This international symposium composed of 7 papers and one discussant presentation in two sessions (Symposium A & B) will report on the significance, findings and implications of Phases 1 and 2 of an international and comparative study on school autonomy and 21^st century learning, involving 7 education systems in Australia, Canada, England, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel and Singapore.

In last two decades among numerous education reforms worldwide, the change towards school autonomy was a major one implemented in forms of school-based management, site-based decision making, self-managing schools and local management of schools, etc. It was believed that schools with increased autonomy can be more adaptive to the changing educational environment and have the capacity to make successful changes in curriculum and practices for enhancing students’ learning (Caldwell and Spinks, 2013; Cheng, 1996; Volansky & Freidman, 2003). 

After a comprehensive review, Grattan Institute Report (2013, p. 25) found out that: (a) both within-country and cross-country quantitative research at a broader level showed that the direct gain in school performance produced by increasing autonomy is relatively small; and (b) the results of a large number of studies on the impact of varying levels of school autonomy within countries differed quite widely and it was difficult to generalize from them. Further international evidence showed that contingent with the nature and level of school autonomy, accountability structures, and development stages of school, the impact of autonomy on school performance and student learning was found to be not so consistent and evident (e.g. PISA in Focus, 2011; Hanushek, Link, Woessmann, 2013). In particular, how the leadership role of principals and teachers made use of increased school autonomy to enhance learning needs in-depth further study internationally (Day et al., 2009; Hallinger and Heck, 2010; Louis, Leithwood, Wahlestrom, & Anderson, 2010; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009; Walters, T. Mazarno, & McNulty, 2003). 

The 7 education systems have implemented school autonomy to different extents in past decades and also have initiatives to enhance student learning for the 21st century. However, their efforts are limited from lacking a comprehensive knowledge base with latest empirical findings to understand the complicated interplay among school autonomy, leadership, and learning initiatives. To address the above issues worldwide with a purpose-built empirical research design involving multiple education systems, 7 international teams worked together to conduct this international project.

The understanding of the interplay of school leadership with structures and cultures of school autonomy (OECD, 2010; PISA in Focus, 2011; Cheng & Mok, 2007), accountability structures (PISA in Focus, 2011; Figlio & Loeb, 2011; Woessmann, Luedemann, Schuetz, &West, 2009), and other contextual factors (e.g. school development stage) in relation to curriculum and learning will contribute to theory development, practical improvement and professional learning of school leadership, particularly in areas such as distributed leadership (Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2004), transformational leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006), collaborative leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 2010) and leadership for learning (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlestrom, & Anderson, 2010; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008).

This international project with four phases (1-4) of implementation aims to address the major research question: “How does school autonomy – in terms of both structures and cultures - influence leadership practices in relation to curriculum and learning across 7 jurisdictions in the 21^st Century?” and some other research questions with worldwide significance (such as “What aspects of structural autonomy are the most influential on leadership practices in relation to learning?”,…etc.)

The papers in this symposium will report the findings of Phases 1 and 2 on national reviews, national case studies, and international syntheses, discuss related worldwide issues, draw implications for international research, and inform preparation and implementation of Phases 3 and 4 of the international project.

Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (2013). The Self-Transforming School. London: Routledge. Cheng, Y.C. & Mok, M.M.C. (2007) School-based management and paradigm shifts in education: An empirical study. International Journal of Educational Management. 21(6), 517-542. Grattan Institute Report (2013), The myth of markets in school education. Victoria Australia: Grattan Institute. Hanushek, E.A., Link, S. & Woessmann, L. (2013), Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 212-232. PISA in Focus (2011). School autonomy and accountability: Are they related to student performance? OECD Publishing. Robinson, V.M.J., Lloyd, C.A. and Rowe, K.J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5) pp 635-674. Spillane, J. P. (2006) Distributed leadership, San Fransisco: Jossey Bass Volansky, A. & Friedman, I. (2003) (eds.). School-based management: International perspectives (pp.31-56). Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education. Walters, T., Mazarno, R.J. and McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Denver: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). Woessmann, L., Luedemann, E., Schuetz, G., & West, M. (2009). School Accountability, Autonomy and Choice Around the World. Edward Elgar Publishing.