education and skills committee agenda wednesday 29 … papers... · 2017. 11. 29. · es/s5/17/30/a...
TRANSCRIPT
ES/S5/17/30/A
EDUCATION AND SKILLS COMMITTEE
AGENDA
30th Meeting, 2017 (Session 5)
Wednesday 29 November 2017 The Committee will meet at 10.00 am in the Robert Burns Room (CR1). 1. Decision on taking agenda item in private: The Committee will decide
whether to take agenda items 3 and 4 in private. The Committee will also decide whether to hold all future reviews of evidence on education reforms in private.
2. Education reforms: The Committee will take evidence from:
Keir Bloomer, Convener, Royal Society of Edinburgh Education Committee; Dr Tracey Burns, Senior Analyst, OECD; Professor Chris Chapman, Chair Education Policy and Practice, Glasgow University; and Professor Graham Donaldson.
3. Review of evidence: The Committee will consider the evidence it heard earlier. 4. Work programme: The Committee will consider its work programme. 5. Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill (in
private): The Committee will consider its approach to its Stage 1 report.
Roz Thomson Clerk to the Education and Skills Committee
Room T3.40 The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh Tel: 85222
Email: [email protected]
ES/S5/17/30/A
The papers for this meeting are as follows— Agenda Item 2
SPICe briefing paper
ES/S5/17/30/1
Education reforms additional papers
ES/S5/17/30/2
Agenda Item 4
Work Programme (in private)
ES/S5/17/30/3 (P)
Agenda item 5
Paper from clerk (in private) ES/S5/17/30/4 (P)
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/30/1
1
Education and Skills Committee
Education Reform 29 November 2016
INTRODUCTION As preparation for the expected introduction of an Education (Scotland) bill in 2018, the Committee has agreed to a programme of early scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s education reforms. This includes two sessions with education experts on the evidence for reform. The purpose of the sessions is to explore the evidence base for the government's proposed reforms and, more broadly, the way in which evidence is used in education policy development. The Scottish Government is consulting on legislative reforms until 30 January. As announced in a Parliamentary statement on 3 October other reforms, such as establishing the Collaboratives, are being taken forward, at least initially, on a non-statutory basis. This week the Committee will hear from the following witnesses:
Keir Bloomer. Royal Society of Edinburgh and Reform Scotland. The RSE
Education Committee has published a number of papers on aspects of the
proposed reforms. This includes a response to the Governance Review
consultation, in part based on a roundtable session. More recently the RSE has
responded to the Government in relation to school funding. Reform Scotland’s
Commission on School Reform produced a challenge paper on Raising Attainment
and Closing the Gap in 2015 and also provided a response to the Governance
Review consultation
Tracey Burns, Senior Analyst Centre for Educational Research and Innovation
OECD She heads a portfolio of projects including Innovative Teaching for Effective
Learning, 21st Century Children, and Trends Shaping Education. Until recently she
was also responsible for their work on Governing Complex Education systems.
Among five key principles of modern governance this concluded that: “there is no
one right system of governance. Almost all governance structures can be
successful in education under the right conditions.”[…] “while structures take up a
lot of space in the discussion about successful governance, it is more fruitful to
focus on processes.” (p.30) Tracey also led on a project on Evidence-based
Policy Research in Education. This project produced the publication Evidence in
Education: Linking Research and Policy (2007)
2
Professor Christopher Chapman - Chris Chapman is Chair of Educational Policy
and Practice at the University of Glasgow where he established the Robert Owen
Centre for Educational Change and is also co-director of What Works Scotland, a
three-year research and development project supporting public service reform.
Chris is on the Scottish Government’s International Council of Education Advisors.
He is the Senior Academic Advisor to the Scottish Attainment Challenge, Treasurer
for the International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement
and has served on the Inaugural Board of the Scottish College for Educational
Leadership. Professor Chapman has authored over 150 publications on
improvement, effectiveness, leadership and change, consulted and advised
agencies, universities and governments across a number of educational systems
and continues to support school and system improvement through his research and
participatory approaches that promote change. The University of Glasgow Robert
Owen Centre for Educational Change was involved in the School Improvement
Partnership Programme that “draws on the wealth of international educational
research and practice demonstrating that the most effective school improvements
are locally owned and led by teachers and school leaders working in partnership
and collaboration with like-minded professionals.” The final evaluation report of the
SSIPP was published in 2016.
Professor Graham Donaldson is also a member of the Government’s International
Council of Advisers. He has undertaken numerous pieces of international
assessment including for the OECD, most recently in relation to Sweden (2015). He
led Teaching Scotland’s Future, a review of teaching in Scotland which reported to
the Scottish Government in 2010. He was head of the Scottish Inspectorate (HMIE)
from 2002-2010. Professor Donaldson was chief executive of Scottish Inspectorate
(HMIE) and Chief Professional Adviser on education to the Scottish Government
from 2002 – 2010.
Written submissions have been received from the Royal Society of Edinburgh and Tracey Burns. The Committee has also received a paper commissioned by SPICe on education governance arrangements in other countries. This is included in Committee papers. The following outlines the policy development to date, the evidence cited for the Government’s proposals and suggests potential themes to explore. POLICY DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
April 2016: Manifesto 2016: “International evidence shows that when parents and
communities are more involved and engaged with schools, children’s attainment
improves. So we will review school governance with a view to ensuring that parents,
families and communities play a bigger role in their children’s education and in the
life of their children’s school.”
3
June 2016: Delivering Equity and Excellence in Education: A Delivery Plan for
Scotland. This summarised action across the full range of schools policy, including
an outline of the governance review:
“We will launch a Governance Review alongside the Programme for Government in September 2016. This review will examine the system changes required to deliver our commitments to empower schools, decentralise management and the support through the encouragement of school clusters and creation of new educational regions. The reforms are designed to ensure that parents, colleges, universities and local employers can better support efforts to raise attainment and ensure that young people progress into positive destinations. Our clear objective is to devolve decision making and funding to schools and communities. This process will run in parallel with the review of the impact of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 by the National Parent Forum of Scotland.”
September 2016: Empowering teachers, parents and communities to achieve
Excellence and Equity in Education – A Governance Review Consultation ran from
September to January 2016.
September 2016: Review of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006.
A call for Evidence. Consultation ran from September to November 2016. The
National Parent Forum of Scotland (NPFS) conducted a review on behalf of Scottish
Ministers into the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 and
surrounding policy framework on involving and engaging parents.
June 2017: Analysis of consultation “Education Government: empowering teachers,
parents and communities to achieve excellence and equity in education. Analysis of
consultation responses.” The consultation received 1,154 submissions, which, in
general:
o supported the current governance system, while acknowledging areas for
improvement (particularly ‘joined up’ approaches, consistency and school
level control over staffing)
o supported the role of national organisations, although there was scope to
clarify roles of agencies
o opposed uniform establishment of educational regions
o were concerned that further devolution to school level would increase
workload and bureaucracy
June 2017: Education Governance: Next Steps – empowering our teachers,
parents and communities to deliver excellence and equity for our children. Set out
the plans in more detail, including discussion of the evidence base.
June 2017: Fair Funding to Achieve Excellence and Equity in Education.
Consultation ran from June to October on the way schools are funded. It does not
advocate a preferred approach, although a fixed national funding formula is ruled
out.
4
July 2017: Report published of the February meeting of the International Council of
Education Advisors. The ICEA is considering three themes:
o Capacity building in educational leadership and professional learning.
o Building collaboration and collective responsibility in Scottish education.
o What works educationally to close the equity gap.
It noted that: “At the Deputy First Minister’s request, the Council also made some recommendations around the issue of governance. The Council felt that it was important to consider how to de-clutter the system without damaging it. The Council advised against becoming too focussed on changing the structure of the education system when, arguably, the more important aspects are the culture and capacity within the system. In particular the Scottish Government should:
Learn from existing attempts to formally share education services
between local authorities e.g. the Northern Alliance, and other forms of
non-structural regionalisation that have been successful internationally.
Create learning hubs around the country where education professionals
can go to learn about different elements of educational practice.”
3 October 2017: Parliamentary Statement 3 October 2017 setting out legislative
and non-legislative reform proposals. The Cabinet Secretary announced that
Regional Improvement Collaboratives would be established by the end of October.
7 November 2017: Consultation published on legislative proposals. Empowering
schools. A consultation on the provisions of the Education (Scotland) bill
8 November 2017: Scottish Education Council established. It is chaired by the
Cabinet Secretary and will meet every two months.
January 2018: Regional Improvement Collaboratives expected to have regional
improvement plans in place. Consultation closes on legislative proposals.
THE EVIDENCE BASE In developing its reforms on governance, the Scottish Government has made extensive reference to the evidence base, in particular in the June 2017 document “Next Steps”. It has also had an initial report from its International Council of Education Advisors. The evidence cited can be grouped under clear themes of:
evidence of a problem in Scottish education
importance of involving children, young people and families
school autonomy and strengthened school leadership
school level partnerships
fundamental importance of high quality teaching
5
role of regional support structures and collaboration
importance of national priorities
The following indicates the evidence cited in the Next Steps document along with Scottish Government proposals in each area and suggests themes for discussion. Full references to the research cited are provided in the annex. THEME 1: Linking evidence to policy reforms The Scottish Government has stated that its governance reforms are based on the evidence of what works. For example the Executive Summary to the analysis of the governance review consultation notes that:
“Our policy is based on international evidence about what works and on the simple premise that the people best placed to make decisions about learning for our children are those professionals qualified to do so.”
The Next Steps (June 2017) document sets out the vision of “an education system which is led by schools and teachers”, saying:
“We need a system where teachers are the leaders of learning in our schools, with the responsibility for delivering excellence and equity, and with greatly enhanced support available to them.”
In her paper for this Committee, Tracey Burns refers to the ‘delicate balance’ required in order to “balance responsiveness to local diversity with the ability to ensure national objectives” and outlines five elements that constitute effective modern governance. These are:
focus on processes, not just structures
is flexible and can adapt to change and unexpected events
works by building capacity, stakeholder involvement and open dialogue
requires whole-system approach
harnesses evidence and research to inform policy and reform The themes below consider the extent to which specific themes in the proposals reflect the evidence base, but the Committee may wish to first consider in more general terms how evidence and policy reform are or could be linked. The Committee may wish to discuss:
how different types of evidence do or should influence policy: evidence from
academic research (in Scotland and elsewhere), from school inspections,
from stakeholder experience and from statistical monitoring data such as
annual statistics on school attainment.
how to ensure that the school system is responsive both to the evidence base
on ‘what works’ and the evidence base on how the system is currently
working
the importance of “shared ownership” of any reforms, and how to build this in
the Scottish context
6
THEME 2: Evidence of a problem in Scottish education In describing current issues with Scottish education the Next Steps document refers to declining performance, seen in PISA and Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy and levels of bureaucracy (Education Scotland, 2016). It also highlights the variation between schools and local authorities across different aspects of school education including:
o the attainment gap (Accounts Commission),
o level of collaboration (ICEA),
o delegation to head teachers (Accounts Commission),
o support for professional learning (consultation responses to governance
review, evaluation of Donaldson review)
The main aims of the Scottish Government’s proposals are to focus on “excellence and equity,” and to do this by both increasing consistency and devolving a greater degree of decision making to school level. The Committee may wish to discuss:
the extent to which the evidence base suggests a problematic degree of
inconsistency in the delivery and governance of school education.
which aspects of school education ought to be consistent and where there
should be room for local discretion.
extent to which current issues with school education require changes to
governance.
THEME 3: Importance of involving parents, children and young people Evidence cited The area on which the greatest variety of research evidence was cited in the ‘Next Steps’ document related to the involvement of children, young people and parents in school. It referred to evidence suggesting that greater levels of involvement are related to better outcomes as is involving young people in their own learning and promoting the student voice. There are different kinds of ‘parental involvement’ – ranging from involvement in school activities and school governance to parents’ support for their own children’s learning at home. Evidence suggests a focus on helping parents to use appropriate strategies to support their children’s learning at home has a large impact. References to the evidence cited are provided in the annex. Scottish Government Proposals Legislative proposals are:
a duty for head teachers to work collaboratively with their parent council
a duty for head teachers to communicate with ‘the wide parent forum’
a duty on head teachers to promote and support pupil participation
to explore the possibility of a strategic duty on local authorities and/or Scottish
Ministers on pupil participation.
to require parental involvement strategies to include clear objectives and measures
of success and be reviewed every three years
7
to update the definition of parental involvement. “This will include a prominent place
for parental engagement in learning, learning in the home and family learning.”
Non-legislative Proposals:
a national action plan on parental engagement and family learning (Empowering
Schools, November 2017 p.19)
working with the SPTC “over the next year” to “learn from their Partnership Schools
initiative to ensure that schools support parents to play an active part in school
improvement (Next Steps, June 2017, p.42)
ensure by 2019 that every school has access to a home-school link worker to
support parents and families who find it challenging to engage in their child’s
learning (Next Steps, June 2017)
ensure by 2019 that every school has a professional with responsibility for
promoting parental, family and community engagement (Next Steps, June 2017).
The Committee may wish to discuss:
the ways in which parental and pupil involvement has been shown to improve
outcomes
whether the Scottish Government’s proposals are supported by the evidence
base on the best ways to;
o encourage children and young people’s involvement in their own
learning
o strengthen the ‘pupil voice’ in the school
o support parents to support their children’s learning
o support parental involvement in the life of the school
THEME 4: School autonomy and strengthened school leadership Evidence cited in ‘Next Steps’ The ‘Next Steps’ (June 2017) document cited evidence on the impact of strong school leadership and the need for teachers to be ‘leaders in learning.’ For example, there is a correlation between educational performance and school empowerment and school leaders can make a difference if schools are given autonomy to make important decisions.
Scottish Government Proposals The key proposal is a head teacher charter that will: “give head teachers freedom to lead learning and teaching in their schools.” It will set out:
that head teachers are to decide how best to design their local curriculum in line
with the national framework
the right to be involved in devising and reviewing recruitment processes
the ability to choose their team
delegation of staffing budgets to schools
the right for head teachers to be involved in local authority education spending
decisions
duty on head teachers to work collaboratively
duty on head teachers to involve their school community in key decisions affecting
them
8
The bill will ensure head teacher involvement in setting Regional Improvement Collaborative priorities (Empowering Schools, p.9) and head teachers will decide the improvement priorities for their school in relation to the existing duty to have regard to reducing inequalities of outcome (Empowering Schools, p.10). Non-legislative Changes
access to support through the Regional Improvement Collaboratives for curriculum
and improvement issues. This leaves the local authority providing support on
funding and staffing issues and Education Scotland providing support through
school inspections
GTCS (to become the workforce council) to review its Standard for Leadership and
Management
Scottish Government to review career pathways
review of heat teacher pay through SNCT
an “enhanced leadership support package” and “a fast-track leadership route” (Next
Steps, June 2017, p. 6).
a recruitment campaign for head teachers in spring 2018
developing, by the end of 2018, new Executive Consultant Head and Cluster leader
roles, and a new Systems Leadership role (to provide clear progression
opportunities and strengthen educational leadership at all levels in the system).
The Committee may wish to discuss:
the ways in which School autonomy and strengthened school leadership has
been shown to improve outcomes
What the research evidence suggests about the best way to balance
professional discretion against achieving national objectives for education
the extent to which the research evidence and international examples suggest
that the Government’s proposals are sufficient to ensure:
o strengthened school leadership
o the appropriate level of school autonomy
THEME 5: School level partnerships Evidence Cited in 'Next Steps' The ‘Next Steps’ document discusses collaboration at a regional level and also collaboration between individual schools. It cites the evaluation of School Improvement Partnership Programme which showed the impact partnerships can have on tackling inequity. In addition, the ‘Empowering Schools’ legislative proposals consultation stated that:
“The OECD Review suggested that priority should initially be given to collaboration
on improving teaching, assessment and connecting schools to take collective
responsibility for each other’s improvement and results.” (p.17)
Scottish Government proposals
support will be provided through the Regional Improvement Collaboratives
support schools to “work together in a learning journey cluster”
9
the inspections process will consider how schools are collaborating with others and
share best practice
head teachers will be required to collaborate with other schools
The Committee may wish to discuss:
the evidence base on the impact of school based partnerships and
collaborations
whether the Scottish Government’s proposals would make successful
collaborations more likely
THEME 6: Quality teaching Evidence cited in 'Next Steps' The ‘Next Steps’ document referred to research evidence on the importance of the quality of teaching. It gives examples of provision of teacher professional learning in Ontario and career progression pathways in Singapore. Scottish Government Proposals
establish Regional Improvement Collaboratives to provide support
establish an Education Workforce Council, to replace the GTCS, Community
Learning and Development Standards Council and register other education
professionals.
the Scottish College for Educational Leadership to become part of Education
Scotland
introduce professional standards for the wider school workforce
establish new career pathways for teachers to allow greater opportunities for
development and profession into leadership (discussions starting in September
2017)
The Committee may wish to discuss:
what the research evidence says about the best way to support high quality
teaching
whether the Scottish Government’s proposals are likely to support high
quality teaching
THEME 7: Regional support structures and collaboration Evidence cited in 'Next Steps’ The majority of respondents to the governance review opposed the introduction of education regions. The ‘Next Steps’ document refers to the 2015 OECD review of Scottish schools which recommended “a strengthened middle” operating through collaboration across schools and local authorities. The review noted the need for clarity about the kinds of collaboration that work best and that:
“teachers in a culture of professional collaboration have greater impact on student achievement, are more open to change and improvement, and develop a greater sense of self-efficacy.”
10
Other evidence suggests that a ‘mediating layer’ can support school improvement, through sharing improvements across schools, acting as a buffer between the school and the ‘centre’ and providing targeted support. The ‘Next Steps’ document also refers to the Welsh model for regional collaboration saying that this highlights the importance of clarity of purpose, leadership and clear accountability. In her paper for the Committee, Tracey Burns refers to the need for a “culture of constructive criticism” and a governance system that is: “flexible and adaptive to change.” Scottish Government Proposals Regional Improvement Collaboratives, potentially underpinned by a legislative duty to collaborate will develop regional plans for education improvement, with the first due in January 2018. In his statement to Parliament on 3 October, the Cabinet Secretary described them as having a “focus on meeting local needs” and “provision of excellent education improvement support through teams, drawing on staff from local authorities, Education Scotland and others.” The Collaboratives will: “identify particular areas for improvement in their regions and ensure that interventions are put in place to address them.”
The ‘Empowering Schools’ consultation document describes how the role of local authorities will be affected:
Local authorities will still have a duty to improve the quality of school education.
The bill will require them to do this through their participation in Regional
Improvement Collaboratives.
There will no longer be a local authority education improvement plan. There will be
a school improvement plan, a regional improvement plan and a national
improvement plan (Empowering Schools, p. 9)
The local authority will remain legally responsible for sufficiency of education
provision, and remain the employer of staff. They: “will meet their responsibilities by
working with other authorities in their region and with Education Scotland through
the Regional Improvement Collaboratives to provide robust and constructive
challenge and support to their head teachers.” (Empowering Schools, p. 9)
The Committee may wish to discuss:
the types of collaborationve supported by the research evidence base
the types of education improvement service supported by the research
evidence base
whether the proposal for Regional Improvement Collaboratives is likely to
improve the quality of support provided to schools and teachers, for example,
whether the RICs would create a system that is more flexible and adaptive to
change.
THEME 8: National priorities Evidence cited in Next Steps The ‘Next Steps’ document also discussed the appropriate role for the ‘national’ level in a school system, noting the importance of a ‘strategic vision to secure the effective delivery of reform.’ It stated that: “evidence points strongly to the importance of shared national
11
priorities and a collective achievement so there is a clear line of sight between learning and teaching in the classroom through to school performance and the achievement of wider priorities.” Scottish Government Proposals
establish a Scottish Education Council (established in November)
a planning system that links school improvement plans to regional plans and the
National Improvement Plan.
The Committee may wish to discuss:
what the research evidence or international examples suggest is the
appropriate role for the ‘central authority’ or ‘national level’ in a school
system
whether the Scottish Government proposals reflect this.
Camilla Kidner SPICe 23 November 2017
12
ANNEX: BIBLIOGRAHPY THEME 2: Evidence of a problem
Scottish Government (2015) Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) 2015: Highlights from Scotland's Results
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00511095.pdf
Scottish Government (2016), Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy 2015
(Numeracy), Scottish Government, Edinburgh
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/05/2836
Variation in the attainment gap and level of delegation to head teachers
The Accounts Commission (2014) School Education
http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/local/2014/nr_140619_school_education.pdf,
Variation in levels of collaboration
Scottish Government (2017) Report of the Initial Findings of the International
Council of Education Advisers, Scottish Government, Edinburgh),
variation in support for professional learning
Donaldson, G (2011) Teaching Scotland's Future, Scottish Government, Edinburgh
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/337626/0110852.pdf
Too much bureaucracy
Education Scotland (2016) Review of local authorities' actions to tackle unnecessary
bureaucracy and undue workload in schools
https://education.gov.scot/improvement/Documents/Review-of-Local-Authorities.pdf
THEME 3: Importance of involving parents, children and young people
Involving young people in their own learning and promoting the student voice leads
to improved outcomes.
Ruddick, J and Flutter, J (2004) How to Improve your School: Giving Pupils a Voice,
Journal of In-service Education, Continuum Press
When parents are fully involved in their child’s learning we see better outcomes for
children, parents and schools
OECD (2012) Parental Involvement in Selected PISA Countries and
Economies, OECD Publishing Paris
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(
2012)10&docLanguage=En
Effective parental involvement programmes that have an impact on the attainment
gap are those that focus on helping parents to use appropriate strategies to support
their children’s learning at home
Sosu, Edward and Ellis, Sue (2014) Closing the attainment gap in Scottish
Education, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York
https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/education-attainment-
scotland-full.pdf
Parental engagement in children’s learning has the greatest impact on outcomes for
children
Harris and Goodall (2007) Engaging Parents in Raising Achievement Do Parents
Know They Matter? Educational Research
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6639/
13
Student learning is most effective when it is the result of a partnership between the
school, teachers, parents and the community.
Esptein, J (1995) "School Family Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children
We Share", Phi Delta Kappan, Vol 76, No. 9, p. 701-712
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ502937
18% of parents reported that their participation in school was hindered by
inconvenient meeting times and difficulty getting time off work.
OECD (2017b) PISA 2015 Results (Volume III) Students' Well-being, PISA, OECD
Publishing Paris
http://www.oecd.org/edu/pisa-2015-results-volume-iii-9789264273856-en.htm
There are socio-economic difference in levels of parental engagement and type of
home learning experience
Bradshaw, P., Hall, J., Hill, T., Mabelis, J., and Philo, D (2012) Growing Up in
Scotland: Early experiences of primary school, Scottish Government, Edinburgh
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/05/7940
Bradshaw, P; King, T; Knudsen, L; Law, J & Sharp, C (2016) Language
development and enjoyment of reading: impacts of early parent-child activities in
two Growing Up in Scotland cohorts Scottish Government, Edinburgh
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/06/2715
Effectiveness requires collaboration with local community and local partner
organisations
Burns, T and F.Koster (ed) (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World,
Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris
Many factors affecting attainment are outwith school
Cummings, C, Dyson, A and Todd, L (2011) Beyond the School Gates, Can Full
Service and Extended Schools Overcome Disadvantage? Routledge,
https://www.routledge.com/Beyond-the-School-Gates-Can-Full-Service-and-
Extended-Schools-Overcome/Cummings-Dyson-Todd/p/book/9780415548755
Schools achieving better than expected results were making comprehensive efforts
to address learner participation
Mannion, G. How Young People’s Participation in School Supports Achievement
and Attainment. (Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People.
https://www.cypcs.org.uk/ufiles/achievement-and-attainment.pdf
THEME 4: School autonomy and strengthened school leadership
There is a correlation between educational performance and school empowerment
Mourshed, M, Chijioke, C & Barber, M (2010) How the world's most improved
school systems keep getting better, McKinsey & Company, London
http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/how-the-worlds-most-
improved-school-systems-keep-getting-better
Curriculum for Excellence requires enhancement of the role exercised by schools
and teachers
OECD (2015) Improving Schools in Scotland: An OECD Perspective, OECD
Publishing Paris
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/improving-schools-in-scotland.htm
14
School leaders can make a difference if schools are given autonomy to make
importance decisions
OECD (2008) Improving School Leadership, OECD Publishing Paris
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/improvingschoolleadership-home.htm
The impact of leadership on student achievement is second only to the quality of
learning and teaching.
Day et al (2011) Successful school leadership: linking with learning and
achievement: Linking with Learning (UK Higher Education OUP Humanities & Social
Sciences Education OUP).
At the country level, the greater the number of schools that have the responsibility to
define and elaborate their curricula and assessments, the better the performance of
the entire school system.
OECD (2011) PISA in Focus (2011/9) School autonomy and accountability: Are they
related to student performance? OECD Publishing Paris
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48910490.pdf
THEME 5: School level partnerships
School partnerships can be effective in tackling educational inequity
Chapman, C. Lowden, K. Chestnutt, H. Hall, S. McKinney, S. and Friel, N. (2015)
The School Improvement Partnership Programme: Sustaining collaboration and
Enquiry to Tackle Educational Inequity Final Project Report to Education Scotland.
University of Glasgow
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/129356/1/129356.pdf
Factors required for creating coherent and cohesive cultures of system wide school
collaboration.
Fullan, M and Munby, S (2016) Inside-out and downside-up: How leading from the
middle has the power to transform education systems Education Development Trust
https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/~/media/EDT/files/News/f-global-
dialogue-inside-out-and-downside-up-feb.pdf
THEME 6: Quality Teaching
The only thing that really matters is the quality of the teacher
Wiliam, D. (2009). Assessment for learning: why, what and how? London: Institute
of Education, University of London.
High quality people achieve high quality outcomes for children
Donaldson, G (2011) Teaching Scotland's Future, Scottish Government, Edinburgh
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/337626/0110852.pdf
Leading for coherence requires the development of leaders at all levels within the
system
Fullan, M and Quinn, J (2016) Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools,
districts and systems CA: Corwin/London: Sage
The teacher knowledge base is an important component of teacher quality
OECD (2017a) Empowering and Enabling Teachers to Improve Equity and
Outcomes for All Fig 1.6
http://www.istp2017.uk/media/1086/istp2017final_version.pdf
15
THEME 7: Regional support structures and collaboration
Role of a ‘mediating layer’
Mourshed, M, Chijioke, C & Barber, M (2010) How the world's most improved
school systems keep getting better, McKinsey & Company, London
http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/how-the-worlds-most-
improved-school-systems-keep-getting-better
Teachers in a culture of professional collaboration have greater impact on student
achievement, are more open to change and improvement, and develop a greater
sense of self-efficacy. There needs to be clarity about the kinds of collaboration that
work best to bring about the innovations and improvements to enhance student
learning, and to create coherent and cohesive cultures of system-wide collaboration.
There needs to be a ‘strengthened middle’ operating through collaboration across
schools, and in and across local authorities
OECD (2015) Improving Schools in Scotland: An OECD Perspective, OECD
Publishing Paris
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/improving-schools-in-scotland.htm
There is clear evidence that successful partnerships require local leadership, buy-in
and direction, but also that without an external prompt and support collaborative
partnerships can often struggle. There is a strong evidence base about what works
in supporting collaboration, including from the evaluation of the School Improvement
Partnership Programme in Scotland.
Chapman, C. Lowden, K. Chestnutt, H. Hall, S. McKinney, S. and Friel, N. (2015)
The School Improvement Partnership Programme: Sustaining collaboration and
Enquiry to Tackle Educational Inequity Final Project Report to Education Scotland.
University of Glasgow
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/129356/1/129356.pdf
THEME 7: National priorities
The national level is still important in decentralised systems.
Burns, T and F.Koster (ed) (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World,
Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris
Evidence points strongly to the importance of shared national priorities and a
collective achievement so there is a clear line of sight between learning and
teaching in the classroom through to school performance and the achievement of
wider priorities.
Fullan, M; Rincón-Gallardo, S; and Hargreaves, A (2015) Professional Capital as
Accountability, Education policy analysis archives, volume 23 number 15;
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1998/1511
Importance of a strategic vision to secure effective delivery of reform
OECD (2015) Improving Schools in Scotland: An OECD Perspective, OECD
Publishing Paris
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/improving-schools-in-scotland.htm
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
1
Education and Skills Committee
30th Meeting 2017 (Session 5), Wednesday 29 November 2017
Education Reform Additional Papers
Purpose
1. The purpose of this paper is to highlight a number of documents relevant to the Committee’s evidence session on education reform. These documents include briefings, submissions, Scottish Government publications and responses to Government consultations.
International comparison paper and witness submissions
2. Members asked for an international comparison paper on Education
Governance. A paper was commissioned by SPICe and is reproduced in Annexe A.
Annexe A: SPICe commissioned international comparison paper 3. Submissions have been received from two of the witnesses on this week’s panel,
from Tracey Burns, Senior Analyst from the OECD and the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), these can be found in Annexes B and C.
Annexe B: Tracey Burns, Senior Analyst, OECD submission
Annexe C: RSE submission Other Publications 4. The Scottish Government has published a number of documents on its
programme of reform which are listed in the paper 1. Two key documents are—
Education Governance: Next Steps - Empowering Our Teachers, Parents and Communities to Deliver Excellence and Equity for Our Children (June 2017)
Empowering Schools: A consultation on the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Bill (November 2017)
5. Both Professor Chris Chapman and Professor Graham Donaldson are on the
Scottish Government’s International Council of Education Advisers. The ICEA published an initial report in July 2017—
Report of the initial findings of the International Council of Education Advisers
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
2
6. Keir Bloomer is the Chair of the Education Committee at the RSE. He is also the Chair of the Commission on School Reform. Both organisations responded to the Scottish Government’s Governance Review which led to the Next Steps document. Links to both submissions are below—
Royal Society of Edinburgh response to Governance review (January 2017)
Commission on School Reform response to Governance review (January 2017)
7. In July 2017, the Committee received a letter from Youthlink Scotland in
response to the Scottish Government’s Next Steps document.
Letter from Youthlink Scotland (July 2017) Clerk to the Committee 24 November 2017
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
3
ANNEXE A
School Governance and Autonomy
This paper considers how school functions are divided at school level, at the local
level and at central government level across a number of jurisdictions. It considers
international trends and the principles of effective governance, and sets out
governance arrangements in a number of European and English-speaking countries
around the world.1
Executive Summary
Introduction
This paper considers school governance, particularly the extent to which
responsibilities are devolved to the local and school level across a range of
countries internationally.
It covers the following countries:
Northern Ireland: Boards of Governors’ autonomy ....................................... 4
England: High levels of autonomy for schools .............................................. 6
Wales: Decentralised approach .................................................................... 7
Republic of Ireland: Centralised approach .................................................... 8
Denmark: Limited role for the regions ......................................................... 10
The Netherlands: Among the highest autonomy for schools ...................... 10
Finland: High levels of educational autonomy at the school level ............... 14
Sweden: Decentralisation at the municipal level ........................................ 14
Germany: Coordination across the Länder ................................................. 16
Australia: Decentralised approach .............................................................. 18
Canada: No department of education ......................................................... 18
New Zealand: Highly devolved self-managing school system .................... 16
1 This paper was commissioner by SPICe from the Northern Ireland Research and Information
Service.
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
4
Trends
The trend over recent decades has been towards decentralisation in education,
with increasing responsibilities devolved to local authorities and to schools.
Responsibilities are divided across multiple stakeholders and there is an
increased emphasis on self-regulation. Countries have different starting points
in terms of decentralisation, with countries such as the UK and Finland having a
lengthy history in this regard.
Links with performance
Research indicates that the relationship between school autonomy and student
performance is complex. While, overall, it suggests that countries with greater
educational autonomy for schools perform better, the effects may be limited
and only apply to some countries. In addition, the nature of accountability
mechanisms is an important factor in this regard.
Principles of modern governance
Research suggests that there is no one correct governance approach, and that
processes take precedence over structures. However, any approach must be
holistic and take account of factors such as accountability and innovation.
The central element of the education system, often the ministry, has an
important role to play in providing vision, steering reform and setting out
guidelines. Capacity building and stakeholder involvement are also key.
Conclusion
The research shows a range of different governance models in place
internationally. Some systems, such as the UK and Finland, have longstanding
policies and procedures supporting school autonomy. Others, such as the
Republic of Ireland, take a more centralised approach to school administration
and management.
However, the overall trend is towards decentralisation. Despite this, the
evidence suggests a limited impact of this approach on student outcomes. The
relationship between the two is complex, and other factors, such as
accountability mechanisms, play an important role.
1 Introduction
This research paper considers how school functions are divided at school level,
at the local level and at central government level across a number of
jurisdictions. It considers international trends and the principles of effective
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
5
governance, and sets out governance arrangements in a number of European
and English-speaking countries around the world.
2 Overview
The OECD reports that internationally, there has been a trend for
decentralisation within education systems within the past few decades. Not only
is greater responsibility devolved to local authorities and schools, but there has
been a move away from a hierarchical approach to one with divided
responsibilities and greater self-regulation. This multi-level governance
approach tends to involve more flexible links between those involved.2
Countries such as the UK and Finland have a long history of decentralisation in
education, while others have had different starting points. There is of course an
added layer of complexity in federal states where authority is spread over
national and state levels. Education ministries maintain responsibility for
ensuring high quality, efficient and innovative education at the national level.3
The OECD finds better student performance overall in countries where students
have greater autonomy, and notes that it is important that schools combine
autonomy with accountability for schools.4 However, a number of studies find
that increasing autonomy may improve performance only to a limited extent,
and only in some countries.5 This suggests that relationships between school
autonomy and performance are complex.6
However, increased autonomy at the local level is thought to be an important
factor in enabling schools to improve and to meet changing stakeholder
expectations. Schools with greater autonomy may be better equipped to adapt
to changing circumstances and drive improvements, although there is a lack of
robust evidence on this.7
3 Principles of modern governance
NFER reports that the key principles and components of governance are more
important than the model employed.8 The OECD set out five key principles for
modern governance in its research on educational governance in 2016. Figure
1 below highlights these.
2 Burns, T., Köster, F. (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World Paris: OECD Publishing
3 Burns, T., Köster, F. (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World Paris: OECD Publishing
4 OECD (2011) PISA in Focus: School autonomy and accountability: Are they related to student performance? Paris: OECD Publishing
5 Jensen, B., Weidmann, B, Farmer, J. (2013) The Myth of Markets in School Education Carlton:
Grattan Institute 6 OECD (2013) What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices – Volume IV
Paris: OECD Publishing 7 Cheng, Y.C., Ko, J., Lee, T.T.H. (2016) “School autonomy, leadership and learning: A reconceptualization” International Journal of Educational Management Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 177-196
8 McCrone, T., Southcott, C., George, N. (2011) Governance models in schools Slough: NFER
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
6
Figure 1: OECD’s principles of education governance9
4 Northern Ireland: Boards of Governors’ autonomy
Structure
Northern Ireland has a complex educational structure with a range of bodies
involved in its management and administration.
The Department of Education has overall responsibility for the education of
the people of Northern Ireland and for effectively implementing educational
policy. A number of arm’s length bodies, each accountable to the Department,
support it in delivering its functions. This includes the Education Authority
which manages and delivers services, ensuring sufficient educational
provision and acting as the employing authority for staff in many schools.
At the individual establishment level, a Board of Governors governs each
school, whose composition varies according to the school type.
Governance reforms
In 1990 the introduction of Local Management of Schools led to greater
school autonomy by giving Boards of Governors and principals responsibility
for resource allocation. Under these arrangements, the Education Authority
9 Burns, T., Köster, F. (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World Paris: OECD Publishing
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
7
delegates a budget to individual schools and the school decides how best to
spend it.10
There are a number of school types in Northern Ireland, with differing
governance arrangements: some have greater autonomy than others. A
Board of Governors governs each school; whose composition varies
according to the school type.11
Controlled: The Education Authority provides and manages controlled
schools through Boards of Governors. Primary and post-primary Boards
of Governors for controlled schools include transferor members (from the
three Protestant churches). There are also a number of controlled
integrated schools.
Catholic maintained (also known as voluntary maintained): The Council
for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) is the employing authority for
these schools, and they have a Roman Catholic ethos. Their Boards of
Governors include trustees appointed by CCMS.
Grant-maintained integrated: These schools have an integrated ethos
and high levels of autonomy. They are under the management of a
Board of Governors.
Other maintained schools: The majority of other maintained schools
are Irish-medium. The Church of Ireland owns three other maintained
schools.
Voluntary grammars (voluntary non-maintained): Post-primaries that
select on the basis of academic ability. These schools have high levels
of autonomy and are self-governing under the management of a Board
of Governors. Boards of Governors include trustee and foundation
governors.
Controlled and maintained schools are funded through the Education
Authority and voluntary grammar schools and grant-maintained integrated
schools are funded directly by the Department of Education.
Accountability
Schools are held accountable through outcome measures, namely teachers’
assessments for pupils aged up to 14 and GCSE and A level (or equivalent)
10
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2005) Local Management of Schools London: House of Commons 11
Perry, C. (2016) Education system in Northern Ireland Stormont: Northern Ireland Assembly
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
8
results. The Education and Training Inspectorate also plays a key role through
school inspections.12
5 England: High levels of autonomy for schools
The UK is among the OECD countries that grant the greatest autonomy to
schools. This is in terms of resource allocation and making decisions around
curriculum and assessment.13
Structure
The UK Government has overall responsibility for the education system. Local
authorities must ensure provision of sufficient school places and support school
improvement and vulnerable young people.14
Devolved school governance is well-developed in England. Each school has a
governing body comprising the principal, parent and staff representatives, the
local education authority and political representatives.15 The governing body
provides strategic leadership and accountability by:16
Ensuring clear vision, ethos and direction;
Holding senior leaders accountable for educational performance; and
Overseeing the school’s financial performance.
Maintained schools and academies have high levels of autonomy, with most
financial and management functions delegated to governing bodies and
principals. From their budget allocation boards of governors are expected to
cover all revenue costs, including staff salaries, teaching resources and repairs
and maintenance.17
12
Eurydice (2016) United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) Overview [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-Northern-Ireland:Overview
13 OECD (2011) PISA in Focus: School autonomy and accountability: Are they related to student performance? Paris: OECD Publishing
14 Eurypedia (2015) United Kingdom (England) Early Childhood and School Education Funding [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-England:Early_Childhood_and_School_Education_Funding
15 Burns, T., Köster, F. (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World Paris: OECD Publishing
16 Wilkinson, N. (2017) School Governance London: House of Commons Library
17 Eurypedia (2015) United Kingdom (England) Early Childhood and School Education Funding [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-England:Early_Childhood_and_School_Education_Funding
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
9
Governance reforms
In the 1980s and 1990s reforms moved staffing and budget responsibilities to
school governing bodies, reducing the role of local authorities. Local authorities
retained responsibilities around school provision, support and improvement.18
Since 2010 further reforms have led to significant changes to the education
system. Academies make up a majority of post-primary schools and a
significant minority of primaries. Collaborative structures such as multi-
academy trusts and teaching school alliances prove a middle tier of
management that was formerly held by local authorities.19
However, research indicates a mixed picture of governance across academy
chains, with some highly centralised and others affording greater autonomy to
schools. Evidence on the performance of academies suggest that their impact
has not been as transformative as was originally envisaged.20
Accountability
Within the English education system accountability is based on outcome
measures in the form of national tests and qualifications taken at ages 11, 16
and 18, and the inspection of providers.21
6 Wales: Decentralised approach
Structure
The Welsh Government has overall responsibility for the education service,
while local authorities must ensure adequate school provision, support school
improvement and help vulnerable pupils.22
In Wales all state schools are local authority maintained schools, including
community schools, foundation schools, voluntary maintained schools and
voluntary aided schools.23
Many responsibilities are devolved to schools, particularly through governing
bodies. School governors provide strategic leadership and accountability,
18
Eurypedia (2015) United Kingdom (England) Early Childhood and School Education Funding [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-England:Early_Childhood_and_School_Education_Funding
19 Eurypedia (2015) United Kingdom (England) Early Childhood and School Education Funding [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-England:Early_Childhood_and_School_Education_Funding
20 Finch, A., Dobson, B., Fischer, E., Riggs, A. (2016) Academy chains unlocked London: Reform
21 Eurypedia (2015) United Kingdom (England) Early Childhood and School Education Funding [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-England:Early_Childhood_and_School_Education_Funding
22 Eurypedia (2016) United Kingdom (Wales) [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-Wales:Overview
23 Long, R. (2017) Constituency casework: schools in Wales London: House of Commons Library
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
10
monitoring the school’s educational and financial performance and ensuring
clear ethos and direction.24
Local authorities provide funding to schools through the individual schools
budget, using locally agreed funding formulae (although 70% of the formula
must relate to pupil numbers).25
Reforms
In line with England, reforms in the 1980s and 1990s devolved greater
responsibility to schools, with staffing and budget responsibilities given to
governing bodies. As in England, the local authority role reduced as a result of
these reforms, but authorities retained responsibility for school provision,
improvement and support.26
Accountability
Accountability for schools is based on outcome measures: teacher assessment
results and attendance data for primaries and national qualification results and
attendance data at post-primary. It is also based on inspection outcomes.27
7 Republic of Ireland: Centralised approach
Structure
School governance is much more centralised in the Republic of Ireland than in
England, Northern Ireland or Wales. Its education system has been described
as a partnership between the State and a number of private agencies. All
primary schools and most post-primaries are privately owned (by organisations
and religious denominations) and state-funded, but governed by boards of
management.28
The Department of Education and Skills has responsibility for the administration
of education at primary, post-primary and special education, and for funding
further and higher education.
The Department of Education and Skills (DES) directly pays teacher and staff
salaries and provides schools with capitation grants to cover the day-to-day
24
Wilkinson, N. (2017) School Governance London: House of Commons Library 25
Eurypedia (2015) United Kingdom: Wales Early Childhood and School Education Funding [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-Wales:Early_Childhood_and_School_Education_Funding
26 Eurypedia (2016) United Kingdom (Wales) [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-Wales:Overview
27 Eurypedia (2016) United Kingdom (Wales) [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-Kingdom-Wales:Overview
28 Eurypedia (2017) Ireland: Organisation and Governance [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Ireland:Organisation_and_Governance
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
11
running of schools (for example, heating and maintenance).29 The capitation
mechanism based on school enrolments gives boards of management
autonomy in how they use and target grant money.30
Most schools receive funding directly from the DES through capitation grants,
although post-primary vocational schools and community colleges receive their
funding from the relevant Vocational Education Committee (VEC) (which
distributes DES funding).31
Reforms
Legislation in 1930 afforded the State a greater role in some areas, by setting
up vocational education committees and state-owned vocational schools. The
1960s saw the development of comprehensive and community schools, and the
Department began to play a greater role in developing and implementing policy.
Despite these reforms, the Republic has maintained a centralised education
system, with no comprehensive regional structure for schools.32
Accountability
The education system is evaluated through school self-evaluation, through
review of state examination outcomes and external school inspection by the
Department of Education and Skills Inspectorate.33
8 Denmark: Limited role for the regions
Structure
In Denmark the Ministry for Children, Education and Gender Equality largely
holds responsibility for education, while other ministries have certain
responsibilities in this area.34 Denmark’s five regions have limited duties in
regard to education, but they are responsible for the operation of social and
special education institutions.35
29
OECD (2013) Education policy outlook: Ireland 30
Eurypedia (2017) Ireland: Early Childhood and School Education Funding [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Ireland:Early_Childhood_and_School_Education_Funding
31 OECD (2007) Improving school leadership, Country background report: Ireland OECD Publishing
32 Eurypedia (2017) Ireland: Organisation and Governance [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Ireland:Organisation_and_Governance
33 Eurydice (2013) Ireland: Quality Assurance [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Ireland:Quality_Assurance
34 Eurydice (2016) Denmark: Overview [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Redirect
35 Eurydice (2015) Denmark: Administration and Governance at Central and/ or Regional Level [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Administration_and_Governance_at_Central_and/or_Regional_Level
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
12
At the school level the principal and an elected board administer the
institutions. Two bodies govern primary and lower secondary schools, and the
school principal is accountable to both:36
The local or town council opens and closes schools, recruits teachers
and administers the budget;
The school council, comprised of elected parent representatives,
advises the town or local council of the school’s curriculum design and
activities.
At primary level, the principal develops a proposal for the school’s budget
(within the local council’s framework) and activities and presents it to the
school’s board for approval. At post-primary the board establishes a budget
with the principal’s recommendations within the local council’s framework and is
responsible for the school’s financial management.37
At both primary and post-primary the board supervises the school’s activities,
approves its budget and works within the local council’s framework. It also
develops a proposal for the school’s curriculum to be submitted to the local
council.38
In addition, each school has a pedagogic council, comprising all staff that have
educational and teaching functions, to advise the principal and enable debate
on educational issues and innovation.39
9 The Netherlands: Among the highest autonomy for schools
Dutch schools are consistently noted to have among the highest levels of
school autonomy across OECD countries. From the late 1980s the Dutch
Ministry of Education gave schools almost complete authority to self-govern.40
The approach combines centralised policy with decentralised school
administration and management.41
36
Burns, T., Köster, F. (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World Paris: OECD Publishing 37
Eurydice (2012) Denmark: Administration and Governance at Local and/ or Institutional Level [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Administration_and_Governance_at_Local_and/or_Institutional_Level
38 Eurydice (2012) Denmark: Administration and Governance at Local and/ or Institutional Level [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Administration_and_Governance_at_Local_and/or_Institutional_Level
39 Eurydice (2012) Denmark: Administration and Governance at Local and/ or Institutional Level [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Administration_and_Governance_at_Local_and/or_Institutional_Level
40 Burns, T., Köster, F. (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World Paris: OECD Publishing
41 Eurydice (2014) Netherlands: Administration and Governance at Central and/ or Regional Level [online] Available at:
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
13
Structure
In the Netherlands the Minister of Education, Culture and Science and the State
Secretary for Education, Culture and Science have overall responsibility for
education. The Minister sets out statutory requirements and sets the framework
for schools to operate within. There is no national curriculum, but attainment
targets exist.42
At the provincial level authorities have a limited role in education, and are
responsible only for supervisory and legal tasks. For primary and secondary
schools administration and management is organised locally. The school’s
board has responsibility for the school and educational quality.43
Accountability
Schools are responsible for themselves, but the inspectorate intervenes where
it assesses a school to be at risk of underperforming.
The inspectorate draws on a series of indicators to identify which schools to
inspect, and deems schools to be ‘normal’, ‘weak’ or ‘very weak’.
Underperforming schools receive follow-up inspections and ‘very weak’ schools
have two years to improve or they will be closed. During this period the
inspectorate engages with the school and monitors it, and weak schools
receive support.44 The school’s autonomy reduces during the improvement
period with the increasing role of the inspectorate.45
This approach has had mixed results. While it has reduced the number of
schools receiving poor inspection results, some schools have further
deteriorated. In addition, the response of individual schools, teachers and
parents is hard to predict. The OECD suggests that this example shows that
managing change in a complex system requires sensitivity in regard to the
many factors affecting school performance.46
The OECD suggests that this example highlights that educational interventions
create cycles that may be virtuous or vicious, and can interact together in
unexpected ways.47
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Netherlands:Administration_and_Governance_at_Central_and/or_Regional_Level
42 Eurydice (2014) Netherlands: Overview [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Netherlands:Redirect
43 Eurydice (2014) Netherlands: Overview [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Netherlands:Redirect
44 Burns, T., Köster, F. (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World Paris: OECD Publishing
45 Burns, T., Köster, F., Fuster, M. (2016) Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case
Studies Paris: OECD Publishing 46
Burns, T., Köster, F. (2016) Governing Education in a Complex World Paris: OECD Publishing 47
Burns, T., Köster, F., Fuster, M. (2016) Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies Paris: OECD Publishing
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
14
Multiple school accountability
In addition, multiple accountability for schools is important in the Netherlands.
All schools must identify relevant stakeholders and involve them in the
formation of strategy, decision-making and evaluation.
This is provided for through education governance codes, and national
organisations of school governance boards set compliance with these codes as
a condition of membership. This has increased participation the governance
codes.
10 Finland: High levels of educational autonomy at the school level
The Finnish education system is characterised by decentralisation and high
educational autonomy at all levels, and local administration and educational
institutions play a crucial role in this regard.48
Structure
The Ministry of Education and Culture has overall responsibility for education
and works with the Finnish National Board of Education and a number of other
organisations to develop educational aims and approaches.49
Local municipalities provide most pre-school, primary and post-primary
education. At the institution level, schools and teachers have much freedom to
design curricula and teaching approaches.
Reforms
In 1985 Finland began a process of decentralisation in education that would
last until the mid-1990s. At this point even more responsibilities were devolved
to schools, and school inspections were abolished.50
11 Sweden: Decentralisation at the municipal level
Sweden’s education governance is characterised by decentralisation to the
municipal level. There is no regional administrative level, however county
councils may have responsibility for upper secondary schools.51
48
Eurydice (2017) Finland: Overview [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Finland:Redirect
49 Eurydice (2017) Finland: Overview [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Finland:Redirect
50 Sahlgren, G.H. (2015) Real Finnish lessons: the true story of an education superpower London:
Centre for Policy Studies 51
Eurypedia (2017) Sweden: Administration and Governance at Central and/ or Regional Level [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Administration_and_Governance_at_Central_and/or_Regional_Level
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
15
Structure
Sweden’s government has overall responsibility for education and sets its
framework. Municipalities organise education, and much school funding
originates from municipal tax revenues.52
Each municipality draws up a school plan for their area demonstrating how it
will fulfil the national goals, noting finance, organisation, and development and
assessment of each school’s activities.53
At the school level, the school administrator develops (in conjunction with other
staff) a local work plan for issues not dealt with in the national regulations, such
as curriculum, organisation and teaching methods. The principal is responsible
for making sure national and municipal goals are translated into robust
educational objectives.54
Reform
In the 1990s Sweden began to decentralise administrative responsibilities to
the municipal level, and changed its funding approach to provide lump sums to
municipalities instead of direct government transfers. The aim was to increase
local autonomy and facilitate local needs.55
Under the new model the central administration steered national goals while
municipalities were responsible for deciding how to reach the goals. There was
no clear guidance on the process and, as a result, many ad-hoc governance
approaches were employed by municipalities.56
The rapid move to decentralisation proved problematic for municipalities, who
struggled to adapt to their new-found autonomy and had little time to develop
strategies for coping with their new duties and powers. The lack of internal
discussion led to ambiguity in roles, and a hands-off approach by central
government led to insufficient capacity building.57
52
Eurydice (2017) Sweden: Overview [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Overview
53 Eurypedia (2017) Sweden: Organisation and Governance [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Organisation_and_Governance
54 Eurypedia (2017) Sweden: Organisation and Governance [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Organisation_and_Governance
55 Burns, T., Köster, F., Fuster, M. (2016) Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case
Studies Paris: OECD Publishing 56
Burns, T., Köster, F., Fuster, M. (2016) Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies Paris: OECD Publishing 57
Burns, T., Köster, F., Fuster, M. (2016) Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies Paris: OECD Publishing
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
16
The OECD reports that the Swedish example highlights the complexity of
decentralisation, indicating a need for effective strategic vision, planning and
capacity building.58
Accountability
The move towards decentralisation was accompanied by a liberalisation of
school choice, and included a strong shift towards student testing as a way of
monitoring performance. Nonetheless, accountability was ‘minimal’ within this
approach.59
12 Germany: Coordination across the Länder
Structure
The Federation and the Länder (states) share responsibility for the German
education system. However, the Länder hold primary responsibility for the
administration of the school system and educational legislation. The
Federation’s responsibilities in education include early childhood education and
care in day-care centres and child-minding services, financial assistance for
pupils and students, vocational education (outside school) and higher
education.60
Under the Basic Law each Länder must fulfil governmental responsibilities. The
Basic Law includes some fundamental provisions on education, including the
rights of parents.61
In 1948 a Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural
Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany was established, with
a view to coordinating shared characteristics and promoting comparability
across Germany’s education system. Based on an agreement between the
Länder, the Standing Conference brings together the relevant ministers and
senators of the Länder to deal with educational policy matters.62
58
Burns, T., Köster, F., Fuster, M. (2016) Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies Paris: OECD Publishing 59
Burns, T., Köster, F., Fuster, M. (2016) Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies Paris: OECD Publishing 60
Eurypedia (2015) Germany: Organisation and Governance [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Organisation_and_Governance
61 Eurypedia (2011) Germany: Fundamental Principles and National Policies [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Fundamental_Principles_and_National_Policies
62 Eurypedia (2016) Germany: Administration and Governance at Central and/ or Regional Level [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Administration_and_Governance_at_Central_and/or_Regional_Level
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
17
The Standing Conference’s resolutions can be adopted unanimously, with a
qualified majority or with a simple majority, and have the status of
recommendations. The resolutions are implemented in the individual Länder as
administrative action, ordinances or laws, with the Land parliaments playing a
role in the legislative procedure.63
The Ministries of Education in the Länder are responsible for schools and
develop policy guidelines, adopt legal provisions and administrative regulations
and cooperate with other bodies.64
At the school level, public sector schools are maintained jointly by the Land and
the local authorities. The Land pays for teaching staff while the local authority
pays for other staff or material costs. The local authorities are responsible for
the establishment and maintenance of schools. Specialist schools are
maintained by a Land.65
Within the school system supervisory authorities exercise academic, legal and
staff supervision. School supervisory authorities and the institutes for school
development provide special educational support and academic evaluation.66
Accountability
External quality or evaluation agencies inspect and evaluate schools in almost
all Länder. Responsibility for this lies with school supervisory authorities in
some Länder and with the institutes for school development in others.
Germany’s Standing Conference established the Institute for Educational
Quality Improvement in 2004 to monitor education across the Länder.67
63
Eurypedia (2016) Germany: Administration and Governance at Central and/ or Regional Level [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Administration_and_Governance_at_Central_and/or_Regional_Level
64 Eurypedia (2016) Germany: Administration and Governance at Central and/ or Regional Level [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Administration_and_Governance_at_Central_and/or_Regional_Level
65 Eurydice (2016) Administration and Governance at local and/ or Institutional Level [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Administration_and_Governance_at_Local_and/or_Institutional_Level
66 Eurydice (2016) Quality Assurance in Early Childhood and School Education [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Quality_Assurance_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Education
67 Eurydice (2016) Quality Assurance in Early Childhood and School Education [online] Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Quality_Assurance_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Education
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
18
13 Australia: Decentralised approach
A decentralised approach is also employed in Australia, with nationally-based
agreements with states and territories.68
Structure
The six states and two territories have responsibility for delivering school and
vocational education. Most educational decisions are taken by the states and
territories. National and state governments have agreements in place defining
education goals. States make most planning, structure and resource decisions,
including personnel management.69
Teachers have extensive autonomy. However, there are concerns around the
robustness of accountability mechanisms for teachers including limited
opportunities for professional feedback and varying quality of teacher
assessments.70
Reform
Since the early 1980s Australia has devolved greater responsibilities to
schools.71 The OECD reports further increased autonomy since 2003, noting
that schools take 49% of decisions, while states take 51%.72
14 Canada: No department of education
Canada is the only country in the developed world with no department of
education or federal office. Instead, then ten provinces and three territories are
responsible for education.73
Structure
At the provincial level, responsibility is shared between the central provincial
government and locally-elected school boards. The premier chooses the
minister for education from members of the provincial legislature.74
In Ontario the education ministry is responsible for setting targets, providing
funding and supporting struggling schools. The district’s role is to support
68
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: Australia Paris: OECD Publishing 69
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: Australia Paris: OECD Publishing 70
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: Australia Paris: OECD Publishing 71
Burns, T., Köster, F., Fuster, M. (2016) Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies Paris: OECD Publishing 72
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: Australia Paris: OECD Publishing 73
OECD (2010) Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States Paris: OECD Publishing
74 OECD (2010) Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States Paris: OECD Publishing
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
19
schools, while there is an understanding that it is at school level where change
must be implemented.75
School boards have responsibility for student achievement and wellbeing, for
resource management and for delivering effective education. They must also
provide for staff recruitment, buildings maintenance and monitoring school
policies and student achievement.76
In Quebec the school board plays an important role, acting as a local
democratic institution offering and organising educational services within their
assigned territory. Commissioners govern school boards, and are elected
through a general election.77
The school board network in Quebec includes 72 schools boards across 2,340
pre-school, primary and post-primary school, as well as across adult and
vocational training settings.78
Reform
Canada granted schools greater autonomy from the early 1980s.79 The four
leading provinces placed an increased emphasis on centralised testing and
curriculum planning, while some of the provinces employed a ‘tight-loose’
approach to school improvement. This involved combining greater, centralised
accountability with more school-level control.80
More recent reforms include capacity-building efforts and attempts to
encourage teachers to buy into the improvement strategy. The OECD reports
that Canada has become a ‘world leader’ in terms of its education reforms.81
Accountability
Canada places an emphasis on results, particularly for provincial assessments.
Where it identifies poor performance, the approach is to intervene and support,
rather than to punish and apportion blame.82
75
OECD (2011) Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States Paris: OECD Publishing
76 Ontario Education Services Corporation (2014) Good Governance: A Guide for Trustees, School Boards, Directors of Education and Communities Ontario: Ontario Education Services Corporation
77 Éducation Internationale The Quebec school system [online] Available at: http://www.education-internationale.com/en/about-us/quebecs-education-system/
78 Éducation Internationale The Quebec school system [online] Available at: http://www.education-internationale.com/en/about-us/quebecs-education-system/
79 Burns, T., Köster, F., Fuster, M. (2016) Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case
Studies Paris: OECD Publishing 80
OECD (2010) Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States Paris: OECD Publishing
81 OECD (2010) Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States Paris: OECD Publishing
82 OECD (2010) Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States Paris: OECD Publishing
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
20
15 New Zealand: Highly devolved self-managing school system
New Zealand’s schools have among the most autonomy across OECD
countries.83
Structure
The government sets annual objectives for education, and the Ministry of
Education develops the national policy framework, including curriculum and
assessment standards. It also provides funding and interventions for failing
schools.84
Elected school boards manage schools and their focus is on student
achievement. Principals have a wide range of responsibilities within a
framework of significant autonomy. School boards often delegate the
recruitment and appraisal of teachers to the school’s principal.85
Teachers also have a great deal of autonomy. The OECD highlights the
importance of capacity building for teachers and principals to complement their
high levels of autonomy.86
Reform
Since 1988 New Zealand has devolved management responsibilities to
schools, and since 2001 the Ministry has had augmented powers to make
interventions for failing schools.87
These reforms have led to particularly high levels of autonomy at the school
level, with schools taking over three-quarters of decisions in 2007. The OECD
reports that only English and Dutch schools have higher levels of autonomy.88
Accountability
Schools and principals are afforded trust to conduct self-assessment, and this
is supported by external evaluations.89
16 Conclusion
Recent decades have seen a trend towards decentralisation in education
systems. Local authorities and schools now have greater responsibilities for
matters such as resource management, and many countries emphasise self-
83
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: New Zealand Paris: OECD Publishing 84
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: New Zealand Paris: OECD Publishing 85
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: New Zealand Paris: OECD Publishing 86
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: New Zealand Paris: OECD Publishing 87
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: New Zealand Paris: OECD Publishing 88
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: New Zealand Paris: OECD Publishing 89
OECD (2013) Education Policy Outlook: New Zealand Paris: OECD Publishing
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
21
regulation for schools. Education ministries maintain duties in respect of
ensuring high quality and effective education at the national level.
The research suggests a complex relationship between increased autonomy
and student performance, indicating that it only improves student achievement
to a limited extent. Effective accountability mechanisms are important where
schools have greater autonomy.
Caroline Perry
Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service
November 2017
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
22
ANNEXE B
Submission from Dr Tracey Burns is a Senior Analyst in the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation of the OECD
Smarter education governance
Tracey Burns, Senior Analyst, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
29 November 2017 Covering note: This paper was prepared for the Education and Skills Committee at the Scottish Parliament. As the purpose of this session is to test the evidence base for the Scottish Government’s programme of reforms for school education, this paper provides a brief overview of the OECD work on Governing Complex Education Systems. It draws from extensive conceptual and empirical work, including in-depth case studies of governance challenges in six education systems. Links to the full set of studies and working papers are provided at the end. Biography: Dr Tracey Burns is a Senior Analyst in the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation of the OECD. She heads a portfolio of projects on the future of education, teaching, and childhood. Tracey holds a BA from McGill University, Canada and a MA and PhD from Northeastern University, USA. Her most recent publications are Governing Education in a Complex World; Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies and Trends Shaping Education 2016 (all 2016).
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
23
SMARTER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE
Introduction
Governing multi-level education systems effectively requires governance models that balance
responsiveness to local diversity with the ability to ensure national objectives. This is a
delicate equilibrium, and one that is difficult to achieve given the complexity of the education
system in many OECD countries. As a result, governance issues have moved up on the
political and policy agendas, and countries are increasingly looking for examples of good
practice and models that they can adapt to their own needs.
Five elements of effective governance
Based on extensive work with its countries, the OECD's Governing Complex Education
Systems (GCES) project developed a series of five elements that together comprise the
foundation of effective modern governance. The elements place the focus on processes that
allow systems to adapt and respond flexibly to complexity. They align actors and activities
and build on dialogue and stakeholder involvement. They keep knowledge and evidence at the
core while at the same time supporting a system-wide vision of education and progress:
Figure 1. Elements of effective governance
Source: Burns and Cerna (2016), “Enhancing effective education governance”, Governing Education in a
Complex World, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-13-en.
This paper explores how they play out in education systems. It also investigates the challenges
that remain the most difficult for countries to resolve. The goal is not to aim for a permanent
government structure wherein all governance challenges will be solved. Rather, it is to
embrace the idea of a smart and strategic state:
Focuses on processes, not just structures
Is flexible and can adapt to change and unexpected events
Works by building capacity, stakeholder involvement and open dialogue
Requires whole-system approach (aligning roles, balancing tensions)
Harnesses evidence and research to inform policy and reform
Effective
governance
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
24
It is not so much the size of the State which is at stake, but rather its
governance. In other words, it is not so much a reduced state that we need…
but a strategic state. (Aghion, 2012, cited in Burns and Köster, 2016: 20).
In order to make this a reality, governance in education (and indeed in all public sectors) must
be fundamentally revisited, moving away from traditional models and towards the five
elements of modern governance portrayed in Figure 1. We turn to the first element now.
Focus on processes, not structures
When faced with calls to improve governance, the focus is often placed on structures, for
example, through attempts to identify the most efficient number of governance levels for a
specific problem or for the system more generally. This approach is motivated by a belief that
there is an ideal structure that, once identified and implemented, will help solve (or at least
reduce) many of the current governance challenges.
There is certainly a wide variety of structures to choose from. Across the OECD countries, the
most devolved systems have up to four levels of governance, while in the most centralised
there are only two levels that share the main decision-making power in education (Lassnigg,
2016; OECD 2012).
Improving or changing governance structures in any given context can thus take many forms.
In many OECD systems, it involves increasing local autonomy to allow for more
responsiveness to local needs. In other, generally highly devolved systems, there is a push to
recentralise certain functions or create regional bodies to improve the capacity on the local
level. But this approach can take a lot of time and energy without necessarily yielding lasting
strategies to improve the effectiveness of the system.
Thinking through how systems are constructed and aligned remains a crucial element of
successful governance. However, thinking of structures in isolation without connecting them
to the processes that they are meant to support will not provide the kind of systemic and
sustainable approach to governance that is required for our modern education systems.
Flexibility and adapting to change and uncertainty
Increased complexity – in levels of decision-making, in the numbers of stakeholders, and in
the availability and use of data for evaluation and accountability – calls for a new approach to
governance. Education systems are in fact complex systems – that is, networks of
interdependently linked actors whose actions affect all other actors, and which evolve, adapt,
and reorganise themselves. A complex system has the following core components (Sabelli,
2006, cited in Blanchenay and Burns, 2016):
Behaviour is not explained by the properties of the components themselves,
but emerges from the interaction of the components.
The system is non-linear and relies on feedback to shape its evolution.
The system operates on multiple time-scales and levels simultaneously.
Working with complex systems is difficult as the elements cannot be examined in isolation,
but rather must be considered as part of a coherent whole (Mason, 2016; Snyder, 2013). In
terms of education governance, this implies that effective policy planning and reform will start
from a whole of system approach that takes this complexity into account. In addition, the
dynamic and emergent elements of the system mean that its governance must be able to be
flexible and adaptive to change. Efforts to govern using traditional linear approaches to
policy-making will no longer suffice (Hallsworth et al., 2011).
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
25
Flexibility and adaptability in education
How does this work in education? When a complex system (for example, a school) undergoes
a reform, there is potentially a wide variety of reactions to that change. Some schools will
benefit from virtuous cycles (success breeds success), while others will be caught in vicious
circles where difficulties bring about further difficulties (van Twist et al., 2013). Small initial
differences in local contexts can therefore be exacerbated, creating a situation in which
important discrepancies between schools or districts can persist and become hard to mitigate
(Blanchenay and Burns, 2016). These discrepancies imply that careful attention must be paid
to the particularities of each educational context, and that successful policy solutions must be
prepared to adapt to this context and feedback. This is particularly important when thinking of
how to make a reform process as efficient as possible, both in terms of cost effectiveness and
also in terms of managing human time and energy.
This is of course one of the great challenges of educational governance: how to provide the
guidelines and structure required when introducing a reform to allow for its goals to be
reached, while at the same time allowing for local flexibility and professional discretion of
teachers, school leaders, and local administration.
Controlled change and policy experimentation
The challenge of complexity is acknowledging that while no perfect solution exists, it is
possible to take small concrete steps to make a difference. Policy experimentation can be an
interesting opportunity to explore change in an education system in a controlled way. By
directing the scale and design, risk and expenditure can be managed in a sustainable and
ethical way. Policy experimentation also allows for adapting the policy cycle to reflect the
dynamic nature and the intricacy of education systems. It ensures that, within the system,
input from stakeholders is matched by a culture of constructive criticism that can identify both
successes and failures (Blanchenay and Burns, 2016).
Ecosystem experimentation is an efficient way to strengthen the flexibility and adaptability of
processes (Blanchenay and Burns, 2016). Embracing ecosystem experimentation involves
moving from the standard current practice in education, where tests focus on a certain type of
node (e.g. changing the teaching method for reading in all schools) in order to determine
whether or not a particular intervention (in this case, a reading programme) is successful or
not. In contrast, ecosystem experimentation focuses on self-contained parts of the systems
(i.e., natural ecosystems) when testing a particular intervention. Importantly, the intervention
itself can still be the same (for example, the efficacy of reading programmes), it is the size and
placement of the intervention that differ (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Traditional experimentation (left) versus Ecosystem experimentation (right)
Source: Blanchenay and Burns, 2016, Policy experimentation in complex education systems, in T. Burns and F.
Köster (eds.), Governing Education in a Complex World, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-10-en.
Note: Dotted lines denote weak links; solid lines denote strong links between elements of the system.
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
26
Building capacity, open dialogue and stakeholder involvement
A key element of successful governance is ensuring that stakeholders have sufficient capacity
to assume their roles and deliver on their responsibilities. For example, as schools become
more autonomous, headmasters have been given new roles and powers regarding planning,
budget, and staff. In some systems these are entirely new responsibilities and actors must be
given the support they need to grow into them. Even when a role is not entirely new, teachers,
school leaders and other local actors may still need capacity building to hone their practice.
An example is the use of data: in all systems there are more data available from system-level
indicators, evaluations, and test scores, and capacity must be developed in order to use and
interpret the data correctly. It is key to develop explicit capacity-building measures for
educational monitoring, particularly in smaller municipalities with fewer resources
(Busemeyer and Vossiek, 2015).
It cannot be forgotten that strong capacity building is time-consuming. Stakeholders’ needs
must be considered from the very beginning rather than being introduced as a reactive
measure when something goes wrong. Capacity-building needs vary considerably system-
wide, and the types of challenges faced between and among districts, municipalities, schools,
teachers, etc. can all vary. Capacity-building efforts must thus take these variations into
account to ensure equity and efficiency across the system.
Stakeholder involvement and participatory governance
Participatory governance aims to improve shared vision and ownership, accountability,
responsiveness, and transparency by involving a wide variety of stakeholders in the policy-
making process. Opening up the policy-making process can yield a number of significant
benefits (OECD, 2009a):
Better and more equal policy outcomes
Better implementation
Greater trust
This is not an easy process, as it is difficult to engage the hardest-to-reach actors (Hooge et al.,
2012). The failure to consider obstacles in the planning, design and implementation of
stakeholder engagement practices gives rise to the risk of “missing stakeholders” (Alemanno,
2015: 135), which in turn causes efficacy and equity issues. Efficacy, because by failing to
encourage the participation of all relevant stakeholders, co-creation practices fail at their main
goal: to include a wide range of perspectives as input into policy making. And equity, because
by failing to facilitate access for individual stakeholders or small groups, the policy is likely to
dominantly reflect the views of only the most powerful stakeholders. Yet the input of these
missing stakeholders can be among the most valuable for policy makers: small stakeholders
often possess “situated knowledge”, gained from personal experience on the ground rather
than through theoretical models (Alemanno, 2015: 135).
One of the more interesting changes in the participatory governance landscape has been the
evolution of new technologies, which allow faster and easier access to more people than ever
before. Although providing a powerful opportunity to facilitate and encourage stakeholder
involvement and participatory governance processes, they also come with challenges (see Box
1).
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
27
Box 1. Co-creation and new technologies
New technologies act as a driver and enabler of participatory governance. They provide
the opportunity to reach out to a broader set of actors and to take their views and concerns into
account, including those hardest to reach. Open public consultations on digital platforms and
social media such as Facebook and Twitter are some of the tools used by governments at all
levels to engage a broader set of actors.
However, new technologies also come with new challenges. The opportunity for almost
instant feedback means that parents and other actors are not inclined to wait and see what is
effective; they expect the best education for their children and communities now. They can use
social media to put direct and instant pressure on schools and officials. The danger is that
expectations tend to rise faster than performance, and there is a temptation for elected officials to
operate in the short-term even though research has demonstrated that the effects of a reform can
take a significant amount of time to bear fruit (Burns and Köster, 2016).
Despite this, there is no going back: stakeholder involvement creates a shared
responsibility that strengthens accountability in the system. It is through the involvement and
engagement of a diverse group of actors that educational governance will be able to continue to
evolve along with our societies and schools. There is thus a need for mechanisms to include all
stakeholders and voices (not only the most vocal or technologically savvy) in the governance
process, and to design ways to strengthen participatory governance mechanisms. This will also
require working with less active or less confident stakeholders to build capacity and
empowerment to enable them to take part in the process.
Source: Burns, T. and F. Köster (2016), “Modern governance challenges in education”, in T. Burns and F.
Köster (eds.), Governing Education in a Complex World, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-3-en.
A whole of systems approach
In complex systems, nothing can be done in isolation, as it is the relationships between the
parts that are essential. Education systems must resolve tensions between potentially
conflicting forces such as accountability and trust, innovation and risk-avoidance, and
consensus building and making difficult choices.
A whole of systems approach works to align roles and responsibilities across the system,
improving efficiency as well as reducing potential overlap or conflict. In order to change
policy and practice on such a fundamental level, there needs to be a general agreement among
stakeholders that something must change. Part of securing a general agreement is developing
the evidence base that allows for such a discussion, in order to gain a real understanding of the
current state and strengths and weaknesses in a given system.
The importance of time
Increasing diversity of actors in the system comes with diversity in expectations, and different
sectors operate on different time-scales. For example, elected officials have to operate on
shorter time scales than civil servants, and teachers might have different expectations for the
time involved in change than parents and students. Researchers operate on a more deliberate
time scale from almost all other actors.
These different time scales can give rise to different pressures in the system which can
systematically act against long-term strategic thinking. For example, quick-effect changes
(e.g. providing students with electronic tablets) might be more appealing to elected officials as
elections loom closer, while parents may favour longer-term less risky changes (e.g.
reinforcing the teaching staff) and researchers may prefer more risky longer-term experiments
(e.g. teaching a new reading method). Paradoxically, moving from appointed to elected
officials as a way to increase local accountability in the education system, for instance in
school boards, might result in an undesirable preference for more visible short-term solutions
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
28
from those officials, given the requirements of the electoral cycle (Blanchenay and Burns,
2016). Time is thus a key element of effective governance, yet it is one of the scarcest
resources in a fast-paced political cycle.
Figure 3. The knock-on effect of a lack of time on whole of system functioning
Source: Adapted from Chapman (2004), System Failure – Why Governments Must Learn to Think
Differently, www.demos.co.uk/files/systemfailure2.pdf.
A lack of time also has an impact on how long programmes should be allowed to continue
before a decision is taken on their effectiveness. Previous work on systemic innovation found
that decisions about whether to continue to fund a particular initiative are often taken before
results of a programme evaluation are available, and that the evaluation step is the most likely
to be skipped or omitted if there are time or financial constraints (OECD, 2009b). Budget
timeframes and grant agreements often are set to two to three year cycles, which research
again suggests is not long enough to see the effect of a particular reform in its entirety.
One of the trickiest questions for education governance is when a reform is considered a
success or failure. If there is no immediate success, is it better to end it, or to wait and see if it
might produce results in a longer term? There is a scientific question here, regarding the
effectivenss of the process. But there is also a political and ethical element involved as it is
difficult to justify continued spending if short- term results are poor. However, it is also
possible that strong short-term results might not be sustainable, or representative. The results
from an intervention with a set of early adopters, for example, might be different than with
another set of actors.
In a fast-paced world, where expectations are likely to rise faster than performance, politicians
and policy makers are scrambling to keep up with immediate demands for improvement.
Long-term strategic thinking is thus often considered to be a luxury, or something to be
engaged in when time frees up from the immediately pressing issues. And yet it is required for
whole of system thinking, one of the essential elements of modern governance.
Evidence, knowledge, and the use of data
For most OECD countries, it has become clear that promoting the use of evidence in policy
making is not the same thing as ensuring its use. This is due to a number of different issues
(Blanchenay and Burns, 2016):
1. Too much data can obscure information pertinent to decision-making or render it
unusable by its sheer magnitude. As O'Day (2002) points out, the abundance of
information may be counterproductive, as “teachers and schools may metaphorically
and literally close the door on new information, shutting out the noise”.
2. Even for standard measures, important information might also be only partially
collected (for example, reasons underlying student drop-out or issues with teacher
retention).
less time for reflection and
learning
no improvement in policy design and implementation
increasing frequency of failure and unintended
consequences
increased need for intervention
and new policies
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
29
3. There might be few incentives for collected data to be shared widely, especially if
there is a concern that it could be used in a negative manner (for example, in systems
where there is strong competition for students between schools, the weaknesses of a
particular school might be disguised or otherwise presented to avoid injuring the
reputation of the school).
This is a serious issue. Increasing the availability of data in order to increase transparency and
accountability to a broader range of stakeholders has unexpectedly given rise to concerns
about increasing inequity between advantaged and disadvantaged students. In most countries,
upper middle-class and middle-class families (or parent(s) with higher education, higher
professional positions and higher income) are the ones that are most aware of how to actively
use the education system for their own interest and benefit (Taylor, 2009). They are more
likely to have the capacity to use school performance data to place their child in the best-
performing schools. If changing schools is not possible, middle and upper-class parents are
more likely to demand (and successfully lobby for) change in the system (van Zanten, 2003).
The equity issue also plays out administratively. Some districts or municipalities might be
more likely than others to fully use available data – often those that have better capacity to
analyse and interpret such data. It will come as no surprise that these are generally the larger
and better resourced authorities. Increasing transparency by making data public thus can have
the unintended effect of increasing the divide between the advantaged and the disadvantaged,
whether they be administrations, schools, or families.
Peer learning and networks can be a good way to build the capacity of the smallest
municipalities and schools to use research knowledge and apply it in practice. And having a
clear and easy way to communicate the effectiveness of a school or system is a very powerful
way to motivate a broad set of stakeholders around a school or community. Despite the
various challenges, it is important to get it right.
Concluding note
Governing multi-level education systems requires governance models that balance
responsiveness to local diversity with the ability to ensure national objectives. This is a
delicate equilibrium, one that is difficult to achieve given the complexity of the education
system in many OECD countries. We have argued that effective modern governance keeps the
focus on process and allow systems to adapt and respond flexibly to complexity. It aligns
actors and activities and builds on dialogue and stakeholder involvement. It keeps knowledge
and evidence at the core while at the same time supporting a system-wide vision of education
and progress. Together these elements combine in a smart state, which is flexible, adaptive
and focused on learning.
Creating the open, dynamic and strategic governance systems necessary for governing
complex systems is not an easy task. Through work on complexity, change and reform and
new modes of collaborative networks and decision-making, we can set the agenda for thinking
about the inclusive, adaptable and flexible accountability and governance necessary for
governing complex systems in today’s global world.
References and further reading
[The reference list can be found on the online version of this paper:
http://www.parliament.scot/S5_Education/Inquiries/20171123IN.OECD_Reforms.pdf]
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
30
ANNEXE C
Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) response to Scottish Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee panel sessions on Evidence Base for Education Governance Reforms
1. The RSE is pleased to have been invited to nominate RSE represenatives to take part in panel sessions that will discuss the evidence base for the Scottish Government’s education governance reforms on 29th November and 6th December. As the RSE is in the process of preparing its response to the Scottish Government’s consultation, Empowering Schools: The Provisions of the Education (Scotland) Bill, we have sought to focus this short submission for the Committee on key aspects of the reforms. We have included links to relevant RSE advice papers and discussion reports at the end of this response.
2. There is a need to consider to what extent the Government’s reforms will lead to improved outcomes for young people, especially for disadvantaged learners. Ultimately, meeting the needs of learners must be the key success criterion of any school reform.
Support for Schools
3. In its response to the original consultation in January 2017, the RSE was concerned that the Government had adopted a pre-determined commitment to establish the regional improvement collaboratives (RICs) without making clear their purpose and in the absence of presenting evidence of their need. Next Steps, published in the summer, presented a highly centralised structure for the RICs, in which they would be led by a Scottish Government-appointed regional director, who in turn would be accountable to the Chief Executive of Education Scotland. This would have been at odds with the thrust of the proposals which seek to empower schools by devolving greater decision-making powers to them. The RSE therefore welcomed the joint steering group work undertaken by national and local government partners that resulted in agreement among the parties about the principles that should underpin the RICs. We welcome the confirmation that the new leads of the regional collaboratives have been appointed by the local authority groupings and are to be mainly accountable to the authorities, while reporting on some matters to the Chief Inspector of Education.
4. It will be crucially important that schools are able to feed-in views on how the collaboratives should operate. Schools will need to believe that the collaboratives are supporting their needs, rather than imposing the views of central and local government organisations.
5. The RSE is particularly pleased that the report of the steering group recognises the importance of planning for independent evaluation from the outset to ascertain the impact of the collaboratives on learner outcomes. This will of course require the identification of baseline data, and will have implications for data collection.
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
31
6. It will of course be important to learn from the experiences of existing regional collaboratives, of which the Northern Alliance is the most long established.
Headteachers’ Charter 7. Key questions include: 1) What decisions about learning are currently not made
at school level but should be; and 2) how the proposed governance changes will facilitate decision-making at the school level.
8. The Government’s consultation, Empowering Schools, makes clear the
intention to give headteachers significant new responsibilities over staff structures, staff budget and recruitment within their schools. Local authorities will remain the employers of school staff, and headteachers will be accountable to the local authority for the decisions they make in relation to staffing and budget. While it is likely that many head teachers will welcome greater responsibilities for staffing, there is a need to consider how the arrangements will work in practice, given that tensions could arise between headteachers’ views and those of the local authority. It will also be necessary to consider whether the retention of national agreements relating to teacher numbers, and teachers’ pay and conditions will inhibit headteachers’ decision-making. It will be important to explore to what extent the proposal that local authorities will no longer be required to prepare local improvement plans could impact on local authorities’ democratic accountability.
9. Given the significant increase in decisions to be taken at school level,
consideration needs to be given to the governance structure at this level. There is, for example, no suggestion that the headteacher and senior staff should be accountable to a board of governors or similar governance group. While the headteacher will remain accountable to the local authority in a somewhat diminished manner, the importance of the decisions to be delegated to school level suggests the need for a new accountability mechanism at a more local level.
10. It would be useful to explore to what extent the proposals cater for the different
circumstances of primary and secondary heads. In contrast to secondary schools, primaries have very few promoted posts and very little flexibility to allocate teacher time once the basic need to put a teacher in front of every class has been met.
11. School leaders will need clarity on the support they can expect to receive to
enable them to embrace greater decision-making responsibilities. While the consultation mentions that schools should be able to access support from business managers, the budgetary implications of this and other aspects of the reforms are unclear.
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
32
Measuring the Attainment Gap 12. The RSE has recently submitted a response to the Scottish Government on its
proposals for measuring the attainment gap. Valid and reliable assessments can only be made if there are appropriate measurement tools and data. The RSE is concerned that the Government’s intention to use SIMD, which is an area-based measure, for identifying the most and least disadvantaged young people could undermine its commitments on closing the attainment gap. SIMD is incapable of providing the individual-level data required. SIMD cannot distinguish between deprived and non-deprived learners living in areas classified as low/high deprivation. It would therefore not be possible to determine to what extent any improvement in attainment in the most deprived areas is actually as a result of attainment improving among the most deprived learners, as opposed to the significant minority of non-deprived learners who live in these areas. The RSE recommends that the Government reflect further on potential measurement tools, rather than risk implementing unsuitable approaches.
Interventions aimed at closing the attainment gap 13. Schools and practitioners need to be able to access evidence-based advice on
effective interventions for closing the attainment gap i.e. ‘what works’. Interventions for Equity was established by Education Scotland to support schools deploy their Pupil Equity Funding (PEF) as effectively as possible. However, the evidence base and criteria for the selection of interventions showcased is unclear, as is whether they have been subject to independent evaluation. It is crucially important that this is addressed to ensure that interventions are underpinned by empirical evidence, including evidence of impact. The Scottish Government should consider how its Education Research Strategy, which has as its focus the National Improvement Framework (NIF), can be used support these developments.
14. Additionally, it would seem timely to review the operation of the PEF with a view to learning lessons and informing the increased devolution of spending responsibilities to schools that is envisaged by Empowering Schools.
15. It will also be important to consider the processes for translating research into
practice. Evidence shows that an influential factor on increasing research impact is the personal contact and dialogue between researchers and users of research. This emphasises the need to support active engagement between researchers and practitioners.
Role of parents 16. Parental engagement is crucial to making progress on improving the attainment
of disadvantaged learners. However, it remains uncertain how changes in school governance will secure the kind of parental engagement that helps to raise standards, especially among disadvantaged children.
Agenda Item 2 ES/S5/17/29/2
33
Processes of change 17. The ambitious programme of school governance reform must take account of
the capacity of the system to respond. This will require a strategic approach taking account of other related major developments including the National Improvement Framework and Improvement Plan, Curriculum for Excellence and closing the attainment gap developments, among others. Consideration will need to be given to processes for bringing about transformative change in complex systems. While targets need to be ambitious, they also need to be realistic and in line with the capacity of the system to respond. There is a need to ensure widespread engagement, particularly extending beyond those bodies responsible for leading the reforms. It will be particularly important to seek the input of schools, teachers, parents and learners. Research and evaluation need to feature from the outset of the reforms to be able to develop a proper understanding of what is happening, and why.
Links to relevant RSE advice papers
RSE response to Scottish Government consultation on Measuring the Attainment
Gap (November 2017): https://www.rse.org.uk/advice-papers/measuring-the-
attainment-gap
RSE response to Scottish Government consultation on Fair Funding of Schools
(October 2017): https://www.rse.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/AP17_24.pdf
RSE comments on Scottish Government Education Research Strategy (June 2017):
https://www.rse.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AP17_11.pdf
RSE response to Scottish Government’s Review of School Governannce (January
2017):
https://www.rse.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/School_Governance_response.pdf
Report of RSE roundtable on School Governance Reforms (December 2016):
https://www.rse.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/RSE-review-of-school-
governance.pdf
Report of RSE roundtable on the Scottish Government’s plans to bring forward an
Education Research Strategy (June 2016):
https://www.rse.org.uk/cms/files/advice-papers/2016/AP16_14.pdf
The Royal Society of Edinburgh
November 2017