Table Of ContentEducational Governance Research 13
Helene Ärlestig
Olof Johansson Editors
Educational
Authorities
and
the Schools
Organisation and Impact in 20 States
Educational Governance Research
Volume 13
Series Editors
Lejf Moos, Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark
Stephen Carney, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
Editorial Advisory Board
Stephen J. Ball, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK
Neil Dempster, Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt,
QLD, Australia
Olof Johansson, Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Umeå,
Sweden
Klaus Kasper Kofod, Department of Education, Aarhus University, Copenhagen
NV, Denmark
John B. Krejsler, Danish School of Education (DPU), Aarhus University,
Copenhagen, Denmark
Romuald Normand, Research Unit CNRS SAGE, University of Strasbourg,
Strasbourg, France
Marcelo Parreira do Amaral, Institute of Education, Universität Münster, Münster,
Germany
Jan Merok Paulsen, Teacher Education, Oslo Metropolitan University,
Oslo, Norway
Nelli Piattoeva, Faculty of Education & Culture, Tampere University, Tampere,
Finland
James P. Spillane, School of Education & Social Policy, Northwestern University,
Evanston, USA
Gita Steiner-Khamsi, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York,
NY, USA
Michael Uljens, Faculty of Education, Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland
Educational Governance Research
Aims and Scope
This series presents recent insights in educational governance gained from research
that focuses on the interplay between educational institutions and societies and
markets. Education is not an isolated sector. Educational institutions at all levels are
embedded in and connected to international, national and local societies and
markets. One needs to understand governance relations and the changes that occur
if one is to understand the frameworks, expectations, practice, room for manoeuvre,
and the relations between professionals, public, policy makers and market place
actors.
The aim of this series is to address issues related to structures and discourses by
which authority is exercised in an accessible manner. It will present findings on a
variety of types of educational governance: public, political and administrative, as
well as private, market place and self-governance. International and multidisciplinary
in scope, the series will cover the subject area from both a worldwide and local
perspective and will describe educational governance as it is practised in all parts of
the world and in all sectors: state, market, and NGOs.
The series:
– Covers a broad range of topics and power domains
– Positions itself in a field between politics and management/leadership
– Provides a platform for the vivid field of educational governance research
– Looks into ways in which authority is transformed within chains of educational
governance
– Uncovers relations between state, private sector and market place influences on
education, professionals and students.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13077
Helene Ärlestig • Olof Johansson
Editors
Educational Authorities
and the Schools
Organisation and Impact in 20 States
Editors
Helene Ärlestig Olof Johansson
Centre for Principal Development Centre for Principal Development
Umeå University Umeå University
Umeå, Sweden Umeå, Sweden
ISSN 2365-9548 ISSN 2365-9556 (electronic)
Educational Governance Research
ISBN 978-3-030-38758-7 ISBN 978-3-030-38759-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38759-4
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
When I was asked to write this foreword for Olof Johansson’s and Helene Ärlestig’s
new edited book Educational Authorities and the Schools: Organization and Impact
in 20 States, I was not only pleased but also overwhelmed about what one puts down
in the limited space of a foreword, considering the magnitude of the book. The book
revolves around an explosive cocktail of context, central authorities, and their rela-
tionship with individual schools. Beginning with context, I think that two factors
mainly affect education in the twenty-first century: (1) the unprecedented demo-
graphic shifts and reformations of populations all over the world as we know it and
(2) the recent transitions of world economy from agriculture and manufacturing to
information and computers and now into biogenetics. These two factors are cur-
rently shaping and making the international educational context in which educa-
tional authorities are organized and impacting educators, students, and societies.
Indeed, the interplay of these issues is quite evident throughout the book.
Even more so, nowadays, it is probably well-accepted that the educational policy
of a single nation-state cannot (anymore) be examined and/or studied without look-
ing at the totality of educational policy worldwide. This development is rather recent
but not ephemeral; it is here to stay. Furthermore, I would dare say that the final
educational policy decisions are the result of supranational entities, such as the
OECD, the IMF, the World Bank, and others, which (oftentimes) have little to do
with local policies and the actual people on the ground as well as the cultures, con-
texts, and structures that shape and make their education systems. In short, global-
ization means a redefinition of the relationship between what is national vs.
international, what are public institutions vs. private institutions, and what is eco-
nomic prosperity vs. poverty. In my view, this is the educational policy context in
which this book, Educational Authorities and the Schools: Organization and Impact
in 20 States, unfolds. The various chapters in the book tackle educational context,
governance, and leadership issues mostly in Europe (Denmark, England, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden) but also in Canada
(Alberta and Ontario) and the USA (California, Minnesota, and South Carolina),
Australia, New Zealand, the African continent (Kenya, South Africa), and Singapore.
v
vi Foreword
In their introductory chapter, Olof Johansson and Helene Ärlestig begin the jour-
ney with an interesting title “Governing Chains for Support, Control and
Intervention” in their effort to describe and analyze national education agencies’
organization, functions, and influences at the local school level in 20 countries/
regions around the world. As they mention, besides describing the agencies’ organi-
zation and function, they were also interested to get a theoretical perspective on
governance and the kind of support they provide to schools or, I would add, about
control and intervention. This tendency for control and intervention indeed high-
lights the very organization and existence of educational authorities worldwide in
relation to individual schools and their degrees of freedom. Is it about loosely cou-
pled relationships between the schools and their governing contexts, or is it a tightly
controlled relationship geared toward monitoring and accountability? This is the
very relationship that is being explored within the various chapters comprising this
worthwhile volume.
The authors of the chapters present important points such as the historical evolu-
tion of the agencies as well as the subsequent changes in their mission, with a focus
on the period after the millennium. They also describe linkages between the educa-
tional authorities, agencies, and local levels and, finally, discuss possible power
structures, discretionary authority for the local school district and the schools in
relation to state or national policy, and their importance for the quality of the
school system.
I don’t think that within the space limitations of a foreword one can elaborate in
an in-depth analysis what is described in each chapter, however, suffice to state that
the ongoing discussion about the relationship between context and governance, on
the one hand, and the schools, on the other hand, is right at the epicenter of this
book. This is what makes it a worthy contribution on this ongoing debate, which is
resurfacing at a higher and more in-depth level, in an effort to “bring context out of
the shadows of leadership,” as Hallinger would have put it. Furthermore, as Nicola
Alexander and Karen Seashore Louis very aptly describe in their chapter about
Minnesota in the USA, “the U.S. national policy pendulum tends to swing between
devoting more resources to one set of value preferences over the other.” Then, they
go on to discuss the main dilemmas, which I believe are currently evident in almost
every educational system around the world. What should we strive for: equity or
efficiency or centralized or decentralized educational structures? And is it about
academic results or about creating future citizens in the world who are able to (first
and foremost) function as civilized persons of the world and not just as potential
members of the work force?
But then who am I to place all of the above in an either-or situation as opposed
to stressing that, yes(!!), education systems of the twenty-first century ought to be
about equity, efficiency, decentralized and accountable notions of governance, and
both academic and citizenship results. All are important if we want today’s students
to function optimally as tomorrow’s citizens in an ever-changing world and an ever-
growing and diversified, both culturally and biologically, student population. At the
same time, educational authorities around the world have to deal with (1) the pres-
sures and trends between relinquishing power to the local level and keeping it for
Foreword vii
themselves; (2) providing funding at the local level, but also keeping money for
social justice and equity concerns; and then (3) the ever-increasing challenge
between giving more power at the local level and then asking for more responsibil-
ity, thus increasing the accountability pressures on the individual schools and their
leadership. These issues are recurrent themes of almost all chapters in this volume.
However, Cathy Wylie from New Zealand, which has a highly decentralized sys-
tem of self-managed schools, informs us that this framework was set up in 1989 in
an effort to bring schools and their communities closer so that the national agencies
would govern from a distance. In short, she describes what other countries are trying
to do, which is to provide for more local control to the individual school, based on
the principle that those in the “front lines” and the “trenches” know best; instead,
according to Wylie, their highly decentralized school system has created “systemic
issues around the variability between schools, difficulty in getting improvement and
greater equity for disadvantaged students, and too much fragmentation and opera-
tion of schools and government agencies in silos.” Is that what they were after?
To put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a free lunch: one gets something good,
but then there is a cost attached to it. For instance, the possible unintended effects of
policy-making need to be thought of as well. In essence, educational authorities
around the world are increasingly being asked to do just that: define and constantly
redefine the threshold between how much of this or the other policy and when have
we gone too far to the detriment of society at large, as we visualize it within our
context. Moreover, as our colleagues Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir, Börkur
Hansen, Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, and Femke Geijsel from Iceland inform us, it
is mainly about the educational authorities gaining the necessary level of trust from
the local school level so that one’s actions are not seen with suspicion from the other
level. This is a balancing act indeed between more power and more responsibility
between the various levels.
Then, the editors write about their own country, Sweden, with the interesting title
“High Policy Ambitions with Soft Accountability.” In this chapter, they vividly
describe the major contextual changes and influences that are going on in Europe
(and many other parts of the world) between the tensions created by the recent mas-
sive migration in Europe coupled with an increased focus on academic results and a
more liberal and market-oriented view on how to lead educational organizations. As
both authors contend, Sweden is faced with the challenges of how much choice and
voice to allow for the parents and students. As they mention, this new focus on free-
dom of choice has led to more diverse and segregated schools, similar views as
echoed by the New Zealand author. To sum it up, schools have become more socially
homogenous both among the high-performing and among low-performing schools,
with little accountability toward society. Is that what a society is after when it puts
together its national and regional educational authorities? In a similar vein, the
authors from England, Philip Woods, Amanda Roberts, Joy Jarvis, and Suzanne
Culshaw, voice out their concerns about “the moral demands entailed in autonomy
and the importance and challenges of exercising principled autonomy and critical
reflexivity as an integral feature of autonomous practice, especially in the context of
pressures in the school system to conform to performative and competitive logics.”
viii Foreword
In this regard, they introduce the interesting notion of “ethical autonomy.” Again,
we observe the ongoing dilemma between centralized and less centralized gover-
nance structures and authorities and the intended and unintended effects.
At the same time, Maie Kitsing and Hasso Kukemelk, when writing about
Estonia, underline the fact that they have moved from a top-down approach toward
an inclusive and evidence-based governance education system, stressing that the
decentralization and democratization of the school system in society led to evidence-
based decision-making. This change, however, came about at a similar cost as in
other countries, where the interplay of context and leadership is continuous. The
cost (and the opportunity?) is having better and more informed preparation of school
leaders in order to be able to function within the new contextual parameters. The
same holds for Germany, as Stephan Huber informs us, where there is a prolifera-
tion of extensive professional development programs for agents on all governance
levels in the school system among the 16 states of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Thus, educational leadership is finally in the forefront among many European coun-
tries (excluding the UK, where there is a long history of school management).
Following, Charles Webber and Jodi Nickel write about school improvement in
Alberta, Canada, where, as they mention, “the system still wrestles with meeting the
needs of diverse learners and with contentious issues such as some opposition to
standardized testing and legislation on gay-straight alliances.” On the other hand,
they note that Alberta’s system is blessed with high-quality teachers and positive
relationships among the province’s educational stakeholders. They go on to mention
that the system is based on “a clear set of values and on public and alternative orga-
nizational structures for reorientation in response to constantly changing economic,
demographic, cultural, and pedagogical influences.”
Then, Brenton Faubert and Elan Paulson “echo” similar ideas while writing
about Ontario, Canada, where also the usage of the concepts of centralization, coor-
dination, and hard/soft power as a sense-making framework has been put in place.
However, as they mention, some high-profile issues and conflicts provide opportu-
nities for “considering the value of counterbalancing voices and the risks of silenc-
ing alternate ideas and innovations to address complex educational challenges.”
Again, the interplay of outside as well as inside forces at the school level comes into
play, where an edupreneurial leader is needed, as Pashiardis and Brauckmann would
have put it.
However, when we travel to California, USA, it seems that the chapter author,
Rollin Nordgren, is trying to show us “the California way,” which attempts to de-
emphasize testing as well as place more power and responsibility on local authori-
ties, specifically school principals. In my view, educators in California have gone
through “childhood illnesses,” and now they want a way out. However, in the road
toward maturity, every educational system needs to go through the same childhood
illnesses toward adolescence and adulthood. Similarly, Hans Klar, Kathryn Lee
D’Andrea, and Seth Young, when describing the situation in South Carolina, USA,
stress that it is important to understand how the lack of interaction between educa-
tion authorities and practitioners around the development and implementation of the
Foreword ix
policy can result in conflicts, again indicating the struggle between the center and
the periphery.
Furthermore, David Gurr describes the complexity of Australian school educa-
tion when identifying the usual suspects: funding, government control of education,
the influence of student testing programs, parental choice, and school quality.
Similar issues are further described by Lucy Wakiaga with regard to Kenya, where,
as mentioned, the education governance structure is reflective of the devolved sys-
tem of government, even though education is (still) a preserve of the national gov-
ernment rather than a shared responsibility with the county government. Once
again, the struggle between the center and the periphery is in the forefront.
Additionally, Rajkumar Mestry and Petrus Du Plessis remind us that during the
apartheid era in South Africa, schools catering for the white population group
received substantial funding, whereas schools for the other population groups
received a smaller portion of the education budget. Since the dismantling of the
apartheid regime in 1994, the democratic government devolved education to local
communities. It seems to me that the hope was that the devolution of authority
would lead to a healthier and more democratic relationship between schools and
communities. Thus, depending on the state of evolution of an educational system,
different views regarding the issues of centralized and decentralized forms of gov-
ernance will be applicable. Some may see it as neoliberal ideas which lead educa-
tional systems into greater inequalities and inefficiencies. On the other hand, some
may see it as a return to democracy and more local control by the people around the
schools.
Based on the above descriptions and analyses, I believe that this book is both
timely and important in our quest for more in-depth explorations, comparisons, and
knowledge between the outside and the inside of a school’s context at the micro,
meso-, and macro-levels. Thus, the book would be very useful to policy-makers,
practitioners, as well as researchers around the world.
Professor of Educational Leadership, Petros Pashiardis
Open University of Cyprus,
Nicosia, Cyprus
2 May 2019
