Institutionalization Of Autonomy Or Illusion Of Autonomy? Results From Case Studies In France Focused On School Leaders And The State
Author(s):
Pierre Tulowitzki (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2014
Network:
26. Educational Leadership
Format:
Paper

Session Information

26 SES 04 A JS, School Leadership and Quality Assurance

Paper Session Joint Session NW 11 and NW 26

Time:
2014-09-03
09:00-10:30
Room:
B231 Sala de Aulas
Chair:
Samuel Gento

Contribution

The French education system has traditionally been a centralized one (see for example Derouet, 2000). Since the 1980s, efforts have been made to decentralize various aspects (for a brief overview, see Tulowitzki, 2013). Despite these efforts, the French school system still has a significant degree of centralization with key components like the curriculum or final exams still being managed centrally by the State (OECD, 2012, p. 512). This degree of centralization puts the school principal in France in a special context. While there appears to be a consensus that the school leader generally plays a key role with regard to school effectiveness and improvement (see for example Fullan, 2002; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993; for a more critical assessment, see Scheerens, Hendriks, & Steen, 2012), the impact of connected instances like the school district or the State seems to warrant further research (Datnow & Park, 2010). This factor seems to be even more relevant in a country with an education system like France. National systems of school governance usually influence schools through formal means, e.g. laws, regulations and the settings of standards. These formal means can vary heavily across different nations. Therefore, studies of individual States/nations can help reveal unique properties as well as internationally and inter-culturally shared characteristics and to explore possible ways of enhancement of existing systems.

The objective of this contribution is to describe and assess the role of the State in school improvement and effectiveness in France. Additionally, the aim is to analyze the role of school principals with regard to school improvement and effectiveness in relation to the role of the State. Guiding questions for this study were:

  1. What is/are the principal agent(s) of school improvement in France?
  2. What is the relationship between local (school principals) and central educational agents (Inspectorate, Ministry of Education) with regard to school improvement?

Primary sources consisted of law texts and official regulations for school leaders. Additionally, official, but non-binding recommendations as well as studies and program reports published or endorsed by the French Ministry of Education were included in the analysis. Finally, data was obtained from semi-structured interviews with five principals from Paris, France. The study took place between January 2010 and February 2012.

This study contributes to the understanding of different agents of school improvement by offering a glimpse into the intricacies of school improvement across different levels of governance. As various school systems in Europe and around the world are undergoing endeavors of decentralization, the findings presented in this proposed contribution can be used to inform next generation school improvement efforts. Additionally, findings provide a foundation for cross-national comparisons, especially with other education systems in transitional periods.

Method

Schools are viewed as organizations governed by rules yet run by individuals. This means that in this contribution, school leaders, teachers and staff (aka agents) are seen as working within boundaries stemming from the rules, expectations, resources etc. (structure). However, they are neither viewed as being unhindered by structure nor are they determined by it. Following Giddens, structure is seen as the medium and the outcome of practices (Giddens, 1985, p. 25). Agency and structure don't oppose, but presuppose each other (Sewell Jr, 1992, p. 4). The agents act according to their knowledge of society and actively produce or reproduce structure. Structure can be defined as rules and resources involving human action and therefore both constrains and enables action. Agency refers to human actions or rather people's capability for action (Giddens, 1985, p. 9). It is recognized that leadership is not inevitably tied to formal positional authority (MacBeath et al., 2004), something Spillane refers to as the "leader-plus aspect" (see for example Spillane and Zuberi, 2009, p. 378f; Spillane et al., 2008, p. 191f). However, as this contribution revolves around school leaders and the role of the State, leadership activities of others are not featured herein. This research relies on a document analysis combined with semi-structured interviews of French school principals. For the document analysis existing national laws pertaining to the school system as well as school programs and regulations were analyzed. Categories of analysis were rights and competences, responsibilities and possible domains of interaction between the relevant parties (chiefly school district superintendents, school administrators, legislators). Overlapping areas of responsibility were also of interest. Additionally, five principals from Paris were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured and aimed at retracing the principals’ relationships with rules and regulations as well as the State. Another focus was the role of the school principal as described by the principals themselves and the role of the school principal as described in law texts and official guidelines. Interviews were analyzed using a multistep process involving open-ended coding, clustering of codes and contrasting and comparison of codes with relevant research (for details, see Creswell, 2008, p. 191ff which was used as a model). Using this method, themes present in all interviews as well as themes that were of particular relevance to the data from the document analysis were identified. Interviews and documents were revisited repeatedly as part of an iterative analysis concept (Glaser & Strauss, 2009).

Expected Outcomes

While the State traditionally acted as the sole pathway for school improvement (in the form of nation-wide reforms), it has over the last decade shifted responsibilities so as to allow individual schools room for school-based improvement efforts. The shift towards autonomy and accountability that seems to be occurring in various European countries (OECD, 2008), is also happening in France, albeit at its own pace and with variations. The document analysis revealed several inconsistencies with regard to laws, guidelines and recommendations for school principals. For the principals interviewed, the State represented the main force and gatekeeper of school improvement efforts. According to them, the shift towards autonomy and accountability was not really present in their daily work life. They saw little incentive to increase leadership activities and activities of school-based school improvement. When asked about the possibility of one day being able to autonomously manage staff (including hiring and firing and evaluation), three out of the five principals interviewed preferred the status quo, questioning whether they were qualified for these additional tasks. In spite of ongoing decentralization efforts, the State – not the school principal – is still the principal agent of school improvement. Yet, the shift towards autonomy and accountability has brought with it expanded responsibilities for school principals along with a mandate to act as driving forces of school improvement. The document analysis revealed a web of interdepencies between the State and the school principal when it comes to matters or school management and improvement. In short, it can be stated that while the change in law has been largely completed, the change in culture seems to be ongoing. This can be interpreted as an indicator for the transitional period the French education system seems to be in (cf. Normand, 2012).

References

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications, Incorporated. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2010). Large-Scale Reform in the Era of Accountability: The System Role in Supporting Data-Driven Decision Making. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 209–220). Dordrecht: Springer. Derouet, J.-L. (2000). School autonomy in a society with multi-faceted political references: the search for new ways of coordinating action. Journal of Education Policy, 15(1), 61–69. doi:10.1080/026809300286024 Fullan, M. (2002). Principals as Leaders in a Culture of Change [originally published as “The Change Leader”]. Educational Leadership, 59(8). Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (7th ed.). London: Transaction Publishers. Ministère de l’Education Nationale. (2002, January 3). Bulletin Officiel - B.O. spécial n°1 du 3 janvier 2002. Retrieved from http://www.education.gouv.fr/botexte/sp1020103/MENA0102675X.htm#annexe1 Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche. (2008). Rapport annuel des inspections générales 2007. La Documentation Française. Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche. (2010). Rapport annuel des inspections générales 2009. La Documentation Française. Normand, R. (2012). School improvement and accountability in France: timid changes, big hopes. In U. Lindqvist & S. Pettersson (Eds.), Create learning for all – what matters? – CIDREE Yearbook 2012 (pp. 164–175). Stockholm: Skolverket. OECD (Ed.). (2008). Improving school leadership. Volume 1: Policy & Practice. Paris: OECD. OECD (Ed.). (2012). Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD. Scheerens, J., Hendriks, M., & Steen, R. (2012). Meta Analysis Of School Leadership Effects. Conference paper presented at the 25th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement in Malmö, Sweden. Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools Make a Difference: Lessons Learned from a 10-Year Study of School Effects. New York: Teachers College Press. Tulowitzki, P. (2013). Leadership & School Improvement in France. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(6).

Author Information

Pierre Tulowitzki (presenting / submitting)
University of Teacher Education Zug, Switzerland

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.