School-autonomy reconceptualisation

As shown in Figure 1, the three major categories of functional autonomy, structural autonomy and cultural autonomy can be used to comprehensively reconceptualise the complexities of school autonomy and its effects on leadership, performance and student learning in practice.

Functional autonomy

Decision making in some key functional areas is often part of a school’s daily practices. As illustrated by the OECD-PISA (2012) and the OECD-TALIS (2013), schools may have autonomy in different functional areas of school practice and performance, such as staffing, budgeting, student policies and curriculum and assessment (instructional policies). Central or regional offices may give schools different levels of authority to make decisions in different functional areas. For example, schools in some education systems may have more autonomy over curriculum and assessment, while schools in other education systems have more autonomy over staffing and budgeting. Even schools within the same education system may differ in their autonomy in different functional areas, depending on national or regional policies, historical background and school contexts. It would be interesting to explore the relationships between variation in school autonomy across the above functional areas and indicators of school performance or student learning within and/or across education systems.

The key findings of the 2009 PISA on the relationship between functional autonomy and student performance have been summarised as follows (PISA in Focus, 2011): “the greater the number of schools that have the responsibility to define and elaborate their curricula and assessment, the better the performance of the entire school system”; “In contrast, there is no clear relationship between autonomy in resources allocation and performance”; and “the relationship between the performance of individual schools and their level of autonomy in allocating resources is positive in some countries and negative in others” (p. 2).

Structural autonomy

In a given education system, the authority to make decisions on educational matters is often structured by a distinction between external authorities (such as national offices, regional/district offices and school boards) and internal school authorities (such as schools/organisations, school-related groups and individual members). The term “structural autonomy” describes a school’s authority to make decisions at a certain structural level. For example, regional autonomy and school autonomy are the manifestations of structural autonomy at the regional and school-site levels.

Most previous studies of school autonomy have emphasised the decentralisation of external structural authority by its relocation from external sources to school sites. But people often ignore if the internal structural authority resulting from this decentralisation is further decentralised and differentiated into organisational authority, group authority and individual authority to support frontline operations and enhance performance. As previously mentioned, the failure to differentiate between these three forms of internal structural autonomy may limit understanding of the potential of school autonomy to enhance the performance and development of a school at its organisational, group and individual levels.

According to Cheung and Cheng (1996) and Cheng and Cheung (2003), the provision of autonomy at the school-site level is not sufficient to ensure that individual members and working groups can successfully fulfil their responsibilities, innovate and make improvements. An effectively self-managing school with adequate autonomy is a multi-level system of self-management comprising not only a self-managing organisation but self-managing individual members and groups that perform cycles of planning, performing, monitoring, evaluation and reflection/analysis to continuously improve and develop learning, as shown in Figure 2. Without understanding the relationship between multi-level self-management and autonomy, it is difficult to determine: how individual staff and working groups can use their autonomy to learn, develop, make pedagogical innovations and improve student learning; or how leadership can facilitate the development of a self-management culture and self-management practices and enhance staff capacity at the organisational, group and individual levels.

Cultural autonomy

The successful implementation of educational reform at the school level depends not only on functional and structural changes but also on cultural changes (Schein, 2010). Researchers investigating the nature, implementation and management of school autonomy should consider its cultural dimensions as well as its functional and structural components. For example, the findings of the OECD-PISA (2012) (Table IV.1.15) suggest that the relationship between school autonomy and performance is affected by the presence of a culture of collaboration between teachers and principals in school management. In school systems in which principals report smaller teacher participation in school management, a student who attends a school with greater autonomy over resource allocation can expect to score 17 fewer points in mathematics than a student who attends a school with less autonomy over resource allocation. However, in school systems in which principals report greater teacher participation in school management, students who attend schools with more autonomy score nine points higher in mathematics than students at schools with less autonomy.

According to Cheng (1993, 1996), theories of education and school management confirm that school-based management with internal autonomy is completely different from external control management, in which the authority for decision making lies with external agents (Table II). Based on the principles of equifinality, decentralisation, self-managing systems and human initiative, the culture and key characteristics of school-based management can be mapped in terms of the school’s mission and role, the nature of the school’s activities, the organisation of the school, the school’s decision-making style, the school’s use of resources, the roles of administrators, teachers and parents, human relations and indices of effectiveness[2]. Cultural autonomy is defined here as the extent to which a school’s internal cultural profile and operational characteristics are in line with the theory and culture of school-based management.

Using a sample of 241 aided secondary schools and 1,092 teachers in Hong Kong, Cheng (1996, Ch. 4) found that the strength of a school’s cultural autonomy towards school-based management is positively related to teachers’ self-efficacy, sense of community and professional interest, the principal’s leadership activities (such as human leadership, structural leadership, political leadership, cultural leadership and educational leadership), principal-teacher relationships, teachers’ participation in decision making, the clarity of school management and accountability, the school’s organisational effectiveness and the strength of the school’s organisational culture. However, the extent of a school’s cultural autonomy is negatively related to the school’s need for improvement and hierarchy of authority.

In a study of 31 secondary schools, 1,119 teachers and 7,063 students in Hong Kong, Cheng and Mok (2007, 2008)found that: schools with greater cultural autonomy towards school-based management more vigorously implement educational paradigm shifts; and either the strength of cultural autonomy towards school-based management or the magnitude of a paradigm shift in education is positively related to teachers’ student-centred teaching, and students’ positive learning attitudes, application of various learning methods, learning effectiveness, multiple thinking in learning and satisfaction with various aspects of school life.

It is clear from the above discussion that cultural autonomy is an important component of school autonomy, as it concerns the visions, beliefs, values and principles used to implement functional and structural autonomy to make practical improvements and pedagogical innovations and pursue organisational development. In line with the principles of school-based management (Table II), one of the key indicators of a school’s cultural autonomy (Figure 1) is individual, group and organisational self-management that promotes continuous development and learning, collaboration and partnership and adaptability and flexibility.

Implications

As summarised in Table I, the limitations of traditional research can be redressed by reconceptualising school autonomy as differentiated into three categories: functional, structural and cultural autonomy. Structural autonomy can be further differentiated by distinguishing external structural authority for decision making from internal structural authority for decision making. To deepen the understanding of the relationship between autonomy and school performance at various levels of school operations, internal structural autonomy can be divided into three categories: organisational autonomy, group autonomy and individual autonomy. Given the complexity of school autonomy in practice, researchers should gather data from multiple school actors and stakeholders, who hold diverse perspectives about autonomy, leadership and performance. Once the concept of school autonomy has been refined, the relationship between school autonomy and performance can be more accurately conceptualised.

How does the interaction of functional, structural and cultural forms of autonomy influence various aspects of school development, innovation and performance? Should one or more of these three types of autonomy be prioritised to enhance educational conditions, pedagogical performance and student learning? What conditions are required for a school to gain not only functional and structural autonomy but cultural autonomy? How might such a comprehensive autonomy be achieved? These questions provide useful guidance for the reconceptualisation of school autonomy.