 
Week 4 - Local School Management
|  | Can Local School Management Achieve Improved Student Learning? |
| |
Listing of Papers | |
DR GRAEME HOLMES
Victoria, Australia
BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, I would have to give an unqualified 'yes' to the question of: 'Can local school management achieve improved student learning?' Based on research by a range of key academics, the answer is far less equivocal, perhaps even a resounding 'no!'
After looking at some of the arguments for local management, I will look briefly at the case for and against links between local school management and improved student learning. I will then question how student learning is being assessed then look at best practice and resourcing issues. The position adopted here is that local school management needs to be combined with adequate and predictable funding, flexible resource management, decision making based on research and qualitative and quantitative data to ensure that student learning is enhanced.
The arguments for local school management are legion and well documented. Moving management away from the central bureaucracy to the local level enhances local participation and ownership, it enables collaboration and facilitates decision-making at the local level. Involvement and participation brings commitment and responsibility of the people and improves the quality of decisions. It enables allowance for school-specific issues and facilitates diversity and choice.
My Experience as a Victorian Principal
As a principal and leader of a school in Victoria where local management is well advanced, where resources are largely devolved to the school level and where schools have significant control over staffing, budgets, policies and daily operational procedures, I am comfortable that local management is highly beneficial. I say this from the perspective of a principal who has worked in both the Schools of the Future model and in the centralised bureaucratic system pre-1993.
Setting Aside the 'One Size Fits All' Model
Local school management enables schools to manage according to the needs of the student cohort. It enables schools to target the curriculum needs, to address the gaps in curriculum provision and to develop community-specific programs. The 'one-size-fits-all' model of central bureaucratic control is set aside, with local and regional priorities being addressed quickly and effectively through local decision making. Local management enables schools to develop enhanced curriculum provision and improve services for students. Examples of this abound across the State with schools resourcing programs and providing additional support for their school-specific needs.
The Case Against
Breadth and diversity of provision, however, may not necessarily equate with improved student learning. The thrust towards local school management is to improve student learning outcomes. When local school management was introduced in Victoria through the Schools of the Future program, Brian Caldwell, the key figure in developing the local management model, was adamant that the main game in local management was the improvement in learning. However, he now acknowledges that there is no hard evidence to link local management with enhanced learning (Caldwell & Spinks, 1998). Researchers are hard pressed to show any significant link between local management and learning, a point made emphatically and repeatedly by Tony Townsend (1998; 2000).
Townsend, in a recent article, has cited researchers from across the world who have been unable to ascertain links between local management and enhanced student learning. Bullock & Thomas in UK; Summers' & Johnson's meta-analysis of 70 research studies; Codding in the United States; Wylie in New Zealand; Caldwell, Hill & Crevola in Victoria, as well as studies in Edmonton, Canada and Dade County, Florida, have all been cited by Townsend as being unable to show links between self management and improved student learning outcomes (Townsend, 2000).
Assessing Student Learning
A recent study by Julie Wee (1999) provides a little encouragement for the advocates of local management. Wee's doctoral research has shown 'direct pathways' from the local management model represented by Schools of the Future in Victoria to improved student learning in the four schools studied for this research. The limited sample and the variability within the four schools casts a little uncertainty on the generalisability of the findings, however, the strength of the research lies in the approach taken to depict student learning gains.
In many research studies student learning is judged by the results of standardised tests or some form of systemic evaluative tool such as, in Victoria's case, Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) results or the primary school Learning Assessment Project (LAP) testing. VCE and LAP data are indicative but in the case of the LAP, don't have the pre-post local school management comparability to show improved learning resulting from the introduction of local management. Changes in curriculum design and content with the CSF and modifications to the VCE in past years need to be considered when assessing learning gain over time. Standardised testing does have a function however many tests are dated and have little relevance in modern curricula.
Are We Looking in the Right Direction?
Perhaps the question needs to be asked as to whether we are looking in the right direction for evidence of improvements to student learning. The complexity of schooling, the multiplicity of outcomes, the pressures to coalesce community and social exigencies into the traditional curriculum, must impact on traditional outcomes and must remind us to look for a broad and diverse range of outcomes. Perhaps Wee's approach of close analysis of school-level results data combined with staff perceptions of learning outcomes, provides a way forward. Data is vital - and so are the views of practitioners. Systemic data provides an overview of student achievement while school, class and individual assessment procedures provide quantitative and qualitative data for local assessments.
Another approach to assessing the extent of student learning is to determine value-added learning improvements. A range of studies examining learning gain through value-added have become available in recent years (Holmes, 1999). Value-added judgements have relevance and can be indicative of school performance however they need to be set in the context of the total school environment and linked with other quality school-level information to add rigour and relevance to the value-added measures; 'the measurement of progress or value added ... is neither simple nor straightforward' (Thomas & Goldstein in Saunders, 1999: 253).
And, as Thomas, Sommers and Mortimore have warned, the value of research techniques, 'are determined by the quality, reliability and validity of the data analysed' (1995: 20). Unpublished research by the author of this article indicates that significant value-added is being achieved at the school level. Assessments encompassing individual evaluation of learning gain, family background, student ability, teacher perception of student achievement and school entry assessment levels have clearly shown significant improvement in student learning.
Converting this fine-grained improvement into the broader-brush assessments elicited from the Curriculum and Standards Framework outcome levels and into statewide testing regimes is the challenge confronting us. Longitudinal studies will assist in identifying improved student learning. But just how much of the improved learning can be attributed to local school management and how much is contingent on associated factors is problematic.
Local Management and Best Practice
An issue that needs to be pursued further is the relationship between local management and the implementation of research-based best practice. It is conceivable that local management can perpetuate ineffectiveness and out-dated practices. Continuing with past teaching methods, school structures and procedures, that is, avoidance of change, can work against improving student learning. If the school leaders are not cognisant of current research and if they stay in the comfort zone of ineffective practices, then the way forward for the school under local management can be difficult.
Unfortunately, due to laggards and rejection of research, there are occasions when the system needs to lead the change. The implementation of the Early Years design approach in Victorian schools is a case in point where the system determined that a specific approach had to be adopted state-wide.
It cannot be denied that there are a range of issues to be explored when looking at the tension and gains between local management and improved learning. Another one of these issues is that, where comparative data exists between learning outcomes post local management to pre-local management comparisons are deceptive because of resourcing differentials.
In Victoria, local management through the introduction of Schools of the Future, was accompanied by significant resourcing cuts. In excess of 8,000 teachers were cut from the system at the same time that local management was introduced. It is conceivable that a sound argument could be made that local management in Victoria did improve student learning simply by maintaining the level of achievement given the concurrent resource reductions.
Resourcing Issues
No matter how good the model of local management may be, schools will not enhance or even maintain the levels of student achievement if they are not resourced suitably. All schools must receive adequate base funding where 'adequate' is seen to mean 'sufficient funding to support high minimum student achievement' (Odden & Clune, 1998;157). There has to be 'adequacy' as a base resourcing combined with additional resourcing to enable flexibility in resource distribution at the school level. The emphasis on high performing schools and significant improvement at the school level has little impact if not accompanied by flexible, predictable and adequate resourcing. Systems must provide significant resourcing so that all students reach high minimum standards - so that schools can provide a 'gifted curriculum' for all students.
Effective Targeting of Resources
It is not just the quantity of funds available for use at the local level, it is the effective targeting of the available resources that impacts on student performance. Slavin has argued 'It is clear (and obvious) that increased dollars do not magically transform themselves into greater learning' (Slavin, 1999:522). He goes on to argue that it is also 'clear and just as obvious' that expenditure on programs which have been proven to be effective will make a difference to student learning.
The Early Years model, based on Hill and Crevola's design approach (1998) is premised on combining the proven effective elements of education. Combining these proven elements into a design approach bring significant learning gains for the vast majority of students. Indications are that the Early Years model is an effective approach and, if combined with another proven approach to enhance student learning - small class sizes (Verstegen & King, 1998;258) - then student learning will be further enhanced.
The key attributes, I believe, of adequate funding, flexibility in resource management, predictability of funding levels, and decisions based on rigorous research and data, need to accompany local school management to enable student learning improvements to emerge. Local decision making will have little bearing on student learning if resources are inadequate, and even less improvement if there is no flexibility or targeting of proven effective curriculum programs for resource allocation at the local level.
Verification Difficult
I believe that, based on my experience and involvement in primary schools, there can be a significant link between local school management and enhanced student learning. However, the link is as difficult to statistically verify as is the link between resource levels and school performance or the production function of education. Just because there is no incontrovertible evidence to prove a link, it doesn't mean that no link exists. Combining local management with adequate resourcing, flexibility of resource management and local decision making based on research and qualitative and quantitative data will ensure that student learning will be enhanced. I have no doubt that the evidence will emerge, especially if we take a more site-based approach to assess student learning levels. Tracking outcomes over time using quantitative and qualitative approaches will contribute significantly to the debate.
_____________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr Graeme R. Holmes, BA, BEd, MEd, MEdAdmin, PhD, Dip of Teaching (Primary), has taught for thirty years in primary schools across Victoria. He has taught all grade levels and has been a middle manager, head teacher and principal. He has been a head teacher and principal for the past thirteen years.
Dr Holmes is currently Principal of the Hamilton (Gray Street) Primary School in the Western District of Victoria. The school has an enrolment of 340 students.
Dr Holmes completed his doctorate through the University of New England in 1987. His main research interests include school financial management, the use of data in school evaluation and accountability and value-added learning.
Graeme Holmes can be contacted by email at:
holmes.graeme.r@edumail.vic.gov.au
_____________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Caldwell, B. & Spinks, J. (1998) Beyond the Self-Managing School, Falmer, Great Britain.
Hill, P. & Crevola, C. 'Characteristics of an Effective Literacy Strategy' Unicorn, Vol. 24 No. 2, August pp. 74-85.
Holmes, G., (1998) 'Adding Value to Student Learning', Prime Focus, Vol. 5 No. 4, Issue 20.
Odden, A. & Clune, W. (1998) 'School Finance Systems; Aging structures in need of renovation', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 20 No. 3 pp. 157-177.
Saunders, L., (1999) 'A Brief History of Educational 'Value Added'; How did We Get To Where We Are?', School Effectiveness and School Improvement Vol. 10 No. 2 pp. 233-256.
Slavin, R.E., (1998) 'How Can Funding Equity Ensure Enhanced Achievement?', Journal of Education Finance, Vol. 24, Spring 1994 pp. 519-528.
Thomas, S., Sammons, P. & Mortimore, P., (1995) 'Determining What 'Adds Value' to Student Achievement', Educational Leadership International, March, pp. 19-22.
Townsend, T., (1998) 'Educational Expenditure and Student Achievement; Does Money Make A Difference?', in Leading & Managing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 195-218.
Townsend, T., (1999) 'Leadership in Times of Rapid Change',
Prime Focus, February 2000, pp. 14-16.
Verstegen, D. & King, R., (1998) 'The Relationship Between School Spending and Student Achievement; a review and analysis of 35 years of production function research', Journal of Education Finance, Vol. 24 (Fall), pp. 243-262.
Wee, J. (1998) 'Improved Student Learning and Leadership in Self-Managing Schools'. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of degree of Doctorate of Education, University of Melbourne.
|
|
| | |
