Autonomy and accountability in schools serving disadvantaged communities

Abstract

Purpose Increased school autonomy and accountability have been a common denominator of national reforms in otherwise heterogeneous governance systems in Europe and the USA. The paper argues that because schools serving disadvantaged communities (SSDCs) often have lower average performance, they are more often sanctioned or under closer scrutiny, but might also receive more additional resources. The purpose of this paper is to therefore analyze whether SSDCs have more or less autonomy than schools with a more advantageous context in four countries with heterogeneous autonomy and accountability policies. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on the data from the Programme for International Student Assessment 2012 school and student questionnaires from Finland, Germany, the UK, and the USA. The choice of countries is based on different governance models described by Glatter et al. (2003). The data are used to identify SSDCs and analyze the reported autonomy in resource allocation and curriculum and assessment. Using regression analyses, patterns are analyzed for each country individually. They are then juxtaposed and compared. Differences are related back to the governance models of the respective countries. Findings The results indicate an association between the communities the schools are serving and the autonomy either in the allocation of resources, or the curriculum and assessment. SSDCs appeared to have a little more autonomy than schools with a more advantageous context in Finland, Germany, and the UK, but less autonomy in the USA. The comparison suggests that in the USA, autonomy is rather a reward for schools that have the least amount of need, whereas in the other three countries it could be a result of strategies to improve schools in need. The paper discusses possible explanations in the policies and support structures for SSDCs. Originality/value The effects of increased school autonomy and accountability on student achievement have been discussed at length. How different accountability policies affect the autonomy of schools with the highest needs has so far not been studied. The study can be understood as a first step to unravel this association. Following steps should include in-depth investigations of the mechanisms underlying increased or diminished autonomy for SSDCs, and the consequences for school improvement in these schools.

Logics of accountability: Cross-national patterns in school-level controls

“…For example, Møller and Schratz (2008) showed that Scandinavian countries have a strong tradition of viewing schooling through a lens of democratic ideal. Klein (2017) noted that Finland has a decentralized governance system where municipalities have the most responsibility in schooling decisions. Finnish teachers have high levels of autonomy in developing the curriculum at the local level within the criteria of the national curricula, and the final exit exam in upper secondary level is the only standardized assessment that all students take (Hendrickson, 2015;Sahlberg, 2010).…”

“…Test-based logic can be supported by market principles, which prioritize competition, choice, and efficiency (McDermott, 2011). Under market principals, schools have extensive autonomy in multiple areas so that schools compete for students and resources (Klein, 2017). For example, in the US, test-driven external accountability policies were adopted across states under the NCLB Act and the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program.…”

“…Research also suggests that the English education system relies on test-based logic by applying a high-stake accountability that utilizes tests at different stages and inspections to increase market competition (Adnett & Davies, 2003;Glatter, 2012). During the last decades, reducing the influences of local education authorities, policies have allowed either the central government or schools to make decisions in England (Adnett & Davies, 2003;Klein, 2017). While autonomy has been often applied to finance and site management, the national curriculum has prescribed instruction in England (Klein, 2017), which suggests that test-base logic can be often combined with other logics when implementing accountability policies.…”

“…Responding to accountability discourses, researchers have reported theoretical debates around different forms of accountability, such as what forms of accountability ought to be considered over test-based accountability which has been dominant in education (e.g., Cranston, 2013;Fullan, Rincón-Gallardo, & Hargreaves, 2015;Sahlberg, 2007;Turnipseed & Darling-Hammond, 2015). In addition, researchers have empirically shown that there are multiple ways to achieve accountability across education systems internationally (e.g., Dorn & Ydesen, 2015;Klein, 2017;La Londe, 2017;Lim, 2016;Maroy, Pons, & Dupuy, 2017;Rasmussen & Zou, 2014;Thiel & Bellmann, 2017). Findings from these studies indicate that accountability policy implementation remains multifaceted depending on the context (Holloway et al, 2017;Klein, 2017), and therefore, the logics behind the implementation of accountability can differ based on historical backgrounds and structures of the education system.…”

“…In addition, researchers have empirically shown that there are multiple ways to achieve accountability across education systems internationally (e.g., Dorn & Ydesen, 2015;Klein, 2017;La Londe, 2017;Lim, 2016;Maroy, Pons, & Dupuy, 2017;Rasmussen & Zou, 2014;Thiel & Bellmann, 2017). Findings from these studies indicate that accountability policy implementation remains multifaceted depending on the context (Holloway et al, 2017;Klein, 2017), and therefore, the logics behind the implementation of accountability can differ based on historical backgrounds and structures of the education system. For example, some countries historically generated centralized decision-making processes in their overall education systems, while others valued decentralized decision-making processes within schools-using either test-based incentives to shape local decisions or clear professional/curricular standards to move education towards very specific national/regional goals.…”