Autonomy and School Improvement

Abstract

New "autonomy initiatives" aim to increase schools' decision-making authority as a strategy to leverage school improvement. These policies build on lessons of previous reforms such as site-based management in ways that bode well for their success. However, how are these policies actually faring in implementation? The authors addressed that question with a comprehensive research review. Findings reveal that these reforms are posting better results than previous efforts but, overall, results are still quite limited. The autonomy provisions of the policies generally go unimplemented. Accordingly, improved results for participating schools may stem from supports for implementation other than the promised autonomy.

Accountability, autonomy and stress: principal responses to superintendent change in a large US urban school district

“…Most US districts have persisted with traditional governance structures in which a locally elected school board hires a superintendent to execute what are essentially top-down mandates to the schools, though such systems can leave principals feeling like an overburdened middle manager rather than an independent agent of change (Cuban 1988;Wolcott 1973). Some urban districts in particular, however, have experimented with implementing organisational forms intended to allow for greater principal and site-based autonomy (Honig and Rainey 2012). Notably, New York City, Boston and other major US cities have sought to 'empower' principals by providing them with greater managerial independence in return for greater individual responsibility, under the theory that leaders will be more likely to innovate and persist when provided with the organisational freedom (autonomy) and motivating sense of personal responsibility (accountability) to do so (Ouchi 2009).…”

Teacher evaluation and local control in the US: an investigation into the degree of local control afforded to districts in defining evaluation procedures for teachers in non-tested subjects and grades

“…The empirical support for the effectiveness of accountability should be further tempered by the notion that such gains in achievement may be caused by the narrowing of curricula, teaching to the test and other related concerns about high-stakes testing in general (Darling-Hammond, 2004), and there is some evidence to support this (Amrein & Berliner, 2002). Along these lines, a study by Honig and Rainey (2012) suggests that increased school-level decision-making may lead to a deeper form of school improvement, representing gains which may be difficult to measure.…”

“…Thus, even in cases where school districts are free to make their own decision, the true implementers of policy – principals and teachers – might have little control over some important facets of their work if district administration creates rigid procedures, or vice versa. To this point Honig and Rainey (2012) conclude that in order for school-level autonomy to be realised, district offices may need to undergo considerable systemic change by removing administrative barriers while helping schools build capacity to engage in such endeavours as budgeting and academic planning. These examples serve to highlight nuances when investigating issues of local control, but by no means should be seen as reasons to not delve into such a topic.…”

“The Good Struggle” of Flexible Specificity: Districts Balancing Specific Guidance With Autonomy to Support Standards-Based Instruction

“…Given previous scholarship showing that behavior is influenced by teacher and leader perceptions of their policy environment (Hamilton et al, 2007;Loeb et al, 2008), we focus on how education actors in five districts perceive standards implementation policies in their local contexts, using the five dimensions of the framework to see nuances in stakeholders' perceptions of the policies. Our work contributes to understanding the complexities and interactions of policy components, which has been called for in the literature (e.g., Coburn et al, 2016;Honig & Rainey, 2012). We do this by examining interactions among the policy attributes to understand what factors shape implementation practices on the ground.…”