School autonomy, leadership and learning: a reconceptualisation

Контрольная работа

По дисциплине «Иностранный язык в профессиональной сфере»

(1 курс, 2 семестр, направление 523713 Педагогическое образование

программаМенеджмент в образовании,

заочная форма обучения)

 

Составитель:

к.ф.н., доц. Хохлова Н.В.

 

Контрольная работа выполняется обучающимися, имеющими опыт изучения английского языка, и нацелена на совершенствование их умений в понимании устной и письменной речи, расширение словарного запаса, тематически связанного со сферой профессиональной деятельности, а также на повторение грамматических конструкций и словообразовательных моделей английского языка.

Контрольная работа выполняется в тетради в клетку (12–18 листов), на обложке тетради размещается титульный лист, первая страница остается незаполненной (там будет размещен отзыв преподавателя после проверки контрольной работы).

Задания выполняются в любом порядке, каждое задание должно иметь тот же номер, что и в контрольной работе, и включать формулировку самого задания с ответом на него.

NB! Контрольная работа оформляется в РУКОПИСНОМ виде, обязательно соблюдение полей и межстрочного интервала (запись не в каждой строке).

Контрольная работа основана на работе с аутентичными текстами, размещенными в свободном доступе во всемирной сети Интернет на сайте http://www.emeraldinsight.com/. К изучению предлагается текст научной статьи, посвященный проблеме школьного самоуправления.

Все организационные и собственно лингвистические вопросы, возникающие при выполнении контрольной работы, можно задавать по электронной почте n.khokhlova@narfu.ru.

Текст статьи доступен по ссылке:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJEM-08-2015-0108

School autonomy, leadership and learning: a reconceptualisation

Author(s):

Yin Cheong Cheng (Department of Education Policy and Leadership, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong Kong)

Abstract:

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for reconceptualising research on school autonomy to redress the limitations of traditional research, strengthen the conceptual links between school autonomy and learning outcomes and offer a range of new strategies for studying the interplay of school autonomy, leadership and learning.

Design/methodology/approach

– Based on a review of international studies and the findings of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS), the conceptual limitations of and gaps in traditional research on school autonomy in relation to leadership and learning are discussed, and their implications for the development of a new framework are outlined.

Findings

– The conceptual limitations of traditional research on school autonomy are as follows: internal school autonomy is insufficiently differentiated; too little attention is paid to cultural autonomy and internal structural autonomy at individual and group levels; autonomy is measured only as perceived by principals, with no attention to the perspectives of other key stakeholders; and conceptual links between school autonomy and learning outcomes are missing, leading to inconsistent findings on the effects of school autonomy on student learning. To redress these limitations, a new framework for research is developed. School autonomy is reconceptualised as a combination of functional autonomy, structural autonomy and cultural autonomy. Leadership is also reconceptualised by categorising three types of leadership activity: leadership for functional initiatives, leadership for structural initiatives and leadership for cultural initiatives. This categorisation may help to strengthen conceptions of the relevance of leadership to autonomy and performance in future research.

Research limitations/implications

– A typology of research strategies is developed to broaden the possibilities for implementing the reconceptualisation framework. A single-component strategy, a two-component strategy, an interaction strategy and a holistic case-study strategy are presented. Depending on the research purposes and the available resources, one or a combination of these strategies can be used to conceptualise the study of school autonomy, leadership and performance.

Originality/value

– The new ideas and perspectives associated with the reconceptualisation framework will contribute to future research in this area on an international scale. Future PISA, TALIS and similar studies will also benefit from this reconceptualisation.

Keywords:

Leadership, Self-management, School autonomy, Paradigm shift in education, Twenty-first century learning, School-based management

Publisher:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright:

© Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2016

Published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

 

In the last two decades, numerous education reforms have been initiated worldwide (Wang, 2013; Zajda, 2015). Increased school autonomy is one of the major reforms, affecting school-based management, site-based decision making, site-based budgeting, schools’ self-management, local school management, etc. School autonomy is widely regarded as an important condition for the improvement of school practices to meet the changing expectations of stakeholders and the increasing demand for high-quality education in the modern era. Schools with greater autonomy are believed to adapt more quickly to changing educational circumstances, and to have sufficient capacity and self-ownership to make curricular and pedagogical changes that enhance students’ learning (Abu-Duhou, 1999; Caldwell and Spinks, 2013; Cheng, 1996). Unfortunately, however, the cross-cultural validity of this assumption has not yet been confirmed, due to a lack of strong international evidence (Grattan Institute, 2013; Hanushek et al., 2013; Gorard, 2009; National Audit Office (UK), 2010).

Following a comprehensive review, the Grattan Institute (2013, p. 25) reported that: the findings of both within-country and cross-country quantitative research at a broad level indicate that the direct gain in school performance produced by increasing autonomy is relatively small; and the results of numerous within-country studies of the effects of different levels of school autonomy are inconsistent, making it difficult to generalise about the relationship between school autonomy and performance at a national level. In addition, international investigation has yielded inconsistent and unclear findings on the influence of autonomy on school performance and student learning across countries. The influence of school autonomy has been found to be contingent on the nature and level of autonomy, the school’s existing accountability structures and the school’s level of development (e.g. PISA in Focus, 2011; Hanushek et al., 2013). Almost no cross-national research has been conducted on the mediating effect of principals’ and teachers’ leadership roles on the use of increased school autonomy to enhance learning (Day et al., 2009; Hallinger and Heck, 2010; Louis et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2008, 2009; Walters et al., 2003).

In the last two decades, measures to increase school autonomy have been implemented to various degrees in many countries and regions, such as Australia, Canada, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Singapore and the UK. In addition, new initiatives have been developed to enhance school performance, particularly students’ learning outcomes, in the twenty-first century educational environment (Griffin et al., 2012; Cheng, 2015a; Salas-Pilco, 2013). However, these efforts have been impeded by the lack of a framework for identifying gaps and weaknesses in previous research and redressing these limitations by comprehensively conceptualising the complicated interplay between school autonomy, leadership and learning initiatives.

The aims of this paper are to review the gaps in the existing research and develop a theoretical framework for reconceptualising research on the influence of school autonomy on leadership and performance. This framework is expected to contribute to research and policy discussion concerning education reforms worldwide. Reconceptualising the interplay between school leadership, functional, structural and cultural aspects of school autonomy (OECD-PISA, 2012; PISA in Focus, 2011; Cheng and Mok, 2007), accountability structures (PISA in Focus, 2011; Gawlik, 2012; Figlio and Loeb, 2011; Woessmann et al., 2009) and other contextual factors (e.g. school development stage) in relation to curriculum and learning may provide valuable insights into school leadership for researchers, practitioners and other professionals, particularly in areas such as distributed leadership (Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2004), transformational leadership (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006), collaborative leadership (Hallinger and Heck, 2010) and leadership for learning (Louis et al., 2010; MacBeath and Cheng, 2008; Robinson et al., 2008).

In this paper, the findings of international projects such as the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS) are used to investigate the limitations of and gaps in previous research on school autonomy. Next, the implications of these weaknesses for the conceptualisation of new research at both local and international level are discussed. To provide comprehensive mechanisms for redressing the limitations of traditional research and investigating the complicated relationships under study, a novel framework is proposed for reconceptualising school autonomy and its connections with leadership and learning initiatives in the light of national policies and schools’ underlying characteristics. It is hoped that this framework will contribute to the development of research in this important area.

Conceptual limitations

Various efforts to increase school autonomy have been made around the world since the late 1980s. However, the common aim of these movements is to decentralise authority by relocating power structures from central or regional offices to school sites to enable school stakeholders to make their own decisions about resource use and school operations in a rapidly changing academic environment (e.g. Caldwell and Spinks, 1992, 1998; Cheng, 1996; Fullan and Watson, 2000; Mohrman et al., 1994; US General Accounting Office, 1995). The strength of a school’s autonomy is often reflected by the extent to which school people have the authority to make decisions about resource allocation and school operations.

The findings of the OECD-PISA (2012) and OECD-TALIS (2013) suggest that there are four major areas in which school autonomy can be achieved: staffing, budgeting, student policies and curriculum and assessment (instructional policies). In each area, a school’s authority to make decisions may vary. The resulting levels of authority can be classified as follows: school authority (only “principals and/or teachers”, representing full school autonomy), mixed authority (“principals and/or teachers” and “regional and/or national education authority” or “school governing board”, representing partial school autonomy) and external authority (only “regional and/or national education authority”, i.e. no school autonomy). Schools in different education systems are often given different levels of autonomy in each area of decision making, and the extent to which this autonomy is used by schools may also vary within education systems. Some schools report an extensive use of internal autonomy, whereas others report little or no use of their autonomy (PISA in Focus, 2011; Grattan Institute, 2013; Cheng and Mok, 2007).

As reviewed by the Grattan Institute (2013), a wide range of international studies have shown that the direct gain produced by increasing autonomy is relatively small, and that the level of autonomy given to a country’s schools is not consistent with how well they perform internationally. For example, the 2010 PISA results indicated only a “weak correlation between PISA scores and level of autonomy”[1]. Higher-performing countries were found to display “levels of autonomy ranging from high (Hong Kong and Shanghai), to low (Finland and Canada) and anywhere in between. Korea and Australia have similar levels of autonomy, but Korea considerably outperforms Australia in PISA tests” (p. 26). The international evidence for the influence of school autonomy on student achievement at national level is inconclusive.

Using data from four waves of international PISA tests between 2000 and 2009, Hanushek et al. (2013) found that school autonomy affects student achievement negatively in developing and low-performing countries but positively in developed and high-performing countries. However, the effects of school autonomy on student achievement are less consistent when the specific level of development of a national system is taken into account.

Different types of school autonomy may relate differently to PISA performance. The 2009 and 2012 PISA results showed that schools with more autonomy over curriculum and assessment tend to have higher PISA scores, but that greater autonomy in managing resources is unrelated to the overall PISA performance of the school system. The effects of school autonomy on PISA performance appear to be sensitive to the type of autonomy given and used. Therefore, researchers may need to differentiate between types of autonomy.

In the PISA and TALIS, the extent of schools’ authority to make decisions in each functional area was reported only by principals. However, principals’ experiences of having and using autonomy may not fully reflect those of teachers and other stakeholders within a school. Inferences drawn from a single source of data (i.e. principals) cannot represent the complexity of school autonomy in practice, which involves multiple stakeholders and actors. In future, researchers should collect data from multiple stakeholders, such as principals, senior teachers, teachers, students, parents, school managers and education officers. In particular, researchers analysing the PISA and the TALIS have often failed to ask whether internal autonomy is used effectively to improve school performance at the organisational, group and individual levels. For example, few findings have been obtained on the uses of individual autonomy or group autonomy on the frontline to make decisions or develop initiatives to promote educational innovation or improvement.

Given the above limitations, studies in this area often lack conceptual links between internal autonomy at different levels of school operations and pedagogical improvements or innovations. Therefore, little insight can be gained from the existing research into the use of internal autonomy for educational improvement and innovation. The limited and subjective nature of principals’ reports on school autonomy and these missing conceptual links may help to explain the weak relationship observed between school autonomy and student learning in the PISA. As noted by the Grattan Institute (2013), “school autonomy is more complex than is often portrayed. It is not the case that a school simply has autonomy or does not. Schools have different levels of autonomy over different aspects of decision making. This complexity is one reason research findings vary on the impact of school autonomy on student performance” (p. 24).

What implications do the above limitations and inconsistencies have for the reconceptualisation of research on school autonomy and its connections with leadership and learning in the context of education reforms?

Reconceptualisation framework

The conceptual limitations of traditional research on school autonomy and their implications are summarised in Table I. A comprehensive framework for reconceptualising research in this field is proposed and illustrated in Figure 1. The implications and the framework are discussed together in the subsequent paragraphs.