Breakthrough in governance

There can be few more important topics in education than governance, generally considered to be the structures and processes by which authority is exercised and decisions are made. The stakes are high, for the quality of decision-making determines in powerful ways the life chances of students and the wellbeing of society. Governance re-design is a necessary component of system re-design whether it is at the national, state, or school level.

Weak governance creates intractable problems

Our work with schools and schools systems in many countries over the last three years has led us to the conclusion that the traditional view of governance is much too narrow and that many of the problems that currently bedevil our schools and the profession will be alleviated in significant ways if we take a different approach. A deeper understanding of successful experience in governance in schools that have been transformed or have sustained a high level of performance has led to a breakthrough in our understanding. It is the purpose of this paper to describe the breakthrough in general terms and to signal two new publications that provide guidelines to assist every school become as successful as those who have led us to this point. As we shall see, a more uplifting view of governance is that it is the process through which a school builds its intellectual, social, spiritual and financial capital and aligns them to achieve its goals. The adoption of such a view must be an element of system re-design in the years ahead, at all levels but especially for schools.

What are the problems that bedevil our schools and the profession and that can be alleviated through good governance? In systems of public, state or government schools, there are too many accounts of how success has been difficult to secure or sustain. One or more kinds of capital are weak and these schools suffer in comparison to those where capital is strong and the four kinds of capital are welded together through good governance.

Changes in personnel have created problems in governance for some schools and school systems. In many schools with a religious foundation, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of priests and religious orders, who have until now had a pivotal role in governance, and this has led to uncertainty and often a crisis in determining the way forward. New structures, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities must be determined. These are necessary but the long-term solution lies in the purpose of good governance, as implied in the more expansive view of the process.

There are too many accounts of principals (headteachers) who experience high levels of stress that at times overwhelms satisfaction in what should be the noblest of professions. They have welcomed higher levels of autonomy in recent times but they lack the support that can be achieved through good governance, at the system as well as the school level.

Strategic complexity

Some scholars specialise in particular fields and highlight related strategies in their presentations, publications and consultancy support for policymakers and practitioner. Their expertise has brought benefits in efforts to achieve the transformation of schools. A review of developments in recent years reveals that particular strategies have taken their turn in moving to centre stage and then retreating as others are spotlighted. One might be a curriculum for the 21st century which enables every student to find a pathway to success at the same time that the needs of society are addressed. Another might be pedagogy, taking up the extraordinary advances in scholarship about how the brain functions and young people learn. It might be a matter of money, because quality and equity cannot be addressed without appropriate allocation of funds to schools and within schools. It might be to attract, reward and sustain the best teachers and other professionals. It might be to replace the run-down and obsolete stock of school buildings that are no longer fit for learning and teaching if there is to be success for all. It might be to build the support of the community for public education. It is all of these strategies and more, and the key to success is to bring them together and make them effective. Leadership is required at all levels – for a system of schools as well as within schools. New concepts of leadership are emerging: system leadership, but not in its traditional form, and distributed leadership, but not constrained to a simple sharing of tasks to make lighter the work of the head. Outstanding governance is also required, but there must be a breakthrough in how we understand the concept.

Beyond structures, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities

A review of recent literature on the topic reveals an increasing number of reports and recommendations on governance. Most suffer from a significant shortcoming in their preoccupation with structures, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities. Questions addressed include ‘How should parents be involved in the decision-making processes of the school?’ or ‘Should a school have a governing body that includes representatives of different stakeholders, and what should be the role of the principal in such an arrangement?’ ‘Should the governing body set policy and approve the budget for the school?’ ‘Which of the various arrangements are likely to have a direct or indirect effect on improving the learning outcomes of students?’ ‘How should meetings of the governing body be organised?’ ‘How are legal obligations to be met when the governing body has the powers of a board of directors?’ Securing answers to such questions is necessary if governing arrangements are to work. While these may be necessary tasks they are far from sufficient.

A new definition of governance

There is agreement that governance is important. There is no agreement on its definition. The comment element is that it refers to how authority is exercised and decisions are made. Our work over the last three years in a number of countries, working closely with policymakers and practitioners, has yielded a more fundamental but expansive and uplifting definition. Expressed simply:

Governance is the process through which the school builds its intellectual, social, financial and spiritual capital and aligns them to achieve its goals.

Intellectual capital refers to the level of knowledge and skill of those who work in or for the school. Social capital refers to the strength of formal and informal partnerships and networks involving the school and all individuals, agencies, organisations and institutions that have the potential to support and be supported by the school. Spiritual capital refers to the strength of moral purpose and the degree of coherence among values, beliefs and attitudes about life and learning (for some schools, spiritual capital has a foundation in religion; in other schools, spiritual capital may refer to ethics and values shared by members of the school and its community). Financial capital refers to the money available to support the school.

It is important to note the parsimony of this new definition. There is no reference to it being a decision-making process or to the structures, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of participants and stakeholders. Of course it is a decision-making process and structures, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities must be specified. However, these are part and parcel of every process in leadership and management and to define governance exclusively or substantially in these terms is to miss the essence of governance.

Alignment for transformation

Those who have read our previous publication in the iNet series on Alignment (Caldwell, 2007) will be immediately familiar with the four forms of capital and the concept of alignment. Their relationship is illustrated in Figure 1. A more detailed account is provided in Raising the Stakes: From Improvement to Transformation in the Reform of Schools (Caldwell and Spinks, 2008). Raising the Stakes contains self-assessment instruments on governance, resources and an aspect of intellectual capital (knowledge management). However, our forthcoming iNet pamphlet, also titled Breakthrough in Governance (Caldwell and Harris 2008a) is the first opportunity to redefine governance in the context of the school, with a focus on building its capital. It draws on recent work that identified sample indicators and provides self-assessment instruments for each form of capital. Drawing from a recent landmark international study it includes short studies of governance in outstanding secondary schools in six countries. Drawing from a recent landmark international study it includes short studies of governance in outstanding secondary schools in six countries.

Figure 1: Alignment of four kinds of capital for the transformation of schools

Constructing the model

The model was developed and tested from late 2005 to early 2008. An innovative approach was utilised in the development and enrichment of the model. This included case studies (49), master classes (4) and workshops (60) involving school and school system leaders in 11 countries where there was an agenda for or interest in transformation and where schools had a relatively high level of autonomy. Forty of the 49 case studies were contributed by school leaders in 13 of the 60 workshops. Several workshops were incorporated in conferences and postgraduate programmes in leadership and management.

A feature of most of the workshops was the invitation to school and school system leaders to respond to key questions on design, implementation, issues and outcomes of efforts to achieve the transformation of schools. Transformation was considered to be significant, systematic and sustained change that secures success for all students in all settings. An interactive computer-based technology enabled large numbers of individual and group responses to be gathered for subsequent analysis. The interactive technology was utilised in 50 out of a total of 60 workshops, with approximately 2,500 participants generating more than 10,000 responses for subsequent analysis.

The first round of 14 workshops was conducted in 2005 in Australia, Chile, England and New Zealand for the International Networking for Educational Transformation (iNet) project of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. An initial model of emerging practice in self-managing schools was constructed and published in Re-imagining Educational Leadership (Caldwell, 2006). This model provided the starting point for further investigation in 19 workshops in 2006 hosted by the Australian College of Educators (ACE) in every state and territory of Australia. Five more workshops conducted in England for iNet in 2006 were concerned with resources. Outcomes included a broader view of resources, redefined as capital, and the model illustrated in Figure 1, as reported in Raising the Stakes: From Improvement to Transformation in the Reform of Schools (Caldwell and Spinks, 2008).  The applicability of the model in different countries was explored in 22 workshops in 2007. Eighteen were conducted for school and school system leaders from Australia, Croatia, England, Malaysia, Mauritius, Netherlands, Philippines, Singapore and Wales. The final set of four workshops was conducted for the Australian Council for Educational Leaders (ACEL) in three states (Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia) in late 2007. 

The model in Figure 1 was the focus of a further study to explore its application to developments in six countries: Australia, China, England, Finland, United States and Wales. The purpose was to investigate how successful secondary schools align the four kinds of capital. There were two stages. The first called for a review of literature on the four kinds of capital and how they are aligned through effective governance. An outcome of this review was the identification of 10 sample indicators for each form of capital and for governance. The second called for case studies in five schools in each country. The project was funded by the former Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) of the Australian Government and the Department of Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DELLS) of the Welsh Assembly Government. It commenced in mid-2007 and the final report was submitted to the funding agencies in early 2008.

The project was carried out by Melbourne-based Educational Transformations with different components conducted by international partners including the Wales Institute of Applied Education Research at the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff (UWIC) led by Professor David Egan; SENTE – the Research Unit for Urban and Regional Development at the University of Tampere in Finland led by Dr Toni Saarivirta; the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT) in England led by Mike Goodfellow; and the US-China Centre for Research on Excellence in Education, based at Michigan State University (US) and Beijing Normal University (China) led by Professor Yong Zhao.

Sample indicators

We generated 50 indicators – 10 for each form of capital and 10 for governance – and these were validated in the international project. Indeed, 40 of the 50 indicators were manifested in each of the 30 case studies. The following are the 10 indicators for social capital:

• There is a high level of alignment between the expectations of parents and other key stakeholders and the mission, vision, goals, policies, plans and programmes of the school.
• There is extensive and active engagement of parents and others in the community in the educational programme of the school.
• Parents and others in the community serve on the governing body of the school or contribute in other ways to the decision-making process.
• Parents and others in the community are advocates of the school and are prepared to take up its cause in challenging circumstances.
• The school draws cash or in-kind support from individuals, organisations, agencies and institutions in the public and private sectors, in education and other fields, including business and industry, philanthropists and social entrepreneurs.
• The school accepts that support from the community has a reciprocal obligation for the school to contribute to the building of community.
• The school draws from and contributes to networks to share knowledge, address problems and pool resources.
• Partnerships have been developed and sustained to the extent that each partner gains from the arrangement.
• Resources, both financial and human, have been allocated by the school to building partnerships that provide mutual support.
• The school is co-located with or located near other services in the community and these services are utilised in support of the school.

 

We have developed a self-assessment instrument for each set of indicators in workshop or work settings. For each indicator, respondents are invited to provide ratings of (1) importance in the context of your school, (2) how well your school is performing, and (3) the priority you attach to further development. The respondent might consider the school as a whole or a particular unit within the school.

While each indicator has been validated either in prior research or in the international project and therefore ought to be considered important, it is acknowledged that there will be relativities among them in each setting. The first set of ratings provides respondents with an opportunity to assess these relativities. Clearly, however, the second rating is critical: ‘how well your school is performing’. The third set of ratings provides respondents with an opportunity to reflect on another set of relativities. Ratings of performance may be less than optimal but action on some indicators may be more urgent than on others. We take the view that a school should not attempt to address too many priorities at once or over a year, hence the invitation for each set of indicators to nominate the top three priorities for action.

While more detailed information about the breakthrough in governance is contained in our forthcoming pamphlet (Caldwell and Harris, 2008a) a comprehensive description of all indicators and guidelines for their use is contained in the forthcoming book (Caldwell and Harris, 2008b). 

References

Caldwell, BJ (2006). Re-imagining educational leadership. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press and London: Sage.

Caldwell, BJ (2007). Alignment. London: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.

Caldwell, BJ and Harris, J (2008a). Breakthrough in Governance. London: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.

Caldwell, BJ and Harris, J (2008b). Why not the best schools? Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.

Caldwell, BJ and Spinks, JM (2008). Raising the stakes: from improvement to transformation in the reform of schools. London: Routledge.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Professor Brian J. Caldwell is Managing Director of Educational Transformations Pty Ltd in Melbourne and Associate Director of iNet (Global) (International Networking for Educational Transformation) of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust in England.  From 1998 to 2004 he served as Dean of Education at the University of Melbourne where he is currently Professorial Fellow. International work over the last 25 years includes more than 450 presentations, projects and other professional assignments in or for 38 countries or jurisdictions on six continents. He is author or co-author of books that helped guide educational reform in several countries, most notably the trilogy on self-managing schools: The Self-Managing School (1988), Leading the Self-Managing School (1992) and Beyond the Self-Managing School (1998). Other books include Re-imagining Educational Leadership (2006) and Raising the Stakes: From Improvement to Transformation in the Reform of Schools (2008).

Dr Jessica Harris is Director of Research at Educational Transformations Pty Ltd and Research Fellow in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. She managed and served as contributing author in four major commissioned projects: A History of State Aid to Non-Government Schools (2007), Review of Parental Engagement in Queensland State Schools (2007), Principal Autonomy (2008), and An International Project to Frame the Transformation of Schools (2008). In 2006 she conducted a comparative study of school education in Australia (Victoria) and Finland, published as Alignment in Finland (Occasional Paper 1 of Educational Transformations). This study was cited in Federalist Paper No 2 (The Future of Schooling in Australia). She prepared case studies of developments in education in 16 countries for the international conference of outstanding school principals conducted in Beijing in 2006 published in Transformation and Innovation: System Leaders in the Global Age (Hopkins, 2007).

 

Go to top of page     Go to online discussion