Educational governance in a comparative perspective: changing ways to coordinate school improvement

Group Submission Type: Formal Panel Session

Proposal

This session presents studies from countries which have seen a change in how education systems are governed over the past years. The three papers each discuss the rationale for these reforms and how past experiences and practices of educational governance in each country have shaped the way teachers and schools have interpreted and responded to the changing mode of coordination. Comparing the findings from these countries allows us to understand how changes in the governance of education systems are shaped by past policies and existing ways of working.

Governance, according to Windzio et al (2005) is a specific form of coordination of social actions characterized by institutionalized, binding regulations and enduring patterns of interaction. These forms vary from institutionalized self-regulation of civil societal elements on the one hand, to authoritative decision-making by governmental actors on the other, with an intermediate range including cooperation of governmental, private, and various collective actors. The three main forms of governance of educational systems, according to Windzio et al (2005) are markets, hierarchy and networks.

Hierarchical control dominated most post-war Western European education systems until the 1980s, according to Greany and Higham (2018). This style of governance, based on authority, clear division of tasks, rules, rationality and objectivity was partly replaced by market-based types of coordination in the 1980s where choice, a focus on price, efficiency and decentralization were seen as the best drivers for quality and improvement. Network governance emerged in the 1990s as a new type of coordination, based on interdependency, trust, and empathy (Meuleman, 2011). It was a response to both the dramatic intensification of social complexity and a recognition of the failure of both hierarchy and marketization, according to Grimaldi (2011). Network-like organisational forms were thought to be more effective tools of governance in enacting processes of innovation, improvement and self-organisation.
In education, network governance has been promoted by various international agencies (particularly the OECD), according to Grimaldi (2011), as an effective scenario for tackling major educational issues, such as persistent academic underperformance, students’ transition from school to work or childhood obesity. Creating an interconnected approach to, and comprehensive offer of social, educational and health services through community-based partnerships is expected to more effectively address complex educational challenges in child development Dīaz-Gibson et al. (2014).

As systems change their modes of coordination, schools are often faced with a combination of hierarchy, market and network and various, sometimes, contradictory pressures. These combinations can repair some of the flaws inherent in each of the ideal-types, such as a lack of innovation and variety in over-standardized hierarchies, high inequality in (quasi)markets or group think, ambiguity and high transaction costs in networks. However, the combination of different modes of governance also provide further sources of failure such as when creating multiple, and potentially conflicting, lines of accountability. Jessop (2002) talks about some of the most prevalent failures of combined models of governance, such as where self-organisation needed for network governance rarely materializes when national governments continue to measure and regulate aspects of members’ work.

Also, changing between modes of coordination is limited because of past experiences and expectations of those working in schools and in the education system. They are accustomed to certain structures in institutions and actor constellations (e.g state and/or non-state), processes or modes of social coordination by which they are expected to engage in rulemaking and implementation and in the provision of education (Borzel and Risse, 2010). Changing these structures and processes and the way education reform is coordinated will be affected by past circumstances and practices and outcomes of a change in educational governance will therefore vary across countries. This session aims to enhance our understanding of how context influences the success of system reform and how past modes of coordination shape educators’ understanding of these reforms.

Sub Unit

• General Pool

Chair

• Melanie Ehren, Free University Amsterdam

Individual Presentations

• From market to network governance in Chile: collaboration and accountability in a changing system - Carmen Montecinos, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso; Alvaro González, Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez

• Network governance for school improvement policies: an example from Portugal - Estela Costa, University of Lisbon

Discussants

• Matthew Jukes, RTI International

• Antoni Verger, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona