and student testing. Also, similar processes have been observed within schools when leadership is decentralized from the school principal to teacher teams, and from these teams to individual teachers. The recent introduction of teacher teams as permanent, structural links between school principals and individual teachers is a noteworthy innovation. Scholars have also observed that although new tasks and duties, such as annual and weekly lesson planning, and some aspects of budget management, are being distributed (i.e. loosening organizational coupling), other tasks are being recentralized, such as curricular goal setting and evaluation of instruction and learning (i.e. tightening organizational coupling). In Denmark, educational reform and the restructuring process have heightened the awareness of the simultaneous use of loose and tight coupling, centralization, and decentralization.

2  Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance

23

2.1.4  ‘Local Government Denmark’ The association of municipal authorities called the ‘Local Government Denmark’ (LGD) is a very important player in the interaction between ministries and municipalities. It is consultative and has the power to negotiate upwards to ministries and agencies, and downwards, to municipal authorities and school leadership. The members of the Board of Local Government Denmark are elected by the municipal councils. It has an important role in the interactions between government and municipalities, including during the time following the restructuring of public governance at the beginning of the millennium, working to find new balances in power relations, by representing the local authorities while functioning as a national agency.

2.1.5  School Danish folkeskoler used to be local–national and autonomous. This means that legislation was national, but it left many questions to the discretion of local authorities, schools, and teachers, so municipalities were strong players, as they hosted schools, financed them, and supported relations between schools and the local community and parents, when discussing and deciding on local goals and frameworks. Prior to 1990, school leadership interfered only occasionally with teachers’ in-class work, because educational decisions were left to professional discretion in the everyday practice in classrooms. More detailed national outcomes, aims, and tests were created over a 20- to 30-year period, culminating in the school reform of 2012 (in effect from 2014) (Undervisningsministeriet 2014). Here, the national standards  – approximately 3000 – were presented in detail, and became compulsory, along with 46 national tests. The standards were to form the foundation for an IT learning platform. One might claim that these initiatives formed a very good grounding for moving to a global school and big business, through big data and global consultancies (Moos 2017). Another initiative, from 2013, was Act 409 on teachers’ working conditions, which moved many decisions from the field of negotiation between ministry, municipality and teachers’ unions, to a national framework and school principals’ decisions. As expressed by some politicians, ‘principals were ‘given room for, and muscles for leadership’. It should be mentioned that in 2018, these major aspects of the school reform are being adjusted. It remains to be seen how deeply that will happen.

24

L. Moos

2.2  Relevant National Players The Ministry of Education consists of the Department (in Danish: Departementet) and five agencies. • The Department is responsible for developing and administering the primary and secondary education Acts, which are decided by the Parliament. This means that the Department is concerned with relations with municipalities and schools, through agencies and through the self-steering model. It is also responsible for Acts and regulations on the curriculum, national competence learning aims, national tests, and general adult education programmes.2 • The National Agency for Education and Quality is mainly concerned with supervising the economy and institutional administration (for efficiency and observance of regulations, like the results contracts at self-steering schools), and education/teaching and learning at public schools: the realization of the political aims through supervision of quality of education, test, results and observance of rules in public schools. The agency identifies challenged schools through national test results and the municipal quality reports and suggests actions to be taken by municipal authorities and schools. The agency administers support for special needs initiatives at self-steering schools.3 • The National Agency for IT and Learning is concerned with two intertwined, main areas, as the name indicates: the development and use of information technology (IT) in education through networking with research and practice, and through guidance. A major contemporary initiative, in collaboration with LGD, is its development of a user portal with a learning platform. The agency assumes there are close links between learning and testing, as it is responsible for developing and running the national tests. The agency is responsible for developing tools for vocational and educational guidance.4 Three institutions are attached to the Ministry of Education in different ways than the agencies: • The Danish Evaluation Institute, EVA, describes itself as an independent state institution acting under the Ministry. It explores and develops – through diverse forms of evaluations – the quality of day care centres, schools and educational programmes. In its own words, the institute provides, ‘usable knowledge at all levels and of interest for local governments, ministries, and practitioners in all educational institutions’.5 • The Danish Centre for Educational Environments, DCUM, is also an independent state institution. It develops learning and teaching environments for schools

 http://eng.uvm.dk/  http://eng.uvm.dk/the-ministry/the-ministry/national-agency-for-education-and-quality 4  http://eng.uvm.dk/the-ministry/the-ministry/national-agency-for-it-and-learning 5  https://www.eva.dk/eva-evaluates-and-develops-the-danish-educational-system 2 3

2  Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance

25

and day care centres by providing access to knowledge about regulations and practices.6 • Sorø Academy is the only state high school.7

2.2.1  The Ministry of Higher Education and Science The twin ministry to the Ministry of Education is the Ministry of Higher Education and Science. I describe it in this way for two reasons: some of its activities and agencies are also very relevant to education at primary and secondary levels, and very often, the formation of new governments results in reassigning activities from one ministry to the other. Therefore, I briefly describe the Department and two agencies – both established at the beginning of 2017: • The Ministry of Higher Education and Science is responsible for the legislation and administration of higher, tertiary, education, adult education, teacher and staff education, and for research. Its relations to agencies and institutions are similar to those described in the section about Public Administration, and in the description of the Ministry of Education. The department is responsible for regulating universities and university colleges, where teachers for primary schools are educated.8 • The Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education is responsible for all tasks that require particular expertise in the areas of research and education – in all institutions.9 • The Agency for Institutions and Educational Grants handles tasks involving allocating and administering grants and funding to institutions and has the main contact with the institutions.10

2.3  Contract: Basic Thinking in Educational Governance The social contract is a very important public governance tool in Denmark (Andersen 2003). Examples of such contracts are the quality contracts between schools, local education authorities and the Ministry of Education. Most of these contracts have been described in national regulations. Contracts also exist within schools, such as annual plans developed by teacher teams or individual teachers and school  http://dcum.dk/  https://soroeakademi.dk/ 8  https://ufm.dk/en/the-ministry 9  https://ufm.dk/en/the-ministry/organisation/danish-agency-for-science-and-higher-education 10  https://ufm.dk/en/the-ministry/organisation/danish-agency-for-institutions-and-educationalgrants 6 7

26

L. Moos

l­eadership, and individual student plans between students, parents, and teachers. Specific contracts have been developed in public governance and organizational leadership and management over the past 20 years. They are part of public governance, and thus part of the relationship between governments and organizations and individuals. They are special because the administrative/superior level defines the framework of resources, the values, and the indicators, whereas the acting level signs the contract, and thereby indicates that it intends to comply with the expectations and indicators. Organization, planning, areas of focus, and methods are left to practitioners, as long as they operate within the overall framework. In most cases, a degree of self-­ evaluation is built into the contract. Such contracts leave many decisions to the practical level, where people must manage themselves and their own work. This type of leadership, through values, means that organizations and individuals must take on the values and norms laid out by the superior level. They must do so to a degree that they make them their own values. For the practitioners, a set of givens exists, which includes frameworks, values, and indicators, as well as a set of choices to be made, concerning how effective performance can be achieved. Contract governance is basically a model for separating goal-setting from production and measuring results. For those purposes, there is a need for clear and measurable goals/standards and reliable measurements of results/outcomes (Fig. 2.1). The Ministry of Finance presented their ideas of a contemporary Danish governance structure in the attachment to the Act of Finances for 1996 (Finances 1996).

Fig. 2.1  Contracts: Finances 1996

2  Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance

27

The inspiration from – among other agencies – the OECD11 investigations of new trends in national governance (OECD 1995) is clear. In 9 statements, the OECD find that that governments need to devolve authority, and at the same time strengthen steering functions from the centre: In line with Principal-Agent top-down theories (Hood 1991), they suggest having the top level issue goals/aims, and having the next levels implement them. Therefore, aims needed to be written in great detail, and the same was the case with ways of measuring results and rewards. As mentioned, this model was developed in the 1990s. Currently, it has been made to work at many levels: from the Ministry’s policy unit to administrative agencies, from agencies to Municipal authorities, and from those to school leadership. As means for contracting, setting and measuring goals have long and transnational histories. Over the past two or three decades we have seen how international competition in the global marketplace has intensified the focus on measuring student outcomes (Moos and Wubbels 2018). Thus, education seemed to be primarily intended to provide the country and its citizens with a good position in the global race, as established by international comparisons, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In order for an educational system to be competitive, education needs to ‘produce’ students with high levels of attainment outcomes. Therefore, in the outcomes discourse, education is being constructed along ‘Management-by-Objective’ lines: The government draws up the aims and measures, the outcomes, and schools, teachers, and students need to learn to correctly answer test questions. Very often, the curriculum that is developed in this situation has a scientific structure: experts know how to attain their (often political) ends, and they describe every step for schools, teachers, and students, to be followed in detail. In this orientation there is a focus on ‘back to the basics’ and ‘back to the skills’, because these are what may be easily measured. The vision of education for competition is built on a core logic set: management by objectives and outcomes-based accountability. Proponents of this discourse often refer to scientific management and the scientific curriculum as core theoretical bases (Blossing et al. 2013; Moos et al. 2016a). It is fundamentally concerned with centralizing the power at the political level, such as the parliament and government. Similarly, the scientific curriculum hides the power to decide on the purpose, content, relations and methods of education behind the pretexts of expertise and judgement-­free decisions. The competition- and outcomes-orientated discourse, and associated practices, are subject to more social technologies than we have ever seen before in the history of education and educational theory (Moos et al. 2016b). Social technologies may be seen as silent carriers of power. They are made for a purpose – often hidden from the practitioners – and they specify ways of acting. Therefore, the social technologies point into a non-deliberative practice, steered and managed top-down (Dean 1999, page 31). The contracts are also technologies (Rose 1999/1989) for constructing premises based on value decisions made at the superior level with assistance

11

 The OECD is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

28

L. Moos

from the dominant discourses. One subcategory of the technology of agency is relational technology that includes specialized ways of conducting meetings, interviews, school–parent communication, and the leadership of teacher teams and classrooms. Standards for such meetings, interviews and management, have often developed over time in practice, as authorities prescribe to, or advise practitioners to establish more effective, appreciative communication. To practitioners, frameworks and templates may seem to work beautifully; but they always include a hidden set of values and norms, which change the relationship between agents who participate in meetings and interviews. During one project (Moos and Kofod 2011), principals told us how they made use of the annual staff interview to underscore and define the way in which teachers are responsible for their actions, and for collaborating with their colleagues (within the values of the school). ‘Self-technology’, a term given to a wide range of technologies, is a concept that encourages agents to think and act as managers of their own lives, professional or otherwise. As described earlier, this kind of governance influences agents to think and act within sets of values and norms agreed upon by politicians and society (Dean 1999). We observed a meeting between a school principal and a team of teachers, at which the evaluation and assessment of student outcomes and learning was discussed. The principal worked hard to get teachers to make sense of the principles, so they would make use of them in their practice (Moos 2014b).

2.4  Transnational Agencies The Danish line of social technology initiatives may be seen as part of a general trend: Transnational agencies, government at the national and local levels, and agents at practical levels, are increasingly attempting to use indirect forms of power, such as discourse, agenda-setting, sense-making, and social technologies, instead of direct forms, such as prescriptions and instruction. Societies have become so complex that direct forms of power have become ineffective, because surveillance, control, and sanctions are impossible to implement, and because they are often not seen as legitimate forms of influence in democracies. Thus, there is a shift away from hard governance by regulation, to soft governance by persuasion (Moos and Wubbels 2018). Therefore, we see several examples of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) among transnational, national, and local institutions, such as agencies, governments, and schools, based on coercion through political pressure, on mimicry of successful examples/practices, or on the transfer of norms through professional communication. The PISA comparison has been imported into the European space as an important means of governing education (Moos et al. 2016b). The programme is a package of standards or indicators for learning, measures for outcomes, and tools for comparing students, schools, and countries. This is not unexpected, as a working paper of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows (Wilkoszewski and Sundby 2014).

2  Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance

29

Both the OECD and the European Commission (EC) are working with the global trends to develop a new model of, and discourse for, educational governance. The central theme is that policymakers and practitioners should build on the quantitative sciences, rather than the traditional, qualitative science of educational philosophy. These processes are called, ‘The Political Work of Calculating Education’ (Lawn and Grek 2012). Statistics become the science of the ‘numerical study of social facts’, and the foundation for the emergence of ‘governing by numbers’ (Nóvoa 2013). That means de-ideologizing and objectifying governance, leadership, and education, making it possible to treat social facts as though they were things (Desrosières 2000). Over the past century, this development has been the background for the emergence of a new group of experts in the educational field: experts in statistics and psychometrics. Politicians and policymakers are particularly interested in their work, as numbers are seen to be the best and cheapest foundation for political and governance decisions. This trend is often called an ‘evidence-based policy’ (Tillman and (Eds.) 2016). An evidence-based policy is limited and even risky, for example, because the major tool, the PISA test system, actually measures what has been only partially taught, at most (Labaree 2014). The OECD has thereby reduced learning to the acquisition of economically useful skills – for employability. In order to be able to compare outcomes, a set of aims and skills was produced that is  – at present  – nowhere taught as a complete set (Labaree 2014). National tests normally attempt to measure the outcomes of teaching in relation to national aims and standards. However, PISA was constructed as a tool that could facilitate a comparison of national outcomes across 20 to 30 different national educational systems. These national educational systems have their particular, and often rather different sets of national aims and standards, which overlap only partially: therefore, it was impossible to define a unified set of curricular aims, and that is why PISA constructed its own set transnational of aims: ‘skills to meet real-life challenges’.12 These aims are skills that productive workers anywhere in the advanced world would need. Thus, PISA measures only how well schools perform insofar as the national curriculum aims overlap the PISA-defined skills. The PISA results only indicate how well the national curriculum and the PISA skills are aligned, rather than the quality of schools and teachers. PISA is more governance-focused than is usually acknowledged (Lawn and Grek 2012 page 121). However, this should be no surprise, as the OECD originated the neo-liberal, new public management system of thinking and governance (OECD 1995). Measuring outcomes, and in particular outcomes along one global set of criteria, is a very powerful technology of soft governance (Lange and Alexiadou 2007; Normand 2016). As time goes by, politicians, policymakers, and professionals become accustomed to thinking that such measurements are the ‘new normal’. As has already happened in so many ministries and local administrations, we may

 The OECD is presently compiling a new set of skills, ‘The twenty-first Century Skills’, in close collaboration with the private consultancy, Pearson (2014).

12

30

L. Moos

see a homogenization of views on education, on the dominant discourses of education. This trend has the potential for a new, global view and practice of education, which may, however, also neglect national and local politics, culture, world views and education.

2.5  Summing up The neo-liberal model of governance, New Public Management, which has underlain the analyses so far, has been characterized by diverse combinations of three themes (Dunleavy et al. 2005): disintegration of public sectors into semi-­autonomous units at several levels – national, regional,13 local, and institutional – and at each level there are also initiatives that involve private companies and consultancies that enter the broad competition for contacts; relations between areas are guided by competition between providers, and by contracts between levels, followed by incentivization, with pecuniary rewards based on performance (Bovbjerg et al. 2011). Disintegration is seen between levels such as the government, the municipality, and the institution. Ministries are fragmented into departments and agencies. The ministry sees itself as a single co-operative (group) with one department and five contracted agencies, one of which is the most powerful player in public sector administration, the ‘Agency for Modernisation and Public Administration’. Contracts are negotiated and managed on the basis of a MBO/MBR model. That is also the model they strongly recommend and disseminate to other ministries and their agencies, and also for relations between agencies, and municipalities and institutions. This is one of the reasons education is increasingly focused on national and international standards (e.g. the OECD competences) and outcomes, such as the results of national and international tests and comparisons, and also on the demand for evidence-based practice and best practice. Management by Results has been criticized for not being effective or efficient or productive, and there are initiatives for constructing new models, such as New Public Governance (NPG), with its focus on collaborations between public sector agents, private enterprises, and other sectors, but the initiatives and discussions have not yet had a significant impact on the agencies’ ways of working. An important player in Danish educational governance is ‘Local Government Denmark’,14 the national association of municipal authorities. Local Government Denmark is influenced by the NPM and MBR in its management of public schools, but often adjusts the local administration, owing to its nearness to practice. Here, governance relations have changed over the past decade, because of sharpened national steering through more detailed competence aims and standards, and more

 The regions, which were established in 2007 and replaced the counties, have no responsibility for education, and therefore will not be described here. 14  http://www.kl.dk/English/ 13

2  Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance

31

tests. This is also due to the increased emphasis on results on international tests such as PISA, exemplified by the School Reform of 2013, and the establishment of the ‘National Agency for Education and Quality’ in the Ministry of Education. This focus leaves the local authorities with the implementation of the national aims, not with their interpretation, thus bypassing them, governance-wise (Moos et al. 2016b). One aspect of the disintegration effort is to move schools from public governance into private or semi-private governance, like self-governing or independent schools. This is also accompanied by the private A.P. Moller Foundation’s entering the educational scene: In relation to the reform, this foundation has found DKK 1 billion (approximately € 135 million) for educational development projects in the primary schools. This project is governed by administrators from the A.P. Moller Foundation, with no public political representation on the fund’s board. The competition for contracts is another aspect of the disintegration of the public sector. It has been broadened over the past decade, as more private consultancies have been invited to submit tenders for contracts. In line with English experiences (Gunter and Mills 2017), we see that the ministries and agencies make extensive use of the private consultancies. In 2016 the Danish Government spent DKK 3.7 Billion (approximately € 496 Million) on consultancies and consultants. To mention only a few projects, Rambøll Denmark was deeply involved in developing school reform, McKinsey was involved in public, personal management politics with the Agency for Modernisation and Public Administration and won the bid to assess and evaluate the implementation of the reform; COWI did much of the work on the national tests. An example of incentivization is the initiative launched by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education in the summer of 2017: They decided to establish a fund of DKK 500 million (approximately € 67 million) in order to reward those of the 120 most challenged schools that improved their results by 15% each year over a three-year period. Traditionally and legally, improving outcomes is a task for the schools and the municipal authorities, but the Prime Minister said he had lost patience with slow schools.

2.5.1  The Current Discussion on Governance There is no public discussion about the actual formation of ministries and agencies. But for some time, there has been a lively discussion about public administration: MBR and the social technologies attached to that form of governance. Management by Results is criticized for not being productive, because its inherent demands for documentation and the disintegration of public sectors and institutions steal time and activity from the core activities at the institutions. One may regard the self-steering model in the Ministry of Education’s scope as a method or social technology that fits very well with MBR; it builds on the same principles, but the work and leadership involve practitioners at several more levels. The ministry also produced the legislation and regulations for the school reform of

32

L. Moos

2013, the outcomes-based school of the 2013 school reform that is following the logics of MBR (Moos 2016). A commission set up by the Government (e.g. The Agency for Modernisation and Public Administration) and LGD has discussed public leadership/management and presented ideas for developing new models. The commission was not set up to suggest governance or steering ideas, only institutional leadership ideas, holding institutional leaders accountable, and rejecting the role of state administration/governance (Commision 2018). Some municipalities and state institutions have experimented with what have been called New Public Governance projects. These include collaboration and co-­ construction between the public, private enterprises, and other agents, in order to co-create projects and administration without fundamentally challenging MBR.

2.5.2  Strengths and Weaknesses Looking at the current situation through the NPM and MBR lenses introduced – disintegration, competition for contacts, and incentivization – could provide the following reflections. Management by Results in school reform has involved a tighter net of national standards: more than 3000 learning aims are prescribed in the Act. There has been a lot of criticism of that: the standards neglect professional qualifications and municipal influences, which could eventually mean lower quality education. At this point in time, 4 years after introduction of the reform in 2014, there are few solid research findings about the implementation of the reform, but the fact that the Ministry has indicated a need for extra effort at 120 schools (10% of all schools) in order to achieve satisfactory results, is suggestive. Management by Results brings increased numbers of national tests, now totalling 46 for all the primary years, prompting schools and teachers to ‘teach to the test’, and that means they focus on mechanical and technical aspects of subjects, and thus work against the comprehensive, general education that is the main goal of schooling. They are not seen as proper educational tools, but as governance tools, said professors Jeppe Bundsgaard and Svend Kreiner, in an interview about a forthcoming research project. Sven Kreiner has been involved in constructing the tests (Nygård 2018, January 8). These kinds of tests seem to be counter-productive, even if they may be seen as steps towards the international OECD comparison framework (Moos 2017). The disintegration of the public sector and its focus on top-down, national management and governance have turned municipalities into local authorities that must implement the reform and be accountable to the agency. This situation has encouraged many municipalities to purchase internationally recognized instruction packages, such as Visible Learning (Hattie 2018 download), or other packages, promoted with the argument that they are evidence based. The problems with these kinds of packages is that they neglect teacher professionalism and local culture, with devastating outcomes for general education.

2  Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance

33

It is hard to identify any individual actor or organization/agency, that may be held responsible for the developments, but it is clear that the ministry of education and its agencies are increasingly guided by the same logic set: marketplace logic15 and the commodification of education (Ball 2004). This direction is supported by the international consultancies that are very competent at management, but not in education.

2.6  From Policy to Practice Contract governance may be seen as network steering (Sørensen and Torfing 2005) that encompasses two processes: self-steering and meta-steering. The meta-steering at the national top level sets the frameworks and aims by defining the aims, economy, the legislation and the dominant discourse concerning what the institution and its agents must do and think. This is in line with Foucault’s post-structural theory about governance and governmentality (1991). Governance forms the frameworks and aims, whereas the ways in which that is done is called governmentality: forming the mentality, agents’ sense-making and identity. Major aspects of contemporary governance make great effort to have agents feel they participate in decision-­making (although frameworks and results are already given), and thus should also be responsible. Self-leadership is linked to accepting responsibility and accountability (Andersen and Born 2001). Following the foregoing line of argument, which has frequently been the case in the analyses in this chapter, one finds that agents are left with little or no room for action, for autonomy: They are subject to regulations, and furthermore, they are subject to discursive influences that make them act in self-leading and self-­ responsible ways within the structures, values, and aims already defined outside and above their positions; they are made to be implementers of policy. However, there are voices that claim that these are superficial analyses: they do not take account of individual, social, and institutional contexts, so ‘the “policy activity” of negotiations and coalition building that somehow links texts to practice are erased’ (Ball et al. 2012, p.  2). If these processes are seen only as implementation processes, linear links between text and practice, one loses pivotal aspects of practice, the insights into how policies become ‘live’, and enacted or not at schools, when practitioners ‘do’ policy, as Ball et al. frames it. By introducing the concept of ‘policy enactment’ Ball et al. wish to remind us of the complexity of schools and education, and of teachers’ agency and professional histories. Schools do not have one culture and one mode of practice, or even one policy, but a myriad (in most places) of cultures, traditions, communities of practice, and artefacts (buildings, material, furniture etc.) that coexist at any time, and teachers come with diverse educations, experiences, educational and human histories, and worldviews (Coburn 2004, 2005).

 Often described as the system of producers, production, products, consumers, selling, buying, and competition.

15

34

L. Moos

We need to look at agents, at other governance levels, in much the same ways. Policies are not simply implemented, they are negotiated, interpreted, and contextualized by ‘enactments’: collective and collaborative interactions and interconnections ‘between diverse actors, texts, talk, technology and objects (artefacts)’ (Coburn, p. 3); one might add the schools’ ‘infrastructure’ (Spillane et al. 2015), and made into schools’ and teachers’ property or rejected, reformed, mediated, translated (Røvik 2011). Enactments also involve different groups, teams, combinations of agents, interests, and artefacts, so many cultures and policies are active at any time. These processes may be seen as micro-policy, and thus they erase the sharp demarcation between policy and implementation, in very sharp contrast to the basic ideas of contract governance, where policy is produced at the top, and implemented down the hierarchy and in practice. Going back to the basics of governance: How do some educational agencies/ agents try to influence other educational agencies/agents to think and/or act in special ways? We can see similarities and differences between a post-structural, Foucauldian perspective and a critical political perspective. The similarities are that they are essentially concerned with similar questions, and their differences lie in perceptions of the size of individual, organizational, and societal space in which to manoeuvre: Policies do not normally tell you what to do, they create circumstances in which the range of options available in deciding what to do are narrowed or changed, or particular goals or outcomes are set … and that putting policies into practice is a creative and sophisticated and complex process. Policy work has its pleasures, satisfactions and seductions and for some it has personal benefits. Policies are suffused with emotions and with psychosocial tensions. (Ball et al. 2012, p. 12)

Taking the perspective of policy enactment one should still remember, that agencies and agents are striving hard to influence the way schools and the professionals work, reflect and negotiate: Of course they make use of economic frames and other regulations, but also of discourses and other soft means of governance and they do it increasingly by the use of social technologies like the contract with national standards and national measures through test and also manuals, guides, learning material, IT-Platform. Four years after the implementation of the 2013 School Reform the National Audit Office reported to Parliament (Accounts 2018) that the progress of student results were very modest.

References Accounts, A.  O. P. (2018). The Audit Departments accout of the school reform given to the Parliament. https://www.ft.dk/samling/20171/almdel/FIU/bilag/76/1859206.pdf. Andersen, N. Å. (2003). Borgernes kontraktliggørelse. København: Hans Reitzel. Andersen, N. Å., & Born, A. W. (2001). Kærlighed og omstilling. Italesættelsen af den offentligt ansatte. København: Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne.

2  Denmark: Contracts in Danish Educational Governance

35

Ball, S. J. (2004). Education for Sale! The commodification of everything? King’s annual education lecture. Institute of Education: University of London. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy. Policy enactment in secondary schools. New York: Routledge. Blossing, U., Imsen, G., & Moos, L. (Eds.). (2013). The Nordic education model: ‘A School for All’ encounters neo-Liberal policy. Dordrecht: Springer. Bovbjerg, K. M., Krause-Jensen, J., Wright, S., Brorholt, G., & Moos, L. (2011). Nye ledelsesrationaler i offentlige organisationer [new leadership rationales in public organizations, in Danish]. In K. M. Bovbjerg (Ed.), Motivation og mismod i det moderne arbejdsliv. København: Aaarhus Universitetsforlag. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211–244. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. Commision], L.  T. L. (2018). De offentlige ledere skal have større fokus på borgerne [Public Leaders must focus on citizens]. Finalsministeriet [Ministy of Finances] https://www.fm.dk/ nyheder/pressemeddelelser/2018/06/ledelseskommissionen. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage. Desrosières, A. (2000). L’histoire de la statistique comme genre: style d'écriture et usasge sociaux, Genéses 39, 121–137. Genéses, 39 https://doi.org/10.3406/genes.2000.1626. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review., 48(April), 147–160. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2005). New public management is dead-long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2005(16), 467–494. Finances, M. O. (1996). Budget 96 Account, Attachment. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in Governmentality (pp. 87–104). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Gunter, H. M., & Mills, C. (2017). Consultants and consultancy: The case of education. Dordrecht: Springer. Hattie, J. (2018 download). Visible Learning. https://visible-learning.org/. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(Spring), 3–19. Labaree, D. (2014). Let’s measure what no one teaches: PISA, NCLB, and the shrinking aims of education. Teachers College Record, http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17533. Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2007). New forms of European governance in the education sector? A preliminary analysis of the open method of coordination. European Educationa Research Journal, 6(4), 321–335. Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education - governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium Books. Moos, L. (2014a). Educational governance in Denmark. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(4), 424–443. Moos, L. (2014b). Leadership for creativity. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(2), 178–196. Moos, L. (2016). Pædagogisk ledelse i en læringsmålstyret skole? København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Moos, L. (2017). Neo-liberal governance leads education and educational leadership astray. In M.  Uljens & R.  Ylimaki (Eds.), Beyond leadership, curriculum and Didaktik. Dordrecht: Springer. Moos, L., & Kofod, K. K. (2011). Danish successful school leadership - revisited. In L. Moos, C. Day, & O. Johansson (Eds.), How school principals sustain success over time (pp. 127– 150). Dordrecht: Springer. Moos, L., & Paulsen, J. M. (2014). School boards in the governance process (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Springer.

36

L. Moos

Moos, L., & Wubbels, T. (2018). General education: Homogenised education for the globalized world? Zitschrift für Erziehungswissenshaft, 21(2), 241–258. Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., & Paulsen, J. M. (2016a). Directions for our investigation of the chain of governancd and the agents. In L. Moos, E. Nihlfors, & J. M. Paulsen (Eds.), Nordic superintendents: Agent in a broken chain (Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Springer. Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., & Paulsen, J.  M. (Eds.). (2016b). Nordic Supeerintendents: Agent in a Broken Chain. Dordrecht: Springer. Normand, R. (2016). The changing epistemic governance of European education. Dordrecht: Springer. Nóvoa, A. (2013). Numbers do not replace thinking. European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 139–148. Nygård, S. (2018, January 8). Experts: National tests are useless as educational tools. Information. OECD. (1995). Governance in transition. Public management Reforms in OECD Countries. Retrieved from https://books.google.dk/books/about/Governance_in_Transition. html?id=TACcD2r0wDYC&redir_esc=y Pearson. (2014). Pearson to develop PISA 2018 Student Assessment 21st Century Frameworks for OECD. In: www.pearson.com/news/announcements/2014/Pearson Primary, S. (2018). https://uvm.dk/statistik/grundskolen/personale-og-skoler/antal-grundskoler. Røvik, K. A. (2011). From fashion to virus: An alternative theory of Organizations’ handling management ideas. Organization Studies, 32(5), 631–653. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). Netværksstyring  - fra government til governance. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetsforlag. Spillane, J.  P., Hopkins, M., & Sweet, T.  M. (2015). Intra- and interschool interactions about instruction: Exploring the conditions for social capital development. American Journal of Education, 122(November 2015), 71–110. Tillman, K.-J., & (Eds.). (2016). Empirische Bildungsforschung. Der kritische Blick and die Antwort of die Kritiker. Zeitschrift für Etziehungswissenschaft, 2016(31). Undervisningsministeriet. (2007). Bekendtgørelse om kvalitetsrapporter og handlingsplaner, BEK 167/2007 [Consolidation Act on Quality reports and Action Plans]. Undervisningsministeriet. (2014). Lovbekendtgørelse, Folkeskoleloven, LBK 665 af 20/06/2014 [Consolidation Act 665]. https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=176327. UpperSecondary, S. (2018). https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/uddannelse-og viden/ fuldtidsuddannelser/gymnasiale-uddannelser. Wilkoszewski, H., & Sundby, E. (2014). Steering from the centre: New modes of governance in multi-level education systems. Retrieved from Paris.

Chapter 3

Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational Governance Mika Risku and Meng Tian

Abstract  The main purpose of this chapter is to examine how Finland is developing its educational governance to meet the challenges of its changing operational environment. For our examination, we applied two theoretical frameworks on education policy development. The one constructed in the Comparative Analysis of Dynamics in Education Politics Project (CADEP) by Simola, Kauko, Varjo, Kalalahti and Sahlström (Dynamics in education politics. Understanding and explaining the Finnish case. Routledge, Oxon and New  York, 2017) provided us with the theoretical lenses of political situations, political possibilities and politicking, as well as with valuable contextual information. The one for the Policy Enactments in the Secondary School Project (PESSP) by Ball, Maguire and Braun (How schools do policy, policy enactment in secondary schools. Routledge, Oxon and New  York, 2012) complemented the CADEP framework with valuable concepts for analysis, like interpretation/translation and implementation/enactment. Applying these theoretical frameworks, we were able to examine and describe the evolvement of Finnish state and local educational institutions and their relationship from the centralised, norm-based and system-oriented governance into a decentralised, information-based and result-oriented one. We could identify incidents of path dependence, convergence and contingency, as well as manifestations of power. In addition, the distinction between interpretation/translation and implementation/ enactment proved purposeful for understanding education policy development.

M. Risku (*) University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] M. Tian Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_3

37

38

M. Risku and M. Tian

3.1  T  heoretical Lens for Examining Development of Finnish Educational Governance According to Risku et al. (2014), educational governance in Finland began to alter radically in the 1990s due to dramatic economic, demographic and ideological challenges in the operational environment. Following the overall societal development, the Finnish centralised, norm-based and system-oriented governance for education was rapidly and fundamentally transformed into a decentralised, information-based and result-oriented one (Risku 2014). In this chapter, we examine how this change has affected state and local educational institutions and their relationship with a particular focus on the changing operational environment. Our examination is based on two theoretical frameworks on education policy development. They both regard the operational environment as complex and dynamic thus corresponding to our conception of the operational environment in Finland. The theoretical lens of the Comparative Analysis of Dynamics in Education Politics project (CADEP), as presented by Simola et al. (2017), centres on the relationship between the transnational and national level. The one of the Policy Enactments in the Secondary School Project (PESSP), as outlined by Ball et  al. (2012), focuses on the one between the national and school level. Simola and associates (2017) regard Finland different, perhaps even as an outlier. This is particularly evident as they describe the evolvement of the Finnish society. Their view on Finland corresponds to international surveys and reports, where Finland frequently shows deviant characteristics. According to Risku et al. (2016), one may recognise similar transnational trends as in most countries, but, compared to the mainstream, these trends appear to date slightly later and manifest themselves somewhat differently in Finland. Simola and associates (2017, pp. 10–12; 40–41) strongly link Finland’s peculiarity with policy development’s path dependence. According to its broad definition (Sewell 1996, pp. 262–263), path dependence means that ‘what happened at an earlier point in time will affect the possible outcomes of a sequence of events occurring at a later point in time’. The narrow definition (Levi 1997; Pierson 2000) adds to the broad one that once a path has been chosen, it becomes difficult to exit it and to return to an earlier alternative path, or to decide for a new one. Among other things, one would have to abandon or rework the already established new structures, processes and practices. Ball and colleagues (2012, pp. 21–39) do not deal explicitly with path dependence but implicitly refer to it, when stressing the importance of context for education policy development. They claim that most policy research on education has been neglecting its impact. In accordance with path dependence, they contend that schools’ education policies are determined by their contexts, and that all schools have their own peculiar ones, which makes them and their education policy processes divergent, too. Simola and associates’ (2017) views on context coherently correspond and add to Ball and colleagues’ (2012) arguments. In addition to path dependence, they

3  Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational…

39

present convergence (pp. 10–12) and contingency (pp. 12–14) as theoretical lenses to examine education policy development. When dealing with convergence, they rely on classical definitions that, in essence, convey the following. Convergence is a belief of the existence of ‘one best way’ (Mintzberg 1979, p.  279) and ‘the tendency of societies to grow more alike, to develop similarities in structures, processes, and performances’ (Kerr 1983, p. 3). In addition, convergence is concerned ‘with processes rather than results’ (Knill 2005, p. 766). What Simola and associates (2017) raise up (c.f. Green 1999) is that one can find convergence within Europe on broad themes like decentralisation of regulation, and increasing quality insurance and evaluation. However, convergence does not appear to extend itself to structures and processes. Furthermore, in transnational contexts, the state still appears to have the dominant role also in those countries (notably England, Sweden and USA) where the numbers of state-funded independent schools have been growing. According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), the contingency theory of organisation was first presented explicitly by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967). They regarded organisations as open systems that followed the contingences of their internal and external environments. In addition, they believed these contingences to establish interrelated networks that were peculiar for each organisation. Due to this peculiarity, they also considered that there were no universal ways to arrange organisations; neither would organisations necessarily behave identically in similar situations. Simola and associates (2017) view the present operational environment as uncertain and ambivalent, and consider it to comprise space for working on several alternatives. They call this space Spielraum (p. 13), and regard it relational in the manner Emirbayer (1997, p. 287) defines relativity: ‘the very terms or units involved in a transaction derive their meaning, significance and identity from the (changing) functional roles they play within that transaction’. In addition, they propose that this relativity presupposes including the element of power in their CADEP theoretical framework. Furthermore, they base their understanding of power on Heiskala’s (2001, p. 259) conception of power as ‘a synthetic conception’, according to which research on power should focus both on actors and their resources (resource approach), and on their relationships (structural approach). Ball and colleagues (2012, p. 13), too, identify power as an essential element in the ‘analysis and conceptualisation of the policy process’. We also believe that their view of power as ‘situated and relational’ well corresponds to that of Heiskala (Ibid). Following Simola and associates’ (2017) theoretical framework for the CADEP, we focused on political situations, political possibilities and politicking peculiar to Finland in our examination. This approach, we complemented with several of the scopes, elements and concepts within the PESSP theoretical framework, as presented by Ball and colleagues (2012). In alignment with the approach of both the CADEP and PESSP, we studied the relationship of state and local educational institutions as part of the overall societal political situation in Finland. According to Simola and associates (2017, p. 19), the examination of the big picture is vital for the identification of the ‘opportune

40

M. Risku and M. Tian

moment’ for political change. Amongst others, Risku (2014) and Tian and Risku (2019) explicitly state that the Finnish education policy tends to follow the general societal policy in Finland. Furthermore, especially during the last decades the focus in Finland has been on other areas, particularly on health and social services, where both policy and institutional reforms have taken place first (Kanervio and Risku 2009; Niemelä 2008). In accordance with Simola and associates (2017, p. 18), we regarded political possibilities to ‘concern how actors find and create different alternatives for acting “otherwise”’. Ball and colleagues (2012) convey similar views through their conception of what different needs, goals and alternatives various contexts and their different interpretations create. When examining the various political possibilities for the relationship between state and local educational institutions, we particularly focused on how they appeared to manifest themselves, when applying the theoretical lenses of path dependence, convergence and contingency, as presented earlier. While doing this, we regarded the political situation as complex and dynamic. Following Simola and associates (2017) and supported by Ball and colleagues (2012), we regarded policies for developing state and local educational institutions as cyclical processes, where political situations restrict political possibilities; and in return, political possibilities change political situations. In this setting, we understood politicking as how the cyclical processes took place. As earlier described, politicking explicitly includes power, and we applied Heiskala’s (2001) synthetic conception for this examination, as adopted for the CADEP. Thus, we tried to identify the key actors and institutions as well as their resources, and study their relationships. Applying concepts by Ball and colleagues (2012, pp. 8–13), politicking can be understood as how the various actors and institutions interpret and translate the political situation and its possibilities. Ball and colleagues make a clear distinction between these two. With interpretation, they refer to how actors and institutions make sense of policies and, with translation, to how they try to implement or enact them (see also Moos et al. 2016). Ball and colleagues (2012) also explicitly separate the concepts of implementation and enactment from each other. They regard implementation as a concept for stable operational environments in which (most often) the top of the hierarchy comes up with a normative policy text with one plausible solution and with the expectation of all to execute it. They also believe that implementation, as a policy strategy, no longer suffices the present operational environment, but typically ends with something else than what was targeted. For them, the concept of enactment better corresponds to the current complex and changing operational environment. They consider it to view policy processes as dynamic and non-linear, as they think they are or at least should be today. All the four concepts appeared purposeful for our study, so we decided to apply also them as theoretical lenses for our examination.

3  Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational…

41

3.2  T  he Present Governance Structure for Education in Finland Simola and associates (2017) describe the present political situation of Finland as carrying the legacy of Finland being geo-politically peripheral and socially flat, as well as evolving behind the mainstream with societal reforms and experiencing very recent societal developments. Their views correspond, for example, with those of Risku (2014) on the history of Finnish education policy. Applying the principle of the political situation restricting political possibilities, Simola and associates (2017, p. 23) stress that ‘the Nordic politico-administrative culture and a strong tendency towards societal consensus’ significantly determine political possibilities in Finland. Based on Katajala (2002), they explain that one of the main reasons for Finland having been able to enjoy rather tranquil internal societal evolvement is due to the Nordic tendency to advance peaceful legislative and political policy-making instead of aggressive measures. This they believe, in essence, has created the foundation for Finns’ confidence in societal institutions, and the belief in the ideology of corporatism. Corporatism in the Finnish setting is defined as Government’s recognition of various societal actors’ and institutions’ legitimacy to rule their own fields, and as the practice to include them in political decision-making. Regarding the Spielraum for politicking, Simola and associates (2017) emphasise the recent societal evolvements in Finland. They consider that, on the Nordic and European level, Finland’s urbanisation, economic and cultural opening-up, as well as the ‘after centuries of misery … unbelievable success story’ (p. 30) are very recent and rapidly implemented phenomena. They particularly stress the significance of the economic depression of the 1990s and of the economic recession since 2008 leading to consistent cuts on public expenditure, and thus creating ‘opportune moments’ for changes as well as restricting the possibilities for the changes. Applying the theoretical lens of politicking for identifying the relevant actors and institutions and how they act, we could recognise four separate lines of governance for the education system, as presented in Fig. 3.1 (Risku 2018). They comprise of the governance lines for the state, local authorities, labour market organisations, and civic organisations. Particularly from the perspective of education policy, we regard their entity as the actual governance structure for the Finnish education system. The structure appears to include noteworthy characteristics of corporatism, which conception strengthens as we examine the structure in more detail. The first line from the left stands for state governance, and it is the one usually presented, when dealing with the governance of the Finnish education system. However, local authorities presented in the second line are also recognised actors in the processes of politicking, secured by the Constitution of Finland (1999/731) and Municipal Act (2015/410). We justify the third line for labour market organisations with the fact that Finland applies the Nordic welfare state model practising the trilateral cooperation of the state, and the employee and employer labour market

42

M. Risku and M. Tian

Fig. 3.1  Governance structure for Finnish education system. (Risku 2018)

organisations (Pusa 1997). We decided to include the fourth line for the third sector in our governance structure, although, for example, Pusa (Ibid) and Simola and associates (2017) consider the role of civic organisations weak in the state-centred Finnish welfare state. There were three main reasons for our decision. First, the Finnish welfare state has been moving from the welfare state model to the welfare society one that stresses citizens’ own responsibility for themselves, hence strengthening the role of civic organisations (Jokinen and Saaristo 2006; Pusa, Ibid). Second, for example, Risku et al. (2012) as well as Tian and Risku (2019) have shown that there is increasing civic interest to participate in education policy development in Finland. Third, we could even have included a fifth line to represent non-organised fourth sector civic activists (see e.g. Faehnle and Mäenpää 2017). All the four lines of governance, in one way or another, include the local, regional, national and transnational level. For example in the labour market organisations line, teachers usually are members of their local trade union associations. These commonly cooperate on the regional level, and sometimes even form regional associations. Every local and regional trade union association is a member of the national Trade Union for Education (OAJ). It, in turn, is a member of, among others, the transnational European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE). In principle, having actors and institutions on the various levels enables dialogue on each level amongst the corresponding representatives of the four governance lines. However, the operational environment appears much more complex and dynamic. Firstly, the governance lines do not have equally sufficient representation for the dialogue on all levels. For example, the state line has in practice no local representation, and the one on the regional level does not correspond with the governance line of local authorities. Nyholm et  al. (2017a, b) regard present Finnish governance two-tiered: central (national) and local government. Hence, local and national educational actors and institutions typically interact direct with each other.

3  Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational…

43

Secondly, whatever actor or institution in whichever line of governance on whichever level may interact with whatever actor or institution. This also commonly appears to take place. For example, Simola and associates (2017, pp. 57–58) report on two ‘competing coalitions’ being established as an outcome of recent ‘radical decentralisation and deregulation’. The coalition of the Ministry of Education and the National Agency for Education view education policy from the perspective of the education system and educational legislation. The coalition of the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Finance and the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities look at education policy focusing on the municipal service provision and legislation. Following Risku and associates (2014), we can include local education boards and schools in the former coalition, and local executive boards and municipal directors in the latter. In addition, local education boards commonly find competing coalitions in local health and social care boards. Thirdly, the loose coupling in the governance structure allows bypasses of hierarchy in the governance lines (see Johansson et al. 2014; Paulsen et al. 2016). For example, Norris et  al. (1996) reported direct cooperation between the National Board of Education and local schools bypassing local education offices, when constructing and enacting the 1994 core curriculum reform.

3.3  T  he Post-Millennium Evolvement of the Governance Structure for Education in Finland When examining the evolvement of the Finnish governance structure for education in the 2000s, one first has to look at the political situations, possibilities and politicking at the end of the 1900s. Particularly, the 1970s and 1980s were a period, when Finland rapidly pushed through radical societal reforms for the modern welfare state, which process the other Nordic countries initiated and implemented somewhat earlier (Siltala 2017; Simola et al. 2017). To ensure the successful implementation of the reforms, the state expanded its centralised, norm-based and system-­ oriented administration (including personnel) on all levels leaving very little space for local interpretation and translation (Risku 2014). In addition, the state subsidy system was developed so that the state increasingly covered for the costs of public services with earmarked funding, the spending of which had to be minutely reported to state authorities (Aho et al. 2006). During the late 1980s, the economic, demographic and ideological evolvement started to challenge all that had just been implemented. Due to the 1990s economic depression, the established societal structures could not handle the growing challenges on the political situation (Risku et  al. 2014). In addition, the depression together with the rest of the political situation significantly restricted political possibilities and, in accordance with path dependency, set Finland off on a path that it is still strolling.

44

M. Risku and M. Tian

In the midst of the 1990s depression, Finland joined the European Union in 1995 thus starting the path to open up its economic, societal and cultural development. This opening up also applied to transnational ideologies, although Finland adopted these ideologies somewhat later than, for example, other Nordic countries. (Simola et al. 2017). Thus, the transnational ideologies reached Finland at a different point of time in comparison to its neighbours, and, the political situation and its possibilities differed in other ways, too. Particularly the economic and demographic challenges characterised the Finnish operational environment (Risku 2014; Risku et al. 2014). After a long period of Left-Centre coalition governments, Finland in 1987 got a Right-Left one, which opened up the path for the Conservative Party also in following cabinets (Simola et  al. 2017). Hence, governments have been inclined to the transnational ideologies of neo-liberalism and the New Public Management, which has significantly affected the Spielraum and politicking. In addition, the transnational ideology of democratic individualism began to get a strong foothold in Finland (Risku et al. 2014; Ryynänen 2004). As political possibilities, these ideological trends suited well in the overall political situation in relation to Finnish people’s willingness, society’s readiness and the economic situation’s need to decentralise governance. Typical of Finnish politicking, the centralised, norm-based and system-oriented state governance rapidly implemented the decentralisation (Simola et al. 2017). At the end of the 1990s, Finland was ruled by a decentralised, information-based and result-oriented governance. The radical reversal in fundamental ways transformed the relationship between state and local authorities and institutions. In fact, Finland has been consistently trying to balance the relationship since the 1990s (Risku et al. 2014). At least partly due to the depression, the reversal included a substantial rundown of state and local institutions and their personnel. In the field of education, the rundown especially affected the National Board of Education and Provincial State Offices. (Risku 2014). Already in 1990–1995, the number of people working in educational administration outside of schools dropped by 40% (Hirvi 1996). Norris and associates’ (1996) observations on the inadequacy of resources of the National Board of Education and local education offices for their tasks have been repeated in several studies (e.g. Rajanen 2000; Kanervio and Risku 2009). In addition to decentralisation, Finland showed convergence by following the transnational trend to deregulate by discontinuing the pre-inspection of textbooks in 1983, moving into a two-tier system of national core and local curricula in 1985, ending school inspection in 1988 and abandoning regulation for classes and their sizes, except for special education, in 1985. Regulations and inspections were to be replaced with information, evaluation and later result steering, the development of which has been significantly hampered by cuts on personnel in educational administration. This, in addition to the tradition of trust, has affected the Finnish quality and evaluation policy, which has not been following the transnational mainstream (Kanervio and Risku 2009; Lapiolahti 2007; Laukkanen 1998; Risku 2014; Simola et al. 2017; Tian and Risku 2019).

3  Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational…

45

In alignment with the New Public Management and strengthened by the economic distresses, the streamlining of state governance and the decrease of personnel in state administration have continued during the 2000s (Government 2003, 2007) following the Nordic trend (Simola et al. 2017). In the field of education, particularly the roles and structures of the national and regional agencies on curriculum, development and evaluation work have met with several changes. During the most recent rearrangements, the Centre for International Mobility (CIMO) was emerged with the National Agency for Education (EDUFI). The previously three separate national education evaluation agencies for general, vocational and higher education were emerged into one Finnish National Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC). As part of this merge, the evaluation of learning outcomes was transferred from EDUFI to FINEEC. The 19 State Provincial Offices that were so powerful in the 1970s have been reduced to six State Regional Administrative Agencies. Following the report by the Ministry of Finance (2015), the Government had the plan to emerge these with the state TE Offices for public employment and business services (KEHA-keskus), National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (Valvira), and Farmer’s Social Insurance Institution (MELA) into a new national State Licence and Supervision Agency (Luova) in 2020 (Government n.d.-b). The State Licence and Supervision Agency well illustrates the present Finnish trend to both streamline state governance and to rearrange it to meet better with the challenges of the complex and dynamic operational environment. Regarding streamlining, several state agencies were to be emerged into one that had its central administration in the capital and service offices close-by to the clients in the various regions of Finland (Government n.d.-b). To correspond better to the complex and dynamic operational environment, the agency was to be cross-sectional and steered by eight ministries (Government 2018). Following Kofod, Johansson, Paulsen and Risku (2016, p. 242), we can call this process as deconcentration, where the central administration possesses the power and steers how its internal regional units implement the policies. Despite the rearrangement of the relationship between state and local authorities and institutions into decentralised structures since the 1990s, Finland also appears to have strengthened its centralised state governance structures and increased concentration. For example, Simola and associates (2017) argue that Finland has maintained a more state-centralised approach than the other Nordic countries. Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) present Finland as a model example of a nation that is steered from the top and constructed from the bottom. Applying the CADEP synthetic conception of power, we identify a trend to concentrate policy-making in the capital and closely under the steering of the ministries and their ministers. In the field of education and in addition to the planned abolishment of State Regional Administrative Agencies, the Finnish Institute for Educational Research (FIER) attached to the University of Jyväskylä appears as the only independent state agency outside of the capital.

46

M. Risku and M. Tian

3.4  C  oncentrating State Agencies’ Mission, Place and Importance in the Governance System As with all state matters in Finland, Parliament holds the supreme power and authority. Hence, all the fundamental matters on education have to be handled and approved by it. Its primary tasks are to enact legislation and to approve the State Budget. It also elects the Prime Minister and oversees the Government. Regarding transnational issues, it ratifies international treaties and influences European Union matters. (Constitution of Finland 1999/731; Parliament n.d.-a). An essential part of Parliament’s work takes place in Committees. There is one committee for each ministry. In the field of education, Education Committee handles matters and legislative reforms. It conducts constant dialogues with representatives from the Ministry of Education and invites experts to support its work. (Parliament n.d.-b) The dual-body Government is responsible for the overall governing of the nation and constitutes a decision-making body for governmental and administrative matters. The Government and its ministries also prepare most acts passed by the Parliament and, unlike in most European Union member countries, follow, outline and coordinate Finnish EU policy. (Government n.d.-a, n.d.-c; Government Rules of Procedure 2003/262). Finnish governments are in practice always coalition cabinets that have the majority in the Parliament. Hence, they are powerful actors in politicking. Coalition cabinets are constructed through negotiations where various parliamentary groups present their views and try to get as many of their goals as possible in the Government Programme. (Government n.d.-d; Government Rules of Procedure 2003/262). Government programmes are always compromises and syntheses, as well as powerful policy documents steering the work of both the Government and Parliament, and difficult to alter. The 2015 Government Programme was less detailed than the previous ones in order to meet better with the complex and dynamic political situation and its political possibilities. Hence, it left more space for the Government. It was also updated regularly, and it applied the Government’s key projects as central tools for developing (Government n.d.-e). The Government Programme, and the Government Proposals for changing legislation, determine how education in Finland is organised, managed and developed. Among other issues (including finance), the Government decides on the overall educational goals, on the school subjects, subject groups, and the distribution of lesson hours (e.g. Basic Education Act 1998/628), licences for higher education providers (e.g. Act for Universities of Applied Sciences 2014/932), and qualifications for various professions (e.g. University Act 2009/558). The Ministry of Education and Culture answers for the development of education, science, culture, sport and youth policies, and for international cooperation in these fields. (Ministry of Education and Culture n.d.-a; Government Rules of Procedure 2003/262). Regarding the Spielraum for politicking, the dual-body structure of the Government provides the Ministry and particularly its Minister with

3  Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational…

47

significant power in educational matters. Furthermore, as the 2014–2018 Ministry gave up on the tradition of compiling 5-year development plans for education and research, there is more space for spontaneous decisions. As earlier stated, the 2015–2018 Government applied Government key projects to achieve its goals. The overall goal of the Ministry of Education was set for year 2025, and the efforts comprised of six key projects (Government n.d.-f). The Ministry regularly opened competitive biddings to apply for funding to advance its key projects (see Ministry of Education and Culture n.d.-b) Particularly as 2015–2018 Government made remarkable cuts on the funding of all education forms, the key projects constituted essential funding for all institutions and providers of education, and were hence powerful tools for politicking. The Ministry of Education steers four national agencies that serve its operations, as presented in Fig. 3.1 (Risku 2018). They all have important roles in their mission areas. First, the National Agency for Education (EDUFI, formerly the National Board of Education) answers for national core curricula and the development of all education forms (including early childhood education and care since 2015), except for higher education. It particularly develops education in Finland through national core curricula and with various programmes and projects for developing curricula, education, collaboration and professional development. Hence, it can also significantly influence the development of local schools. Through the merger of the Centre for International Mobility (CIMO), it obtained significant responsibility in international collaboration in education. (EDUFI n.d.). Both the national core curricula, and the funding of professional development that is granted based on applications increasingly also to local authorities, private companies and civic organisations, are powerful steering mechanisms. It is important to note that enacted by the Ministry of Education, Government’s key projects significantly affect also the National Agency for Education as the implementation agency of the Ministry. Second, as an outcome of several organisational rearrangements, there is one Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC). It is attached to the National Agency of Education as an independent governmental agency that answers for the national evaluation of education. It now evaluates also learning outcomes, which was previously the task of the National Agency for Education. (EDUFI n.d.; FINEEC n.d.). Third, the Matriculation Examination Board (MEB) is a governmental bureau responsible for administering, arranging and executing the national high-stake examination for upper secondary students. Its chair and members are nominated by the Ministry of Education and it has an independent status (Matriculation Examination Board n.d.), but it is formally attached to the National Agency for Education (EDUFI n.d.). Finally, the Finnish Institute for Educational Research (FIER) is a scientific multidisciplinary centre for investigating, assessing and developing the Finnish education system and school culture. For example, it conducts the PISA, PIRLS and TIMMS surveys in Finland. As earlier described, it is affiliated to the University of

48

M. Risku and M. Tian

Jyväskylä with an independent status. (FIER n.d.). The FIER and the FINEEC provide the Ministry of Education with essential evaluation and research data for planning and decision-making (FIER n.d.; FINEEC n.d.). On the regional level, state governance is divided into six State Regional Administrative Agencies. Their mission is to promote regional equality by carrying out legislative executive, steering and supervisory tasks. (State Regional Administrative Authorities n.d.). As earlier described, the 2015–2018 Government had the plan to merge them into the new national State Licence and Supervision Agency in 2020.

3.5  Future Trends of Finnish Educational Governance Finnish education policy and hence its institutions tend to follow the overall societal development in Finland (Risku 2014; Simola et  al. 2017; Tian and Risku 2019). During the past few decades, the societal focus has been on the municipal structures as well as on the rearrangement of health and social services (Risku et al. 2014). Although there are consistent discussions and strong claims on equality and keeping the whole country populated (for example, Lehtonen and Aho 2000; Siltala 2017; Simola et al. 2017; YLE 2018a, July 23), this is what current societal discussion is and presumably will be focusing on. Regarding municipal structures, the 2015–2018 Government was pushing through a radical reform to transform the two-tier public administration into a three-­ tier one by establishing an intermediate level between the national and local one (Nyholm et al. 2017a). If the 2015–2018 Government had succeeded, there would have been 18 new self-governing counties with their Regional Governments since January 12,021 (Government n.d.-g). Governments one after the other have been trying to rearrange municipal structures since the 1960s without success (YLE 2018b August 1). As earlier described, particularly the 1990s depression and the recession since 2008 have made it impossible to maintain public welfare services with the current municipal structures. Thus, the reform to rearrange municipal structures is fundamentally an attempt to rearrange the provision of public health and social services by transferring them from the local to the county level (Government n.d.-g; Nyholm et al. 2017a). If reforms like this take place, they will significantly affect the political situation, political possibilities and politicking on the national, regional and local level. Regarding local authorities, only one of the three basic welfare services, education, would remain their responsibility after reforms like these. However, it appears that local authorities’ legislative mission will continue to include advancing the vitality and welfare of their municipalities and their residents as well as to maintain their autonomous status (Municipal Act 2015/410), however, with fewer tools, and less personnel and funding after reforms like these. The Spielraum would include the new Regional Governments as new actors altering the political situation, its possibilities, and politicking.

3  Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational…

49

According to Nyholm and associates (2017b), local authorities have to redefine their missions, and make strategic choices for their profiles together with their residents. They also believe that municipalities and the status of their educational provisions will further differentiate from each other. As for local schools, the strengthening trend appears to be to construct multi-purpose community centres that comprise besides early childhood, comprehensive and upper secondary education, also youth, culture, library and sports services for all ages. Furthermore, these arrangements will have an impact on how municipal education offices are organised.

3.6  C  onclusion: The Relationship Between State and Local Educational Institutions and the Application of Theoretical Framework The modern Finnish welfare state and education system were implemented by a centralised, norm-based and system-oriented governance in the 1970s that left little space for local interpretation and translation. Central administration’s agencies constituted an unbroken and extensive line of governance on the national and regional level with extensive resources to instruct and supervise local authorities and institutions. Central administration indisputably had the power, but also bore the responsibility, not least supported with the inclusive state subsidy system. The economic, demographic and ideological changes that flared in the 1990s and have since continued made the state to reverse its governance into the decentralised, information-based and result-oriented one that continues to administrate Finland. Local authorities rather enact than implement state policies possessing a lot of space for interpretation and translation. Furthermore, state agencies do not affect local schools direct but via local authorities. Following the New Public Management, central administration’s agencies are being streamlined in various ways. Regarding their personnel, they have been weakened both on the national and particularly on the regional level. In addition, there have been plans to concentrate them as cross-sectional agencies with main offices in the capital in direct steering of the ministries and ministers, and with regional service offices to be close-by the clients. The introduction of loose government programmes and abandonment of ministries’ development plans and replacing them with spontaneous key projects by the 2015–2018 Government may be a functional solution to meet the complex and dynamic operational environment, but allows the Government, ministries and ministers with more space to manoeuvre, and hence with more power. Following the ideology of corporatism, citizens’ involvement in policymaking is increasing, but its impressiveness remains questionable despite illustrative examples of positive impact (e.g. Tian and Risku 2019). We can agree with Simola and associates’ (2017) notion of Finland tending to maintain its centralised administration in the midst of its decentralisation.

50

M. Risku and M. Tian

Successive governments have been able to diminish the number of municipalities and schools, in an effort to establish larger units. However, the pace appears not to be sufficient, and there are still a lot of small municipalities, understaffed local education offices and small schools. Particularly, governments have regarded the units for health and social services too small and inefficient. The 2015–2018 government was working to establish an autonomous regional tier between the central and local level for them, which effort would doubtless have altered the relationship between central and local authorities and institutions. Local authorities have constitutional autonomy to enact legislations’ obligations for them. They appear to apply their autonomy, too, which one can note, for example, on how differently they organise themselves and provide their legislative public services. The Constitution of Finland (1999/731) and Municipal Act allow local authorities significant discretion and thus power in  local matters. According to Moos et al. (2016), Finnish governments apply soft social technologies in steering local authorities and educational institutions (see also Simola et al. 2017). However, Kanervio and Risku (2009) and Risku et al. (2014) describe the application of these technologies to have a significant impact on local plans and decision-making, and thus on local schools. It is essential to note that governments no longer carry similar responsibility for local authorities’ financial capacity to provide public services as in the 1970s (Risku et al. 2014). Although international comparisons indicate education in Finland to be of high quality, quality is no longer as committedly supported by the state as it used to be. There is also growing evidence on the damaging effects of financial cuts on education (for example, Lehtonen and Aho 2000). Regarding convergence on quality, Finland has joined the transnational trend of deregulation, but not the trend of increasing quality and accountability supervision. At the beginning of this chapter, we described neo-liberalism as a transnational ideology that has significantly influenced Finnish policies since the 1990s, but touched this topic little in our examination. Neo-liberalism appears to be somehow hidden and practiced behind the scenes in Finland. Simola and associates (2017) note that in the CADEP interviewees seldom justified their actions or Finnish polices with neo-liberalism. We believe this perception to be common among Finns. However, we would like to adopt a different insight on the matter based on Simola and associates’ other finding. Finland tends to adopt transnational trends later than the mainstream takes place. It may very well be that Finland has not reached the crest of the wave yet, and that, typical of Finland, neo-liberalism manifests itself a bit differently from the mainstream. We applied the theoretical frameworks of the CADEP (Simola et al. 2017) and PESSP (Ball et al. 2012) for our examination on the relationship between Finnish state and local educational institutions. Our investigation first looked at the political situations providing the ‘opportune moments’ for change after which we focused on the political possibilities and lastly on the politicking to identify the actors, as well as their actions and relationships. Applying this theoretical tool, we could recognise incidents of path dependence, convergence and contingency as well as manifestations of power. In addition, the

3  Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational…

51

concepts of interpretation/translation and implementation/enactment proved purposeful. We are thus highly thankful for Simola and associates (2017), and Ball and colleagues (2012) for their work on education policy development as well as hope that we were able to bring something useful also to the theoretical foundation they have laid.

References Act for Universities of Applied Sciences. (2014/932). Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2014/en20140932?search%5Btype%5D=pika&searc h%5Bpika%5D=2014%2F932 Aho, E., Pitkänen, K., & Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy, policy enactment in secondary schools. Oxon/New York: Routledge. Basic Education Act. (1998/628). Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from https://www.finlex.fi/ en/laki/kaannokset/1998/en19980628?search%5Btype%5D=pika&search%5Bpika%5D=199 8%2F628 Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company. Constitution of Finland. (1999/731). Retrieved from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1999/ en19990731.pdf EDUFI. (n.d.). Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from http://www.oph.fi/english/about_us/ task_services_and_organisation Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for relational sociology. The American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317. Faehnle, M. & Mäenpää, P. (2017). Neljäs sektori murtaa ja rakentaa kuntien hallintoa [Fourth sector breaks and constructs municipalities’ administration, in Finnish]. Retrieved on September 23, from https://www.kuntaliitto.fi/blogi/2017/ neljas-sektori-murtaa-ja-rakentaa-kuntien-hallintoa# FIER. (n.d.). Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https://ktl. jyu.fi/en FINEEC. (n.d.). Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from https://karvi.fi/en/fineec/ Government. (2003). Pääministeri Matti Vanhasen hallituksen ohjelma 24.6.2003 [Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen’s government programme 24.6.2003, in Finnish]. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https://valtioneuvosto.fi/documents/10184/369117/hallitusohjelma-vanhanen.pdf/ da627124-c0ee-4015-9642-197b11013c02/hallitusohjelma-vanhanen.pdf.pdf Government. (2007). Pääministeri Matti Vanhasen hallituksen ohjelman seuranta [Follow-up of Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen’s government programme, in Finnish]. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https://valtioneuvosto.fi/documents/10184/369117/vanhanen-hallitusohjelmanseurantaraportti-14.2.2007.pdf/b890849c-29c5-47f4-929f-f1d999ea4041/vanhanen-hallitusohjelman-seurantaraportti-14.2.2007.pdf.pdf Government. (2018). Valtion lupa- ja valvontavirasto Luovan yhteinen ohjaus tähtää vaikuttavuuteen [The joint steering of the National Supervisory Authority aims at effectiveness, in Finnish]. Retrieved on August 3, 2018, from https://alueuudistus.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_publisher/ valtion-lupa-ja-valvontavirasto-luovan-yhteinen-ohjaus-tahtaa-vaikuttavuuteen Government. (n.d.-a). Finnish Government. Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from http://valtioneuvosto.fi/tietoa?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_SSKDNE5ODInk&p_p_ lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_ count=1&_56_INSTANCE_SSKDNE5ODInk_languageId=en_US

52

M. Risku and M. Tian

Government. (n.d.-b). What is the National Supervisory Authority (Luova)? Retireved on August 3, 2018, from https://alueuudistus.fi/luova?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_I7eHeBhg9vBE&p_p_ lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_ count=1&_56_INSTANCE_I7eHeBhg9vBE_languageId=en_US Government. (n.d.-c). EU affairs and the Finnish government. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https://valtioneuvosto.fi/tietoa/eu-asioiden-kasittely?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_ KaV9fmbioUg3&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_ id=column-2&p_p_col_count=1&_56_INSTANCE_KaV9fmbioUg3_languageId=en_US Government. (n.d.-d). Appointment and organisation. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https:// valtioneuvosto.fi/tietoa/nimittaminen-ja-jarjestaytyminen?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_ SSKDNE5ODInk&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_ id=column-2&p_p_col_count=1&_56_INSTANCE_SSKDNE5ODInk_languageId=en_US Government. (n.d.-e). Hallitusohjelman toteutus ja kärkihankkeet [Implementing Government Programme and key projects, in Finnish]. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https://valtioneuvosto. fi/hallitusohjelman-toteutus Government. (n.d.-f). Osaaminen ja koulutus [Capacity and education]. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https://valtioneuvosto.fi/hallitusohjelman-toteutus/osaaminen. Government. (n.d.-g). Regional Government, health and social reform. Retrieved on August 4, 2018, from https://alueuudistus.fi/en/general-information-reform Government Rules of Procedure. (2003/262). Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from https://www. finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2003/20030262 Green, A. (1999). Education and globalization in Europe and East Asia: Convergent and divergent trends. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 55–71. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. Heiskala, R. (2001). Theorizing power: Weber, Parsons, Foucalt and neostructuralism. Social Science Information, 40(2), 241–264. Hirvi, V. (1996). Koulutuksen rytminvaihdos. 1990-luvun koulutuspolitiikka Suomessa [The change of rhythm in education. Education Policy in Finland in the 1990s]. Keuruu: Otava. Johansson, O., Nihlfors, E., & Steen, L. J. (2014). School boards and their functions in Sweden. In L. Moos & J. M. Paulsen (Eds.), School boards in the governance process. Dordrecht: Springer. Jokinen, K., & Saaristo, K. (2006). Suomalainen yhteiskunta [Finnish society]. Helsinki: Sanoma Pro. Kanervio, P., & Risku, M. (2009). Tutkimus kuntien yleissivistävän koulutuksen opetustoimen johtamisen tilasta ja muutoksista Suomessa [A Study on Educational Leadership in General Education in Finnish Municipalities, Abstract in English]. Ministry of Education publications 16. Helsinki: University Press. Katajala, K. (2002). Suomalainen kapina, talonpoikaislevottomuudet ja poliittisen kulttuurin muutos Ruotsin ajalla (n. 1150–1800) [Finnish revolt, rustic unrest and change political culture during the Swedish Era (ca. 1150–1800, in Finnish]. Historiallisia tutkimuksia 212. Helsinki: SKS. Kerr, C. (1983). The future of industrial societies: Convergence or continuing diversity? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Knill, C. (2005). Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 764–774. Lapiolahti, R. (2007). Koulutuksen arviointi kunnallisen koulutuksen järjestäjän tehtävänä. Paikallisen arvioinnin toteutumisedellytysten arviointia erään kuntaorganisaation näkökulmasta [Evaluation of education as a task of the local provider of education  – What are the presuppositions of the execution of evaluation in one specific local organisation, in Finnish]. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 308. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Printing House. Laukkanen, R. (1998). Opetustoimen keskushallinnon evaluaatioajattelun kehitys Suomessa 1970-luvulta 1990-luvulle [Development of the outlook on evaluation of central administration

3  Finland: Changing Operational Environment Changing Finnish Educational…

53

in the provision of education in Finland from the 1970s to 1990s, in Finnish]. Finnish Institute for Educational Research Publications 5. Jyväskylä: Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Lehtonen, H., & Aho, S. (2000). Hyvinvointivaltion leikkausten uudelleenarviointi [Rethinking cuts on welfare state]. Janus, 8(2), 97–113. Levi, M. (1997). A model, a method and a map. Rational choice and historical analysis. In M. Lichbach & A. Zuckerman (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture and structure (pp. 19–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matriculation Examination Board. (n.d.) The matriculation examination is a national examination based on the syllabus of the Finnish upper secondary school. Retrieved on July 26, 2018, from https://www.ylioppilastutkinto.fi/en/ Ministry of Education and Culture. (n.d.-a). Ministry of Education and Culture. Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from http://minedu.fi/en/ministry. Ministry of Education and Culture. (n.d.-b). Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön avustukset [Subsidies of the Ministry of Education and Culture, in Finnish]. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https:// minedu.fi/avustukset Ministry of Finance. (2015). Keskus- ja aluehallinnon virastoselvityshankkeen koontiraportti [Joint report for arranging central and regional state agencies, in Finnish]. Ministry of Finance Publications 5. Helsinki: Ministry of Finance. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Enlewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., & Paulsen, J. M. (2016). Nordic superintendents: Agents in a broken chain. Heidelberg/New York/Dodrecht/London: Springer International Publishing. Municipal Act. (2015/410). Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/aja ntasa/2015/20150410?search%5Btype%5D=pika&search%5Bpika%5D=kuntalaki Niemelä, M. (2008). Julkisen sektorin reformin pitkä kaari Valtava-uudistuksesta Paras-­ hankkeeseen [The long reform of public sector from Valtava-reform to PARAS-project, in Finnish]. Studies in Social Security and Health 102. Helsinki: KELA. Retrieved on July 19, 2018, from https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10250/7935/Tutkimuksia102.pdf?sequen ce=3&origin=publication_detail Norris, N., Aspland, R., Mac Donald, B., Schostak, J., & Zamorski, B. (1996). Arviointi peruskoulun opetussuunnitelmauudistuksesta [Evaluation report on comprehensive curriculum reform, in Finnish] (Arviointi 11). Helsinki: National Board of Education. Nyholm, I., Haveri, A., Majoinen, K. & Pekola-Sjöblom, M. (2017a). Introduction: The future story of municipalities is being written now. In I. Nyholm, A. Haveri, K. Majoinen, & M. Pekola-­ Sjöblom (Eds.) Tulevaisuuden kunta [Future municipality] (Acta 264, pp.  29–40). Helsinki: Finnish Association for Local and Regional Authorities, University of Tampere, Ministry of Finance. Nyholm, I., Haveri, A., Majoinen, K., & Pekola-Sjöblom, M. (2017b). Concluding words: What shapes a municipality’s future? In I. Nyholm, A. Haveri, K. Majoinen & M. Pekola-Sjöblom (Eds.) Tulevaisuuden kunta [Future municipality] (Acta 264, pp. 549–551). Helsinki: Finnish Association for Local and Regional Authorities, University of Tampere, Ministry of Finance. Parliament. (n.d.-a). About parliament. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https://www.eduskunta.fi/ EN/tietoaeduskunnasta/Pages/default.aspx Parliament. (n.d.-b). Committees. Retrieved on July 26, 2018, from https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/ lakiensaataminen/valiokunnat/Pages/default.aspx Paulsen, J. M., Nihlfors, E., Brinkjar, U., & Risku, M. (2016). Superintendent leadership in hierarchy and network. In L. Moos, E. Nihlfors, & J. M. Paulsen (Eds.), Nordic superintendents: Agents in a broken chain. Doodrecht: Springer. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 9(2), 251–267.

54

M. Risku and M. Tian

Pusa, O. (1997). Hyvinvointivaltion murros [Welfare state’s turning point]. In T. J. Hämäläinen (Ed.), Murroksen aika, Selviääkö Suomi rakennemuutoksesta? [Welfare state’s turning point, will Finland cope with the structural change?, in Finnish] (pp. 112–119). Helsinki: WSOY. Rajanen, J. (2000). Selvitys koulutuksen paikallisen tason arvioinnin tilasta [Report on the status of local evaluation on education, in Finnish] (National Board of Education Evaluation 11). Helsinki: National Board of Education. Risku, M. (2014). A historical insight on Finnish education policy from 1944 to 2011. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 6(2), 36–68. Risku, M. (2018). Governance structure for Finnish education system. Learning material for the international Master’s Degree Programme in educational leadership. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Risku, M., Björk, L., & Ferrigno-Brown, T. (2012). School–parent relations in Finland. Journal of School Public Relations, 33, 48–71. Risku, M., Kanervio, P., & Björk, L. (2014). Finnish superintendents: Leading in a changing education policy context. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(4), 383–406. Risku, M., Kanervio, P., & Pulkkinen, S. (2016). Finnish superintendents are striving with a changing operational environment. In L. Moos, E. Nihlfors, & J. M. Paulsen (Eds.), Nordic superintendents: Agents in a broken chain (pp.  65–98). Heidelberg/New York/Dodrecht/London: Springer. Ryynänen, A. (2004). Kuntien ja alueiden itsehallinto  – kehittämisvaihtoehdot [Autonomy of municipalities and regions – Options for development]. Helsinki: Edita. Sewell, W. H. (1996). Three temporalities: Toward an eventful sociology. In T. J. McDonald (Ed.), The historic turn in the human sciences (pp. 245–280). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Siltala, J. (2017). Keski-luokan nousu, lasku ja pelot [The rise, decline and fears of middle-class]. Helsinki: Otava. Simola, H., Kauko, J., Varjo, J., Kalalahti, M., & Sahlström, F. (2017). Dynamics in education politics. Understanding and explaining the Finnish case. Oxon/New York: Routledge. State Regional Administrative Authorities. (n.d.). Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from https://www.avi.fi/en/web/avi-en/#.WkHl9d-WbIVhttps://www.avi.fi/en/web/avi-en/#. WkHl9d-WbIV Tian, M., & Risku, M. (2019). A distributed leadership perspective on the Finnish national core curriculum reform 2014. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(1), 229–244. University Act. (2009/558). Retrieved on December 21, 2017, from https://www.finlex.fi/en/ laki/kaannokset/2009/en20090558?search%5Btype%5D=pika&search%5Bpika%5D=2009 %2F558 YLE. (2018a, July 23). Ylen kysely: Neljä viidestä haluaa, että koko Suomi pysyy asuttuna – ja että valtio maksaa viulut [YLE survey: Four out of five want to keep the whole Finland populated – the Government to pay for the costs, in Finnish]. Retrieved on July 26, from https://yle. fi/uutiset/3-10313405 YLE. (2018b, August 1). Maakunta-sote tässä ja nyt: Lue oikeustieteen professorin 7 vastausta, ja olet taas kartalla [County-health-social reform here and now: Read 7 answers from Professor in Law and know where you are on the map again, in Finnish]. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10326529

Chapter 4

Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment and Role of the National Agency in Education Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir, Börkur Hansen, Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, and Femke Geijsel

Abstract  The chapter sets out to explore development in educational policies in Iceland, especially changes in governance during the last 20 years and the establishment and role of the national agency, i.e. the Directorate of Education. Furthermore, it looks into who the main players in the field are and sheds light on the major challenges that affect educational governance in Iceland. The governance of education is organized on state and municipal level. The state is politically and legally responsible for the school system, but municipalities operate preschools and compulsory schools. Although rooted in Nordic model of education, neo-liberal emphasises in policies, together with instability in educational governance, have ruffled the educational system. Part of this is also public debate concerning the establishment, actions and purpose of the new Directorate that needs to gain trust from the school level. Its main challenges are to unite the educational field around a robust education policy. For that purpose, the state level must take more responsibility to support the work of the local and school level.

S. M. Sigurðardóttir (*) Faculty of Education, University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland e-mail: [email protected] B. Hansen · A. K. Sigurðardóttir School of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] F. Geijsel University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Radboud Teachers Academie, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_4

55

56

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

4.1  Introduction Iceland is a 103,000  km2 island in the North Atlantic Ocean. One of the Nordic countries, it has a population of a little less than 350,000 which makes it the most sparsely populated country in Europe. Iceland’s educational policy has traditionally followed the Nordic model (Blossom et al. 2014), drawing from, among other theories, John Dewey’s (1859–1952) emphasis on democracy and development of the individual. In his view, the purpose of educational policy was to provide guidance and structure for developing students, based on their interests and strengths in order for them to become functional individuals in a democratic society (Einarsdóttir and Jónsson 2010). According to Jónsson (2014), the highlight of this educational policy appeared in Iceland’s education act of 1974 that mandated a systematic restructuring of teaching methods, educational materials and subjects, led by the Ministry of Education and its national agencies at that time. Jónsson claims this robust emphasis faded away with the stipulations of the 1995 education laws, as well as with the amendments of the law in 1999 and 2007, replacing educational policy with instructional policy. The 1995 laws also marked the beginning of a major emphasis on decentralization and empowerment at the local level and the transnational intrusion of neoliberalism, school-based management and New Public Management in education (Hansen 2004; 2013). This course has been dominating Icelandic politics for over 20 years, though with a setback during and shortly after the economic crisis of 2008 (Sigurðardóttir et al. 2014). Changes in policies usually mean changes in national governance, and sometimes in the role of national agencies. It is therefore interesting to look into this development over the last 20 years and investigate who the main players in the field are and what the main challenges are facing educational governance in Iceland at present. In light of the above, the purpose of this chapter is threefold. The first objective is to give an overview of educational governance in Iceland. The second is to explain the establishment of the agencies in the educational system, delimited to the Directorate of Education (i. Menntamálastofnun), the only operative national educational agency at present, as well as to describe the influence of other factors that affected this process. The third goal is to gain an understanding of the main challenges facing educational governance and the ongoing political shifts that have influenced the structure and policies of education. In an attempt to fulfil the purposes stated above, this chapter draws from a variety of sources of documents, such as national legislation, reports at the transnational, state and local levels, debates and discourses in social and traditional media, and scholarly research on the organization of school governance in Iceland.

4  Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment…

57

Table 4.1  Levels and responsibility of the Icelandic school system School (level) Preschool (1) Compulsory school (2) Upper secondary school (3) University (4)

Student ages (years at school) 1–6 (5) 6–16 (10) 16–19 (3)a

Number of schools 2016 254 170 30

19+a

7

Responsibility of operation Municipalities (74) State

Prior to the changes under the Upper Secondary Education Act (l. 91/2015), upper secondary schools were organized as 4-year schools, with students graduating at the age of 20

a

4.2  O  verview of the Educational Structure and School Governance in Iceland The governance of education in Iceland is on two levels (Table 4.1): the state (parliament and government) and the local authorities (municipalities). The state is politically and legally responsible for the school system in Iceland. The implementation of legislation concerning education is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.1 The structure of the school system is set out in educational acts and regulations (Compulsory School Act no. 91/2008; Preschool Act no. 90/2008; Upper Secondary Education Act no. 92/2008 with changes no. 91/2015). The ministry lays down policy for upper secondary schools, compulsory schools and preschools in the National Curriculum Guidelines and other steering documents. It is responsible for quality assurance at all school levels and for management and professional development at the upper secondary as well as state-­ governed higher education institutions. However, the municipalities have responsibility for the preschools and compulsory schools. The functions of educational governance (national) agencies are delineated in legislation and other steering documents (Directorate of Education Act no. 91/2015; Reglugerð nr. 530/2016). Iceland has been considered one of the most decentralized educational systems within the OECD countries, with 3% of decisions for compulsory schools taken by the state, 36% at the municipality level, and 62% at the schools themselves (OECD 2012). Similar findings might be expected for the preschools but are different for upper secondary schools that are governed and managed solely by the state. In any case, schools at all levels have considerable autonomy concerning resource allocation, curriculum development and assessment. All schools are supervised by politically appointed school boards. Municipality councils must elect a school board that supervises and guides preschools and compulsory schools. Boards for upper  https://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/

1

58

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

secondary schools are appointed at the ministerial level. Legislation emphasizes the responsibility of principals to be leaders and managers with freedom to organize and run their schools in compliance with their staff. They see to it that parents and students form their associations and establish school/parent councils that serves as a consulting forum between the principal and the school community on the school’s affairs (Compulsory School Act no. 91/2008; Preschool Act no. 90/2008; Upper Secondary Education Act no. 92/2008). The fundamental policy emphasis in educational laws is the right of all students to receive equal education opportunities in an inclusive and comprehensive system. There is formally a free choice of school within each municipality. For upper secondary schools, the policy is a free choice of schools. It is, however, restrained with the obligation to provide space for students that live near the given school. Iceland has a tradition of public schools and publicly funded education. However, since the millennium, the number of students attending private schools has raised from 1% to almost 3%. This increase is partly due to a rising segment of nonprofit school chains following the educational acts of 2008 that facilitated privatization (Dovemark et al. 2018). Fiscal allocations to upper secondary schools are decided by the parliament’s yearly budget. The municipalities finance preschools and compulsory schools on the basis of their income tax and capital tax revenue, as well as 8–9% from the Local Authorities’ Equalization Fund (Lög um tekjustofna sveitarfélaga nr. 4/1995). These funds major purpose is to equalize the means of municipalities that vary in size and capacity to fulfil their responsibilities. Preschools are also partly financed by service fees paid by parents. Private schools receive funding almost equal to the public ones (up to 82%) but can also charge tuition fees from the parents. Compared to other OECD countries, Iceland spends a high proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) on preschool and compulsory education while the amount spent on upper secondary education (and universities) is below the OECD average (OECD 2016). The financial crisis that hit the country in 2008 somewhat diminished expenditure for education at all levels.

4.3  The Directorate of Education The functions of national agencies are determined by legislation and other steering documents. The Directorate of Education2 is the only national agency regulating and monitoring education, having been established in 2015 by the merger of two agencies, the Education Testing Institute (established 2000) and the National Centre for Educational Materials (established 1979). The directorate can be seen as an extension of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture but is, however, an independent institution with a director appointed by the minister. The directorate is

 https://mms.is/directorate-education

2

4  Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment…

59

organized into three departments and one project management office that works with the departments to develop standardized tests and work procedures (Menntamálastofnun 2016). The departments are as follows: • The Assessment and Evaluation Department conducts, analyses and presents national examinations, and handles international studies such as PISA.  Those were formerly the tasks of the Education Testing Institute. It monitors external evaluations at all school levels, analyses and disseminates information on education, participates in development and implementation of legislation, and guides educational authorities regarding policy. Formerly those tasks were conducted at the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Furthermore, the department bears the responsibility of implementing the national covenant on literacy that followed the release of the White Paper in 2014. This is the most extensive new task the minister gave the directorate. • The Dissemination Department has the mandate to develop, publish and distribute educational materials free of charge for compulsory schools and to provide professional support to teachers concerning their use. This was previously the task of the National Centre for Educational Materials. • The Service Department conducts service and administrative tasks such as the validation of study programmes, the admission process for entering upper secondary schools, the accreditation of private schools, the management of adult education programmes and the licence framework concerning teacher certification. Those tasks were formerly at the ministry. The minister, with little discussion in parliament or the educational field, launched the establishment of the directorate. In the process of passing the legislation and later, several concerns have been raised. Firstly, there is concern regarding the directorate’s vulnerability to interference at the hands of the ministry and individual ministers due to the absence of a management board. Secondly, concern on a lack of holistic policy towards its main role and its role at different school levels. Part of the uncertainty of its approach is that the legislation stresses its function as an administrative institution that emphasises assessments, accountability and efficiency in education. By doing so, it neglects its role in leading progressive improvement work in education and providing mentoring and support. Connected to this is also the concern of a lack of clarity of the directorate’s responsibility to follow up on study materials by supporting teachers in learning to apply them to their teaching (Dýrfjörð and Magnúsdóttir 2016; Sigþórsson 2017; Þingskjal nr. 1268/2014–2015; 1161/2014–2015). Furthermore, since the directorate holds both responsibility for producing teaching materials and making the assessments, the concern was that it might lead to narrow assessments, overemphasis on mainstream subjects that are measured both at international and national level (e.g. math and Icelandic), and less emphasis on subjects such as art and craftwork (Þingskjal nr. 1161/ 2014–2015). Research has confirmed that this trend is seen in policy documents at both the state and the municipal level (Dýrfjörð and Magnúsdóttir 2016; Sigþórsson 2017, 2020) and thus must be considered a valid threat.

60

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

The first years of the directorate have been immersed in conflict, highlighted by the media, and its existence, purpose, structure and actions have received criticism from teachers, teachers’ unions, universities, university teachers and parents (see e.g. Kristjánsson 2017, May 9; Sigurjónsson 2015, August 23). One of the directorate’s first actions (supported by a former minister) was to publicly talk down literacy improvement efforts – the Beginning Literacy (BL) development project – that had already been implemented in half of the compulsory schools under the supervision of the Centre for School Development at the University of Akureyri. This action caused much debate in both traditional and social media, polarising the minister and the directorate, on the one hand, and the Teacher’s Union, the teaching field and the university, on the other (Sigurjónsson 2015, August 23; Skólastjórafélag Íslands 2015, August 27). The latter groups felt attacked and that their professionalism was being questioned. Recently, flaws in the execution of the national exams and PISA, which are under the jurisdiction of the directorate, have ruffled feathers again. This has evoked debates on the role of the directorate and their professionalism as well as on the purpose and existence of the national and international exams. In this media debate, the municipalities and superintendents have kept their remarks low-key. However, after the flaws in execution of the national exams, both those parties raised their voices. The professional association of superintendents raised questions about the purpose of the exams and the minister and the Directorate of Education was urged to continue revision of the national exams using the work procedures of professional learning communities (Hreinsdóttir and Hjartarson 2018).

4.4  Other Actors and Associations Governing Education Other than the Directorate of Education, few actors belong to the governance system or are in a position to have influence within it. Table 4.2 provides an overview of those main  agents and a short description of their importance and place in the system.

4.5  Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland The following subchapters elaborate on some of the main challenges in the educational system. These regard political unstability, quality assurance, professional and school development, implemention of inclusive education, literacy enactments, teacher shortages and high dropout rates in upper secondary schools.

4  Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment…

61

Table 4.2  Main actors/associations in the governance system of education in Iceland and their function Name Function Association at the local level The Icelandic Association of An umbrella organization for all municipalities, established in Local Authoritiesa 1945. Has a legal status in educational legislation with the stipulation of actively working on behalf of the municipalities with the government in forming educational regulations. Provides information and materials that guide and support the municipalities in fulfilling educational tasks. Councils established by the Minister of Education, Science and Culture The Associate Council on Established in 2016 by the minister. Works as a forum for the Professional Development Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, the Association of of Teachers and Principalsb Local Authorities, the Icelandic Teachers´ Union, the Upper Secondary Principals’ Association of Icelandc and the three universities that educate teachers (these parties are increasingly working together on various educational matters). It is the second council on the issue and originates from cooperation between the parties on teacher education and professional development in 2009. The council’s mandate is to continue with the former councils suggestions for actions, give advice to educational governance and provide information on professional development, partly through its website.d Agencies for labour market-related issues and/or professional enhancement in educational sectors The Icelandic Teachers’ An umbrella trade union for teachers, school leaders and student Unione counsellors at school levels 1–3, established in 1999. Safeguards the rights and interests of its members, strengthens professional and trade union awareness and works towards increased professionalism of its members. Carries considerable weight at all educational levels and rests on a strong tradition of teachers’ unions with the first one having been established in 1889. Principals in upper secondary schools belong to a separate union as do superintendents and managers at school central offices. This is not a trade union like the Teachers’ Union, but promotes Association of cooperation and knowledge sharing among its members, Superintendents and Managers at School Offices strengthening the organizations they work for and working towards improvement in schools. Has been strengthening and [Grunnur, félag fræðslustjóra og stjórnenda gaining a louder voice recently and taken steps to interact more closely with the Directorate of Education, the ministry, the á skólaskrifstofum] Icelandic Association of Local Authorities, the universities etc. to promote work procedures in the spirit of professional learning communities. Three universities that offer teacher education and provide educational expertise and service The University of Iceland,f Offers teacher education at all school levels since 2009 School of Education (previously offered at the Teacher University of Iceland, 1907–2008). Offers various professional development programmes for teachers and takes part in professional developmental activities in schools through research and development projects. (continued)

62

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

Table 4.2 (continued) Name Function The University of Akureyrig, Offers teacher education since 1993. Operates at all school levels. Faculty of Education Specialises in distant learning. The university runs a unit called the Centre for School Developmenth that offers services to all school levels on the professional development of teachers and school improvement.

The Iceland Academy of the Offers teacher education since 2001, at school levels 2–3. Arts,i Art Education A nongovernmental parental agency A nongovernment parental organization established in 1992 to The National Parents strive for better upbringing of children. Offers advice and support Associationj to parents and cooperates with different governing and nongoverning bodies at the national and local levels. http://www.samband.is/english/ http://starfsthrounkennara.is/ c http://skmi.is/ d http://starfsthrounkennara.is/hlutverk-samstarfsrads/ e https://www.ki.is/icelandic-teachers-union f http://english.hi.is/school_of_education/school_of_education g http://english.unak.is/humanities-and-social-sciences/faculty-of-education h http://english.unak.is/research/research-institutes/school-development-centre i http://www.lhi.is/en/arts-education j http://www.heimiliogskoli.is/um-okkur/about-us/ Hjartarsson, Þorsteinn, verbal source, 25. May 2018 a

b

4.5.1  Political Instability and Disagreements One of the greatest challenges facing education in Iceland today is the instability in politics and the disagreement regarding education policy that pivots especially around pedagogical views of education versus neoliberal views. Since the economic crisis in 2008, the political situation has been unstable, with frequent elections and changes in government and even more frequent changes in ministers of Education, Science and Culture. A left-wing government set out the current national curriculum guides for preschools, compulsory schooling and secondary schools in 2011 shortly after the financial crisis in 2008. It marked a considerable change in policy, more of a return to the themes of the 1974 education act, and stressed the notion of the school as a professional learning community (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture n.d.). The implementation of the new curriculum has taken time and the ministry has been criticised for not supporting these changes firmly enough. In 2013, a right-wing government took over. Although the national curriculum was retained, the minister released a White Paper on Education Reform (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 2014) and established the Directorate of Education, partly to follow up on his policy (Dýrfjörð and Magnúsdóttir 2016). The White

4  Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment…

63

Paper stresses two issues: falling achievement levels of 15-year-olds on PISA, ­especially in literacy, and a dropout rate from upper secondary schools that was one of the highest in the OECD countries (OECD 2016). This policy paper celebrated and augmented narrow neoconservative views, favouring a few subjects, standardized tests and a market-driven education system built on comparative information, such as PISA findings, provided by the OECD (Dovemark et al. 2018; Dýrfjörð and Magnúsdóttir 2016; Sigþórsson 2017). This was the first time a minister in Iceland had published a White Paper. It demonstrated a new way of developing educational policy. It also signalled that the minister was now going to take a more active role in education reforms and what the focus of education should be. The current government, consisting of both left-wing and right-wing parties, took over in 2017, making the political line a bit unclear. Recent actions of the Directorate of Education have provoked public discussions that might mean changes in policy – but might also reinforce the same neoliberal path in education that Iceland has been on more or less since 1995. In the autumn 2018, the current Minister of Education, Science and Culture started work on education policy until 2030. Much depends on the spin she puts on the subject, and if her actions will help to unite the different actors or maintain disunity.

4.5.2  Balancing Quality Assurance The educational laws set out in 1995 put an increased emphasis on quality assurance. The ramifications have not been straight forward. The laws stipulated that internal school evaluations were to be introduced and put the onus on every school to develop work procedures accordingly. The ministry took responsibility for external quality inspections. Yet, the intended inspections were never fully implemented, and the ministry kept a low profile regarding quality assurance during the first decade following the transfer of responsibility for the compulsory schools to the municipalities in 1995 (Ólafsdóttir 2016). By the provisions of the educational acts in 2008, responsibility for external and internal school evaluations in preschools and compulsory schools was put on the municipalities, with the ministry to retain oversight of the procedures. For upper secondary education, the responsibility was kept at the state level. This provision concerning preschools and compulsory schools did not pass by without a debate, and there were concerns at the municipality level among superintendents and at the university level that not all municipalities would have the capacity to fulfil this task (Ólafsdóttir 2016). Over the last few years, more weight has been placed at the ministerial level on external quality programmes that focus on key activities within the schools, such as teaching practices (Ólafsdóttir 2016). These can partly be explained by the ministry’s reports indicating that schools and municipalities were not implementing fully the internal school evaluations or required improvements issued in educational acts 1995, 1999 and 2008 (Ólafsdóttir 2016). It had, as an example, taken a long time to

64

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

implement internal school evaluations (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 2010), professional support for teachers was claimed to be vague as well as specialist services (Elíasdóttir et  al. 2013), and PISA tests showed a decline in student performance (Halldórsson et al. 2013). At the same time, it was professed that too much emphasis was placed on the management processes of the transfer to the municipalities rather than the organisational structures (Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs 2000) – an argument that had also emerged in other countries that had emphasised decentralization (OECD 1997; Schick 2002; see also Ólafsdóttir 2016). In the eagerness to decentralize and empower the municipalities, the state had forgotten, or had overestimated its capacity, to keep necessary organizational structures in the governance system to ensure that the protocols of the laws were fulfilled (Ólafsdóttir 2016). However, results from school evaluations hold no financial or professional consequences for schools or teachers. The reports of the evaluations are published on the ministry website but are usually not highlighted in the media. This could, however, change rather quickly, based on the political interests of the current government at any given time.

4.5.3  S  chool Service at the Municipal Level and Provision of Professional Support With the transfer of the compulsory schools to the municipalities in 1996, the municipalities acquired responsibility for professional support and specialist services for students, in preschools and compulsory schools. Subsequently, the state closed down their support service offices. The municipalities either started their own school service (until recently called specialist service), made an agreement regarding the service with other municipalities, or left it open for schools to outsource services from relevant specialists or companies (Hreinsdóttir 2013). Approximately 218,000 people out of the 336,000 living in Iceland are situated in the Reykjavík metropolitan area, while the smallest municipalities in the country have fewer than 50 inhabitants (Statistics Iceland 2018). As Dýrfjörð and Magnúsdóttir (2016) point out, the size of the capital puts it in a leading position in discussion and policy setting in education at the preschool and compulsory level in the country. This follows a danger of neglecting to consider the different situations of the other municipalities. At the time of the transfer, there was already a concern that it would lead to increased differences in the service since the capacities of the municipalities varied considerably. Also, too little money was believed to have accompanied the transfer (Hansen and Jóhannsson 2010). Nevertheless, the transfer is considered a positive step in educational governance in Iceland, providing the municipalities and the local community with greater impact on the schoolwork and bringing positive changes to it (Hansen et al. 2002; Hansen and Lárusdóttir 2014).

4  Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment…

65

In a survey in 2002, Hansen et al. found that a significant majority of compulsory school principals believed that the school’s ability to shape their internal work and adjust the support to the needs of children had increased, and municipal council support had grown. The view of municipal councils, school boards, parents and communities towards the schools was believed to have bettered, as had the atmosphere in the schools, student behaviour and teaching methods. Additionally, the principals felt they had more means of influencing the schoolwork at both municipal and school level, in particular in financial matters. This position did not come about without sacrifices, however. The principals reported that they had less time to provide educational leadership than before due to new financial and organizational responsibilities (Hansen et al. 2002). Later research has confirmed that the transfer from state to municipal control had left principals with less time to provide instructional and educational leadership and opened a discussion on how to change this route (Hansen and Lárusdóttir 2014). Despite some positive effects, the school services have been criticised for rather being directed at individual students with various types of difficulties and diagnoses than directed at school-based consultation and strengthening of the infrastructure and improvement capacity of the schools (Sigþórsson 2013). The assignment of responsibilities amongst the state, the municipalities and the schools themselves is somewhat unclear (Ólafsdóttir 2016; Sigurðardóttir, Sigurðardóttir et al. 2018). Lack of structure around professional development of teachers and principals seem to be a general weakness in the educational system. The schools (principals) feel pressure from the state and the municipalities for stronger leadership and accountability but tend to be overwhelmed and feel they are left alone without sufficient resources and guidance (Sigurðardóttir 2018).

4.5.4  I mplementing Inclusive Education Policy at Local and School Level The policy and curriculum implementation of inclusive education is being extensively discussed at the state and local level. Although it has a relatively long tradition (since the stipulation of the laws in 1974) in Iceland, it is at present one of the main challenges in the education system (Hansen 2013). This policy insists that all children have equal opportunities to education, regardless of their origin or physical and mental ability, within their own home school. A recent report made for the ministry by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE) (2017) detected several weaknesses in the implementation of this policy. According to the report, while necessary legislation is in place, a common understanding of what inclusive education means is lacking. In addition, teachers receive insufficient professional support regarding implementation and the budget for support is inadequate. Furthermore, the budget provision is partly believed to work against

66

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

i­ nclusion by promoting the diagnosis of students as having a disability and promoting organisational needs rather than learners’ educational needs. One of the issues at stake is the uncertainty of who should bear the responsibility of the implementation and the support to teachers to make inclusive education an integral function in classrooms. Is it the state, the municipalities, the principals or the teachers themselves? The findings of this report by EASNIE have received great attention at the state and local level. A ministerial-appointed committee that includes all the main stakeholders’ voices is working towards solutions. As mentioned earlier, Reykjavík has a vigorous school office and a dominating status because of its size and capacities in relation to other municipalities. In spring 2017, the city began to form a new educational policy. A team of national and international specialists guided the crafting of the policy. From the start, the focus was on working widely with the schools and the communities. This policy has now been released (Reykjavíkurborg n.d.). Although there was not a stress on behalf of the city to use the national curriculum as a basis for this policy development in the process, the emphases in the policy corresponds closely to the six pillars in the national curriculum stipulated in 2011 (see Reykjavíkurborg 2018a, b).

4.5.5  T  he National Initiative on Literacy and Literacy Enactment Following a transnational trend (Gunter et al. 2016), PISA results and other OECD measures and research have gained increased attention at the state level (Dovemark et al. 2018). One of the main challenges has been to deal with falling literacy scores on PISA, and this has been mirrored in actions at the state level. The White Paper in 2014 was followed by the establishment of a literacy enactment program that included a national covenant on literacy between the minister, every municipality and the National Parents’ Association and the placement of the program at the new Directorate of Education. In spite of general acknowledgement of the need to tackle declining literacy in Iceland, this initiative – or rather the ideology behind it and the approach itself – has been strongly criticised. Sigþórsson (2017, 2020) analysed the policy behind the literacy initiative presented in the White Paper and the implementation of the enactment program that followed. He claims that its primary aim was to improve PISA results, being driven by a narrow focus on testing reading literacy, measured in standardised national and international tests and screenings and summoning statistical data to use for comparison between students, schools and municipalities. This approach is clearly at odds with the definition of literacy and the key competences and pillars of education presented in the national curriculum and goes against the research and the view of literacy as a pedagogical and social culturally mediated activity (Sigþórsson 2017). Furthermore, it is at odds with the BL used by many schools, which is in consonant with the emphasis in the national curriculum on the conception of literacy and

4  Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment…

67

i­nclusion and gives space to teachers to develop their professional capacity and agency (Sigþórsson 2020). It seems that the public actions that the minister and the Directorate took against the BL reflects apathy in relation to the inclusive features of literacy and the development of classroom practice (Sigþórsson 2020).

4.5.6  L  engthening of Teacher Education and Teacher Shortage Following the laws set in 2008, teacher education programmes were lengthened in 2011. The stipulation was that all teachers at all school levels were required to have a master’s degree to qualify for certification. These steps were intended to increase professionalism within the profession in the hope of improving education for all children. Whether that is indeed the case still remains to be seen. However, many have viewed the lengthening of the teacher education process as contributing to the decrease in students entering teacher education (Sigurðardóttir et al. 2018b). Also, on average, Iceland’s teachers are among the oldest in the OECD countries (OECD 2016). If this development continues, it is worrying, for the near future (see e.g. Eyjólfsson 2017). The teacher shortage can be explained to a large extent as the result of an image problem coupled with the need for an increase in teachers’ salaries. This situation has led to numerous teachers’ strikes during recent decades. This shortfall has received increased attention lately in the media by stakeholders as at the state, municipalities, the Teachers’ Union, and the universities (Baldursdóttir 2018, June 27; Arnarsdóttir 2018, February 2; Eyjólfsson 2017; Haukur 2018, March 26). The current minister appointed a group of specialists, comprising of the main stakeholders  – the Association of Local Authorities, the Teachers’ Union, the universities etc., – to form proposals for dealing with the situation (Baldursdóttir 2018, June 27). Based on those the minister has launced an action plan in 2019. Among the actions taken is to make it possible for teacher students to take the fifth year of teacher education a candidate year with part-time salaries, as well as to offer a scholarship for finishing their Master thesis (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 2019).

4.5.7  Dealing with High Dropout Rates One of the main challenges of the educational system is the high dropout rate in upper secondary schools. In addition, Icelandic students are among the oldest within the OECD countries to graduate from upper secondary schools. A reaction to this problem took place during 2015–2016 when the upper secondary school period was shortened from 4  year program to a 3  year program. This reduction mandated a major reorganization of the upper secondary school curriculum. This alteration has

68

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

received criticism, especially from upper secondary school teachers who claim that the necessary curriculum changes were done without sufficient support from the ministry.

4.6  D  iscussion and Future Trends in Educational Governance This paper set out to explore development in educational policies in Iceland, especially changes in governance during the last 20 years and the establishment and role of the national agency. Furthermore, it looked into who the main players in the field are and shed light on the major challenges that could affect educational governance in Iceland.

4.6.1  P  olicy Enactments at Local- and School Level – Increased Responsibility at State Level One of the most serious challenges being faced in the development of educational policy in Iceland is the degree to which the education system is immensely dependent on politics at any given time (see Sigurðardóttir et al. 2018a). At fault, are the changes in dominance of the political ideology that swings back and forth between neoliberal views and social democratic views – although the neoliberal one has had more weight the last decades (Dýrfjörð and Magnúsdóttir 2016). This pendulum effect contributes to instability in policy imperatives and a lack of sufficient support for education on the state level (see also Jónsson 2014). This effect also trickles down to the local governance level (Sigþórsson 2013). There is not much disagreement among stakeholders that the state level should assume more responsibilities in education, but how the rebalancing should be done is however more the issue. In some ways, the poles in the media pivot around the ministry level and its agency, on the one hand, and the teachers, (some) academics, the union and parents, on the other hand, where the latter group is straining to give alternatives to the actions and policies of the former. Where exactly the local governance level – the municipalities – fit in this picture is somewhat blurred, leaving the impression they are the piggy in the middle of the two other major stakeholder groups. In any case, a gap between the state and local level actors, coupled with lack of support concerning various policy imperatives, is likely to attenuate the enactment of state policy at the local level (see Maguire et al. 2013). It is interesting that the biggest municipality did not transparently use the national curriculum as a starting point in forming their new education policy and indicates how Reykjavík, with its power of size and force, has become a sort of a state within the state. It shows also how the discourse and emphasis at the transnational and

4  Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment…

69

national levels, presenting neoliberal views and New Public Management, has undermined the value of the curriculum at the local policy level. This shift has occurred even when the politicians in charge belong to the left-wing parties rather than the right, as is the case in Reykjavík (Dýrfjörð & Magnúsdóttir). This shows how the neoliberal discourse has managed to overtake truth and social reality and change how people think about their affairs (Ball 2017). In any case, given the sway that Reykjavík exercises in educational matters in Iceland, the new policy might become a valuable component in the ongoing debate over Icelandic educational policy, giving more weight to a holistic approach to education instead of the narrow liberalistic view that has been controlling the balance for the last two decades. Whether this will be the case might appear in the new national education policy until 2030, when published. It is obvious that policy at the state level has had considerable influences on the local- and school level. It is though as obvious that not all policies have been enacted at the local level as forcefully as they were intended nor in the expected way. This can be seen regarding internal school evaluations, curriculum implementations and, more accurately regarding principals’ leadership and teachers’ capacity to deal with curriculum implementation such as inclusive education. Furthermore, some of the policy enactment, such as moving accountability to municipalities, principals’ and teachers, has evoked new and unexpected challenges. This is e.g. regarding how to support principals in providing more education leadership or to support teachers in dealing with ever-increasing demands that bring them to burnouts. Weather state policies have effect on student prerequisites, learning and results is though much in the dark. PISA results the last almost 20 years, supported with standardized screening, show declining ability among students e.g. in reading but few other measures are available. In any case, it seems true that the state governance has failed to follow their policies with sufficient support to the local- and school level and considerable policy change is needed at both the ministry and the  directorate if it is going to change that route. The same seems to be the case for the support system at the municipal level. The longterm effects of the economic crises 2008 should not be underestimated, which indirectly might affect teachers and students in school through increased stress and shortage of teachers.

4.6.2  E  stablishing Trust Towards the State Level and to the Directorate Resentment towards the actions of the ministry, the former minister and the Directorate of Education have led to a loss of trust, increasing the gap between the ministry and the directorate, and the teaching field. This trust needs to be restored. This is not the least important for the new directorate that has had such a haltering start. Unfortunately, the directorate seems to be more of an administration institution than a progressive education-oriented organization aiming at providing

70

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

c­ onsultancy and support to the educational field (see Sigþórsson 2020). To deal with this awkward position and gain trust, the directorate needs to work better with the different actors in the field and listen to their voices. It needs to show by its actions that it is capable of being a leading institution in education, not only by practicing assessment, quality assurance and administrative protocols policy. It needs to show it understands the whole process of education and thus practice more educational leadership by providing students with the best education by taking actions that support teachers in becoming better professionals. Time will show how much trust from the field the directorate will gain in the future, depending on how well it manages this and it’s many, often conflicting tasks. No doubt, an awakening at the governmental level towards taking more responsibility for education and following up on policy with systematic actions is in the works. On the other hand, it is worrying that on the way to taking more responsibility for education the ministry and the state seem to be increasing its interference in education instead of devoting its energies to enhancing competencies and skills within the municipalities and their schools. The emphasis the ministry and the directorate put on international surveys such as PISA and TALIS and the amount of influence wielded by those assessment systems is worrying. They have the power to deflect the actions of the ministry and the directorate toward quick fixes instead of deeply thought-through actions. As can be seen, this situation is increasingly met with resistance from academics, the teaching profession, and recently, the superintendents. This resistance is likely to continue, though whether it will be enough to turn the policy around cannot yet be predicted. Despite this spirited public debate, some signs have appeared that the state, together with other interest groups, is showing increased will to cooperate in educational governance to provide a more common ground for actions. This adjustment is likely to continue and is also fundamental for further educational prosperity in Iceland.

References Arnarsdóttir, Þ. (2018, February 2). Þurfum ekki fleiri skýrslur um kennaraskort [There is no need for more reports on the lack of teachers, in Islandic]. RUV [Icelandic National Broadcasting Service]. Retrieved at http://www.ruv.is/frett/thurfum-ekki-fleiri-skyrslur-um-kennaraskort Baldursdóttir, B. (2018, June 27). Aðgerðaráætlun lögð fram í haust [Plan of action put forward next autumn, in Islandic]. RUV [Icelandic National Broadcasting Service]. Retrieved at http:// www.ruv.is/frett/adgerdaraaetlun-logd-fram-i-haust Ball, S. J. (2017). The education debate (3rd ed.). Bristol: Policy Press. Blossom, U., Imsen, G., & Moos, L. (2014). Schools for all: A Nordic model. In U.  Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic educational model: ʽA school for all’ encounters neo-­ liberal policy (pp. 231–240). New York: Springer. Compulsory School Act no. 91/2008.

4  Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment…

71

Directorate of Education Act no. 91/2015. Dovemark, M., Kosunen, S., Kauko, J., Magnúsdóttir, B., Hansen, P., & Rasmussen, P. (2018). Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: Social changes reflected in schooling. Education Inquiry, 9(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/20 004508.2018.1429768. Dýrfjörð, K., & Magnúsdóttir, B.  R. (2016). Privatization of early childhood education in Iceland. Comparative & International Education, 11(1), 80–97. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745499916631062. Einarsdóttir, J., & Jónsson. Ó. P. (eds.). (2010). Dewey í hugsun og verki: Menntun, reynsla og lýðræði [Dewey in thought and work: Education, experience and democracy, in Islandic]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan [University of Iceland Press]. Elíasdóttir, Á., Sigurjónsdóttir, S.  B., Hafliðadóttir, S., & Vilhjálmsdóttir, A. (2013). Úttekt á fyrirkomulagi og framkvæmd sérfræðiþjónustu í sex sveitarfélögum. Unnin fyrir Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið [Report on specialist service in six municipalities made for the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, in Islandic]. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2017). Education for all in Iceland  – External audit of the Icelandic system for inclusive education. Retrieved at https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/menntamalaraduneytimedia/media/frettatengt2016/ FinalreportExternal-Audit-of-the-Icelandic-System-for-Inclusive-Education.pdf Eyjólfsson, H.  E. (2017). Tímaatburðagreining á ferli nýútskrifaðra grunnskólakennara [Timeanalyses of number and composition of newly educated elementary school teachers] (unpublished M.Ed. report). Retrieved at http://hdl.handle.net/1946/29028 Gunter, H., M., Grimaldi, E., Hall, D., & Serpieri, R. (2016). NPM and educational reform in Europe. In H. Gunter, E. Grimaldi, D. Hall, & R. Serpieri New public management and the reform of education: European lessons for policy and practice (3–17). London: Routledge. Halldórsson, A. M., Ólafsson, R. F., & Björnsson, J. K. (2013). Helstu niðurstöður PISA 2012: Læsi nemenda á stærðfræði og náttúrufræði og lesskilningur [Main findings of PISA 2012: Students literacy in math, natural science and reading comprehension, in Islandic]. Retrieved at https://mms.is/sites/mms.is/files/pisa_2012_island.pdf Hansen, B. (2004). Heimastjórnun: Áhersla í stefnumörkun grunnskóla [School-based management: Policy emphasis at compulsory school level]. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. Retrieved at: http://netla.hi.is/greinar/2004/003/index.htm Hansen, B. (2013). Transnational influences and educational policies in Iceland. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic model? (pp. 49–60). Dordrecht: Springer. Hansen, B., & Jóhannsson, Ó. H., (2010). Allt í öllu: Hlutverk fræðslustjóra 1975–1996 [The role of superintedents of school 1975–1996]. Reykjavík: University of Iceland Press. Hansen, B., & Lárusdóttir, S. H. (2014). Instructional leadership in compulsory schools in Iceland and the role of school principals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(5), 583–603. Hansen, B., Jóhannsson, Ó. H., & Lárusdóttir, S. H. (2002). Hlutverk skólastjóra og mat þeirra á yfirfærslu grunnskólans til sveitarfélaga [Principals role and evaluation of the transfer of the compulsory school to the municipalities, in Islandic]. Icelandic Journal of Education, 1(11), 191–206. Reykjavík: The Teacher University Press. Haukur, H. (2018, March 26). Boðar aðgerðir í kennaranámi [Says there will be actions in regard to teacher education, in Islandic]. RUV [Icelandic National Broadcasting Service]. Retrieved at http://www.ruv.is/frett/bodar-adgerdir-i-kennaranami Hreinsdóttir, K. (2013). “Þar brenna allir mínir eldar”. Um áhrif sveitastjórna á grunnskólann [There my interest lay: On how municipal councils influence compulsory school, in Islandic] (unpublished MPA.-thesis). Retrieved at http://hdl.handle.net/1946/13621 Hreinsdóttir, A.  M., & Hjartarson, Þ. (2018, May 15). Lærdómssamfélag og samræmd próf [Professional learning communities and national exams, in Islandic]. Skólavarðan  –

72

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

veftímarit um skóla- og menntamál. Retrieved at http://skolavardan.is/raddir/ Laerdomssamfelag-og-samraemd-prof Jónsson, Ó. P. (2014). Democratic educational policy: Brief history and philosophical analysis. Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration, 10(1), 97–116. Kristjánsson, J. Þ. (2017, May 9). Segir Menntamálastofnun skorta traust [Says the Directorate of Education lacks trust, in Islandic]. RUV [Icelandic National Broadcasting Service]. Retrieved at http://ruv.is/frett/segir-menntamalastofnun-skorta-traust Lög um tekjustofna sveitarfélaga nr 4/1995 [Law on the source of income for municipalities, no. 4/1995]. Maguire, M., Ball, S. J., & Braun, A. (2013). What ever happened to …? ‘Personalised learning’ as a case of policy dissipation, Journal of Education Policy, 28(3), 322–338.   Menntamálastofnun [Directorate of Education]. (2016). Um Menntamálastofnun [About the Directorate of Education, in Islandic]. Retrieved at https://mms.is/um-menntamalastofnun Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (n.d.). Námskrár [National curriculum]. Retrieved at https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/menntamal/namskrar/ Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2010). Heildarniðurstöður úttekta á sjálfsmatsniðurstöðum grunnskóla 2007–2009: Samanburður á niðurstöðum 2001–2003 og 2007 2009 [Overall evaluation report of self-assessment results of compulsory schools 2007 2009: Comparison of results, in Islandic]. Retrieved at https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/menntamalaraduneytimedia/media/ritogskyrslur/heildarnidurst_sjalfsmatsadf_grunnsk_2007_2009. pdf Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2014). White paper – On education reform. Retrieved at https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-media/media/frettir2015/ Hvitbok_ENSKA_04.pdf Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2019). Fjölgum kennurum: aðgerðir í menntamálum [More teachers: Actions in education]. Retrieved at: https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/ menntamal/adgerdir-i-menntamalum/fjolgum-kennurum-adgerdir-i-menntamalum/ Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs. (2000). Ábyrgð, valdsvið og stjórnunarumboð forstöðumanna ríkisstofnana: Nefndarálit. Reykjavík: Höfundur. Retrieved at https://rafhladan.is/bitstream/handle/10802/3679/Abyrgd-valdssvid-forstodumanna20002.pdf?sequence=1 OECD. (1997). In search of results: Performance management practices: Organisagion for economic co-operation and development. OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators. Retrieved at https://doi. org/10.1787/eag-2012-en OECD. (2016). Education policy outlook: Iceland. Retrieved at http://www.oecd.org/edu/ Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Iceland.pdf Ólafsdóttir, B. (2016). Tilurð og þróun ytra mats á Íslandi frá 1991–2016 [The origin and development of external evaluation in Iceland from 1990–2016, in Islandic]. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. Retrieved at http://netla.hi.is/greinar/2016/ryn/14_ryn_arsrit_2016. pdf Þingskjal nr. 1161/2014–2015. Umsögn um frumvarp til laga um Menntamálastofnun [Review of the bill on the Dirctorate of Education, Berglind Rós Magnúsdóttir, in Islandic]. Retrieved at https://www.althingi.is/thingstorf/thingmalin/erindi/?ltg=144&mnr=456 Þingskjal nr. 1281/2014–2015. Umsögn Kennarasambands íslands um frumvarp til laga um Menntamálastofnun, (heildarlög), 456. Mál [Review on the bill of the Dierctorate of Education, the Teacher’s Union, in Islandic]. Retrieved at https://www.althingi.is/thingstorf/thingmalin/ erindi/?ltg=144&mnr=456 Preschool Act no. 90/2008. Reglugerð um stofnun og starf fagráða Menntamálastofnunar nr. 530/2016 [Regulation on establishment and work of specialist councils at the Directorate of Education no. 530/2016]. Reykjavíkurborg. (n.d.). Menntastefna til 2030 í mótun [Development of educational policy until 2030, in Islandic]. Retrived at https://reykjavik.is/menntastefna-til-2030-i-motun

4  Iceland: Challenges in Educational Governance in Iceland: The Establishment…

73

Reykjavíkurborg. (2018a, May 3). Menntastefna Reykjavíkurborgar til 2030: „Látum draumana rætast“  – Drög [Reykjavík educational policy until 2030: “Lets our dreams come true”  – Draft, in Islandic]. Retrieved at https://reykjavik.is/sites/default/files/menntastefna_reykjavikur_250418_drog_til_umsagnar.pdf Reykjavíkurborg. (2018b). Kynning um menntastefnuna vor 2018 [Introduction of the educational policy spring 2018]. Retrieved at https://reykjavik.is/sites/default/files/drog_ad_menntastefnu_kynning_220518.pdf Schick, A. (2002). Opportunity, strategy and tactics in reforming public management. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2(3), 7–34. Sigþórsson, R. (2013). Sérfræðiþjónusta við leik- og grunnskóla [Specialist service at pre- and compulsory school]. In R. Sigþórsson, R. Eggertsdóttir & G. H. Frímannsson (Eds.), Fagmennska í starfi: Skrifað til heiðurs Trausta Þorsteinssyni [Professionalism in education: Written in honour of Trausti Þorsteinsson, in Islandic] (pp. 191–216). Reykjavík: University of Iceland Press. Sigþórsson, R. (2017). Testing or transforming practice: Probing an Icelandic national initiative to improve literacy education. Literacy, 51(2), 65–73. Sigþórsson, R. (2020). Developing an implemented curriculum of literacy: Contrasting approaches. In A. Simpson, F. Pomerantz, D. Kaufman, & S. Ellis (Eds.), Developing habits of noticing in literacy and language classrooms: Research and practice across professional cultures. Abingdon/Oxon/New York: Routledge. Sigurðardóttir, S. M. (2018). Stuðningur við skólastjóra í námi og starfi [Personal and professional support for principals]. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. Retrieved at http:// netla.hi.is/greinar/2018/ryn/08. https://doi.org/10.24270/netla.2018.8 Sigurðardóttir, A. K., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Karlsdóttir, J. (2014). The development of school for all in Iceland: Equality, threats and political conditions. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic educational model: ʽA school for all’ encounters neo-liberal policy (pp. 117–132). New York: Springer. Sigurðardóttir, S. M., Sigurðardóttir, A. K., & Hansen, B. (2018a). Educational leadership at municipality level: Defined roles and responsibilities in legislation. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 2(2–3), 56–71. Sigurðardóttir, A.  K., Jóhannesson, I. Á., & Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir, G. (2018b). Challenges, contradictions and continuity in creating a five-year teacher education programme in Iceland. Education in the North, 25(1–2), 135–154. Sigurjónsson, K. (2015, August 23). Rektor HA gagnrýnir Illuga harðlega [The Rector of the University of Akureyri criticises the Minister harshly]. RUV [Icelandic National Broadcasting Service]. Retrieved at http://www.ruv.is/frett/rektor-ha-gagnrynir-illuga-hardlega Skólastjórafélag Íslands [Association of Headteachers]. (2015, August 27). Undrast árásir menntamálaráðherra [Surprized by attacks from the Minister: Declaration of the Association of Headteachers, in Islandic]. Retrieved at http://ki.apmedia.is/adildarfelog/ skolastjorafelag-islands/frettir/2797-undrast-arasir-radherra-2 Statistics Iceland. (2018). Mannfjöldi eftir þéttbýlisstöðum, kyni og aldri 2011–2018 [Polulation by urban areas, sex and age 2011–2018, in Islandic]. Retrieved at http://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/ pxweb/is/Ibuar/Ibuar__mannfjoldi__2_byggdir__Byggdakjarnar/MAN03105.px/table/ tableViewLayout1/?rxid=d6e0954d-9ef0-44d4-98d0-21fc616c1bfc Upper Secondary Education Act no. 92/2008 wi.

Chapter 5

Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-­Management Strategies, and Reorganizational Processes of the State Authorities in Norway Kirsten Sivesind and Guri Skedsmo

Abstract  This chapter disentangles the organizational structures of national policies for basic education in Norway and examines how state boards and agencies fulfill their institutional responsibilities and roles within the education system. In the last two decades, state authorities have encouraged national reform programs to create innovation and change across policy realms and levels. They have also enacted changes by reorganizing their own administrative apparatus at the national level. This study examines policy documents, consisting of white and green papers, expert reports, and website articles. All texts were organized thematically in order to provide an overview of the reform programs, the problems and solutions that were addressed by policy-makers and experts, and the strategies that led to reorganizational processes at the state administrative level. To map out the challenges, the chapter summarizes reviews of policy-relevant research on the implementation of the Knowledge Promotion Reform (2006–2020) and similar studies that reflect how the government sets the agenda and formulates new policies for basic education. By investigating the current reorganization of state agencies, the chapter also demonstrates how gap management is employed at the state level to enable or constrain the ways in which school reforms change policies and practices.

K. Sivesind (*) Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] G. Skedsmo Institute for Research on Professions and Professional Learning (IPP), Schwyz University of Teacher Education, Goldau, Switzerland Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_5

75

76

K. Sivesind and G. Skedsmo

5.1  Educational Governance in Norway Norway’s school system is currently undergoing incremental reforms. State authorities, consisting of the parliament (the Stortinget) and the government, along with the latter are ministers and executive bodies, have the overall responsibility of guaranteeing a public education system “for all.” Ministries, state agencies, and related institutions are all mandated by the constitution, legal acts, regulations, and guiding documents. The Ministry of Education and Research bears the responsibility for the oversight and administration of the education system (UDIR 2018a). One of its key tasks is to coordinate subordinate bodies, such as the Norwegian Directorate for Education, which is responsible specifically for developing curricula, supporting schools and kindergartens, and controlling and improving the quality of education across substantial areas (KD 2017a). During the first decade of the 2000s, school reforms called for renewal and change of curricula and a national test system. All these reforms were compartmentalized into a differentiated system of tasks and tools, including legal regulations, national curricula, and technology for evaluating municipalities and schools. Compartmentalization can be considered the states’ administrative mode of managing work and decisions about the substantial aspects of school reform (Haft and Hopmann 1990; Westbury and Sivesind 2016), and which also implies licensing of professional knowledge and expertise which have evolved into different policy arenas. This chapter examines the organizational structures underlying national reform policies in Norway during first two decades of the 2000s and how the compartmentalization of the state bureaucracy is undergoing changes due to restructuring processes at the national level. In January 2018, the so-called knowledge sector began a process of strategic restructuring which implied reorganization processes in which state administrative bodies merged and responsibilities shifted between agencies, institutions, and levels. A new mix of governing modes and strategies is a key feature of today’s policies, and it calls for an analysis of how state agencies and their compartmentalized structures have managed themselves and undergone reorganization into more dynamic, customer-focused networks. We argue that certain characteristic features of the state-bureaucracy reorganization exhibit so-called gap-management strategies (Knapp and Hopmann 2017). As a governance strategy, gap management implies that systems are no longer managed solely by conditions and norms or the formal infra-structure of organizations, but also by societal expectations that emphasize the need to improve education on the basis of standards and goals. Thus, toolkits of evaluation are highlighted as a metatechnology that provide input to all other compartmentalized areas and departments within the state-administrative apparatus. On the basis of so-called soft governance, new digitalized technology specifies goals and mediates results, creating narratives that govern systems and actions more directly than in traditional bureaucracies (Navarra and Cornford 2012). This type of e-governance aims at coherence and

5  Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-Management Strategies, and…

77

alignment across policy realms and decision arenas, which we see as a key problem addressed by the Norwegian government throughout the period 1988–2018. Written for descriptive-analytical purposes, the chapter draws on content analysis as a method with which to identify the key themes of and the problems addressed by state-regulated policies. We base our description of the systems on a collection of policy documents. In addition, the chapter summarizes research findings and interpretations about the reforms and renewals in basic education in Norway. Qualitative content analysis is a well-established approach to summarizing what is actually written within policy texts, which in our case consist of publicly available information, including white and green papers, policy relevant research, expert reports, and website articles downloaded between December 2017 and September 2018. All texts were organized thematically in order to provide an overview of the organization of state administrative bodies in education, the reform programs for basic education over the last 20 years, a cluster of problems that have been addressed by these reforms, the solutions that have been suggested, and the strategies that have led to the current reorganization of the state agencies. In the first part of the chapter, we provide an overview of the state administrative apparatus, the reform programs and the compartmentalized system of tasks and tools of the key agency; The Directorate of Education. In the second part, we summarize findings and interpretations from policy-relevant research on school reform. We also show how the state agency is reorganized to solve the problems of coherence and alignment. Finally, we discuss trends and challenges in the governance of the education sector. We argue that the gaps between what is aimed for and what is assessed partly explain why state agencies merge institutions and departments within the state-administrative apparatus, which also implies substantial changes in school reform across various levels of the education system in Norway.

5.2  The State Administrative Apparatus Basic education in Norway consists of primary and secondary education. Education is compulsory for children between the ages of 6 and 16 (grades 1–10, comprising primary and lower secondary education). At the primary and secondary level, the school system is public in terms of both regulations and funding. In addition, all students in compulsory education have a legal right to access upper secondary education (grades 11–13/14) independent of their examination grades from lower secondary education (LD 2017). However, at this upper secondary stage, students can choose between academic and vocational programs. In Norway, students are awarded a certificate based on their marks at the end of lower secondary education (at the age of 15–16), which confirms their completion of compulsory education. The students’ teachers are authorized to set the marks, and for some subjects, the government provides additional national state-regulated exams. This examination system is now part of the Norwegian quality assessment system (NQAS), which is continuously improved to coordinate school types and

78

K. Sivesind and G. Skedsmo

levels based on various types of tests and data. Individual assessment is thereby complemented with evaluation instruments that scale up measurements into aggregated data used for governance purposes. The Ministry of Education and Research is responsible for oversight and administration of the education system from kindergarten to upper secondary education. Thus, the Ministry of Education and Research is the main government body in the educational system. There are currently two ministers for education: the minister for research and higher education and the minster for knowledge and integration. The latter is responsible for basic education and kindergartens. Both ministers have political and administrative roles, because they are political members of the national government as well as heads of their respective departments. They are normally appointed along with their secretaries and political advisers. All other officials within the Ministry of Education and Research are employed by the department. In 2017, this ministry consisted of two units: the section for quality development and the section for steering. A primary role of the Ministry of Education and Research has been to conduct what Maroy (2012) refers to as professional-­ bureaucratic governance. This kind of governance reflects a conditional approach, which involves an indirect use of policy tools to coordinate and guide subordinate bodies in interpreting and implementing legal acts and guidelines at central and local levels (Sivesind 2013; Sivesind et al. 2016a). Today, nongovernmental bodies also collaborate with the ministry on how to conduct professional-bureaucratic governance in municipalities and schools. Thus, the ministry’s mandate includes the support and coordination of an extensive number of agencies, institutions, and school types (KD 2017b), such as the National Parents’ Committee for Primary and Secondary Education (FUG 2018). The FUG’s role is to ensure that the voices of parents are heard in debates on education policy, and it also acts as an advisory and consultative body to the Ministry of Education and Research, representing parents’ interests (Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1  Organizational structure of the governance of kindergarten and basic education in Norway

5  Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-Management Strategies, and…

79

Until January 1, 2018, the Directorate of Education and Training served as a board for the Ministry of Education. It consisted of three decision levels —the staff, the divisions, and the departments—all of which were coordinated by the director (see Fig.  5.2). The Directorate of Education and Training was for many years in charge of the curriculum-making process and the enactment of new national curricula in both primary and secondary education. These curricula have traditionally

Director

Content and development

Communication staff

Staff director for vocational education

Analysis and assessment

Regulation and funding

Governance and administration

Vocational education and training

Department for research and international work

Legal 1

Security and service

Department for curriculum development

Statistics

Legal 2

IT system management and service

Department for curriculum implementation

Assessment 1

Gratia payments and vocational cerification

IT operations and support

Department for professional development

Assessment 2

Department for inspection

HR

Economy

Governance Fig. 5.2  Staffs, divisions, and departments of the Norwegian Directorate of Education until January 1, 2018 (UDIR 2017)

80

K. Sivesind and G. Skedsmo

outlined norms and principles for how to organize teaching in schools and select and sequence the content to be taught (Mølstad and Karseth 2016). Being a kind of framework, the curricula have in the next step structured the content of textbooks, which in Norway are no longer officially authorized in the 2000s, but still revised when new curricula are implemented within the education system. Moreover, in recent years the Directorate of Education and Training has organized national examinations and assessments that have evolved into a system of instruments aiming to coordinate the education sector across school types and administrative levels. Examples of such instruments are the School Certificate, national tests, diagnostic tests, international comparative achievement tests such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), etc., and school inspection (Skedsmo 2009). These tools are included in the NQAS, which was designed to manage and improve the quality of education. The organizational structure (see Fig. 5.2) illustrates a professional-bureaucratic type of governance that characterized the Norwegian education system since the 1960s. According to this type of governance, school reform is organized by professional areas of interest, indicating what employees are supposed to do according to overall mandates and regulations. This type of governance is based on what Lundgren (1981/1977) described as a three-part system consisting of (1) regulations and rules, (2) curriculum and goals, and (3) other administrative tools. However, the evaluative mode of governance, which Lundgren (1990) described as a fourth system, is also apparent in today’s governance, because several departments work on how to evaluate education and students’ learning in schools (see Fig. 5.2). Within this part, both national and international research programs inform the national government about the quality of teaching and learning within the education sector. This has also been one reason for this institution to re-organize their staff and departments several times during the last 20 years. The organizational overview also shows that several departments within the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training worked with legal issues. These departments have increased in size during the last decade due to juridification and an intensified interest in regulation (Hall 2018), and they currently shape the oversight of both the education systems and the early intervention programs, which are two strategic areas for reform and innovation (Andenæs and Møller 2016). Still, reforms have been highly compartmentalized, which means that the tools that are used and the issues that are addressed have evolved into parallel rather than integrated reforms without being aligned and coherent (Sivesind and Westbury 2016); this phenomenon has resulted in a lack of legitimacy due to an increased scientific interest in designing “best practices”.

5  Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-Management Strategies, and…

81

5.3  Reform Programs In the Norwegian context, there is a longstanding tradition that state authorities initiate a range of national school reforms. During the two last decades, such reforms have addressed substantial changes in areas such as curriculum and assessment. A policy program with is distributed widely across the education system, are national curricula that guide professionals’ work in schools (Engelsen and Karseth 2007; Mølstad and Karseth 2016). Despite the major role of national reform programs, it has for a long time been up to the teachers to decide on professional matters related to school reform, such as how teaching should be prepared or how classroom activities should be organized (Bachmann 2005). Today, national curriculum reforms are changing along with qualification frameworks, which are used to assess the quality and improvement of learning in schools. The introduction of new assessment and accountability policies involves less detailed curricula and gives more leeway to teachers to make decisions regarding both content and methods. Nonetheless, new demands for improving quality raise the question of whether central coordination has been strengthened in such a way that municipalities are left with less autonomy (Møller and Skedsmo 2013). The education sector in Norway has undergone two waves of modernization, known as new public management (NPM), the first of which was characterized by a focus on decentralization and the introduction of management by objectives (MBO) (Møller and Skedsmo 2013). MBO had already appeared in the curriculum from 1987 (M87) as a guiding strategy for how to formulate and implement a set of national goals in all compulsory schools across the country (Sivesind 2008). Ten years later, a new curriculum introduced objectives and core content, which aimed to establish equality among groups of students in primary and lower secondary schools. According to the expert OECD panel (1990/1988) that evaluated the Norwegian education system during the late 1980s, there was no need to develop a new curriculum. The national expert evaluation by the OECD made the alternative recommendation of building up a national evaluation system to oversee educational quality. Questions were raised as to whether the national school authorities could form an opinion of and influence the level of quality in a school system that evolved into a highly decentralized system (OECD 1990/1988). The reviewers claimed that their purpose was not to reintroduce national control, that is, to extensively centralize policy, but rather to advocate the ways in which “good norms of educational practice” (OECD 1988, p.  46) could be established and disseminated. This required devoting more attention to educational processes and outcomes. The White Paper No. 37 to the Storting (1990–1991) formally introduced MBO as the new governing strategy in education and drew up a division of tasks and responsibilities for the various levels of the education system. Although White Paper No. 37 (1990–1991) called for national evaluations, it took more than 10 years for a national quality assessment system to become a reality. This slow pace was related in part to the institutionalized practice of not aggregating results about

82

K. Sivesind and G. Skedsmo

students’ learning processes and outcomes. Consequently, the white paper occasioned a far-reaching debate about the potential dangers of evaluation. Several new reform initiatives were launched, and follow-up discussions took place within the public debate about what this evaluation system should look like. Consequently, evaluation and assessment have been a highly contested issue in Norway. NPM aimed to address problems of fragmentation caused by the first initiatives of balancing centralization and decentralization processes within the public sector. In this reform period, which began in the early 2000s, the government introduced value-based management to strengthen the understanding of collective goals and norms (Christensen and Lægreid, 2011). The White Paper No. 30 (2003–2004) reflected a new governance model for education with a focus on deregulation, efficiency, competition, accountability, and learning outcomes. Whereas the arguments in White Paper No. 37 (1990–1991) pertained to the internal organization and structures of the education system, the arguments put forth in White Paper No. 30 (2003–2004) addressed global challenges to which the education system needed to respond. The latter paper argued that the new governing model was motivated by the problematic PISA findings and concerns about reducing disparities in educational outcomes across different social groups (Møller and Skedsmo 2013; Skedsmo 2009). National tests and international comparative studies such as PISA, and TIMSS represent new elements within the NQAS from the early 2000s. With these new elements, comparison with others and benchmarking has emerged as a new concept of assessing educational quality and progress in Norway (Skedsmo 2009, 2018). The use of national test results has by far the greatest implications for how government agencies govern the schools’ work. Even though the results are standardized, the use of national test results implies a normative, fluid concept of quality driven by the monitoring of the positioning of schools and municipalities. In 2013, a new governing system was introduced in Norway based on an agreement among different actors about the ways in which school inspection can be used as a tool for school improvement (Hall and Sivesind 2015). One might argue that academic and practical judgments are central in any public authority mandated by the state when educational practices are inspected by professionals. This is especially true when the state aims at a persuasive role of motivating change rather than a regulative function. Yet, new governance trajectories seem to deal not only with the practice gap between regulative reforms and actions, but also with the achievement gap between expectations and performance outcomes. These dilemmas called for changes in administrative arrangements at both the national and local levels.

5.4  Research Evidence: Trends and Challanges There is little doubt that the strategic structuring, both within and across state boards and agencies, constitute the government’s attempt to manage pressure that has evolved due to the report’s shortcomings and fallacies uncovered by experts. So-called evidence-based policy has increased in legitimacy during the last decade,

5  Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-Management Strategies, and…

83

and for this reason different sources of knowledge are by themselves shaping school reforms as well as reorganization processes within and across administrative levels. The pressure to continuously renew curricula and school-development projects has increased due to the results of both international and not at least, nationally funded research projects and evaluations, in which researchers within Norway develop knowledge about reform policies and make judgements about the logics and quality. The number of state-funded research projects in education has dramatically increased during the last decade, and findings and interpretations are used as evidence for new incremental reforms within the education sector (Beak et al. 2017). In addition, Norway’s mediocre results on international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) such as the PISA seems to have played a key- role by creating pressure to reform education in Norway during the early 2000s (Røvik et al. 2014). Generally, the PISA has played a strategically important role in policy-making processes in many European countries and elsewhere. Through the PISA, it has been argued, the OECD has assumed “a new institutional role as arbiter of global governance, simultaneously acting as diagnostician, judge and policy advisor to the world’s school system” (Meyer and Benavot 2013, p. 9). The role of judge implies global accountability measures that classify and rank students, educators, and school systems from a variety of cultures and countries using the same standardized benchmarks. At the center of this type of governing are data and data systems that construct policy problems and frame policy solutions across national contexts (Nóvoa and Yariv-Marshal 2003; Ozga 2009, 2012). The data appear to summarize rather complex phenomena and dimensions across different sites and across time (cf. Hacking 1983). Albeit being used for normative purposes (Steiner-Khamsi 2012), the data and the use of data are presented as politically and ideologically neutral and calculable (Pettersson et al. 2017). It is neither our purpose to claim a direct influence of research on education policy, nor the view that policy shapes researchers’ perspectives and interpretations due to increased significance of evidence-based policy. Since there are always processes of reception, translation and interpretation embedded in the transfer of texts and ideas between research fields and policies (Steiner-Kahmsi and Waldow 2012), differentiated roles and functions between researchers and policymakers remain. This differentiation of roles within the Norwegian policy context, has also allowed for producing research which is critical to current policies. In this part of the chapter we will summarize key-findings and interpretations from a cluster studies about the ways in which the state authorities fulfill their institutional responsibilities and roles within the education system. How are national reforms implemented and enacted at local levels? Achieving School Accountability in Practice (ASAP) was one of the first research projects to examine how the Knowledge Promotion Reform was put into practice (Langfeldt et al. 2008). The aim of the ASAP project was to describe policy changes at national, regional and local levels and examine the consequences of introducing outcome-oriented measures in school practices (Hopmann 2003; Langfeldt et  al. 2008). It sought to develop academic and professional knowledge and support

84

K. Sivesind and G. Skedsmo

schools to handle “the new reality” which introduced new accountabilities along with a national test system. One of the nine subprojects, based on a quantitative survey to school principals and teachers, examined the significance of new forms of assessment in schools within the start-up phase. 85 municipalities participated in the survey and the researchers conducted group interviews with school leaders and teachers in 19 schools in spring 2006. The findings indicated that school leaders and teachers were not fully qualified for implementing the new curriculum which did not guide teachers in terms of what to teach at certain grades, but asked them to develop their own plans and goals to support students in their learning progress. Teachers claimed that they were using too much time on curriculum planning and less on assessment and evaluation due to all the competence objectives which they were going to concretize for teaching purposes (Sivesind and Bachmann 2008). However, neither this type of planning, nor the outcome-based measurements that were introduced, hindered teachers and school principals to act as responsible professionals. The school’s employees felt internally responsible for providing lessons adjusted to the needs of the students, and they were not equally committed to improving the national evaluation results officially announced by the state authorities at the website “Skoleporten” (The School Portal). Also, the research evaluations of the Knowledge Promotion Reform demonstrated the same need to support schools in their local work with the curricula (Dale et al. 2011; Hodgson et al. 2012). Aasen et al. (2012) recommended that the state agencies should follow up and provide more support to counties, municipalities, and local schools in their reform efforts. Dale et al. (2011) showed that different parts of the national curriculum document reflected different knowledge perspectives and thereby causing dilemmas for how to implement a national curriculum, and Hodgson et  al. (2012) showed how competence objectives were concretized by teachers without necessarily leading to a result-based practice. In addition, a doctoral and a post doctoral project provided overviews of changes in assessment policies as part of the transformation of school governing structures and processes which took place in the early 2000s as well as how key actors in the local school system responded to new expectations following the reform (Skedsmo 2009, 2018; Skedsmo and Møller 2016), and the research project Practices of Data Use in Norwegian Municipalities and Schools (PraDa) provided new insights into concrete data-use at different levels of the education system (Mausethagen et  al. 2018a). This study showed, for instance, that local authorities, school leaders, and teachers used the national test data primarily to monitor school quality over time and to compare schools and municipalities. Many municipalities and schools have established results meetings as an arena in which to link student-achievement data to development work. In this context, national expectations about data-use practices had the potential to establish new patterns of interactions between actors in the local governing system (between municipal administrators and school leaders and between school leaders and teachers). Moreover, these patterns may lead to concrete implications for teaching and learning in schools (Mausethagen et al. 2018b; Skedsmo 2018).

5  Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-Management Strategies, and…

85

The study revealed new insights in the way teachers draw on national test results in result meetings, and how the accountability policy now actually changed the autonomy of teachers differently than in 2006. Based on both qualitative and quantitative data, the researchers concluded that teachers were subjects for expectations and demands which resulted in a regulative autonomy, by which they draw on a range of knowledge sources, such as subject didactics, contextual knowledge about the students, and their own experience. In this situation, they found it challenging to integrate these sources to improve learning outcomes, and the improvement efforts they end up with are often short-term and directed towards improving test results (Prøitz et al. 2017). In short, policy changes were needed. Currently, the renewal of reform programs has been launched at the national level, which can be characterized as “The renewal and improvement reform 2020.” (Baek et al. 2018). In this reform the state authorities are reformulating all parts of the national curriculum, now with an increased focus on what students should learn in terms of core content, calibrated towards a national framework for assessment. The new curricula will take effect in 2020. For the moment also a re-organization process of state departments and agencies are taking place in the knowledge sector. The so-called Gjedrem Report extended several lines of thinking, by recommending a reorganization of the knowledge sector in 2015 already (KD 2015). The report aimed to examine the distribution of tasks between the Ministry of Education and Research and its subordinate state agencies and institutions and to formulate policy solutions in order to lay the groundwork for the following large-scale objectives: • • • • • •

good and consistent goal achievement in the knowledge sector high-quality education and research the fulfilment of the needs of each sector and of society, both now and in the future the efficient use of resources governance, leadership, and accountability a clearer distinction between policy developments, management, service production, and supervision (inspection) (KD 2015, p. 8)

The report came to different conclusions for different areas within the education sector. For basic education, the committee recommended strengthening the Directorate for Education as a state agency by implementing a more stringent mode of result-based regulation. Following Levi-Faur (2010), one might view this kind of regulation as the “promulgation of prescriptive rules as well as the monitoring and enforcement of these rules by social, business, and political actors,” which according to the same author is a purely administrative pursuit. The regulatory state, which manages the gap of expectations, seems to arise from distrust within professional bureaucratic governance structures, where institutional contracts are used to initiate informal governing dialogues to accomplish wide-reaching purposes that fit with sector interests (Maroy 2012). Gjedrem and Fagernæs (KD 2015, p. 11) even recommended turning the Directorate for Education into a governing board for teacher education to ensure that professionals are regulated in a predictable way; this

86

K. Sivesind and G. Skedsmo

recommendation was, however, not put into action when the Directorate of Education was reorganized in 2018. In the last part of this chapter we will present how state-agencies have been reorganized as a regulative pursuit. We consider changes within the organization of state-agencies as a kind of strategic restructuring, which is not only an implication of school reform, but even more a result of regulatory reform of the knowledge sector in general. As already mentioned, state authorities in Norway have traditionally played a leading role in the knowledge sector by formalizing infra-structures as conditions for public schooling and as a supplier of teacher education to warrant “education for all”. In this system, teacher unions have had substantial power to shape school reforms, and for this reason it has been a highly professional-­ bureaucratic pursuit. However, during the two last decades, also a de-regulation has taken place, opening up for companies to provide services in certain areas, both as consultants evaluating the quality of education, not at least for developing and implementing new digital technology to monitor the quality of education by measuring learning outcomes. Both on the EU level and on the national school level, legislation and transnational networks evolve in which standards are implemented by new technology. In the last part of the chapter we will present how state-authorities are now reorganized to enhance the usage of digital technology in education, not only to support students’ learning in schools, but for governance purposes in terms of what can be called e-governance.

5.5  R  e-organizing as Gap-Management: Challenges, Trends and Accomplishments As of January 1, 2018, the Directorate for Education assumed responsibility for kindergartens, basic education, and information, communication and technology (ICT.)1 On this date, the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training merged with the Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education (see Fig. 5.1). A key purpose of the reorganization has been to improve the quality of the education systems by a gap-­ management policy which implies more evaluations, and e-governance. The Directorate for education currently has approximately 370 employees. Its main office is in Oslo, and it also has offices in other cities and towns in Norway. The agency has two sets of staff; digitalization staff and communication staff (see Fig. 5.2), and consists of six divisions, with a total of 24 subdivisions. The six divisions are (1) knowledge, analysis and dissemination; (2) learning and assessment; (3) guidance and service development; (4) competence development; (5) regulations and grants and (6) administration. The digitalization staff assists all these divisions and subdivisions with ICT-related tasks and works toward the  Utdanningsdirektoratet (2018). Accessed 20.01.2018 at http://www.udir.no/

1

5  Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-Management Strategies, and…

87

digitalization of policy-making processes and strategies. A key task for the communication staff is its editorial responsibility for the directorate’s websites and assistance with all divisions and subdivisions (also called departments). The reorganization has addressed a set of core issues, which are summarised at the agency’s website (UDIR 2018b) (Fig. 5.3). At first sight, one might think of the reorganization of the state agencies as merely a restructuring of social programmes and activities at the state level which follow from administrative decisions. However, a closer consideration confirms that the changes are even more foundational; in effect, they are altering the social contract between actors and governance levels in a regulative pursuit that address particular gaps that have been identified through evaluations. It seems that power is being enacted using new types of planning modes and tools beyond the institutional relationships among different actors. By introducing digitalization as a core ingredient in education sector governance, it is assumed that the contract between the state and local governing actors will become more dependent on data production and use. In this case, new digital technology will provide an artificial platform for education system governance (Williamson 2017). The Gjedrem Report (KD 2015) encouraged a gap-management policy and an e-governance strategy with its recommendation to merge the Directorate for Education and training and the Centre for ICT in Education, and the government

Director

Knowledge, analysis, and dissemination

Learning and assessment

Communication

Digitalization

Guidance and service development

Competence development

Regulations and grants

Administration

Statistics

Curricula for kindergarten and basic education

Educational support and guidance

Teacher education and in-service training

The Education Act

Economy

Research and international work

Curricula for secondary and adult education

Digital services

Kindergarten and school development

Kindergarten Act and private schools

Organizational development

Vocational training

Curricula for secondary education

Digital joint solutions

Kindergarten and school environment

Grant management

HR and archives

Career guidance

The service for assessment and examination

Ex Gratia paym. and vocational certification

Inspection

ICT operations

Business management

Fig. 5.3  The staff, divisions and subdivisions (departments) of the Norwegian Directorate for Education as of 1 January 2018. (UDIR 2018b)

88

K. Sivesind and G. Skedsmo

implemented this recommendation. Compared with the organizational structure before January 2018, other characteristic features are new as well. Curricula and assessment are no longer two separate domains but have been integrated into the Division of Learning and Assessment. This name of the division indicates a future shift towards learning-and assessment-oriented curricula, which is currently underway as they will be implemented in 2020 (UDIR 2018c). This amendment of the regulative power of state-agencies expresses a key interest of alignment strategies, which that to incorporate curriculum guidelines, assessment frameworks and international standards into a coherent policy that will improve learning in schools. Norway has just recently formally linked the European Qualifications Framework to the national qualification framework that was implemented in national curricula between 2011 and 2012 (KD 2018). The interest in calibrating national curricula with international standards confirms the same trend towards a new planning mode that emphasizes coherence and system integration across curricula. Kindergartens are now mentioned together with basic education as part of the same system. Although these two educational institutions are given separate names, there is a general expectation that the parts of their programmes and activities that are linked to learning and literacy may converge due to co-governance policies and spatial planning across the education sector. This could mean that kindergartens will be more competence-oriented with a focus on academic knowledge and skills. Another aspect of the reorganization process has to do with the Division for Knowledge, Analysis and Dissemination, which has been separated under the new governance structure from the Division for Learning and Assessment. One might interpret this arrangement as a reaction towards new policies for educational system monitoring. A white paper (KD 2017c) recently announced the new policy in monitoring, whereby a feedback system among actors involved in school evaluation is informed through digitalized programmes where the county governors can easily access information from the local level. In addition to this list of changes, we also see adjustments to the initiatives taken by the county governors, who, in line with the Gjedrem Report’s recommendation (KD 2015), are now going to supervise schools by requesting guidance for using ICT for similar governance purposes. In a research project assessing the development and use of legal standards in education, researchers concluded that the county governors recently changed their policy towards intervention practices, creating a new type of social contract between the state, the counties, the municipalities and the schools (Hall 2017; Sivesind et al. 2016b). This practice of combining support and control of regional and local actors for the sake of school improvement has already been implemented as a mode of planning, with ICT being used to synchronize governance levels and implement state-governed programmes. This post-bureaucratic planning mode, which might serve both regulative and normative functions by the use of evaluation tools, is expected to align different parts of the education system. Related to oversight as a policy instrument, and evaluation as method to gain oversight, it is important to note that processes of evaluation to gain oversight look backwards in terms of valuing results or performance in

5  Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-Management Strategies, and…

89

the past (Vedung 1998). This implies a practice where educational institutions are investigated through aggregated results about student performance that are supposed to provide feedback to reflect core practices and schools and influence on key actors’ normative reflections of reality. As such, evaluation refers to opposite processes of curriculum planning and development of programs which are institutionalised norms and requirements directed towards future actions and practices. Simultaneously, old governance tools, such as national curricula, are being re-­ invented to minimize differences between desired and measured outcomes by learning and assessment as a core of the new reform for basic education. Gap-management strategies are thereby being implemented across policy arenas and governance levels. Such strategies aim to reduce the differences between desired accomplishments and actual outcomes as measured and perceived by key actors, including international institutions such as the European Union and the OECD. The question remains, however, whether this strategy will fulfil its goals, not least because of the new commissions and reforms. Thus, the reorganization begs for empirical examinations and studies in the near future, which may help determine whether state agency reforms are enabling or constraining the implementation of desired policies in local practices.

References Aasen, P., Møller, J., Rye, E., Ottesen, E., Prøitz, T. S., & Hertzberg, F. (2012). Kunnskapsløftet som styringsreform – et løft eller et løfte?: forvaltningsnivåenes og institusjonenes rolle implementeringen av reformen. 20/2012. Oslo: NIFU. Andenæs, K., & Møller, J. (2016). Retten i skolen : mellom pedagogikk, juss og politikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Bachmann, K. (2005). Læreplanens differens. Formidling av læreplanen til skolepraksis. Avhandling for dr. polit graden. Pedagogisk institutt, Fakultet for samfunnsvitenskap og teknologiledelse: Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, NTNU. Beak, C., Hörmann, B., Karseth, B., Pizmony-Levy, O., Sivesind, K., & Steiner-khamsi, G. (2017). Policy learning in Norwegian school reform: A social network analysis of the 2020 incremental reform. Nordic Journal in Education Policy (NordSTEP), 6. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/1 0.1080/20020317.2017.1412747. Baek, C., Hörmann, B., Karseth, B., Pizmony-Levy, O., Sivesind, K., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2018). Policy learning in Norwegian school reform: A social network analysis of the 2020 incremental reform. Nordic Journal in Education Policy (NordSTEP), 4(1), 24–37. Dale, E. L., Engelsen, B. U., & Karseth, B. (2011). Kunnskapsløftets intensjoner, forutsetninger og operasjonaliseringer: En analyse av en læreplanreform. Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt, Universitetet i Oslo. Engelsen, B. U., & Karseth, B. (2007). Læreplan for Kunnskapsløftet – et endret kunnskapssyn? Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 5, 404–415. FUG. (2018). Accessed 20 Jan 2018 at http://fug.no/ Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J. B. (2017). “Governing by templates” through new modes of school inspection in Norway. Journal of Educational Change, 18(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9295-y.

90

K. Sivesind and G. Skedsmo

Hall, J. B. (2018). Processes of reforming: The case of the Norwegian state school inspection policy frameworks. Education Inquiry, 9, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1416247. Hall, J.  B., & Sivesind, K. (2015). State school inspection policy in Norway and Sweden (2002–2012): A reconfiguration of governing modes? Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 429–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.945488. Hodgson, J., Rønning, W., & Tomlinson, P. (2012). Sammenhengen mellom undervisning og læring: en studie av læreres praksis og deres tenkning under Kunnskapsløftet (Sluttrapport. Nr. 4/2012). Bodø: Nordlandsforskning. Haft, H., & Hopmann, S. (Eds.). (1990). Case studies in curriculum administration history. New York: Falmer Press. Hopmann, S. T. (2003). On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 459–478. KD. (2015). Kunnskapssektoren sett utenfra. Gjennomgang av de sentraladministrative oppgavene i kunnskapssektoren («Gjedremrapporten»). KD. (2017a). Tildelingsbrev til Utdanningsdirektoratet for 2017. Retrieved from https://www.udir. no/globalassets/filer/om-udir/dokumenter/tildelingsbrev_udir_2017.pdf KD. (2017b). Accessed 20 Feb 2018 https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/id586/ KD. (2017c). Lærelyst – Tidlig innsats og kvalitet i skolen. (Eager to learn – Early intervention and quality in schools) Oslo: Norwegian Government Security and Service Organisation Promotion Reform. Report No. 21 to the Storting (Finnish Acts of Parliament 1296/2013) 2016–2017. Oslo: Norwegian Government Service Centre. KD. (2018). Accessed 20 Jan 2018 at https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/det-norske-og-det europeiske-kvalifikasjonsrammeverket-kobles-sammen/id2581119/ Knapp, M., & Hopmann, S. (2017). School leadership as gap management: Curriculum traditions, changing evaluation parameters, and school leadership pathways. In M. Uljens & R. Ylimaki (Eds.), Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and Didaktik (pp.  229–256). New York: Springer. Langfeldt, G., Elstad, E., Hopmann, S. T., & Sivesind, K. (2008). Achieving School Accountability in Practice. Sluttrapport. Utdanningsforskning fram mot 2020 (UTDANNING2020). Retrieved from http://www.skattefunn.no/servlet/Satellite?c=Informasjonstekst&cid=1224697828311& pagename=utdanning%2FHovedsidemal LD. (2017). Kongeriket Noregs grunnlov. Retrieved from https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/ lov/1814-05-17-nn Levi-Faur, D. (2010). Regulation and regulatory governance. Jerusalem Papers in Regulation & Governance, Feb (No 1). Lundgren, U. P. (1981/1977). Model analysis of pedagogical processes (Studies in education and psychology no 9) (2nd ed., pp. 8–291). Lund: Department of Educational Research: Stockholm Institute of Eduaction. Lundgren, U.  P. (1990). OECD-rapporten  – en bakgrunn. In M.  Granheim, U.  P. Lundgren, & T. Tiller (Eds.), Utdanningskvalitet- styrbar eller ustyrlig? Om målstyring og kvalitetsvurdering av norsk skole (pp. 25–46). Oslo: Tano. Maroy, C. (2012). Towards post-bureaucratic modes of governance. In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.), Policy borrowing and lending in education (pp. 62–94). Oxon: Routledge. Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T.  S., & Skedsmo, G. (2018a). Elevresultater  – mellom kontroll og utvikling. Fagbokforlaget: Oslo. Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T. S., & Skedsmo, G. (2018b). Teachers’ use of knowledge sources in ‘result meetings’: Thin data and thick data use. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 43(6), 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1379986. Meyer, H.-D., & Benavot, A. (2013). PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance. Oxford: Symposium Books. Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Modernising education: New public management reform in the Norwegian education system. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2013.822353.

5  Norway: Educational Governance, Gap-Management Strategies, and…

91

Mølstad, C. E., & Karseth, B. (2016). National curricula in Norway and Finland: The role of learning outcomes. Euroepan Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 329–344. Navarra, D. D., & Cornford, T. (2012). The state and democracy after new public management: Exploring alternative models of e-governance. The Information Society, 28(1), 37–45. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2012.632264. Nóvoa, A., & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39(4), 423–438. OECD. (1990/1988). Reviews of national policies for education. Norway. Paris: OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930902733121. Ozga, J. (2012). Governing knowledge: Data, inspection and education policy in Europe. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(4), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/1476772 4.2012.735148. Pettersson, D., Popkewitz, T. S., & Lindblad, S. (2017). In the grey zone: Large-scale assessment-­ based activities betwixt and between policy, research and practice. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2017.1316181. Prøitz, T. S., Mausethagen, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2017). Investigative modes in research on data use in education. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(1), 42–55. Røvik, K. A., Eilertsen, T. V., & Lund, T. (2014). Hvor har de det fra, og hva gjør de med det? Utdanningsdirektoratet som innhenter, oversetter og iverksetter av reformideer. In K. A. Røvik, T. V. Eilertsen, & E. M. Furu (Eds.), Reformideer i norsk skole : spredning, oversettelse og implementering (pp. 88–120). Oslo: Cappelen Damm akademisk. Sivesind, K. (2008). Reformulating reform. Curriculum history revisited. Dissertation for the degree Dr.Phil.: The Faculty of Education Research. University of Oslo. Sivesind, K. (2013). Læreplanene i Kunnskapsløftet: et internasjonalt perspektiv. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 97(6), 370–387. Sivesind, K., & Bachmann, K. (2008). Hva forandres med nye standarder? Krav og utfordringer med Kunnskapsløftets læreplaner (Changes as a consequence of new standards? Demands and challenges of the knowledge promotion). In G.  Langfeldt, E.  Elstad, & S.  Hopmann (Eds.), Ansvarlighet i skolen. Politiske spørsmål og pedagogiske svar (pp. 62–93). Cappelen Akademisk Forlag: Fagernes. Sivesind, K., & Westbury, I. (2016). State-based curriculum work and curriculum making. Part II. Norway’s Læreplanverket 1997. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(6), 757–765. Sivesind, K., Afsar, A., & Bachmann, K.  E. (2016a). Transnational policy transfer over three curriculum reforms in Finland: The constructions of conditional and purposive programs (1994–2016). European Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 345–365. https://doi. org/10.1177/1474904116648175. Sivesind, K., Skedsmo, G., & Hall, J.  B. (2016b). Et felles nasjonalt tilsyn: om rammeverk og reformbaner gjennom historien. In J. Møller & K. Andenæs (Eds.), Retten i skolen. Mellom pedagogikk, juss og politikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Skedsmo, G. (2009). School governing in transition. Perspectives, purposes and perceptions of evaluation policy. Doctoral thesis. Department of Teacher Education and School Development, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo. Skedsmo, G. (2018). Comparison and benchmarking as governing processes in Norwegian schools. In L. M. Carvalho, L. Levasseur, M. Liu, R. Normand, & D. A. Oliveira (red.), Education policies and the restructuring of the educational profession (pp. 137–158). Singapore: Springer. Skedsmo, G., & Møller, J. (2016). Governing by new performance expectations in Norwegian schools. In H.  Gunter, D.  Hall, R.  Serpieri, & E.  Grimaldi (Eds.), New public management and the reform of education: European lessons for policy and practice (pp. 53–65). London: Routledge.

92

K. Sivesind and G. Skedsmo

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Understanding policy borrowing and lending. Building comparative policy studies. In G.  Steiner-Khamsi & F.  Waldow (Eds.), Policy borrowing and lending in education (Vol. 2012, pp. 3–17). London: Nichols. Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Waldow, F. (Eds.). (2012). World yearbook of education 2012: Policy borrowing and lending in education. London: Routledge. UDIR. (2017). Om utdanningsdirektoratet. Organisasjonskart. Retrieved from https://www.udir. no/om-udir/organisasjonskart/ UDIR. (2018a). Statistikk om grunnskolen. Accessed 20 Jan 2018 at https://www.udir.no/ tall-og-forskning/finn-forskning/tema/elever-og-ressurser-i-grunnskolen2/ UDIR. (2018b). Utdanningsdirektoratet.no. Accessed 20 Jan 2018 at https://www.udir.no/ laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/fagfornyelsen/nye-lareplaner%2D%2D-2020/ UDIR. (2018c). Om utdanningsdirektoratet. Organisasjonskart. Retrieved from https://www.udir. no/om-udir/organisasjonskart/ Vedung, E. (1998). Utvärdering i politik och förvaltning. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Westbury, I., & Sivesind, K. (2016). State-based curriculum-making, part 2, the tool-kit for the state’s curriculum-making. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(6), 757–765. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/00220272.2016.1186738. White Paper No. 30 to the Storting. (2003–2004). Curlture for leearning in. The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Education, and Research Affairs Oslo: Norwegian Government Service Centre. Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in education. The digital future of learning, policy and practice. London: Sage.

Chapter 6

Sweden: High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability Helene Ärlestig and Olof Johansson

Abstract  In Sweden, there are ambitious national ambitions to increase academic student results, even if the accountability system remains soft. The chapter identifies and presents three different governance paradigms: Old Public Management, New Public Management and New Public Governance (Magnusson, Vad händer i själva verket? Om styrning och handlingsutrymme i Skolverket under åren 1991–2014. [What happens in reality. About Governance and Room to Maneuver in the Swedish National Agency for Education 1991–2014, in Swedish. Thesis. Uppsala universitet, Uppsala: 2018). Even if many practitioners trust the agencies, they also encounter detailed regulations and abundant reforms that have contributed to a debate about whether teachers spend too little time on teaching. It is obvious that the various levels above the principal in the institutional hierarchy endeavour to improve and change local schools, without acknowledging how their own culture and structure must improve. The serious ambition to improve results and schools has, at the same time, engendered activities and regulations to meet all objectives and resolve all problems that contribute to excessive work at all levels, rather than national and local priorities.

6.1  Education in Sweden – Current Situation and Challenges Sweden is a welfare country with around 10,5 million inhabitants, which in 2018 celebrated 100 years of democracy with equal voting rights for men and women. There is a well-established structure and culture regarding how politicians and civil servants work together. Schools attend to national regulation at the same time as most of the operative decisions are decentralised to the municipality level for public schools or for independent schools at the school-owner level. Even though Sweden is a well-structured democratic country, there are challenges based on different ideological standpoints among politicians and the citizens H. Ärlestig (*) · O. Johansson Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_6

93

94

H. Ärlestig and O. Johansson

in relation to norms and values that affect actions as well as what is viewed as the ideal situation for governance and leadership. The last year’s migration, an increased focus on academic results and a more liberal and market-oriented view on how to lead organisations have affected schools and principals to a high extent. The Swedish tradition of national commissions on different topics in the field of education, followed by white papers and proposal for new laws, has contributed to reforms that almost always will have an effect on the principal’s work and role in the school. Global perspectives and international comparisons are important drivers in the discussion and decision-making on several levels in the education system. As in many other societies, the public welfare state has been challenged with opinions that the state is too big, and we need to look for private initiatives in education. These ideas are based in neo-liberal thinking and values. They argue for the right of every child and parent to choose the school that is considered best for the child. As a consequence, Sweden no longer has mandatory catchment areas around the schools. This has also led to greater transparency and external control in the welfare sector. At the same time, as in most countries, many citizens think the taxes are too high, even if they want to have a strong welfare safety net for different sectors such as schools, healthcare and care of elderly persons. The focus on freedom of choice has rendered more diverse and segregated schools, which in the future will influence society (Sernhede and Tallberg Broman 2014). This means in practice that the segregation between students’ socioeconomic background as well as students’ academic results has increased. Schools have become more socially homogenous, among both the high- and low-performing schools. There is a strong belief in Sweden that schooling is important and can change an individual person’s chances for a good life in the future. All reforms and changes are based on good political intentions to serve a diverse and increasing multicultural population and solve the problems seen today. At the same time, signals from the local level show an increased lack of teachers and that many problems in schools are difficult to handle in relation to the current governing structure with national laws and regulations in a decentralised governing system. Our aim in this chapter is to problematize and give a broader understanding of how good political intentions on the national level can render activities that are (or seem) counterproductive in the local school districts. Sweden and its schooling have historically had a good global reputation. In 1842, a national law decided that in every municipality, there should be basic schooling for all children starting at the age of 7 years. This early start of compulsory schools in Sweden has been very important for the development of the society. Schools were state-run up to the mid-1990s, when a reform changed the governing structure and gave the municipal council responsibility over their own schools. All teachers were thereafter hired by the municipality instead of the state. The state gave a financial grant to the municipality for the schools. In the beginning, the use of the grant was specified, but over time, it changed to become a lump sum that goes to the municipality. In addition, the municipality has to add municipality tax money, which means that wealthy municipalities invest more resources into the local schools. The state tries to level that out with specified grants that the municipalities can apply for. This

6  Sweden: High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability

95

has not contributed to a more equal system because small municipalities do not have the capacity to apply for specific grants, while municipalities with larger administrative units have a greater share of the national grants (Riksrevisionen 2017). Along with the decentralisation from the state to the local municipality came a new school law and a new heavily revised curriculum, syllabus and subject time schedule. The new curriculum had a dual focus on academic knowledge and social values and norms. Another new task was the responsibility for improving schools. At the same time, it was decided that children and parents were free to pick the school of their choice for their children. That meant that the society implicitly acknowledged that there was a difference in quality between schools, which was the reason for opening up free choice of schools. This decision was followed by a growing amount of applications to start independent schools, i.e. schools free of local political governing. From a high belief in the profession and local decisions, there was a demand for increased transparency and more emphasis on external control and quality assurance at all levels in the system (Uljens et al. 2013). The OECD’s PISA comparison of 2013 showed declining academic results for Sweden on a level that nobody had expected. Today, international comparisons show that the academic results at the national level have stabilized and are slowly getting better. Looking deeper into the statistics, the gap between high-achieving and low-achieving students continues to grow. A teacher shortage due to low status in the occupation and many retired teachers, together with the increased amount of independent schools, has contributed to a public debate on whether Swedish schools are good enough. The high number of incoming refugees and the uneven spread in regions and schools has added to the complicated picture on what is problematic. Even if teachers and principals give examples of constrained working situations, and media as well as parents are worried about the general picture, individual parents and students are satisfied with their teachers and the local schools’ work. This is a paradox but still the results of evaluations. A Swedish school commission with representatives from the agencies, researchers, teachers and principal union released a state school commission report in 2017 which showed severe deficiencies: –– Inadequate capacity and accountability among many providers –– Shortcomings in resource allocation –– Inadequate skill supply to the teaching and school leadership profession and inadequate conditions for professional development –– Shortcomings in results information that hamper quality management –– School segregation that leads to differences in quality between schools –– Problems with the learning environment –– National governance of schools that is fragmented and has been inconsistent over time (SOU 2017:35 p. 34). Their solution confirmed what was already known from a State Commission on the Principal and the Governing Chain (SOU 2015:22). The evidence from the

96

H. Ärlestig and O. Johansson

c­ ommission report indicates that the governing chain that should link the levels together was broken. Another state commission means that a higher emphasis on mutual understanding of policy purpose and trust is needed (SOU 2018b:47) at the same time as it is necessary to have quality assurance and increased accountability among all actors (Johansson and Ärlestig 2019). The broken governing chain was a problem that the school commission reported on in 2017. One other challenge we have already mentioned above is equality between schools and inequality between classrooms inside schools, which is reinforced by the way municipalities spend their resources. The government has started a new state commission (U 2018:05) that is expected to come forward with a proposition on how, from a national perspective, to increase equality through reduced school segregation and improved resource management. The commission will report its recommendations to the government in March 2020. The next section is a description and analysis of the Swedish school agencies’ missions and their current challenges from a societal perspective in relation to the governing chain of the system of Swedish schools. Thereafter, local effects and understanding of the agencies’ work are described. A theoretical discussion followed by conclusions and future challenges end the chapter.

6.2  The Swedish National Agencies The five national Swedish agencies get their directives and resources from the government through the education department. The education department currently has two ministers. The number of ministers and their area of responsibility change with every incoming government. The ministers have a staff of civil servants who help to organise and prepare political decisions. The majority of them have a non-political role, which contributes to sustainability and organisational memory because they can keep their positions even if the government switches from social democratic to liberal. The agencies receive their tasks either as general directives or as specific directives in issues that are decided in the parliament. According to the overall mission of the agencies, their work is to work for equality, children’s rights and higher academic results. The recent years’ low scores in international comparisons such as PISA and TIMMS contributed to an emphasis on students’ academic results. This has rendered more national investigations but also specific improvement directives to the agencies. There is a division between what is decided on a national level and on the municipality level. Agencies work with the national issues and provide a framework and good prerequisites for the municipality level. Municipalities and school owners are responsible for the implementation of national policy. At the municipality level, there are local political boards as well as civil servants. They need to create good prerequisites and support through financial, environmental and staffing resources. During the last decade, there has been an increase in detailed instruction from the national level in relation to the principal’s role. The school law gives the principal

6  Sweden: High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability

97

the responsibility over the local organisation of the school’s pedagogical activities. This limits the municipalities’ possibility to interpret and develop solutions and priorities which do not coincide with the national governing documents. The aim from the national level is to strengthen principals’ and teachers’ authority and power to fulfil the ambitions described in the educational act and curriculum. Every decade since the ‘60s, Sweden has reorganised its education agencies. One of the main ambitions has been to work for school improvement, which includes everything from efficiency and higher academic results to inclusion, digitalization and issues that students, teachers and the broader public care about. There has been an increased global influence and more specifics to adhere to the European perspectives through international comparisons and organisations. There is also a discussion of whether the agency should have a larger internal impact with regional offices instead of concentrating on the main actors in Stockholm. A central aspect for all education agencies is that there should be equal treatment and conditions in educational matters despite where people are in the country and in relation to gender, religious and sexual orientation and social background. Sweden has signed the United Nations agreement on children’s rights, which is another priority for the government and agencies.

6.2.1  Today’s Agencies and Their Role Skolverket (The Swedish National Agency for Education) is located in Stockholm and is the largest education agency. Its mission is to support municipalities and independent school owners in their work through in-service training, education, research dissemination and other improvement measures (2018a:41). Skolverket has, aside from its internal work, several sections that work with the agency’s missions. One section works with various kinds of analyses, such as statistics and evaluation. They are responsible for evaluating the Swedish school system, not individual schools. This section also includes work with international studies such as PISA, TIMMS and PIRLS. One section works with preparing and revising the curriculum, syllabus and general advice. They are also responsible for national tests and support in assessment issues. One section handles central government grants that municipalities and independent school owners can apply for. This section handles all teacher authorizations. For teachers, it is necessary to have a teacher certificate which indicates that they can be hired on a permanent basis and are allowed to grade students. One of the main sections is school improvement. The agency has a broad mission, which includes several features. The initiatives are justified by identified shortcomings and problems in the schools in relation to equality as well as implementation of new reforms. Most of the initiatives build on specific political directives, but the agency also has the possibility to take on its own initiatives. Over the last years, the agency has identified eight different school improvement programs: grades and assessment, digitalization, leadership and governance, quality assurance, student health and children’s care, knowledge and

98

H. Ärlestig and O. Johansson

v­ alues, newly arrived immigrants’ and multilingual students’ learning, school, work and continuing studies. Several of these aspects are also grounding elements in in-training courses on work with migrants, digitalization and courses that are held to recruit or encourage more teachers to be credited in more subjects or go on to be principals. The national principal training program is a main program. This, as well as other in-service education, is often done in cooperation with universities. These improvement activities are for both public and free independent schools. Aside from the open access activities, the agency offers support in specific cases to specific schools. One initiative started 2016 and is called ‘Cooperation for better schools’ (CBS). Based on data from the school inspection, the National Agency for Education targets schools: 1 . with low skills results or 2. with a high proportion of students who do not complete their studies and 3. that have faced or are deemed to be facing difficult conditions in terms of improving their results on their own. This means that the schools that are selected have low merit ratings or grades, as well as many students who are not meeting the goal fulfilment requirements in the year in which they are chosen to participate in the CBS project, and that the degree of equality between different classes at the school is low. In addition, the schools are considered to be facing difficulties in improving their results on their own. The schools are offered help to analyse their current status and problems. The aim is to reveal necessary improvement areas, which will be done in cooperation with universities. This involves development projects that last 2–3 years for each participating school. Because of CBS and other current initiatives, the agency has almost tripled its activities and employees during the last years due to an increasing budget. Even if the support most often is voluntary, it is almost always seen as an offer you cannot refuse. Many municipalities are dependent on the resources they can apply for, even if the conditions to get them do not exactly match their needs. This, together with more detailed policy, has contributed to stronger national governance as well as criticism on internal inefficiency and lack of a more holistic view on schooling (SOU 2018a:41).1 Skolinspektionen (The Swedish School Inspectorate) was introduced 2008 after an intense political debate. The argument was that the National Agency for Education could not both give support to schools and control and inspect the same schools. The compromise was the introduction of an inspection agency that inspects schools and school districts regularly, while the national agency works on more general evaluation of the whole school system. The school inspectorate has four main tasks: regular supervision, quality audits, investigations and decisions regarding individual complaints and issuing permits for independent schools.

 The Swedish National Agency for Education https://www.skolverket.se/ retrieved 2019-04-01

1

6  Sweden: High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability

99

The child and student representative, a legal expert, is placed at the school inspectorate and appointed by the government with the task to investigate and take decisions in matters related to offensive treatment of individual students. The inspectorate has, besides the head office in Stockholm, five regional offices. Each school is regularly inspected each third year. For about 25% of the inspected schools, the school inspectorate decides to observe them more closely due to a risk-­ based approach. Before the inspection, all students, parents and staff get a survey. If the survey, together with academic results and other information, has negative outcomes, the school will have more extensive supervision including observations and interviews. The focus of the assessment is teaching and learning, adaptions and special support, assessment and grading, conditions for learning, security, leadership and improvement. If the supervision shows shortcomings, the inspectorate can decide on an injunction. After some time, the inspectorate does a follow-up to ensure that the municipality, school owner or school has rectified the shortcomings. If the responsible authority fails to rectify in the required way, the injunction can be combined with a monitory penalty. The Swedish School Inspectorate conducts quality audits in specific areas. They focus on the national objectives and guidelines and give a possibility for a deeper analysis in important improvement areas. The included schools get a report together with a general report because the aim is to improve activities not only in the selected school but in the entire school system. The inspectorate also receives complaints from individuals who are dissatisfied with conditions within their own schools. This includes lacking support, unsafe environments and other issues. For all of these cases, the school or, more formally, the local school authority gets an opportunity to explain and comment on the situation. After that, the school inspectorate makes a decision about whether they will accept the school’s explanation or make their own investigation. The inspectorate can also conduct random investigations based on information they get through media or other sources. In these specific cases, the school inspectorate has the right to impose an injunction with or without penalty. The inspectorate hosts the teachers’ disciplinary board where it is possible to revoke teachers’ certification if they fail in their duties. Many Swedish students who choose an independent school. About 16% of compulsory schools and more than 30% of upper secondary schools are independent. Approval to start or extend an independent school goes through the state inspectorate (hemsida). The main task of the SPSM (The National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools) is to ensure that all students, regardless of their functional ability, have the right conditions and prerequisites, such as special needs support, special needs schools and accessible learning materials and funding. Besides giving support to students who are integrated in regular schools, they run state schools for students with deafness, blindness or severe speech and language disorders. The agency

100

H. Ärlestig and O. Johansson

p­ rovides tools, courses and consulting to support individual students and their teachers. The agency has five regional offices.2 Skolforskningsinstitutet (The Swedish Institute for Educational Research) has two main objectives: to produce research summaries and to fund practice-based research on teaching and learning in preschools and schools. The institute addresses teachers as research consumers, users and producers. This is a relatively new agency with a limited budget.3 Sameskolan provides education to support the Sami society’s (Swedish indigenous society) norms, values, traditions and culture heritage. The students have the same requirements as students in Swedish schools, even though they have their own curriculum, syllabus and subject schedule. One important task is to provide possibilities to learn Sami language, handicraft and culture.4 Besides these agencies, there are other actors who participate in the public debate and decisions regarding schools. The most influential one is the Swedish Association of Local Authorities (SKL), which represents and advocates for local government in Sweden. All Swedish municipalities, county councils and regions are members of the association, and schools are one of their key interests.5 Independent schools also have a national organisation that represents and advocates for their interests. The two teacher unions as well as the school leader union are also active in the public debate and engaged as a resource in public commissions.6

6.3  Impact on Schools The aim for each agency and organisation is the same: to create the best condition for students’ learning. Even though each agency has its own area and mission, they are to some extent overlapping and to some extent competing in how to reach as good quality and results as possible. There is and has always been a focus on school improvement, which means that there is a high emphasis on transforming the present practice to best practice and making a connection between changes or effects in relation to initiatives and activities. There are several ways in which agencies reach out to schools. Mainly, they work through the municipalities and school owners to reach the local schools. Government grants have grown in number, and there have been complaints that they are too narrow and often given for too short a time. Often, the grant requires a service in return or that the municipality take on some of the cost in connection with the grant, which  The Swedish School Inspectorate https://www.skolinspektionen.se/ retrieved 2019-04-01.  The Swedish Institute for Educational Research https://www.skolfi.se/ retrieved 2019-04-01. 4  Sameskolstyrelsen https://sameskolstyrelsen.se/ retrieved 2019-04-01. 5  Swedish Association of Local Authorities https://skl.se/ retrieved 2019-04-01. 6  The National Union of Teachers in Sweden, Lärarnas riksförbund https://www.lr.se/ retrieved 2019-04-01 Swedish Teacher Union, lärarförbundet, https://www.lararforbundet.se/ retrieved 2019-04-01 2 3

6  Sweden: High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability

101

some, especially smaller municipalities or schools, can have difficulty accomplishing. There has also been, as mentioned above, more detailed regulation through the education acts and curricula that clarify what is expected of school owners, principals and teachers in different situations. Some examples that show the level of detail of new regulations are that the principal is responsible to avoid free periods in the students’ schedules and to follow-up on students’ absence. In particular, the Swedish Agency for Education works with different courses and written material and, as general guidelines, has a direct or indirect focus to give best practice advice. They have, over the last years, made more and more digital materials that are simplified interpretations of research, for example, short cartoon movies and pods. This reveals both a lack of trust in the profession and an overload of expectations, where detailed instructions are aimed to help teachers and schools know what to do. As we mentioned before, there is a new initiative by which the Swedish school agency offers underperforming schools support to analyse and work with their deficits. Even though this is an offer that is hard to resist because there are a lot of resources included, it differs from earlier ways of governing schools. Pointing out the schools that have low results and supporting them during a period of 2–3 years can render more sustainable change. At the same time, there are signs that there is too little consideration on the school’s prerequisites and competence in the analysis process that determines what activities are necessary to start to change the situation (Johansson and Ärlestig 2019). The high belief in this project’s first pilot period and a high ambition to reach many schools have limited evaluation on effects and activities during the first years, which is understandable because effects will be seen if the schools improve over time after the project by themselves. The project will go on for another 5 years now, and during this period, the focus will be more on deficits in the chain of command. Actions will be taken on school boards, central offices and superintendents, and, of course, the low-performing schools. At the same time as the Swedish Agency for Education works more with activities focused on underperforming schools, the Swedish School Inspectorate strives to give more general guidelines and build their assessment more on qualitative data and less on statistics, surveys and law compliance. They argue that the way they work now helps underperforming schools but does not give well-functioning schools any guidance. They strive to express their quality reports in a form that can help schools to see their own potential by comparing their school with the quality indicators the inspectorate use in their investigations of certain aspects of schoolwork, such as student schedules and student absences. Overall, is there a positive view among practitioners towards the national agencies? The agencies have during the last year grown in numbers, employees and activities. It is clear that much of the school improvement resources are in one way or another connected to the agencies and especially to the National Agency for Education. At the same time, there is a tendency that even though there are a lot of national resources in the form of publications, Web-based courses and materials, as well as projects that are applicable for local schools, too many teachers and principals are

102

H. Ärlestig and O. Johansson

unaware of the resources and do not take time to read or use them. Another problem is that the heterogeneity between schools is growing. Moreover, at the same time, the homogeneity within schools is increasing. There is not a common national priority, which means that the agencies and sometimes even departments within the largest agencies create downpipes, which gives a fragmented picture with a focus on details that does not help to get a full picture. The school commission from 2015 claimed the necessity to have clear national goals for internal equity in relation to teaching and that resources for schools should be in co-variation with those demands. The agencies try to reach actors on all levels and push for the national policy targets. This has contributed to a larger focus on teaching, results and equity and discussions on principals’ role as pedagogical leaders. There is a tendency for the detailed expectations to keep principals occupied with handling everyday issues and controlling details, without any real power to decide who to hire or how to organise their schools. Power is given to them in the school law but in many aspects is controlled by the school district. Even if the ambition to create an equal school for all children can be found on every level from the government down, principals need good relations and communication skills both downwards and upwards to handle today’s fragmented situation. This is based on the combination of too much trust in overall issues and lack of trust in details. This situation can be described as deficiencies in the school system’s ‘chain of command’.

6.4  Theory The start of this chapter not only shows the structure of the Swedish agencies but also reveals a New Public Management culture that exists in the relationships between different levels. All levels, from national to local, strive to keep as much power or autonomy as possible, and at the same time, they want to have a trustful relationship and take advantage of the support, activities and offers from the levels above. Deficiencies in the school system’s ‘chain of command’ create actions on different levels that lack a long-term vision. Expressing it bluntly, some believe that none of the actions are based on a common understanding of what is important and what to strive for aside from keeping the budget and raising results. Governance can be understood from two philosophical perspectives: The rational perspective emphasises decisions, rules and instructions because they see the individual actor as selfish. The normative perspective, on the other hand, looks at humans as people who together with others want to contribute to society (Barley and Kunda 1992). This means that instead of decisions and routines, governing needs to affect individuals’ thoughts and values (Magnusson 2018). Over time, there have been several ideal dimensions for how agencies work and function. Three apparent systems in the Swedish system are Old Public Management

6  Sweden: High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability

103

(OPM), New Public Management (NPM) and New Public Governance (NPG) (Ibid). The OPM is mainly bureaucratic, where rules, policy and control are important factors. Stability over time with well-educated staff at the agency that know their special area very well is a significant feature. There is a clear line between politics and the agencies’ work. In an NPM system, there is a clear influx of values coming from private enterprises and trade. The agency is more independent to take decisions, place a higher emphasis on efficiency, and measure and control goals. It is more important for civil servants to have the right social skills and be independent than to have expert knowledge. Happy customers are more important than following the rules. NPG governance can be compared to creating arenas in which multiple actors are invited to contribute. Flexibility, collegiality and networking are important features to create and sustain. The agency become just one among several actors to affect what is happening. How to steer and govern needs must be based on trustful relationships so that decisions can be taken without day-to-day approval from above. Results are hard to measure, and it is important to establish professional norms and to interact with others (Ibid). By using the three perspectives as ideal types (Weber 1978), they can be an analytic framework not only in relationships between politics and agencies but also to understand underlying cultures that impact expectations regarding both what to keep and what to change. The changes in society and inside schools render a lost system thinking perspective (Shaked and Schechter 2017). The structure and culture built up in the Swedish schools has created a well-­ established governing chain. In our complex society, it becomes more and more important to have a more holistic view. This requires that we abandon reductionist thinking in which the whole can be broken into parts and then brought together again. We need to look for patterns other than simple casual effects. Instead, actors working within the system and their actions need to be considered in relation to other aspects and parallel events. This capacity requires a more sustainable perspective and broader knowledge about schooling.

6.5  Challenges and Underlying Patterns The acknowledgement of Sweden as a welfare state is based on schools and students, in spite of class, have the possibility to get a university diploma or at least a good education because all education is without fees. When PISA and other international tests showed that Swedish schools were not as good as we thought, the political intensity to reform increased. In the political ambition, the Swedish school agencies have a pivotal role, since the wave of decentralisation in the ‘90s when teachers were employed by the municipalities instead of the state. A discussion has been going on about whether the governance of schools should be more centralised again. During the last two decades a focus on changes in the school law through a new education act, more visible inspections, more money on the national level and

104

H. Ärlestig and O. Johansson

larger agencies has increased the state’s power, even though the teachers and principals are still hired by the municipalities. A lack of teachers and a diminished status to work in schools together with the independent schools’ creativity to organise schools in various ways have led to an increased heterogeneity in prerequisites and academic results among the local schools. The difference emanates partly from the municipalities and their capacity (Johansson and Ärlestig 2019). Even though there is money at the national level, many smaller municipalities have problems getting their budget to last, which, of course, affects reform implementation and school improvement ambitions. Even though the rhetoric on all levels talks about individual solutions, most expectations and activities occur on a general level, with the same expectations and offers to everyone. To affect others often entails both steering and leadership. The structure applied by the national agencies has become clearer over the years. There is a high ambition to create clear links between the ideas, efforts and results. This is difficult because the governing chain has several layers, and many actors with diverse contexts are involved. In practice, this has contributed to some of the directives and efforts bypassing the municipality level and aiming directly towards principals and teachers (Johansson and Nihlfors 2014). This creates pressure towards the municipality, not only from above (the state agencies) but also from below. To meet various ambitions and interpretations of what is necessary to accomplish, Sweden has during the last decades invested a lot of money and effort in systematic quality assurance on all levels. An assumption is that if all actors become more skilled to analyse their results and work, they will find ways to increase students’ learning. Taken together, this has contributed to a wide range of activities that have not always contributed to school improvement (Håkansson and Sundberg 2018). In addition, some claim that all together, the emphasis on results has contributed to grade inflation and lower expectations (Gustafsson et  al. 2016). Others believe that there are signs of change where there are signs of positive results. The Swedish organisation for municipalities (SKL) has decided to stop ranking schools with the explanation that they want to avoid the current focus on climbing on the list and instead contribute to an evaluation in which quality in relation to current context and prerequisites are most important. Using the earlier mentioned theoretical ideal types, we can see that educational acts and political ambition, structure, information or money are not the problem. Instead, the current culture on all levels prevents larger changes in the system. On all levels, there is a notion that it is urgent, with a limited trust towards other actors, which contributes to many principals and teachers just doing what they are told to rather than using their professional ability to build good schools. At the agency level, few take on a more holistic responsibility, which contribute to competing actions and strategies. We can see the downside of all three paradigms, which in some cases confuses governance and what is prioritized. To give some examples in relation to OPM, we still have a high belief in documentation. This was necessary in OPM to be able to control rules and routines being accurate and followed. At the same time, it was not clear who should read and

6  Sweden: High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability

105

respond to the documents. It has developed into a situation in which there is and has been an emphasis on documentation. This is in relation to both following bureaucratic routines (OPM) and ensuring that schools were efficient enough (NPM). The downside was that teachers and principals lacked feedback and looked at the documents as something they needed to do for someone else’s sake. They did not use the documentation in relation to their own learning. In the last general advice on grading in compulsory schools, the agency changed its recommendation from the importance of structure and having sufficient documentation in matrixes to an emphasis on professional teachers’ responsibility to have the right knowledge to grade their students (NPG). In relation to NPM, the most obvious in the Swedish context is free school choice, independent actors and, during the last decades, increased external control. Even though there is a debate on whether tax money should be used to support private companies, free choice is appreciated, and the next step is probably to make choice mandatory for all students. The school inspectorate has grown and has more power than ever before. Even though they sometimes use fines, the inspection is soft, and there is an ambition to become qualitative and supportive and to also reach schools that are successful. Sweden has open access to data and statistics on school results. These are frequently used in the descriptions of schools’ work and success. The agencies provide the data, which has rendered a debate on whether schools have lowered their expectations to be able to achieve good results. There are still ranking lists that contribute to an emphasis on quality assurance and showing good results rather than contributing to learning and a nuanced picture of schools in accordance with NPM logics. There are also signs of NPG in the agencies’ work. They argue that professionals and other organisations should be involved, and they often create working groups to form and develop their ideas. At the same time, there is accuracy within the agency, where language is important, and all decisions are still in the hands of the department chairs and the general director. The agencies are more active on social media, and we can detect quick changes and flexibility in relation to criticism and the public debate. This reflects a culture in which the agencies make requirements to solve current problems without considering a more holistic view and sustainable cooperation. The agencies tend to handle each issue as a separate question, which means that more overarching leadership is missing. Even though, during the last years, they have had a prioritized agenda, there are still signs of problem-solving and spreading best practice rather than taking a more sustainable approach to create capacity in the local organisations. They listen to other actors (NPG) and emphasise networking and dialogue at the same time as they still have the power to take decisions and control the local organisations in relation to the agency’s agenda. We can also detect a culture in which they still argue that one size fits all. Even if the size and capacity differ, the national mission and requirements are the same. Being a welfare country, the minimum level of expectations is high. No one should be left out, and the problems are more often connected to attitudes and culture than

106

H. Ärlestig and O. Johansson

priorities and an understanding that capacity and resources are unevenly distributed. In their good ambition, each agency wants to show that their work makes them the most important school development agency rather than having a more holistic view in which they cooperate and focus on their main mission. Even though many argue for a more sustainable structure and a culture that builds on cooperation, we see in the practical work how individual issues and actors are more important than a system thinking perspective (Shaked and Schechter 2017). In the local schools, the agencies’ work has become more apparent. This is mainly in relation to school inspection or school improvement initiatives. There is money to support in-service training, staffing and other initiatives that can lead to higher quality and better results. The agencies produce both reports and Web-based materials to support schools. The Web has become an important source to understand more about schooling. At the same time, many teachers and principals do not have enough time to read and learn from these reports. Instead, the agencies or teachers and principals that are piloting these initiatives reduce and create ‘empty’ or instrumental tools and concepts. Teachers use two stars and a wish, exit tickets or matrixes without understanding the background or the potential of the different concepts or tools. They learn tips and tricks on a basic level rather than taking time to discuss underlying ideas and theories (Timperley 2011).

6.6  Future Trends or What Tomorrow Looks Like In Sweden, there are high ambitions for schools on all levels. This renders reforms and high activity on all governing and administrative levels. Depending on whom you ask, you will get various views on the school system’s strength and deficits. Our aim with this chapter was to describe the Swedish authorities and their work by reflecting on governance paradigms and how they affect the national culture and expectations both towards and from the agencies. The influence of at least three different governance paradigms (OPG, NPM and NPG) creates a culture that sometimes becomes confusing. Still, there is high trust in agencies, even if the messages are not easy to interpret. Many teachers and principals argue that they trust the national level and mission more than the support and expectations they get from the municipality level. This is problematic because it reveals that the governing chain is broken or at least weak. The high ambitions tend to lead to problem-solving and a reactive approach rather than collaboration and a more holistic perspective. The various actors have limited communication, and the divisions of tasks and mandates are sometimes blurred, which can lead to fragmentation. What the problem is presented to be (Bacchi 2009) and its possible solutions differ, not only between levels but also between agencies. Although the emphasis is to build on a scientific base and systematic experience, the reality shows short-­ sighted solutions and that schools have high personnel turnover. In the rhetoric and statements, the national agencies argue for professionalization and more autonomy

6  Sweden: High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability

107

for both teachers and principals. In reality, we see more leaders and administrative levels both above and below principals, more detailed regulations and examples of expected general best practice solutions which can point towards de-professionalization. There is a growing need to focus on a holistic approach, where suitability is in focus. This requires other perspectives, discussions and actions which are not visible in today’s culture and norms. Even though there is a plea and hope that change will start in the classroom, we believe that it needs external support, which requires a new national culture with other norms and attitudes. A mutual vision in which priorities are the same on all levels would help all actors to focus and give space for local initiatives that are more adequate to meet the needs of local schools.

References Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Adelaide: Pearson Education. Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 363–399. Gustafsson, J.-E., Sörlin, S., & Vlachos, J. (2016). Policyidéer för svensk skola. Policy ideas for Swedish schools, in Swedish. Stockhom: SNS förlag. Håkansson, J., & Sundberg, D. (2018). Utmärkt ledarskap i skolan: forskning om att leda för elevers måluppfyllelse [Excellent Leadership in Schools: Research on Leadership towards Students Academic Results, in Swedish]. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur. Johansson, O., & Ärlestig, H. (2019). Bringing Support Structures to Scale: The Role of the State and School Districts, Umeå University, Centre for Principal Development. Johansson, O., & Nihlfors, E. (2014). The Swedish superintendent in the policy stream. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(4), 362–382. Magnusson, E.  M. (2018). Vad händer i själva verket? Om styrning och handlingsutrymme i Skolverket under åren 1991–2014. [What happens in reality. About Governance and Room to Maneuver in the Swedish National Agency for Education 1991–2014, in Swedish. Thesis. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet. Riksrevisionen. (2017). Riktade statsbidrag till skolan  – nationella prioriteringar men lokala behov, RIR 2017:30 [Goverment Grants for Schools  – National priorities but Local Needs, in Swedish]. https://www.riksrevisionen.se/download/18.78ae827d1605526e94b2d b3d/1518435496737/RiR_2017_30_STATSBIDRAG_SKOLAN_ANPASSAD.pdf retrieved 2019-04-01. Sernhede, O., & Tallberg Broman, I. (2014). Segregation, utbildning och ovanliga lärprocesser [Segregation, Education and Unusual Learning Processes, in Swedish]. Stockholm: Liber. Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2017). Systems thinking for school leaders: Holistic leadership for excellence in education. Cham: Springer. SOU 2015:22 Rektorn och styrkedjan. [The Principal and the Governing chain, in Swedish]. SOU 2017:35 Samling för skolan – Nationell strategi för kunskap och likvärdighet. [The Swedish School Commission, A National Strategy for Knowledge and Equity, in Swedish]. Stockholm: Fritzes. SOU 2018a:41 Statliga skolmyndigheter – för elever och barn i en bättre skola. [National School Agencies – for Student and Children in a Better School, in Swedish]. Stockholm: Fritzes. SOU 2018b:47 Tillitsdelegationens huvudbetänkande: Med tillit växer handlingsutrymmet –tillitsbaserad styrning och ledning av välfärdssektorn. [The trustdelegations main report: With trust

108

H. Ärlestig and O. Johansson

the room to maneuver increases- trustbased governance and leadership in the welfare sector, in Swedish] Stockholm: Fritzes. Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. London: Open University Press. U 2018:05 Ökad likvärdighet genom minskad skolsegregation och förbättrad resurstilldelning. [Increased Equity through reduced school segregation and improved resource allocation, in Swedish]. http://rkrattsdb.gov.se/KOMdoc/18/180071.PDF Retrieved 2019-04-01. Uljens, M., Möller, J., Ärlestig, H., & Frederiksen, L. F. (2013). The professionalisation of Nordic school leadership. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influence on values and practice in Nordic educational leadership – Is there a Nordic model? (pp. 133–157). Dordrecht: Springer. Weber, M. (1978). Basic concepts in sociology (4th ed.). London: Peter Owen.

Part II

The Middle European Countries

Chapter 7

England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England Philip A. Woods, Amanda Roberts, Joy Jarvis, and Suzanne Culshaw

Abstract  The chapter examines the school system in England, concentrating on developments since 2010. During this period, a radical refashioning of the school system in England has taken place as large numbers of schools have moved from being the responsibility of local authorities to becoming ‘independent’, though still state-funded, academies operating in the framework of and accountable to national authorities. The chapter explores the claimed institutional and professional autonomy integral to the idea of a self-improving school-led system influential in the national policy driving this change. Different ways of understanding autonomy are examined through notions of licensed, conditional, regulated, rational and ethical autonomy, contributing to a critical understanding of how the system is developing. The chapter highlights, inter alia, the importance of examining critically the distribution of autonomy across the various actors and institutions in the system. It also highlights the ethics of autonomy. The latter brings to the fore the moral demands entailed in autonomy and the importance and challenges of exercising principled autonomy and critical reflexivity as an integral feature of autonomous practice, especially in the context of pressures in the school system to conform to performative and competitive logics.

7.1  Introduction This chapter explores the autonomy that is intended to characterise the school system in England. Authorities with national responsibilities for schools are placed in the context of the governance system in which they operate, paying particular attention to the claimed institutional and professional autonomy that is integral to the ‘overarching narrative’ of a ‘self-improving school-led system’ for policy on schools since 2010 (Greany and Higham 2018: 10). Autonomy implies the possession of a significant degree of freedom by a person or an institution to decide how P. A. Woods (*) · A. Roberts · J. Jarvis · S. Culshaw University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_7

111

112

P. A. Woods et al.

to conduct themselves. It can be contrasted with regulation, where rules or directives determine conduct. The chapter provides an overview of the school system in England, concentrating on how it has developed since 2010, and explores meanings of autonomy as a way of contributing to a critical understanding of how the system is developing.

7.2  England’s School System Since 2010 Responsibility for the school system in England rests with the Department for Education (DfE), a department of the UK government which shapes and regulates the school system through non-ministerial departments and agencies that have national responsibilities. The main national authorities are set out in Table 7.1.1 These authorities have to be placed in the context of the radical refashioning of the system that has taken place, especially since 2010. They are part of the intention to develop ‘a self-improving school system’ characterised by ‘school-led improvement’, which is a stated policy priority in the quest to raise standards of schooling on a sustainable basis (DfE 2016b: 20; original emphasis). Although the intensified reforms in the structure of English school education since 2010 cannot be said to have followed any blueprint of a self-improving system design, such as that set out by Hargreaves (2010), the idea of a ‘self-improving school-led system’ (SISS) is influential in English educational policy and this has led to SISS being described as an ‘overarching narrative’ for policy on schools (Greany and Higham 2018: 10). One of its consequences has been to further diminish the role of local authorities and to create a new kind of ‘middle tier’ which is continuing to evolve (Woods and Simkins 2014). In the following section, we summarise the key elements of SISS and examine the growth of ‘independent’ state schools, before turning to examine how the middle tier is evolving.

7.2.1  A Self-Improving School-Led System The idea of a self-improving system denotes a system where the main, ongoing impetus to make the system better comes from learning and change generated within the system rather than prescriptions and commands that arise from outside the system. The building blocks of a self-improving system according to Hargreaves (2010, 2012) are fourfold. First is the structural framework provided by ‘family clusters’ of schools that facilitate active collaboration, sharing of ideas and school improvement. The clus-

 Further details available at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations

1

7  England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England

113

Table 7.1  School authorities with national responsibilities, 2018 The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted)

Inspects and regulates schools and other services that care for children and young people and provide education and skills for learners of all ages; reports to Parliament, rather than the Secretary of State for Education directly, but its statutory powers and duties reflect the policies of central government Regulates qualifications, examinations and assessments in England

The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) Education and Skills Brings together the former responsibilities of the Education Funding Funding Agency (ESFA) Agency (EFA) and Skills Funding Agency (SFA) to create a single agency accountable for funding education and skills for children, young people and adults Responsible for providing a testing, assessment and moderation Standards and Testing Agency (STA) system to measure and monitor pupils’ progress through primary school from reception to the end of key stage 2 (age 11), developing and delivering the professional skills test for trainee teachers and managing the general qualifications logistics service provided to exam centres and examiners Appointed by the Secretary of State for Education, responsible for The National Schools supporting school leaders, teachers and governors with the stated aim Commissioner and of achieving the best education system possible for all children in regional schools England; works closely with 8 regional schools commissioners who commissioners are accountable to the National Schools Commissioner and each supported by a board of headteachers Note: In 2018, the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) which had responsibility for improving academic standards by recruiting and developing a workforce to meet the needs of the school system, and to help schools to help each other to improve, was absorbed into the Department for Education

ters are described as family-like to indicate ‘an organic and sustainable relationship of a relatively small number of schools’ (Hargreaves 2010: 6). The second and third are cultural elements. The second element is taking a local solutions approach in which schools work together to examine problems and generate solutions. This involves ‘breaking free from a dependency culture in which the solutions to school problems are thought to lie somewhere beyond the schools themselves’ (p8). The third element is what Hargreaves refers to as co-construction. This is about working together so as to agree the problem and the task to be tackled and the priorities, to co-design the action and to implement change as a process of co-production. It involves not only schools but also educators and students working together and includes ‘joint practice development’ that fosters mutual professional development and practical change (Hargreaves 2012: 8). The notion of joint practice development goes back to research by Fielding et al. (2005: 32) which found that professional learning was, instead of a transfer of practice, a developmental process of ‘collaborative and affirming work’ between teachers through which they and their practice grow. Collaboration such as this is the fundamental logic of the self-­ improving system and accords with what much research indicates about the benefits

114

P. A. Woods et al.

of collaborative learning within and between educators (Szegedi et al. 2018; Woods and Roberts 2018). The fourth element is system leadership which is exercised by people at all levels of the system. This highlights the significant impact of a commitment to and action supporting schools and students throughout the system and not just to one’s own school. Some of the spirit underpinning these elements can be seen in the articulation of government policy and its stance towards local authorities (LAs). LAs are elected councils responsible for the running of a range of local services. These services include school education, but government policy in recent years has resulted in large numbers of schools being removed from the responsibility of LAs to become ‘independent’ state schools (academies and free schools  – explained below). The rationale for the reforms is that schools outside the responsibility of LAs – ‘autonomous academies’ (DfES 2016a: 20) – give ‘more freedom and autonomy to headteachers and leaders’ (p3): the reforms ‘set school leaders free’ and leave behind ‘stifling’ and ‘micromanaging’ government (p10), thus ‘empowering great teachers and leaders’ (p55) and ‘giving teachers professional autonomy over how to teach’ (p89). A central role is given to ‘supported autonomy’ which means ‘strengthening the infrastructure that supports all schools and their leaders to collaborate effectively’ (DfE 2016a: 18) and which will enable ‘the best headteachers to extend their influence beyond their own schools and help them to raise standards across the system’ (p72). This kind of system leadership, undertaken by headteachers and including national leaders of education,2 is seen as integral to the current system (DfE 2016b; Hill 2011). Headteachers have a crucial responsibility not only for the performance of their school, but also as key actors in system-wide improvement. Since 2010, there has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of ‘independent’ state schools (Bolton 2015; Roberts 2017; House of Commons Education Committee 2017; National Audit Office 2018; West and Bailey 2013; Woods and Simkins 2014). Schools under the auspices of local authorities (LA-maintained schools) have changed their status to become academies. They have become either a sponsored academy (sponsored by businesses, faith groups, charities or educational institutions such as universities, further education colleges and ‘successful’ schools) or a converter academy (that has opted out of LA control but, as the school is deemed by government to be performing well, requires no sponsor). In addition, there are some new schools, designated as ‘free schools’, which are identical in legal status to academies. These are started and run by teachers, charities, parent groups, existing academy sponsors or other providers. By January 2018, almost three-quarters of secondary schools, and just over a quarter of primary schools, were academies (which includes more than 400 free schools) (National Audit Office 2018).

 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-leaders-of-education-a-guide-for-potential-applicants

2

7  England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England

115

7.2.2  An Evolving Middle Tier The question of what is happening to the middle tier of governance (the governance structures between the national level and schools) in England’s changing system is a crucial one. This middle tier is undergoing fundamental change, resulting in new patterns of governance (Woods and Roberts 2014; Woods and Simkins 2014). The power of LAs, which historically were responsible for school provision, has diminished since the 1980s. Since 2002, and at a faster rate since 2010, schools formerly under the auspices of LAs have become sponsored or converter academies. The Church of England and the Catholic Church retain an important role in the state education system through their church schools and sponsorship of academies.3 A concern is that the middle tier is no longer providing the co-ordination needed by the school system, especially as there are competitive pressures on ‘autonomous schools to act in their own interests’ (Greany and Higham 2018: 25). Government policy continues to be committed to policies that ‘stimulate competition’ between schools (DfE 2016a: 17), as well as collaboration. We next give a brief account of changes to LAs, and then turn to new ways of grouping schools that are developing. 7.2.2.1  Local Authorities The 150 LAs in England are described as having the strategic lead for education of children and young people and a legal duty to ensure that every child fulfils his or her educational potential.4 From 2004, as part of a national policy to integrate children’s services, LAs were required to appoint a Director of Children’s Services (DCS), tasked with improving the well-being of all children and young people.5 The DCS has professional responsibility for the leadership, strategy and effectiveness of the LA’s children’s services and is responsible for securing the provision of services which address the needs of all children and young people. This role involves leading a wide range of activities, people and agencies in local efforts to improve outcomes for all children and young people. A senior local government officer, the DCS provides a line of accountability for those working with young people, though this accountability is less clear as the local schools system becomes more plural and diverse. A particular focus of the role is to ensure that all children, including the disadvantaged and vulnerable, are championed. Contributing to the achievement of this agenda, the DCS leads the LA’s management of central services such as place planning, admissions and school support services. A DCS also has responsibilities in relation to the quality of education in their local area.  http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/about-us; https://www.churchofengland.org/more/education-and-schools/church-schools-and-academies#na 4  See https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/children-and-young-people/education-and-schools 5  See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/directors-of-childrens-services-roles-and-res ponsibilities 3

116

P. A. Woods et al.

In the current evolving school system, the powers of LAs are diminished in relation to schools (Wolf 2013). As noted above, the majority of secondary schools and over a quarter of primary schools are academies. LAs are therefore dependent on building relationships, negotiating, facilitating partnerships, and leading and engaging in local dialogues. As a consequence, many LAs are developing a new version of their old middle tier role and creating new structures in order to focus on the provision of central support services. Many are, for example, negotiating partnerships and agreements with schools to provide support services, broker support between schools and work with schools in other ways. Greany and Higham (2018: 24) conclude that LAs have had to become part of a commercial middle tier. The values guiding the new models created by LAs are not necessarily entirely those of private business and competition. Some models are more entrepreneurial than others, operating at a greater organisational distance from the core work of the LA; others seek to be more co-operative and community-orientated, though tensions nevertheless exist with pressures for relations between schools and LAs to be ‘based upon an economic contractual relationship that challenges traditional notions of public service’ (Boyask 2015: 39). 7.2.2.2  New Ways of Grouping Schools The diverse ways in which schools group together is a key structural feature of the emerging governance system (Woods and Simkins 2014). New and changing forms by which schools are grouped are developing as schools leave LAs to become academies or, if they remain with LAs, reconfigure how they arrange support for school improvement. They are creating a complex and evolving middle tier alongside LAs. Because of this complexity, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive overview. We focus here on major examples of the kinds of school groups being formed: federations, teaching school alliances and academy chains. The term ‘federation’ covers a range of collaborative relationships between schools (Chapman 2015). Federations can include both academies and LA-maintained schools. The opportunity to form federations was provided formally in 2002 when the Education Act of that year allowed for a group of two or more schools with a formal agreement to work together to raise standards. Such groups of schools can take the form of hard federations. These are legal entities, with a single governing body, that institutionalise the partnership between schools. There are also looser arrangements that give individual schools greater autonomy. These looser arrangements constitute soft federations or collaboratives  – often referred to in schools as ‘local clusters’ (Greany and Higham 2018: 70)  – where a group of schools has ‘chosen to cooperate or share resources in areas such as continuing professional development or common services but without modifying their leadership or governance structures’ (Woods and Simkins 2014: 332). The leaders of federations undertake some of the leadership roles traditionally associated with middle tier leadership, though not statutory roles based in the LA. This may include building collegiality across a number of schools, providing strategic leadership and

7  England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England

117

­ anaging cross-phase transition. Interpretation of guidance from central governm ment and support for its implementation are also key roles which complement rather than replace the statutory roles based in LAs. Research by Greany and Higham (2018) suggests that local clusters of schools are highly important to schools, with 67% of school leaders in primary schools and 40% in secondary schools describing their local cluster as their strongest partnership. Teaching school alliances (TSAs) were introduced in 2011 (Gu et al. 2015). In a TSA a group of schools is led by a designated teaching school that has responsibility for co-ordinating and providing initial teacher education, spreading ‘excellent practice’ and providing professional and leadership development across the alliance of schools.6 There are over 500 TSAs (National College for Teaching and Leadership 2017). They do not operate in a uniform way. Greany and Higham’s (2018) study found three forms emerging amongst the TSAs they studied: hierarchical, where ‘powerful schools’ take ‘lead positions’ and gain ‘disproportionate influence’ (p80); exclusive and internally equitable, where decision-making is shared by the member schools but local schools wanting to join are not admitted, in order to keep the alliance small; marketised, where the alliance is a loose affiliation focused on ‘selling short-term support services to predominantly external “client” schools’ (p82). Academy chains, also referred to as ‘umbrella trusts’ (West and Wolfe 2018), are another highly significant innovation. The first academy chain came into being in 2004, since when the number of such chains has risen rapidly (National Audit Office 2018). Most academies are in multi-academy trusts (MATs), where a group of schools is governed through a single set of trust members and directors7 and the MAT is expected to support school-led improvement (DfE 2016a). By 2016 there were 1121 MATs and 65% of all academies and free schools were in MATs (House of Commons Education Committee 2017; Roberts 2017). By 2018, over 70% of academies were run by MATs. The official intention is that ‘in five to six years a “tipping point” will be reached where most schools have converted [to academy status outside LA control] and joined a MAT’ (House of Commons Education Committee 2017). A MAT is a single legal entity. Individual schools within a MAT do not exist as legally separate institutions but are ‘local sites through which the MAT delivers’ (West and Wolfe 2018: 16). This is very different from LA-maintained schools which have a governing body that is a ‘free-standing legal entity’ and whose composition is set by statute and minutes are open to public scrutiny (p23). Such a fundamental change in school status would appear to be revolutionary as it does away with the statutory basis that assures the institutional existence of the key building block of the English school system. Its implications have hardly been debated and certainly not fully examined and researched.

6  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/teaching-schools-a-guide-for-potential-applicants#teach ing-school-alliances 7  http://apps.nationalcollege.org.uk/resources/modules/academies/academies-online-resource/ ac-s4/ac-s4-t1.html

118

P. A. Woods et al.

7.3  Autonomy We turn now to autonomy. The capacity of schools to generate solutions and to break free of dependency on outside solution-providers is an essential element of Hargreaves’ (2010) conception of a self-improving system and requires a significant degree of autonomy for schools. It also requires autonomy for educators that enables ‘the exercise of individual choice and creativity’, albeit within ‘strong agreements’ on certain norms of practice, such as an expectation of professional development by all teachers on priority areas for the school (Hargreaves 2014: 705). As we have seen above, the Government attaches great value to schools, school leaders and teachers exercising autonomy within the school system. Our purpose in this section is to explore the notion of autonomy and its meanings and conditions as a contribution to reflecting critically on the English school system. Autonomy is the condition in which a person or an entity, such as a country or organisation, can exercise self-rule or self-governance. There is a ‘lack of coercion, and ability to act free from the prescriptions of others and of convention’ (Baggini 2015: 101). Many conceptions of what autonomy means can be found in academic literature (O’Neill 2003: 2). At its simplest, autonomy could be described as ‘latitude for discretionary judgement’ (Lundström 2015). However, keeping close to the etymology of the word ‘autonomy’ (autos meaning self and nomos law), we take the basic meaning of autonomy to be the capability to adopt for oneself the principles, rules or values that guide one’s action. These entail ‘normative principles about what is worthwhile – that is, a conception, perhaps somewhat inchoate, about what makes a life well lived’ (Brink 2003: 28). This implies that one has some justification for the authenticity of the motives and judgements in choosing such principles, rules or values – that is, that they are in some sense freely adopted on the basis of one’s own rationale and not imposed. An implication is that autonomy consists of independent choosing that follows rational processes. Whilst such ‘rational autonomy’ is ‘ultimately based on desires or preferences’, there is some reasoned basis for the choice, for example a process that means the choice is ‘well informed, or fully informed, or reflective, or reflectively endorsed’ (O’Neill 2003: 5). This does not mean necessarily that the choice is ethically good. For example, a school leader may reason that their school needs to do x, y and z to survive, or that the school’s best interests lie in removing from the school roll (‘off-rolling’) pupils who will bring down the school’s grades, or (conversely) that the school has to make inclusion its overriding priority. The fact that policy choices have been rationally thought through does not in itself make those choices ethical. We shall return to the issue of ethics and autonomy below. From the basic position on autonomy, as the capability to adopt for oneself the principles, rules or values that guide one’s action, we examine some of the features that affect the practice of autonomy and help us understand its operation in a school system intended to be infused by autonomy, such as that in England. The descriptions of autonomy discussed here (licensed, regulated, conditional and so on) do not denote discrete types of autonomy: rather, they highlight different ways in which

7  England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England

119

autonomy is constructed and experienced in practice and sometimes by design. One or more of these descriptions may be appropriate depending on the context and experience of autonomy. Educational and other public services have procedures for giving autonomy and signalling that it is legitimate. Licensed autonomy refers to the granting of autonomy as a professional which is signified in gaining an appropriate licence (Apple 2007; Lundström 2015). The notion can be applied equally to institutions. In the English school system, academy schools can be seen as being granted licensed autonomy by virtue of their academy status. They are thus afforded autonomies that other institutions do not have, creating a hierarchical distinction between institutions. Below, we will discuss the significance of hierarchical distinctions further in relation to the conditional features of autonomy. A question in relation to any apparent state of autonomy is the degree to which the autonomy is genuine. Licensed autonomy may be regulated by the powers to which the professional educator or institution is held accountable and which sets the framework and the discourse within which autonomous practice takes place. Table 7.1 showed the main authorities with national responsibilities for schools that impinge upon autonomy in England. They do this by determining and operating processes that significantly affect the work of schools and educators, such as school inspections, systems assessing pupils’ progress and achievement and oversight of academies. Greany and Higham (2018: 23) argue that the system in England since 2010 involves significant ‘re-regulation’, with ‘new curriculum requirements, central funding contracts, performance indicators and new forms of intervention, including powers for Regional School Commissioners [see Table 7.1] to intervene in academies and schools judged as “inadequate” or “coasting”’. A significant degree of compulsion could be seen in the government’s notion of ‘supported autonomy’  – autonomy ‘supported by fair, stretching accountability measures; and enabling pupils, parents, and communities to demand more from their schools’ (DfE 2016a: 8 – emphases added). Critics of claims that schools and educators have greater autonomy also point to the power of the dominant policy discourse to create pressures to conform to the kinds of professional and educational values preferred by those in powerful policy positions. For example, a strong discourse valuing enterprise arguably helps to instil in school leaders’ aspirations to entrepreneurial leadership informed by private business and competitive values (Woods 2013). To the extent that this is unthought through and unreflected upon by school leaders and hence the result of ‘coercive persuasion’ (Stacey 2012: 80), any autonomy they are exercising does not involve genuinely free choices. In a context of tight regulation and coercive discourse, licensed autonomy might be appropriately seen as regulated autonomy (Apple 2007; Lundström 2015). The key thing with regulated autonomy is that the person or institution has taken on a purpose and principles through compulsion or without reflecting on the strong factors influencing their feelings and thinking. In essence, it is not really autonomy. For Apple (2007) and Lundström (2015), regulated autonomy is a specific kind of distortion of professional autonomy. The latter is licensed and framed in such a way

120

P. A. Woods et al.

that autonomous practice is not the result of independent choices but of professional identities and values that conform to performative and competitive logics. From a critical perspective, powerful economic actors in a capitalist society are part of a social context that contributes to the regulation of autonomy, through their influence on dominant views on schooling and thereby the content and aims of school education (Murphy 1982). In practice, even if autonomy is only minimally regulated in the sense just described, there are always significant constraints. Autonomy is always conditional autonomy. That is, autonomy is affected by a range of factors, to do with resources, opportunities, relationships and so on. These include processes of accountability for decisions and practices autonomously determined. Many factors will constrain autonomy, but others will enable autonomy. This allows us to construct a simple analytical scheme to compare differing circumstances. The first case is what we refer to as positive conditional autonomy. This is where the enabling conditions are greater or more important than the constraining conditions. In this instance, the conditions tend to support autonomy. The second case is what we refer to as negative conditional autonomy. This is where the constraining conditions are greater or more important than the enabling conditions. In this instance, the conditions tend to limit autonomy, but do not negate the essence of autonomy in the way that the policy frameworks and persuasive policy discourses do in regulated autonomy. Negative conditional autonomy makes autonomy harder but not impossible. In complex conditions, ‘there may still be latitude for teacher autonomy even within an overall trend towards reduced autonomy’ (Lundström 2015: 74). It is worth exploring further the point about taking advantage of any latitude and of the possibilities for creating latitude. The conditions affecting autonomy are not only external (the cultural context, social structures and policies that schools and educators work within) but are internal too. The identity which individual teachers and groups of teachers hold is one example of such internal conditions. This is exemplified by the practice of teachers within the HertsCam Network.8 Within the network, teachers are supported in becoming autonomous professionals through undertaking teacher-led development work based on individual values and concerns. Membership of the network helps to sustain a professional identity as teachers who are intent on taking a pro-active role in the development of both policy and practice and the building of professional knowledge (Woods et al. 2016). This process exemplifies Wenger’s (1998) argument concerning the deep connection between identity and practice development. As we noted above, the exercise of genuine autonomy, under however positive conditions, does not mean that the autonomous choices and practice are ethical. Yet autonomy can only be justified or have worth if it is advancing purposes with moral 8  The HertsCam Network is an independent teacher-led, not-for-profit organisation committed to educational transformation through support for teacher leadership. In both of its core programmes, facilitators are supported by principles and guidance on processes to support teachers in effecting change through the initiation, design and leadership of development projects, including a collection of tools which they can draw from and develop (Hill 2014).

7  England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England

121

value. Professional responsibility entails attention to ethical questions and in contemporary times arguably this attention is in need of ‘reviving’ within professions (Solbrekke and Sugrue 2011: 20). What then is involved in ethical autonomy – that is, independent choosing that leads to ethically justified choices? The validity or soundness of the source of justification is key here. O’Neill (2003) provides some interesting reflections on this as he examines autonomy in Kantian philosophy. He distinguishes between two kinds of justification. One is an arbitrary (unreasoned) choice to defer to a source of what is right, which could be the church, the ‘edicts of rulers’, subjective feelings of moral rightness or ‘the will of the majority’ (p9–10). He calls this heteronomous autonomy. We shall refer to it as dependent autonomy as it resonates with the philosophy of dependence which sees people as requiring to find the right rules, texts or leaders to follow in order to act ethically (Woods 2016; Woods and Roberts 2018). Dependent, or heteronomous, autonomy is not really ethical in the Kantian perspective because the act of choosing to which moral guide to defer does not in itself establish that it is a valid source of ethical rightness. In education, appealing to the requirements of policy for example does not automatically make choices guided by those policy requirements ethical. It can be legitimately argued that educators funded by public money have some ethical duty to follow democratically legitimated policy decisions, but there are other ethical issues too that bear upon what is morally appropriate action in practice. To return to O’Neill, the other option is Kantian or principled autonomy. From a Kantian view, choices to be ethical must have two features. One is that they are grounded in some kind of reasoning: they should not be based simply on enthusiasm or flights of fancy (O’Neill 2003: 14). We might add to this that they should not be based solely on the reasoning of a charismatic leader either. The second is that the principles that guide the choices have to be followable by others and ‘universal in scope’ (p15). The principles guiding choices have to be something that you would expect to apply to all. This has a relevance in a school system that promotes autonomy amongst educators and schools: for example, principled autonomy encourages the asking of critical questions about, for example, policies followed by a school. An educator can ask, ‘Would I commend these as policies that all schools should follow?’. Policies intended to off-roll pupils are particularly pertinent, as the passing on of pupils considered not to be conducive to the success of the school has implications for the rest of the system. More widely, to what extent is systemic inequality of treatment being built into the system? There seems to be an implicit suggestion in some of the policy discourse that the weakest are to be removed rather than enabled to develop: the system is not designed to support those in challenging circumstances to overcome these challenges but instead to discover and eliminate weakness, allowing ‘the best schools and leaders to extend their influence, taking over from weaker ones’ (DfE 2016a: 10). Some local policies seem to foster systemic inequalities. Schools less well-rated by Ofsted are excluded from some school partnerships for example (Greany and Higham 2018: 43). On the other hand, other local policies are aimed at reducing inter-school inequalities, such as the creation of fair access panels (p60). Solbrekke and Sugrue (2011: 18) suggest that assessing professionals on the basis

122

P. A. Woods et al.

of performance measures and market forces – the performative and competitive logics mentioned above – create conditions conducive to professionals such as educational leaders and teachers finding that ‘...their moral principles very often are compromised in order to meet the requirements of efficiency and external goals’. Policies that lead to inequalities and divisions in these ways do not sit well with the idea of a democratic school system in which all are supported to achieve, no matter what their starting point, and a conviction that strength is collegial and held by education as a whole. Such collegiality would seem to be at the heart of a self-­ improving system that engages in continuous improvement through joint practice development, in contrast to conditions of competition and hierarchical structures that tend to encourage a restricted sense of professional responsibility that is ‘loyal to the culture and prescriptions of the workplace rather than to the standards of the profession’ (Solbrekke and Sugrue 2011: 15). Hargreaves’ (2012) emphasis on the collective moral purpose articulates the imperative of the universal principle basic to principled autonomy. It entails a commitment by schools and educators to the value and learning of everyone. Ethical concern cannot justifiably stop at the school boundary, or indeed the boundary of the federation, TSA or MAT. O’Neill (2003: 16) emphasises that principled autonomy entails a process that is reflexive: the question is not whether the person is autonomous in a principled way but whether the processes they follow involve reflexive thinking that asks challenging questions about the validity of the principles on which they base their choices. O’Neill’s discussion reinforces the need to reflect upon and examine what justifies and guides action. If autonomy is to be principled, the creation and following of policies, nationally, locally and in schools, require examination of their principles from the viewpoint of whether they can be justified as actions that all can follow.

7.4  Impact Assessing the effects of the school system as it has changed since 2010 is extremely difficult. The nature of the system is still unfolding, often in different ways locally (Greany and Higham 2018; Woods and Simkins 2014), and the various effects of such a complex system will take many years to play out. There is ‘a lack of reliable information of the way in which the academies policy is working’ (West and Wolfe 2018: 5). We do know, however, that whilst there are examples in the current system of positive change in learning experiences and achievement, it is not possible to conclude that the structural change introduced by academy status, as ‘independent’ state schools, and governance through MATs in itself ensures positive change generally: there are significant variations in the educational performance of academies and MATs.9 Nor do reforms in England appear to be bringing about fundamental 9  For research and analysis concerning academies and MATs, see Academies Commission (2013); Andrews et al. (2017); Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills (2017); PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2008).

7  England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England

123

change in the direction of reducing inequalities and increasing social justice. There appears to be no significant reduction in the educational performance gap between the richest and poorest areas from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s; and the educational experience of different social classes remains notably unequal.10 In the remainder of this section we concentrate on how we can better understand the avowed greater autonomy of the current system, using the analysis of autonomy in the previous section. One of the themes throughout this discussion is the importance of being aware of the distribution of autonomy. Autonomy, the ways in which it is regulated, and the conditions of autonomy are distributed differently across different actors and institutions in the system. Hence the experience of autonomy is likely to differ. It is clear that there are negative conditions affecting autonomy. On the basis of his research into reforms intended to introduce greater autonomy for teachers in Sweden, Lundström (2015) concluded that the reforms have reduced teachers to deliverers of ‘goal achievement’ rather than autonomous educators. Negative conditional factors constraining autonomy there include greater school principals’ control at the expense of teachers’ professional judgement and stricter demands by the state for goal fulfilment and evaluation. Such factors are also evident in England. Greany and Higham (2018) conclude that in England recent policy reforms have sought to move the system away from the original SISS narrative of school-level autonomy and towards MAT-level authority. They see a shift in which the conditions of autonomy for schools are determined increasingly in MATs. The ways in which MATs operate vary. Some are hierarchical in their structure; some more collaborative. A survey of MATs found that a small minority describe themselves as having a single approach to teaching and learning across all academies (less than 8%) or as academies having full discretion (less than 20%): most described their policy as having some consistency between academies as well as encouraging innovation (Cirin 2017: 33). The trend, however, seems to be towards more hierarchical structures, the pressure for this emanating from ‘a tighter level of prescription’ from central government about how MATs operate and ‘a requirement for tight vertical accountability, both within MATs and between MATs and the government’ (Greany and Higham 2018: 86). West and Wolfe (2018) examine in detail how the freedoms that were meant to be enjoyed by academies are, for those in MATs, actually in the control of the MAT, not the school. Their stark conclusion is that despite the creation of academies ‘having been initially driven by a wish to give schools freedom and autonomy, those (the majority of academies) which are now run by MATs have no freedom – they do not even exist as legal entities to enjoy such freedoms’ (p29). We might hypothesise that in this context negative conditional autonomy will increase for schools and for teachers and others in schools within MATs. The exercise of professional autonomy could become more difficult, though there are likely to continue to be variations between MATs. It is important to recognise too that

10  For research and analysis concerning inequalities, see Clegg et al. (2017); Gorard (2014, 2016); Lumby and Coleman (2016); Reay (2017).

124

P. A. Woods et al.

MATs are only a part of the system, if a significant part which government wishes to expand. Other school groupings, involving academies not in MATs and schools that are still the responsibility of LAs, are constituted in different ways, and there are some schools not in formal groupings, including single academy trusts (SATs) which operate as standalone academies. In these, in some contexts, there may be greater positive conditional autonomy, and the autonomy possible may be used in different ways. There is evidence that types of innovation differ between SATs and academies in MATs. Innovations by SATs  – operating as standalone institutions  – are more likely to concern school-level operations, such as the curriculum, as compared with academies in MATs where organisation-level innovation, such as reconstituting the governing body, is more likely to have occurred (Cirin 2017: 18–19). In the previous section, we noted that there are both conditions external to the educator and conditions internal to the educator, such as professional identity, affecting autonomy. Internal conditions – that is, the factors within schools affecting their autonomy and that of educators– are varied and complex, and hence the distribution of autonomy is likely to constitute a tangled picture. We should be careful not to assume MATs are all characterised by negative conditional autonomy; nor that non-MAT schools are necessarily characterised by positive conditional autonomy. The degree to which autonomy is regulated raises enormous questions concerning identity and motivations. School leaders and teachers may work to the policies and assessments constructed by central government and national authorities, but this may be the result of considered reflection and choices that they make for themselves. They can be, in other words, the outcome of rational autonomy. Nevertheless, policies and the policy discourse from powerful policy actors can exert a force that seems to require conformity. The ‘re-regulation’ generated by government in creating the current school system in England that Greany and Higham (2018: 23) highlight suggests that there is some degree of regulated autonomy. There are likely to be school leaders and educators, and schools as institutional actors, that adopt purposes and principles through a feeling of compulsion or without reflecting on the strong factors influencing their feelings and thinking. Competitive pressures on schools are widespread. Greany and Higham’s (2018) study found that over 90% of secondary headteachers in England experience competition. Competitive and performative pressures have consequences for how schools operate and the professional identity of school leaders and teachers. Jeffrey and Troman (2012), for example, observed moves towards more team work, collective working and distributed leadership in schools in England; but they also drew attention to associated changes that arguably distort education, such as a growth in the language and culture of business in schools and a corporate approach focusing on the needs of the institution. School evaluations through the national inspection role of Ofsted exert a strong influence on schools. All schools are graded on the basis of inspections – as ‘outstanding’, ‘good’, ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ (Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2017) – and the gradings have implications for schools. For example, following a judgement of ‘inadequate’, an LA-maintained school has to convert to academy status, whilst for an academy given this grading there may be intervention from a

7  England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England

125

regional school commissioner (Table 7.1) or the Secretary of State for Education (Roberts and Abreu 2018). For many schools this leads to a constant focus on examination results and preparation for a possible Ofsted inspection (Greany and Higham 2018). Working in such a context creates pressures towards the formation of professional identities that comply with competitive and performative principles. If regulated autonomy is a concern, paradoxically it might seem so too is unaccountable autonomy. Upward accountabilities of autonomous schools and MATs to government have been mentioned above. However, the evolving nature of the system can lead to the obscuring of accountability lines. Greany and Higham (2018: 95) conclude that as MATs get larger, the number of managerial levels increases, meaning that LA ‘bureaucracy’ is replaced by another more complex and less accountable form of bureaucracy. More fundamentally, the creation of academies, whether they are within MATs or not, breaks the accountability connection with LAs and local democratic responsibility for schools. West and Wolfe (2018) explain the ways in which the academies system reduces public accountability and scrutiny. For example, changes to LA-maintained schools have to be a public process, whilst changes to academies and MATs take place in non-public spaces. This can increase the autonomy of some actors in the system, such as leaders of MATs. It contributes to positive conditional autonomy for them. However, autonomy is not an unalloyed good. It carries responsibilities and this requires appropriate processes of accountability. Such processes may be upwards in a hierarchy (within a school, school grouping or to government) or lateral (to colleagues, students and others in a school or school grouping). In other words, as we noted in the previous section, simply by virtue of being autonomous, the exercise of autonomy is not necessarily ethical. With dependent autonomy, an unreasoned choice is made to follow a source of ethical direction, which could be, for example, policy edicts, subjective feelings of moral rightness or ‘consumer’ demands. This is not to say that it is wrong to follow these. The characteristic feature of dependent autonomy is the absence of examination of why that is an ethically good source of guidance. Principled autonomy on the other hand is characterised by a reflexive process of examining the principles guiding, or which may be adopted to guide, action so as to ensure that the choices that emerge from them are followable by others and ‘universal in scope’. Numbers of schools explicitly seek to develop a culture, practice and professional identities that are not defined predominantly by competitive and performative principles and the systemic pressures they create to follow them. Such schools foster a different approach, valuing creativity, collaboration and identities as educators guided by broader principles of learning (Berry 2016; Sutherland 2017; Woods and Roberts 2018). They seek to exercise principled autonomy within their context and the conditions of autonomy they experience. Planned changes in the inspection framework used by Ofsted may help in creating greater positive conditional autonomy in the curriculum and space for more principled autonomy. From 2019, inspections are intended to focus less intensively on test and examination results and to place more emphasis on the value of a broad, rich curriculum (Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2018). The impact this has on practice will depend on the final form of the framework and how schools respond.

126

P. A. Woods et al.

This chapter is not intended to offer a comprehensive account of the issues involved in ethical autonomy. The consideration of principled autonomy however reinforces the importance of the critical reflexive process which is integral to a philosophy of co-development and values clarification underlying collaborative leadership (Woods and Roberts 2018). Such reflexivity is essential to autonomy that has two important characteristics: namely, autonomy that is (a) genuinely self-authored and ethical, and (b) practised with the aims of avoiding unreasoned dependence and deference to unquestioned sources of authority and enhancing critical understanding through collaborative learning. Arguably, the importance of developing principled autonomy that is critically reflexive and aspires to enact principles that apply to all is increased as the varieties of cultures and social structures and their rate of change intensifies in the way described by Archer (2012). The intensified change is characterised by a ‘logic of opportunity’, as a result of exponentially increasing innovation, options and interconnections between ideas, culture, ways of living and working, relationships and so on: the array of increasing choices means that calculating future plans is harder (so rational autonomy is more difficult) and that outcomes need not be zero-sum and the logic of action need not be competitive (Archer 2012: 35). To make choices that have some considered moral basis requires development as ‘a social individual, which develops through processes of individual and relational learning over time: it is about learning how and in what direction to develop one’s own individuality and one’s own social identity and practice, learning with and from, as well as contributing to the well-being of, others’ – that is relational freedom in which ‘the person is able to arrive at their own decisions informed by a considered awareness of themselves and the context of which they are part – including its opportunities, resources, constraints and ethical demands.’ (Woods and Roberts 2018: 69).

7.5  Conclusions In this chapter we have provided an overview of the development of the school system in England since 2010. As matters stand at the time of writing, the policy intention is that the numbers of ‘independent’ state schools – academies – will increase, and that most academies will be part of a MAT. How far this will progress and at what rate is difficult to forecast. The evolving system and the challenges of a middle tier, between national authorities and schools, comprising MATs, LAs and other groupings of schools take educational policy into unchartered territory. By January 2018, although the proportion of schools that were academies had increased significantly since 2010, almost two-thirds of schools continued to be classed as maintained and the responsibility of LAs (National Audit Office 2018). This means that two systems of schools – academies and maintained schools – co-exist within the English school system. Whether this continues depends not only on the decisions and actions of numerous national authorities and other institutional actors in the system, but also on future governments and if there are radical changes in policy direction.

7  England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England

127

The discussion in this chapter focused on an exploration of autonomy in order to contribute to a critical understanding of the developing school system in England. Issues key to such a critical understanding are: 1. The distribution of autonomy. Some institutions, positions of authority and individuals have more autonomy than others. A variety of internal and external variables (resources, opportunities, relationships and so on) work to produce conditional autonomy that is positive or negative in its fostering of freedoms, depending on the mix of variables affecting the institution, position or individual concerned. The degree to which ‘autonomous academies’, as a result of their licensed autonomy, are free and result in real freedoms for their leaders and teachers is a major issue. Significant degrees of autonomy cannot be presumed to follow from the policy emphasis on autonomy. 2. The delusion of regulated autonomy. Where there is a tight system of regulation and a coercive discourse demanding the adoption of certain identities and principles, without encouraging critical reflexivity, there are compelling influences giving rise to regulated autonomy. This means educational leaders, teachers and others, and institutions, adopting purposes and principles through compulsion or without reflecting on the strong factors influencing their feelings and thinking. In essence, where there is such regulated autonomy there is not really autonomy. 3. The ethics of autonomy. Exploring the meaning of ethical autonomy helps in appreciating the moral demands entailed in autonomy. Making an unreasoned choice to follow a source of ethical direction – be it a national policy directive, subjective feelings of moral rightness or ‘consumer’ demands – is better characterised as dependent autonomy. Exercising rational autonomy, so that choices concerning how to act or determine institutional policy are reasoned and rationally thought through, does not in itself make those choices ethical. Something more is required. This leads to an argument for principled autonomy characterised by critical reflexivity. Essential to principled autonomy is a process of examining the principles guiding, or which may be adopted to guide, action so as to ensure that the choices that emerge from them are ones that we consider are justifiable and morally worthy for everyone to choose. The principles are in this sense universal in scope. 4. Principled autonomy and social justice. The aspiration in principled autonomy to principles that are universal in scope gives a presumption of responsibility beyond the interests of the self or to one institution or group. If such a principle is expressed as ‘do as one would be done by’ – which, arguably, is a neat expression of what justifiably all can be expected ethically to follow – responsibility extends to working for the welfare and best interests of others. Autonomy then, to be ethical, needs to be energised by this kind of principle and thus predisposed to action that challenges systemic inequalities in school, local and system-wide practices. There are difficulties and risks in doing this in a system that assesses performance on the basis of narrow measures of measurable success. Yet creative

128

P. A. Woods et al.

modifications to practice generated by teachers and others collaboratively  – ‘constant little improvisations’ (Hargreaves 2012: 26) – can lead to significant reconfigurations at the level of a whole school or school grouping. Where constant improvisations are motivated by principled autonomy, advancing social justice can become a feature of the self-improving system. We suggest that these four issues and the related notions of autonomy explored in this chapter offer a framework for examining the practical operation of autonomy and evolving nature of the school system in England.

References Academies Commission. (2013). Unleashing greatness: Getting the best from an academised system – The report of the academies commission. London: RSA/Pearson. Available at: https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/reports/unleashing-greatnessgetting-the-best-from-an-academised-system Andrews, J., Perera, N., Eyles, et al. (2017). The impact of academies on educational outcomes. London: Education Policy Institute. Apple, M. W. (2007). Whose markets, whose knowledge? In A. R. Sadovnik (Ed.), Sociology of education. A critical reader. New York: Routledge. Archer, M. (2012). The reflexive imperative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baggini, J. (2015). Freedom regained: The possibility of free will. London: Granta. Berry, J. (2016). Teachers undefeated: How global education reform has failed to crush the spirit of educators. London: UCL Institute of Education. Bolton, P. (2015). Converter academies: Statistics (Briefing Paper: Number 6233). London: House of Commons Library. Boyask, R. (2015). Nuanced understandings of privatization in  local authorities’ services to schools. Management in Education, 29(1), 35–40. Brink, D. O. (2003). Perfectionism and the Common Good: Themes in the Philosophy of T. H. Green. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chapman, C. (2015). From one school to many: Reflections on the impact and nature of school federations and chains in England. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 46–60. Cirin, R. (2017). Academy trust survey 2017: Research report. London: DfE. Clegg, N., Allen, R., Fernades, S., Freedman, S., & Kinnock, S. (2017). Commission on inequality in education. London: Social Market Foundation. DfE. (2016a). Educational excellence everywhere. London: DfE. DfE. (2016b). DfE strategy 2015–2020 world-class education and care. London: DfE. Fielding, M., Bragg, S., Craig, J., Cunningham, I., Eraut, M., Gillinson, S., Horne, M., Robinson, C., & Thorp, J. (2005). Factors influencing the transfer of good practice. Nottingham: DfES Publications. Gorard, S. (2014). The link between Academies in England, pupil outcomes and local patterns of socio-economic segregation between schools. Research Papers in Education, 29(3), 268–284. Gorard, S. (2016). The complex determinants of school intake characteristics and segregation, England 1989 to 2014. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(1), 131–146. Greany, T., & Higham, R. (2018). Hierarchy, markets and networks: Analysing the ‘self-improving school-led system’ agenda in England and the implications for schools. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.

7  England: Autonomy and Regulation in the School System in England

129

Gu, Q., Rea, S., Smethem, L., Dunford, J., Varley, M., & Sammons, P. (2015). Teaching schools evaluation: Final report. Nottingham: National College for Teaching and Leadership. Hargreaves, D.  H. (2010). Creating a self-improving system. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Hargreaves, D.  H. (2012). A self-improving school system: Towards maturity. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Hargreaves, D. H. (2014). A self-improving school system and its potential for reducing inequality. Oxford Review of Education, 40(6), 696–714. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills. (2017). The annual report of her Majesty’s chief inspector of education, Children’s services and skills 2016/17. London: Ofsted. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills. (2018). HMCI commentary: Curriculum and the new education inspection framework. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmci-commentary-curriculum-and-the-new-edu cation-inspection-framework Hill, R. (2011). The importance of teaching and the role of system leadership: A commentary on the Illuminas research for the National College. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Hill, V. (2014). The HertsCam TLDW programme. In D.  Frost (Ed.), Transforming education through teacher leadership. Cambridge: Leadership for Learning/The Cambridge Network. House of Commons Education Committee. (2017). Multi-academy trusts (Seventh report of Session 2016–2017). London: House of Commons. Jeffrey, B., & Troman, G. (2012). The performative institutional embrace. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 1(2), 195–212. Lumby, J., & Coleman, M. (2016). Leading for equality: Making schools fairer. London: Sage. Lundström, U. (2015). Teacher autonomy in the era of new public management. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1, 73–85. Murphy, R. (1982). Power and autonomy in the sociology of education. Theory and Society, 11(2), 179–203. National Audit Office. (2018). Converting maintained schools to academies. London: National Audit Office. National College for Teaching and Leadership. (2017). Teaching school alliances: Key Information Form (KIF) 2015/16 – Analysis. London: Department for Education. O’Neill, O. (2003). Autonomy: The emperor’s new clothes. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 77(1), 1–21. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2008). Academies evaluation: Fifth annual report. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Reay, D. (2017). Miseducation: Inequality, education and the working classes. Bristol: Policy Press. Roberts, N. (2017). FAQs: Academies and free schools (Briefing Paper: Number 07059). London: House of Commons Library. Roberts, N., & Abreu, L. (2018). School inspections in England: Ofsted (Briefing Paper: Number 07091). London: House of Commons Library. Solbrekke, T., & Sugrue, C. (2011). Professional responsibility – Back to the future. In C. Sugrue & T.  Solbrekke (Eds.), Professional responsibility: New horizons of praxis (pp.  11–28). Abingdon: Routledge. Stacey, R. (2012). Tools and techniques of leadership and management: Meeting the challenge of complexity. London: Routledge. Sutherland, T. (2017). Organisational strategies to multiply the teacher leadership effect. In D. Frost (Ed.), Empowering teachers as agents of change: A non-positional approach to teacher leadership. Cambridge: Leadership for Learning. Szegedi, E., et al. (Ed.). (2018). Guide for facilitators of collaborative teacher learning. E-book, EFFeCT Project. Available at http://effect.tka.hu/methodological-framework

130

P. A. Woods et al.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. West, A., & Bailey, E. (2013). The development of the academies programme: ‘Privatising’ school-based education in England 1986–2013. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(2), 137–159. West, A., & Wolfe, D. (2018). Academies, the school system in England and a vision for the future (Clare Market Papers No. 23). London: LSE Academic Publishing. Wolfe, D. (2013). Schools: The legal structures, the accidents of history and the legacies of timing and circumstance. Education Law Journal, 14(2), 100–113. Woods, P. A. (2013). Sense of purpose: Reconfiguring entrepreneurialism in public education. In C. L. Slater & S. Nelson (Eds.), Understanding the Principalship: An international guide to principal preparation. Bingley: Emerald. Woods, P. A. (2016). Democratic roots: Feeding the multiple dimensions of ‘leadership-as-­practice’. In J. Raelin (Ed.), Leadership-as-practice: Theory and application. London: Routledge. Woods, P. A., & Roberts, A. (2014). The new executives in a landscape of change: The emerging reality of plural controlled schooling. In A. Nir (Ed.), The school superintendent: An international perspective. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Woods, P. A., & Roberts, A. (2018). Collaborative school leadership: A critical guide. London: Sage. Woods, P. A., & Simkins, T. (2014). Understanding the local: Themes and issues in the experience of structural reform in England. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(3), 324–340. Woods, P.  A., Roberts, A., & Chivers, L. (2016). Collaborative teacher learning: Cases from the HertsCam network. Hatfield: Centre for Educational Leadership, School of Education, University of Hertfordshire.

Chapter 8

Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented to Inclusive and Evidence-Based Governance Maie Kitsing and Hasso Kukemelk

Abstract  This chapter provides a clear overview of how the country started with the order-oriented school governance culture typical of the Soviet period, and after making difficult decisions and choices turned toward a modern inclusive and evidence-­based governance education system. The state provided broad autonomy to schools and heads to make decisions in the content of the education they provide through the learning environment and administration system. The Lehrplan school approach was changed to a curriculum-based approach and the teachers had to start selecting the learning material and content for themselves. School development was linked to institutional self-evaluation procedures and materials. The decentralisation and democratisation of the school system in society led to evidence-based decision-making, but this shift required effective tools. Using external evaluations and several other tools for assessing and comparing schools, the state now provides input for school level decision-making and designing strategic development programmes. Municipalities as the owners of the schools are involved in school governance via different smart administrative bodies to achieve the targets of the national strategy “Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020”. Principles that worked well in profit-oriented organisations were taken into use in schools (e.g. possibility to choose personnel and negotiate working conditions, evaluate procedures in the institution, etc.), granting heads with a great opportunity to build up their own unique school culture. Satisfaction studies carried out among students, teachers and parents make those stakeholders part of the decision-making body and offers the school the option of building up the culture of a learning organisation. M. Kitsing Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, Tartu, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] H. Kukemelk (*) Institute of Education, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_8

131

132

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

Upper secondary education is mainly divided between state senior secondary schools and municipal senior secondary schools providing the same level of education based on the same National Curriculum. There are also a few private senior secondary schools on the education market. There is an option to obtain a simplified version of the upper secondary school education through vocational schools (mainly state schools, some private and municipal schools also on the vocational education market) (Fig. 8.1). Higher (or tertiary) education is provided by (mainly) public universities and state applied higher education institutions. There are a small number of private institutions on the market in both cases. Applied higher education institutions provide mainly diploma education (equal to BA) and in some fields also master level education. Academic universities also offer doctoral studies in addition to BA and MA studies. All educational institutions belong to the owner who has to organize the system of taking care of educational issues and solving problems. There is a special expert (small municipalities) or a department of education (municipality with many educational institutions) at the municipal level. Private owners usually have a board or committee taking care of the educational institution (e.g. the Waldorf schools, religious schools, etc.). Five per cent of schools in Estonia belong to private owners. Every municipality should offer a free of charge option for school age children, but parents are free to choose a school (if there is a free place). That means that some schools are more popular. If parents wish to use alternative educational approaches, then they can choose between the available private schools and usually this incurs a fee. Through the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, the Government provides a formal framework, content principles (e.g. national curricular framework) and the resources to hire teachers and purchase learning materials (through a soft per capita system). The ministry is also responsible for teaching qualifications (providing some free in-service training options for teachers through the INNOVE and HITSA foundations, while also covering the initial costs of teacher education carried out by universities), and student academic achievements (organizing external testing and examinations: grade 3  – mother tongue and maths (electronic tests), grade 6 – mother tongue and maths (electronic tests), grade 4 and 7 - science, grade 9 – Estonian language and literature, maths and one optional exam from a list of subjects, grade 12 – Estonian language and literature, maths and a foreign language). The general approach of the Ministry is to trust the professional expertise of the educational institutions; therefore, the level of autonomy in school decision-making is high in terms of, among others, education, management (e.g. staff recruitment and salaries), learning conditions and methodology. The Ministry provides some resources and guidelines for institutions, but most of the educational decisions are made at the school level. That provides good options for institutions to take into account local conditions and needs in curriculum development and also in learning/ teaching methodology and the expectations of schooling among families.

8  Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented…

Fig. 8.1  Estonian educational tree (Ministry of Education and Research)

133

134

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

8.1  The Development of the Authority and Agency Structure Estonia regained its independence in 1991. The occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union was over. Estonia established its constitution and the initial legal framework for education between 1990 and 1992. The education system was established during the first decade of re-independence meeting the principal criteria of an independent democratic country. The first steps were to decentralise the education system and create a comprehensive school system. The Education Act (1992) and the Basic School and Upper Secondary School Act (1993) provided directions in the Republic of Estonia to decentralise general education at the school level and set up the principle of comprehensive schools across the education system. In addition, these acts legalised private education. The decentralisation took place gradually through several reforms that resulted in major changes in the governance of education and decreased the over-regulation of education. Executive power was decreased at state and county level and increased at municipal and school level. New duties were accepted by institutions during the first decade. A radically new period of Estonian education policy began after joining the EU in 2004. The principles of education policy stem from the Lisbon Strategy and correspond to its idea of creating a common lifelong learning area in Europe. Education is supervised by the State in Estonia according to the Constitution. At the beginning of the Millennium, the Ministry of Education (Haridusministeerium) was responsible for: –– Co-ordinating the implementation of education policy, –– Ensuring the satisfactory implementation of and compliance with educational legislation, –– Drafting the requirements for the general content of education and the national curriculum, –– Enforcing the financial norms for use by institutions in the design of local and school budgets, –– Supervising the administration of the methodological services of institutions, –– Preparing the Government-planned training of staff in education, and –– Administering the public assets used by public educational institutions and the education system as a whole (The Development of Education 2001, 7). The Ministry of Education had different consultative committees and boards serving general education as follows: –– The General Education Management Board (Hariduskorraldusnõukoda)  – a consultative body of the heads of county educational departments, –– The Student Advisory Chamber (Õppurite Nõukoda) – a consultative body for the Minister, consisting of student representatives from secondary, vocational and university levels and their organisations, and –– The Educational Forum (Haridusfoorum) – an advisory body of different stakeholder groups discussing development issues in education (The Development of Education 2001, 7).

8  Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented…

135

8.2  State 8.2.1  Curriculum and National Assessment Re-independent Estonia needed a curriculum based on the principles of a democratic society to educate the younger generation. Therefore, the Lehrplan curriculum (the norm during the Soviet period with a very strong focus on exact sciences) was replaced by a core curriculum to suit the learning contexts of 1996. Considering that school independence had already been raised, the educational shift finally took us toward democratic governance and building new values. The educational standards set up by the national curriculum and the schools meant that schools had to specify the learning outcomes in their own study programmes (Vabariigi Valitsuse 06.09.1996. a määrus nr 228. “Eesti põhi- ja keskhariduse riikliku õppekava kinnitamine Eesti põhi- ja keskhariduse riiklik õppekava”). Schools received a high level of independence to decide the content, form and methodology of learning activities in their school. It took years to shift to the principles and possibilities of the new curriculum in Estonian schools. The renewed national curricula, which came into force in 2011 and 2014, reflected the ideas of the national education strategy “Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020” and changes in society. Its strategic objectives stress a contemporary approach to learning and the development of the individual capabilities of learners, the importance of competent and highly motivated teachers and school principals, the accordance of lifelong learning opportunities with the labour market, developing a digital culture in lifelong learning, and guaranteeing lifelong learning opportunities for everybody (Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020). In 2011, the national curriculum was divided into two frameworks: one for lower secondary and one for upper secondary education. This was done to stress lower secondary and upper secondary education as separate educational levels with their own specific goals and clear outcomes (Põhikooli riiklik õppekava 2011; Gümnaasiumi riiklik õppekava 2011). The different curricula supported the formal division of secondary schools into lower and senior secondary schools. Based on the general framework of the national curriculum, both types of schools had to design their own curricula. Such a decentralised education system, and the reformed national curriculum and new system of assessing learning outcomes that complemented the system, caused changes in the governance of the sector. The results of the change were similar to other countries – governance became more flexible, responsibility was delegated to different levels, and schools were able to adapt better to local conditions (Lindblad et  al. 2002; Lyon 2013). Decentralisation also made it possible for Russian minority schools to be established as a way of avoiding some changes because decision-making and leading innovations became a school-level decision (Carnoy et al. 2015). The National Examination and Qualification Centre was established in 1997 as an independent sub-section of the Ministry of Education and Research. It had to

136

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

realise educational and language politics through concrete decisions, systems built, and resources shared, and ensure the integration of Estonians and the mainly Russian-speaking minority population. The Centre was responsible for the national examinations and tests in the context of general education. It carried out the common examination of the graduates of lower secondary schools and state exams for graduates of senior secondary schools. The Centre was responsible for managing examination procedures in schools and the external assessment of exam results. The Board developed syllabi while also working out guidelines for supporting schools. The National Examination and Qualification Centre was closed in 2012 and its tasks and responsibilities were partly taken up by the Innove Foundation. The Innove Foundation was established in 2003 for the implementation of educational/training and development programmes and projects, as well as facilitating the use of European Union Structural Funds. Since 2012, the Innove Foundation has coordinated the arrangement of state exams and national tests. Currently, the Innove Foundation is an education competence centre that coordinates and promotes general and vocational education in Estonia. In addition, it offers career and educational counselling services through the nationwide network Rajaleidja and mediates European Union grants in the fields of education and working life. The Innove Foundation maintains the Tallinn European School, which provides high-quality general education for children of the international community living in Estonia (Innove Foundation).

8.2.2  SEN-Students Numerous countries (incl. Estonia) have adopted an education policy that supports SEN children learning in the mainstream education system. Most of the special schools educating SEN students in Estonia at the beginning of the new millennium belonged to the state despite the fact that the idea of a more inclusive pedagogy started to spread already during the first decade of independence. SEN students were quite often sent to special schools instead of adapting the teaching according to the students’ needs in the mainstream school. A trend in Estonia toward increasing the number of SEN students in mainstream schools during the last decade has been identified (in 2014, 87.7% of pupils with SEN were studying in mainstream schools); however, the number of students learning in special classrooms has nevertheless increased (Turu-uuringute AS 2017). There is trend in educational policy and management in Estonia that state responsibility for handling SEN students is increasingly shifting to the level of the school owner (mostly the local municipality) and the school itself. Parliament has made this obligatory through several legal acts during the last 15 years dealing with how to deliver inclusive education principles at the different levels of school and kindergarten. Those acts create the legal space for schools to receive all the resources they need from the school owner to educate different SEN students according to their special needs. Despite these acts the schools struggle with problems that are typical also in several other countries – teacher qualifications, the school physical environ-

8  Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented…

137

ment, and others. The skills teachers need in mainstream schools for adapting their teaching to suit the needs of SEN students is one of the main problems (Angelides 2004; Grieve and Haining 2011). Significant changes have taken place in the education system in 2018 to improve the management of schooling SEN students in Estonia. Recent changes in the Basic School and Upper Secondary Schools Act  have provided schools much wider options and rights for organizing and managing SEN student learning and support. Those changes have obliged schools (actually the owners of the schools) to find the resources to offer SEN students support services at least through a special educator, language therapist, psychologist and social educator. The school can involve a SEN student support and consulting team from outside school. That demonstrates a clear standpoint on the part of the state that not a single child should be left without professional support – the state and school owner have a duty to provide the resources the school needs (Põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseaduse muutmise ning sellega seonduvalt teiste seaduste muutmise seadus 2018). The Ministry of Education and Research has started several programmes to support SEN students in addition to formalising inclusive education principles in the legislative acts. Professional support services offered in-time improves SEN student development significantly and any delay in offering those services causes problems for student development (Brettingham 2007). Therefore, the Ministry of Education and Research has launched a special programme “Development of the Study Counselling System for 2008−2013” managed by the Examination and Qualification Centre (currently the Innove Foundation). Regional study counselling centres for SEN students and their parents have been established in every Estonian county and in Tallinn as a result of the programme, and these offer psychological assistance, special education support, speech therapy, social-pedagogical counselling and other support services for children, students, parents and educational staff. The system was reorganized in 2014 to ensure that target groups can conveniently obtain all the services they need, and it was decided to group all study and career support services in common regional centres (known as Rajaleidja Keskused (Pathfinder Centres)).

8.2.3  School Evaluation The state has developed regulations to assess learning outcomes in schools focusing on study quality. The county governments had departments of education providing supervision at the regional level of educational activities in pre-school institutions and schools. The aim of the state supervision was to encourage the acquisition of quality education at school and provide efficient study and education activities on a legal footing. The procedures for state supervision and the criteria for the evaluation of managerial efficiency were established by the Minister of Education (The Ministry of Education, The Development of Education 2001). A full inspection was conducted by county inspectors (Voolaid 2017). In reality, the role of the Inspectorate was to evaluate all aspects of school activities. The inspections were quite costly but

138

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

with a low impact on learning outcomes. A similar situation was discovered in Denmark – the actual impact of inspections on improved school and teaching conditions, and student outcomes, was weak (Ehren and Shackleton 2016). An OECD team analysing the Estonian education system recommended moving from traditional accountability to a more outcomes-oriented approach by focusing the role of the Ministry of Education and the inspectorate on output control in schools and holding schools accountable for reaching the outcomes of education rather than obliging them to use specified and approved inputs (OECD 2001, p 92). The municipalities have been responsible for the legality and purposefulness of the administration and activities of the educational institutions administered by the law. Several small municipalities experienced a lack of qualifications to assess and support the learning activities at their educational institutions. This created even larger decision-making powers than was provided by the legislative acts, but it also left them alone with the problems that arose. The national school evaluation system was totally reformed in 2006. Whole school inspection was replaced by thematic inspection, and intensive school inspection shifted to school self-evaluation. This significantly decreased the role of the external evaluation of educational institutions in the country. The county inspectors started to carry out thematic evaluations and those based on samples of schools. The themes of these evaluations were based on priorities and specific policy areas established for each academic year by the decree of the Minister of Education and Research. Schools were obliged to develop a system of internal evaluation and to carry out regular self-evaluations from 2006. An advisory service was developed and provided by the Ministry of Education and Research  and the National Examination and Qualification Centre for schools from 2006 to 2013. The advisors helped schools conduct developmental evaluations through counselling; they supported and encouraged heads and teachers to conduct self-evaluation and to create networks between different target groups. That new approach to school governance supported greater collaboration within schools, but also outside the schools to develop an environment for different partnerships (e.g. between schools, between teachers, etc.) including new types of collaboration with universities. This inclusion of different target groups, developing collaboration between groups, creating networks and participation in those networks laid the groundwork toward establishing learning organisations and through that improve student knowledge and skills (Janssens and Ehren 2016). Comparing these reforms of the evaluation of schools and the assessment of student learning outcomes with developments in other countries during the last two decades, it can be stated that Estonia has moved, like numerous other countries, to an output oriented and evidence-based decision-making approach to school governance and education policy (Ehren et al. 2015; Altrichter and Maag 2016). The state administrative reform abolished the county government level and also changed the school inspection system in 2017. Inspections are only carried out now by the Ministry of Education and Research. The main aim is to ensure the accessibility of general basic and secondary education, the organisation of education and schooling, and its quality and efficiency on equal bases. The inspectors, located in

8  Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented…

139

four regions, consult educational institutions, and on the other hand inspect schools on the basis of a certain field (thematic inspection). In addition, inspectors also control school permits and inspect schools in individual matters (e.g. appeals, etc.). The Estonian Education Information System (EEIS) was established in 2004. Its database provides anyone information about education institutions, students, teachers and lecturers, graduation documents, study materials and curricula. The government agency Estonian Statistics has started to put together annual national educational statistics based on the data in EEIS. The creation of such a public database was a step towards evidence-based educational governance. National indicators were developed to follow milestones in the Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020, but also to provide the data necessary for different stakeholders and schools to carry out internal evaluations. Indicators provide a framework for making evidence-­based decisions at all levels – state, school owner and school (Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020; Haridus- ja teadusministri 03.06.2014 käskkiri 238) and are publicly available at www.Haridussilm.ee. The weakness of that system was that it provided a general statistical overview, but it was not school centred. The school card system was a new development in that system presenting school-­ based efficiency information from different perspectives that is free for users. The Ministry of Education and Research stimulated the development of web-­ based school satisfaction questionnaires for students, teachers and parents. These are administered by the Innove Foundation, which also analyses the data and provides feedback to the schools. These instruments (questionnaires) were piloted by Innove in 2016 and 2017 and the whole country was involved in 2018 (Haridus- ja teadusministeerium 2018). All the reforms and changes in Estonian education during the last two decades indicate that Estonia is moving towards evidence-based education governance.

8.2.4  Teacher Autonomy and Appraisal Apart from creating the decentralized system, the state has played an important role in providing schools with professional teachers. The state has directed teacher education mostly by establishing professional standards and requirements for qualification. Requirements for teacher education were established by the decree of the Minister of Education via the Teacher Education Framework (Õpetajate koolituse raamnõuded 2000), but quite soon it was understood that the integration of theoretical knowledge and practical skills should be higher than the decree formally states. Therefore, the Induction Year Programme was launched in collaboration with stakeholders for newly qualified teachers from the 2004/2005 academic year. The programme helped newly qualified teachers to adapt to school life and work with students (Vabariigi Valitsuse 22. novembri 2000. a määruse nr 381 “Õpetajate koolituse raamnõuded” muutmine), and this has been carried out collaboratively between teacher, school, university and the Ministry of Education and Research. The Induction Year Programme has been implemented to support novice teachers (Eisenschmidt 2004).

140

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

Pre-service teacher education is carried out by universities at Master level in Estonia (although Bachelor level education is sufficient to qualify as a pre-school teacher or vocational education and training teacher), and in addition to universities, several other bodies have a stake in continuous in-service training for teachers. In-service training has been very poorly regulated for years – every teacher had to do 160 h of in-service training every 5 years and the school was responsible for the proper choices of courses. Every school was to use 3% of the budget for teachers’ salaries to cover the costs of in-service training. That regulation took the responsibility for professional development away from the teachers themselves. The state started to use the European Social Fund to provide in-service training for teachers in priority fields in 2007. Two programmes were launched: “Raising the Qualification of Comprehensive School Teachers 2008–2014” managed by the Innove Foundation and “Eduko” (2008–2015) managed by the Archimedes Foundation. The goal of the programmes was to develop and implement new curricula in teacher in-service training that consider the changes in the education system and the actual needs of schools and teachers. What teachers and school heads needed in terms of in-service training was systematised according to the teachers’ professional standard, national curricula for different types of schools and strategic goals in education policy. A more centralised in-service training system was launched that is still in use today. The Ministry of Education and Research declares the priorities for in-service training in collaboration with the main stakeholders and provides the necessary resources. The two largest universities in Estonia – University of Tartu and Tallinn University  – have created centres of excellence for teacher education with the task to introducing innovations into teacher education and providing a significant list of options for in-service training and collecting feedback on the courses offered. Those centres should also assess the impact of the courses offered to teachers and schools (Balti uuringute keskus 2015). The new approach considers accountability at the teacher level as very important in providing them with freedom to choose, but also making them responsible for their own professional development. The state started to regulate the in-service training system more thoroughly in 2014. This included change related to the training programme “Teachers and School Heads Training Programme for 2015−2018” developed on the basis of the national development strategy “Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020” (Haridus- ja teadusministri 28.07.2014. a käskkiri nr 338. “Õpetajate ja haridusjuhtide täiendusõppe kontseptsiooni kinnitamine”; Balti uuringute keskus 2015). The state has declared concrete requirements for working as a teacher, in addition to directions for pre-­ service and in-service teacher education (Haridus- ja teadusministri 26.08.2002 määrus nr 65). There has been significant change in the assessment of the work of teachers. The periodic attestation system 1993–2014 used a 5-year period (Põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseadus 1993). The fourth rank  – Teacher Methodologist  – was the highest rank and was nominated by a national commission. That commission was coordinated by the National Examination and Qualification Centre (later the Innove Foundation). The third rank – Senior Teacher – was nominated by a county level

8  Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented…

141

commission. The first and second ranks  – Novice Teacher and Teacher  – were nominated by the schools. The salary system was linked to the attestation system – the higher the rank, the higher the salary. Attestation paid attention to both teacher activities and efficiency in the school and also outside school. To achieve the highest rank, the commissions valued activities in the educational field that teachers engaged in outside school (e.g. writing textbooks, making public presentations and the like). Building up the teacher’s professional qualification system was started in 2003. The first professional standard for teachers described competencies at the level of novice teacher and master teacher and was accepted in 2005. That single-level professional standard did not sufficiently support professional development (Õpetajahariduse strateegia 2008–2013); therefore, a new version of the standard was developed and SA Kutsekoda (the Estonian Qualification Authority) accepted a new version of the professional standard on three levels – Teacher, Senior Teacher and Teacher Master in 2013 (Eisenschmidt and Koit 2014). In 2013, the teacher attestation system was replaced by a professional qualification awards system. Since April 2014, teachers could apply for the professional qualification of teacher. The evaluation of teachers based on the professional standard is no longer formally linked to salary levels, and access to higher levels is voluntary. The professional status of a teacher is awarded by the Estonian Teachers’ Union. The system has been successful, and it has been recommended to other countries as a good example (Developing … 2010).

8.2.5  Government (State Supervisory Agency) Estonia is divided into 15 counties and each county had a department of education. The county governments provided supervision of the educational activities of pre-­ school childcare institutions and schools. They were responsible for educational development plans at the county level and provided information on public education financing to the Ministry of Education and Research. In addition, country governments organised educational events and competitions for students and teachers at county level and advised municipalities and schools on educational issues. The duties of the counties in terms of education remained quite unchanged until the 2017 administrative reform. That reform abolished the county governments and the former county-level educational duties were divided between the Ministry of Education and Research and the municipality. External inspection was moved from the county to the Ministry of Education and Research. The inspectors are distributed into four regional units, and inspections are conducted across the country to deal with school permits and inspections to do with specific issues. If necessary, it is also possible that the activities of educational institutions in a specific field could be inspected (thematic inspection) (SICI 2017).

142

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

8.2.6  Local Authority At the start of the Millennium, the number of local authorities (municipalities) was more than 200. The state administrative reform of 2017 cut that number to 79. The municipalities before the reform varied greatly in terms of number of inhabitants, and that significantly influenced their administrative ability. Earlier educational reforms decentralising the system transferred the decision-making power and responsibility from the state to the municipality (e.g. the Education Act of 1992 established certain rights and duties for the municipalities). The rights and duties of a municipality in terms of education have not changed very much during those 25  years. The municipality establishes, reorganises and closes municipal schools and preschools or childcare institutions. By law they are responsible for the quality of schooling. The municipality conducts administrative inspections of the legality and purposefulness of the administration and activities of the schools. Several of those 200 small municipalities failed to meet the high standards set by the Ministry of Education and Research and the duties listed above due to a lack of human resources and finances (Noorkõiv  and Ristmäe 2014). The municipality finances its own schools using state educational support, which is based on student numbers. The municipality hires the school head, keeps records of compulsory school age children and provides support to the children who need additional funding (SEN-students, study difficulties, etc.). The municipality is also responsible for arranging student transportation to school and medical care and extra-curricular activities in the area. It was decided at state level in 2002 that every child deserves at least one warm meal per school day. In the beginning, additional finances were distributed to municipalities to cover the cost of school lunches for grades 1–4, from 2006 this was extended to cover the cost of a free lunch for all lower secondary school students. The most recent change was made in 2014, and since then a warm lunch has been provided to all students in comprehensive schools (grades 1–12) including private schools. That development made student learning conditions in schools across Estonia more equal. During the last decade, there has been a significant decrease in the number of students in comprehensive schools (especially in rural areas) and that has caused changes in the school financing system. The per capita funding system was replaced with class-based financing (grades 1–9) in those rural areas to help cover the cost of studies for small groups on a municipal basis (Üldhariduse rahastamismudel 2007). We can argue that Estonia moved towards needs-based financing in education, taking into account the needs of children and location of schools. Such a school financing model is in use in several countries and is in line with the results of several studies as a way of ensuring quality education. The supplementary funding provided to small local authorities to provide education, avoids problems associated with educational quality (Ahlin and Mörk 2007; Zafra-Gómez et al. 2010). The municipality does not actually have many rights to influence the management of learning in schools; most of these rights have been delegated to the school level. But, for example, in 2013, the right to determine school holidays was given to

8  Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented…

143

the municipality. The decision should be based on a proposal from the school, taking into account that during the academic year there are four school holidays and the total duration of these is at least 12  weeks (Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act 2013). 8.2.6.1  Changes in the National School System The reform of the school system as an issue has been high on the government policy agenda since 2004. Demographic changes involving decreasing student numbers due to a low birth rate but also migration to other countries and migration from country areas to the cities has necessitated significant changes to meet the new situation, especially in rural areas. The municipalities were encouraged to collaborate in order to reorganize or consolidate the education system (Bass 2000–2001). That context dictated the basic principles for splitting up lower secondary and upper secondary schools and the necessary legislative acts were prepared in 2012. Amendments to the Basic School and Upper Secondary School Act were passed in 2013. Based on the legislation, the central government sought to establish state-­ owned upper secondary schools in each county. The main aim was the improvement of student learning environments and optimising the use of educational resources (Põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumi seadus 2013). The reform is still in the implementation phase, but the majority of the counties have now at least one state gymnasium.

8.2.7  Schools Governance of the education system is shared between the central and local authority (municipality) and the school. Transferring the decision-making power in regard to developing and administering learning in schools to the school level is considered a supportive factor to raise the efficiency of education system (OECD 2018). Estonia has granted individual schools the right to make decisions on human resources and resource allocation since the early 1990s. Therefore, the head of each Estonian school has the right to hire and fire teachers, establish teachers’ salaries, create school budget and etc. Substantial changes to the principles of the teachers’ salary system were made in 2013 – the new decree waived the official fixed number of contact lessons as a basic indicator of teaching salaries and the teachers’ attestation system was also given up. The new approach provided school heads greater autonomy to negotiate teachers’ salaries and workload. The minimum salary for teachers on a full workload has been validated by government decree, but in addition, schools have approximately 20% of their salary budget to pay for extra tasks done (in addition to the main contract) and to pay higher salaries for excellent teaching. The school head also has to assess whether teachers meet the qualification requirements and readiness to work in the nominated position (Haridus- ja Teadusministri 29.08.2013 nr 30 määruse seletuskiri).

144

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

Schools have received more decision-making power to manage learning and teaching in recent years – more responsibility over the principles of student assessment and disciplinarily policy in school curriculum areas (e.g. content of courses, choice of textbooks and courses offered). Estonian school autonomy is above the OECD average (OECD 2015). Autonomy is a significant feature of management at the school level but also at the teacher level. According to the TALIS study, Estonian teachers have the highest level of autonomy in schools among the participating countries (Übius et al. 2014). Despite having substantial autonomy, schools needed several concrete regulations to cover the process of sharing different duties between the school and the parents, and the school and the municipality. So principles and acts were developed to create an inclusive education policy, learner-centred teaching and support principles, among other elements. The Basic School and Upper Secondary School Act of 2005 stated that a developmental conversation must be held at the school with each student at least once per academic year. Class sizes in lower secondary school were limited to 24 to better consider the individual qualities of each student (Koolieelse lasteasutuse seaduse, erakooliseaduse, alaealise mõjutusvahendite seaduse ning põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseaduse muutmise seadus 2004). The OECD argues that to avoid student drop-out and increase greater equity, education systems should pay attention and proactively intervene with at-risk students or students who fall behind (OECD 2016). The Estonian Parliament has paid considerable attention in that sense to atrisk students through developing different support systems and making counselling services available for certain target groups. By Regulation of the Minister of Education established in 2005, schools must immediately implement appropriate measures if students have no satisfactory marks at the end of term and that in general children are no longer to repeat years. The school head must appoint a person whose duty it is to organise cooperation between support specialists, instructors of SEN students and class teachers to support the study process and the development of a student with special educational needs. The Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act (adopted in 2010) established clear requirements for schools regarding SEN students: teachers have to observe how students are developing and coping at school and, where necessary, adjust studies according to the needs of the students. Schools have to provide students who temporarily fall behind additional pedagogical guidance outside lessons (at least a special education teacher, psychologist and social educator free of charge) to help them attain the expected learning outcomes. Several researchers have claimed that the implementation of internal evaluations helps schools to raise the quality of teaching and learning, set up priorities, provide data for evidence-based management and teaching, and other improvements (Bubb and Earley 2008; Gray et  al. 2011; Farley-Ripple and Buttram 2014; March and Farell 2015). Some schools started to use different systems for quality assurance (e.g. principles of a learning organisation, different Quality Award Models) already in the late 1990s, but this was adhoc and no general approach was applied nationally. By decree of the Minister of Education in 2006 this became compulsory for every educational institution, and example indicators were developed based on the EFQM model. Schools were free to choose the model for their school, but EFQM

8  Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented…

145

was provided as an example, and most of the systems that were subsequently developed came very close to this model. Each school had the right to choose the method and what evidence to gather, and how to analyse and assess the school’s progress. In this way the schools developed their own capacity to direct their own professional development, without the pressure of external inspections. Schools chose an advisor, who helped them conduct a rational self-evaluation (Kitsing et al. 2016). Self-­ evaluation has been under special focus at the Ministry of Education and Research. Several analyses have indicated problems in the self-evaluations; for example, some heads and teachers lacked the skills to collect proper data, analyse the data and interpret the results for use by the school in the development of the learning process (Kitsing 2013, 2016). Managing data for evidence-based decision-making is a wider problem internationally. The state has to provide databases with sufficient data, analyses, and the training and guidelines to use those tools (OECD 2013). This was recommended to Estonia by the OECD team in their review of school resources (Santiago et al. 2016). The improvement of databases and making those as public and user friendly as possible has been the main approach during the last decade to provide stakeholders with the information they need and cultivate inclusive evidence-­based decision-making in education.

8.3  Current Issues and Trends for the Near Future The significant fall in student numbers nationally, the low ability of small rural upper secondary schools to offer high quality education with the necessary choices for students has caused lower and upper secondary schools to be split up of in 2013 and for state upper secondary schools to be established in every county. That reform has also had an economic effect – of using resources more effectively in larger schools. The number of places available in upper secondary schools will meet the nation’s needs in 2021 (currently there are too many places in upper secondary schools). The reform was carried out at the initiative of the state by establishing state upper secondary schools in every county because the municipalities did not want to make unpopular decision and to close their small upper secondary schools. Brand new or renovated state upper secondary schools are attractive for students as they provide a modern learning environment and a wider choice of elective courses. Therefore, many 16-year-old students decided to continue their studies in these new upper secondary schools and the municipalities had to close their upper secondary schools because there were not enough students to cover costs. The state administrative reform significantly decreased the number of municipalities in 2017 and with that the administrative ability of the municipalities was increased. There have already been discussions in the new administrative reality that from 2023 municipalities can start to take over running the state upper secondary schools (Keskerakonna, IRL-i ja SDE koalitsioonilepe täismahus 2016). One obstacle to that could be the fact that the school reforms are contractually connected to the European Social Fund, which financed the programme involved in founding the state upper secondary schools.

146

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

The second major change concerns the Innove Foundation, who is responsible for national testing. Currently, the country is discussing whether it is necessary to have final exams in lower secondary school (Arm 2018). Any changes to student testing or removing the state exams at the end of lower secondary school will change the list of duties the Innove Foundation is responsible for. But the main role of the foundation will be the same – the assessment of student learning outcomes. Based on the Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020 and the concept of external evaluation, there is a plan to commence risk-based evaluations, which means that an educational institution will be inspected only if the results drop below the imposed education standard (Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020; Haridusja teadusministri 03.06.2014 käskkiri nr 238… 2014). Trends tend towards more evidence-based governance in the country. The number of evaluations carried out by inspectors has decreased from year to year. Complex evaluations of educational institutions have been replaced with thematic evaluations and now the ministry is moving toward risk-based evaluations. This approach involves the school owner more in the intervention. The state is planning to introduce user friendly databases about every school activity and school efficiency to achieve transparency, efficiency and evidence-based leadership at the school and municipal level of governance. There is a “School report” (Koolikaart)  online (visible from September 2018) to demonstrate publicly the activities going on in school and the most important indicators of school efficiency. The school effect (added value from the school) was made public in 2016  in addition to state exam results for upper secondary school level. Upper secondary school added value is calculated on the basis of factors influenced by the school (e.g. learning environment, teaching methodology, learning materials and personnel characteristics), but also factors not influenced by the school (state exam results at the end of lower secondary school, student age, gender, size of school, etc.). The public assessment of the added value from comprehensive schools generated active discussions in society (Riigieksamite tulemuste kõrval arvestatakse edaspidi koolide hindamisel kooli panust õpilase arengusse 2016; Juurak 2017). The methodology of assessing the added value from a school still needs improvement, but it also provides good information about school efficiency. The ranking of schools according to academic results does not provide a full picture of the real quality of the school (Must et al. 2017). The Estonian education system has taken a long journey from the order-centred system to its current modern sophisticated structure paying attention to student outcomes and societal needs. The ideology of a learning organisation, collecting the necessary data and applying inclusive evidence-based decision-making are important tools along that journey. Through the Ministry of Education and Research, the state has given schools sufficient autonomy to act and the right tools to be successful and efficient in fulfilling their main duties – to educate the younger generation and prepare them for life.

8  Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented…

147

References Ahlin, Å., & Mörk, E. (2007). Effects of decentralization on school resources: Sweden 1989–2002. Papers in the Working Paper Series are published on internet in PDF formats (Working Paper 2007:9). Department of Economics, Uppsala Universitet. https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/ diva2:53157/FULLTEXT01.pdf Altrichter, H., & Maag Merki, K. (2016). Steuerung der Entwicklung des Schulwesens. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. 1–27). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Angelides, P. (2004). Moving towards inclusive education in Cyprus? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(4), 407–422. Arm, E. (2018). Minister Reps tahab kaotada põhikooli lõpueksamid. Koolijuhid pooldavad plaani. http://epl.delfi.ee/news/eesti/minister-reps-tahab-kaotada-pohikooli-lopueksamidkoolijuhid-pooldavad-plaani?id=82196683 Balti uuringute keskus. (2015). Uuring “Õpetajate täiendusõppe vajadused”. Lühikokkuvõte ja soovitused. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/lhikokkuvte_ja_soovitused.pdf Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act. (2013). RT I, 11.07.2013, 1. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/530102013042/consolide/current Bass, G. R. (2000–2001). Carrots or sticks: How do your state’s policies impact small school districts? Rural Educator, 22(2), 8–10. Brettingham, M. (2007). Delays hit SEN support. TES: Times Educational Supplement, 4734, 11. Bubb, S., & Earley, P. (2008). From self-evaluation to school improvement: The importance of effective staff development. Reading: CfBT Education Trust. Carnoy, M., Khavenson, T., & Ivanova, A. (2015). Using TIMSS and PISA results to inform educational policy: A study of Russia and its neighbours. A Journal of Comparative & International Education, 45(2), 248–271. Developing coherent and system-wide induction programmes for beginning teachers: a handbook for policymakers. European Commission Staff Working Document SEC (2010) 538 final. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/school/doc/ handbook0410_en.pdf Education Act. (1992). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/524042014002/consolide Ehren, M. C. M., & Shackleton, N. (2016). Mechanisms of change in Dutch inspected schools: Comparing schools in different inspection treatments. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(2), 185–213. Ehren, M. C. M., Gustafsson, J. E., Altrichter, H., Skedsmo, G., Kemethofer, D., & Huber, S. G. (2015). Comparing effects and side effects of different school inspection systems across Europe. Comparative Education, 51(3), 375–400. Eisenschmidt, E. (2004). Implemetation of induction year for novice teachers in Estonia (21 p). Dissertations of Social Sciences, Tallinn University. https://www.ht.ut.ee/sites/default/files/ ht/e_eisenschmidt_vaitekiri.pdf Eisenschmidt, E., & Koit, R. (2014). Kutsestandardi rakendamine õpetajaks kujunemisel ja edasises professionaalses arengus. SA Innove. 68 lk. Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020. https://www.hm.ee/en/ estonian-lifelong-learning-strategy-2020 Farley-Ripple, E. N., & Buttram, J. L. (2014). Developing collaborative data use through professional learning communities: Early lessons from Delaware. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 41–53. Foundation Innove. Homepage. https://www.innove.ee/en/about-innove/ Gray, J., Croxford, L., Pederson, C. S., Rinne, R., Silmari- Salo, S., Simola, H., & Makinen-Streng, M. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of quality assurance and evaluation. In J. Ozga, P. Dahler-­ Larsen, H. Simola, & C. Segerholm (Eds.), Fabricating quality in education: Data and governance in Europe. London: Routledge.

148

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

Grieve, A. M., & Haining, I. (2011). Inclusive practice? Supporting isolated bilingual learners in a mainstream school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(7), 763–774. Gümnaasiumi riiklik õppekava (2011). Vabariigi Valitsuse 06.01.2011 määrus nr 2. https://www. riigiteataja.ee/akt/129082014021 Haridusministri 26.08.2002 määrus nr 65. Pedagoogide kvalifikatsiooninõuded. https://www. riigiteataja.ee/akt/801384 Haridus- ja Teadusministri 29.08.2013 nr 30 määruse seletuskiri. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/ files/seletuskiri_opetaja_kvalifikatsiooninouete_maaruse_juurde.pdf Haridus- ja teadusministri 03.06.2014 käskkiri 238. Üldhariduse välishindamise ülesanded, põhimõtted ja arendamise alused aastani 2020. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/uldhariduse_valishindamise_ulesanded.pdf Haridus- ja teadusministri 28.07.2014. a käskkiri nr 338. Õpetajate ja haridusjuhtide täiendusõppe kontseptsiooni kinnitamine. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/taiendusoppe_kontseptsioon.pdf Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. (2018). Rahulolu haridusega. https://www.hm.ee/et/rahulolu Janssens, F. J. G., & Ehren, M. C. M. (2016). Toward a model of school inspections in a polycentric system. Journal  Evaluation and Program Planning, 56(56), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. evalprogplan.2016.03.012. Juurak, R.  Gümnaasiumi panus. Õpetajate Leht, 3. nov. 2017. http://opleht.ee/2017/11/ gumnaasiumi-panus/ Keskerakonna, IRL-i ja SDE koalitsioonilepe täismahus. (2016). https://www.err.ee/577620/ keskerakonna-irl-i-ja-sde-koalitsioonilepe-taismahus Kitsing, M. (2013). Sisehindamine ja nõustamine, lk 36–38. Kogumikust „Ülevaade haridussüsteemi välishindamisest 2012/2013. õppeaastal“. Välja andnud Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. https:// www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/ulevaade_haridussusteemi_valishindamisest_2012-2013_oa.pdf Kitsing, M. (2016). Sisehindamisest õppeasutuse eesmärkide poole liikumisel, lk 46–51. Kogumikust „Ülevaade haridussüsteemi välishindamisest 2015/2016. õppeaastal“. Välja andnud Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/ulevaade_haridussusteemi_valishindamisest_2015-2016_oa.pdf.pdf Kitsing, M., Boyle, A., Kukemelk, H., & Mikk, J. (2016). The impact of professional capital on educational excellence and equality in Estonia. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(3), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-03-2016-0003. Koolieelse lasteasutuse seaduse, erakooliseaduse, alaealise mõjutusvahendite seaduse ning põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseaduse muutmise seadus. Vastu võetud 14.04.2004. Avaldatud Riigi Teataja I 2004, 30, 206. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/742718 Lindblad, S., Ozga, J., & Zambeta, E. (2002). Changing forms of educational governance in Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 1(4), 615–624. Lyon, A. (2013). Decentralisation and the provision of primary and secondary education in the former Yugoslav Republic. Intemational Joumal on Minority and Group Right., 20(4), 491–516. Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 269–289. Must, O., Must, A., Saks, K., Mäeots, M., Kiisla, A., Kumpas-Lenk, K., & Säälik, Ü. (2017). Mille poolest erinevad madala ja kõrge lisandväärtusega gümnaasiumid? Uurimisprojekti Kõrge ja madala lisandväärtusega gümnaasiumid: andmete järelanalüüs, paikvaatlus lõpparuanne. http://mobile.dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/55458/Intervjuud_080217.pdf?sequence=1 &isAllowed=y Noorkõiv, R., & Ristmäe, K. (2014). Kohaliku omavalituse võimekuse indeks. https://www.siseministeerium.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/Uuringud/Kohalikud_omavalitsused/2014_kov_ voimekuse_indeks_loppversioon.pdf OECD. (2001). Reviews of national policies for education. Estonia: OECD Publishing. https:// www.curriculum.ut.ee/sites/default/files/sh/oecdestonia.pdf

8  Estonia: School Governance in Estonia – Turnaround from Order-Oriented…

149

OECD. (2013). Synergies for better learning. An international perspective on evaluation an assessment. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264190658-en.pdf?ex pires=1529570873&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4DA127B1F930934FDDD3DE9D68 0F1DFE OECD. (2015). Education policy outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264225442-en. OECD. (2016). Country note. Key findings from PISA 2015 for the United States. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-United-States.pdf OECD. (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system, strong performers and successful reformers in education. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1787/4789264300002-en. Õpetajahariduse strateegia 2008−2013. Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. Retrived from 10.05.2018. https://www.osale.ee/konsultatsioonid/index.php?page=consults&id=78&search =%F5petajahariduse%20strateegia Õpetajate koolituse raamnõuded (2000). Vabariigi valitsuse määrus nr 381. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13357475 Pärnapuu, P.  Lisandväärtus  – ärimaailma loogika hariduses. Õpetajate Leht, 12. Jaanuar 2018. http://opleht.ee/2018/01/lisandvaartus-arimaailma-loogika-hariduses/ Põhikooli ja gümnaasiumiseadus. (1993). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/77462 Põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseaduse muutmise ning sellega seonduvalt teiste seaduste muutmise seadus. Vastu võetud 10.01.2018. Avaldatud Riigi Teataja I, 22.01.2018, 1. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/122012018001 Põhikooli riiklik õppekava (2011). Vabariigi Valitsuse 06.01.2011 määrus nr 1. https://www. riigiteataja.ee/akt/114012011001 Republic of Estonia Education Act (1992). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/524042014002/ consolide Riigieksamite tulemuste kõrval arvestatakse edaspidi koolide hindamisel kooli panust õpilase arengusse. (2016). https://www.hm.ee/et/uudised/ riigieksamite-tulemuste-korval-arvestatakse-edaspidi-koolide-hindamisel-kooli-panust-opilase Santiago, P., Levitas, A., Radó, P., & Shewbridge. (2016). OECD reviews of school resources: Estonia 2016, OECD reviews of school resources. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264251731-e. Seletuskiri põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseaduse eelnõu (412 SE) teise lugemise jätkamise juurde. https://www.riigikogu.ee/tegevus/eelnoud/eelnou/ea1419fd-f0fe-a3a7-3ed8-aa9ef6f44a58/ SICI. (2017). Inspectorate profile: Estonia. Republic of Estonia. http://www.siciinspectorates.eu/ Members/Inspection-Profiles/Estonia The Development of Education. National Report of Estonia. (2001). The Ministry of Education. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/ICE/natrap/Estonia.pdf The Ministry of Education. (2001). The Development of Education. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/ International/ICE/natrap/Estonia.pdf Turu-uuringute, A. S. (2017). Puudega lastega perede toimetuleku ja vajaduste uuring. Eesti rakendusuurngute keskus CENTAR. https://centar.ee/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Puuetega_lastega_perede_toimetuleku_uuringu_raport.pdf Übius, Ü., Kall, K., Loogma, K., & Ümarik, M. (2014). Rahvusvaheline vaade õpetamisele ja õppimisele. OECD rahvusvahelise õpetamise ja õppimise uuringu TALIS 2013 tulemused [International glance at teaching and learning. Results of OECD international study of teaching and learning TALIS 2013]. Tallinn: SA Innove. 175 lk. 1. Üldhariduse rahastamismudel 2007. Retrived 31.08.2018 from http://portaal.ell.ee/orb.aw/ class=file/action=preview/id=11437/2007-09-19_lopp-protokolli_Lisa_%DCldhariduse+raha stamismudel.pdf Vabariigi Valitsuse 06.09.1996. a määrus nr 228. “Eesti põhi- ja keskhariduse riikliku õppekava kinnitamine Eesti põhi- ja keskhariduse riiklik õppekava”. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ akt/29725

150

M. Kitsing and H. Kukemelk

Vabariigi Valitsuse 22. novembri 2000. a määruse nr 381 “Õpetajate koolituse raamnõuded” muutmine. Riigi Teataja I 2002, 107, 640. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/230778 Voolaid, H. (2017). Õppeasutuste järelevalvest 2001−2017. Kogumikust Ülevaade haridussüsteemi välishindamisest 2016/2017. õppeaastal. Välja andnud Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. Zafra-Gómez, J. L., Antonio, M., & Muñiz, P. (2010). Overcoming cost-inefficiencies within small municipalities: Improve financial condition or reduce the quality of public services? London: Environment and Planning C: Politics and Spac.

Chapter 9

France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer and Ownership in the Implementation of Reforms Romuald Normand

Abstract  France has a tradition of centralized governance and has much resisted yet to neo-liberal influences and travelling policies. The chapter examines how the French ministry of education is currently implementing reforms which, despite some oppositions and resistances, lead to a kind of French “Third way” inspired by New Public Management and accountability principles. This enacting policy reveals not only an implementation gap due to bureaucratic guidelines and the lack of local autonomy but also attempts from interest groups and professional bodies to buffer international influences according to their own values and ideologies. While describing the French technostructure in education, as well as various representation of national interests, largely based on Republican ethics and a sense of equality, the chapter focuses on the policy transfer processes by which high councils and national commissions have impacted on national policy-making and adjusted recommendations and directives from International Organizations to the national context under limited local regulations. Beyond coercion and voluntary agreement, this policy transfer reveals different ways for taking ownership and policy borrowing from international standards and frameworks. The emergence of national agencies in this new landscape is at stake while the French education ministry regularly meets challenges to reduce the implementation gap.

9.1  Introduction France has a tradition of a powerful State and administration, and it remains a centralized, hierarchical and standardized education system which gives great power to the ministry of education. Since the beginning of the century, some changes have R. Normand (*) Research unit SAGE (Societies, Actors, Government in Europe), University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_9

151

152

R. Normand

impacted education policy while France was not apart from international influences and it borrowed some constituents from travelling policies in basic skills, soft accountability and Quality Assurance Education (Normand 2013; Normand and others 2018). However, this international circulation has been largely translated according to specific national aims and interests with some active policymakers and interest groups capable of buffering and reinterpreting these global influences (Derouet Normand 2016). In analyzing this French policy-making, we could speak of a kind of bricolage, to use Stephen Ball’s words, between knowledge, ideologies, imaginaries, beliefs, instruments which are circulating in international and national spaces, and which are embedded in official reports but also programs or instruments as indicators or rankings (Ball 2008). Some professional bodies, interest groups and national institutions are active in these interpreting and translating processes according to different interests, strategies, and opportunities (Ball and Exley 2010). My aim in this chapter is to map these national actors, to show the links between policymakers, executives and educators, how some institutions operate as translators or brokers, and how they can be hardly analyzed as “agencies”. For this, the theoretical framework of public policy transfer will be used (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000). The concept of policy transfer helps to understand what motivates policy-makers and interest groups in different stages of policy-­ making, how they are involved in the agenda-setting and policy formulation, what bureaucrats and administrations select and retain among foreign models in implementing their new programs (Dolowitz and Marsh 2012. Instead of making a simple distinction between voluntary and coercive transfer, Dolowitz and Marsh suggest conceptualizing transfer along a continuum from lesson-drawing to the direct imposition of a program. So, a policy transfer contains voluntary and coercive elements according to a bounded rationality through which actors try to adapt themselves to situations with an incomplete information and unsuccessful or maladjusted implementations. Coming back to the French education case, we will illustrate these key actors who are involved in policy transfer or the selection, retention and adaptation of travelling accountability policies driven by the market and/or decentralization (Verger 2014). In a time comprehensive school policies are challenged in Europe, the French education system is following a singular path dependency which can be explained by several factors: a reluctance from policy makers to abandon the comprehensive school model on behalf equality for all, a mistrust towards managerial and market ideas for reforming education with a powerful centralized administration eager to maintain its ownership on public education, the lack of internationalization, the post-colonialist system of promoting French culture and language with former colonies and French-speaking countries, the deep ideological conflicts about educational reforms and the counter-power of trade-unions and interest groups, the ideology of Republicanism (equality, citizenship, State secularism, free public education) largely shared by educators who have resisted to alternative models of schooling and to the penetration of private interests.

9  France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer…

153

But, since 2000s, the French education system has become more opened to global influences, particularly after the launch of the Lisbon Strategy and the dissemination of the PISA survey (Ertl 2006). However, if French policymakers are following some recommendations and directives from the European Commission and the OECD, they keep a kind of ownership on educational reforms while they face some strong oppositions and resistances from different interest groups (Radaelli 2000). So, through an institutional isomorphism, they try to find a mix between coercive and voluntary transfer to make reforms acceptable: coercion is facilitated by a powerful and centralized State leaning on a large administration with an expertise in law implementation and regulations, voluntariness is justified by the structure and composition of national interests requiring permanent negotiations for establishing some compromises and implementing reforms at national level. These political traits explain partially why it has been so difficult to create agencies per se and more local autonomy in the French education sector while they have been created in other administrative sectors: for example, health and Higher Education. Another explanation is the difficulties met by the State to implement effectively local New Public Management within the education system. The tradition of bureaucracy and control remains high and policymakers are also high civil servants eager to maintain their advantages as professional groups whereas they maintain a kind of technocratic connivance and sometimes shadow political relationships influencing decision-­making (Suleiman 2015). For these reasons, I shall begin this chapter by a description of the French government of education, particularly its “technostructure” and professional bodies which are at the driver of current reforms. Then, I will present some main interest groups in competition which influence reforming agendas and policymaking. In the third part, some recent reforms will be analyzed as well as the policy transfer process by which different actors take ownership of travelling policies and International Organizations’ recommendations to structure a particular “French Third Way” towards school effectiveness and improvement (Derouet and Normand 2011). We will see how some specific institutions have taken the role of “agencies” without being completely and politically autonomous from the State and far from ensuring any regulative power while local autonomy and decentralization remain at stake.

9.2  G  overning the French Education System: “An Ocean Liner with a Small Rudder” The centralized, hierarchical, and standardized French education governance is an exception among European countries. While other education systems have been decentralized, France was reluctant to transfer powers from the State to Independent Local Authorities (Normand 2016). There are several explanations for this. The principle of equality for all is highly shared by educators and policymakers and, as a Republican legacy, it justifies the standardization of school provision at national

154

R. Normand

level, meaning the same curriculum and teaching conditions for students. This standardization is strengthened by the fact that all educators in public education are selected and recruited as civil servants with the same conditions of work and pay. Jacobinism, or the idea that the authoritative and Republican Educative State must remain powerful against local and private interests, is also largely shared by policymakers from the Left to the Right. Legalism, or the importance of legal texts and codes in governing public administration, is also another explanation of the maintenance of this atypical administrative structure. With its 860,000 teachers and related students, the public education system is an enormous machinery difficult to govern and reform. Some commenters had said it is “an ocean liner with a small rudder”. And there are numerous reefs! In the following pages, I will describe the main constituents of the French ministry of education and how it is governed from the top to the bottom (Lewis 2018, for a detailed description). This pyramidal structure is important to keep in mind for understanding current reforms and some difficulties in transforming Statist administration’s components and professional bodies into autonomous agencies more opened to decentralization (Toulemonde 2006).

9.2.1  The “Technostructure” Within the Ministry of Education I will begin with a short description of the “technostructure” as it is named by policy makers themselves. They called the French ministry of education “the plant”! The minister and the cabinet are doing politics, essentially political communication with the media, the parliament and interest groups, with experts and advisers helping them to prepare reforms and acts. To support the cabinet, two important directorates, the DEGESCO or Directorate of Schools, has the responsibility of governing the education system and implementing reforms, and the DEPP (The Directorate of Evaluation, Forecast and Performance) develops statistics and indicators for the whole education system. These directorates (in addition to others like “human resources”, “finances”, “legal issues”, “communication” ‘international and European relationships” etc.) have subdivisions which are directly connected with State local authorities in each region. The latter reproduce the main ministry’s functions according to national programs, instructions and directives. Knowers of the French education systems name these subdivisions “organ pipes” to illustrate the lack of horizontal connections between these departments and services, each one being focused on a specific top-down national program. The DEGESCO is structured into sub-directorates, bureaus, and missions with specific objectives. For instance, the sub-directorate “basic skills, personalized paths and guidance” is responsible of implementing basic skills policy within the education system. There are other sub-directorates for the “management of performance and dialogue with State Local Authorities”, “the management of budgets in primary and secondary education”, “the management of school life and socio-­ educative activities”, the “management of high schools and Lifelong learning”. Each sub-directorate has its bureaus and missions. For instance, the sub-directorate

9  France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer…

155

“basic skills” includes the bureaus of “primary schools”, “middle schools”, “personalization of paths and special need education”, “guidance and professional inclusion”. There are transversal missions like “support and training”, “prevention of discrimination and gender inequalities”, “steering of exams”, etc. The DEPP is the other “bureaucratic monster” among Ministry’s directorates. It develops statistics and assessments in education and it has at national level the responsibility of managing data systems and information from the top to the bottom. It is the main institution for implementing soft accountability mechanisms within the French education system according to a new Act of Finances (2001) which created a new performance management system for public administrations. Indicators of performance and national assessments have been designed by the DEPP to facilitate the monitoring of schools and State local authorities, but they have not much impacted the daily work of teachers and principals. The accountability machinery remains quite bureaucratic serving some controlling missions ensured by inspections more than guiding management and school improvement at school level. However, since the publication of the PISA survey, data published by the DEPP are under scrutiny by policy-makers and the media, by the comparison between student achievement in basis skills and school performance but it did not lead to marketization and to a strong accountability system. School choice remains very limited and there are no official school rankings. The DEPP has however a kind of monopoly in the production of data and it provides numerous data banks, briefs and notes which guide education policy but also decision-making in State local authorities. The ESENESR (High College for School Administration) is the unique institution training principals and inspectors at national level. Based in Poitiers (West of France), it is a service of the Ministry of Education and it has no autonomy. It means that training structures and contents are largely influenced by the current policymaking and decisions taken at the level of the technostructure. Beyond some professionalizing components in administration, law, and finances, principals are trained to “bureaucratic” leadership and school improvement while inspectors are trained for auditing and supporting pedagogical teams. But a large part of this initial and further training is devolved to missions and duties achieved by these civil servants as representatives of the Ministry. Beyond the Ministry’s cabinet and the DEGESCO, the General Inspectorate (see below) is influent in designing contents but also in controlling the organization of seminars and conferences. Despite some efforts to facilitate transversal learning among different professional bodies, training sessions remain largely compartmentalized between principals and inspectors, primary and secondary education, general and vocational education, technical and general issues, with a lack of systemic and intertwined reflexivity about governance and management. But the ESENESR is an important place through which executives have some opportunities to develop acquaintances and relationships which help them to get a better knowledge of their professional community and to manage their own professional career.

156

R. Normand

9.2.2  The Bodies of Inspection: Functions and Roles The other important power at the ministry is the General Inspectorate (Pons 2016). The General Inspectorate of Education has the responsibility of controlling and supervising the school system; it is divided in 3 sub-bodies: inspectorate for the curriculum (or school subjects) in secondary education; inspectorate for schools in secondary education; inspection for primary education. The first sub-body includes inspectors who have the responsibility to inspect teachers individually in the classroom, to select and recruit them through “concours” (high-stake exams), and to certify the quality and expertise in teaching a specific school subject. These inspectors are recruited among regional inspectors who are the best teachers and had good records (high expertise in teaching and in mastering their school subject) during their beginning career. Another component of the General Inspectorate is devolved to the inspection of secondary schools. They control and check school management and a kind of leadership named “pedagogical and educative steering” through which principals are expected to animate the “pedagogical board” as a regular meeting with some teachers’ representatives to promote school improvement. Their mission tends to shift from control to audit and they follow and sometimes initiate some experiments in self-evaluation of schools. The last component gathers general inspectors for primary education. Together with the General Inspectorate, the General Inspectorate of Educational Administration controls administration and finances in schools and State local authorities and check the application of laws and regulations. These two General Inspectorates are quite politicized, and some members have occupied positions at the ministry in the Directorate of Schools, or in the cabinet, or as superintendents in State local authorities. The General Inspectorate serves as a kind of “revolving doors” for policymakers according to political changes following general elections and a new minister and cabinet.

9.2.3  Limited Decentralization and State Local Authorities At regional level, the power is divided between the State and Independent Local Authorities. The State Local Authority is led by a superintendent who represents the Minister and exercises a hierarchical authority on local inspectors and principals. His or her control is relayed by deputy-superintendents for primary education, a legacy from the last century when the secondary education system was not so developed. According to this legacy, professional cultures between the primary and secondary education sectors are very different and, even if some transversal cooperation exist, executives are eager to maintain their respective autonomy and legitimacy on both sides. Independent Local Authorities (municipalities, departments, regions) are only responsible of the equipment and building of schools, and vocational training policy. The rest is an affair of the State: design of the curriculum; selection, recruit-

9  France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer…

157

ment, appointment and remuneration of teachers and principals; assessment and evaluation; initial and further training. It means that, at local level, principals in secondary education have a limited autonomy (they do have an official status in primary education and the role is ensured by experienced teachers appointed by the inspectorate). So, principals in middle and high schools do not decide about the selection and recruitment of teachers, they must implement a national and standardized curriculum according to fixed time schedules, they cannot discretionary allocate the budget and resources; and they are submitted to a hierarchical and top-down control. They share the power of assessing teachers with inspectors specialized in school subjects, but they are limited to assess their activities only outside the classroom. All this people are placed under different vertical lines which make difficult any transversal or horizontal cooperation (Bouvier 2012). Moreover, the distinction in steering between “pedagogy” (within the classroom) and “education” (outside the classroom) challenges the stance and legitimacy of principals for managing the teaching/learning core. Under the regime of New Public Management, principals are associated to school subject inspectors for assessing teachers three times during their whole career, but the grid separates clearly the tasks of the principal (school level) and those of the inspector (classroom level). It is more a tool for managing careers and seniority according to national pay scales than a device for school improvement. Furthermore, the notion of school improvement is largely unknown among French executives and teachers whereas school effectiveness is perceived through the vague idea of “school climate” and loosed connections with teaching and learning activities. French educators are focused on student guidance, individualized paths and the fight against inequality of opportunities, more than on issues of inquiry-based teaching, assessment for learning, collaborative teaching practices or assessment techniques. Consequently, there is really an implementation gap between the general guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education at the top and their translation within local school contexts, and at least within classrooms (Normand and Derouet 2016). The pedagogical autonomy of teachers is guaranteed by the Code of Education, a legal code gathering all the legislation about education that educators, as civil servants, must respect. This code is also used by trade unions and interest groups to contest some decisions taken by the ministry or its representatives in front of administrative courts.

9.3  Intermediary Bodies, Corporatism and Vested Interests With the development of the public education system, the State created professional bodies to fulfill different missions: teaching, administration, guidance, etc. These civil servants must respect and apply legal texts decided by the Ministry and voted by the parliament through different acts. These rules are also written in the Official Bulletin of National Education, a kind of “legal holy bible” which prescribes all the guidelines in areas required for the functioning of the public service: curriculum

158

R. Normand

and assessment, teaching and support, administration and management, guidance and selection, exams and diplomas, careers and pays, professional statuses and missions, etc. Some commenters say that with these regulations produced by the Ministry, it would be possible to pave the de Grenelle Street (the location of the Ministry in Paris) with several meters high of legal texts! But even if professional bodies must apply legal rules and if civil servants must obey to their hierarchy, they also organize themselves through trade unionism and civil associations at national level. Consequently, there is a diverse and national representation of interests within the education system in line with these professional and activist groups defending their rights, claiming for additional advantages, and advocating or refusing reforms. In this chapter, it is impossible to present them all and I will only exemplify the most influent groups impacting nationally on policymaking.

9.3.1  Trade Unions and Statist Corporatism Teachers are organized through two main national trade unions (Geay 1997): The FSU and the SGEN-CFDT. They both defend the maintenance of education as a public service, the fight against inequalities based on the same school provision for all, and the improvement in work conditions and pay (diminution of class sizes, more support and training for teachers, more public budgets for schools). The FSU is a post-Marxist trade union particularly defending professional statuses and opposed to any reforms perceived as “neoliberal” which would undermine the teaching profession and its autonomy. He is in favor of maintaining a national curriculum based on school subjects and disciplines, giving more means to education priority areas, extending the recruitment of civil servants, and increasing public budgets for education. The SGEN-CFDT is a more reformist trade union and it welcomes the idea of school improvement within a Republican and equalizing framework, but it remains hostile to an increasing differentiation between schools and to the introduction of school market. It supports pedagogical innovations and experiments and it is more open to incremental changes in policymaking. These trade unions influence teachers’ actions and commitments because they disseminate nationally information about career and pay, but also about policymaking, through their websites and journals while the ministry lacks effective human resources management. They also active in defending teachers’ rights, no only through protests and strikes, but also in Joint Administrative Commission gathering some representatives of the State and Trade Unions to decide about teachers’ appointment, and professional career. In secondary education, because of the weight of disciplines and school subjects in structuring the school provision, teachers belong to specialist associations. The latter defend the interest of their discipline against others and they are largely supported by the General Inspectorate for the curriculum, but also by groups of educational researchers specialized in didactics.

9  France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer…

159

As we will see later, these national professional associations are influent in reforms and the design of the national curriculum. Principals and inspectors are also organized through national trade unions. For instance, the SNDPEN is a powerful trade union for principals which represents them in different administrative commissions and remains very active in the defense of their rights and claims. It also organizes regular events to inform its adherents and it influences policymaking through the media and unformal relationships with policymakers. This trade union is an important place to get informed about the conditions of career in principalship and access to good secondary schools ranked in different categories according to their size and degrees of responsibility. For example, moving from a rural and working-class middle school to an urban and excellent high school is at stake in the career of a principal. Due to the complexity of regulations but also the size of the national education system, the trade-union is useful to keep its member informed, to exchange tacit knowledge, and to be aware of some professional opportunities.

9.3.2  Associations and National Representation of Interests Parents are also nationally organized for representing their interests. The FCPE is the main organization and defend parents’ rights and claims from primary to secondary education. It is close to the progressive Left and defends Republican values of equality and State secularism. It is opposed to another parent association close to Right political parties. The FCPE attends school boards beside teacher trade unions but also the High Council of Education, a national structure of concertation with consultative voice about educational reforms which gather representatives from all trade unions and major associations (parents, teachers, students, principals). The status of associations is defined and regulated by the 1901 Act which allows any citizen to create a free and non-profit association for defending and promoting values and rights (Archamabault 2001). This type of association has a legal personality and it can obtain public funds and sometimes being declared of public interest by the State itself when serving nationally civic and humanitarian causes. There are more than 1 billion associations in France and around 80,000 are specialized in education and training while some of them are supported by the Ministry of education. Among those legitimate associations, the Ligue de l’Enseignement (Ligue of Teaching) remains influent. It is a confederation of associations (25,000), created at the same time as the foundation of the Republican school system at the end of the nineteenth century, and it covers the national territory to promote a “free, statutory and secular” school system for all students. It serves as a watchdog ensuring the maintenance of Republican values and ethics within public education. Beside the Ligue, several active but declining pedagogical movements, organized as associations, try to change school practices and to promote a kind of school improvement largely influenced by Republican principles and ethics even if they developed criti-

160

R. Normand

cism against the State and its policymaking. They are edited a journal (Les Cahiers Pédagogiques) which resumes their ideas. The French Association of Actors of Education (AFAE) is also an influent professional and national association gathering inspectors and principals for organizing regional or national conferences and editing a professional journal (Administration & Education). It is managed and led by some important representatives among the General Inspectorate and former policymakers at the ministry. It comments current issues in policymaking and serves as a kind of club for the promotion and career of executives particularly within the technostructure and the General Inspectorate. So, there are close relationships and unformal power games between principals and inspectors depending on their fame and recognition, paths and qualifications, but also political values and belonging. These trade unions and associations within the public education system tend to become challenged by external actors who influence more and more national policymaking. The rise of national Think Tanks and Foundations is quite new, but they impact more and more on the public debate on education in media. They are also more and more connected with the cabinet to develop “story telling” and to prepare reforms through reports and communications. Terra Nova is a Think Tank close to the Left reformist parties and trade unions while the Montaigne Institute maintains relationships with business circles and Rightist parties. Foundations, like The Foundation of France or the Bettencourt Foundation, are more and more active in the development of national education programs, and they are capable to capture public funds to intervene in public education and to advocate new ideas (inquiry-­ based teaching, lab school networks, positive psychology, digital learning, etc.). Even if they remain at the edge of the public education system, they influence innovative teachers and groups in search of alternative pedagogies and solutions for school improvement.

9.4  T  he Role of High Councils and National Commissions in Policy Transfer Since the beginning of the new century, France has reformed its education system. The idea of a basic skill framework has been adopted and implemented and it was largely inspired by travelling policies and the European Key-Competencies Framework (Commission of the European Communities 2005). But the development of an accountability system and quality assurance mechanisms has been slow compared to other countries, and while the French education system is moving towards a soft accountability policy without any high-stake testing regime, the DEPP and the inspection remain powerful in evaluation (Easley and Tulowitzki 2016). Similarly, French policy-makers have followed some European recommendations and focused their efforts on the common objectives of the Open Method of Coordination (Lange and Alexediou 2007): early school leaving and drop-outs, stu-

9  France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer…

161

dent skills in numeracy and literacy in relation to the PISA survey, development of pre-school education, changes in initial teacher training and its Teacher Training Colleges. However, it took time to consider issues of school improvement at local level which have been limited to the general idea of “school climate” and “student well-­ being” without many changes in school organization (Debarbieux et al. 2012). The attempt to restructure “school time scheduling” by the Minister Vincent Peillon has been a failure, not only because of resistances but also because of the incapacity of the State and its administration to be effective in its local implementation (IGEN 2015). The reform of teacher initial training launched by the Ministry is far from an effective professional development at local level despite many reports emphasizing the urgent need of reforms, particularly coordinated by the superintendent Daniel Filâtre who was leading a follow-up committee for reforming teacher education (Filâtre 2016, 2018). These reforms are also resisted by trade unions and interest groups. The notion of leadership, compared to some other European countries (Ärlestig et al. 2015), begins to be used in a few unofficial discourses, but it did not change concretely the training and practices of principals and there have been not much concrete local experiments and implementations, and even official recognition of leadership skills by the ministry. The main concerns of policymakers are the national curriculum and student guidance perceived as the main drivers to reduce inequality of opportunities. So, during the two last decades, a lot of discourses and debates have been concentrated on the issue of implementing a basic skills policy compatible with the national curriculum based on disciplines and school subjects, and the way some new student assessments and new pedagogical practices could develop these basic skills (Dobbins and Martens 2012). The other concern has been the link between this basic skills policy and student guidance procedures in primary and secondary education to limit retention and drop-outs and to reduce inequality of opportunities for working-class and migrant students. The consensual idea is to organize and structure schooling in cycles, with some individualized support for failing students, and some regular meetings between educators to manage student guidance and to teach basic skills. But the impact is low on schools and teaching practices. For managing and dealing with these issues, successive Ministers of Education have created several institutions which produce reports, advices and recommendations. And ministers have also solicited some “providential” men (or women) chosen among close experts and acquaintances, and sometimes among the General Inspectorate itself, to draw reports and recommendations capable of legitimizing their policymaking and proposing some “new” solutions.

162

R. Normand

9.4.1  H  igh Councils: The Transfer of the European Key Competencies Framework into the National Curriculum The High National Council of Curricula is one of these main institutions. It is active since 1990, after an interruption from 2005 to 2012, and it has the responsibility to design the national curriculum in relation to a skills framework related to school subjects. It includes personalities chosen by the minister (academics, members of the parliament, general inspectors) and other experts who share the Minister’s assumptions about reforms. The main task of the National Council is interviewing different representatives and experts often linked to trade unions, associations and other interest groups. Then, the Council must find a consensus and submit its restructuring project to the Minister who can endorse or not its proposals. These auditions and discussions are politically at stake because of the importance of curricula in structuring the French education system and they are accurately followed by the media. They generally raise an important public debate, and polemics, with sometimes dramatic resignation of presidents contesting the functioning of the council or disagreeing with the Minister’s options. The High Council of Education existed from 2005 to 2012. It resumed the High National Council of Curricula’s activities and continued the work of the High Council of School Evaluation. It included mainly policy makers and experts close to the Minister. It has been essential for the introduction and the implementation of the French basic skills framework borrowed from the European Commission in translating some items, beyond numeracy and literacy, in an acceptable language for French educators (“entrepreneurship” became “humanist culture”; “learning to learn” becomes “social and civic skills”). Since, the French basic skills framework has been changed to be better focused on skills while it has maintained a compromise with the conception of teaching shared by some interest groups attached to the legacy of disciplines. It explains why it is named “basic skills, knowledge and common culture framework”. Knowledge must be understood here as knowledge linked to academic disciplines, school subjects and a kind of transmissive conception of teaching. “Common culture” comes from the successful strong opposition of the trade union FSU who wanted to fight against what it was naming a “cultural minimum wage for students” and a business-oriented conception of managerial skills.

9.4.2  N  ational Commissions: The Transfer and Adoption of some Recommendations and Directives from the European Commission and the OECD Apart from High Councils, French ministers have maintained the tradition of creating national commissions to legitimate their national policymaking. The two last important commissions during the last decade were the Thelot Commission on the

9  France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer…

163

Future of the Education System (2003–2004) and the more recent Peillon Commission on the Refoundation of the Education System (2013). Claude Thélot was the former head of the DEPP in the 1990s and the president of the High Council of School Evaluation (2000–2003). He has been influential in promoting what he was naming at this time “a culture of evaluation” within the education system and in preparing the welcome of the French accountability policy (Emin et al. 2007). The High Council of School Evaluation was also decisive in disseminating the expertise and international findings that followed the development of international surveys and school effectiveness research. After several and extended auditions, it provided the Ministry of Education with some advices and recommendations to make the French education system more accountable and opened to international benchmarking, notably the PISA survey. It singularly influenced the activity of the DEPP which has become since more concerned with performance and not only evaluation and forecasting. The Thélot Commission was created by the Prime Minister to provide recommendations about the future of the education system. The aim of the Commission was to organize a national debate on the education system and to consult all the citizens and interest groups. For this, a questionnaire was prepared on specific issues inspired by current school effectiveness research but driven also by a political vision to make schools more effective in teaching basic skills, to strengthen the collaboration with parents, and to reform the teaching profession, etc. More than 10,000 local and civic debates were organized nationally. The debates were synthetized by a consultancy group and several reports were written by appointed national experts. The general report emerging from this large national consultation was submitted to the Prime Minister (Thélot 2004). It has certainly helped to prepare the Act implementing the basic skills framework in 2005 but meanwhile Claude Thélot had been dismissed. In 2012, after the General Elections, the new socialist minister of education, Vincent Peillon, launched a National Commission on the Refoundation of the Education System to prepare a new Education Act which was voted in 2013. The National Commission, structured in working groups led by personalities close to the minister, had to make auditions with representatives of trade unions, associations, experts and other interest groups and to formulate some recommendations from guidelines expressed by the Minister in the Official Bulletin of National Education (Dulot and others 2012). The main objectives were the restructuring of school time scheduling, the initial training of teachers, the implementation of the basic skills framework, a new momentum for the education priority areas policy, the redefinition of student assessment. In addition to some expectations formulated to the High Council of Curricula, the Minister created the CNESCO (the National Council for the Evaluation of the Education System) and appointed Nathalie Mons at its head, a sociologist in education, member of the National Commission. The mission was to create an “independent” institution capable of evaluating the progress of the French education system, to disseminate research findings related to major policy issues reflected by the Ministry and to organize conferences of consensus with diverse experts and stake-

164

R. Normand

holders. So, the CNESCO had developed reports and recommendations related to policymaking for the ministry of education in the following topics: social mix, inclusive education, dropouts, vocational education, retention, numeracy and literacy gathering some national and international research findings and expertise. However, it has been criticized for its closeness to policy-makers and its usefulness regarding other main institutions responsible for the evaluation of the education system: the DEPP, the General Inspectorate, but also the Court of Auditors, a court in charge of auditing public administrations and close to the Ministry of Economy and Finances. Another council has been created by the Ministry: the National Council of Innovation for School Achievement. Led by another sociologist appointed by the Minister, it had to reflect about conditions of school improvement and innovations in auditing experts and diverse interest groups. It was composed of policymakers from different ministries, representatives of Independent Local Authorities, and representatives of teachers, parents, students, principals and inspectors. It had to reflect on issues as better the development of evaluation, cooperation; at school level, teaching to enhance student skills, oral learning, individualized guidance, school life, local partnerships, professional development. The National Council published several reports for the minister, but its action had not much impacted on the current policymaking. However, some words were taken over as mantra by educators: benevolence, well-being for students, assessment without marks (Lapeyronnie 2014; Watrelot 2017). Generally, ideas related to pedagogy and school innovation are mistrusted by a great number of policymakers and executives who are suspicious towards pedagogical movements. All these councils under the influence of the Minister and the Ministry of Education, despite their claim of independence, have close relationships with policymakers, and they have never functioned as autonomous agency deciding by themselves about their aims and strategies. Their mission is systematically written down by a “letter of mission” signed by the Minister with specific requirements about expected outcomes. It shows that the French educative State, despite its attempts to facilitate a kind of dialogical democracy, through national debates or consultations, remains reluctant to share its power and to leave others participate in decision-­ making. Structured in professional bodies and interest groups, it legitimates an internal representation of interests which is essential for its bureaucratic and hierarchical functioning. However, the conflict with the Minister’s plans had led sometimes to resignations: the resignation of Alain Boissinot, an influent policy-maker, from the head of the High Council of the Curricula in 2014; the resignation of Michel Lussault for the same reasons in 2017, he was also the Head of the French Institute of Education. Some changes at the head of the National Council of Innovation and School Achievement occurred in similar ways.

9  France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer…

165

9.5  N  ew Steps in Policy Transfer? The Recent Minister’s Initiatives Since 2017, under a new government and minister of education, reforms have been pursued with some inflexions in ideological discourses but continuities in adopting international recommendations. The main reforms are: abandon of a national and standardized new time school scheduling, reduction of class sizes for education priority areas, compulsory education in kindergartens at age 3, compulsory syllabic method for reading in primary education, ban of mobile phones in primary and junior schools, imposition of dictation for the first year of primary education, invitation to create choirs in schools, reform of vocational education with more apprenticeship and links with the economy. The basic skills policy has been reaffirmed particularly during the first years of primary education while the restructuring of the national curriculum was extended to the reform of the baccalaureate giving more choices for student and deleting disciplines-based career paths (mathematics & sciences, economics & social sciences, humanities and literature). For this, the High Council of Curricula has been reactivated with a new president and close companion of the Minister, Pierre Mathiot, to create a national commission and to submit an official report (Mathiot 2018). Among his acquaintances, the Minister has appointed an eminent neuroscientist Stanilas Dehaene at the head of a High Scientific Council in charge of better linking policymaking with evidence-­ based international research findings and comparisons. Some new national assessments have been implemented inspired by this scientific knowledge. Other “providential men” has been also appointed: Cedric Villani, Fields Medal in mathematics, for a report on reforming teaching in mathematics (Villani and Tolossian 2018), Boris Cyrulnik, well-known psychologist, for a report on reforming kindergartens. The CNESCO has been maintained in its main duties. In the press and the media, the minister is eager to say that he has not created a new Education Act and that he wants to give autonomy to educators on behalf what he names a “trusting education system” for which he values respect and trust in addition to Republican principles. But in fact, he employs the same methods as former ministers in delegating missions to national councils and providential men to support and justify his policymaking. There is not much recognition of local autonomy. A good example of this is a last publication at the Official Bulletin of National Education: the booklet has been conceptualized by the recent High Scientific Council and it includes 130 pages of scientific analyses and recommendations. The minister is convinced that disseminating nationally this information to primary ­education teachers through the bureaucratic and hierarchical pyramid would change their practices! For him, science can be directly and top-down applied for more school effectiveness, but he seems to ignore some main international research findings (no quick fixes, no one size fit for all, context matters) proving the limitations of top-down governance. However, under his leadership, some new institutions have been created. A lab named “110bis” has been implemented within the Ministry’s technostructure (the

166

R. Normand

110 is the address of the Ministry at the Grenelle Street in Paris). It aims to support bottom-up innovative projects, to promote digital technologies, and to share knowledge produced by the ministry and the High Scientific Council, and certainly to facilitate the penetration of digital technologies business interests within the public education system. At the same time, the Minister has adopted a stance of suspicion and criticism towards pedagogical movements and associations. He considers himself attached to “tradition” and “modernity” meaning that he defends some “conservative” values partially linked to his republicanism at the time he advocates a kind of neo-liberal “modernization” for the public education system in trying to open it to “innovative” and “managerial” ideas. Another Minister’s initiative has been the replacement of the National College of School Administration by a High Institute of Education capable of providing principals and inspectors with more international knowledge and expertise and welcoming stakeholders and policymakers for training sessions and conferences. It should promote more issues on school leadership and improvement. Currently, there have been some announcements about changes in teacher training and the merging of the General Inspectorates. Teachers could be submitted to pay-performance bonuses in education priority areas. A National agency of evaluation could be created. But no regulations have been yet enacted.

9.6  Conclusion The French education system is moving towards New Public Management, but it remains at the same time embedded in its Republican and centralized heritage. The authoritative State gives also a great power to the Minister of education and the Ministry as a technostructure. After the implementation of the basic skills policy, new accountability mechanisms could be adopted, particularly through the development of audit and self-evaluation of schools managed by the General Inspectorate. However, more school autonomy and improvement remain at stake because decentralization has not been achieved and State policymakers and professional bodies remain reluctant to local autonomy. The attachment to Republicanism, meaning a common and standardized curriculum for all, as well as the maintenance of an equal provision for schools, limits any attempt of diversification. The shift towards agencies in education with strong autonomy from the State appears delicate in this political climate. The word “agency” advocated by the Right had been contested by the Left who had preferred the word “high council”. The current minister’s intent to merge bodies of inspection and to create a national agency for evaluation is not easily approved in the camp of inspectors. The place of the CNESCO, as a national agency between the Inspectorate and the Ministry’s department of evaluation is criticized for lacking scientific independence and overlapping with other current and more legitimate institutions (for example the National Audit Office (Cour des Comptes)). In terms of agenda setting and policy formulation, the policy transfer is largely done at national level through a top-down and linear dissemination. Hierarchies

9  France: The French State and Its Typical “Agencies” in Education. Policy Transfer…

167

predominate over local, bottom-up and transversal networks, while policymakers and high-rank civilservants buffer international influences and adjust them to their own interests and ideologies. Because French education is historically an affair of the State, interest or pressure groups are nationally active undermining the possibility to move towards more local democracy and accountability. Voluntary transfer depends on the capacity of the ministry (and the minister) to negotiate and build compromises at national level in organizing political forums and arenas and gathering different leading representatives from the civil society and experts close to its vision. Coercion is largely facilitated by strong legalism and civil service which allow national prescriptions quite respected and obeyed by educators at local level despite some periodic national protests and strikes. The French “Third Way” can be characterized by a top-down accountability and standards policy without the market and local autonomy.

References Archambault, E. (2001). Historical roots of the nonprofit sector in France. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(2), 204–220. Ärlestig, H., Day, C., & Johansson, O. (Eds.). (2015). A decade of Research on School Principals: Cases from 24 countries. Dordrecht: Springer. Ball, S. J. (2008). Education debate (policy and politics in the twenty-first century). Bristol: Policy Press. Ball, S. J., & Exley, S. (2010). Making policy with ‘good ideas’: Policy networks and the ‘intellectuals’ of New Labour. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 151–169. Bouvier, A. (2012). La gouvernance des systèmes éducatifs. Paris: PUF. Commission of the European Communities. (2005). Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning. Brussels, 10.11.2005. COM(2005)548 final. 2005/0221(COD). Debarbieux, E., Anton, N., Astor, R.  A., Benbenishty, R., Bisson-Vaivre, C., Cohen, J., et  al. (2012). Le « Climat scolaire »: définition, effets et conditions d’amélioration. Rapport au Comité scientifique de la Direction de l’enseignement scolaire, Ministère de l’éducation nationale. MEN-DGESCO/Observatoire International de la Violence à l’École. Derouet, J. L., & Normand, R. (2011). Caesars and Rubicon: The hesitations of French policymakers in identifying a Third Way in education and training. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 43(2), 141–163. Derouet, J.-L., & Normand, R. (2016). New Public Management in the French educational system: Between affirmation of the state and decentralised governance. In M. G. Helen, E. Grimaldi, D. Hall, & R. Serpieri (Eds.), New public management and the reform in education. European lessons for policy and practice. London: Routledge. Dobbins, M., & Martens, K. (2012). Towards an education approach à la finlandaise? French education policy after PISA. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 23–43. Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–23. Dolowitz, D.  P., & Marsh, D. (2012). The future of policy transfer research. Political Studies Review, 10(3), 339–345. Dulot A., Bonneau F., Colombani M.-F., Forestier C., & Mons N. (2012). Refondons l’école de la république. Rapport de la concertation. Paris: La documentation française.

168

R. Normand

Easley, J., II, & Tulowitzki, P. (Eds.). (2016). Educational accountability: International perspectives on challenges and possibilities for school leadership. London: Routledge. Emin, J. C., Forestier, C., Thélot, C., & France. Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de l’école. (2007). Que vaut l’enseignement en France ?: les conclusions du Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de l’école. Stock. Ertl, H. (2006). European Union policies in education and training: The Lisbon agenda as a turning point? Comparative Education, 42(1), 5–27. Filâtre, D. (2016). Vers un nouveau modèle de formation tout au long de la vie. Rapport sur la formation continue. Comité national de suivi de la réforme de la formation des enseignants et personnels d’éducation. Paris: MEN. Filâtre, D. (2018). Améliorer la formation initiale des professeurs des écoles, Comité national de suivi de la réforme des formations des enseignants. Paris: MEN. Geay, B. (1997). Le syndicalisme enseignant. Paris: La Découverte & Syros. IGEN. (2015). L’efficacité pédagogique de la réforme des rythmes scolaires, MEN Rapport IGEN 2015-042 Juin. Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2007). New forms of European Union governance in the education sector? A preliminary analysis of the Open Method of Coordination. European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 321–335. Lapeyronnie, D. (2014). Pour une école innovante, Synthèse des travaux du Conseil national de l’innovation pour la réussite éducative 2013–2014, Paris, MENESR. Lewis, H. D. (2018). The French education system. London: Routledge. Mathio, P. (2018). Baccalaureate 2021. Paris: MEN. Normand, R. (2013). French educators’ uncertainties and doubts against changes influenced by globalization. In T. Seddon, J. Ozga, & J. Levin (Dir.), Globalization and professions (pp. 184– 200). Routledge World Yearbook of Education. Normand, R. (2016). France: Between civil service and republican ethics. The statist vision among French principals. In H.  Arlestig, C.  Day, & O.  Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals (pp. 357–374). Dordrecht: Springer. Normand, R., & Derouet, J. L. (2016). Top-down accountability and local management Tensions and contradictions experienced by French principals as leaders Educational Accountability. In J. Easley, & P. Tulowitzki (Dir.), International perspectives on challenges and possibilities for school leadership. London: Routledge Normand, R., Liu, M., Carvalho, L. M., Oliveira, D. A., & LeVasseur, L. (2018). Education policies and the restructuring of the educational profession. Singapore: Springer. Pons, X. (2016). Travail d’inspection et régulation du système scolaire français. Administration & Éducation, 1, 23–30. Radaelli, C.  M. (2000). Policy transfer in the European Union: Institutional isomorphism as a source of legitimacy. Governance, 13(1), 25–43. Suleiman, E. N. (2015). Politics, power, and bureaucracy in France: The administrative elite (Vol. 1257). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thélot, C. (2004). Commission du débat national sur l’avenir de l’école. In Pour la réussite de tous les élèves: Rapport de la Commission du débat national sur l’avenir de l'École. Paris: La documentation française. Toulemonde, B. (2006). Le système éducatif en France. Paris: La Documentation Française. Verger, A. (2014). Why do policy-makers adopt global education policies? Toward a research framework on the varying role of ideas in education reform. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 16(2), 14–29. Villani, C., & Tolossian, C. (2018). 21 mesures pour l’enseignement des mathématiques. Paris: MENESR. Watrelot, P. (2017). Innover pour une école plus juste et efficace. Paris: MENESR.

Chapter 10

Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role and Function in School Governing and  Quality Management Stephan Gerhard Huber

Abstract  The Federal Republic of Germany is comprised of 16 states, each having its own school system. The governing of each ‘state’ is organized according to a rather traditional bureaucratic governing model over three to four levels. The traditional assessment system of school quality in Germany consists of school supervisory authorities. As many other western countries, there has been a trend towards decentralization in the German education system giving the schools increased responsibilities. It is a mixture of “top-down” stipulations to prescribe, evaluate and control quality-standards, and “bottom up” school development processes based on a greater number of competencies ascribed to schools. Since PISA 2000, new regulations regarding means of quality and accountability control have been added. Therefore, the states must identify and separate the oversight responsibilities of the inspectorate and the school supervisory authority. There need to be extensive professional development programmes for agents on all governance levels in the school system. In this chapter, the organization of education state agencies in Germany and their role and function as to quality management is analysed and critically discussed, current developments and future trends are identified, among them professional development programmes for school leaders and for school supervisors. The specific tasks related to improving failing schools and school turnaround are outlined.

S. G. Huber (*) University of Teacher Education, Zug, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_10

169

170

S. G. Huber

10.1  The German School System(s) Levels and Agencies The Federal Republic of Germany is comprised of 16 states, known in German as “Länder” (singular is Land, plural Länder). As a federal principle, matters of education and culture lie with each state. This means that each of the 16 states has its own school system framed by individual jurisdictional and administrative laws, encompassing its own educational-policy goals, school structures, school types, curricula, etc. Therefore the 16 school systems in Germany feature different educational and governing traditions. Despite these differences, the governing of each ‘state’ is organized according to a rather traditional bureaucratic governing model. Moreover, there is on federal level the Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs. For an overview of the different levels and the respective agencies see Table 10.1 (see Huber et al. 2016, p. 166 ff.).

10.1.1  The Federal State Level In order to align the variations related to the autonomy of the 16 ‘states’ in educational matters, the Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (in German “Kultusministerkonferenz”, KMK) was established as an instrument for the coordination and development of education in the country across the states. It is a consortium of ministers responsible for education and schooling, institutes of higher education and research and cultural affairs, and in this capacity formulates the joint interests and objectives of all 16 federal states. However, the KMK does not have the authority to make binding decisions. It can only suggest and provide recommendations that in return need to be approved by the parliaments of the states. Therefore, although the KMK may reach a consensus regarding nationwide educational policies, the states may not choose to adopt these policies. As a result, efforts by the KMK to align the 16 education systems have been less successful than anticipated. The actual influence of the KMK varies depending on the education politics debate. For example, its influence in matters of quality control has increased since the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000, because these results sparked national concern and manifold discussions among the German public about the federally structured school system. Ever since, studies of transnational organizations have not only influenced the German policy development by raising political and social awareness about problems in the school system, but their findings about the characteristics of successful school systems have also served as a yardstick for the reform process. PISA 2000 not only revealed the mediocre performance of German pupils, in general, in comparison to other OECD-­ states (see Schümer et al. 2004), but also revealed considerable differences in school quality among the German states themselves. In particular, pupils from immigrant or socially deprived families were found to have significantly fewer chances to

10  Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role…

171

achieve a sound educational career than those with a ‘stable’ background (for more details see Baumert et al. 2001). In response, the KMK has aimed to align the educational policies of the states according to the key features of successful PISA-­ countries, for example, by setting national education standards for all states, by agreeing on a system of regular, national monitoring, and by setting standards for teacher professionalization (see KMK, 23./24.10.1997; 10.05.2001a; 5./6.12.2001b; 23./24.05.2002a; 25.06.2002b).

Table 10.1  Overview of the different levels of organization of educational state agenciesa Federal State Level

Highest State Level

Highest State Level

Middle State Level/ District-Regional Level

Low State Level/ Subdistrict-Local/ Community Level

Organisational Level

Administrative level Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairsb

Functions and competences Suggest and provide recommendations that in return need to be approved by the parliaments of the states Negotiate a consensus regarding nationwide educational policies Coordinate developments in education across the states Education Ministryc Governmental and administrative tasks for the respective state Strategic management and coordination of tasks Organization and structure of administrations School Supervisory Authorities at the macro level Support of the Ministry in its State Office for Education/ strategic and conceptual tasks for School Quality (not all states the respective state have this) Implementation of governmental, administrative and conceptual decisions at the state level School Supervisory Authorities Implementation of governmental, at the middle level administrative and conceptual decisions at the district level Advice, support and control of schools at regional level School Supervisory Authorities Implementation of governmental, at the lower level (in most of the administrative and conceptual decisions at the local level states only for primary Advice, support and control of education) schools at local level School Leadership Self-management of schools

Overview of the school supervisory authorities at the district-regional level of all German states: https://www.bildungsserver.de/Schulverwaltung-641-de.html b https://www.kmk.org/ c Overview of the ministries of all German states: https://www.bildungsserver.de/Kultusministerien580-de.html a

172

S. G. Huber

10.1.2  The State Level The Minister or Senator of a state usually represents the top of the governing structure (macro-level) with a succession of subordinate institutions (meso-level), with the schools themselves functioning as the lowest units (organizational level). In larger states like Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Baden-Württemberg, there is a four-level administrative organization which includes the ministry, a state office for education and/or school quality and the regional school supervisory administration, the school supervisory offices at the level of counties or county-independent cities, and finally school leadership at the school level. In the smaller states (like Bremen, Hamburg, Berlin) the structures are simpler. In Hamburg, for example, only two levels of administration exist (see Maurer 2006). 10.1.2.1  School Types Despite varying school types, the states share a relatively similar structure: a common compulsory elementary school until 4th or 6th grade and secondary schools which are differentiated into compulsory technical or vocational schools, secondary modern schools and grammar schools. 10.1.2.2  State and Non-governmental Schools Additionally to the state schools there are non-governmental schools (general education and vocational schools). Communal boards maintaining the schools may be church organizations, social work associations, partnerships or private persons. 10.1.2.3  Budget In state schools the budget sovereignty is divided: the ministry is responsible for the teaching staff and the conditions of the educational concept, the school communal board (“Schulträger”) is responsible for the basic equipment of the schools like the building and for the non-teaching staff like secretary, caretaker, and also the staff within social services. The free bodies maintaining non-governmental schools have their own budget for the teaching staff as well as for the educational concept. Nongovernmental schools are under state supervision, and generally enjoy public status. In most states each school has their own “school budget” for teaching training activities, IT-Services, learning material, and teachers employed on contract basis for example. But the amounts and usage of these budgets are very different between the states and in some states the budget is comparatively low (per school and year: Hesse: to apply individually (around 5000 Euro), Schleswig-Holstein: 250 Euro plus 6,50 Euro for each teacher, Thuringia: 500 Euro).

10  Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role…

173

10.1.2.4  School Supervisory Authorities The traditional assessment system of school quality in Germany consists of school supervisory authorities that supervise public as well as non-governmental schools. Subordinate school supervisory authorities (“Schulämter”, similar to local education agencies on the level of local authority) are given the power to check the regulations of quality oversight. These oversight regulations cover three areas of the teaching profession and school administration. Schools are supervised by (1) an academic supervision (“Fachaufsicht”) over teaching and educational work; however, supervisory authorities are not permitted to intrude into the pedagogical responsibility of the individual teacher, specifically relating to matters of classroom teaching, (2) a supervision of the staff at public sector schools (“Dienstaufsicht”), (3) a legal supervision (“Rechtsaufsicht”). Although the oversight regulations of the sixteen states are similar in their stipulations, the organization of the oversight system differs from state to state. The role of this supervisory system is evolving as the states have introduced an accountability-system of the self-responsible school that uses both self-evaluations and school inspection systems. Therefore, the states must identify and separate the oversight responsibilities of the inspectorate and the school supervisory authority. Overlapping tasks of their work are the consulting and support services for inspected schools. Hence, they have to transform into authorities of school support or school improvement. Whereas the inspectorate is responsible for evaluating and advising the schools, the new school supervisory authorities will have to take on the position of “quality institutes” that support the self-responsible school in its improvement measures. Thus after an inspection, public schools will be obliged to seek the approval of their school supervisory authority in regards to potential development measures. 10.1.2.5  Inspection Inspections are mandated to evaluate schools as self-responsible schools in their educational and organizational matters. These inspection visits are carried out by an inspection team, often coming from a quasi-independent institute of the respective state. In all states, inspectors not only observe the relevant areas of school quality and report the results to the ministry of the respective school supervisory authority and/or the legal body in charge of the maintenance of the school, but they also discuss problems and possible areas of school development with the head teacher and the teachers. Thus, they seek to combine two roles, namely, to provide evidence for the purposes of accountability and to facilitate school improvement. All states are similar in that although the inspection is a public process, the results are not published (nor do official pupil achievement tables or ‘league tables’ exist). In the following section, the inspection system of Lower-Saxony is presented as an example for common practice in Germany. In general terms, the official aim of the inspections in Lower-Saxony is to focus on the school as a systemic o­ rganization,

174

S. G. Huber

organised in a similar way and that they should be based on comparable evaluation criteria (see Arbeitsgruppe “Schulinspektionssystem”, 21.02.2005). Inspections are meant to serve as a monitoring system for the school system of Lower-Saxony. The inspectorate on the one hand fulfils the task of evaluating the quality and needs of schools, and on the other hand of surveying certain areas of the school system in Lower-Saxony in order to identify areas which demonstrate an urgent need for improvement as well as those that will require work in the future. Once a year, the inspectorate reports to the ministry so that the latter is able to identify options for steering strategies aimed at improved quality management in the school system. The focus of the inspection is always on the quality of instruction. Schools and practitioners are assessed based on a quality framework, which varies according to school type, as well as on inspection manuals. The quality framework of Lower-Saxony contains 16 quality criteria and approximately 100 sub-criteria which vary according to the school type. During the inspection itself, the inspectors contextualise the school and they evaluate teaching according to the evaluation criteria of the relevant quality framework. The inspectorate emphasizes that only the quality of instruction of the school as a whole is evaluated. Inspections are carried out in four phases: (1) Procuring of information regarding the school and preparation of the inspection team, (2) School inspection, (3) Distribution of the report to the various stakeholders (school supervisory authority, school administration, teachers, the staff council, the parent and student council, and the legal body in charge of the maintenance of the school), and (4) If necessary, instructions for the school principal to improve certain areas of schooling. If a school is assessed as “below standard”, the principal is required to consult with school supervisory authorities. Within one year, the school will be re-inspected. 10.1.2.6  Self-Evaluations The latest changes in the school legislations of the states reflect the transition of supervisory systems, moving away from centralized and external assessments and towards cooperative and internal means of quality assurance. In return for the higher degree of administrative and academic self-responsibility granted to schools, schools in turn have to set up school-specific profiles, in which the values and pedagogical principles and the objectives and measures of classroom and school development are laid out. Moreover, in a development planning document schools are obliged to regularly evaluate their work for their self-defined programmes, because they are held accountable for this work to themselves, to the supervisory authorities, to pupils and parents as well as to the public. This approach to self-evaluation within the quality control system demands a change of the role (and duties) of the school supervisory authorities: external check-­ ups are replaced by internal self-evaluations and by external evaluations such as meta-evaluations of the school reports on self-evaluation as well as by inspections. As mentioned before, the task of the school supervisory authorities in the future will increasingly be to assist schools in the interpretation of the results of tests,

10  Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role…

175

e­valuations and inspections on school quality, as well as to advise and support schools in their efforts towards school and classroom improvement. Moreover, the ‘states are establishing support systems consisting of further training and development opportunities, counselling, supervision, etc. to help school leaders and teachers fulfil their new responsibilities in the field of quality control and quality development. Without external assistance, the implementation of a system with selfassessment would probably fail because of the potential resentment of teachers and school administrations (see Wenzel 2000; Hopkins and Lagerweij 1996). 10.1.2.7  Assessment Tests Before 2004, the German school system was an input-oriented control system based on political and administrative regulations for school education. However, in 1997, the sixteen states agreed to introduce an output-oriented control system in order to improve and standardize the quality of school education as well as to make it comparable among the states. By the school year 2004/05, all 16 states started to implement nationally binding education standards in schools. Based on competence areas of the respective subjects, students were to be assessed against these educational standards regarding the knowledge, abilities and skills the students were expected to have at a certain stage of their school careers. Any areas identified as performing below standard – both individual (of classes and schools) and general (of regions, states, or certain pupil-populations) – are used to provide the respective state with a starting point for specific areas requiring quality development in classrooms, schools and its education system. Each Land is in the process of establishing its own evaluation system. Additionally, in 2004, the Standing Conference KMK founded the Institute for Quality Development in the Education System (Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen IQB), a scientific quality institute at federal level linked to the Humboldt-University in Berlin. The IQB aims to work closely with the respective institutions of the states in order to assist them in their efforts to improve school quality, to further develop, standardize and evaluate their progress in adhering to the national educational standards, as well as to scientifically survey the implementation of these standards in the states. There are teachers, but also school supervisory authorities, who question the overall benefits of student assessment tests. They argue that while standardized assessment tests would be likely to foster cognitive competences in classroom teaching – because these are easily measurable – the teaching of other important competences such as methodological skills, critical thinking or taking on responsibility for oneself and for society would be neglected. On the other hand, representatives of the business world, parents, politicians and the public, demand more transparency of the processes in schools and classrooms and they are looking for easily visible assessments of school quality as well as of the education system as a whole. Many educationalists therefore argue in favour of standardized tests, stressing their objectivity or at least comparability. Moreover, a common argument is that

176

S. G. Huber

inspections and self-evaluations provide further information about the aspects of education that are not measurable. Hence, system monitoring should also take into account the “soft” criteria and social components. However, there is a vast consensus that school leaders and teachers need to be specially instructed in order to derive meaningful conclusions from test results for classroom and school development measures as well as for the benefit of the individual student. At the moment, the vast majority of German teachers and school administrations do not possess these statistical skills. Professional development institutes are just beginning to qualify school personnel in these areas. Moreover, Germany has not yet established a finite knowledge base – an understanding of how the system level can use results from education monitoring in order to govern the education system effectively and to adjust the policies according to the specific problems in the schools (see Böttcher 2003; Döbert 2003). 10.1.2.8  Teacher Training Institutes All states also have state-run teacher training institutes,1 which are responsible for the professional development of all state employees in the school system. They are actually also state agencies.

10.2  Current Developments and Future Trends For analyses of current developments, we used a governance analytic approach (Altrichter and Maag Merki 2016) As in many other western countries for some years we see the tendency that the logic and ideas of new public management are implemented in the administrative system(s) of the different German states and, hence, also in the education system(s). Some states are particularly progressive in terms of decentralization of their school system and the transformation of school authority from “intervention” to “advisory supervision” (with the support of school leadership “on request”): The higher administrative levels of the education system(s) emphasize more and more the role of support of schools and decision-making power is delegated to lower levels. In particularly decision-making power of school leadership as the school side management has been increased. All German states have been undergoing this paradigm shift towards a decentralized and more output-­ oriented system of quality management, and in particular are focusing on quality control. The shift has given schools increased responsibilities in matters of curriculum and instruction, human resources, finances, organization, and (self-)evaluation (see

1  Overview of the teacher training institutes of all German states: https://www.bildungsserver.de/ Landesinstitute-600-de.html

10  Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role…

177

Rürupp and Heinrich 2007; Huber and Gördel 2006). Thus, schools are being reformed under a policy that can be characterized as “decentralized centralism” (see Karlsen 2000) or as “autonomy based on (central) evaluations” (see Heinrich 2007). It is a mixture of “top-down” stipulations to prescribe, evaluate and control quality-­ standards, and “bottom up” school development processes based on a greater number of competencies ascribed to schools (see Table 10.1). Since PISA 2000, new regulations regarding means of quality and accountability control have been added. Among them are instruments such as education standards, large scale assessments, school inspections and education reports which form a broad monitoring system. Due to the federal constitutional system, the sixteen states have progressed differently towards an output-controlled steering system of school quality and the characteristics are varied. Nevertheless, in all states five structural components can be identified: • • • •

the traditional school supervisory authorities, external school inspections, internal self-evaluations, assessment tests for system-monitoring combined with regular reports about the educational system (called “Bildungsbericht Deutschland”  – education report Germany), and • teacher and school leadership professionalization. However, the school supervisory authorities have not been able to transform easily and change according to new roles. The actors of the different levels have not been researched over the recent years besides the external evaluation or school inspection system. Due to decentralization and the “empirical shift” of data use, there need to be extensive professional development programmes for agents on all governance levels in the school system.

10.2.1  Leadership Development Programmes The most significant ones are the school leadership development programmes. While internationally since the early 1990s the qualification of school leadership had been given a high professional weighting, in the German states, such programmes have only become increasingly professional in the last 10–15 years (for example Huber 2003, 2004, 2010a, b, 2013, 2014, 2015; Kultusministerkonferenz der deutschen Bundesländer 2007).Compared to the countries with many years of experience in school management and leadership qualification and a long tradition of research in school leadership, e.g. the USA or England, this development boost becomes particularly obvious. Qualifications for school leaders have been increased in quantity and quality  – more intense in some countries, less intense in others, some started earlier, others followed. In particular, the recognition of the qualification by the profession itself as well as the expectation and recognition by the bodies in charge of employing school leadership personnel play the central role.

178

S. G. Huber

In the following, some current curricula will be outlined as examples (see in detail Huber 2013, Huber et al. 2015). 10.2.1.1  Bremen The city state of Bremen has had a mandatory qualification program since 2008, which is binding on all newly appointed school leaders of public schools. The concept includes nine two-day and two one-day courses as well as peer coaching to support the collegial consultation and the reflection on the professional experiences. 10.2.1.2  North Rhine-Westphalia Since 2008, for teachers who want to become school leaders in North Rhine-­ Westphalia a competency-oriented, four-module preparatory or induction program has been obligatory as well as a two-day Assessment Center to prove their suitability for this position. The AC is a central component of the candidate’s official assessment. Further components of the leadership qualification in NRW are orientation seminars for teachers who are interested in assuming leadership functions in schools, induction offers after taking over leadership functions in the middle management, special thematic offers for experienced school leaders as well as in-service training such as school leadership coaching. 10.2.1.3  Hesse With the mandatory qualification for school leaders Hesse wants to offer a new, differentiated qualification and counseling service for school managers comprising of: • Reflection Day (comparison of self-image and external image, feedback discussion) • Qualification phase (five modules distributed over a period of around twelve months, project in school and a talk with important educational stakeholders) • Aptitude Assessment Procedure (three-day assessment center consisting of five exercises) For the school year 2016/2017, a first piloting in a cooperation network (State School Offices Gießen, Marburg, Friedberg and Weilburg) was carried out and evaluated during the process. After a transition period of several years, the qualification and the aptitude assessment procedure in Hesse will become binding.

10  Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role…

179

10.2.1.4  E  astern German Federal States (Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt und Thuringia) In the Eastern German states of Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt since 2009 and in Thuringia since 2006, new qualification concepts for school leaders have been developed. The qualification takes place in four conceptually coordinated, chronologically consecutive phases: • • • •

Orientation (1st phase) (official) preparatory qualification (2nd phase) Induction qualification (3rd phase) In-service qualification (4th phase)

Even if the similarities in the qualification concepts of the three states are clear, there are differences in the content-related priorities and the methodological implementations of different learning settings. Members of the school supervisory authorities, however, have not much been involved in and committed to those development measures so far. But the tasks of school supervisory authorities outlined above clearly show that professional development in a systematic way is essential for them as it is for all leadership personnel. What all agents on all levels of authority need is experience and on-the-job training and development opportunities to get a better understanding of their roles as well as competences to perform their tasks appropriately. The expertise and the know-how gained in school leadership development can be made best use of as there is great intersection of competences of school leaders and of members of the school supervisory authorities. However, it must be clearly stated as well, that both positions represent different job profiles with different responsibilities requiring different sets of competences. The states of Berlin and Brandenburg have recently been two of the first to develop a comprehensive and systematic qualification programme for leaders of the school supervisory authorities.2 The one in Berlin includes a qualification series preparatory to the function, offers to strengthen and further develop the professionalism in the performance of the function, as well as, in particular, leadership-focused offers for the heads of the regional offices. In Brandenburg, the qualification for school supervisors are aimed at executives who aspire to the office of the school councilor and those who already hold the office .A target group-specific offer is made, which differentiates in two ways: Regarding the professional biography, there are offers for different phases within the professional biography of school supervisors („Schulrätinnen und Schulräte“): preparatory ones and those for supervisors with professional experience. Regarding the range of responsibility and function, there are specific offers for leadership and deputy personnel in the school supervisory authorities. The focus of the qualification is the development of

2  For more details see: https://bildungsserver.berlin-brandenburg.de/fortbildung/fortbildung-fuerfuehrungskraefte/schulaufsicht/

180

S. G. Huber

leadership-­related competencies that are essential for working as a school supervisor. Participants are familiarized with key school supervision tasks related to the priorities and tools of school and quality development in order to advise, assist and guide schools in their development processes, taking into account the schools’ self-­ responsibilities. The qualifications, in particular those for experienced school supervisors, also aim to develop a shared understanding of the “new” role of school supervision and to agree on common standards of school supervision. Hence, the school supervisory authorities’ systematic development of competences for their advisory and support tasks for schools is a desideratum, even though individual members of the authorities are certainly very well equipped for their job.

10.2.2  Self-Concept: Role(s), Function(s) and Strategy(s) Besides professional competences it is also about an adjustment of structures and processes, particular to modify interfaces between the different agencies and actors. It is often argued that supervisory authorities may face an irresolvable role conflict when trying to act as consultants and support for schools, as that may be in strong contrast to their supervising tasks. That position must be objected to from various perspectives. Firstly, in today’s complex world of work, there is literally no profession that requires fulfilling only a single role. Secondly, all agents involved are professional, intelligent and empathetic enough to differentiate in which of the roles they have their present interaction takes place. In order to support school leadership and schools effectively, school supervisory authorities first have to clarify their own self-concept. The core of their work is to (co-)create the educational framework and conditions for all children and youths to unleash their potential and develop their personalities to their best. As a consequence of that deeply pedagogic (self-)concept, the systematic counselling and support of schools and school leadership ought to be in the focus of their work.3 This work can be realized in various fields, three of which are the following: 1. Staff development, leadership development comprising e.g. identifying individuals with leadership potential at an early stage and supporting them 3  Development and consultancy opportunities for regional school authorities would also make sense in order to sensitize them in the context of a few, very specifically focused qualification measures for dysfunctional school situations, to increase their skills, recognize the diversity of such dysfunctional school contexts at an early stage, and familiarize them with tools and options for intervention planning and implementation (Huber 2018). The goal for the regional school authorities is to learn how they could incorporate the existing support measures in their state or region, formulate school-specific performance agreements for these contexts, commission the advisory and support measures, and know which strategic controlling measures should be implemented. For this type of qualification, outside experts should also be used, as well as colleagues from the regional school authorities who have already gained experience and succeeded in their actions. Furthermore, a subject oriented exchange of experience should be made possible in the context of existing or to be established staff meetings.

10  Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role…

181

2. Supporting school development and quality development e.g. organizing and supporting regional school development networks, coordinating local education management initiatives etc. 3. Supporting schools in difficult and challenging circumstances, which comprises in a special way the need to combine both counselling and supervising roles.

10.2.3  Improving Failing Schools A particular challenge for school supervisory authorities is their role and function of supporting school development and quality development in improving underperforming schools, schools with dysfunctional configurations, or schools in challenging circumstances. In recent years in many countries reforms and initiatives in improving such schools were launched intensively. Research of failing schools has shifted to research on school turnaround. In many countries the introduction of educational standards-based monitoring and quality management systems has made the differences in school quality obvious. Schools that do not meet expectations or perform worse in benchmarking are identified by these diagnostic approaches (e.g. in particular, through the external evaluation of school inspection). What interventions promote efficient and effective school improvement or school turnaround is moving to the front of academic and political discussion. In Germany, there has also been a bit more than 10 years of experience in working with particularly underperforming schools. Some German federal states, such as the city states of Hamburg, Bremen and Berlin, have already addressed this issue and started projects to develop support measures (Huber 2018). 10.2.3.1  Bremen In Bremen, the action program “Schule macht sich stark” (SMS, School is Getting Strong) was implemented from 2004 to 2009 and marked the first statewide school development project for schools in difficult circumstances, which was intended to strengthen and support the entire school development process. This project ran in parallel to a quality development campaign, which included the obligation to create annual work plans and school programs, and included external evaluation of all general education schools. The objectives of the project were to ensure mastering basic competences (mathematics and German) and to increase independence and responsibility of the students for self-propelled learning. The program’s activities included strengthening school leadership through coaching and counseling, staff development and teacher training, and assisting with learning progress diagnosis. The coaching of the school administration by an external coach and a network of the involved school management teams, which extend beyond the actual duration of the project, are considered to be particularly successful.

182

S. G. Huber

10.2.3.2  Berlin In 2006, a process consulting method called “proSchul” was established in Berlin with the goal to provide schools in need of development with a seamless consultation process immediately after school inspections. The voluntary process consultation takes place in a triangular relationship between school, proSchul, and the school inspectorate. In principle, this systematic approach to school development, characterized by goal orientation, transparency, strengthening collegial cooperation and communication, involving as many participants as possible, using evaluation as a tool of process monitoring, and systemic consideration of the organization, teaching, and staffing, can be considered effective. In Berlin, another project was initiated in 2012–2013 by the Robert Bosch Foundation (RBSG) in cooperation with the Senate Department for Education Youth and Science in Berlin (SenBJW). The project “School Turnaround—Berliner Schulen starten durch” (School Turnaround—Berlin Schools Are Taking Off) aims to support ten schools in a particularly critical situation. Furthermore, this practice-­ based project is supposed to provide important insights into the governance mechanisms, competencies, motivations, structures, processes, and resources necessary to make a turnaround. Research on measures of school development in particularly underperforming schools, which takes into account German contextual conditions, is needed. Findings of a mixed-method longitudinal study of this project were presented at various conferences (e.g., ECER and AERA in recent years and a comprehensive report will be finalized in 2018 by Huber et al.). 10.2.3.3  Hamburg In Hamburg, the State Institute for Teacher Education and School Development carried out the project “Unterstützung von Schulen in schwieriger Lage” (Supporting Schools in Difficult Circumstances) in the years 2007–2010. Support services in the developmental areas of teaching and teaching skills, teaching-related cooperation of the faculty, as well as management and control of the development process were the focus. Evaluation of the KESS-7 data and initial learning surveys in grade levels 5 and 7 of the participating schools, as well as qualitative surveys with school administrators and faculty members, were conducted. The project’s coherence can be highlighted as successful because of the support provided for teaching, cooperation, management, and control, each of which had a high level of adaptability for the individual school situation. The lessons learned from international contexts and initial turnaround programs in Germany are important to be considered when thinking about the necessary framing of school turnaround in German states and the role of school governing agencies. The following list provides an overview of important factors and recommendations for leaders on various levels of school governing in Germany when it comes to successfully lead school turnaround. They can also contribute to further research to establish a contexturalized school turnaround theory.

10  Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role…

183

Assumptions and recommendations are: i. As to school turnaround organization and some fundamental principles • Careful integration within the specific context of the respective state • Combination of strategies for the school and for the level of education policy • Balance of freedom and guidelines • Individualized support instead of “one size fits all” ii. As to organizational diagnosis, school inspection, accountability • Project start requires clear criteria for the selection of schools • Use school inspection results • Orientation of the objective and the diagnosis on the school quality framework of action in the respective state • Professional school authorities act profoundly and persistently iii. As to organizational change • “Small is beautiful”, not “big is better” • In extreme cases: “Reconstitution”, i.e. closure of the school and reopening it after a redesign • School fusion, development of school networking, up to the merger of schools iv. As to human resources measures • Change of school administration and exchange of teachers v. As to personnel development: Further education for motivational and skill development • • • • •

Professionalization of the school leadership Intensive and tailored training of the faculty Focus: Advanced training for improved teaching Qualification of regional school authorities Information events for additional stakeholders

vi. As to improving education, counselling and care provisions • Revising the curriculum • Structuring teaching/learning processes more clearly • Conduct diversity management vii. As to an increased cooperation in the school environment and outside support • • • •

Multilevel cooperation in the school system Premise “District-wide solutions for district-wide problems” Strengthening advisory services and using existing ones Extracurricular offers

184

S. G. Huber

viii. As to reinforcing strengths, making it possible to experience success quickly, which leads to self-efficacy experiences of the stakeholders • Reinforce strengths • Positive changes in self-image and opportunities for self-efficacy experiences of teachers and school administration • Rapid intervention with directly perceptible success ix. As to systematic overall development and coordination of classroom development, organizational development and personnel development • Specific support and concern for coherence • Give it time and observe developmental steps • Ensuring transparent objectives with clearly defined goals What school supervisory authorities have to bear in mind is: While the United States turnaround models are designed to be relatively radical with school closures and layoffs of staff, the projects in the German federal states rely heavily on supporting the schools, empowering and increasing the competence of the school/internal stakeholders and various cooperations with school/internal stakeholders. School leadership seems to be an important key factor in all projects. School leaders, who are able to restore the ability to act by establishing an appropriate leadership organization and to focus their work on pedagogical issues, play a special role. In England, there is a strong reliance on school networks, where schools in difficult situations collaborate, network, or even merge institutionally with successful schools in the area. Due to cultural and legal differences, solutions from the international context have to be examined closely, but within the framework of the melioristic function of international comparative educational research and educational planning, they represent an extremely interesting potential for stimulation. All of the strategies outlined in the above cases are part of the school turnaround, but they are not a quick-fix recipe for success. In order to be successful in the long run, different approaches are needed that are tailored exactly to the unique circumstances of the individual school (Huber 2006, 2007; Huber and Muijs 2007) and contextualized to the respective school system. School turnaround requires concerted action with professional, profound, and persistent action of all of the involved leadership stakeholders. In addition to intervention architecture, especially the school authorities and the active participation of the school board at the system level and the school administration at school level are part of the first successful steps, followed by a gradual involvement of the entire faculty. However, we should remember that all school interventions are limited. Assuming that failing schools are often found in low SES catchment areas, and that the effect of a school explains about 10–40% of the variance in student achievement, it becomes clear that much more complex interventions are needed that go beyond the reach of the school and include the school environment. Schools cannot compensate for all the weaknesses and shortcomings of a community or a society,

10  Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role…

185

and no matter how well-intended and professional school development is, it cannot absorb the bad social circumstances in which students live outside of school. Ultimately, the key to school improvement lies in political action and measures that focus not only on the individual school or the school system but also on community development in terms of poverty, unemployment, health deficits, deficient housing, educational difficulties, and lack of life-management strategies of parents, to name but a few.

10.3  Conclusion Using educational governance theory for the analyses of the education system(s) certainly changes become apparent. Education agencies of the federal states, i.e. the school supervision authorities, have not much influence on the daily work of teachers in schools, maybe a bit on the work of school leaders. Since Rosenbusch’s study in 1994 we know about tension between school leaders, particular innovative ones and the school administration which is more oriented in status quo. However, education authorities could have a greater impact on quality management of schools on organization level if the actors of these agencies act more professional and use the leverage of Human Resource Management decision making power more carefully, strongly, profoundly and persistently. Mainly it is about a differentiated approach to schools. Innovative and high quality schools need acknowledgement, but schools in challenging circumstances need support and even failing schools need quick and intensive support. Besides this, investing in knowledge-management systems across the individual schools would be a function of these agencies. This could be about innovation or promising practices, it could be about individual actors and professionals, it could be about networking the right persons and build communities of practice between schools or between schools and further actors in the community or region. It is also about all different kinds and ways of resource allocation, materialistic (funding schemes, also about further funding beyond the state funding, e.g. networking with foundations) and non-materialistic (know-how, persons) resources. Most of the actors of these agencies state in interviews that they are more loaded with administrative work than with real support of schools. They say that they are responsible for too many schools and tasks. Some innovative representatives would state that they are not organized to a modern system of education quality management and that more differentiation of work with schools and in particular school leaders is needed. They see many challenges and important tasks they should focus on, e.g. recruitment and development of school leaders on organizational-level, conflict management, support of schools in difficulties, networking systems. To “refocus”, competences and different processes and structures are needed (different governance) that also impact professional cultures and underlying agendas and routines of the meso-level state education authorities.

186

S. G. Huber

References Altrichter, H., & Maag Merki, K. (2016). Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem. 2. Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Arbeitsgruppe “Schulinspektionssystem”. (21.02.2005). Abschlussbericht [Final report of the Task Force “School Inspections”]. http://cdl.niedersachsen.de/blob/images/C8892332_L20. pdf, 6.02.06. Baumert, J., Artelt, C. & Klieme, E., et al. (2001). PISA 2000 – Die Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Vergleich. Zusammenfassung der zentralenBefunde [PISA 2000 – Summary of the central findings of a comparison of the German ‘Länder’]. Berlin: MPIB. Böttcher, W. (2003). Schulreformdurch Standards? [School reform by means of standards?] In H. Döbert, B. von Kopp, R. Martini, & M. Weiß (Eds.), Bildung vor neuen Herausforderungen. Historische Bezüge  – rechtliche Aspekte  – Steuerungsfragen  – Internationale Perspektiven [Education facing new demands. Historical references  – Legal aspects  – Steering issues  – International perspectives] (pp. 160–168). Neuwied: Kriftel. Döbert, H. (2003). Neue Steuerungsmodelle von Schulsystemen in Europa [New steering models of school systems in Europe]. In H. Döbert, B. von Kopp, R. Martini, & M. Weiß (Eds.), Bildung vor neuen Herausforderungen. Historische Bezüge – rechtliche Aspekte – Steuerungsfragen – Internationale Perspektiven [Education facing new demands. Historical references  – Legal aspects – Steering issues – International perspectives]. (pp. 287–303). Neuwied: Kriftel. Heinrich, M. (2007). Governance in der Schulentwicklung. Von der Autonomie zur evaluationsbasierten Steuerung. Wiesbaden: VS. Hopkins, D., & Lagerweij, N. (1996). The school improvement knowledge base. In D. Reynolds, R. Bollen, B. Creemers, D. Hopkins, L. Stoll, & N. Lagerweij (Eds.), Making good schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 59–93). London: Routledge. Huber, S. G. (2003). Qualifizierung von Schulleiterinnen und Schulleitern im internationalen Vergleich: Eine Untersuchung in 15 Ländern zur Professionalisierung von pädagogischen Führungskräften für Schulen. Kronach: Wolters Kluwer. Huber, S. G. (Hrsg.). (2004). Preparing school leaders for the 21st century: An international comparison of development Programmes in 15 countries. In: Herausgegeben, von J. Chrispeels, B. Creemers, D. Reynolds & S. Stringfield, In der Reihe context of learning. London/New York: Routledge Falmer (Taylor & Francis). Huber, S. G. (2006). OECD leadership activity: Country report England. In Länderbericht für die OECD. Paris: OECD. Huber, S. G. (2007). School leadership in schools that fail. Symposium failing schools im Rahmen der Tagung der American Educational Research Association (AERA) (pp. 9–13). Chicago, Illinois, USA. Huber, S. G. (Hrsg.). (2010a). School leadership - international perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer. Huber, S. G. (2010b). New approaches in preparing school leaders. In: P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Hrsg.), International Encyclopedia of Education, (Vol. 4, pp. 752–761). Oxford: Elsevier. Huber, S. G. (Hrsg.). (2013). Handbuch Führungskräfteentwicklung. Grundlagen und Handreichungen zur Qualifizierung und Personalentwicklung im Schulsystem. Köln: Carl Link / Wolters Kluwer. Huber, S. G. (2014). Qualifizierung von Schulleiterinnen und Schulleitern - Ausdifferenzierung der Curricula der Führungskräfteentwicklung. In: R. Pfundtner (Hrsg.), Grundwissen Schulleitung (pp. 194–209). Köln: Wolters Kluwer. Huber, S. G. (2015). Führungskräfteentwicklung als systematischer und kontinuierlicher Prozess. In J. Berkemeyer, N. Berkemeyer & F. Meetz (Hrsg.), Professionalisierung und Schulleitungshandeln. Wege und Stratgien der Personalentwicklung an Schulen (pp. 96–112). Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Juventa. Huber, S. G. (2018). No simple fixes for schools in challenging circumstances. Contextualization for Germany. In Meyers/Colby (Ed.), International Perspectives on Leading Low-Performing Schools (pp. 243–266).

10  Germany: Education State Agencies in Germany – Their Organization, Role…

187

Huber, S. G., & Gördel, B. (2006). Quality Assurance in the German School System. European Educational Research Journal, Public Education, Democracy and Supra- and Transnational Agencies in Europe, 5(3–4), 196–209. Huber, S.  G., Gördel, B.-M., Kilic, S., & Tulowitzki, P. (2016). Accountability in the German school system. In J. Easley II & P. Tulowitzki (Eds.), Educational Accountability – International perspectives on challenges and possibilities for school leadership (pp.  165–183). London: Routledge. Huber, S. G. & Muijs, D. (2007). Mission failed? Was die englische Schulforschung über schlechte Schulen herausgefunden hat. Friedrich Jahresheft (Guter Unterricht), 99–101. Huber, S. G., Skedsmo, G., Pham, G. H., Koszuta, A., Karwat, K., Schwander, M., Kots, S., & Luig, C. (2018). Abschlussbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung zum Projekt “School Turnaround - Berliner Schulen starten durch” (Unveröffentlichter Bericht). Zug: Institut für Bildungsmanagement und Bildungsökonomie, Pädagogische Hochschule Zug. Huber, S. G., Stiftung der Deutschen Wirtschaft, Robert Bosch Stiftung (Hrsg.). (2015). Schule gemeinsam gestalten - Entwicklung von Kompetenzen für pädagogische Führung. Müster/New York: Waxmann. Karlsen, G. E. (2000). Decentralized centralism: framework for a better understanding of governance in the field of education. Journal of Educational Policy, 15(5), 525–538. Kultusministerkonferenz KMK. (23./24.10.1997). 280. Sitzung der Kultusministerkonferenz. Konstanzer Beschluss zur Durchführung länderübergreifender Vergleichsuntersuchungen zum Lern- und Leistungsstand von Schülerinnen und Schülern [Agreement on the conduction of comparative testing of pupil achievement among the Länder]. Konstanz. Kultusministerkonferenz KMK. (10.05.2001a). Weiterentwicklung des Schulwesens in Deutschland seit Abschluss des Abkommens zwischen den Ländern der Bundesrepublik zur Vereinheitlichung auf dem Gebiet des Schulewesens vom 28.10.1964 i.d.F. vom 14.10.1971 [Development of the education system in Germany since 1971]. Bonn. Kultusministerkonferenz KMK. (5./6.12.2001b). 296. Sitzung der Kultusministerkonferenz. Definition von sieben vorrangigen Handlungsfeldern als Konsequenz aus PISA [Definition of seven relevant fields of action as consequence of PISA]. Bonn. Kultusministerkonferenz KMK. (23./24.05.2002a). Bildungsstandards zur Sicherung von Qualität und Innovation im föderalen Wettbewerb der Länder [Educational standards to assure quality and innovation in the federal competition of the Länder]. Bonn. Kultusministerkonferenz KMK. (25.06.2002b). Bewertung der bundesinternen Leistungsvergleiche (PISA-E) [Assessment of the comparison of the PISA results of the German Länder]. Berlin. Kultusministerkonferenz der deutschen Bundesländer. (2007). Länderumfrage “Potenzialanalyse und Förderung schulischer Führungskräfte”. Berlin. Maurer, H. (2006). Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht. 16., überarb. u. erw. Aufl. München: C.H. Beck. Rosenbusch, H.  S. (1994). Lehrer und Schulräte. Ein strukturell gestörtes Verhältnis. Bad Heilbrunn/Obb: Klinkhardt. Rürup, M., & Heinrich, M. (2007). Schulen unter Zugzwang – Die Schulautonomiegesetzgebung der deutschen Länder als Rahmen der Schulentwicklung. In H. Altrichter, T. Brüsemeister&, & J.  Wissinger (Eds.), Educational Governance. Handlungskoordination und Steuerung im Bildungssystem (pp. 157–183). Wiesbaden: VS. Schümer, G., Tillmann, K.-J., & Weiß, M. (Eds.). (2004). Die Institution Schule und die Lebenswelt der Schüler. Vertiefende Analysen der PISA-2000-Daten zum Kontext von Schülerleistungen [Analysis of the PISA-2000 data]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Wenzel, H. (2000). Qualitätssicherung und Schulentwicklung [Quality assurance and school development]. In H.-H. Krüger & H. Wenzel (Eds.), Schule zwischen Effektivität und sozialer Verantwortung (pp. 111–123). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Chapter 11

Scotland: The Scottish School System Tom Hamilton

Abstract  The chapter outlines the politics of Scotland within the United Kingdom and how they affect education. A summary of the structure and organisation of the education system is given. International influences are considered and analysed, particularly in relation to policy making by the Scottish Government. Various theoretical frameworks are used for analysis and the chapter concludes by considering the limitations of minority government on education.

11.1  Introduction Scotland’s school system has been relatively straightforward for several decades but is now in the midst of changes in educational governance. When the United Kingdom was formed (1707) Scotland was guaranteed its own education system, different from the rest of the UK. Since 1999, when devolution reintroduced the Scottish Parliament, this difference has increased. Initially devolution brought a flurry of positive changes in the curriculum and conditions of service/ salaries of teachers but recently it has also brought growing politicisation. The first two Scottish governments were Labour/Liberal coalitions and the education policies pursued were broadly in line with those of the UK Labour government, albeit with a Scottish inflection. The 2007 election brought a change with the Scottish National Party (SNP) forming a minority government, bringing new education policies and narratives increasingly divergent from the rest of the UK. This was especially so after 2010 when the UK had a Conservative/Liberal coalition, leading England down a radically different educational road. In 2011 Scotland gained a majority SNP government which pursued policies designed to support its goal of independence. This led to a referendum in 2014 – which rejected independence. The 2016 Scottish election saw the SNP remain the biggest party but without a majority and it also remains the largest group of Scottish MPs at Westminster. T. Hamilton (*) University of Stirling, Stirling, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_11

189

190

T. Hamilton

Grek (2011) argues that the situation of Scotland since 1707, a country without real statehood, has led to divergences in how it perceives and portrays its education system in contrast with the rest of the UK, particularly England. Scotland, she contends, has seen its education system as more democratic, at the service of civil society, with greater egalitarianism. Grek further argues that the SNP has consciously sought to develop education as a means of portraying Scotland’s difference from England, with the long-term aim of independence. She suggests a move away from centralised policy making in Edinburgh and that the SNP government has been more open, more consultative with others such as local government. However, she was writing in 2011 and considering the workings of the first SNP minority government which had to move carefully, building educational policy consensus. Since then Scotland has had an SNP majority government and, arguably, a less consensual approach. Now, back to minority government, there is plenty of consultation (see below) but perhaps a feeling of SNP impatience that quick resolutions to Scotland’s deep-seated social and educational problems have not become quickly evident. Indeed, the argument could be made that some government’s consultations are contrived, with policy already decided before the consultation is completed. Two others who have written extensively, individually and together, about Scottish educational policy making and governance are Margaret Arnott and Jenny Ozga. (eg Arnott (2016), Arnott and Ozga (2016), Arnott (2017), Ozga (2018)). They suggest educational policy has been a tool for the SNP governments to promote political nationalism through social and cultural nationalism. The myths and traditions of Scottish education have been deployed to promote a sense of community, with a ‘learning government’ leading a ‘learning nation’ (Ozga 2018). Conversely, the Government has also looked outwards, not only emphasising differences with England but also seeking links and comparisons with Northern European neighbours such as Scandinavia and the Baltic States. Arnott and Ozga have written about the importance to the SNP of developing ‘narratives’ about education. While England has introduced school diversity and choice, Scotland has stuck with its tradition of local schools, administered by local authorities. Indeed, Arnott (2016) references the Scottish Parliament’s Education Committee in 2010 stressing that there was little public appetite for Swedish free schools or US charter schools, both influential in England. However, Arnott and Ozga (2016) acknowledge the tensions that SNP governments have had in trying to balance national agendas against the increasing influence of international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Scotland is in PISA and its performance has fallen slightly in recent years. It has also had two specific reviews carried out by the OECD which have made various points about Scottish education including highlighting an equity gap, suggesting a need for greater school autonomy and increased use of data within education  – typical OECD comments about many countries. OECD influence will be returned to below.

11  Scotland: The Scottish School System

191

For decades, the Scottish education system was perceived to be more successful than England which allowed Scottish politicians to be dismissive of English education. However, the English system has improved its PISA performance and hence SNP politicians have a fine line to tread in their attitude towards English education. This is illustrated by an article written by Nicola Sturgeon, the current First Minister (Sturgeon 2015). She stresses her commitment to education, acknowledges that Scotland has challenges and states her government is open to external ideas, including from England. However, she emphasises that she will have nothing to do with some of the ideological foundations of English education: We will have no truck with the ideological nonsense of Michael Gove and the Tories, but we will not shy away from learning lessons from initiatives such as the London Challenge. It has seen real, sustained improvements in attainment and we are studying it with interest. Scotland isn’t alone in having an attainment gap yet that gap is greater than in some of the developed nations against which we measure ourselves. Other nations such as Norway – which have very similar policies on inclusion – have a much weaker relationship between social background and attainment.

11.2  The Local Government System However, what has not changed is Scotland’s local government structure and school governance mechanisms which have been in place since the mid-1990s. There are 32 Local Authorities (LAs) running Scotland’s state schools, which the vast majority of children attend. (Only 4% of children attend independent schools – which do not have Government funding.) (Scottish Government 2017a) The Scottish Government sets education policy but then LAs administer the school system, employing teachers. Teachers’ conditions of service and salaries are decided nationally by the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers (SNCT), a tripartite body comprising the Government, LAs and teacher unions. The 32 LAs vary greatly – cities with large populations (eg Glasgow, 600,000+) to rural or island authorities with small populations (eg the Orkney Islands, 20,000). LAs gain most of their funding from central government with only 15% raised from local taxation. This contributes to complex, sometimes acrimonious, relationships between national and local government. At the last LA elections, the SNP lost a handful of seats but remained the most successful party. However, in no LA does a single party have a majority and hence all have either coalition or minority administrations. At a national level, the LAs are represented by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) which endeavours to speak with one voice but within COSLA there are often different factions reflecting particular political positions. Each LA has an officer responsible for education. Titles vary but Director of Education is the commonly recognised form. The 32 Directors work together in the

192

T. Hamilton

Association of Directors of Education Scotland (ADES). Like COSLA, ADES tries to speak collectively but it too does not always achieve unity. Each LA has an Education Committee (again titles vary) and it will lead local education policy. Teacher numbers and the number of promoted posts in schools are largely formulaic from SNCT agreements but the Education Committee will decide the specific funding for schools and what portion of the budget is retained for central support services. Recently money has been tight and LAs have cut back on central staffing causing various pressures with schools feeling they are having to do more with less. To try to eke out finances, some LAs have introduced shared services with neighbours but these have largely been unsuccessful and abandoned. Opportunities for parental involvement in schools are based on the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 (Scottish Government 2006) with recognition of Parent Forums (the parents of all children at a school) and then opportunities for Parent Councils, a subset of the Parent Forum. A Parent Council is limited in its actual role which is to be consulted on various matters and to be broadly supportive of the school. At national level, two bodies represent parents – Connect and the National Parent Forum of Scotland (NPFS). Recently NPFS published a research report reviewing parental involvement (NPFS 2017) which found a mixed picture of Parent Councils and their success. Across the report’s recommendations there was a general argument for greater parental involvement. Beyond central and local government there are various other national agencies involved in aspects of education.

11.3  Other Agencies Scotland’s examination system is run by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). SQA is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) and as such receives most of its funding directly from the Scottish Government. The SQA Chief Executive is answerable to its Board of Management and there is also an Advisory Council representing stakeholders. SQA is not responsible for the school curriculum but works closely with other bodies ensuring that the curriculum is appropriately assessed. However, SQA arrangements and policies have direct effects on schools, teachers and pupils. The body responsible for the curriculum and educational development is Education Scotland (ES) which is an Executive Agency of the Scottish Government and funded as a department. It also includes Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) which evaluates the quality of education through inspections and reviews. ES offers advice to schools but has no formal power to insist on its advice being followed. However, through HMIE inspections it does have a powerful means to ensure compliance. Initial Teacher Education in Scotland is led by various universities which also provide both career-long professional learning (CLPL) and Headship programmes.

11  Scotland: The Scottish School System

193

However, to take the lead in the final area, a new body was formed in 2014, the Scottish College for Educational Leadership (SCEL) which in April 2018 became part of Education Scotland. Until its merger with ES, SCEL was an independent, not for profit company with a Board of Directors to which the Chief Executive answered. While the initial intention was for it to become self-funding, it was always funded by the Scottish Government. SCEL promoted professional learning about leadership for classroom teachers, those moving into promoted posts, aspiring Head Teachers, newly appointed and experienced Heads. All of these functions continue but are now under the aegis of ES. The Into Headship programme, delivered by selected Scottish universities, continues to allow teachers to meet the Standard for Headship which, from 2020, will become a mandatory prerequisite for becoming a Head Teacher. What has been described up until here has been the recent situation in Scotland which has been broadly stable and consensual. In comparison with some systems, the structure and governance of education in Scotland have not been highly contested. However, this stability is now questionable.

11.4  Closing the Gap Scotland has an attainment gap between pupils from affluent and poorer backgrounds. It has also slipped slightly in recent PISA rankings, on which politicians set such store. It has concerns about literacy and numeracy – yet exam results are improving and the percentage of pupils leaving school for positive destinations – further study/employment – is at a record high. But there is an attainment gap and politicians have vowed to address it. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon, has staked her political reputation on her wish to ‘close that attainment gap completely.’ In a 2015 speech, she stated, “Let me be clear – I want to be judged on this. If you are not, as First Minister, prepared to put your neck on the line on the education of our young people then what are you prepared to.” (Scotsman 2015). There is no doubting the sincerity of this message but the scale of the challenge is large in some areas of post-industrial Scotland with poverty, poor health, alcohol abuse, drug taking and violence as well as generational unemployment.

11.5  International Influences However, the policies and approaches to educational governance from the Scottish government are not entirely home grown having been influenced by international organisations such as the OECD which has completed two reports on Scotland. The first was Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland (OECD 2007). While various

194

T. Hamilton

commentators (eg Lingard and Rawolle 2009) have qualms about the neo-liberal philosophy of the OECD and its international homogenisation of educational policy, the OECD’s first report was generally welcomed as it signalled Scotland being treated as a separate entity by the OECD. (Previously, OECD publications had looked at the UK with Scotland often referred to in a footnote.) The report was broadly positive about Scottish education, stressing that overall the system was very equitably but pointing out some specific issues of equity within schools. The OECD noted that socio-economic status mattered and was a key factor in the attainment gap that began in upper Primary and widened in Secondary. The later OECD report was, Improving Schools in Scotland: an OECD Perspective (OECD 2015). Again, the report was positive and widely welcomed but raised a number of significant issues for Scottish education. There was continuing concern about the equity gap and the mixed performance of Secondary schools was noted. A decline in PISA performance, particularly in Maths, was highlighted. Various points were made about schools and leadership with the quality of implementation of national policies being judged as mixed. Teacher and school collaborative practices which had the greatest impact on student learning needed to be given greater focus. There needed to be greater leadership in and from the ‘middle’, contributing to system leadership, governance and enhanced decision making. Performance gaps between different LAs were noted. Chapter 3 focused on decision making and governance arrangements for Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence, but its points also had general system level relevance. The authors said: Contemporary governance can be seen to work around two organisational principles that are not straightforward to combine. First, a vertical ladder, from the minister downwards runs a hierarchy on which all can be placed; vertical accountability is similarly hierarchical… Second, there is the horizontal logic involving networks and many different stakeholders in relationships without given positions of authority, in which accountability is about providing insight into educational processes, decision-making, implementation, and results. The horizontal may lack the clarity of vertical hierarchy but it is indispensable in a world of knowledge, connection and complexity (p97).

Later, they commented on the role of the Local Authorities: We have also been struck by the fact of the formal power of the local authorities at the heart of the Scottish system – all the provision relevant to this review is the responsibility of local authorities… and yet they do not feature as prominently as we had expected in system documents and governance arrangements. Their representative voices are apparent in national bodies, through COSLA and ADES but as one among several. There strikes us to be a mismatch between formal responsibilities and system leadership (p101).

Comment is then made about the need to address mixed performance across LAs. The authors claim that networks are ‘flourishing in Scotland’ (p108) and that this will lead to the sharing of knowledge, policies and practices but they then use a very interesting piece of phraseology regarding the LAs: So long as the local authorities are the main providers, our recommendations would recognise them as the engine room of innovation and reform together with schools and local communities, within the main guidelines set by government leadership (p109).

11  Scotland: The Scottish School System

195

11.6  SNP Policies for Local Authorities and Education The question implied by ‘So long as’ is significant and fits in with ideas which were at the heart of the SNP government’s thinking on education as it approached the 2016 Scottish parliamentary election. The party’s Manifesto and its associated document, Next Steps to a Better Scotland (Scottish National Party 2016) gave various pledges on education: We will give more power and resources direct to schools, to put teachers, parents and communities in the driving seat of school improvement… with more money allocated direct to headteachers (Manifesto p8). We will give headteachers, parents and communities more responsibilities for schools in their areas, allowing them to take decisions within a strong national policy and inspection framework, and encourage them to work together in clusters…(Manifesto p16). The local community – especially parents and teachers – should be key decision makers in the life of a school… We will ensure strong national standards but also empower local schools. We will extend to individual schools responsibilities that currently sit solely with local authorities, allocate more resources directly to headteachers and enable them to take decisions based on local circumstances. We will encourage school clusters and create new educational regions to decentralise management and support (Next Steps p9).

There was no overt statement that the SNP planned to take away complete responsibility for education from LAs but the direction of travel regarding LAs was clear, to ‘create new educational regions’. It could be argued that this was part of a centralising governance agenda the SNP had being pursuing in various areas of public service such as fire services and policing. Further support for the centralisation argument is provided by the changes the SNP made in Scottish Further Education, an example of how policy and governance are influenced by political philosophy. O’Donnell et al. (2015) outline the Scottish college system since the early 1990s then analyse recent SNP introduced changes. In the early 1990s all Scotland’s colleges were removed from LA control and given autonomy. This was in line with a neo-liberal belief in free markets and competition – so each college became a separate fiefdom. Competition and new-managerialism were strongly found in the colleges and disparities appeared in areas such as salaries. Each college had a Board, charged with ensuring good governance and appropriate financial management. However, various colleges ran into difficulties including one which had to repay several million Euros to the European Union and had staff members accused of corruption. The Scottish Government instituted a review and in 2012 published a critical report (Scottish Government 2012) which led to substantial changes with ‘regionalisation’ and numerous college mergers. Thirteen regions, each with a Board, were formed and 37 colleges in 2012 reduced to 20 by 2015.

196

T. Hamilton

O’Donnell et al. (2015) comment that these changes have helped ‘create a more manageable and more responsive sector’ (p67), which, along with financial imperatives, is at the heart of the centralisation argument. They also discuss the influence of organisations such as the OECD on education and national governance. This is a common analytical theme in much of the governance literature and features in various papers by Sellar and Lingard (eg Sellar and Lingard 2013, 2014). In the 2014 paper they discuss the OECD’s use of ‘soft power’, ie influence, as it has few formal policy levers. It therefore uses different forms of influence, the most significant being ‘epistemic’ (p919). Stone (2017) makes similar points suggesting there is a soft transfer of ideas through ‘epistemic communities’ (p62). However, Sellar and Lingard (2013), recognise that while the OECD gives similar advice to different systems, it is necessary for nations to take that advice and put it into ‘vernacularised’ policy (p723), building professional trust. Stone (2013) writes of a ‘global agora’ in which organisations and elites such as the OECD and the European Commission (EC) make the running on developing educational policies but suggests that countries then need to adapt such policies for their particularities. Illustrating Stone’s global agora, a European Commission (2017) report on educational governance suggests very similar ideas to the OECD and stresses the need for policy makers to encourage the early involvement of stakeholders to build trust. Whether the Scottish government is managing to vernacularise the OECD’s message or build trust in its current reforms is questionable.

11.7  The Scottish Government Pushing Forward Forde and Torrance (2018) suggest that previously Scottish policy developments were taken forward in partnership, trying to build consensus but that the 2015 OECD report, ‘marked the point at which a different and more direct political approach to change and improvement was signalled’ (p22). Niemann et al. (2017) suggest OECD influence can be used by governments to push through radical or unpalatable educational policy change. This is clearly relevant when considering the Scottish government’s strategy, but the 2015 OECD report may simply have fitted in with government impatience that the education system was not progressing quickly enough. Forde and Torrance (2018) emphasise that the government’s proposed reforms are ‘not about a radical process of decentralisation and disaggregation of power to non-state players,’ and that, ‘there is an enduring commitment to public education as part of the wider Scottish democratic tradition’ (p26). They agree with Hudson (2007) that some educational changes are not about the state giving up on education but rather seeking different ways to regulate it. This certainly seems to be the Scottish picture where the government is now trying to change educational governance.

11  Scotland: The Scottish School System

197

A well-funded Scottish Attainment Challenge has been set up with the aim of improving literacy, numeracy, health and wellbeing by providing specific funding to the nine LAs with the highest deprivation. This was followed by a Pupil Equity Fund (PEF) to provide extra finance in every LA to support pupils eligible for free school meals, a proxy for deprivation. (PEF funding has been provided to 95% of all Scottish State schools going directly to the schools, bypassing the LAs.) This financial provision along with copious advice from ES is a direct attempt to improve the results of pupils suffering the effects of deprivation. However, its success is still to be seen. Emphasising the importance of education, John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister (DFM) also has the remit as Cabinet Secretary for Education and the government has introduced a further string of initiatives to support schools in delivering excellence and equity. Following the 2015 OECD report, early in 2016 the Scottish Government published a National Improvement Framework (Scottish Government 2016a) and then in June a report Delivering Excellence and Equity in Scottish Education: a Delivery Plan for Scotland (Scottish Government 2016b). This was followed in December 2016 by the 2017 National Improvement Framework and Improvement Plan for Scottish Education (Scottish Government 2016c). Also during 2016 the Government appointed an International Council of Education Advisers (ICEA) which was to have oversight of the steps being taken and offer an international perspective. (The ICEA had an overlap with the OECD review team, giving weight to the contention of an international elite influencing policy in many countries. Sellar and Lingard (2014), Stone (2013)). This was a plethora of initiatives but at their heart was a desire to focus on improvement, boosting educational leadership and teacher professionalism, monitoring children’s progress and gaining system-wide data. Greater parental engagement was also encouraged. The flood of initiatives continued in 2017. June brought Empowering our Teachers, Parents and Communities to Deliver Excellence and Equity for our Children (Scottish Government 2017b) outlining proposals to move to a school and teacher-led education system. Head Teachers were to be given greater power and autonomy. Regional Improvement Collaboratives (RICs) were to be formed, seemingly taking away parts of the LA role. (Not surprisingly COSLA was unhappy at what it identified as an undermining of the LA role and a reduction in local democracy.) Education Scotland was to be expanded by incorporating SCEL and taking on wider responsibility for professional development. In November 2017 Empowering Schools: A Consultation on the Provisions of the Education (Scotland) Bill (Scottish Government 2017c), was published setting out details of the Government’s legislative proposals to implement these changes. It included details of a ‘Headteachers’ Charter’ which would set out their rights and responsibilities, empowering them as leaders of learning and teaching in their schools. In line with parental views, the consultation suggested a greater role for parents in  local schools and nationally. The outcomes of the consultation were

198

T. Hamilton

s­ubsequently published in April 2018 (Scottish Government and Why Research 2018) and will be returned to below. However, while the consultation was underway, changes had begun. Also in November 2017, the membership of a Scottish Education Council was announced. It was to oversee the reforms and be chaired by the DFM. Its membership included names identified as Regional Improvement Collaborative Leads. (The idea of RICs was, of course, one of the issues being considered within the consultation!) The outcomes from the consultation were interesting  – but posed significant challenges to the government. According to the planned timetable, an Education Bill was to be placed before Parliament in session 2017/18. However, 3 days before the end of the session the Bill was published but not put before Parliament and a radically different approach announced by the Scottish Government – see below. The consultation gained an impressive 870 responses, from both organisations and individuals. (https://consult.gov.scot/learning-directorate/education-scotlandbill/ accessed 25.6.18.) This suggests considerable interest in the topic but while there was general support for the principles, there was no clear consensus on many of the proposals. There was general agreement that collaboration should be at the heart of developments but many queried why legislation was needed. There were concerns (particularly from LAs) about the RICs. What would be their role and relationship with the LAs and schools? Their governance, reporting and accountability structures? How were they to be staffed? Where would legal responsibility for various matters lie? There were concerns about the Headteachers’ Charter setting in legislation the roles and responsibilities of Heads. There were concerns about schools already becoming too divergent and not being consistent in what was being offered to pupils in terms of subject choice, even the number of subjects. There was support, particularly from parents, for greater parental involvement but an acknowledgement of there being significant numbers of parents with whom it was difficult to engage.

11.8  Complexity and Dealing with It – Or Not This clearly was a complex set of issues, but the government should have been prepared for that complexity as it is a common theme in educational governance research and central to much OECD advice. Indeed, the Scottish Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee had a presentation from an OECD staff member in November 2017 when a Senior Analyst provided a paper for members (Burns 2017) based on the OECD publication Governing Education in a Complex World (Burns and Koster 2016). She reported to the committee that effective governance depended on five key elements: • A focus on processes not just structures. • Flexibility and adaptability to change and unexpected events.

11  Scotland: The Scottish School System

199

• Capacity building, stakeholder involvement and open dialogue. • A whole-system approach, aligning roles and balancing tensions. • Harnessing evidence and research to inform policy and reform. She stressed getting governance right was not just a matter of deciding the right number of levels within a system. The committee was told that the OECD regularly gave advice on the need to increase levels of local autonomy and that expectations of a straightforward linear system with policy being developed at national level and then being handed down would no longer suffice. Participatory governance which aimed to improve the sharing of policy development, ownership, accountability and transparency was needed. Governments needed to accept that a greater and more complex variety of actors would be involved, some of them difficult-to-reach. Some of the actors would need support in capacity building which was worth investing in as it enhanced the likelihood of co-creation, in turn increasing the chances of success. She cautioned that, in an increasingly fast-paced world, there was a tendency to expect instant results and that, while the generation of data as evidence was needed, there was a danger of getting lost in the data because of over-complexity. Much of this seems good advice for a government which is perceived by some to be impatient and might actual hanker for a command and control education system with seemingly quick results. It is also worth noting that Chapman (2004) warned that such command and control mechanisms are likely to fail in complex systems such as education. He cautioned wariness towards evidence-based approaches which may well be context specific and dependent. He further advised that the various actors in complex systems have the ability to adapt and a degree of self-interest in maintaining positions and power, a message that the SNP government might well have heeded better when it stated its intention to ‘create new educational regions to decentralise management and support for schools’, a direct threat to the LAs and COSLA. It should hardly have been a surprise that they were then critical and came out fighting, leading to the compromise of messy and seemingly ill-thought-out Regional Improvement Collaboratives. Scotland has a population of only 5.3 million but, even so, the complexity of its systems should be noted. Osborne (2006, 2010) has written about the complexity of systems providing public services and of moves from the traditional model of Public Administration and Management (PAM) through New Public Management (NPM) to what he terms, New Public Governance (NPG). PAM was typified by the central role of politicians and their associated bureaucracy in policy making and its implementation with the professionals having a hegemonic role in policy delivery. NPM was typified by a belief in entrepreneurial leadership within public service and a commitment to the use of markets. NPG, on the other hand, recognises the complexity of the state, with multiple, inter-dependent actors contributing to the delivery of public services. It centres on inter-organisational relationships and has a focus on effectiveness and outcomes. Trust between organisations matters. Overall policy making may still be at a national level, but there is an expectation of co-creation through the involvement of service users in its design which may be why the Scottish

200

T. Hamilton

government has recently issued such a plethora of educational governance documents and consultations. However, what happens if those consulted do not give the ‘correct’ responses? Does modification of the proposals happen or is the consultation simply contrived with the policy already decided? The case of the RICs beginning their work before the completion of a consultation suggests the latter  – but the reality of minority government also influences the big picture. Ward et al. (2016) suggest that policies rarely arrive fully formed and that policy making is often a form of extemporisation. Comment is also made on the important role of Heads in the enactment of policy, interpreting and translating it for staff. However, Ward et al. additionally note the power of governments to set the agenda and direct developments. Ball et al. (2012) indicate that policy enactment is not a straightforward or entirely rational process (p141) but they also argue that resistance to new policies is often fleeting, unless coordinated at a political or union level (p138). To the last point could also be added the challenge of minority government policy making, an entirely relevant matter for the development of the SNP’s proposed Education Bill. Returning to the building up of trust, Voorberg et al. (2015) have explored the ideas, benefits and difficulties of co-creation and co-production, with ‘end-users’ becoming involved in policy development and delivery. There are challenges in involving parents including the attitudes of politicians and public officials such as education professionals. Voorberg et  al. suggest that public officials may be sceptical and risk-adverse. Parents however need to be willing to take part and trust their contribution to the initiative will be taken seriously. So, while the NPFS may advocate greater parental involvement in education is there really the appetite for this from the generality of parents? Scotland does not have the English tradition of School Governors and even there, where the government has ideologically poured money into the creation of Free Schools, parents have not stepped forward to grasp this ‘opportunity’ as keenly as expected (Garry et al. 2018). Returning to New Public Governance, one of the significant changes which has happened with the Scottish education system in recent years is the sheer number and variety of organisations involved. The fact that the Scottish government’s recent consultation received responses from 300+ organisations is remarkable, as is their range. As well as the various official government, local government, parental bodies, unions, agencies, non-departmental public bodies and independent bodies, there are also numerous other organisations involving themselves in state education. There are various longstanding charitable foundations which operate and try to influence the Scottish educational sphere such as the Gordon Cook Foundation (health education, values and professional ethics). Others operating in a similar space, stem from what Ball (2012) calls ‘policy entrepreneurs’. This is illustrated by the recently launched Education Fellowship Scotland which has a CEO who is Scottish and Scottish educated but has come through the Teach First stable in England.

11  Scotland: The Scottish School System

201

There are organisations endeavouring to play their part within the New Public Governance model by supporting professional and public involvement in policy development and delivery. For example, What Works Scotland is a joint venture between Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities to support public services in Scotland. Other organisations are overtly trying to influence policy and governance mechanisms. One such is Reform Scotland. It bills itself as an ‘independent think tank’ but has organised a Commission on School Reform chaired by someone whose career has transitioned from union activist to rightwing policy advocate. Other organisations which have been active are even more overtly political. The Schools’ Educational Trust (SET) was launched in a blaze of publicity in November 2017 with its mission being to start a network of low-cost private schools in Scotland. One of those involved was James Tooley, well known for such schemes elsewhere and specifically identified by Ball (2012) as a policy entrepreneur. SET’s Director was also the Director of the Hometown Education Learning Partnership (HELP). HELP’s main priority was to encourage parents to form state-funded autonomous schools, in other words to take schools out of LA control. Neither initiative has come to anything. One final organisation to consider, illustrating international linkages, is Character Scotland, a charity formed to promote the development of character education. It is worth noting that one of its largest funders was the USA based, John Templeton Foundation which granted it $1.4 million (https://www.templeton.org/grants/grantdatabase accessed 16.6.18). The Templeton Foundation, through its Templeton Religious Trust, funds the Templeton Freedom Awards given annually by the Atlas Network, a think tank dedicated to encouraging the growth of other think tanks across the world to promote free-market policies. Ball (2012) devotes much of a chapter to an analysis of Atlas and its Liberty Networks.

11.9  Data and Testing One aspect of contemporary models of governance which has only been touched on above is the generation and use of data. Of particular significance in this area is the Scottish government’s introduction of a system of national literacy and numeracy standardised assessments, to be used at various stages of Primary and Secondary education. Scotland had such a system last century, introduced by a UK Conservative government. The tests were unpopular and controversial and were abolished in 2003. However, the SNP, in 2015, proposed introducing a new testing system. Its rationale was that information on the overall performance of the education system would be better measured, particularly to judge advances in literacy and numeracy levels. Almost all LAs were using standardised assessments but they were using different tests, and none specifically designed for Scotland, therefore a new nationwide system should be developed. The proposal also referenced Synergies for Better

202

T. Hamilton

Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD (2013). This proposal predated the OECD (2015) report on Scotland and indeed in it the OECD passed various comments on the proposal. There was OECD support for developing ‘metrics’ and a need identified to develop a better evidence-base, but the team also warned against the well-known negative effects of high-stakes testing. The government pressed ahead with the development. It has regularly tried to reassure parents that the testing would not be negative for children and it has regularly tried to reassure teachers that the results would not be used in a judgmental way. These reassurances have carried little weight and there have been equally regular calls for the tests to be scrapped. Teacher concerns have shown awareness of how test-generated data might be used as part of quality assurance and accountability processes. Such matters have been of significance in how other education systems have been governed and have been commented on in the academic literature. For example, regarding the English education system, Page (2017) has written about the different forms of ‘surveillance’ under which teachers operate. Courtney (2016) argues that education in England, particularly its school inspection system, has now moved to a post-­ panopticon phase where the purpose of inspection is not just to ensure compliance but is primarily to expose incompetence.

11.10  Further Lessons from Elsewhere As has been stressed above, Scotland is not England but, as the First Minister has said, there may be lessons to be learned. The Scottish curriculum has previously been influenced by Queensland and perhaps there are also now lessons from the way Queensland is organising and governing its schools. Keddie et  al. (2017) discuss the pluses and minuses of the new Independent Public School (IPS) status available there which gives selected schools greater freedom and resourcing from central government to manage their own affairs. Keddie et all argue that with greater autonomy the schools have to accept ‘responsibilisation’, ie they have to bear the consequences if things go wrong. They are encouraged to form collaborative partnerships and be entrepreneurial, but they are also subject to intense public scrutiny through the State testing regime. They have to maintain their excellent status or lose reputation. Keddie et al. suggest that, while there may be an expectation of collaborative partnerships being supportive of neighbouring schools, the reality may be a loss of socially oriented goals and competition rather than collaboration. There is warning in this for Scotland – but as well as competition there are also dangers of cronyism and corruption. The proposed Headteachers’ Charter intends to give Heads control over who they employ. This, it is claimed, increases flexibility and ensures that there is a good

11  Scotland: The Scottish School System

203

fit between the staff team and the mission of the school – but lessons from elsewhere suggest there are also dangers. The Council of Europe’s Ethics, Transparency Integrity in Education (ETINED) Platform (https://www.coe.int/en/web/ethicstransparency-integrity-in-education/home?desktop=true) contains various warnings about the dangers of senior education staff hiring family members or close friends and again England provides a stark warning with the story of the Head who employment of her twin sister, initially as a part-time clerical assistant, but ultimately as Assistant Head (Guardian 2011). Overt corruption is possible in schools, but it is more likely that any wrongdoing will be related to assessment, particularly in high accountability cultures. For example, both Martin (2013) and Page (2016), have such concerns and fear that what Martin calls ‘politicised educational reforms’ (p191) can negatively affect professional ethics. Page (2016) notes worries about the effect of performativity with test results, visible targets and school league tables all running the risk of increasing ‘assessment fiddling’ (p5). Indeed, he suggests that such practices may just be seen as tactics rather than actual wrongdoing!

11.11  Conclusion The end of the 2017/18 Parliamentary session brought changes to the SNP’s approach to reforming educational governance. On one day there was: • a report published from the International Council of Education Advisers (ICEA 2018), • a statement made to Parliament by the DFM, • the Education Bill published – but not presented to Parliament. The ICEA report was supportive but raised concerns. It recognised the paradox of suggesting flexibility but worried over excessive variation. It supported the ambition of Scottish education but stressed it must not lose its core values or simply adopt international approaches. It warned too many mandated reforms might lessen trust while too much individualism in the system might lead to marketisation. This paradox is now central to Scottish educational governance reform. There is genuine commitment to improving educational outcomes but a danger of fundamentally undermining the country’s educational values. The policy-making rhetoric is about excellence and equity but there are dangers of fragmentation, competition and increased inequity. There is a danger of seemingly gaining increased autonomy at school level but actually losing it through testing, surveillance and responsibilisation. The theory (and rhetoric) of New Public Governance is clear but actually putting it into practice complex and messy. The DFM stressed the positive pace of development but acknowledged questions about the necessity for legislation. He said that through collaboration, the empowerment of head teachers and schools would be fast-tracked. He underlined the importance of the RICs and lauded how national and local government were cooperating.

204

T. Hamilton

Partnership involving COSLA, ADES and ES would be central. He emphasised how the proposed Charter would encourage Heads to work collaboratively with parents and communities to address ‘substantive matters of school policy and improvement… based on the principle of co-production.’ (Statement to Parliament, 26.6.18 https://news.gov.scot/speeches-and-briefings/scotlands-education-reforms) He stressed the need for development ‘at pace’ and warned that insufficient progress in the next year would lead to legislation. This was the politics of minority government at their most naked. The proposed legislation had been criticised by others including the education unions, COSLA and three political parties. Could the legislation have got through Parliament? Possibly, but only with the support of the Conservatives, the seemingly ideological opposite of the supposedly left-of-centre SNP – but on the same page regarding educational reforms. Such support would have damaged the SNP’s political credibility. Opposition parties and the press had a field day with the climbdown with one paper suggesting, ‘Swinney had the air of a funeral director…’ (Herald 2018). So, in a year where will Scottish education stand? Progress will have been made but will the attainment gap have been eliminated? Unlikely. What is likely is that discussions, debates and struggles over educational governance will be continuing, in Scotland – and internationally.

References Arnott, M. (2016). Governing strategies and education policy: The SNP in government, 2007– 2016. Scottish Affairs, 25(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2016.0110. Arnott, M. A. (2017). “Jigsaw puzzle” of education policy? Nation, state and globalised policy making. Scottish Educational Review, 49(2), 3–11. Arnott, M., & Ozga, J. (2016). Education and nationalism in Scotland: Governing a ‘learning nation’. Oxford Review of Education, 42(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.201 6.1184865. Ball, S.  J. (2012). Global education INC new policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Abingdon: Routledge. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, B. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Abingdon: Routledge. Burns, T., & Koester, F. (Eds.). (2016). Governing education in a complex world. Paris: OECD. Burns, T. (2017). Smarter education governance. Paper for the Education and Skills Committee at the Scottish Parliament (29 November, 2017) Retrieved June 15, 2018, from: http://www. parliament.scot/S5_Education/Inquiries/20171123IN.OECD_Reforms.pdf Chapman, J. (2004). System failure why governments must learn to think differently. London: DEMOS. Courtney, S.  J. (2016). Post-panopticism and school inspection in England. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(4), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.965806. European Commission. (2017). Study on governance and management policies in school education systems Final Report. Brussels: European Commission. Forde, C., & Torrance, D. (2018). Educational leadership, improvement and nation building. Educational Leadership and Administration in the United Kingdom: A Comparative Review

11  Scotland: The Scottish School System

205

Commissioned Keynote Jurisdictional Paper. Available at: https://www.belmas.org.uk/ Scotland%2D%2D-Document-Library Garry, J., Rush, C., Hillary, J., Cullinane, C., & Montacute, R. (2018). Free for all? Analysing free schools in England. Slough/London: NFER and The Sutton Trust. Guardian. (2011, February 10). The Guardian. Former super-head is the first to have her damehood revoked. Retrieved June 15, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/feb/10/ super-head-damehood-revoked Grek, S. (2011). Interviewing the education policy elite in Scotland: A changing picture? European Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2011.10.2.233. Herald. (2018, June 27). Herald. Swinney had the air of a funeral director performing the last rites. Retrieved June 27, 2018, from http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16315811. swinney-had-the-air-of-a-funeral-director/ Hudson, C. (2007). Governing the governance of education: The state strikes back? European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.266. International Council of Education Advisers. (2018). International council of education advisers report 2016–18. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Keddie, A., Gobby, B., & Wilkins, C. (2017). School autonomy reform in Queensland: Governance, freedom and the entrepreneurial leader. School Leadership & Management. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13632434.2017.1411901. Lingard, B., & Rawolle, S. (2009). Understanding quality and equity of schooling in Scotland: Locating educational traditions globally. Education in the North, 1(17), 1–17. Martin, C. (2013). On the educational value of philosophical ethics for teacher education: The practice of ethical inquiry as liberal education. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(2), 189–209. https:// doi.org/10.1111/curi.12010. National Parent Forum of Scotland. (2017). Review of the impact of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Niemann, D., Martens, K., & Teltemann, J. (2017). PISA and its consequences: Shaping education policies through international comparisons. European Journal of Education, 52, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12220. O’Donnell, P., Murphy, M., & Norman, C. (2015). The Reinvigoration of Scottish Further Education Sector: An exploration and analysis of the recent reforms. Scottish Educational Review, 47(2), 59–77. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022. Osborne, S.  P. (2010). Delivering public services: Time for a new theory? Public Management Review, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030903495232. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). Quality and equity of schooling in Scotland. Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Improving schools in Scotland: An OECD perspective. Paris: OECD. Ozga, J. (2018). Governing education: Knowledge, networks and narratives. Educational Leadership and Administration in the United Kingdom: A Comparative Review Commissioned Keynote Conceptual Paper. Available at: https://www.belmas.org.uk/ Scotland%2D%2D-Document-Library Page, D. (2016). The multiple impacts of teacher misbehaviour. Journal of Educational Administration., 54(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0106. Page, D. (2017). Conceptualising the surveillance of teachers. British Journal of Sociology of Education., 38(7), 991–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1218752. Scotsman. (2015, August 18). The Scotsman. Nicola Sturgeon: Judge Me on My Education Record. Retrieved June 15, 2018, from https://www.scotsman.com/news/education/ nicola-sturgeon-judge-me-on-education-record-1-3861506

206

T. Hamilton

Scottish Government. (2006). Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. (2012). Report of the review of further education governance in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. (2016a). National improvement framework. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. (2016b). Delivering excellence and equity in Scottish education: A delivery plan for Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. (2016c). 2017 national improvement framework and improvement plan for Scottish education. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. (2017a). School education statistics. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. (2017b). Empowering our teachers, parents and communities to deliver excellence and equity for our children. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. (2017c). Empowering schools: A consultation on the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Bill. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government and Why Research. (2018). Analysis of responses to empowering schools a consultation on the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Bill. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish National Party. (2016). Manifesto and the next steps to a better Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish National Party. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). The OECD and global governance in education. Journal of Education Policy., 28(5), 710–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.779791. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2014). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 917–936. https://doi. org/10.1002/berj.3120. Stone, D. (2013). Knowledge actors and transnational governance: The private-public policy nexus in the global agora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Stone, D. (2017). Understanding the transfer of policy failure: Bricolage, experimentalism and translation. Policy & Politics, 45(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14748914098041. Sturgeon, N. (2015, February 8). Scotland on Sunday. Open-minded on improving schools. Retrieved June 15, 2018, from https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/ nicola-sturgeon-open-minded-on-improving-schools-1-3683735 Voorberg, W.  H., Bekkers, V.  J. J.  M., & Tummers, L.  G. (2015). A systematic review of co-­ creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505. Ward, S. C., Bagley, C., Lumby, J., Hamilton, T., Woods, P., & Roberts, A. (2016). What is ‘policy’ and what is ‘policy response’? An illustrative study of the implementation of the leadership standards for social justice in Scotland. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558580.

Part III

The North American States – Canada and the US

Chapter 12

Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta Charles F. Webber and Jodi Nickel

Abstract  The province of Alberta, Canada, is regarded as having a strong education system that serves a highly diverse student population well. This report regarding Alberta’s education system begins with a comparison of competing perspectives on the current condition of education and school improvement and then summarizes Murphy’s (J Edu Adm 51:252–263, 2013) framework for school improvement. After presenting the organizational framework in Alberta and the drivers that have shaped educational change in the province, the report applies Murphy’s architectural framework to summarize the building materials, construction principles, supports, and integrative dynamic in Alberta. The report concludes with a summary of key strengths and challenges in Alberta’s education system. Admittedly, the system still wrestles with meeting the needs of diverse learners and with contentious issues such as some opposition to standardized testing and legislation on gay-straight alliances. However, the education system boasts many strengths including high quality teaching, positive relationships among the province’s educational stakeholders, strong community connections, and a well-­ designed program of studies renewed on an ongoing basis. The system also is based on a clear set of values and on public and alternative organizational structures for reorientation in response to constantly changing economic, demographic, cultural, and pedagogical influences.

Parts of this report are drawn from Webber, C.F. & Nickel, J. (2018). The Alberta, Canada, School System. Report to O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig (Eds), Educational Authorities Inquiry. Stockholm, SE: Swedish Commission C. F. Webber (*) Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] J. Nickel Department of Education, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_12

209

210

C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

12.1  Perceptions of Success The Canadian province of Alberta has an education system that is highly regarded. Media reports regularly describe it as one of the top education systems in the world (Conference Board of Canada 2014; Dehaas 2011; Staples 2016). A recent British Broadcasting Corporation report (Coughlan 2017) titled “How Canada became an education superpower” noted that if Alberta were a separate country it would be one of the five highest achieving nations in the world. It is worth noting that the BBC report offered a thoughtful description of the factors that impact student learning in Alberta and the rest of Canada, including the high percentage of migrant students who, within 3 years of arriving, perform as well as domestic students. Also, the BBC report observed that variation in how Alberta and Canadian students perform due to socioeconomic differences is small, only 9% compared to 17% and 20% in other countries. It is reasonable to query the measures used to make claims such as this, typically the results on international examinations such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) (OECD 2018). Standardized examinations such as PISA provide one perspective but a valuable one in terms of understanding how students in Alberta are achieving relative to students in other countries. The following report will offer, first, an analysis of competing perspectives on school success, followed by a description of the school improvement framework used to analyze the case of education in Alberta, Canada. Then, an organizational overview of education in Alberta will be presented in conjunction with a summary of the drivers of educational change in Alberta. Subsequently, the architecture of school improvement in Alberta will be shared using Murphy’s (2013) framework for considering school improvement. Finally, a summary and set of future directions will be offered.

12.2  C  ompeting Perspectives of the Current Condition of Education Current research relating to school and school system improvement reflects a range of conceptual frameworks. On the one hand, there are writers such as Fullan (2006), Hardy and Melville (2018) and Murphy (2013) who aim to build capacity in teachers and leaders to create a more equitable and pedagogically sound education system. On the other hand, critics such as Ball (2015) and Giroux (2005) argue that education systems too often alienate educators and students alike. While acknowledging the cautions implicit in the arguments of the latter camp, we argue that a moderate position, specifically adopting Murphy’s framework, can help to illuminate what is both ethical and effective in the Alberta Education system. Fullan (2006) described the value of systems thinkers, leaders who concurrently contribute at the school or district level while participating in development of other

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta

211

leaders. More recently, he noted the challenges associated with whole system improvement. He described how impediments to system reform, such as punitive accountability and fragmented policies, can inhibit system growth and sustainability, while other strategies—capacity building, collaboration, pedagogical focus, and systemic policies—are more likely to facilitate ongoing improvement (Fullan 2016). Fullan (2005) has continued his longstanding call for both accountability and capacity building. Hardy and Melville (2018) argued for the importance of district-level educators. Their claim is consistent with research by Coleman and LaRocque (1988, 1990) that found that school district ethos, plus the reach and focus of superintendents’ work, can have a positive impact on student achievement. Hardy and Melville (2018) argued that contextualized individual and collective professional learning at the district level contributes to policy enactment that is locally coherent. Professional learning at the district level that is locally coherent is likely to achieve buy-in amongst educators who see themselves growing professionally. Hajisoteriou et al. (2018) highlighted the impact of “intensified migration, globalization, and super cultural diversity” (p. 95) on school improvement. They argued that educators are unlikely to improve conditions for learning without attending to cultural multiplicity and transnationalism, confronting social inequalities, and fostering intercultural competence (Hajisoteriou et al. 2018). Ball (2015) is one educational critic who expressed concern that educational reforms have the potential to reduce the sense of meaning that educators derive from their work. Ball referenced neoliberal educational policies that contribute to a “particular configuration of the relationship between truth and power and the self” (Ball 2015, p. 308). Others (e.g., Giroux 2005; McMaster 2013; Portelli and Konecny 2013; Wrigley 2013) drew from what appears to be a neo-Marxist political perspective. Giroux (2005), for example, used particularly extreme language: Under neoliberalism everything either is for sale or is plundered for profit…[P]ublic services are gutted in order to lower the taxes of major corporations; schools more closely resemble either malls or jails, and teachers, forced to get revenue for their school by adopting market values, increasingly function as circus barkers hawking everything from hamburgers to pizza parties—that is, when they are not reduced to prepping students to take standardized tests. (Giroux 2005, p. 2)

While Giroux’s comments suggest that neoliberalism is the cause of social inequality, educational malaise, and social disintegration, other analysts countered such claims. For instance, Pinker (2011) reported that international rates of violence have dropped dramatically due to greater reliance on reason, increased literacy, and improved communication. Further, literacy rates around the world continue to rise (UNESCO 2017; UNICEF 2018) and international longevity rates continue to increase (Kirkwood 2016; Michaud et al. 2009). Canadian PISA results show better than average OECD equity scores for students from diverse social backgrounds and immigrant students (OECD 2018). Clearly, there are diverse views on the state of education around the world. The authors of this paper recognize the value of critical analyses of schooling while

212

C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

electing to consider the case of the education system in Alberta, Canada by utilizing what is known about school improvement and school effectiveness, two closely related areas of research and practice that are supported by several decades of research.

12.3  A School Improvement Framework One critique of school effectiveness and school improvement suggested that they obstruct careful consideration of meaningful pedagogical change, focusing upon quick fixes more than critical debate about the purpose of education (Wrigley 2013). However, Wrigley’s (2013) assertions that the paradigms are based on faulty assumptions of causality and inadequate recognition of the interactions and influences of home on school, and vice versa, highlight only the basic limitations and cautions associated with interpreting virtually all research. Further, his suggestion that school effectiveness and school improvement reflect an absence of values and a focus simply on what works is clearly a problematic claim of almost moral turpitude among the multitude of international researchers working in the two closely related fields over several decades, a claim that the authors of this paper reject. Rather, the analysis of education in Alberta, Canada, that follows will utilize Murphy’s (2013) summary of the evolution of the context and the structure of school effectiveness and school improvement. Murphy (2013) noted how school improvement has been impacted by the shift in focus from teaching to learning in a post-­ industrial era, and the emergence of new forms of school organization that reflect more decentralized and more professionally controlled systems. He described the features of a new form of school governance that includes school choice, community voice, and heightened collaboration between school and community. Murphy (2013) noted the influence on education of the emergence of a globalized economy, information technology, and social structures that differ significantly from those of the industrial era. Murphy (2013) identified the underlying basic components of school improvement as academic press—high expectations for learning and for academic achievement—and supportive communities. These two primary foci are achievable primarily through collaboration and meaningful discourse among educators, students, parents, and community members, plus attention to the following four components. First, the architecture of school improvement that Murphy (2013) provided (See Table 12.1) included the concept of “building materials” (p. 258). They are (1) quality instruction; (2) rigorous and relevant curricula; (3) personalized learning environments for students; (4) professional learning environments for educators that are characterized by collaboration and shared leadership; (5) learning-centered leadership; (6) learning-centered linkages to the broader school community, including parents, community agencies, and organizations; and (7) monitoring of progress and performance accountability.

Professional learning environment for educators    Collaborative culture of work    Participation and ownership   Shared leadership Learning-centered leadership    Forging academic press    Developing supportive culture

Personalized learning environment for students    Safe and orderly climate   Meaningful connections    Opportunities to participate

Building materials Quality instruction   Effective teachers   Quality pedagogy Curriculum   Content coverage    Time   Rigor   Relevance Province-wide mandated programs of study Authorized resources database Locally developed courses Francophone education Aboriginal studies

Education will maximize student capacity to engage successfully in the larger society Education shapes a preferred provincial, national and global future Educational achievement maintains Alberta’s standard of living Education ensures Alberta’s global competitiveness Education will be learner-centered Students will experience inclusive learning environments Diversity will be respected Learners will be welcomed, cared for, respected, and safe

Principals and superintendents are accomplished teachers School and district leaders enable school improvement and provide the integrative dynamic for learning

(continued)

Principal quality practice guidelines University graduate degree a de facto requirement

Inspiring education policy documents Special education standards School choice Guidelines for recognizing diversity and promoting respect Truth and reconciliation commission report Teachers do best when they work together to help students Professional learning communities succeed Regional consortia Professional associations

Supports Teaching quality standard University-based teacher education

Construction principlesa All Alberta students will have access to quality learning experiences

Table 12.1  Architecture of School Improvement in Alberta

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta 213

Supports School councils School boards

School and district growth plans Provincial achievement tests Diploma examinations

Construction principlesa Parents will participate in educational decisions that impact their children

Formative assessment enhances instruction and improves student learning Stakeholders are entitled to know how well students have achieved learning standards Assessment data inform decision making Accountability data identify areas needing improvement

a

Construction principles are derived from the Alberta provincial education documents cited throughout this report

Building materials Learning-centered linkages to the school community    Connections to parents    Linkages to community agencies and organizations Monitoring of progress and performance accountability   Performance-based goals    Systemic use of data   Shared accountability

Table 12.1 (continued)

214 C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta

215

A second component of the architecture of school improvement that Murphy (2013) shared was that of “construction principles” (p.  259). The first is that “Structure does not predict performance” (Murphy 2013, p. 259), which refers to the paradox that structural changes may not predict outcomes but they are necessary for school improvement to succeed. However, school improvement can occur only if goals are identified, as a result of meaningful discourse and articulation of shared values, and the necessary structures identified and created. Next, “context always matters” (Murphy 2013, p. 260). This call for local adaption reflects a plethora of previous cautions (see House 1974; Loucks-Horsley and Hergert 1985; Sarason 1990) that modification of both a change initiative and the organization where it is being implemented are necessary for successful policy enactment. Finally, “cohesion and alignment are essential” (Murphy 2013, p.  260). School improvement work is far more likely to make a positive difference if it is aligned with other elements in the school and has wide-ranging support within the school community (Schleicher 2015). A third component of the architecture of school improvement that Murphy (2013) described was that of “supports” (p.  260). Supports include tools such as human and social capital, but also organizational structures, operating systems, policies, and practices. The fourth and final component of the school improvement architecture, “the integrative dynamic” (Murphy 2013, p. 261) is that of leadership. In other words, educational leaders provide the “essential enabling element of school improvement work” (p. 260). Murphy’s (2013) architecture is based on many decades of research data garnered in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. Related descriptions of school improvement work were provided by Teddlie and Stringfield (2007) who summarized school improvement research throughout the twentieth century. Other well documented improvement programs include the Innovative Designs for Enhancing Achievements in Schools (IDEAS) developed and implemented throughout Australia (Andrews et al. 2004; Crowther 2004, 2015) and the Teacher Learning and Leadership Program (TLLP) in Ontario, Canada (Campbell et al. 2015).

12.4  The Case of Education in Alberta Education in Alberta will be considered first from an organizational perspective. Then the components of Murphy’s (2013) framework for school improvement will be used to analyze the direction and intent of policy makers and educators.

216

C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

12.4.1  Organizational Overview The Canadian education system is highly decentralized and has no federal education policy making body. Each province and territory is responsible for organizing, funding, and administering education for students in kindergarten through grade 12. Exceptions are the federal government’s responsibilities for children in military families and First Nations students (Webber and Scott 2010). Provincial educational policy is approved by the elected members of the legislative assembly, with responsibility for local policy making delegated to individual school boards, each comprised of school trustees locally elected for four-year terms (Alberta Education 2017c) and administered by a chief school superintendent and staff. Alberta has a high degree of school choice (Bosetti et al. 2017). As a result, it has a variety of school jurisdiction types: public, francophone, distance, home, and private (independent) education providers. Catholic separate schools are part of the public school system. Alberta is the sole Canadian province that provides funding for charter schools, “autonomous public schools that provide innovative or enhanced education programs designed to improve student learning” (Bosetti et al. 2017, p. 14). Funding for Alberta school districts is determined by the legislature and administered by Alberta Education, primarily on a per-pupil basis with special allocations for capital costs such as maintaining and building schools or school furniture and equipment. Although some funding is targeted, local school authorities have wide discretion in how funds are utilized (Alberta Education 2016a). Accredited private schools in Alberta receive from 50 to 70% of the per-student grant allocated to public school districts. Charter schools and private schools do not receive funding for capital expenditures. School attendance is mandatory for children from 6 to 16  years. Most school boards offer optional kindergarten programming prior to attendance in elementary schools that provide grades 1 through 6, junior high schools with grades 7 to 9, and senior high schools that offer grades 10 through 12. Variations to this structure are frequent. For example, schools that deliver kindergarten through grade 3 or 4 are found in urban centers, middle schools serving students from grades 5 through 9 are common, and kindergarten through grade 9 schools are found in rural communities and in the Catholic system. All schools must follow the government-mandated provincial curriculum, the Program of Studies (2018b). Core subjects include language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, physical education, fine arts (at the elementary level), and health/career and life management. Complementary programs include fine and performing arts (at junior and senior high school levels), career and technology studies, international and First Nations languages, as well as locally developed courses which are created to address the specific needs of a particular school district. The Guide to Education (Alberta Education 2017a) specifies instructional time for each

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta

217

subject area in kindergarten to grade 9 as well as the courses in grades 10 to 12. It also describes the courses necessary to receive an Alberta High School Diploma, Certificate of High School Achievement, or Certificate of High School Completion and the range of courses that may be offered at the senior high level. Historically, teacher education was delivered by the province’s major post-­ secondary institutions. However, the Alberta government has allowed smaller public and private colleges and universities to offer degree programs (Nickel et  al. 2015). This includes university transfer programs in which students complete the first 2 years of a degree before transferring to a Bachelor of Education program. The province also provides partial funding to private faith-based universities, several of which offer Bachelor of Education degrees. Formats for teacher education programs include four-year university Bachelor of Education degrees and two-year after-­ degree programs for students who have successfully completed previous university degrees. Five-year programs award students a Bachelor of Science or a Bachelor of Arts, for example, plus a Bachelor of Education. Educational requirements for teacher certification include a minimum of 16 years of schooling, inclusive of 4 years of university education, and a recognized degree that includes a pre-service teacher preparation program. The program must include, at minimum, 48 semester hour credits in professional teacher education course work, inclusive of a minimum of 10 weeks in supervised student teaching at the elementary or secondary level (Alberta Education 2017a, 2018e). All teacher education programs in the province exceed this minimum practicum requirement. Graduates of Alberta teacher education programs apply to Alberta Education (2017b) for certification. Their credentials are assessed and, if they meet standards for certification, they are awarded, first, an Interim Professional Certificate and, after 2 years of successful teaching, a Permanent Professional Certificate (Alberta Education 2018e). Individuals who have completed teacher education credentials in other parts of Canada or abroad similarly must apply for certification.

12.4.2  School Improvement in Alberta Romanelli and Tushman (1994) reported that organizations typically experience long convergent periods when change is incremental, followed by reorientations. These reorientations characteristically are triggered by either “sustained low performance” or “major changes in competitive, technological, social and legal conditions in the environment” (Murphy 2013, p. 253). While low performance is not a major driver in Alberta, the education system has been influenced by a shifting understanding of what it means to learn and what graduates require to thrive in the knowledge economy.

218

C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

12.5  Drivers of Change in Alberta While Alberta’s economy has historically been dependent upon rich natural resources, future citizens are certain to be challenged with resolving complex issues and managing vast amounts of information. “The creativity and innovation of its citizens will become Alberta’s ultimate renewable resources” (Alberta Education 2010, p. 11). This quote is from Inspiring Education: A Dialogue with Albertans, a document intended to set the direction for education in the province of the future. It describes a vision for graduates of 2030: those who are engaged learners, and ethical citizens with entrepreneurial spirits. It is intended that graduates must develop core competencies such as critical thinking, information management, cultural and global citizenship, personal growth and well-being, as well as literacy and numeracy skills. Langford and Josty (2015) reported that a key indicator for entrepreneurialism, TEA (total early-stage entrepreneurship), places Alberta above the national average and Canada leads among international innovation economies. The authors observed that the basics of facilitating entrepreneurial thinking—creativity and self-­ confidence—are evident in the primary and secondary education systems, as intended by Alberta Education (2010). This entrepreneurial culture is a significant driver in the Alberta education system. Education in Alberta also has been shaped by new understandings of learning. Bransford et al. (2000) tracked significant shifts in our understanding of learning – from a behaviouristic focus upon observable performances and mastery of facts to a cognitive science view of learning. Cognitive scientists recognize that learning must include not only the acquisition of facts but the organization of facts into concepts. In this view, teachers must challenge students’ existing understandings lest misconceptions persist. These notions are echoed by Gilbert (2011) who argued that executive functioning, the ability to activate the appropriate strategies according to the learning context, is one of the primary learner competencies teachers are responsible for cultivating. Erickson Lanning, and French’s (2017) work on concept-based learning has been influential in the design of the forthcoming updated Alberta Education curriculum. According to Erickson et al. (2017), a curriculum based on facts and skills is no longer effective when the quantity of information has grown exponentially and is easily accessible on the internet. In addition, cognitive science has shown that acquiring factual knowledge typically does not lead to deep understanding. International and interprovincial immigration is another significant factor influencing education in Alberta which, since 1997, has had the highest rate of population growth in Canada (Statistics Canada 2017). Further, international migratory population increase in Alberta has been well above the national average since 2011 and international immigration to the prairie provinces – Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba – is at a higher rate than in other regions of Canada. Currently, 46% of Alberta residents were born outside of the province (Statistics Canada 2017).

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta

219

Statistics Canada (2017) projects that Alberta will continue to have faster growth in population than other parts of Canada, a younger-than-average population, and increasing ethnocultural diversity. The preceding influences of economic, pedagogical, cultural, and demographic changes have contributed to a process of reorientation. Ongoing curriculum reform, clarification of teaching standards, and policy development attest to the support of provincial policy makers, educators, and community members for learners and schools, and are evidence of Murphy’s (2013) school improvement equation  – working to reorient in response to changes.

12.5.1  Architecture of School Improvement in Alberta Table 12.1 summarizes the building materials, construction principles, and supports (Murphy 2013) visible within the Alberta education system. The table is presented with full knowledge that it is possible to view it from a critical perspective that suggests it portrays a superficial belief in a simplistic cause-effect relationship among the components and the players. However, those who have engaged fully in small or large-scale improvement efforts will understand the ongoing complexities, tensions, compromises, failures, and successes associated with such work. Our understanding of education systems at local, district, and provincial or state levels is incomplete, and improvement is a continuing process that requires openness to learning, acceptance of risk, and deep commitment. Table 12.1 offers a visual portrayal of the horizontal connections through each of the building materials and its corresponding set of principles and supports. 12.5.1.1  Building Materials Murphy (2013) argued that school improvement can best be realized when we bring excellent building materials to the construction site. Our analysis will show how these building materials are manifested and supported in the Alberta education system. Quality instruction begins with effective teachers and quality pedagogy. The ten teacher education programs in Alberta provide research-based courses and strong practicum support to ensure their graduates meet the Teaching Quality Standard (Alberta Education 2018f) required for Interim Professional Certification. Once teachers enter the profession, most school boards offer induction and mentorship programs as well as principal evaluations to sustain and nurture new colleagues. The curriculum detailed in the Program of Studies is mandated by Alberta Education (2018b) including time allocations for each subject. For example, time allocations in grade 1–2 classrooms recommend that 30% of the instructional time focus on Language Arts, 15% on Mathematics, 10% on each of Science, Social

220

C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

Studies, Art/Music, and Health/Life Skills/Physical Education with 15% reserved for locally determined options such as second languages, drama, and religious education (Alberta Education 2017a). Learn Alberta (Government of Alberta 2018b) is a resource bank provided by Alberta Education to enrich teacher planning. Professional learning communities in Alberta schools create collaborative work cultures where teachers typically come together to learn. They share in the leadership of the school through the development of school growth plans and professional learning. Consistent with the research literature recommending sustained focus on specific professional development topics (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017), schools frequently participate in year-long professional development related to the school growth plan. Principals play a pivotal role in creating this professional learning environment and collaborative culture for teachers. They are expected to act in compliance with the School Leadership Standard (Alberta Education 2018a) which describes competencies related to leadership and management. In addition to being one of the building materials, principals are also the integrative dynamic in Murphy’s (2013) model upon which the entire framework depends. Alberta Education provides a variety of resources such as “grade at a glance” (Government of Alberta 2017) sheets to help parents understand the curricula their children are learning. School leaders are deliberate in their efforts to draw parents into the schools to support and celebrate the learning of their children and to partner with local community organizations. 12.5.1.2  Construction Principles The construction principles (Table 12.1) are evident throughout the provincial documents cited throughout this report, e.g., Alberta Education (2010, 2016b, 2017a, b, 2018a, b, c). They are intended to serve as anchors for provincial curricula, expectations for teachers and principals, accountability measures, governance structures, and community participation in school decision making. In toto, the principles in Table 12.1 represent a set of values that grounds educational governance, curriculum development, financial decisions, teacher education, and both short- and long-­ term system goals. For instance, the Alberta education system is predicated on a longstanding belief in the value of a civil society, a value that also is evident throughout Canada. For instance, Macfarlane (2008) described the widely accepted understanding that a Canadian civil society must include open debate, respect for diversity, religious freedom, the right to vote, and access to health care (See Webber and Scott 2010). Further, the education system in the service of a Canadian civil society is intended to be a democratizing influence (Lund 2003). As an extension of the future-oriented valuing of a civil society, schools are expected to be intercultural inclusive communities where difference is respected and celebrated. Learner-centered teaching practices are sought, as is the nurturing

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta

221

of school-based professional learning communities that support collaboration. The relatively high levels of school choice—Catholic, public, charter, independent, home, online, and more—indicate strong support for universal access to personalized learning. Legislation requires teachers to be educated in university-based professional schools where academic disciplines, curriculum theory, child development, special education, instructional practices, and more, are based on robust peer-reviewed theory and research findings. The quality of student learning is monitored at the classroom level and principals conduct regular evaluations of teachers. Provincial student assessment programs (Alberta Education 2018c; Government of Alberta 2018c) monitor overall learning, inform curriculum revisions, indicate professional development needs, and highlight staffing needs. Student Learning Assessments are administered at the grade 3 level, Provincial Achievement Tests in core subjects are administered to students in grades 6 and 9 annually, while grade 12 students must take Diploma Examinations to graduate from high school. Teaching staff and parent councils regularly engage in systematic analyses of provincial assessment results in order to compare performance to previous years and to provincial results. 12.5.1.3  Supports The strong influence of various stakeholders’ institutions and professional organizations has resulted in relatively wide support (Table 12.1) for the education system during the current period of reorientation. It is important to note that the discourse about education in Alberta has often been intense. Moreover, the educational needs of some populations within the province are not being met satisfactorily. For example, new Canadians struggle with language acquisition and cultural understandings. Too many First Nations community members continue to perceive a lack of recognition and acceptance of indigenous cultures (Truth and Conciliation Commission of Canada 2015). Support for learners with special needs is not consistent. Nonetheless, the educational organizations in Alberta and the vast majority of their representatives have maintained a system that is recognized within the province and beyond as successful. The following section briefly describes key organizations and how they engage in dialogue that contributes to the greater good of education in Alberta. Alberta Education (Government of Alberta 2018a) is the administrative arm of the governance framework. It administers the policies established by provincial legislators that regulate teacher certification, funding to school boards and schools, curriculum development, student and staff safety, and accountability mechanisms. The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) (2017) represents the province’s certificated teachers. The ATA offers professional development programming to its members, plus legal and professional advice. The association enforces a professional code of conduct. Other services address the areas of government relations, relationships with Alberta universities, and public relations. Alberta principals, assistant principals, and vice principals are members of the ATA.

222

C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

In 2015 the Alberta legislature passed the Public Education Collective Bargaining Act (Alberta Queen’s Printer 2016). The act established the Teachers’ Employer Bargaining Association (TEBA) as the bargaining agent for the Alberta government and school boards in negotiations with the ATA. The act separated central bargaining matters—ones that affect education across the province and are negotiated between TEBA and the ATA—and local matters that are negotiated by ATA locals and their school boards. Campus Alberta Quality Council (CAQC) (2017) is an arms-length agency functioning under the Alberta Post-Secondary Learning Act (Province of Alberta 2017) that provides quality assurance and recommends new university degree programs to the Minister of Advanced Education. All teacher education programs in Alberta universities must undergo periodic program reviews. The College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS) (2017) is an organization whose members are school system education leaders such as school superintendents, plus deputy and assistant superintendents. CASS was formed to provide senior education leaders with opportunities to maintain high professional standards, advocate on behalf of public education, and access ongoing professional development. Effective September 2019, Alberta’s superintendents must hold superintendent leadership certification (Alberta Education 2018d). Alberta Regional Consortia (2017) have operated since 1995 when they were established to provide professional development to educators. Currently there are seven consortia based in different parts of Alberta. Each Consortium is governed by a board of directors that represents the ATA, CASS, the Alberta School Boards Association, the Alberta School Councils Association, post-secondary institutions, and Alberta Education. The Association of Independent Schools and Colleges in Alberta (AISCA) (2017). AISCA was established in 1958 with the purpose of promoting the general welfare of students and educators in independent (private) schools. The AISCA advocates for school choice and provides professional development opportunities for teachers and principals. All public, separate, and francophone school boards in Alberta are members of the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) (2017), an organization that serves locally-elected school boards by promoting understanding of the diverse needs of the provincial education system, engaging school boards in collaborative initiatives, and promoting responsible fiscal management. Two smaller organizations that represent school boards and their individual members, called school trustees, are the Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association (ACSTA) (2017) and the Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta (PSBAA) (2017). The ACSTA represents Catholic trustees in Alberta, Northwest Territories, and Yukon by speaking on behalf of Catholic education, while the PSBAA advocates for public education that is universally accessible by all school-­ age children, i.e., not restricted by religion, ability, or family income. Every school in Alberta is required to operate a volunteer school council representing parents, teachers, secondary students, and community members. School councils serve as a liaison between school principals and school boards. The Alberta

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta

223

School Councils Association (ASCA) (2017) is an umbrella organization for school councils that offers learning opportunities to school council members. The Alberta Home Education Association (AHEA) (2017) represents parents who wish to educate their children at home, frequently because of religious beliefs and sometimes because of residence in remote communities. Home schooling is legal while under the supervision of a school board or an accredited private school. Many Albertans reside in rural and remote communities. Therefore, the Alberta Correspondence Branch was established in 1923. Subsequent names for the institution were the Alberta Correspondence School and, most recently, the Alberta Distance Learning Centre (ADLC) (2017). The ADLC continues to serve learners in rural and remote communities but it also serves others such as urban residents who wish to upgrade credentials while continuing to work, members of the military and their families, and young athletes who travel extensively. The collaboration among these many supports is a clear strength of the Alberta Education system. 12.5.1.4  The Integrative Dynamic According to Murphy (2013), “school leaders provide the dynamism to make all components of the framework function” (p 261). This statement is based on decades of significant research (Andrews et  al. 2004; Coleman and LaRocque 1990; Leithwood 2007; Teddlie and Stringfield 2007). Strong building materials informed by carefully considered construction principles and reinforced by various systemic supports still may fail to achieve school improvement goals if the school lacks a champion. School and district-based leaders play substantive roles in enacting and integrating the elements to create school improvement. As a result, educational leadership in Alberta has received a great deal of attention due largely to the high expectations and heavy responsibilities carried by principals, superintendents, and department of education personnel (Cowie et al. 2007; Webber and Robertson 2003; Webber 2013; Webber et al. 2014). First, virtually all school principals hold master’s degrees, usually in the field of educational administration and leadership but often in curriculum studies, educational technology, or special education, for example. Alberta does not have a formal requirement for principals to hold graduate degrees but it is a de facto requirement. Recently, a new leadership certification was introduced by Alberta Education and, effective September 1, 2019, all Alberta principals will be required to hold leadership certification (Alberta Education 2018a). In addition, there is a wide range of leadership development opportunities available to current and aspiring school leaders. Opportunities include non-credit in-­ service programming offered by professional organizations, regional consortia, and private consultants. Some Alberta universities offer post-graduate and graduate certificates for educational leaders who wish to access introductory courses in educational administration and leadership theory and research. The same universities also offer course-based and thesis-based master’s degrees, the degree of choice for most

224

C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

educational leaders. Increasingly, school and district leaders complete doctoral degrees offered by universities within the province but also across Canada and internationally. Educational leaders throughout Alberta collectively are well educated and, because of their graduate studies and professional activities, they are familiar with recent educational theories and research. As a result, it is common for them to organize school and district-based professional development programming that facilitates the integrative dynamic described by Murphy (2013). In addition, the College of Alberta School Superintendents organizes and delivers annual summer institutes and ongoing seminar series that attract current and aspiring educational leaders. Educational leaders in Alberta are well informed practitioners who also engage in significant research and dissemination of professional information.

12.6  Summary and Future Directions Murphy’s (2013) school improvement framework provides a useful lens for considering education in Alberta, Canada. In general, Alberta’s education policies, system structures, support initiatives, and school-based practices align with Murphy’s (2013) description of the widespread shift from teaching to learning, decentralized decision-making, and governance characterized by choice, community voice, school-community collaboration, and meaningful discourse. Indeed, his identification of the basic components of school improvement—academic press and supportive communities—suggest that the widely perceived success of the Alberta education system is the result of teacher and leader capacity building, sound pedagogy, and systems thinking. Nonetheless, the education system must continue to address the needs of some learners in, for example, First Nations communities, rural and remote regions of the province, and lower socioeconomic neighborhoods. Accountability mechanisms continue to be contested among educational stakeholders in Alberta, e.g., the ATA long has protested the use of standardized tests. Annual school rankings based on testing results, e.g., by the Fraser Institute (2017), are contested regularly and elicit ongoing discussion among educational stakeholders. Another contested issue is that of gay-straight alliances. In 2015, Alberta Education required all school boards in Alberta to draft inclusive LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) policies. A consortium of faith-based schools, parents, and public interest groups recently lodged a legal challenge based on its belief that student participation in gay-straight alliances in schools without parental knowledge is unconstitutional. It is noteworthy that the concept of new public management with the attributes described by van der Sluis et al. (2017) of an output-oriented governance model and governmental deregulation has not emerged as a topic of broad discussion or focus for policy development. Certainly, output considerations such as standardized tests

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta

225

and performance targets are utilized in the Alberta education system. However, governmental deregulation that permits schools to become highly autonomous units has not occurred to date, nor are there indicators of imminent changes to agency structures. The strengths of Alberta’s education system reside in the quality and relationships among the province’s educational building materials. That is, the system is characterized in the main by high quality teaching and learning, a well-designed mandatory program of studies, and strong school-community connections. In addition, the province has effective teacher education programs and wide access to formal and informal leadership development programming, and an informative accountability framework. Importantly, the Alberta education system is based on a set of construction principles and values that represent a strong moral purpose (Fullan 2006). There is widespread commitment to universal access to personalized learning environments via a range of public and alternative organizational structures. Educational personnel across Alberta are guided by policy documents and accountability systems that are premised on clear construction principles such as respect for diversity and a desire for collaboration among teachers and their many educational partners. In addition, Alberta’s education system is served by organizations and institutions that pursue common interests articulated in legislation and throughout provincial support systems. Significantly, the system is characterized by ongoing thoughtful responses to key drivers of change–(1) a shift from a resource-based economy to one that is more knowledge-based, (2) a provincial culture of entrepreneurship and innovation, (3) pedagogical evolution based on cognitive science theory and research, and (4) rapid demographic changes due to interprovincial and international migration. Finally, Alberta continues to engage in a reorientation process by rewriting its provincial curricula, facilitating meaningful discourse about quality teaching, and addressing the unfulfilled needs of some learners. As well, the province’s education system continues to incorporate the appropriate use of digital technology and to establish the strongest possible inclusive learning environments. The current reorientation process requires Albertans to continue to address substantive educational and societal challenges, something they must do to optimize service to learners and to maintain the moral purpose of their work.

References Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association. (2017). Alberta Catholic school trustees’ association. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.acsta.ab.ca/ Alberta Distance Learning Centre. (2017). ADLC: Flexible learning within reach. Author. Retrieved from: https://www.adlc.ca/ Alberta Education. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Author. Retrieved from: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/45370ce9-3a90-4ff2-8735-cdb760c720f0/resource/2ee2452c-

226

C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

81d3-414f-892f-060caf40e78e/download/4492270-2010-inspiring-education-dialogue-albertans-2010-04.pdf Alberta Education. (2016a). Education funding in Alberta. Retrieved from: https://education. alberta.ca/media/3115099/education-funding-in-alberta-handbook-2016-2017.pdf Alberta Education. (2016b). The guiding framework for the design and development of Kindergarten to grade 12 provincial curriculum (Programs of Study). Retrieved from: https:// education.alberta.ca/media/3575996/curriculum-development-guiding-framework.pdf Alberta Education. (2017a). Guide to education ECS to Grade 12, 2017–2018. Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/3653320/guide-to-education-2017-2018.pdf Alberta Education. (2017b). Interim professional certification. Author. Retrieved from: https://education.alberta.ca/teaching-in-alberta-what-you-need-to-know/ teacher-interim-professional-certification/everyone/interim-professional-certification/ Alberta Education. (2017c). School board elections. Author. Retrieved from: https://education. alberta.ca/school-board-elections/school-board-elections-guide/ Alberta Education. (2018a). Leadership quality standard. Retrieved from https://education.alberta. ca/media/3739621/standardsdoc-lqs-_fa-web-2018-01-17.pdf Alberta Education. (2018b). Programs of study. Government of Alberta. Retrieved from: https:// education.alberta.ca/programs-of-study/?searchMode=3 Alberta Education. (2018c). Provincial assessment tests. Retrieved from: https://education.alberta. ca/provincial-achievement-tests/about-the-pats/ Alberta Education. (2018d). Superintendent leadership quality standard. Retrieved from: https:// education.alberta.ca/professional-practice-standards/superintendent-quality-standard/ Alberta Education. (2018e). Teacher certification. Government of Alberta. Retrieved from: https:// education.alberta.ca/teaching-in-alberta-what-you-need-to-know/teacher-certification/ Alberta Education. (2018f). Teaching quality standard. Retrieved from: https://education.alberta. ca/media/3739620/standardsdoc-tqs-_fa-web-2018-01-17.pdf Alberta Home Education Association. (2017). AHEA: Serving the home education community. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.aheaonline.com/ Alberta Queen’s Printer. (2016). Public education collective bargaining act. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/p36p5.pdf Alberta Regional Consortia. (2017). Alberta Regional Consortia. Author. Retrieved from: https:// arpdc.ab.ca/ Alberta School Boards Association. (2017). ASBA: Excellence in education through exceptional school board governance. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.asba.ab.ca/ Alberta School Councils’ Association. (2017). ASCA. Author. Retrieved from: https://www.albertaschoolcouncils.ca/ Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2017). The Alberta Teachers’ Association. Author. Retrieved from: https://www.teachers.ab.ca/Pages/Home.aspx Andrews, D., Conway, J., Dawson, M., Lewis, M., McMaster, J., Morgan, A., & Star, H. (2004). School revitalisation: The IDEAS way. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Leaders. Association of Independent Schools and Colleges in Alberta. (2017). AISCA: Empowering choice in education. Author. Retrieved from: https://www.aisca.ab.ca/ Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313. Bosetti, L., Van Pelt, D., & Allison, D.  J. (2017). The changing landscape of school choice in Canada: From pluralism to parental preference. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 38. Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2750/275050047044.pdf. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Campbell, C., Lieberman, A., & Yashkina, A. (2015). Teachers leading educational improvements: Developing teachers’ leadership, improving practices, and collaborating to share knowledge. Leading and Managing, 21(2), 90–105.

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta

227

Campus Alberta Quality Council. (2017). Working to ensure high quality post-secondary education in Alberta. Author. Retrieved from: https://caqc.alberta.ca/ Coleman, P., & LaRocque, L. (1988). Reaching out: Instructional leadership in school districts. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(4), 60–89. Coleman, P., & LaRocque, L. (1990). Struggling to be ‘good enough:’ Administrative practices and school district ethos. London: Falmer. College of Alberta School Superintendents. (2017). CASS: Leadership excellence for world-class public education. Author. Retrieved from: https://www.cass.ab.ca/ Conference Board of Canada. (2014, June). Education and skills. Retrieved from: http://www. conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/education.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 Coughlan, S. (2017, August 2). How Canada became an education superpower. BBC News. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40708421 Cowie, M., Crawford, M., & Turan, S. (2007, April). Principal preparation in England, Scotland, and Turkey. Chicago: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Crowther, F. (2004). Australian schools – World-class and getting better. In D. Andrews, J. Conway, M. Dawson, M. A. Morgan, & H. Star (Eds.), School revitalisation: The IDEAS way (pp. 3–4). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Leaders. Crowther, F. (2015). Teacher leaders and expert teachers – Equally important but not to be confused. Australian Educational Leader, 37(3), 6–7. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute. Dehaas, J. (2011, November 28). Why Alberta’s education system is better. Maclean’s. Retrieved from: https://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/why-albertas-educationsystem-is-better/ Erickson, H. L., Lanning, L. A., & French, R. (2017). Concept-based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Fraser Institute. (2017). School performance: Elementary and secondary school rankings. Retrieved from: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/school-performance Fullan, M. (2005). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 174–181. Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 113–122. Fullan, M. (2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change, 17, 539–544. Gilbert, I. (2011). Why do I need a teacher when I’ve got Google: The essential guide to the big issues for every twenty-first century teacher. London: Routledge. Giroux, H. A. (2005). The terror of neoliberalism: Rethinking the significance of cultural politics. College Literature, 32(1), 1–19. Government of Alberta. (2017). Grade at a glance. Retrieved from: https://www.learnalberta.ca/ content/mychildslearning/grade5.html Government of Alberta. (2018a). Alberta education. Retrieved from: https://education.alberta.ca/ Government of Alberta. (2018b). Learn Alberta. Retrieved from: http://www.learnalberta.ca/ Government of Alberta. (2018c). Student learning assessment. Retrieved from: https://public.education.alberta.ca/assessment/ Hajisoteriou, C., Karousiou, C., & Panayiotis, A. (2018). Successful components off school improvement in culturally diverse schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(1), 91–112. Hardy, I., & Melville, W. (2018). The activation of epistemological resources in epistemic communities: District educators’ professional learning as policy enactment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 159–167. House, E. R. (1974). The politics of educational innovation. Berkeley: McCutchan. Kirkwood, T. (2016, September). Can we live forever? Presentation to the international mortality and longevity symposium. London: University of London.

228

C. F. Webber and J. Nickel

Langford, C. H., & Josty, P. (2015). Driving wealth creation and social development in Alberta. Calgary: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Retrieved from: http://thecis.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2016/04/GEM-Alberta-Report-2015.pdf. Leithwood, K. (2007). What we know about educational leadership. In J. Burger, C. Webber, & P. Klinck (Eds.), Intelligent leadership: Constructs for thinking education leaders (pp. 41–66). Dordrecht: Springer. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Hergert, L. F. (1985). An action guide to school improvement. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lund, D. (2003). Facing the challenges: Student antiracist activists counter backlash and stereotyping. Teaching Education, 14(3), 265–278. Macfarlane, E. (2008). Terms of entitlement: Is there a distinctly Canadian ‘rights talk. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 303–328. McMaster, C. (2013). Working the ‘shady spaces’: Resisting neoliberal hegemony in New Zealand education. Policy Futures in Education, 11(5), 523–531. Michaud, P. D., Goldman, D., Lakdawalla, D., Gailey, A., & Zheng, Y. (2009). International differences in longevity and health and their economic consequences. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Murphy, J. (2013). The architecture of school improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 252–263. Nickel, J., O’Connor, K., & Falkenberg, T. (2015). Initial teacher education in western Canada. In T. Falkenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Canadian research in initial teacher education. Ottawa: Canadian Association for Teacher Education. Retrieved from https://home.cc.umanitoba. ca/~falkenbe/Publications/Nickel,%20O’Connor,%20&%20Falkenberg%20(2015).pdf. OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 key findings for Canada. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/ canada/pisa-2015-canada.htm Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: Penguin Books. Portelli, J., & Konecny, C.  P. (2013). Neoliberalism, subversion, and democracy in education. Encounters, 14, 87–97. Province of Alberta. (2017). Post-secondary learning act: Statutes of Alberta, 2003 Chapter P 19.5. Retrieved from: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/p19p5.pdf Public School Boards’ Association. (2017). Public school boards’ association of Alberta. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.public-schools.ab.ca/ Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141–1166. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schleicher, A. (2015). Schools for 21st-century learners: Strong leaders, confident teachers, innovative approaches. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264231191-en. Staples, D. (2016, December 6). Alberta’s education system earns top marks in science, reading. Edmonton Journal. Retrieved from: http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/ david-staples-albertas-education-system-earns-top-marks-in-science-reading Statistics Canada. (2017). Recent changes in demographic trends in Canada. Author. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14240-eng.htm#a3 Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (2007). A history of school effectiveness and improvement research in the USA focusing on the past quarter century. In T. Townsend (Ed.), Springer international handbooks of education: International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 131–166). Dordrecht: Springer. Truth and Conciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Calls to action. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/ File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

12  Alberta, Canada: School Improvement in Alberta

229

UNESCO. (2017). Literacy rates continue to rise from one generation to the next. Author: Retrieved from: http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs45-literacy-rates-continue-rise-generation-to-next-en-2017_0.pdf UNICEF. (2018). Literacy among youth is rising, but young women lag behind. Author: Retrieved from: https://data.unicef.org/topic/education/literacy/ van der Sluis, M.  E., Reezigt, G.  J., & Borghans, L. (2017). Implementing new public management in educational policy. Educational Policy, 31(3), 303–329. https://doi. org/10.1177/0895904815598393. Webber, C. F. (2013). Template versus awareness. In C. L. Slater & S. Nelson (Eds.), Understanding the principalship: An international guide to principal preparation (pp.  71–94). Bingley: Emerald. Webber, C. F., Mentz, K., Scott, S., Okoko, J. M., & Scott, D. E. (2014). Principal preparation in Kenya, South Africa, and Canada. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(3), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2013-0125. Webber, C. F., & Robertson, J. M. (2003). Developing an international partnership for tomorrow’s educational leaders. International Studies in Educational Administration, 31(1), 15–32. Webber, C.  F., & Scott, S. (2010). Mapping principal preparation in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Education and Humanities, 1, 75–96. Retrieved from: http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/ makale/acarindex-1423877384.pdf. Wrigley, T. (2013). Rethinking school effectiveness and improvement: A question of paradigms. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(1), 31–47.

Chapter 13

Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education Governance in Ontario, Canada Brenton Faubert and Elan Paulson

Abstract  This chapter describes and analyses the province’s K-12 public educational governance system in the province of Ontario, Canada. Drawing from a two-­ stage approach (Dupriez V, Maroy C, J Edu Policy 18:375–392, 2003) and using the concepts of centralization, coordination, and hard/soft power as a sense-making framework, it describes the three-tiered formal authority structure as well as the constellation of school agencies that compose the wider education governance system. Conceived by the authors as an “echo chamber,” the centralization that characterizes the province provides a structure for amplifying and reinforcing dominant narratives about educational goals, while other agencies contribute tenuous coordination efforts that nuance those narratives. Recent examples of high profile issues and conflicts provide occasions for considering the value of counterbalancing voices and the risks of silencing alternate ideas and innovations to address complex educational challenges.

13.1  E  xamining Substate Relations That Enable and Constrain Educational Goals in Ontario As Wallner (2014) proposed in Learning to School: Federalism and Public Schooling in Canada, “If you are interested in the dynamics of substate policy making in federations and the circumstances that allow coordination and collaboration to flourish, Canada is a crucial case study and elementary and secondary education is the ideal sector to explore” (p. 25). An exploration of the “Canada” perspective in academic B. Faubert Faculty of Education, Western University, London, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] E. Paulson (*) Western University in Ontario, London, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_13

231

232

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

and policy analyses is not a straightforward task. Rather than a national K-12 school system, Canada consists of 13 educational jurisdictions (10 provinces and three territories) that each exercise legal authority over public education funding, policy, curriculum, and student achievement goals; taking a “national” perspective on substate education governance would not capture the circumstances that have allowed education to flourish. The “substate” education jurisdiction in this chapter is the province of Ontario, which has the largest public K-12 school system in the country. Multiple scholars have found that Canada offers a fascinating model of public school governance: It has been compared with other nations (Capano 2015), examined in the context of its social and cultural roots, (Lessard and Brassard 2015), and how its history (Young et  al. 2014) and politics (Sattler 2012) have shaped and continue to shape its goals and reforms. However, we did not uncover Ontario-­ specific sources that tackle how educational agencies coordinate in Ontario’s formal educational structure and its wider educational governance. In addition to this gap in the academic literature, there are indications in the grey literature to support a closer examination of the Ontario case. From the perspective of assessment, Ontario’s K-12 public system is among a small number of educational jurisdictions that have consistently performed well on OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) over the past decade; as a result, the province has earned a positive reputation for its delivery of K-12 public schooling across the country and international policy circles (OECD 2010, 2014). Ontario’s most recent PISA performance has flatlined, however, despite significant financial and other resource investments (Chu 2017; EQAO 2016). A similar trend is observed in the 2018 representative survey of Public Attitudes Toward Education in Ontario, administered annually since 1980. The authors report that public confidence with K-12 public schools has been declining for the past 6 years: “In 2012, about two-­ third of those surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with the school system, compared with about half in 2017” (Hart and Kempft 2018, p. 2). This stagnation has created competing interpretations: on the one hand, history instructs that Ontario’s K-12 governance arrangement—characterized by the highly centralized efforts of the Ministry of Education and the agencies that make up the wider governance system—has led to positive results, arguably because all of these school agencies managed to coordinate in ways that contributed to students flourishing at the classroom level. On the other hand, efforts over the past two decades have yielded flatlining assessment scores, suggesting a lack of coordination within the existing governance arrangement. The noted gap in the academic literature and these contrasting signals in educational performance and public confidence makes Ontario an appropriate and timely case. In this chapter, we examine how, in this substate jurisdiction, the relationship between the state, school districts, schools, and other educational agencies enable and/or constrain efforts to achieve state-set educational goals. Specifically, we ask: (a) which school agencies constitute the formal authority structure and the wider governance system? (b) what are the responsibilities, organizational structure, and policy levers of each agency? (c) how are educational agencies coordinating in ways that enable and constrain efforts to achieve state-set educational goals? and (d) what

13  Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education…

233

issues among agencies are likely to shape future efforts? To address these four questions, we apply a two-fold approach that first describes the relationships between and among governance agencies who, to varying degrees, contribute to achieving state-set educational goals. Three key arguments emerge from our analysis which are unpacked in this chapter: First, Ontario’s K-12 education sector can be characterized as a chamber filled with school agencies, but the provincial authority is, by far, the most powerful actor whose “voice” echoes loudest throughout the sector. Second, Ontario’s K-12 school agencies have formed a complex constellation with a plurality of perspectives that often conflict but, on important educational matters, can manage a tenuous coordination that serves to counter-balance the provincial authority’s dominance in the system. Third, recent trends have threated to disrupt this balance, amplifying the “echo” of the dominant narrative that may stifle other, often dissenting, voices. This chapter is organized into six sections: (a) the conceptual framework; (b) the historical development of the educational authority structure in Ontario, Canada; (c) Ontario’s formal education government structure; (d) the agencies that make up Ontario’s wider governance system; (e) a critical discussion, grounded in recent cases, on the balance of productive conflict and how it is under threat in Ontario; and (f) the conclusion.

13.2  Key Terms and Conceptual Framework We begin this section by describing the four central concepts we use in this chapter, followed by the approach we modified to suit our chapter aims. We conclude this section by identifying and outlining our subconcepts. A K-12 education authority is any agency that is influential in the provision of K-12 education. Our conception includes organizations that comprise the formal government structure (e.g., ministry, school boards, schools) but also professional and labour associations, committees, and other stakeholder groups. Educational governance is understood “a means of conceiving the building of politics based on a network of organizations and actors who move into various political arenas, be they local, central or intermediate” (Lessard and Brassard 2015, p. 3.) Policy is not only a rule-based statement that explains and suggests a course of action, but also a discourse (Bacchi 2000) that is interpreted and contested through its enactment by different agents. Regulations are thus not merely norms and standards issued by legitimate authorities; they are also “the result of the intersection or transaction which occurs when one or more controlling regulation comes in contact with ‘horizontal’ processes of the production of norms in the organization” (Dupriez and Maroy 2003, p. 378). Put another way, regulations provide structure, but through their enactment by a network of agents they simultaneously constitute, complicate, and challenge that structure. These concepts are embedded in Dupriez and Maroy’s (2003) framework for analyzing school system governance, which offers a lens that is both functional

234

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

(structural) and critical (conflict/power dynamics) of school agencies and their relationships in understanding school system governance. Specifically, the scholars outlined a two-stage approach: The first stage describes how rule-making (as well as organized action) is determined by individual educational governance agents. The second stage critically analyzes the ways in which the school system is, in fact, constructed through the coordinating efforts of multiple agents and agencies at various levels of governance who strive to achieve their goals as well as the state-set goals for education. Following Dupriez and Maroy (2003), we regard local (i.e., provincial) school authorities not only as distinct entities with legal and economic power but also as a “montage” constituted by a “composite of forms of coordination” of multiple governance agencies (p. 389). We propose that the coordination of agents/agencies who govern and improve K-12 school education constitutes and complicates the very “networked” governance system in which these agents act. We diverge from this two-stage approach insofar as we find that the economics-­ based typology Dupriez and Maroy (2003) employ risks oversimplifying the agents who act within the system, and cannot sufficiently account for the governance actors who blur taxonomic boundaries. We instead describe Ontario’s school agents with respect to (a) the degree of centralization within the system in which they operate, and (b) forms of coordination and control among the agents in the system. More specifically, we understand centralization to refer to the concentration of power and control for decision-making activities, constituting (and constituted by) a formal authority structure. In his literature review, Bray (2012) found a distinction between functional centralization, which refers to power distributed among authorities operating in parallel (i.e., levels of authority are equal in authority but distinct), and territorial centralization, which refers to a distribution of “control among the different tiers of government, such as nations, states/provinces, districts, and schools” (p. 202). Functional centralization refers to governance across sectors (e.g., health, economic development, labour, education), while territorial centralization refers to governance within one sector (e.g., how education in Ontario is governed at the provincial, school board, and school levels). Coordination is the organization and synchronization of elements for efficient and effective work. As Dupriez and Maroy described (2003), coordination within a school system context functions as “a set of inter-dependent exchanges springs up between a number of singular or collective actors, and these actors set to work on a variety of problems” (p. 279). Coordination is central to good educational governance in the public sphere, as it is enacted through a sense of mutual obligation to laws and policies for education, as well the processes of delivering education, followed by monitoring, assessment, and reporting to hold stakeholders accountable (Tierney 2006). A lack of coordination and engagement can result in misalignment of efforts, miscommunication, and conflict in a struggle for control. Control is exerted by school agencies through what Nye (2005) has described as hard or soft power. Hard power involves exercising control through rewards or punishments. Soft power involves persuasive control tactics such as attraction, cooperation, shared values, diplomacy, and consensus (Nye 2005). While hard power is an attribute of authority, law, rule-making, and force, soft power is an attribute of

13  Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education…

235

r­elations, thus is often bound by space, time, and the investments of effort (Nye 2005). The type of power available to organizational actors enables and constrains its coordinating efforts with other actors. Each concept presented above can be considered in far more detail in the academic literature; our interpretation of these core concepts and our framework are simplified to address the aims of this chapter and facilitate comparison with the analyses and frameworks of other educational jurisdictions discussed in this book and beyond. In this chapter, we follow Kleinbaum et al. (2008) emphasis on examining coordination efforts that are observable among organizational units, spatial boundaries, and/or social categories. There are other qualities of governance, such as level of perceived self-interest (Dupriez and Maroy 2003), that we did not select because such qualities are difficult to observe.

13.3  T  he Historical Development of the Educational Authority Structure in Ontario, Canada The history of Ontario’s public education is bound up within the evolution of Canada as a country. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a detailed overview of the history of Canada’s education systems; however, it is important to briefly explain the ways in which key aspects of Canadian history and heritage have shaped the current structure of Ontario’s K-12 school system (Lessard and Brassard 2015).

13.3.1  Canada’s History and Heritage During the eighteenth century, Britain and France were the two colonial powers battling for control over the land now called Canada, bringing with them their own linguistic (French/English) and religious (Protestant/Catholic) identities. Britain took control from the French and Indigenous peoples; in 1867, the Constitution Act (also referred to as the British North America or BNA Act) was passed, laying the framework for Canada’s federal structure. Notably, the Act provided provincial legislatures with the exclusive authority to make laws concerning education (CMEC 2008), in addition to other policy spheres. The Act also affirmed the right of Protestant and Catholic parents to establish their own schools, effectively giving constitutional protection to religious (Protestant and Catholic) and language rights across the country (Young et al. 2014). The result is that “Canada is one of the most decentralized countries in the world, with provincial governments enjoying greater autonomy than other substate counterparts in other federations” (Wallner 2014, p. 25).

236

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

However, in many periods of its history Canada and its provinces have had a paradoxical relationship with diversity, exercising hard power to both enforce and suppress religious, linguistic, and cultural diversity. The Government of Canada exercised federal law to influence education governance, such as with the passing of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988, which aims to celebrate the presence of distinct cultural or ethnic groups within Canada. The Constitution Act of 1982 was passed 6  years earlier, which protects minority language and religious education rights. And yet, as Young et al. (2014) noted, “for a large part of Canada’s history since Confederation [in 1867], public schools have served to suppress diversity rather than sustain it—to assimilate the poor, the immigrant population, and Canada’s First Nations” (para. 30). In the early twentieth century, the Conservative provincial government in Ontario designed Regulation 17, which restricted use of French as a language of instruction in the first 2 years of school in an effort to shut down French language schools as Francophones migrated to eastern Ontario (Noël 2012). In recent decades, fierce debates between stakeholders in Ontario have often settled only in the court system, leading to policies and regulations that require public schools to acknowledge and accommodate differences, including the educational rights of English and French speakers as well as Catholic and Protestant communities. Historically and contemporarily, the “public” to whom public schools have been accountable have been most frequently Anglo-, Christian-and Eurocentric Canadian citizens, an issue with which the country continues to struggle. In short, Canada’s history and heritage deeply inform the current public K-12 education system and its governance structures (Lessard and Brassard 2015).

13.4  Ontario’s Education Government Structure We begin this section first with a brief contextual description of Ontario’s and the K-12 public education, followed by an analysis of the school agencies operating at each level. The review includes roles of each agency, policy levers at their disposal, and control over funding.

13.4.1  Context: Ontario and its K-12 Public Education System Ontario’s public school system supports a large geographical area and diverse population. At one million square kilometres, Ontario is the third largest province/territory by area (World Atlas 2018). In 2018, Ontario’s population is 14,374,074, the largest of Canada’s provinces/territories (Ontario Ministry of Finance 2018). Consistent with the national constitutional protections, the Ontario government provides publicly funded religious-based and language-based schooling through four separate school systems: English public, English Catholic, French public, and

13  Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education…

237

French Catholic. In numbers, 72 school boards administer1 4877 elementary and secondary schools, composed of 124,135 teachers, and 7351 administrators who deliver education to 2,006,700 students (approximately 94% of the province’s K-12 age population) (Ontario Ministry of Education 2018a).2 Education for students generally begins in Kindergarten—with two optional years for children who turn 4  years of age (Education Act 1990)—or in Grade 1 and ending in Grade 12. Education is compulsory in Ontario until students complete the diploma or reach the age of 18. For this chapter, our scope is the province’s public K-12 school system, omitting private schools and students who are homeschooled.

13.4.2  O  ntario’s Education Structure as a Function of Territorial Centralization In this section, we define Ontario’s education governance structure as a function of territorial centralization: a hierarchical structure wherein authorities are defined by how they coordinate responsibilities within the total system. Formal school authorities exercise hard power: legal, policy, and funding governance levers in a three-­ tiered K-12 education system (Lessard and Brassard 2015). The first tier is Ontario’s provincial authority, the Ministry of Education. The second tier is regional school boards—the intermediary structure that is involved in the daily operations of schools—and the third tier is schools who deliver K-12 education.

13.4.3  Tier 1: Provincial Government Authority Parliament and the Ontario Ministry of Education  Ontario uses a unicameral parliamentary government: The Premier, as head of government, leads the party that controls the majority of elected seats in the Legislative Assembly. As of 2018, members of the Progressive Conservative party now form a majority government; this outcome followed consecutive Liberal majority governments since 2003. The Ontario Ministry of Education (referred to hereafter as the Ministry), which is governed by a cabinet minister appointed by the premier, is responsible for early years and K-12 education.3 The Ministry develops policy and programs for childcare, early years, and elementary and secondary education. It sets provincial standards  In addition to 72 school boards, Ontario has “10 school authorities, consistent of 4 geographically isolated boards and 6 hospital-based school boards authorities [… and] 1 provincial schools authority (Ontario Ministry of Education 2018a). 2  2015–2017 academic year. 3  A second ministry is responsible for higher education but is not discussed here. 1

238

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

and guidelines for assessments and reporting, as well as diploma requirements, for students who attend public (and private) schools in Ontario (Ontario Public Service 2016). Organization of the Ministry of Education  The education minister, as head of the Ministry, provides political direction for the K-12 education sector. The Ministry oversees most aspects of K-12 education, as well as agencies, boards, and commissions related to curriculum, education quality, special education, and language. Reporting to the minister, a deputy minister provides oversight on divisions related to finance, capital, early years, well-being, student support, student achievement, French language, corporate management, community services, and IT (Ontario Ministry of Education 2018b). Policy Levers  To establish the vision, goals, and direction of the Ontario public school system, the Ministry creates policy and program memoranda, strategic vision documents, and leadership frameworks. For example, the previous government published Achieving Excellence: A Renewed Vision for Education in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Education 2014), a strategic vision document that describes the government’s four interconnected education goals—academic performance, equity, mental and physical health, and public confidence. Funding  Two hard power mechanisms provide the province’s 72 school districts with revenue for the operations of public schools. The first is a funding formula that provides over 90% of districts’ revenue. For the 2018–2019 school year, approximately $24.5 billion CAD is provided to school districts for the delivery of K-12 public education (Rodrigues 2018). The second mechanism is called Education Programs–Other, which is used to fund specific government initiatives with the amount varying each year depending on government priorities. Given that the vast majority of revenues come from these two sources, we can say that K-12 public education in Ontario is effectively 100% publicly funded.

13.4.4  Tier 2: School Board Authority Organization of School Board Authorities  School boards (also referred to as districts) are highly structured so that they may execute the mandates, policies, and goals set by the Ministry. School boards operate all publicly funded schools and organize, administer, and monitor the regulations of local schools (Ontario School Trustees 2014). School boards are led by trustees, who are elected members of the public. The director of education is the most senior public servant in a school board and is supported by a team of superintendents who help provide oversight over the

13  Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education…

239

various aspects of school board and school operations. Directors of education are responsible to their trustees collectively. Members of the public are allowed to participate in specific meetings (e.g., the approval of the district budget, school closures). Role of School Boards and Scope of Discretion  School boards set strategic goals for schools within the regulatory framework and resource allocation provided by the Ministry (Louis et  al. 2010). Boards achieve their goals by providing multiyear planning, resource stewardship, policy development, and leader and teacher supports. They administer matters related to schooling and students, including transportation, libraries/resource centers, continuing education, childcare, and so forth. Boards also offer program and service supports for school improvement, such as removing barriers to student achievement and well-being that are connected to ethnicity, faith, sexual orientation, ability, mental health, and socioeconomic status (Ontario Ministry of Education 2009). District-wide special education plans contain policies, procedures for the development and implementation of Individual Education Plans and assessments, and stakeholder communication strategies (Ontario Ministry of Education 2000). The responsibilities of school boards are outlined in the Education Act (1990) and any policy or guideline made under said Act; the Ministry monitors school board outcomes (e.g., student academic achievement and well-being) and responsibilities (e.g., financial accountability) on a regular basis. Funding  As mentioned, Ontario’s school districts receive the vast majority of their operational revenues directly from the province. A small portion of funding is acquired through fees for use of facilities. School boards are not subcommittees of municipalities; each school board’s financial statements are publicly available and published annually, showing capital assets, financial management, and systems of asset and transaction management, including their monitoring and evaluation (Education Act 1990; Ontario Ministry of Education 2015). Policy Levers  Schools districts develop board-specific policies for attendance, code of conduct, and school safety, but all of these must comply with the Education Act (1990) and other Ministry guidelines (Ontario Ministry of Education 2009). As described above, provincial policy establishes school trustees as elected representatives of the public who represent the interests of constituents and communicate board decisions back to constituents. Trustees work with the senior leadership of their school board to establish policy direction, within the legislative and regulatory framework set by the Ministry. Directors of education are responsible for the outcomes of their school board and report to trustees; in turn, trustees are accountable to their electorate. Boards elect students to bring student perspectives to the decision-­ making process.

240

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

13.4.5  Tier 3: Public Schools Organization of Schools  Public schools’ range in size and location within the province. Every public school belongs within a designated school district. Most schools divide into elementary (e.g., Grades K–8, though not always) and secondary (e.g., Grades 9–12, though not always) schools; split-grade classes are common. School leadership includes a principal and, in secondary schools, one or more vice-­ principals. Large schools have department (subject) heads. Role of School and Scope of Discretion  In schools, teachers and school administration are responsible for the delivery of education. Policy Levers  Teachers are guided by the provincial curriculum and assess students within each grade. Although teachers must adhere to the curriculum, they have the professional discretion to determine how they deliver it. Funding  Schools receive a small discretionary funding allocation from their school board to support school-based activities. In short, the formal authority structure in Ontario is highly centralized—the important educational matters are determined at the Ministry level. The structure does provide school boards and, to a lesser extent, schools with limited autonomy to make decisions around the choice of programs and services for achieving state-set education goals.

13.5  Ontario’s Wider Education Governance Structure Ontario’s formal education authority structure is the backbone of the system. In this section, we identify some of the most influential system agents who constitute Ontario and, in some cases, Canada’s broader education network. These wider system agents exercise soft and hard (through the courts) power influence to promote school improvement and to influence or transform the very aims of education governance. We review a few dozen agencies when, in fact, there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of agencies and agents in Ontario that operate directly and indirectly at each level of the formal structure. Our mapping of the wider educational governance system necessarily excludes agents associated with private schools, charter schools, homeschooling, and international schools.

13  Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education…

241

13.5.1  Provincial-Level Governance Agents The minister and deputy minister liaise with school boards, commissions, and assessment agencies related to special education, curriculum, education quality, language instruction, and so forth. One example of an influential provincial-level agency is the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO). The EQAO is an independent agency that administers large-scale assessments, developed by Ontario educators, at key stages of Ontario students’ education in reading, writing, and math. The EQAO results are provided to all levels of education governance with the goal of improving school programming and classroom instruction. The EQAO also reports provincial assessment results publicly through its organizational website and news releases. Because EQAO scores effectively assess how well formal school authorities achieve provincially set curriculum standards, the results can powerfully influence public opinion on education; for example, when purchasing a new home, many families consider how well local schools perform on EQAO. The Ministry also works in collaboration with colleges, councils, and institutes that regulate certain areas of public education or provide guidance to the Ministry. These organizations represent a wide range of constituents, spanning from the directors of education (e.g., the Council of Ontario Directors), to early childhood educators (e.g., the College of Early Childhood Educators). See Appendix A for a more detailed list. These system agents represent a wide range of constituents from both English and French as well as public and Catholic systems to ensure their collective and sector-specific interests are represented in the various discussions that take place at the substate level. In addition, the minister of education engages directly with citizens and special interest representatives vis-à-vis advisory councils (e.g., Minister’s Advisory Council on Special Education, Minister’s Student Advisory Council). These councils warrant special mention because they offer individuals with an interest in special topics the chance to advise the minister directly. In effect, these advisory councils provide a space for ordinary citizens—albeit a very small number—to provide input into the minister’s decision-making. The Ministry also coordinates with The Ontario Teachers’ Federation (OFT), which is made up of four distinct labour organizations representing English public, English Catholic, French public, and French Catholic teaching staff. Ontario’s four teachers’ associations are strongly engaged with their members’ professional learning, and are highly organized politically to represent the voice of teachers in teacher contract negotiations, in the news media, etc. Principals and vice-principals do not belong to the OTF. These teachers’ associations (see Appendix B) are organized to reflect the language and religious dimensions of the sector.

242

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

13.5.2  Board and School-Level Governance Agents Public district school boards belong to the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA 2018). The role of this association is to advocate on behalf of the interests and needs of the system, and it is called on by the provincial government for input on legislation and the impact of government policy directions. Furthermore, in 2001, the Ministry created Ontario Regulation 612/00 to ensure that school councils and caregiver involvement committees would fulfil an advisory role for Ontario public schools. The goal of school councils is to advise school principals and, ultimately, “improve student achievement and enhance the accountability of the education system to parents” (Ontario Ministry of Education 2002, p.1.1); principals, however, ultimately have the final say. Other caregiver councils, such as the Ontario Association of Parents in Catholic Education and Parents partenaires en education, provide similar functions to Catholic and French-speaking schools, respectively. School boards have also established Parent Involvement Committees, which, again, give parents direct input to senior board leaders.

13.5.3  Pan-Canadian/National Educational Governance As with Canada’s other nine provinces and three territories, Ontario’s two Ministries that govern education (i.e., K-12 and post-secondary) are members of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). Founded in 1967, the CMEC is an intergovernmental body that “provides leadership in education at the pan-Canadian and international levels and contributes to the exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces and territories over education” (CMEC 2020). The CMEC’s role is significant in the case of Ontario because the province regularly collaborates on projects and shares information for mutual benefit with neighbour jurisdictions. We position CMEC as highly influential soft power agent—even if this is not visible to outside stakeholders—because of its role facilitating inter-jurisdictional cooperation, articulating shared education values, and consensus building on educational matters of pan-Canadian that shape the direction of education in substate educational jurisdictions. Ontario, through CMEC, is also an active member of many international education bodies, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and UNESCO (e.g., ISCED), which provides more opportunities for soft power influence within the centralized governance structure. Appendix C provides a list of other influential pan-Canadian/national bodies who publish materials that can shape debates in substate and state K-12 public education. It should be noted that the federal government exerts some hard power influence that affects K-12 education in Ontario. Through transfer payments to provinces, federal funds indirectly support the funding of K-12 education; the federal government also provides funding to support the provision of education in the territories, and funding to English or French as second language in schools (Government of

13  Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education…

243

Canada 2017; Young et al. 2014). The federal government is also responsible for the education of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children, and for children of members of the armed forces (Young et al. 2014).

13.6  A  nalysis and Critical Discussion: School Agencies Coordinating in the Echo Chamber As described above, there is a high degree of centralization in Ontario’s K-12 education system, with three tiers of formal authority governance that wield descending levels of hard power with respect to policy levers and funding. Highly centralized governmental authority means that the government frames the dominant narrative— vision, funding, policy, and monitoring—of education in the province, with the expectation that agents at all levels of the formal authority structure will follow this narrative. Although some school agencies exist to advocate on behalf of professional or community groups (e.g., student, teacher, parents, etc.) or advance specific causes, these agencies rely mostly on soft power (e.g., relation, cooperation, consensus) to exert influence on each other and the Ministry. This leads to, what we describe as, an echo chamber effect: the ideas, values, goals, etc. of a single agency reverberates throughout the system. The tightly bound authority structure of the system serves to amplify or reinforce the Ministry’s voice across and within all levels, which supports the first of our three arguments presented at the beginning of our chapter. In the subsections below, we provide examples that help give shape to our two remaining arguments: school agencies can manage coordination efforts that are generative of productive counternarratives to balance the powerful authority of the province; and, recent governments have attempted to amplify their own narrative, silencing counternarratives and reinforcing the echo chamber effect. School Agencies Managing Tenuous Coordination  Since 2002, K-12 enrolment in public schools declined by 71,364 students, resulting in less funding for school boards (as the majority of funding is based on enrolment) and added pressure on district leaders to close schools (People for Education 2017). In 2015, the media reported that the Ministry was pressuring school boards to close “underutilized” schools (Howlett 2015). Community agencies and families across the province’s rural and more remote regions protested together with trustees (who ultimately vote on school closures), district leaders, and school board staff, citing, in part, the loss of important community hubs. Buoyed by this local support, the coordinating efforts of established school agencies (such as People for Education) and “startup” groups (such as the Ontario Alliance Against School Closures, whose 1100 members share strategies for pressuring their local school into action) amplified the request of school board leaders for Ministry relief from the pressure to close schools (Rushowy 2017). This tenuous coordination of otherwise divergent stakeholders led to action: The Ministry conducted a series of consultations in rural and remote communities

244

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

and, subsequently, placed a temporary moratorium on future school closures in 2017 (Rushowy 2017). Despite the clear path of hard power conferred through a centralized system to determine leadership and organizational practice at all levels, dissent across school agencies can lead to a tenuous coordination with the power to influence Ministry direction and decisions. The next example illustrates how coordination amongst agencies within the broader governance system can also limit ministry action. In 1999, one Ontario parent frustrated at having to spend almost $100,000 CAD to educate his son in Jewish schools brought, with the assistance of legal counsel, the case before the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The UN committee ruled that the province’s funding for Catholic education was discriminatory because full funding was not provided to other religions. This is not the first time in the province’s history that public funding for Catholic education has come under fire, nor was it the last. Early in 2018, two Ontario university professors argued that the new Conservative government should force consolidation to realize (unlikely) cost savings (Trosow and Irwin 2018). In addition to the steady stream of public debates, there are also many social factors that support ending public funding of Catholic education: (1) Ontarians reported 250 ethnic origins in the 2016 census (Ontario Ministry of Finance 2017); (2) the “substantial erosion” in Canadians who identify as Catholic or Protestant and the rise in number of Canadians who belong to another religion or who identify as religiously unaffiliated (Pew Research Center 2013); (3) the ministry of education’s professed commitments to inclusion and equity; and (4) other Canadian provinces have passed resolutions to enable school district consolidation (Trosow and Irwin 2018). Despite all these reasons for removing support for the Catholic system, a lack of political will of consecutive governments to address this matter has led to inaction over decades. In response to the UN committee ruling in the late 1990s, the then-­ Minister of Education indicated that the government was not going to comply (CBC News 1999). In 2014, then Premier Kathleen Wynne, reputed for her longstanding work as an advocate for social justice, was quoted as referring to closing the Catholic education system as a “distraction,” indicating that the school system works as it is (Ostroff 2017, par. 20). Public school board leaders, teachers’ associations, and established advocacy school agencies remain uncharacteristically silent on the matter. Thus, despite what many have argued is a discriminatory practice, many school agencies that make-up the constellation of the public system have managed a tenuous coordination to support the dominant narrative — that “the system works fine as it is” — in fear of the political fall-out that eliminating Catholic education could have on the entirety of the public system. Trends That Reinforce the Echo Chamber  The first example is the push for greater centralization of power at the Ministry level, even with changes in governing political parties. Ontario, like other Canadian educational jurisdictions, has witnessed a hierarchical shift in provincial educational governance (Capano 2015). For example, related to education funding and resourcing, in the 1990s the Conservative government took away the independent power of school districts to levy education

13  Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education…

245

property taxes powers of school districts (McGrath 2017, par. 6). When the Liberal party took control in 2003, they did not reverse this decision; moreover, the province then granted itself “the authority to place a board under provincial control if it has concerns about the board’s ability to meet its financial obligations or about the board’s compliance with the law regarding trustee expenses” (Ontario Ministry of Education 2008, par. 10). The province has stepped in to take control over several school boards since 2008 “amid financial improprieties” (Regg Cohn 2017, par. 13). More recently, Ontario’s business superintendents have reported an increase in centrally determined prescriptions on the use of funds, resulting in less flexibility at the district level (Faubert 2018). In another sign of centralization, the province of Ontario “legally entrench[ed]” itself as “the only party that matters when it comes to negotiating with teachers [sic] unions” (McGrath 2017, par. 9). In 2008, the Liberal government passed Section 11.1 and 230 of the Education Act, giving the government power to intervene if school boards do not achieve state set achievement outcomes (Education Act 1990). In our view, this trend is suggestive that recent governments believe they can better direct the actions of school agencies across the sector. The government’s use of these “hard power” mechanisms, which reinforces the provincial authority’s voice in the school system, serves to restrict local discretion in ways that could disrupt the coordination efforts of other school agencies. Our next example illustrates the government’s new level of willingness to use hard power to reinforce its own authority and, in turn, silence counternarratives. While on the campaign trail, the most recent Conservative provincial leader promised to rescind the previous government’s updated curriculum specific to sexual education, which addressed same-sex families, gender identity, and masturbation, and return to the 1998 version of the curriculum document. Once the Conservative government was in power and acted on its promise, school agencies across the system began to coordinate. School board leaders employed soft power tactics (e.g., confusion in the sector) to express their concerns to Ministry about the province’s new direction, while reminding teachers of their “legal obligation to follow the Ministry” (Salvian 2018, par. 12). Wide school agencies have employed hard power tactics: the public elementary teacher union and a Civil Liberties Association are but two agencies that have initiated proceedings to challenge the new curriculum in court. The elementary public teachers’ union has promised to “‘vigorously defend’ any educator who used the modernized sex-ed curriculum in the classroom this school year in defiance of the province’s decision to impose an older version” (CBC 2018, para. 1). While the matter of rescinding the health curriculum is currently before the courts, in an unrelated but equally exemplifying matter the government has threatened to use the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, which “gives the provincial legislatures or the federal government the ability to supersede certain portions of the Charter for a five-year term” (Russell 2018). Harking back to previous instances of the government using hard power (i.e., the legal framework) to suppress diversity rather than enable plurality, the current government seems adamant the

246

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

recent revisions do not fit its conception of health and sexual education, and that matters under their authority will be challenged by neither courts nor teachers. In a further act that exercises its control over other agents within the system, the government also plans to introduce a mechanism, informally referred to as a “snitch line…for parents to complain about teachers who don’t teach the revised curriculum” (Salvian 2018, par. 3). These two examples illustrate the recent trend to limit the ability of school agencies to coordinate in order to challenge dominant narratives on matters of educational importance. In short, school agencies within and outside the formal authority structure can employ a combination of hard (e.g., legal action) and soft power strategies— relationship-­building, public appeals, etc.—to challenge the top-down authority structure by questioning policy and proposing alternative solutions beyond the echo chamber of Ontario’s centralized school system. Indeed, the school agencies ­operating at each level of Ontario’s three-tiered authority structure and its wider governance structure have on many occasions managed tenuous coordination, despite their diversity of perspectives and interests, among actors to reshape (or maintain) the provincial authority’s dominant narrative over the medium and long term. Given that we were able to select only four high profile instances on which to base our critical analysis and discussion of the effects of centralization and coordination in Ontario’s education system, it is our hope that with our foundational work other researchers will introduce additional governance concepts and examine other cases in which various Ontario and pan-Canadian agencies have made coordinating efforts to shape and influence the K-12 education sector.

13.7  Conclusion We began this chapter by noting contrasting signals of the outstanding performance of the K-12 school system in Ontario: on the one hand, Ontario’s governance arrangement is said to “allow coordination and collaboration to flourish” in ways that contribute to the province’s positive international reputation in K-12 education, yet on the other hand the arrangement is yielding flatlining assessment scores and decreased public confidence over the past decade. We presented three key arguments about the nature of K-12 education governance in Ontario and unpacked each, grounded in a critical analysis of school agency relationships is recent issues: First, Ontario’s K-12 education sector can be characterized as a chamber filled with many school agencies, but the provincial authority is by far the most powerful actor whose “voice” echoes loudly throughout the sector. Second, Ontario’s many K-12 school agencies with a plurality of perspectives can manage a tenuous coordination and employ the use hard and soft power approaches—that are not uncommon in a democratic society—to challenge or sustain system normative expectations that are largely determined by the province. Third, recent trends to amplify the “echo” of the dominant narrative that may stifle other, often dissenting and conflicting, voices that represent diverse public interests. What is problematic about this trend is that it

13  Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education…

247

weakens local discretion and limits the ability of school agencies to coordinate and employ hard and soft power strategies to question, challenge, and nuance the narrative that is articulated by the provincial authority and reinforced by the formal authority structures. This trend may ultimately stifle alternate approaches and minority narratives that may propose innovative solutions to complex issues facing the sector. To the extent that school agencies have been able to coordinate to help (re)shape the narrative of Ontario’s successful reputation, recent moves to eliminate this plurality could, arguably, further contribute to the Ontario’s stagnation as it struggles to address challenges in its achievement and well-being outcomes.

Appendices  ppendix A: Key Professional Colleges, Councils, and Institutes A in K–12 Education, Ontario College of Early Childhood Educators (CECE) Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE) Catholic Principals Council of Ontario (CPCO) Global Institute for Catholic Education (ICE) Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) Ontario Principals Council (OPC)

Appendix B: Ontario’s Teachers’ Associations L’association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF)

 ppendix C: Influential Pan-Canadian/National Bodies A Shaping the Policy Discussion in K-12 Education in Ontario and Across Canada Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative Fraser Institute Canadian Education (“EdCan”) Association Conference Board of Canada Council of Chief Executives (Renamed Business Council of Canada) Learning Partnership People for Education

248

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

References Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 45–57. Bray, M. (2012). Control of education: Issues and tensions in centralization and decentralization. In R. F. Arnove & C. Alberto (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (2nd ed., pp. 201–222). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC). (2018, August 13). Union to ‘vigorously’ defend any teacher who defies province by teacher current sex-ed curriculum. https://www.cbc.ca/news/ canada/toronto/etfo-ontario-elementary-public-school-teachers-sex-ed-curriculum-1.4783691. Accessed 12 Apr 2018. Capano, G. (2015). Federal dynamics of changing governance arrangements in education: A comparative perspective on Australia, Canada and Germany. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(4), 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.95 2530. CBC. (1999, November 5). UN says funding of Catholic schools discriminatory. https://www.cbc. ca/news/canada/un-says-funding-of-catholic-schools-discriminatory-1.175008. . Chu, M.  W. (2017, September 11). Why Canada fails to be an education superpower. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/why-canada-fails-to-be-an-education-superpower-82558. Accessed 27 May 2018. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (2008). Education in Canada. https://www. cicic.ca/docs/cmec/EducationCanada2008.en.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2018. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2020). What is CMEC? https://www.cmec.ca/11/ About_Us.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2020. Dupriez, V., & Maroy, C. (2003). Regulation in school systems: A theoretical analysis of the structural framework of the school system in French-speaking Belgium. Journal of Education Policy, 18(4), 375–392. Education Act, R.S.O. (1990). c. E.2. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e02 Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO). (2016). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2015: Highlights of Ontario student results. http://www.eqao.com/ en/assessments/national-international-assessments/PISA/Communication%20Documents/ PISA-highlights-ontario-results-2015.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2018. Faubert, B. (2018). Transparent resource management: implications for leadership and democracy in education. International Journal of Educational Management. [Date of acceptance: April 23, 2018]. Government of Canada. (2017). Intergovernmental cooperation in the area of second language learning. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/official-languages/ second-language.html. Accessed 21 May 2018. Hart, D., & Kempf, A. (2018). Public attitudes toward education in Ontario 2018: The 20th OISE Survey of Educational Issues, 40 years of the OISE Surveys. https://www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise/ News/2018/2018_OISE_Survey_of_Educational_Issues.html. Accessed 21 July 2018. Howlett, K. (2015, April 5). Ontario moves to speed up process for closing schools. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ontario-moves-to-speed-upprocess-for-closing-schools/article23801434/. Accessed 27 May 2018. Kleinbaum, A. M., Stuart, T. E., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Communication (and coordination?) in a modern, complex organization (Working Paper 09-004). https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/Communication-(-and-Coordination-%3F-)-in-a-Modern-%2C-Kleinbaum-Stuart/9096 3de58e922fe3c383dd927c81b6ddc687ccf6. Accessed 13 May 2018. Lessard, C., & Brassard, A. (2015). Education governance in Canada: Trends and significance. Research Gate. http://www2.crifpe.ca/html/chaires/lessard/pdf/AERAgouvernanceang3.pdf. Accessed May 27 2018.

13  Ontario, Canada: Education in the Echo Chamber: Understanding K-12 Education…

249

Louis, K., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336. McGrath, J. M. (2017, April 20). Ontario’s school boards are a mess we made. Television Ontario (TVO). https://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/ontarios-school-boards-are-a-mess-we-made. Accessed 13 Apr 2018. Noël, F. (2012). The impact of regulation 17 on the study of district schools: Some methodological considerations. Historical Studies in Education, 24(1), 72–92. Nye, J. S. (2005). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2000). Standards for school boards’ special education plans. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/iepstand/iepstand.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2018. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2002). School councils: A guide for members. http://www.edu. gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/council/council02.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2018. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008, June 4). Minister appoints supervisor to manage TVCDSB’s finances: McGuinty government taking action to get the board back on track. Archived News Release. https://news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2008/06/minister-appoints-supervisor-to-managetcdsbs-finances.html. Accessed 13 Apr 2018. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Parents: Who’s responsible for your child’s education?. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/brochure/whosresp.html#boards. Accessed 15 Apr 2018. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Achieving excellence: A renewed vision for education in Ontario. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/renewedVision.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2018. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015). District school board and school tangible capital assets: Provincial accounting policies and implementation guide. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/1516/TCA2015GuideEN.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2018. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2018a). Education facts, 2016–2017. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/ eng/educationFacts.html. Accessed 15 June 2018. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2018b). Organizational chart. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/edu_chart.html. Accessed 15 June 2018. Ontario Ministry of Finance. (2017). 2016 Census highlights – Factsheet 9: Ethic origin and visible minorities. https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/cenhi16-9.html. Accessed 8 Oct 2018. Ontario Ministry of Finance. (2018). Ontario fact sheet: August 2018. https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/ en/economy/ecupdates/factsheet.html. Accessed 15 June 2018. Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA). (2018). Home page. http://www.opsba.org/. Accessed 15 June 2018. Ontario Public Service. (2016). Ontario schools, kindergarten to grade 12: Policy and program requirements. Ontario Ministry of Education. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/policy/ os/onschools_2016e.pdf. . Ontario School Trustees. (2014). Good governance; A guide for trustees, school boards, directors of education and communities. Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved from. http://ontarioschooltrustees.org/. . Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2010). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/2220363x. Accessed 13 Apr 2018. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2014). Measuring innovation in education: Ontario, Canada Educational System Note. www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/MeasuringInnovation-in-Education-Ontario-Canada.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2018. Ostroff, J. (2017, January 8). It’s time to excommunicate public Catholic Schools. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/joshua-ostroff/end-public-catholicschools_b_8712316.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2020.

250

B. Faubert and E. Paulson

People for Education. (2017). School Closings 2017. https://peopleforeducation.ca/research/ school-closings-2017/. Accessed 27 May 2018. Pew Research Center. (2013, June 27). Canada’s changing religious landscape. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/06/27/canadas-changing-religious-landscape/. Accessed 8 Oct 2018. Regg Cohn, M. (2017, April 17). School trustees have lost public trust—and outlived their role: Cohn. The Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/04/17/school-trustees-havelost-public-trust-and-outlived-their-role-cohn.html. Accessed 15 June 2018. Rodrigues, B. (2018). Update: Education funding for 2018–2019 (Memorandum B14). Ontario Ministry of Education. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/funding.html. Accessed 27 June 2018. Rushowy, K. (2017, June 28). Ontario school closings will be put on hold as province reviews process. Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/06/28/ontario-schoolclosings-will-be-put-on-hold-as-province-reviews-process.html. Accessed 13 Apr 2018. Russell, A. (2018, September 10). Ontario Premier Doug Ford plans to invoke notwithstanding clause. Here’s what you need to know. https://globalnews.ca/news/4438198/notwithstandingclause-doug-ford-bill-5-toronto-city-council/. Accessed 8 Oct 2018. Salvian, H. (2018, August 29). GTA teacher refuses to teach new sex-ed curriculum despite Doug Forg’s new tip line. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/gta-teacher-refusesto-teach-new-sex-ed-curriculum-despite-doug-ford-s-new-tip-line-1.4802746. Accessed 3 Sept 2018. Sattler, P. (2012). Education governance reform in Ontario: Neoliberalism in context. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 128, 1–28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ971058.pdf. Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (2006). Governance and the public good. Albany: SUNY Press. Trosow, S., & Irwin, B. (2018, July 22). It’s time to merge Ontario’s two school systems. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-merge-ontariostwo-school-systems-99922. Accessed 27 Feb 2020. Wallner, J. (2014). Learning to school: Federalism and public schooling in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. World Atlas. (2018). Largest territories and provinces in Canada by land, area, and population. https://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/caproterlist.htm. . Young, J., Levin, B., & Wallin, D. (2014). Understanding Canadian schools: An introduction to educational administration (5th ed.). https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wallind/chaptertwo5. html. .

Chapter 14

California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower Principals and De-emphasize Testing Rollin D. Nordgren

Abstract  This chapter describes an ambitious reform by the most populous state in the U.S.; a reform that has the potential to be a pivotal point in the nation’s school accountability movement. For the past 30 years, the U.S. has been hyper-focused on standardized testing, and all major school reforms introduced since the 1980s have utilize test scores as the primary measure of success--or failure. Initiated in 2013 and foreshadowing a similar but less ambitious national reform, “The California Way” attempts to de-emphasize testing as well as place more power and responsibility on local authorities, specifically school principals. A discussion of the political/ideological background for the reform attempts to underline the importance of its continuance and its potential impact on school reform across the U.S.  The California Way and its components are examined regarding their efficacy in meeting their goals as, despite their good intentions and the reform’s great promise, these aims and the entire reform itself may prove to be too complex for effective implementation. Finally, the chapter examines possible adjustments to the role of the school leader as a result of the reform, specifically in the school leader’s ability to enact necessary change as state policies dictate.

14.1  Control of Schooling in the Golden State Before examining The California Way, an ambitious and promising education reform instituted in 2013, it is important to first understand how schooling in California is structured. Knowing the complexities of this structure may allow for a better comprehension of the plan’s implementation and the possibilities for its success. California, the fifth largest economy in the world and by far the most populous state in the U.S., is just one of 50 state systems in the nation (51 if including the R. D. Nordgren (*) School of Education, Piedmont College, Demorest, GA, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_14

251

252

R. D. Nordgren

District of Columbia). As public education is not specified in the U.S. Constitution or in any of the 27 subsequent amendments, it is in the purview of the states to provide schooling for children and adolescents. The U.S. has over 14,000 community school districts ranging from Texas with about 1200 and Hawaii with one. The U.S. Department of Education has a limited scope, mainly to monitor the dissemination of federal funds from Title I “Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged” (U.S. Department of Education 2004, September 15) and Title IX (discrimination based on gender in education programs) (U.S.  Department of Education 2015, April 29). On average, school districts receive only 9% of their funds from the federal government; the remainder is usually split fairly evenly between local and state tax sources, depending on the given state’s funding formula (Spring 2016). With a land mass equaling that of Sweden, France, or Spain and with a population of nearly 40 million, California is geographically large as well as populous; and this great area can hinder its ability to enact systemic change such as The California Way. Unlike other states, it has a two-pronged district system with county offices of education (found in 58 of the 68 counties) and community districts (560 elementary, 87 high school, and 330 combined or “unified” districts; 977 in total). The county offices’ main functions are to (1) support the community districts within their boundaries in providing professional development opportunities for all district employees and (2) provide financial oversight for schools and districts (California Department of Education 2017b, September 26). The California Department of Education, located in the capital of Sacramento, enforces education laws and regulations as well as manages reforms (California Department of Education 2017c, October 13). With the advent of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), a main component of The California Way, a three-­ branched system of school support exists in the state: (1) California Collaborative in Educational Excellence, (2) county offices of education, and (3) the Department of Education (California Collaborative on Educational Excellence n.d.). The Superintendent of Public Instruction, elected to office every four years, provides supervision of the Department of Education. The State Board of Education has numerous responsibilities both by statute and by state constitution. It is the governing and policy-making body of the Department of Education and must appoint one deputy and three associate superintendents of public instruction. It also adopts textbooks through grade 8, and oversees curriculum, assessment, and charter school1 authorization among several other responsibilities (California State Board of Education 2017, October 6). In California, teachers, school counselors and psychologists, as well as administrators (principals, vice/assistant principals, directors) must be “credentialed” in order to work at a public school or school system.2 Unique to the state is that the 1  Charter schools are publicly-funded private schools. Oftentimes, they are under the umbrella of a school district, but they can also exist as a single entity or as part of a group of schools. In the 2016–2017 school year, California had 1232 charter schools housing approximately 10% of the public-school population (California Department of Education 2017e, 25 October). 2  The term licensed or certified are used in place of credentialed in many U.S. states.

14  California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower…

253

Department of Education does not control credentialing; it is the function of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing which has its own board and structure and is governed by the state legislature, separate from the Department of Education. The school districts (both county and local) work much more closely with the Department of Education on almost every matter than with the Commission (Commission on Teacher Credentialing 2017, May 9).

14.1.1  Teachers Unions Unions have had a strong influence on P-12 schooling in California and must be included in any discussion of the state’s schooling’s structure. Across the U.S., however, teachers unions have varying influence, depending on the political climate and subsequent labor laws. For instance, many states have “right to work” laws where union dues are not automatically taken out of a teacher’s salary, curtailing union membership rates (Long 2013, March 19). These states (e.g., Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Texas) have very weak unions and, consequently, lower salaries in comparison to highly unionized states such as California (as well as most states in the Northeast and Upper Midwest) (National Education Association 2016, May; Winkler et al. 2012, October). The most powerful teacher unions in the U.S. are the National Education Association (NEA) with approximately 3 million members, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) with 1.7 million members (American Federation of Teachers n.d.). The California Teachers Association (CTA), an affiliate of the NEA, has 325,000 members, the largest state teacher’s union in the state and in the U.S. (California Teachers Association n.d.) It is the stated desire of the CTA to improve the welfare of teachers as well as the schools they serve (California Teachers Association n.d.). Given their large membership, the CTA’s influence on schooling in California is great with their leadership in collective bargaining and their ability to strike, not to mention their ability to influence school quality, student achievement, standards, and community engagement. In some states (e.g., Florida) it is illegal for public school teachers to strike, thereby, severely limiting their ability to influence policy.

14.2  Recent Changes in U.S. and California Public Schooling Each of the 50 U.S. states’ constitution requires it to provide public education; but the U.S. federal government still has much influence in how schooling is conducted across the 100,000 public schools in the nation. Federal policy pertaining to ­increasing student achievement has impacted all U.S. states over the past few decades, and California is no exception. Arguably, the most significant of these was the so-called “No Child Left Behind” Act (NCLB) implemented at the beginning of 2002 (Spring 2016; Schneider 2017). This law, officially known as the Elementary

254

R. D. Nordgren

and Secondary Education Act of 2001, was a bipartisan endeavor led by Republican president George W.  Bush and the powerful Democrat Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy of Massachusetts. Ostensibly, this law was enacted with the purpose of closing the so-­ called “Achievement Gap” between whites and some AsianAmericans on the one side, and blacks and Hispanics on the other. Kennedy and other Democrats certainly wished this to be so, but it is speculated by some in 2001 and throughout its implementation, that this was actually a move by conservatives to increase privatization of U.S. schooling (Ravitch 2010, 2013; Tienken and Orlich 2013; Verger et al. 2016). Even if the intent of all supporters of NCLB was truly to close the Achievement Gap, the results were clear: it paved the way for increased numbers of privatization schemes in U.S. public education and did little, if anything, to close the racial achievement gap (Ravitch 2013; Wolk 2011). The number of charter schools and their enrollment increased dramatically as did influence of test publishers (Koretz 2017; Schneider 2017). As the NCLB results were published, criticism of the law increased, but due to a lack of an alternative was reauthorized in 2009. NCLB was finally replaced in 2015 by the “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA) of 2015, signed into law by Democrat President Barack Obama. The ESSA and NCLB were reauthorizations of 1965’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act which focused on ensuring equitable funds to schools and districts serving poor children, and a part of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” (Koretz 2017; Spring 2016). As education is a state matter, California had to create its own path to meet requirements of NCLB in 2001 (as well as ESSA in 2015) in order to have full access to federal funds. The California Way seemingly foreshadowed ESSA of 2015, embracing the law’s encouragement to use multiple measures in its accountability system, and even surpassing it in this respect. To understand California’s current condition, as well as its response to ESSA, it is imperative to examine a 1978 law that has severely impacted school funding these past four decades and threatens to do so into the foreseeable future (Montes 2017, December 21). A zealous anti-tax movement arose in the 1970s was spurred by rising property taxes, leading to a highly publicized ballot initiative: Proposition 13 (officially, People’s Initiative to Limit Taxation, but widely referred to as “Prop 13”). The impact of reductions to property taxes is obviously impactful given that nearly half of local districts’ operating expenses are derived from these, at least on a national average. The California Supreme Court rulings of Serrano v. Priest (1971 and 1976) ordered the redistribution of funds from wealthy districts to poorer ones based on the court’s findings that marginalized populations were not receiving equitable education as measured by school funding. These rulings were the catalyst to Prop 13 which, in turn, may have led the way for other anti-tax revolts during the ‘70s and ‘80s helping Ronald Reagan and other anti-government, anti-tax advocates to power (Verger et al. 2016; Weiss 2012). After Prop 13’s passage, school funding in California dropped as compared to other states (National Education Association May 2016). It is estimated that Prop 13 cost the city of San Francisco $450 million in 2015, alone. Further, the overall property tax rates for some affluent California cities are the lowest in the nation

14  California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower…

255

(McLoughlin 2016, November 30). Property tax revenue per $1000 income is roughly one-half of some states and well below the national average (National Education Association 2016, May). As previously, loss of tax revenue has a detrimental effect on school funding when so much of school funds depend on local sources. On average about 45% of U.S. public school revenues come from local property taxes, and 45% from the state (United States Census Bureau 2017, June 14). This was true for California districts prior to Prop 13 but, at present, that percentage is down to between 20% and 25% (Cavanaugh and Faryon 2010, March 29; Montes 2017, December 21).

14.3  Focus on Testing: Californica Reacts to NCLB What is important to note from the post-A Nation at Risk reforms is the hyper focus on student achievement as measured by standardized test scores. The report portrayed the state of U.S. schools as nothing short of disastrous and advocated the need for swift and drastic measures for reform. Although, the report and its intent have been questioned over the years, if not debunked (see Berliner and Biddle 1996; Tienken and Orlich 2013), it has undeniably changed the educational discourse among influential policy makers, leading to NCLB and the seemingly relentless use of test scores to measure school effectiveness (Ravitch 2010). It has resulted in a “battle of ideas” as UCLA professor John Rogers states, a fight between the public good and the private good (Capital and Main 2016, June 2). The changes desired by most policy makers after A Nation at Risk were business-oriented, using profit-­ seeking models in the hopes of making schooling more efficient and effective— effective, that is, as measured by test scores (Schneider 2017; Verger et al. 2016). The business-oriented reforms led to policies and laws that negatively impacted the schools and districts in their efforts to provide a well-rounded education for their students (Wolk 2011). It can be said that the overarching theme to the law’s impact is the aforementioned “battle of ideas” the power struggle between the ideologies surrounding the public good and the private good (see Adamson and Darling-­ Hammond 2016; Darling-Hammond 2010: Ravitch 2013; Tienken and Orlich 2013). Although by far the most populous state and seemingly geographically and philosophically detached from the rest of nation (it has a reputation as being a trendsetter due, in part, to its being home to the film industry), California is certainly not immune to federal policies emanating from the neoliberal reforms and the dominant narrative that was created. With test scores linked to school districts’ ability to garner Title I funds for poor and disadvantaged students, California school districts have spent the past three decades focused on increasing test scores to ensure they can at least begin to attend to the needs of their students living in poverty. Changes were made to how schools were measured, focused almost entirely on test scores, resulting in teach-to-the-test pressures that, in turn, led to counterproductive stress on school leaders and teachers (EdSource 2004, January). And, perhaps, to teacher and principal shortages—especially in rural and urban schools (Latterman and Staffes 2017, October).

256

R. D. Nordgren

Accountability as it was enacted, with its emphasis on testing, and the negative media reports of test results have reduced the public’s perception of schools both in the nation and in California (Koretz 2017). This caused great turmoil in many districts across the nation, California included. For instance, in San Diego, the state’s second largest city and school district, Diane Ravitch (2010) chronicled the tumultuous tenure of a charismatic superintendent (former prosecutor, Alan Bersin) who was backed by a business-dominated school board. His agenda was to privatize the schools, opening them to the marketplace all-the-while running the district in an extreme, autocratic manner (Magee 2013, April 16). A no-nonsense business approach to schooling was reflected in Bersin’s desire to measure all that could be measured in an attempt emulate business executives (Verger et  al. 2016). After 6 years, the superintendent was forced out by pro-union school board members, and a moderate leader took his place; thereby, improving the relationship between teachers, staff, parents, and administration (Magee 2013, April 16). Yet, the emphasis on testing did not leave along with Bersin’s departure.

14.4  T  he Current State of California Schools and “The California Way” The battle of ideas was being won nationwide by the neoliberal faction, and this faction’s membership included both powerful Republicans and Democrats who are typically at odds on most every issue (Adamson and Darling-Hammond 2016: Tienken and Orlich 2013; Verger et al. 2016). The subsequent federal policies led to state policies, as California and other states were fearful of losing much-needed federal funds and of possible decreased test scores (Ravitch 2010, 2013). California, perhaps emboldened by a rejuvenated economy and its distance from the populous and politically powerful East Coast, endeavored to create a more flexible system of school accountability, one that would empower local authorities and did not simply use test scores as its only measure: Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). While The California Way is the state’s response to the ESSA, LCAP is its key planning feature. This reform, the most significant change in California education policy in the several decades, also resulted in some structural alterations in the state’s oversight of public education. The California Way is designed to bolster three aspects of schooling: (1) student performance as measured by tests, (2) equity, and (3) general improvement. Its intent also is to empower local entities (districts and schools) to create their own accountability plans and to share these with others throughout the state, creating a large-scale learning community (California Department of Education 2018a, April 17). Democrat Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 97 on July 1, 2013, a law that includes LCFF, as part of an overall movement to change the way California school districts are funded; and, presumably, to give more control to those closest to where students learn--an ESSA requirement (U.S. Department of

14  California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower…

257

Education 2004, September 15). According to the California Department of Education, LCFF is meant to …simplify how state funding is provided to local educational agencies… Under the old funding system, each school district was funded based on a unique revenue limit, multiplied by its average daily attendance… In addition, districts received restricted funding for over 50 categorical programs which were designed to provide targeted services based on the demographics and needs of the students in each district.

Further: Under the LCFF funding system, revenue limits and most state categorical programs have been eliminated.3 The LCFF creates funding targets based on student characteristics and provides greater flexibility to use these funds to improve student outcomes. For school districts and charter schools, the LCFF funding targets consist of grade span-specific base grants plus supplemental and concentration grants that are calculated based on student demographics factors. For county offices of education (COEs), the LCFF funding targets consist of an amount for COE oversight activities and instructional programs. (California Department of Education 2018b, March 23).

Over the past few years, school districts across the state struggled to respond to LCAP’s many requirements (Fensterwald 2018, February 12). For example, the plan mandates that each school has a “site council” comprised of the following: • the principal; teachers selected by teachers at the school, and • other school personnel selected by other school personnel at the school, • parents of students attending the school and/or community members selected by such parents, and • in secondary schools, students selected by students attending the school (California Department of Education 2018c, January 11). As can be imagined, this requirement alone, would be quite a challenge for most schools to meet. Challenges created by LCFF were many. University of Toronto’s Michael Fullan led a team to examine the design and possible implementation of the initiative beginning in 2015 (Fullan 2015b). They found three main concerns with this initiative: 1 . Making complexity complicated 2. Overdoing front-end process 3. Making the plan the goal. It was indeed complex and quite lengthy at 114 pages which Fullan and his team deemed to be “difficult for implementers to decipher” (Fullan 2015a, January, p. 3). By overdoing the process, they meant that there were too many goals (ironically, the main goal of LCAP was to establish a replicable “process” one that would be less onerous) a complication that limited the implementers’ ability to reasonably meet all of them. The final critique stems from the first two in that complexity will lead to simply trying to get the plan finished rather than actually accomplishing something of value. As Fullan notes:

 Thirty-two were eliminated and 13 were retained (Cabral and Chu 2013).

3

258

R. D. Nordgren

LCAP, in its present form, is a massive distractor eating up resources of time and money in counterproductive activities that seem based on getting the plan done to meet compliance requirements rather than one that serves implementation. The result is that plans will be produced, but they will not satisfy school districts or their critics. The plans will be a combination of a mile wide and an inch deep, and/or will be mired in detail (Fullan 2015a, January, p.4).

With the LCAP and LCFF, came some significant structural changes in the state’s oversight. The California Collaborative on Educational Excellence was formed to assist county offices of education in their support of local school districts, specifically in the implementation of LCFF.  The Collaborative is a state government agency that coordinates district support with the county offices and state department of education and is governed by a five-person board that includes the Superintendent of Public Instruction and one member from the State Board of Education (California Collaborative on Educational Excellence n.d.). Fullan’s team suggested that the Collaboration would best support the success of LCAP if it: 1. successfully identifies key areas of need in districts with regards to capacity building for improvement of teaching practice and student learning 2. establishes a valued repository of current, proven expertise and resources available to develop those capacities 3. effectively brokers capacity building resources adequate to the context and learning needs of districts, to increase their ability to improve from within 4. monitors progress, identifies and builds success around district improvement and makes it visible across the state (Fullan 2015a, January). Fullan and his team are not alone in criticizing the LCAP. Two non-profit groups published a policy brief in 2017 based on the input of “end users” (school-site personnel) finding that complexity is indeed a major concern but so is the fact that it is a top-down, centrally-designed policy (ironic, given the desire to empower the local education agencies) (Knudson et al. 2017). The groups’ solution for making LCAP successful was to 1 . Promote better and more equitable outcomes for kids; 2. Promote local control; 3. Be easily understandable, actionable, and consumable to a layperson; 4. Promote focus and prioritization; 5. Be feasible; and 6. Be scalable (Knudson et al. 2017, p. 5). Teachers and principals were not the only concerns: district superintendents were at odds with LCAP as Joel Fensterwald reporting for EdSource summarizes Since the passage of the funding law in 2013, school districts have written three LCAPs. School boards and administrators have complained that the template that districts must follow is disjointed, constraining, and, particularly for small districts with a limited staff, burdensome. Parent groups complained that some districts’ LCAPs mushroomed in length to hundreds of pages and that it was difficult to track expenditures. (Fensterwald 2016, July 11)

14  California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower…

259

In summary, the LCAP is a highly ambitious reform movement that has valuable aims, notably the empowerment of local authorities, such as principals, to customize schooling to meet the needs of their individual contexts. Its intent seems to be to uncomplicate what was once extremely complicated; namely, funding schools and school districts. However, it has been criticized for being far too cumbersome and complex. The main problem with LCAP, however, may not be its byzantine requirements, but its lack of providing principals and superintendents the flexibility they need; ironically, one of its main goals.

14.5  T  he California Way Provides Hope for the State and the Nation The state’s enormous education reform, enacted 2  years prior to ESSA 2015, appears to be a proactive move toward what the Obama Administration had been signaling it wanted to include in its signature education policy: namely, to offer more than test scores to determine school quality. ESSA encourages states to use at least one measure other than standardized tests and gives the states much leeway in determining what that is (Koretz 2017). However, can simply adding one measure beyond often dubious tests results (see Schneider 2017; Verger et al. 2016) really reform what so many critics have determined to be a broken national system (that is, the combined state systems)? For its part, California opted to use not one, but two standardized tests in its new system: • English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics Summative Assessments –– Administered grades 3–8 and 11. • California Next Generation Science Standards (CA NGSS) Summative Assessments –– Administered grades 5–8. For those whose Individual Education Plan calls for assistance in English language learning the following was added: • California English Language Development Test (CELDT) (to be replaced by the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) in 2018–2019) –– Administered grades 1–12 (California Department of Education 2017a, August 14). The LCFF uses an accountability system consisting of three parts: 1 . LCAP and its Annual Update 2. LCFF evaluation rubrics 3. Assistance and support system (California Department of Education 2017a, August 14).

260

R. D. Nordgren

Each school must submit an LCAP to its community district office who, in turn, must develop its own plan based on the needs and desires of its schools. If the community district is under the domain of a county office, then the district must submit its LCAP and its schools’ LCAPs to the county office. As would be expected, the county office considers the contents of schools’ and districts’ plans, then develop its own LCAP. All plans are submitted to the California Department of Education on an annual basis. The Department provides each school and district with an approved template found on its website, updated and/or revised, as deemed necessary. Although each school district has some flexibility in determining on what it will be evaluated, the plans tend to look the same, given the strict guidelines. They can have more than 20 data elements that must be annually analyzed by the local school districts and reported in an Annual Update. These must include eight “priority areas” with a multitude of data to be collected for each, as found in Fig. 14.1. These requirements, obviously, lead to a complicated and perhaps unwieldy plan, against which Fullan had warned. Along with the density and homogeneity of the plans, the instruments within the plans could lead to further complexity. For instance, the evaluation rubrics would appear to create a complicated report for stakeholders and the media to digest and, therefore, both may choose the relatively easily understood test scores as their focus. After all, percentages tied to tests have become accepted and expected from the public (Koretz 2017; Schneider 2017). These lengthy reports may actually exacerbate the gap between classes and races in educational achievement, as “(w)hite and higher-income families…tend to belong to social networks that traffic in educational data more comfortably than do families of color and lower-income families” (Koretz 2017, p. 73). Despite the concerns discussed above, The California Way provides hope that the simple reliance on test scores will be replaced by more robust and nuanced accountability systems across the nation. If it can work in California with its diverse4school-­ age population of 6.2 million (California Department of Education 2017d, October 19), then it may work elsewhere (Fullan 2015b, July). California schools and districts are the largest actor in the revised accountability game, but hardly alone. Spots of similar schemes can be found elsewhere in the U.S. such as Somerville, Massachusetts. Schneider (2017) chronicles the path taken by this small district to develop a more expansive and meaningful system, one that includes three “essential inputs” • teachers and the teaching environment, • school culture, • and resources which includes community support) and two “key outcomes” • academic learning • and character and well-being). 4  California’s public schools were 54% Latino, 9% Asian, 6% Black, and 23% white in 2016–2017 school year (California Department of Education 2017d, 19 October).

14  California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower… Student Achievement

• •

Performance on standardized tests. Score on Academic Performance Index. Share of students that are college and career ready. Share of ELs that become English proficient. EL reclassification rate. Share of students that pass Advanced Placement exams with 3 or higher. Share of students determined prepared for college by the Early Assessment Program.

• • • • •

261

Personal Involvement

• •

Efforts to seek parent input. Promotion of parental participation

Basic Services

• • •

Rate of teacher misassignment. Student access to standards-aligned instructional materials. Facilities in good repair.

Other Student Outcomes

•

Other indicators of student performance in required areas of study. May include performance on other exams.

•

Implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

•

Implementation of CCSS for all students, including EL.

Student Engagement

• • • •

School attendance rates. Chronic absenteeism rates. Middle school dropout rates. High school dropout rates.

Course Access

•

Student access and enrollment in all required areas of study.

School Climate

• • •

Student suspension rates. Student expulsion rates. Other local measures.

Fig. 14.1  Required data for each of eight state priority areas. (Source: Cabral and Chu (2013, December, p. 12)

To their credit, this district includes such items under academic learning as the student’s engagement in school, graduation rates, critical thinking skills, and college and career readiness—the latter longitudinally measured by persistence as well as placement and acceptance (see Schneider 2017, p. 102). The reliance on standardized tests, however, remains a central feature of the vast majority of school, school district, and states’ accountability plans (Koretz 2017; Schneider 2017).

262

R. D. Nordgren

14.6  The Battle of Ideas When discussing The California Way and the possibility of its being a model for other states, it is important to examine the reform’s underlying political and ideological assumptions. The state is controlled by the Democratic party which, within California, was not only quick to embrace Obama’s ESSA but, as noted, seemingly anticipated it with their own expansive reform. ESSA and The California Way are a more politically progressive way to hold schools accountable, looking beyond the easy-to-obtain and, seemingly, easier for the public to comprehend test data. This may be a pivotal departure from the NCLB and the wave of neoliberal approaches taken to schooling since the 1980s, approaches which rely on the use of business practices in controlling schools, teachers, and principals (Ravitch 2010; Sahlberg 2012; Tienken and Orlich 2013; Verger et al. 2016; Wolk 2011). The overuse of standardized testing has been linked to the “neoliberalization” of schooling in that it provides an easily-reported measure of productivity such as sales reports in business. They are the main tool used by those who wish to make schools more like businesses, a movement that really began in the 1980s after the publication of A Nation at Risk and picked up momentum during the Clinton Administration, Bush II’s NCLB (Ravitch 2013; Verger et  al. 2016), and to some critics, even Obama’s Race to the Top initiative where he advocated using test scores hold schools accountable (Schneider 2017; Tienken and Orlich 2013). As previously noted, California has not been invulnerable to this neoliberalization as it, too, embraced the testing frenzy; nor is the state immune to powerful entities wishing to open up education funds to the marketplace. Recently, the Walton Foundation (operated by the family that started the world’s largest private employer, Wal-Mart) spent $365  million toward increasing the number of charter schools across the nation, with plans to spend as much as $1 billion for the cause (Capital and Main 2 June 2016). While all U.S. charter schools are publicly funded, they often operate outside local government control and are viewed by advocates and critics alike as a way to privatize public education (Abrams 2016; Tienken and Orlich 2013; Verger et al. 2016). California has the most charter schools with 630,000 serving roughly 10% of public school students (Zynshteyn 2017 July 20). As would be expected, many entrepreneurs and established companies would like a share of the $634 billion spent annually on education in the U.S. (National Center for Education Statistics n.d.) and the explosion in the number of charters is one such way to get at some of this (Adamson and Darling-Hammond 2016; Ravitch 2013; Verger et  al. 2016). Beyond profit, there is an ideological element at play. Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado-Boulder, states “[Those who promote the proliferation of charters] like charters in part because they decrease the publicness of public schools. They want a

14  California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower…

263

system much more based on the market forces because they don’t trust democracy” (Capital and Main 2016, June 2). As UCLA’s Rogers states: If funders like Eli Broad or the Walton Family Foundation were truly committed to education equality,” says John Rogers, an education professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, “they could have taken steps to simply support reducing class size or after-school [activities] or summer programs that would provide more educational opportunity, rather than try to invest in strategies to undermine the capacities of a school district. The primary aim is to dismantle the school district as a whole and replace it with a new way of doing public education (Capital and Main 2016, June 2).

Jason Mandell, CCSA’s director of Advocacy Communications, says that the charter lobby’s political action arm gives money in an effort to ensure that charter schools get a fair hearing on school boards. We hope for school board members who understand charter schools and are supportive of their growth, or at least the high performing ones,” he says. “There are folks who are opposed to charter schools, period, regardless of their impact on students. We think the communities are better served by having school board members not so ideologically extreme and who are happy to support charters when they are performing well and helping kids. School boards make real decisions on charter schools (Capital and Main 2016, June 2).

The Eli Broad foundation has a plan to increase charter schools in Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest and the nation’s second largest school district. The foundation is a stark critic of public education and champions the use of business-like practices, specifically entrepreneurship, and profit-seeking in education (Heilig 2013, October 4). As an example, for many years it awarded school districts for raising test scores (Rich 2015, February 9). It has an endowment of $2.5 billion much of it earmarked for their neoliberal education goals (Heilig 2013, October 4). In short, California is one of the many battlegrounds (and, certainly, the biggest) of the struggle between the public and private in U.S. education. Still, state politics in California are dominated by the Democratic party which, one would assume, is more prone to supporting the public good rather than the private given their history, from Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” to Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s attempts to provide healthcare for all. However, when it comes to education, the powers of the marketplace, supported by heavy lobbying in order to expose the hundreds of billions of dollars to be gained from various levels of government’s funding of public education (Verger et al. 2016). The allure of simply relying on test scores as compared to, for example, The California Way or the Somerville system, is difficult to resist for cash-strapped and time-­ sapped school and district administrators. The California Way’s support of a more nuanced and inclusive system (and, thus, more robust and meaningful (see Koretz 2017; Schneider 2017)) is needed to ensure that school administrators and, especially, policy makers do not succumb to the seductions of the relatively simplistic testing regimens.

264

R. D. Nordgren

14.7  The California Way’s Impact on School Leaders Given the increased responsibility and flexibility this expansive reform may offer to schools, the principal should become even more of a key to her building’s success— and failure. NCLB brought with it sanctions for what was deemed systematic ineffectiveness; that is, lack of increases in test scores. These sanctions were in the following sequence: 1 . the removal of the principal 2. a reconstitution of the faculty 3. a shut down of the school (Klein 2015, April 10). These “sticks” were accompanied by the “carrots” of additional funds for improved test scores, and this improvement must have been found across all demographics in the schools in order for the carrots to be awarded (Ravitch 2010). Both the rewards and punishments naturally caused the principals and teachers to go into “test-prep” mode as their jobs literally depended on it (Tienken and Orlich 2013; Wolk 2011). The well-known quote by the late sociologist Donald Campbell known simply as “Campbell’s Law” states: The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it was intended to monitor. (Campbell 1976, p. 49).

In the same article where this quote is extracted, Campbell also warned against such distortions as “creaming” (Campbell 1976, p.  51) which critics of charter schools say are often employed (Adamson and Darling-Hammond 2016; Ravitch 2013). That is, the schools will take only those students who will score well on tests, making the schools look successful; and, of course, there were publicized incidents of data manipulation and other devious tactics. Educators in such large school districts as Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. schools were found and/or accused of changing tests scores during the NCLB era (Ravitch 2013). By removing the great burden of testing from teachers and principals, schools can direct their attentions to learning beyond what can be measured by tests (see Koretz 2017; Schneider 2017; Tienken and Orlich 2013). California is attempting to do just this. The principal’s role is now transforming from that of testing manager/ promoter to that of instructional leader or “learning leader” (see Fullan et al. 2018). She can now spend more resources (time and energy as well money) to create a healthy culture that supports the need for improved, holistic learning, one that fosters the emotional and social health of the child. And, under LCAP, can have a better access to funds earmarked for to meet her school’s needs. Perhaps, the overused and impersonal term “learner” will be replaced by that of “child” (or “person” when considering college and adult education); thereby, shining light on the needs of the body and soul as well as the brain (see Zhou and Gearin 2018). This type of socialemotional intelligence is promoted in some alternative accountability systems (see Schneider 2017) and are meant be adapted and adopted by the schools and districts in the Golden State.

14  California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower…

265

The principal’s role should broaden to embrace her external community, as well as the internal (school). Instead of the principal simply being the key scapegoat of poor test scores, the mandated enlistment of community councils in the LCFF policies would seemingly position her to be more responsive to the needs of the community and to create meaningful relationships with members of that community (see Glaze 2018). As discussed above, The California Way and ESSA of 2015 acknowledge the need to have alternative measures for school quality besides merely standardized tests. This may be a crucial point in U.S. education as it can use the successes of California’s endeavors to move toward a more inclusive, a more well-rounded accountability system to meet the needs of the global economy and society (see Fullan et al. 2018; Sahlberg 2012; Verger et al. 2016; Wagner 2012; Zhao 2018). Psychologists such as Goleman (2005) and Ryan and Deci (2017) as well as a plethora of educators going back to Maria Montessori in the nineteenth century (see Gutek and Gutek 2017) and John Dewey in the early twentieth (Dewey 1900/1990) have advocated the need to teach the whole child. This type of education, as many current scholars in various fields (e.g., Chomsky and Macedo 2004; Reich 2016) profess, will allow the children and adolescents of California to be worthwhile contributors to the economy and, more important, to the society, at large (Zhao 2012). These contributions, especially those addressing society’s needs, are crucial for the future of the state, the nation, and the global village in which all must exist.

14.8  Conclusion In a foreshadowing of the ESSA of 2015, the Golden State enacted The California Way, a reform that utilizes a multi-faceted accountability system to empower local authorities, specifically the school principal, as well as de-emphasize the use of standardized testing. Through the use of multiple measures of school success, principals (and other local education leaders) must collectively determine needs and solutions to improve student learning and the overall learning environment. This opportunity for a more nuanced approach to creating quality, increases the responsibility which will fall on local units; however, with this responsibility comes more power, including flexibility, to create a culture that meets the explicit needs of their individual schools. The principal’s approach must be one in which she collaborates with all stakeholders both inside and outside the school campus, developing and enacting a plan (LCAP) that will seek and, ostensibly, appropriately use funds allowed through the LCFF. This chapter identifies some challenges to enacting The California Way including its inherent complexity as it has the potential to overwhelm the school principal, causing her to simply write a plan without the necessary inputs and safeguards to successful implementation. The changing role of the school leader is analyzed through the lens of leadership theory, while the various pitfalls that could away the reform are examined using school reform theories. This examination attempts to place The California Way in national and global contexts.

266

R. D. Nordgren

References Abrams, S. E. (2016). Education and the commercial mindset. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). The critical choice in American education: Privatization or public investment? In F. Adamson, B. Åstrand, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Global education reform: How privatization and public investment influence education outcomes (pp. 131–168). New York: Routledge. American Federation of Teachers. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved at https://www.aft.org/about Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1996). A manufactured crisis: Myths, frauds, and the attack on America’s public schools. New York: Perseus. Cabral, E., & Chu, C. (2013, December). Updated: The overview of the Local Control Funding Formula: Executive summary. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Retrieved at http:// www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/edu/lcff/lcff-072913.pdf California Collaborative on Educational Excellence. (n.d.). Retrieved at http://ccee-ca.org/aboutccee.asp California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2017, May 9). Retrieved at https://www.ctc. ca.gov/commission/default California Department of Education. (2017a, August 14). Retrieved at https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/ es/essa1617transplan.asp California Department of Education. (2017b, September 26). Retrieved at https://www.cde.ca.gov/ re/sd/co/coes.asp California Department of Education. (2017c, October 13). Retrieved at https://www.cde.ca.gov/ eo/mn/rr/ California Department of Education. (2017d, October 19). Retrieved at https://www.cde.ca.gov/ ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp California Department of Education. (2017e, October 25). Retrieved at https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ cs/re/qandasec1mar04.asp California Department of Education. (2018a, April 17). Retrieved at https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/ California Department of Education. (2018b, March 23). Retrieved at https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/ aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp#FC California Department of Education. (2018c, January 11). Retrieved at https://www.cde.ca.gov/ fg/aa/co/ssc.asp California State Board of Education. (2017, October 6). Retrieved at https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ ms/po/sberesponsibilities.asp California Teachers Association. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved at https://www.cta.org/en/About-CTA/ Who-We-Are/CTA-150-Year-History.aspx Campbell, D. (1976, December). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Retrieved at http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/Assessing_impact_of_planned_social_change.pdf Capital & Main. (2016, June 2). Failing the test: Charter school pawnbrokers. Capital & Main. Retrieved at https://capitalandmain.com/failing-the-test-charter-school-powerbrokers-0602 Cavanaugh, M., & Faryon, N. (2010, March 29). Sorting out Prop 13’s impact on education. KPBS.  Retrieved at http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/mar/29/ sorting-out-prop-13s-impact-education/ Chomsky, N. (Macedo, D., (2004). Chomsky on mis-education. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine the future (multicultural edition). New York: Teachers College Press. Dewey, J. (1900/1990). The school and society. The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago. EdSource. (2004, January). No child left behind in California: The impact of the federal NCLB so far. Retrieved at https://edsource.org/wp-content/publications/NCLB_1-04.pdf

14  California, USA: “The California Way”: The Golden State’s Promise to Empower…

267

Fensterwald, J. (2016, July 11). Superintendents, advisory groups at odds over revising LCAP. EdSource. Retrieved at https://edsource.org/2016/ superintendents-advocacy-groups-at-odds-over-revising-lcap/566851 Fensterwald, J. (2018, February 12). Creating a ‘test kitchen’ to come up with a better school accountability plan in California. EdSource. Retrieved at https://edsource. org/2018/3-districts-and-partners-pursue-ambitious-goal-designing-a-better-lcap/593458 Fullan, M. (2015a, January). A golden opportunity: The California collaborative for educational excellence as a force for positive change. Retrieved at https://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2015/05/CCEE-Opportunity_FINAL_1.7.2015.pdf Fullan, M. (2015b, July). California’s golden opportunity: LCAP’s theory of action: Problems and corrections. Motion Leadership. Retrieved at https://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2015/07/15_California_LCAPs-Theory-of-Action.pdf Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world, change the world. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. Glaze, A. (2018). Reaching the heart of leadership: Lessons learned, insights gained, actions taken. Thousand Oaks/Toronto: Corwin/Ontario Principals Council. Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam. Gutek, G.  L., & Gutek, P.  L. (2017). Bringing Montessori to America: S.S.  McClure, Maria Montessori, and the campaign to publicize Montessori education. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama. Heilig, J.  V. (2013, October 4). Cloaking inequity: The Broad Foundation and Broadies: Kings of “distruptive” and “unreasonable” trickle-down reform. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved at http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/ broad-foundation-and-broadies-kings-distruptive-and-unreasonable Klein, A. (2015, April 10). No child left behind: An overview. Retrieved at https://www.edweek. org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition-summary.html Knudson, J., Ramanathan, A., Carter, A., & O’Day, J. (2017). Fostering innovation: How user-­ centered design can help us get the local control funding formula right. California Collaborative on District Reform and Pivot Learning. Retrieved at https://cacollaborative.org/sites/default/ files/CA_Collaborative__LCFF_Fostering_Innovation.pdf Koretz, D. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make school better. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Latterman & Staffes. (2017, October). Tackling teacher and principal shortages in rural areas. National Conference of State Legislatures. Legal Brief, 25, 40. Retrieved at http://www.ncsl. org/research/education/tackling-teacher-and-principal-shortages-in-rural-areas.aspx Long, C. (2013, March 19). “Right to work” hurts students, teachers, and public education. NEA Today. Retrieved at http://neatoday.org/2013/03/19/ right-to-work-hurts-students-teachers-and-public-education-2/ Magee, M. (2013, April 16). Education historian returns to SD schools with praise. San Diego Tribune. Retrieved at http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/sdut-DianeRavitch-visits-San-Diego-2013apr16-story.html McLoughlin, R. (2016, November 30). Prop 13: Winners and losers from America’s legendary taxpayer revolt. Retrieved at https://www.trulia.com/blog/trends/prop-13/ Montes, L.  A. (2017, December 21). 40 years later prop 13 is still having a negative impact on public school finance in San Diego County. La Comadre. Retrieved at http://lacomadre. org/2017/12/40-years-later-prop-13-still-negative-impact-public-school-finance-san-diegocounty/ National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Fast facts. Retrieved at https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 National Education Association. (2016, May). Ranking and estimates: Rankings of states 2015 and estimates of school statistics 2016. Retrieved at https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/2016_NEA_ Rankings_And_Estimates.pdf

268

R. D. Nordgren

Ravitch, D. (2010). Life and death of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Random House. Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger of America’s public schools. New York: Random House. Reich, R. B. (2016). Saving capitalism: For the many, not the few. New York: Vintage. Rich, M. (2015, February 9). Billionaire suspends prize to schools. New York Times. Retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/education/billionaire-suspends-prize-given-to-schools. html Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford. Sahlberg, P. (2012). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press. Schneider, J. (2017). Beyond test scores: A better way to measure school quality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Spring, J. (2016). American education, 17th Ed. New York: Routledge. Tienken, C., & Orlich, D. (2013). The school reform landscape: Fraud, myth, and lies. Lanham: Rowman Littlefield. U.S. Census Bureau. (2017, June 14). More than half of school expenditures spent on classroom instruction. Retrieved at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-97-public-education-finance.html U.S. Department of Education. (2004, September 15). Retrieved at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/ elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html U.S. Department of Education. (2015, April 29). Office of civil rights. Retrieved at https://www2. ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016). The privatization of education: A political economy of global education reform. New York: Teachers College Press. Wagner, T. (2012). Change innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. New York: Scribner. Weiss, G. (2012). Ayn Rand nation: The hidden struggle for America’s soul. New  York: St. Martin’s. Winkler, A. M., Skull, J., & Zeehandelaar, D. (2012, October). How strong are teacher’s unions? A state-by-state comparison. Fordham Institute. Retrieved at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED537563.pdf Wolk, R. A. (2011). Wasting minds: Why our education system is failing and what we can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. Zhao, Y. (2018). Reach for greatness: Personalize education for all children. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. Zhou, Y. & Gearin, B. (2018). Imagining the Future of Global Education: Dreams and Nightmares. New York: Routledge. Zynshteyn, M. (2017, July 20). Understanding California’s charter schools: A quick guide. EdSource. Retrieved at https://edsource.org/2017/10-things-to-know-about-charterschools/583984

Chapter 15

Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State Nicola A. Alexander and Karen Seashore Louis

Abstract  The U.S. national policy pendulum tends to swing between devoting more resources to one set of value preferences over the other. Three key tensions have repeatedly emerged on the policy landscape of the United States: (1) choosing between equity and efficiency; (2) varying reliance on centralized versus decentralized structures; and (3) switching between “civic” and market-driven policy levers. We choose to highlight Minnesota because it illustrates many of the policy tensions and contradictions apparent on the national landscape. These trends exist in the context of an increasingly diverse student body, stable or shrinking school budgets, and expanding demands on the purpose of schools. In many ways, Minnesota’s educational governance system has much in common with other U.S. states: (1) its state agencies are the most powerful policy actors; (2) it faces pressures between equalizing funds versus maintaining local control; and (3) it has increased state legislative response to national discourses. Minnesota also represents our contention that there are 50 distinct structures and patterns of educational governance in the United States. While systemic reform has been the mantra for many US states, Minnesota legislators have tended to tinker around the edges and emphasize voluntary rather than mandated change.

15.1  F  ederalism, Funding, and Policy: An Intersection of Values We begin this chapter with an important reminder for international readers. Although the United States is a large and complex country, its educational system is highly decentralized. The constitutional responsibility for public schools rests with each state, and the federal role, both in funding and oversight, is limited compared to most countries. The US Constitution makes no specific reference to education, and N. A. Alexander · K. S. Louis (*) Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_15

269

270

N. A. Alexander and K. S. Louis

historically, federal investments in elementary and secondary schools are relatively small compared to contributions at the state and local level. Since the early 1970s, federal financial support for primary and secondary education has rarely risen above 10% of the funding overall (Chingos 2017), which includes separate pre-school programs for economically disadvantaged students (Head Start) and federal subsidies of school lunches.1 Most of the funding provided by the U.S. Department of Education is earmarked for special education programs and high poverty schools. While there was a temporary increase in allocations to states in 2009 and 2010 during the Obama administration, this was primarily in the form of incentive grants rather than allocations to permanent programs. Federal policymakers supported these increases as part of a package of economic stimuli to counter declines in state revenues tied to the dramatic 2008 recession. Increased federal investment in education did not represent a permanent philosophical shift among policymakers in the perceived responsibility of the federal government vis à vis schools. To note that the federal government plays a relatively small role in the development of education policy in the United States is not to say that federal action has been inconsequential. There are important federal markers on the US policy landscape that help shape what occurs in states and localities. Key policy efforts include the Johnson administration’s “War on Poverty” launched in the 1960s. This federal strategy included programs such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which focused on increasing opportunities for students from less affluent families and communities. The funding for these programs continues and the US Congress reauthorized these initiatives in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act and again in 2015 as Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Another notable marker is the Reagan administration’s “New Federalism” in the 1980s, which called for devolving more power to the states and giving them more discretion in the use of federal funds (Fowler 2013). It was under this administration that the National Commission on Excellence in Education wrote its report, A Nation at Risk, which decried the lack of attention to excellence in education. To combat what it described as the nation’s slide to educational mediocrity, it called for a more rigorous curriculum, more effective use of time in the school day, improved educational standards, advancing teaching, and promoting the importance of educational leadership (e.g., Goldberg 1984). This initiated a period of several decades in which exhortations about state responsibilities became an important federal role. More recently, under the Obama administration, there was a return to a more active federal position in guiding states. The Race to the Top (RTT) grants, initiated in 2009, provided significant financial incentives to states to implement a rigorous curriculum, adopt internationally benchmarked standards and assessments, recruit, develop, retain, and reward effective educators and to build data systems that measure student success and inform instruction and leadership. A key part of these

1  See https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html for general information on the federal role in U.S. education.

15  Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State

271

i­nitiatives was to encourage states to turn around their lowest-achieving schools. The RTT initiative prioritized the use of systems change and inducement policy levers over the more traditionally used mandates and capacity-building policy instruments (e.g., McDonnell and Elmore 1987). These policy strategies shifted authority in making key decisions from local public school boards and state departments of education to include agencies and individuals outside of the usual policymaking triangle. RTT funding was based on proposals from states, and was allocated in the form of four-year grants rather than permanent reallocations. Not all state proposals were successful, and not all states used the funding in the way that the federal government had hoped (Dragoset et al. 2016). The federal role has shifted again during the current Trump administration, which has rejected grant-based funding to states (Brown 2017). This rapid turn away from an active federal stance highlights an enduring characteristic of educational policy in the U.S.: efforts to shape a national educational policy environment have been (and are likely to continue to be) episodic and based on unresolved but competing value preferences. Thus, this chapter grounds our description of US governance in a discussion of these tensions. The national policy pendulum tends to swing between devoting more resources to one set of value preferences over the other (e.g., Boyd 1984; Fowler 2013). As suggested in our brief description of the last 50 years of federal educational policies, three key tensions have repeatedly emerged on the policy landscape of the United States: (1) choosing between equity and efficiency; (2) varying reliance on centralized versus decentralized structures; and (3) switching between “civic” and market-­ driven policy levers. Each swing of the federal policy pendulum affects but does not determine the policy agenda in states (e.g., Kingdon 1995). The relatively weak interpretation of federalism in the United States often results in different state interpretations of national policy (e.g., Louis et  al. 2008). Although commonalities among states emerge because of national conversations or “sermons” (Bemelmans-Videc et al. 2011), differences continue to be profound (Louis and van Velzen 2012). To understand educational governance in the U.S., it is therefore appropriate to begin with specific examples. We choose to highlight Minnesota because it illustrates many of the policy tensions and contradictions apparent on the national landscape. For example, Minnesota is noted for its overall high achievement, but its students of color are among the lowest performers in the country as measured by standardized achievement tests. The state has a centralized accountability mechanism with a mandated planning, evaluation, and reporting process for all school districts, but it also is known for sponsoring bottom-up educational innovations (Mazzoni 1993). We divide the remainder of this chapter into four sections. Section 15.2 provides a review of competing values framework to illustrate the concepts that guide our discussion of the policy context (e.g., Fowler 2013; Boyd 1984). We also incorporate school finance principles (e.g., Berne and Stiefel  1999; Alexander 2012). Section 15.3 describes the Minnesota context. Our description of Minnesota highlights both its unique features and those that reflect the structures and experiences

272

N. A. Alexander and K. S. Louis

of other states. In our description of the Minnesotan context, we also point out how the tensions of the national stage play out in the state. Section 15.4 describes key legislative and governance authorities in the state. That section incorporates the insight of stakeholder analysis as espoused by Marshall et al. (1989). Section 15.5 closes the chapter with emerging trends in legislative and administrative oversight in the United States.

15.2  Competing Values Framework Fowler (2013) indicates that a helpful way to analyze policy is to examine the relative importance of specific values over time. She and others have argued that only two or three values can be dominant at any given time and will influence the policies that emerge. We focus our discussion on potential tradeoffs between equity and efficiency; centralized and decentralized structures; and “civic” versus market-­ driven policy strategies. Equity Versus Efficiency  Equity refers to the fair distribution of resources in the achievement of established goals; efficiency entails the attainment of those goals using fewer resources. Okun (2015) postulated that there is a tradeoff between equality and efficiency, where policymakers could not maximize both values simultaneously. We adopt a more robust definition of equity than simple equality. We ground our discussion of equity in distributive justice, “where justice is defined as the ‘morally proper distribution of social benefits’” (as cited in Keddie 2015, p.  516). For instance, policymakers striving to have an equitable school finance system must balance several constraints. These constraints include individual needs (e.g., student poverty), programmatic costs (e.g., special education), and district attributes (e.g., population density). Crenshaw (1988) distinguished between a restrictive and expansive view of equity. Policymakers with a restrictive vision of equity consider it their responsibility to “prevent future wrongdoing rather than to redress present manifestations of past injustice” (1341–1342). More restrictive education policy approaches call for funding that has a fiscally neutral impact so that where students live is not associated with how much is spent on their education (e.g., Berne and Stiefel 1999; Odden and Picus 2008). An expansive vision of equity is one where policymakers focus on equalizing results rather than equalizing the process (Crenshaw 1988; Rousseau and Tate 2003). Alexander (2012), for example, advocated that equity assessments of school finance systems should be based on ‘results neutrality,’ rather than fiscal neutrality. She argued that funding policies should diminish the predictable connections between identities such as race and outcomes. Focusing on resource distribution points to a tradeoff between the values of equity and efficiency (Rolle 2004). Measuring technical efficiency in education

15  Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State

273

organizations is not new (e.g., Hanushek 1989), but the models used to measure technical efficiency oversimplify the relationship between educational inputs and outputs, and have not, therefore, resolved the value debates. Centralized Versus Decentralized Structures  Centralization refers to the concentration of governance and control in a single authority. The rationale for centralization is often to maintain certain standards (e.g. standardized statewide exams or state control of teacher credentials). Centralization can lead to economies of scale, where greater volumes can lead to lower per-unit cost per input. Advocates of greater centralization, particularly in school finance and governance, also argue that it can result in greater equity by reducing or eliminating disparities. This is one of the justifications offered for having states taking on the burden of financing its schools rather than sharing these costs with its localities. For every rationale provided for increased centralization, there is a counter point for decentralization. We adopt Weiler’s (1990) definition of decentralization, which incorporates both devolvement of authority to subunits of government (territorial decentralization) and outsourcing of responsibility (functional decentralization). This definition points to three major rationales for decentralized structures: (1) increased representation by distributing power; (2) greater efficiency by engaging those who implement policies in the design of policy; and (3) increased cohesion and acceptance by including different perspectives. Weiler (1990) noted global efforts to decentralize systems and structures have been predictably unsuccessful because the stated rhetoric of decentralization is not practically achievable. Rather, he argued that decentralization is primarily a politically useful tool to maximize the legitimacy of the governing authority and to minimize conflicts in society. Our analysis does not weigh in on this important question, but we again note that the tension between the interests of centralized and decentralized units remains unresolved. “Civic” Versus Market-Driven Policy Tools  A growing policy phenomenon is the rise of market-driven tools to effect social goals (Osborne 1993). The “theory” underlying New Public Management is that policies should reward the publicly defined outcome preferences of any agency (Hood 1995). One of the criticisms of these policies is that those organizations and individuals that the status quo already serves well remain better positioned when policymakers prioritize rewarding outputs over equalizing opportunities (cf. Hanushek 1989, 2003). An underlying assumption of market-driven strategies is that the current system does not have the right incentives to produce the outcomes desired by society. Historically, these strategies explicitly emphasized efficiency over equity, but in more recent repackaging, allowing consumer choice of public services, such as schools, is equated with equity (Hoxby 2003). Numerous quantitative and qualitative empirical studies (e.g., Goldhaber 1999; Lipman and Hursh 2007) challenge this perspective.

274

N. A. Alexander and K. S. Louis

15.3  W  hat Happens in Minnesota Does Not Stay in Minnesota Minnesota is a medium-sized state with a population of approximately 5.5 million. It is notable for a varied economy ranging from high tech and medical devices to mining to agriculture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Minnesota). Its economic diversity creates opportunities for more stable social policies, including education, than in some states. In addition to a robust financial position, Minnesota appears among the top states on the longitudinal “snapshots” provided by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/) and has an adult educational attainment level that is among the highest in the U.S. Like all other states, Minnesota’s constitution requires that the state’s legislature provide for the operation of its public elementary and secondary schools. Article XIII, Section I of Minnesota’s constitution asserts that “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state” (Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes 2018). The organization of school authorities in Minnesota is designed to fulfill that charge. Equity Versus Efficiency  A staple of economic theory is the assumption that, in practice, there will always be tradeoffs or an imbalance between the two goals of social policy, equity and efficiency. Minnesota’s education clause emphasizes efficiency, but equity has tended to dominate policy (and media) debates over the last 50 years, and it is usually the equity implications of its educational system on which plaintiffs base their court challenges. As with all other states nationwide, Minnesota has largely relied on a restrictive view of equity that focuses on equalizing inputs (see Verstegen 2017). The difficult balance between efficiency and equity means that resources allocated to increasing equity often focus on additional relatively low-cost resources rather than more costly (but more effective) resources targeted toward schools and students who are performing less well. For example, Alexander and Jang’s (2017) analysis of Minnesota’s funding for students whose native family language was not English (ELL students) showed that the efficient use of those resources was relatively consistent from 2003 to 2011, but resources tied to support of English learners remained low. Moreover, recent lawsuits argue that the efficient distribution of state desegregation funding to support districts with children in a “protected class” (minority and immigrant students) has failed to constrain the emergence of racially isolated schools and the provision of the constitutionally required “adequate education”. Centralized Versus Decentralized Structures  Minnesota’s educational governance system is a complex but unequal partnership among three jurisdictions-- federal, state, and local, with the state as the primary agent with responsibility for legislative

15  Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State

275

statutes and the design of administrative rules. Thus, while federal oversight is limited and shifting, Minnesota, like other states has relatively more dependable centralized structures to oversee local districts. Minnesota not only has established its leadership in the educational arena by formulating policy and procedures, but also by the investment it has made in the local education agencies (districts) in its jurisdiction. When compared to other states, Minnesota’s funding is more centralized than some (e.g., New Hampshire) and less than others (e.g., California). The state provides the bulk of funding (70%) of the revenues received by local districts and other public schools (Maciag 2017; U.S. NCES 2017). Like most states, publicly funded schools predominate: Only 8% of the children attended private schools in 2017, most of which are small, with a religious affiliation.2 However, the state is known for its public school choice options, and enrollment in charter schools, which are subject to most of the same legal requirements as other public schools, is growing. As in all but a handful of states, Minnesota distributes most of its educational dollars to local school districts and charter schools through its legislated school finance formula, whose purpose is to ensure adequate and equitable funding across all districts (https://apps.urban.org/features/funding-formulas). In addition, 35 of the 50 states have funding formulas that include funding that is targeted at low income students, in addition to federal funds that are earmarked for this purpose. Only four states’ formulas (Louisiana, Georgia, Utah and Minnesota) currently result in funding equality between districts with larger and smaller numbers of poor students (Chingos 2017). In general, each component in Minnesota’s funding formula reflects the state’s legislative perspective on school district funding needs (Alexander  2019). Components cover differential costs tied to economies of scale (e.g., small schools revenue, transportation sparsity revenue, both of which support rural schools), differences in the needs of students served (e.g., English language learner revenue, compensatory revenue based on family poverty), programmatic costs (e.g., gifted and talented student revenue) and the status of enrollment (e.g., temporary compensation for declining pupil revenue). The Minnesota school finance system thus reflects many of the equity principles surrounding distribution of funds described in school finance scholarship (Berne and Stiefel 1999; Alexander 2012), as well as a consensus that values stability in funding. Broad and largely stable funding formulas are only one aspect of efforts by the state to fulfill its constitutional obligation to ensure a solid education for all children. As with their federal counterparts, state policymakers frequently revisit the appropriate level of centralization necessary for the improvement of schools, and these typically produce a backlash that challenges state control. For example, in

 The U.S. constitution prevents public funding of religious schools except for support for special education. Most private schools in the U.S. are Catholic. The state enrolling the largest percentage in private schools is Louisiana (slightly more than 15%), while 9 states enroll fewer than 8% in private schools.

2

276

N. A. Alexander and K. S. Louis

1973, Minnesota lawmakers increased the centralization of their control of teacher certification with establishment of a state Teacher Standards and Certification Commission whose goal was to ensure teacher quality (e.g., Mazzoni 1993). However, by 2018, the now renamed Board of Teaching (and recently again renamed the Professional Licensing and Standards Board) was governed with a participatory structure that increased the influence of the higher education teacher preparation programs and professional associations, as well as introducing a variety of license options. This slow and gradual erosion in centralized control contrasts with the more rapid and visible fate of a state initiative that required local districts to submit equity plans to the Department of Education (the Multicultural and Gender Fair Curriculum Rule). Slow submissions and weak local plans resulted in increased state pressure that, along with media-stoked controversy about state policy intrusiveness, led to legislative elimination of the agency that was responsible for compliance (Stout and Stevens 2000). “Civic” Versus Market-Driven Policy Tools  A major share of education costs is teacher compensation, which in Minnesota is controlled locally through agreements between the school district and the teacher union. One frequently espoused policy in Minnesota and other states is redesigning the compensation of teachers so that their evaluation is at least partly reliant on outputs. In 2005, Minnesota passed the Quality Compensation program (Q Comp), designed to introduce incentives in the compensation of teachers who were “effective”. While this policy theoretically combined capacity building and inducements, it did not seem to change the practices of teaching (Darling-Hammond 2010, 2015). Instead, when implemented at the local level, many of the added salary benefits of Q Comp were directed toward other local goals, largely by creating incentives for teachers to take on additional responsibilities. This may account for the negligible impact of Q Comp and similar initiatives on the intended goal of improved student test scores (Choi 2015) as well as the persistence of significant variations in teacher pay among districts.3 These findings are consistent with those from other states (Alexander et al. 2017), suggesting that changes in teacher salary structures that are acceptable to the state and local teacher unions provide a weak lever to create change. Minnesota’s policies supporting parental choice have often been “sold” to the legislature using both market and civic arguments (Junge 2012). On the market side, prominent Minnesotans argued that parent choice of charter schools or transferring their child to another district would create incentives for increased innovation and improvement because it would break up a monopoly (Kolderie 1990). On the civic side, proponents have staunchly defended the role of charter schools in giving increased voice and access to minority families (Wilson and Nathan 2014). The tension between these two arguments is unresolved and bi-partisan, with “left wing” 3  There are no easily available comparisons of starting teacher salaries in Minnesota because the salary schedule changes frequently due to locally negotiated union agreements. In 2018, the average elementary teacher salary in Minnesota varied between $48,000 and $62,000 per year according to the website salary.com

15  Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State

277

lawsuits arguing that choice is part of a broader pattern that has resulted in more racially isolated schools (Orfield 2015), while others continue to see it as an instrument of innovative grass-roots democracy. Recent legislation (2017) extended the ability of both charter and district schools to partner and develop an “innovation zone” that includes variance from state regulations (https://education.mn.gov/MDE/ dse/zone/).

15.4  P  olicy Implications for Stakeholders Outside the Legislature and State Agencies Marshall et al. (1989) identified five spheres of influence among stakeholders: (1) insiders, (2) near circle players, (3) far circle players; (4) sometimes players; and (5) forgotten players. As Heck (2004) and others have noted, the level of influence on the policy agenda decreases the further away stakeholders are from insiders. By contrast, the direct and tangible impacts of the enacted policy decrease the further away one is from the forgotten players. Thus, those characterized as forgotten players often have the least influence on how policy is designed but bear the brunt of the change. Firestone (1989) argues that perceived inefficiencies of policymaking processes have less to do with the ineffectiveness of key players and more to do with the different incentives that exist at each stage of the policymaking process. Thus, legislators may be incentivized by the demands of their constituents and the likelihood of getting bills passed; by contrast, the incentives for teachers may look different. The latter incentives may simply be getting through the school day or seeing their students succeed. In Minnesota, educational oversight is vested in the state’s legislature and department of education. Minnesota’s PK-12 education policy is established in state statutes by elected members of the state legislature. This legislative body is bicameral, as in all states but Nebraska, and comprises the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each house has two standing committees focusing on primary-secondary (E-12)4 educational issues. The Minnesota House of Representatives has the Education Finance Committee and the Education Innovation Policy Committee. The Minnesota Senate has the E-12 Finance Committee and E-12 Policy Committee. Administration and the specification of legislative intent as regulations or rules are carried out by the Department of Education. For Minnesota, as with many other states, legislative committee members and executive leaders are insiders and have a lot of influence on the definition of the policy problem (Fowler 2013), the formulation of policy, and its ultimate enactment.

4  We use PK-12, P-12, and E-12 interchangeably. PK-12 and P-12 both stand for pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade; E-12 stand for early childhood programs through 12th grade. While the nomenclature varies, they typically represent the same set of programs.

278

N. A. Alexander and K. S. Louis

The Minnesota Department of Education is the main state agency responsible for overseeing E-12 schools and their influence on the policy agenda suggests they are near circle players. A Commissioner of Education, appointed by the governor and approved by the state’s senate, leads the department. Licensure of Teachers  We revisit the issue of state licenses for teachers because it provides a clear illustration of the inside-outside issues at the state level. In this case, far circle players influenced the implementation of enacted policies and the development of state regulations. As noted above, the responsibility for teacher licensure has been contested for over 20 years, and the name and functioning of the state agency with that responsibility has shifted. Currently called the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB), it replaced Board of Teaching after years of controversy and complaints regarding the standards used to license teachers, especially experienced teachers who moved from another state.5 The emergence of this licensing body coincided with the introduction of a multi-tiered licensing system, which followed the recommendations from both the Office of the Legislative Auditor (2016) and the Legislative Study Group on Educator Licensing (2016). A first-tier license lasts 1 year and may be renewed for an unlimited number of times. A tier 4 license lasts 5 years and can be renewed for an unlimited number of times. Kaput (2017) indicates that the rationale behind Tier 1 was to provide districts with teacher shortages with an uncomplicated route to get teachers, especially teachers of career and technical education (CTE). She continues that Tiers 2 and 3 are for teachers who are working towards obtaining the more permanent Minnesota licensure found in Tier 4. Tier 3 specifically mentions out-of-state teachers; after budget cuts and staff reductions in the Board of Teaching, there was not an easy alternate route for granting licensure for out-of-state teachers. Another challenge of the previous single-tier licensing system was the overlapping of licensure responsibilities between the Department of Education and the now-defunct Board of Teaching (Hinrichs 2017). Since January 1, 2018, these responsibilities were consolidated into PELSB, which has a semi-autonomous status. This allowed for a streamlining of the licensure process, but as noted previously, is not part of the Department of Education.6 Licensure of Administrators  With some exceptions, school administrators must be recommended for licensure after completing a university-based preparation program that is authorized by the state. The granting of the license is through the 5  One of the peculiarities of the U.S. system is that teachers are licensed by individual states, with no national standards or system to ensure easy movement of a qualified teacher from one state to another. Gitomer (2007) concludes, based on a study of 20 states, that an unpredictable confluence of state and federal policy changes, along with program innovations in higher education, has resulted in an overall pattern of more qualified teachers. 6  PELSB is responsible for (1) developing the teacher’s code of ethics; (2) adopting rules to license public school teachers; (3) adopting rules for and approving teacher preparation programs; (4) issuing or denying license applications (5) suspending, revoking, or denying a license based on qualifying grounds; and (6) verification of district and charter school licensure compliance.

15  Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State

279

Minnesota Board of School Administrators (BOSA), which was created by the Legislature in 2001 with the support of Minnesota educational administration organizations. It is an autonomous governing body; its purpose is “(a) to establish and maintain high standards for a quality administrator licensing system for Minnesota public schools, and (b) to ensure that the highest quality administrators serve the needs of Minnesota citizens” (https://bosa.mn.gov/BOSA/AboutUs/index.html). What is significant about BOSA is that it is autonomous – a feature that was important to “quasi-insiders” that included universities that prepare administrators and the state administrator professional associations – and its governing board consists of local stakeholders (school administrators, universities, and school board members) rather than state employees. Regional Centers of Excellence  Most states have some form of regional coordinating and service bodies, but both their functions and auspices vary (Christiansen and Talbott 2016).7 In Minnesota, Regional Centers of Excellence are a collaboration between the Minnesota Department of Education and Minnesota’s Service Cooperatives. The Minnesota Service Cooperatives, established by legislative statute in 2001, is a Joint Powers organization comprised of nine educational service agencies. The Minnesota Service Cooperatives, governed by a board comprised of representatives of the elected school boards in the region served, performs planning on a regional basis and assists in meeting specific needs of clients in participating governmental units that could be provided more efficiently by a Service Cooperative than by members themselves. While authorized by the state, the Service Cooperatives are, as in many states, funded by participating districts, fee-for-service activities, and grants.8 As providers of essential services, particularly for smaller districts, the regional centers reinforce local stakeholder’s assumption that “you don’t have to go to St. Paul (the state capital) to get what you need”. Local School District Boards  An overview of the key governance structures in Minnesota must acknowledge the historical tension between state and local control (Timar 1997), which is vested in over 12,000 locally elected school boards nationwide. Although efforts to consolidate small districts have been on state policy agendas for more than 50  years, the number of districts has been stable for several decades. There is little relationship between the number of autonomous school boards and the state’s population. States vary widely in the number of school boards, ranging from one in Hawai’i (a single board for the state), to Texas (over 1000 boards). Minnesota has over 300 autonomous local boards. While much attention is currently paid to epistemic national discourses, the educational policy instruments available to federal and state government are quite 7  In spite of their ubiquity, there is little information comparing the role of these agencies among states. An unpublished report for the mid-west region is available (Garcia et al. 2011) 8  Funding arrangements vary widely by state. For example, in Texas the service agencies are regional offices of the state’s education department.

280

N. A. Alexander and K. S. Louis

l­imited, in part because there is no coherent nested relationship between federal, state, and local policy actors (Howlett 2009). Thus, in all but a small number of large and highly centralized states, local boards (and their administrative officer, a superintendent) have considerable independence.9 Variations between districts within a state are common, particularly in states like Minnesota that have many small districts. There is increasing speculation (and some evidence) that local boards, supported by the superintendents, have a greater impact on the work of school-based professionals than state policy initiatives to improve educational performance (Louis and Robinson 2012; Ford and Ihrke 2016). Thus, in states like Minnesota, where inspection and mandates are infrequently used policy instruments, the engagement of stakeholders through committees created within or endorsed by formal state governance structures is viewed as a key strategy to create support for change. Perhaps not surprisingly, the lay school boards are responsive both to the constituencies that elect them and to the expertise of the superintendent, who is hired by and reports directly to them. Superintendents view themselves as setting the agenda for board policy and “managing” local educational politics rather than just implementing them (Carpenter 1987). The inherently political nature of local electoral politics undoubtedly contributes to the high turnover in both board members and superintendents, which, in turn, creates local policy churn (Ford and Ihrke 2016; Hackett 2015).

15.5  Emerging Trends in Educational Policy and Oversight Minnesota educational policy context reflects a blend of the tensions noted in the opening section: equity versus efficiency; centralization versus decentralization; and civic versus market-driven foci. Four key legislative trends will likely lead to additional changes in the structure of educational agencies created to support school districts and schools. These trends exist in the context of an increasingly diverse student body, stable or shrinking school budgets, and expanding demands on the purpose of schools. We group these state legislative trends as focusing on (1) equity; (2) accountability; (3) choice; and (4) costs. Equity considerations revolve around a major concern  – how do educational organizations treat marginalized students, whether due to racial background, poverty, or English as a second language. Accountability considerations usually require the gathering of information and the establishment of assessment standards via testing or curriculum reform. Choice considerations typically focus on expanding state aid to individuals so that private school attendance can be included. Cost considerations often focus on ways that the

9  Most states have the right to take over districts where boards overlook egregious violations of state policy or fail to provide adequate education. This is, however, uncommon.

15  Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State

281

state can stabilize costs, especially the costs associated with teacher retirement funds and meeting federal directives.

15.5.1  Equity Trends The focus on disciplinary action partially stems from increased national attention to the disproportionate temporary or permanent exclusion of minority students from schools. There is renewed policy emphasis on the adoption of positive behavioral interventions and supports before removing a student from class or beginning dismissal proceedings. Changes in these processes will require additional professional development for teachers, with questions of who should pay for and deliver the training. In the past, the balance between responsiveness and perceptions of safety have created fault lines between teachers and principals as front-line workers and district leadership, which bears the responsibility for ensuring due process and equitable outcomes. In addition, none of the policy “solutions” to minimizing expulsion are cost-free but, to date, no permanent adjustments in state funding support this goal. Another major legislative concern is the ability of schools to withhold student opportunities due to unpaid fees, including outstanding school lunch balances, book fines and school-sponsored student activity fees. Increasingly, responsibility is placed on districts to ensure that student from low income families are not denied opportunities available to affluent students. Distinguishing between scofflaws and needy families poses new administrative burdens (in addition to costs). Finally, because of the rapid increase in immigrant populations and their unequal distribution among districts, more attention is paid to the needs of children in families where the home language is not English. There have been rapid increases in permanent immigrant residences outside of the urban core, which creates significant pressures for increasing the school’s role in easing immigrant transitions. There are already growing demands on limited state “desegregation funds” as well as pending lawsuits that will inevitably increase pressure on the legislature to increase targeted funding.

15.5.2  Accountability Trends The Minnesota Legislature is interested in collecting data to ensure that districts and schools are meeting standards and complying with the expectations of state policymakers. For example, the most recent legislative session proposed that schools provide the State Department of Education with information regarding the number of students who withdraw from school rather than face expulsion as a way to close informal loopholes in reporting on exclusionary practices.

282

N. A. Alexander and K. S. Louis

State policymakers often tie accountability with academic standards, which has led to various updates in graduation requirements and curriculum. In 2016, Minnesota policymakers updated assessment standards to include requirements for standards related to civics education and physical education. (Laws of Minnesota 2016, chapter 189, article 25). In keeping with recent headlines and the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in the workplace, there is a movement for making sexual harassment part of the health curriculum. As currently envisioned these standards are expected to be permissive rather than mandated. The responsibility for fulfilling this responsibility will likely lie jointly with the Department of Education and the Department of Health. As in previous decades, there is increased interest among some legislators in creating simple-to-read ratings of schools. The most recent iteration in the legislative session was a proposed mandate that requires the commissioner to develop an academic achievement rating system using “star ratings.” Many educator groups opposed this measure, which had strong support from privately funded advocacy groups. For their part, the Department of Education is working with a committee of educators and parents to develop a dashboard report card that would include test scores, graduation rates and other data families can use to evaluate schools (c.f., Editorial Board 2018; Pringle 2018). The legislative oversight of the newly formed quasi-state agency, the Professional Educators Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB), will likely continue especially as policymakers seek to expand the pathways by which individuals can earn their license to teach in the state. This represents a shift away from the traditional reliance on the Department of Education to take full responsibility for rulemaking. Along with the fully autonomous Board of Supervision and Administration (BOSA) and the authorized-but-not-funded Regional Centers of Excellence, there appears to be an increasing trend to outsource functions previously carried out by state agencies. School safety will continue to be an important issue requiring legislative action especially given the deadly year of school shootings in other parts of the U.S. Legislative measures to increase security has often been in the form of additional funding for security with no prescribed mandates on how schools should accomplish that goal.

15.5.3  Choice Trends Minnesota is often viewed as the national legislative epicenter for public school choice. In addition to existing state-paid programs that allow students to attend charter schools or district schools outside their attendance zone, there is periodically a push for the state to pay for non-public schools. Most recently, there was an effort on the part of some state policymakers to allow tax credits for individual and corporate taxpayers that donated money to a qualified education foundation. The donated money was to be used by foundations for scholarships that would pay for student tuition at a qualified K-12 nonpublic or charter school or at a public or

15  Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State

283

p­ rivate preschool. Policies on tax credits for education have been the latest incarnation of voucher proposals in the state, but none has passed, and it seems unlikely that the market-focused arguments will dominate in the near future.

15.5.4  Efficiency/Cost Trends Compared with many other states (Louis et al. 2010), Minnesota policy has been more concerned with quality and equity than efficiency. Minnesota policymakers have tried to stabilize their educational costs by increasing employer contributions to the teacher retirement accounts and by limiting cost-of-living adjustments to teacher retirement benefits. In addition, there is the continued challenge of federalism, where the state tries to balance the costs of federal directives with the flexibility it accords to its local education agencies, especially in the area of special education. In the past, the state would reimburse 67% of district expenditures on special education programs. The state now has moved towards a census system. That is, the state no longer partially reimburses expenditures but now accounts for a wider range of cost factors like overall district average daily membership served, poverty concentration, district size, and the average costs of educating students with different primary disabilities (Education Commission of the States 2015; Minnesota House of Representatives, Fiscal Analysis Department 2016; Verstegen 2017).

15.6  Conclusion In this chapter, we have provided an overview of the policy values and governance roles of state agencies in Minnesota, focusing on the relationships among different agencies. In many ways, Minnesota’s educational governance system has much in common with other U.S. states. It is typical in four ways: 1. In spite of the attention to national discourses about educational reform, state agencies are the most powerful policy actors. 2. Although Minnesota’s state funding formulas are more focused on equalizing expenditures than many other states, they also do not visibly undermine the principle of local control that is fundamental to the US view of the structure of education. 3. Over the last few decades, there is evidence of increasing legislative attention to respond to national discourses. In Minnesota, as in many other states, this diminishes the autonomy and even the independence of the civil service/education department in rulemaking and oversight (while increasing their workload). 4. Minnesota has focused on improving and measuring standardized test-based outcomes, clinging to the hope that state-based accountability will improve schools.

284

N. A. Alexander and K. S. Louis

In other ways, Minnesota represents our contention that there are 50 distinct structures and patterns of educational governance in the United States. Many U.S. states have embraced the idea (if not the practices) of “systemic reform.” However, we see no evidence within the Minnesota system that the language or the aspiration for increasing policy coordination among units is a goal. Minnesota legislators have tended to tinker around the edges and emphasize voluntary rather than mandated change. In addition, educational funding remains a priority, even when the legislature has a strong anti-tax bent. Finally, conflicts over E-12 education funding are more likely to revolve around expectations of local control and to conflicting interests between the more rural areas and urban centers than around major initiatives to restructure the state’s role.

References Alexander, N.  A. (2012). Policy analysis for educational leaders: A step-by-step approach. New York: Pearson. Alexander, N. A. (2019). Minnesota. In D.  C. Thompson, R.  C. Wood, S.  C. Neuenswander, J. M. Heim, & R. D. Watson (Eds.), Funding public schools in the United States and Indian Country (pp. 365–382). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Alexander, N. A., & Jang, S. T. (2017). Equity and efficiency of Minnesota educational expenditures with a focus on English learners, 2003-2011: A retrospective look in a time of accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(16), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2811. Alexander, N. A., Jang, S. T., & Kankane, S. (2017, May). The performance cycle: The effectiveness of state policies tying teacher performance, student achievement, and accountability to student achievement. American Journal of Education, 123, 413–446. Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. O. (Eds.). (2011). Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. New York: Routledge. Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1999). Concepts of school finance equity: 1970 to the present. In H. F. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J. S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 7–33). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Boyd, W.  L. (1984). Competing values in educational policy and governance: Australian and American developments. Educational Administration Review, 2, 4–24. Brown, E. (2017). Trump orders study of federal role in education. Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/ trump-expected-to-order-study-of-federal-role-in-education/ Carpenter, D.  C. (1987, April). Minnesota superintendents’ perceptions of their role and influence in school board agenda setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 342 049). Chingos, M. (2017). How progressive is school funding in the United States? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/ how-progressive-is-school-funding-in-the-united-states/ Choi, W.  S. (2015). The effect of alternative compensation programs on teacher retention and student achievement: The case of Q Comp in Minnesota (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Christiansen, L., & Talbott, B. (2016). History of the Association of Educational Service Agencies. Katy: AESA.  Retrieved from: http://www.aesa.us/cms_files/resources/AESA%20History40. pdf

15  Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State

285

Crenshaw, K. W. (1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331–1387. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47. Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Can value added add value to teacher evaluation? Educational Researcher, 44(2), 132–137. Dragoset, L., Thomas, J., Herrmann, M., Deke, J., James-Burdumy, S., Graczewski, C., Boyle, A., Tanenbaum, C., Giffin, J., & Upton, R. (2016). Race to the top. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://www.mathematica-mpr.com Editorial Board. (2018, April 24). Proposed system for ranking Minnesota schools needs work. A less complicated, more effective presentation of data is needed.” Star Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/ proposed-system-for-ranking-minnesota-schools-needs-work/480423733/ Education Commission of the States. (2015). ECS 50-State Review. Retrieved from http://www. ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/19/47/11947.pdf Firestone, W.  A. (1989). Educational policy as an ecology of games. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 18–24. Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2016). Board conflict and public performance on urban and non-­ urban boards: Evidence from a national sample of school board members. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12315. Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.). New York: Pearson. Garcia, A., Shimmel, L., & Wraight, S. (2011). Characteristics of state educational service agencies. Napierville: REL Midwest. Retrieved from http://www.aesa.us/Archives/research_ archives/char_midwest_ed_agencies_030512.pdf Gitomer, D.  H. (2007). Teacher quality in a changing policy landscape: Improvements in the teacher pool. Policy information report. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Goldberg, M. (1984, March). The essential points of a nation at risk. Educational Leadership, 41(6), 15–16. Goldhaber, D. D. (1999). School choice: An examination of the empirical evidence on achievement, parental decision making, and equity. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 16–25. Hackett, J.  L. (2015). The high price of superintendent turnover. School Administrator, 72(9), 20–27. Hanushek, E.  A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018004045. Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of input - based schooling policies. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F64–F98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00099. Heck, R. H. (2004). Studying educational and social policy: Theoretical concepts and research methods. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hinrichs, Erin. (2017, September 27). Meet the new Minnesota board that will begin overseeing teacher licensure on Jan. 1. MinnPost. Retrieved from https://www.minnpost.com/ education/2017/09/meet-new-minnesota-board-will-begin-overseeing-teacher-licensure-jan-1 Hood, C. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 93–109. Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42, 73–89. Hoxby, C. M. (2003). School choice and school productivity. Could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats? In The economics of school choice (pp.  287–342). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Junge, E. R. (2012). Zero chance of passage: The pioneering charter school story. Edina: Beaver. Kaput, K. (2017, March 7). 3 things you should know about the proposed Minnesota teacher licensure system. The Innovation and Policy Blog,

286

N. A. Alexander and K. S. Louis

Education Evolving. Retrieved from https://www.educationevolving.org/ blog/2017/03/3-things-you-should-know-about-proposed-minnesota-teacher-licensure-system Keddie, A. (2015). ‘We haven’t done enough for white working-class children’: Issues of distributive justice and ethnic identity politics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(4), 515–534. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Kolderie, T. (1990). The states will have to withdraw the exclusive (unpublished paper, public services redesign project; xerox). Lipman, P., & Hursh, D. (2007). Renaissance 2010: The reassertion of ruling-class power through neoliberal policies in Chicago. Policy Futures in Education, 5(2), 160–178. Louis, K. S., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629–665. Louis, K., & van Velzen, B. (2012). Political cultures in England and the Netherlands: Similar discourse, different results. In K. S. Louis, L. van Velzen, & B. van Velzen (Eds.), Educational policy in an international context: Political culture and its effects. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Louis, K.  S., Thomas, E., Gordon, M.  F., & Febey, K.  S. (2008). State leadership for school improvement: An analysis of three states. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 562– 592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08323858. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., Anderson, S. E., Mascall, B., Michlin, M., Gordon, M., & Thomas, E. (2010). Learning from districts’ efforts to improve student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/ Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf Maciag, M. (2017, May 22). How much do states rely on federal funding? Governing. Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-state-budgets-federal-funding2015-2018-trump.html Marshall, C., Mitchell, D., & Wirt, F. (1989). Culture and education policy in the American States. New York: Falmer. Mazzoni, T.  L. (1993). The changing politics of state education policy making: A 20-year Minnesota perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 357–379. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. Minnesota House of Representatives, Fiscal Analysis Department. (2016). Financing education in Minnesota, 2016–2017. Retrieved from https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/files/16fined. pdf Minnesota Legislative Study Group on Educator Licensing. (2016). Report of the Legislative Study Group on Educator Licensing. Retrieved from https://www.lcc.leg.mn/lsgel/meetings/ LSGELReport.pdf Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor. (2016). Evaluation report: Minnesota teacher licensure. Program evaluation division. Retrieved from https://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/ pedrep/teachers.pdf. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/ constitution/ Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.). New  York: McGraw-Hill. Okun, A. M. (2015). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press. Orfield, M. (2015). Why are the twin cities so segregated? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from: https://www1.law.umn.edu/uploads/ed/00/ed00c05a000fffeb881655f2e02e9f29/Why-Are-the-Twin-Cities-So-Segregated-2-26-15.pdf Osborne, D. (1993). Reinventing government. Public productivity & management Review, 16, 349–356.

15  Minnesota, USA: Minnesota: Finance and Policy in a High Performing U.S. State

287

Pringle, K. (2018, April 26). Editorial counterpoint  : Minnesota should adopt a school rating system. Star Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/ editorial-counterpoint-minnesota-should-adopt-a-school-rating-system/480996831/ Rolle, R.  A. (2004). Out with the old-in with the new: Thoughts on the future of educational productivity research. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(3), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327930pje7903_3. Rousseau, C., & Tate, W. F. (2003). No time like the present: Reflecting on equity in school mathematics. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 210–216. Stout, K. E., & Stevens, B. (2000). The case of the failed diversity rule: A multiple streams analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 341–355. Timar, T. B. (1997). The institutional role of state education departments: A historical perspective. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 231–260. United States National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. NCES). (2017). Digest of education statistics. Table  235.20. Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of funds and state or jurisdiction: 2014–2015. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ digest/d17/tables/dt17_235.20.asp?current=yes Verstegen, D. A. (2017). Policy perspectives on state elementary and secondary public education finance systems in the United States. Educational Considerations, 43(2), 25–32. Weiler, H. W. (1990). Comparative perspectives on educational decentralization: An exercise in contradiction? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(4), 433–448. Wilson, W., & Nathan, J. (2014). In praise of strong charter schools. Star Tribune. May 23. http:// www.startribune.com/in-praise-of-strong-charter-schools/260479981/

Chapter 16

South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict and Cooperation in South Carolina Hans W. Klar, Kathryn Lee D’Andrea, and Seth D. Young

Abstract  School leaders in the United States today are expected to implement an ever-increasing flow of policies enacted by educational authorities at the federal, state, and district levels. These policies are developed under the assumption that their implementation with fidelity will ameliorate the challenges policymakers perceive to exist in schools. However, as noted by Cohen et al. (Am J Educ 113(4):515–548, 2007), “The relations between policy and practice embody a dilemma. Policies aim to solve problems, yet the key problem solvers are those who have the problem” (p.  515). Thus, in order to realize the benefits of educational authorities’ influences on schools, it is necessary to understand better how this dilemma between policy and practice can be resolved. The purpose of this chapter is to describe and analyze the development and implementation of an education policy initiated by state-level educational authorities in one U.S. state. In particular, the aim of this study is to understand how the lack of interaction between education authorities and practitioners around the development and implementation of the policy resulted in conflict. We conclude the chapter with an example of a policy recently developed and implemented with more cooperation and offer recommendations for successful policy implementation.

16.1  Introduction The case of South Carolina, a state located in the southeastern United States, provides a unique contribution to the examination of educational authorities and the schools. The state, which is among the lowest performing in the nation (Institute of Educational Statistics 2018), and is experiencing a critical teacher shortage (Center H. W. Klar (*) · K. L. D’Andrea College of Education, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] S. D. Young Anderson School District One, Williamston, SC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_16

289

290

H. W. Klar et al.

for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement 2018), has a long history of racial segregation (Lindle and Hampshire 2017), inequitable and inadequate school funding (Hein 2017), and a traditional political culture that favors local control by political elites (Elazar 1984). The result of these circumstances is frustration between the state’s educational stakeholders (Werts et al. 2013), and a poor perception of public education in general (Truitt 2006). Thus, more closely examining the manner in which a state-wide policy on reading achievement was implemented, could not only lead to increased interactions between educational authorities, and the implementation of more successful policies (Honig 2006), it also holds the promise of raising public perceptions of the educational authorities and public education in the state (Cohen and Moffitt 2011). To conduct our analysis, we drew on a conceptual framework grounded in four factors that comprise actions and resources intended to address the policy and practice dilemma (Cohen et al. 2007). In addition to these factors, we include the notion that interaction between policymakers and practitioners can increase cooperation, reduce conflict, and lead to more successful educational outcomes for students through the manifestation of beneficial and fully implemented education policy. Thus, to examine better the manner in which this process occurred, we utilized rational theory (Ostrom 1991, 1998) and political participation theory (Fowler and Kam 2007; Pizzorno 1970) to complete our conceptual framework. We begin our chapter with a brief overview of the literature supporting the concept of a policy and practice dilemma and our conceptual framework. We then describe the relevant state and local educational authorities. In the second part of the chapter, we use the four factors of our conceptual framework to describe how a state-level education policy, called the South Carolina Read to Succeed Act (South Carolina Code of Laws 2014, Title 3, Chapter 155, §110), hereafter referred to as “the Act,” was developed and implemented in South Carolina’s public schools. In the final section of the chapter, we use the second component of our conceptual framework, the lenses of rational theory (Ostrom 1998) and political participation theory (Pizzorno 1970) to examine how policymakers and practitioners in this state interacted to influence the development and implementation of the Act.

16.2  Background State and federal governments in the United States have become more involved in the governance of education over the last several decades. This increased involvement has often resulted in a tense relationship between policymakers and other stakeholders involved in the interpretation and implementation of education policy (Boyd and Crowson 2002; Wenner and Settlage 2015). According to Cohen et al. (2007), the tension between policymakers and other stakeholders is the result of a fundamental tension between policy and practice itself. Yet, rather than viewing the situation as the result of poor policy making on the part of educational authorities, or poor implementation of the policies on the part of school-based practitioners, they advocate viewing the relationship between policy and practice as a dilemma.

16  South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict…

291

Cohen et al. noted that policymakers, “depend on the very people and organizations that have or are the problem to solve it. At the same time, those that have or are the problem depend on policymakers” (p. 522). The dilemma, as described by Cohen and his colleagues (Cohen and Moffitt 2011; Cohen et al. 2007, 2017), illustrates the key role and mutual dependence of all stakeholders in the role of education policy improving educational practice. Increased dependence has also increased the necessity for interaction between policymakers and all stakeholders, including school and district leaders, to foster the creation of effective policies (Cohen and Moffitt 2011). Failure to resolve the dilemma could result in a continued escalation of the tension between policymakers and practitioners, to the long-term determent of the school reform process (Cohen and Moffitt 2011), and to the children whose learning is intended to be enhanced by education policy. Collaboration between policymakers and educational agencies helps to create environments where effective education policies are co-constructed (Datnow 2006) to help promote student success (Pitre 2011), arguably the most critical measure of policy effectiveness (Honig 2006). When policymakers collaborate with stakeholders affected by education policy, the ability of stakeholders to interpret policies as intended by policymakers is improved (Brewer 2011; Sherman 2008). Effective policy implementation is also aided by productive collaboration between policymakers and stakeholders, including school level administrators (Bryk 2015; Louis and Robinson 2012). The premise that interaction between educational authorities and practitioners can enhance collaboration is grounded in rational choice theory (Ostrom 1991; Zahariadis 2007). Sabatier (1991) stated that  the rational choice approach is “a superb framework for thinking about the effects of individuals and institutions on governmental policy decisions” (p. 151). According to rational choice theory, individuals involved in the communication and collaboration that takes place in the policy development process behave rationally (Ostrom 1991), and greater interaction between stakeholders leads to better informed, rational decisions. Collaboration between policymakers and practitioners is enhanced when relevant stakeholders participate in the process of developing and implementing policy. According to Pizzorno’s (1970) theory of political participation, an individual’s involvement in political processes is often associated with a person’s authority within a community. The more perceived authority or power a person has within a community, the more likely it is that they  will be an active political participant (Pizzorno 1970). Interactions between policymakers and those tasked with carrying out the implementation of policies help increase implementing agents’ likelihood of gaining the coherence and understanding of the policies necessary to implement them successfully (Honig and Hatch 2004; Louis and Robinson 2012). When interactions occur during the policy development process, policies are more likely to be accompanied by the resources necessary for successful implementation (Sherman 2008). Conversely, without such interactions, policymakers oftentimes lack an adequate understanding of the resources necessary for implementers to effectively implement

292

H. W. Klar et al.

policies (Cohen et al. 2007). Having the appropriate resources and an understanding of how to properly use those resources is essential for the successful implementation of policy at the school level (Knoeppel 2007; Spillane et al. 2002). When there is a lack of interaction between policymakers and policy enactors, levels of frustration and distrust are more likely to increase (Desimone 2006). Frustration can increase when those responsible for policy implementation disagree with the policy (Carpenter and Brewer 2014). In a recent study in South Carolina, over 50% of surveyed school leaders indicated they are asked to implement state policies with which they disagree (Young 2018). This misalignment between policy aims and practitioners’ lack of interest or commitment in implementing policies is likely to lead to policy aims not being realized (Cohen et al. 2007). The failure to fully implement policies further exacerbates the distance between policy and practice and the existing levels of conflict between policymakers and those asked to implement them.

16.2.1  Factors in the Policy and Practice Dilemma In order to reduce the distance between policy and practice and minimize the tension that can emerge between policymakers and practitioners, Cohen and his colleagues (Cohen et al. 2007) suggested examining the activities and resources related to policy development and implementation. They further distinguish the activities and resources into four factors: policy aims, policy instruments, practitioner capabilities, and the policy environment. Policy Aims  Generally speaking, the goal of education policy is to establish an agenda that deviates from, indeed enhances, current practice. Cohen et al. (2007) contend that the aims of such policies can range from modest to ambitious and clear to ambiguous. While aims  that are more ambitious hold the promise of greater improvement in practice, they may also result in a greater strain on practitioners as they represent a greater deviation in current practices and a larger commitment of suitable resources and practitioner capacity. The clarity with which an aim is written also impacts its implementation, with more ambiguous aims allowing practitioners more flexibility in their implementation, but also increasing the likelihood that the policy aim will not be implemented with fidelity (Cohen et al. 2007). Policy Instruments  Policy instruments are one of three resources that influence the relationship between policy and practice identified by Cohen et  al. (2007). Instruments are resources that are provided by policymakers to assist in the implementation of the policy (McDonnell and Elmore 1987). Instruments include “money, mandates for action, incentives to comply, flexibility to adapt a policy to local conditions, and ideas that inspire or inform implementers’ understanding and actions or contain systematic evidence about instant implementation and effects” (Cohen et al. 2007, p. 525).

16  South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict…

293

Instruments must suit the changes required of the practitioners to meet the demands of the policy aims. The instruments can vary in terms of their strength, that is the degree to which they are able to support change in practice, and their salience, or the degree to which they relate to the required change in practice. Policy instruments that are both strong and salient would seem to hold the greatest potential to support change in practice related to policy aims. Yet, developing suitably strong and salient instruments requires greater familiarity with the current level of resources and the degree to which resources are currently being used. It also requires that the instruments are consistent with the aims of the policies and the capabilities of the people who will implement them (Cohen et al. 2007). Practitioner Capabilities  Capabilities are the resources that policy implementers and other members of the policy environment utilize when enacting a policy. Viewed as assets, capabilities consist of a combination of “individual knowledge, values, interests, and dispositions and social capabilities” (Cohen et al. 2007, p. 538). The capabilities, of an individual or an organization, are relative to those required by the policy aims and the accompanying instruments (Cohen et al. 2007). As the level of practitioners’ capabilities is also tied to their levels of interest in and commitment to certain policies, it is essential that they are familiar with the purpose of the policies, and the degree to which the policies could positively enhance their practice. Policy Environment  Educational authorities work in and through environmental factors that influence the development and implementation of education policy. According to Cohen et al. (2007), the policy environment includes the broad political, economic, demographic and social influences on education. These views can differ in terms of state versus local control and issues of social inequality. The environment can influence the “design, content and implementation of policies” (Cohen et al. p. 527). These aspects of the education environment can also influence, positively or negatively, the way policymakers and practitioners view and interact with each other, and thus the degree to which they understand the work of others. The Policy Environment in South Carolina  The education policy environment in South Carolina is one marked by frustration and top-down influence. Historically, in South Carolina, perceptions have existed that state policies have not been supportive of public education (Truitt 2006). For example, during the 1950s, the state’s legislature passed legislation to disband the public education system in an attempt to circumvent desegregation (Lindle and Hampshire 2017). Over the last several decades, students from racially diverse and lowincome regions of the state have performed at consistently lower academic levels than students from other parts of the state (Brewer et al. 2015; Werts et al. 2013). This disparity resulted in many school districts suing the state due to the minimal financial support they received for public education (Hein 2017). The sense of frustration between policymakers and educational leaders in South Carolina is exacerbated by the significant role of high-stakes testing in the state’s educational accountability policies, (Brewer et al. 2015; Werts et al. 2013), and the top-down way in which they are implemented.

294

H. W. Klar et al.

According to Elazar’s (1984), theory of political culture, South Carolina is characterized as a state with a traditionalistic political culture. In states with a traditionalistic political culture, “policy is made by elites with an emphasis on continuity and control” (Elazar 1984, p. 118). Policymaking in traditionalistic states is generally considered to be top-down and only government appointed stakeholders are able to provide meaningful input to policymakers (Gordon and Louis 2012). The top-down approach to school reform that can be seen in South Carolina, and is indicative of education policy in states with traditionalistic political cultures (Febey and Louis 2008), has also created an atmosphere where educators become less likely to participate in the education policy environment (Mead 2004). In a recent survey of school administrators in South Carolina, Young (2018) noted that less than twenty percent of school leaders indicated they were extremely likely to contact a policymaker at the state level. Without interaction and communication between policymakers and those asked to implement policies, the likelihood of successful policy implementation further decreases.

16.3  Conceptual Framework For the purposes of this chapter, we developed a conceptual framework grounded in the four factors that Cohen and his colleagues (Cohen and Moffitt 2011; Cohen et al. 2007) described for investigating the distance between research and practice and to mitigate the tension resulting from this dilemma. To this framework we added the lenses of rational theory (Ostrom 1991, 1998) and political participation theory (Pizzorno 1970) to more closely examine the role the interaction between policymakers and practitioners can play in increasing cooperation, reducing conflict, and creating more successful educational outcomes for students. As can be seen in Fig. 16.1, the four factors impacting the relationship between policymakers and educators include policy aims, policy instruments, practitioner capabilities, and the policy environment (Cohen et al. 2007). Policy aims refer to scope and clarity of the policies through which policymakers intend to influence educational practice. Policy instrument refers to the strength and salience of the resources that accompany policies. Practitioner capabilities refer to the individual and organizational abilities of those asked to implement policies. The political environment refers to the social, political, economic, and demographic influences on the policymaking and policy implementing process. The arrows between each factor highlight the interconnectedness between them. Our conceptual framework extends Cohen et al.’s (2007) scholarship on managing the dilemma between policy and practice by utilizing rational theory (Ostrom 1998) and political participation theory (Pizzorno 1970) to examine how higher levels of collaboration between state and local educational authorities, occurring through participation in the policy making process, could result in more successful policy development and implementation.

16  South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict…

295

Fig. 16.1  Conceptual framework

16.3.1  Educational Authorities in South Carolina Education in South Carolina is governed by educational authorities at the state and local levels. The most prominent state-level agencies are the State Legislature, the State Board of Education (BoE), the State Department of Education (DoE), and the Education Oversight Committee (EOC). The primary educational authorities at the local level are school district boards of education.

16.3.2  State Legislature In the United States, education is the responsibility of each state. In South Carolina, this responsibility falls on the State Legislature, commonly known as the General Assembly. The General Assembly, like the federal legislative body in the US, is comprised of the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 46 senators, who serve for four-year terms, and there are 124 representatives, who serve two-­ year terms. Both senators and representatives are elected by their local constituents. The General Assembly has a large influence on education policy in South Carolina. The state constitution calls for the General Assembly to provide and support a system of free public education for all children residing in the state. In fulfilling this responsibility, the General Assembly passes laws and provides funding to implement them through the work of four committees. In the Senate, these are the Finance Committee and the Education Committee. The corresponding committees in the House are the Ways and Means Committee and the  Education and Public Works Committee. In 1998, the General Assembly passed the Education Accountability Act (South Carolina Code of Laws 1998, Title 59, Chapter 18). Through this act, the legislature

296

H. W. Klar et al.

created a “performancebased accountability system for public education which focuses on improving teaching and learning so that students are equipped with a strong academic foundation.” Through such legislation as the Education Accountability Act of 1998, which has been revised multiple times, and the earlier Education Improvement Act of 1984, the legislature exerts influence over other educational authorities in the state. The General Assembly further influences the activities of other educational authorities in the state as members of the General Assembly appoint many of the members of these committees, as described below.

16.3.3  SC State Board of Education The South Carolina State Board of Education (BoE) is the policy-making body for public schools (elementary, middle, and high) as established under the South Carolina constitution. In essence, the Board promulgates the regulations and distributes the funds needed to implement the policies created by the General Assembly. The Board is comprised of 17 members; one member being elected by legislators from each of the 16 judicial circuits and one appointed by the state governor (S.C. Const. art. 1, § 1). The board members serve four-year terms. The Board is required to adopt a statewide assessment program to: promote student learning and measure student performance on state standards; identify areas where students, schools, and districts have been successful and where more support is needed;  satisfy all reporting requirements; and provide professional learning opportunities to educators (South Carolina Code of Laws 1998, Title 59, Chapter 18, §310(A)). The work of the Board is instituted through the State Department of Education and must be conducted in full cooperation with the State Superintendent of Education (South Carolina Code of Laws 1962a, Title 59, Chapter 5, § 60).

16.3.4  SC State Department of Education The South Carolina Department of Education (DoE) is the state education organization for South Carolina. The DoE is overseen by the state superintendent of education, who is elected by the citizens of the state and serves as the state’s chief education officer. One of the primary responsibilities of the DoE  is developing guidelines to support and supervise the implementation of policies and procedures created by the State Board of Education. The DoE is required to collaborate with and receive approval from the Education Oversight Committee when designing and implementing initiatives. The DoE is divided into five divisions: the Division for Legal Affairs; the Division of College and Career Readiness the  Division of Federal, State, and Community Resources; the  Division of Innovation and Effectiveness;  and the Division of Operations and Support. Each division is responsible for supporting students in

16  South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict…

297

becoming college-and-career ready by providing school districts the guidance and resources necessary for students to meet the Profile of the South Carolina Graduate (SC DoE 2018a, b).

16.3.5  SC Education Oversight Committee As part of the Education Accountability Act of 1998, the Education Oversight Committee (EoC) was established to “assist in, recommend, and supervise implementation of programs and expenditures of funds from the Education Accountability Act and the Education Improvement Act of 1984” (South Carolina Code of Laws 1962b, Title 59, Chapter 6, § 10(A)). In fulfilling its role as the oversight committee for these acts, the EOC: • Reviews and monitors the implementation and evaluation of Education Accountability Act (EAA) and Education Improvement Act (EIA) programs and funding; • Makes programmatic and funding recommendations to the General Assembly; • Reports annually to the General Assembly, BoE, and public; and • Recommends changes to the EAA and EIA to state agencies and other entities. Educational authorities that receive funding to implement initiatives related to the EAA and the EIA (e.g. the BoE, DoE, and school districts) must work collaboratively with the EOC’s Division of Accountability and must provide the EOC with any information it needs to fulfill its role (South Carolina Code of Laws 1962b, Title 59, Chapter 6, § 120). Furthermore, the EOC has the power to approve “Any new standards and assessments required to be developed and adopted by the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education for use as an accountability measure” (South Carolina Code of Laws 1998, Title 59, Chapter 18, § 320(D)). The 18 members that comprise the EOC are elected officials (or their designees), business leaders and educators. The elected officials include the governor, state superintendent of education, and leaders of the Senate (3) and the  House of Representatives (3). The five business leaders and the five educators are appointed by the governor and the leaders of the House and Senate. As a result of this configuration, 14 of the 18 members of the EOC are appointed by leaders of the General Assembly.

16.3.6  SC School Districts South Carolina’s 46 counties are divided into 86 public school districts, with some counties representing a single district, and other counties split into multiple districts. School districts serve as the local educational authority and provide free education to the children residing in their zoning area. Each school district is managed

298

H. W. Klar et al.

and controlled by a board of trustees (South Carolina Code of Laws 1962c, Title 59, Chapter 19, § 10). Some school districts and their respective boards are supervised and controlled by the county board of education (South Carolina Code of Laws 1962c, Title 59, Chapter 19, § 10), while others are autonomous. The trustees, who are elected by their respective district constituencies, elect one member as the chairman of the board and another as clerk of the board (South Carolina Code of Laws 1962c, Title 59, Chapter 19, § 70). The Board also hires a district superintendent, who serves as the chief education officer of the district. The role of school districts’ boards of trustees is to regulate and support schools by assisting with school improvement, instructional support, and monitoring or evaluation. The boards promote education by providing school buildings and other instructional resources, which they are able to fund by levying taxes. The board also has the authority to set the school calendar and to hire and fire educators in the district (South Carolina Code of Laws 1962c, Title 59, Chapter 19, § 90).

16.3.7  T  he Relationship Between Educational Authorities in South Carolina Though the head of the executive branch of government in each state in the United States is the governor, as can be seen in Fig. 16.2, the governor of South Carolina plays a very small role as an education authority. The prime educational authority of the governor is appointing representatives to the EOC and the BoE, and signing laws passed by the State Legislature. However, as these laws can be passed without the governor’s approval, the arrow between them is bi-directional. As the primary legislative body in South Carolina, the State Legislature passes education laws and approves funding to support their implementation. The State Legislature exerts influence over other educational authorities in the state through legislation such as the Education Accountability Act of 1998, which charges the BoE with implementing the laws. It also influences the BoE and the EOC by appointing many of the members of their committees. The BoE influences the work of the DoE, in collaboration with the state superintendent, when it promulgates regulations and distributes funds to implement policies. In turn, the BoE and state superintendent influence local boards of education and school districts though the guidelines and recommendations they develop. A particularly interesting aspect of education policy in South Carolina is the role of the EOC. As noted, the EOC, which was created as part of the EAA, was given the power to approve or reject activities related to the state’s accountability system proposed by other educational authorities in the state, such as academic standards and assessments. Though this legislation, the EOC became a de facto extension of the General Assembly’s influence over education in the state. This influence can be seen in Fig. 16.2 with arrows of influence directed from the EOC to the BoE, State

16  South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict…

299

Fig. 16.2  The educational authorities in South Carolina

Superintendent, and DoE. In this way, the EOC serves a key role in the implementation of education policy in public schools throughout the state.

16.4  The Read to Succeed Act 16.4.1  Policy Aims In January 2013, then Governor Nikki Haley invited school superintendents to the Governor’s Mansion for an “important announcement” regarding educational pursuits in South Carolina. In the years since the economic recession of 2008–2011, the governor, along with the Office of Economic Development had recruited new businesses and industries to many of the state’s 46 counties. The large, multi-national companies that began operating in South Carolina during this time, required

300

H. W. Klar et al.

employees with advanced manufacturing skills. The literacy and numeracy skills required for these jobs were in stark contrast to those possessed by workers in the agriculture and textile industries that had dominated the state’s workforce for almost a hundred years. As the demand for a skilled workforce increased, discussions soon centered on the state’s capacity to provide employers with a suitably skilled workforce. However, the 2012 state report card for education provided ample evidence that the state was in danger of not meeting these demands, with some districts having graduation rates of around 60%, and approximately 30% of third graders not reading on grade level in one-fourth of the school districts (SC DoE 2018a, b). At the January 2013 meeting, the governor announced to that she and her staff had presented a legislative concept for improving reading achievement to members of both bodies in the South Carolina General Assembly. During the question and answer period following the announcement, many district superintendents had questions about the implementation of the initiative, the research regarding the retention of children, and flexibility for districts already demonstrating successful student achievement. At the time, the elected state superintendent of education had a strained relationship with school district superintendents, and the DoE operated with a skeleton staff. These factors contributed to little discussion of, let alone collaboration around, the bill as it progressed through the legislative process. As a result, the bill was formally introduced on March 12 of that year with little more discussion. The bill had very ambitious aims, requiring all districts to implement a comprehensive plan to ensure that pre-kindergarten to twelfth-grade students in their districts were able to read proficiently. Importantly, the bill also required that students not reading on grade level by the end of the third grade to be retained.

16.4.2  Policy Instruments As the legislation made its way through the General Assembly during the spring of 2013, DoE staff, school-based educators, and faculty from the higher education community began the task of creating guidelines for implementing the policy. After a three-month period, the bill, which came to be known as the Read to Succeed Act was ratified by the General Assembly on June 9, 2014 and signed into law by the governor two days later. Despite this ambitious piece of legislation involving multiple educational agencies, it passed with little collaboration and only a limited review of the instruments that would need to accompany the policy to support its implementation. Districts were supplied with some additional funding to hire reading coaches in elementary schools. However, districts were required to match these contributions, and there was little flexibility in determining how this money would be appropriated, or what the coaches’ duties would consist of, thereby limiting the likelihood of the Act being successfully implemented in elementary schools. Middle schools and high schools also faced challenges implementing the Act due to a lack

16  South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict…

301

of funding to hire reading coaches, counter to the directive in the law which sought a comprehensive continuum of reading achievement through 12th grade. In addition to funding for reading coaches, the Act called for other salient instruments, such as resources for teaching reading, to be provided to teachers, and for the creation of a Read to Succeed Office in the DoE to support educators at the school and district levels. However, the Read to Succeed Office was not established at the outset, and other policy instruments, like ideas and understanding to inspire and motivate, were not evident or lacked strength.

16.4.3  Practitioner Capabilities The Act called for district reading plans, seamless intervention processes, ongoing assessments of reading fluency and comprehension in pre-kindergarten through third-grade classes, new teacher certification requirements, summer reading camps for students not making adequate progress toward reading on grade level by the end of third grade, and school-level reading coaches. The Act also required teachers to add a literacy endorsement to their current teaching certificates. As noted, it is the role of the DoE to support local educators in developing the requisite capacities to meet the demands of accountability policies such as the Read to Succeed Act. Under previous state superintendents, the DoE regularly hosted regional professional development meetings for the purpose of building understanding, answering questions, and developing common language around accountability policies. However, in this instance, the immediate focus of the DoE was on writing regulations and guidance on the duties of reading coaches and holding summer reading camps. This work was also being done by a DoE that was operating on a reduced staff, with the state superintendent having reduced the number of positions in the department by almost one-third. As a result, there was no Office of Read to Succeed and little guidance from the DoE. Furthermore, while some districts had instructional coaches who had been trained in a variety of coaching models, few districts had certified reading coaches. Not having a systemic approach for meeting the aims of the Act, strong and salient instruments, or the individual and organizational capability to implement it as described, districts responded to the directives of the Act in individualized ways. Some districts implemented plans for teachers to receive the training necessary for the reading endorsement. Yet, the hurried manner in which the Act was passed left  many teachers out of the planning process. As a result, many aspects of the policy implantation were simply conducted in a perfunctory manner, with some districts continuing to operate much the same as before the Act had been passed.

302

H. W. Klar et al.

16.4.4  Policy Environment As noted above, the impetus for passing the Act was a need to drastically increase the knowledge and skills of the South Carolina workforce to meet the demands of high-tech industries. The Act was created in a policy environment that was and remains complex, even contentious at times. This environment is strongly influenced by political, economic, demographic, historical, and cultural factors. The three educational authorities directly elected by citizens of the state, the governor, the state superintendent of education and the members of the General Assembly, are primarily beholden to their constituents. Furthermore, these authorities, are often from different political parties, which hold disparate views on how to address the educational challenges in South Carolina. The population of the state is represented by of a wide range of demographic groups and incomes. Some regions experience very low levels of unemployment, while others have double-digit unemployment. Cities and suburban areas often feature advanced manufacturing or medical jobs, while more rural parts of the state depend heavily on forestry and other types of agriculture, and counties in the coastal region are dominated by service jobs associated with the tourism industry. In South Carolina, this economic development and workforce diversity influences the education environment and exacerbates gaps in student achievement and deeper social inequalities. In the case of the Read to Succeed Act, the state’s political elites recognized the challenges to fostering further business and development caused by the low levels of academic achievement being demonstrated by students in the public education system. Not believing that educators in the state could meet the challenges on their own, the response of the elite business and political classes was to enact legislature to, from their perspective, fix the problem. Indeed, instead of consulting educators in the state, the governor, the state superintendent of education, and members of the General Assembly sought solutions from various associations outside the state, such as Southern Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Much of the impetus for specific initiatives in the Act came from educational reforms conducted in the state of Florida. Thus, the Act was passed in a policy environment comprised of  negative political, economic, demographic, and social influences on the education policy environment.

16.5  Discussion The message is clear. Practitioners and policymakers need to collaborate to enhance the likelihood of education policies positively impacting the students they were intended to serve. They are mutually dependent on each other in this endeavor, as captured by Cohen et al.’s (2007) notion of a policy and practice dilemma. From a

16  South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict…

303

rational perspective, when education authorities and other stakeholders collaborate to co-construct (Datnow 2006) and implement educational policies, they develop a better understanding of the aims and concerns of each party. In particular, policymakers are able to create and adequately resource more suitable policy, and the policy implementers, or street-level bureaucrats, are able to more accurately interpret and implement the policy (Honig and Hatch 2004; O’Laughlin and Lindle 2015). From the perspective of the policy and practice dilemma, a greater level of collaboration can, in turn, lead to more successful policy implementation as policies can be written with more appropriate scope and clarity. In addition, instruments of suitable strength and salience accompanying the policy and matched with the individual and organizational capabilities of the practitioners, can be responsive to pertinent environmental factors. Furthermore, this process can be enhanced when all stakeholders actively participate in the policymaking process. The case of South Carolina and the Read to Succeed Act provides an illustrative example of the perils of not addressing the policy and practice dilemma during the policymaking and implementation process. The aims of the Act were both clear and highly ambitious. Yet, without the opportunity for collaborative input and discussion during the Act’s hasty development process, there were, and continue to be, significant challenges to realizing its successful implementation. As a result of the lack of collaboration in the policymaking process, the resources that were provided, though salient, lacked sufficient strength to support its implementation at the local level. Furthermore, lack of flexibility in the manner in which they were to be implemented reflected a limited understanding of the individual and organizational capabilities of the sites where the Act was to be implemented. Consequently, local educators had a limited understanding of the Act, why it was written, or how it was meant to be implemented. To this point in time, the educational authorities responsible for implementing the Act have been overwhelmed by its demands, and seen few examples of its successful implementation. The factors of Cohen’s et al.’s (2007) concept of the policy and practice are interconnected, as indicated in Fig. 16.1. Among the factors, though, the policy environment provides the clearest lens for understanding the dilemma. The level of distrust between educational authorities, the lack of belief in educators’ abilities to solve the problems, and the traditionalistic political culture (Elazar 1984) that led to educators deferring important educational decisions to the political elite all contributed to this situation. Rather than reducing the levels the distrust between policymakers and practitioners, the process by with the Act was developed and implemented exacerbated them. While the development and implementation of the Act provides an example of conflict between educational authorities, the manner in which recent changes to the teacher assessment system have been implemented shows promise for a more cooperative relationship between educational authorities in the state. The Every Student Succeeds Act (2018) grants states the flexibility to develop their own educator evaluation systems. In South Carolina, the DoE took this opportunity to develop a more productive relationship between education authorities by systematically seeking

304

H. W. Klar et al.

feedback and providing guidelines and resources to school and districts throughout a gradual phasing in of the new system. At the outset, the DoE systematically collected feedback from over 10,000 teachers and administrators and held focus groups across the state to better understand educators’ perspectives regarding the need for a more holistic approach to teacher evaluation than had previously been the case. The results of these efforts was the development of a robust, comprehensive system that provides multiple indicators of teacher performance, while still allowing some district flexibility. Furthermore, through regular interaction with stakeholders, it became apparent to the DoE that the initiative, called the Expanded ADEPT Support and Evaluation System (SC BoE 2018), needed to be phased in gradually to allow schools and districts to develop the internal capacities to effectively utilize the resources that accompanied the initiative. The phase in process began in 2016–2017, with a year of planning, and was followed by a year of transition in which schools and districts received training and piloted various aspects of the system. The 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 school years are for the implementation and refinement of the assessment system. Overall, the high level of involvement of relevant stakeholders throughout this process encouraged the cooperative development and implementation of this teacher evaluation system. Though it is too early to determine its impact, the high level of collaboration that existed between stakeholders during the development and phasing in processes, bode well for its future success. Indeed, some evidence of this impact can be seen in the lower levels of anxiety among school and district stakeholders and the greater number of support materials made available to them than was the case with the Read to Succeed Act.

16.6  Conclusion and Recommendations Given the state’s poor levels of academic achievement and the continued demands for and ever-increasing level of education to satisfy the needs of high-tech industries, this dilemma remains to be solved. Based on the example of how the educational authorities failed to collaborate in their efforts to address the problem of low levels of reading attainment described in this chapter, more effort is clearly needed to find ways to increase collaboration between stakeholders in the policy making and policy implementing processes. Notwithstanding the high level of conflict that exists in the state, the example of the Expanded ADEPT Support and Evaluation System provides evidence of the potential for and benefits of increased cooperation between educational authorities. Addressing this complex problem will require increased action on the part of all stakeholders. Given the influential role of the General Assembly and EOC regarding education policy and accountability, and the traditionalistic political culture found in this state, it is incumbent on these authorities to take the lead in engaging other stakeholders as the authorities within their own educational communities. This

16  South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict…

305

could be achieved in part by strongly encouraging the participation of more schooland district-based educators through legislation written by the General Assembly. The DoE could play a larger role in ensuring that instruments that accompany policies are suitably strong and salient relative to each district’s capability to implement the policies. Educational leaders themselves, the institutes of higher education that help prepare them, and the districts that support them also need to make a more concerted effort to ensure local schools and districts are represented in the policy making process. Beyond more actively participating in policy-making efforts, school and district leaders could also increase their efforts to communicate new policy development activities with other educators in the field. It is essential to begin addressing the gap between policy and practice in South Carolina by encouraging the political participation of more key stakeholders in the policy making process. It is essential not only for the benefit of those children who are struggling to read by third grade. It is also important for the success of future education policies and all the children they are meant to serve.

References Boyd, W. L., & Crowson, R. L. (2002). The quest for a new hierarchy in education: From loose coupling back to tight? Journal of Education Administration, 40(6), 521–533. https://doi. org/10.1108/09578230510446018. Brewer, C. (2011). School leaders as political strategists: William Boyd’s contributions to our understanding of the politics of leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(4), 450–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2011.597276. Brewer, C., Knoeppel, R.  C., & Lindle, J.  C. (2015). Consequential validity of accountability policy: Public understanding of assessments. Educational Policy, 29(5), 711–745. https://doi. org/10.1177/0895904813518099. Bryk, A.  S. (2015). 2014 AERA distinguished lecture accelerating how we learn to improve. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15621543. Carpenter, B. W., & Brewer, C. (2014). The implicated advocate: The discursive construction of the democratic practices of school principals in the USA. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(3), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/015963606.2012.745737. Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, & Advancement. (2018). South Carolina annual educator supply & demand report. Rock Hill: Winthrop University. Retrieved from https://www. cerra.org/uploads/1/7/6/8/17684955/2017-18_supply_demand_report.pdf. Cohen, D.  K., & Moffitt, S.  L. (2011). The influence of practice on policy. In D.  E. Mitchell, R. L. Crowson, & D. Shipps (Eds.), Shaping education policy: Power and process (pp. 63–80). New York: Routledge. Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113(4), 515–548. Cohen, D.  K., Spillane, J.  P., & Peurach, D.  J. (2017). The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17743488. Datnow, A. (2006). Connections in the policy chain: The “co-construction” of implementation in comprehensive school reform. In M.  I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 105–123). Albany: State University of New York Press.

306

H. W. Klar et al.

Desimone, L. M. (2006). Consider the source: Response differences among teachers, principals, and districts on survey questions about their education policy environment. Educational Policy, 20(4), 640–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805284056. Elazar, D.  J. (1984). The American mosaic: The impact of space, time, and culture. Boulder: Westview Press. Febey, K. S., & Louis, K. S. (2008). Political cultures in education at the state and local level: Views from three states. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 52–72). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 813–827. Gordon, M. F., & Louis, K. S. (2012). North Carolina and Nebraska: Two states, two policy cultures, two outcomes. In K. S. Louis & B. van Velzen (Eds.), Education policy in an international context: Political culture and its effects (pp. 171–187). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hein, J.  M. (2017). Litigation in search of educational opportunity: An analysis of Abbeville County School District et  al. v. The State of South Carolina et  al. Doctoral dissertation. Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.wku. edu/diss/132/ Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–23). Albany: State University of New York Press. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/00131 89X033008016. Institute of Educational Statistics. (2018). The nation’s report card. Retrieved from https://www. nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=&sfj=NP&st=MN&year= 2017R3 Knoeppel, R.  C. (2007). Resource adequacy, equity, and the right to learn: Access to a quality teacher in Kentucky. Journal of Education Finance, 32(4), 422–442. Retrieved from https:// www.jstor.org/stable/40704305. Lindle, J. C., & Hampshire, E. M. (2017). South Carolina’s political educational discourse: Social media encounters elite stability. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/0161956X.2016.1265334. Louis, K. S., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629–665. https:// doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249853. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. Mead, L. M. (2004). State political culture and welfare reform. The Policy Studies Journal, 32(2), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2004.00065.x. O’Laughlin, L. C., & Lindle, J. C. (2015). Principals as political agents in the implementation of IDEA’s least restrictive environment mandate. Educational Policy, 29(1), 140–161. https://doi. org/10.1177/0895904814563207. Ostrom, E. (1991). Review: Rational choice theory and institutional analysis: Toward complementarity. The American Political Science Review, 85(1), 237–243. Retrieved from: http://www. jstor.org/stable/1962889. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585925. Pitre, P. E. (2011). P-20 education policy: School to college transition policy in Washington state. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(5), 1–14. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ article/view/888. Pizzorno, A. (1970). An introduction to the theory of political participation. Social Science Information, 9(5), 29–61.

16  South Carolina, USA: Educational Authorities and the Schools: Conflict…

307

Sabatier, P. (1991). Towards better theories of the policy process. Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/419923. Sherman, W.  H. (2008). No child left behind: A legislative catalyst for superintendent action to eliminate test-score gaps? Educational Policy, 22(5), 675–704. https://doi. org/10.1177/0895904807307063. South Carolina Board of Education. (2018). South Carolina teaching standards 4.0. Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/educators/educator-effectiveness/south-carolina-teaching-standards-4-0/ South Carolina Code of Laws. (1962a). Title 59, education. Chapter 5, state Board of Education. § 60, general powers of board. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t59c005.php South Carolina Code of Laws. (1962b). Title 59, education. Chapter 6, monitoring implementation of education improvement program. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/ t59c006.php South Carolina Code of Laws. (1962c). Title 59, education. Chapter 19, school trustees. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t59c019.php South Carolina Code of Laws. (1998). Title 59, education. Chapter 18, education accountability act. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t59c018.php South Carolina Code of Laws. (2014). Title 3, United States government, agreements and relations with. Chapter 155, South Carolina Read to Succeed Act. §110, South Carolina read to succeed office. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t59c155.php South Carolina Department of Education. (2018a). About the South Carolina Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ed.sc.gov/about/ South Carolina Department of Education. (2018b). State report card. Retrieved from SCDE website https://ed.sc.gov/data/report-cards/historic-school-report-cards/2012 South Carolina State Constitution. Article I, declaration of rights. §1. Political power in people. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/scconst.php Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307200387. Truitt, T.  E. (2006). Brick walls: Reflections on race in a southern school district. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Wenner, J. A., & Settlage, J. (2015). School leader enactments of the structure/agency dialectic via buffering. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.21212. Werts, A., Della Sala, M., Lindle, J., Horace, J. M., Brewer, C., & Knoeppel, R. (2013). Educational stakeholders’ translation and sense-making of accountability policies. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12, 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2013.860464. Young, S. (2018). School leaders’ levels of political engagement with the policy environments surrounding their professional roles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Clemson University, Clemson. Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), The need for better theories (pp. 65–92). Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.

Part IV

Commonwealth Countries

Chapter 17

Australia: The Australian Education System David Gurr

Abstract  This chapter describes the complexity of Australian school education, identifying dominant and peripheral institutions and major issues such as funding, government control of education, the influence of student testing programs, parental choice, and school quality. The dominant institutions are the federal government and the six state and two territory governments. The state and territory governments are responsible for government education which accounts for two thirds of all students, whilst 32 Dioceses govern a Catholic system that account for one fifth of all students. The remaining students are in independent schools ranging from low-fee to high-fee schools, and usually connected to a faith. A range of government and professional associations service the school sectors. For principals and schools, all of these have the potential to impact on what they do but there is no simple way to describe this impact. Matters, like funding, clearly have a direct impact on schools, and state/territory governments and Dioceses often mandate matters that will have a direct impact on schools. It is less clear how service organisations impact on schools but generally their impact will be indirect. The impact of any of these matters is mitigated by school leadership, and the extent to which Australia has high quality schools is a combination of all of the government and service organisation influences, national and international societal contexts and school leadership.

17.1  Background Australia has a commonwealth/federal government that oversees six state and two territory governments. The federation was formed in 1901 from the then existing states and territories. Each of these has a department of education, variously named. Education in Australia is a complex interplay between these different levels of government involving nine education departments, and between government and non-­ government schools. In Australia there is an additional layer of government at the D. Gurr (*) Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_17

311

312

D. Gurr

municipal level, and, as Caldwell (2018, p. 38) noted, these are the creation of the states and territories, not recognised in the constitution, and ‘provide various forms of assistance to schools in local partnership arrangements but are not considered to be a level of government in education.’ For this paper, the interplay between federal and state/territory layers of government are the focus. In 2016 there were 9414 schools serving 3,798,226 students, with 394,762.5 full-­ time equivalent (FTE) in-school staff (276,329.8 were teaching staff, and 95,995.1 administrative and clerical staff) (ABS 2017). In 2016, 65.4% of students attended a government school, 20.2% a Catholic school, and 14.4% attended a range of independent schools (ABS 2017). The non-government sector is dominated by the large system of Catholic schools coordinated through one of the 33 Dioceses that serve 20.2% of all school age children. Apart from the Catholic emphasis and a higher proportion of private income funding the schools, the Catholic system is similar to that of the government, typically adopting similar approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Independent schools include a range of religious (e.g., Anglican, Coptic Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Islamic, Jewish, Lutheran and Seventh Day Adventist) and non-religious (e.g., Montessori and Steiner) schools. The proportion of students attending non-government schools has increased, rising from about 4% of students in 1970 to 14.4% in 2016 (ABS 2017). In some jurisdictions, the proportion attending non-government schools is particularly high, with, for example, the proportion of students attending non-government secondary schools in Victoria standing at 43.7% in 2016 (Department of Education and Training 2017a). Australia is described by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (n.d.) as having a comparatively privatised education system with the proportion of private investment in Australian schools 2.5 times the OECD average. It is compulsory for children to have commenced school by age six, and typically students start between four-and-a-half and five-and-a-half years. Students have to attend school until they have completed Year 10 and participate in full time education, training or employment until they are at least 17 years old. Schools are mostly organised into primary schools (seven years, prep/foundation to Year 6 or 7, from ages 5 to 11/12) and secondary schools (six years, Years 7 or 8 to 12, from ages 11/12 to 17/18), with secondary schools tending to be larger than primary schools. There are variations to these arrangements with, for example, many independent schools running an early childhood through to year 12 program, increasing numbers of primary schools also running an early childhood centre, and many secondary schools having cooperative arrangements with post-compulsory providers such as technical and further education institutions or registered training organisations. Retention in secondary schools is about 81% for males and 88% for females (expressed as a percentage of those that commenced in Years 7/8 and completed Year 12) (ABS 2017). Historically, since the colonial occupation of Australia, schooling has undergone major periods of change (see Campbell and Proctor 2014). Initially, governments were little involved in schools and the provision of schooling was left to church schools (Anglican, Catholic and Protestant) or private schools (small schools owned and run by person or family). The private schools did not survive the domination of

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

313

the church schools, and in the 1870s the church schools were faced with competition from government schools as the states and territories that existed then all instituted education acts that provided free and secular education (initially for the primary years in the main). Some private schools went on to become larger independent schools, and whilst church schools were challenged by the arrival of widespread government school provision they survived and so for the first half of the twentieth century, school education was a mixture of the dominant government school system which charged no or very low fees and provided a secular education, and the many church and non-church independent schools, with the largest number being parochial Catholic schools, often small and attached to a local parish. In the 1960s, with the number of religious teachers declining, the cost of providing Catholic school education increased dramatically to the point that these schools sort government support. Whilst governments were reluctant to provide this, a pivotal moment occurred when the Catholic schools threatened to close and the federal government came to the rescue and provided substantial funding – this funding to non-government schools has increased considerably over the years to the point now that an independent school serving a socio-educational community with low advantage can get up to 80 percent of its operating costs funded by the government. In the 1960s the federal government began to exert more influence on schools through the provision of science laboratories to secondary schools and with this influence increasing through to current times as described below.

17.2  O  rganisation of School Authorities and the Role of the Government The responsibility for the provision of government schooling constitutionally rests with the state and territory governments, but increasingly there has been Commonwealth/Federal government influence especially in terms of significant financial grants to both government and non-government schools, the development of a national curriculum, the creation of a national accountability system through the development of a national assessment program in literacy and numeracy and public reporting of these results, and other matters. The Federal government provides funding for all schools, but does so in a complicated way, with the bulk of the funding distributed by the state and territory governments as shown by the following quote from www.education.gov.au/funding-schools: The Australian Education Act 2013 (the Act) is the principal legislation for the provision of this funding. The Australian Education Regulation 2013 the Regulation) provides more detail to support the operation of the Act. The Act and Regulation were amended in 2014 on 26 November and 11 December respectively. The Post-amendment fact sheet under the Amendments tab in the Guide lists changes arising from these amendments. Under constitutional arrangements, state and territory governments are responsible for ensuring the delivery and regulation of schooling to all children of school age in their ­jurisdictions. State and territory governments provide most of the school education funding

314

D. Gurr in Australia, which is administered under their own legislation. They determine curriculums, register schools, regulate school activities and are directly responsible for the administration of government schools. They also provide support services used by both government and non-government schools. Non-government schools operate under conditions determined by state and territory government registration authorities. States and territories are also the major funder of schools, providing around 66 per cent of total public funding in 2014. Government schools receive the majority of their public funding from their state or territory government, with the Australian Government providing supplementary funding. Non-government schools receive the majority of their public funding from the Australian Government with state and territory governments providing supplementary funding.

Whilst the State and Territory governments provide the main funding for government schools and supplementary funding for non-government schools, much of the income for these governments comes from taxation fees collected and distributed by the Federal government (e.g. income tax, and the goods and services tax are only collected by the Federal government). Federal funding seems to be one of the major areas of contention in the community with government school champions decrying the lack of funds and the amount going to non-government schools, and non-­ government school champions arguing it is fair that all tax payers receive some level of financial support for schooling from the government. Mostly these arguments ignore the full complexity of school funding and the significant role that states and territories have for government school funding. Major reviews of school funding (Auditor General 2017; Gonski et al. 2011; Australian Education Amendment Act 2017) have struggled to enact much change to what is currently done (Caldwell 2018), and so for the foreseeable future, the arrangements will remain, with government schools receiving most of their funding from state/territory governments and smaller contributions from the federal government and private and other money (such as fees that families may pay, hiring of facilities, etc.), whilst non-government schools will receive most of their money from grants from the federal government liked to educational advantage and fees from families, plus some money from the state/territory governments and other revenue/grant sources. The breakdown of financial allocations to individual schools are reported on the My School website – www.myschool.edu.au The debates over school funding are examples of what Savage (2017) calls a fascination with vertical rather than horizontal relations, and a focus on division rather than networks of collaboration. All the education departments come together through the Education Council (formerly the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), and this group has produced important statements of Australian statements about schooling. Over two decades, and beginning in 1989, three statements were published by MCEETYA: National Goals for Schooling in Australia (The Hobart Declaration, 1989: www.educationcouncil.edu.au/ EC-Publications/EC-Publications-archive/EC-The-Hobart-Declaration-onSchooling-1989.aspx), National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (The Adelaide Declaration, 1999: www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications/

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

315

Publications-archive/The-Adelaide-Declaration.aspx) and, finally, The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 2008). This last version posed two goals for Australian schools: 1 . Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence. 2. All young Australians become; successful learning; confident and creative individuals; active and informed citizens. Importantly, the document also listed commitments to action which have served to guide successive governments since. These commitments were: • Developing stronger partnerships (between students, parents, carers and families, the broader community, business, schools and other education and training providers) • Supporting quality teaching and school leadership • Strengthening early childhood education • Enhancing middle years development • Supporting senior years of schooling and youth transitions • Promoting world-class curriculum and assessment • Improving educational outcomes for Indigenous youth and disadvantaged young Australians, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds • Strengthening accountability and transparency Examples of programs that reflect these commitments include the formation of an institute for teaching and leadership which has developed teacher and leadership standards (AITSL 2011a, b, c, 2012) continuation of national testing in literacy and numeracy (www.myschool.edu.au), development of a national curriculum (www. australiancurriculum.edu.au), development of a range of programs to support Indigenous and disadvantaged youth (e.g. Closing the Gap: https://www.education. gov.au/indigenous-schooling), increased quality (e.g. National Quality Framework for early childhood education; https://www.education.gov.au/national-qualityframework-early-childhood-education-and-care-1) and participation in early childhood education through additional resources (https://www.education.gov.au/ early-childhood-and-child-care-0), and funding for all schools. This bipartisan approach to national statements provides a powerful consensus that is not only symbolic but practical. At the time of writing this chapter, there was no indication that a fourth statement was imminent, perhaps signalling that the time for this type of bipartisan approach to education has passed. The core role of federal and state/territory governments has not changed substantially since the turn of the century (and indeed, over the previous century). However, the trend since the 1960s of a greater federal role has continued, as will be illustrated in discussions below related to matters that have occurred in the last two decades such as increased federal school funding to both government and non-­ government schools, introduction of national curriculum, testing and accountability, substantial grants programs for building and digital infrastructure, and the importance of international testing programs for policy and practice.

316

D. Gurr

An important element of schools that can be forgotten in discussions focussed on school authorities is the local governance of schools. Within the multiple external contexts, imposed or otherwise, that schools exist in, local school governance arrangements vary greatly (Anderson 2006). Gurr et  al. (2012) described governance arrangements for Victorian government, Catholic and independent schools. The marked differences in these arrangements illustrates the complexity of school governance in Australia. Government schools have had compulsory school councils since 1975 and these include school and parent elected members, and typically also have student and community members (elected or co-opted). School councils have a role in school accountability and improvement processes with specific responsibilities for finance, strategic planning, policy development and review and principal selection. Government schools in South Australian and the Australian Capital Territory also similarly long histories of school councils, but Australia’s largest state, New South Wales, still does not have compulsory school councils. Catholic schools have a variety of governance arrangements depending on whether they are parochial (under the authority of the parish priest with or without an advisory school board), systemic (under canonical authority and advisory in nature), or congregational (depending on their legal status there are a variety of delegated responsibilities and authorities). Most independent schools will have a board or council, and most are incorporated (i.e. companies limited by guarantee), regulated by government act, and expected to adopt the principles of corporate governance. Parent, teacher and student voice is often non-existent or limited in the Catholic and independent governance arrangements.

17.3  Main Authorities and Agencies This section provides brief descriptions of some of the different authorities and agencies focusing on their mission, place and importance in the system. The education departments and Dioceses will have a high level of direct impact, whilst service organisations influence tends to be indirect.

17.3.1  F  ederal Department of Education and Training (www. education.gov.au) The one authority that influences all education sectors across Australia is the Department of Education and Training (DET). This is a federal government authority and is responsible for national policies and programs in early childcare and childhood education, school education, higher education, vocational education and training, international education and research (www.education.gov.au). It has an emphasis on quality and affordability. It has a close relationship with all state and

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

317

territory education authorities. In regard to school education the department’s aims are (https://www.education.gov.au, np): To ensure Australia’s future prosperity and to remain competitive internationally, the Australian Government is committed to ensuring that all Australian students have access to a high-quality school education.

On the department’s website, over 30 active programmes are described including assistance programs (e.g. Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme), authorities (e.g. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA), funding arrangements, reviews, assessment services (e.g. My School), and policy (e.g. Students-First). Two of the key authorities are ACARA and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). ACARA is owned and funded by the federal and state/territory governments, but under the auspice of DET. Since 2008, ACARA (www.acara.edu.au) has been leading the development of Australia’s national curriculum, the Australian Curriculum (www.australiancurriculum.edu.au), and administers the National Assessment Program (NAP) (www.nap.edu.au), including National Assessment Program  – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) at years 3, 5, 7 and 9, and reporting of this through the My School website (www.myschool.edu.au) which also provides reporting of other data such as school finances and school descriptions.. Whilst national testing of literacy and numeracy began with the creation of NAPLAN in 2008, most states had been conducting statewide tests of literacy and numeracy for many years prior (for example, New South Wales began this in 1989). The Australian Curriculum has been adopted by all states and territories, albeit through localised versions. AITSL (www.aitsl.edu.au) is funded by the federal government, was formed in 2010 and supports Australian states and territories in promoting excellence in the profession of teaching and school leadership. It has developed teaching standards which are now used by all states and territories for teacher registration, and a leadership standard which is increasingly being used by the states and territories to guide leadership preparation and development. It also provides information and assessment services for oversees teachers wanting to teach in Australia. There are three foci: initial teacher education, teaching and school leadership. It provides professional learning programs, self-assessment tools, and information services related to pre-service through to principalship. The department has been responsible for major grants programs through National Partnerships and other grants, and two important programs over the last two decades were the Digital Education Revolution (DER) and Building the Education Revolution (BER). Begun in 2008, DER provided 2.4 billion dollars over several years to assist schools across Australia to purchase computer hardware and software, access high speed network access, increase teacher capacity and capability, provide online learning and access to help parents participate in the child’s education, and develop projects and research to support the use of information and ­communication technology in schools (Auditor General 2011). Begun in 2009, BER provided 16.2  billion dollars for new teaching spaces for primary schools,

318

D. Gurr

minor capital works and refurbishment projects, and science and language centre construction or refurbishment for secondary schools (Auditor General 2010; Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce 2011). Most Australian primary schools received major grants and many built learning spaces that have more open and flexible learning spaces. Major grant projects such as these are powerful ways that the federal government has exerted greater influence in Australian education.

17.3.2  State and Territory Departments of Education As indicated above the state and territory departments of education are the main influencers of government schools and, relatedly through aspects such as curriculum frameworks and school registration, non-government schools. There are eight jurisdictions, each independent of the other, and so there is not one set of guidelines/ statements that can be provided about how these operate. The names and website addresses are provided in Table 17.1. The largest education system in Australia is run by the NSW Department of Education. Whilst the work of the department is overwhelmingly focussed on government schools, it also supports early childhood education and has roles overseeing roles with the non-government school sector and with higher education as indicated by these statements taken from the department’s website (education.nsw. gov.au): We ensure young children get the best start in life by supporting and regulating the early childhood education and care sector. We are the largest provider of public education in Australia with responsibility for delivering high-quality public education to two-thirds of the NSW student population.

Table 17.1  State and Territory education departments’ name and web addresses State or territory Australian Capital Territory New South Wales

NSW Department of Education

Northern Territory Queensland

Department of Education Queensland Department of Education

South Australia Tasmania

Department of Education The Department of Education Tasmania

Victoria

The Department of Education and Training The Department of Education

Western Australia

Department name Education Directorate

Website www.education.act.gov. au www.education.nsw.gov. au www.education.nt.gov.au www.education.qld.gov. au www.education.sa.gov.au www.education.tas.gov. au www.education.vic.gov. au www.education.wa.edu. au

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

319

The department oversees policy, funding and compliance issues relating to non-government schools. The department engages with the higher education sector on policy, programs and initiatives and administers legislation for NSW public universities.

There were 2008 government schools and 100 pre-schools at primary and central schools in New South Wales at the time of writing this chapter in 2018. The department acts to champion government school education in New South Wales and to help the federal government meet its education obligations in New South Wales. The following extract from the department’s website (education.nsw.gov.au) illustrates the very political nature of the department and the close relationships it has with the federal government: External Affairs and Regulation strengthens educational and community outcomes by leading strategic reform initiatives, securing national and state funding for education services, distributing funding to non-government schools and preschool providers, advising on strategic policy in higher and tertiary education, and promoting high-quality standards for early childhood education. The division supports Ministers in strategic discussions with the Australian Government and other jurisdictions, is a key driver of forward-thinking policy and leads negotiations over funding arrangements. It acts as the principal point of contact for non-government and private education systems and providers, advises the Minister on non-government school policy and funding, and develops and coordinates NSW Government policy on national issues in education and early childhood education. It also regulates early childhood services across the state and is responsible for funding preschool service providers as well as advising on early childhood policies and projects.

Funding for New South Wales schools comes from state and federal government sources and is distributed through a needs-based funding formula taking into account such aspects as student characteristics, location, school type, and organisational complexity. The 2018 resource allocation model was described at: education. nsw.gov.au/our-priorities/work-more-effectively/local-schools-local-decisions/ resource-allocation-model Schools received a base school allocation which takes account of remoteness and isolation, operational funding to reflect the school type, and staffing costs based on enrolments. Then there are equity loadings to account for socio-economic background, Aboriginal background, disability and English language proficiency. The final layer is for targeted funding for refugee students, newly arrive students and integration support for students with special needs. Departments such as this exert the most influence on government schools and generally there will be policies that will be mandated, albeit with local interpretation in many cases. To use another example to illustrate this, in the state of Victoria there is a framework for student outcomes (FISO: www.education.vic.gov.au/fiso) that influences school work through the articulation of four major areas (excellence in teaching and learning; positive climate for learning; professional leadership; community engagement in learning) and 16 strategies that influence student achievement, engagement and wellbeing. Schools use this framework to plan for improvement and report on progress annually to the government and school community.

320

D. Gurr

Every four years there is a major review process in which goals and improvement areas will be linked to the FISO framework. This framework has more than a dozen support publications and services such as the high impact teaching strategies document (Department of Education and Training 2017b) that supports the ‘evidence based high impact teaching’ strategy, and which schools can use to assist in improving teaching and learning. The actual implementation of these frameworks and support services occurs at the school level, but nevertheless, there is a system approach to school improvement that is reflected in the policy context that Victorian government school principals work in, and which is manifest in practical ways through the annual and long-term plans schools create. For Catholic and independent schools there is no compunction to use these frameworks, and Catholic schools will often have a diocesan perspective that schools in these systems will adhere to. In addition, there are legislated programs that all schools need to follow, such as Child Safe Standards and minimum standards and other requirements for school registration, which are monitored but the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (www.vrqa.vic.gov.au); failure to implement these can lead to school deregistration.

17.3.3  Catholic Dioceses and Other Systems There are 33 Catholic Diocese that control Catholic schools in their jurisdiction. Whilst these are aligned with national and state/territory systems and are regulated by these and negotiate funding from the federal government as a block, they nevertheless show subtle differences in many aspects (for example, in the requirements for the principalship – see Gurr 2014). This is also true of other systems of schools (e.g. Lutheran, Christian, Muslim, Steiner, Montessori) and the many independent schools. In terms of school numbers, the largest Catholic system is that run by the Catholic Education Melbourne (CEM: www.cem.edu.au) with over 300 primary and secondary schools serving over 150,000 students in the greater Melbourne metropolitan area. As expected, it has a mission to not only provide quality schooling, but to do so within the Catholic faith: Catholic Education Melbourne works in partnership with Catholic schools, families, parishes, religious institutes and the community to serve and lead Catholic education in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. As a Catholic organisation, the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, as presented in the gospels and proclaimed by the Church, are central to our vision, mission and values. Founded in Christ and sustained by faith, we seek to support schools to fulfil their mission of enabling each student to come into the fullness of their own humanity. This is a journey in hope and towards hope (Catholic Education Melbourne 2015, p. 4).

The CEM (and other Catholic and non-Catholic non-government school systems) collected government grants for Catholic schools as block funding, and then distributed this to schools on their own needs-based funding formula (Auditor General 2017). Current negotiations with the federal government may see this change to a

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

321

more transparent funding arrangement based on individual schools rather than a system block grant, but the CEM and other Catholic systems are resisting this as they believe they better know the needs of their schools and can provide a finely tuned need-based distribution of financial resources. The CEM provides direction for Catholic schools with a very strong link with the Catholic Church with oversight by the Archbishop and many schools, especially the primary schools, having priests as key figures in school governance. The CEM also provides curriculum, student welfare, leadership development and other services to schools. The CEM has a school accountability framework that reviews schools every four years, and which influences the goals and improvement areas schools focus on. The CEM had a leadership framework that influenced practice (Jarni 2009), although a revision of this was never implemented (the author was part of a two-year committee process that generated a new leadership framework), and the older framework seems to have had no development for many years.

17.3.4  Service Organisations There many service organisations that have varying degrees of influence on the educational landscape. Some that I consider noteworthy are listed below. It is difficult to establish their degree of influence, especially as most are voluntary, but all are important. It is not an exhaustive list and is presented alphabetically. 17.3.4.1  A  ssociation of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia (AHISA) (www.ahisa.edu.au) This is an important lobby group for the independent school sector that provides advocacy, professional development, conferences and confidential support to independent school leaders. It was formed in 1985 from the amalgamation of the Association of Heads of Independent Girls’ Schools of Australia and the Headmasters’ Conference of Independent Schools of Australia. Heads from more than 400 independents schools are represented by the association. 17.3.4.2  A  ustralian Catholic Primary Principals Association (acppa. catholic.edu.au) This is a federation of the principals’ associations which represent Catholic primary school principals in all Australian states and territories. It is an important lobby group for the Catholic school sector that provides advocacy, professional development, conferences and confidential support to Catholic school leaders. Formed in 1982/83, it now represents over 1200 primary schools and 150 primary/secondary schools.

322

D. Gurr

17.3.4.3  Australian College of Educators (www.austcolled.com.au) This is a service organisation focussed broadly on the needs of the various education sectors from early childhood to higher education. Having formed in 1959 it is one of the oldest educational service organisations. It has had a strong local influence through a network organisational structure and quality publications (Professional Educator). Its stated aim is to be the professional association for the education profession and facilitate profession led input into policy debates. 17.3.4.4  Australian Council for Educational Leaders (www.acel.org.au) Begun in 1973 as the Australian Council for Educational Administration, ACEL is the main service organisation focussed on educational leadership across all sectors. It has a small lobbying role, with most influence gained through the various academic and professional publications, and local and national/international professional learning opportunities. It runs a strong suite of national conferences, and has outstanding publications such as the professional journal, The Australian Educational Leader, and the academic journal, Leading and Managing. In recent years, not only has ACEL served the school sector, but it has become an important provider of professional learning in the early years and providing leadership development for those leading in any education sector. 17.3.4.5  Australian Council for Educational Research (www.acer.edu.au) Established in 1930 through a grant from the Carnegie Corporation, this is an independent, not-for-profit research organisation. It has influence through research (both contractual and award), various academic, professional and service publications, and non-award and award professional learning courses (ACER was registered as a higher education provider in 2014). It has over 380 staff and offices in five countries and has an international reputation and influence. ACER has been instrumental in the implementation, management and reporting of large-­ scale international surveys such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS) and the IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) (ACER website).

ACER developed the National School Improvement Tool which the federal government, has approved, through its Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (part of the Education Council), for use in schools across Australia that want to reflect on progress and plan improvement.

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

323

17.3.4.6  Australian Council of Deans of Education (www.acde.edu.au) ACDE was established in 1991 as the peak association of Faculty Deans and Heads of Schools of Education in Australian universities and other higher education institutions. It is focussed on teacher education and is an influential lobby group in this sphere, and other areas through partnerships with other national organisations (e.g. partnering with the More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative to enhance Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education). Its remit also includes promotion of evidence-based higher education practices and policies, support for research in education and researcher training, and acts as forum for ACDE members to share knowledge. 17.3.4.7  A  ustralian Council of State School Organisations (www.acsso. org.au) Established in 1947, ACSSO is the major parent organisation in Australia, and represents the interests of the families and communities of children in government schools. It champions government school education and is focussed on improving these schools through engagement programs, conferences and forums, projects and research, and advocacy, submissions to government inquires and consultations, and representation on important groups such as ACARA. 17.3.4.8  Australian Education Union (www.aeufederal.org.au) This is the main Australian education union with over 185,000 members across all government education sectors. It is an influential lobby group for government schools, as well as providing the range of typical union services. Through targeting of marginal seats in elections, it has influenced political viewpoints and helped to ensure that education is an important topic at elections. 17.3.4.9  A  ustralian Primary Principals Association (APPA) (www.appa. asn.au) This is ‘the national professional association for primary school principals in Australia. APPA represents affiliated state and territory Government, Catholic and Independent primary schools across the nation with over 7,000 members. It is the national voice on national issues and speaks directly to the Federal Government on matters that concern school principals and their school communities’ (APPA website).

324

D. Gurr

17.3.4.10  A  ustralian Secondary Principals Association (ASPA) (www. aspa.asn.au) The secondary equivalent of APPA except it only includes government secondary schools. ASPA is ‘a professional body that represents the interests of principals, deputy principals and assistant principals from government secondary schools across Australia. ASPA works with the profession to shape a paradigm of leadership and learning in order to create a better, preferred future for all students in Australia’s government secondary schools’ (ASPA website). It is affiliated with three local organisations: South Australian Secondary Principals’ Association; Northern Territory Principals’ Association; and, Queensland Secondary Principals’ Association. 17.3.4.11  C  atholic Secondary Principals Australia (CaSPA) (www.caspa. edu.au) This is a federation of the principals’ associations which represent Catholic secondary school principals in all Australian states and territories. It is an important lobby group for the Catholic school sector that provides advocacy, professional development, conferences and confidential support to Catholic school leaders. The association was formed in 1994. 17.3.4.12  Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (www.coag.gov.au) This is the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia. The members of COAG are the Prime Minister (chair), state and territory First Ministers and the President of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). COAG was established in 1992. Its role is to manage matters of national significance or matters that need co-­ ordinated action by all Australian governments. COAG has Councils that support its work and allow it to focus on key national priorities. Councils provide a forum for intergovernmental collaboration and decision-making. They progress COAG priorities and referrals of work, along with other issues of national significance. In ­addition, the Councils develop policy reforms and other advice for COAG consideration and oversee the delivery and review of reforms agreed by COAG. For education there is the Education Council. 17.3.4.13  Education Council (www.educationcouncil.edu.au) Formed in 2013, Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Education Council provides a forum through which strategic policy on school education, early childhood and higher education can be coordinated at the national level and through which information can be shared, and resources used collaboratively, to address

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

325

issues of national significance. Education Services Australia (ESA) acts as the legal company for the Education Council as required. 17.3.4.14  Education Services Australia (www.esa.edu.au) ESA is national not-for-profit company owned by the state, territory and federal education ministers. ESA was established by education ministers in 2010. It advances key nationally agreed education initiatives, programs and projects. by providing services including: innovative technologies and communication systems for use in education; devising, developing and delivering curriculum and assessment, professional development, career and information support services; facilitating the pooling, sharing and distribution of knowledge, resources and services to support and promote elearning; supporting national infrastructure to ensure access to quality-­assured systems and content and interoperability between individuals, entities and systems. It also creates, publishes, disseminates and markets curriculum and assessment materials, ICT-based solutions, products and services to support learning, teaching, leadership and administration. As mentioned, it acts as the legal company for the Education Council as required. 17.3.4.15  Independent Schools Council of Australia (icsa.edu.au) This is the central lobbying arm of the various member state and territory AISs. The board of the AIS has a chairperson and representatives from each of the eight state and territory AISs. Its mission is for the council to be ‘a strong, effective representative of Independent schools, working closely with member associations to promote choice, diversity and partnership in education and advocating for the provision of ongoing, sustainable levels of Australian Government support’ (ISCA website). Local AISs provide direct services to schools in the area of administration of federal programme funding, curriculum support, professional development and industrial services. 17.3.4.16  N  ational Catholic Education Commission (NCEC) (www.ncec. catholic.edu.au) ‘The National Catholic Education Commission (NCEC) is established by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference through the Bishops Commission for Catholic Education to maintain effective liaison with the Commonwealth Government and other key national education bodies. NCEC complements and supports at the national level the work of the State and Territory Catholic Education Commission’ (NCEC website). It was established in 1974 and facilitates national consensus between the state and territory Catholic Education Commissions, acts as

326

D. Gurr

advocacy group for national education issues and as a key link with the federal government and helps to strengthen the work of the Church in education. 17.3.4.17  Principals Australia Institute (www.pai.edu.au) This is a service organisation for school leaders, providing quality professional learning, leadership development and principal certification (voluntary), and delivering several federally funded programs for schools (KidsMatter Primary and MindMatters). It was founded by AHISA, APPA, ASPA, and CaSPA.

17.4  Current Issues Several issues that seem relevant to Australian education at the moment are highlighted in this section. Funding of schools is perhaps the most contentious issue in Australian education and the reader is referred to the earlier discussion about this. Other issues addressed here include government control of education, the influence of student testing programs, parental choice, and school quality. The tension between state/territory governments and the federal government for control of school education remains, and the federal government continues to assert its role from time to time. For example, Caldwell (2018) described federal influence as increasing markedly in the 1970s through to the 1980s with the creation of the Australian Schools Commission (later renamed as the Commonwealth Schools Commission) and publication in 1973 of the report Schools in Australia (Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission and Karmel 1973) which recommended, in part, major funding increases to schools. Targeted funding for disadvantaged schools and greater school autonomy. Federal influence reached another peak in the late 2000s with the establishment of ACARA and AITSL, and programs like the BER, and more recently it has gained prominence again with the Australian Education Amendment Act 2017 asserting the federal government’s role in providing national policy leadership. Despite this growing influence and citing the province-­based education system in Canada, Caldwell (2018, p. 213) is hopeful that ‘the federal government bows out through a realignment of powers and new fiscal arrangements.’ There is no indication that this will happen, but given the enshrinement in eight separate education acts of the states and territories central role in school education, and the success of countries like Canada with devolved governance, the easiest path to remove inter-government conflict and role ambiguity would be to reduce or negate the federal role. These discussions are further examples of Savage’s (2017) vertical versus horizontal relations, and division versus networks of collaboration. Assessing student performance nationally is now an important part of the Australian education landscape and this not only includes NAPLAN, but also International testing programs such as the Programme for International Student

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

327

Assessment (PISA), Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRL) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS). Results on these national and international tests are influencing policy and practice (Bentley 2018) and many commentators are bemoaning declining student performance levels (Hattie 2016). Bentley (2018) argued that on international tests of student ability (such as PISA, PIRLS and TIMMS), Australia has performed reasonably well, but over the last decade the performance is declining. Not only is the performance declining but the gap between the lowest and highest performing students is increasing; while Australia’s performance remains good, Australia is no longer one of the highest performing countries and the equity gap is increasing. For the 2015 PISA test, the Independent Schools Council of Australia provided analysis on their website (usca.edu.au), which suggested that the performance of the Australian independent sector was above or comparable to the five highest performing countries in mathematical, scientific and reading literacy, reinforcing the equity issues identified by Bentley (2018). At the same time, spending on education has increased, even if inflation is corrected for. Bentley (2018) suggested that what appears to be happening is that those students who are already advantaged are benefitting from this spending increase, whilst those in most need are not. He noted that this is reflective of wider trends in wealth distribution and workforce patterns, with more advantaged members of society accessing greater wage growth and more highly specialised and secure employment. Whilst parent and teacher perceptions regarding these testing programs tend to be more negative than positive (see Rogers et al. 2018 for evidence in regard to NAPLAN), when students are asked about the impact of the tests, it has almost no additional impact beyond what students would experience taking any test (Dowley 2019, in press; Rogers et al. 2016). Parental choice in education has been an important consideration for governments for many years. Bonner and Shepherd (2016) showed how the neo-liberal market orientation to schools has led to an inequitable system in which government, Catholic and independent schools serve different populations, despite all receiving federal and state funding. Governments at both the state/territory and federal levels have become almost obsessed with the need to provide school choice, and this is no more evident than the announcement in September, 2018 of the creation of choice and affordability fund to help Catholic and independent schools with fee pricing (Koziol, M. The Age, September 24, 2018); A vibrant, fairly funded non-government school sector ensures parents retain the choice of where to send their kids to school. The non-government system provides an alternative which improves standards and competition across the board, while also alleviating pressure on the state system (Prime Minister of Australia, Media release: More Choice for Australian Families, 20 September 2018, np).

The school quasi-market has created ‘an uneven playing field that benefits a portion of the community more than it does the remainder’ (Bonner and Shepherd 2016, p. 7). Parents who are able to fully engage in school choice are increasingly more likely to select a school with high socio-educational advantage, resulting in marginalisation of schools with low socio-educational advantage. The neo-liberal stance of

328

D. Gurr

successive federal and state governments, whilst valuing parental choice, has had the unintended consequence of enhancing inequity. From federal and state/territory government perspectives, the right to school choice is not something that will be removed, and government funding of both government and non-government schools will continue, and therefore, the differential in funding between these schools will continue as wealthy communities contribute greater private equity to their schools through school fees. A solution to the inequity problem is to promote school quality. Whilst institutional instruments such as NAPLAN and My School provide data on the performance of all schools in Australia, and all schools are subject to some degree of accountability, they do not promote quality and may be no more than a means for cultural reproduction and maintenance of entrenched inequalities (see the papers in the special issue of Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(2), 2015, for several critical perspectives on the My School service). The Australian-wide agreement of what constitutes effective teaching through adoption by all state and territory governments of the teaching standards of AITSL, provides clarity about good teaching for initial training and ongoing teacher development, and a consideration about school leadership through the AITSL principal standard and other leadership conceptions will likely improve schools through foci on matters such as staff capacity building and leadership for learning. However, the fact remains that performance on NAPLAN has a strongly positive correlation with socio-educational advantage. For schools with low socio-educational advantage, more needs to be done; the impact of these schools on students, needs to be greater than is seen in most other schools to mitigate potential disadvantage. Whilst researching and writing during the rise of a neo-liberal environment (Connell 2013), but doing so with a strong social justice orientation, the work of Caldwell on school autonomy provides possible solutions. For over three decades, Caldwell, often with his principal co-author, Spinks, has championed the benefits of giving schools local autonomy, albeit within central frameworks for aspects like curriculum and accountability. His two most recent books, The Autonomy Premium (Caldwell 2016), and The Alignment Premium (Caldwell 2018), connected with the international literature on effective school systems and argued that for Australia to lift learning performance and decrease inequities, there needed to be focus on autonomy and professionalism. Caldwell (2016) argued that school autonomy seems to have a premium or advantage for those systems that can provide this, ­provided that schools have the capacity to utilise this autonomy and that professional forms of accountability are in place to guide judgement on what to do. Caldwell made a distinction between structural autonomy through policies, regulations and procedures, and professional autonomy in which teachers have the ‘capacity to make decisions that are likely to make a difference to outcomes for students, and this capacity is exercised in a significant, systemic and sustained fashion’ (Caldwell 2016, p.  4). For school autonomy to make a difference to students, Caldwell (2018) argued that professional autonomy is required, and there needs to be alignment between the various systems that surround schools (such as the state/ territory/federal layers of government in Australia). This highlights the relationship

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

329

between systems and schools. It is also important to have ways of articulating the multiple contexts that schools exist in. For example, Hallinger (2018) described three contexts that have a general influence on schools (economic, political and socio-­cultural), and three contexts that have direct influence on school leadership (community, personal and institutional). Gurr and Drysdale (2018) applied this framework to an analysis of how systems influence schools and argued that without high quality school leadership the level of impact of government through system leadership is reduced.

17.5  Conclusion The Australian education system is a complex interplay between the federal government and the six state and two territory governments. Whilst state and territory governments are responsible for government education, the federal government is exerting greater influence on education through increased funding for government and non-government schools through recurrent and grant-based funding, and regulatory and accountability requirements such as national testing and reporting of student learning. In addition to the government system which accounts for two-thirds of students, there is a Catholic system governed by 32 Dioceses and a disparate independent sector ranging from low-fee to high-fee schools, and usually connected to a faith. These systems are serviced by a range of government and professional associations. For principals and schools, all of these have the potential to impact on what they do but there is no simple way to describe this impact. Matters, like funding, clearly have a direct impact on schools, and state/territory governments and Dioceses often mandate matters that will have a direct impact on schools. It is less clear how service organisations impact on schools but generally their impact will be indirect. There are several issues impacting education in Australia, and either directly or indirectly impacting on schools, including ongoing discussions about funding, government control of education, the influence of student testing programs, parental choice, and school quality. The impact of any of these matters is mitigated by school leadership, and the extent to which Australia has high quality schools is a combination of all of the government and service organisation influences, national and international societal contexts and school leadership.

References Anderson, M. (2006). Being a school councillor in a government secondary college in Victoria: Constructions of role and meaning. Doctor of education thesis, The University of Melbourne. Auditor General. (2010). Building the education revolution—Primary schools for the 21st century. Barton: Australian National Audit Office. Auditor General. (2011). Digital education revolution program – National secondary schools computer fund. Barton: Australian National Audit Office.

330

D. Gurr

Auditor General. (2017). Monitoring the impact of Australian government school funding. Barton: Australian National Audit Office. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2017). 4221.0 – Schools, Australia, 2016. Canberra: ABS. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4221.0. Australian Education Act 2013, No, 67, 2013. Australian Education Amendment Act 2017, No, 78, 2017. An Act to amend the Australian Education Act 2013, and for related purposes. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011a). National professional standards for teachers. Canberra: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011b). Certification of highly accomplished and lead teachers. Canberra: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011c). National professional standard for principals. Canberra: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2012). Australian teacher performance and development framework. Canberra: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Bentley, T. (2018). The responsibility to lead: Education at a global crossroads (Monograph) (Vol. 57). Surry Hills: Australian Council for Educational Leaders. Bonner, C., & Shepherd, B. (2016). Uneven playing field: The state of Australia’s schools. Sydney and Melbourne: Centre for Policy Development. Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce. (2011). Building the education revolution implementation taskforce: Final report, July 2011. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Caldwell, B. J. (2016). The Autonomy Premium: Professional autonomy and student achievement in the 21st century. Camberwell: ACER Press. Caldwell, B. J. (2018). The Alignment Premium: Benchmarking Australia’s student achievement, professional autonomy and system adaptivity. Camberwell: ACER Press. Campbell, C., & Proctor, H. (2014). A history of Australian schooling. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Catholic Education Melbourne. (2015). To serve and lead: Strategic plan 2015–2019. Melbourne: Catholic Education Melbourne. Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: An essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99–112. Department of Education and Training (DET). (2017a). Summary statistics for Victorian schools July 2017. Melbourne: DET. Department of Education and Training (DET). (2017b). High impact teaching strategies, excellence in teaching and learning. Melbourne: DET. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (n.d.). The Australian education system – Foundational level. Canberra: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Dowley, M. (2019, in press). NAPLAN and internal tests: Comparing student responses and the relationships between student perceptions of parent, teacher and student value. PhD thesis, the University of Melbourne. Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, P., & Tannock, P. (2011). Review of funding for schooling – Final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Gurr, D. (2014). Principal appointment procedures and practices. Melbourne: Catholic Education Office Melbourne. Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2018). Improving schools in Victoria, Australia: System, region and school perspectives. In H. Shaked, C. Schechter, & A. Daly (Eds.), Leading holistically: How states, districts, and schools improve systemically (pp. 217–235). London: Routledge. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Walkley, D. (2012). School-parent relations in Victorian schools. Journal of School Public Relations, 33(3), 172–198.

17  Australia: The Australian Education System

331

Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadow. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. Hattie, J. (2016). Shifting away from distractions to improve Australia’s schools: Time for a reboot (Monograph) (Vol. 54). Surry Hills: Australian Council for Educational Leaders. Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission, & Karmel, P. H. (1973). Schools in Australia: Report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Jarni, N. (2009). ‘Leadership in catholic schools: Development framework and standards of practice’. Idealised and realised applications (Master of Education Thesis), the University of Melbourne. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Available at: www.educationcouncil.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20and%20 publications/Publications/National%20goals%20for%20schooling/National_Declaration_on_ the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf. Rogers, S. L., Barblett, L., & Robinson, K. (2016). Investigating the impact of NAPLAN on student, parent and teacher emotional distress in independent schools. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(3), 327–343. Rogers, S. L., Barblett, L., & Robinson, K. (2018). Parent and teacher perceptions of NAPLAN in a sample of independent schools in Western Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(4), 493–513. Savage, G. C. (2017). Improving national policy processes in Australian schooling. In T. Bentley & G. C. Savage (Eds.), Educational Australia: Challenges for the decade ahead (pp. 348–366). Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

Chapter 18

Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation of the 2010 Constitution Lucy A. Wakiaga

Abstract  Kenya’s education system is undergoing major reforms, especially the curriculum and the human resource aspects. The reforms are aimed at fulfilling Kenya’s national and international goals of education, which are assumed to ultimately support the realization of the nation’s development goals. The education governance structure is reflective of the devolved system of government, even though education is a preserve of the national government rather than a shared responsibility with the county government. This chapter examined Kenya’s education governance structure using the top-down and bottom-up perspectives. The aim was to determine whether the current structure-a result of the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution and the introduction of the devolved system of government- acts as a solid foundation for education policy formulation and implementation. Findings indicate that the structure has been solid and has provided a base on which developments in education have been achieved. However, the structure has also brought with it challenges in education management. Lewin’s (1940’s) change management model and May and Finch’s (Sociology 43(3):535–554, 2009) normalization process theory have been suggested as foundation models that can further strengthen Kenya’s education governance structure.

18.1  Introduction According to the Ministry of Education Science and Technology’s National Education Sector Plan (MoEST 2015), Kenya’s education system is geared towards the realization of Kenya’s Vision 2030 and the fulfillment of the county’s new constitution that was promulgated in 2010. This vision is Kenya’s road map for development for the period 2008–2030 through which the government purposes to L. A. Wakiaga (*) School of Arts and Social Sciences, Tangaza University College, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_18

333

334

L. A. Wakiaga

transform its human resource “into a newly industrializing, middle-income country providing a high quality life to all its citizens by the year 2030” (Government of the Republic of Kenya 2007, p. 1). The vision’s framework is anchored on three pillars: social, economic, and political. Education falls within the social pillar and its fundamental role in the realization of this vision is to produce an educated and well-­ trained citizenry that has the requisite knowledge and skills for individual and national development. The Kenya Vision 2030 document emphasizes an education that is globally competitive and is accompanied by training and research. Since education has been given such prominence in Kenya’s blueprint for development, it begs four questions: 1. Is there connectivity between the Kenya government’s efforts and those of the education sector in terms of the realization of the country’s development? 2. What theoretical underpinning(s) can be applied to explain the nature of Kenya’s educational governance structure? 3. Is there a suitable theoretical framework that would enhance Kenya’s educational governance structure, consequently improving its efficiency and effectiveness in the realization of education reforms?

18.2  Kenya’s Educational Governance Structure Education in Kenya falls under the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST), which derives its mandate from Chapter 4 of Kenya’s 2010 Constitution. The MoEST is responsible for the formulation of national education policies and programs at all levels of education (MoEST 2016). It constitutes two major sections: basic education and higher education. The basic education system constitutes four levels: pre-primary education; primary education; secondary education, and middle level institutions of basic education (Basic Education 2013). Higher education is managed separately under the Directorate of Higher Education. The MoEST has several organs that support it in implementing its mandate: the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI); Higher Education Loans Board (HELB); Commission for University Education (CUE); Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD); Kenya Institute of Special Education (KISE); Teachers’ Service Commission (TSC); Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC); Jomo Kenya Foundation (JKF); Technical and Vocational Education and Training Authority (TVETA) and the Kenya National Commission for UNESCO. How does the MoEST, together with its supportive organs, fulfill its functions of promoting education in the country? In order to understand the current governance structure of Kenya’s education sector, it is necessary to understand the governance structure of the Kenya Government. This is because Kenya’s education governance structure is woven into the fabric of the larger governance structure of the Kenya Government. After the promulgation of the new constitution in 2010, Kenya ­instituted a devolved form of governance that was implemented in 2013. The previ-

18  Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation…

335

ous governance structure of eight provinces was replaced by one constituting 47 counties. The spirit of devolution aimed at bringing power closer to the people and allowing them to have an enhanced participation in determining how their country is run (Transparency International Kenya 2014). Thus two main governance structures came into existence: the national government and the county government. The national government is headed by the president and his deputy. It has three arms: the national executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. The ministries, including that of education, fall under the national executive. Meanwhile, the county government is headed by the governor and his deputy. It also consists of three arms: the county executive, the county assembly, and the judiciary. The judiciary plays a dual role of serving both the national and the county governments. This change in the governance structure concomitantly resulted in the re-­ organization of government functions. Both governance structures-national and county- either shared some functions, were exclusively in charge of others, or had the same functions running concurrently at different levels (Transparency International Kenya 2014). Education is one of the functions that exclusively resides with the national government, except the pre-primary education and local technical centers which became devolved. Also, according to the 2010 Constitution, the national government was now in charge of developing education policy, standards, curricula, examinations for primary schools, secondary schools, and special education, and granting charters to universities (Transparency International Kenya 2014). The MoEST is headed by a cabinet secretary. The Basic Education Act (2013) give the cabinet secretary the ultimate responsibility of promoting education and training throughout Kenya. As stipulated under Section 54(3) of the Basic Education Act is the position of the director-general, who comes under the cabinet secretary but is answerable to the principal secretary. The section states that the appointment of the director-general is supposed to be conducted in a transparent and competitive manner in accordance with the Public Service Commission Act and with input from the cabinet secretary. The Public Service Commission (PSC) is an organ set up by the Kenyan Constitution to manage the human resource in the public sector. Article 234 charges the PSC with the mandate to make recommendations of qualifications of officers in the public service (Public Service Commission 2018). Thus, there appears to be a clear linkage between the government and the various ministries, education included. At the county level is the county director of education who also serves as the secretary of the county education board. The county director of education is below the director-general. Section 54(7) of the Basic Education Act requires the county director of education to be answerable to the cabinet secretary as well as consult with the county government. Section 54(8) states that the county director of education should respect the teacher management functions as outlined in Article 237 of the Constitution as well as the Teachers’ Service Commission Act. The Teachers’ Service Commission is the sole organ under the MoEST that hires teachers for public schools in the entire country and also monitors teachers in private schools. Under Section 55, the county director of education is supported in her/his responsibilities of managing education at the county by a board of management. Every public edu-

336

L. A. Wakiaga

cational institution is required to have one. In addition, every public is required to have a parents’ association, while every private school is required to have a parents’ teachers association. From the description above, it is notable that the education governance structure is complex, with intricate connectivity of units within and between the national and county governments. Two questions can be asked at this juncture: 1. What kind of conceptual model does the governance structure of Kenya’s education exhibit? 2. Is the current governance structure effective enough to enhance the education sector’s capacity to effectively manage its functions and consequently achieve its goals?

18.3  T  op-Down vs. Bottom-Up Models of Policy Implementation According to the Ministry of Education (2012), governance can be defined as “the process of providing policy leadership, oversight and strategic guidance on the management of resources and the delivery of services as well as the formulation and implementation of sound policies and regulations” (p. 53). In the Kenyan context, this authority lies with the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Governance encompasses policy formulation and implementation. How do we define policy? Stewart et al. (2008) define [public] policy as government decisions and actions aimed solving social challenges. Thus in education- a government entity - policies would be aimed at achieving similar goals. Effective implementation of public policy requires proper direction or guidelines (Khan 2016). Khan argues that these guidelines require appropriate theoretical frameworks as their foundation. However, he notes that the challenge tends to be reaching a consensus on acceptable theories. Paudel (2009) examines the evolution of research on implementation theories through what he describes as three generations. The first generation research focused on implementation as conducted from a single authority figure or location. According to Paudel, researchers at this time period-early 1970s to the 1980s- concluded that there seemed to be a disconnect between policies and the implemented programs. In addition, researchers during this period did not come up with concrete theories or models that could explain the concept of implementation. Research on second generation implementation-that occurred between the 1980s and the 1990s- was more revealing and had more refined findings because the focus was centralized on examining the relationship between policy and practice. In this research, unlike that of the first generation, there were attempts to provide explanations for implementation failure using policy implementation models. Research on the third -generation implementation- 1990s to date- focuses on the link between the policy makers, at the macro level, and the policy implementers, at the micro level. This research

18  Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation…

337

examines policy implementation at the system level. According to Paudel, critics argue that the third generation has not been implemented yet and therefore, appropriate models are yet to be developed. In this chapter, the models in the second-generation implementation phase have been adopted as the conceptual approaches to explain the status of Kenya’s education governance with regards to the relationship between policy and practice. Paudel, in his discussion, identifies these models as: the top-down perspective and the bottom-up perspective. In the top-down perspective, policies are developed by a centralized authority figure and the policies are then cascaded downwards to the lower levels of authority. Paudel notes that this is a policy-centered approach of implementation. I would add that it is a “policymaker” approach. It is a centralized approach to policy formulation, development, and implementation. Paudel explains that the level of success of policy implementation is determined by the structures that are put in place and the capacity of the policymaker to control the various elements of the structure. He adds that the top-down perspective is about standardization of policy implementation so that the various levels of the governance structure exhibit predictable and identifiable patterns of performance. According to Elmore (1978), the policymaker formulates the policy and makes it known to the parties concerned after which it is implemented throughout the organization, across the various levels. Elmore expounds that the modus operandi in such structure involves having such aspects as funding formulas, formal organizational structures, and connective relationships between the various administrative units in terms of regulations and controls. Such a structure involves a level of high control and there is little room for alternative viewpoints outside those of the policy makers. Paudel notes that in such a structure there are high-level decision makers who often tend to be high up in the decision-making hierarchy. Their role is to support the policy maker to achieve the intended goals while at the same time advising on the status of the implementation and ensuring there are minimal decision points across the system that can disrupt implementation. In this perspective, therefore, success of policy implementation would be determined by the strength of the links between the various levels of governance. The intensity level of control of the policy maker determines the level of effort that will be exhibited by the policy implementers across the various levels of governance. The downside of this perspective is that it can lead to resistance as well as mechanical compliance. The bottom-up perspective examines policy implementation from a relationship-­ both formal and informal- perspective rather than from a system perspective. It is a decentralized approach to policy implementation. The individuals across the smallest units of governance, develop policies and are also an integral part of its implementation- whether successful or not. Paudel notes that it is an individual-centered approach of policy implementation. I would describe it as a “policy implementer” approach. Paudel refers to Michael Lipsky’s (1980) theory of “street-level bureaucracy” and explains that street-level bureaucrats are an important constituent in the implementation process because they are closer to the people in the community are so are better able to articulate their needs. In order to drive the policy formulation

338

L. A. Wakiaga

and implementation process, street-bureaucrats have the leeway of making discretionary decisions. Thus, they are considered to play a very powerful role. The downside of the bottom-up perspective, as noted by Paudel, is that it does not recognize the authority of the policy makers, yet these are individuals who occupy offices that have been enacted by the legislature- an organ that consists of elected individuals. Street-level bureaucrats on the other hand, are not duly elected by the local people. Conflict arising between the two camps, therefore, can result in ineffective policy formulation and implementation. In addition, when implementation fails, it becomes a challenge to clearly identify whether the failure is as a result of the individual’s lack of effective decision-making capacity or of the design of the system’s governance framework. In addition, since the bottom-up approach is democratic, the system engages varied stakeholders-both public and private. The number of players in the field can affect the quality of policies formulated and the efficiency and effectiveness of their implementation. Another disadvantage is that because each local level tends to have its own unique characteristics, this can result in huge variations during the implementation process and consequently in the achieved results. It is not easy to control or alter the characteristics of a local area and so this can impact uniformity in the formulation and implementation of policy. Thus, in order to minimize disruptions, especially in situations where the local level does not have the capacity, and also to effect change with deliberate speed, it may be more prudent to have a central authority drive the process of policy formulation and implementation. How do the top-down and bottom-up perspectives play out in the governance of Kenya’s education sector? As noted earlier, enactment of the 2010 Constitution and implementation of a devolved system of government brought with them new governance structures, but education was one function that remained exclusively under the purview of the national government. In terms of governance, there appears to be some evidence of a bottom-up perspective on one hand. The government holds a formal position regarding the same. Section 54 (2) of the Basic Education Act notes that the governance structure is aimed at promoting collaboration amongst the various education stakeholders, decentralizing authority in decision-making with regards to the management of human and material resources, promoting a culture of democracy, accountability and transparency, as well as efficient and effective delivery of education-related services. Thus, the governance framework seems to have provision for inclusivity of voices of various stakeholders in the education sector. For instance, at the national level, the director-general is supposed to be appointed through a democratic process. At the county level, the Board of Management consists of parents, students and individuals from the county education board, teachers, school sponsors, special interest groups, and special needs groups. Such a structure aims at distributing the control and management of education both at the national and county levels, and consequently enhancing decision-making. In addition, the bottom-up approach can also be deciphered to exist indirectly with regards to policy formulation. This is through elected representatives. These legislators, as representatives of their community members, present motions in parliament related to the latter’s educational needs. These motions are then debated upon, either modified or

18  Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation…

339

amended, and passed as laws. The cabinet secretary then develops relevant policies that reflect the new legislation. On the other hand, there is clear evidence of a top-down approach. The cabinet secretary, under Section 54(1), holds the ultimate authority of making  decisions regarding any aspect of governance and management structures even though Section 53(2), empowers him/her to delegate the management of any aspect of basic education to appropriate institutions. Kenya’s education policies are developed by the cabinet secretary in consultation with the supporting organs mentioned earlier, such as the Teachers’ Service Commission and the Kenya Institute for Curriculum Development. He/she, as the centralized authority figure, is also responsible for the implementation of the education policies. The policies then trickle down the governance structure along the clearly defined management organs and levels mentioned earlier and in accordance with provisions stipulated in the 2010 Constitution for a devolved government. Thus, the governance structure seems to exhibit a mix of both the top-down and the bottom-up approaches, with seemingly a heavier leaning towards the former. The question here is whether this governance structure has been effective in providing the necessary support for the successful implementation of Kenya’s education policies and consequently achieving the goals of education. Kenya educational goals aim at responding to national as well as global needs and aspirations. Kenya had eight main national goals of education:( i) to foster nationalism and patriotism and promote national unity, (ii) to promote social, economic, technological and industrial needs for national development, (iii) to promote individual development and self-fulfillment, (iv) to promote sound moral and religious values, (v) to promote social equality and responsibility, and (vi) to promote respect for and development of Kenya’s rich and varied cultures, (vii) to promote international consciousness and foster positive attitudes towards other nations, and (viii) to promote positive attitudes towards good health and environmental protection (Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development 2016). Nationally, these goals are geared towards the realization of Vision 2030. In addition, Kenya is also a signatory to regional, continental, and global agreements on the development of education. Regionally, it ascribes to “the African Union Plan of Action for the Second Decade of Education for Africa (2006–2015); The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD); and East Africa Community (EAC) ECDE, Primary, Secondary, ACE and SNE Education Strategies on Access, Equity and Quality of Education (2013)” (Ministry of Education Science and Technology 2015, p.  53). In addition, it is among several countries in Sub-­ Saharan Africa that are signatories to the Education for All (EFA) initiative (UNESCO 2015) that promotes basic education for all children youth and adults. Globally, Kenya is a signatory to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially goal number 4 that focuses on inclusive and equitable quality education. Thus. Kenya’s education agenda is geared towards achieving the stated goals of these national, regional, continental, and global agreements. How then does Kenya’s education governance structure support the realization of these local, regional, continental, and global goals? Regardless of the model

340

L. A. Wakiaga

adopted, whether top-down or bottom-up, the critical question is whether the education policy is being effectively and efficiently implemented. Elmore (1978) developed 4 elements he considered essential in effectively implementing policy: (a) having clearly defined objectives and tasks that fulfill the intent of the policy, (b) having a management plan that defines activities and performance standards of subunits; (c) having clearly defined and objective plan of measuring performance of each unit; and (d) having a system of management controls that hold subordinates accountable for their performance. The question here is whether the Kenya’s education governance structure reflects all, some, or none of Elmore’s elements.

18.3.1  Clearly Defined Objectives and Tasks Khan (2016) posits that having clearly goals, targets and objectives are essential because they drive effective and efficient implementation of policy. Kenya’s education governance structure is guided by the Basic Education Act, No. 14 of 2013. The Act, in order to support policy formulation and implementation geared towards the realization of Kenya’s educational goals has clearly defined objectives and tasks that are “to promote and regulate free and compulsory basic education; to provide for accreditation, registration, governance and management of institutions of basic education; to provide for the establishment of the National Education Board, the Education Standards and Quality Assurance Commission, and the County Education Board” (p. 220).

18.3.2  Management Plan The Act clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of individuals and institutions both at the local and national levels, ensuring they adhere to expectations as outlined in the 2010 Constitution and are reflective of the national and county government governance structures. The Act establishes a National Board of Education. It functions in an advisory capacity to the cabinet secretary, the department of education and other related units in education policy issues. This board reflects the national government arm of Kenya’s devolved system of governance. At the county government level is the county education board. The Act states that the county education board is the agent of the National Board of Education. It role is to promote education at the county level, but in consultation with both the county and national governments. It works hand in hand with other organs of the MoEST or management units at the national level, for example, the Teachers’ Service Commission, and at the county level, for example, school boards of management and other relevant players in the education sector. The county education board also has the power to appoint a sub-county education office, but it can only do so after consulting with the National Board of Education. The Act stipulates that members

18  Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation…

341

to the county education board should exhibit the diversity of stakeholders in the field of education: an educationist, the County Director of Education, a county representative responsible for education, representatives of the Teachers’ Service Commission, of principals, of teachers, of parent teacher associations, of individuals with disability, of religious organizations, of a child rights organization, and of private schools. At the school level is the board of management, responsible for providing support to school leaders in the day-to-day implementation of education policies. The Act stipulates that the composition of members to the board should be reflective of local stakeholders in education, a similar membership requirement as that of the county education board. Besides the management units, there are various individuals with varied responsibilities. At the national government level is the cabinet secretary, in charge of the entire education sector. He/she is assisted by the director general and the principal secretary. At the county government level is the county education officer, assisted by a deputy county education officer. The school heads are next in command. According to the Basic Education Act, management plans are in place not only for the public schools, but also private schools as well as special needs education. Execution of these plans across all schools involves consultation between the cabinet secretary, as the representative of the national government, and all other organs at the national level as well as representatives from the various administrative and non-administrative units at the county government level. The interplay between the top-down and bottom-up approach is clearly evident in this governance structure. Even though an individual or a unit of management may have the power of office, there are checks and balances across all levels of management, from top to bottom. The national and county governments are also structured in such a way that they oversee each other. Thus, even though education is under the purview of the national government, the cabinet secretary cannot act exclusively on education matters at the county level without consulting with the county director of education.

18.3.3  C  lear and Objective Plan for Measuring Subunit Performance The Basic Education Act, in Part IX, sections 64 to 75, clearly outlines how the quality of education will be guaranteed. The Education Standards and Quality Assurance Council ensures that quality is maintained in all aspects of basic education, including curriculum implementation as well as in academic examinations. There also exists the National Qualifications Framework which is tasked with developing national and international standards for qualifications and competencies across the various units of the education system. To ensure that these standards remain relevant in the ever-changing education environment, the cabinet secretary

342

L. A. Wakiaga

is tasked with mobilizing appropriate agencies and stakeholders in education to regularly review and evaluate these standards. Organs that support the MoEST have also developed their own measures of performance expectations. The Teachers’ Service Commission, one of the organs of the MoEST that manages the human resources, recently introduced changes aimed at improving the quality of teaching and learning. These changes are supposed to be aligned with the ongoing reforms to Kenya’s education curriculum. In 2016, The Teachers’ Service Commission introduced Teacher Performance Appraisal and Development (TPAD) and Performance Contracting (PC) for principals as part of its performance appraisal system. The Teachers’ Service Commission did this in order to fulfill the requirements of the TSC Act of 2012 of monitoring the conduct and performance of teachers in the teaching service, including the implementation of the curriculum (Teachers’ Service Commission 2018). Thus, policies developed in one organ of the education governance structure compliments the functions in another. This is the case above in which policies developed and implemented by the Teachers’ Service Commission, the organ responsible for the human resource in education, enhances the functions and goals of the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development, the organ responsible for developing Kenya’s curriculum.

18.3.4  System of Management Controls for Accountability The existence of clearly outlined standards to ensure quality and relevance- Part IX of the Basic Education Act- provides a foundation for creating an accountability structure. As noted earlier, the Education Standards and Quality Assurance Council is in place to ensure quality. According to the Act, quality assurance and standards officers have the power to inspect educational institutions to check whether there is compliance with the appropriate education standards. In addition, provisions are in place to guide individuals or organizations on matters of licensing, registration, and accreditation with regards to setting up of educational and research institutions or training centers. Moreover, the various organs that support the MoEST in carrying out its tasks are formed by legislation and therefore binding in terms of the provisions therein. For example, there is the existence of  the Teachers’ Service Commission Act (2012) that outlines how the teaching workforce is to be managed. It also outlines expectations of proper conduct of teachers as professionals in the field of education. In addition, principals are required to submit comprehensive annual reports regarding their schools to the county education office. In January 2018, the Teachers’ Service Commission re-introduced the delocalization policy (Teachers’ Service Commission 2007) whereby principals would be re-deployed to new stations. Two of its provisions stated that principals were to be deployed outside their localities to avoid negative influence and personal interests; and that principals were not allowed to stay in one station for more than 8 years as this would lead to complacency (TSC 2007). The aim of this policy is to ensure that high standards are maintained in each school and that there is accountability in the man-

18  Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation…

343

agement of school resources. Besides having a system to control the human resource, the education governance structure also has provision for financial resource accountability. Part XI of the Basic Education Act states that books of departments and school must be audited annually. To safeguard against impunity from any of the management organs in the process of ensuring accountability, the Act has provision for the setting up of an Education Appeals Tribunal. Its membership is quite diverse and includes various education stakeholders including the chairperson of the National Education Board, the director-­general, the Secretary to the Teachers’ Service Commission, a representative from the Kenya Private Sector Alliance, and a representative of the Education Standards and Quality Assurance Council. Similar to other committees mentioned thus far, the linkage between the national government and the county government is noticeable, thus remaining true to the spirit of devolved government as ascribed in the 2010 Constitution. Is the current governance structure effective enough to enhance the education sector’s capacity to effectively manage its functions and consequently achieve its goals? Elmore (1978) posits that lack of planning, specification, and control are key ingredients for ineffective implementation of policies. However, from the above discussion, there are indications of a clearly defined framework of planning, specification, and control. There exists interactions of the various organs and management units in Kenya’s education sector. In addition, the structures in place seem to be aligned with the appropriate provisions in the 2010 Constitution and reflect the framework of the devolved government. It can be argued here that this governance structure, though intricate, is to a large extent efficient and effective in ensuring policy formulation and implementation. The structure encourages inclusivity and sharing of diversity of ideas from a diverse group of individuals and organizations. The type and level of interaction of the various stakeholders are clearly spelt out right from the 2010 Constitution to various legislations in education. This set up is supposed to make it conducive for the education sector to achieve its goals.

18.4  E  ffects of the Current Education Governance Structure on School Personnel and Student Performance Kenya’s Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MoEST) has made strides towards the fulfillment of some of its objectives and tasks. Through the provisions of the Basic Act, 2013, the MoEST continues to promote free primary education and free day secondary education. Gross enrollment rate at the primary school level has increased from 88.7% in 2000 to 119.6% in 2013, while the net enrollment rate has increased to 95.9% in 2013 (MoEST 2014). Similarly, trends have also been observed in secondary education, with gross enrollment rate increment from 28.8% in 2005 to 49.3% in 2013 and net enrollment rate from 20.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2013 (MoEST 2014). The Kenya Government’s efforts at increasing access as well

344

L. A. Wakiaga

as quality and equity are laudible. However, challenges still persist. Free primary education has increased access to basic education but parents are still grappling with additional levies, such as the purchase of school uniforms and books (Ngugi et al. 2015). In addition, free primary education has led to increased class sizes, yet teachers have not received appropriate professional support from the MoEST to adjust to this change, consequently affecting the quality of education (Abuya et  al. 2015). The Global Partnership for Education (2018) notes that there is lack of a comprehensive framework for teacher development and that education programs are not effectively coordinated. Such weaknesses in the education governance structures impact teacher performance and consequently, learner outcomes. A recent report on the status of Kenya’s education noted that learning outcomes have not shown any significant growth, for example “on average, 1 out of 10 children in Kenyan primary schools are completing Class 8 without having acquired the basic competencies expected of a child completing Class 2” (Uwezo 2016, p. 3). Teacher buy-in and capacity building are critical in the success of any education policy. Lack of these two ingredients is a recipe for resistance to  the policy and failure of the policy upon implementation. A study conducted by the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) in 2012 showed that there still exist areas that need further streamlining to make the education structure more effective and efficient. For instance, regions in remote parts of Kenya experienced high attrition of teachers and so it was suggested that the MoEST provide incentives to keep teachers at their assigned schools (Wasanga et al. 2012). The study also found that community-school partnerships were also not strong; parents were not engaged in their children’s academic performance. This does not bode well for the realization of educational goals since parents are critical stakeholders in the learning of their children. The influence of politics on education governance cannot be downplayed. In this instance, free primary education, even though it is a universal goal that Kenya ascribes to, was introduced in 2003 for political reasons. There was little engagement of stakeholders in the decision, insufficient time for planning and implementation, and lack of capacity building for teachers (Abuya et al. 2015). Over time, this has impacted teaching and learning outcomes, as noted above. In 2016, the MoEST initiated reforms to the national curriculum. Piloting of the second phase of the new curriculum was rolled out in January of 2018 in all the 47 counties (Kenya Institute of Education 2018, January). Initially, the roll out of the new curriculum met with some resistance. Critics, led by the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), posited that teachers were ill-prepared to handle the new curriculum, stakeholders were not involved in the reforms, and that Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development lacked sufficient training resources to implement the curriculum (Nyamai 2018a). However, after several consultative meetings with the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development in which it was agreed that roll out would be gradual, KNUT turned around and now supports the new curriculum. The National Education Board, the Education Standards and Quality Assurance Commission and county education boards have been set up to manage education. A recent study done on education quality in Kenya found that the Quality Assurance

18  Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation…

345

and Standards Officers (QASOs) have the necessary academic and professional qualifications and experience, however, they do not have sufficient logistical and financial resources to perform their duties (Mwinyipembe and Orodho 2014). In addition, the study noted that schools tend to disregard the recommendations by the QASOs and this consequently hampers the efforts of improving students’ learning outcomes both at the school and at the national levels. This is an indication that the education governance structure needs to be strengthened. The expectations for accountability should be solid enough to ensure that schools adopt and objectively implement the recommendations by the QASOs. Attempts by the MoEST to improve the quality of instruction has seen the implementation of Teacher Performance Appraisal and Development (TPAD) and delocalization policies. However, the implementation of these two policies have and continue to be hot button issues in Kenya’s education landscape. The Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) and the Kenya Union of Post-Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) have put up spirited campaigns against the implementation of TPAD, arguing that it has led to a decline in teacher performance with teachers now spend more time filing out the TPAD forms rather than teaching (Nyamai 2018b). In 2017, KNUT threatened to call a strike by teachers if the delocalization policy was implemented. It is important to note that the policy was eventually implemented from January 2018, and KNUT has not followed through with its threat. However, there was political intervention from Kenya’s current president to have the policy suspended and reviewed in light of the challenges it seemed to pose of breaking up families (Nyamai and Atieno 2018). Meanwhile, the Teachers’ Service Commission is carrying on with performance appraisal of its teachers, while the fate of the policy on delocalization of principals is being determined. The above scenarios are indicative of the impact extraneous factors have on policy implementation. The society, especially the cultural and political aspect, can impact the speed and intensity with which a policy is implemented. A top-down perspective, as Paudel (2009) notes, can lead to resistance and mechanical compliance. In cases where individuals and management units are directly answerable to the central authority figure, there is mechanical compliance. This has been evident in the recent past with the implementation of TPAD and delocalization. For example, before the President of Kenya intervened in the implementation of the delocalization policy, there were principals who immediately re-located to their  new stations as soon as they had received transfer letters. They opted not to wait to be terminated from their jobs by the TSC due to insubordination. In addition, principals and teachers have been complying with the TPAD policy and submitting the required paperwork within the stipulated deadlines. It is still too early in the day to determine the full impact of these two policies since their implementation has barely been two years. The real test in their implementation will be whether tangible improvements in student academic performance will be evident. It may be a while before a concrete analysis and objective evaluation of their impact on teaching and learning is done.

346

L. A. Wakiaga

18.5  Moving Forward So how can Kenya’s education governance structure be refined to enhance its capacity in realizing Kenya’s educational goals? Kenya, compared to its counterparts in Africa, continues to be a strong economy. According to the Global Innovative Index 2018, Kenya is ranked the third most innovative county in Sub-Saharan Africa (Kangethe 2018). The Global Human Capital Report of 2017 ranks Kenya among the top 5 African countries in human skills development (World Economic Forum 2017). The quality of Kenya’s education in addition to having a high literacy rate are identified as key components of this development. To ensure it continues to secure and improve its regional as well as global competitiveness, Kenya will need to constantly and innovatively enhance its education sector as a whole and the governance structure in particular. The latter is a crucial determinant of the success or failure of the entire education sector. Currently, Kenya’s MoEST is undertaking major reforms in education. For example, it is completely overhauling its education system from the 8-4-4 system to the 2-6-6-3 (Kabita and Ji 2017). This curriculum change has had a domino effect on its human resource, resulting in the introduction of new quality assurance policies such as delocalization and TPAD. These reforms have not augured well with some stakeholders, especially teachers and school principals. This means that there is a gap along the continuum of policy formulation and policy implementation. Therefore, there is need to re-examine the governance structure and attempt to determine where the weak links could be and remedy them. I would suggest two theories that can be used a foundation in strengthening Kenya’s governance structure: Kurt Lewin’s (1940s) change management model as discussed in Mind Tools (2018) and May and Finch’s (2009) normative process theory (NPT). Lewin posits that the following three steps are needed for managing change successfully in an organization: (a) unfreeze, (b) change, and (c) refreeze. Lewin uses the analogy of ice, stating that if you want to shape the ice, first you must melt it and then mold the water and then refreeze it. Therefore, if change is to be implemented in the organization, one must begin with identify and understanding the need for the change. This can be equated with the needs assessment stage in the strategic planning process. This is done to identify the gaps or where the challenges lie. At this stage it is important to involve the various stakeholders so that, from the onset, they are part of the process of identifying the gaps. There is more buy-in when the policy implementers are part of the change process from its inception. This allows  for change to be introduced more easily. Lewin asserts that this unfreeze stage is where ground work is laid for changing individuals’ perspectives in terms of adopting and adapting to new ways of doing things. However, the big challenge is moving individuals away from the “way things are done” mentality (Mind Tools 2018). Changing such a mentality would be a challenge in an intricate bureaucratic education structure as Kenya’s. Introducing change in such a system would require a well-crafted change framework with clear goals and clear expectations from the individuals and units that will be responsible for effecting the change. Lewin asserts

18  Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation…

347

that it is important to build motivation into the change structure so as to minimize resistance. Individuals need to see the relevance of the change and what is it for them. If they perceive that the change is an imposition, they will resist, and this will lead to the demise of the innovation/idea being introduced. Change is the next stage. Here individuals have come to terms with the inevitability of change and so become open to new approaches of operation. They begin to believe and act in ways that promote the new goals of the organization (Mind Tools 2018). It is noted here that this stage can be long and drawn out. Change involves dealing with human beings; not all human beings embrace change at the same time or even embrace change at all. Rogers (2003) identifies five categories of individuals and embracing of change: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. It is therefore important to understand this aspect of human beings and provide the relevant support and motivation to assist all the different groups to accept the change. If this is not done, then the system ends up with a demotivated workforce, that is, varied groups with unmet needs. When Kenya’s Teachers’ Service Commission recently introduced delocalization and TPAD, it met with a lot of resistance because the teachers and principals did not feel like they had been a part of the decision-making process. They felt that they had not been consulted before the policies were introduced. In addition, they felt that little time had been given to the understanding of the policies before the onset of implementation. Lewin notes that time and communication are important in that people need time to adopt to changes and they also need to feel that they are part and parcel of the organization as they transition (Mind Tools 2018). Refreeze is whereby the change has taken root and now individuals and units are functioning normally once again. There is equilibrium once more and it can be deduced from such aspects as the presence of a stable organizational chart and consistent job descriptions (Mind Tools 2018). Such a theoretical framework provides a simplified, yet refined approach to problem identification for such a complex education governance framework as Kenya’s. The flip side is that change may take a long time to be realized because of the intricacies of the Kenya’s educ ation framework. The devolved system of government, though a democratic approach to enhance citizen participation in running of the government, has its inherent challenges. Getting policies to cascade down the devolution structure can take time and slow down effective implementation, especially of relevant innovation. This is where the next theory comes in. May and Finch’s (2009) Normalization Process Theory (NPT) posits that an innovation can only take root and solidify itself if it is embedded in the daily routines of individuals and management units of a governance structure. They note that the implementation process requires four mechanisms: (a) coherence, (b) cognitive participation, (c) collective action, and (d) reflexive monitoring. These elements will be examined here within the context of Kenya’s education governance structure. Coherence means the alignment of goals and practice. It has been noted earlier that in the Kenyan context, the policies for the governance of education are aligned with the national goals of education, Kenya’s Vision 2030 for economic develop-

348

L. A. Wakiaga

ment as well as the aspirations in the 2010 Constitution. The challenge seems to be in making sure that the policies align with practice. The recent turbulences in education reform are an indicator of a possibility of incoherence. This can only be resolved if the implementers have internalized the significance of the reforms and have made it drive what they do on a daily basis (May and Finch 2009). In cognitive participation, the implementers and the management units have to work as a single and unified unit. Before the 2010 Constitution, the MoEST was operating as two separate ministries. This led to inefficiency and ineffectiveness because their duplication of roles led to waste of human and material resources. However, post-2010 Constitution, both ministries were merged into the MoEST and a clear framework has since been developed that has streamlined the functioning of the education sector as one big unit. May and Finch (2009) assert that in order for implementation to be effective, all elements/units of the structure have to be interconnected in terms of a clear framework and in terms of the human relationships. In collective action, all the individuals and management units have to work together As has been noted, the bottom-up and top-down approaches that seem to be visible in Kenya’s education governance structure seems to ensure that all the relevant stakeholders in education have a chance to make their contributions: whether it is the cabinet secretary at the national government level or the parent at the local school at the county government level. Finally, in reflexive monitoring, those in charge of evaluating the governance structure have to, first of all, know and understand the functioning of the education sector. This allows for the creation of a clearly defined approach for monitoring and evaluating the governance structure. This approach should be contextualized within what May and Finch (2009) assert to be beliefs that are developed from the social environment and shared within the institution.

18.6  Conclusion Theories clarify goals and objectives. They create a roadmap along which justifications can be made for beliefs and practices. Kenya’s progress can be deduced from some of the elements of the above theories. It is evident that a clearly articulated educational governance structure exists. The challenges that have been noted in the structure are not unique since the theories identify them as well. The onus is on the MoEST to learn from such models in order to strengthen its educational governance capacity.

18  Kenya: Robust or Burst: Education Governance in Kenya After Promulgation…

349

References Abuya, B.  A., Admassu, K., Ngware, M., Onsomu, E.  O., & Oketch, M. (2015). Free primary education and implementation in Kenya: The role of primary school teachers in addressing the policy gap. SAGE Open, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015571488. Elmore, R.  E. (1978). Organizational models of social program implementation. Public Policy, 26(2), 185–228. Global Partnership for Education. (2018). Education in Kenya. Retrieved from https://www.globalpartnership.org/country/kenya Government of the Republic of Kenya. (2007). Kenya vision 2030. Nairobi: Government of the Republic of Kenya. Kabita, D. N., & Ji, L. (2017). The why, what and how of competency-based curriculum reforms: The Kenyan experience. Nairobi: UNESCO International Bureau of Education. Kangethe, K. (2018, July). Kenya ranked third most innovative country in Africa. Retrieved from https:// www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2018/07/kenya-ranked-third-most-innovative-country-in-africa/ Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development. (2016). Basic education curriculum framework. Republic of Kenya: Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development. Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development. (2018). Competency based curriculum. Retrieved from https://kicd.ac.ke/press_releases/competence-based-curriculum-january-3rd-2018/ Khan, A.  R. (2016). Policy implementation: Some aspects and issues. Journal of Community Positive Practices, 16(3), 3–12. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from www.jstor.org/ stable/10.7758/9781610447713. May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535–554. Mind Tools. (2018). Lewin’s change management model. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools. com/pages/article/newPPM_94.htm Ministry of Education. (2012). A policy framework for education: Aligning education and training to the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Kenya Vision 2030 and beyond. Republic of Kenya: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2014). Education for all 2015 national review report. Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Ministry of Education Science and Technology. (2015). National education sector plan volume one: Basic education programme rationale and approach 2013–2018. Republic of Kenya: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2016). About us. Retrieved from http://www. education.go.ke/index.php/about-us Mwinyipembe, M. M., & Orodho, J. A. (2014). Effectiveness of uality assurance and standards officers’ school supervisory roles in enhancing students’ academic performance in national examinations in Nakuru District, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(16), 69–80. Ngugi, M., Mumiukha, C., Fedha, F., & Ndiga, B. (2015). Universal primary education in Kenya: Advancement and challenges. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(14), 87–95. Nyamai, F. (2018a). Class 1 and 2 pupils now set for new curriculum. Business Daily Africa. Retrieved from https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/news/Class-1-and-2-pupils-now-set-fornew-curriculum/539546-4250406-lshnrl/index.html Nyamai, F. (2018b). Teachers unions tell TSC to stop job appraisals. Daily Nation. Retrieved from https://www.nation.co.ke/news/education/Teachers-unions-tell-TSC-to-stop-job-appraisals/2643604-4359246-ow2eau/index.html Nyamai, F. & Atieno, W. (2018, August). Why Uhuru Kenyatta slammed breaks on teacher transfers. Daily Nation. Retrieved from https://www.nation.co.ke/news/education/Uhuru-ordersreview-of-teachers%2D%2Ddelocalisation-policy/2643604-4713930-wxr1al/index.html

350

L. A. Wakiaga

Paudel, N. R. (2009). A critical account of policy implementation theories: Status and reconsideration. Nepalese Journal of Public Policy and Governance, 2, 36–54. Public Service Commission. (2018). Mandate. Retrieved from https://www.publicservice.go.ke/ index.php/homepage/mandate Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Stewart, J. J., Hedge, D. M., & Lester, J. P. (2008). Public policy: An evolutionary approach (3rd ed.). Boston: Thomson Wordsworth. The Basic Education Act, 2013, No. 14 (2013). The Teachers’ Service Commission. (2007). Policy on identification, selection, appointment, deployment and training of heads of post primary institutions. Nairobi: The Teachers’ Service Commission. The Teachers’ Service Commission. (2012). Teachers’ Service Act, No. 20 of 2012. The Teachers’ Service Commission. (2018). TPAD tool for teachers. Transparency International Kenya. (2014). Devolution handbook 2014. Nairobi: Transparency International Kenya. UNESCO. (2015). Education for all 2000–2015: Achievements and challenges. Education for all global monitoring report 2015. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Uwezo. (2016). Are our children learning? Uwezo Kenya sixth learning assessment report. Nairobi: Twaweza East Africa. Wasanga, P. M., Ogle, M. A., & Wambua, R. M. (2012). The SACMEQ III project in Kenya: A study of the conditions of schooling and the quality of education. Nairobi: The Kenya National Examination Council. World Economic Forum. (2017). The global human capital report 2017: Preparing people for the future of work.

Chapter 19

New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools Cathy Wylie

Abstract  New Zealand has a very decentralised system of self-managed schools. Each of the 2431 state schools is governed by parent-elected boards of trustees, who employ the principal. Boards are legally responsible for the school’s smooth running and are accountable to the government through annual reporting. The national curriculum provides a framework which is not prescriptive. The Ministry of Education is responsible for policy and funding at the national level and has 10 regional offices to support policy roll out and schools. The Education Review Office is responsible for reviewing each school, at intervals depending on the outcome of the previous review. This framework was set up in 1989 in a reform that drew much from New Public Management theory, as well as wanting to bring schools and their communities closer. ‘Steering at a distance’ however has created systemic issues around variability between schools, difficulty in getting improvement and greater equity for disadvantaged students, and too much fragmentation and operation of schools and government agencies in silos. In 2018 a major review process began to address key issues. Included in this chapter are accounts of three key national policies, and the factors that helped or hindered their realisation in schools.

19.1  A Small Country Experiments New Zealand is a small country with a total land area of 269,000 square meters. It was originally settled by Māori and colonised by England from the early 1800s. Māori make up 14% of the population, and 24% of current school students. The population of around 4.89 million people live mostly in coastal cities located on the two main islands, with recent growth fuelled by high immigration. Over a quarter of

C. Wylie (*) New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_19

351

352

C. Wylie

the population were born overseas.1 It is an OECD member, and the 68th largest world economy in terms of purchasing power parity. It is highly dependent on international trade. Although it was one of the earliest welfare states, policy changes from the mid -1980s in the face of a fiscal crisis which liberalised the economy and reduced top income taxes have increased inequality. The national government has a single chamber, with elections held every 3 years. Since a move to mixed member proportional representation in 1996, governments have usually included minority parties. Unlike many other Western democracies, key social services like education and health are not provided by municipal or regional government bodies.

19.2  The Schooling System Education in New Zealand is compulsory between the ages of 6–16. It is largely provided by state schools, including state-integrated schools that are largely Catholic. Legally, education is provided free, but most schools ask parents for an annual donation, and integrated schools ask for a contribution to the costs of buildings and land, which they own. Families have the right to access their local school but can also choose other schools. The choice is subject to availability, with spare places decided by ballot in schools that are zoned with a roll cap. Zoning has increased over time, partly as the population grows and the government attempts to contain property costs and counter decreased rolls at schools serving students from low socio-economic areas. New Zealand’s history and geography have resulted in a comparatively high number of schools – 2431 state and state-integrated2 in relation to the student population of 800,334 students in mid-2017. Just over a quarter of schools have rolls of less than 100. Average roll size for primary schools is 249, and for secondary schools, 667. Before 1989, the national Department of Education worked with 10 education boards that were locally elected by all those eligible to vote in local body elections, with secondary schools having their own boards, and primary schools having committees elected by local householders with some responsibilities such as buying books and routine maintenance. Education boards and secondary school boards appointed principals. A national Inspectorate and Advisory Service employed by the Department and working out of the 10 boards supported schools and 1  The country is now ‘superdiverse’, with more than 200 languages spoken; however, most of the population are English speakers only. English, te reo Māori, and sign language are the country’s 3 official languages. Currently, 50% of NZ school students identify as NZ European, 24% identify as Māori, 12% identify as Asian, and 10% identify as Pacific. 2  State-integrated schools make up around 11% of the schools, and include those with religious affiliations, predominantly Catholic, that own their land and buildings. Independent schools make up 3.5% of the country’s schools.

19  New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools

353

c­ommunicated national policy guidelines. The national Department and boards made resourcing decisions. Schools had latitude within broadly sketched curricula, other than the senior secondary school where the curriculum was framed by national examinations. In the 1980s it became increasingly clear that though New Zealand prided itself on high average scores in the first round of international assessments, it was not serving all students well. In 1986, 53% of Māori students left secondary school without any qualification, compared with 22% of non-Māori.

19.2.1  A Radical Reform In 1989 the country made a radical change with all state and state-integrated schools becoming self-managed crown entities, responsible for their own allocation of their government funding, with parent-elected boards of trustees providing governance and appointing and employing school staff. Originally, schools were to receive all their resourcing in dollars, including money for staffing. This was resisted by the teacher unions, who used their links with the Labour government which initiated the review that led to the radical change and convinced the Prime Minister that it was likely to cause inequities between schools and should be investigated. Analysis bore out their fears; but ‘bulk funding’ to schools rather than providing centrally funded staffing was a battle ground between the unions and conservative governments through the 1990s; boards of trustees had varied views, but most were wary of taking on this responsibility. The unions also persuaded the government that the detail of the reforms should be discussed and formed with advisory groups including educators and others who had practical knowledge. These advisory groups performed a valuable role in ensuring some support for schools and students through the transition. The local education boards were wound up. A new much smaller Ministry of Education became focused on policy, with few operational responsibilities other than funding and property resourcing; it retained curriculum framing, but the operation of secondary qualifications went to a separate government agency. New agencies were also set up using the New Public Management contractual model, to support students with special education needs, to provide curriculum resources; and advisory services were eventually contracted to universities. The Inspectorate was disbanded, with another new government agency the Education Review Office (ERO) set up to  regularly review schools in relation to their legislative accountabilities.3 These Tomorrow’s Schools reforms were premised on three key assumptions. First, that involving parents in the governance of their school would make schools

3  Accounts of the reforms and their impact over time are given in Fiske and Ladd (2000), Openshaw (2009), and Wylie (2012).

354

C. Wylie

more responsive, and hence improve quality. Second, that giving parents school choice, basing school funding on roll and setting principal salary rates in national collective contracts in relation to roll size, would give schools an incentive to compete, and that such competition would also improve quality. Third, that separating policy from operations would make both more effective and efficient, and that accountability mechanisms such as contracts and regular reviews would improve performance. The role of the central government education agencies was to ‘steer at a distance’. One Secretary for Education described the relationship between the Ministry and individual schools as ‘tight-loose-tight’. The Ministry would specify policy and the outcomes desired (‘tight’); the schools were free to respond to these according to their specific context (‘loose’); and the schools reported their results in relation to the policy outcomes (‘tight’). The changes in education were part of deep and systematic economic and public sector reforms from the mid-1980s, largely framed within New Public Management theory, leavened with considerations of improving equity. Ironically, economic restructuring increased inequality, with a rapid rise in poverty levels, particularly for children. In 2017, 27% of New Zealand children lived in low income homes, almost double the proportion in 1982. The changes in education also sought to acknowledge the increasing importance of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document from 1840. This Treaty frames the relationship between the indigenous Māori and the English Crown that was colonising the country as one of equality and mutual support. It was disregarded in real terms to the deep disadvantage of Māori, who lost almost all their land, and are now highly over-represented among those who have low incomes, poor health, and poor educational outcomes. However, the Treaty of Waitangi finally achieved legal recognition in 1975, and plays an increasingly powerful role in public services, particularly education. One of the intentions for Tomorrow’s Schools was to improve the educational experiences and outcomes of indigenous Māori.

19.2.2  The Experiment Under Question Thirty years on, this radical change is being reviewed. Educational performance and outcomes are generally good, but not as high as many feel they should be, and not for all. Though NZ generally scores above average on the international tests of PISA and TIMMS, its scores have been static or declining since 2003, with a recent decline in the proportion that score at the highest PISA levels. Compared with other countries, NZ has lower equity: student socio-economic status makes more of a difference to student outcomes than in other countries with above average PISA scores. Māori students have improved in some areas, but they continue to be less well served educationally, and their PISA scores are below the OECD average. Schools feel increasingly overloaded. Central government agencies lack the relationships with schools that can support effective policy enactment. Accountability mechanisms on their own do not ensure that policy will travel as intended. Policy i­ ntentions

19  New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools

355

can also be difficult to realise if there is insufficient resourcing for changes needed, and policy changes keep adding to school workloads. Policy that appears poorly designed or insufficiently supported by evidence also meets with resistance, sometimes strenuous and public. There have been increasing calls to involve school professionals and educational experts in the design of policy and its implementation. An independent Ministerial taskforce to review Tomorrow’s Schools was initiated by the Minister of Education in 2018, with a brief to review the whole system to ‘ensure the fitness of the school system to meet the challenges we face, and to achieve equity and excellence’.4 Other linked reviews are occurring, with a new centre-left government elected in late 2017 responding to tensions within the education system that have been apparent for some time. These include the development of an education workforce strategy, a review of curriculum, progress and achievement, and the secondary level qualifications, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Overall, the government aims to develop a 30-year strategic approach to education in New Zealand and do so through engaging with those interested in the education system: principals, teachers, students, boards of trustees, parents, businesspeople and community organisations and the public. Two Education Summits bringing together diverse perspectives were held in May 2018, involving 1400 people, and over 15,000 responses were received to an online survey with 4 open-ended questions: What would you do if you were the boss of education? What do successful students of the future look like? What do they need to know and be able to do? What needs to be in place so that all learners are successful?5 All this feeds into what this government intends to be a shared vision that can continue through changes in which political parties form the government, ameliorating the impact of a 3-year election cycle which has often led to either too rapid introduction of new policy, or changing policy before it has the opportunity to take effect. Such policy chop and change has made it difficult to provide long-term continuity for continual improvement of educational quality and outcomes. Policy and provision changes emerging out of this work will likely start to take effect largely from 2020, with significant attention paid to deliberate change management processes rather than any ‘big bang’ like the change to Tomorrow’s Schools. This chapter first looks at the overall framing of the New Zealand school system in terms of New Public Management. Next it describes the roles of national government, government agencies, and schools, and their relationships with each other. The role of national organisations that interact with national government and government agencies, such as teacher unions, is also described. Some examples of how particular policies have been enacted in the last 10 years and their impact on schools and student learning are given. I conclude with a summary of the key tensions in 4  The author was a member of this 5-person taskforce. For more information about this Review, see https://conversation.education.govt.nz/conversations/tomorrows-schools-review/about-the-tomorrows-schools-review/terms-of-reference/ 5  More about this can be found at https://conversation.education.govt.nz/conversations/educationconversation/what-you-told-us/

356

C. Wylie

enacting good policy well where the different contributors to the schooling system have been kept apart from one another for too long.

19.2.3  Steering at a Distance New Public Management has its origins in economic theories of public choice and agency, and in managerialist approaches used in the private sector. Essentially, it resulted in the separation of policy construction from delivery, and in hierarchical accountability mechanisms relying on specified measures for performance. Core difficulties with this approach applied to public services are that operational knowledge is needed to develop workable policy, meaningful performance measures can be complex, accountability of this kind invites attitudes of defence, compliance, and gaming, valued outcomes are difficult to attribute to a single source, and it becomes harder to work across organisations to share useful knowledge. Since 2001, New Zealand has modified its approach to public services to ‘combat problems of fragmentation and siloisation.’ (Whitcombe 2008). Furthermore, fundamental change has also been recently signalled.6 At the national level, the government decides education policy, formed from election manifestos and advice from the central government education agencies. Papers that go to Cabinet for decision are also shared with Treasury and other government departments whose work is related, for their comments to be included.7 Major changes may be considered by a select committee with members from all the parties in parliament, and any changes requiring a change in legislation go to the whole parliament for debate and voting. The Minister for Education usually works with one or more Associate Ministers who focus on particular aspects of education, such as special education, or tertiary education.

19.3  T  he Ministry of Education Is the Education System ‘Steward’ The lead education government agency is the Ministry of Education, with 2632 full-­ time equivalent staff.8 Two-thirds of these provide specialist support for students with additional learning needs. Its core responsibilities are in fact provided by  https://www.havemysay.govt.nz/option-2/related-documents-2/  The coalition government elected in late 2017 has extended an already higher than average level of government transparency by releasing Cabinet papers quite quickly after decisions have been made. 8  www.education.govt.nz. The annual report for the 2016–17 year can be found at https://www. education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Publications/Annual-Reports/2017-MOE-AnnualReport-web.pdf and the Briefing Paper for the new Minister at https://www.education.govt.nz/ 6 7

19  New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools

357

around 1000 full-time equivalent staff. The current Secretary of Education has been a teacher before moving into the public service and taking roles in social welfare, the umbrella State Services Commission, and leading the Education Review Office, which inspects schools. However, many of the Ministry’s national level staff have not had direct experience teaching or leading schools. The Ministry is the ‘steward’ of the educational system, responsible for its overall wellbeing now and for the future. It provides policy advice to the Minister(s), to whom it is first and foremost accountable. It seeks to communicate policy intentions to schools in ways that motivate principals, teachers and boards to attend to policy goals. This can include embedding them in national guidelines required in school board annual reports.9 It can include access to professional development that supports the policy goals. Policy goals are also supported through relevant resources, most provided online, with the previous government requiring government departments to move as much onto digital platforms as possible. The Ministry of Education is also responsible for the national curriculum design, national data on the school system and student engagement and performance, allocating funding to schools and early childhood services, overseeing the provision of school property that is government-owned, funding school transport and ICT infrastructure, negotiating national collective contracts for teachers, principals, and school support staff, monitoring schools’ fiscal viability, and monitoring the performance of the national education agencies and two crown companies, Education Payroll, that manages payment of school staff  salaries, and Network 4 Learning, which provides schools with access to a secure online network, uncapped data, and security around their online use.10 At the national level, the Ministry has recently started to engage more with representatives of the ‘peak’ bodies, such as teacher unions,11 NZSTA (the national assets/Documents/Ministry/Publications/Briefings-to-Incoming-Ministers/BIM-26September-2017-.pdf 9  https://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/legislation/nags/ 10  Both these companies are wholly crown-owned, with a chief executive reporting to a crownappointed board of directors, including the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Agency. The Education Payroll service was formed in 2014 after the private company contracted to run the education payroll failed to provide a reliable service when it switched to an online system, causing serious disruption. Government outsourcing of essential functions on efficiency and cost-saving grounds did not prevent it being seen as responsible for the disruption and additional work needed from people in schools and needing to remedy it. Trust in the operations of the payroll system took some time to restore and diverted the attention of key Ministry of Education staff since it became a political issue. 11  NZEI represents primary and intermediate schoolteachers and principals, school support staff such as teacher aides and administrative staff, and early childhood education teachers and negotiates their collective contracts with the Ministry. www.nzei.org.nz PPTA represents secondary school teachers and principals and negotiates their collective contracts with the Ministry. www.ppta.org.nz NZPF also represents principals www.nzpf.org.nz, and SPANZ represents secondary principals. www.spanz.org.nz There are also associations representing particular types of schools, such as Māori

358

C. Wylie

school trustees’ association)12 and others with recognised expertise, using ‘working groups’ to develop shared understandings based on shared information, common reading, and discussion, and ideally from that, agreed policy settings and approaches. Other government organisations such as ERO and the Education Council are also included. Some of this joint work is related to the need for greater consistency between schools: schools themselves have to develop their own policies around legislative requirements,13 providing some challenges around creating clear guidelines that are not seen as prescriptive.14 More wide-ranging policy development within Ministerially-set parameters has related to reviewing school funding formulae, and how a major policy announcement aimed at more collaboration between schools to improve student learning could best take effect. This year, there is a working group to address educational workforce issues and reduce the workload of compliance; teacher shortages have become acute in some areas.

19.3.1  Regional Ministry of Education Offices The Ministry maintains 10 regional offices. Staff in these regional offices provide advice to schools, particularly around new policy that affects schools. Most of the managers of these regional offices come from educational leadership roles. They work with schools around school property development. Changes to the Education Act in 2017 gave them somewhat more powers to set school enrolment zones. Regional Ministry of Education staff review school charters and annual reports and use information from these and ERO reviews and discussions to identify schools that may need additional support or intervention. The Ministry regional offices have limited discretionary funding, however, and few levers to change school practices. They are understaffed for the work expected of them, leading to stretched staff and higher than desirable turnover rates. Many principals say they have little contact with regional Ministry staff, reflecting the lack of time for Ministry staff to develop ongoing relationships or provide feedback on the annual reports that schools must provide. Moreover, salary levels within the Ministry no longer offer the career pathway from schools as Inspectorate and Advisory roles did before Tomorrow’s Schools, leading to variability in quality. Positioning schools as separate crown entities also positioned principals as chief executive officers, increasing their salary rates as well as their responsibilities.

medium- schools, area schools that include both primary and secondary levels, and special schools that are included in national policy discussions. 12  www.nzsta.org.nz 13  Some of these requirements stem from policies that are not specifically related to education, but apply generally, such as increased attention to health and safety in workplaces. 14  800 schools now pay a roll-based subscription to access a school policy site to save ‘re-inventing the wheel’. https://www.schooldocs.co.nz/

19  New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools

359

The Ministry of Education can insist on intervention, putting in commissioners to replace school boards and limited statutory managers to work with principals; this is a last resort. In 2017, 9 commissioners and 30 limited statutory managers were approved. Funding for this intervention should be met by the school itself, though in practice almost half the schools in 2017 had additional Ministry funding to cover these costs. Before this stage, the Ministry offers what support it can, through its own advice, or linking the school with other advice or professional development. However, where boards or principals resist, it can take a long time for improvements to teaching and learning to occur, if they do, and things can also slide backwards. The NZ School Trustees Association, representing school boards, is also contracted by the Ministry of Education to provide development for and advice to school boards and principals as the school managers employed by school boards, and works with the Ministry of Education around the identification of schools in need of intervention. Regional Ministry of Education offices also have relations with school sector groups, such as principals’ associations and unions. Sometimes this is in the form of a regular meeting to discuss particular aspects, such as support for students with additional learning needs. Learning support specialists and allocation of some resources are also located in regional offices. This support is regarded by many schools as insufficient and unavailable when needed. From 2017 Ministry funding for professional learning, previously contracted out to consortia of providers, has been allocated at the regional level by a group of Ministry staff and local principals. Individual schools and the new government-­ funded collaborations of schools, Kāhui Ako, and other non-government- funded school clusters can apply for a number of government-set priority areas, on the basis of their analysis of student needs. If they succeed, they then choose an individual accredited by a national panel drawn from those with proven strengths as a school or curriculum leader, or provider, and work with them to develop a plan to make the best use of the hours they have been allocated. They report on progress to the Ministry of Education every 6 months, using a common format intended to allow a national picture to be formed and regularly evaluated. The new process has raised questions around the uneven capability in schools to undertake such needs analysis and select the individual who can best meet their needs, and the insufficient national supply of proven advisers to work with schools in all areas of the country, and in Māori-medium as well as English-medium schools. As well, while the need for greater individual access to ongoing professional development raised by teacher unions and national subject associations (such as English, Science, History) has been included in policy outlines, it has yet to be resourced.

360

C. Wylie

19.3.2  T  he Education Review Office Evaluates and Reports on Schools The Education Review Office is responsible for reviewing all schools as well as all early childhood education services.15 It has 216 full-time equivalent staff, including 152 review officers. ERO has four regions, with offices in seven cities. In the 2016–17 financial year it reviewed 700 schools and 1217 early childhood education services. It has limited time to spend in each school. The brief reports it gives schools are publically available online, and often on school websites. In 2010 government policy resulted in a shift from reviewing each school every 3  years to a differentiated review cycle, depending on how well the school met ERO review criteria. Currently most schools are on a 3-year review cycle; 10% are on a 4–5 review cycle, and 13% are on a 1–2 year review cycle.16 ERO also uses material from its school reviews to provide national level evaluative reports of the quality of schooling in different aspects, and the implementation of government policy. It has developed research-based evaluation indicators for its work that it encourages schools to use in their own self-review, and also provides evidence about good practice in schools through online reports and videos. Principals are generally positive about the evaluation indicators and use both the national reports and the report on their own school in their own leadership work. Discussions in the course of the review are often valued if the school leader finds the ERO review team providing useful external expertise. However, there are mixed views about whether the review reports give a reliable guide to the quality of teaching and learning in a school (Wylie 2017a, b, p.22). This is partially related to the limited time reviewers have in schools, and their increased reliance on documentation provided by the school.

19.3.3  N  ew Zealand Qualifications Agency - Setting Secondary Qualifications The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) is a crown agency whose chief executive is accountable to a Board appointed by and accountable to the Minister of Education. It is responsible for the New Zealand Qualifications Framework whose 7 levels include secondary and tertiary education qualifications. It has 450 full-time equivalent staff, not all working on secondary qualifications, and it employs more on contract for external examination work.17

 www.ero.govt.nz. The 2016–17 annual report is available at: http://www.ero.govt.nz/publications/annual-report-201617/, and the briefing paper for the new Minister at: http://www.ero.govt. nz/assets/Uploads/BIM-November-2017.pdf 16  Figures for the 1 July 2016–30 June 2017 year. 17  www.nzqa.govt.nz. The 2016–2017 annual report is available at: http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/aboutus/publications/strategic-documents/ar16-17/our-year-at-a-glance/, and its briefing paper for the new Minister: http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Our-role/BIM-2017.pdf 15

19  New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools

361

The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is the 3-level secondary qualification. It is standards based, intended to allow students and schools flexibility in their choice of internal assessments and external assessments. NZQA sets the standards, based on the New Zealand Curriculum. It is also responsible for external moderation of a sample of 100,000 internal assessments made by schools each year, monitoring the accuracy and consistency of teachers’ judgements against the standards. Its moderation workshops for schools, partly spurred by the secondary teachers’ union, and supported by the Ministry funding additional professional development days a few years back, were highly valued, not least because they brought teachers together across schools to work together with knowledgeable experts. NZQA accredits secondary schools to provide internal assessments and has withdrawn this accreditation on occasion where the quality is insufficient. Most schools are on a 3- or 4-year review cycle for their internal assessment systems, with some on a 1–2-year review cycle.

19.3.4  The Teaching Council – Framing the Profession The Teaching Council’s role is to provide leadership and direction to the teaching profession, including the 55,00018 teachers and principals working in schools and teachers working in early childhood education.19 Key functions include setting expectations of practice and behaviour, through a Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards for the Teaching Profession, granting and renewing practising certificates, operating a Competence Authority with authority to impose conditions on a teacher’s practice to improve their competence or cancel their registration as a teacher, promoting teacher appraisal linked to the Standards for both accountability and development, setting requirements for initial teacher education programmes and approving programmes, and sharing best practice. Recently it launched a bilingual English and te reo Māori national Leadership Strategy drawing on research and evidence and developed with the profession.20 This is an independent statutory body, with more independence than a government department or agency. Until recently, it was governed by a Council appointed by the Minister. The new government has increased the Council members to 13, with 7 elected by teachers, and 6 Ministerial appointments, responding to the profession’s disquiet about the previous arrangement.21 At the same time, however, the government has recognised that this body has a pivotal role in the system, and its

 Some of these work part-time.  The Education Council’s Briefing to the Incoming Minister gives more detail: https://educationcouncil.org.nz/sites/default/files/BIM%20Document_OCT_2017_web.pdf 20  https://educationcouncil.org.nz/content/leadership-strategy 21  The Education Council was also renamed the Teaching Council. 18 19

362

C. Wylie

actions need to be coherent with, and contribute to, wider education policy and provision. The Council will need to consult with the government on decisions relating to teacher registration and initial teacher education, and the Minister can issue a government policy statement on matter relating to the teaching profession that the Teaching Council must heed. Initial teacher education, prior to working in schools, was originally provided by Colleges of Education. This moved in the 1990s to universities, and to private providers. Currently there are 25 providers for school and early childhood education initial teacher education, a large number for a small country. There have been increased calls to have more consistency and quality, and overhaul initial teacher education.

19.3.5  Other Government Agencies with a Role in Education Other government agencies also have some responsibilities in relation to schools and the wellbeing of their students. The Tertiary Education Commission recently took over Careers New Zealand, which provides general advice about careers and pathways. The Ministry of Social Development has funded the provision of social workers in schools serving low-income communities, and the Ministry of Health, some nurses in some of these schools. In addition, at a high level, the Treasury analyses national educational performance in relation to policy and comments on papers going to the Government’s cabinet for decision. The Office of the Auditor-General periodically publishes national reports resulting from reviews of schools’ audited accounts, or wider reviews, such as a series of reviews on education for Māori. 19.3.5.1  A Small Capital The national offices of the government agencies, and also of the teacher unions, NZPF, and NZSTA are all in Wellington, the country’s capital, and within walking distance of Parliament and each other. This supports interaction when the government values it. 19.3.5.2  Self-Managing Schools School boards operate within Government legislation passed by the New Zealand parliament, predominantly the Education Act 1989, which is periodically updated and amended. Schools are required to follow the National Administrative Guidelines. They must provide programmes that incorporate the national curriculum, the New Zealand Curriculum 2007 for English-medium schools, and Te Marautanga o

19  New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools

363

Aotearoa for Māori-medium schools.22 The national curriculum is not tightly prescriptive, and each school is expected to develop a local curriculum. Each school must develop a strategic plan, and from this an annual plan that includes goals for student engagement and achievement. They also need to undertake school self-­ review and report their annual progress in relation to their annual and strategic plans to the Ministry of Education and the school’s community. As noted earlier, these annual reports usually lead to interaction with the Ministry only if the Ministry sees issues; they are therefore seen by many principals as forms of compliance rather than tools for ongoing improvement. Each school board through the principal is responsible for employing teaching and other staff. Teaching staff numbers at each school are decided by a national formula related to school roll numbers and student year levels, and staff are paid centrally, in line with collective employment contracts that are negotiated centrally by the Ministry of Education and teacher unions. Operational funding for schools is largely on a per-student basis, with some weighting for socio-economic disadvantage, but less than in other OECD countries. Boards are responsible for the efficient use of this funding to cover other school costs, including other staff such as teacher aides, administrative staff, and property maintenance. A key responsibility of each school board is to appoint their principal and carry out their  annual performance  appraisal. Currently, principals must be registered teachers, but there have been no further requirements. Boards can pay for advice to make appointments and appraisals; this advice varies in quality and is not always taken. Boards do not always have good fields to appoint from, particularly in small, rural schools or schools in challenging circumstances. The Ministry contracts the provision of a national first-time principal programme that provides information and ongoing support through links with a coach, usually a retired principal, and a mentor who is a working principal. In some mainly rural areas, there are principal advisors provided through a  national Ministry contract. It is intended that the Teaching Council’s Leadership Strategy will feed into more systematic development and support. The more that national educational policy has focused on improving student achievement, and the research shows how pivotal school leadership can be in this respect, the more apparent it has become that the current breadth of principal and board responsibilities works against principals being able to focus on improvement. Only a third of primary principals in 2016 thought they could schedule enough time for educational leadership  – or that their workload was manageable, a decrease since 2013 (Wylie 2017b). School leaders’ wellbeing and stress levels were a prime trigger for the current Ministry-led project on the education work force, involving the national educational professional organisations. School boards have provided generally good grounds for a school and its parent community to work together. But this is variable. Around a third of primary school principals thought that their board required a lot of support from the school

22

 Ten percent of Māori students attend Māori-medium schools.

364

C. Wylie

­ anagement in 2016 (Stevens and Wylie 2017, p. 23) and anecdotally, many princim pals say that they manage their boards, rather than vice versa. What voluntary boards are legally responsible for can be daunting and has grown more complex over the years. In 2016, a board election year, 43% of schools did not have a vote for their board because there was no contest for the positions. Around a fifth of boards do not have the 5 parent trustees that they should have. Only 22% of parents nationally returned voting papers in 2016. There is considerable variance in board understanding and skills, and in how well they can represent sometimes quite diverse school communities. Although school boards are crown entities, few trustees see that representing the government interest is a key element of their role: only 3% of primary school trustees in 2016 and 5% of secondary school trustees in 2015. Nor do they see that employing the principal or overseeing the principal’s performance are key elements of their role. Providing strategic direction for their school however is key for over 80% of trustees (Stevens and Wylie 2017, p. 7, and Wylie and Bonne 2016, p. 99). 19.3.5.3  H  ow Does Policy Influence the Work of Schools and Student Learning and Achievement? New Zealand schools generally pay heed to what is legally required of them, and comply with national regulations and requirements, particularly where these are needed to gain resources or to maintain reputations. National policy that has involved educationalists in its formation or fleshing out is most likely to also lead to schools doing their best to put it into effect. Policy that comes with good quality support in the way of timely guidance or professional learning, and additional funding to cover relievers so that staff have time to understand a new policy and work together on it over time so that it can be enacted well in their particular school is most likely to travel from the national level to schools. Most policies take time to travel into the daily work of schools and will vary in their effect. 19.3.5.4  A Treasured Policy The national New Zealand Curriculum 2007 exemplifies these points. It began as a revision of the first national curriculum framework introduced in the 1990s, which suffered from too rapid an introduction, and fragmentation into many ‘achievement objectives’. In the early 2000s the Ministry of Education led work to redevelop the curriculum into a more streamlined document that for the first time incorporated pedagogy, teaching as inquiry, and key competencies such as critical thinking and relating to others, that were to be woven through subject areas. The way it went about this was to draw together a convincing basis for the approach, and to involve school leaders and teachers, along with business and community leaders, in discussions about the direction and then the shape. Well respected expertise coupled with strong relationship skills were critical to the Ministry being able to win meaningful

19  New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools

365

support for the New Zealand Curriculum. This process provided wide buy-in to the new Curriculum. It was provided in draft form first as well allowing ‘early adopters’ to try it out and give feedback. It was published in 2007, but not made mandatory for schools to use until 2010. Schools have generally been enthusiastic about the NZ Curriculum, and regard it as a ‘national treasure’. It has provided a benchmark to measure other policy against in terms of how it was developed, as well as its content and the scope it gives schools. The NZCER national surveys showed a marked rise from 2007 to 2010 in teachers’ reporting that they used pedagogical practices associated with the NZ Curriculum, and that they worked more with each other in ways associated with effective professional communities. It also showed the challenges associated with understanding what is a sophisticated framework and using it to make deep rather than superficial changes (Burgon et al. 2012). However, this progress stalled from 2010, after the hasty and deeply contested introduction of National Standards in 2009 (Wylie and Bonne 2014). These diverted energy and resources at both the national and school levels from the work needed to continue to develop and embed the NZ Curriculum. School practices around the NZ Curriculum vary more widely than desirable in terms of effectiveness; however all would say that they respect and use it. 19.3.5.5  A Disputed Policy A change of government in late 2008 brought in a more conservative government led by the National party that had included the introduction of national standards in its policy. The National Standards in reading, writing and numeracy that ‘will describe all the things children should be able to do by a particular age or year at school’ for students from school entry at 5, till end of Year 8,23 were coupled with mandatory reporting to parents, and annual reports on each school’s performance. This was a radical change for New Zealand, and was strongly opposed by NZEI, the NZ Principals’ Federation, and assessment experts, and by the Boards Taking Action Coalition, which had 225 school boards saying they would not set National Standards related targets in their school annual plan. Some areas boycotted the initial training. Submissions from parents showed that concerns about the effects of the National Standards outweighed positive views (Wylie et al. 2009). While educators and others were relieved that the new policy did not involve a move to national testing, they were concerned that the policy change would narrow the curriculum, and create school league tables, without improving student learning overall. The new government was determined to move quickly. This meant an over-hasty creation of National Standards, insufficient support to understand and use them to  New Zealand students can start school on their individual 5th birthday. Almost all students start school at age 5. Primary schools run till Year 6 (when students are around 11 years old), or Year 8; 2-year intermediates provide education at Years 7–8. Secondary schools cover Years 9–13. Most students stay until at least Year 12, when they are generally aged 17.

23

366

C. Wylie

make an overall teacher judgement for every student in each of reading, writing, and numeracy, and hence widespread mistrust of them. Many felt that how the National Standards were used in one school was not the same as in another, making comparisons between schools unfair, and the national picture, unreliable (Thrupp 2018).24 Incorporating the National Standards into the national education guidelines that schools had to legally follow and report on gave the Ministry the levers it needed. Schools that did not include national standards targets into their charters would not have them signed off by the Ministry, and without that sign-off, they could not access Ministry-funded professional learning development. Schools were also told that if the targets were not included, a limited statutory manager would be put into the school. At the same time ERO had introduced differentiated reviews, and schools that would otherwise have been in the highest performing band (a return time of 4–5  years for the next review) would not be if they had not included National Standards targets. So schools complied. By 2016, over two-thirds of teachers thought the curriculum they taught had narrowed, and a third of principals thought that National Standards drove what the school did. Just under half the teachers thought they had had enough support and guidance to feel confident about their work with the National Standards (Bonne 2017). Early suggestions from NZEI that the standards needed to be moderated between schools to ensure consistency, and that shared moderation and reporting of the standards for a group of schools could pay dividends were ignored. While teachers paid most attention to the students identified as ‘below’ the standards to bring them ‘at’ the standard, and gains were seen in the proportions of students at or above the national standards in individual schools, overall there were no improvements in student achievement. The whole experience around National Standards, and the ignoring of both critique and suggestions to make the most of them left a legacy of mistrust between schools and not just the government, but also between schools and the Ministry of Education. The Labour party included the end of National Standards in its election manifesto, and this was one of the first decisions made by the Labour-led coalition government that took office in late 2017. A Ministerial Advisory Group on Curriculum Progress and Achievement which includes curriculum and assessment experts (including a key player in the construction of the New Zealand Curriculum) has recently tackled the complex issues around how best to create meaningful and contemporary assessment that focuses on progress as much as attainment, across the curriculum.25

 Martin Thrupp’s book provides a full picture of the genesis of the policy, the disputed ground it created, and case studies of how different schools incorporated national standards according to their own understanding and context. 25  https://conversation.education.govt.nz/conversations/curriculum-progress-and-achievement/ 24

19  New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools

367

19.3.5.6  A  Policy That Exposes the Lack of Connection in the Schooling System Improving the achievement of Māori students was one of the goals of the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms. Significant attention to improving their learning opportunities and success was kindled in 2002 at the national level with the Hui Taumata Mātauranga hosted by Ngāti Tūwharetoa, a key Māori iwi (tribe), with the Minister of Education and Secretary of Education attending, In 2008, a key strategy was released after public consultation on a draft that had been developed under the previous, different government. This indicates broad political consensus about the importance of schools changing what they did and how they did it: in a relationship of respect and reciprocity so that Māori students had their identity and culture affirmed, and their strengths built on, rather than approaches built on assumed deficit. Ka Hikitia – managing for success – aimed to finally ensure action on the often stated intention to improve schools’ responsiveness to Māori students, by bringing together the evidence about effective practice and setting out goals, actions, and targets for the period 2008–2013. However, an analysis of the initial year of this policy showed that Ka Hikitia was lost in the priority given to National Standards and more than 14 other Ministry of Education strategic initiatives and actions (Goren 2009). Its goals were unrealistic also without a clearer plan for the short, medium and long term, and more attention to using what was known from effective teachers and principals so that more New Zealand schools would know how to change. The lack of progress as Ka Hikitia came to the end of its initial 5-year period led the Auditor-General to focus on Māori education from 2012 to 2016, as the next phase of Ka Hikitia ran from 2013 to 2017. The Auditor-General’s summary report in 2016 notes some modest gains since Ka Hikitia, but also too wide a range of Māori students’ results among individual schools performance on the National Standards and the secondary qualification, NCEA.  Her recommendations during this time included better engagement with schools, embedding Ka Hikitia within day-to-day Ministry work, improving accountability and reporting, and that the Ministry of Education ‘identify and target resources to support the activities that have been the most effective in putting Ka Hikitia into effect.’ (Controller and Auditor-General (2016, p.30). Schools also needed to learn from others with effective practice, and to become better at using information on student performance to improve teaching. 19.3.5.7  The Limits of Steering at a Distance New Zealand’s 30-year experience with keeping the government educational authorities at a remove from schools, without a ‘middle layer’ has brought it to the point of seeing the need for much stronger connections if its education system is to progress, and better meet the needs of all its students. There is too much variability of quality among schools. Schools have become used to operating with considerable

368

C. Wylie

autonomy, and some principals are now wary of working with a middle layer. There is certainly no way that new structures would improve the quality of education if they operated in a hierarchical or bureaucratic way. But many principals and boards would appreciate reducing some of their load, allowing them to focus more on teaching and learning rather than, for example, the state of school buildings. They would also appreciate the central government agencies taking an active role in ensuring sufficient numbers of teachers and ensuring a good supply of good quality principals. There is a desire for readily accessible advice related to curriculum and pedagogy, and regular opportunities to discuss the school’s progress in a low-­ stakes way. From both the educational authorities’ and schools’ perspective, there is also a desire for policy that will be effective: that draws on good evidence and research, has realistic timeframes for implementation, and good support during that implementation. Both seek to overcome the mistrust between schools and the government agencies that has become increasingly evident in the schooling system. There is hope in the final report of the Tomorrow’s schools taskforce report and the government’s positive response to most of its recommendations26 that these needs will be met, and the fundamental issues of an education system with a New Public Management premise addressed, through the introduction of a suitable ‘middle layer’ and closer connections.

References Bonne, L. (2017). National Standards in their seventh year. Wellington: NZCER. https://www. nzcer.org.nz/system/files/NZCER%20National%20Standards%20Report.pdf. Burgon, J., Hipkins, R., & Hodgen, E. (2012). The primary school curriculum: Assimilation, adaptation, transformation. NZC at primary and intermediate level: Findings from the NZCER National Survey of Primary Schools 2010. Wellington: NZCER. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/Primary_school_curriculum_Web.pdf. Controller and Auditor-General. (2016). Summary of our education for Māori reports. Author: Wellington. https://www.oag.govt.nz/2016/education-for-maori-summary/docs/summary-education-for-maori.pdf. Fiske, E., & Ladd, H. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press. Goren, P. (2009). How policy travels: Making sense of Ka Hikitia-managing for success: The Māori education strategy 2008–2012. Wellington: Fulbright NZ. http://www.fulbright.org.nz/ wp-content/uploads/2011/12/axford2009_goren.pdf. Openshaw, R. (2009). Reforming New Zealand secondary education: The Picot reform and the road to radical reform. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Stevens, E., & Wylie, C. (2017). The work of school boards – Trustees’ perspectives. Findings from the NZCER National Survey of Primary and Intermediate Schools 2016. Wellington: NZCER. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/National%20Survey_Trustees-report%202017.pdf. Thrupp, M. (2018). The search for better educational standards. A cautionary tale. Gewerbestrasse: Springer International.  https://conversation.education.govt.nz/conversations/tomorrows-schools-review/

26

19  New Zealand – Steering at a Distance and Self-Managed Schools

369

Whitcombe, J. (2008). Contributions and challenges of ‘New Public Management’: New Zealand since 1984. Policy Quarterly, 4(3), 7–13. https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/4259/3760. Wylie, C. (2012). Vital connections: Why we need more than self-managing schools. Wellington: NZCER Press. Wylie, C. (2017a). School resources, relations with other schools, and support. Findings from the NZCER National Survey of Primary and Intermediate Schools 2016. Wellington: NZCER. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/National%20Survey_Resources_Nov17.pdf. Wylie, C. (2017b). Principals and their work. Findings from the NZCER National Survey of Primary and Intermediate Schools 2016. Wellington: NZCER. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/National%20Survey_Principals_Nov17.pdf. Wylie, C., & Bonne, L. (2014). Primary schools in 2013. Main findings from the NZCER national survey. Wellington: NZCER. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/NZCER%20Survey%20 Report%20Final%20_Web.pdf. Wylie, C., & Bonne, L. (2016). Secondary schools in 2015. Findings from the NZCER national survey. Wellington: NZCER. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/publications/ secondary-schools2015. Wylie, C., Hodgen, E., & Darr, C. (2009). National standards consultation analysis (Report for the Ministry of Education). https://www.parliament.nz/resource/0000176803

Chapter 20

South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation and Impact of Policies in South Africa Rajkumar Mestry and Petrus Du Plessis

Abstract  During the Apartheid era in South Africa, education was organized along racial lines. The apartheid policy of separate development partitioned the country into racial lines where each population group and homelands designed specifically for blacks, had their own departments of education, 18 such departments that centrally governed public schools. All decisions regarding school education were taken by the respective departments of education and schools had no authority to take decisions. During this era, schools catering for the white population group received substantial funding whereas schools catering for the other population groups received a small portion of the education budget. Since the dismantling of the Apartheid Regime in 1994, the democratic government devolved education to local communities. The education challenge in South Africa is demonstrated by the fact that education is seen as a priority at all levels of government. Thus numerous apartheid policies had to be scrapped and new legislation introduced. The devolution of authority would hopefully lead to a healthier and stronger relationship between schools and communities and provide an alternative form of accountability to bureaucratic surveillance. This chapter will focus on how South African education authorities have introduced far-reaching policies to improve the standards of school education.

20.1  Introduction The new democratic state that emerged in South Africa after 1994 was greeted with multiple and contradictory demands. The government’s educational reforms have focused on equity and redress. Equity reforms in post-apartheid South Africa were

R. Mestry (*) · P. Du Plessis Department of Education Leadership and Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_20

371

372

R. Mestry and P. Du Plessis

intended to equalize and to deliver a more just and humane society and to unify a divided society without threatening the “white” population. The state was further expected to be responsive to the will of the people and to guarantee increased participation and extend democracy in society (Sayed 2008). Redressing historical imbalances and achieving equity are fundamental policy mechanisms in attempts to restructure South African education (Mestry and Ndhlovu 2014). All this was undertaken through national policies that would direct state funding on an equitable basis to public schools. Since 1994 a shift from authoritarian to democratic rule in South Africa became prevalent. With the formal end of the Apartheid1 Regime, the country had a government elected by all South Africans regardless of race. Optimism and trepidation accompanied this momentous development. There was fervent hope that the political and socio-economic status of the people would improve. Some envisioned a prosperous future, an economically stable democracy, and an example for the rest of the continent. They envisaged South Africa, managing to construct institutions of democracy, to take center stage in economic development with the available resources in Africa (Diamond and Platter 1999). Others predicted a bleaker future of declining democracy and economic collapse. Yet, there was also continuing hope that nothing would go wrong to render democratic reform. These contradictory visions remain 20 years on, in what is still a transitional phase. The education sphere in South Africa is not unaffected by the multiple changes aimed at extending democratic institutions. Since 1994, South Africa has been instituting major policy reforms affecting the structure and processes of education. Central to the policy goals of the new government is the development of a common purpose or mission among students, teachers, principals and governing bodies focused on democracy, liberty, equality, justice and peace. Section 3.1 of the White Paper on Education and Training (Department of Education (DOE) 1995) states that the education system is to “empower people to participate effectively in all processes of democratic society, economic activity, cultural expression, community life” and help citizens build a nation free of discrimination (DOE 1995: 17). However, definitions of democracy are evolving and questions of participation, accountability and inclusion continue to preoccupy practitioners and theorists alike. There is also ongoing debate about the actual impact of these education reforms on schools and communities. The South African Schools Act, No. 84 of 1996 (South Africa 1996) (hereafter Schools Act) is fundamental to the transformation goals in the education sector. The Schools Act attempts to give shape to the principles of access, equity, redress, democratic governance and national development. Among other provisions, it provides for the establishment of governing bodies with considerable powers at all public schools. School Governing Bodies (SGBs) are comprised of the principal and elected representatives of parents, teachers, non-teaching staff, and students

1  An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against non-whites.

20  South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation…

373

(in ­secondary schools). A basic set of functions is stipulated for all SGBs, including determination of admissions policy, setting language policy, making recommendations on teaching and non-teaching appointments, financial management of the school, determination of school fees and fundraising. The new governance model is designed to give schools greater autonomy to manage resources, determine the delivery of educational resources, democratize local control of decisionmaking and respond to community needs. It is expected that greater autonomy will bring several benefits for students, educators, administrators and school communities. It is also envisaged that there will be “a single school system in which people can work together to improve education quality” (DOE 1997). The scope of school governance is broad and complex, ranging from school-based management and governing bodies to district, sub-national and national structures. SGBs form part of complex social and political systems, which can be described in several forms of language and analysis. The South African Schools Act as a national policy has far reaching implications for local schools. The Act decentralizes governance and management by placing more authority in  local schools through the adoption of a democratic decision-­ making process. Shifting authority away from the central administrative hierarchy into the hands of the principal, teachers and parents who are more closely connected to the school and, probably, better equipped to meet the specialised needs of students have had numerous benefits for individual schools (Deming 1994; Parker and Leithwood 2000). This site-based management encourages a high-involvement management approach, which holds that the principal and teachers perform best in an environment where they are actively involved in ongoing improvements of the school. This increased autonomy demands greater accountability from school leaders (Glatter et al. 2003). Central to the process of education transformation was the policy of education decentralisation and two noteworthy pieces of legislation namely the South African Schools Act (South Africa 1996a) and the National Norms and Standards for School Funding (NNSSF) (South Africa 1998). It is these policies that have driven the move towards educational decentralization, with particular reference to the governance of schools and the equitable funding of public schooling. Equity and redress have been identified as the operational building blocks for the realization of social justice in education (Motala and Pampallis 2007). Diphofa et al. (1999) observed that ushering in the new democracy brought with it not only the restructuring and reshaping of education, but also the development and implementation of a policy framework which aims to provide for the redress of past inequalities and the provision of equitable, high quality and relevant education. The chapter provides a brief history of school governance structures in South Africa and the context of the new policies in education. It also introduces the concept of theory of action and reviews the Schools Act and the NNSSF policy. It will also provide a critical analysis of how policies are translated into practice, depending on the theories of action of participants in governance. It also reviews the concepts of democratic participation, representation, decision-making and power. Furthermore, it traces trends in decentralization and local governance.

374

R. Mestry and P. Du Plessis

20.2  Background of Policy Transformation Post-apartheid education transformation has been impressive in scope and orientation. The government systematically embarked on dismantling the segregated education racial order as well as revising the entire education policy environment at all levels of the education system. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO 2008) asserts that education transformation in South Africa has been characterized by values of social justice and equity, non-­ racism and non-sexism, Ubuntu2 and reconciliation. These aspirations are demonstrated in many education policies, such as no-fee schools, post-provisioning norms, nationalisation and redeployment of educators, exemptions on school fees, financial responsibilities assigned to principals and governing bodies, the NNSSF policy (South Africa 1998) and other interventions. These changes are grounded in the Education White Paper (Department of Education DOE 1995) and the National Education Policy Act (NEPA) (DOE 1996c). The NEPA specifically inserted in law the policy, legislative and monitoring responsibilities of the Minister of Education and formalized the relations between national and provincial authorities. It affirmed the principle of “the advancement and protection of fundamental rights of every person” as spelt out in the Bill of Rights, Chapter 2 of the Constitution (1996b), with respect to areas such as equal access to education and language and religious rights. The NEPA was only a “framework paper”. Its aim was to lay down guidelines for the determination, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of national policy. It did not speak to educational practice, scope and the modalities to be pursued within it (Sayed 2008). It was left to key policies and legislation such as the Schools Act (South Africa 1996b), the Higher Education Act (DOE 1997), Education White Paper 6 on Inclusive Education (DOE 2001), and Curriculum 2005 (DOE 1997). Post-apartheid South African education can be seen as three periods of change. The first period followed the elections of 1996, and was characterized by two concerns, the first to dismantle the inherited legacy and secondly, creating an alternative and new vision of education and an overriding concern with creating policy frameworks. The second phase was associated with a new Minister of Education who launched the Tirisano (“Call to Action”) initiative. The focus was an action, which were visible, and to make a difference to education. Two policies, which made an impact during this period, were the whole School Evaluation Policy, which monitored school performance to improve the quality of education. The second was the Manifesto on Values, Education and Democracy, which defined the fundamental value of education including Democracy, Social Justice and Equity (Fiske and Ladd 2006). The third period began in 2004 as a shift focused more on student achievement. This approach is best manifested in the government regulation called the Foundation for Learning Campaign (DOE 2008) which list specific learning targets

2  Ubuntu is an ethic or humanist philosophy focusing on people’s allegiances and relations with each other. The word has its origin in the Bantu languages of Southern Africa.

20  South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation…

375

for schools to achieve for students in the Foundation Phase (Grade 1–3) in the subject of literacy and numeracy. The draft education policy document produced in South Africa since 1994 marked the essential contours of the construction of education transformation in South Africa characterized by the values of Social Justice and Equity, Non-racism and Non-sexism, Ubuntu and Reconciliation. The changes placed great stress on schools and teachers resulting in a significant policy intention and practice disjuncture, with a growing divide between what governments hoped schools were doing and what schools were in fact able to do. All the intentions are good, but there is still a long way to go in achieving equity and good quality educations, especially for the historically disadvantaged black students.

20.3  Policy Implementation to Enactment in Education In much of the discussion on education policy, the meaning of policy is often either taken for granted or seen as an attempt to “solve a problem”  – what Colebatch (2006, 2) refers to as the “established ways of thinking about policy”. This form of “normative” policy analysis “rests on an unspoken presentation of government as a problem-solving being, separate from the society over which it rules… Government recognizes problems and chooses courses of action to deal with them: these courses of action are “policy” (Colebatch 2006, 3). The problem is that if policy is seen only in these terms, then all the often movements in the process of policy and policy enactments that go on in schools, become marginalized or even unrecognized. Even policy work in social welfare settings has been revitalized through attempts to generate “joined up thinking” and incorporate more policy actors, policy making at the legislative level is still characterized by instrumentality and hierarchy (Wright 2012). While many policies in schools are produced by government elite legislators and sometimes by influential stakeholders, policy making in all its levels also involves “negotiation, contestation or struggle between different groups who may be outside the formal machinery of official policy-making” (Ozga 2000, 113). Policy enactment is a process of social, cultural and emotional construction and interpretation and not all of these processes are reported or interrogated in outcomes-­ driven studies of policy implementation. Recognising the policy enactments (Colebatch 2006), as multi-layered and messy may help in understanding the complicated relationship between making policy and practicing policy in complex situated contexts like schools. According to Spillane, (2004: 7), policy is detailed and circulated through texts and artefacts and it is interpreted in equally complex and sophisticated ways. He further argues that in what he calls “conventional accounts” of policy implementation, very often implementation failure gets blamed on policy actors who, it is alleged, choose not to enact the policy reform of who ignore it. Spillane’s point is that policy work is more complicated and involves what he calls sense making. That is, policy actors “use the lenses they have developed through experience to filter awareness” (p 7). Policy enactment involves creative processes

376

R. Mestry and P. Du Plessis

of interpretation and re-contextualisation and this process sometimes involves “interpretations of interpretations” (Rizvi and Kemmis 1987), Policies rarely tell one exactly what to do, they dictate or determine practice, but some more than others narrow the range for imaginative responses (Ball et al. 2012). In many of the school-based policy implementation studies, the focus is with implementation as a way of describing how a single policy reform from the top is worked out to practice in schools. These approaches do not necessarily help with understanding how it is that certain policies within policies, are selected and who selects them and what alternatives are discarded along the way. They do not help us to understand how and why school leaders and schoolteachers negotiate with, manage, and put inflicting policies sometimes into practice simultaneously. Spillane (2004, 6) suggests that what he calls more “conventional” policy models are often based on rational choice theory. Spillane (2004 6) further argues that conventional implementation studies conceived of the school itself as a somewhat homogenous and de-contextualised organization, and undifferentiated “whole” into which various policies are slipped or filtered into place. Many of these studies filter out the ways in which policy actors co-generate different policy possibilities (Forester 2012), particularly in low-stakes policy areas where there may be a little more space for creative attempts at alternative policy enactments.

20.4  C  onceptualising the Policy of Decentralization in South Africa Equity is a “social term rather than an economic one and is defined in relation to inequalities in the distribution of wealth or resources and the adjustments which are required to allow for more equitable redistribution” (Brown and Tandon 1983: 16). Equity refers to “levelling the playing field” with no group being privileged in a transformed system (Motala and Mungadi 2000). It refers to fairness and justice. Justice (Mestry and Dzvimbo 2011) may require providing special support to those who were disadvantaged in the past. Discourses of educational decentralization in the South African context found expression and support in the policies of the ruling African National Congress ledgovernment and the opposition, the National Party which was for a period of time, a member of the Government of National Unity. Both the previous ruling National Party and the opposition anti-apartheid movement shared a commitment to some form of educational decentralization for very different political and ideological reasons. For the National Party during the Apartheid era, the clearest (Sayed 2008) expression of a commitment to educational decentralization was to be found in its Model B and C schools (Regulation of 1991 and its Educational Renewal Strategy). In these regulations, the National Party argued that educational decentralization allowed for greater control of schooling by those who had to pay and that it would enhance efficiency, effectiveness and quality, and prioritized individual freedoms and rights in matters of social service provision.

20  South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation…

377

The progressive anti-apartheid forces’ support for policies of educational decentralization was, by contrast, rooted in resistance policies. It was underpinned by an oppositional discourse, which drew upon local community support and participation. In the educational arena, the best illustration of this notion was the call for structures of dual power (Wilson 2004) in the discourses of the National Education Coordinating Committee (NECC) and the formation of Parents, Teacher and Student Associations (PTSAs) which were conceived as vehicles of community expression. So, grassroots, community control was the anti-thesis of state control. There had been a strong call for the democratization of the state and the education system. It was believed that the transition to post-apartheid society would usher in the installation of a legitimate political center, which would transform education to meet the needs of all, especially the historically marginalized and disadvantaged sectors of society. The key challenge facing the ANC elected government in 1994, with the passing of the Schools Act (1996b), was the attempt to find an acceptable balance between a commitment to strong forms of citizen participation and the need for strong state intervention. Creating strong forms of citizen participation may diminish the power of the elected authority (ANC government) and consequently potentially undermine the will of the electorate who except the elected and government to fulfill the mandate upon which it was voted into power. The Ministry of Education and the South African government has tended not to grant stakeholder bodies decision-making powers (Roux 2003). As example of the tension in the South African context was the Constitutional Court ruling in favor of the Minister of National Education which stated that the National Minister of Education did have the constitutional power to issue national norms and standards over and above provincial wishes. The Constitutional Court case highlights the difficulty of trying to balance central authority and regulation with the devolution of educational control.

20.5  The Education Policy Context in South Africa Education reform has been a priority in South Africa since the establishment of the Government of National Unity in 1994 and has played a key role in redressing the injustices of Apartheid. Impressive progress has been made in education legislation policy development, curriculum reform and the implementation of new ways delivering education, but many challenges remain in many areas, such as student outcomes and behavior market relevance. In the period of negotiations between the ANC and the National Party government from 1990 to 1994, the economy stagnated, and education continued to deteriorate. The newly elected Government of National Unity was faced with the mammoth task of completely restructuring and rebuilding the education system and redressing the inequities of the past. The fragmented and radially duplicated ­institutions of the Apartheid era have been replaced by a single national system

378

R. Mestry and P. Du Plessis

including nine (9) provincial sub-systems. This brings us to the controversial issues of financing schools. Marginalised or vulnerable groups have received particular attention in the form of inclusive education programmes and pro-poor funding policies. Government policy on students with special needs emphasizes the mainstreaming of students with mild learning disabilities into ordinary schools, schools fee exemptions, and most recently, no-fee schools have assisted indigent students into schools. Moreover, education financing has been redirected specifically towards considerations of equity, redress, accessibility and affordability. School governance has been decentralised, with greater autonomy devolved to SGBs (including the right to charge school [user] fees). A new curriculum high on knowledge and skills and based on the values of the Constitution has been introduced and streamlined, and procedures set in place to monitor educational equity.

20.6  Policy and Legislative Framework The South African Constitution (South Africa 1996b) requires education to be transformed and democratized in accordance with the values of human dignity, equality, human rights and freedom, non-racism and non-sexism, and guarantees the right to basic education for all, including adult basic education. The Constitution determines that the three (national, provincial and local) spheres of government “distinctive, interdependent and interrelates,” should function together co-operating, and since South Africa has no tradition of municipal responsibility for education, it provides that the national sphere has exclusive legislative responsibility for tertiary education and shares concurrent responsibility with the provincial spheres for all the levels of education (Barnes 2006). Through the NEPA of 1996, the Minister of Education working with the provinces, sets the political agenda and determined the national norms and standards for education planning, provision, governance, monitoring and evaluation. The nine-­provincial department of education are responsible for implementing education policy and programmes aligned with the national goals. They make funding decisions and exercise executive responsibility for all General Education and Training from grade R to grades 1–3 (the Foundation Phase), grades 4–6 (the Intermediate Phase) and grade 7–9 (the Senior Phase), as well as for further education and training (FET) from grades 10–12 and for formal adult basic education and training (ABET). The Schools Act (South Africa 1996b) aims to provide for a uniform system for the organization governance and funding of schools (Roux 2003). It seeks to ensure that all students have right of access to quality education without discrimination and it makes schooling compulsory for all children from the year they turn 7 to the year in which they turn 15 (or the end of grade 9, whichever comes first). It regulates the provision of public schools and education places by provinces, the governance of schools (in particular the establishment and operation of school governing bodies),

20  South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation…

379

the funding of schools (including state responsibility, school budgets, fees and the framework for funding rules or norms) and the establishment and funding of independent (private) schools. The Further Education and Training Colleges Act (South Africa 2006) supersedes the Further Education and Training Act (South Africa 1998) and its aim is to regulate further education and training, which is defined as “all learning and training programmes leading to qualifications at levels 2–4 of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) or such (other) levels determined by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), which levels are above general education but below higher education (South Africa 2006). Further education and training, therefore, comprises the senior secondary component of schooling (grades 10–12) as well as further education and training colleges. The final three years of secondary school are not compulsory, but government is constitutionally obliged to make further education and training progressively available (Fleich and Woolman 2004). Students can acquire a FET qualification by completing grade 12 in the schooling system, by attending equivalent certification from 0 of 50 public FET colleges (rationalized down from 152 in 2002) or through opportunities offered by the private college sector (Table 20.1).

20.7  Financing of Education In the 2015/16 financial year, South African education departments spent nearly ZAR97 billion on education. This excludes private spending on schooling and education (in the form of fees and other private inputs), as well as spending on education by other government departments for example the spending by health departments on nursing colleges and agriculture departments on agriculture colleges. Education departments spending in 2015/16 comprised of 5.8% of gross domestic product and about 18% of consolidated government expenditure. Both these proportions have been declining over the last decade. Although education expenditure as a proportion of total government expenditure has diminished, the South African economic “cake” has grown fast enough to result in an education “slice” that is some 49% larger in real monetary terms in 2015 than it was in 2005 (DOE 2006). In the context of other comparable countries, education spending in South Africa as a proportion of the GDP seems high at face value, although below an oft-quoted UNESCO benchmark of 6%. It has also been argued that this high proportion is due mostly to the relatively high level of educator salaries and that spending on other inputs seem to be below some international norms (DoE 2006) a further reduction in the ratio might therefore have negative consequences. While, the relative trend in education is therefore a concern, education spending has been growing in real terms compared to the early 2005. Both provincial (most school level education) and national education (mostly higher education institutions) will be growing at more than 5% per year in real terms over the next 5 years, according to Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budgets.

380

R. Mestry and P. Du Plessis

Table 20.1  Framework for transformation: key education policy regulations and legislation Legislation/policy statements The SA Constitution (1996)

Objective Provide a framework for transformation and democratization Serve as reference for policy White Paper one and two (February 1995 and and legislative development 1996) The National Education Outline responsibilities of the Minister of Education Policy Act (NEPA) Formalize relations between (1996) national and provincialauthorities. Promote access, quality and The South African democratic governance in the Schools Act (SASA) schooling system (1996)

Further Education and Training Act (1998) Education White Paper four (1998) National Strategy for Further Education and Training (2001) The Higher Education Act (1997) Education White Paper three on Higher Education (1999) National Plan for Higher Education (2001) Employment of Educators Act (1998) The Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) Act (2000) The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Act (1995)

Develop a nationally coordinated further Education and training system

Mechanisms Guarantee access to basic education for all Education policy framework

Council of Education Ministers, Heads of Education Departments Committee (HEDCOM), intergovernmental forums Compulsory education for 7–14 year olds. Two types of schools – Independent and public. School governing bodies (SGBs) Funding norms – Redress through targeted allocation of funds Dedicated further education and training (FET) institutions National curriculum for learning and teaching.

Establish a unified and nationally planned system of higher education

Council on Higher Education (CHE) Institutional planning and budgeting framework

Regulate responsibilities of educators Support the development of the ABET sector

South African Council of Educators (SACE) Establishment of public and private adult learning centres

Integrate education and training at all levels

National Qualifications Framework (NQF) – Scaffolding for national learning system

Education expenditure takes place at the provincial level and the national level. Provinces fund education from their equitable share allocations from the national fiscus, conditional grants from the national department and own revenue. In 2014/15, provincial spending including conditional grant spending, all of which goes primarily to public school education, comprised 87.4% of education expenditure. The

20  South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation…

381

remaining 12.6% came from the national department (Van der Berg 2005). There has been a significant improvement in funding equity; both between provinces and schools as increased real funding interacted with pro-poor funding norms in terms of the Schools Act (South Africa 1996b). Provincial education expenditure is classified into eight budget programmes, namely: administration; public ordinary school education; independent school subsidies; public special school education; further education and training; adult basic education and training; early childhood development; and auxiliary services. The key challenges facing the government, with the passing of the Schools Act, is the attempt to fund an acceptable balance between a commitment to strong forms of citizen participation and the need for strong intervention. “Creating strong forms of citizen participation may diminish the power of the elected authority (government), and consequently potentially undermined the will of the electorate who expect the government in South Africa to fulfil the mandate upon which it was voted into power.” (Sayed 2008, 8). Strong forms of government control and intervention with stakeholder bodies have weaken their advisory powers and stakeholders feel that they cannot effect change. A good example of this tension in the South African context was the Constitutional Court ruling in favor of the Minister of National Education, which stated that the National Minister of Education did have the constitutional power to issue national norms and standards over and above provincial wishes. The Constitutional Court case highlighted the difficulty of trying to balance control authority and regulation with the devotion of educational control.

20.8  T  he South African Schools Act (Act 84 of 1996) and It’s Theory of Action South Africa introduced a new Constitution with an unequivocal commitment to representative and participatory democracy, accountability and public involvement (South Africa 1996c). Participation, it suggests, does not extend simply to the right to elect representatives but should translate into the right to influence decisions. The South African Constitution thus presents an interesting challenge in declaring that the new democracy is both a representative and a participatory one. The challenge is taken up in education through a variety of legislation and in particular by the Schools Act which was promulgated after the second White Paper on Education in 1996, which reaffirmed that the principles of equity, quality and democratic governance. Its espoused theory is to create a new school governance landscape based on citizen participation, partnerships between the state, parents, students, school staff and communities, and devolve power towards the individual school and community. As a result, it provides mechanisms for stakeholders to participate in decision- making, specification of who should participate and guidelines on areas over which particular stakeholders may exert influence. The Schools Act therefore provides for the election of SGBs by students, parents and staff. In theory,

382

R. Mestry and P. Du Plessis

it grants schools and their constituent communities a significant say in decision-­ making by devolving power to stakeholders who participate in “democratic governance” of schools. In promoting democratic processes and community ownership, the democratic government had to face the challenge of integrating the historically decentralized system, improving the efficiency of the system and redressing the imbalances of Apartheid. The dual expectations of serving democratic transformation and financial efficiency are evident in the twinning of decentralization policies for school governance and financing, particularly in the Schools Act and NNSSF policy. The NNSSF, which spelled out in detail new norms and standards for school funding, was partly in response to the Register of School Needs Survey (Education Foundation et al. 1996), which highlighted the glaring inequities in educational opportunities. The Schools Act and the NNSSF, were the outcome of a long struggle to democratize the education system by enabling parents, educators and students to have a say in the way the education system as a whole and schools, in particular, are governed. In the lead up to the passing of the Schools Act there was intense contestation over the form and function of local governance in general and on the role of SGBs in particular. The current framework for SGBs should be understood as an outcome of this contested process. It may be argued that the Schools Act is a compromise solution in its attempt to simultaneously acknowledge and address the diverse school histories of under-development and self-management (Karlsson 2002). Consequently, there are likely to be common as well as divergent expectations across levels of the system, school sites and individuals. While there are undeniable links between the Schools Act and policies that came before, the Act is a radical piece of legislation prescribing fundamental changes in school governance for all public schools numbering in excess of 27,000. In theory at least, the involvement of stakeholders in governance was extended to all sectors of the education system to advance access, equity, redress and democratic participation. These reforms, embedded in the larger socio-political changes, challenged long-standing hierarchical arrangements and applications of power within a key institution in society, the school. The Act, which replaced the multiple Apartheid school models with the categories of public and independent (private) schools, marked a significant move towards democratization and a departure from the former practice in which parents and administrative representatives were appointed, rather than elected. It implied a shift in the balance of power in favour of governing bodies, with parents in the majority and therefore a force to be reckoned with in the control of schools. Local or decentralized governance reforms such as the Schools act, like other policy interventions, rest on sets of assumptions regarding the relationship between policy actions and policy outcomes. These interrelated, often implicit assumptions form the policy’s theory of action and provide the conceptual map of the underlying logic that links the actions taken with the outcomes sought. A significant contradiction is that while equity rhetoric permeated most education policy statements, a number of policies, including governance policy signals, actually highlight the efficiency of the system. The new governance model was expected to extend

20  South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation…

383

democracy, promote greater educational participation, put into place equity, and redress strategies, all without alienating the privileged white minority. Despite such contradictions and the shifting orientation of the South African government towards educational governance, the espoused theory of action in the Schools Act is that with more control over resource allocations, organization, policies and programs, public schools will develop, adopt or adapt practices that will help: …redress past injustices in educational provision, provide an education of progressively high quality for all (students) and in so doing lay a strong foundation for the development of all our people’s talents and capabilities, advance the democratic transformation of society, combat racism and sexism and all other forms of unfair discrimination and intolerance, contribute to the eradication of poverty and the economic well-being of society, protect and advance our diverse cultures and languages, uphold the rights of all students, parents and educators, and promote their acceptance of responsibility for the organisation, governance and funding of schools in partnership with the State (DOE 1996: 2).

20.9  No-Fee Schools The Schools Act as amended the NNSSF policy for public ordinary and independent schools to introduce fee exemption and no-fee schools as a form of addressing equity in funding. A no-fee school is a school where parents pay no school fees and the government subsidizes every child who goes to that school. These schools may not levy compulsory school fees. No-fee schools are an integral part of government’s strategy to alleviate the effects of poverty and to redress the imbalances of the past. The schools are a vital step towards the transformation of the South African schooling system and are situated in the lowest national quintiles of poverty. The NNSSF policy ranks each school into quintiles based on the poverty index prescribed by the national DoE and allocates funds to each public school. The national quintiles range from poorest to least poor, with quintile 1 and 2 schools in the poorest communities and quintile 4 and 5 schools in the least poor communities. Quintile 3 schools are the middle of the range schools. In accordance with Section 39 of the Schools Act, the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for each province must identify all schools that qualify as no-fee schools, and must determine the details, if any, regarding no-fee grades. The details of schools identified as no-fee schools by the MEC must be submitted to the Minister of Education by 1 September every year. Schools that are declared no-fee schools are not precluded from requesting voluntary contributions from local business or interested parties for the purpose of funding special projects (Mestry and Bisschoff 2009). These schools are still required to prepare annual budgets in accordance with Section 39(2) of the Schools Act and present key records of funds received and spent in accordance with Section 42 of the Act. The government is, however, set to abandon the problematic quintile system and replace it with a simpler system based on two-categories: fee-paying and non-fee-­ paying schools.

384

R. Mestry and P. Du Plessis

20.10  Fee Paying Schools According to Section 36 of the SASA, school governing bodies must take all reasonable measures within their means to supplement the resources supplied by the state in order to improve the quality of education provided by the school to all students. School fees are part of the fabric of South African schools today. It has been agreed that fee-paying schools provide a mechanism for raising revenue from parents who have the financial means to make the contribution, which, in turn, provides opportunities for the state to implement preferential funding for poor schools. A further aim for charging school fees is to encourage parents to participate in school governance and to promote accountability to the communities they serve. The decision to charge school fees is not solely the decision of the governing body but is a matter for the parents to decide (Mestry and Bisschoff 2009: 55). The Act links the question of school fees to the annual school budget, which must be presented to a general meeting of parents for approval. The governing body of the school must provide parents with all the information regarding the school’s income from the state and other resources. Parents will then decide what additional income the school needs to fulfil its educational purposes, and how the additional funds will be raised. The decision on the amount of school fees to be charged is taken at a parent meeting. The Schools Act prescribes that parents must be given at least 30 days’ notice of this budget meeting. It is evident that parents of the fee-paying school carry serious responsibilities with respect to drawing up a school budget, developing sources of income and determining the fees charged and the conditions for fee exemptions. According to the Schools Act, if the majority of parents vote in favor of school fees, each parent is responsible for paying the set fees, unless exemption has been granted or where the school has been declared a no-fee school. Previously all schools had to complement the state school allocation by the collection of school fees. In current policy, a fee charging school (previously all schools) can now apply to the Provincial Education Department (PED) to be declared a no-fees school. Should it qualify? This would entitle the school to an increased allocation by the state to offset revenues previously generated through school fees. The lists of no-fees schools are determined provincially by the PED, using a standard national procedure. Each school is assigned a poverty score using data from the community in which the school is located. The three poverty indicators utilized for this purpose are income, unemployment rate and level of education of the community, which are weighted to assign a poverty score for the community and school (Mestry and Bisschoff 2009). It will then be assigned to one of the poverty qualities determined nationally. The percentage of students who received these allocations also differs. The allocation would target respectively, 30%, 27.5% and 22.5% of students in quintiles 1, 2 and 3. By comparison, richer schools (fee paying schools) would now receive less than the adequately benchmark for quintiles 4 and 5 respectively.

20  South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation…

385

While South African discourse on the financing of education is not at the stage at which benchmarking in terms of adequacy can take place (Amsterdam 2006), questions can be raised about whether the costing per student is adequate and correctly channeled. A body of evidence emanating from the Education Law Project at the Centre for Applied Legal Studies has consistently shown how the current costing per student unit is underestimated (Roux 2003; Veraiva 2005; Wilson 2004). No-fees technically do not amount to no fees for the poor, as costs like transport and uniform are not added to the cost and form a significant part of poor households’ income (Roux 2003; Wilson 2004; Veraiva 2005). It is unclear therefore how the Rand value is determined as the adequacy benchmark and how this was costed. It seems to have been drawn from the 2003 review but there appears to be no clear link between the estimates provided in the review, the consistent concerns raised about under costing and the current benchmark. Tomasevski (2006) concurs that while a minimum is provided, it is below the actual cost of education. What is perhaps most significant is that adequacy is confined only to non-­ personal recurrent expenditure. This is specified as follows: “As a policy target, based on both local and international evidence, the Ministry of Education has determined that personnel: non-personnel spending in ordinary public schools should be of the order of 80:20” (DoE 2006, 8). The reference to the local evidence is surprising given the evidence on the current inequities in education. Jansen and Amsterdam (2006) argue that the playing fields are not level and differences in the number and quality of personnel at high-income schools remains the significant divide between high- and low-income schools. Motala’s (2006) work convincingly shows how fees allow high-income schools to alter teacher-pupil ratios and attract better-qualified personnel. The resource divide extends into all areas of schooling and includes personnel and infrastructural resources and unless substantially more funds can be channeled to address these, current inequities will remain.

20.11  Decentralisation and Quality Education While considerable attention has been paid to the extent to which the fees policy relates to equity, less attention has been paid to the fees policy and quality. Jansen and Amsterdam (2006) suggest that efficiency is a useful and necessary addition to the South African education financing discourse. Equity markers give an indication that expenditure is being equally distributed (or redistributed), but do not reflect whether these inputs make a difference to educational outcomes. This is however a complex and contested area, and Porteus (2003) useful accounts of some of the debates. The debate is wide-ranging and there is much contestation about what processes male ‘quality’ education possible. For the purposes of this paper, two key questions can be identified. First, are inputs correctly channeled to produce the required outcomes? Second, what is the relationship between the input and the system’s processes that may either facilitate or prevent successful outcomes?

386

R. Mestry and P. Du Plessis

The document makes frequent references to quality as captured by the following statement, “Moreover, the school allocation is primarily and exclusively intended for the promotion of efficient and quality education in public schools” (DoE 2006, 27). What is striking about this statement is the association between the school allocation and ‘quality education’ (Sayed 2008). This assertion is of concern and belies the complexity of the input-outcome relationship. The evidence is mixed, with some (Hanushek 2003) suggesting that the inputs do not necessarily improve quality, while other suggesting that inputs do matter for poorer schools (Case and Deaton 1999). Van Der Berg (2005) excludes richer schools in his analysis and concludes that inputs do not make a difference for outcomes in poorer schools. What is perhaps clearer is that quality education depends on a careful consideration of both inputs and process.

20.12  Conclusion Although it is well-indented, the NNSSF policy has not achieved its goal of redressing the imbalances in education of the past nor has it succeeded in achieving equity at both primary and secondary public schools. The main stumbling block appears to be the way schools employ funding provided by the PEDs. Equity and redress has been the major impulses for education transformation in South Africa. The extent to which the policies of education decentralization to the governance of school promotes equity and redress is open to question. The extent to which policies of education decentralization can and do achieve such goals is as much a matter of implementation as it is a matter of how the policies are constructed and what assumptions are inscribed in their articulation. It also shows the fact that policies of education decentralization, cannot easily affect equity in societies with a high degree of social inequity. The South African case suggests that fee charging at school level is not a policy that has engendered greater equity in South Africa. The extent to which the no-fee school policy can achieve greater equity remain an open question. Social justice and equity can only be achieved if the state makes more funding available for student to access education and to reduce or abolish structural forms of oppression that restrict peoples’ access to resources and opportunities for exercising and developing their capabilities. Since 1994, Education, despite the challenge of limited financial resources has been committed to providing quality education in South Africa and has worked forcefully to improve the conditions for quality education. In the past 24 years, it has achieved near universal access to education, reduced dropout rates across all grades in the secondary school phase and sustained student performance and increased and equalized education spending and has made substantial progress in eliminating infrastructure backlogs. Education is committed to achieving the desired quality education for all by accelerating service delivery and enhancing the conditions in institutions in South Africa.

20  South Africa: Education Authorities and Public Schools: The Organisation…

387

References Amsterdam, C. (2006). Adequacy in the South African context: A concept analysis. Perspectives in Education, 24(2), 25–34. Ball, S. J., Maquire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy. Policy enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge. Barnes, T. (2006). Nation building without mortar. Public participation in higher education policymaking in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 24(1), 1–13. Brown, L. D., & Tandon, R. (1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action research and participatory research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 277–294. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (1999, August). School inputs and educational outcomes in South Africa. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 1047–1084. Colebatch, H. K. (2006). Beyond the policy cycle. The policy process in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Deming, W. E. (1994). The new economies for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Department of Education. (1995). White paper on education and training. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education. (1996a). National education policy act no. 27 of 1996. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education. (1996b). South African schools act no. 84 of 1996. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education. (1996c). Education white paper 2: The organization governance and funding of schools. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education. (1997). Higher education act 101 of 1997. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education. (1998). National Norms and standards for school funding. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education. (2001). Education white paper 2: Building an inclusive education and training system. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education. (2006). Amended national norms and standards for school funding. Pretoria: Department of Education. Department of Education. (2008). Foundations for learning campaign. Pretoria: Department of Education. Diamond, L., & Platter, M.  F. (1999). Democratization in Africa. London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Diphofa, M., Vinjevold, P., & Taylor, N. (1999). Introduction in getting learning right. Palgrave: Macmillan. Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H. F. (2006). Racial equity in education: How far has South Africa come? Perspectives in Education, 24(2), 95–108. Fleich, B., & Woolman, S. (2004). On constitutionality of school fees: A qualified defense. Perspectives in Education, 22, 111–113. Forester, J. (2012). On the theory and practice of interpretive policy analysis: From the micro-­ politics of practice to interpretive analysis and theorizing in action. Paper presented at the Interpretive Policy. Analysis Conference, Tilburg, The Netherlands, July 5–7. Glatter, R., Mulford, B., & Shuttleworth, D. (2003). Governance, management and leadership. In Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Ed.), Networks of innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and systems. Paris: OECD.  Available at http://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/themes/innovation/41283811. pdf. Accessed 7 May 2016. Hanushek, E.  A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic Journal, 113, 64–98.

388

R. Mestry and P. Du Plessis

Jansen, J.  D., & Amsterdam, C. (2006). Editorial introduction: The status of education finance research in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 24(2), vii–xvi. Karlsson, J. (2002). The role of democratic governing bodies in South African schools. Comparative Education, 38(3), 327–336. Mestry, R., & Bisschoff, T. (2009). Financial School Management Explained (3rd ed.). Cape Town: Pearson. Mestry, R., & Dzvimbo, K.  P. (2011). Contestations of educational transformation: A critical analysis of how the norms and standards for funding are intended to achieve social justice and equity. Journal of Educational Sciences, 2011(Special Issue), 9–29. Mestry, R., & Ndhlovu, R. (2014). The implications of the National Norms and standards for school funding policy on equity in South African public schools. South African Journal of Education, 34(3), 1–11. Motala, S. (2006). Education resourcing in post-apartheid South Africa: The impact of finance equity reforms in public schooling. Perspectives in Education, 24(2), 79–93. Motala, S., & Mungadi, R. (2000). From policy to practice: Achieving quality education in post-­ apartheid South Africa. South African Review of Education, 5, 7–31. Motala, E., & Pampallis, J. (2007). The state, education and equity in post-apartheid South Africa: The impact of state policies. Routledge. Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Buckingham: Open University Press. Parker, K., & Leithwood, K. (2000). School councils’ influence on school and classroom practice. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 37–65. Porteus, K. (2003). Decolonising inclusion: Constructing an analytic framework for inclusion/ exclusion for the decolonizing context. Perspectives in Education, 21(3), 13–23. Rizvi, F., & Kemmis, S. (1987). Dilemmas of reform. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Roux, T. (2003). Comment on the Department of Education’s report to the Minister on a review of the financing, resourcing and costs of education in public schools. Johannesburg: Centre for Applied Legal Studies, University of Witwatersrand. Sayed, Y. (2008). Education decentralization in South Africa: Equity and participation in the governance of schools. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2009. Spillane, J. (2004). Standards deviation; How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tomasevski, K. (2006). The state of the right to education worldwide: Free or fee: 2006 global report. UNESCO. (2008). EFA global monitoring report: Education for all by 2015. In Will we make it? Pans: UNESCO. Van der Berg, S. (2005). How effective are poor schools? Poverty and educational outcomes in South Africa. Paper presented at the SACMEQ International Institutional Research Conference, Pans. Veraiva, F. (2005). Free to learn: A discussion paper on the school fee exemption policy. In A. Leatt & S. Rosa (Eds.), Targeting poverty alleviation to make children’s rights real (pp. 267–291). Cape Town: Children’s Institute. Wilson, S. (2004). Taming the constitution: Rights and reform in the South African education system. South African Journal on Human Rights, 20(a), 418–447. Wright, A. (2012). Fantasies of empowerment: Mapping neoliberal discourse in the coalition government’s schools policy. Journal of Education Policy, 27(3), 279–794.

Chapter 21

Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model A. A. Johannis, Chloe Yi-Xiang Tan, Shamala Raveendaran, and David Wei-Loong Hung

Abstract  This chapter covers the historical development of Singapore’s education system and the introduction of major policies and initiatives. It then discusses a possible future for our education system guided by what we frame as ‘purposeful learning’. Unfortunately, it appears difficult to leave behind some of the institutional features and cultural attitudes that made the successes of earlier phases possible. To overcome obstacles to system change we have adapted Michael Fullan’s Leadership from the Middle model by combining it with Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework. In our model, we hypothesise that the middle or ‘meso’ layers of each level of the system are the highest points of leverage to sustain ultimate change through the whole system. However, to support system change, teachers need to apprentice themselves in school networks in order to develop relevant new pedagogies. We also need system brokers who can mediate different parts of the system in order to help along the upward and downward percolation of ideas. Nevertheless, major system change through time is not a matter of simple multiplication. Our Scaling Change through Apprenticising and Ecological Leadership (SCAEL) model shows it has to be an iterative process that encourages organic changes with respect to local conditions.

21.1  I ntroduction and Overview of the Singapore Education System This chapter covers the development of Singapore’s education system through the years and the introduction of major policies and initiatives. It discusses the future needs, aspirations, and economic imperatives of students, as analysed through the A. A. Johannis · C. Y.-X. Tan · S. Raveendaran · D. W.-L. Hung (*) Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; david. [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_21

389

390

A. A. Johannis et al.

lens of purposeful learning. We cover the main historic developmental phases of the Singapore education system as well as the preparation and training of school leaders in order for the reader to gain a thorough understanding of the education system at large. We discuss the concept of Leadership from the Middle (LftM), where ecological and apprenticing leadership by teachers lead to the scaling up and sustainment of innovations, and is accompanied by iterative change in the community, the  background conditions, the culture, and the carryovers from enablers from the ground-up. The history of Singapore’s education system is one linked to her economy. Singapore is no stranger to rapid change. Singapore’s economic success story is one characterized by growth and rapid transformation from a third world to first world economy. In the span of 50 years, Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita increased from US$516 in 1965 to US$57,714 in 2017 (World Bank 2017). This translates to tremendous growth in GDP per capita of more than 110 times. This also  suggests that schooling systems need to change from the time of their formation to their current incarnation in order to be  congruous with economic advancement. The Singapore Government sees education as one of the key strategies for nation building and for economic growth (Gopinathan 2015). Education was given the foremost priority to develop our human capital, which contributes to nation building by forging a united citizenry that is globally minded, multiracial and multireligious. Education is used as a means of developing human capital in order to subsequently make meaningful contributions to the Singapore economy. The Singapore education system continually keeps abreast of international educational innovations in order to achieve these goals. For the 2017 financial year, the Singapore Government set aside about $12.1 billion (or 21.5%) of its operating budget for the Ministry of Education. Singapore’s education system consists of 366 schools. Of these, 182 are primary schools that offer a six-year course. 154 are secondary schools that offer Express, Normal (Academic), and Normal (Technical) courses. After secondary school, students progress to the 14 junior colleges, the 4 polytechnics or the Institute of Technical Education (Ministry of Education 2016). The Singapore education system from grades 7 to 12 is a system of “bridges” and “ladders” traversing multiple diverse pathways ranging from the academic, to the technical and vocational depending on the students’ academic abilities. The historical evolution of Singapore’s education system has led to the performative pedagogy as currently still practiced in schools, however there is a need for inquiry-based pedagogy and innovative learning approaches to take us into the future.

21.2  Future Orientation: Purposeful Learning Looking ahead at the challenges that developed economies such as Singapore might face, the education that Singapore should provide her citizens must help them face a volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous (VUCA) and globally competitive econ-

21  Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model

391

omy, while at the same time help achieve higher productivity gains through increases in the responsiveness, resilience, innovation and creativity needed for future economic growth. This education, which is essentially a preparation for life, will be guided by the ethos of purposeful learning. The framework (see Fig. 21.1) of purposeful learning (Koh and Hung 2018) is mapped below. The Singapore education system trains our workforce but this economic imperative must now be done through purposeful learning: where there is life-long, life-­ deep, life-wide, and life-wise learning, which together give rise to the learning and development of skills, dispositions, and competencies suitable for the future economy. Life-long learning is characterised by the development of students in the areas of (a) knowledge and dispositions, (b) process and design skills, and (c) metacognition (Koh and Hung 2018). This knowledge consists of a T-shaped curriculum where there is both breadth and depth. Learning dispositions or habits of mind are also desirable developmental traits, and include the curiosity to learn, openness to collaboration, and flexibility in learning in different ways. Process and design skills include twenty-first century competencies and learning and innovation skills such as creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration. Metacognition is about reflective thinking and situational awareness, namely metacognitive beliefs and cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Life-wide learning is about students being equipped to adapt to and transfer learning across various contexts such as formal and informal learning contexts, multiple perspectives, and interdisciplinary understanding. Life-deep learning is concerned with deep disciplinary and conceptual understanding, mastery, autonomy and purpose, and adaptive expertise. Life wise learning is about molding students

LIFE-LONG LEARNING

LIFE-DEEP LEARNING

Knowledge & Dispositions over Time Process & Design Skill Retention Metacognition

Deep Disciplinary & Conceptual Understanding Mastery, Autonomy & Purpose Adaptive Expertise

SOCIAL EMOTIONAL REGULATION & WELL -BEING LIFE-WIDE LEARNING

LIFE-WISE LEARNING

Adaptability & Transferability Across Contexts

Values, Morals & Character Practical Wisdom Historical Empathy

Multiple Perspectives Interdisciplinary Understanding Fig. 21.1  Framework for purposeful learning (Koh and Hung 2018)

392

A. A. Johannis et al.

with values, morals, character, practical wisdom, and historical empathy. All these are encapsulated in the idea of socio-emotional regulation and wellbeing. This purposeful learning framework provides an ideal vision of the learning of knowledge, skills, dispositions and competencies by students so that they are adequately prepared to meet the challenges of a VUCA future. Educators interested in the outcomes of education systems can use the framework to compare against and identify certain gaps in their education systems.

21.3  Education and the Economy: The Phases of the Education System The Singapore education system has always been one inextricably linked to our labour force. Thus, we need to prepare Singaporeans to become globally competitive now that the marketplace for talent has become international. Singaporeans must also be prepared to work in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous conditions where change and disruption have become the new status quo. Leaders in the policy and education spheres need to manage the dichotomies of centralisation vs decentralisation, constancy vs change, standardisation vs diversity and control vs autonomy. Striking a balance between dichotomies given the operating conditions above will be determined by the lines drawn and vision set by our leadership. The development of Singapore’s education system from the founding of Singapore and to date are summarised in the diagram below (See Fig. 21.2).

Fig. 21.2  Educational phases aligned to Singapore’s economic development (Ho and Koh 2017)

21  Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model

393

The survival driven phase from 1959 to 1978 was characterised by a historical need to produce skilled workers to support the industrialisation of Singapore’s economy which at that time was marked by the policy of attracting global multinational corporations to drive industrial growth. The education landscape then consisted  of a mix of community-based schools that offered different curricula in different languages based on a spectrum of values, cultures, and political ideologies. During the survival phase, there were schools representing each of the four different language streams, integrated schools which offered two or more of those streams, and bilateral schools that combined academic and vocational education. A national examination system had been established using the British curriculum and the corresponding PSLE, GCE ‘O’ and ‘A’ Examinations by 1966. The vernacular language streams were abolished and all curricula were standardised nationwide. The MOE prescribed specific achievement standards, conducted an external,  mainly summative review and established system-level interventions to address any issues (Koh and Hung 2018). The training of teachers was prioritised as new schools were rapidly being  opened. By 1987, Singapore had a comprehensive  national education system with English as the first language  and medium of instruction (National Library Board 2016). From 1979 to 1996, principals were selected informally by recommendations or endorsements from the MOE (Singh et  al. 1987). High performing teachers in schools and offices in MOE were selected to be principals. In 1980, the school appraisal system, which was conducted by a team of assessors from the MOE, replaced the school inspectorate system. Promising candidates first served as vice-­ principals before potentially being promoted to principal. In 1982, MOE invited the United Nations Development Programme to collaborate on how to develop the principal’s professional competency. The MOE also worked with  the Institute of Education (IE) to train potential principals and to develop a full time one-year diploma in educational administration. Each participant had to spend 8 weeks full time in a mentoring principal’s school. Indeed, the involvement of incumbent principals in the leadership development of potential and new principals is considered a major reason for the high level of leadership efficacy in the Singapore school system (Ng et al. 2015). Both mentees and mentors enjoyed synergies in reciprocal learning experiences. Mentor principals could reflect on their own leadership practices and update their knowledge on management theories. Vice-principals were introduced in primary and secondary schools in 1979. Heads of Department positions were introduced in 1984 and their functions are a mix of teaching and administrative duties. Top performing HODs were identified early for potential promotion because they exemplified the necessary abilities for the heavy duties of principalship. In light of the many challenges of managing a school, these new offices were also designed to assist principals in the day to day. Also in 1979, the Goh Report made recommendations for a group inspection of schools along with a self-appraisal programme (Goh et al. 1979). This group inspection of schools was performed every 4–5 years by a team of inspectors from MOE who appraised the management of the school, instructional programmes, extra-­

394

A. A. Johannis et al.

curricular activities, and pupil welfare programmes as part of a school’s performance index. In 1992, school rankings were first introduced and this marked a milestone in Singaporean education history because for the first time schools had to publish their academic results in the press. Nonetheless, this policy also forced the publication of value added grade statistics and this resulted in ordinary, mainstream secondary schools to “come to prominence, and their community was so happy” (Koh and Hung 2018). As a newly industralised economy that was growing at an annual rate of 10%, Singapore was facing increasing wage competition in the 1990s from less developed countries and had to diversify by moving from manufacturing industries to knowledge -based industries such as technology and financial services. In order to keep pace with the speed of advancement of the knowledge economy, a labour supply with the requisite skills and dispositions had to be developed. Singapore’s vision as articulated by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1997 was encapsulated by the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN) policy which envisioned a total learning environment for thinking citizens. More autonomy would be accorded to schools in order to realise the vision of thinking schools. School leaders and teachers will then have to depend on their own solutions to their own problems (Goh 1979). Together with the TSLN vision, other MOE initiatives included the First Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Masterplan and the launch of National Education (NE). During the ability-based aspiration driven phase, the MOE’s role was seen as setting the broad guidelines and directions, not detailed rules and procedures. This was in order to cater for more diversity in the education system. For thinking schools to emerge, then Minister for Education Teo Chee Hean (2000) noted that Singapore needed “dynamic principals to lead our schools so that they can make the best use of this autonomy.” Principals were acknowledged to be the “key leaders” who would determine the quality of our education system (Teo 1998) and their development and deployment was “too important to be left to chance” (Teo 2002). A “rigorous system” was implemented to sort out school leaders  by making sure they “go through a careful selection process which involves the top management in MOE HQ, including the Director-General of Education, the Permanent Secretaries, and other MOE Directors” (Teo 1998). At the end of the efficiency-driven phase, in 1995, MOE started to moot the concept of current estimated potential (CEP) to assess an education officer’s ability to assume positions of higher responsibility in the future, including becoming a principal (Chew 2003). The CEP is a Singapore Civil Service assessment measure of leadership potential. The CEP was adapted from Shell Petroleum’s assessment of the leadership potential of their employees. Teachers with high CEP were expected, as a rule, to perform better than peers in the same rank or job. The teacher’s ­intellectual capability and ‘helicopter ability’ were both evaluated by school leaders and key personnel. In 1997, school clusters comprising 11–13 primary schools, secondary schools and junior colleges were introduced as a key support structure. Four geographical

21  Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model

395

zones were established with 7–8 clusters in each zone. Each zonal branch is in charge of the management of personnel development and facilitating projects and activities of its member schools that further the outcomes of education. Minister Teo (1997), positioned school clusters as ‘yet another important step in nurturing the culture of “Thinking Schools”’. School clusters also served as a platform to develop HODs, vice-principals and principals as they provided mentoring, support and a way to discuss professional matters with one another. The cluster superintendent’s role is intended to foster collaboration and the sharing of resources and good practices (Dimmock and Tan 2013; Gopinathan et al. 2008). The cluster superintendent along with the rest of the cluster is not meant to have more authority than or supercede any individual school’s leadership. Cluster superintendents serve as reporting officers for principals, are simultaneously meant to be mentors if principals need advice and support. The cluster system was designed to build MOE’s support for schools by helping schools understand the key issues of governance that required taking school principals into confidence and seeking the opinions of school leaders on the basis of an equal-partner relationship. The cluster structure and the Cluster Superintendent is a way to enable decentralisation within a centralised system. The cluster is a way for school leaders to build professional support, while the rolling out of policies and initiatives remains controlled by MOE. The cluster superintendents are also involved in the appraisal process. Having them involved means that appraisals are conducted with a degree of consistency across the board. The appraisals of HODs, vice principals and principals are cross ranked across all clusters. The CEP appraisal is thus essential in grooming key personnel into school leaders starting from teachers who meet the selection criteria. The qualities that MOE looked for in a principal are (Teo 2000): • • • •

A solid track record Proven management abilities in schools/in MOE HQ A desire and commitment to develop students to their full potential The ability to grasp the new challenges facing education and to develop effective programmes

Having a stringent selection process is essential as the principal is the most important person in the school. A good school requires a good principal. Both the administrative and the professional side of MOE takes care to train, select, and post the right principal to the schools. The right principal is determined also by the level of initiative they possess, and the ability to act independently to improve situations. The selection process for principals involves a two-day Leadership Selection Exercise (LSE) where participants are given a scenario for which they need to come up with a work plan. This work plan is then evaluated on its strengths and weaknesses in leadership, managerial, and administrative competencies. The LSE ­provides a way to access a person’s skills and suitability to become a principal. The LSE is not the only qualifying factor in assessing candidates for principal. Other factors such as human judgement provide more data points for the assessment.

396

A. A. Johannis et al.

In Singapore, the developmental process of cultivating a school leader is not left to chance. There is a robust system in place to groom leadership with high potential into school leaders (Heng 2011). With the launch of TSLN, which meant more autonomy for the school principal, more was expected aside from administrative and executive functions. The school principal not only needed to have a vision but be able to come up with strategies to operationalise said vision. The Leaders in Education Programme (LEP) is for selected vice-principals and ministry officers and prepares them for school leadership positions by training them to be innovative. The programme content includes systems thinking, organisational learning, and dealing with complexity (National Institute of Education 2013). Through a sponsored programme, LEP participants visit schools, government agencies, and industries, locally and abroad, to observe how change and innovation are generated and managed. With the increase in the number of key personnel including principals and vice principals, the roles of Administrative Manager and Operations Manager were created accordingly in 1996 and 2000, respectively. The roles of School Staff Developer and two Year Heads oversaw the needs of students taking certain subject areas, and most schools now are staffed by at least two vice principals. To recognise the importance of teachers in pedagogical leadership, the MOE introduced the teaching track in 1999 alongside the leadership track and specialist track. The teaching track consists of Senior Teachers, Lead Teachers, Master Teachers, and Principle Master Teachers (see Fig. 21.3). The introduction of these tracks is significant for the advancement of distributed leadership, recognising that every teacher is a leader albeit in different relevant ways. As the teaching track is relatively new compared to the leadership track, implications are suggested in the Leadership from the Middle section of this chapter with respect to the SCAEL model we will introduce. The Academy of Principals Singapore was created by merging three different principal associations. A merger was important as it allowed for a comprehen-

Fig. 21.3  Career Pathways and Advancement for Education Officers in Singapore (Ministry of Education 2019)

21  Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model

397

sive peer-mentoring scheme where the mentee could pick his or her own mentor. This 18 month programme is sponsored by the MOE and serves as a reflective platform for both mentor and mentee principals. Principals are also able to take a sabbatical after serving their first tour as principal. This sabbatical period helps principals reflect and take stock of their time as principal. Principals are also rotated after every 5–7 years either to a new school or to the MOE as Deputy Director. This rotation enables principals to develop leadership qualities from the opportunities for a renewal of ideas and processes. The Education Leadership Development Centre (ELDC), a body under the MOE, coordinates leadership development for school leaders and middle management. It was created to provide resources to develop high quality school leaders and ensure the cohesiveness of all the different training programmes. The School Excellence Model (SEM) is a standardised assessment tool developed for schools to conduct self-appraisal and for the  MOE to maintain system quality through periodic external appraisals. By using SEM, schools took ownership of their route to excellence. As SEM is based on business assessment models, SEM was designed to allow for variations of outcomes with schools having to continually challenge current practices and come up with more effective and innovative ways to attain outcomes of education that are congruous with the TSLN vision of thinking and innovative schools. The School Excellence Model was concurrently launched with a new supplementary framework for rewarding schools for various achievements. The Sustained Achievement Awards (SAA) are awarded in five areas: the Arts, Sports, Uniformed Groups, Academic Value added and Physical Fitness. Schools were also recognised in areas such as the Best Practices Award and a School Excellence Award. These evaluation tools recognise a broad range of indicators that measure more than academic results.

21.4  Present Challenges Singapore is now a developed country with the all too familiar conditions of slower economic growth, changing demographics (i.e. an ageing population) and her mature industries vulnerable to disruption or relocation. To ensure economic progress, there is a need to create value by fostering innovation rather than just by increasing local and foreign investments as with the past phase. However, innovation, like creativity, cannot be taught in rote lessons. MOE has chosen to pursue this goal more holistically by providing more informal and self-directed learning, in and out of the classroom. The Learning for Life Programme (LLP) and Applied Learning Programme (ALP), introduced in 2014, are two such examples. These programmes are created to suit student interests and strengths, and to provide multiple pathways for students to progress in the school system more holistically - in a manner that is both broad and deep. The ALP, for example, emphasises the application of thinking skills,

398

A. A. Johannis et al.

like connecting knowledge across subject disciplines as well as niche programmes in business and entrepreneurship, design, robotics, journalism and many other areas. The LLP, on the other hand, focuses on experiential learning from real-life experiences through activities such as outdoor adventures, sports and the visual arts, in order for students to develop character and values. In fact, none of these programs are intended to be examinable subjects. Even more informal in application is MOE’s introduction of the Flexible School Infrastructure programme, which funds the construction of flexible learning environments in schools. These projects create informal learning spaces that are offered to students as opportunities to tinker and explore in their free time. Examples have included a music jamming room, an outdoor music garden as well as an eco-­ aquarium that students can explore. Of course, physical education has always been the classic centre of outdoor education. Under a new physical education syllabus introduced in 2014, outdoor education makes up at least 10–20% of curriculum time in primary and secondary schools. The range of outdoor education activities is broad: from obstacle courses and adventure trips to rock climbing and nature trails. Additionally, it was announced in 2016 that from 2020 onwards, all Secondary 3 students will have to participate in a five-­ day expedition-based camp. These outdoor activities seek to teach students lessons that cannot be replicated in the classroom. Nevertheless, in a result-oriented, credential-based society like Singapore, it is difficult for parents to accept that much learning occurs outdoors. Many parents enroll their children in academic enrichment programs after school hours and that limits the amount of time children have to explore the outdoor environment in a freewheeling yet self-directed way. In part to mitigate the issue above, MOE’s commitment toward a student-centric, broad-based values-driven education prompted it to help reduce the national obsession with exam grades. In 2004, MOE changed the secondary school rankings from individual ranks to group banding and abolished the junior college rankings. In 2012, it abolished the secondary school rankings altogether and ceased the long practiced tradition of announcing the names of the top scorers in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) as well as the N- and O- levels results every year. The list of top scorers from each race was also scrapped. In line with its vision of emphasising the importance of the holistic development of students in view of the national over-emphasis on academic results, MOE has introduced subject banding. Originally introduced in 2003 in a small number of schools for upper secondary students, it was expanded in to all upper primary students in 2017 and to all secondary school students in 2020 - effectively ending the decades long practice of academic streaming. In primary school subject-based banding, a student may choose to take the subjects he is strong in at the standard level and those he is weaker in at the foundation level. This choice allows students to focus on their strengths while building up their fundamentals in subjects in which they need more support. Similarly, at the secondary level, students are no longer grouped according to streams. So, each student is able to take her subjects at different difficulty levels in order to tailor her education according to her specific levels

21  Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model

399

of progress in different subjects. The changes are meant to help students attain more agency over their own learning and hopefully help foster interest or passion in the subjects they value more. Nevertheless, there are barriers to teacher buy-in to more self-directed and inquiry-based pedagogy. Despite the changes in policies discussed above, the majority of schools continue to defer to societal pressures towards achieving good results (performative pedagogy) at the national high stakes examinations rather than instituting inquiry-based pedagogy in order to build a more self-sustaining system. Given the lack of teacher buy-in so far, it is uncertain that our existing centralised-­ decentralised model will be able to allow sufficient innovation to meet the demands of the twenty-first century. Therefore, in order to be future ready, it is increasingly important that school leaders adopt ‘ecological’ leadership and schools adopt inquiry-based pedagogies. Ecological leadership is a style of leadership where leadership is aligned within schools, across schools, in formal and informal clusters, and within the MOE. It is based on strengthening networks and establishing norms of practice and trust (Koh and Hung 2018). Teachers on the other hand, need to adopt apprenticing leadership where the pedagogical and learning design competencies of teachers can be developed in tandem with the changes in reform.

21.5  L  eadership from the Middle: Balancing Centralisation and Decentralisation The shape and form of the Singapore education system today is still highly influenced by its survival phase as described above. The meritocratic par excellence ethos of the system based on academic excellence indicated by examination scores has become the cultural DNA of our society. During this phase, the system started to excel in teacher-centred instruction, and we owe much of our success in international education rankings to this emphasis. Most teachers were able to become experts in performative peagogies because they themselves were schooled in such a fashion. Such pedagogies can be argued to be necessary because they enabled skilled performances but they can be too focused on procedural knowledge without sufficient emphasis on conceptual understandings and metacognition. Success breeds inertia and even though we are well into the current student-­ centred, values-driven phase, it is still difficult to leave behind some of the classic features that supported the great success of earlier phases. Things such as timetabling structures, school hours, curriculum structures, schemes of work and key ­performance indicators imposed on teachers have remained relatively unchanged through the years. Nevertheless, the education system remains committed to the aims of the current phase to prioritise the social emotional self-regulation and well-being of students, not just for the time they are attending school but in preparing them for life. As

400

A. A. Johannis et al.

discussed above, this preparation is guided by the ethos of ‘purposeful learning’ mapped out by the framework pictured in Fig. 21.1 above. There are, however, considerable cultural obstacles to this holistic vision. We would like, for instance, to instill a culture for life-long learning to meet the challenges of an uncertain future economy where workers may have to retool themselves constantly to meet changing demands of employment. However, this is currently difficult to attain in an education milieu where people often reject the demand for further education after their formal school years because of how difficult and competitive they were. Following this 4-Life or purposeful learning (in contrast to performative learning) framework will require changes at the system level. It will require MOE to fund research on technological and pedagogical innovations in schools. However, the implementation of many innovative changes in schools have historically been short-­ lived. They do not seem to last more than 2–3 years. Hence, MOE seeks to improve the impact and sustainability of its investments. However, while there are many theories about scaling innovations in academic literature, we are currently short of implementation pathways that make this possible. Traditional linear models of scaling fail to take into consideration local conditions that make different education systems work in their own distinctive ways. The main local condition to account for in Singapore is its East Asian culture, which cashes out in a highly hierarchical education system with yawning power distance issues. This means that individuals in the system are highly reverent and deferential to their ranking superiors or even to seniors of the same rank. This lowers the chances of individuals taking the initiative to change things or even publicly criticizing the status quo for fear of rebuke and being ‘put in their place’. Pedagogical innovations that work on the ground, therefore, do not necessarily percolate upwards to gatekeepers and decision makers. Innovations are suffocated out of existence in this cultural milieu. Conversely, innovative policies from the top are not necessarily based on conditions on the ground and may fail to be well received by those who have to implement the policies on the actual ground. Our proposed solution is to find teachers who can be leaders in educational change at every level of the system: at the policy level, at the school-to-school networks level and especially at the level that matters the most, the classroom. The Leadership from the Middle (LftM) model was conceived by Michael Fullan (2015) and colleagues such as Andrew Hargreaves, but we have adapted it by reducing the number of levels of the whole education system to just three and bringing out the middle layer to each of these levels. To illustrate, we first divide an education system to the System level, the Cluster level and the School level and according to their relative scopes they can alternatively be labelled as the macro level, the meso level and the micro level respectively – also referred to as the 3M layers. Each of these levels is further divided into three layers: the micro, the meso and the macro layers – also referred to as the 3m layers. This division into different levels and layers is adapted from Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) ecological framework that attempted to explain changes in human development. At the school (micro) level, the micro layer would typically be represented by students, the meso by teachers

21  Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model

401

and the macro by school leaders like the principals. At the cluster (meso) level, the micro layer would be represented by lead teachers from individual schools, the meso layer by the networks of schools that teachers form and the macro layer by the cluster superintendents. At the system (macro) level, the micro layer would be represented by cluster superintendents, the meso layer by zonal directors and the macro layer by policymakers. We try to bring out the meso layer of each level because we hypothesise each middle layer to be the highest point of leverage through which we can sustain change at each level and therefore the whole system. At the school or micro level, while school leaders set the tone for teacher experimentation and culture, actual day to day routines, organisational norms, and experiences depend on distributed leadership that gives teachers agency and ownership over the running of their own classrooms. Teachers develop their canonical pedagogies from apprenticing themselves in the context of their own schools and clusters, but at the same time this local apprenticeship allows for the development of a wider repertoire of locally developed and shared pedagogies. Hence the middle layer is the locus of pedagogical experimentation and adaptation as teachers become masters of their localised autonomy (Darling-Hammond and Bransford 2005). The idea of ‘apprenticing leadership’ becomes a central concept in our model of system change because we have a great shortage of teachers who can enact and perform the kind of inquiry-based instruction that we discussed above. Hung (1999) described apprenticeship to be a journey of change in beliefs, contrary to the traditional reference to skills and competencies. No sustainable system change can happen without teacher buy-in and a change in their epistemic mindset. And because change is always a risk, apprenticing themselves can help teachers overcome that obstacle through learning from other teachers who have already embraced the change. This risk cannot be under-estimated as the cultural DNA has been on success in examinations and instructional-school practices have been mechanistically fluent in this craft. At the cluster or meso level, the attention is focused on school-to-school rather than teacher-to-teacher networks and this is because schools need to help other schools with the structural and technological demands of instituting inquiry-based pedagogies. Although Singaporean schools are relatively quite well off from a global point of view, even in Singapore resources will not stretch to provide every child with their own computer or tablet. Alternately, it would be unreasonable to expect all parents and guardians to provide them. Thus, schools need to share resources. And once an ecology of sharing resources among schools in a cluster has been built, many facets of that ecology can be utilised in introducing new changes and innovations or in sustaining and growing those that have already begun. These facets we call ‘carryovers’, as first coined by Ron Adner (2012). Just as technology companies use whatever resources they already have or skills they are already good at to help build the next generation of technology products, school clusters can leverage their existing structural, economic, socio-cultural and epistemic conditions and characteristics to start new or sustain existing innovative changes (Toh et al. 2016). It is because school networks do not have to start from scratch but can lever-

402

A. A. Johannis et al.

age existing socio-technological infrastructure that this can potentially lead to socio-ecological resilience and innovation sustainability. At the system of macro level, system brokers such as Education Technology Officers from MOE are key. The Singaporean education system may be held as an exemplary (albeit small) education system, but there are still misalignments and tensions up and down the different levels of the system. Policy coming down from above and teacher innovations coming up from the ground do not always meet or cohere. What MOE has done well and continues to improve upon is the creation and training of system brokers who understand both policy intent and the experiences of teachers in classrooms. This instance of being able to help along the upward and downward percolation of ideas and innovations is what we call Ecological Leadership, after Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) ecological framework, because it calls upon leaders to transcend their immediate stratum of influence. System brokers have to have the skill set and personal qualities in order to mediate different parts of the system trying to go in different directions and induce some level of coherence. One unfortunate perceived source of misalignment is the division of teachers into the three professional tracks we saw above: the leadership track, the teaching track and the senior specialist track (see Fig. 21.3). These tracks were designed to lay out clear career progressions for teachers according to their strengths or interests, and they are designed such that teachers may choose to cross tracks. Nevertheless, when this classification is layered on top of the local cultural propensity for power distance it created a perception of impermeability. Teachers perceiving themselves as isolated from other tracks create tensions and misalignments of intent and action. It is due to the perceived impermeability of these three tracks that teachers and specialists feel disempowered when they are in tension with personnel on the leadership track. This problem can be mitigated by more and stronger cross lateral relations among teachers on the three tracks. Encouraging more teachers to have experience across multiple tracks will help them build competencies at the micro layer of pedagogy and curriculum while being able to communicate across to the leadership ecology beyond any single track. The alignments that are required across the 3M layers are basically those which would allow teachers to re-contextualise system policies in ways that are meaningful in the classroom. This includes creating system level resources as examples we can point to when mapping curricula with student outcomes at the cluster level. In turn, at the school level, this reconciling of curricula with student outcomes must be implemented with the respective individual school’s mission and vision in mind. In addition, system brokers will help bridge identified resource gaps and facilitate the sharing of expertise across schools according to disciplines. In turn, individual schools will share lessons learnt with other schools in their network. Another alignment would be in the form of system policies and platforms that enable teachers to make sense of the curriculum - where the cluster level will develop mechanisms for greater reach to them through the carryovers that support the socio-technological infrastructure. These mechanisms would be re-contextualised by school leaders working with teacher leaders to implement them in their respective localities.

21  Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model

403

The LftM model is about the interaction among the micro, meso, and macro levels within the system, and it tells us that greater system coherence is obtained when each layer works towards system goals and local needs. It is because all these alignments need to be made that there is a great need for leaders at every level of the system. Nevertheless, while the LftM model helps illustrate the importance of Apprenticing and Ecological Leadership, we still require a description for scaling educational innovations through time. This is because change in an educational system cannot be achieved in a sustainable manner through a linear progression. The Scaling Change through Apprenticising and Ecological Leadership (SCAEL) model we propose shows how system changes must happen organically with respect to local conditions (see Fig. 21.4). Figure 21.4 above shows how scaling has to be an iterative process where the growth in people capacity is accompanied by multiple resources and carryovers that support the innovative change. In order to be ecologically valid, the scaling must account for and deal with things such as teacher communities, school cultures, infrastructural conditions, and of course, the carryovers discussed above. These ‘4C’s’ correspond to the fundamental concepts of software, heartware, hardware and shareware. Additionally, since this iterative process represents iterations in the local ecology, it is at the same time contextualised, probably overlapping and hence probably non-linear. Therefore, comprehensive and sustainable scaling is not a simple process of multiplication, of cutting and pasting technologies or innovations appropriated elsewhere – or indeed even if the change is indigenous in origin. Every context differs. Individual classrooms, departments and schools within a cluster or system represent a localised context. To SCAEL is to localise every change in every locality bearing in mind the three macro, meso and micro levels that enable sustainability. One word reminiscent of this process is ‘Glocalisation’ - a portmanteau of ‘globalisation’ and ‘localisation’. However, since educational change is considered system by system

Fig. 21.4  The SCAEL Model. (Hung et al. 2018)

404

A. A. Johannis et al.

with contextually specific and nuanced needs, we prefer the term ‘Eco-localisation’. Still, while there needs to be brokers and system players who understand both the top and the bottom, by and large the most important part of the entire system is the bottom, that is, the school level. While it is easy to forget, the essence of the macro and meso levels is to support the micro level. Conversely, schools exist because there are students; they do not exist because there is a ministry. Thus, within the 3M levels, the teacher is at the heart of change and scaling is ultimately the most critical at the micro level as supported by the meso and macro level.

21.6  Conclusion In the Singaporean context, when in 1997 the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision was set as a national agenda for change, the ICT masterplan was also introduced. It was implicitly assumed that learning technologies can enable and accelerate the need for pedagogical change. Since the ICT Masterplan was introduced by MOE, their execution was left to the discretion of school leaders. Since then, an increasing number of central policies have been designed to be executed in a decentralised manner by school leaders. This degree of autonomy creates a unique environment that we can call a ‘centralised-decentralised’ system. This centralised-decentralised system has been quite effective as there are accountability systems and broad-based policies at the national level to guide schools, while pedagogical flexibility is encouraged at the local level. Additionally, the National Institute of Education (NIE) as the only teacher-training institute in Singapore, collaborates with MOE and schools to bridge the transfer of ideas up and directives down the line. Hence, power distance is mitigated by deconstructing the traditionally strict hierarchy of decision making in teaching practice. Nevertheless, this is not to say that Singapore’s foray into an era of more educational innovations has not been without its setbacks and hiccups. Since the first ICT Masterplan in 1997, there have been three others introduced in 2003, 2009 and 2015, but we have only seen pockets of documented successes. This presents the stark reality that there is more to educational change and improvement than just rolling out of policies and allowing for more autonomy on the ground. One of the dimensions of change in the SCAEL model is culture; and innovations that are developed in the education system are affected by the dynamic and often complicated interactions among dominant cultures in the school, leadership and ecological factors (Ownston 2003). Cultural obstacles can be mitigated but usually only by actors inside the system who have personal leverage over others in their localised situation. This particular difficulty is shown through evidence from actors in the MOE who function as brokers between innovators in school (Raveendaran et  al. 2017) and other MOE officers and school leaders. These actors had to leverage their structural and relational social capital to negotiate for changes in conditions to enable ICT-­

21  Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model

405

based educational innovations to be sustained. They were able to harness their relational social capital to use non-standard assessment tools that were aligned with the school-based innovations. This creates a virtuous cycle of innovation sustainment. Actors at the MOE also broker connections between multiple levels of the ecology through their structural social capital. In this instance, ties between schools, academic communities and MOE are brokered by MOE officers via their social networks, and this role contributes to the flow of information that initiates school improvement (Raveendaran et al. 2017). Such flows of information and the building of social relations contribute to the culture building effort in schools. As information continues to flow through a social network composed of teachers, middle managers and school leaders, over time they become more tacit and implicit to the individuals engaged in the network. This is part of the culture of a school that influences how innovations diffuse within and across schools. The problem here is that the social capital that is often required to broker connections is unevenly distributed. As the term ‘capital’ itself suggests, some actors have more of it than others, thus access to it across social networks are not equal for all individuals. What breeds familiarity may also breed exclusivity. As such, leaving culture building only to those individuals privileged with these intangible forms of capital may impede educational change efforts by others. In addition, when social relations are perpetuated among individuals who have similar ideologies and practices, it may also lead to resistance to school change for policies such as the ICT Masterplan. It is thereby critical to appreciate the delimitations of social capital and the potential (mis)use of this construct in organizations and schools. School improvement and reform requires a concerted effort at multiple levels of the ecology with a view of the factors that contribute to the SCAEL model. Finally, we recognise that the Singapore school system is now at a point of inflection, where the introduction of the SCAEL framework can prove very useful in helping us set a good balance between centralisation and decentralisation. Though in order to operationalise the SCAEL framework, we will need more concrete strategies that school leaders, teacher leaders and those in the middle can appropriate. From here on, their practices for  change need to be evidence based and usable across the 3M levels. The SCAEL framework is meant to be a ‘way of framing’ change that is relative to its own evolutionary trajectory across the 3M layers. Nevertheless, what the proper balance between centralisation and decentralisation will look like in future is not entirely certain. Macro centralisation and decentralisation forces and its counterbalances must be accompanied by the micro level leadership from the middle that enables the change to occur in directions desired for purposeful learning. The most beneficial balance must be worked out and managed at each given point in time. As Singapore changes culturally and economically, the proper balancing point will also change. There is no universal ideal we can prescribe in advance.

406

A. A. Johannis et al.

References Adner, R. (2012). The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation. New York: Penguin Books. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 37–43). New York: Freeman. Chew, J. (2003). Principal performance appraisal in Singapore. In M. David & C. Cardno (Eds.), Managing teacher appraisal and performance (pp. 29–42). London: Routledge Falmer. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dimmock, C., & Tan, C. Y. (2013). Educational leadership in Singapore: Tight coupling, sustainability, scalability, and succession. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 320–340. Fullan, M. (2015). Leadership from the middle: A system strategy. Education Canada, 55(4), 22–26. Goh, K. S., Chow, K. K., Kang, K. H., Lau, W. M., Lim, S. G., Low, P. Y., & Wee, H. K. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Gopinathan, S. (2015). Singapore Chronicles: Education. Singapore: Straits Times Press & Institute of Policy Studies. Gopinathan, S., Wong, B., & Tang, N. (2008). The evolution of school leadership policy and practice in Singapore: Responses to changing socio-economic and political contexts (insurgents, implementers, innovators). Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40(3), 235–249. Heng, S.  K. (2011, October 13). Speech at the NIE leaders in education programme graduation dinner. Retrieved October 22, 2017, from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/ speech-by-mr-heng-swee-keat%2D%2Dminister-for-education%2D%2Dat-the-nieleaders-in-education-programme-graduation-dinner-on-thursday%2D%2D13-october2011%2D%2Dat-730pm-at-the-regent-singapore-hotel Ho, J.-M., & Koh, T.-S. (2017). Historical development of educational leadership in Singapore. In T.-S. Koh & D. W.-L. Hung (Eds.), Leadership for change: The Singapore schools experience (pp. 29–84). Singapore: World Scientific. Hung, D. (1999). Activity, apprenticeship, and epistemological appropriation: Implications from the writings of Michael Polanyi. Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 193–205. Hung, D., Koh, T. S., Tan, C., Johannis, A. A., Tan, G. H., Chong, H. H., Tan, M. Y., Moo, E., & Toh, Y. (2018). Scaling community, conditions, culture and carryovers through apprenticing and ecological leadership: The SCAEL model. In Diversifying schools: Systemic catalysts for educational innovations in Singapore. Singapore: Springer. Manuscript Submitted for Publication. Koh, T.-S., & Hung, D. W.-L. (2018). Leadership for change in Singapore Schools: An introduction. In T.-S.  Koh & D.  W.-L.  Hung (Eds.), Leadership for change: The Singapore Schools experience (pp. 1–28). Singapore: World Scientific. Ministry of Education. (2016). Education system. Retrieved August 6, 2018, from https://www. moe.gov.sg/education/education-system Ministry of Education. (2019). Career Information. Retrieved January 5, 2019, from https://www. moe.gov.sg/careers/teach/career-information National Library Board. (2016). Vernacular education. Singapore: National Library Board. Retrieved July 26, 2017, from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2016-1003_094744.html. Ng, D. F. S., Nguyen, D. T., Wong, B. K. S., & Choy, W. K. W. (2015). A review of Singapore principals’ leadership qualities, styles, and roles. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 512–533. National Institute of Education.  (2013). Developing school leaders for the nation: Leadership programmes. Singapore: National Institute of Education. Retrieved August 6, 2018, from http://155.69.97.30/docs/default-source/GPL/leadership-programme.pdf?sfvrsn=4

21  Singapore: A Centralised – Decentralised Model

407

Ownston, R. D. (2003). School context, sustainability, and transferability of innovation. In R. B. Kozma & J. Voogt (Eds.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: a global perspective : a report of the second information technology in education study, module 2 (1st ed., pp. 125–161). Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education, c2003. Raveendaran, S., Toh, Y., Hung, D., & Lee, Y.  L. (2017, June). Building adaptive capacity: Transferring social capital within multi-level learning networks. In H.  David (Chair) (Ed.), Establishing adaptive capacity through diffusion of educational innovations: a multiscalar notion of ecosystem resilience (Symposium conducted at the Redesigning Pedagogy International Conference). Singapore: National Institute of Education. Singh, T., Vaswani, K.  R., Ye, A., Mei, R., Qong, R., & Li, J. (1987). The school community. In Ministry of Education (Ed.), Pre-U seminar: Towards excellence in schools: The report (pp. 126–156). Singapore: Ministry of Education. Teo, C.  H. (1997, July 11). Improving school management through school clusters: Speech by Minister for Education, RADM (NS) Teo Chee Hean at the official opening of the new campus of Tanjong Katong Girls’ School. Retrieved October 22, 2017, from https://www.nas.gov.sg/ archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/1997071008/tch19970711s.pdf Teo, C. H. (1998, December 21). Principals – the key leaders in building thinking schools based on strong school-home-community relations: Speech at the Appointment Ceremony for Principals. Teo, C.  H. (2000, January 12). Dynamic school leaders and schools  – making the best use of autonomy. Speech at the Diploma in Educational Administration (DEA) Graduation Dinner. Retrieved October 22, 2017, from http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/2000011201/tch20000112b.pdf Teo, C.  H. (2002, October 22). The Singapore model of educational leadership. Speech at the Leaders in Education Programme Graduation Ceremony. Toh, Y., Hung, W. L. D., Chua, P. M.-H., He, S., & Jamaludin, A. (2016). Pedagogical reforms within a centralised-decentralised system: A Singapore’s perspective to diffuse 21st century learning innovations. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1247–1267. World Bank. (2017). GDP per capita (current US$). Retrieved August 6, 2018, from https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Chapter 22

Comparative Analysis of Central Aspects Olof Johansson and Helene Ärlestig

22.1  Introduction It is well known that schools and their work are highly dependent on and influenced by the societal values, history and political situation in the specific country where they are located (Ärlestig et al. 2016). School agencies and their role are not as well described in research as school districts and the impact of school communities. One reason for this disparity might be the considerable variation between different countries, with respect to the earlier little-studied aspects of school agencies and their role. We can observe similarities in the basic functions of agencies, and their role and work across all chapters on individual countries. They all have democratic structures and state agencies responsible for formulating and taking decisions on legalisation and policy, distribution of resources, training and licensing of teachers and principals, evaluation and inspection, as well as the promotion of research and improvement. However, each country differs with respect to how such operations are structured and conducted. The authors were assigned the task of explaining the structure and conduct of school agencies, but ultimately, the chapter tells us various stories about the same topic. These stories are based on the ways that national structure and culture are developed and understood. The relations, as well as values are important variables that inform what is regarded as well-functioning or requiring change. The impact of politicians and other governing groups, relative to civil servants, varies greatly, at all levels. Modes of conducting communication and the degree of room to manoeuvre take various forms, depending on the issue at hand. The extent to which agencies are trusted and valued often has historical roots, which means that their conduct and O. Johansson (*) · H. Ärlestig Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 H. Ärlestig, O. Johansson (eds.), Educational Authorities and the Schools, Educational Governance Research 13, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4_22

409

410

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

culture is as hard to change as the local schools’ routines and culture. At the same time, the chapter provides good description on the countries’ goals and beliefs regarding how to govern schools. Descriptions reflect the complexity of governance and to the difficulty of assigning power and accountability in a meaningful and effective way. In this concluding chapter, we have highlighted some items that we find interesting in each country, if we divide them in four groups: the Nordic countries, the middle European countries, North America (in this book, they are represented by two states in Canada and three states in the US) and the Commonwealth countries. We hope this will inspire readers to peruse several of the chapters to find out more about the agencies’ aims, functions and interactions. It also offers insights into several theoretical perspectives on governance and the challenges associated with leading large national education systems. The chapter ends with a reflection on the commonalities and differences in the chain of governing between central to local education actors.

22.2  The Nordic Countries It is clear that there is a Nordic dimension focusing on democracy where both the state and the local level plays an important role. In the Icelandic chapter, the authors explicitly refer to the influence of John Dewey’s work on democracy and development of the individual. The link to Dewey is important in terms of providing guidance and structure for developing students, on the basis of their interests and strengths, to become functioning individuals in a democratic society. The chapter on Denmark discusses the purpose of education from a different perspective. It focuses more on the manifest neo-liberal tendencies, in relation to distinctive measurements of student results and policy matters associated with New Public Management and the effects of NPM on the educational sector. In terms of student outcomes, the argument is that international competition in the global marketplace has intensified the demand for measuring student outcomes. The conclusion is based on the development of management by objectives- and outcomes-based accountability. The Swedish chapter also discuss accountability for student results but argues that the accountability models used in Sweden can be characterised as soft. By contrast to the situation in Sweden, the educational climate in Denmark is reported to be increasingly focused on national and international tests and comparisons, and on the demand for evidence-based practices and best practices. In the Finnish chapter, the authors refer to path dependence in educational development. Path dependence refers to conception of events that happened at an earlier point in time as affecting the possible outcomes of a sequence of events occurring at a later point in time. In accordance with path dependence, the authors of the Finnish chapter contend that school education policies are determined by context, and that all schools have their own peculiar local context, which leads their education policy

22  Comparative Analysis of Central Aspects

411

processes to diverse from the original policy intentions. They also discuss how to apply Simola et al.’s (2017) conception of political situations, political possibilities and politicking. Another concept they introduce, in relation to this, is the potential value of using the big picture to identify the opportune moment for political change. In Sweden, there are ambitious national ambitions to increase academic student results, even if the accountability system remains soft. The chapter identifies and presents three different governance paradigms: Old Public Management, New Public Management and New Public Governance (Magnusson 2018). Even if many practitioners trust the agencies, they also encounter detailed regulations and abundant reforms that have contributed to a debate about whether teachers spend too little time on teaching. It is obvious that the various levels above the principal in the institutional hierarchy endeavour to improve and change local schools, without acknowledging how their own culture and structure must improve. The serious ambition to improve results and schools has, at the same time, engendered activities and regulations to meet all objectives and resolve all problems that contribute to excessive work at all levels, rather than national and local priorities. According to the Swedish chapter, the theory of path dependence can also be used to analyse Sweden’s independent schools.The independent schools were established in 1994, but their development has had, according to some political parties a lot of negative effects. This assertion has been confirmed by state commissions, as well as a report from the National Agency for Education. The problem derives from the absence of a political majority, which would not allow altered decision in the parliament. This means that it is more important to safeguard free choice and independent schools, despite the problems they cause. The Norwegian chapter introduces another theory to understand state bureaucratic reorganizations. Part of the authors; analysis relies on gap management, which implies that systems are no longer governed solely by the conditions, norms and formal infra-structure of organisations, but also by societal expectations that emphasise the need to improve education on the basis of standards and goals. There are many similarities among the Nordic countries, which all have a national school law and national curricula. The states strengthen their control over the local providers by introducing detailed and compulsory learning outcome standards and national tests. Below the parliament and government in the hierarchy, one or more national agencies play important roles in the implementation of national policies. In Sweden, there are five national school agencies while Iceland on the other end, has just established its first national educational agency. In all Nordic countries, the most important actors operate at the local level. Municipalities, and semi-public or private institutions are responsible for running the schools and hiring teachers and principals. In summary, this means that legislation is national, but the local level has relatively extensive local discretion to run the schools. Each of the five countries has a different form of school board at the local level, and most of them have political parties represented on the school board. In Denmark, we also find school boards within the schools. To cope with the local influence over education in the Nordic countries, we find that in in Sweden, Finland and Iceland, there are discussions about creating regional offices for national

412

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

authorities. Regional offices aim to create a better control mechanism to govern the day-to-day work in the local schools. However, the basic trend is linked to a discussion on the quality of education, in relation to Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and other international quality indicators. In addition, all Nordic countries exhibit an increased willingness, at the national level, to construct and demand participation for all students in national testing. There is also an initiative to ensure that grades are standardised nationally. Another trend associated with testing is the propensity to describing education in terms of numbers instead of educational qualities. Related to this trend, a discussion has emerged on the progression of children’s learning and the impact of individual teachers. This trend is described as evidence-based policy making. Over the last few years, fixing deficits in education through expansive national teacher improvement programs has emerged as a trend. We are seeing massive programs to develop mathematics and language skills presented to teachers. This can also be linked to falling achievement levels of 15-year-olds on PISA standardized tests.

22.3  The Middle European Countries As a member of the EU, England is identified as a middle European country together with Estonia, France and Germany. In England, the responsibility for the school system rests within the Department for Education, which is a part of the UK government. The secretary of state for education has appointed a national school commissioner, along with regional commissioners, supported by a board of head teachers; the regional commissioners are responsible for supporting school leaders, teachers and governors to help create the best possible educational system for all children. An interesting trend in England is that a large number of schools have been transformed into ‘autonomous academies’ and, in that organisational form, given more freedom and autonomy to head teachers and leaders. Within this new system, head teachers have a crucial responsibility, not only for the performance of their own school, but also as key actors in the effort to impose the system-wide improvement. Consequently, there is a reduction in the powers of local authorities over schools. Since the reform began, a majority of secondary schools and over a quarter of primary schools have become academies. It is interesting to note that these academies are now forming different groups or federations to oversee actions and for improvement purposes. This evolving situation is quite different from the one in Scotland, where they have maintained a dual system, characterised by national guidelines and strong local authorities. However, even in such a system, there is a reported mismatch between formal responsibilities and system leadership. Estonia is also modifying its educational situation; it is transforming from a state with a highly regulated system into one with a growing trust in the professional

22  Comparative Analysis of Central Aspects

413

expertise of educational institutions. In the educational sector, the level of autonomy in decision making is high, and most educational decisions are made at the school level. It is clear that the connection between academic and practical knowledge is important; also important are what might be described as social competencies. The construction of the new democratic state is easily observable in the description of Estonia. France, on the other hand, bears the tradition of a powerful state and administration, with a centralised, hierarchical and standardised educational system that empowers the ministry of education. The main argument for keeping this centralised model is to justify the same standards for school provision at the national level, which maintains the same curriculum and teaching conditions for all students. In other words, in France, legalism is very important and rendered possible by the sharing of legal texts and codes across different levels of administrations on different levels. Germany, as a Federal Republic, assigns virtually all power over education to the 16 states, each of which is referred to as ‘länder’ in German. This means that each ‘länder’ has its own school system and creates the laws and regulations that are valid within that system. In principal, there are 16 different state curricula in German, but there are, naturally, many similarities among the 16 curricula. Each state has a traditional administrative structure, which gives the school leaders a central role. The main tasks of school leaders is to establish an appropriate leadership organisation and focus their and their organizations work on pedagogical issues. The chapter on England discusses two different strands of theory. The first concerns self-improving systems and connects to a discussion of system-wide school improvement. The chapter furnishes a very extensive discussion on the kinds of professional autonomy we can find in England. There are descriptions of the kinds of autonomy: licensed, regulated, conditional, positive conditional, negative conditional, ethical, dependent and, finally, principled autonomy. Applicable to England, as well as to the other middle European countries, we find a theoretical framework related to public policy and the transfer of public policy. Further, there are also, of course, discussions on New Public Management and its effects on education, at the school level and the national level. The continuing development of ‘academies’ in England reflects the overall trend for their improvement, which is expected to continue for years to come. Estonia is moving in another direction, towards an output-oriented and evidence-based decision-­making approach to school governance and education policy. In combination with this, there is still a theory around building the right school system and how that system should be controlled and tested. The French education system has become more open to global influence but is still a strongly defensive attitude towards traditions. In 2017, the new minister of education declared himself open to some change and arguing in favour of ‘trusting the educational system’, he indicated his desire to give some autonomy to the educators. There is a trend to create new institutions intended to control and support improvement. The current (as of 2019) minister intends to merge bodies of i­ nspection

414

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

and create a national agency for evaluation but is confronting resistance among different stakeholders. Germany has undergone a period of decentralisation and with all decentralisation comes control of education activities. In connection with this, there is a discussion of schools with low results and theories of underperforming schools. There are additional discussions on the effects of modern administration systems and their tendency to create more work, rather than less, for administrative personal. In the chapter on Scotland, there is a discussion of the attainment gap between pupils from affluent and poorer backgrounds. Scotland has also been descending in PISA rankings. To address this problem, the policy language has changed to emphasise about excellence and equity. The theory behind this change, which concerns New Public Management and the rhetoric for change, is clear, but implementing it is complex and messy and the discussion probes the question of whether it will close the attainment gap?

22.4  The North American States – Canada and the US The North American perspective has dominated research on schools for many decades. Its global influence is tremendous, with many prominent and productive researchers in educational leadership located there. Although it is just two countries (Canada and U.S.), the work in the individual provinces and states differ a lot within the countries, both in relation to prerequisites and governance; which makes for an interesting comparison, not only in relation to other countries, but also in relation to each other. Canada is known to have a strong educational system and a highly diverse student population. In both Canadian chapters (Alberta and Ontario), the authors describe highly decentralised change, driven by shifting understanding of what is important to learn in a knowledge economy, rather than how to sustain low-­ performing schools. Even if they, like other countries, confront such challenges as meeting the needs of diverse students (including the most marginalised groups, such as first nation and the LGBTQ community), rely on building materials like quality instruction and curriculum; construction principles, expressed as values and objectives, and support, in the form of standards, programs and policy documents shape expectations. The system requires high competence and school leaders are required to hold a master’s degree and a leadership certificate. The Canadian government frames the prevailing narrative through visions, funding, policy and monitoring, but it is, at the same time, necessary for the various actors to constitute, interpret and question the existing structure. It works like an ‘echo chamber’, where the narrative is repeated and slightly altered. It builds on a clear structure and confronts the risk that, if the government voice is too strong, it may diminish plurality and hide conflicting interests. In a U.S context, reform, change and competition are central ingredients. Even if there is a central narrative, such a huge country, with larger discrepancies in value

22  Comparative Analysis of Central Aspects

415

systems and socioeconomic situations naturally consists of many different narratives, which generate debates about ideas and the best way forward. The U.S. school system is highly decentralised, and the three states described in this book have, respectively, chosen slightly different approaches. The federal influence has, over time, been crucial, in terms of reforms like No child left behind, Every Student Succeeds Act and Race to the top. The battle of ideas has produced effects that also create challenges. The report A Nation at Risk engendered a focus on student achievement through standardised test scores. It also encouraged business-influenced initiatives. In California, they have chosen a way to bolster three aspects of schooling: (1) student performance as measured by tests; (2) equity; and (3) general improvement. Its intent is to empower local entities (districts and schools) to create their own accountability plans, which they can share with others throughout the state, creating a large-scale learning community. This includes a changed role for principals. Overall, Minnesota has high achievement, except among students of colour. The state works with a centralised accountability system, legalisation and by encouraging bottom-up initiatives and voluntary change. The authors describes a swing between sets of value preferences, one of which will receive more dedicated resources. Three key tensions have repeatedly emerged in the United States policy landscape: (1) choosing between equity and efficiency; (2) varying reliance on centralised versus decentralised structures; and (3) switching between ‘civic’ and market-­ driven policy levers. An underlying issue related to handling tensions involves disparate perspectives about founding and using resources. Depending on perspective, economic arguments invariably mean that money will be spent differently. Equity requires a distribution of resources, while efficiency refers to a focus on making the best use of existing resources and cutting costs. As explained in the South Carolina chapter, the tension between policy and practice, as well as between ideas, can be viewed as a dilemma; this works better arguing over whether bad decision-making or implementation problems are at play. South Carolina has, according to the authors, a traditional political structure. As in Minnesota, the students from racially and low-income areas have lower academic results than other students. South Carolina is a state where high-stakes testing plays an important role in the policy documents. This places a larger focus on communication and collaboration. Depending on political aims, policy, instrument, practitioner capabilities and policy environment, there will be different results. Depending on the level of participation, in relation to above aspects, the changes will either be successful or not. If the communication and possibilities associated with co-constructing how and why a change is introduced are lacking, there will not be any significant changes, in the classroom or in student learning. Instead, the distrust between the different actors will probably increase. The variation between states shows that the challenges must be viewed from several perspectives. Depending on the value assigned to equity, efficiency and choice, there are distinctive pathways to move forward. The extent to which testing, resources, aim of reforms and change initiatives are used and communicated affect

416

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

the work in schools and classrooms. Strong structures can be a powerful tool if they open up channels for co-construction and a formative process. Otherwise, they may engender an intensified conflict related to the battle of ideas, marginalised groups and distrust among actors.

22.5  The Commonwealth Countries The countries in this section are spread across the world geographically but share the common trait of being a part of the commonwealth. Two of the countries represented are in Africa (Kenya and South Africa), and the others are Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. This means that the contexts of these countries, in terms of societal prerequisites, culture and structure differ considerably. The African countries confront challenges related to the recent changes in economy and democratization. Disparities in socioeconomic status and school quality varies within the countries. Both countries have been highly centralised with ongoing attempts to change and decentralise decisions and initiatives. In Kenya, there have been major reforms related to curricula and human resources to increase and promote literacy. Discussions about top-down or bottom-up perspectives becomes relevant, and inform which perspectives are brought forward and become visible. A top-down perspective emphasises the extent to which centralised policymaking attempts and implementation are concerned with making the lower levels act as intended, mainly by structures and standardization; by contrast, a bottom-up perspective focuses on relations and whether there are issues overseen by the policymakers (Paudel 2009). There is a risk associated with regarding policy as the only answer, as this perspective leaves no room for the criticism which contributes to a normative process of resolving what are seen as problems at lower levels (Colebatch 2006). In a top-down perspective, control becomes crucial, while in the bottom-up perspective, individuals’ ways of interpreting and acting close to the community are the driving force. In the latter case, these individuals become “street level bureaucrats” (Lipsky 2010). Without acknowledgment of what actors at the school level do and think, their views remain unrecognised and attempts to effect change are pursued outside the formal government structure. In South Africa, the anti- apartheid movement, as well as the national party, argued for decentralised education, with more community control, rather than state control, as a necessity to create equal education for all students. In the African countries, both top-down and bottom up approaches are visible. In the case of Kenya, it is clearly a challenge, in which school agencies are heavily implicated, to change the culture at both the policy level and the local level. The normal process theory (NPT) points to four process mechanisms: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring (May and Finch 2009). To move forward, vision, as well as a commonly accepted structure at all levels, is important. This requires a focus on the agencies’ own values, as interpretations and actions are important to create the necessary dialogue with teachers and principals

22  Comparative Analysis of Central Aspects

417

concerning their possibilities and challenges instead of approaching the situations with the aim to change schools, but without having knowledge of their context and capacity. Singapore describe its educational system as ‘leading from the middle’, which is a way of describing the mix between centralisation and decentralisation. A microsystem, mesosystem, and a macrosystem, with system responsible leaders, and their own structures and culture, can be used to visualise the various levels of work and hierarchical importance. There must also to be carryovers between levels. Each level should build a system of learning within that level: at the micro level, teachers learn together; on the meso level, schools learn from each other and at the macro level politicians and civil servants discuss how their work could offer better support. The agency’s role is to make it possible for teachers’ and policymakers’ perceptions to interact and make sense. The agency’s challenge is to shift focus from a performative pedagogy to an inquiry-based pedagogy, which is necessary to meet the uncertain, multicultural competitiveness that dominates the world. The Australian agency’s aim is to promote equity and excellence. Overall, the structure and role of the agency has not changed. Within the multiple external contexts, imposed or otherwise, in which schools exist, local school governance arrangements vary greatly (Anderson 2006). Especially in Catholic and independent governance arrangements, there is no interest in parent, teacher and student voices. The Australian education system struggles with the tension between state and federal governance. Australia has actors on several levels, influencing schools directly and indirectly. Funding for government schools and supplemental funding for other schools serve to exemplify the government’s direct influence. In addition to this direct influence, the federal department of teaching and learning, state and territory departments, Catholic Dioceses and other systems, as well as local governance for each school, affect what goes on in classrooms. Altogether, it makes for a complex interplay of actors that directly or indirectly affect local schools. New Zealand is a relatively sparsely populated country. The authors describe a decentralised system with self-managing schools. In 1989, a new framework, based on new public management, was introduced and it aimed to steer from a distance. The schools became responsible for their founding, and parents were involved in make schools more responsive. School choice was supposed to contribute to competitiveness and, at the next step, effectiveness. The ministry of education became smaller, focusing on policy and left with few operational responsibilities. To separate policy and operation was regarded as a ‘tight-loose-tight’ model: the national policy and outcomes were specified (tight); the schools could decide how to reach them, depending on context (loose); and the schools needed to report on the results, in relation to the policy (tight). Even if this can be seen as a good model, there are challenges in making a global comparison, insufficient resourcing and work overload. There is an ambition in New Zealand’s government to devise a 30-year strategic approach, reliant on engagement from a broad group of people, including students, teachers, principals, parents, businesses, community organisers and the public. This

418

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

approach derives from an experience of reforms that have either been rapidly introduced or changed before they have taken effect. One aim is ‘to combat problems of fragmentation and isolation’ (Whitcombe 2008). The chapters show how context, as well as history and recent changes in culture and structure, influence the local schools. Equity, excellence, democracy, multiculturalism, uncertainty and competition are challenges for the school sector in all countries. However, different prerequisites, challenges and possibilities are created by the specific aspects that are regarded as problematic, as well as the construction of leadership and governance. The middle tier is regarded as the solution, or as actors who act top-down, without creating the right prerequisites to learn and grow. Often, the schools in the most challenging contexts require support from the middle tier. It is necessary that actors in  local communities, such as school leaders and teachers who strive for excellence and equity, are supported and brought forward. Despite differences in the extent to which democratic structures and socioeconomic prerequisites affect schools, the middle tier’s ability to work with both top-down and bottom-up perspectives, through communication and cooperation, seems to be the most crucial task.

22.6  Concluding Reflection The challenge that emerges very clearly in this book is that all states (in the book) have the same aim for education - to promote equity and excellence. Different countries and authors may phrase this aim in different ways: some focus on the countries’ own methods for improvement, while others look internationally, and compare their own results with international rankings. There are also rankings within countries presented; in some case, this is aimed at identifying the best schools, and in other cases, the most problematic schools. It is also obvious that there is a strong link between the socioeconomic structure of the community or area close to the local school and the school results. The words that used to fight this unequal relation are equity, equality and equal opportunity. All countries struggle with differences in how students’ class and economic situations affect their academic results; one theory is that disparities can be redressed in schools that have high quality in teaching. The ways that states and municipalities distribute resources and competence are often challenged by a widely accepted belief that parents and children should have right to choose any school of their preference. It also becomes clear that the common purpose of all education systems, of equity and good learning conditions for every child, is not easy to achieve. Almost all states continue to seek a solution to the problem and, depending on the society’s historic roots, present structure and political culture, different resolutions are proposed. One of the most common suggested answers to the problem is to start discussing the placement of the power over different types of decisions. What must be decided at state level, common to all? What can be decentralised to the regional

22  Comparative Analysis of Central Aspects

419

level? Finally, what kind of decisions are best taken at the school level? Discussion about decentralisation and centralisation of decision-making power becomes very central in all states. All states have different types of national policies in the education field. For example, state school laws and regulations frame what is happening in the schools. These laws give directions and, in some cases, describe mandatory actions of actors at lower levels. Interestingly, the laws almost never link economic resources and quality measures, in relation to student learning. The states sometimes make a connection between curriculums and timetables, which indicate how many hours of mathematics a child in grade 3 shall typically have in their schedule. Quality is determined by different forms of state and local inspections, but also by the choices of school parents and children. Parental knowledge or attitudes towards a school’s quality are important in terms of the number of students that choose various different schools. Taken together, the empty spaces between the different agents in the decision-­ making chain can be tighter. How do we get all actors, from government down to the classroom, to understand and prioritise the basic purpose of the state, which is to give all school children an education characterised by equality and the provision of good knowledge for every child? To fill the empty spaces between the actors in the governing chain is a main challenge. As we mentioned before, the chapters show how context, as well as history and recent changes in culture and structure, influence the local schools. Equity, equality, excellence, democracy, multiculturalism, uncertainty and competition are challenges for the school sector in all countries. A new challenge for policymakers is that today’s societies are open, transparent and have new channels of information, like social media that, many times, clearly describes societal challenges and demands solutions. In that situation, it is not always easy to understand that are no simply and quick solutions to many of the complex problems confronting our modern societies. One of the most common techniques for governing in the latest decades has been New Public Management. The basis of that form of governance, is that agents at different levels must be responsible for their actions and their part of the governing chain. An often-used concept is accountability, which points at looking for deficits connected to a function, person or a specific issue. This is a perspective that fails to acknowledge the impact of a broader system. Instead, external actors try to solve a specific problem on what is often a lower hierarchical level that the one where they have identified insufficient result. Accountability, without supporting leadership from above, is difficult to practice. Therefore, we have lately seen a development in the form of a new combination of old concepts: leadership, trust, and competence, in combination with accountability. The concepts create a model in which leadership is exercised, along with trust in the subordinate. But the trust is not blind; it is built on the fact that the leader believes that the subordinate has the necessary skills and competence to fulfil the task given in accordance with the chain of governance. This way of thinking allows for a close and communicative leadership, where each level is authorised to solve its problems with support from the level above. If the subordinate at the control point shows

420

O. Johansson and H. Ärlestig

progress in the given task, the leadership can offer more freedom and room to manoeuvre. However, if the subordinate is unable to report progress, then the leaders at the level above must clarify what is expected to change, in relation to a future date, when the subordinate must be accountable for the given trust. This form of governing, based on trust, competencies and accountability, is connected to another recent trend: professionalism. All agents must be professionals, which means that they need the right competence, to know what is necessary on their own level and how to interact with actors on other levels to reach excellence. The problem is not that a complex governing system consists of various views and values for explanation grounds; that should actually be seen as a strength. The challenge is to find good ways to communicate and interact, so that all actors feel included in both problem formulation, resolution and practice. This requires leadership strategies and knowledge at all levels and ways to communicate before decisions so every actor in the governing chain fell responsible for the intended outcomes. This is especially important in the work needed to secure the purpose of equal education for all students.

References Anderson, M. (2006). Being a school councillor in a government secondary college in Victoria: Constructions of role and meaning. Doctor of Education thesis, The University of Melbourne. Ärlestig, H., Day, C., & Johansson, O. (2016). A decade of research on school principals: Cases from 24 countries. Dordrecht: Springer. Colebatch, H. K. (2006). Beyond the policy cycle. The policy process in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). New York: Sage. Magnusson, E.  M. (2018). Vad händer i själva verket? Om styrning och handlingsutrymme i Skolverket under åren 1991–2014. [What happens in reality. About Governance and Room to Maneuver in the Swedish National Agency for Education 1991–2014, in Swedish. Thesis. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet. May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535–554. Paudel, N. R. (2009). A critical account of policy implementation theories: Status and reconsideration. Nepalese Journal of Public Policy and Governance, xxv(2), 36–54. Simola, H., Kauko, J., Varjo, J., Kalalahti, M., & Sahlström, F. (2017). Dynamics in education politics. Understanding and explaining the Finnish case. Oxon/New York: Routledge. Whitcombe, J. (2008). Contributions and challenges of ‘new public management’: New Zealand since 1984. Policy Quarterly, 4(3), 7–13. https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/4259/3760