Conceptual frameworks for analysing autonomy

A number of academics have developed frameworks to analyse autonomy and the transfer of autonomy – decentralisation – in education. This section illustrates three of them; each has a different emphasis. Drawing on these previous studies, a

new conceptual framework is proposed for this study, which is specifically designed to examine the nature and degree of autonomy at the school level. Bray: three modes of transferring autonomy.

Bray (1999) distinguishes three modes of territorial decentralisation which refers to the transfer of autonomy among “different geographic tiers of

governments” (p. 176):

Deconcentration The transfer of authority for the implementation of rules, but not for making them;

Delegation The transfer of decision-making authority from higher to lower hierarchical levels, but that authority can be withdrawn;

Devolution The transfer of authority to an autonomous unit which can act independently and only informing the centre, but not asking permission, and the centre is responsible for collecting and exchanging information.

This framework indicates three degrees of autonomy, increasing from ‘deconcentration’ to ‘delegation’, and then to ‘devolution’, between hierarchical levels. Moreover, there are two types of power transferred – the power in

implementation and the power in decision-making. In other words, a decentralised system can be a unit only given great power to decide how the service determined by higher authorities should be delivered. Similar frameworks can also be seen in other studies, such as Rondinelli, Nellis and Cheema (1984) and Hanson (1998). Bray does not include privatisation as one of the forms of decentralisation as other academics do (e.g. Turner & Hulme, 1997). He explains that, in some cases, the authority is centrally controlled by private organisations or churches, which is still a kind of centralised organisation.

OECD: three dimensions of examining autonomy

The OECD has conducted a number of surveys on decision-making patterns since the early 1990s (Bottani, 2000). The key findings of the most recent were summarised in the 2012 Education at a Glance. According to this report,

65

decision-making autonomy can be examined, in terms of levels (loci), fields (domains) and modes (degrees):

Levels of decision

Central government, state governments,

provincial/regional authorities or governments, sub-regional or inter- municipal authorities or governments, local authorities or governments, and schools or school boards or committees;

Fields of decision Organisation of instruction, planning and structure, personnel management, and resource allocation; Modes of

decision

Full autonomy, after consultation with bodies located at another level within the education system, independently but within a framework set by a higher authority, and other.

Overall, this framework is characterised by taking three dimensions into account, which demonstrates the division of power between levels of authorities, among different areas, with (no) limits/control.

Karstanje: task areas of school management in three different grades of autonomy

Karstanje’s (1999) framework outlines how systems, differing in their degrees of autonomy, work in a range of task areas of school management. Two dimensions are used for analysing autonomy – the degree and the areas – are combined in an analytical table. From it, five major task areas are identified, namely, teaching and curriculum, staff, school organisation, finances, buildings and facilities, and

external relations; and each major area contains several sub-areas. To be specific, in a centralised and regulated system, the government regulates school management in all areas; in a moderately centralised and regulated system, the government only executes its control over some specific areas; and the government in the

decentralised and deregulated system allows schools to make decisions with their own resources and limited by few/no rules. In particular, this framework is helpful in developing the interview design for this study. I shall provide more details about this in the methodology chapter. Table 2.1 shows part of this analytical table:

Table 2.1. Examples of task areas of school management in three different grades of autonomy

Areas Sub-areas Centralised + regulated Moderately centralised + moderately regulated Decentralised + deregulated Teaching and curriculum Subjects Prescribed subjects Compulsory + optional school subjects Free choice of subjects + groups of subjects Timetable Prescribed timetable

Prescribed for the total number of lessons for the entire school period

Free timetable

(Karstanje, 1999, p. 39)

A new conceptual framework for analysing school autonomy

Overall, there are two key dimensions of ‘autonomy’ identified in the

aforementioned frameworks and in earlier conceptual discussions: the nature of the power that is transferred to the lower authority and the external mechanisms used to regulate the power transferred. It is necessary to create a new conceptual

framework which combines these two themes, but with a specific focus on the autonomy enjoyed at the school level.

Firstly, drawing on the ‘operational power’ and ‘criteria power’ defined by Winstanley et al. (1995), I distinguish the nature of school autonomy between ‘operational power’ and ‘policy and operational power’ for the new framework. ‘Operational power’, similarly, refers to the power that enables schools to

determine how to implement policies formulated by the higher authority. ‘Policy and operational power’, covering both ‘operational power’ and ‘criteria power’, means that schools are able to make policies in terms of goals, standards and frameworks of school management and how to implement these policies. Secondly, these two types of power are exercised with strong or weak control imposed by the higher authority. Thus, four degrees of school autonomy are identified as shown in Table 2.2:

67

Table 2.2. Degrees of school autonomy in the new framework 1. Operational power

+ Strong control

3. Policy and operational power +

Strong control 2. Operational power

+ Weak control

4. Policy and operational power +

Weak control

In addition, there are another two extreme degrees: (1) no autonomy: when no power is given to schools; and (2) full autonomy: when all kinds of decisions are made by schools. Thirdly, the analysis of school autonomy has to be made with reference to a specific area of school management. Based on the previous

frameworks, six major areas and 29 sub-areas are identified and presented in Table 2.3:

Table 2.3. Areas of school management in new conceptual framework

Areas Sub-areas

Organisation and governance

Organisation structure and functions; governance mechanism; and types of schools

Finance Source(s) of funding; expenditure; land, buildings and facilities; and financial report and its availability

Curriculum, teaching and examination

Textbooks; subjects; content of subjects and curriculum delivery; SBCD; curriculum time allocation; school calendar; and entrance exams

Teachers Qualification and training; hiring and dismissal; continuing professional development; appraisal; promotion; salary and bonuses; and legal status

Accountability Goals and standards; evaluation and inspection; annual report; and availability of information

Pupil admission and external relations

Pupil admission; relationship with other schools and business; level of parents’ involvement; and relationship with mass media (or interview requests in general)

The nature and degree of school autonomy can only be meaningful when a certain type of power granted by a higher authority is assessed in a specific area. For example, if a school can only choose a textbook from a list of approved

textbooks, it means that this school is given operational power with weak control; if a school can decide teachers’ salary within its budget, but the budget plan needs to be approved by a higher authority, then this school can be categorised as enjoying

policy and operational power with strong control. It is possible that a school enjoys different degrees of autonomy in different areas of school management.

Figure 2.5 shows a complete picture of this new conceptual framework, which is constituted by reference to the nature and degree of the power, the external control and the area of school management. A benchmarking scheme is drawn up and presented in Appendix 1, which provides detailed descriptions of different natures and degrees of school autonomy in each sub-area. Later in this thesis, the three East Asian education systems are graded according to the scheme, drawing on the analysis of policy documents, literature and interview data.

Figure 2.5. New conceptual framework for analysing school autonomy