Decentralisation of education management and school leadership: the effects of public management reform ideologies

Education reformers of the mid-1970s introduced the idea that schools would work better if the number of formal restrictions in the management process was reduced. Decentralisation and deregulation of management would decrease the “workload” of the public sector as it eliminated unnecessary layers at the middle management level. The reduction of state control promoted the idea of self-government in schools. It is argued that decentralization reforms allow schools to better respond to the needs of students and improve the efficiency of the school performance (e.g., Bray, 1996; Welsh and McGinn, 1999; Beare, 2001; Hanushek et al., 2007; Woessmann et al., 2009). Conceptually, school autonomy should go hand in hand with local participation. Indeed, historically, the principle of autonomous school management is strongly linked to the demand for educational freedom by local stakeholders (school managers, parents, etc.). However, since the 1980s in Europe, these reforms have largely been laid down under national legal frameworks which demonstrate a top-down model of decision-making process without any identifiable driving force coming from schools themselves. This chapter analyses the process of educational decentralisation demonstrating the parallels with public management reform ideology, which, depending on the period, influenced educational management changes: the 1970s are associated with political tendencies, oriented towards “democratic participation”, and emphasised the need for schools to be more open to their local communities (Eurydice 2007). The 1980s were associated with a more efficient management of resources for schools, forming a market for educational services. Education management reforms became strongly linked to a dual movement towards political decentralisation and implementing the “New Public Management” agenda. Decentralising responsibilities to local communities and school autonomy are therefore linked in order to increase the efficiency of school management – it is taken for granted that decisions taken at the level closest to operations will guarantee the best use of public resources. During recent years, New Public Management ideas were partly modified by the New Governance concept, providing priority not for the business management techniques in the public sector, but for the introduction of democratic values in public sector management. The focus is on the principles of community government which means that the government should encourage citizens to participate in solving their problems. Thus, in accordance with the concept of the New Governance, the influence of school community on school management is emphasized. This chapter critiques the assumption that decentralisation necessarily means more democracy. It can happen that giving more power to schools will only legalise more power for educational workers – teachers and school leaders – and that would not at all be related to the wider participation of society in educational matters. On the other hand, central government is very rarely interested in real decentralisation, while local leaders and school communities usually are uninterested in accepting more responsibilities. Zajda (2006) notes, for instance, that splitting government can complicate the process of reaching decisions, mainly because of the conflicts of interests and the weakened responsibility for accepted decisions. It is claimed that one of the merits of school autonomy more attention paid towards the needs of the community. As de Vries (2000) notes: “The possibility of tailor-made policies, which was seen as one of the major advantages of decentralisation, is under discussion, since equality before the law decreases when provision of goods and services differs in different municipalities”. Meanwhile, “centralisation allows for administrational actions to be made uniform,” meaning that the equality principle remains unharmed (Knosala 2006). The other argument countered is that concentrating government at the school level supports more effective management of the educational structures and the use the resources, or simply decreases the expenditure, because centralisation allows more effective sharing of resources and diminishes the differences between richer and poorer regions. This chapter also examines the abilities of school leaders to have a direct impact on reform implementation (Davies, 2003; Hallinger and Snidvongs, 2005). The school will be as autonomous as its heads - leaders will be able to take advantage of the granted autonomy and to share increased responsibility with other members of the school community. This chapter examine the conceptual models of school autonomization and its characteristics, perception and expression of autonomous management principles in schools; substantiate the characteristics of school leadership expression in the context of school autonomy.