SCHOOL AUTONOMY POLICIES ARE INCREASINGLY

_____________________

_____________________

Although the policy of school autonomy now seems widespread in Europe, this has been the result of a gradual process of implementation. The process began in the 1980s in a few pioneering countries and then expanded massively during the 1990s. In the vast majority of cases, these reforms were imposed as part of a top-down decision making process.

The information provided in this figure comes from two in-depth studies that have been carried out in the last two years. For more details, refer to School Autonomy in Europe: Policies and Measures (Eurydice 2007) and Levels of Autonomy and Responsibilities of Teachers in Europe (Eurydice 2008).

Three broad areas of school activity are considered here, ranging from those purely concerned with the governance and management of schools to those concerned with the process of teaching and learning. Each of these areas is further broken down into a number of more detailed aspects.

Overall, there are marked differences across Europe in the underlying rationale and the implementation timescale of the school autonomy process. Therefore, it is not surprising that, in 2007, the areas in which schools have autonomy also differ considerably.

The detailed analysis of the autonomy granted to schools for the management of financial and human resources reveals that some countries allow more autonomy than others and, similarly, autonomy is likely to be given to schools in some specific areas of activity rather than in others.

Approximately 10 countries grant a large degree of autonomy in the two areas concerned. This is the case in the Baltic countries, in Belgium, Ireland (ISCED 2), Italy, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland). The situation is similar in Hungary and Poland but, in these countries, many decisions are subject to the approval of the higher authority or are taken within established guidelines.

In the Netherlands and Finland the situation is more variable as it is subject to the will and actual practice of the competent authorities. In effect, they can choose whether or not to formally delegate their powers to schools in all (the Netherlands) or some (Denmark and Finland) areas of management.

In contrast, in a minority of countries, little autonomy is granted. This occurs mainly in Germany, Greece, France (ISCED 1), Ireland (ISCED 1), Luxembourg, Malta, Austria, Portugal and Liechtenstein. In Cyprus, no autonomy is granted in these areas.

The area of human resource management reveals contrasting features. This may be a result of the fact that different administrative levels are responsible for employing teachers (Figure B18). The functions of the school head are very often under the control of the higher authority whilst more decisions are taken about the management of teaching staff at school level (selection of staff to replace absent teachers, defining duties and responsibilities and disciplinary measures). With regard to school heads, schools are granted full autonomy in Belgium (grant- aided schools), Ireland, Slovenia and the United Kingdom (England).

With respect to financial resources, autonomy is more widespread in the management of operating expenses, the raising of private funds via donations and sponsorship, the letting of premises and the use of private funds to purchase movable goods. In contrast, decisions are usually the prerogative of the higher authority with respect to capital expenditure (using public funds or private sources where possible), finance from loans, and the use of private funds to employ staff (where possible). Schools are granted full autonomy for loans in Belgium (grant- aided schools), Italy and the Netherlands (if delegation).

The analysis of the process of teaching and learning reveals that education systems appear to be based on a set of interrelated goals some of which are achieved by fairly flexible means.

Neither schools nor teachers can shape decision-making or act freely to any great extent in those areas which affect the structure of education systems and which here relate essentially to the (content- or goal- oriented) compulsory minimum curriculum and (where applicable) to examinations for certified qualifications. These areas are significant in ensuring some form of educational equality for pupils.

Teachers have relatively little say in determining the content of the compulsory minimum curriculum, either because this does not exist in schools (in around two-thirds of the countries considered), or because – where it does – the task is mainly the responsibility of the school head. Even where schools are fully autonomous, there are major national guidelines for determining the curriculum or the aims to be achieved. In contrast to procedures governing the compulsory curriculum, schools have greater freedom when it comes to determining the curricula of optional subjects.

In areas concerned with the daily pursuit of educational activities, school autonomy and the autonomy of teachers, who are often supported by their school heads, are greater. All countries leave schools free to decide what teaching methods to use even if monitoring mechanisms are often established, for example via inspections. In the great majority of countries, schools also choose their own textbooks, except in Greece, Cyprus (ISCED 1), Luxembourg (ISCED 1), Malta and Liechtenstein. All countries grant at least some freedom to schools in determining the basis on which pupils should be organised into groups for teaching and learning. Teachers possess extensive decision-making autonomy in another important area of their activity, namely the assessment of pupils.

In the majority of countries the decision whether pupils should retake a year is at the entire discretion of schools. In Cyprus (ISCED 1), Latvia, Luxembourg (ISCED 2), Liechtenstein (ISCED 1) and Norway, schools are not responsible for deciding whether pupils should retake a year. In Norway, they normally progress automatically to the next class throughout their compulsory education, while in Liechtenstein they do so at ISCED level 1. In the United Kingdom, it is for schools to decide how to organise pupils into teaching groups and there is an expectation that low attainment of individual pupils should be addressed through differentiated teaching and the provision of additional support, rather than by repeating a year. Pupils therefore almost always progress automatically to the next year.

Few European countries deliver certification at the end of primary education (ISCED 1) – for more details see Figure E21 (conditions of admission to lower secondary education). Among them, few countries hold written examinations. For those countries which hold examinations at ISCED level 2, they are only rarely devised at school level. However, schools are involved and perform this task autonomously in four countries, namely Belgium (Flemish Community), Greece, Italy and Cyprus.

Other figures provide complementary information related to some particular issues, such as decisions about whether pupils should retake a year (Figure E20), the transition from primary to secondary education (Figure E21), content of certifying examination (Figure E22), the acquisition of teaching equipment 'movables' and fixed capital assets 'immovables' (Figure B19 a, b, c), and the numbers of hours of teachers’

Figure B15: School autonomy relating to human and financial resources, teaching content and processes, in the public sector, ISCED 1 and 2, 2006/07

HUMAN RESOURCES