Big Change Question Do Local Central Authorities (Lcas) Make A Difference In School Reform?

CAROL CAMPBELL and F. JAVIER MURILLO

BIG CHANGE QUESTION DO LOCAL CENTRAL AUTHORITIES (LCAs) MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN SCHOOL REFORM?

INTRODUCTION There is considerable debate about the extent to which a ‘‘middle tier’’ between central government and schools, such as US school districts and UK local education authorities (LEAs), make a difference for school improvement and educational reform. I will explore the case for a middle tier in terms of three arguments. The first is a pragmatic argument that some functions of an education service are most effectively delivered at a level between the school and central government. The second concerns principled arguments about benefits of a middle tier, particularly one with democratic responsibilities and accountabilities, for ensuring an education service informed by local needs. The third offers arguments about a middle tier’s educational value in terms of its effect and effectiveness for educational outcomes and its support for systematic reform efforts. A PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE One initial argument for establishing a middle tier was that as the education system expanded, neither central government nor schools could singly assume all responsibilities for the education service. As Stewart (1986) argued in the UK, there was a perceived need to ‘‘decongest’’ central government from the bureaucratic burdens of administering a national education service by placing some responsibilities at a local level. Over time, this tripartite distribution of powers and responsibilities – central government, middle tier and school – has been challenged and reformed. With the increasing international trend towards centralising education policy direction and accountability regimes, enhancing direct powers for central Journal of Educational Change 6: 77–89, 2005. DOI 10.1007/s10833-004-7785-1


Springer 2005

78

CAROL CAMPBELL

government, and decentralising responsibility for day-to-day management and delivery of improved standards to school level, the middle tier’s role has been seriously challenged, undermined and, in some instances, bypassed (Whitty et al., 1998). Nevertheless, even within combined centralisation and decentralisation of educational governance, evidence continues to point to a pragmatic need for a middle tier to administer and oversee local education. An evaluation produced by the Audit Commission in England proposed that seven key tasks require an intermediate tier: 1. Championing education – ensuring local understanding and commitment. 2. Providing an educational ‘‘infrastructure’’. 3. Monitoring and regulating the local provision of education. 4. Ensuring the fair treatment of pupils, parents and schools. 5. Providing support for pupils. 6. Offering educational support to schools. 7. Offering other support to schools (Audit Commission, 1998, pp. 59–60). In my study of changing relationships between schools and education authorities in Scotland (Campbell, 2000), while school principals generally welcomed the local decision-making and resource powers associated with school-based management, they also wanted to retain a strong and supportive relationship with the local education authority. Principals viewed the middle tier as providing a range of important practical functions, including service provision, school improvement advice and resourcing, as well as strategic direction and oversight. The functions provided by the middle tier are intended to ensure the effective and equitable functioning of a local education system extending beyond the operation of individual schools and linked to local needs. Furthermore, such a middle tier can also offer practical benefits by enabling connections with other public services and community developments. As educators become involved in an increasing range of collaborative working relationships with relevant agencies to support a holistic approach to children’s services, families and communities, a middle tier can provide an important function in facilitating, resourcing and overseeing such connections. The pragmatic argument suggests that the middle tier makes a difference by providing functions that are more effectively administered and co-ordinated at this level. However, what remains

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

79

debatable is the nature of middle tier required to provide such functions. This, in turn, raises principled questions about the purpose and operation of the middle tier.

A DEMOCRATIC DIFFERENCE The pragmatic argument about the need for a middle tier could be addressed in a number of ways – including local administrative offices, local commissions or bodies with educator membership and/or local democratic authorities with responsibility for oversight and development of local education – as is evident in the range of approaches applied internationally and within countries. The appropriate local governance of education is a complex matter requiring attention to where powers reside, who is involved and for what purpose. In particular, there is debate as to whether education should be integrated with local government bodies and political processes or have a discrete independent status. It is vital that approaches ensure effective local representation in education governance and responsiveness to local needs. In the UK, a founding and enduring principle of LEAs is their integral relationship with local democratic processes. The combination of democratic purpose and public service are fundamental concepts for local government, which should: . . . serve the democratic objectives of participation, education, discussion and consent; and. . . provide services under such political direction in an efficient manner (see Smith, 1985, p. 133). Bogdanor (1994) argues that local democratic control within Europe should ensure ‘‘legitimacy’’ and fulfil ‘‘moral’’ and ‘‘educational purpose’’. The education system and individuals within are considered to benefit from the checks and balances provided by the oversight and strategic direction of such a middle tier. This argument’s logic is that a middle tier can make a difference if it offers local democratic representation and operates within democratic responsibilities and accountabilities. A concern, however, is the extent to which democratic principles and practices actually engage local people and enable responsive local educational developments. The establishment of local forums/bodies and networks to enable educators and communities to contribute to, and comment on, policies and practices of a middle tier in education

80

CAROL CAMPBELL

is important for connecting this level of governance with local concerns, needs and interests. This links with wider shifts in the public sector’s governance to engage in new partnerships with citizens and stakeholders (Newman, 2001). Arguments about the democratic difference provided by a middle tier need to take account of new governance arrangements and the rise of forms of associative democracy, involving partnerships and network arrangements, to re-invigorate democratic practices and connect with communities. Furthermore, in education, there is an urgent need to explore new ways to involve pupil voice in local education policy. AN EDUCATIONAL DIFFERENCE Any justification for a middle tier must focus firmly on the educational value of such an approach. Here, I explore the educational case in relation to two key aspects: effects and effectiveness for educational outcomes, and contribution to systemic reform. Effects and Effectiveness A key consideration for the difference that a middle tier makes in school reform is impact in terms of educational outcomes, particularly student progress and achievement. However, to date, this has proven extremely difficult and problematic to establish, with evidence about a direct link between effects of the middle tier for student outcomes remaining inconclusive. Reporting overall findings from 101 inspections of LEAs, the national inspection agency in England concluded: Good LEAs have a beneficial effect on some aspects of performance of pupils and schools, but the effect is not great. There is no proven relationship between the quality of an LEA and overall standards of attainment. Other factors, such as the effect of disadvantage, are stronger. The expectation that LEAs should have a major effect on pupils’ standards appears unrealistic (Ofsted, 2002, p. 3). Given the relative influence of factors relating to students’ background and abilities compared to classroom and school effects, the finding that a middle tier’s effects are limited is somewhat unsurprising but requires further investigation and explanation, including

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

81

evaluation of the relative effects of different functions at middle tier level. It is important to note that, despite a lack of evidence about significant direct effects from a middle tier, the middle tier can be more or less effective in its role, operation and impact and this can influence school improvement efforts. The report of LEA inspection evidence, quoted above, was equally clear that ‘good’ LEAs were effective in supporting improvement, citing that effective LEAs included the following features:       

political and professional leadership; secure systems of strategic and educational planning; focus and management of school improvement; common commitment to improving educational standards; continuous improvement; local authority gave prominence and priority to education; very secure infrastructure (including school places and resources); and  reliability and sensitivity of their support to schools (Ofsted, 2002, p. 10). While debate remains about the relative importance of different individual features of middle tiers, the importance of leadership is frequently highlighted. Indeed, the Audit Commission (2002) proposes that inadequate professional and political leadership within the middle tier is the root cause of all service failure resulting in problems for systems and cultures throughout the local system. However, just as ineffective leadership appears to be associated with ineffective performance, effective leadership is associated with an effective middle tier. Local leaders have played a key role in turning around under-performing US school districts, particularly superintendents (e.g. Elmore & Burney, 1997). Based on research with 18 LEAs, Riley et al. (2000) identified six core elements through which leadership within the middle tier made a difference – the values expressed; strategic direction established; climate created and sustained; how the leadership role was exercised; mode of operation; and focus of activities. Significantly, effective leadership involved engaging and extending shared leadership across the local education system focused on a common commitment to improvement. By contrast, evidence points also to the significant difficulties and disadvantages for school reform associated with an ineffective middle tier. With drives to ensure accountability for standards and to chal-

82

CAROL CAMPBELL

lenge poor performance, under-performing middle tiers have become subject to central government concern and intervention. These middle tiers are characterised by ineffectiveness in leadership, strategic management, financial procedures and/or local governance arrangements, undermining their capacity to support necessary school improvement. In such cases in the US and UK, a ‘ladder of sanctions’ (Audit Commission, 2002) can be applied, including government intervention ultimately to remove local powers. However, evaluations indicate that removing local powers does not necessarily bring about anticipated results; rather, attention needs to focus on building local capacity for improvement with and through a reformed middle tier (Tractenberg, 2002; Campbell et al., 2004). As I argue in the next section, an effective middle tier is one that connects and supports all involved in the local education system for systemic reform. Supporting Systemic Reform A crucial argument for a middle tier’s existence is the difference created, supported and sustained for systemic education reform. There is growing evidence of the limitations of the decentralisation/ centralisation strategy, and of the important role for a middle tier to ensure that educational improvement is systematic and coherent at the local level rather than based on the isolated success or failures of an individual school’s actions (Whitty et al., 1998; Fullan, 2004, 2005). School-level reform alone will not necessarily bring about systemic improvements, even in the context of wide-scale school-level reforms. Evaluations of whole-school reform initiatives in the US have indicated the need to recognise the role of the district in supporting school improvement (e.g. Berends et al., 2002). In their evaluation of five US school districts improving in often challenging contexts, Togneri and Anderson (2003) conclude that ‘‘districts can make a difference’’ (p. 49) in ensuring a move ‘‘beyond islands of excellent schools to systems of success.’’ Togneri and Anderson (2003) identified seven factors ‘‘essential to improvement.’’ These were when districts: 1. Had the courage to acknowledge poor performance and the will to seek solutions. 2. Put in place a system-wide approach to improving instruction, articulating curricular content and providing instructional supports.

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

83

3. Instilled vision focusing on student learning and guided instructional improvement. 4. Made decisions based on data, rather than instinct. 5. Adopted new approaches to professional development involving a coherent and district-organized set of strategies to improve instruction. 6. Redefined leadership roles. 7. Committed to sustaining reform over the long haul. Findings from research into improving districts suggest the importance of creating a structure for, and culture of, improvement focused on instruction and educational outcomes and supported by shared leadership and partnership involving the district and schools, with a strong emphasis on accountability for securing improved performance throughout the district (e.g. Murphy & Hallinger, 1988; Elmore & Burney, 1997). If these features are not initially present, focused action is needed to put these in place and build capacity for improvement. It appears that the key factor in the difference made by the middle tier is its capacity to provide a context for, and support of, schoollevel capacity to improve. According to Fullan (2005), developing new capacities for systemic reform at district and school levels are vital for future successes involving both restructuring and reculturing the education system. In contrast to debates about decentralisation and centralisation, building capacity for systemic reform is not about either schools or districts – it is fundamentally about both and about their working together to lead and deliver improvement around a collective vision, a ‘‘moral imperative’’ (Fullan, 2005) to raise the bar and close the gap for student attainment. Furthermore, districts have a vital role in facilitating ‘‘lateral capacity building’’ (Fullan, 2005) to support learning and improvement throughout local education systems involving collaboration between educators across schools and districts. For example, Togneri and Anderson’s (2003) study provides examples of lateral capacity building that contributed to improvement, including networks of instructional experts (identified and facilitated by the district) working across schools, district support for new teachers and district-wide professional development initiatives. The middle tier can create connections across the local education system that seek to overcome the ‘‘variable capacities to engage in continuous improvement’’ (Fullan, 2005, p. 66) of individual schools. A further element of the middle tier’s role in making a difference for school reform is its interaction with central government. For

84

CAROL CAMPBELL

Fullan (2004), the middle tier is the ‘linchpin’ in tri-level reforms. The middle tier can interpret, mediate and reframe central policy directions to support local needs and circumstances. More effective middle tiers pro-actively engage with central government (and other external agencies and partners) to build support and resources for local initiatives and efforts (Spillane, 1996). Rather than the middle tier’s role being moribund, as some predictions would suggest, there is growing evidence of the vital role of such a body in supporting systemic improvement. While there are benefits for schools having enhanced leadership roles and responsibilities for delivering educational improvement, there are limitations to the scale of reform feasible by individual schools and, for some schools, there are serious difficulties in establishing and sustaining individual improvement without support. There are dangers if distributed leadership at school level is conceived as a disconnected leadership resulting in isolation and polarisation of experiences. Systemic reform requires leadership and learning throughout the education system connected by a common commitment to raising standards and challenging underachievement with a collective responsibility for securing improvement for all involved. The context of support and challenge, the climate of improvement, the culture of working relationships and responsibilities, and the leadership, vision and strategic direction for school reform promoted by the middle tier make a difference. There remain challenges ahead. These include: continuing to review and revise the most effective and appropriate functions and operation of the middle tier; the ongoing need to establish working relationships based on mutual trust and respect across schools and with the middle tier; and the pressing task of not only securing systemic improvement (which is challenging in its own right) but also the relentless need to ensure that such improvements both benefit all students, particularly those currently most disadvantaged, and are sustainable for the longer-term. Such tasks place considerable demands on the middle tier’s capacity, but I believe it would be even more challenging for schools working individually without the support of effective middle tiers combining local needs and national imperatives. REFERENCES Anderson, S.E. (2003). The School District Role in Educational Change: A Review of the Literature, ICEC Working Paper #2. OISE: University of Toronto.

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

85

Audit Commission (1998). Changing Partners. London: Audit Commission. Audit Commission (2002). A Force for Change. London: Audit Commission. Berends, M., Bodilly, S. & Kirby, S. (2002). Looking back over a decade of whole school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 48(2), 168–175. Bogdanor, V. (1994). Coda: Rejuvenate our democratic conditions. In S. Ranson & J. Tomlinson (eds), School Co-operation: New Forms of Local Governance. Harlow: Longman. Campbell, C. (2000). The changing roles of local government in education. Local Government Studies, 26(4), 85–106. Campbell, C., Evans, J., Askew, S., Hughes, M. & McCallum, B. (2004). Evaluation of education partnership boards: Final report. Research report to Department for Education and Skills, England, http:www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/lea/ Elmore, R. & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education and National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Fullan, M. (2004). Whole system reform. Paper commissioned by New American Schools, Alexandria, VA. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Murphy, J. & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective districts. Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 175–181. Newman, J. (2001). Modernising Governance: New Labour, policy and society. London: Sage. Ofsted. (2002). Local Education Authorities and School Improvement 1996–2001. London: Office for Standards in Education. Riley, K, Docking, J. & Rowles, D. (2000). Caught between local education authorities: making a difference through their leadership? In K.A. Riley & K.S. Louis (eds), Leadership for Change and School Reform: International Perspectives. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Smith, B.C. (1985). Decentralisation: The Territorial Dimension of the State. London: George Allen & Unwin. Spillane, J. (1996). Districts matter: Local education authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10, 63–87. Stewart, J. (1986). A local service: Strengthening the LEA. In S. Ranson & J. Tomlinson (eds.), The Changing Government of Education. London: Allen and Unwin. Togneri, W. & Anderson, S.E. (2003). Beyond Islands of Excellence: What Districts do to Improve Instruction and Achievement in all Schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tractenberg, P.L. (2002). Developing a Plan for Re-establishing Local Control in the State-operated School Districts. Newark: Institute of Education Law and Policy. Whitty, G., Power, S. & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and Choice in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

86

CAROL CAMPBELL AND F. JAVIER MURILLO

CAROL CAMPBELL

Institute of Education University of London E-mail: [email protected]

F. JAVIER MURILLO

A first reading of the ‘‘Big Change Question’’ could result in an automatic but simplistic affirmative answer. However, consecutive readings highlight a series of elements that force us to analyze the answer according to multiple interpretations. The two terms of the question, local central authorities and school reform, each contain too much ambiguity for their relationship to be answered in a single way. The first element to analyze in detail is the meaning of the expression local central authorities. Even more relevant is its role in educational decision-making: which authority do they have and which responsibilities do they assume? In the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic countries, the answer seems straightforward: school districts, the LEA, etc., have extensive organizational authority in education, although keeping differences according to each school. On the contrary, in Central European and Latin countries – being centralized as France, or decentralized as Germany – the role of the local central authorities is not so clear, and even less clear is their role in school reforms efforts. Often, the local authorities in these countries either have minimal authority in education or they have a very formal authority, typically providing material resources. Therefore, they could not be considered educational administration in the formal sense. Consequently, the answer to the big change question needs to be negative given that local authorities do not play a determinant role in their educational system. In some of these countries (both with centralized and decentralized systems), there exists an administrative instance that could be considered intermediate between the central government and the local administration: the regional administrations, autonomous commu*Translated by Maria Teresa Sanchez, Boston College, USA

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

87

nities or la¨nder. These regional administrations usually have the faculty for decision-making around educational policy and implementation. Still in some countries, the regional administrations are the main responsibility of the educational system. It is for this reason that some international studies such as Eurydice tend to include them as the central decision-making authorities and to give local level status to municipalities and provinces. Consequently, the term local central, taken from the point of view of the regional administrations, invites a clear and affirmative answer: educational decision-making is very important at this level. Let’s take Spain as an example. Here, the central government has the general policy-level authority for designing the educational system structure, as well as for the establishment of minimum requirements for obtaining certifications and degrees at the different levels. However, the autonomous communities have the capacity to develop norms and to manage the system, to make real the general principles. General policies on school reform are elaborated by the Spanish government and they are approved by the Cortes Generales. However, the regions are the ones that either promote or abandon those reforms and therefore, they have enormous influence. For example, the 1990 reform was implemented with conviction and resources in autonomous regions such as the Basque Country and Catalonia but it was delayed and hindered in other regions such as Madrid. In a somewhat simplistic analysis, the active implementation or restraint of the central government reforms by the autonomous administrations primarily depends on the affinity between the governing party of the regions and the governing party of the Spanish central government, or at least, by the identification of the central government reform guidelines with the ideology of the autonomous region’s government. Therefore, in this case, the significance of the local central authorities is crucial. Moreover, how is this influence produced? Basically, we could differentiate three interrelated elements: through policy support, economic resources, and professional development. We should also include one more influence, more subtle but more important. It is the generation of a social environment of support or rejection to the changes that the reform involves. This environment, mediated by teachers’ attitudes, the image of the mediation and the feeling of the families, has a decisive importance on the success or failure of any reform. In many cases, this environment is much more important than the success or deficits of the technical measures adopted.

88

F. JAVIER MURILLO

The second source of reservations about the answer to the big change question is the meaning of school reform. The review of diverse documents does not help us to better understand this expression. In the International Handbook of Educational Change (Hargreaves et al., 1998) alone we found that school reform could be understood as school change, school improvement, or even educational reform. . .. Let’s see the difference between each expression. On the one hand, the word ‘‘change’’ emerges as a general concept related to any modification of the educational reality. Change can be considered as both process and product, as something either intentional or spontaneous, and it can take place in both macro and micro levels. Therefore, school change would be any process that results in modifications at the local school level. These modifications could be deliberate, managed, planned or natural. In the same way, change could be the effects of each of these processes. A totally different vision would be the one of school improvement. Here, the stress is on the systematic and deliberate nature of the changes as well as the elements that modify them. School improvement, therefore, would be a planned and systematic change, assumed and coordinated by a school that intends to improve its quality. This is attained through modification of the school structures as well as the teaching and learning processes. The last concept would be of reform itself, with modifications in the school. For us, reform means a deep structural change in the educational system as a result of a specific educational policy intended to endure. The reform comes from either the central government or a regional educational authority and the reform has been enacted through policies of high order. From these three conceptions of school reform analyzed, we would keep the last two: reform as a systematic and planned change at the school level or as educational reform. In both instances, and considering the differences discussed above, we would still give an affirmative answer to the big change question but for different reasons. If we talk about transformation generated within the same school, the local central authorities, being local or regional (as earlier discussed) but with real educational authority, could play a significant role. They give the general outline for the development of schools; they supply material, human and intellectual resources; they manage teachers’ professional development; and they outline the priorities for the regular functioning of the schools. In this case, we need to highlight the importance of the context for school improvement.

BIG CHANGE QUESTION

89

In relation to educational reform, we would be talking about the role of the local authorities as mediators of the decisions made by the central authorities and by those of the schools. As we mentioned and illustrated above, in fact, local central authorities do have an important role in mediating general policies. As a conclusion, we could synthesize the answer in three main ideas. First, we tried to problematize the possible misunderstandings around expressions used by researchers of different cultures and contexts. Expressions are not always clear and direct, even more when the researchers do not share the mother tongue. Second, we wanted to emphasize that it is necessary to acknowledge the variety of ways of organizing educational systems in different countries. It is too frequent that one educational worldview is transmitted as if it were the norm. Nowadays more than ever educational research needs the contribution of comparative education to enrich its view with different educational visions, as well as with the differences in the responses to the organizational problems of those systems. Finally, the answer to the big change question. In general terms, we could say that certainly local authorities do make a difference in school reform. However, the type and intensity of that influence will differ according to the interpretation that we give to the term school reform. REFERENCES Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (eds). (1998). International Handbook of Educational Change. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. F. JAVIER MURILLO

Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid Departamento de Dida´ctica y Teorı´ a de la Educacio´n Facultad de Formacio´n de Profesorado y Educacio´n Madrid, Spain