Independent Public Schools in Western Australia: Stakeholders’ perspectives on
implementation
George Phillip Sekulla
JP BA (Edu.) B.Ed M.Ed.Man
This thesis is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education of The University of Western Australia
Graduate School of Education
2018
Contents
Declaration i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Chapter One – Introduction 1
Background 2
Research Design and Method 7
Significance of the Study 10
Outline of the Thesis 11
Chapter Two – Background to Self-managing Schools 13
International Context 13
Australian Context 33
Western Australian Context 41
Summary 58
Chapter Three – Literature Review 60
School Leadership 60
Teacher Empowerment 70
Student Achievement 80
School Governance 95
Summary 106
Chapter Four – Research Design and Method 109
Qualitative Research 109
Theoretical Framework 111
Location of the Researcher 114
Research Design 116
Research Question 117
Methods 118
Quality Issues 131
Ethical Issues 132
Summary 134
Chapter Five – Data Analysis 135
Flexibility 135
Autonomy 152
Accountability 163
Summary 179
Chapter Six – Discussion 180
Perspectives of Principals 180
Perspectives of Deputy Principals 189
Perspectives of Teachers 195
Perspectives of Business Managers 200
Perspectives of Chairpersons 203
Summary 209
Chapter Seven – Conclusion and Implications 211
Overview of the Study 211
Summary of Findings 213
Implications of the Study for Further Research 218
Implications of the Study for Policy and Practice 220
Limitations of the Study 224
Summary 225
References 227
Appendices
Appendix A Interview Schedule Round One 254
Appendix B Interview Schedule Round Two 255
Appendix C Information Sheet and Consent Form 256
Appendix D Information Sheet and Consent Form for
Site Access
258
List of Tables
Table 4.1 First stage of analysis 126
Table 4.2 Second stage of analysis 127
Table 4.3 Third stage of analysis 128
Table 4.4 Fourth stage of analysis 129
List of Figures
Figure 4.1 Components of Data Analysis: Interactive Model 125
List of Abbreviations
AEC Australian Education Council
CEIS Community Education Initiative Scheme
CMEC Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
COAG Council of Australian Governments
CUA Common Use Agreement
DES Department of Education Services
DPA Delivery and Performance Agreement
EDWA Education Department of Western Australia
FTE Full Time Equivalent
GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education
IBE International Bureau of Education
ICSEA Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage
IPS Independent Public Schools
LAEP Local Area Education Planning
LEA Local Education Authority
LOLSO Leadership for Organisational Learning and Student Outcomes
MCEECDYA Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development
and Youth Affairs
MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and
Youth Affairs
OECD Organisation for Economic and Cultural Development
OFSTED Office for Standards in Education
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
SCSA School Curriculum and Standards Authority
SCSEEC Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood
SSC State Service Commission
SSTUWA State School Teachers’ Union of Western Australia
TAFE Technical and Further Education
UK United Kingdom
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
US United States of America
UTD University of Texas, Dallas
WACSSO Western Australian Council of State School Organisations
Referencing Note
1. The Department of Education is the government agency that is responsible for
public education in Western Australia. Throughout its history, the Western Australian
public education bureaucracy has been referred to by a series of titles. These titles
include:
Title Years
General Board of Education 31 August 1847 – 17 August 1871
Central Board of Education 18 August 1871 – 12 October 1893
Education Department 13 October 1893 – 1 July 1988
Ministry of Education 1 July 1988 – 1 January 1994
Education Department of Western Australia 1 January 1994 – 3 February 2003
Department of Education and Training 3 February 2003 – 30 October 2009
Department of Education 30 October 2009 – present
II
Abstract
The Independent Public Schools (IPS) initiative commenced in 2010. Since 1987,
Western Australia has been engaged in robust debate about approaches to local
decision-making in public schools. The IPS initiative in Western Australia is viewed as
a strategy to support the devolution of decision-making to the local school level. The
study reported in this thesis examined the implementation of the IPS initiative in three
Western Australian public secondary schools. The central research question is What are
the perspectives of stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public School
status in the first year of operation in the respective schools in Western Australia? The
study investigated the select group of stakeholders at two points in time during a 12-
month period. The study is based on qualitative data collected from participants through
a series of structured in-depth interviews. Findings from the analysis of stakeholders’
views are presented as three broad themes: flexibility, autonomy and accountability.
The study found the stakeholders view the IPS initiative as providing opportunities for
schools to manage their resources to ensure long term sustainable improvements in
student outcomes. Parent/caregiver and community participation in school decision-
making improved in quality and representation on the School Board with the
implementation of IPS. Both parents/caregivers and the community believed they were
more engaged in setting and evaluating the direction of the school with the IPS model.
It is too early to assess whether the IPS initiative has created an environment that will
contribute to improved student outcomes. Implications relating to increased workload,
increased authority of the Principal, attracting quality staff, and the extent to which the
Board influenced school decision-making formed part of the findings in this study.
These findings, if substantiated in a broader context, have significant implications for
autonomy, accountability, compliance, quality assurance and student achievement
within the Western Australian public education system.
III
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been embarked upon and completed without the
support of my family. I have been extremely fortunate in my life to have very loving
parents, François and Marija Sekulla (née Pavlinović), who have encouraged me to
pursue a love of learning. Their knowledge, wisdom and life experiences have been
invaluable and have shaped the individual that I am today. Their strong work ethic,
commitment, civic responsibility and sense of justice have continued to be my
inspiration.
My journey would not have been possible without the love, support, energy and
patience of my wife Dianna Panzich-Sekulla. Her faithful support during this journey is
appreciated. To my beautiful children Paul, Sophia and Francesca, who were born
during this journey, “It is not who you are, but what you do, that defines you”. You
have been a source of love, energy and inspiration for me from the day you came into
this world and will continue to be for the rest of my life.
I am extremely grateful for the cooperation and support received from all the
research participants in the three public secondary schools. Their honesty and
willingness to give up their valuable time and share their experiences is sincerely
appreciated.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Helen Wildy,
Professor Simon Clarke, and my former supervisor Dr Elaine Sharplin for their
encouragement, guidance and support. It has been an honour to have Professor Wildy as
my supervisor. She has taught me how quality research in education can be achieved. I
sincerely appreciate Professor Wildy’s contributions of time and ideas to make my
learning experience a stimulating journey. I am also thankful for the excellent example
she has provided as a successful educational researcher. I would like to acknowledge
IV
Professor Clarke for his expertise, rigour and attention to detail during my study. I
would also like to thank my former supervisor Dr Sharplin who assisted me to begin my
research. Her advice and support helped me to establish the direction of the research and
to move forward with an in-depth investigation. Their knowledge, wisdom and
enthusiasm have been extremely valuable.
This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training
Program (RTP) Scholarship.
1
Chapter One
Introduction
During the 1980s, education systems were re-structured in all Australian States.
Bureaucratic administrative structures were replaced with a more decentralised form of
school administration to ensure increased efficiency and flexibility in the use of
resources and responsiveness to community needs. Since 1987, successive Western
Australian governments have been determined to improve the management of the
education system through devolution and organisational restructuring. Thirty years ago,
this attempt to devolve centralised power was introduced with the report, Better Schools
in Western Australia: A programme for improvement (referred to as the Better Schools
Report, 1987). The introduction of the Independent Public Schools initiative, in 2009,
sought to further devolve administrative responsibility to schools and enhance
community participation in local decision-making. Both reform initiatives were
concerned about local decision-making, responsibility and accountability rather than the
reallocation of power within the Western Australian public education system.
The study reported in this thesis examined the Independent Public Schools
initiative in three Western Australian public secondary schools, consistent with policy
direction in Australia and internationally. The study sought to examine the perspectives
of stakeholders (the Principal, Deputy Principals, Business Manager, teachers and the
Chairperson of the School Board) on the implementation of Independent Public Schools
in the Western Australian public system of education. A qualitative research method
with an interpretivist approach was used to gain an awareness of participants’
understandings and actions and how they contributed to their perspectives.
2
This first chapter introduces the thesis and provides an overview of the study.
The chapter begins with the purpose of the study and provides a broad overview.
Second, the context in Western Australia is outlined, including a brief history of
devolution. The third section outlines the research methods employed and the
interpretivist nature of the study. The fourth section presents a justification for the
study. Finally, an overview of the structure of the thesis is presented.
Background
Globalisation has emerged as a critical catalyst informing contemporary
educational reform, in particular, devolution of school management. Australia’s desire
to embrace integration into a global economy underpinned the Hawke Labor
Government’s macro and micro economic reform agenda during the 1980s. This agenda
sought to improve efficiency and competitiveness across the public and private sectors.
Education was viewed as critical to increasing opportunities to enhance social mobility
and decrease inequity. Dawkins elaborated on the important role played by education:
Adjustment of our society and economy is inevitable and necessary if
we and our children are to have meaningful and fulfilling lives …
schools are the starting point of an integrated education and training
structure in the economy … They also form the basis of a more highly
skilled, adaptive and productive workforce (1988, p. 1).
This level of importance attached to schools made education a powerful vehicle
to serve the national interest. This national interest emphasised the importance in
creating a dynamic, flexible, multi skilled worker capable of adapting to the global
pressures. Forster (1996) viewed this educational response as reflecting the
developments occurring in other economically developed countries. During the 1980s
and 1990s, many countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
3
and Development (OECD) were engaged in education reform. There was a strong
emphasis amongst these countries to develop education systems characterised by
policies of efficiency and equity.
Devolution has been viewed, internationally, as an important strategy to
facilitate education reform since the 1970s. For the past 45 years, public school systems
throughout the world have participated in restructuring involving the devolution of
aspects of authority, decision-making and responsibility from a central agency to the
local school. According to the OECD (2008), Australia had been part of a minority
group of nations where decisions were made primarily through a centralised
bureaucracy. At a State and Territory level, Australia has been engaged in rigorous
debate about devolution, local management of schools and its various derivations. The
respective education agencies conducted reviews and produced reports dealing with the
issues of restructuring the public school systems.
Indeed, devolution became a central focus for any proposed restructuring of the
public school system. Devolution is the action of shifting power over decision-making
and financial accountability from a central bureaucratic department to a local site
(Caldwell & Spinks, 1998). The process of devolution in Australia has resulted in the
trend towards self-managing schools. Caldwell and Spinks define the self-managing
school as:
a school in a system of education where there has been significant and
consistent decentralisation to the school level of authority to make
decisions related to the allocation of resources. This decentralisation is
administrative rather than political, with decisions at the school level
being made within a framework of local, state or national policies and
guidelines. The school remains accountable to a central authority for
the manner in which resources (such as curriculum knowledge,
technology, staff, concrete materials, time and money) are allocated
(1992, p. 4).
4
In addition, Caldwell and Spinks (1998) emphasised that a self-managing school does
not mean that it is an autonomous school. Rather, the self-managing school is part of a
wider school system where broad strategic planning and policy directions are centrally
determined. The term self-managing schools has been used in this thesis to ensure
consistency in language relating to a particular model of devolution.
Since 1987, Western Australian education authorities and governments have
been engaged in robust debate about contemporary approaches to local decision-making
in schools; initially as the Local Management of Schools Pilot Project in 1999 and
currently as the Independent Public Schools initiative that was launched in 2009. The
Independent Public Schools initiative in Western Australia was viewed by the Barnett
Liberal-National Coalition Government as an effective strategy to support the
progressive devolution of decision-making to the local level. Within the context of the
Western Australian public school system, this initiative aims to empower individual
schools to develop a teaching-learning environment that reflects the needs of the local
community (Gobby, 2013). The current debate and the literature reveal that devolution
is a complex and often misunderstood concept.
Western Australian Context
Until the mid-1980s, Western Australia, like other Australian States, had
experienced a long history of a centralised public sector. In the Education Department
of Western Australia (EDWA), educational policy decisions were made by the Director-
General of Education and senior public servants who were viewed as experts in the
field. The election of the Burke Labor Government in 1983 was accompanied by a
period of wide ranging reform of the public sector.
The Government’s first initiative was to announce a Commission of Enquiry
into Education, chaired by Kim Beazley Snr, entitled Education in Western Australia,
5
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education in Western Australia, referred to as
the Beazley Report, 1984. The Beazley Report highlighted the importance of devolution
and community participation in school decision-making, recommending that the school
and the community be partners in decision-making in areas such as school policy,
staffing and the management of resources (1984, p. 257).
The re-election of the Burke Labor Government in March 1986 was the
beginning of practical reform across the public sector. During that year, Premier Burke
tabled his White Paper to guide public sector reform. This policy brought into the
Western Australian public sector an economic rationalist perspective to replace the old
bureaucratic model with a more effective, efficient, responsive and accountable sector.
Twelve months later, a report titled Better Schools in Western Australia: a programme
for improvement (referred to as the Better Schools Report, 1987) guided the
restructuring and rationalisation of services within EDWA. The proposed reforms aimed
to produce more flexible, efficient, accountable and responsive schools to local
community needs, through devolving decision-making from the central bureaucracy and
the creation of self-managing schools.
In 1994, the Court Liberal-National Coalition Government established a
committee to review the impact of the initiatives outlined in the Better Schools Report.
In addition, it examined ways to further progress devolution within the public sector of
education in Western Australia. The committee produced a report titled Devolution of
Decision-Making Authority in the Government School System of Western Australia
(referred to as the Hoffman Report, 1994). The Hoffman Report, sought to clarify the
philosophical approach underpinning devolution. In this way, the concept of devolution
was clarified in regard to decision-making, planning, performance management,
regulatory frameworks and financial resources. Accountability emerged as the key focus
area for public schools to address in Western Australia.
6
During the late 1990s, EDWA progressively increased devolved decision-
making to local schools. Increased scope for local decision-making became a key
objective of the Plan for Government School Education 1998-2000 (Education
Department of Western Australia, 1997). The Court Liberal-National Coalition
Government attempted to introduce self-managing schools through the Local
Management of Schools Pilot Project in March 1999 (Education Department of Western
Australia, 1999). The Pilot Project was the vehicle through which EDWA attempted to
develop a systematic approach to devolved decision-making to enable changes at the
school and system level to be identified and addressed. The defeat of the Court Liberal-
National Coalition Government and the election of the Gallop Labor Government in
2001 ended the pilot project.
In August 2009, the Barnett Liberal-National Coalition Government delivered
on a pre-election commitment regarding self-managing schools, announcing a trial
program for Independent Public Schools (IPS) commencing in 2010 (Gobby, 2013).
These schools would remain as public entities; however, they would be managed at the
local level with a one line budget. The education portfolio received a $19 million
increase in funding over four years to manage the initiative. At the time of this study,
there were three phases of implementation. They were followed by a further three
phases of implementation. The first phase commenced in 2010 with 34 schools. The
second phase commenced in 2011 with 64 schools. The third phase selected 109
schools. This last phase was brought into the initiative in two stages: 73 schools in 2012
and 36 schools in 2013. The fourth phase included 48 schools. The fifth phase in 2015
added 174 schools and the sixth phase in 2017 added a further 50 schools. During 2014
– 2016, 17 new schools were opened and added to the IPS initiative (Jacobs, 2016). By
2017, 80% of public students and teachers are in 524 Independent Public Schools across
7
Western Australia (Collier, 2016). The research reported in this study is set in the
context of the implementation of the IPS initiative in Western Australia.
Research Design and Method
An overview of the research practices is now outlined according to the
theoretical framework, research design and research method.
Theoretical Framework
The study placed primary importance on the perspectives of stakeholders in a
school and their interpretation of the IPS initiative. Investigation of the central question
was approached through the meaning that participants ascribe to their attitudes and the
events surrounding the implementation of IPS. As the study assumed that reality is
subjective and constructed, that there are many truths, and that understanding is
important, an interpretivist paradigm was adopted (Charmaz, 2009).
The interpretivist paradigm emphasises patterns and connections, prioritising
understanding over explanation. According to Schutz (1954), human societies are
essentially subjective realities. People engage in conscious, intentional activities and
attach meanings to their actions. Interpretivists, as noted by Charmaz (2009), argue that
the positivist idea of causation is quite logical in the natural world where a particular
stimulus consistently produces a given effect, but does not apply in the social world.
People do not merely react to stimuli; rather, they actively interpret the situations in
which they find themselves and act on the basis of these interpretations.
This study was conducted within the symbolic interactionist theoretical
framework which allowed for the interpretation of social phenomena. Symbolic
interactionism, a major theoretical framework within the interpretivist paradigm,
8
“assumes society, reality, and self are constructed through interaction and thus rely on
language and communication” (Charmaz, 2009, p. 7). Consequently, individuals are
seen to be active and reflective and that social life viewed as being influenced by a
series of processes. Individuals do not simply respond unconsciously to stimuli.
Blumer (1969) defined the principles underpinning symbolic interactionism: the
importance of meaning to the individual as an acting entity and the primacy of direct
empirical observation as a methodology. Blumer (1969) argued that symbolic
interactionism is based on three principles. First, that human beings act towards things
on the basis of the meanings those things have for them; second that such meanings
arise out of the interaction of the individual with others; and third, that an interpretive
process is used by the person in each instance in which they deal with things in their
environment.
Central Research Question
The central research question is:
What are the perspectives of stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public
School status in the first year of operation in the respective schools in Western
Australia?
1. What are stakeholders’ understandings of the purpose of the introduction of
Independent Public Schools?
2. What are the expectations of the stakeholders of a school in regard to
Independent Public Schools? What reasons do they give for these expectations?
3. What are the expected benefits of the Independent Public School initiative?
4. What are the expectations of purpose and benefits after the first year of
implementation?
9
The aim of this study was to examine the perspectives of stakeholders (the
Principal, Deputy Principals, Business Manager, teachers and the Chairperson of the
School Board) on the implementation of Independent Public Schools in the Western
Australian public system of education. The study investigated a selected group of
stakeholders at two points in time during a 12-month period. The selection of schools
was determined using purposive sampling (Punch, 1998) to ensure a range of situations
were examined. The criterion for site selection was to achieve a different context of
metropolitan schools. Schools were identified from within the metropolitan area
because of the time and resources available to me. The three schools were selected from
the third round of successful applicants in the IPS initiative. For the purpose of the
study, stakeholders comprised: the Principal, Deputy Principals, Business Manager,
teachers, and the Chairperson of the School Board.
The main method of data collection was through structured interviews. An aide
memoire of questions assisted me during the interviews. Each participant was
interviewed twice during the 12-month period for approximately one hour.
In keeping with the principles underpinning symbolic interactionism, the Miles
and Huberman (1994) framework for data analysis was used in this study. The
characteristic inductive approach that underpins the Miles and Huberman framework is
appropriate to investigate the implementation of the Independent Public Schools
initiative in public secondary schools. The processes of data collection, data display and
data reduction were applied to the data analysis in this study. Data for each participant
were analysed and themes highlighted. The significance of the study is now outlined.
10
Significance of the Study
There are important lessons for Australian policy makers and administrators
which will be learnt from research regarding self-managing schools reform. This study
focuses on stakeholder’s perspectives in Western Australia as an important step in
understanding the issues involved with devolution and its implicit moves towards self-
managing schools. This study examined theoretical conceptions of issues explored in
the literature review and involved in the implementation of self-managing schools
reform. The leadership of the schools and how leaders manage the implementation
within the school provided useful information for school administrators and educational
policy makers in managing change and reform at the local school level.
The IPS initiative purported to be a solution to the problem of low student
achievement in Western Australian public schools. In a media statement announcing the
launch of the IPS initiative, the Government of Western Australia pointed out “school
principals and senior staff to lead and make decisions to tailor their school for the best
education outcomes for their students” (Barnett & Constable, 2009). This was also
significant given Australia’s fall in its international ranking in literacy and numeracy
during this time. Any initiative ought, therefore, to be assessed by the impact that it has
on student outcomes. However, it is too early to assess whether the IPS initiative has
created an environment for improved student outcomes.
A select group of participants was identified to participate in the study. These
stakeholders represented a cross-section of the school community and included the
Principal, Deputy Principals, Business Manager, teachers, and the Chairperson of the
School Board. All participants had a full range of knowledge, skill and experience
relating to their local school. Each participant was a member of the Board for their
11
school. The study provided an insight into how their understanding of their school
contributed to their perspective about the IPS initiative.
The study has intrinsic value as a written record of the implementation process
used by three public secondary schools in Western Australia. The information gained
from the research is potentially transferable to other education environments. The study
adds to the growing body of literature investigating the implementation of self-
managing schools reform in Western Australian public schools. The importance of this
study lies within its potential to identify stakeholders’ perspectives relating to self-
managing schools reform. An examination of stakeholders’ perspectives has the
potential to assist others interested in the improvement of implementing and sustaining
self-managing schools reform in other school settings. The structure of the thesis is now
presented.
Outline of the Thesis
This thesis comprises seven chapters.
Chapter One has introduced the study outlining policy and research relating to
devolution of school management within the context of contemporary educational
reform. An outline of the significance of the study is presented and research questions
are established.
Chapter Two describes the background policy and empirical research relating to
self-managing schools in three contexts: internationally, Australian and Western
Australian.
Chapter Three reviews the empirical literature including School Leadership,
Teacher Empowerment, Student Achievement and School Governance.
12
Chapter Four describes the research approach and method used in the study.
Chapter Five presents a description of the study’s findings.
Chapter Six presents a discussion of the findings of the study which is developed
around the research questions outlined in Chapter One. The focus of the discussion
centers on providing meaning to the analysis of results and outlines the importance of
these findings within the area of self-managing schools.
Chapter Seven provides an overview of the research undertaken, presents key
findings, and offers implications for research and for practice.
13
Chapter Two
Background to Self-managing Schools
Self-managing schools can be viewed within the context of global
developments. This chapter describes the policy context within which the central
research question of the study reported in this thesis is investigated. The chapter
describes the background of self-managing schools at three levels: within an
international context; within an Australian context; and in the Western Australian
context.
International Context
Since the 1970s, governments of OECD nations have been engaged in
widespread reform of their public administration (Kettl, 2005; Pollitt & Bouckaert,
2004). Increased public debt, fiscal problems, and high rates of unemployment were
contributing to an international economic slowdown. Governments from across the
political spectrum were under pressure to find alternative ways at addressing these
issues. The quest for efficiency and for decreasing the cost associated with delivering
public services, during this period of economic recession, required strategic reform.
The reforms from the late 1970s and 1980s focused on the application of
business management practices in public administration (O’Leary et al, 2010). They
were underpinned by New Right ideology and reflected marketisation, privatisation,
managerialism and accountability. According to Boston and colleagues, these reforms
represented a “general ideological shift to the Right and a belief in a smaller public
sector and an extensive reliance on the market mechanisms” (1996, p. 6). Public
administration practices during this time were criticised on the basis of the extent of
14
government involvement in the economy and the unsustainable cost to the taxpayer for
public services. Advocates of neo-liberal policies believed that only the market
mechanism, a comprehensive privatisation program and ever-widening choice could
restore the necessary discipline to improve the economic circumstances (Larbi, 1999).
In essence, advocates recommended that government be managed like a business where
enterprise and ingenuity were encouraged.
All sectors of public administration during the late 1970s and 1980s were
subjected to reform, including education (Farazmand & Pinkowski, 2007; O’Leary et al,
2010). In nations, such as Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United
States of America problems including the increasing cost in delivering public education,
an unwieldy bureaucracy and poor standards in education required attention (Mourshed
et al, 2010; OECD, 2001). Here, the focus of reform was to apply neo-liberal policy to
free schools from bureaucracy and promote competition, choice, efficiency, and
accountability. To progress this policy, education would be redefined, according to
Grace (1994), as a commodity in the marketplace that “would be delivered more
efficiently and effectively in [by] market forces” (p. 126).
At the centre of this reform was the decentralisation of education bureaucracy
which was lauded as a fundamental solution to many of the problems confronting public
education. Decentralisation provided an important broader context within which to
locate two key strategies to facilitate the reform of the public education system in many
countries: devolution and community participation (Townsend, 2007). Devolution refers
to the movement of decision-making authority from a centrally organised bureaucratic
agency to the local site. In an education context, decentralisation refers to the local
management of schools based on manageralist principles (Caldwell & Spinks, 2013).
Community participation refers to the increased influence of stakeholders at the local
school site (Barrera-Osorio et al, 2009). Of relevance here is increased parental
15
participation in school decision-making to ensure the school appropriately meets the
needs of the local community.
Self-managing schools has been present in international policy and practice
since the late-1970s. However, implementation varies and so do its purposes. The
general motive that underpinned the application of self-managing schools, according to
Caldwell (2016b) and David (1989), was to address concerns relating to efficiency and
effectiveness in the delivery of public education. To this end, a common characteristic
of self-managing schools has been an increase in decision-making authority and
accountability at the local school level, within a centrally regulated framework of
operation (OECD, 2008). By the 1990s, self-managing schools had emerged as the
central idea in the reform of public education systems around the world (Caldwell,
2008; Caldwell & Spinks, 1992; O’Donoghue & Dimmock, 1998; Townsend, 1997).
Self-managing schools is now well-established in countries such as Canada,
New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Experience with
self-managing schools in these countries has produced models that have been applied to
other countries (Caldwell, 2005). The following section examines the evolution of self-
managing schools in four developed nations. These countries have been selected
because they are well researched and each appears to be different in their embrace of
self-managing schools. The four countries were pioneers in the implementation of self-
managing schools that contributed to public education system reform during the past 40
years and provided models for other developed and less developed nations to embrace.
Canada
Canada is one of the earliest and most noteworthy examples of self-managing
schools (Caldwell, 2012). Pioneered by the Edmonton Public School District, the
Canadian (Edmonton) model has been well researched (Levačić & Ross, 1999). Schools
16
have had more than 40 years of experience with self-managing schools and provide a
useful template for other school districts in Alberta and other Provinces and Territories
in Canada. Indeed, the Canadian experience has informed the implementation of self-
managing schools in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom as
well as the United States of America (Caldwell, 2012, 2016b; Caldwell & Spinks,
2008).
According to Canada’s Constitution, education is the responsibility of the
Provinces (Caldwell, 2006; Dodek, 2013). There is no Federal Minister for Education in
the Canadian Government and Federal Department of Education, and no Federal
funding of schools. Despite the role of the Provinces in this area, the Federal
Government retains a significant role in the delivery of education to indigenous
students, the children of those who served in the Canadian Armed Forces, and children
imprisoned in Federal institutions (Caldwell et al, 2015). Cooperation and coordination
among the ten Provinces and three Territories is achieved through the Council of
Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC).
Prior to the introduction of the Edmonton model, public schools in Canada
functioned within a centralised system of school management in each of the Provinces
and Territories, practising a compliance-oriented approach to management. Tension
often existed between the demands from central authorities and the needs of the local
community, with responsibility to resolve tensions resting with schools. During the
early 1970s, Principals in the Edmonton Public School District became increasingly
concerned about the deficiencies in the centralised model used to allocate resources to
schools. According to Garms, Guthrie, and Pierce (1978), this model contributed to
inefficiencies, prevented the local community from participating in the decision-making
process and curbed parental choice of schools. In 1976, the District introduced a pilot
project focusing on self-managing schools, often referred to as self-managing schools,
17
in 7 of its schools. Financial delegation became the key aspect of this self-managing
schools approach. The allocation and deployment of resources for teaching and non-
teaching staff, equipment, and services were devolved to the local school (Caldwell,
2012).
In 1980, self-managing schools were expanded to include all the schools in the
District. The application of self-managing schools across the District did not involve a
single model (Caldwell, 2012). Rather, the Central Office provided schools with a
framework outlining the degree of autonomy assigned to individual schools and a range
of management models. Each school developed its own model for school governance as
long as it reflected the principles articulated by Central Office (Kaleidoscope
Consulting, 2004).
Monitoring processes were developed and implemented to ensure schools were
accountable for the financial delegation. Students in Years 3, 6, 9 and 12 participated in
annual testing across all learning areas in the curriculum. In 1987, the District defined
and implemented benchmarks as a means of comparing cohorts of students. School-
specific data and like-school data were used in comparative analyses, the results of
which were made available to parents/caregivers and the wider community. By 2000,
other school Districts across Canada were applying the Edmonton model to their
schools, contributing to institutionalising of a comprehensive approach to self-managing
schools.
In 2017, public schools in Canada remain the responsibility of individual
provincial departments of education and are funded through local and provincial taxes,
with some Federal Government funding. Each province is divided at the local level into
school districts governed by a superintendent and a locally elected board of education
that decides instructional policies, employs staff, purchases equipment and generally
oversees the day-to-day running of schools (Macleod & Hasan, 2017). Most schools
18
have Parents Advisory Councils (PACs) that are responsible for raising money to buy
equipment such as computers, video surveillance, emergency lighting, playground
equipment and school buses for children with special needs. Provincial departments of
education determine education policy in accordance with provincial laws. The Minister
of Education, however, is responsible for setting policy relating to educational affairs,
such as the allocation of provincial and Federal Government funding, registration of
teachers, textbooks and library services, provision of records and educational statistics,
and setting and enforcing the term of compulsory education (Macleod & Hasan, 2017).
Managing a school system was viewed to be similar to managing a large
corporation (Caldwell, 2012). Decentralising the decision-making process was viewed
as sound manageralist practice, on the assumption that an inclusive form of
management, at both District and local school levels, would ensure that community and
individual needs were reflected in the quality of education delivered to students.
New Zealand
During the 20th century, New Zealand’s public education system had been
frequently criticised for an inefficient centralised bureaucracy (Gregory, 2003; Langley,
2009; Wylie, 2007). Increased public pressure to reform the delivery of public education
was reflected in the numerous publications relating to devolved decision-making that
emanated from the Educational Development Conference (Barrington, 1990; Openshaw,
2009). These publications advocated devolution and self-managing schools as an
important approach to address criticisms of the delivery of public education.
From the late 1960s, New Zealand was faced with an economic and social crisis
that permeated society, including education (Gregory, 2003). An increase in youth
unemployment, social division, and the rise of the post war generation to political power
resulted in a common discourse calling for educational reform (Barrington, 1990).
19
Advocates for neo-liberalism gained influence within Treasury and the State Service
Commission (SSC) where they implemented an agenda to reduce public expenditure
and re-introduce budgetary restraint. Criticism abounded of the Department of
Education’s inefficient management practices and lack of accountability (Boston, Haig
& Lauder, 1988; McKinnon, 2003).
Simultaneously, neo-Marxist advocates were gaining influence within the
education faculties at New Zealand’s universities (Openshaw, 2009). Once supporters of
the Department of Education, these academics became their strongest critics. They
attacked the Department for failing to improve learning outcomes of generations of
Maori students and the highly centralised nature of the bureaucratic system (Benton,
1987). Moreover, devolutionary pilot projects such as the Community Education
Initiative Scheme (CEIS) strengthened the case for educational reform for devolved
decision-making, self-managing schools and parent choice.
By the early 1980s, the New Zealand education policy environment had become
increasingly open to devolved decision-making. The Scott Report, on the quality of
teaching, advocated increased accountability and parental involvement in teacher
appraisal as a way to improve standards (Education and Science Select Committee,
1986). The Fargher-Probine Report on post-compulsory education and training
investigated gender inequities and poor learning outcomes of Maori students in post-
compulsory education and recommended competitive, devolved institutions (Fargher-
Probine, 1987). Both reports applied left wing and neo-liberal ideas to illustrate what
could be achieved in the best interests of the broader community. By the mid-1980s, the
foundations had been established for a collective policy discourse focusing on the need
for educational reform, centring on devolved decision-making and, more specifically,
self-managing schools (Wylie, 2009).
20
The re-election of the Lange Labour Government on 15 August 1987 provided a
political mandate to review the administration of public education in New Zealand. An
inquiry, referred to as the Picot Taskforce, was established to progress the review.
According to Rae (1997), the inquiry identified a number of weaknesses in the public
education system that could be summarised as an archaic central decision-making
structure; lack of school choice; poor management practices; and a complex
bureaucratic structure vulnerable to the influence of pressure group politics.
The Picot Taskforce released its report, Administering for Excellence: Effective
Administration in Education (referred to as the Picot Report), in May 1988 (Fiske &
Ladd, 2000). The Report recommended a system of largely independent schools, each
governed by a board consisting mainly of parents, although subject to review and
inspection by specialised government agencies. The Lange Labour Government
produced a document, Tomorrow's Schools, which responded to the Report (Levin,
2001). This document became the basis for educational reform in New Zealand which
commenced in 1989. The Lange Labour Government subsequently drafted a new
Education Act in 1989, providing a legislative framework to facilitate this reform. The
new Act replaced the highly regulated system of administrating schools in New Zealand
with self-managing schools (Gamage & Zajda, 2005; Robinson & Ward, 2005; Whitty,
Power & Halpin, 1998).
The aim of the New Zealand reform was to improve local community
involvement and provide increased parent choice relating to schools. Each school was
governed by a Board comprising the Principal; staff representatives; and elected parent
representatives (Gamage & Zajda, 2005). The Board’s first task was the preparation of a
charter to guide the direction of the school (Hill et al., 1990). The charter was developed
in collaboration with major stakeholders, including the Principal, staff and the wider
school community. The Education Act (1989) provided the School Board with the
21
power to influence the management of the school, including the employment and
performance management of the Principal.
The re-election of the Key National Government, albeit a minority government,
on 26 November 2011 continued the reform of the education system in New Zealand.
The National-ACT Coalition Government introduced Charter Schools as an alternative
to State Schools. These schools are operated by private businesses and are accountable
for performance to the organisations running them. Charter Schools receive state
funding and private donations. However, they have the same freedoms as private
schools in matters such as in setting the curriculum, length of the school year and staff
pay. Charter schools are subject to triennial external reviews, and the government has
the power to intervene if there are serious problems, either taking over from the sponsor
for a period of time or removing them altogether. In 2013, the Government announced
that Charter Schools are subject to the Office of the Ombudsman for scrutiny on matters
relating to suspensions and expulsions. By May 2017, there were 10 Charter Schools
operating in the New Zealand education system (Poole, 2017). Charter Schools were
criticised by the opposition parties, teacher professional associations and the general
public. Opposition to Charter Schools related to unregistered teachers having contact
with students and the lack of full accountability to the Office of the Ombudsman.
Self-managing schools introduced a culture of power sharing and empowerment
that was previously non-existent in New Zealand public schools (Wylie, 2009).
Principals were now required to adhere to a new level of professional conduct. Research
conducted by Gamage and Zajda (2005) refers to a study by Cusack in 1993 involving
professional expectations in a devolved school environment. This study supported the
notion that schools required a shift in the approach towards power sharing and
empowerment if school priorities were to be achieved. Increased school accountability
for achieving student outcomes required a new level of professional conduct for
22
principals and members of the Executive team. Schools participated in an external
review every three years to ascertain progress in achieving the directions outlined in
their charter.
In the three decades since the implementation of the reform program emanating
from the Picot Report, there has been much debate about the success of devolved
decision-making. Few critics appear to have advocated an alternative to the reformed
education system. Any proposed changes were minor in nature, designed to improve
practice and strengthen accountability: merging boards of trustees to combine resources;
quality professional learning and advice for struggling boards; ongoing professional
learning and advice regarding the appointment of school Principals; and the
establishment of a formal disputes resolution process for both parents/caregivers and
students (Openshaw, 2009).
United Kingdom
Since the passage through Parliament of the Education Act (1944), England and
Wales have participated in the gradual reform of the education system (McKenzie,
2001). The Act became the legislative vehicle through which self-managing schools
gradually emerged in the English and Welsh education systems. McKenzie (2001)
points out that the Act created a ministry responsible for schools and these schools were
administered by Local Education Authorities (LEAs). The LEAs controlled the
curriculum, term dates and the length of the school day.
On 27 January 1975, the Wilson Labour Government established an independent
inquiry into the management and government of schools in England and Wales. The
inquiry produced a report in 1977 titled A New Partnership for Our Schools, commonly
known as the Taylor Report. The Report advocated retaining the existing partnership
23
between local and central government and the school, while making the governing body
representative of stakeholders.
Neo-liberalism underpinned all policy development and decision-making with
the election on 3 May 1979 of the Thatcher Conservative Government. Thatcher's neo-
liberal policies affected all Ministerial portfolios, including the public services:
Conservative legislation sought to drive neo-liberal principles into the
heart of public policy. An emphasis on cost reduction, privatisation and
deregulation was accompanied by vigorous measures against the
institutional bases of Conservatism's opponents, and the promotion of
new forms of public management. The outcome of these processes was
a form of governance in which market principles were advanced at the
same time as central authority was strengthened (Jones, 2003, p. 107).
The Thatcher Government’s education policies during the 1980s aimed to transform the
education system from one characterised as a public service to one that has been
influenced by market forces. Furthermore, the policies sought to transfer power from
local authorities to central government to ensure academic rigour and strengthen
accountability (Tolofari, 2005).
During the ensuing years, the Thatcher Government enacted a series of
Education Acts that rapidly facilitated self-managing schools. The Education Act 1980
revised the role and responsibilities of school governance. The Act provided increased
power to parents/caregivers by legislating that school governing bodies required at least
two parents/caregivers to form part of their membership. Furthermore, the delivery of
curriculum, the management of financial, human and physical resources, and
accountability to the wider school community was devolved to school governing bodies.
The Education Reform Act 1988 was a seminal piece of legislation in education.
According to O’Donoghue and Dimmock (1998), the Act changed in “fundamental
ways the values underpinning the system as well as the practices pervading” (p. 25),
transforming a public service into one influenced by market forces. According to
24
Chapman (1990), Levačić (2008) and Wirt (1991), six major reforms were adopted in
the Act in order to facilitate self-managing schools. The most significant of the reforms
was the establishment of a self-managing schools framework which provided a structure
for self-managing schools. The structure provided schools with autonomy,
responsibility, and accountability. Such devolution was designed to create greater
responsiveness by the school to the needs of their local community (Caldwell, 1990).
Autonomy and flexibility in decision-making at the school level was to be
followed by increased accountability to the wider school community (O’Donoghue &
Dimmock, 1998). The Education (Schools) Act 1992 was introduced by the Major
Conservative Government to provide a legislative framework by which schools could be
held accountable for their performance. The Act provided for the establishment of the
Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). Ofsted inspected schools, evaluated their
performance against standards, and produced a public report about each school. Schools
that failed to meet the standards were deemed ‘at risk’ and were required to work with a
team of experts to improve their performance (Bromley & Ripley, 2014; Cullingford,
1999).
The Major Conservative Government produced two documents which further
streamlined the opportunity for schools to become self-governing. These documents
included: the 1992 White Paper, Choice and Diversity: A new framework for schools
(Department of Education UK, 1992), and the 1993 Dearing Report, The National
Curriculum and its Assessment. The documents underpinned the drafting of the
Education Act 1993 which became the largest piece of legislation in the history of
education in England and Wales (Department of Education and Employment, 1995).
The 1993 Act made changes in funding arrangements with schools and
introduced new rules to assist schools to become self-governing or grant maintained.
Grant maintained schools received their revenue and capital budgets through an agency
25
whose members were appointed by the Secretary of State. Schools were funded on the
number of students enrolled, resulting in schools competing for students to maintain or
increase income. The Government believed such funding pressures would cause schools
to become competitive and improve the quality of education delivered to students
(Department of Education and Employment UK, 1995).
Following the election of the Blair Labour Government on 1 May 1997, a White
Paper was published outlining the Government’s education policies. The White Paper,
Excellence in Schools (Department of Education and Employment UK, 1997), seemed
to provide few differences (Jones, 2003) from the reforms carried out by the Thatcher
and Major Conservative Governments. Jones (2003) suggests that this was an
“endorsement of much of the 1988 Education Reform Act and its successors, in relation
both to parental choice and to competition between schools …” (p. 145). The reforms of
the previous Conservative Governments enabled the Blair Labour Government to
introduce the Academy Schools in 2000. These schools are publicly funded, although,
independent from the bureaucracy of the Local Education Authority, complying with
the National Curriculum policy and guidelines, and accepting private sponsorship
contributions (Beder, 2009). Academy schools comply with inspections by the Office
for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.
The Blair Labour Government established Academies through the Learning and
Skills Act (2000) with the aim of replacing poorly-performing community schools in
low socio-economic areas. Initially, they were known as City Academies; however, the
term was changed to Academies. The term Sponsored Academies was applied to this
type of academy, to differentiate from others (such as Converter Academy, Academy
Chain, and Faith Academy) that emerged in later years (Walford, 2013). Primarily,
Sponsored Academies required a private sponsor who could be an individual or an
organisation. These sponsors were expected to be on the cutting edge of the corporate
26
world (Beckett, 2007; Walford, 2000). They would bring with them an innovative
knowledge and skill set to replace the lack of leadership experienced by the failing
schools. They were required to contribute 10 percent of the Academy's capital costs.
The State would meet the remainder of the capital and running costs through grants
funded by the local authority. By 2010, 203 Sponsored Academies had been established
in England (Walford, 2013).
In 2010, the newly elected Cameron Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition
Government implemented further reforms to self-managing schools in the United
Kingdom. The Government subsequently introduced legislation, the Academies Act
(2010), to further increase the number of Academies and allow existing state schools to
become Academy schools (Exley & Ball, 2011). By April 2011, the number of
Academies had increased to 629, and by August 2011, had reached 1 070 (Department
of Education UK, 2012). By July 2012, this number reached 1 953 and, by July 2015, it
reached 4 722 (Department of Education UK, 2016). Given the expansion of the
Academies program, debate about its success has continued. Advocates for the program
refer to the data showing improvements in the General Certificate of Secondary
Education (GCSE) results for Academies compared to the previous arrangements
(Eyles, et al, 2015). Despite these improvements, the program has been repeatedly
challenged by politicians, teachers, and parents/caregivers as a waste of money,
selective, having an adverse impact on other nearby schools, and gradually eroding
choice for parents/caregivers (Peal, 2014).
The process of academisation experienced two distinct phases. Under the Blair
Labour Government, academisation was designed to replace schools that
underperformed. These schools became Sponsored Academies. In contrast, the Cameron
Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition Government focused on converting as many
schools as possible to the Academy model by 2022. These schools became Converter
27
Academies. The Government withdrew the initial decision to force all schools to
become Academies and decided to retain flexibility within the system. Schools,
however, that underperformed would still be forced to convert to an Academy model
through the Education and Adoption Act (2016). By September 2017, there were 6 704
Academies with 1 252 schools in the process of being converted to Academies. Of the 6
704 Academies, there are 4 747 Converter Academies and 1 957 Sponsored Academies
(Department for Education UK, 2017).
According to the recent report prepared by the National Foundation for
Educational Research (2016), an analysis of the performance of Academies by Ofsted
revealed Converter Academies to be the best performing of all types of schools in
England. In contrast, Sponsored Academies were shown to be the worst performing.
However, the report further revealed evidence to suggest school performance in
Sponsored Secondary Academies has improved at a faster rate than in similar schools.
This suggests that the Academy model has a gradual impact on improving performance
in underperforming schools. The report presented no data on the performance of
primary Academies. Thus, it was difficult to determine with conclusive evidence
whether academisation improved school performance.
The Academies Act (2010) also enabled the creation of Free Schools. Funded by
the government, Free Schools are non-selective, and outside the control of the Local
Education Authority. The Act is modelled on the Swedish Free School system (Allen,
2010). Although technically Academies, Free Schools are distinct both in their role and
in their management practice. They are newly created rather than existing schools. The
Free Schools program aims to foster competition among schools, resulting in high
standards and improved student outcomes. Free Schools are set up by parents, teachers,
charities or businesses, where there is a perceived local need for more schools. They are
ultimately accountable to the Secretary of State for Education.
28
The first 24 Free Schools opened in 2011. Despite the small number, Free
Schools represented a controversial dimension of the Academies program and they have
raised distinct and complex questions relating to accountability, governance and
selection of students. By November 2012, a further 57 schools had opened. A further 94
schools opened by July 2014 (Department of Education UK, 2016). By July 2015, there
were 252 Free Schools in operation (Department of Education, 2016). While there have
been examples of success with the implementation of Free Schools, it is not a common
result. Indeed, many schools in disadvantaged areas that had been performing poorly
have improved their results and practices to a similar standard as those that became
Academies (Eyles, et al, 2015). Despite the resources directed towards assisting Free
Schools, data reveals that they did not perform markedly better than similar schools.
Further, there was no evidence of extensive innovation across the system which was one
of the main arguments for the policy of devolving autonomy to the local school (West &
Bailey, 2013).
The radical reform of the English education system has attempted to address the
entrenched failure in schools with low performance, particularly, schools located in low
socio-economic areas (Eyles & Machin, 2015). Through its devolution of decision-
making authority to the local site, the Government has adopted an autonomy-driven
improvement approach. The expectation lies in schools using their greater freedom and
independence to lead and manage more effectively and more innovatively to improve
student outcomes. Reports provided by the National Audit Office reveal that
improvement through devolution has not resulted in widespread improvement in student
outcomes (National Audit Office, 2014). At the centre of any school improvement must
be good teaching and learning practice. Best teaching and learning practice underpinned
by professional collaboration within the school and across schools will lead to improved
student outcomes.
29
United States of America
Self-managing schools in the United States of America (US) has lacked a
coherent approach due to the federal system of government. There are three levels of
government (national, state and local) and the responsibility for public education rests
with the States while the delivery of educational services is vested in local government
(Ortiz & Ogawa, 2000). The States exercise their authority through school districts.
During the 20th century, States created large volumes of school districts to assist in the
administration of schools. Such large numbers proved unsustainable and States
commenced a large-scale consolidation of districts. By 2012, 14 000 school districts
remained in the US (Manna & McGuinn, 2013a). Each State views school districts as
autonomous political subdivisions that have the power to raise revenue for schools by
imposing taxes, and to make regulations to guide the direction of its schools.
Researchers suggest three documents reshaping national education policies and
influencing scholarly work relating to self-managing schools (Smith & Hoy, 2007),
Equality of Educational Opportunity (1966); A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform (1983); and the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Each document
questioned the efficiency of public schools and puts forward possible solutions for
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the public education system. An important
theme in each of these publications is that schools increased accountability for
educational outcomes. To this end, they advocate a decentralisation of decision-making
to the school level as a means of effectively improving school performance. They argue
that teachers in schools are in the best position to assess student needs and develop
programs to meet these needs (Abdulkadiroglu et al, 2011).
During the early 1960s, the US Department of Education commissioned a report
on educational equality, considered one of the largest studies in history with a sample of
30
more than 150 000 students. A report was produced in 1966 titled Equality of
Educational Opportunity, commonly known as the Coleman Report. According to
Smith and Hoy (2007), the Coleman Report advocated that student socioeconomic
background played an important role in determining educational outcomes rather than
school funding. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, this conclusion was challenged
by researchers who believed effective schools nurtured academic excellence. In
challenging some of the conclusions of the Coleman Report, these researchers promoted
school effectiveness research as a means of improving student outcomes and school
performance (Austin, 1979; Cuban, 1984; Purkey & Smith, 1983). Consequently, this
led to an increase in the allocation of funds to schools as a matter of priority.
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published a
report titled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The report
suggested student achievement in literacy and numeracy had been declining since the
mid-1960s (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Schools were
criticised for producing unskilled graduates; low retention rates; and the failure to
provide value for money. The report became a watershed publication that questioned the
effectiveness of the public education system resulting in numerous reforms in
education, in particular, the transfer of responsibility for financial and human resources,
and curriculum delivery to stakeholders at the school.
By 1990, responsibility for education funding was removed from the Federal
and Local Government authorities and was assumed by the States (Angrist et al, 2013).
With the change in education funding responsibility, schools were no longer required to
comply with many centrally imposed regulations which restricted their ability to meet
the educational needs of their local community. Ogawa and White (1994) point out that
between 1986 and 1990, one third of all school districts had implemented a self-
managing schools model.
31
The Charter Schools model attracted a great deal of interest during the period
1986 – 1990 as part of the reform of public schools (Angrist et al, 2013). Charter
schools became a radical approach to decentralising management to schools (Herbst,
2006). This model was a legally and financially autonomous public school where there
was no requirement to comply with State laws or District regulations, and schools
would be accountable for student outcomes. The school would be managed like a
private business. A dominant motivation behind the establishment of this is to free
schools from the bureaucracy and other external controls to encourage innovative
practice (Mulholland & Amsler, 1993; Wells, Hirshberg & Datnow, 1994). Charter
Schools were first implemented by the State Legislatures of Minnesota in 1991 and
California in 1992 (Kolderie, 2005).
Charter Schools are governed by a local council, receive State government
funding, and have varying degrees of autonomy from the bureaucracies according to
each jurisdiction (Department of Education USA, 2011). Charter Schools have been a
different type of devolved decision-making model in the US and have increased rapidly
since 1991. In 2015, there were 6 633 Charter Schools in 40 States and the District of
Columbia (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2015). The rapid increase in
Charter Schools represented an important focus for the Obama Administration in the
Race to the Top education initiatives and are an important part of extending schooling to
disadvantaged communities (Gross, 2011). In 2016-2017, there are more than 6 900
Charter Schools, enrolling an estimated 3.1 million students. During the past 10 years,
enrolment in Charter Schools has nearly tripled; from 1.2 million students in 2006-2007
to an estimated 3.1 million in 2016-2017. Between 2015-2016 and 2016-2017,
estimated Charter School enrolment increased by over 200 000 students (National
Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2017).
32
The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) was an important piece of educational
legislation proposed by the Bush Administration. The Act was driven by a conservative
government committed to a neo-liberal ideology to raise educational standards, reduce
the cost of public education and ensure that the community receives value for money.
The Act focused on ensuring accountability, equality, parent/caregiver choice of
schools, and transparent student learning outcomes in schools (Guskey, 2007; Smith,
2005).
The evolution of self-managing schools in the US during the past 50 years has
been linked with the concerns expressed by business and industry. These concerns relate
to the inadequate knowledge and skill set of the American worker in an increasingly
competitive global landscape (Manna & McGuinn, 2013b). As in many OECD nations,
business and industry continually assert that the role of the school has become critical to
the nation’s economic productivity (Cassen et al, 2014). Traditional models of school
governance practices are deemed inadequate as poor academic results and general
school performance do not prepare students to contribute to the national economy (Hill,
2013). Such dissatisfaction promotes the call for change in the way education is
delivered and the use of the market and manageralist principles to improve student
outcomes (Cassen et al, 2014).
The emergence of similar reforms embracing self-managing schools at an
international level responded to prevailing economic, political, and social priorities. A
growing body of research reveals that self-managing schools has been implemented in
both developed and less developed nations for various reasons with varying degrees of
success (Cassen et al, 2014; Clark, 2009; Dobbie & Fryer, 2013). The four nations
examined in this section presented models of self-managing schools which have
influenced the direction for reform on an international level. Although each of the four
nations described in this section articulated differences in their journey towards, and
33
justifications, for reform in education the overall pattern of self-managing schools
reveals similarities. The move towards self-managing schools has become an
international phenomenon with clearly defined goals – effective and efficient delivery
of education and improved student outcomes. Self-managing schools empowers local
schools in their decision-making by providing them with increased responsibility and
accountability to manage their school. The next section provides a description of the
development of self-managing schools in the Australian context.
Australian Context
In Australia, education is the constitutional responsibility of the States and
Territories (Aitken & Orr, 2002), creating a landscape with different education systems
rather than a unitary school system. Under the Commonwealth Constitution, States and
Territories have a significant financial responsibility for public schools, contribute
supplementary funds to private schools and regulate policies and programs (Moens &
Trone, 2016). States and Territories determine curriculum, course accreditation, student
assessment and awards for both public and private schools with increasing intervention
from national governments.
The Commonwealth Government contributes to school funding and policy
development. It has significant responsibilities in the education and training for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, international partnerships in education,
and providing financial assistance for students. The Commonwealth Government is
responsible for funding private schools and higher education institutions and provides
supplementary funding for public schools and Vocational Education and Training
(Roberts, 2012).
While schooling across Australia has many common areas, differences affect
school operations. During the past 25 years, significant moves have been made towards
34
achieving greater national consistency involving the States and Territories. The
Ministers of the States, Territories and Commonwealth have participated in regular
national meetings through the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training
and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) and its successor the Ministerial Council for
Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). In 2012,
MCEECDYA was replaced by the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG)
Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC). On 1 July
2013, SCSEEC became known as the Education Council. The Education Council is one
of eight Councils under the new COAG Council system. The Education Council
provides a forum through which policy relating to school education and early childhood
education is developed, implemented and evaluated at the national level. In addition, the
Education Council is a vehicle through which information is shared and resources
strategically allocated in order to achieve national priorities.
At a national level, devolution and community participation in public schools
had its genesis during the early 1970s. During this time, perceptions that Australian
public schools were performing poorly gained currency (Caldwell, 2013). At the 1972
Federal Election, the future of Australian education became a significant issue.
Following the election of the Whitlam Labor Government on 2 December 1972, an
inquiry was established to investigate, broadly, the issues confronting Australian
schools and recommend improvement strategies. The inquiry produced a report in 1973
titled Schools in Australia, commonly known as the Karmel Report. According to
Caldwell (2003), the Karmel Report is identified as a seminal work in self-managing
schools, advancing the notion of devolution and community participation in public
schools as a key theme of the Report’s recommendations for education reform.
The Report’s key points set the stage for the present commitment to school
reform:
35
The Committee favours less rather than more centralised control over
the operation of schools. Responsibility should be devolved as far as
possible upon the people involved in the actual task of schooling, in
consultation with the parents of the pupils whom they teach and, at the
senior levels, with the students themselves …. This grass roots
approach to the control of schools reflects a conviction that
responsibility will be most effectively discharged where the people
entrusted with making decisions are also the people responsible for
carrying them out (Karmel, 1973, p. 10).
The Report challenged the established centralist bureaucratic model in Australian public
schooling, that adopted a top-down approach, rather than nurturing the devolution of
decision-making (Caldwell, 2003).
The deep and widening impact of the global economic recession and the
emergence of neo-liberal education reform as a solution, during the 1970s, significantly
influenced the view of Western governments that public education was a partial
contributor to the economic slowdown. To this end, schools were viewed as having
inadequately prepared students with the appropriate knowledge and skill set to enter the
workforce. The Fraser Liberal-Country Party Coalition Government (1975 – 1983) used
these global economic circumstances together with the rising Australian youth
unemployment as a basis to criticise the educational reforms of the Whitlam Labor
Government (1972 – 1975) and promote an agenda for economic efficiency as a means
of defining the nature and purpose of public education across the States and Territories
(Ginsburg, 2011).
According to Down (1997), the Fraser Government’s first inquiry into education
in 1979, the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, signaled a significant
shift away from the education policies of the 1960s and the reforms of the Whitlam
Labor Government. The Committee produced a major report, Education, Training and
Employment: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (referred
to as the Williams Report), that redefined education in the national interest. Angus
36
(1992) argues that the Report refocused attention on the labour market and the
important role played by schools in preparing students for an ever-changing
employment landscape. In his analysis of the Williams Report, Down (1997) suggests
the Inquiry’s recommendations provided a clear direction for future Commonwealth,
State and Territory Government reports examining the relationship between public
schools, youth unemployment and industry.
The election of the Hawke Labor Government on 5 March 1983 resulted in a
continued and enhanced emphasis on the connections between education, the labour
market and the economy. Economic downturn between 1975 and 1983 resulted in high
unemployment in Australia, particularly for young people (Ginsburg, 2011). Education
was seen as crucial to economic competitiveness, economic reconstruction, and micro-
economic reform (Marginson, 1997). The Hawke Government believed leadership at a
Commonwealth level was an effective way of responding to the economic problems and
issues confronting Australia. Setting national priorities in education and implementing
them in a coherent and strategic way would be a significant contribution to enhancing
economic and workforce sustainability (Cranston et al, 2010).
While there is no specific power in the Australian Constitution relating to
Education, there are other Constitutional powers which enable the Commonwealth to
influence the direction of education at the State and Territory level. The Commonwealth
Government allocates funding to the States and Territories through grants under Section
96 of the Australian Constitution (Ryan & Watson, 2004). Section 96 provides that “the
Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as
the Parliament thinks fit” (Aitken & Orr, 2002). Through this Constitutional power, the
Commonwealth can link the payment of grants to the States and Territories in order to
implement Commonwealth Education policies. The Hawke and, later, the Keating (1991
– 1996) Labor Governments used this Constitutional power to introduce and guide
37
education policy across the State and Territory education systems. Lingard (2000)
further develops this point:
The idea of the federal government being more than a banker for
schools, both government and non-government took hold, as did the
notion that the federal government had some sort of leadership role in
respect of schooling, particularly given the linkages between a human
capital construction of schooling and an economically orientated
definition of the national interest; this was a specifically Australian
manifestation of an emergent consensus world-wide as to how
education should be linked to the global economy after the ‘breakdown
of economic nationalism’ … schooling was to contribute to the
production of economic citizens. (p. 45)
These national education policies came to prominence under the direction of John
Dawkins, the Minister for Employment and Training. Minister Dawkins believed that
national policies would play an important role in responding to global pressures and
establishing an integrated education and training system (Levin & Riffel, 1997).
The Hawke Labor Government established a number of Inquiries to investigate
the various problems confronting Australian education resulting in the release of several
reports. These reports, including Quality of Education in Australia (1985), In the
National Interest: Secondary Education and Youth Policy in Australia (1987), and A
Changing Workforce (1988) assisted in defining the Commonwealth’s view on the role
of public education and its relationship to the broader labour market. At the centre of the
recommendations emanating from the reports is national efficiency and the need for
public schools to be flexible and responsive (Down, 1997). Another significant
document, Strengthening Australian Schools: A Consideration of the Content and Focus
of Schooling (referred to as Strengthening Australian Schools) consolidated and further
expanded the ideas and solutions articulated in the reports (Smart & Dudley, 1990). The
document reflected a move towards devolution as an effective model for the delivery of
public education in the various Australian States and Territories.
38
The Australian Education Council (AEC) became a critical vehicle that enabled
Minister Dawkins to progress his national education agenda. The AEC was established
in 1936 and comprised the Ministers for Education from the States and Territories, their
Directors-General, and the Commonwealth Minister for Education (Spaull, 1987). From
1972, the AEC became a forum that enabled the States and Territories to respond to the
Commonwealth Government’s national education agenda. During the period of the
Hawke Labor Government, this agenda included: common curriculum framework
statements; national goals for schooling; and reporting on school performance (Porter,
Lingard & Knight, 1994).
In 1991, Minister Dawkins launched the Good Schools Strategy through the
AEC (Townsend, 1996). This strategy refocused attention on the role of the market in
determining school efficiency. Parent choice became part of the education debate and
efficiency and effectiveness were linked to devolution of school decision-making to the
local site. This agenda was guided by neo-liberalism and, more broadly, by the global
influences of accountability, competition and marketisation (O'Donoghue & Dimmock,
1998).
Under the Keating Labor Government (1991 – 1996) there was increased
emphasis placed on the principles of access and retention in education and a more
defined connection between school, employment and the workplace. Three important
reports dominated the Commonwealth Government’s policy on education and further
promoted the debate on self-managing schools. The report, Young People’s
Participation in Post Compulsory Education (Finn, 1991) into post-compulsory
schooling, The Key Competencies: Putting General Education to Work (Mayer, 1992)
into effective participation in the workforce, and The Vocational Certificate Training
System (Carmichael, 1992) further reinforced the importance of education in achieving
national economic goals. The link between education and employment was considered
39
an integral part of a national education agenda. The reports also pointed to the notion of
flexible delivery arrangements within schools. This would better prepare students for a
global workplace that is more flexible. Students would then need to be adaptable, learn
quickly and be multi-skilled (Lingard, Knight & Porter, 1993; Lingard, 2014).
The election of the Howard Liberal-National Coalition Government on 11
March 1996 resulted in a continuation of the managerialist approach in education
policy; however, with a significant tightening of the education agenda (Knight &
Warry, 1996). This agenda was underpinned by the role of education in specifically
contributing to, and achieving, broad economic outcomes through the influence of
competition. The other dimension to this agenda was strengthening the Commonwealth
Government’s oversight of programs to ensure that Commonwealth Education goals
were being achieved. Parkin and Anderson highlight this view and suggest:
that Commonwealth grant contributions are a vehicle for pursuing
Commonwealth policy and program priorities. The education portfolio
has been replete with examples .... such as the requirements for public
schools; that is, schools created by and owned by State governments—
to specify performance targets and performance measures, to ensure
that student reports are plain-English in composition and reveal where
a student ranks in his/her class, and to publish school performance
information. (2007, p. 295)
To achieve a defined education agenda the focus is on the funding and organisation,
processes, and curriculum of school systems. Within this context there is an emphasis
on accountability, responsibility, competition, the market place and corporate practices.
The determination to raise standards and accountability was facilitated by the
push towards marketisation and the redefining of parents/caregivers as consumers who
were able to choose which school (public or private) their child could attend.
Consequently, to attract families, schools were expected to compete with each other.
40
The Council for the Australian Federation, formed in 2006 by the Premiers and
Chief Ministers in response to a more aggressive Council of Australian Government
under the Howard Government, released a report in 2007, The Future of Schooling in
Australia, advocating a more collective approach to schooling across the nation. The
Report pointed out that, with quality course material, best practice teaching and flexible
organisation through increased school autonomy, there would be improved learning
outcomes for all students (Council for the Australian Federation, 2007).
In 2011, the Gillard Labor Government delivered on a pre-election commitment
relating to self-managing schools by giving Principals and parents/caregivers increased
involvement in the management of schools. Through the Empowering Local Schools
initiative 1000 public, Catholic and independent schools from across the nation
participated in a national pilot in 2012 and 2013 (Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations, 2011). The planned implementation of the
initiative was in two phases. Funding of Phase One of the initiative was administered
through a National Partnership Agreement with State and Territory Governments and
aligned funding agreements with non-government education authorities. Each
participating school received a one-off grant to assist them to manage their increased
decision-making responsibilities effectively. Phase One focused on increased decision-
making in participating schools in the three focus areas of governance; funding and
infrastructure; and workforce. A preliminary evaluation of the initiative in 2013
revealed some progress in building capacity for local empowerment (Simons, 2013).
The election of the Abbott Liberal-National Coalition Government on 7
September 2013 continued the previous Government’s commitment to self-managing
schools. In February 2014, the Abbott Government launched the Independent Public
Schools initiative to assist selected schools in participating States and Territories to
become more autonomous. The Commonwealth Government has collaborated with
41
States and Territories to encourage approximately 1 500 public schools to participate in
the initiative by 2017 (Loughnane, 2013). Schools that had elected to participate in the
initiative remained within the respective State or Territory public school system and
continued to receive support from the respective State or Territory Government.
Since the 1980s, many States and Territories have implemented public school
reforms that have resulted in self-managing schools. The trend to a decentralised system
of public school governance has varied with each State and Territory. Self-managing
schools has occurred most markedly in Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland.
The initiatives of the Gillard and Abbott Governments in this area have served only to
support existing reforms in the States and Territories. In other States and Territories
where a shift towards self-managing schools has been piecemeal and interrupted by
competing local political agendas, the Commonwealth initiatives have assisted in
implementing programs and activities that have best suited the needs of their schools
and students. To date, the Western Australian Government has opted not to participate
in the Commonwealth Government initiatives as they are well advanced with their
public school reform process. The next section provides a description of the
development of self-managing schools in a Western Australian context.
Western Australian Context
Until the mid-1980s, Western Australia, like the other Australian States and
Territories, had experienced a long history of a hierarchical public sector. In the
Education Department of Western Australia (EDWA), educational policy decisions
were made by the Director-General of Education and senior bureaucrats. The election of
the Burke Labor Government on 19 February 1983 ushered in a period of wide ranging
reform of the public sector.
42
The reformist fervor of the newly elected Labor government was set against the
background of political, economic and social imperatives facing other Australian State
and Territory governments in the early 1980s (Apelt & Lingard, 1993), that is,
balancing community demands for increased and improved services with policies of
tight budgetary restraint. The State Labor Government’s economic policy advocated
entrepreneurial government activity to increase economic growth and improve
employment opportunities (Peachment, 1991). The policy was underpinned by
economic rationalism and aimed to guide public sector reform to reduce expenditure
and increase organisational efficiencies (Barcan, 2001). Implementation of this policy
commenced in September 1983 with the announcement of the Labor Government’s
objective to execute functional reviews of all Government agencies and departments.
According to The West Australian (1983), each review would determine whether the
activities of an agency and department should be continued, modified or abandoned.
The Western Australian Government announced a Commission of Enquiry into
Education, chaired by Kim Beazley Snr, entitled Education in Western Australia,
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education in Western Australia, referred to as
the Beazley Report, 1984. The Beazley Report highlighted the importance of devolution
and community participation in school decision-making, recommending that the school
and the community collaborate in decision-making in areas such as school policy,
staffing and the management of resources (Beazley, 1984).
The Committee acknowledged that their discussions had been influenced by the
Karmel Report (1973) and the recent policy trend in many OECD nations toward parent
participation in school decision-making (Beazley, 1984). To this end, the Committee
advocated for community participation rather than a tokenistic involvement in school
decision-making. The aim of such a participatory approach to devolution would lead to
equitable and effective outcomes for schooling (Beazley, 1984).
43
The Committee acknowledged that schools were diverse environments that
required individual approaches to meet the needs of their learning community.
Developing and imposing a “one-size fits all” approach to devolution and community
participation would be counterproductive (Beazley, 1984). A grass-roots approach to the
change process would ensure that an appropriate model be developed to reflect the
individual circumstances of schools (Beazley, 1984). To ensure schools received
support in this change process, the Committee recommended a common framework be
developed to facilitate devolution. This would entail a review of the Education Act and
Regulations to remove obstacles and the development of different models for
community participation to guide individual schools (Beazley, 1984).
By June 1984, the Community Participation in Schooling Committee was
established to coordinate the implementation of the Beazley Report’s recommendations
relating to parent participation in school decision-making. The Committee facilitated a
pilot project comprising 18 school communities that would trial various decision-
making models. The project was terminated by the Education Department of Western
Australia in 1986 without explanation. According to Goddard and Punch, the project
and, more broadly, the Report created a schism at the senior level of the Department
causing the pilot to be abandoned:
The Report divided senior officials in the Western Australian Education
Department into two opposing groups. One was headed by the Director-
General of Education at the time, while the other was an emerging
group with an ideological affinity with the Minister for Education. The
former group sought to stage implementation of the proposed
curriculum changes in a way which enabled control to remain with
senior officers of the department and, specifically, with subject
superintendents. The latter group argued, in a subdued way initially but
with considerable strength by 1986, for much more radical change and
for giving schools control over what was taught and when (1996, p. 64).
44
Given the Department’s lack of commitment to the notion of parent participation in
school decision-making, interest in this area of education reform was not revived until
the middle of the Labor Government’s second term in office.
Following a comprehensive review of education policy and practice by the
Beazley Report (1984), the newly established Functional Review Committee announced
that it would review the structure and operation of the Education Department of
Western Australia. The review commenced in November 1984 and concluded in July
1985. The Report produced by the Committee was deemed inadequate by both the
Minister for Education and the Director-General of the Education Department (Goddard
& Punch, 1996).
The re-election of the Burke Labor Government on 8 February 1986 continued
the public sector reform agenda underpinned by economic rationalism. Premier Burke
outlined his vision for public sector reform in his White Paper (1986), tabled in the
Parliament of Western Australia. The Premier justified his reform agenda by citing
Federal and other State Government reports in this area, including Reforming the
Australian Public Service (1983), the Wilenski Report (1977) in New South Wales, and
the Guerin Report (1984) in South Australia (Burke, 1986). The White Paper advocated
the use of corporate management practices as the vehicle to achieve a more effective,
efficient and accountable public sector (McCullagh, 1991). Devolution was viewed as a
critical strategy to improve responsiveness to local needs; accountability; and the
capacity of public sector agencies to respond to a dynamic environment (Burke, 1986).
The White Paper (Burke, 1986) was an important document to guide the move
from a centralised bureaucratic model to a corporate managerialist approach in the
public sector. Barcan (2001) and Trotman (1996) suggest that Burke’s White Paper
introduced an economic rationalist philosophy to the public sector in Western Australia
that has been embraced by successive governments. Another significant aspect of the
45
White Paper (Burke, 1986) was the separation of Ministerial responsibility for policy
development and that of public sector senior bureaucrats, enabling the Minister to have
direct involvement in setting direction and formulating policies for the department. The
expanded role for the Minister for Education enabled increased powers to shape
education direction in the State (McMahon, 1991; Robertson, 1993). The White Paper
(Burke, 1986) was therefore a significant policy document that shaped the nature of
education restructuring policies pursued by the Burke, Dowding, and Lawrence
Governments in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Unhappy with the previous review, the Government announced a second review
in March 1986. The review was completed in December 1986, producing a confidential
report recommending far reaching reforms to the Education Department and the
delivery of education. According to Goddard and Punch (1996), the report suggested
“immediate cuts of $30 million to the education budget (around 5 percent) with another
$30 million to be saved if all its recommendations were implemented” (p. 68). This
represented an interesting dilemma for the Labor Government. Delivering quality
education was a fundamental principle within Labour ideology (Coffey, 1998). Cutting
funding to education would significantly undermine the Labor Government’s
commitment to this traditional aspect of Labour ideology. To avoid the negative
publicity surrounding the investigation, the Government decided to suppress the
Functional Review report (Coffey, 1998).
The Functional Review report was replaced with a more politically appealing
document titled Better Schools in Western Australia: A programme for improvement
(referred to as the Better Schools Report, 1987). The document was released by the
Minister for Education, the Hon. Bob Pearce MLA, in January 1987. Through this
document, the Burke Labor Government set the future direction of public schools in
Western Australia. According to the Report, these directions would demonstrate
46
responsiveness and adaptability to the needs of the community and to government
priorities; flexibility in the use of resources to meet these goals; and accountability to
the government and the community for the standard of service and funding (1987, p. 5).
Central to this direction was the restructuring of services within the Department without
referring to a decrease in education expenditure.
Following other public sector agency reforms driven by a corporate managerial
approach, the changes in the education system aimed to create schools as more flexible,
responsive, accountable and efficient institutions. The Financial Administration and
Audit Act (June, 1986) and the Financial Administration and Audit Act; Regulations,
Treasurer’s Instructions (July, 1986) established a new set of requirements for the
management of public sector agencies. The Better Schools Report (1987) recognised the
need for the renamed Ministry of Education to have the same management model as
was evident in other public sector agencies.
The Better Schools Report focused on the notion of self-managing schools as the
key reform in education (1987, p. 5). Self-managing schools was viewed as critical to
improving accountability, competition, efficiency and effectiveness in order to respond
to community needs. Self-managing schools would emerge through: the provision of a
school grant to give schools greater control over the expenditure of funds; the
development of school based decision-making groups comprised of community
representatives, staff, and parents and with student representation where appropriate;
and the annual preparation of a school development plan to demonstrate accountability
to the Ministry of Education against centrally developed performance indicators (1987,
p. 7).
Another strategy to reinforce the move towards a self-managing schools system
was the creation of a school district arrangement to replace the existing regions. The
proposed district arrangement would provide schools with immediate and practical
47
support to ensure that “educational standards and policy goals are being met” (Better
Schools Report, 1987, p. 15). The role of the Ministry of Education is refocused to one
involving “monitoring and evaluating goals and standards across the system” and
“ensuring comparability and equity of education” (Better Schools Report, 1987, p. 17).
Central Office would emerge as a vehicle for policy development and quality control,
and the external audit of both financial and educational factors to monitor school
performance (Better Schools Report, 1987). A proposed timeline for implementation for
this self-managing school context was established for the period 1987 – 1992 (Better
Schools Report, 1987).
Central to the self-managing school context in Western Australia, as espoused
by the Better Schools Report, was the implementation of the School Decision Making
Groups. The Group provided a forum through which a school’s staff and community
representatives would guide decisions relating to educational policy and school
improvement. An important expectation of School Decision Making Groups was to
assist schools in the creation of a school development plan that demonstrates how
Ministry policy and community priorities are incorporated into its operations. The
school development plan articulated Ministry policy and community priorities through
statements of purpose, performance indicators, management information system,
priorities, and strategies. In addition, the school development plan conveyed details
about the allocation of resources and mechanisms of accountability within the school.
To this end, this self-managing school model intended to coordinate and align the work
of the school with the system priorities to satisfy accountability requirements.
The release of the Better Schools Report was met with resistance by the State
School Teachers’ Union of Western Australia. The Union held the view that the Better
Schools initiative would create workload issues and place increased demands of
accountability on school staff by the Ministry of Education. As a result of considerable
48
pressure by the Union to slow down the implementation of the initiative, the Minister
for Education agreed to a moratorium on the implementation of the Better Schools
Report. During this time, a Memorandum of Agreement between the Ministry of
Education and the State School Teachers’ Union of Western Australia was signed in
May 1990. The agreement established a connection between improving working
conditions and salaries and devolution.
An important aspect of this settlement was diminishing the role of parent
representative bodies on School Decision Making Groups. The Better Schools Report
explained the role of School Decision Making Groups as “participating in defining the
role of the principal and advising on selection and appointment of the principal” (Better
Schools Report, 1987, p. 11). When the final policy statement, School Decision Making:
Policy and Guidelines (Ministry of Education, 1990), was produced there was no
reference to this role of the School Decision Making Group. Furthermore, the Minister
for Education proposed that the Education Act Amendment, Section 23 (2) be repealed.
This amendment to the Education Act had been introduced in 1988 to clarify the role of
parents/caregivers and the community in participating in school decision-making. The
Section of the Education Act was amended to “a school decision making group shall not
exercise any authority over the staff or interfere in any way with the control or
management of any school” (Education Act 1928).
During the four years after the release of Better Schools (Better Schools Report,
1987), the Ministry of Education issued policy statements and guidelines to assist in the
establishment of self-managing schools. The guidelines related to specific yet
interdepended areas of a devolved school environment in Western Australia: School
Development Plans: Policy and Guidelines 1989, School Decision Making: Policy and
Guidelines 1990, School Accountability: Policy and Guidelines 1991, and School
Financial Planning and Management: Policy and Guidelines 1991. Each document
49
provided a policy statement, guidelines to the change, and the roles and responsibilities
of various individuals/groups within the school community as they relate to the
establishment of a self-managing school. All schools were required to have in place a
self-managing school model reflecting the policies of the Ministry of Education.
By 1992, the renegotiation of the details in Better Schools resulted in the
following areas being implemented: school development plans in every public school;
passage of legislation establishing school decision making groups; allocation of school
funding through a single grant; no local staff selection; restructuring of Central and
District Offices; and re-defining the role of District Superintendents as an auditing agent
(Porter et al., 1993). These reforms as outlined in Better Schools (Better Schools Report,
1987) were described by Angus (1995) as the most radical seen in Western Australia in
the 20th century. The policies that translated Better Schools into practice had as their
objective the reform of an inefficient bureaucracy into an efficient, flexible, and
accountable entity.
The election of the Court Liberal-National Coalition Government on 6 February
1993 continued the reform to the public school system in Western Australia. According
to Trotman (1996), the new Minister for Education, the Hon. Norman Moore MLC gave
a commitment to continue the devolution initiated by the Better Schools Report in 1987.
Parent/caregiver and community participation in school decision-making, and the
creation of a more efficient and effective public education system became priorities for
the Government’s political agenda.
In May 1993, Minister Moore released the document Devolution: The Next
Phase (Ministry of Education Western Australia, 1993a). The document was a
discussion paper that extended and further explored the concepts outlined in Better
Schools. Hayward (1994) suggests that it promoted devolution and parent participation
in the selection of the Principal and staff. Given the perceived lack of broad
50
consultation, the State School Teachers Union of Western Australia (SSTUWA) argued
that the document be withdrawn. The SSTUWA responded negatively to the economic
rationalist ethos that underpinned the direction of the document (Smyth, 2005).
The Minister for Education produced another document in response to the
negative community reaction. On 10 June 1993, the Minister for Education released a
discussion document, Devolution: The Next Phase: How Far Should We Go? for broad
consultation at both the school and district level. The document presented similar
themes to the previous publication (Ministry of Education Western Australia, 1993b,
pp. 2-9). However, the new document did little to placate critics, prompting a negative
response from the SSTUWA, alleging that economic rationalism was again driving the
education reform agenda. According to Hayward, the SSTUWA position was further
supported by Minister Moore’s comments in The West Australian where he suggested
that the “moves were designed to save money” (1994, p. 32). In addition, the lack of
consultation with the teaching profession in preparing the document highlighted a key
objection to the proposed reforms.
The Review of Education and Training (referred to as the Vickery Report) was
released in July 1993. The Vickery Report was the Court Liberal-National Coalition
Government’s response to the implementation of its election promises to improve the
delivery of services by the public sector. The recommendations in the Report examined
the relationship between self-managing schools and resource management. In the
section of the Report on the Reform of School Management, the Committee promoted
the establishment of self-managing schools in the context of reflecting the “world-wide
orthodoxy of corporate management for public sector organizations” (Vickery, 1993, p.
24). The Committee recommended that the local community be involved in the
management of resources through the establishment of school based decision-making
groups. The Committee also viewed devolution as a critical strategy in increasing the
51
levels of accountability of Principals and more broadly the respective schools to their
local community (Vickery, 1993).
During the period of the Vickery Committee inquiry, the Coalition Government
commenced a review of the public sector in Western Australia. The ensuing whole of
public sector review produced the Agenda for Reform: Report of the Independent
Commission to Review Public Sector Finances Vol. 1 and 2 (McCarrey, 1993a; 1993b).
Both volumes mapped the direction for public sector policy and education. Volume one
of the McCarrey Report examined ways to improve the efficiencies in the expenditure
of public monies. Volume two outlined recommendations on ways to reduce
expenditure across the whole of government. Within the context of delivering
education, the Report suggested ways to reduce costs rather than focus on educational
outcomes. In outlining these suggestions for the education portfolio, Volume two made
references to the Vickery Report. Furthermore, the Committee referred to Devolution:
the Next Phase in recommending efficiencies in schools through the effectiveness of
teachers and school administrators (McCarrey, 1993b).
The reviews undertaken by the Court Liberal-National Coalition Government
were underpinned by a market driven economic agenda, supporting the Government’s
view on parent/caregiver and community participation in their local school. School
boundaries were given attention in the McCarrey Report in order to promote parent
choice of school, thereby introducing a level of competition amongst schools previously
not experienced in Western Australian public education. As Hoffman explains:
Proponents of this view argue that the action of a competitive free
market on schools leads to significant efficiency and effectiveness gains
… schools must be able to adapt to the forces of choice within the
marketplace in the way that businesses have to in the private sector ….
For schools to be able to respond quickly to market forces … they need
to be as autonomous as possible (1994, p. 14).
52
The deregulation of school boundaries recognised parents/caregivers as significant
educational consumers that make informed choices based on school performance
(McCarrey, 1993b). This notion suggests that the more efficiently a school is managed
the more positive the perception of the school amongst parents/caregivers and the wider
community.
In 1994, the Minister for Education, the Hon. Norman Moore MLC, appointed a
Ministerial Independent Assessment Group on Devolution to review the impact of the
Better Schools Report. The Ministerial Committee, chaired by Dr Norm Hoffman, was
guided by a Terms of Reference (Ministerial Independent Assessment Group on
Devolution, 1994, p. II). The first task of the Ministerial Committee was to prepare and
circulate a discussion document, Devolution in the Western Australian Government
School System: An Issues Paper for public consultation, on 23 May 1994. According to
the Ministerial Independent Assessment Group on Devolution, the paper served two
purposes: to stimulate informed discussion and debate on the matter of devolution in the
Government school system; and to enable structured responses to be submitted to the
Group, to inform its further deliberations on the matter of devolution (1994, p. I).
In doing so, the Committee explored the further progression of devolution in the
public education system. The Committee published its recommendations in the
document, the Devolution of Decision-Making Authority in the Government School
System of Western Australia (referred to as the Hoffman Report). The document
concluded that although there was a change in the relationship between Central Office
and the local schools, this was not reflected in the legislative framework within which
schools were required to operate.
Twenty-five recommendations were put forward by the Committee. The
Committee’s recommendations were underpinned by the need to have transparent
accountability processes in place at every level in the public education system. To this
53
end, the Hoffman Report clarifies devolution in terms of the managerial and
accountability aspects of education. In short, accountability was the main focus for
Western Australian public schools to address in the reform of the public education
system during the late 1990s (Cuttance et al, 1998).
Devolution was further facilitated and strengthened through the legislative
framework. In 1994, Minister Moore announced a review of the Education Act in
Western Australia. According to the Department of Education Services (1997), Minister
Moore appointed a Project Team and Reference Group to review the existing Education
Act (1928) and progress the development of a new Act. The Education Act Reference
Group was chaired by the Hon. Fred Tubby MLA, Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for Education. Membership comprised of representatives from the public,
Catholic and independent school sectors, universities and industry.
According to the Department of Education Services (1997), broad public
consultation commenced in early 1995. This preliminary consultation sought feedback
specifically on six areas. Parent participation and the governance of schools was one
such area. As a result, a draft Bill was prepared and circulated for a twelve-week period
of public consultation, in June 1997. During this consultation period 31 meetings were
held at 16 locations around Western Australia with approximately 1 200 members of the
public, principals and teachers (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
Training and Youth Affairs, 1997). By the end of the consultation period, 322 written
submissions had been received and considered in the drafting of the final Bill
(Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 1997).
Informed by the public consultation and extensive research of education systems at a
national and international level, the final Bill provided for the creation of school
councils (formally replacing school decision making groups), with a role in strategic
planning, the development of behaviour management plans, school dress codes, and the
54
approval of school charges. In addition, their role could be expanded to include the
selection of school Principals (Barnett, 1997). The new School Education Act came into
effect in 1999 followed by the School Education Regulations in 2000.
During the late 1990s, the Education Department of Western Australia
progressively increased devolved decision-making to local schools. Increased scope for
local decision-making became a key objective of the Plan for Government School
Education 1998-2000 (Education Department of Western Australia, 1997). The Court
Liberal-National Coalition Government attempted to introduce self-managing schools
through the Local Management of Schools Pilot Project in March 1999 (Education
Department of Western Australia, 1999). Participants in this project included four senior
and community high schools, one district high school, 11 primary schools, two
education support centres and three remote community schools. The project aimed to
refine the notion of local management of schools through action research at the school
site (Cummings & Stephenson, 2001).
During the second half of 1999, the pilot schools prepared their new decision-
making structures for the following year (Cummings & Stephenson, 2001). Throughout
the trial, consultants evaluated its impact on school operations and produced a final
report of the evaluation to be considered by the Department’s corporate executive. The
defeat of the Court Liberal-National Coalition Government and the election of the
Gallop Labor Government on 10 February 2001 ended the pilot project.
In August 2009, the Barnett Liberal-National Coalition Government delivered
on a pre-election commitment regarding self-managing schools, announcing a trial
program for Independent Public Schools (IPS) commencing in 2010. These schools
would remain as public entities; however, they would be managed at the local level with
a one line budget. At the time of the announcement of the IPS initiative, the Premier, the
Hon. Colin Barnett MLA, said:
55
This initiative will enable school Principals and senior staff to lead and
make decisions to tailor their school for the best education outcomes
for their students (Barnett & Constable, 2009).
The education portfolio received a $19 million increase in funding over four years to
manage the initiative.
The IPS initiative and the process developed and implemented by the
Department to arrive at whether a school would be selected to be an IPS was
contentious. The initiative attracted criticism and opposition from the SSTUWA
(Bradbury, 2009) and WACSSO (Australian Broadcasting Commission, 2009). The
SSTUWA viewed the IPS initiative as reflecting New Right ideology underpinned by
choice, competition and performance issues and outcomes (State School Teachers’
Union of Western Australia, 2009). Minister Constable responded to these concerns by
reassuring the public that a comprehensive consultation process with school
communities and other stakeholders regarding the introduction of IPS would occur.
Despite the Minister’s reassurances, the SSTUWA believed the four-week period in
which schools were required to prepare and submit an application countered the
argument for genuine community consultation (State School Teachers’ Union of
Western Australia, 2009). In reality, the early stages of the IPS initiative had the
responsibility for determining whether a local community supported their school
submitting an application to become an IPS was the responsibility of the Principal. With
each subsequent phase of selection, the community consultation requirement became
more genuine and transparent.
To date there have been six phases of implementation. The first phase
commenced in 2010 with 34 schools: the second phase in 2011 added 64 schools, the
third phase added a further 109 schools and was split between 2012 and 2013
commencement, the fourth phase included 48 schools, the fifth phase in 2015 added 174
56
schools, and the sixth phase in 2017 added a further 50 schools. During 2014 – 2016, 17
new schools were opened and added to the IPS initiative (Jacobs, 2016). By 2017, 80%
of public students and teachers are in 524 Independent Public Schools across Western
Australia (Collier, 2016).
Each Independent Public School has a Board comprising a Principal, parent and
community representatives and staff. Some schools have students as members of the
Board. Apart from the Principal who assumes the position as ex-officio, the other
members volunteer their knowledge and skills to support the school. The role of the
Board is articulated in existing statutory and policy settings in order to avoid legislative
amendment. This role is outlined in the Act in the section relating to School Councils.
According to the School Education Act 1999, all public schools in Western Australia are
required to have a School Council unless exempted by the Minister for Education. To
this end, all public schools, including Independent Public Schools, are subject to the
same legislation.
The difference between the governance arrangements of IP Schools and non-IP
Schools is found in the Delivery and Performance Agreement (DPA). The DPA presents
a standard template that is prepared for individual school programs and budgets
(Western Australian Primary Principals’ Association, 2015). In the third year of the
DPA, an IP School participates in a review conducted by the Department of Education
Services (DES). IP Schools are required to annually self-assess and prepare an Annual
Report for the community. In addition, the DPA establishes a framework that underpins
the Principal’s Professional Review and is the basis for the school review conducted by
DES.
The role of the School Board is further outlined in the DPA. This agreement is
signed by the Principal, Chairperson of the School Board and the Director General of
the Department of Education. In Clause 19 of the DPA, the relationship between the
57
Board and the Department of Education and the Principal is outlined. In addition,
Clause 19 further clarifies the role of the Board as it relates to the Business Plan, budget
and financial management, reviewing school data, the annual report, responses from
students, parents/caregivers and staff, and the independent review conducted by DES.
An analysis of the Act and the DPA reveals clear differences in the
interpretation of the role of the Board. First, the Act refers to the School Council rather
than the School Board and the terminology used to outline the role is less prescriptive.
The term Board was introduced by the Department of Education with the
implementation of the IPS initiative. The DPA refers to the term Board as stated in the
section relating to School Council in the Act. Second, the terminology used in the DPA
is more prescriptive as it relates to the Board’s role in the development, endorsement
and review of the Business Plan and budget. Clause 20 of the DPA presents the
requirements relating to the Business Plan that all schools that are IPS must produce.
Third, the DPA places increased responsibility on the Principal to ensure that the Board
discharges its role. To support the Board in this area, the Principal is required to present
at Board meetings, monthly financial reports, progress relating to school improvement,
and the results of school audits.
The Department of Education recommends that every School Board must have a
Terms of Reference which clearly outlines how the Board will operate. The Terms of
Reference is developed within the legislative framework of the School Education Act
1999 and the School Education Regulations 2000. Initially, the Department of
Education provided new IPS flexible guidelines to develop their Terms of Reference.
However, recently the Department of Education has developed a standard template for a
Terms of Reference to address previous weaknesses and ensure a consistent approach.
This standard template outlines the role of the School Board as provided for in the Act
and the Regulations, in the section relating to School Councils. The Terms of Reference
58
do not provide any additional functions for a School Board external to the
responsibilities outlined in the Act and the Regulations.
The IPS initiative was designed to provide schools with increased flexibility to
respond to the needs of the local community. Research conducted by the OECD on
devolved school decision-making supports this position (Barrera-Osorio et al, 2009).
Furthermore, the research suggests that devolution in education and self-managing
schools is an increasing global trend (Gobby, 2013; Trimmer, 2013). Although
Independent Public Schools have greater capacity to set their own strategic direction
and manage the day to day decisions, they remain fully public entities. As part of the
public school system, IP Schools are obliged to comply with relevant legislation,
industrial agreements and whole of government policies and initiatives.
Summary
This chapter has examined the background to self-managing schools at an
international level, at a national level in Australia, and a state level in Western
Australia. Since the 1970s, developed and less developed nations have been on a
journey to reform the delivery of education in response to competing and dynamic
economic, political and social imperatives. The practices of self-managing schools vary
between nations and within nations. While differences in the models of self-managing
schools exist at an international level, their intention is the same: the effective delivery
of education to meet the needs of the local community while creating a multi-skilled,
flexible student capable of adapting to a dynamic economic and social landscape.
Not only have Australia and Western Australia been the beneficiaries of the self-
managing schools’ movement, they have also contributed to its further development.
This chapter described the journey of education authorities across Australia and
particularly in Western Australia towards self-managing schools. The desire to become
59
an increasingly competitive and innovative nation and state has been a driving force to
develop an education system that is relevant, responsive, competitive, and accountable.
The evolving self-managing schools’ movement in Western Australia and more broadly
Australia provides the context to the study reported. The next chapter reviews the
empirical literature to develop the background and context of the research.
60
Chapter Three
Literature Review
This chapter contains a review of relevant literature that has informed this study,
providing a framework for the central research question: What are the perspectives of
stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public School status in the first year
of operation in the respective schools in Western Australia ? The review reveals a range
of studies of the impact of devolution on education reform. However, because the
Independent Public School is a recent innovation in Western Australia, little research
has been conducted on the perspectives of stakeholders on its implementation. The
study addresses this gap. Four bodies of literature generate a set of key concepts to
inform this study: School Leadership, Teacher Empowerment, Student Achievement,
and School Governance.
School Leadership
Since the 1980s, school leaders have been working in a context characterised by
growing complexity in expectations of them and increased demands for accountability.
The introduction of self-managing schools has resulted in devolution of responsibilities
to school leaders (Caldwell, 2016). Simultaneously, calls for accountability of the use of
public funds have generated system-wide assessment and reporting of student
achievement (Hood, 1991). These changes reflected the phenomenon of New Public
Management and its approach to educational governance (Boston et al, 1996; Ferli et al,
1996; Hood, 1991; Larbi, 1999). New Public Management is the context for increased
accountability. This approach applied business management theories and practices to
public service administration (Levy, 2010).
61
School leadership remains an essentially disputed concept amongst scholars and
practitioners. As an area of empirical research, school leadership emerged during the
late 1980s and early 1990s where it gradually replaced the discourse of educational
administration and later educational management (Grace, 1995). The consolidation of
school leadership as an area of inquiry followed the emergence of self-managing
schools, a movement for school restructuring and reform to reflect self-managing
schools. The movement was developed through research by Caldwell and Spinks in
Tasmania in 1988. This seminal research concluded self-managing schools would
enable the development of effective school and classroom practices leading to improved
student outcomes (Caldwell & Spinks, 1992). Furthermore, this research contributed to
the significance of school leaders as drivers of transformation.
Previously in his groundbreaking review of leadership, Burns (1978) had
suggested two types of leaders: transactional and transformational. The former type was
described as an exchange between the leader and the follower. The latter type was
grounded in an ethical compact between the leader and the follower. Burns first
introduced the concept of transformational leadership in his study of political
leadership. He described transformational leadership as an ongoing process by which
“leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation”
(Burns, 1978, p. 20). Transformational leaders raise the bar by appealing to higher
ideals and values of followers.
Burns’ research was influenced by Maslow’s (2017) Theory of Human Needs.
This theory acknowledges that people have a range of needs. The extent to which
people perform effectively in the workplace will be affected by the extent to which
these needs are satisfied. Transformational Leadership reflects the higher levels of
Maslow’s (2017) Theory, by showing the relationship between a high level of self-
esteem and self-actualization and transformational leadership.
62
Transformational leaders focus on higher order intrinsic needs and long term
sustainable change rather than short term goals. Burns was one of the first researchers to
claim that leadership not only creates change and achieves goals within the
environment, but changes for the better the people involved. Burns’ model of
transformational leadership made an impact among alternative leadership scholars
because it included an ethical/moral dimension that, prior to 1978, had not been part of
leadership theories.
Later, in reviewing Burns’ research, Bass (1985) remodeled the transforming
category by removing links to the ethics content to conceptualise a leadership type that
managed complex change. Bass (1985) defined transformational leadership in terms of
how the leader affects followers, who are intended to trust, admire and respect the
transformational leader. In contrast to Burns, who sees transformational leadership as
being linked with higher order values, Bass sees it as amoral, and therefore questions
the morality and ethical component of transformational leadership.
An important role for a school leader is to support staff in dealing with
improvements to the teaching-learning program. Research conducted by Creemers and
Reezigt (1996), Hallinger and Heck (1996), and Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003)
confirm the findings of Bass (1985) when examining the impact of school leadership on
delivering quality learning experiences. To this end, the school Principal has played an
important role in providing instructional leadership in a self-managing school.
According to Gamage (1996), self-managing schools enables a Principal to exercise
their role as an instructional leader through supporting staff and be accountable for this
responsibility. They are also required to be responsible and accountable to the broader
public education system and to the school community through a School Board for the
delivery of learning experiences in their school. A Principal can be either an effective
change facilitator, in this context, or a strategic obstructionist. Fullan (1991) points out
63
that a leader’s actions can influence change. They can either make or break a school’s
effort to facilitate school improvement across a wide front.
In Bass’ original work about transformational leadership, there were four
characteristics: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and
individualised consideration (Bass, 1985). Each of these was an essential element in
managing change (Fullan, 1991). In subsequent studies conducted by Bass (1998), these
four characteristics were reduced to three: charisma-inspiration; intellectual
stimulation; and individualised consideration. In research conducted by Leithwood and
Jantzi (2005), the transformational leadership model represents an ideal practice for
school leaders. In their review of 32 empirical studies relating to transformational
leadership in schools between 1965 and 2005, Leithwood and Jantzi contributed to a
number of revisions of Bass’ research. These adjustments to Bass’ original typology
followed an earlier review of 34 quantitative studies during the period 1982 – 1993
about transformational leadership in schools by Leithwood, Tomlinson and Genge
(1996). This review provided an initial foray in reassessing Bass’ typology. Research
conducted by Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) has contributed to Bass’ typology being
modified to include management and organisational design dimensions. As a
consequence, transformational leadership has advanced far beyond the model used in
research guided by Bass’ study.
Unlike the conclusions drawn from their 1996 review, the 2005 study highlights
the role incumbents included in the general transformational leadership behaviours were
found to be unclear in their application. Interestingly, two-thirds of the 1996 study was
derived from research conducted on the role of Principals. Despite the contention
relating to role applicability, Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) suggest that transformational
leadership in schools is viewed as a model deserving of analysis. The broad assessment
64
of the practical application of this type of leadership reflects a non-role specific view of
this model of leadership.
A growing body of empirical research questioned the effectiveness of
transformational leadership as a model in schools. The notion of an all-powerful
Principal leading transformational reform is a perception that attracts considerable
dissatisfaction (Copland, 2001). The assertion by critics of transformational leadership
being a model of school leadership reflecting a top-down approach has been rejected by
advocates (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).
Disappointment with transformational leadership has resulted in a search for an
understanding of leadership that will assist in supporting a sustained approach to school
improvement. The increasing dependence on Principals to lead self-managing schools is
seen to be unsustainable and leads logically to the emergence of the concept of
distributed leadership (Harris, 2004). If the transformational leadership model of
leadership represented a resurrection of the notion of entrepreneurialism espoused by
the New Public Management approach to educational governance, distributed leadership
provides a different motivation. To this end, there is a degree of tension at the centre of
the self-managing school movement between effectiveness, efficiency and
improvement. The empirical research suggests that sustainable school improvement
requires leadership to be shared (Harris, 2004). If this contention is acceptable, then it
presents a different challenge for leadership in self-managing schools. Building staff
capacities that ensure that leadership is effectively distributed in schools to nurture
sustained school improvement emerges as an important focus for Principals (Harris,
2004).
The contemporary model of distributed leadership emerged from earlier studies
conducted by March (1984) and Sergiovanni (1984) who each emphasised the benefits
of shared leadership. Their research demonstrated shared leadership reduced a level of
65
dependence at the top of a governance structure and distributed the burden of
responsibility. At the centre of their research was a rejection of the leader-follower
model of leadership and an emphasis on an interdependent model of distributed
responsibility (March, 1984; Sergiovanni, 1984). Research conducted by Reid and
colleagues (2004) investigated the application of distributed leadership in England in a
secondary school. These researchers concluded 24 percent of staff were without a
leadership role within the school. In his work a quarter of a century earlier, Burns
(1978) had foreshadowed distributed leadership. To accomplish these ‘acts’ over time
would require a shared leadership model that would ensure a coordinated approach to
sustained school improvement (March, 2005).
The distributed leadership model recognises that staff within a school emerges
as influential elements at different times. There are many leaders within a school
(Gronn, 2002a, 2004) and patterns of leadership may be expressed in different sets of
working arrangements (Gronn & Hamilton, 2004). The assessment provides a strong
momentum for ensuring self-managing schools reflect a range of expectations for
leadership contributions, from teachers to the Principal. Effective Principals, therefore,
develop the leadership initiative and quality from the staff within their school. Building
staff capacity contributes to the development of the leadership initiative in self-
managing schools (Gronn, 2004).
Distributed leadership is a quality that permeates a school rather than a set of
personality traits attached to an individual (Caldwell, 2012). Further research is required
to clarify the practical application of distributed leadership in a self-managing school
setting. Conceptual work in this area is reflected in a review of research conducted by
Leithwood and colleagues (2004). The five-year study examined the available evidence
about the effect of educational leadership on student achievement. The results of this
study suggest any clarification about the practical application of distributed leadership
66
in a self-managing school requires it not to be confused with authority. Authority is
derived from the position an individual occupies. Authoritative ways of working
encourages individuals to work in silos. In contrast, leaders in schools require a
complete picture to be able to coordinate various entities and roles within the school. In
this way, the distribution of leadership in secondary schools is consistent with the
exercise of authority by Principals, Deputy Principals, Business Managers and Heads of
Learning Areas.
The distribution of leadership in a school environment is an important attribute
of self-managing schools. Distribution of leadership acknowledges that Principals
cannot manage a school and provide leadership on their own. In addition, distributed
leadership supports sustainable school improvement and accountability by sharing
leadership with other staff and at different levels in a school. Another dimension in the
distributed leadership model is the area of teacher leadership. The research by Caldwell
and Spinks (1988) identifies teachers as initiators and innovators, rather than simply as
implementers of initiatives.
A growing body of research links teacher leadership to the literature on school
improvement and self-managing schools. The literature on sustainable school
improvement is linked to self-managing schools (Day & Harris, 2002; Frost & Durrant,
2003; Muijs & Harris, 2003; Mulford, 2003). In addition, proponents of teacher
leadership make connections to the literature on professional learning communities.
Teachers are empowered and participate in whole school decision-making and provide
leadership. They engage in collaborative work and are accountable for the outcomes of
their work (Shellman, 2014).
Unlike Australia and the United Kingdom where interest in teacher leadership
has developed during the 2000s, empirical research in this area emerged in the USA
during the 1990s. Research conducted by Little (2003) revealed teacher leadership has
67
changed in focus in response to successive macro-level policy revisions. These changes
were viewed in three data sets that were collected for various projects in the USA
during a 20-year period. Notwithstanding the shift in focus for the teacher leadership
model, research by Day and Harris (2002) point out the model has four core
dimensions. These are translating school improvement principles into practice; fostering
participation and collegiality; being a resource for colleagues; and fostering shared
mutual learning. These core dimensions have implications for self–managing schools.
First, they explain the earlier point about distributed leadership knowledge. It is hard to
see whether these dimensions apply to all teachers. It is also unclear whether these
dimensions have common elements or if they are empirically distinct from each other.
Second, the dimensions raise questions about the leadership work of teachers and the
leadership role of Principals: in what way are they different? and where do they
overlap?
Definitions of teacher leadership vary in the literature. Childs-Bowen and
colleagues (2000) note that “teachers are leaders when they function in professional
learning communities to affect student learning; contribute to school improvement;
inspire excellence in practice; and empower stakeholders to participate in educational
improvement” (p. 28). Crowther, Kaagen, Ferguson and Hann (2002) describe teacher
leadership as “action that transforms teaching and learning in a school, that ties school
and community together on behalf of learning, and that advances social sustainability
and quality of life for a community” (p. 17). Furthermore, they state that “teacher
leadership facilitates principled action to achieve whole school success. It applies the
distinctive power of teaching to shape meaning for children, youth, and adults. And it
contributes to long-term, enhanced quality of community life” (p. 10). Lambert (2002)
argues that teacher leaders participate as mutual learners and leaders, participate in
creating a shared vision by reflecting on their own and others’ visions for school
68
outcomes, use inquiry-based information to guide practice, consistently reflect on their
practice and goals, and view student achievement above and beyond test scores to
include understanding and synthesis. York-Barr and Duke (2004) define teacher
leadership as the “process by which teachers, individually or collectively, influence
their colleagues, Principals, and other members of school communities to improve
teaching and learning practices with the aim of increased student learning and
achievement” (pp. 287–288). A common theme in each of these definitions is the sense
of responsibility that teachers have to be creative change agents in their classrooms,
schools, and communities—whether at the local, state, or national levels.
The evolving literature on teacher leadership emphasises the need to view
leadership as an element of teachers’ work. Leadership becomes an integral part of the
broadening role of teachers as they gain experience in a self-managing school. The
literature on the teacher leadership model points out that experienced teachers will
provide professional leadership in their school. While the scope of leadership expected
of a school Principal is broader and more complicated in a self-managing school, the
teacher leadership model questions whether the nature of leadership action is different
in self-managing schools.
Instructional leadership emerged during the 1980s as part of a focus on school
effectiveness and self-managing schools. Although the leadership model is focused
mainly with the instructional role of school Principals as leading professionals, there is
no consistent empirical study about who is accountable for building teacher capacity
within a school. The instructional leadership model is linked to the Principal who is
viewed as an instructional leader. According to studies conducted by Hallinger (2005),
proponents of Principals as instructional leaders view this model as being consistent
with the transformational leadership model. In contrast, the research conducted by
69
Southworth (2002) views leading teacher capacity building is the responsibility of
school leaders.
According to Hallinger (2003), the instructional leadership model positions the
role of the Principal as supporting teachers in the development and implementation of
curriculum. An effective Principal is one who has a good understanding of the staff
profile at their school. Such Principals use this knowledge to support staff as they
engage their students in the teaching-learning experience. The style of leadership
practised by a Principal provides an important insight into the effectiveness of a
particular school. In his research on instructional leadership, Hallinger (2003) suggests
three elements that characterises this model: articulating the school’s vision;
developing, implementing and managing curriculum; and promoting a positive school
climate. Dimmock (1995), in contrast, believes that instructional leadership is too
prescriptive and relies on a traditional top-down approach to management. He further
suggests that with the dynamic nature of schools a grass-roots approach would more
effectively engage teachers in school improvement and reform. The top-down approach
creates a perception that the Principal has strong technical knowledge about teaching
and learning practices; and curriculum development, implementation and management.
Dimmock (1995) points out that few Principals can claim to be expert in all these areas.
A review of the literature on instructional leadership reveals a decrease in the
research interest in the Principal’s instructional role in North America and an increase in
interest in the United Kingdom. Research conducted by Timperley (2005) illustrates the
potential of the instructional leadership model through a qualitative case study in which
a senior school administrator is leading teachers’ capacity building. Through her
research, Timperley demonstrated how an external consultant, a Deputy Principal (with
the curriculum portfolio) and classroom teachers collaborated during a 12-month period
to produce research and data-driven changes in teaching practice that resulted in
70
improved student outcomes. As a result of her study, Timperley (2005) highlighted that
instructional leadership is a shared responsibility that is effectively developed in self-
managing schools. The study highlights the importance of self-managing schools in
nurturing the sharing of instructional leadership across roles rather than being the
domain of one individual.
To conclude, the context of a school leaders’ work in a devolved school
environment has increased in complexity, resulting in changing expectations for the role
of a school leader in a self-managing school. The literature on school leadership is vast.
The development of various leadership models presented in this section is a response to
prevailing macro-level policy and educational theories of the day. A common feature
throughout the review of the literature on school leadership is that the delivery of the
core business of schools does not occur in isolation. Other variables, from within and
external to the school environment, play an important and influential part. Professional
learning is essential to building staff capacity (Bush & Glover, 2005); however, clearly
communicating the vision and the values of a school is equally important (Heck &
Hallinger, 2005). Developing and extending the pedagogical knowledge and skill
requirements of students is critical (Huber, 2004); however, the strategic management
of limited resources and the building and nurturing of relationships with stakeholders in
the local community are also important (Davis et al., 2005). This section of the literature
makes a strong contribution to the study by relating the importance of school leadership
to the implementation of Independent Public Schools. The next section examines the
body of literature relating to teacher empowerment.
Teacher Empowerment
Teacher empowerment is viewed as an outcome of devolved decision-making
(Cheung & Cheng, 2002; Zajda & Gamage, 2009). Improved teacher empowerment is
71
therefore relevant in this review of the literature. Particular attention is given to robust
quantitative studies conducted since the 1990s. Meta-analyses that bring together
findings from several studies are included. Despite extensive literature on teacher
empowerment from international studies, there is little evidence in an Australian setting
of the strength of links between devolved decision-making and teacher empowerment.
This study informs further developments in Australia and makes a contribution to the
overall international research on the relationship between teacher empowerment and
devolved decision-making.
Teacher empowerment exemplifies a paradigm shift where decisions are made
by those individuals working closely with students instead of those in a school
administrative role. Bolin (1989) defined empowerment as providing teachers with the
opportunity to participate in the determination of school goals and policies and to
exercise professional judgment about what and how to teach. Lucas, Brown and Markus
(1991) defined teacher empowerment as a function of the readiness of building-level
administrators to and their autonomy with those whose commitment is necessary to
make the educational program function at the highest degree of efficiency. Lee (1991)
supports this view by suggesting teacher empowerment as the creation of an
environment in which the teachers act as professionals and are treated as professionals.
To this end, he further clarified that empowerment means that school authorities give
teachers the authority to make decisions that have, in traditional systems, been made for
them, a time and a place to work and plan together during the school day, and a voice in
efforts to deepen their knowledge and improve their teaching. Successful school leaders
ensure their staff members have ownership of the vision and the direction of the school.
Lucas and colleagues (1991) suggest the more staff are empowered as part of the
decision-making process, the more powerful all the leaders in a school become. In this
72
way, leaders who nurture leadership amongst their staff are more effective than those
who do not.
Teacher empowerment can be considered as a teacher’s transformation from
having little influence to that of perceived influence over their professional lives. A
teacher’s perception of a lack of influence is derived from the sometimes-isolated nature
of their work, particularly as they perform their duties in the classroom. Bredeson
(1989) proposed that teacher empowerment is realised when teachers’ feelings of a lack
of influence are reduced by their assuming greater responsibility for their professional
work. Empowered teachers have a sense of competence and a strong desire to take
control of their professional lives and solve their own problems (Short, 1994). When
teachers feel that they can control facets of their professional life, such as curriculum
and instructional planning, they are empowered. This encourages teachers to set their
own goals and plans (Stone, 1995). Similarly, when teachers perceived that their school
is continuously building staff capacity they feel empowered (Short, 1994). Through
empowerment, teachers demonstrate a greater sense of job satisfaction, improved
motivation, and heightened enthusiasm for their professional work (Blase & Blase,
1994). These improvements are the result of the teachers’ experiences and expertise
receiving value. Therefore, teachers develop an increased sense of self-esteem and self-
efficacy.
Teacher empowerment is derived from genuine participation in the decision-
making process. Teachers feel empowered when Principals acknowledge their
knowledge and skills and provide them opportunities to take part in the important
decision-making processes related to students, classrooms and schools (Blase, 1993;
Rist, 1990). Thus, such participation involves both the structure and process of power
sharing, which is, according to Ryan (2000), the most important aspect of teacher
empowerment. It is argued that increased teacher access to decision-making
73
opportunities creates greater staff commitment to improving school operations and
student achievement (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Sammons, et. al., 2011). Rather than
competing for power, teachers are encouraged to work collaboratively to effect change.
Therefore, the quality of the school’s decision-making process is elevated through the
collaboration of teachers and the Executive team, including Principal and Deputy
Principals (Blase & Blase, 1994).
However, early research suggests that increased teacher empowerment has a
negligible impact on school improvement. One such study was conducted by Taylor and
Bogotch (1994) in which the effects of teacher empowerment on job satisfaction and
attendance where examined. The study was implemented in a large school district which
had developed programs to increase teacher empowerment. The findings from the study
revealed that there was no clear relationship between teacher empowerment and teacher
job satisfaction and attendance. The study supported earlier research findings (Weiss,
1993), involving a two-year study of 12 high schools, six with a shared decision-making
process and six without shared decision-making. Using a structured interview method,
Weiss (1993) found no support for the claims that teacher empowerment impacts
student achievement. In addition, the findings revealed that teacher empowerment did
not result in innovative teaching solutions. However, it was concluded that schools that
facilitated teacher empowerment created a climate that promoted experimentation by
teachers (Weiss, 1993).
Other studies, however, suggest that increased teacher empowerment through
school autonomy progresses school improvement. Early research conducted by White
(1992) examined three districts that had a devolved school environment. Each district
gave teachers authority to participate in decision-making in relation to budgeting,
curriculum and human resource management. The research revealed that 92 percent of
the teachers interviewed across the three districts were satisfied with their involvement
74
in decision-making at the school level. White (1992) further reported that teachers view
their involvement in the decision-making process as an opportunity to make a
contribution to the management of the school. In his analysis of the data, White (1992)
found increased teacher empowerment leads to better-informed teachers, improves
student motivation and assists with attracting and retaining quality staff. In this way,
White showed increased teacher empowerment contributes to improved job satisfaction.
The conditions under which teacher empowerment in a devolved school
environment emerge has long been an area of focus for research. Johnson and Pajares
(1996) investigated teacher empowerment during a three-year period in a public
secondary school. Observation, interviews and document analysis were used to gather
data during their study. The findings of the study identified the factors that encourage
and hinder the successful expansion of teacher empowerment in the school. The factors
that encourage teacher empowerment included the confidence the stakeholders had in
their abilities to improve efficiency, resource availability, feeling valued, early
successes and a supportive Principal. The factors that hindered the development of
teacher empowerment include the need for additional resources, no previous experience
in shared decision-making and a perceived lack of District support.
The motivation underpinning increased teacher empowerment and whose
willingness to participate in the decision-making process has been an area of research.
Smylie (1992) conducted a study in this area by interviewing teachers in a Midwestern
metropolitan school district. The research focused on teachers’ involvement in
curriculum development and assessment, staff capacity building, human resource
management and other aspects of general school administration. The study revealed that
a powerful influence on increased teacher empowerment was the relationship between
the Principal and teachers at the school. Teachers felt more empowered if the
relationship between the Principal and teacher are open and supportive. In addition, if
75
the teachers are confident about their own knowledge and skill set then they feel
motivated to be actively involved in the decision-making process.
The time required to develop and establish a school culture that promotes
increased teacher empowerment is an area of research that warrants review. A study
conducted by Wall and Rinehart (1998) investigated the impact of teacher
empowerment in 117 secondary schools with state-mandated School Councils. Teachers
in these schools participated in a survey focusing on autonomy, decision-making, self-
efficiency, professional growth, status and impact. The findings from this study reveal a
significant variation in the level of decision-making in schools with active councils
compared with those councils who had no experience. The results from this study
supported an earlier investigation by Cross and Reitzug (1996) relating to urban
teachers. Their study concluded that time is required to validate that decisions are being
shaped by all teachers. That is, teachers need to be confident that the decision-making
process is shared in practice. In this way, teacher empowerment is a long-term process
and not something that can be effectively achieved and maintained in the short term.
Effective schools emphasise the importance of teacher empowerment. As
Smylie (1995) pointed out, empowerment can improve teacher effectiveness in a
number of ways. The emphasis on continuous learning and excellence in teaching can
improve the quality of teachers, while the emphasis on spreading good practice to
colleagues can lead to increasing the expertise of teachers throughout the school. The
increased expertise and confidence of teachers, coupled with the greater responsibilities
vested in them, makes teachers more willing to take risks and introduce innovative
teaching methods, which may have a direct positive effect on teacher effectiveness.
Research conducted by Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) examined the effects of
school leadership and teacher empowerment on students’ engagement with school. The
study investigated Principal leadership and teacher empowerment, as well as the effects
76
of these two sources of leadership. The findings suggest that teacher empowerment
provided more variation in student learning and was a significant influence on teacher
effectiveness. The study further revealed that the role of the Principal is not a critical
part of the change process. However, teacher empowerment is an important influence on
student engagement. The study concluded that facilitating teacher empowerment may
have a positive influence on teacher effectiveness and student engagement (Leithwood
and Jantzi, 2000).
According to research by Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001), empowering teachers
through school autonomy improves their self-efficacy relating to student learning. There
is a significant relationship between teacher expectations and student achievement.
Consequently, strengthening self-efficacy is a critical influential factor of teacher
empowerment (Muijs & Reynolds, 2001). The findings from research conducted by
Ovando (1996) suggests when they are empowered, teachers are more innovative in the
classroom. Other studies have found that empowerment can improve teacher
motivation. In their study of teacher empowerment, Lieberman and colleagues (2000)
reported that teachers feel that the experience improves their confidence in their own
capacity and enables them to motivate and lead other staff. Equally, in their survey of
42 teachers, O’Connor and Boles (1992) reported teacher empowerment leads to
improved self-confidence, increased knowledge and skill set, and an improved attitude
to teaching.
The literature relating to teacher empowerment indicates that teachers play an
important role in organisational structure, curriculum and instruction. When part of a
collaborative team, contributing to the decision-making process, they impact on student
achievement. A study of 90 schools in nine states of the United States by Leithwood
and Mascall (2008) revealed the important role played by teacher empowerment in a
school. The study interviewed 2 570 teachers and showed that collective leadership is
77
the catalyst for a 20 percent difference in student achievement. Collective leadership is
viewed as an important factor influencing teacher empowerment which contributes to
improved student achievement (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). The factors that influence
teacher empowerment are believed to be the teacher’s personal goals; beliefs; and the
school context. The influence of collective leadership is most strongly linked to student
achievement through teacher empowerment. Finally, the degree to which teacher
empowerment has an influence differs among schools with different levels of student
achievement. In comparison with schools whose students achieve in the lowest 20
percent of the sample, schools whose students achieve in the highest 20 percent have
teacher empowerment through collective leadership.
Day and colleagues (2009) conducted a study to evaluate effective school
leadership practices in England. Approximately 700 primary and secondary schools
were selected to participate in the research. These schools had achieved a consistent
increase in student achievement during a three-year period. Fifteen percent of the
primary and secondary students of the schools that demonstrated a consistent increase in
student achievement reported improved teacher empowerment. The study revealed a
strong link between school autonomy, teacher empowerment and improved student
achievement. Increased student achievement was influenced by leadership practices that
indirectly fostered increased teacher empowerment through their influence on the
quality of learning and by promoting a school culture that emphasised continuous
school improvement (Sammons et al., 2011).
The relationship between high performing Principals and teacher empowerment
warrants attention. It is widely held that a good Principal is the key to a successful
school. A mechanism through which Principals affect student achievement and long
term sustainable school improvement is through teacher empowerment (Caldwell,
78
2016). Principals who empower their teachers provide them with an opportunity to be
innovative in their planning and deliver authentic and rich learning experiences.
A longitudinal study conducted by Branch, Hanushek and Rivkin (2013) in
Texas highlighted the role of high performing Principals in areas related to empowering
teachers along with evidence of impact on student achievement. The study involved all
public school teachers, administrators, staff and students in Texas. The analysis relied
on administrative data constructed as part of the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD)
Texas Schools Project. It combined various sources of data to establish matched data
sets for students, teachers and Principals during a six-year period. Student achievement
was established by results in mathematics in the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills
Tests administered to students from Years 3 to 8. The study reported effective
Principals increase the achievement of an average student in their schools by between
two and seven months of learning in a year. In contrast, ineffective Principals lower
achievement by the same amount. These impacts are less than those associated with
having a highly effective teacher. This is not the result of direct action by the Principal.
Strategies reported in the study included the way Principals manage the quality of
teachers and their contribution to the decision-making process. The study revealed
teacher empowerment is an important element in contributing to school improvement
(Branch, Hanushek & Rivkin, 2013).
European studies have claimed that a relatively high degree of school autonomy
provides staff with the flexibility to be innovative in the design and delivery of learning
experiences (OECD, 2011; OECD, 2014). However, innovation is influenced by staff
capacity, a desire to take risks, and a professional environment in which staff are not
constrained by accountability requirements. School autonomy, teacher empowerment
and innovation was investigated in an OECD report by Kärkkäinen (2012). The area of
innovation focused on curriculum; however, the study did not investigate the
79
relationship between school autonomy and student achievement. The report focuses on
public lower-secondary education due to data availability, although it occasionally uses
examples of other levels of education. The research drew upon various OECD data,
especially on data collected for the OECD Education at a Glance 2008, 2010 and 2011.
Country profiles of the world education systems as compiled by the UNESCO
International Bureau of Education (IBE) were also a data source for the research. The
study reported that a devolved school environment established the conditions to ensure
teachers are empowered and become innovative in the development and delivery of
teaching-learning experiences. Teachers in devolved school environments are provided
the opportunity to experiment in the design of learning experiences to meet the needs of
individual students and the local communities. Empowered teachers are more likely to
use research findings or liaise with experienced practitioners to support their decision-
making. The challenge in this devolved environment is to reflect local needs and ensure
the commitment to and implement solutions to weaknesses in the teaching-learning
experience.
To conclude, there is a large body of research which investigated the global
trend of teacher empowerment. Educational reforms such as school autonomy are
shown to facilitate teacher involvement in the decision-making process. Teachers’
professional knowledge is considered significant in influencing student learning
outcomes, classroom management, school decision-making related to policies and
projects, and sustainable long-term school improvement. The findings from these
studies on teacher empowerment reveal that the role of the Principal is significant in
empowering teachers to make school decisions. Principals have a clearly defined vision,
develop a shared path to achieve the vision, believe that teachers need to be empowered
in order to be innovative and deliver appropriate and relevant learning experiences at
the classroom level and are passionate about sustainable school improvement.
80
The literature review suggests teacher empowerment positively affects school
and classroom change. The concept of teacher empowerment is powerful because it
contributes to school effectiveness, improvement and development. In addition, teacher
empowerment has a significant influence upon the quality of relationships and teaching
within a school. In this sense, teacher empowerment provides a level of professionalism
based upon mutual trust, recognition and support. Where this occurs, it provides a way
for teachers working together to improve learning outcomes for students. This section of
the literature review adds to the study by relating increased teacher empowerment to
devolved decision-making. The next section examines the body of literature relating to
student achievement.
Student Achievement
An abundance of research relates the factors affecting student achievement and
the contribution of teachers and schools to that learning and achievement (Caldwell,
2012). The introduction of self-managing schools involved a reallocation of
responsibilities and changes in accountability requirements with the aim of improving
achievement and enhanced school efficiencies. The extent to which this has been
achieved is unclear. Empirical research investigating the impact of self-managing
schools on student achievement is multifaceted and displays many elements that impact
on student learning and achievement. In addition, the findings from empirical research
in this area have varied over time (Honig & Rainey, 2012). Although earlier studies
reveal negative findings relating to improved student achievement, recent research
reveals a positive impact. The empirical studies outlined in the following section of the
literature review identify a mix of advantages and disadvantages under different
conditions.
81
Early research on the impact of school autonomy largely ignored student
achievement. Malen and colleagues (1990) suggested some school autonomy advocates
did not regard student achievement as an important outcome or there was an assumption
about a pre-existing link with student achievement. As a result, there was initially little
evidence to support the notion that school autonomy is effective in improving student
achievement. In conducting a meta-evaluation of 70 international studies about the
effectiveness of self-managing schools, Summers and Johnson (1996) questioned the
impact on student achievement. Of the 70 studies, only 20 demonstrated a systematic
approach to evaluation, and only seven included a measurable assessment of student
outcomes based on student performance. The research showed the prime focus of each
of the studies was organisational – changes in governance, decision-making processes,
and stakeholder relationships. Improved student achievement was not viewed as an
objective in any of the international studies that were examined. In the studies where it
was mentioned, little attention was given to student achievement. Of the 20 studies, on
the outcome of student achievement, there is little or no evidence that school autonomy
produced improvements in student performance. Their research revealed the evidence
linking self-managing schools with improved student achievement was lacking. The
data were inadequate and statistical controls were largely nonexistent. The conclusions
drawn from the work by Summers and Johnson (1996) reinforced an earlier study by
Malen and colleagues (1990). This study concluded that self-managing schools did not
lead to or equate to innovations in teaching and learning resulting in improved student
achievement. A similar finding was established in a meta-analysis conducted by
Leithwood and Menzies (1998) in which they reviewed 80 empirical studies. Research
by Hanushek (1996) expanded these conclusions, suggesting that if decentralisation did
not have a clear objective to improve student achievement, a devolved school
environment could guide performance in the opposite direction. This could be attributed
82
to schools pursuing their own particular objectives unrelated to improving student
achievement.
A review of the literature about devolved school environments reveals a large
number of empirical studies about the performance of charter schools in the United
States of America. Charter Schools are self-managing schools that have more flexibility
in areas including curriculum, financial management and human resource management
than traditional public schools. The findings from these studies are mixed. For
example, a study conducted by Hoxby, Murarka and Kang (2009) compared the results
of charter and traditional schools in New York. The study revealed charter schools
achieve higher results for some grades in Reading and Mathematics. The methodology
used in this study has controls for selective intakes. The schools used lotteries for
entrance to charter schools and traditional schools, so that school populations could be
equaled on all relevant variables. Differences in achievement could then be attributed, to
some extent, to the school type. This is a strength of the study as it provides the
opportunity to obtain credible estimates of the effect of attending a charter school rather
than a traditional public school in New York City. In principle, this allows researchers
to estimate the effect of being admitted to a specific charter school, in a specific grade
and year, on student achievement in subsequent years.
However, these results have been challenged by Reardon (2009) because of
limitations in the statistical models and the size of the gains. To take advantage of the
opportunity presented by the many lotteries, the researchers use appropriate statistical
models to analyse the data. As a result of the flaws in the study’s analysis, the results
presented appear to overstate the cumulative effect on student achievement. It is
possible that charter schools in New York have a positive effect on student
achievement; however, those effects are likely to be smaller than the study claims. In
83
addition, the study does not provide enough technical discussion and detailed
description to enable an assessment to be made of the study’s methodology and results.
As an example of a self-managing school, charter schools claimed to deliver
quality education to all students, increased parental choice, new approaches to
curriculum and competition to existing public schools. Together, charter schools in the
United States are viewed as educators, innovators, and agents of community change.
However, a review of the literature reveals studies that show the aggregate charter
schools are not advancing the learning gains of their students as much as traditional
public schools. The study reported by Raymond (2009) has made a significant
contribution to the impact of charter schools on student achievement and highlights this
finding. The empirical study involved a matched longitudinal comparison of student
achievement in literacy and numeracy in 2 400 charter schools across 15 States in the
United States. The matching was through a virtual twin created for charter school
students based on corresponding demographics, socio-economic status, English
language proficiency, and special needs. The credibility of the study is characterised by
the number of school sites covering 70 percent of students in charter schools. The study
revealed 46 percent of the schools had improved student achievement in numeracy that
was impossible to differentiate from the average increase among the comparator
schools; 37 percent were significantly below what students would have achieved in their
comparator schools; and 17 percent surpassed the increase in comparator schools. The
study determined that significant differences in student achievement were a result of the
variations in the nature of institutional structures for establishing and monitoring charter
schools (Raymond, 2009). Analysis of research takes into account the variations in
implementation which include school practices and the development of support
structures that are committed to a devolved school environment.
84
Charter schools are largely viewed as a major innovation in the US public school
landscape. They receive more independence from state laws and regulations than do
traditional public schools. Therefore, charter schools are more able to experiment with
alternative curricula, pedagogical methods, and different ways of employing and
training teachers in order to improve student achievement. However, selecting
autonomy does not imply a school’s desire to adopt local decision-making to change
school organisation or teaching and learning practices. A study conducted by Betts and
Tang (2011) about student achievement in Mathematics and Reading in some charter
schools reinforces this perspective and further supports the conclusions drawn in
research by Raymond (2009). The study by Betts and Tang (2011) found charter
schools surpassed public schools in some locations and subjects. This was evident in
elementary school Reading and middle school Mathematics and Reading. Other schools
in the study demonstrated evidence of underperformance compared to public schools.
Interestingly, there were schools in the study that demonstrated no evidence of
successful or unsuccessful innovation, replicating only the standard being displayed in
public schools.
The Centre for Research on Education Outcomes revisited the study conducted
by Raymond (2009) in 2013 to provide an updated and expanded view of charter school
performance in the United States. This latter study revealed that 25 percent of charter
schools demonstrated increased student achievement in Reading compared with public
schools while 19 percent had decreased student achievement compared with public
schools. In Numeracy, 29 percent of charter schools achieved increased student
achievement compared with public schools; however, 31 percent had improved less
compared with public schools in student achievement. After analysing data from 27
States, the study revealed that students in charter schools achieved increased student
achievement in Reading than students in public schools. The student performance
85
achieved by charter school students in Numeracy were similar to those achieved in
public schools. Overall, students in charter schools have improved their achievement
since the study conducted by Raymond (2009).
School autonomy in England is delivered through the Academies. Like charter
schools in the United States, Academies are publicly funded self-managing schools that
enjoy the flexibility in governance and operational management that is not available to
traditional public schools. Research conducted on Academies in England provides
evidence about the negative impact of a devolved school environment on student
achievement. One such study was conducted by Gorard (2009) involving an analysis of
Academies between 2002 and 2006. The study found that their level of success
compared with public schools was insubstantial. Some Academies improved in student
achievement following academisation while others underperformed or remained the
same. Using these results, there was no evidence to suggest that Academies improve
student achievement more than traditional public schools with an equivalent intake of
students.
The objective of the Academies was to challenge the culture of educational
under-attainment and to raise standards by innovative approaches to management,
governance, teaching and the curriculum. A recent study by Hutchings and colleagues
(2014) examined student achievement in chains of Academies in England and found no
positive impact on student achievement. The study was conducted during 2010 – 2013
and compared grade results at the General Certificate of Secondary Education level with
socio-economic disadvantage within and between Academy chains and with non-
Academies. The study revealed a significant difference in student outcomes, particularly
for disadvantaged students between chains of Academies and non-Academies.
Moreover, the chains of Academies underperformed for disadvantaged students
compared to non-Academies. In addition, the study revealed 5 chains of Academies out
86
of a total of 31 involved in the investigation demonstrated increased student
achievement and half of the sample appear to exceed the non-Academies average.
However, when the results from the chains of Academies were analysed against system-
wide indicators rather than their own benchmarks, the majority underperformed
compared to non-Academies. The findings in this study highlight the significance of
administrative design and effective planning. The sample profiles of some of the chains
of Academies in the study were too large to gain benefits. Those chains of Academies
that demonstrated success in the study were smaller in size and strategically planned to
ensure teachers collaborated effectively to deliver teaching-learning experiences.
Australia is relatively new to school autonomy compared to other countries and
this has influenced the volume of research in this area. A survey of the literature reveals
a lack of comprehensive Australian empirical studies on the impact of a devolved
school environment on student achievement. Outside of the Australian state of Victoria,
school autonomy is a relatively new initiative. Given that measuring impact requires
longitudinal data the dearth of Australian evidence is not surprising.
One example of the Australian research comes from Victoria. During the 1990s,
a number of studies examined the devolved school reforms in Victoria, Australia under
the Schools of the Future initiative. Research conducted by Blackmore and colleagues
(1996) concluded the environment for teachers was different under the Victorian
reform. It was at odds with the values and philosophy of public education and promoted
inequalities. This finding was reinforced by a study conducted by Townsend (1996).
The study revealed that low socio-economic schools were unable to benefit from a
devolved school environment as they were not able to raise additional finances. A study
conducted across three educational regions in Victoria by Whitty and colleagues (1998)
supported the conclusions drawn from these earlier studies that little positive effect
emerged in a devolved school environment. Moreover, the evidence revealed higher
87
levels of autonomy gave prominence to the inequities by increasing the advantage held
by higher socio-economic schools.
The suggestion that school autonomy is not a determining element in student
achievement is revealed in a study conducted by Jensen (2013). In particular, studies
show that student achievement can improve in a low autonomy school environment due
to the quality of the teaching staff. Teachers who are innovative, motivated and
passionate can improve student achievement without needing to be in a self-managing
school. In his study, Jensen draws upon Australia’s 2008 OECD data to conclude that
there is not a great deal of variation between high and low autonomy schools relating to
student achievement. Comparing the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales
in Literacy and Numeracy, the latter is comparable to or demonstrates a higher
performance than the former. Victorian schools have a higher degree of school
autonomy than New South Wales schools. In addition, the study further reveals that
practices for teacher capacity building and appraisal are not enhanced regardless of
autonomy status. As a result, the study concluded that the level of autonomy, in this
case, does not translate to more effective and efficient teacher development practices
which in turn have a positive impact on student achievement.
An analysis of the specific context and the implementation of a devolved school
environment require a deeper examination to gain insight into the impact on student
achievement. There are interrelated factors that operate external to and alongside
autonomy that exert considerable influence on student achievement (Betts and Tang,
2011; Branch et al., 2011; Hutchings et al., 2014; Jensen, 2013; National Audit Office,
2010; Raymond, 2009). Further research in this area would be invaluable to
international interest in school autonomy.
More recent empirical evidence supports school autonomy as a link to improve
student achievement. Studies highlighting this positive impact are predominantly in the
88
post 2000 period. These studies use quantitative measures to evaluate student
achievement. There is a subtle difference in the analysis as the national and international
studies expand and the interpretation differentiates more finely among factors. The
cross-country studies use large scale data sets which become invaluable to this area of
research.
Research on Academies in England has also revealed a positive impact on
student achievement. In reviewing the data, the Academies Commission (2013) revealed
that some Academies were successful in improving student achievement. However, they
also cautioned that this finding was not common to all Academies. They highlighted the
limitations relating to contextual factors in comparing Academies with other schools. In
its review of the evidence, the Academies Commission examined the analysis by the
Department of Education (2012) of Academies between 2006 and 2011. The study
concluded that student achievement in Academies increased at a faster rate than in other
government schools. This conclusion reinforced an earlier study reported on by the
National Audit Office (2010) that most Academies were achieving increases in student
achievement compared to other government schools.
The introduction of Academy schools in England has allowed schools to gain
more autonomy and flexible governance by changing their school structure. On one
side of the debate on Academies – and more generally on the policy of granting schools
more autonomy – supporters believe that Academies (increased autonomy) will sharpen
economic incentives for all staff to do better. In addition to this, it will also allow the
school to pursue innovative schooling policies that drive up the educational attainment
of their students. On the other side of the debate on Academies – and more generally on
the policy of granting schools more autonomy – critics campaign against the policy of
Academies because they believe that it will not work and that they are a way of
89
(implicitly) privatising the education system in England – leading to increased social
segregation.
The study by Machin and Vernoit (2011) attempted to address the debate on the
effect of Academies in England on student achievement. They conducted empirical
research on English secondary schools that had converted to Academies. The study
bypassed the selection bias that was inherent in the previous evaluations of Academy
schools by comparing the outcomes of interest in Academy schools to a selected group
of comparison schools. This group consists of a matched sample of state - maintained
schools that go on to become Academies after sample period ends. This design
generates a well - balanced treatment and control groups. An estimation of the impact of
an Academy conversion on four outcomes of interest is made – the pupil intake in
Academy schools; the pupil performance in Academy schools; the pupil intake in
neighbouring schools; and the pupil performance in neighbouring schools – by
comparing the average change in these outcomes (before and after the Academy
conversion) relative to our selected group of comparison schools. Machin and Vernoit
(2011) concluded that schools that had been Academies for a longer period of time and
had an increase in school autonomy demonstrated strong improvement in student
achievement. A later study by Machin and Silva (2013) reinforced this conclusion.
Furthermore, the study revealed that schools that had converted to Academies between
2002 and 2007 had improved student achievement by raising their attainment in the
upper levels of the ability distribution. However, a review of these studies highlights
weaknesses in the methodology leading to the findings being disputed. Reliance on
small samples and failure to make note of changes in the configuration of student
intakes places limitations on the validation of a positive impact on student achievement.
Empirical studies conducted by the OECD since 2000 have made a significant
contribution to the volume of research about school autonomy and its impact on student
90
achievement. An analysis of this global data since 2000 reveals a consistent and
ongoing strong relationship between school autonomy and improved student
achievement. However, when the data are specifically analysed within the context of the
individual system, the relationship between school autonomy and student achievement
is less clear. This problem can be addressed through further in-depth research at the
individual system level. In this way, such research about individual systems would
make a significant contribution to the volume of studies in this area.
A review of the study reported by the OECD (2013) reveals an analytical
framework comprising two indices: resource allocation, and curriculum and assessment.
This analytical framework is used to determine the impact of school autonomy on
student achievement. An analysis of the indices shows the conditions under which there
is a positive relationship between school autonomy and student achievement, where
there is not a relationship, and where there is a negative impact as a result of autonomy.
When comparing education systems, the study concluded that where there is greater
autonomy for decisions relating to curriculum and assessment there is improved student
achievement. This is in contrast to less autonomy relating to curriculum and assessment.
The study supported earlier research conducted by the OECD (2010) about the impact
on student achievement. In this study, autonomy related to curriculum and assessment is
shown to be an important characteristic of a successful school improving student
achievement.
Research conducted by the OECD within member countries relating to school
autonomy in resource allocation, as well as in curriculum and assessment, is
multifaceted. In this context, the relationship is influenced by other elements including
socio-economic level, status as a private or public school, and the accountability
framework. The OECD (2010) study revealed strong accountability systems with more
autonomy in curriculum and assessment will perform worse than those with strong
91
accountability and less autonomy. This was evident when analysing the results for
Reading in PISA 2009 where a student attending a school with greater autonomy in a
low accountability environment was six PISA points lower than a student in a low
autonomy environment. Another OECD (2013) study revealed a difference of nine
points lower in Science. The opposite applies for schools with autonomy in curriculum
and assessment that are in systems with high levels of accountability (OECD, 2010).
These schools improved in Reading in 2009 where students scored five points higher in
a school with greater autonomy and increased accountability. A similar outcome was
achieved in 2012 in Mathematics. In summary, these studies indicate that higher
accountability and high autonomy are associated with increased student achievement.
In a ground-breaking review of the Schools of the Future reform in Victoria, the
Department of Education (1998) reported on the positive impact on student
achievement. The five-year longitudinal study involved state-wide surveys of
Principals’ experiences with school autonomy. The study analysed Principals’ views
across four domains: curriculum; resource allocation; human resource practices; and
school and community. The study revealed the strength of a Principal’s indirect
influence on student achievement rather than a direct relationship (Department of
Education, 1998). Through modeling in this study, an explanatory framework of seven
concepts highlight elements that influence Principals’ views about the impact of a
devolved school environment on student achievement. Findings from this study
revealed Principals value school autonomy and have no desire to return to the previous
model; however, the researchers are not prepared to make a definite link between a
devolved school environment and improved student achievement (Caldwell, 2012).
Negligible empirical evidence exists to indicate that Principals as instructional
leaders in a devolved school environment improve student outcomes. Indeed, the
evidence of the impact during a 20-year period is substantially inadequate for Hallinger
92
(2005) to comment on the lack of change in the area from the early 1980s to the mid-
2000s. Evidence for the assessment is derived from a series of reviews by Hallinger and
Heck (1996) about the effects of the changing role of Principals. These reviewers
reviewed 40 international studies conducted during the period of 1980 – 1995 that
investigated the links between the role of the Principal, leadership behaviour and school
effectiveness and efficiency in devolved school environments. Of the 15 ‘state of the
art’ studies examining indirect leadership reviewed by Hallinger and Heck (1996), only
one study focused on student achievement (as opposed to other dependent measures
such as ‘school effectiveness’ and ‘teacher perceptions of school effectiveness’); used
sophisticated analytic tools such as Structural Equation Modeling; and included at least
100 schools. Hallinger and Heck (1996) concluded from the research that instructional
leadership influences the quality of school outcomes through the alignment of school
structures (e.g., academic standards, time allocation, curriculum) with the school’s
mission. It is interesting to note from the research by Hallinger and Heck (1996) that
relatively few studies find a relationship between the Principal’s hands-on supervision
of classroom instruction, teacher effectiveness, and student achievement.
Further research by Mulford (2003) on Principals as instructional leaders
revealed their impact on student outcomes is more indirect than direct, influencing
school processes and procedures that are linked to student outcomes. Hallinger and
Heck (1999) expanded their earlier review to 1998 that creating a positive learning
environment was the consistent way of influence Principals have to impact on student
outcomes. However, more information is required to explain how this improves student
outcomes. While this lack of clarity around learning environment remains a barrier to
understanding, the most useful Principal leadership practices in a devolved school
environment involve staff capacity building and establishing organisational structures
that meet the needs of the school community (Leithwood et al., 2004).
93
In an extensive review of empirical research conducted by Levačić (2005) on the
impact of Principals as instructional leaders on student outcomes, the evidence for a
causal relationship is relatively sparse. This divergence in the perceptions of impact
made by Principals on student outcomes has been supported in two other reviews (Bell,
Bolman & Cubillo, 2003; Mulford, 2005). One of the difficulties faced by researchers in
identifying a link between the two elements has been a consensus on the definition of
instructional leadership. The absence of such clarity makes the specification of
measures of variables difficult: a co-relationship is not evidence of causality (Levačić,
2005). A complicating factor in assessing the impact of the Principal as an instructional
leader on student outcomes is what Levačić (2005) denotes as the problem of counter-
factual, namely, the impact on student outcomes cannot be observed for the same
students in the same school, with different leadership. Overall, while there may be some
evidence of a causal relationship between the two elements, the ways in which these
may be produced remain unclear to researchers (Teddlie, 2005).
In the groundbreaking Australian study, Leadership for Organisational Learning
and Student Outcomes (LOLSO), researchers Silins and Mulford (2002) demonstrated
an indirect impact on student outcomes by Principals in a devolved school environment.
The leadership model in place was both transformational (Principal) and distributed
(Deputy Principal and Heads of Learning Areas). In LOLSO study, organisational
learning is supported by the flexibility to allocate resources for professional learning.
This was an important variable between leadership, the work of the teachers and student
outcomes. In this way, decisions made at the school level contributed to organisational
learning which influenced teaching and learning (including delivery of the learning
experience and expectations for students). Furthermore, students’ positive perceptions
of teachers’ work motivated their participation in the learning experience. Student
94
engagement was found to be indirectly related through retention to improved student
outcomes.
Recent Australian education jurisdiction reviews of school autonomy pilot
programs in the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales revealed similar
findings to the Victorian study. A review of the school autonomy reforms in these two
jurisdictions suggest very little change in student achievement (Department of
Education and Communities, 2012). Both studies reveal Principals’ positive perceptions
about school autonomy and student achievement. However, they do not report any
measured change in student achievement that can be linked to school autonomy
(Department of Education and Communities, 2012). The New South Wales review
further reported that it was difficult to measure any change in student achievement in a
short period of time. Further longitudinal studies would be required in this area to
effectively measure change in student achievement.
In Western Australia, a review of the Independent Public Schools initiative,
conducted by the Melbourne Graduate School of Education and Shelby Consulting,
supported the findings of the reviews of similar pilot programs in the Australian Capital
Territory and New South Wales. The Western Australian study revealed that Principals
believed the initiative had improved the effective and efficient operation of their
schools. In addition, they believed the initiative established positive and stronger links
with school communities in an attempt to improve governance arrangements. However,
the study revealed that there was no evidence to support a link between student
achievement and school autonomy. As with the New South Wales review, the Western
Australian study recommended further longitudinal research in this area to measure
change in student achievement.
To conclude, the body of research presented in this literature review about the
impact of school autonomy on student achievement is not conclusive. The evidence
95
presented in international studies about the impact of student achievement is varied.
There has been considerable discussion about the findings, methodology and data from
these investigations. Recognising the limitations of these studies is critical in
understanding the impact of school autonomy. Unlike international studies, research in
Australia about school autonomy has not reported on the impact on student
achievement. However, the research does suggest that the design and implementation of
school autonomy initiatives has an influence on student achievement. To this end, it is
governance arrangements that facilitate school improvement which will ultimately
improve student achievement. This section of the literature makes a contribution to the
study by relating the importance of school autonomy to the implementation of
Independent Public Schools. The next section examines the body of literature relating to
school governance.
School Governance
A substantial body of research investigates school governance. Within this
research on school governance the focus is on School Boards which is a particular
organisational structural response to self-management. Most of the studies have been
conducted in developed, mainly western countries with varying levels of school
autonomy. Research reveals that School Boards provide the local community with a
forum through which they can participate in the school decision-making process
(Caldwell & Spinks, 2013). The empirical research examining the relationship between
School Board attributes and actions and sustained long term school improvement is
limited. Research which gives focus in this area can be viewed as being outdated given
the changing policy context in many of these developed western countries.
The School Board is the central governance tool in self-managing schools. The
term ‘governance’ is used in the context of education to refer to the accountability and
96
authority structures including norms of legitimacy (Gedajlovic, Lubatkin, & Schulze,
2004; Harris, 2007). Hudson (2009) suggests, “Governance is the provision of oversight
and accountability of an organisation’s work. Governance embraces the structures and
processes of the governing body and its committees and the function that the chief
executives and managers perform to support governance” (p. 25).
School management usually deals with the ‘operation’ of school administration,
while governance is more concerned with the ‘individual and their role’ (Harris, 2007).
Governance in Western Australian schools is usually undertaken by a School Board
with elected parent representatives, appointed community representatives, the Principal,
and elected staff representatives (Gray, Campbell-Evans, & Leggett, 2013). Such
Management involves maximising available resources for achieving desired results or
goals (Leggett, Campbell-Evans, & Gray, 2016). Management and governance have
separate but overlapping functions in schools (Hudson, 2009). From a study of
Principals of self-managing schools in Australia, Caldwell (1992) argues that the
Principal of a self-managing school develops and implements “a cyclical managerial
process of goal setting, need identification, priority setting, policy making, planning,
budgeting and evaluating” (pp. 16-17). Similarly, Dressler (2001) studied charter school
leadership in the USA and found that the role of a school Principal is clearly focused on
the responsibilities of the managers. Fitzgerald (2009), from a study of three New
Zealand secondary schools, found that the task and activities of management dominate
teachers’ work with little or no time for leadership. Owings and Kaplan (2012) argue
that “school leaders must perform many management functions” (p. 8). These suggest
management functions supersede leadership functions.
Educational management, which is concerned with a systematic operation of
educational institutions including schools, has initially drawn its principles from general
management (Bush, 2008, 2011). Bell (1991) noted that educational management has
97
borrowed ideas, concepts and “even theories from the world of industry and commerce”
(p. 136). The most influential management theory is Taylor’s (1911) theory of
‘scientific management’.
In his principles of scientific management, Taylor also argued that managers
need to have an understanding about the work before asking workers to undertake it;
appropriate selection and development of employees; workers should be paid as per
their production capacity; the main objective of management is maximum prosperity of
both management and workers (cooperation, not individualism) and both management
and workers need to work collaboratively to benefit each other (Nyland, 1996; Taneja,
Pryor & Tooms, 2011; Taylor, 1911). Taylor’s scientific management theory commonly
known as ‘Taylorism’, assumes that human beings become efficient and effective in
their workplace only when they are managed and supervised effectively (Levačić,
Glover, Bennett & Crawford, 1999). Taylorism proposed managers be responsible for
analysing, planning and controlling work in organisations, while workers follow their
managers’ instructions (Robertson, 2000). This is a hierarchical model.
Taylor’s notion of scientific management became popular, as these ideas were
believed to increase efficiency and effectiveness in teaching and learning in the
American schools (Robertson, 2000). School leaders saw themselves as managers
instead of educators, thereby focusing on management tasks and keeping themselves
away from classrooms. School leaders’ views of others in the school setting were also
relevant to the notion of scientific management. They believed that teachers as workers
needed to follow their school leaders’ instruction (Owings & Kaplan, 2012). Such ideas
of managing schools were introduced in Western Australia during the 1980s to improve
the professional image of teaching (Halden, 1991), with the assumption that improving
schools’ management via the application of business principles enhance the teaching
and learning environment. However, this only functioned as a way of achieving political
98
accountability via compliance. Reflecting on the application of the industrial model to
schooling in the New Zealand context, Fitzgerald (2009) argued that “despite almost
two decades of change, the organisation and hierarchy of schools replicate industrial
models of working that differentiates people and activities according to position” (pp.
63–64).
Parent/caregiver and other stakeholder involvement in setting the direction of
their schools and electing those they trust with this responsibility enabled the School
Board to bring schools closer to their communities (Macpherson & McKillop, 2002).
The role of the School Board in setting school directions and selecting the Principal
would make a significant contribution to school and student performance. Underlying
this perspective are three assumptions. First, parents/caregivers and other community
members would be attracted to make a contribution to the local school by joining the
Board (Court & O’Neil, 2011). Second, parents/caregivers and other members of the
community would be well represented not only in terms of expertise and skills; but also
in terms of a range of student backgrounds (Gamage, 2006). Third, members of the
Board would work collaboratively as a team and with school staff (Gilchrist & Knight,
2015).
It is difficult to assess the effect of the School Board on student achievement and
sustained long term school improvement. There is not a great deal of research in this
area. The role of the School Board is indirect in this area. The School Board is most
likely to influence the ability of school leaders to develop and sustain the school culture
and staff capacity building. The studies reported in this section of the literature review
reveal some links between the School Board, student performance and school
improvement. Unlike the role of the Principal or other school leaders, however, the
studies do not establish connections that reveal the School Board is essential for student
engagement in learning or improved student performance. International studies provide
99
comparisons within a single system. Therefore, these studies cannot compare schools
with governance layers, such as School Boards and those where the Principal is directly
accountable to a regional education office or a central office. Studies making such a
comparison would be useful in ascertaining whether schools require a governing layer.
In Western Australia, the benefits gained from transitioning to a School Board
from a School Council have largely been related to their practical voluntary support, the
opportunities for school staff, parents/caregivers and other community members to learn
from each other, and for school staff to articulate their activities (Gray, Campbell-Evans
& Leggett, 2013). In 2013, a review of the Independent Public Schools initiative,
conducted by the Melbourne Graduate School of Education and Shelby Consulting,
revealed School Boards allowed the school to more effectively meet and reflect the
needs of the community, support parent/caregiver and community involvement, and the
school being able to set its own priorities within its budget and be able to make its own
decisions (Shelby Consulting, 2013).
In the United States, there are two seminal studies which provide empirical
research relating to the relationship between the School Board and sustained long term
school improvement. These studies are Goodman, Fulbright and Zimmerman (1997)
and the multi-year Lighthouse Inquiry Project conducted by the Iowa Association of
School Boards. Both studies acquired comprehensive data relating to school
governance, particularly the impact on sustained long-term school improvement. The
findings from these studies have retained their relevance in the changing policy contexts
relating to school autonomy.
The study conducted by Goodman, Fulbright and Zimmerman (1997) provided
an in-depth examination of School Boards and school improvement. The study was
conducted in two school districts in each of the five New England states. There were
132 interviews conducted with stakeholders, including School Board members and
100
superintendents. The investigation generated 41 recommendations for quality School
Board governance divided into six general strategies. The findings revealed that schools
that demonstrated high quality School Board governance correlated with increased
student achievement and long-term school improvement. The increased student
achievement was measured by the number of students attending tertiary education and
aptitude test scores. A further analysis of the study reveals that it did not explain in
which way the quality governance variables were measured. In addition, the researchers
did not provide any analysis as to the degree to which these variables either individually
or collectively impacted on student achievement and school improvement. The
researchers identified and explained the attributes that underpinned quality governance
and contrasted what they perceived to be examples of poor governance. While the study
provided comprehensive data relating to the relationship between the School Board and
school improvement, there is a need for further empirical research in this area.
In a 10-year study conducted in three phases, the Iowa Association of School
Boards investigated School Boards and their impact on school improvement. The
findings revealed the School Boards and their members in high achieving districts have
a different knowledge and skill set to other low achieving districts (Delagardelle, 2008).
The initial study together with subsequent investigations demonstrated that particular
School Board actions are associated with sustained long-term school improvement. This
was evident when the model was transferred to high poverty districts.
The ground-breaking study is an example of the small number of investigations
underpinned by quantifiable and reliable data of school improvement. There was no
reliable statewide database to identify school improvement levels during the initial
phase of the study (Delagardelle, 2008). To overcome this, the researchers conducted an
ethnographic study of six school districts in Georgia. The researchers gathered data
from School Boards and superintendents in the six Georgia school districts during the
101
initial phase of the study. While a significant limitation to the investigation was the
small number of school districts, the findings revealed three important differences
between high achieving and low achieving districts. First, high achieving districts
viewed the school as an important vehicle to develop each child’s academic and social
knowledge and skills. Board members in these schools believed that there were no
barriers to student achievement and this view had to be nurtured by the school. In
contrast, Board members in low achieving districts accepted these barriers and believed
that there were limitations to what students could achieve. Second, high achieving
districts focused on sustained long-term school improvement. Board members in these
districts demonstrated an understanding about the factors contributing to school
improvement. Finally, school staff members in high achieving districts were able to
establish a clear link between district and Board priorities.
During 2002 – 2007, a two-part second phase of the Lighthouse Inquiry Project
was conducted (Delagardelle, 2008). The study involved interviewing School Board
members and superintendents in five pilot districts in a US Midwestern state.
Researchers examined the conditions that contributed to sustained long-term school
improvement, the beliefs, perceptions, and values of School Board members, and the
impact on student achievement. Specifically, the study examined the ways in which
School Board members influenced student achievement and therefore long-term school
improvement. The findings revealed five main attributes of the process: establish clear
objectives and expectations; accountability; conditions for success; shared staff and
community commitment; and professional learning (Delagardelle, 2008). In addition,
the study revealed knowledge, skills, and beliefs that were demonstrated by School
Boards in high achieving schools. These attributes could be transferred to other school
environments in order to develop and establish a culture of long-term school
improvement.
102
The final phase of the Lighthouse Inquiry Project extended the second phase of
the study. The researchers used the data gathered in the previous study and the findings
to conduct a multi-state investigation. The third phase of the Project used demographic
data relating to School Board members and identified best practices used by these
School Boards. These examples of best practices are relevant today and can adapt to a
changing policy context relating to school autonomy. All three phases of the Lighthouse
Inquiry Project produced empirical evidence that School Boards contribute in a
significant way to creating and sustaining long-term school improvement.
In the United Kingdom, specifically England and Wales, there is a substantial
body of research that examines the relationship between high quality School Board
governance and school improvement. A study conducted by OFSTED (2002) concluded
that high quality School Board governance is associated with long-term school
improvement. However, the study revealed that high quality School Board governance
does not necessarily translate into long-term school improvement in a number of
schools surveyed. The study demonstrated a clear inverse link with the quality of
School Board governance and school socioeconomic disadvantage: the lower the level
of school socioeconomic disadvantage the greater the quality of School Board
governance. A limitation of the study was the lack of analysis on the relationship
between the quality of School Board governance and school improvement within
similar socioeconomic areas, that is, comparing long-term school improvement in
schools that have high quality School Board governance and those that have low quality
School Board governance within the same school socioeconomic areas. In this way, the
relationship between the quality of School Board governance and school improvement
reflects differences in student socioeconomic resources and experiences.
Earley and Creese (2003) analysed and reported on a study by Scanlon, Earley
and Evans (1999) that examined the School Board governance practices of a group of
103
schools that were reasoned to be effective with another group considered less effective
by OFSTED. The two groups of schools were similar in size, years of schooling, and
denomination. The findings revealed the importance of an effective School Board in
contributing to long-term school improvement. The study noted the significance of a
well-developed and established partnership between the school and the local
community. Such a relationship ensures that schools benefit from the knowledge and
skills provided by community representatives as members of the Board. Earley and
Creese (2003) suggested a number of strategies to facilitate long-term school
improvement. These included a need to focus on staff capacity building, a strong
school-community partnership, and teacher empowerment.
A study conducted by Ranson, Farrell, Penn and Smith (2005) provided a
comprehensive examination of quality School Board governance and school
improvement in Wales. The study interviewed the Principal, Chairman of the Board,
and members of the School Board in eight schools in each of the 10 Local Education
Authorities in Wales. The findings revealed that not every school demonstrated long-
term school improvement relating to the quality of School Board governance. While
many schools had high quality School Board governance, this did not translate into a
demonstrated change in school improvement. A third of the School Boards were
deemed to be ‘executive boards’. Less than a third of these School Boards were viewed
as consultative sounding boards. In addition, more than a quarter of these were
considered forums only. The findings also showed student achievement declined where
School Boards acted only as a forum for Principals. However, the result was positive
where the School Boards were consultative sounding boards or ‘executive boards’.
It was interesting to note in the study that the two School Board governance
arrangements (consultative sounding board and executive board) were clearly linked
with school improvement. This indicates that either model can have a positive impact in
104
a devolved school environment. In essence, a School Board needs to offer a school
more than a forum to express their views (Gobby, 2013). Rather, they can be either a
consultative sounding board or an executive board. A limitation of the study was that
the researchers provided only primary school results and suggested that the results from
the secondary schools followed a similar trend. More analysis of the secondary school
results would have identified trends in their overall school improvement. This finding
would have identified the type of School Board governance arrangement most
appropriate for the various secondary schools.
In New Zealand, there is little empirical research using quantitative data to
explore a relationship between School Boards and school improvement. However,
qualitative empirical studies interrogate this relationship and establish the value that a
School Board can bring to a school. Strategic planning is a significant area where the
School Board and the school can work together in order to set the directions for the
school to meet student needs. Each brings to the experience knowledge and skill-sets
that reflect an in-depth understanding of the needs of the local school community. In a
study conducted by Wylie and King (2005) there was a clear relationship between the
role of the School Board and long-term sustained school improvement. The study
involved 18 effective schools, including primary schools that were demonstrating
sustained improvement in student achievement and secondary schools with above
average student retention and graduation rates for their socioeconomic indicator. In each
of these schools, the Board and the Principal shared the decision-making relating to
strategic planning. Each was aware of the other’s roles and responsibilities. The
Principal and other members of the Executive team provided advice to the School Board
to assist in the decision-making process. The Chairperson of the Board ensured that the
School Plan reflected and responded to community priorities, addressed the needs of
students as is evident in a review of the data, and contributed to long-term school
105
improvement. Wylie and King (2005) pointed out that Principals welcome the role
played by the School Board in the planning process, particularly working with those
members with high level financial management experience that contributes to decision-
making in this area.
The School Board enables schools to work with parents/caregivers and the
community by affirming the role of teachers and establishing and extending the
partnership with parents/caregivers and the local school community (Court & O’Neill,
2011; Earley & Crease, 2003). Providing ideas, resources and representing the school
positively are ways in which the School Board contribute to the school and become part
of a shared endeavor (Mitchell, Cameron & Wylie, 2002). Building strong links enables
the School Board to be influential in supporting students, the staff, parents/caregivers,
and the school. A study by Mitchell, Cameron and Wylie (2002) further examined this
perspective. The research studied 10 primary schools in New Zealand to investigate
how schools improve. In each of the schools, the Chairpersons of the Board highlighted
the strong partnership between the Board and the school staff. The Chairpersons viewed
the role of the Board as complementing the knowledge and skill set already present
within the school. When new Principals were appointed, the study reported developing
a constructive relationship with the Chairperson of the Board, clarifying roles, and
building Board member capacity as a high priority. Similarly, existing Principals
commented on the positive support received from the Board and how much the teaching
staff gained from hearing parent/caregiver and community views relating to improving
student performance. In each of these schools, there was a strong view that staff and
board members had significant areas of expertise. A concerted effort was made to
nurture these and provide opportunities for staff and board members to share them.
To conclude, good governance makes indirect contribution to sustainable long-
term school improvement through a commitment to the school and its students. This
106
contribution is achieved by drawing upon the knowledge of the school community to
work collaboratively with staff to make decisions about the direction of the school and
its resourcing. The literature review reveals that the School Board is an important form
of school governance. There is an established link between effective boards and
effective schools. However, it is unclear whether the link is causal or correlational.
School Boards are established and work within the parameters created by a
legislative and regulatory framework. They have the responsibility to work with school
staff to establish the conditions that will position a school to successfully improve
student achievement and contribute to sustainable long-term school improvement. It is
not the role of the School Board to manage a school. This is an operational matter that is
the responsibility of the school executive team. Striving to improve the performance of
students and the school remains a significant priority for a School Board. School Boards
are positioned to play a critical role in school improvement, particularly as the focus
evolves from change to sustainability. This section of the literature review makes a
contribution to the study by relating the role of the School Board to the implementation
of Independent Public Schools.
Summary
This chapter has reviewed the relevant literature that has informed this study.
The scope of the review included national and international developments in school
leadership, teacher empowerment, student achievement and the role of school
governance. Since the 1980s, education systems around the world have participated in
reforms in public education with the aim of improving student achievement and
contribute to sustainable long-term school improvement. The reforms in public
education are marked by a trend towards self-managing schools. In addition, these
107
reforms are linked to other policy initiatives that seek to introduce a market element into
the provision of education services.
The leadership role of the school Principal has become increasingly challenging
and has expanded in both scope and complexity. Current perspectives on the leadership
role and responsibilities of Principals are not one of an administrator working in
isolation, rather it is a role that is integrated in nature. The literature suggests the ability
to integrate all facets of the Principal’s responsibilities increase the effectiveness of the
Principal’s leadership within the school community.
The empowerment of teachers has been a significant outcome of school
autonomy and the establishment of self-managing schools. Teachers are best placed to
determine the curriculum, pedagogy and the mix of resources required to achieve
optimal outcomes for students. With increased expectations for schools, particularly in
terms of success for all students in all settings, the focus continues to remain on
leadership and building staff capacity to achieve sustainable long-term school
improvement.
A review of the research suggests many studies have attempted to investigate the
impact of school autonomy on student achievement. However, the evidence presented in
the research is generally weak and highly selective. Some studies show a positive effect;
however, recent international studies suggest it has little impact on student achievement.
OECD research has found no significant difference between student achievement in
schools with high levels of autonomy and in schools with lower autonomy levels.
Moreover, it does not appear to have led to more innovation in pedagogy and
curriculum.
School Boards have increasingly become an important vehicle in school
governance to enable parents/caregivers and the community to work with school staff
for the benefit of students. Being a member of a School Board has become a
108
challenging and demanding role that requires recruiting the right mix of skills. A review
of the research relating to the contribution of School Boards to school improvement
reveals very little direct impact. It does, however, indicate that School Boards can affect
school improvement through support and by reflecting the values that are important to
the school. The provision of quality learning experiences to improve student
performance leading to sustainable long-term school improvement is a collective
responsibility.
The four bodies of literature have informed the focus of the study and has
shaped the research design. They influenced the type of questions that were asked and
affected which concepts emerged during the data collection. In addition, the four bodies
of literature supported the data analysis phase of the study by highlighting particular
concepts and providing points of reference from which to discuss the study’s findings
and elicit conclusions. The next chapter describes the research design and method used
in the study.
109
Chapter Four
Research Design and Method
The study sought to answer the question: What are the perspectives of
stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public School status in the first year
of operation in the respective schools in Western Australia? The focus on perspectives
reflects the interpretivist nature of this study as it explores how Principals, Deputy
Principals, Business Managers, teachers, and Chairpersons of the School Board interpret
and implement the policy in their respective schools. This chapter describes the research
design and method.
This chapter is divided into eight sections. The first section describes the
location of the study in the field of Qualitative Research. The second section describes
the theoretical framework of this study. The third section outlines the location of the
researcher. The fourth section describes the research design which informed the study.
The fifth section outlines the guiding questions which underpin the central research
question. The sixth section describes the data collection and sampling strategies
employed followed by a discussion on the data analysis processes. The seventh section
outlines the quality issues in the study. Finally, the ethical issues associated with the
study are presented.
Qualitative Research
This study is located in the field of qualitative research. Qualitative research
assumes that characteristics of the social environment are constructed as interpretations
by individuals. These interpretations can be transitory or situational. Researchers
develop their knowledge by collecting verbal data through the intensive study of
110
specific cases and interpreting the data. Punch (1998) points out that qualitative research
places an emphasis on meanings that are not ascertained through measurement.
Qualitative research is more subjective than quantitative research and uses different
methods of collecting information, mainly individual, in-depth interviews and focus
groups. The nature of this research is exploratory and open-ended.
Eisenhart and Howe (1992) identified five standards to ensure validity in
educational research: the fit between research questions, data collection procedures, and
analysis techniques; the effective application of specific data collection and analysis
techniques; alertness to and coherence of prior knowledge; value constraints; and
comprehensiveness. These standards can be applied to both qualitative and quantitative
research. The aim of this study was to examine the perspectives of stakeholders
(Principals, Deputy Principals, Business Managers, teachers, and the Chairpersons of
the School Board) on the implementation of Independent Public Schools in the Western
Australian public system of education. This study required a method of investigation
that enabled an interpretation of social phenomena. Consequently, the use of qualitative
data provided an insight into participants’ attitudes, behaviours, values, concerns,
motivations and aspirations.
The debate about the value of quantitative versus qualitative methods has been
accompanied by a debate about their underlying paradigms, which are often at odds
with one another. A paradigm is “a basic set of beliefs that guide action, whether of the
everyday garden variety or action taken in connection with a disciplined inquiry”
(Guba, 1990, p. 17). Paradigms shape research at its most basic level; worldviews frame
the types of questions asked and what the answers might look like. Research can be
understood as arising from paradigms that inform theoretical perspectives, that in turn
shape choice of methodology, a general “strategy or plan of action” (Crotty, 1998, p. 7).
Methodologies subsequently are implemented through use of methods or techniques.
111
This was an important consideration in the context of this study and the implications
relating to the implementation of the Independent Public Schools initiative.
Theoretical Framework
According to Broido and Manning (2002), research cannot be effected without
the conscious or unconscious use of underlying theoretical perspectives. These
perspectives inform methodology, guiding theory, questions pursued, and conclusions
drawn. Theoretical perspectives are “the philosophical stance informing the
methodology and thus providing a context for the process and grounding its logic and
criteria” (Crotty, 1998, p. 3). Every research method embraces an underlying theoretical
perspective. Research is shaped by paradigmatic assumptions and by the principles and
concepts described in theoretical perspectives.
Research conducted by Merriam (2009) suggests that there is a lack of
consistency in how theoretical perspectives in qualitative research are discussed.
Merriam notes these differences: traditions and theoretical underpinnings (Bogdan and
Biklen, 2007); theoretical traditions and orientations (Patton, 2002); theoretical
paradigms (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994); worldviews (Creswell, 2007); epistemology and
theoretical perspectives (Crotty, 1998).
Interpretivism
This study places primary importance on the perspectives of Principals, Deputy
Principals, Business Managers, teachers, and Chairpersons of the School Board and
their interpretation of the Independent Public Schools initiative. Investigation of the
central research question was approached through the meaning that participants ascribed
to their feelings and the events surrounding the implementation of the Independent
Public Schools initiative. As this study assumes that reality is subjective and
112
constructed, that there are many truths, and that understanding is important, an
interpretivist paradigm was followed.
The interpretivist paradigm emphasises patterns and connections. In this view,
understanding is given greater priority than explanation. This emphasis is supported by
early research conducted by Schutz (1954) who argued that there is an essential
difference between the natural and social world. The social world is considered
meaningful. As people engage in conscious, intentional activities and attach meanings
to their actions, human societies are essentially subjective realities. Interpretivists, as
noted by Charmaz (2009), argue that the positivist idea of causation is quite logical in
the natural world where a particular stimulus consistently produces a given effect, but
does not apply in the social world. People do not merely react to stimuli. Rather, they
actively interpret the situations in which they find themselves and act on the basis of
these interpretations.
Symbolic Interactionism
This study is conducted within the symbolic interactionist theoretical framework
which allows for the interpretation of social phenomena. Symbolic interactionism, a
major theoretical framework within the interpretivist paradigm, “assumes society,
reality, and self are constructed through interaction and thus rely on language and
communication” (Charmaz, 2009, p. 7). Consequently, this requires individuals to be
active and reflective.
Blumer (1969) defined the principles underpinning symbolic interactionism. He
drew from the research conducted by George Herbert Mead about the importance of
meaning to the individual as an acting entity and the primacy of direct empirical
observation as a methodology. This work has subsequently made a profound
contribution to social theory and methodology. Blumer (1969) argued that symbolic
113
interactionism is based on three principles: first, that human beings act towards things
on the basis of the meanings those things have for them; second, that such meanings
arise out of the interaction of the individual with others; and third, that an interpretive
process is used by the person in each instance in which they deal with things in their
environment. Blumer (1969) concluded that the first principle was down-played by
researchers. It was often relegated to the status of a causative factor or treated as a mere
transmission link that can be ignored in favour of the initiating factors by both
sociologists and psychologists. Symbolic interactionism, however, holds the view that
the central role in human behaviour belongs to these meanings which other viewpoints
would dismiss as incidental.
When considering the second principle, Blumer (1969) identified two traditional
methods for accounting for the source of meaning and highlights how they differ from
the interactionist approach. First, meaning is taken to be innate to the object considered.
In this view, meaning is given and no process is involved in forming an understanding
of it. Second, meaning is taken to be the consequence of perceptions carried by the
perceiver for whom the object has meaning. These perceptions are treated as being an
expression of component elements of the person’s psyche, mind, or psychological
organisation. The components of the individual’s psychological makeup that form
meaning, then, are all the sensory and attitudinal data that the person brings to meaning
formation.
The third principle further distinguishes symbolic interactionism from other
theoretical frameworks: the process of interpretation is primary to Blumer’s explanation
of the formation of meaning. The other points of view, he claims, view the uses of
meaning as being the application to specific situations of previously established
meanings. Blumer (1969) insisted that the interpretive process and the context in which
it occurs are a vital element in the person’s use of meaning.
114
While various authors (Charon, 1998; Colton, 1987; Cresswell, 2007; Crotty,
1998; Patton, 2002) point out the significance of symbolic interactionism as a
perspective in understanding human action, an examination of the literature reveals
numerous criticisms. Denzin (1992) and Meltzer and colleagues (1975) suggest that
concepts used in symbolic interaction discussion, such as meaning, object, gesture and
symbol are vague and hard to define. These authors maintain that symbolic
interactionism over-emphasises the immediate situation and everyday life. They assert
that the impact of social structure upon individuals is not given sufficient consideration
and that different forms of social organisation are not considered sufficiently by this
perspective. Crotty (1998) and Denzin (1992) suggest symbolic interactionism does not
address the various dimensions that comprise power relationships, the distribution of
power within society, and the impact of politics on everyday life. Denzin (1992)
believes this is attributed to symbolic interactionism being concerned with the
subjective experience of individuals.
Notwithstanding this critique, the focus of this study on the perspectives of
stakeholders made symbolic interaction an appropriate theoretical framework for
informing the study’s design and method. In addition, the study’s purpose and research
question enables the researcher to view the world as the participant does and understand
how they experience their particular context. The development of the research approach
reported in this thesis reflects the importance symbolic interaction gives to
interpretation and “the active part” that the individual takes, “in the cause of their own
action” (Charon, 1998, p. 28).
Location of the Researcher
My experiences as an undergraduate student at University and as a secondary
school administrator have influenced my perspectives on self-managing schools. I am
115
aware that my perspectives relating to this area of research were an important factor in
determining the focus for the investigation and the approach.
The Better Schools Report was introduced and subsequently implemented in the
Western Australian public school system during my time as an undergraduate student.
During this time, many concepts underpinning the Better Schools Report were
introduced into my program of study including: accountability, corporate management,
self-managing schools, and school autonomy. In addition, international empirical
research on self-managing schools formed part of my program of study illustrating the
practical application of the above concepts. At the end of my undergraduate course, I
understood the potential benefits of self-managing schools for Western Australian
public schools.
My experience as a secondary school administrator influenced my perspective
on self-managing schools. In 2001, I commenced my appointment at a new senior
college established in the south-east metropolitan corridor of Perth, Western Australia.
The College was part of the Court Liberal-National Coalition Government’s extensive
Local Area Education Planning (LAEP) and the Local Management of Schools
initiative in the late 1990s. On establishment of the College, the Department of
Education gave the Principal the authority to select staff. This enabled the College to
recruit staff with the knowledge and skill set suited to working in this environment. As a
member of the senior management team, I was provided with the opportunity to
participate in the selection of staff for the College. This involved working as a team to
monitor workforce requirements and manage the recruitment process. My involvement
in the local process of recruitment and selection of staff enabled me to see the possible
practical benefits of self-managing schools to the College particularly in building a
positive staff culture and working towards implementing the vision of the College in the
local community.
116
During this doctoral research, I have been employed as a school administrator at
one of the three public secondary schools involved in the study. I have been responsible
for providing leadership and I co-managed the implementation of the Independent
Public Schools initiative at my school. Consequently, I have intimate knowledge about
the initiative and its implementation at the school level. It is also important to note, that
as a school administrator within the school, I have line management responsibility for
one of the participants interviewed for the study. Consideration of my position in
relation to this respondent is acknowledged.
My experiences as an undergraduate student and as a secondary school
administrator influenced my perspective on self-managing schools that I held at the
beginning of this investigation. However, my close involvement in the implementation
of the IPS initiative has enabled me to see a disconnection between the intentions
underpinning the initiative and its practical application at the local school level.
Research Design
A point in time study was implemented within the symbolic interactionist
theoretical framework. According to O’Donoghue (2007), the approach used is fixed in
time and relates to the perspectives that participants have on a specific matter. The aim
of this study was designed to examine the perspectives of stakeholders (Principals,
Deputy Principals, Business Managers, teachers, and the Chairpersons of the School
Board) on the implementation of Independent Public Schools in the Western Australian
public system of education.
This study was conducted over a 12-month period with two visits to each school
site. A 12-month period is not a long time for structural or cultural school or system
level change to be implemented and embedded. However, within the context of the
study a longitudinal study was not feasible. The two points in time were February –
117
March at the beginning of the implementation of the IPS initiative and January –
February the following year. This enabled me to identify the perspectives of participants
and determine how these changed over time relating to their specific experiences.
O’Donoghue (2007) suggests:
We are trying to determine what happens that can be detected over a
particular period of time from an investigation of, the perspectives
which the participants have on a phenomenon at the outset; how the
participants act in light of these perspectives; and the changes, if any,
which take place in the participants’ perspectives as a result of their
actions. (p. 33)
The two visits enabled me to examine perspectives relating to the implementation of
this phenomenon over a 12-month period.
Research Question
The central research question in this study is a broad question. The
accompanying questions serve to clarify the meaning of the central research question. In
answering the central research question, the questions became the focus of the data
collection questions. According to Punch (2005), a “data collection question is one
which is asked in order to collect data in order to help answer the research question” (p.
43). These questions reflect the aim of the study in order to answer the central research
question.
The central research question is:
What are the perspectives of stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public
School status in the first year of operation in the respective schools in Western
Australia?
1. What are stakeholders’ understandings of the purpose of the introduction of
Independent Public Schools?
118
2. What are the expectations of the stakeholders of a school in regard to
Independent Public Schools? What reasons do they give for these expectations?
3. What are the expected benefits of the Independent Public School initiative?
4. What are the expectations of purpose and benefits after the first year of
implementation?
These questions served as the basis for the development of further questions used during
the structured interviews, enabling me to explore the phenomenon in depth.
Methods
The research method will now be discussed. The data collection and data
analysis processes that were implemented during the study will also be considered in
greater depth.
Participants and Sites
The identification of sites from which to select the participants was an important
aspect of the research method. Three Western Australian secondary public schools, in
this study, are defined as units of analysis. Through the examination of each unit of
analysis, my intention was to identify similarities and differences (Merriam, 2009) of
the perspectives of stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public Schools
in the Western Australian public system of education.
The selection of schools used purposive sampling (Punch, 1998). The researcher
chose the schools and the participants in the study based on the purpose of the study.
Punch (2009) points out purposive sampling refers to as judgment sampling - sample
elements judged to be typical, or representative, are chosen from the population. The
criteria for school selection was to achieve a different context and size of metropolitan
119
school. The three schools were selected in 2012 from the third round of successful
applicants in the Independent Public Schools initiative commencing in 2013.
The participants for this study included stakeholders from three metropolitan
secondary schools in the Western Australian public system of education. All of the
Principals invited to participate in the study were experienced in their roles and were ex-
officio members of their School Boards. One of the two Deputy Principals invited to
participate from each school was a member of the School Board while the other was
involved with the implementation of the initiative as a member of the School Executive
team. The Business Managers in each school invited to participate in the study
presented a financial report at the monthly School Board meetings. They line managed
non-teaching staff and were involved in the implementation of the initiative as a
member of the School Executive team. The teachers invited to participate in the study
were members of the School Board and had at least 10 years’ experience as a classroom
teacher. The Chairpersons of the School Board that were invited to participate in the
study had a history of involvement in their local school. Each participant was contacted
through letters, email correspondence and telephone calls inviting them to take part in
the study. Each expressed a willingness to participate in the study. No person contacted
declined to take part in the study.
Context of Three Schools
School A opened in January 2008 after the closure of an older established
school. The school, located in a near-coastal suburb, proudly celebrates a history of
delivering education in the local community for over half a century. It is located in the
South Metropolitan Education Region. The school is a Year 7 – 12 campus offering
academic programs across the seven Learning Areas, including: The Arts, English,
Health and Physical Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Mathematics, Science,
120
and Technology and Enterprise. The school offers one specialist program. Students
graduating from the school are not only well equipped for enrolment in tertiary courses
at University or at TAFE, but also for coping with the demands that employment places
upon them if they choose to go out into the world of work.
School A was granted IPS status in 2013. During the time of the two points of
data collection the school had a population of 982 students. There has been an upward
trend in student enrolments since 2013. It has an Index of Community Socio-
Educational Advantage (ICSEA) of 931.00.
School B opened in January 1971. The school, located in a near-coastal suburb,
is part of the South Metropolitan Education Region. At the time of the interviews, the
school was a Year 8 – 12 campus offering academic programs across the seven
Learning Areas, including: The Arts, English, Health and Physical Education,
Humanities and Social Sciences, Mathematics, Science, and Technology and Enterprise.
Since 2015, the school has been a Year 7 – 12 campus. The school offers three
specialist programs that students can enrol from outside the local intake area. In
addition, it offers three school based programs, including academic extension,
instrumental music and school based rugby league program.
School B was granted IPS status in 2013. During the time of the two points of
data collection the school had a population of 766 students. There has been an upward
trend in student enrolments since 2013. It has an Index of Community Socio-
Educational Advantage (ICSEA) of 949.00.
School C opened in January 1969. The school, located in close proximity to the
Perth central business district, is part of the South Metropolitan Education Region. At
the time of the interviews, the school was a Year 8 – 12 campus offering academic
programs across the eight Learning Areas, including: The Arts, English, Health and
Physical Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Languages, Mathematics, Science,
121
and Technology and Enterprise. Since 2015, the school has been a Year 7 – 12 campus.
Students enrol at the school from outside the local intake area to study one of the four
specialist programs. In addition, they have a growing number of international students
that choose to study at the school.
School C was granted IPS status in 2013. During the time of the two points of
data collection the school had a population of 661 students. There has been an upward
trend in student enrolments since 2013. It has an Index of Community Socio-
Educational Advantage (ICSEA) of 1047.00.
The three secondary schools are part of the Department of Education in Western
Australia and are required to operate within the Department’s policies and guidelines
framework. The Department and other statutory bodies formulate the educational
policies and articulate guidelines for policy implementation. The implementation of
policy is mandated with the expectation of compliance by all schools selected to
participate in the IPS initiative in consideration of their local circumstances and context.
Data Collection
The interview is one of the most common methods employed in qualitative
research (Merriam, 2009). The flexibility of the interview is consistent with the
inductive approach to data gathering and analysis in this study. The structured, in-depth
interviews were used to gather the perspectives of stakeholders about the
implementation of the Independent Public Schools initiative.
The interview is used to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say
(Kvale, 1996). Interviews are particularly useful for getting the story behind a
participant’s experiences. In qualitative research, there is an emphasis on greater
generality in the formulation of initial research ideas and on participants’ own
perspectives. Interviews were appropriate for this study because they enabled similar
122
information to be obtained while being flexible to learn about specific issues that were
important to participants and explore complex issues in more detail. The interviews
enabled me to seek clarification about the issues by entering a conversation that moved
beyond “surface talk to a rich discussion of thoughts” (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p.
80).
Structured interviews were the primary means of data collection for this study.
Punch (1998) believes the interview “is a very good way of accessing people’s
perceptions, meanings, definitions of situations and constructions of reality” (pp. 174 -
175). It is an effective way through which we can gain an interesting insight and
understanding of others. I had a list of questions to be covered. The interviewee had
flexibility in how to reply to these questions. Supplementary questions were asked to
pick up on responses of interviewees.
The interviews were conducted in a setting where the participants felt
comfortable to talk about issues. These settings included the participants’ office at their
workplace. One Chairperson of the School Board invited me to their home in order to
conduct the interviews. Each setting was quiet so there was no or little outside noise that
affected the quality of the tape recording. Each participant was interviewed individually
for a period between 45 – 60 minutes at two points during a 12-month period. The two
points in time were February – March and January – February. A total of 36 interviews
were conducted across the three schools. Question variation was kept to a minimum and
participants received the same questions and in the same order. The structure of the
interview allowed for the development of common themes identified in the responses.
Furthermore, this enabled a further exploration of various aspects of the implementation
process.
The interview questions were designed to allow flexibility of response and to
encourage the exploration of ideas, rather than inhibit them. Interview questions also
123
sought data on the contextual influences on the Independent Public Schools reform
implementation. These questions were an open-ended guide and promoted an honest
exchange in a situation of trust; so that the respondents discussed sensitive and
controversial issues relevant to the study without feeling they were being judged. The
two structured interview schedules are shown at Appendix A and B.
The first interview with each stakeholder was designed to explore the
perspectives relating to their expectations about the IPS initiative and its
implementation at their school. The second interview with each stakeholder was
designed to review their initial expectations about the IPS initiative at their school. In
addition, this interview explored their experiences in implementing the initiative since
the first interview and identifies any changes to their initial perspectives. At both points
in time, the interview questions were provided to the stakeholders prior to the interview.
This enabled each participant to reflect on his or her experiences relating to the IPS
initiative.
Several techniques were used during the administration of the two interviews
when I sensed these were appropriate. They included active listening, tolerating periods
of silence, affirming responses through eye contact, nodding of the head and other non-
verbal gestures, and being consistently positive and non-judgemental as to the
appropriateness of the responses. In addition, I endeavoured to make the interview
situation natural and non-threatening. At the beginning of each session the purpose of
the interview was restated and participants were reassured that their responses would be
strictly confidential.
Participants gave consent to be recorded. These interviews were transcribed
within two days after each interview session. The application of this method is
supported by Silverman (2001) who believes “tapes and transcripts have three distinct
advantages when compared with other kinds of qualitative data: tapes are a public
124
record; tapes can be replayed and transcripts improved; and tapes preserve sequences of
talk” (p. 162). Participants were provided with interview transcripts to modify as
required as this provided the best data base for analysis (Merriam, 2009). I contacted
each participant by telephone to advise them that I had completed the transcribing of
their interview. Each interview transcript was hand delivered to the participants’ place
of work and home (in the case of one Chairperson of the School Board). The
participants were given the opportunity to elaborate or modify their transcript until they
were satisfied that the transcripts were an accurate reflection of their perspectives. No
changes were made to the interview transcripts derived from the interviews.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the implementation of a process designed to make meaning of
the collected data and how it supports the central research question. The Miles and
Huberman (1994) framework for data analysis was employed as this inductive
approach. The analysis framework used by Miles and Huberman comprises “three
concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display and conclusion verification”
(1984, p. 10). These three elements are cyclical and interactive in process. They involve
coding, memoing and theme development.
During this study data were collected at two points. Following each data
collection, the three stages of data reduction, data display and conclusion verification
was employed. Each of these elements will be discussed.
126
Table 4.1
First stage of analysis
What do you think will be the benefits of becoming an Independent Public School ? Hoping that we will have a lot more
flexibility in the way we use money. The
biggest plus of IPS was to have more
flexibility in appointing staff. The school has
a greater choice than a non-IPS. They have
wound it back but if someone had initially
opted out they were out of your school and
you were not paying for them. If a position
could not be found, then you would be
expected to take them back. I think they
found that too many people were using opt
out to try and move people from one school
to another school.
Impact of IPS on human resource
management.
Descriptive codes used in the Stage 1 data analysis are one-dimensional and
commence the process of summarising the data. These initial labels or tags prepared the
data for more advanced levels of coding. This is referred to as inferential coding that
developed higher order concepts. The initial codes used were in the form of phrases.
Data display refers to an “organised, compressed assembly of information that
permits conclusion drawing and action” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 11). During this
study, a table format was used as part of the data display component. The displays were
an important part of the analysis as they enabled the data to be organised and guided
future analysis.
The data analysis progressed through further stages of analysis, each refining the
emerging key ideas. Stage 2 of the data analysis involved assigning a further code to the
transcribed response.
127
Table 4.2
Second stage of analysis
What do you think will be the benefits of becoming an Independent Public School ? Response Stage 1: First Code Stage 2: Second Code
Hoping that we will have a
lot more flexibility in the
way we use money. The
biggest plus of IPS was to
have more flexibility in
appointing staff. The school
has a greater choice than a
non-IPS. They have wound it
back but if someone had
initially opted out they were
out of your school and you
were not paying for them. If
a position could not be
found, then you would be
expected to take them back.
I think they found that too
many people were using opt
out to try and move people
from one school to another
school.
Impact of IPS on human
resource management.
Flexibility in staffing
In order to generate meaning, clustering was used to inductively form categories
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Clustering facilitated the data to be organised and to gain
an understanding about local interactions. Furthermore, I was able to conceptualise
emerging themes which were presented in a matrix.
128
Table 4.3
Third stage of analysis
What do you think will be the benefits of becoming an Independent Public School ? Response Stage 1: First Code Stage 2: Second Code
Hoping that we will have a
lot more flexibility in the
way we use money. The
biggest plus of IPS was to
have more flexibility in
appointing staff. The school
has a greater choice than a
non-IPS. They have wound it
back but if someone had
initially opted out they were
out of your school and you
were not paying for them. If
a position could not be
found, then you would be
expected to take them back.
I think they found that too
many people were using opt
out to try and move people
from one school to another
school.
Impact of IPS on human
resource management.
Flexibility in staffing
Stage 3: Responses on flexibility in staffing grouped together We are able to change our staff profile which gives us greater control over what is going on.
This will in turn have benefits for students in terms of improving standards and student
outcomes. Management of staffing which for schools like ours is crucial. Needing teachers
who are suited. A huge benefit through attracting and retaining staff. The ability to bring in
prac teachers in an almost internship arrangement.
The Learning Areas will have greater influence who will be part of the Team.
The school can employ the staff that it wants and needs. As our budget is in $ figures (rather
than FTE) we can employ other staff that will benefit the student population.
It allows them to source their own staffing. They get to have the staff member they want
rather than have to accept the one that is appointed centrally.
Conclusion verification was implemented concurrently with data reduction and
data display. In Stage 3, responses from the interviews that received the second code
flexibility in staffing were grouped together. This category of responses was grouped
with other categories relating to flexibility, such as resources and budget, to form a
general concept of increased flexibility.
129
Table 4.4
Fourth stage of analysis
What do you think will be the benefits of becoming an Independent Public School ? Response Stage 1: First Code Stage 2: Second Code
Hoping that we will have a
lot more flexibility in the
way we use money. The
biggest plus of IPS was to
have more flexibility in
appointing staff. The school
has a greater choice than a
non-IPS. They have wound it
back but if someone had
initially opted out they were
out of your school and you
were not paying for them. If
a position could not be found
then you would be expected
to take them back. I think
they found that too many
people were using opt out to
try and move people from
one school to another school.
Impact of IPS on human
resource management.
Flexibility in staffing
Stage 3: Responses on flexibility in staffing grouped together We are able to change our staff profile which gives us greater control over what is going on.
This will in turn have benefits for students in terms of improving standards and student
outcomes. Management of staffing which for schools like ours is crucial. Needing teachers
who are suited. A huge benefit through attracting and retaining staff. The ability to bring in
prac teachers in an almost internship arrangement.
The Learning Areas will have greater influence who will be part of the Team.
The school can employ the staff that it wants and needs. As our budget is in $ figures (rather
than FTE) we can employ other staff that will benefit the student population.
It allows them to source their own staffing. They get to have the staff member they want
rather than have to accept the one that is appointed centrally.
Stage 4: General concept
Increased flexibility
The themes were analysed using the matrix to compare and contrast by
identifying commonalities and divergent trends which indicated if they were relevant to
the location or could be applied to other sites. These themes were developed through a
cross case analysis which assisted in the development of understanding and a
clarification of the various dimensions of the phenomenon. The process described here
130
produced an overall theme about the perspectives of stakeholders (Principals, Deputy
Principals, Business Managers, teachers, and the Chairpersons of the School Board) on
the implementation of Independent Public Schools in the Western Australian public
system of education.
Information obtained from the data analysis of the first interview shaped the
preparation of questions for the second-round interviews. The second-round interviews
occurred 12 months after the first-round interviews and provided an assessment of the
IPS initiative after the implementation was progressed in each of the three schools.
Following the second-round interviews, the data analysis approach followed the method
used for the first-round interviews. That is, the three stages of data reduction, data
display and conclusion verification were employed.
The stages in coding resulted in the identification of three themes which were
used as a framework to write about the perspectives of the stakeholders in this study.
These themes comprised: flexibility, autonomy and accountability. Each theme
presented the perspectives of the stakeholders in the first interviews then in the second
interviews 12 months later. Each perspective was described using examples from the
interview transcripts in order to present the main idea.
The approach used to generate meaning and confirming findings outlined in
Miles and Huberman (1994) was implemented in the verification of conclusions. In
generating meaning, strategies used included identifying patterns; clustering; compare
and contrast; building evidence; and making conceptual coherence to develop themes.
When confirming findings, strategies included: checking for research effects;
identifying negative evidence; examining alternative explanations; and ascertaining
feedback from participants.
131
Quality Issues
A study conducted within the symbolic interactionist theoretical framework,
reflecting the interpretivist paradigm, is evaluated in terms of trustworthiness.
Trustworthiness, as is described by some qualitative researchers (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; and Miles & Huberman, 1994), is similar to what quantitative researchers refer to
as validity and reliability. In short, trustworthiness refers to the extent to which the
findings in a particular study can be believed. It relies on the soundness and rigour of
every aspect of the research design. According to Merriam (2009), in order for a study
to have an effect on theory or practice it must provide credible insights and conclusions.
To this end, it was considered appropriate to use the criteria defining trustworthiness as
outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985). This criterion includes: credibility, transferability,
dependability and confirmability.
Throughout this study, participants were involved in verifying the data. This
process is referred to as member checking. O’Donoghue (2007) believes member
checking will promote the internal validity of this study. The in-depth structured
interviews were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were verified with the participants
to ensure that I accurately translated and recorded the interview. Participants made no
amendments to the recorded interview.
The data collected are relevant to the context of the participants and the
subsequent research findings relate specifically to this particular group. Lincoln and
Guba (1985) believe such a situation can make the transferability of research findings a
challenging task. O’Donoghue (2007) suggests the ability to generalise the findings of
the study enhances external validation. The study provided information upon which to
make a judgement about the perspectives of stakeholders on the implementation of
Independent Public Schools initiative in the Western Australian public system of
132
education. This study used three schools which comprised different contexts for the
implementation of the IPS initiative.
Dependability and confirmability refer to the consistency of findings in a
particular study and is less easy to achieve in qualitative than quantitative research
(Sarantakos, 1998). In qualitative research, the focus is dependability and confirmability
rather than using the phrase reliability. To satisfy the criteria of dependability and
confirmability in this study a clearly defined audit trail was developed. This involved
previewing the interview questions at the beginning of the two interviews by the
participants, member-checking the interview transcripts and memoing.
The techniques described in each of the criteria assist in ensuring the quality of
the data. However, as Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 329) point out “naturalistic inquiry
operates as an open system; no amount of member checking, auditing, or whatever can
ever compel; it can at best persuade”. The techniques used in this study assisted in
ensuring the perspectives of the stakeholders were accurately represented.
Ethical Issues
Ethical principles relating to the conduct of qualitative research are considered
in detail by authors such as Glesne and Peshkin (1992) and Miles and Huberman
(1994). These principles have informed the design and the conduct of this study. Key
ethical issues concerning this research include: consent, access, and confidentiality.
Consent
Written consent was obtained from all participants in the study. In this study, the
participants were Principals, Deputy Principals, Business Managers, teachers, and the
Chairpersons of the School Board. Each participant received a letter outlining the
research and two consent forms requiring signatures. One consent form was returned to
133
me while the other was retained by the participant for their record. Ongoing contact was
maintained with the participants, informing them about the progress of the study. The
letter and consent form are shown at Appendix C.
Access
The research reported in this thesis was assessed and approved by the University
of Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee. Approval #: RA/4/1/5173.
Permission was sought and received from the Department of Education in
Western Australia to conduct the study in three public secondary schools. When the
approval was received from the Director General of the Department, a letter was sent to
the Principals of each of the three public secondary schools inviting them to participate
in the study and seeking permission to access their respective school site. Access to
school site letter is shown at Appendix D. At the conclusion of the study, a letter of
thanks was sent to the Principals of each of the three public secondary schools together
with a letter to each individual participant thanking them for their involvement in the
study.
Confidentiality
All information provided by the participants was used solely for the study.
Documentation of the findings has included information that could lead to identification
of individuals. Participants and schools were assigned pseudonyms. Interview
transcripts were shared with all participants to ensure that misrepresentation has not
occurred. The school will be provided with a summary of the results and I will be
available to assist the Principal in the interpretation of the findings.
134
Summary
This chapter has described the research approach and methods used in this study.
The emphasis on perspectives reflects the interpretivist nature of this study as it relates
to how Principals, Deputy Principals, Business Managers, teachers, and Chairpersons of
the School Board interpret and implement the policy in their respective schools. Given
the qualitative research design, an interpretivist paradigm was employed to enable
participants’ personal expression and subjectivity relating to their perspectives on the
Independent Public Schools initiative and more broadly self-managing schools.
Symbolic interactionism was the most relevant theoretical framework within the
interpretivist paradigm to assist the study in understanding and explaining the
perspectives of participants as it relates to the central research question.
The research method incorporated structured interviews designed by myself. As
a research method, structured interviews enabled responsiveness to research questions
and provided me with a flexible yet integrated framework for a holistic examination of
the IPS initiative in three different secondary school settings.
Data were analysed by employing the Miles and Huberman (1984) qualitative
data analysis framework. This framework comprised the following elements as part of
the data analysis process: data reduction, data display, and conclusion verification. The
three elements are cyclical and interactive in process, and incorporate coding, memoing
and the development of themes. The application of the principles of data collection
outlined in the Miles and Huberman (1984) qualitative data analysis framework, the
thoughtful and systematic coding of transcripts, together with the methodical storage of
data contributed to the trustworthiness of the study. The next chapter presents the
analysis of the results from the interviews.
135
Chapter Five
Data Analysis
Data presented in this chapter addresses the central research question: What are
the perspectives of stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public School
status in the first year of operation in their schools in Western Australia? The
perspectives of the three Principals, six Deputy Principals, three Business Managers,
three teachers, and three Chairpersons of the School Board are analysed to show how
they interpret their experiences of implementing the policy in their respective schools.
The response from stakeholders at two points in time are organised according to
the three themes that were generated from the data, namely: flexibility, accountability,
and autonomy.
Flexibility
This section deals with the stakeholders’ perspectives of flexibility at two points
in time. The views are presented, in turn, of stakeholders including Principals, Deputy
Principals, Teachers, Business Managers, and Chairpersons of School Boards in the first
interviews then in the second interviews one year later.
In their first interviews, the three Principals interpreted the IPS policy as an
opportunity for increased flexibility in relation to staffing and finances. They believed
that the system had become increasingly inflexible over the years and was not reflecting
the needs of their schools: “The Deputies came to the realisation that they were getting
teachers that were not up to scratch and this created more work for them” (PS3). Indeed,
the three Principals stated that they applied for IPS status because of the opportunity to
select staff and manage school finances to reflect the needs of the local school
136
community. According to one Principal, “the biggest plus of IPS was to have more
flexibility in appointing staff and a one line budget” (PS1).
By the second interview one year later, the Principals reported that the flexibility
in staffing and financial management had impacted on their role in both positive and
negative ways.
Firstly, the Principals reported that a positive outcome of IPS was that the
number of staff required could be determined at the local school level. The Principals
pointed out the number of staff required to deliver programs and services in their school
was determined by the needs of the school, the number of students enrolled and the
amount of funding allocated by the Department in their respective one line budgets. The
flexibility to influence the number of staff to “address areas of need in the school, by
moving staff from non-priority areas, assists in progressing school improvement” (PS1).
Principals reported they had the flexibility to increase the number of staff appointed at
the school at various points during the year. This enabled them to “respond to areas of
need that emerged during the year” (PS1). All of the Principals interviewed
acknowledged the importance of ensuring a teacher was allocated to each class before
any other decisions were made relating to the allocation of resources. One Principal
viewed this as “core business” of the school (PS3).
Secondly, the Principals reported IPS status gave the opportunity to decide the
allocation of roles. IPS provided Principals with the capacity to determine how they
could use their school administrator positions (Levels 3 and 4). The Principals pointed
out these decisions were influenced by areas of need and ways in which these needs
could be effectively addressed. One Principal created a Level 4 Deputy Principal fixed
term position for 12 months to assist with the implementation of IPS. Another Principal
commented: “Previously we didn’t have the flexibility to make decisions about the
number of Level 3 or 4 positions we had in a school” (PS3).
137
Thirdly, the Principals described their ability to determine the nature of the
appointments in their school as another positive outcome of IPS. The Principals
indicated they had the flexibility to make appointments short term or permanent. These
decisions reflected “the short and long term needs of the school” (PS1). The Principals
acknowledged short term appointments provided them with an opportunity to review the
effectiveness of the position in a school before committing to permanency. In other
cases, Principals pointed out the school did not have the financial resources to commit
to a position in the long term, particularly if there was a need to employ additional
teaching staff when enrolments increased.
After one year, all Principals conceded an improved knowledge about managing
financial resources as a result of being responsible for a one line budget as a positive
outcome of IPS:
Everybody is on the same page now in terms of resource usage and we
have to be wise in how we distribute the resource. This is more effective
than trying to work out how we can move money from one point to
another. One of the things that has improved is people’s understandings
and how this can be applied. (PS2)
Prior to the IPS initiative, schools’ funds were pre-allocated and Principals “were
required to ensure that these funds were used for that specific purpose” (PS1). However,
under IPS, Principals together with the Executive team determine where funds are
allocated. They are required to maintain a balanced budget. However, producing a
budget using a one line budget model involved more complex work. All members of the
team are required to have “the same level of understanding about the one line budget
and the school’s overall financial position” (PS2). This is in contrast to the pre-IPS
arrangements “where most of the work had been completed by Central Office staff and
schools were required to administer the non-negotiables and complete a simple
allocation process” (PS3).
138
Although the positive outcomes for Principals were clear, there were also
negative outcomes in these Principals’ views. All three Principals commented that a
disadvantage of the new arrangements was not knowing what the overall financial
allocation was for their respective schools until later in the year. The allocation of funds
proved “difficult and increased stress levels as the Executive team tried to finalise the
budget before the end of the school year” (PS2). In addition, the one line budget
software proved to be a challenge. More training in the “use of the software was
important feedback relating to IPS” (PS2).
Increased workloads relating to recruitment and selection of staff was another
negative outcome of IPS status. One Principal reported: “there was a shift in the
amount of time required to complete the task” (PS2). Managing the complexities of
human resource management was demanding. As another Principal noted, knowing the
detail of “all Department policies and procedures relating to human resource
management” (PS1) was challenging.
The Deputy Principals’ views in the first round of interviews are similar to those
of the Principals on the topics of both human resources and finance. They agreed with
the Principals that the IPS initiative would increase their “school’s capacity to meet
student needs and pursue the school vision” (DPAS1). Deputy Principals’ views were
more nuanced than Principals on the topic of staffing flexibility.
The Deputy Principals reported that the placement of inappropriate staff by
Central Office to their schools, in the past, had created many problems. They believed
schools needed to be involved in the appointment of staff to ensure “the individual was
appropriate to the needs of the school” (DPAS2). Deputy Principals believed Central
Office did not thoroughly interrogate the knowledge and skill set of their appointments
and therefore they were unable to appoint the necessary skill set.
139
The Deputy Principals viewed IPS as a way to appoint staff to their schools to
more effectively meet the needs of their students. Each of the Deputy Principals
interviewed in the first round described the diverse nature of their student population. In
addition, they pointed to specific areas of need that only a locally selected appointment
could address, such as supporting Aboriginal students. The Deputy Principals
highlighted the significance of appointing the appropriate individual to meet the needs
of students. In the opinion of one Deputy Principal, if a school is not involved in the
selection process of their staff then “it can have an adverse impact on the delivery of
programs for students” (DPBS3).
The Deputy Principals saw a major benefit of IPS status was allowing schools to
select staff to support the ethos and the direction of the school. According to one
Deputy Principal, the ethos of the school provides an insight into the “school’s values
and vision for its students” (DPBS2). Another Deputy Principal believed that any
appointment must fit with the school’s ethos as this “affects teaching practice within the
school” (DPBS1). The Deputy Principals reported that any staff appointments must
embrace the ethos of their school otherwise they will be incompatible with the direction
of the school and the programs that are delivered.
In the second round of interviews, the three Deputy Principals reported
increased flexibility relating to human resource management as they implemented IPS.
One Deputy Principal commented:
It enables a school to choose the particular characteristics of a staff
member that is liked. Instead of selecting a Society & Environment
teacher that teaches History, you can choose the best teacher that
teaches History. There is a lot of work in selecting staff; however, it’s
worth the effort. (DPAS3)
Before IPS, the use of staff restricted the way a school managed their human resource
allocation. The Deputy Principals reported that a school with IPS status could make a
140
choice between employing a teacher or a non-teacher to perform certain roles. One
Deputy Principal pointed out that “it’s the type of staff member that you can choose
which highlights flexibility – the knowledge and skills that they can bring to the school”
(DPAS3).
Despite expecting that IPS would facilitate savings on salaries, the public school
system was not designed to enable schools to make money from salary allocation.
Deputy Principals reported no such appeal for savings because their salaries while paid
centrally staff are selected locally.
An average teacher works out to be a certain cost per year and that’s
what a school gets. If a school employs all graduates, then the
Department will give you money just for graduates. (DPAS3)
Deputy Principals explained that the Department, through the one line budget, will
allocate school funds for the number of teachers employed and their years of
experience.
In the second round interviews, not all positive expectations of Deputy
Principals were met. Deputy Principals stated that the flexibility related to staffing
became progressively constrained as they implemented IPS. Schools were required to
initially “liaise with Central Office and satisfy their procedures for every staffing issue
before they could commence managing the issue at the local level” (DPAS1). Any
position to be advertised was to be cleared by Central Office. An initial feature of the
IPS staffing component was that schools were not obliged to consider or take re-
deployees as part of the selection and recruitment process. Despite the initial
expectation that schools would not take re-deployees “they were forced to take re-
deployees even though they did not necessarily match the specific needs of the school”
(DPBS1).
141
After one year of implementing the IPS initiative, all Deputy Principals reported
the benefits related to a one line budget. Once the non-negotiables are allocated, “the
remaining funds are managed by the respective school” (DPBS2). It is here where there
is increased flexibility. One Deputy Principal commented on the real difference that a
one line budget can have in terms of allowing schools to direct where the funding is
allocated:
Having an Education Assistant in the classroom for a student with
autism was not giving us the outcomes that we were after. We wanted
to use that funding to create a program where a speech pathologist
would come to the school and work with our students. In terms of our
data collection around the program, it’s been all anecdotal. The result
in a range of areas suggests that the program works well in the lower
school. For our senior school, we have a person for specialist tutoring
and she works with our senior school students. We see the difference in
them attaining grades. We couldn’t do this without that flexibility. We
would have had only Education Assistants who don’t necessarily have
those skills that we want. (DPAS3)
According to the Deputy Principals, a key feature of IPS has been flexibility of staffing
through the one line budget. However, the Student Centered Funding Model will
remove that unique feature of IPS.
One Deputy Principal explained the emergence of the Student Centred Funding
Model would result in all schools managing a one line budget. What was once
considered to be an important feature of an IPS would be available to the majority of
public schools. The true “value of being an IPS relating to school financial management
will disappear” (DPAS1). The Deputy Principals reported that as the Student Centred
Funding Model is implemented in all public schools, the Department will introduce
processes, procedures and structures to constrain the level of flexibility previously
enjoyed only by schools with IPS status. One Deputy Principal suggested that this is an
issue of trust:
142
I think they are moving away from the original model because from a
Central Office perspective they need to be more accountable to the
Department of Treasury and the State Government for the management
of finances. The only way that this can occur is if Central Office puts in
place measures that will ensure finances can be tracked. They are
concerned that schools will make bad decisions regarding finances
which would have adverse implications for the Department of
Education and the State Government. (DPAS1)
Similar to Principals and Deputy Principals, the teachers participating in the first
round of interviews at the three schools referred to the selection of staff and managing
school finances at the local level as appealing features of IPS. Employing staff who
want to be at their school rather than being placed to “fill a vacancy” was viewed as
having a significant effect on the delivery of teaching-learning programs (TS1).
However, not every teacher interviewed shared this view. The other teachers were not
convinced about the impact that IPS would have on improving student outcomes.
According to one teacher: “there is no credible research to support a link between a self-
managing school and improved student outcomes” (TS3).
Each teacher interviewed commented about concerns relating to job security, re-
profiling of staff, and increases in workload. A “re-assurance was provided during the
consultation stage of the application process” (TS1) by the Principals in each of the
three schools that no re-profiling would occur to target staff, staff employment was safe
and increases in workload would be confined to school administrators (Executive and
Senior Management). However, staff remained concerned and anticipated that the
change would create additional workload as stakeholders adapted to their new
environment. According to one teacher, “workload remains a significant issue for me
and I am concerned about being burnt out” (TS3). The process of establishing a shared
understanding about the change at a Learning Area level would create more work: “Our
valuable meeting time will be taken up trying to understand the changes rather than
focusing on curriculum and at risk students” (TS1).
143
Quite a different perspective was articulated by one of the teachers. This teacher
viewed the flexibility in staffing and a one line budget as a way to drive efficiencies and
reform teachers’ industrial conditions. The teacher “could see no benefit in the
flexibility relating to staffing at the Learning Area level” (TS3). It was perceived as “a
way to transition ineffective staff out of the system” (TS3) without addressing the issues
and “staff who did not agree with the decisions of the School Executive as surplus to
requirements” (TS3). However, the potential to transition ineffective teachers out of
teaching was viewed as a positive feature by the other two stakeholders. According to
one teacher, “IPS brings opportunities to appropriately and effectively deal with under-
performing staff” (TS3). Under the previous non-IPS arrangements, one Principal
suggested they “were constrained by the legislative and regulatory framework
governing human resource management when dealing with sub-standard performance”
(PS1). The other two stakeholders anticipated increased flexibility in dealing with sub-
standard performance with the implementation of the IPS initiative.
In addition, this teacher believed that there was “no significant link between
local decision-making related to staffing and financial management and improved
learning outcomes” (TS3). IPS was considered to be an administrative initiative rather
than having an impact at the classroom level. It was a way to organise scarce resources
to meet more effectively the needs of the students in schools. However, the other two
teachers believed that having input into the selection of appropriate staff “would result
in the delivery of dynamic learning experiences that could potentially improve learning
outcomes” (TS1). These teachers would bring to the school a knowledge and skill set
that would benefit the students. In addition, teacher input into the selection of staff
would ensure that they would be able to collaboratively work with existing staff in the
Learning Area.
144
In the second interview, most teachers concurred with the Principals’ and
Deputy Principals’ views about the benefits of IPS relating to human resource
management. One teacher commented: “It has enabled the school to make staffing
decisions in a comprehensive and timely manner as opposed to prior to the
implementation of IPS” (TS1). Being a member of a selection panel to appoint a teacher
to a Learning Area “was viewed as a positive outcome from IPS” (TS2). In this way, a
Learning Area would have input into selecting staff that would meet their respective
needs.
A workload issue emerged from the second round of interviewing staff from
Learning Areas who had to participate in multiple selection panels during the year to fill
vacancies that occurred. The teachers interviewed pointed out these panels required a
great deal of time and commitment to ensure the best outcome. According to one
teacher, “reading applications, assigning a rating, participating in consensus meetings,
and interviewing involve time that is taken away from core business – teaching and
learning” (TS1). Heads of Learning Areas or teachers were required to prepare lessons
during those times when they were required to attend meetings during class time. In
addition, “prepared relief lessons were not necessarily delivered by the relief teacher
which meant that the class was further behind” (TS3). The teacher would then spend
time trying to make up lost time after the interview process has been completed.
Although the flexibilities relating to a one line budget were acknowledged by
teachers, they did not see any benefit at the Learning Area level. They were unable to
comment on any benefit that emerged through IPS. Staff at the Learning Area level
continued to follow the same process and procedures in preparing a budget. According
to one teacher interviewed:
In general, there was no advantage for Learning Areas with the
flexibility in financial resource allocation. Classes remained large and
145
there was no allocation of funds to reduce the size of these classes.
However, IPS does provide the school with the flexibility to allocate
financial resources. This also depends upon the individual who is
allocating the resources and what their priorities are. (TS3)
Teachers interviewed believed the flexibilities were not relevant to them at the Learning
Area or classroom level; rather they were an administrative feature of IPS that assisted
the School Executive.
The three Business Managers expressed the views of the Principals in the first
interviews; they believed that IPS would provide increased flexibility in managing
school finances. A one line budget would enable the school to “allocate funds to
programs and other areas where there was the greatest need” (BMS1). The small
allocations that were present under the pre-IPS arrangements came with defined criteria
as to how the money was to be used in the respective school. Schools were required to
account for the use of these funds at the end of the allocated period of time. This
demonstrated accountability. However, not every school was entitled to these small
allocations. The one line budget would remove these small allocations and the
additional workload that accompanied their application to the school and provide “a
more equitable approach to the allocation of funds” (BMS3).
In the first round of interviews, Business Managers in each school stated that
managing a one line budget and monitoring and reporting requirements would increase
their workload. According to one Business Manager interviewed:
I seem to have a lot more work because the Department has devolved
more responsibilities to schools. The work that I did before IPS hasn’t
changed. I need to monitor the finances and the budget a lot more
because the responsibility now rests with me. (BMS3)
The potential increase in workload would also require an increase in knowledge and a
more varied skill set to manage a one line budget and staffing policies and procedures.
146
All three Business Managers viewed the volume of new knowledge to be acquired as a
daunting task. With new responsibilities, Business Managers were concerned about
“making mistakes which would have implications for auditing and review periods”
(BMS1).
In the second interview a year later, all the Business Managers reported that
there was more flexibility in human resource management as an IPS than under the
previous arrangements. This observation applied to teaching and some support staff.
Not all Support Staff could be managed flexibly under IPS: “appointing and managing
School Officers, Gardeners and Cleaners remained the same” (BMS1). The appointment
and use of Education Assistants, however, reflected a more flexible approach:
Education Assistants do not have to be allocated to a particular student
– other resources could be used to meet the student’s needs. I don’t
believe that this approach could have been used pre-IPS. Under the
previous arrangements, the school had to work from the FTE that was
allocated through previous arrangements. The student would then be
allocated to an appropriate Education Assistant. (BMS1)
The allocation of School Officers, in contrast, was managed through the FTE model and
driven by student numbers. The greater the student enrolments in a school, “the greater
the number of School Officers a school was entitled to” (BMS3).
Interestingly, Business Managers offered the view that teaching staff were still
allocated according to student enrolments under IPS. Schools still followed “the
processes for determining teaching staff allocation under the former arrangements”
(BMS2). Student numbers remained the key factor in determining the number of
teaching staff to be employed to teach courses or subjects. These processes informed the
School Executive how to manage the funds allocated through the one line budget. The
FTE model remained a useful guide in allocating teaching staff across the Learning
Areas.
147
In the second round of interviews, Business Managers pointed out the
recruitment and selection of Support Staff remained the same as pre IPS. Positions are
“required to be advertised, selection panels formed, interviews and referee checks are
required, grievance periods adhered to and a report prepared about the selection
process” (BMS2). The workload issues related to this process “has not decreased under
the IPS model” (BMS1). All the Business Managers interviewed agreed the due
diligence during this process is the same for all schools, IPS or non-IPS.
The three Business Managers reported in the second interview that the one line
budget and the accompanying school financial arrangements were more effective in
meeting the needs of the school than the previous approach to budgeting. One Business
Manager pointed out that their school was able to “plan the budget from scratch rather
than navigate the pre-determined allocations” of funding (BMS1). Under the non-IPS
model, most of the budget had been determined “according to where the Department
believed the funding should be allocated” (BMS3). There was no thought as “how this
could best be applied to a school” (BMS3). In effect, it did not reflect the needs of each
school. The IPS model enabled the school to make “the key decisions for the allocation
of the amount to meet the specific needs of students” (BMS1). This resulted in “less
specific program allocation of funds requiring less acquittals” (BMS2).
Unlike Principals, Deputy Principals and teachers, Business Managers raised the
Common Use Agreement (CUA) issue. Schools are required to comply with the CUA
when purchasing items. According to one Business Manager, the CUA is a whole-of-
government contract that is awarded to “a group of suppliers to provide goods or
services commonly used by State Government Departments” (BMS1). Another
Business Manager pointed out that having a CUA in place means that “schools do not
need multiple quotes” (BMS3). However, Business Managers do not have the flexibility
to operate outside the CUA. One Business Manager commented:
148
We are constrained by CUAs which do cost the school more than other
options. The CUA doesn’t just affect IPS but all schools. For our school
to get an exemption is very difficult. There is a great deal of paperwork
involved. We know that we can go to Woolworths and buy a ream of
paper for $3.00; however, through the CUA it will cost the school
$5.00. How does this save the school money? (BMS3)
Although a product that is not part of the CUA can be “purchased at a cheaper price, a
school is not permitted to purchase that item” (BMS1). The three Business Managers
pointed out schools are only permitted to purchase products from companies that are
listed on the CUA.
All Chairpersons of the three School Boards, in the first interview, expected that
IPS would provide their schools with the flexibility to make decisions related to human
resources, recruitment and selection, and financial management. One Chairperson
commented: “It allows the school to make its own decisions about the teaching staff the
way they see fit and for their direction. Fundamentally, it’s about flexibility with
teaching staff and freedom around finances and the budget” (CS3).
In the first interview, the Chairpersons viewed the transition from School
Council to School Board as an opportunity to recruit community members to the Board.
They believed these members would bring valuable knowledge and skill sets to assist
the Principal and Business Manager in human resource and financial management.
According to one Chairperson, their knowledge and skill set reflected “practice in the
corporate, small business and public sector environments” (CS1). All three
Chairpersons expected there was an opportunity for “School Boards to work closely
with Principals to identify the types of support required for students with additional
needs or disabilities” (CS2). These Chairpersons had high expectations to bring extra
resources (human capital) to their schools when initially interviewed.
149
The Chairpersons expected Boards with high profile members would bring
networks and resources that could be used by schools. In determining staffing
requirements, “these networks could encourage partnerships with other education or
service providers in the local area” (CS1). By working in partnership, the individual
school could more “effectively cater for the wide-ranging needs of students” (CS3).
Such flexibility in staffing would assist in fulfilling the need for skills in many areas of
their schools.
In the second interview, all the Chairpersons agreed with the view held by the
Principals and Deputy Principals relating to the benefits of human resource management
under IPS. As each Chairperson has private sector experience, they view “this approach
to human resource management as the appropriate model for schools” (CS3). All three
Chairpersons agreed that if schools are to succeed in meeting the needs of the students
and more broadly the local community then they must be able to appoint their own staff.
One Chairperson could not understand why the capacity for a Principal to appoint staff
had not been available in the past: “It is common practice in the corporate world and in
private schools” (CS3).
One of the three Chairpersons was invited to participate on a selection panel to
appoint staff for their respective school. This Chairperson commented: “I am invited to
participate in the selection of staff as a representative of the Board. This enables the
community to have a voice in the selection process” (CS2). The same invitation has not
been extended to any member of the School Board. One participant indicated: “As
Chairman, I’m not involved in the selection of staff. I don’t sit on selection panels. This
is left to the Executive team to determine” (CS1).
All three Chairpersons agreed that IPS provided their school with increased
flexibility in the allocation of financial resources. One Chairperson pointed out:
150
The flexibility in allocating financial resources has been useful in
directing money where it is most needed to assist students. The one line
budget has made this possible together with the guidelines and
processes that have been provided by the Department. No longer is the
school tied down to prescribed use and allocation of resources by the
Department. The Business Plan becomes an important guiding
document to assist in the allocation of resources over a longer period of
time. (CS3)
The same Chairperson further argued the importance of the role of the School Board in
consolidating the flexibility in resource allocation:
The School Board plays an important role in reviewing the budget to
ensure areas are adequately funded. The Board seeks clarification about
any aspect of the Budget and its overall direction. In addition, the Board
offers suggestions to the Principal and the Business Manager relating to
the Budget. In doing so, the Board can see the flexibility that has come
about as a result of IPS. These flexibilities are in the way the school
spends money to address the needs of the students. (CS3)
However, where the difficulty has emerged is in the role of the School Board and
Finance Committee in the preparation of the School Budget. In each school, “the Board
is not involved in the preparation of the Budget” (CS1). This work is carried out by the
School Executive in collaboration with the Finance Committee. The School Board is
required to approve the budget before it can be implemented. In one school, “the budget
was presented at the meeting and members of the Board were required to approve the
budget without an opportunity to reflect on the information presented” (CS1). All
documentation needed to be returned to the Business Manager at the end of the meeting.
No documents were permitted to leave the meeting.
Each Chairperson pointed to a lack of understanding relating to Board process
and procedures within good governance. This applied to both members of the Board and
the School Executive. In one school, “the Board was requested to approve the minutes
of the Finance Committee which it declined” (CS1). The Finance Committee was not a
committee of the Board and therefore “the Board had no authority to act on this request”
151
(CS1). This formed the basis for an ongoing debate about the role of the Board relating
to managing school finances. At the same school, there was a lack of understanding on
the part of the School Executive about spending excess school funds. The Chairperson
expanded on the example:
Just because there are excess funds available that doesn’t mean that you
spend it. If it isn’t in the budget, then you can’t spend it on anything
that you wish. You need to come back and say there is a budget excess.
What do you want us to do with it ? We don’t have that and we should
have that. Those decisions to spend that amount of money are for the
Board.
This example points to the tension that exists between a bureaucratic and a business
model in the way finances are managed.
This section has presented findings of the stakeholders’ experience of flexibility
at two points in time. Their experience of flexibility relates to staffing and finances. All
stakeholders believed that IPS would provide increased local flexibility in the areas of
staffing and finances. They viewed increased input into the selection of staff for their
schools as a way of effectively meeting the needs of their students. Learning programs
were being developed and delivered by staff who shared the vision and ethos of their
schools. A main point of difference emerged between teachers and the other
stakeholders relating to staffing. Teachers commented on the increased work load
associated with selecting staff and concerns about job security and re-profiling of staff.
These areas of concern were not raised by other stakeholders. Increased flexibility in the
local allocation of financial resources was viewed as a positive outcome of IPS by all
stakeholders. However, all teachers across the three schools commented that the
flexibilities in the allocation of financial resources were not applied at a Learning Area
level rather it was relevant at a whole school level. The next section describes the
findings of the stakeholders’ experience of autonomy.
152
Autonomy
This section deals with the stakeholders’ experience of autonomy at two points
in time. The views are presented, in turn, of stakeholders: Principals, Deputy Principals,
Teachers, Business Managers, and Chairpersons of School Boards in the first interviews
then in the second interviews one year later.
In their first interviews, the three Principals expected the IPS initiative would
provide them increased autonomy through school level. They would become “astute
decision makers” (PS2). The Principals viewed autonomy as a measure of trust by the
Department of Education to enable them to manage their school according to their
needs. From their perspective, IPS would enable them to have “the flexibility to
implement strategies” (PS1) to meet the unique needs of their schools. This means
“creating better programs, providing better professional development for staff and
delivering better learning experiences to students” (PS3). IPS and the devolved power it
brings to schools are about a “push for excellence and as an agent for ongoing school
improvement” (PS2).
The autonomy provided by the IPS initiative provides the opportunity to be a
risk taker, according to Principals in their first interview. However, there would need to
be a change in the Principal’s role and responsibilities. The three Principals reported an
expectation for a large shift in their position as a result of IPS. Increased power resulted
in “increased control relating to human resource management and the budget” (PS1).
Prior to IPS, many of the decisions relating “to human resource management and the
school’s budget were either made by the Department of Education” (PS3) or were
influenced by centrally determined policies and processes. In the first interview, the
Principals viewed the IPS initiative as an opportunity to manage more appropriately
their human resources and finances to meet the needs of their local community.
153
The Principals expected they would be empowered to embrace innovation as a
result of the IPS initiative. They expected that increased autonomy would bring greater
benefits to their respective schools. These benefits would encourage them to be engaged
with the IPS initiative. Innovation would encourage “creativity in doing things in a new
or different way” (PS2). Whether it involved continuous improvement of existing
practices or a transformation of how a school achieves their priorities, the Principals
viewed IPS would be a significant strategy to facilitate devolved power to schools.
From their perspective, Principals wanted the freedom to be innovative to build practice
in the future that was more effective than practice in the past.
In the first interview Principals viewed themselves as instructional leaders, in
shaping school and classroom practices that affect student learning. Increased school
autonomy would provide Principals, according to respondents, with the opportunities to
improve learning experiences in their schools. One Principal anticipated their role
would be “to create the fundamental conditions for effective learning” (PS3). Moreover,
the Principals expected that increased autonomy would enable them to develop a more
collaborative culture amongst their teachers resulting in improved teaching and
learning.
In the second round of interviews, all Principals reported high levels of change
to their roles. Increased autonomy provided the Principals with “greater control of
human resources and the budget” (PS1). There was a clear shift in responsibility from
Central Office to the Principal in these areas. However, Principals were still required to
operate “within a legislative and regulatory framework that was common” (PS2) to all
schools. This framework remained in place to curb “inappropriate use of public funds”
(PS2) and maintain accountability.
The change in the roles and responsibilities of the Principals interviewed
resulted in an increase in their workload. They acknowledged IPS was a new model of
154
governance that was unfamiliar to them. The Principals reported in their first year they
were required to attend many “professional development workshops with their
Executive team, prepare a Business Plan, and implement new systems requiring
additional processes and procedures” (PS3). In addition to knowing their own role, one
Principal pointed out they were “required to support the Deputy Principals, Business
Managers, and the Chairpersons of the Board as they became familiar with their new
responsibilities” (PS1). Leading and managing an IPS “became an increasingly complex
experience as tasks once performed at a central level” (PS1) were now devolved to the
local school. To this end, the Principals pointed out they carried an increased burden of
work that was a result of greater school autonomy.
After the initial 12 months, the Principals reported that they became more
confident with the change in role and the additional responsibilities. According to one
Principal, “I became more familiar with my additional responsibilities as I worked
through the tasks with the support of the IPS unit in Central Office” (PS1). The new
systems were being progressively embedded in the operation of the schools. Although
they acknowledged that they remained on a steep learning curve, the Principals
commented on “being able to increasingly manage their workload” (PS2). These
Principals indicated no desire to return to a non-IPS model.
Like Principals, the Deputy Principals in the first interview anticipated increased
autonomy would provide benefits to their schools through a sense of empowerment.
These stakeholders viewed the increased empowerment provided by the IPS initiative as
a way in which creative Principals and Deputy Principals could engage with change and
develop a culture of improvement and responsibility. According to one Deputy
Principal, empowerment would enable the “Executive team to recognise the need for
change and innovation and apply the benefits to the school” (DPAS1). All the Deputy
Principals interviewed believed that the IPS initiative provided this empowerment by
155
removing some of the constraints that created barriers by Central and Regional Offices
for schools to be innovative and responsible to student needs.
The Deputy Principals’ views in the first round of interviews were similar to
those of the Principals relating to human resource management. However, they
anticipated that increased school autonomy in determining staffing profile would
“encourage partnerships with other schools in the wider community” (DPAS1). By
working in partnership with other schools they could provide for specific student needs
through utilising the expertise in different areas of the school.
In the second round of interviews, the Deputy Principals questioned the extent to
which autonomy was present in human resource management. An area of concern was
that of redeployees. According to one Deputy Principal, schools in the IPS project
viewed “employing your own staff as a huge draw card” (DPAS2). These schools were
no longer required to participate in the central appointment of staff or accept re-
deployees. However, schools in the non-IPS category remained part of this process. The
Deputy Principals pointed out with the advent of more schools participating in the IPS
initiative; fewer places were available to cater for redeployees. One Deputy Principal
commented:
Central Office was trying to place redeployees in the school to cover
promotional positions even though we were an IPS. This was totally
different from what was the original intention. (DPAS1)
The Deputy Principals suggested there needs to be a balance between the needs of
schools that are IPS and non-IPS relating to human resource management. Ultimately,
this balance needs to ensure that it “supports the most effective delivery of learning
experiences and programs for students” (DPBS1).
The Deputy Principals reported in the second interview, the human resource
responsibility has been a significant challenge introduced by the IPS initiative.
156
Workforce planning and attracting quality staff was a challenge raised by all Deputy
Principals. According to one Deputy Principal, these enlarged responsibilities “resulted
in an increased workload” (DPAS1). These expanded responsibilities have resulted in
Deputy Principals attending “professional development to assist in developing new
skills to address workload pressures” (DPAS2).
The three teachers in their first interview expected that any increase in autonomy
for schools would lead to teacher empowerment. Teacher empowerment would be
derived from teachers feeling that they were “more empowered due to the additional
flexibility” (TS1) provided by IPS. In this way, there would be opportunities to address
student needs at a Learning Area level. Teachers reported that they would be motivated
to research and implement innovative strategies to assist students in their classes
“knowing that they had the support of their Principal” (TS2) and not hindered by
barriers. A further anticipated benefit related to teacher empowerment was increased
access to in-class resources that would support addressing student needs. These
resources would be “made available to ensure increased teacher and school
responsiveness” (TS1) to identified areas for improvement.
Innovative strategies to support student learning would require building staff
capacity, according to teachers. Each teacher interviewed reported to ensure good
practice was being implemented and sustained, teachers would require access to quality
professional development. Teachers had high expectations about the effect of increased
autonomy on a school’s access to dynamic and relevant professional development. They
anticipated with greater control of the budget, schools would be able to “strategically
plan and effectively deliver appropriate professional development” (TS2) to ensure
ongoing good practice was being implemented in their respective schools.
The teachers interviewed agreed with their Principals that an increase in
autonomy would bring an increase in workload as they attempted to adapt to changes in
157
the school and the new responsibilities. Teachers expressed concern about the increase
in workload and their ability to manage this change. At a Learning Area level, one
teacher commented on the “increased compliance processes relating to human resource
and financial management” (TS3) as a likely significant impact on workload. At the
same time, the three teachers acknowledged increased autonomy would lead to
increased levels of accountability. Moreover, each believed that excessive
accountability would not only be time consuming but also counterproductive in
nurturing an innovative school culture.
Although not a shared view, one teacher expressed concern that “IPS would
deliver increased power to the Principal” (TS3), as a negative outcome of increased
autonomy particularly if clearly defined boundaries were not established. Interestingly,
when this view was presented to the other teachers interviewed, they could see how this
would have an adverse effect on the teacher-Principal relationship particularly where
there was a history of a poor relationship and where the power had been abused.
However, they also believed that the “professionalism exhibited by the Principal” (TS1)
would prevent any abuse of power together with a centrally imposed model of
governance across all schools involved in the IPS initiative.
In the second round of interviews, the teachers reported increased autonomy
improved their confidence levels and capacity to find innovative solutions to student
learning needs. They described feeling empowered to further support effective teaching
and learning. One teacher believed that this motivation stemmed from the “IPS initiative
viewing teachers as professionals and being trusted” (TS1) to make informed strategic
decisions at the local school level. They found motivated teachers were more prepared
to implement new teaching-learning strategies to benefit students.
Although the teachers interviewed believed the IPS initiative empowered them
as professionals, they acknowledged that increased autonomy does not equate directly
158
to improved student outcomes. One teacher reported that their “teaching practice has not
changed as a result of the IPS initiative” (TS3). They elaborated further suggesting that
“student achievement has not improved as a result of increased autonomy” (TS3) rather
because of the “passion that a teacher has for teaching and learning” (TS3). In their
view, improved student achievement will occur irrespective of the IPS model.
The teachers interviewed reported that increased autonomy did not necessarily
lead to innovation in teaching-learning practices. One teacher commented, “There is so
much change currently in education, it’s difficult to complete one area before another
one emerges” (TS3). It took time for teachers to adapt to the changes initiated by the
IPS reform. The uncertainty relating to the level of autonomy devolved to schools
rendered innovation too risky, according to one teacher. The same teacher elaborated
further that “much of the innovative practices implemented would have been achieved
irrespective of the IPS initiative” (TS3).
The teachers’ views in the second round of interviews are similar to those of the
Principals on the topic of increased stress levels. They felt increased “levels of stress as
they attempted to adapt to their new devolved responsibilities” (TS3). The increase in
workload as a result of the IPS initiative increased stress levels. In particular, the
teachers noted that increased levels of autonomy resulted in “increased pressure on
teachers to be accountable to their students and parents/caregivers” (TS3). However,
one teacher acknowledged that this pressure can have a positive effect on teachers by
“motivating them to improve their teaching-learning practices” (TS1).
The Business Managers, in their first interview, expected that increased
autonomy would provide schools greater control over resources than they had
previously and the increased capacity to get value from their budgets. This view was
shared by other stakeholders in this study who expected IPS would have increased
flexibility in the use of resources. This aspect was critical to the appeal of IPS as it
159
“allowed teachers to respond more quickly to the needs of their student” (BMS2). The
school’s finances could be strategically planned to “target specific areas for
improvement and support staff capacity building by tailoring professional development”
(BMS1) to staff needs.
In the second round of interviews, the Business Managers’ views were similar to
those of the Principals and the teachers on the topic of workload. Their workload
“increased relating to managing the one line budget” (BMS1). While in the past
monitoring the budget had been a significant part of the Business Manager role,
preparing an increasing number and range of assessment reports was an “additional
responsibility that consumed a large amount of time” (BMS2). Interestingly, the
Business Managers noted that, by the end of the first year of implementation, many of
the new processes and systems became embedded in their daily work, and no longer
seemed to add to their workload.
While the workload increased initially for the Business Managers, Central and
Regional Office provided a great deal of support relating to the IPS initiative. The three
Business Managers pointed out that this support was available in two ways for members
of the Executive team. Firstly, “formal professional development sessions were
delivered” (BMS3) on a range of topics relating to the implementation and sustaining
the IPS initiative. Secondly, the employment of “IPS Consultants in Central Office that
were allocated to a network of schools” (BMS2) to answer queries directly from
members of the Executive team. Both areas of support were well received and highly
praised by the Business Managers. The extensive upskilling proved to be invaluable to
the Executive team.
The Chairpersons of each School Board in their first interview strongly
advocated for increased school autonomy. They imagined, as an IPS, their respective
school would be able to “engage with the local community in different ways” (CS2).
160
One such way was through decision-making. The Chairpersons viewed the School
Board as an important forum through which the community could become partners in
education. They would have a say as to how to “effectively meet the needs of the local
community” (CS3). To this end, the Chairpersons viewed the School Board as a
microcosm that would be able to harness a knowledge and skill set beyond the capacity
of the school.
The involvement of the wider community in school decision-making would
improve communication and empowerment. The Chairpersons expected the relationship
between the school and the community would improve significantly because “parents
and community members would feel valued and that their opinions and experiences are
sought after” (CS2) in addressing student needs. Both the Principals and Chairpersons
interviewed agreed that increased community involvement in the schools would have a
positive impact on school effectiveness because there would be a greater understanding
about the school and its priorities.
The Chairpersons’ views in the first round of interviews were similar to those of
the teachers relating to capacity building. They agreed with the teachers that “increased
autonomy would assist in capacity building” (CS1). Schools would be best placed and
free to tailor professional learning experiences to the needs of their respective staff. This
would subsequently assist in further addressing student needs. One Chairperson
suggested that this could occur through “formal professional development and informal
staff collaboration through networks” (CS3) at the local community level. These local
community networks could involve large schools such as secondary schools assisting
their local primary schools with specialist teachers and other resources.
The Chairpersons also reported that increased autonomy would enable School
Boards to fulfil a different role in the school governance framework. They further
emphasised “the opportunities that were available to a school if the Board became an
161
incorporated entity” (CS1). Becoming an incorporated Board would attract high profile
community members who would have strategic connections that could further raise the
profile of the school. These individuals would bring “a valuable knowledge and skill set
and access to resources” (CS3). In addition, as an incorporated Board, the Chairpersons
believed the school would be able to apply for grants and other financial resources from
the private and corporate sector. This strategic approach is considered critical to “assist
meeting the needs of students at a time of diminishing resources and competing
priorities” (CS1).
In the second round of interviews, the Chairpersons reported an increase in
parent/caregiver and community involvement and interest in the school. They pointed
out this engagement was predominantly with the School Board. Under a previous
School Council model, “the school struggled to attract parents and community members
with unique knowledge and skill sets to become members of the Council” (APAS3).
However, one Principal reported when the “School Board was established and
nominations or expressions of interest were sought, the schools received many
enquiries” (PS2). The Chairpersons agreed that the IPS initiative used the School Board
model to improve and increase the relationship between parents/caregivers, the
community and the school. The Chairpersons acknowledged the use of the term ‘Board’
generated perceptions and created expectations of a private school board where the
parents/caregivers and the community have a greater say in the operation of the school.
This increased engagement resulted in a “greater commitment to the school which
would ultimately have a long term positive effect” (CS2) on school improvement and
effectiveness.
However, increased school autonomy as a result of the IPS initiative did not
translate into increased and unfettered power for the School Board. The views held by
the Chairpersons were similar to the Principals on the topic of the School Board. They
162
believed that there was a “lack of understanding about the role and responsibilities of
the School Board by some members” (CS1). One Chairperson commented that it had
taken a “great deal of time, attendance at a formal professional development session and
visits from Central Office consultants for the School Board and the Principal to explore
and negotiate the new relationship” (CS1). Although there was no formal change in
authority under governing legislation, the Principals and the Chairpersons
acknowledged the School Board had increased authority in comparison with a School
Council. At the end of the first year of implementation, this increased authority was
viewed in terms of the “Principal’s increased accountability to the community,
signatory to the delivery and performance agreement, strategic planning, and monitoring
the budget” (PS2).
Although the Chairpersons expected greater autonomy would enhance the
empowerment of communities to be involved in the decision-making process, two of the
three Chairpersons reported the IPS initiative did not significantly change the way the
school engaged with the community. In the past, these schools had “developed strong
relationships and effectively engaged with their communities” (CS3) in a range of
different areas. This had proven to be highly successful and has provided benefits for
students and the wider school community. The other Chairperson, initially, reported that
their school changed the way they interacted with the community as a result of IPS.
However, on reflection, this Chairperson acknowledged “a long standing positive
relationship with the community” (CS2). They further suggested that very little had
changed in their approach with the community as a result of IPS. Interestingly, the three
Chairpersons pointed out the untapped reservoir of opportunities to further the school’s
engagement with an ever-changing community.
This section has presented findings of the stakeholders’ perspectives of
autonomy at two points in time. All stakeholders (Principals, Deputy Principals,
163
Teachers, Business Managers and the Chairpersons of the School Board) believed that
IPS provided increased levels of autonomy as part of the self-managing schools. The
Principals, teachers and Business Managers held similar views on the topic of workload.
Each of these stakeholders believed that increased autonomy resulted in an increased
workload. Teachers commented on the relationship between increased autonomy and
improved student outcomes. All teachers shared the view that IPS had not resulted in
improved student outcomes. This view was not commented on by other stakeholders.
All the Chairpersons commented that autonomy facilitated improved relationships with
the community. Each of the three schools had positive relationships with their
respective communities. The Chairpersons believed the IPS model strengthened their
existing relationship with their communities. The next section describes the findings of
the stakeholders’ experiences of accountability.
Accountability
This section deals with the stakeholders’ experience of accountability. The
views are presented, in turn, of stakeholders: Principals, Deputy Principals, Teachers,
Business Managers, and Chairpersons of School Boards in the first interviews then in
the second interviews one year later.
Principals, in their first interviews, expected that increased autonomy, as a result
of the IPS initiative, would come with increased accountability. They further anticipated
new instruments for accountability: “Given the increased levels of responsibility, an IPS
requires a much stronger accountability framework than has existed in the past” (PS3).
However, they also expected that these potential new instruments would build upon a
well-established system of accountability within the public school sector. According to
one Principal, “our schools have always had strong accountability processes in place”
(PS2). The Principals expected that school effectiveness would improve through
164
increased accountability because they would be held responsible for the decisions they
made.
All Principals expected that increased financial autonomy would result in
increased accountability. According to one Principal, “We have been given a huge
responsibility to manage a one line budget worth many millions of dollars. It is natural
to expect a greater level of accountability” (PS1). Principals have always been
accountable for the distribution of a school’s financial resources. However, under IPS
Principals manage financial resources through a one line budget where they determine
their own distribution of resources. Apart from the non-negotiables such as salaries, all
other funding is allocated according to school needs and priorities. It is these latter
decisions that create increased accountability.
Principals reported that because of the high levels of responsibility around
financial accountability, not every Principal in the public school system would be able
to cope with financial autonomy. One Principal suggested: “the Department of
Education will need to provide support to those Principals and Business Managers who
lack financial management skills” (PS1). These Principals lack the financial knowledge
and experience to manage resources in a non-IPS environment where the funding
provided is pre-allocated. They struggle with sound financial management practices and
“require additional assistance and guidance from either Central or Regional Office”
(PS2). These Principals would struggle to “satisfy the requirements in the application
process to become an IPS” (PS1) related to financial management in schools.
Principals reported the decisions made by them relating to human resource
management would be increasingly scrutinised as an IPS. The school community “will
want to be convinced that the people employed or appointed to positions are in the best
interests of the students” (PS2). They believed because Principals were now provided
with increased flexibility in this area, their decisions would be carefully monitored by
165
staff, parents/caregivers and the wider community. According to a Chairperson of the
Board of one of the schools, “We want the staff selected to be like-minded and
motivated in the interests of the students” (CS3). Under IPS, the perception is that
“Principals have increased power and this requires monitoring” (CS2) so that it is not
abused.
It was expected by all three Principals, in the first round interviews, that the
introduction of a School Board model would increase their accountability to the
community. However, the three Principals pointed out there has been no change to the
requirements for compliance with all legislation, whole of government policies, the
National Education Agreement and the provision of relevant data to meet Statewide
reporting obligations. One Principal commented: “everything remains the same
regarding compliance and meeting our reporting requirements irrespective which model
is in place” (PS1). All three Principals concluded the increased role for School Boards
relating to school decision-making would ensure vigorous questioning and debate
resulting in the school being more accountable.
All three Principals were unsure how the new structure of line management
would be implemented. The “Director General of the Department of Education is the
Principal’s line manager” in an IPS (PS3). Principals are directly accountable to the
Director General. According to one Principal, this is in contrast to the previous
governance arrangements “where the Director in each educational district or region is
the line manager for the Principal” (PS1). They became a critical “support person where
advice was required” (PS1) and in professionally developing the Principal through the
performance management process. Another Principal believed IPS Principals, in theory,
“would now look to the Director General to fulfil this role” (PS2). All Principals
questioned the effectiveness of this new arrangement and were curious to see how this
would translate into practice.
166
In the second interview, all Principals agreed the School Board model increased
their accountability to the community. This was achieved without a change in authority
under governing legislation. When compared to the previous School Council model, one
Principal suggested “School Boards had increased strategic planning capacity and
community engagement from where greater accountability levels emerged” (PS1).
However, on further reflection, another Principal pointed out this capacity “was always
available under the previous School Council model” (PS3). The extent to which a
School Council became involved varied with each school and the expectations of each
Principal.
All three Principals commented that with IPS status they were accountable to the
School Board for the delivery of appropriate educational programs. Rigorous lines of
enquiry by the School Board would explore “how these educational programs related to
the priorities set out in the Business Plan and the ethos of the school” (PS2). They
would interrogate the data presented and draw conclusions that would lead to further
debate and discussion about student achievement. Principals have “always been
accountable for the school’s educational programs” (PS1). The majority of schools “had
a School Council and Principals would report regularly on school educational programs
and student achievement” (PS3). Where a School Council was unable to be formed, “the
Principal would present a report to the Parent and Citizens Association” (PS1), thereby
demonstrating accountability to the community. All Principals pointed out an important
difference between the two models was that, under IPS policies, there was a clear
requirement for a School Board to be established and operating at the school.
The three Principals described a smooth transition from the School Council to
the School Board model. Each school had a well-established School Council, including
a constitution, processes and procedures. One Principal commented: “School Councils
were each involved in their school relating to planning, monitoring and reporting”
167
(PS2). However, the extent to which they were involved in these areas varied with each
school. During the transition to a School Board model, “time was taken to negotiate the
new relationship and the roles of members of the Board” (PS2). One Principal
commented on the extent to which some Board members wanted to involve the Board in
the management of the school. According to this Principal, “some members of the
Board wanted to have a say in the appointment and allocation of staff at the school and
wanted to direct the Business Manager in the allocation of school funds” (PS1). The
Principal acknowledged the initial meetings of the Board highlighted the need for
members to attend professional development and further clarification of their role as
they progressed through the business of the Board.
Principals reported that their Executive teams together with their Senior
Management Teams were most directly affected by the increase in accountability. The
additional control and flexibility provided by changes to human resource management
and the one line budget resulted “in increased levels of responsibility and
accountability” (PS1). These changes brought about an increase in their workload as
they were required to administer the flexibilities and demonstrate the accountability to
an increasingly astute School Board and wider school community. Principals
acknowledged that they had not anticipated the complexity of the changes in human
resource management or the one line budget. One Principal commented: “The one line
budget is far removed from what we have been used to and is very complex in nature”
(PS2). Time was spent initially in learning new procedures and processes. In time, the
new ways of working have become normalised in work practices.
Principals were concerned that a greatly expanded workload could affect the
efficiency and success of the IPS initiative. One Principal commented that trying to
“manage the workload in the initial stages presented problems and proved challenging”
(PS3). These increased levels of responsibilities and accountability required appropriate
168
professional development for staff. This was subsequently provided as part of the
broader IPS implementation program. Principals reported the professional development
provided was worthwhile and enabled them to understand the IPS initiative. One
Principal suggested: “it was the best professional development I have had in many
years” (PS1).
The Deputy Principals across the three schools believed that the level of
accountability would significantly increase. In their first interviews, Deputy Principals
pointed to the importance of accountability irrespective whether a school is an IPS. This
importance related “to educational provision and student outcomes together with
responsible financial management” (DPAS3). The Deputy Principals explained that
“public schools have always been highly accountable and this would only be reinforced
further with IPS status” (DPBS1). They elaborated that public schools are required to
meet the legislative, regulatory and mandatory reporting requirements that apply to all
schools in Western Australia.
However, with IPS status would come increased accountability relating to
legislation and regulations in human resource management covering areas such as equal
employment opportunity, industrial awards, and work health and safety, giving the
authority and capacity “to select staff requires schools to ensure compliance in all
aspects of human resource management not simply advertising a position, conducting
interviews and appointing staff” (DPAS2). The Deputy Principals agreed that increased
responsibility for these areas would ensure appropriate and transparent processes are in
place at the local level, contributing towards building effective schools.
The Deputy Principals expected the one line budget would become a powerful
tool through which schools would be made accountable for financial management.
According to one Deputy Principal, “the one line budget involves making decisions
about the equitable allocation of resources” (DPAS1). These decisions would be subject
169
to increased scrutiny. The Deputy Principals concurred with the Principals that to ensure
sound financial management practices, appropriate “professional development must be
offered to all staff involved in the decision-making process” (DPBS2). Lacking the
required “skills to manage school based financial decision making is a barrier”
(DPAS3) to building effective schools.
The Deputy Principals explained that, with IPS status, schools are required to
demonstrate a strong focus on school improvement and accountability. They are
required to outline their strategic direction through a Business Plan. One Deputy
Principal commented: “Schools have always been involved in whole school planning
which has resulted in the preparation of a School Plan” (DPAS3). This School Plan
played an important role in informing the preparation of a school budget, “the IPS
School Board will play a prominent role in the preparation of the School Plan which
will be signed by the Chairperson of the Board” (DPAS1). The Deputy Principals
acknowledged the Business Plan would become an important tool through which the
Department would ensure that a school is made accountable to all stakeholders. Regular
“monitoring of the Business Plan by the school staff and School Board would serve as a
basis for school improvement” (DPBS3).
In their second interview, Deputy Principals expressed views similar to
Principals that, since becoming an IPS, there was an increased level of accountability at
their schools. They reported, in their governance arrangements as an IPS, they were
required to “meet increased standards of financial accountability as they were the sole
decision-makers relating to the one line budget” (DPBS2). Furthermore, the Deputy
Principals pointed out that IPS Principals and Business Managers were responsible for
ensuring their school complied with relevant legislation, policies and reporting
requirements. They play an important role in ensuring that schools are accountable,
particularly in matters of monitoring and reporting.
170
Although the Deputy Principals in the second interview acknowledged an
increase in the level of accountability, they pointed out they have always been
accountable to parents/caregivers and the community. According to one Deputy
Principal, “we’ve always responded to the local community and its needs” (DPBS3).
All the Deputy Principals rejected the notion that planning and reporting documentation
that was presented to the School Board was initiated by the IPS model. Another Deputy
Principal explained the “documentation describing the strategic direction of the school
and its progress was used at School Council meetings pre-IPS” (DPAS3). The Deputy
Principals interviewed believed that accountability has always been a significant
requirement for schools and the community.
The Deputy Principals reported that the IPS initiative had made individuals in
the school more accountable. In administering the processes and systems provided by
IPS, “staff have reflected on their own accountability” (DPAS1). According to one
Deputy Principal, “staff have always been required to demonstrate accountability”
(DPBS1). The Deputy Principals interviewed in the second round agreed that the
Department has continuously tried to strengthen accountability requirements in schools
and across the system. They believed that the Department would continually hold
individuals accountable irrespective of the implementation of the IPS initiative.
Like Principals and Deputy Principals, teachers in their first interview expected
IPS would result in increased accountability for all staff in a school. They hoped that the
increased accountability would be effective, fair and achieve meaningful results.
However, they were keen to highlight that “teachers have always been accountable for
student outcomes” (TS1). Moreover, teachers expected school improvement was a result
of accountability and influenced the nature of accountability in a school environment. In
their view, IPS only served to reinforce existing accountability mechanisms and explore
other methods of accountability. IPS schools “respond more flexibly and innovatively to
171
their students’ needs” (TS2). In this way, teachers acknowledged accountability is about
monitoring and evaluating all the processes required for every student to achieve their
potential. Accountability is essential in the processes required for implementing and
monitoring student progress.
The teachers expected that the performance management process in an IPS
would play an important role in ensuring all staff were accountable. It was anticipated
by two of the teachers interviewed that IPS would further create a culture where
“offering and accepting constructive criticism is a normal part of a person’s job within a
school” (TS1). One teacher commented: “the performance management process would
assist” (TS2) in creating this culture. These teachers pointed out that accountability and
support are inextricably linked. They believed without strong school supports and a
well-developed internal accountability process, school improvement will not occur. The
teachers expected staff to be open minded and learn to take feedback on board.
In their second interview, teachers acknowledged that, as they anticipated, there
was greater accountability required as an IPS. However, they viewed these changes as
having an impact on the Executive and Senior Management teams rather than on the
classroom teacher. Nevertheless, one respondent pointed out: “classroom teachers have
always been accountable for the delivery of education programs in their class and for
student outcomes” (TS1). Working in an IPS does not change the level of
accountability. In addition, teachers reported “as a member of a Learning Area you were
required to demonstrate accountability for the Learning Area Operational Plan” (TS3).
The Operational Plan was collaboratively developed by Learning Area staff and
outlined how the Business Plan would be applied in a Learning Area context.
Teachers shared the view of Principals and Deputy Principals that schools are
required to provide information about their performance irrespective of the IPS
initiative. The teachers interviewed in the second round explained that schools have
172
always produced a School Report for the community. According to one teacher, the
Report outlined “progress towards set targets and other achievements” (TS2). The same
teacher further pointed out that the Report has been tabled at “both School Council and
School Board meetings and has formed the basis of discussions at these meetings”
(TS2). The teachers interviewed suggested the Report has been a significant tool in
which the school has been able to demonstrate accountability to parents/caregivers and
the community. All the teachers interviewed believed this requirement has not changed
since the introduction of the IPS initiative.
In their first interview, Business Managers shared the view of Principals, Deputy
Principals and teachers that IPS would result in an increase in levels of responsibility
and accountability. Similar to Deputy Principals and teachers, Business Managers
expected managing a one line budget, ensuring compliance and completing the various
reports would add a great deal more to their workload. Under the previous
arrangements, Business Managers were always “held accountable for the financial
management in a school” (BMS1). However, prior to IPS status, this accountability was
related to managing the expenditure of pre-allocated funding by the Department of
Education. Business Managers played a significant role in the “preparation of the
Budget to manage this pre-allocated funding, providing advice to the Principal and the
Deputy Principals” (BMS2). Prior to IPS, Business Managers were held accountable for
this responsibility and continued to seek support from the Regional Education Office
and Central Office to ensure they exercised their role in a responsible manner.
Business Managers expected that IPS would give schools greater control of
resources and the ability to ascertain more value from their budgets. Having increased
budgetary discretion required greater knowledge of finance. One Business Manager
commented: “Preparing, managing, monitoring, and reporting on a one line budget is
very different from a non-IPS environment and a lot more complex” (BMS3). This
173
would be significant when ensuring compliance across a range of areas in finance that
were previously the domain of the Department of Education. The Business Managers
concurred with the Principals regarding the importance of appropriate professional
development to support a change in the role and an increase in workload. In addition,
this deeper knowledge would prove invaluable when developing a response to
circumstances requiring more flexible use of human resources and finance.
The increased responsibility as a result of IPS would have an impact on the
workload for Business Managers, similar to the Principals, Deputy Principals and
teachers. Business Managers expressed concern that an expanded workload might have
adverse effects on the implementation of the IPS model. According to one Business
Manager, the “demands of training, implementing the new systems and assisting other
support staff with their learning and skill development would significantly increase their
workload” (BMS1). They were required to carry out their existing responsibilities while
implementing the new arrangements. However, in the first interview, the Business
Managers expected that the additional funding associated with transition to an IPS
model would offset the administrative burden and more broadly the workload pressures.
In the second interview, all Business Managers reported that, as they had
anticipated, there was an increase in accountability as a result of IPS. Levels of
responsibility had increased as “a result of managing and monitoring a one line budget”
(BMS1). Business Managers reported that schools were required to prepare a budget
according to the needs of their school. This included “making financial decisions about
areas that were previously decided by Central Office” (BMS3). Completing the required
monitoring and assessment reports was time consuming. These were “new reporting
processes that were not previously part of a Business Manager’s role” (BMS1).
However, the new devolved responsibilities became an integral part of the school’s
accountability process.
174
The complexity of managing a one line budget was another issue raised by
Business Managers. They had no previous experience in working with this budget
model. In the pre-IPS environment, schools were provided with a general budget that
comprised “pre-determined allocations relevant to various areas of expenditure”
(BMS1). The remaining unallocated amount was then “distributed by the school across
the cost centres” (BMS2). Under this model, the Principal and the Business Manager
were not required to construct a budget without a defined set of parameters. However,
during the past 12 months, working with the one line budget model felt like “a normal
part of their role once the new system was implemented in the school” (BMS3). In
addition, this experience varied with each of the schools and was dependent upon their
implementation process. The implementation process, according to the Business
Managers, was influenced by the use of the one-off IPS transition funding and decisions
to employ additional support staff to progress the new system.
Although Business Managers reported greater accountability with the increased
responsibility, the obligations had not changed. Schools participating in the IPS
program are “obliged to comply with all relevant legislation and whole of government
policies” (BMS1) as they relate to education thereby demonstrating accountability.
Business Managers further reported that “the processes involved in school financial and
budget management and reporting remained the same under IPS” (BMS2). To this end,
the strong requirements for accountability under the previous arrangements remain
consistent with the IPS model.
All Chairpersons of the School Boards, in the first interview, expected that IPS
would ensure that there was greater accountability for a school. They viewed two
important ways through which accountability would be increased and strengthened: “the
Delivery and Performance Agreement, and the Business Plan” (CS1). The Agreement is
between the Department of Education, the school, and the School Board. The
175
Chairpersons pointed out the Agreement outlined the performance and accountability
expectations together with the resources and support provided by the Department of
Education. The Business Plan provided a medium to long term strategic direction for
the school. The Chairpersons expected the Agreement would provide targets for which
the school would be held accountable.
There was a clear expectation by the Chairpersons that self-assessment
conducted by the school, as part of the planning process leading to the preparation of an
annual report, would contribute to increased accountability. Self-assessment would
enable a school to reflect on “its progress towards its established targets and priorities
and measure improvement” (CS2). Information relating to this self-assessment would be
presented to the School Board who would further interrogate the data and the
conclusions. This information would be “presented in an annual report, signed by the
Chairperson of the School Board and distributed” (CS3) for public consumption. In this
way, the school would demonstrate accountability to the wider community through its
representatives on the School Board.
Interestingly, one of the three Chairpersons suggested that “schools have always
been held accountable through their School Plan” (CS2). In much the same way as the
Business Plan would operate, the School Plan set out the priorities, strategies,
performance indicators and data collection during a period of time. Each year an
“Annual Report was prepared for the school community that reported on the progress”
(CS2) relating to the priorities. The degree to which a school community was involved
in the preparation of a School Plan varied with each school. Similarly, the extent to
which the School Council contributed to the Annual Report varied with each school.
However, the capacity for the “school community through a School Council to be
involved has always been available” (CS2).
176
An independent review in the final year of a school’s Delivery and Performance
Agreement was seen by the Chairpersons to be of merit. The review would measure a
school’s overall performance during the three-year period and identify improvement.
The process would contribute to schools “demonstrating accountability to the
community because the report would be made public” (CS1). Another Chairperson
suggested this approach to public accountability “was not present under the non-IPS
model” (CS2). This view is supported by the Principal respondents. Under the previous
model, according to one Principal, they would “participate in a comprehensive annual
review with their line manager, the District Director” (PS3). The review would follow a
consistent process and respond to set lines of inquiry that would examine data and
support or refute a school’s claim to improvement. The process did not involve the
School Council.
Conversely, there was concern expressed by the Chairpersons that a
decentralised model of school review might “lead to a disjointed watered down
approach” (CS1). These respondents were aware that schools were part of a prescribed
bureaucratic review process where Principals and schools were required to account for
every aspect of their strategic planning and management. The Chairpersons could “see
the benefits of remaining part of a wider system” (CS3) where a level of consistency
was present when conducting reviews involving all IP schools. In addition, concerns
were raised about the composition of these review panels. One Chairperson suggested:
“It was important to get the right balance of expertise and maintain the right focus”
(CS2). They were keen to have current practitioners comprise review panels and focus
on the achievement of set targets.
All three Chairpersons expected IPS to encourage improved communication and
engagement with the community that would further strengthen accountability. One
Chairperson pointed out “the local community is often best placed to determine the
177
needs of the school” (CS1). The community would then be able to assess whether the
school had addressed these needs. They believed the School Board would become the
most effective medium through which the school could engage with the community.
The diverse nature of Board membership would ensure a more appropriate
representation of the community to which the school would be held accountable. One
Chairperson commented: “If the community is increasingly engaged with the school
then the school will be held accountable for its outcomes” (CS3).
In the second interview, all Chairpersons reported that School Boards had made
a significant contribution towards strengthening accountability in the public school
system, as they had anticipated. Members of the School Board participated in
“decision-making and through their robust lines of inquiry ensured accountability”
(CS1). Through the School Board, the schools that participated in this research were
directly accountable to parents/caregivers and the school community.
The Chairpersons agreed that there had been improvements to parent/caregiver
and community engagement since becoming an IPS. The interview responses indicated
a range of engagement activities with the broader community. However, all the
Principals attributed this to the pre-existing relationships rather than to IPS. According
to one Principal, “schools have always established very good relationships with their
local community” (CS3). Like Principals, Chairpersons viewed IPS and the School
Board as a vehicle to increase community engagement and accountability. According to
one Chairperson, “the School Board was a good reflection of the community because of
the broad representation of the membership” (CS2). Increased parental involvement
enabled them to interrogate school data which further strengthened accountability.
Interestingly, all Chairpersons, on further reflection, questioned whether IPS had
made schools more accountable. According to one Chairperson:
178
I think that the school has always been accountable to the local
community. This has occurred through the Annual Report, student
reports and information provided to the previous School Council and
now the School Board. This would have occurred whether the school
was IPS or not. (CS3)
It was evident to this Chairperson that processes and procedures have been present
within all schools that enable staff and more broadly the school to demonstrate
accountability. The Chairpersons pointed out the increase in the number of tools to
ensure accountability did not mean that a school would be more accountable. Rather, it
was the quality of the processes and procedures that enables an effective system of
accountability to be established and sustained.
This section has presented findings of the stakeholders’ experience of
accountability at two points in time. All stakeholders believed that IPS increased the
level of accountability although schools had previously demonstrated they were
accountable. Both the Principals and the Chairpersons believed that the School Board
model was a vehicle through which the level of accountability to the community and the
Department of Education had increased. Other stakeholders did not comment on the
relationship between increased accountability and the School Board model. The
Principals and Business Managers commented on concerns raised about workload as a
result of increased levels of accountability. Interestingly, both the Principals and
Business Managers pointed out that the increased level of accountability did not change
their obligations relevant to legislation and whole of government policies. Although the
teachers interviewed acknowledged an increased level of accountability as an IPS, they
believed that this applied to the Executive and Senior Management teams. The teachers
pointed out that they have always been accountable for the delivery of their programs
and becoming an IPS did not alter that level of responsibility.
179
Summary
This chapter presented data about the stakeholders’ perspectives about the
implementation of the IPS initiative at two points in time according to the substantive
themes generated from the data. Principals, Deputy Principals and Business Managers
were directly affected by their respective school’s implementation of the IPS initiative.
Changes in the responsibilities of these stakeholders were a result of the IPS initiative.
Flexibility provided by the changes to human resource and financial management were
perceived to have made Principals, Deputy Principals and Business Managers more
autonomous and accountable. Changes to the processes and systems involved in
administering these flexibilities resulted in an increase in the workload for Principals,
Deputy Principals and Business Managers. For the teachers interviewed at the three
schools, there was an acknowledgement of the benefits of autonomy and the increased
level of accountability. However, the impact in the classroom for the IPS initiative was
negligible. The teachers interviewed reported business as usual. The Chairpersons
described the changes to the School Board and, from their perspective, the schools’
improved relationship with the parents/caregivers and the community. The next chapter
discusses the findings and further develops the major themes, namely flexibility,
autonomy and accountability. In the next chapter, these findings are discussed in
relation to each of the stakeholders thereby addressing the central research question.
180
Chapter Six
Discussion
This study sought to reveal the perspectives of stakeholders on the
implementation of Independent Public School status in the first year of operation in the
respective schools in Western Australia. Chapter Six presents a discussion of the three
themes presented in the previous chapter. For this purpose, the themes are discussed in
relation to the literature presented in Chapter Three and the contextual information from
Chapter Two. The discussion is organised in five sections: Perspectives of Principals,
Perspectives of Deputy Principals, Perspectives of Teachers, Perspectives of Business
Managers and Perspectives of Chairpersons. Each of these sections will examine
perspectives relating to the key concepts identified through Chapter Five.
Perspectives of Principals
The first section deals with the perspectives of Principals on the implementation
of the Independent Public Schools initiative in Western Australia. The perspectives are
presented, in turn, on the three themes of flexibility, autonomy and accountability.
Principals in this study held perspectives about these themes that supported findings of
previous research.
Flexibility is an essential part of self-managing schools (Better Schools Report,
1987; Education Department of Western Australia, 1999). It enables school leaders to
have the capacity to respond to emerging data or changing needs within the school
community. Principals who are provided with the capacity to manage and allocate
resources flexibly to the school’s priorities have increased opportunities to deliver
innovative programs to meet student needs (Caldwell, 2016b). Control of resources and
181
the capacity to use these resources to reflect the needs of students and the wider
community reflects many of the key research findings in the US and the UK (Harris,
2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003). The perspectives
represented Principals who supported self-managing schools and who could see the
benefits that could be derived from increased flexibility, a finding that is congruent with
research showing that flexibility is an important benefit that is expected to be gained
from school autonomy.
The flexibility of the IPS initiative gradually became apparent to Principals in
the public school system in Western Australia since the implementation of the Better
Schools Report. The Report outlined the devolution of decisions relating to resources to
local schools (Better Schools Report, 1987). Since the implementation of the Better
Schools Report, legislative amendments and policy changes gradually increased the
Principal’s control of resources with the goal of catering for the needs of students.
According to one Principal (PS3) in the study, the Better Schools Report “significantly
influenced the development and the nature of self-managing schools in the public
school system in Western Australia”. This position was supported by Principal (PS1) in
the study who also commented on the influence of the Better Schools Report on the
various changes to governance in public schools in the ensuing years, including the
development of the current IPS initiative. The IPS initiative reinforced the Principals’
control of resources by removing the existing barriers to local school decision-making
in this area and the introduction of a one line budget.
Research suggests that as schools implement the concept of self-managing
schools, increased flexibility becomes more evident in school management. When the
approach being implemented was not effecting the desired change, school autonomy
provided Principals with the flexibility to change the strategy (Caldwell, 2016a; Day &
Harris, 2002; Gronn, 2004; Leithwood et al, 2004). The Principals in the study had their
182
expectations relating to flexibility realised during the implementation of the IPS
initiative. According to one Principal (PS1), “I could make decisions relating to
financial and human resources to meet the needs of the school community”. The
findings in the study supported the literature showing the benefits of increased
flexibility as a result of increased school autonomy.
Greater autonomy in decision-making brings increased workload. This illustrates
the claim by Frost and Durrant (2003) in the UK. For Principals working in a self-
managing school for the first time they could not anticipate the complexity of managing
financial resources and human resource management. This study indicated Principals
struggled with their workload during the first year of implementing the IPS initiative.
According to one Principal (PS1), “My workload increased initially due to the need to
meet the increased requirements for compliance. These areas of compliance were not
present to the same extent before my school became an IPS”. In addition, the study
showed that Principals adapt their practices to ensure they take advantage of the
increased flexibility in their decision-making. The ability to adapt overtime supports the
research conducted by Muijs and Harris (2003). The Principals’ expectations were
based on the need to be efficient and innovative in meeting student and community
needs. This finding reinforces research that supports the benefits that increased
flexibility brings to schools.
Research conducted by Caldwell (2016b), Dillon (2011) and Dimmock (1995)
has shown that professional learning for Principals is a requirement to successfully
implement the self-managing school. Learning to manage the new flexibilities required
knowledge and skills that Principals were yet to acquire as they had not previously
worked in an autonomous environment. According to one Principal (PS2), “Professional
learning was an important mechanism of support as I started the IPS journey. I had not
previously worked in an autonomous environment as proposed by the IPS model and I
183
was learning as I implemented the initiative in my school”. The research presented
through this study reinforces the literature indicating that Principals require quality
professional learning to navigate the requirements of an IPS. The perspectives illustrate
how Principals relate more strongly to quality professional learning.
Being an IPS created a sense of empowerment and the ability to be innovative in
meeting the needs of the students. The Principals in the study had high expectations that
increased autonomy would benefit their schools. According to one Principal (PS3), “I
was looking forward to the increased capacity to do things for my school, free of the
bureaucratic red tape that held schools back”. The study illustrates Principals’ views
that increased autonomy was a strategy to transform the way their school delivered
teaching-learning experiences by improving current good practice and looking at other
ways that resulted in improved student outcomes. This points to the need for schools to
make their own decisions about how to position themselves and respond to changes in
the educational landscape. In short, research by Caldwell and Spinks (2013) suggests
that schools need to become self-transforming. The above finding from my study further
supports research conducted by Caldwell (2016b) which describes the importance of
increased autonomy to enable Principals to make decisions in the best interests of their
students.
The impact of Principals’ leadership practices in an IPS made a significant
contribution to improved school effectiveness. The study has shown that Principals hold
perspectives that increased autonomy creates opportunities for them to adopt
distributive leadership practices to improve teaching and learning. The Principals’
expectations are based on their perspective that their role is to create the conditions for
effective learning by facilitating a collaborative culture amongst staff. According to one
Principal (PS2), “I see my role as creating an environment of collaboration amongst all
the staff in my school and sustaining a culture of school improvement. The IPS
184
initiative will allow me to do this”. This finding supports the research conducted by
Gronn (2004) and Leithwood and colleagues (2004) in this area.
Principals’ expectations relating to increased autonomy were realised during
their first year of implementing the IPS initiative. There was a clear shift in
responsibilities from Central Office to the Principal relating to decisions about the use
of resources at the local school level. These decisions were previously made by staff at a
Central Office level and to a lesser degree at the Regional Education Office. For the first
time, the Principals in the study, through the IPS initiative, have authority to make
decisions about the use of resources to improve student outcomes without the
requirement to seek approval from Central Office. The shift in responsibilities results in
Principals considering themselves to be empowered and trusted by the Department to
make decisions in the best interests of their school community.
School autonomy is an opportunity to enable schools to implement innovative
practices. In my study, Principals feel the IPS initiative empowers staff to develop
practices that contribute to long term sustainable school improvement. Other studies
such as Berends and colleagues (2009), De Grauwe (2005) and the World Bank (2007)
found there is a lack of evidence about the impact of autonomy on innovation. These
studies found that teachers have always catered for the needs of their students through a
variety of learning strategies. Increased autonomy has not influenced the way teachers
deliver learning experiences in these studies. My study is at odds with these research
findings, showing Principals believe that increased school autonomy results in
innovative practices. According to one Principal (PS2), “Although teachers need to
comply with delivering the mandated curriculum, IPS enables my staff to program and
deliver learning experiences with more flexibility than previously”. It is one reason
Principals feel their school improved when staff were empowered.
185
My study reported that the three Principals of IPS make decisions within the
boundaries of a centrally determined framework. These Principals did not experience
full autonomy due to this governance arrangement. In his research, Caldwell (2009)
reports that less than half of school decision-making is carried out with full autonomy.
The research presented in my study adds to this explanation from the literature. My
study demonstrates part of the complexity of autonomy arises from the context which it
is implemented, and the nature of the governance arrangements. Without autonomy, the
Principals in the study feel they are less able to make decisions to reflect their students’
needs. Although the Principals in the study experienced increased autonomy through the
IPS initiative, they were required to operate within a common legislative, regulatory,
and policy framework. They retained all the compliance and legal obligations of all
public schools, including the provision of data required by the Department of Education
to meet its reporting obligations.
This lack of full autonomy in the Western Australian IPS initiative further
revealed variations in the levels of autonomy in my study. Principals in the study agreed
that they do not have full autonomy over decision-making reinforcing the continuing
presence of a centralised legislative framework that influences the level of autonomy
available to Principals. The study illustrates Principals’ perspectives that different levels
of autonomy created a degree of difficulty in making decisions in human resource
management, financial management, maintenance and facilities management, and
curriculum. One Principal (PS3) lamented, “When IPS was first presented to the
education community, I had this expectation that we would be able to make far reaching
decisions across many areas to meet the needs of our students and staff. But every time
we attempted something different we were told we couldn’t do that”. This finding
places the Principals’ practical needs relating to decision-making at odds with what the
Department of Education views to be school autonomy. A Parliamentary Inquiry
186
chaired by Jacobs (2016) supports this finding. The Inquiry pointed out the variations in
the levels of autonomy is directly attributed to the legislative, regulatory and policy
framework of the public school system (Jacobs, 2016). The framework remained a
critical tool in maintaining a centralised education system by exercising control in many
aspects of school management. However, the Principals in my study feel increased
school autonomy through the IPS initiative assists them in adapting their practice to
meet the needs of their students and the wider school community.
The study reveals a school’s ability to make decisions to improve student
outcomes is accompanied by an increased level of responsibility for these decisions.
Research conducted by Caldwell (2016a), De Grauwe (2005), Muijs and Harris (2003),
and Mulford (2003) highlighted increased accountability is often considered an
important factor in the impact of autonomy on school effectiveness. Schools that can
make decisions without being held accountable for them are less likely to be effective.
The Principals in my study agree they would be held increasingly more accountable as a
result of the increased autonomy granted to schools. They could not imagine a lessening
of the accountability requirements given the highly centralised public school system in
Western Australia that was participating in the move towards self-managing schools.
According to one Principal (PS1), “You cannot have a situation where you have
increased capacity for local decision-making and not be held increasingly accountable
for the decisions made”. My study illustrates Principals’ perspectives that increased
accountability means that they are more responsible for the learning outcomes of
students.
The study reveals the IPS initiative creates a culture of empowerment that
enables decisions to be made to improve teaching-learning experiences and be able to
justify the decisions made. Research conducted by the OECD (2011), OECD (2014),
and Sammons and colleagues (2011) support this finding and point out increased
187
accountability for school leaders emphasised the significance of informed decision-
making as they would be responsible not only for the decisions but for the impact of
these decisions on students and staff. This notion is further reflected in the
Department’s policy documentation, Unlock your school’s future: Becoming an
Independent Public School in 2012, where key areas of impact are outlined. My study
supports this policy document by the Department of Education Western Australia
(2011), showing increased accountability made Principals more motivated to invest in
the success of their schools. The Principals in the study had their expectations relating
to accountability realised during the implementation of the IPS initiative. This
perspective about accountability supports the research and encourages Principals to
forge a stronger sense of engagement and relationship with the community to address
local needs.
The study highlights the importance of strategic planning as a vehicle through
which increased accountability to the wider community can be demonstrated. This
finding supports Gamage’s (2006) investigation in the relationship between the wider
community and planning. Gamage concluded the involvement of the wider community
in the planning process, involving the development of a school vision and the
identification of improvement targets is an important basis for accountability. The
Principals in the study point out they are required to demonstrate compliance with a
much stronger accountability framework. According to one Principal (PS1), “The
Business Plan and the Delivery and Performance Agreement were held up by the
Department as two important ways by which a school that achieved IPS status
demonstrated accountability”. These Principals negotiate a Delivery and Performance
Agreement for a period of three years, develop a Business Plan to operationalise the
Agreement, conduct an annual self-assessment, and produce an Annual School Report.
Each of these are achieved in collaboration with their School Boards and enable the
188
Principals to be held accountable for the articulated school vision and improvement
targets. These findings in the study about new measures of accountability are closely
related to the existing research on the impact of increased autonomy on schools.
The study reveals the IPS initiative requires Principals to be more accountable to
the School Board than to the previous School Council for the delivery of an appropriate
educational program. However, the Principals in the study point out that schools have
always been accountable to the local community for student outcomes and the School
Council was an important forum through which this was demonstrated. The extent to
which Principals engaged with their School Councils in planning, data analysis and
reporting varied with each school. The difference between the School Board and the
School Council was the former now had the responsibility of endorsing the Delivery
and Performance Agreement which is signed by the Principal, Director General, and the
Chairperson of the School Board (Jacobs, 2016). The Business Plan is developed in
collaboration with the School Board to operationalise the Agreement and demonstrate
accountability.
The perception of the role and responsibilities of the School Board and its
members were found to vary across the three schools in the study. The Principals in the
study point out that despite professional learning relating to the role and responsibility
of the School Board, some members believe their role extended to the operation of the
school. This perspective is attributed to the term Board being misleading as it relates to
the IPS initiative. According to one Principal (PS1), “Some Board members believe that
they have a say in the day-to-day running of the school. They couldn’t understand that
their role was more strategic than operational”. The Principals in the study point out that
some members believe the term Board was confused with the Boards of private schools
and their role and responsibilities relating to accountability. Research conducted by
Gilchrist and Knight (2015) refer to the difference between School Councils and School
189
Boards and the confusion that results in the use of the terms. The finding from their
research is consistent with the outcome of this study relating to accountability.
This section has examined the perspectives of Principals about their experiences
of the first year of IPS. The study revealed these Principals held great expectations for
the implementation of the IPS initiative in their schools. As the IPS initiative was
implemented in their schools during the first year, the Principals reported that their
expectations were realised. The perspectives of Principals in this study supported the
findings of previous research, showing the benefits of self-managing schools in a
Western Australian context. The study has added depth and detail into how the IPS
initiative impacts Principals’ practices and experiences. In this way, the study
complements existing literature about self-managing schools. The next section
examines the perspectives of Deputy Principals in this study.
Perspectives of Deputy Principals
This section deals with the perspectives of Deputy Principals on the
implementation of the Independent Public Schools initiative in Western Australia. The
perspectives are presented, in turn, on flexibility, autonomy and accountability. Deputy
Principals in this study held perspectives about flexibility, autonomy and accountability
that supported findings of previous research.
The Deputy Principals in the study share the same views about flexibility with
the Principals. They had high expectations about the flexibility that would accompany
the implementation of the IPS initiative. Deputy Principal (DPAS1) said “the IPS
reform would provide schools with much needed flexibility to manage its resources”.
Deputy Principal (DPBS2) said “I’m looking forward to my school reaping the benefits
derived from the flexibility present in the IPS model”. As the Deputy Principals are
involved in both the strategic and operational levels of school management, they are
190
clear about what is required to ensure a more effective and efficient approach to the
various aspects of school management. Control of resources is viewed by the Deputy
Principals as the area most in need of flexibility. It is here that decisions are made
strategically and then operationalised to ensure they reflect student needs and contribute
to sustained long term school improvement. Without control of the resources, the
Deputy Principals in the study believe there is no advantage for schools to participate in
the IPS initiative.
The IPS initiative has an impact on the equitable allocation and use of resources
by schools in my study. The study reveals negative perspectives about the impact of the
IPS initiative on equity. This research reinforces Blackmore’s (2004) findings relating
to autonomy in Victorian schools. In her research, Blackmore (2004) argues inequity
was intensified by increasing parental choice, removal of intake areas, and then funding
schools according to enrolments. The Deputy Principals in the study questioned the
funding model used by the Department to allocate resources to schools participating in
the IPS initiative. Deputy Principal (DPBS1) lamented their school “didn’t receive the
expected windfall in resources that they expected with the IPS reform”. They extended
their comments to advocate for a needs-based approach to funding that would assist in
achieving a degree of equity within schools. This study provided an explanation why
Deputy Principals see a needs-based funding model as a practical necessity. These
Deputy Principals believe a needs-based funding model would not only achieve
flexibility in decision-making; however, it would address long standing equity issues in
resource management in schools.
The IPS initiative provides schools in the study with increased flexibility to
select and manage staff. The Deputy Principals in the study view the flexibilities
relating to human resource management positively. Deputy Principal (DPBS3) said
“IPS finally enabled them to select staff that wanted to work in their school and shared
191
their philosophy about learning”. They hold perspectives that these flexibilities improve
their capacity to carry out their responsibilities in this area with efficiency. These
Deputy Principals believe having little control over staffing would create significant
obstacles in building effective schools. This finding supports the research conducted by
Adamowski and colleagues (2007), Malaklolunthu and Shamsudin (2011), and Mujis
and Harris (2003). These investigations concluded that having the capacity to flexibly
manage human resources will contribute to school effectiveness. Flexibility relating to
human resource management makes the IPS initiative appealing to the schools in my
study. The perspectives of Deputy Principals in the study support the research showing
the positive impact of flexible decision-making on human resource management.
The flexibility to access quality staff provided by the IPS initiative enables
schools in the study to establish partnerships with other schools. These partnerships
with other schools enable schools in my study to be innovative in their planning,
conceptualising and in the delivery of learning experiences. These schools are able to do
a lot more with their staffing profile with the added skill set than if they did not
establish partnerships. Research conducted by Davis (2008) and Leithwood and Jantzi
(2000) supports this finding. These investigations argued as an individual school, it may
be difficult to cater for the broad and dynamic needs of all students. However,
establishing partnerships with other schools enables access to more resources that can
cater for a school’s local priorities. The Deputy Principals in the study advocated the
benefits for students and staff in establishing partnerships that could derive a rich
dimension of human resource skill set. Deputy Principal (DPAS2) points out
“partnering with other schools in the local area will enable my school to tap into a set of
skills beyond that which is available in my school. We will be able to better cater for the
needs of our students”. However, they view obstacles in the practical application of this
additional skill set to a school. Working with the other school to access resources would
192
need to compete with their use and the time available to use the additional skill set.
Nonetheless, the Deputy Principals’ initial perspectives about the benefits derived from
partnerships supports the research showing the flexible use of human resources across
nearby schools.
The study reveals the school autonomy provided by the IPS initiative had no
impact on curriculum. In Western Australia, curriculum remains the responsibility of
the School Curriculum and Standards Authority (SCSA), a central education agency.
However, schools have the responsibility for interpreting the curriculum for the
classroom. The Deputy Principals in the study acknowledge that schools do not have a
high degree of freedom in curriculum development. Deputy Principal (DPAS3)
indicates that “schools have little choice but to implement the curriculum as prescribed
by the SCSA even though it may not meet the needs of students”. However, the
management and the implementation of the curriculum present significant opportunities
for schools. This conclusion in my study supports the research conducted by Bandur
(2011) and Weiss (1993). Both researchers found the capacity to direct the type of
curriculum that is delivered in schools is not part of school autonomy initiatives. My
study further supports the research conducted by Dimmock and Wildy (1992). In their
research, Dimmock and Wildy (1992) suggest a lack of connection between Learning
Areas allowed few opportunities for a whole school approach to curriculum. However,
they point out that the school was successful in terms of student achievement, indicating
that the management of curriculum did not impact heavily on teaching and learning.
There is nonetheless a degree of flexibility afforded to schools in catering to their
interests and resources.
My study shows greater autonomy in managing professional learning needs and
opportunities was an important benefit derived from this IPS initiative. Without having
the autonomy to respond to the needs of staff as they implement the strategic direction
193
of the school, the school cannot appropriately cater for their needs. One Deputy
Principal (DPAS1) said “IPS has allowed my school to ensure staff have the knowledge
and skills to support the implementation of our Business Plan by appropriately
delivering targeted professional development”. This finding supports earlier research
conducted by Short (1994) and Stone (1995). Their studies emphasised the importance
of a school’s capacity to plan, negotiate, broker and deliver professional learning to
support staff as they implement the strategic direction of the school. Autonomy enables
the schools in my study to move beyond the adhoc provision of professional learning
for their staff.
All three schools in the study provide opportunities to target the needs of
teachers and share professional learning opportunities. Deputy Principals in the study
believe the increased autonomy derived from the IPS initiative provides teachers with
opportunities to enhance their classroom practice through targeted professional learning.
Deputy Principal (DPAS3) points out “IPS enables my school to plan for professional
learning that support teachers in delivering dynamic learning experiences in the
classroom”. This finding supports research conducted by Groundwater-Smith and
Mockler (2009) and Mockler (2013) who found increased autonomy relating to ongoing
professional renewal and development for teachers is significant in targeting
improvements in student learning.
The study reveals the IPS initiative provides a strong system of accountability.
Without a robust accountability system, it is difficult to ensure an improvement focused
agenda at the school level. Research conducted by Eacott (2011) and Simkins (2007)
support this finding. Their studies emphasised accountability and review arrangements
play a vital role in improving student outcomes in a self-managing school. These
processes provide precise information on student, school and system performance and
highlight the performance of groups and cohorts of students. However, Deputy
194
Principals in my study believe they are not a means to an end. The accountability and
review arrangements as an IPS need to be used as a starting point for improvement. One
Deputy Principal (DPAS2) said “IPS provides my school with the opportunity to review
our current accountability model with the view of strengthening the requirements
through engaging more with our community”. The Deputy Principals in my study
further point out School Boards and the broader school community are more actively
involved in the review process and therefore demonstrate accountability. Under the IPS
model, the Deputy Principals indicate school performance is no longer a mystery to
parents/caregivers. There is a transparent reporting of individual school development,
including any areas of difficulty. My study illustrates the school staff and the Board are
better able to respond directly to the evidence that the school data provides.
My study shows the IPS initiative creates a culture of continuous improvement
and learning in the three schools through increased accountability. This culture is
essential for teachers and students to reach their potential (Hallinger, 2003; Keddie,
2014). Continuous improvement drives accountability expectations in self-managing
schools (Simkins, 2007). Research shows increased accountability requirements for
schools in a devolved environment improves student learning outcomes by identifying
the specific areas where a teacher’s performance can be improved. The Deputy
Principals in the study had high expectations about the increased accountability and the
benefits it would bring to the school. The study illustrates how Deputy Principals view
increased accountability as an essential strategy for a performance and development
culture in a self-managing school. One Deputy Principal (DPAS3) suggested “increased
accountability requirements, as a result of IPS, place a greater emphasis on our school’s
self-reflection process and the need to develop an improvement plan that is owned by
staff and the community”. This finding reinforces existing research about the
195
importance of increased accountability to improve teacher effectiveness and therefore
student outcomes.
This section has examined the perspectives of Deputy Principals in this study.
Deputy Principals in the study shared similar views to Principals on flexibility and
autonomy. However, Deputy Principals differed with Principals on accountability.
Deputy Principals in the study did not believe that accountability and review
arrangements were a means to an end rather they are a starting point for long term
school improvement. In addition, the Deputy Principals reported that there was no
relationship between curriculum and school autonomy. The perspectives of Deputy
Principals in this study supported the findings of previous research, showing the
benefits of self-managing schools in a Western Australian context. The study has added
depth and detail into how the IPS initiative impacts Deputy Principals’ practices and
experiences. In this way, the study complements existing literature about self-managing
schools. The next section examines the perspectives of teachers in this study.
Perspectives of Teachers
This section deals with the perspectives of teachers on the implementation of the
Independent Public Schools initiative in Western Australia. The perspectives are
presented, in turn, on flexibility, autonomy and accountability. Teachers in this study
held perspectives about flexibility, autonomy and accountability that supported findings
of previous research.
The teachers in the study acknowledge the importance for all staff to have a
shared understanding of school autonomy initiatives and the implications for their
Learning Area. Like the Principals in the study, teachers working in an IPS environment
for the first time do not have an understanding about the nature of the devolved context
and the expectations. Teachers in my study believe all staff members require a shared
196
understanding of the IPS model to meet compliance obligations and maintain school
effectiveness in the delivery of teaching-learning experiences. One teacher (TS1) points
out “Unless all staff are on the same page, particularly as it relates to the Learning Area,
change isn’t going to occur”. The study reveals managing change relating to school
autonomy initiatives is most effective at the Learning Area level where meeting times
are used to establish a shared understanding. Another teacher (TS3) points out
“Although there are so many demands placed on our time, Learning Area meeting times
are the best times to plan and implement new ideas and initiatives”. The study shows
that meeting times devoted to change management rather than curriculum and pedagogy
requires teaching staff to find additional time to fulfil their core business of teaching
and learning. During the early stages of operating in a self-managing school, staff
members face a significant learning adjustment (Jensen et al, 2012; Short, 1994). The
teachers’ expectations, in the study, were based on finding additional meeting times to
accommodate all staff within a Learning Area to discuss curriculum and pedagogy
contributed to increase workload and stress. This finding reinforces research that staff
members in self-managing schools face considerable adjustment in their workload and
stress levels.
The increase in workload for teachers in the study emerged as an area of concern
as the IPS initiative provides them with new responsibilities. Teachers in the study are
required to carry out their existing duties and be conversant with the new requirements
associated with an IPS. The increased demands placed on teachers’ workloads, supports
the research conducted by Blackmore (2004) and Branch, Hanushek and Rivkin (2013).
The researchers found these new responsibilities and changes to their role were often
fulfilled without additional time, contributing to increases in workload. Providing
schools with the flexibility to choose staff requires teachers to participate in selection
panels to ensure the appropriate applicant was selected for their Learning Area. The
197
study showed for most Heads of Learning Areas and teachers, training was required as
this was a new responsibility. One teacher (TS3) lamented “Quality professional
development is necessary if staff members are going to effectively implement the IPS
model”. The teachers in the study explained they are required to prepare relief work for
their classes and reschedule tasks for the duration of their participation on the panel.
These findings in the study about workload issues are closely related to the existing
research on the impact of self-managing schools on staff workload.
The study reveals the IPS initiative represents no significant effect on the way
teachers deliver the teaching-learning experience. These teachers point out that they
have not altered the way they teach their students as a result of achieving increased
autonomy. One teacher (TS1) pointed out “I always consider the needs of my students
and have ensured that strategies implemented in the classroom contribute to improved
student outcomes”. In contrast, the teachers in the study held perspectives that school
autonomy initiatives were a way in which schools could be administered and held
accountable for their outcomes. Another teacher (TS3) suggested “Providing schools
and staff with increased autonomy would mean staff would need to demonstrate a
higher level of accountability especially in improving student outcomes”. This finding
is consistent with the research conducted by Day and Harris (2002), Frost and Durrant
(2003), and Mulford (2003) where the flexibility in organising resources was viewed as
an administrative function. The perspectives of teachers in my study reveal the impact
of the IPS initiative was far too removed from the classroom environment to make a
difference. These perspectives support the research showing flexible decision-making as
a component of the administration of the school with little impact in the classroom.
The study found increased autonomy facilitates a shift in authority from the
Department of Education to the Principal in the school. Teachers in the study hold the
perspective that the Principal has more power than pre-IPS. The study reveals that the
198
teachers see themselves accountable to the Principal rather than someone in the
Regional Education Office or Central Office. Some teachers emphasised the Principal’s
increased authority as an unwelcome increase in their power. According to one teacher
(TS1), “I’m concerned that some Principals may use their increased power in an adverse
way particularly if you hold a different view or question a decision that has been made”.
This finding is supported in the literature by the research conducted by Gamage (2008),
and Gamage and Zajda (2005).
All teachers in the study hold the view that more is expected from them because
their school is part of the IPS initiative. From their perspective, the teachers in the study
feel the community and the education system believe that they could achieve sustained
long term school improvement by implementing strategies that non-autonomous schools
are not able to do. One teacher (TS2) pointed out “There is a greater expectation that
schools and their staff can achieve a lot more because they don’t need to follow the
same processes as other schools that are non-IPS. They can get things done at a faster
pace”, reinforcing findings of research conducted by Leithwood and Mascall (2008),
and Sammons and colleagues (2011). The increased empowerment coupled with the
greater expectations for a different environment increases the level of accountability for
teachers. The teachers’ perspectives in my study supports the literature that the greater
the expectations the greater the accountability requirements.
The study reports increased accountability requirements for schools that are IPS
will inevitably alter the workload of staff. According to one teacher (TS3), “Since
becoming an IPS staff workload has increased in order to meet the different
requirements expected by the Department. In some areas, it has complicated my role”.
However, some staff may see the benefit in an increased workload if it means that
school autonomy initiatives are successful. One teacher (TS1) “I don’t mind the
increased workload if it benefits our students and leads to improved outcomes. I would
199
be concerned, however, if it became the norm”. With any new initiative, the workload
will increase in the early stages as schools adjust to the change (Branch, Hanushek &
Rivkin, 2013; Jensen et al, 2012). This research revealed that over time staff would
adjust to the changes and their workloads would decrease. My study contradicts this
research finding, showing increase in workload for staff is not a negative outcome of
increased accountability requirements. The study illustrates teachers’ perspectives that
they had not anticipated the complexity of changes in their roles because of increased
accountability requirements. The demands of professional learning, participating in the
development of a business plan reflecting new systemic obligations, and implementing
new processes and systems contributed to the complexity of the change.
The study indicates the IPS initiative assists in professionalising teaching
through establishing high standards and high expectations. Teachers in the study hold
the perspective that increased accountability raised the status of teachers as significant
participants in the school decision-making process. One teacher (TS2) suggested,
“Since becoming an IPS, teachers at my school have been more accountable because
they are more involved in making decisions about student learning and the organisation
of the school”. Darling-Hammond and Goodwin (1993) point out teaching requires
continuous decision-making based on the needs of the students. In their research,
teachers need not only content knowledge but pedagogical knowledge and, therefore,
acquisition of a broad body of knowledge is a key component in professionalising
teaching. This finding is extended by Cochran-Smith and Fries (2001) to include the
community in professionalising teaching. In their research, earning the respect and trust
of the community contributes to the autonomy for making and being held accountable
for important decisions. The teachers in my study hold this perspective and feel they are
viewed as an important profession by the wider community because of the decisions
they make about student learning. Another teacher (TS1) suggested, “Being involved in
200
decisions about the management of the school and the delivery of learning has made
staff feel that they are a valuable part of the school community”. This finding reinforces
research that increased accountability in the IPS initiative makes a positive contribution
to the status of teaching.
This section has examined the perspectives of teachers in this study. Teachers in
the study reported views on all three (flexibility, autonomy and accountability) not
raised by Principals and Deputy Principals. They viewed the IPS initiative as an
administrative function with very little direct impact in the classroom. Like Principals,
teachers highlighted the increased workload that emerged because of the
implementation of the IPS initiative in their school. Teachers in the study supported the
perspectives of Deputy Principals about accountability and contextualised the impact of
IPS through professionalising teaching. The perspectives of teachers in this study
supported the findings of previous research, showing the benefits of self-managing
schools in a Western Australian context. The study has added depth and detail into how
the IPS initiative impacts teachers’ experiences. In this way, the study complements
existing literature about self-managing schools. The next section examines the
perspectives of Business Managers in this study.
Perspectives of Business Managers
This section deals with the perspectives of Business Managers on the
implementation of the Independent Public Schools initiative in Western Australia. The
perspectives are presented, in turn, on flexibility, autonomy and accountability.
Business Managers in this study held perspectives about flexibility, autonomy and
accountability that supported findings of previous research.
The study found the IPS initiative emphasises a business role relating to school
financial independence. The Business Managers in the study believe the expectations on
201
schools in managing the business dimensions have expanded with the implementation
of the IPS initiative. According to one Business Manager (BMS1), “The IPS reform has
placed my school on the same level as a small to mid-size business. I now have to
manage the financial and physical aspects of the school like a business ensuring that the
school is compliant and competitive”. Research conducted by Gamage and Zajda (2005)
and Kowalczyk and Jakubczak (2014) generated similar findings relating to self-
managing schools. In their research, they found self-managing schools are required to
pursue a business paradigm to manage finance, human resources, information
technology, marketing and maintenance within legislative and regulatory requirements.
The flexibility in organising support staff in an IPS emerged as a benefit for
Business Managers in the study. The study shows Business Managers hold the
perspective that the delivery of services by support staff would not have been possible
without the increased control over the staff selection process by an IPS. Business
Managers believe the flexibility derived from the IPS initiative enables specialist
expertise to be brought into the school on a contract or part time basis. One Business
Manager (BMS2) pointed out, “The IPS model has enabled me to manage the Support
Staff at our school in the way that best meets our needs. My school has requirements for
specialist expertise that I can negotiate within the Department’s overall framework”.
Research conducted by Caldwell and Spinks (2008) generated a similar finding. They
describe the capacity to bring specialist expertise into the school to meet specific needs
was a significant initiative in a self-managing school. Such a decision has a direct
impact on the quality of the service delivered in the school by support staff. These
findings are closely related to the existing research on the impact of self-managing
schools because of flexibility derived from devolved decision-making.
The IPS initiative enables a more efficient application of resources by schools in
the study. Business Managers in the study agree that increased autonomy has a positive
202
impact on the use of resources, reinforcing that schools are in the best position to make
decisions that will create long term sustained school improvement. According to one
Business Manager (BMS3), “I have greater opportunity to plan and manage the
appropriate use of resources in my school as an IPS than as a non-IPS. This autonomy
enables me to assist in better meeting the needs of the students in my school”. Research
conducted by Betts and Tang (2011) and the OECD (2013) found a relationship
between effective use of resources and increased school level autonomy. My study also
shows Business Managers hold the perspective that increased autonomy itself does not
deliver benefits. However, increased autonomy makes a positive contribution when the
leadership team in a school acknowledges the benefits and uses it effectively. Another
Business Manager (BMS1) pointed out, “The Executive team in my school has
embraced the flexibilities that have come from the IPS initiative and has used the
autonomy to ensure students and staff benefit from the opportunities provided”. These
perspectives support the research identifying the mindset that is present for increased
autonomy to deliver benefits.
The study reveals Business Managers are divided about accountability being a
catalyst for improvement. The Business Managers in the study feel accountability could
inhibit the leadership team from being creative in their use of autonomy. These
Business Managers feel that schools would focus on outcomes that could be easily
measured and enable compliance. According to one Business Manager (BMS1), “I can
see some schools choosing outcomes and targets that are easily achieved rather than
delving into the real issues and making real improvements”. This finding is consistent
with research conducted by Honig and Rainey (2012) and Keddie (2014). Their research
reflects this division and has found that increased accountability can shape behaviour in
unproductive ways. In my study, however, some Business Managers feel a need to
ensure that schools examine outcomes that prove to be a challenge which would expand
203
the educational agenda. Another Business Manager (BMS2) pointed out, “The
Leadership Team needs to look at the data and other information objectively and make
hard decisions around the targets they set to measure improvement”. The study reveals
no evidence of these negative effects of increased accountability, derived from the IPS
initiative, in the participating schools. In contrast, Business Managers report the impact
of increased accountability is a significant driver to demonstrate school improvement.
The perspectives in the study relating to increased accountability suggest the research
showing the important role played by accountability in an IPS.
This section has examined the perspectives of Business Managers in this study.
Business Managers in the study shared similar views to Principals and Deputy
Principals about the positive impact of the IPS initiative relating to the three initial
aspects. However, Business Managers differed with Principals in the way members of
the leadership team could be more creative in their use of resources as a result of
autonomy. The perspectives of Business Managers in this study supported the findings
of previous research, showing the benefits of self-managing schools in a Western
Australian context. The study has added depth and detail into how the IPS initiative
impacts Business Managers’ experiences. In this way, the study complements existing
literature about self-managing schools. The next section examines the perspectives of
Chairpersons in this study.
Perspectives of Chairpersons
This section deals with the perspectives of Chairpersons on the implementation
of the Independent Public Schools initiative in Western Australia. The perspectives are
presented, in turn, on flexibility, autonomy and accountability. Chairpersons in this
study held perspectives about flexibility, autonomy and accountability that supported
findings of previous research.
204
The study found there is a lack of understanding about the role of the Board and
its processes and procedures. Meetings often stalled because there was an insufficient
understanding from school, parent and community representatives about their
responsibilities. The Chairpersons in the study hold the perspective that all members of
the Board require improved knowledge and ongoing development in this area.
According to one Board Chairperson (CS2), “Board members require ongoing training
to enable them to carry out their responsibilities on the Board”. Research conducted by
Clarke (2017), Gilchrist and Knight (2015), and Gray, Campbell-Evans and Leggett
(2013) led to similar conclusions. Their research shows a lack of understanding in this
area is a significant barrier to effectively participating in local school decision-making.
In addition, they suggest capacity building for members of the Board is essential for
good governance. The findings in my study support the existing research for the need of
ongoing professional development relating to governance and the role and
responsibilities of the School Board.
The study highlights the School Board’s role in the allocation of financial
resources as an area of concern. The specific role of the Board in the development of the
school budget is subject to conjecture by members of the Board. This finding is
reflected in research (Gilchrist & Knight, 2015) which shed light on this lack of
understanding. Department of Education Western Australia policy documents clarify the
preparation of the school budget is carried out by the School Executive in collaboration
with the Finance Committee. The Principal is expected to form a Finance Committee to
assist in financial planning and control. The Finance Committee assists the Principal to
exercise their governance responsibility in the management of the school’s financial
resources. In an IPS context, Western Australian research conducted by Gilchrist and
Knight (2015) pointed out the School Board must endorse the school budget before it is
implemented. The Chairpersons in the study share concerns about endorsing a budget
205
that they did not participate in its preparation. According to one Board Chairperson
(CS1), “I am concerned about the Board approving a school budget when it was not
involved with its preparation. Our endorsement of the budget makes us accountable and
I would question the transparency and appropriateness of this process”. This perspective
relates to the notion of ‘independent’ which is a perception of the IPS initiative. The
study reveals the School Board does not reflect a degree of independence that enables it
to allocate financial resources to areas of need. When reviewing the budget, the School
Board can question and advise. Another Board Chairperson (CS3) points out “I ensure
that members of the Board review the budget papers and ask questions so that they are
satisfied that the budget supports the direction of the Business Plan”. However, the
school is under no obligation to accept the advice of the Board. These findings in the
study about the role of the School Board are closely related to the existing research on
the impact of self-managing schools on the allocation of financial resources.
A central tenet of the IPS initiative that emerged from the study is the
participation of community and parents/caregivers in the management of a school. The
Chairpersons in the study hold the perspective that parent/caregiver and community
involvement as a significant measure of success for a school. This finding is consistent
with research conducted by Court and O’Neill (2011) and Earley and Creese (2003).
Their research found a genuine partnership to local decision-making with staff, parents
and community representatives having an opportunity to contribute. The Chairpersons
in my study further believe those best qualified to determine the needs of schools are
located near the school. According to one Board Chairperson (CS2), “School Boards are
most effective when they include parents/caregivers and members of the local
community who know and understand the needs of the students. These people have a
vested interest in the school”. Schools risk running into opposition if parents/caregivers
and the community have no relationship with or interest in the school. The finding in
206
my study reinforces the research that parent/caregiver and community involvement in
school decision-making are positive outcomes.
Empowering the school community is an important outcome of the IPS initiative
in this study. The study shows all the Chairpersons believe such empowerment
improves the schools’ standing in the community and increases their pride in the school.
According to one Board Chairperson (CS2), “Having a greater say in the direction of
the school has raised the profile of the school’s activities and achievements in the
community. I’ve noticed students and their parents/caregivers are proud of the school’s
achievements”. Through this empowerment schools are confident they have the support
of parents/caregivers and the community. According to Jacobs (2016), if
parents/caregivers and the community feel empowered in the school decision-making
process then they will have a positive impact on school effectiveness. When this occurs,
Mitchell, Cameron and Wylie (2002) point out professional motivation is strengthened
and individuals are more invested in the outcomes of their decisions. Without this
support, according to the Chairpersons in my study, schools will be isolated and will not
be able to effectively meet the needs of its students. Parent/caregiver and community
engagement enables them to understand the direction of the school and commit to the
school’s vision which will have a positive impact on long term sustained school
improvement.
The study highlights the IPS initiative established the Board as the forum
through which parents/caregivers and the community can contribute to the school
decision-making process. The Chairpersons in my study hold the perspective the School
Boards are essential to a two-way flow of information that contributes to long term
school improvement. One Board Chairperson (CS2) points out “The School Board is an
effective way through which parents/caregivers, the community and staff can work
together in the best interests of the school. They form an important partnership through
207
which they exchange knowledge and experience to help the school move forward”. This
finding is consistent with research conducted by Gilchrist and Knight (2015) and Jacobs
(2016). In their research, they point out the importance of the School Board as a forum
and make comment about the membership of the Board. These researchers demonstrate
that the Board draws together a cross section of the local area, including staff, parents
and community representatives that each contribute their diverse knowledge and skill
set. Earlier research by Gamage (2006) suggests that schools benefit from Board
members’ knowledge and experience from a range of fields as they bring a different
perspective to the decision-making process. However, my study reveals the
Chairpersons hold concerns about the impact on equity when examining the
composition of the School Boards and that expertise present at Board meetings may
vary in different contexts. The socio-economic status of an area can influence the
quality and accessibility to certain types of knowledge and expertise. In this way, place-
based disadvantage is further perpetuated. This finding reinforces research that focuses
on the need for capacity building and attention to equity factors in school autonomy.
The use of the term ‘independent’ to describe the IPS initiative generates
discussion by parents and community members, according to the Chairpersons in the
study. The study supports the view that the use of the term ‘independent’ was
misleading as it relates to the IPS initiative. Jacobs (2016) points out public schools that
have embraced the IPS initiative remain State administered institutions and form part of
the public education system in Western Australia. In contrast, independent schools are
non-public and predominantly non-Catholic schools that form part of the independent
school sector. They have their own constitution and comply with additional State and
Commonwealth legislation not relevant to public schools (Independent Schools Council
of Australia, 2008). The Chairpersons in the study point out independent schools are
more directly accountable to their immediate communities than is possible for schools
208
that are part of the public education system in Western Australia. According to one
Board Chairperson (CS1), “IPS Boards don’t experience the same pressure as private
schools due to the direct line of accountability to the parent community. These Board
members are expected to perform and contribute to school improvement”. These
Chairpersons clarified from their experiences that members of independent School
Boards are responsible for making sure their school meets the same standards of
business operation and reporting expected of other corporations. Like members of a
corporate board, independent School Board members are individually and collectively
responsible for compliance with these and other requirements. The perspective
expressed by the Chairpersons in the study confirms the finding in the literature and
questions the validity of the term ‘independent’ when a school is part of a wider
centralised education system.
The study found the IPS initiative encourages stakeholder involvement in local
decision-making. The Chairpersons in the study hold the perspective that parental
participation in decision-making ensures the school not only reflects. However, it is
accountable to the local community for the decisions that are made and the outcomes of
these decisions. According to one Board Chairperson (CS2), “Having parents/caregivers
and the community involved in setting the direction for the school and making decisions
provides a more genuine decision-making process. It creates a real partnership”. This
finding is consistent with research conducted by Honig and Rainey (2012). Their
research points out self-managing schools advocate community involvement as a
significant way in which accountability is strengthened and is a measure of its success.
Earlier research by Gamage (2006) also matches the finding in my study. His research
suggests self-managing schools establish a positive relationship that underpins local
decision-making, with stakeholders encouraged to be actively involved in the process.
In studies conducted by these researchers, the parent/caregiver and community
209
dimension on the School Board ensures a direct accountability link to the local area.
The findings in my study support the research about the important role played by
parents/caregivers and the community in strengthening accountability in self-managing
schools.
This section has examined the perspectives of Chairpersons in this study.
Chairpersons in this study have different views on all three initial aspects not raised by
Principals, Deputy Principals, teachers and Business Managers. They view the IPS
initiative as a way in which parents/caregivers and the community contribute to the
school through local decision-making. The Chairpersons in the study believe the IPS
initiative strengthens the relationship between the school and the community and
reinforces authentic and transparent accountability measures. The perspectives of
Chairpersons in this study support the findings of previous research, showing the
benefits of self-managing schools in a Western Australian context. The study has added
depth and detail into how the IPS initiative impacts on the Chairpersons’ experiences. In
this way, the study complements existing literature about self-managing schools.
Summary
This chapter has presented a discussion of the research findings, according to the
three substantive themes, exploring how the findings of this study relate to the existing
literature about self-managing schools. This process highlighted the relationship
between research and practice in the area of self-managing schools as a result of the
Independent Public Schools initiative. The stakeholders in this study articulated
perspectives about flexibility in the areas of human resource and financial management
and in the delivery of teaching-learning experiences. The study revealed stakeholders
had different interpretations about autonomy. Discrepancies emerged between the
perspectives of the Chairpersons and school staff reflecting the corporate world and the
210
bureaucratic public school system. The IPS initiative brought an increased level of
accountability in schools for stakeholders in the study. It also introduced new ways in
which schools were held accountable as a result of their IPS status.
The stakeholders in this study held views that supported the findings of previous
research relating to self-managing schools. The findings in this study reinforce and add
to the literature. Stakeholders reflect and develop their perspectives when they share
these views through the research process. The final chapter will present the conclusion
and implications for this study.
211
Chapter Seven
Conclusion and Implications
This chapter concludes the thesis with an overview of the research reported in
this thesis, a review of the main findings and implications for practice and further
research into the implementation of the Independent Public Schools initiative in
Western Australian public schools. The final part of the chapter identifies the limitations
to this study.
Overview of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the implementation of the Independent
Public Schools initiative in three metropolitan area secondary public schools in Western
Australia. Particular attention was given to the perspectives of stakeholders (Principals,
Deputy Principals, Business Managers, teachers and the Chairpersons of the School
Board) on the implementation of Independent Public Schools in the Western Australian
public system of education. Insight into the perspectives of these stakeholders was
considered pertinent for two main reasons: the increasing complexity and challenges
experienced by schools in a devolved school environment as evidenced in international
research as well as in local research and the lack of research into self-managing schools
as it relates to the Independent Public Schools initiative in a Western Australian context.
The study began with the central research question: What are the perspectives of
stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public School status in the first year
of operation in the respective schools in Western Australia?
Specifically:
212
1. What are stakeholders’ understandings of the purpose of the introduction of
Independent Public Schools?
2. What are the expectations of the stakeholders of a school in regard to
Independent Public Schools? What reasons do they give for these expectations?
3. What are the expected benefits of the Independent Public School initiative?
4. What are the expectations of purpose and benefits after the first year of
implementation?
Underpinning this research was symbolic interaction theory which influenced
the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. Guided by the symbolic
interaction premise that meaning is found in the interaction of individuals with their
world, the study sought to investigate the implementation of the Independent Public
Schools initiative by unpacking the perspectives of stakeholders (Principals, Deputy
Principals, Business Managers, teachers and the Chairpersons of the School Board) in
each of the three secondary public schools. The study was conducted during a 12-month
period. This enabled me to identify the perspectives of participants and determine how
these changed over time relating to their specific experiences. The outcomes of this
study add to the body of literature investigating the implementation of the Independent
Public Schools initiative in Western Australia.
The study was based on empirical data collected from 18 participants through
structured interviews. The structured interviews provided information regarding
personal experiences, perspectives and issues experienced by participants. The
structured interviews were included in the research method to provide a more
comprehensive view of how the implementation process affected participants.
The interviews for each participant were transcribed and analysed using a coding
system. The Miles and Huberman framework was employed to analyse the data. The
framework comprises three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display
213
and conclusion verification. The three elements are cyclical and interactive in process.
Following the two points of data collection in the study, the three stages of data
reduction, data display and conclusion verification were used.
This analytic process led to findings being presented as three themes: flexibility,
autonomy and accountability. Drawing on these three themes, data were then abstracted
and organised around the following: Perspectives of Principals, Perspectives of Deputy
Principals, Perspectives of Business Managers, Perspectives of Teachers and the
Perspectives of the Chairpersons of the School Board. This summarised the perspectives
of these stakeholders relating to the three themes: flexibility, autonomy and
accountability. These themes were discussed in relation to issues raised in the Literature
Review.
Summary of Findings
The first research question was: What are stakeholders’ understandings of the
purpose of the introduction of Independent Public Schools? All stakeholders from the
three secondary public schools agreed that the purpose of the IPS initiative was to
provide schools with increased autonomy. The increased autonomy related to greater
control over their decision-making and the allocation of resources to improve student
outcomes. By empowering school communities, all stakeholders in this study believed
that schools would be able to respond appropriately to the needs and aspirations of their
students. However, the Principals, Deputy Principals and the Business Managers added
depth to this understanding through their discussion of flexibility. The three stakeholder
groups agreed that the autonomy provided to schools was related more to the flexibility
in accessing the most suitable staff for their school and in the allocation of their
resources. Across the three schools, flexibility was not only about being able to choose
214
what resources to utilise; there was also the view that there was flexibility to change
strategies if the desired outcome did not occur.
The Chairpersons of the School Board understood the overarching governance
role of the School Board as it related to the IPS initiative. All three Chairpersons
believed that the role of the School Board is to work with the Principal to prepare the
Business Plan and monitor the school’s performance. However, it was reported by
Principals in the study that some Board members mistakenly believed that it was an
opportunity to be involved in operational matters. This confusion related to influencing
staff selection and having operational input into finance and budgeting. Some Board
members mistakenly believed that an IPS Board had the same role and responsibility as
a private school Board or a corporate Board. Depending on members’ governance
experience, Board roles were interpreted differently.
The second research question was: What are the expectations of the stakeholders
of a school in regard to Independent Public Schools? What reasons do they give for
these expectations? All stakeholders from the three secondary public schools had the
expectation that the IPS initiative would create an environment where the provision of
schooling promotes strong educational outcomes for all students. In their view, IPS
would ensure students attending their school would have access to a high standard of
learning and extend their involvement in education or training beyond the compulsory
years of education. In this way, these stakeholders believed the student is the key focus
of decision-making relating to resources, management and delivery.
The Principals, Deputy Principals and Business Managers in the study held high
expectations that the IPS initiative would deliver autonomy in human resources and
financial management. In the area of human resources management, the three
stakeholder groups held high expectations in determining their staffing profile, selecting
and appointing all staff, and being exempt from central placement processes including
215
accepting forced transfers from other non-IPS status schools. In the area of financial
management, the three stakeholder groups held high expectations that increased
autonomy would be achieved through a one line budget, greater power to award
contracts and dispose of assets and the potential to opt-out from whole of Department
bulk purchasing contracts.
The teachers in the study held high expectations that the IPS initiative would
deliver autonomy in curriculum. While these teachers accept curriculum remains the
responsibility of the School Curriculum and Standards Authority in Western Australia,
they believed the IPS initiative would provide them with increased flexibility in
interpreting the curriculum for their classroom. Teachers wanted to be able to choose
from different topics and areas of study that reflect their interests and resources. Hence,
the management and implementation of the curriculum, including the capacity to adopt
a range of curricular, presented significant opportunities through the IPS initiative.
The Chairpersons in the study held high expectations that the IPS initiative
would result in the significant involvement of the local school community in their
school. All three Chairpersons believed that involving the local community in authentic
decision-making will empower community members and provide them with a sense of
ownership of the school. Involving the local community through membership of the
School Board would ensure school planning reflected local needs and bring to the
decision-making process a diverse range of knowledge, skills and experiences to help
improve both the educational experiences and the results of students.
The third research question was: What are the expected benefits of the
Independent Public School initiative? All stakeholders from the three secondary public
schools noted increased autonomy relating to staffing was an important benefit derived
from the IPS initiative. Selecting staff appropriate to the needs of the school and
providing the power not to accept re-deployees because they did not reflect the
216
requirements of the school was viewed as a critical benefit of the IPS model. The
stakeholders also noted the IPS initiative would develop and implement a school-based
funding model which would place the control of financial resources at the individual
school level. This would give schools flexibility to target student needs, set priorities,
and vary the resource effort across different programs and interventions. In addition,
increased control of the budget at the school level would provide schools with the
capacity to effectively plan and deliver professional learning to support all staff and
ensure good practice in their school.
All stakeholders in the study believed increased autonomy would bring
increased accountability through the IPS initiative. Although schools have always been
required to demonstrate accountability, increased decision-making capacity at the local
level would require a stronger accountability framework. Such a framework would
ensure all staff would be held accountable for carrying out their responsibilities. New
instruments of accountability would be developed and implemented to strengthen the
governance framework in a school and ensure transparency. The School Board was
viewed as an important forum through which improved communication and engagement
with the local community would strengthen accountability. The diversity requirement in
the Board membership would ensure a broad representation of the community involved
in strategic decision-making and to which the school would be held accountable.
The final question was: What are the expectations of purpose and benefits after
the first year of implementation? All stakeholders from the three secondary public
schools noted the IPS initiative has had a positive impact on the school and the
community. Each school in the study made changes to support this initiative. This
process of adaptation in each of these schools is ongoing. Across these schools, there
have been changes in working conditions. Changed roles and increases to the
administrative and managerial responsibilities under autonomy have altered the
217
workload of Principals, Deputy Principals, Business Managers and teachers in the
study. However, these stakeholders also acknowledged that the burden of the increased
workload will be reduced as they become more experienced working within an IPS
context.
Principals, Deputy Principals and Business Managers in the study reported that
they felt empowered through the IPS initiative to meet the needs of their students and
engage the local community in setting the direction for their school. They were
motivated by the freedom to select staff and to manage a one line budget. The change in
each of their roles resulted in an increase in autonomy and accountability to lead their
staff in improving teaching-learning experiences, building staff capacity and ensuring
the facilities complemented the needs of their students.
The perspectives of the teachers in the study were varied. Some teachers
expressed the view that the IPS initiative had created an opportunity to increase
collaboration amongst their staff, have input into the selection of staff for their Learning
Area, and deliver professional learning to more appropriately meet the needs of staff
within Learning Areas and across the school. However, other teachers in the study
raised concerns about the increased workload and the increased authority delegated to
the Principal through the IPS initiative.
The Chairpersons in the study reported that there had been improvements in the
engagement of parents/caregivers and the community in the school. The three schools in
the study have always engaged with their parents/caregivers and the local community.
However, the IPS initiative focused on increasing their engagement by raising the
school profile amongst parents/caregivers and in the local community. Establishing
School Boards with a broad-based community membership has enabled communities to
engage in decision-making and school governance. Although there is no formal change
in authority under the School Education Act (1999) or the School Education Regulations
218
(2000), the School Board has increased the school’s accountability to the community.
The IPS initiative has provided School Boards with increased authority, strategic
planning capacity and community engagement.
Implications of the Study for Further Research
Further research to expand knowledge about the implementation and impact of
self-managing schools in Western Australian public schools would be invaluable. This
study presents numerous areas for further research relating to self-managing schools and
the IPS initiative in the Western Australian public education system.
Timeframe
The study was conducted during a 12-month period in the early stages of the
implementation of the initiative at the respective schools. During this period of time, the
perspectives of participants were identified and analysed to ascertain how these changed
over time relating to their specific experiences. Further research could examine the
implementation of the IPS initiative in Western Australia during a longer period of time.
Such a study would identify the impact that the IPS initiative has over time, involving a
longer time frame and a large amount of data. Researchers would be able to report more
about the cause and effect relationships and make connections about the impact on
student learning outcomes of the initiative in Western Australian public schools.
Comparing Different Cohorts of IPS and non-IPS
The study revealed the perspectives of participants in three metropolitan
secondary public schools in Western Australia about the implementation of the IPS
initiative. Further research would be worthwhile comparing different cohorts of IPS and
non-IPS to discover whether findings in this study were applicable in wider settings. In
219
order to determine whether the perspectives of the stakeholders in this study are unique
or similar to other IPS, the understandings and experiences of self-managing schools
held by other stakeholders implementing the initiative would need to be investigated.
Such research would provide information relating to changes in performance between
the different cohorts, improvement in student outcomes, efficiencies being achieved,
and effectiveness in meeting accountability requirements and compliance. Findings
from this further research would provide ‘grass-roots’ information that could be used to
refine and further develop system-wide support structures and professional learning to
ensure successful implementation of the IPS initiative.
Student Achievement
Further research is required to assess student achievement as a result of the
implementation of the IPS initiative in Western Australian public schools. This would
require a different set of data to be collected and analysed (Honig & Rainey, 2012) from
that collected in my study. In particular, further research could examine how the
autonomy delivered to schools by the IPS initiative can be used to support and improve
the teaching-learning experience in the classroom and assess the effect on student
outcomes. Improved student outcomes as a result of the implementation of the IPS
initiative would take a longer time frame in which to achieve. Such improvements
would emerge from more innovative teaching-learning practices and the creation of
flexible and positive learning environments generated by increased autonomy in staff
selection.
220
Implications of the Study for Policy and Practice
In the previous section consideration was given to the implications of the
research findings reported on in this study for further research. This section deals with
the theoretical insights created from this study that have the potential to improve policy
and practice in schools.
Professional Learning for Principals
The initial professional learning provided to Principals about the IPS initiative
needs to be applied in the school setting. Principals in the study translated the
professional learning they received by the Department of Education to the school in
order to develop a culture reflecting a self-managing school. Principals have a
responsibility to assist their staff in achieving an understanding about the IPS initiative
and the benefits that can be translated to their school environment.
Professional Learning for School Executive and Senior
Management Teams
Rather than focusing mainly on building Principal capacity to prepare them for
the implementation of the IPS initiative, this study suggests that relevant professional
learning needed to be delivered to the entire School Executive and the Senior
Management teams. These teams would then develop the knowledge, understandings
and skills required to effectively implement the IPS initiative and sustain a self-
managing school environment. Wallace and Hall (1994) argue for the delivery of
professional learning to whole teams rather than focusing on individual managers or
leaders in schools. For schools to be able to release their School Executive and Senior
Management teams so they can participate in professional learning, funding for relief
would need to be made available at a system level. This professional learning
221
experience would need to be sustained over a longer period of time rather than a one-off
event.
Continuous Professional Learning
Given the importance of the School Executive team in the IPS initiative, relevant
and practical professional learning needs to be provided each year. This will assist
school leaders to be continuously engaged with the idea and its evolving practical
application in their school (Wallace & Hall, 1994). This professional learning broadens
the knowledge base of the Executive team and contributes to the use of innovative
strategies to enhance student learning and achievement. In this way, the Executive
team’s role in the implementation of the IPS initiative communicates a clear vision,
encourages innovation, and ensures a consistent understanding about increased
autonomy and its responsibilities.
Changes in leadership personnel in self-managing schools supports the need for
continuous professional learning. This is a key investment strategy in human resource
management to ensure staff are able to effectively transition to their new leadership role
in the school and further understand the context of the school. Supporting new staff
through a planned program of professional learning contributes to effectiveness in their
role. The growing evidence base about sustained change management in schools forms
a compelling case for the provision of continuous professional learning to support
changes in leadership personnel (Caldwell, 2016b).
Professional Learning for Staff
In order for the IPS initiative to be effectively implemented at the school level,
Principals require the support of their staff. The support of staff suggests that they
require a clear understanding about the initiative and the benefits for students, staff and
222
the community. Delivering professional learning relating to self-managing schools to
staff facilitates their engagement with the idea, assists in the translation of the initiative
into the classroom, and subsequently increases the implementation of the initiative
(Caldwell, 2016b). The teachers in the study indicated the IPS initiative did not have an
impact on them as was to be expected. As a result, the teachers in the study viewed the
IPS initiative as an administrative structure rather than having an impact in the
classroom and student performance.
Strategic Approach to Professional Learning
There was a lack of a strategic approach embraced by the three public secondary
schools in the study to develop the knowledge, understandings and skills required of a
School Board. As a consequence, the approach is a rather unplanned process that
includes a ‘learn as you go’ experience. Effective School Boards require a well thought
out professional learning program relating to governance (Gray, Campbell-Evans and
Leggett, 2013) rather than sessions dedicated to specific information or topics. To
ensure a common standard in the delivery of professional learning in this area, the
Department of Education would need to examine and negotiate new training models
focused on effective governance. These new training models could be developed in
collaboration with the State’s tertiary institutions and industry specialists, including: the
Australian Institute of Management, the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and
the Governance Institute of Australia.
Use of an External Consultant
Engaging an external consultant to work with the School Executive, the Senior
Management team, and the School Board is an effective long term professional learning
strategy. External consultants add value to the work done in self-managing schools by
223
providing them with unique expertise not available within the school (Caldwell, 2016b;
Dillon, 2011). The consultant could provide opportunities for extensive interaction
among members of the above groups on their role, purpose and responsibilities in a self-
managing school context. They could present objective feedback on the performance of
individuals and of the team rather than being dependent on subjective perceptions held
by individual members in these groups about their practice. The consultant can further
support the school through data gathering and analysis for strategic reviews of school
performance, the administration of action research by team members and the
development of a culture that sustains a focus on continuous school improvement
through self-review about performance in the context of a self-managing school.
Independent in Name Only
The phrase Independent Public Schools is a misnomer (Buckingham, 2013). In
the Western Australian context, the phrase refers to a public school that is part of the
public education system that has been provided with increased decision-making
capacity compared to a non-IPS. Being part of the broader public education system
requires a school that is an IPS to comply with relevant legislation, including the School
Education Act 1999, the School Education Regulations 2000, the Public Sector
Management Act 1994, and other Government and Department policies and external
agreements. In addition, an IPS is required to comply with the existing industrial policy
of the Department of Education which affects staff salaries, wages and conditions. The
regulatory constraint imposed on all schools in the public education system results in
the use of the term ‘independent’ being misleading in the wider community.
224
Limitations of the Study
The summary of findings and the implications outlined in this Chapter, should
be considered in light of the three limitations that underpin the study.
Limited Number of Participants and School Types
While the findings and recommendations of this study are informative, there are
limitations of this research. The study focused on three metropolitan public secondary
schools and used a limited number of participants (18). In addition, the participating
schools were a limited school type. There were no rural, remote or primary schools
involved in the study. While the size and socio-economic indicator for each school was
different, the number of schools and its metropolitan area setting limit the application of
findings to wider settings. Notwithstanding these limitations, the data collected in this
study provides an insight into the implementation of the IPS initiative and stakeholder
perspectives relating to the implementation process.
Timeframe
The research is not a longitudinal study. It was conducted during a 12-month
period. A longitudinal study would enable trends to be studied over a longer period of
time and thus allow changes to be evident. An advantage of the time frame used in this
study, however, enables the participant to reflect on the journey of implementation from
the vantage point of only one year. At the end of the 12-month time frame, the
participant has another opportunity to reflect on the implementation of the initiative and
identify changes in their perspectives and the reasons that underpin the changes.
225
Snapshot in Time
The policy context in which the IPS initiative is found is changing constantly.
The study is a snapshot in time at a particular stage in the implementation of the IPS
initiative. It does not purport to be a study of the implementation of the initiative
because it is still ongoing. The study examines the initiative at two points in time. The
research is early in the roll out of the IPS initiative and provides a glimpse at that period
of time.
Although recognising the danger of applying findings from this study to a wider
system level, it is worth noting that the study can provide an understanding of how the
IPS initiative is being implemented in Western Australia. Despite the limitations stated
above, this study makes an important contribution to knowledge concerning the
implementation of the IPS initiative in Western Australia. First, it identifies a range of
issues worthy of research in wider settings. Secondly, it presents rich data and analysis
concerning three sites that a reader can interpret and make judgements on whether
findings at the three sites are relevant to other settings with which the reader is familiar.
Summary
This chapter presented an overview of the research reported in this thesis. The
emphasis on perspectives reflects the interpretivist nature of this study as it relates to
how Principals, Deputy Principals, Business Managers, teachers and Chairpersons of
the School Board interpret and implement the policy in their respective schools. Data
from interviews were analysed to describe the findings.
The research findings in this study show that stakeholders (Principals, Deputy
Principals, Business Managers, teachers, and Chairpersons of the School Board) viewed
the IPS initiative as having a positive impact on schools and their local community. In
addition, the stakeholders believed the IPS initiative provided access to more
226
opportunities and resources that would lead to improved long term sustainable outcomes
for the whole community. Although the Principals, Deputy Principals and Business
Managers felt empowered, the teachers viewed the IPS initiative as an administrative
structure that had very little impact in the classroom and on improving student outcomes
in the short to medium term. There were concerns raised about the increased workload,
the increased authority of the Principal, issues relating to attracting quality staff, and
misplaced understanding about the role of the Board by some parents/caregivers and
community members. However, no stakeholder expressed a desire to return to a non-
IPS model.
The IPS initiative embodies the principles of a devolved public education system
initially espoused by the Burke Labor Government in the Better Schools Report in 1987.
Like the Better Schools Report, the IPS initiative embodies the notion that local
communities are best placed to make decisions in the best interests of their students. To
this end, local communities have the opportunity to be empowered to have a greater
input into the decision-making process as a way to deliver improved long term
sustainable outcomes. Allowing schools to manage their finances through a one line
budget, allocating resources as required and selecting staff to reflect their school profile
with community input and strong governance arrangements are important elements in
meeting the needs of all stakeholders in the local community. However, in the context
of Western Australia, this devolved level of decision-making would be supported by
systemic direction and a strong accountability framework to increase the likelihood that
the IPS model achieves meaningful outcomes for all stakeholders.
227
References
Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., Dynarski, S., Kane, T. and Pathak, P. (2011).
Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston's charters
and pilots. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, pp. 699-748.
Academies Act 2010, United Kingdom.
Academies Commission. (2013). Unleashing greatness: Getting the best from an
academised system. London, United Kingdom: The Stationery Office.
Adamowski, S., Therriault, S. B. and Cavanna, A. P. (2007). The autonomy gap:
Barriers to effective school leadership. Washington DC: Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation and Institute.
Aitken, G. and Orr, R. (2002). The Australian constitution. Canberra, Australia:
Australian Government Solicitor.
Allen, R. (2010). Replicating Swedish ‘free school’ reforms in England. Research in
Public Policy, Summer, pp. 4–7.
Angrist, J., Pathak, P. and Walters, C. (2013). Explaining charter school effectiveness.
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5, pp. 1-27.
Angus, L. (1992). Quality schooling. Conservative educational policy and educational
change in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 7(4), pp. 379-397.
Angus, M. (1995). Devolution of school governance in an Australian state school
system: Third time lucky? in D. Carter and M. O’Neill (Eds.). Case studies in
educational change: An international perspective. London, United Kingdom:
The Falmer Press, pp. 6-27.
Apelt, L. and Lingard, B. (1993). Public schooling reform in Australia: In whose
interests? Journal of Educational Administration, 31(3), pp. 59-71.
Austin, G. R. (1979). Exemplary schools and the search for effectiveness. Educational
leadership, 37(1), pp. 10-15.
Australian Broadcasting Commission. (2009, September 8). 100 WA schools want to go
independent. ABC News. Retrieved on 20 September 2009 from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/12/2680201.htm
Bandur, A. (2011). Challenges in globalising public education reform. Global Journal
of Human Social Sciences, 11(3), pp. 9-14.
Barcan, A. (2001). The reform of state education in Australia, in B. C. Nolan (Ed.).
Public sector reform: An international perspective. New York, New York:
Palgrave Publishers Ltd, pp. 85-101.
228
Barnett, C. J. (1997). Review of the Education Act 1928: Proposal for new legislation.
Perth, Australia: Department of Education Services.
Barnett, C. J. and Constable, E. (2009). New era for public education in Western
Australia. Media Statement. Perth, Australia: Government of Western Australia,
12 August 2009.
Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasich, T. and Patrinos, H. A. (2009). Decentralized decision-
making in schools: The theory and evidence on school-based management.
Washington DC: World Bank.
Barrington, J. (1990). Historical factors for change in education, in P. McLinley (Ed.).
Redistribution of power? Devolution in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand:
Victoria University Press for Institute of Policy Studies, pp. 191-213.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, New
York: Free Press.
Beazley, K. (1984). Education in Western Australia. Report of the Committee of
Inquiry. Perth, Australia: Western Australian Government Printer.
Beckett, F. (2007). The great city academy fraud. London, United Kingdom:
Continuum.
Beder, S. (2009). This little kiddy went to market: the corporate capture of childhood.
Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
Bell, L. (1991). Educational management: An agenda for the 1990s. Educational
Management and Administration, 19(3), pp. 136-40.
Bell, L., Bolman, R. and Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of school
head teachers and principals on student outcomes. London, United Kingdom:
EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Benton, R. (1987). How fair is New Zealand education? Part 11. Fairness in Māori
education. A review of research and information. Submission to The Royal
Commission on Social Policy. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council
for Educational Research.
Berends, M., Penaloza, R. V., Cannata, M. and Goldring, E. (2009). Instructional
innovation, school choice and student achievement. Society for Research on
Educational Effectiveness.
Better Schools Report. (1987). Better Schools in Western Australia: a program for
improvement, presented by the Hon. Robert J. Pearce, MLA, Minister for
Education. Perth, Australia: Western Australian Government Printer.
Betts, J. R. and Tang, Y. E. (2011). The effect of charter schools on student
achievement: A meta-analysis of the literature. Seattle, Washington: Centre on
Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
229
Blackmore, J. (2004). Restructuring educational leadership in changing contexts: A
local/global account of restructuring in Australia. Journal of Educational
Change, 5(3), pp. 267-288.
Blackmore, J., Bigum, C., Hodgens, J. and Laskey, L. (1996). Managed change and
self-management in schools of the future. Leading and Managing, 2(3), pp. 195-
220.
Blasé, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers’
perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), pp. 142-163.
Blasé, J. and Blasé, J. R. (1994). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do.
Newbury Park, California: Corwin.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press.
Bogdan, R. C. and Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods. Boston, Massachuessettes: Pearson.
Bolin, F. S. (1989). Empowering leadership. Teachers College Record, 91, pp. 81-96.
Boston, J., Haig, B. and Lauder, H. (1988). The third wave: A critique of the New
Zealand Treasury’s report on education, Part 11. New Zealand Journal of
Educational Studies, 23(2), pp. 115-144.
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J. and Walsh, P. (1996). Public management: the New
Zealand model. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
Bradbury, K. (2009, August 12). Govt heralds ‘new era’ for public education. ABC
News. Retrieved on 21 August 2009 from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/12/265352.htm
Branch, G., Hanushek, E. and Rivkin, S. (2013). School leaders matter: Measuring the
impact of effective teachers. Education Next, Winter, pp. 63-69.
Bredeson, P. V. (1989). Empowered teachers-empowered principals: Principals'
perceptions of leadership in schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the University Council for Educational Administration. Scottsdale, Arizona.
Broido, E. M. and Manning, K. (2002). Philosophical foundations and current
theoretical perspectives in qualitative research. Journal of College Student
Development, 43(4), pp. 434-445.
Bromley, M. J. and Ripley, S. (2014). OFSTED: Thriving not surviving. London,
United Kingdom: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
Buckingham, J. (2013). WA schools are independent in name only. The Centre for
Independent Studies. Retrieved on 23 March 2014 from
http://www.cis.org.au/publications/policy-forum/article/1012-wa-schools-are-
independent-in-name-only
230
Burke, B. T. (1986). Managing change in the public sector, a statement of the
Government’s position. A Parliamentary White Paper presented by the Hon.
Brian T. Burke, MLA, Premier of Western Australia. Perth: Australia: Western
Australian Government Printer.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, New York: Harper & Row.
Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership. Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership, 36(2), pp. 271-288.
Bush, T. (2011). Theories of educational leadership and management (4th Edition).
London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.
Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2005). Leadership development for early headship: The new
visions experience. School Leadership and Management, 25(3), pp. 217-239.
Caldwell, B. J. (1990). School-based decision-making and management: International
developments, in D. J. Chapman (Ed.). School-based decision-making and
management. London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press, pp. 3-28.
Caldwell, B. J. (1992). The principal as leader of the self-managing school in Australia.
Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), pp. 6-19.
Caldwell, B. J. (2003). A theory of learning in the self-managing school, in A. Volansky
and I. A. Friedman (Eds.). School-based management: An international
perspective. Tel Aviv, Israel: Ministry of Education.
Caldwell, B. J. (2005). School-based management. Paris, France: United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Caldwell, B. J. (2006). Re-imagining educational leadership. London, United Kingdom:
Sage Publications.
Caldwell, B. J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the self-managing school. Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, 36(2), pp. 235-252.
Caldwell, B. J. (2009). Centralisation and decentralisation in education: A new
dimension on policy, in J. Zajda and D. T. Gamage (Eds.). Decentralisation,
school-based management, and quality. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Caldwell, B. J. (2012). Review of related literature for the evaluation of empowering
local schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations.
Caldwell, B. J. (2013). Assessing goodness of fit to Victoria of approaches to school
governance in national and international jurisdictions. Report commissioned by
the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD)
(Victoria) to inform a review of school governance. Melbourne, Australia:
Educational Transformations.
Caldwell, B. J. (2016a). Professional autonomy, school innovation and student
achievement in the 21st century. Australian Educational Leader, 38(4), pp. 9-13.
231
Caldwell, B. J. (2016b). The autonomy premium. Camberwell, Australia: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Caldwell, B. J., Joseph, D. and Fox, R. (2015). What is the role of government in
education? ACEL Perspectives, 1, February.
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (1988). The self-managing school. London, United
Kingdom: The Falmer Press.
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school. London,
United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (1998). Beyond the self-managing school. London,
United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (2008). Raising the stakes: From improvement for
transformation in the reform of schools. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (2013). The self-transforming school. London, United
Kingdom: Routledge.
Carmichael, L. (1992). The Australian vocational certificate training system
(Carmichael Report). Canberra, Australia: National Board of Employment,
Education and Training.
Cassen, R., McNally, S. and Vignoles, A. (2014). Making a difference in education.
London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Chapman, J. D. (1990). School-based decision-making and management: Implications
for school personnel, in J. D. Chapman (Ed.). School-based decision-making and
management. London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press, pp. 221-244.
Charmaz, K. (2009). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.
Charon, J. (1998). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an
integration (6th Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Cheung, F. W. M. and Cheng, Y. C. (2002). An outlier study of multilevel self-
management and school performance. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 13(3), pp. 253-290.
Childs-Bowen, D., Moller, G. and Scivner, J. (2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders.
NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), pp. 27-34.
Clark, D. (2009). The performance and competitive effects of school autonomy. Journal
of Political Economy, 117, pp. 745-783.
Clarke, S. (2017). Stepping or leaping? Some reflections on developments in the
governance of Western Australian government schools. Leading & Managing,
23(1), pp. 54-64.
232
Cochran-Smith, M. and Fries, K. (2011). Teacher education for diversity: Policy and
politics, in A. Ball and C. Tyson (Eds.). Studying diversity in teacher education.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, pp. 337-359.
Coffey, A. M. (1998). A comparative study of controversy in the education systems of
Western Australia, Victoria and New Zealand: community participation in
government schools 1985-1993. Retrieved 28 June 2016 from
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1001
Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington DC: United
States Office of Education.
Collier, P. C. (2016). 73 more independent public schools for 2017. Media Statement.
Perth, Australia: Government of Western Australia, 15 September 2016.
Colton, C. (1987). Leisure, recreation, tourism: A symbolic interaction view. Annals of
Tourism Research, 14, pp. 345-360.
Copland, M. (2001). The myth of the super principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), pp. 528-
533.
Council of the Australian Federation. (2007). The future of schooling in Australia.
Retrieved from apo.org.au/node/3139
Court, M. and O’Neill, J. (2011). Tomorrow’s schools in New Zealand: From social
democracy to market managerialism. Journal of Educational Administration and
History, 43(2), pp. 119-140.
Cranston, N., Kimber, M., Mulford, B., Reid, A. and Keating, J. (2010). Politics and
school education in Australia: a case of shifting purposes. Journal of
Educational Administration, 48(2), pp. 182-195.
Creemers, B. P. M. and Reezigt, G. J. (1996). School level conditions affecting the
effectiveness of instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(3),
pp. 197-228.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd Edition). Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Cross, B. E. and Reitzug, U. C. (1996). How to build ownership in city schools.
Educational Leadership, 53(4), pp. 16-19.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London, United Kingdom: Sage
Publications.
Crowther, F., Kaagen, S., Ferguson, M. and Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher
leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks,
California: Corwin Press.
233
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into prince: Effective schools research, policy
and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 24(2), pp. 129-
151.
Cullingford, C. (1999). An inspector calls: OFSTED and its effect on school standards.
London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page.
Cummings, R. and Stephenson, K. (2001). Evaluation study of the local management of
schools pilot study. Perth, Australia: Department of Education.
Cuttance, P., Harman, G., Reynolds, J., Macpherson, S., Pritchard, A. and Smart, D.
(1998). The politics of accountability in Australian education. Educational
Policy, 12(1), pp. 138-161.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Goodwin, A.L. (1993). Progress toward professionalism in
teaching, in G. Cawalti (Ed.). Challenges and achievements of American
education (1993 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Year
Book). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, pp. 19-52.
David, J. (1989). Synthesis of research on self-managing schools. Educational
Leadership, 46(8), pp. 45-43.
Davis, P. (2008). School management concerning collaboration with social resources in
the community: Its approaches and problems. Primary and Middle Years
Educator, 6(2). pp. 7-9.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M. and Meyerson, D. (2005). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, California:
Educational Leadership Institute.
Dawkins, J. S. (1988). Strengthening Australia’s schools: A consideration of the focus
and content of schooling. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Day, C. and Harris, A. (2002). Teacher leadership, reflective practice and school
improvement, in K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.). Second international
handbook of educational leadership and administration Part 2. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publications, pp. 957-977.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., Brown, E.,
Ahtaridou, E. and Kington, A. (2009). The impact of school leadership on pupil
outcomes: Final report. London, United Kingdom: Department for Children,
Schools and Families Research.
Dearing, R. (1993). The national curriculum and its assessment. London, United
Kingdom: National Curriculum Council.
Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The lighthouse inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement, in T. Alsbury (Ed.). The
future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Education, pp. 191-223.
234
Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: The politics of
interpretation. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Department for Education UK. (2017). Open academies, free schools and projects
awaiting approval as of 1 September 2017. London, United Kingdom: The
Stationery Office.
Department of Education. (1998). Assessing the impact: The final report of the co-
operative research project: Leading Victoria’s schools of the future. Melbourne,
Australia: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2011). Unlock your school’s future: Becoming an
Independent Public School in 2012 – Information for schools and communities.
East Perth, Australia: Department of Education.
Department of Education UK. (1992). White paper. Choice and diversity: A new
framework for schools. London, United Kingdom: Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
Department of Education UK. (2012). Academies annual report academic year: 2011-
2012. London, United Kingdom: The Stationery Office.
Department of Education UK. (2016). Academies annual report academic year: 2014-
2015. London, United Kingdom: The Stationery Office.
Department of Education USA. (2011). The condition of education 2011. National
Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC. Retrieved on 2 August 2015
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011033
Department of Education and Communities. (2012). Final report of the evaluation of
the self-managing schools Pilot. Sydney, Australia: Student Administration and
Program Evaluation Bureau, Department of Education and Communities.
Department of Education and Employment UK. (1995). The English education system:
An overview of structure and policy. London, United Kingdom: Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office.
Department of Education and Employment UK. (1997). White paper. Excellence in
schools. Cmnd 3681. London, United Kingdom: Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2011). Empowering
local schools. Retrieved on 16 August 2015 from
http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/Pages/EmpoweringLocalSchools.aspx
Department of Education Services. (1997). Review of the Education Act 1928: Proposal
for new legislation. Perth, Australia: Department of Education Services.
235
De Grauwe, A. (2005). Improving the quality of education through school-based
management: Learning from international experiences. International Review of
Education. 51(4), pp. 269-287.
Dillon, E. (2011). The road to autonomy: Can schools, districts and central offices find
their way? Washington DC: Education Sector Reports: Education Sector.
Dimmock, C. (1995). School leadership: Securing quality teaching and learning, in C.
Evers and J. Chapman (Eds.). Educational administration: An Australian
perspective. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen and Unwin, pp. 274-295.
Dimmock, C. and Wildy, H. (1992). School-based management and its linkage with the
curriculum in an effective secondary school. Washington D.C.: Distributed by
ERIC Clearinghouse. Retrieved on 15 October 2016 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED343225
Dobbie, W. and Fryer, R. (2013). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools:
Evidence from New York city. American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 5, pp. 58–75.
Dodek, A. (2013). The Canadian constitution. Toronto, Canada: Dundurn.
Down, B. (1997). Challenging the myths: An alternative history of state secondary
schooling in Western Australia. Bunbury, Australia: Edith Cowan
University.
Dressler, B. (2001). Charter school leadership. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), pp.
170-185.
Eacott, S. (2011). Liberating schools through devolution: The trojan horse of the state.
Leading & Managing, 17(1), pp. 75-83.
Earley, P. and Creese, M. (2003). Governors and school improvement. National school
improvement network research matter No. 20. London, United Kingdom:
Institute of Education, University of London.
Education Act 1989, New Zealand.
Education Act 1944, United Kingdom.
Education Act 1980, United Kingdom.
Education Act 1993, United Kingdom.
Education Act 1928, Western Australia.
Education and Adoption Act 2016, United Kingdom.
Education Department of Western Australia. (1997). Plan for government school
education 1998-2000. East Perth: Australia, Education Department of Western
Australia.
236
Education Department of Western Australia. (1999). Local management of schools
information package. East Perth, Australia: Education Department of Western
Australia.
Education Reform Act 1988, United Kingdom.
Education (Schools) Act 1992, United Kingdom.
Education and Science Select Committee. (1986). Report of the inquiry into the quality
of teaching. Second Session. Forty-first Parliament. Wellington, New Zealand:
Government Printer.
Eisenhart, M. A. and Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research, in M. D.
LeCompte, W. L. Millroy and J. Preissle (Eds.). The handbook of qualitative
research in education. San Diego, California: Academic Press, pp. 643-680.
Exley, S. and Ball, S. (2011). Something old, something new: Understanding
conservative education policy, in H. Bochel (Ed.). The conservative party and
social policy. Bristol, United Kingdom: Policy Press, pp. 97-119.
Eyles, A., Hupkau, C. and Machin, S. (2015). Academies, charter and free schools: Do
new school types deliver better outcomes. 62nd Panel Meeting, Hosted by the
Banque Centrale du Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 16-17 October 2015.
Eyles, A. and Machin, S. (2015). The introduction of academy schools to England’s
education. Discussion Paper 9276. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of
Labor.
Farazmand, A. and Pinkowski, J. (2007). Handbook of globalization, governance, and
public administration. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Fargher, R. and Probine, M. (1987). The report of a ministerial working party. The
management, funding and organisation of continuing education and training
(the Fargher-Probine Report). Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer.
Ferli, E., Pettigrew, A., Ashburner, L. and Fitzgerald, L. (1996). The new public
management in action. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Financial Administration and Audit Act 1986, Western Australia.
Financial Administration and Audit Act Regulations 1986, Western Australia.
Finn, B. (1991). Young people’s participation in post-compulsory education and
training: report of the Australian Education Council Review Committee (Finn
Review). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Fiske, E. B. and Ladd, H. F. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale.
Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Fitzgerald, T. (2009). The tyranny of bureaucracy: continuing challenges of leading and
managing from the middle. Educational Management, Administration and
Leadership, 37(1), pp. 51-65.
237
Forster, K. (1996). Outcome-based education: Lessons from the United States. Unicorn,
22(2), pp. 88-100.
Frost, D. and Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher leadership: rationale, strategy and impact.
School Leadership and Management, 23(2), pp. 173-186.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, New York:
Teachers’ College Press.
Gamage, D. T. (1996). School-based management: Theory, research and practice.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: Karunaratne and Sons Ltd.
Gamage, D. T. (2006). Professional development for leaders and managers of self-
governing schools. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Gamage, D. T. (2008). Three decades of implementation of school-based management
in the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria in Australia. International
Journal of Educational Management, 22(7), pp. 664-675.
Gamage, D. T. and Zajda, J. (2005). Decentralization and school-based management: A
comparative study of self-governing school models. Education Practice and
Theory, 27(2), pp. 35-58.
Garms, W. I., Guthrie, J. W. and Pierce, L. C. (1978). School finance: The economics
and politics of public education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Inc.
Gedajlovic, E., Lubatkin, M. H. and Schulze, W. S. (2004). Crossing the threshold from
founder management to professional management: A governance perspective.
Journal of Management Studies, 41(5), pp. 899-912.
Gilchrist, D. J. and Knight, P. (2015). Research into developing highly effective school
boards for Independent Public Schools. A report for the Department of
Education. Perth, Australia: Curtin Not-for-profit Initiative.
Ginsburg, M. (2011). Understanding educational reform in global context: Economy,
ideology, and the state. New York, New York: Routledge.
Glesne, C. and Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.
White Plains, New York, New York: Longman.
Gobby, B. (2013). Enacting the Independent Public Schools program in Western
Australia. Issues in Educational Research, 23(1), pp. 19-34.
Goddard, D. and Punch, K. F. (1996). Ideological conflict in education: Western
Australia, 1983-1989. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(4), pp. 60-72.
Goodman, R. H., Fulbright, L., and Zimmerman, W. G. (1997). Getting there from here.
School board-superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team
capable of raising student achievement. Arlington, Virginia: Educational
Research Service and New England School Development Council.
238
Gorard, S. (2009). What are academies the answer to?. Journal of Education Policy,
24(1), pp. 101-113.
Grace, G. (1994) Education is a public good: On the need to resist the domination of
economic science, in D. Bridges and T. McLaughlin (Eds.). Education and the
Market Place. London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.
Grace, G. (1995). School leadership: Beyond education management: An essay in
policy scholarship. London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.
Gray, J., Campbell-Evans, G. and Leggett, B. (2013). Independent Public Schools:
Boards in transition. Leading and Managing, 19(1), pp. 72-88.
Gregory, R. (2003). All the king’s horses and all the king’s men: Putting New Zealand’s
public sector back together again. International Public Management Review,
4(2), pp. 41-58.
Gronn, P. (2002a). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly,
13(4), pp. 423-451.
Gronn, P. (2002b). Distributed leadership, in K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.).
Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration
Part 2. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 653-696.
Gronn, P. (2004). Distribution of leadership, in G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorenson and J.
MacGregor Burns (Eds.). Encyclopaedia of leadership vol. 1. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, pp. 351-355.
Gronn, P. and Hamilton, A. (2004). A bit more life in leadership; Co-principalship as
distributed leadership practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), pp. 3-35.
Gross, B. (2011). Inside charter schools. National Charter School Research Project.
Seattle, Washington: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of
Washington. Retrieved on 15 July 2015 from
http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/csr_pubs/381
Groundwater-Smith, S. and Mockler, N. (2009). Teacher professional learning in an
age of compliance: Mind the gap. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog, in E. G. Guba (Ed.). The paradigm
dialog. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, pp. 17-27.
Guskey, T. (2007). Leadership in the age of accountability. Educational Horizons, 86,
pp. 29-34.
Halden, J. (1991). School renewal. East Perth, Australia: Ministry of Education.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), pp. 229-351.
239
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy
that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, pp. 221-239.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research 1980 – 1985. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), pp. 5-44.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. H. (1999). Can leadership enhance school effectiveness? in
T. Bush, R. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter and R. Ribbens (Eds.). Educational
management: redefining theory, policy and practice. London, United Kingdom:
Paul Chapman, pp. 178-190.
Hanushek, E. (1996). Measuring investment in education. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 10(4), pp. 9-30.
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement – leading or
misleading? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32(1),
pp. 11-24.
Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: conceptual confusion and empirical reticence.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), pp. 1–11.
Hayward, C. (1994). Devolution: Western Australia in Focus, in M. McCollow, J.
McFarlane, G. McMurdo and R. Hull (Eds.). Devolution, decentralisation and
recentralisation: The structure of Australian schooling. Melbourne, Australia:
Australian Education Union, pp. 32-34.
Heck, R. and Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and
management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management
Administration and Leadership, 33(2), pp. 147-166.
Herbst, J. (2006). School choice and school governance: A historical study of the
United States and Germany. New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hill, D., Smith, B. and Spinks, J. (1990). Local management of schools. London, United
Kingdom: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Hill, P. T. (2013). Picturing a different governance structure for public education, in P.
Manna and P. McGuinn (Eds.). Education governance for the twenty-first
century: Overcoming the structural barriers to school reform. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Hoffman, N. (1994). Devolution of decision-making authority in the government school
system of Western Australia. Perth, Australia: Education Policy Bureau.
Honig, M. and Rainey, L. (2012). Autonomy and school improvement: What do we
know and where do we go from here? Educational Policy, 26(3), pp. 465-495.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1),
pp. 3-19.
240
Hoxby, C. M., Murarka, S. and Kang, J. (2009). How New York city's charter schools
affect achievement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: New York City Charter Schools
Evaluation Project.
Huber, S. (2004). Preparing school leaders for the 21st Century: An international
comparison of development programs in 15 countries. London, United
Kingdom: Routledge-Falmer, Taylor and Francis Group.
Hudson, M. (2009). Managing without profit (3rd Edition). Sydney, Australia:
University of New South Wales Press.
Hutchings, M., Francis, B. and De Vries, R. (2014). Chain effects: The impact of
academy chains on low impact children. London, United Kingdom: The Sutton
Trust.
Independent Schools Council of Australia. (2008). Governance in Australian
independent schools. ISCA Research Report. Canberra, Australia: Independent
Schools Council of Australia.
Jacobs, G. G. (2016). IPS report card: The report of the inquiry into the Independent
Public Schools initiative. Education and Health Standing Committee. Perth,
Australia: Parliament of Western Australia.
Jensen, B. (2013). The myth of markets in school education. Melbourne, Australia:
Grattan Institute.
Johnson, M. J. and Pajares, F. (1996). When shared, decision making works: A 3-year
longitudinal study. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), pp. 599-627.
Jones, K. (2003). Education in Britain: 1944 to the present. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Polity Press.
Kaleidoscope Consulting. (2004). Alberta school council effectiveness: Summary and
findings of the provincial consultation. Edmonton, Canada: Department of
Education.
Kärkkäinen, K. (2012). Brining about curriculum innovations: Implicit approaches in
the OECD area. OECD Working Paper No. 82. Paris, France: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development.
Karmel, P. (1973). Schools in Australia (The Karmel Report). Canberra, Australia:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
Katzenmeyer, M. and Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping
teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Keddie, A. (2014). School autonomy, accountability and collaboration: a critical review.
Journal of Education Administration and History, 47(1), pp. 1-17.
Kettl, D. F. (2005). The global public management revolution. Washington DC: The
Brookings Institution.
241
Knight, J. and Warry, M. (1996). From corporate to supply-side federalism? Narrowing
the Australian education policy agenda, 1987-1996. AAER/ERA Conference,
Singapore.
Kolderie, T. (2005). Ray Budde and the origins of the ‘charter concept’. Education
Evolving. Retrieved on 20 May 2015 from
http://www.educationevolving.org/pdf/Ray_Budde.pdf
Kowalczyk, P. and Jakubczak, J. (2014). New public management in education – From
school governance to school management. Paper presented at the Management,
Knowledge and Learning International Conference 25-27 June 2014 Portorož,
Slovenia.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.
Lambert, L. (2002). Beyond instructional leadership: A framework for shared
leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), pp. 37-40.
Langley, J. (2009). Tomorrow’s schools 20 years on… Auckland, New Zealand:
Cognition Institute.
Larbi, G. A. (1999). The new public management approach and crisis states. United
Nations Research Institute for Social Development Discussion Paper 112.
Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development.
Learning and Skills Act 2000, United Kingdom.
Lee, W. (1991). Empowering music teachers: A catalyst for change. Music Educators
Journal, 78(1), pp. 36–39.
Leggett, B., Campbell-Evans, G. and Gray, J. (2016). Issues and challenges of school
governance. Leading and Managing, 22(1), pp. 36-56.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(2), pp. 112–129.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership
research 1996 to 2005. Montreal, Canada: American Educational Research
Association (AERA).
Leithwood, K. and Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student
achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), pp. 529-561.
Leithwood, K. and Menzies, T. (1998). A review of research concerning the
implementation of site-based management. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 9(3), pp. 233-285.
242
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S. and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of
research: How leadership influences student learning. New York, New York:
Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D. and Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school
leadership, in K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger and A. Hart
(Eds.). International handbook of educational leadership and administration,
Part 2. Dordecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publications, pp. 785-
840.
Levačić, R. (2005). Educational leadership as a causal factor: methodological issues in
research on leadership effects. Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, 33(2), pp. 197-210.
Levačić, R. (2008). Financing Schools: Evolving patterns of autonomy and control.
Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 36(2), pp. 221-234.
Levačić, R., Glover, D., Bennett, N. and Crawford, M. (1999). Modern headship for the
rationally challenged school: Combining cerebral and insightful approaches, in
T. Bush, D. E. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter and P. Ribbins (Eds.). Educational
management: Redefining theory, policy and practice, London, United Kingdom:
Chapman Publishing, pp. 15-28.
Levačić, R. and Ross, K. N. (1999). Needs-based resource allocation in education via
formula funding of schools. Paris, France: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization - International Institute for Educational
Planning.
Levin, B. (2001). Reforming education: from origins to outcomes. London, United
Kingdom: Routledge Falmer.
Levin, B. and Riffel, J. (1997). Schools and the changing world: Struggling toward the
future. London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.
Levy, R. (2010). New public management: End of an era? Public Administration
Review, 25, pp. 234-240.
Lieberman, A., Saxl, E. R. and Miles, M. B. (2000). Teacher leadership: Ideology
and practice, in The JosseyBass Reader on Educational Leadership. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California:
Sage Publications.
Lingard, B. (2000). Federalism in schooling since the Karmel Report (1973), Schools in
Australia: From modernist hope to postmodernist performativity. Australian
Educational Researcher, 27(2), pp. 25-61.
Lingard, B. (2014). Politics, policies and pedagogies in education: The selected works
of Bob Lingard. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
243
Lingard, B., Knight, J. and Porter, P. (1993). Schooling reform in hard times. Bristol,
Pennsylvania: The Falmer Press.
Little, J. W. (2003). Constructions of teacher leadership in three periods of policy and
reform activism. School Leadership and Management, 23(4), pp. 401-419.
Loughnane, B. (2013). The coalition’s policy for schools: Students first. Barton,
Australia: Liberal Party of Australia.
Lucas, S., Brown, G. C. and Markus, F. W. (1991). Principals’ perceptions of self-
managing schools and teacher empowerment. NASSP Bulletin, 75(357), pp. 56-
62.
Machin, S. and Silva, O. (2013). School structure, school autonomy and the tail. Special
Paper No. 29. London, United Kingdom: Centre for Economic Performance,
London School of Economics.
Machin, S. and Vernoit, J. (2011). Changing school autonomy: Academy schools and
their introduction to England’s education. London, United Kingdom: Centre for
the Economics of Education, London School of Economics.
Macleod, A. and Hasan, S. (2017). Where our students are educated: Measuring student
enrolment in Canada, 2017. Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute.
Macpherson, R. J. S. and McKillop, A. (2002). Mentoring school governance and
management: An evaluation of support to schools’ boards of trustees. Journal of
Educational Administration, 40(4), pp. 323-348.
Malaklolunthu, S. and Shamsudin, F. (2011). Challenges in school-based management:
Case of a ‘cluster school’ in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioural
Sciences. 15, pp. 1488 – 1492.
Malen, B., Ogawa, R. and Kranz, J. (1990). Site-based management: Unfulfilled
promises, The School Administrator, 47(2), pp. 30-59.
Manna, P. and McGuinn, P. (Eds.). (2013a). Education governance for the twenty-first
century: Overcoming the structural barriers to school reform. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Manna, P. and McGuinn, P. (2013b) The tall task of education governance reform, in
Manna, P. and McGuinn, P. (Eds.). (2013a). Education governance for the
twenty-first century: Overcoming the structural barriers to school reform.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 10-15.
March, J. G. (1984). How we talk and how we act: Administrative theory and
administrative life, in T. J. Sergiovanni and J. E. Corbally (Eds.). Leadership
and organisational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and
practice. Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, pp. 18-35.
March, J. G. (2005). Mundane organisations and heroic leaders, in J. G. March and T.
Weil (Eds.). On leadership. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, pp. 113-121.
244
Marginson, S. (1997). Educating Australia: government, economy and citizen since
1960. London, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (2017). A theory of human motivation. Retrieved on 15 December 2017
from www.Bnpublishing.com
Mayer, E. (1992). Key competencies: report of the Committee to advise the Australian
Education Council and Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and
Training on employment-related key competencies for postcompulsory education
and training (Mayer Report). Canberra, Australia: Australian Education Council
and Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training.
Mayakut, P. and Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic
and practical guide. London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.
McCarrey, L. (1993a). Agenda for reform: Report of the Independent Commission to
Review Public Sector Finances, vol. 1, (Les McCarrey, Chairperson). Perth,
Australia: Western Australian Government Printer.
McCarrey, L. (1993b). Agenda for reform: Report of the Independent Commission to
Review Public Sector Finances, vol. 2, (Les McCarrey, Chairperson). Perth,
Australia: Western Australian Government Printer.
McCullagh, G. (1991). Rationalising government: The Western Australian Functional
Review Committee, in A. Peachment (Ed.). The business of government:
Western Australia 1983 – 1990. Leichhardt, Australia: The Federation Press, pp.
116-128.
McKenzie, J. (2001). Changing education: A sociology of education since 1944.
London, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
McKinnon, M. (2003). Treasury: The New Zealand Treasury, 1840-2000. Auckland,
New Zealand: Auckland University Press.
McMahon, L. (1991). The balance of responsibility: Ministers, advisers and the senior
public service, in A. Peachment (Ed.). The business of government: Western
Australia 1983 – 1990. Leichhardt, Australia: The Federation Press, pp. 129-
150.
Meltzer, B., Petras, J. and Reynolds, L. (1975). Symbolic interactionism: genesis,
varieties and criticism. London, United Kingdom: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd Edition).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Ministry of Education. (1989). School development plans: Policy and guidelines. East
Perth, Australia: Ministry of Education.
245
Ministry of Education. (1990). School decision making: Policy and guidelines. East
Perth, Australia: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1991a). School accountability: Policy and guidelines. East
Perth, Australia: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1991b). School financial planning and management: Policy and
guidelines. East Perth, Australia: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1993a). Devolution: The next phase. East Perth, Australia:
Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1993b). Devolution: The next phase: How far should we go?
East Perth, Australia: Ministry of Education.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (1997).
National report on schooling in Australia: 1997. Carlton South, Australia:
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
Ministerial Independent Assessment Group on Devolution. (1994). Devolution in the
Western Australian government school system: An issues paper. Perth, Australia:
Ministerial Independent Assessment Group on Devolution.
Mitchell, L., Cameron, M. and Wylie, C. (2002). Sustaining school improvement: Ten
primary schools’ journeys. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for
Educational Research.
Mockler, N. (2013). Teacher professional learning in a neoliberal age: Audit,
professionalism and identity. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(10).
pp. 35-47.
Moens, G. and Trone, J. (2016). The constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
annotated. Chatswood, Australia: LexisNexis’ Butterworths.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C. and Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved
school systems keep getting better. London, United Kingdom: McKinsey &
Company.
Muijs, D. and Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership – improvement through
empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational Management
Administration and Leadership, 31(4), pp. 437-448.
Muijs, D. and Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective teaching: Research and practice. London,
United Kingdom: Paul Chapman Publishers.
Mulholland, L. and Amsler, A. (1993). The search for choice in public education: the
emergence of charter schools. San Francisco, California: Far West Laboratory
for Educational Research.
Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school
effectiveness. Paris, France: Education and Training Policy Division
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
246
Mulford, B. (2005). Quality evidence about leadership for organisational and student
learning in schools. School Leadership and Management, 25(4), pp. 321-330.
National Alliance of Public Charter Schools USA. (2015). Estimated number of public
charter schools and students. Retrieved on 15 September 2016 from
http://www.publiccharters.org/get-the-facts/publications-research/page/6/
National Alliance of Public Charter Schools USA. (2017). Estimated charter public
school enrolment 2016-2017. Retrieved on 10 December 2017 from
http://www.publiccharters.org/get-the-facts/publications-research/
National Audit Office. (2010). Department of education: The academies programme.
London, United Kingdom: National Audit Office.
National Audit Office. (2014). Academies and maintained schools: Oversight and
intervention. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London, United
Kingdom: National Audit Office.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington DC: US Government Printing
Office.
National Foundation for Educational Research. (2016). Academy and maintained
schools: What do we know? Retrieved on 10 July 2017 from
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FFEE06/FFEE06.pdf
No Child Left Behind Act 2001, United States of America.
Nyland, C. (1996). Taylorism, John R. Commons, and the Hoxie Report. Journal of
Economic Issues, 30, pp. 985-1016.
O’Connor, K. and Boles, K. (1992). Assessing the needs of teacher leaders in
Massachussetts. Paper Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. San Francisco, California.
O'Donoghue, T. A. (2007). Planning your qualitative research project: An introduction
to interpretivist research in education. London, United Kingdom:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
O’Donoghue, T. A. and Dimmock, C. A. (1998). School restructuring: international
perspectives. London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page.
OFSTED. (2002). The work of school governors. HMI 707. Report from HMCI.
London, United Kingdom: The Stationery Office. Retrieved on 15 April 2016
from www.ofsted.gov.uk
Ogawa, R. T. and White, P. A. (1994). School-based management: An overview, in S.
A. Mohrman and P. Wohlstetter (Eds.). School-based management organizing
for high performance. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
247
O’Leary, R, Van Slyke, D. M., and Kim, S. (2010). The future of public administration,
public management and public service around the world. Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Openshaw, R. (2009). Reforming New Zealand secondary education, The Picot Report
and the road to radical reform. New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001). Schooling for
tomorrow: What schools for the future? Paris, France: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). Improving school
leadership volume 1: Policy and practice. Paris, France: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results:
What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (volume IV).
Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). School autonomy
and accountability: Are they related to student performance? PISA in Focus.
2011/9. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 results:
What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (volume IV).
Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). Measuring
innovation in education: a new perspective. Paris, France: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development.
Ortiz, F. I. and Ogawa, R. T. (2000). Site-based decision-making leadership in
American public schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(5), pp. 486-
501.
Ovando, M. (1996). Teacher leadership: Opportunities and challenges. Planning and
Changing, 27(1-2), pp. 30-44.
Owings, W. A. and Kaplan, L. S. (2012). Leadership and organisational behavior in
education: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Parkin, A. and Anderson, G. (2007), The Howard government, regulatory federalism
and the transformation of commonwealth-state relations. Australian Journal of
Political Science, 42(1), pp. 295-314.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Edition).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Peachment, A. (1991). The business of government: Western Australia 1983 – 1990.
Leichardt, Australia: The Federation Press.
248
Peal, R. (2014). Progressively worse: The burden of bad ideas in British schools.
London, United Kingdom: Civitas.
Picot, B. (1988). Taskforce to review education administration. Administering for
excellence. Effective administration in education (The Picot Report).
Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative
analysis (2nd Edition). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Poole, A. (2017). Charter schools: The case for. The Spinoff. Retrieved on 23 December
2017 from https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/18-05-2017/charter-schools-the-case-
for/
Porter, P., Knight, J, and Lingard, B. (1993). The efficient corporate state: Labor
restructuring for better schools in Western Australia, in B. Lingard, J. Knight,
and P. Porter (Eds.). Schooling reform in hard times. London, United Kingdom:
The Falmer Press, pp. 226-260.
Porter, P., Lingard, B., and Knight, J. (1994). Changing administration and
administering change: An analysis of the state of Australian education, in F.
Crowther, B. Caldwell, J. Chapman, G. Lakomski and D. Ogilvie (Eds.). The
workplace in education: Australian perspectives. Sydney, Australia: Edward
Arnold Australia, pp. 218-228.
Public Sector Management Act 1994, Western Australia.
Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.
Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches (2nd Edition). London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.
Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. London, United
Kingdom: Sage Publications.
Purkey, S. C. and Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary
School Journal, 83(4), pp. 426-452.
Rae, K. (1997). Ano te hutinga o te harakeke (the plucking still of the flaxbush), in T.
Townsend (Ed.). Restructuring and quality: issues for tomorrow’s schools.
London, United Kingdom: Routledge, pp. 115-142.
Ranson, S., Farrell, C., Penn, N. and Smith P. (2005). Does governance matter for
school improvement? School effectiveness and school improvement. 16(3), pp.
305-325.
Raymond, M. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states.
Stanford, California: Centre for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO),
Stanford University.
249
Reardon, S. F. (2009) Review of “How New York city’s charter schools affect
achievement”. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center &
Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved on 23 March 2016 from
http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-How-New-YorkCity-Charter
Reid, I., Brain, K. and Boyes, I. C. (2004). Teachers or learning leaders? Where have all
the teachers gone? Gone to be leaders, everyone. Educational Studies, 30(3), pp.
251-264.
Rist, R. (1990). Meta-ethnography. Educational Studies, 21, Autumn, pp. 364–367.
Roberts, S. (2012). Year Book Australia 2012. Belconnen, Australia: Australian Bureau
of Statistics.
Robertson, S. L. (1993). The politics of devolution, self-management and post-Fordism
in schools, in J. Smyth. (Ed.). A socially critical view of the self-managing
school. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press, pp. 154-169.
Robertson, S. L. (2000). A class act: Changing teachers’ work, the state and
globalization. London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.
Robinson, V. and Ward, L. (2005). Lay governance of New Zealand’s schools: An
educational, democratic or managerialist activity? Journal of Educational
Administration. 43(2), pp. 170-187.
Ryan, S. A. (2000). Principals and teachers leading together. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal,
Canada, 19-23 April.
Ryan, C. and Watson, L. (2004). The drift to private schools in Australia:
Understanding its features. CEPR Discussion Paper 479. Canberra, Australia:
Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University. Retrieved
on 3 May 2007, from http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP479.pdf
Sammons, P., Gu, Q., Day, C. and Ko, J. (2011). Exploring the impact of school
leadership on pupil outcomes: Results from a study of academically improved
and effective schools in England. International Journal of Educational
Management, 25, pp. 83-101.
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social research (2nd Edition). Basingstoke, United Kingdom:
Macmillan Publishers.
Scanlon, M., Earley, P. and Evans, J. (1999). Improving the effectiveness of school
governing bodies. Department for Education and Employment Research Report
RR111. London, United Kingdom: Department for Education and Employment.
School Education Act 1999, Western Australia.
School Education Regulations 2000, Western Australia.
Schutz, A. (1954). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. The Journal of
Philosophy, 51(9), pp. 257-272.
250
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling: excellent schools
need freedom within boundaries. Educational Leadership, 41(5), pp. 4-14.
Shelby Consulting. (2013). Evaluation of the Independent Public Schools initiative.
Perth, Australia: Department of Education Western Australia.
Shellman, A. (2014). Empowerment and experiential education: A state of knowledge
paper. Journal of Experiential Education, 37(1), pp. 18-30.
Short, P. M. (1994). Defining teacher empowerment. Education, 114(4), pp. 488-492.
Silins, H. and Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results, in K. Leithwood and
P. Hallinger (Eds.). Second international handbook of educational leadership
and administration Part 2. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publications, pp. 561-612.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and
interaction. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Simkins, T. (2007). Autonomy and accountability, in B. Fidler, S. Russell, and T.
Simkins (Eds.). Choices for self-managing schools: Autonomy and
accountability. London, United Kingdom: BEMAS.
Simons, R. (2013). Evaluation of the empowering local schools initiative first progress
report. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Smart, D. and Dudley, J. (1990). Education policy, in C. Jennett and R. Stewart (Eds.).
Hawke and Australian public policy: Consensus and restructuring. South
Melbourne, Australia: MacMillan, pp. 204-222.
Smith, E. (2005). Raising standards in American schools: The case of No Child Left
Behind. Journal of Educational Policy, 20(4), pp. 507-524.
Smith, P. A. and Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in
urban elementary school. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), pp. 556-
568.
Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision-making: Assessing
willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, pp.
53-67.
Smylie, M. A. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. The Elementary School
Journal, 96, pp. 3–7.
Smyth, J. (2005). A socially critical view of the self-managing school. Bristol,
Pennsylvania: The Falmer Press.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: reflections and empirical
evidence. School Leadership and Management, 22(1), pp. 73-91.
251
Spaull, A. (1987). A History of the Australian Education Council 1936 – 1986. Sydney,
Australia: Allen & Unwin.
State School Teachers’ Union of Western Australia. (2009, August 17). Independent
Public Schools – communication 1. Perth, Australia: State School Teachers’
Union of Western Australia.
State School Teachers’ Union of Western Australia. (2009, October 12). Independent
Public Schools – communication 8. Perth, Australia: State School Teachers’
Union of Western Australia.
Stone, S. J. (1995). Teaching strategies: Empowering teachers, empowering children.
Journal of Childhood Education, 71(5), pp. 294-295.
Summers, A. and Johnson, A. (1996). The effects of school-based management plans, in
E. Hanushek (Ed.). Improving America’s schools: The role of incentives.
Washington DC: National Academy Press, pp. 75-96.
Taneja, S., Pryor, M. G. and Toombs, L. A. (2011). Frederick W. Taylor’s Scientific
management principles: Relevance and validity. Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, 16(3), pp. 60-78.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, New York:
Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Taylor, T. (1977). A new partnership for our schools: Report of the Committee of
Enquiry appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for Education and Science
and the Secretary of State for Wales under the chairmanship of Mr Tom Taylor,
CBE. London, United Kingdom: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Taylor, L. and Bogotch, I. E. (1994). School level effects of teachers’ participation in
decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), pp. 302-
319.
Teddlie, C. (2005). Methodological issues related to causal studies of leadership: a
mixed method perspective from the USA. Educational Management
Administration and Leadership, 33(2), pp. 211-227.
The West Australian, 20 September 1983.
Timperley, H. S. (2005). Instructional leadership challenges: the case of using student
achievement information for instructional improvement. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 4(1), pp. 3-22.
Tolofari, S. (2005). New public management and education. Policy Futures in
Education, 3(1). pp. 75-89.
Townsend, T. (1996). School effectiveness and improvement initiatives and the
restructuring of education in Australia. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 7(2), pp. 114-132.
252
Townsend, T. (1997). Schools of the future: a case study in systemic educational
development, in T. Townsend (Ed.). Restructuring and quality: issues for
tomorrow’s schools. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, pp. 199-212.
Townsend, T. (2007). School effectiveness and improvement in the twenty-first century,
in T. Townsend (Ed.). International Handbook of School Effectiveness and
Improvement. Dordecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 933-962.
Trimmer, K. (2013). Independent public schools: A move to increased autonomy and
devolution of decision-making in Western Australian public schools. Childhood
Education, 89(3), pp. 178-184.
Trotman, J. (1996). The corporatisation of education in Australia: A Western Australian
study. Paper presented at the International Standing Committee of the History of
Education XVIII Conference, Krakow, Poland.
Vickery, R. (1993). Review of education and training. Report of the Review Committee,
(Dr. Robert Vickery, Chairperson). Perth, Australia: Western Australian
Government Printer.
Walford, G. (2000). From city technology colleges to sponsored grant-maintained
schools. Oxford Review of Education, 26(2), pp. 145-158.
Walford, G. (2013). Blair’s educational legacy? London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Wallace, M. and Hall. V. (1994). Inside the SMT: Teamwork in secondary school
management. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom: Athenaeum Press.
Wall, R. and Rinehart, J. S. (1998). School-based decision-making and the
empowerment of secondary school teachers. Journal of School Leadership,
8(1), pp. 49-64.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J. and McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.
Denver, Colorado: McREL International.
Weiss, C. (1993). Shared decision-making about what? A comparison of schools with
and without teacher participation. Teacher College Record, 95(1), pp. 69-92.
Wells, A. S., Hirshberg, D. and Datnow, A. (1994). A comparison of magnet and
charter schools: The trade-off between desegregation and deregulation. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Orleans, Louisiana.
West, A. and Bailey, E. (2013). The development of the academies programme:
‘privatising’ school-based education in England 1986-2013. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 61(2), pp. 137-59.
Western Australian Primary Principals’ Association. (2015). Successful school
governance: Moving from a school council to a school board under IPS. West
Leederville, Australia: Western Australian Primary Principals’ Association.
253
White, P. (1992). Teacher empowerment under ideal school-site autonomy. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), pp. 68-92.
Whitty, G., Power, S. and Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education: The
school, the state and the market. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open
University Press.
Wirt, F. M. (1991). Policy origins and policy games: Site-based management in the
United States and the United Kingdom, in G. Harman, H. Beare and G. F.
Berkeley (Eds.). Restructuring school management: administrative
reorganisation of public school governance in Australia. Canberra, Australia:
Australian College of Education, pp. 28-45.
World Bank. (2007). Impact evaluation for school-based management reform.
Washington DC: World Bank.
Wylie, C. (2007). School governance in New Zealand: How is it working? Wellington,
New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Wylie, C. (2009). Getting more from school self-management, in J. Langley (Ed.).
Tomorrow’s schools 20 years on… Auckland, New Zealand: Cognition Institute.
Wylie, C. and King, J. (2005). An increasing tightness – pressure points for schools’
financial management. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for
Educational Research.
York-Barr, J. and Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership?
Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research,
74(3), pp. 255-316.
Zajda, J. and Gamage, D. T. (2009). Decentralisation and school-based management
and quality, in J. Zajda and D. T. Gamage (Eds.). Decentralisation, school-based
management, and quality. New York, New York: Springer.
254
Appendix A
Interview Schedule Round One
Central Research Question
What are the perspectives of stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public
School status in the first year of operation in the respective schools in Western
Australia?
1. What is your understanding of the purpose of the introduction of Independent
Public Schools within the Western Australian public education system?
2. What do you think will be the benefits of becoming an Independent Public
School?
o for your school as a whole;
o for staff;
o for teachers; and
o for students.
3. What problems did you/ are you encountering in the implementation of the
Independent Public School reform? How did you/are you solving them?
4. How successful has the implementation process been to date?
5. What are the future intentions of the school relating to its Independent Public
School status?
255
Appendix B
Interview Schedule Round Two
Central Research Question
What are the perspectives of stakeholders on the implementation of Independent Public
School status in the first year of operation in the respective schools in Western
Australia?
1. Describe how the school has had more flexibility in the allocation and use of
financial resources.
2. Describe how the school has had more flexibility in the allocation and use of
human resources.
3. Has IPS made the school more accountable to the local community?
4. Has the School Board concept increased accountability to the local community?
In what ways has this occurred?
5. How has the role of the School Board changed from a School Council?
6. Has there been improved quality representation on the School Board as opposed
to a School Council? In what ways has this occurred?
7. Has your role changed since the school became IPS?
8. Has your workload and levels of responsibility increased?
9. To what extent has the local community engaged with the school since it became
an IPS?
10. How do you believe the future implementation of the IPS reform could be
improved?
259
To what extent is participation voluntary, and what are the implications of withdrawing that
participation? Participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. If any participant decides to participate and
then later changes their mind, they are able to withdraw their participation at any time and all data
collected up to that point of time will be removed.
There will be no consequences relating to any decision by an individual regarding participation.
What will happen to the information collected, and is privacy and confidentiality assured?
Information that identifies anyone will be removed from the data collected. The data is then stored
securely in lockable cupboards and on password-protected computer and can only be accessed by
George Sekulla. The data will be stored for a period of 5 years; after which it will be destroyed. This
will be achieved by shredder and file deletion.
The identity of participants and the specific campus will not be disclosed at any time. Participant
privacy, and the confidentiality of information disclosed by participants, is assured at all other times.
The data will be used only for this project and will not be used in any extended or future research
without first obtaining explicit written consent from participants.
Consistent with Department of Education policy, a summary of the research findings will be made
available to the participating site(s).
The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Western Australia requires that all
participants be informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner in which a research
project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or alternatively to the Secretary Human
Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands WA
6907 (telephone number 9380 3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the
Information Sheet and consent Form for their personal records.
Is this research approved? The research has been approved by the University of Western Australia’s Human Relations and Ethics
Committee and has met the policy requirements of the Department of Education.
Who do I contact if I wish to discuss the project further?
If you would like to discuss any aspect of this study with a member of the research team, please contact
any of the team listed below. If you wish to speak with an independent person about the conduct of
the project, please contact Assistant Professor Elaine Sharplin.
How do I indicate my willingness to be involved?
If you have had all questions about the project answered to your satisfaction, please complete the
consent Form on the following page.
This information letter is for you to keep.
Dr Elaine Sharplin Dr Simon Clarke
Assistant Professor Professor
Doctoral Supervisor Doctoral Supervisor
