According to the Eurydice report, school autonomy refers to “several different aspects of school management (essentially funding and human resources)”. A full implemention of autonomy would imply that schools “are fully responsible for their decisions subject to legal constraints and/or the general framework of education legislation”. Schools will be considered to be “partly autonomous” when “they take decisions within a set of predetermined options or require approval for decisions from their education authority” (2007, p. 7). The comparative analysis argues that for most European countries, “school autonomy measures are defined under national legal frameworks and are imposed on all schools. In the vast majority of cases, these policies are laid down under the strict framework of legislation(Ibid., p. 14). Interestingly enough, the report points out that autonomy was more an imposition than a wish for schools, in that “the legislation made provision for the transfer of new duties without schools having any right to express their view on the matter” (Ibid., p. 15). The way by which school autonomy seems to have been imposed to schools, can be explained, at least to a certain extent, by PISA results and their well-known impact over educational political agendas (Saura & Luengo, 2015; Breakspear, 2012; Bieber & Martens, 2011). One PISA study after another has shown how strong the relation is between school autonomy and higher student achievement (e.g., OECD, 2013a, 50-53). Recent educational reforms in Spain (LOMCE, 2014) are pushing schools to be increasingly more responsible for curricular and instructional decisions as well as for managing financial and material resources. Though there are many issues at stake here, this paper aims to address only two of them: first, the progressive internal differentiation of the school system supported by this political move towards granting more autonomy, and, second, how public schools in Spain are responding to these new demands.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that by stressing autonomy and decentralization of schools, we are making schools increasingly more different one from each other. This situation is pushing many schools into unknown competitive dynamics, which for many researchers are considered to be key in privatizing public education (Prieto y Villamor, 2012; Maroy, 2008; Ball & Youdell, 2008). Having more different kinds of schools (based on curriculum orientation, teaching methods, grouping styles, and so on) is not necessarily a downward and can actually be potentially positive if we think of, for example, the actual variety of educational needs and educational interests, and the families’ possibility to make real school choices. On the other hand, the research literature points to head of schools as a critical success factor in the implementation of school autonomy (Scheerens, 2012; Bolívar, 2012; Clark, 2009). The trend towards greater decentralisation and school autonomy is resulting in changing leadership roles and the way school life and teaching tasks are organized (OECD, 2013b).

This paper aims to analyse how by offering the prestigious global International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (DP), an increasing number of Spanish high schools are finding a way to channel their exercise of autonomy. We will do so by addressing it as a “differentiation strategy” within the public education system, analysing the particular opportunities it has to offer as well as the challenges it may present. The research questions are as follows: What are the main points of the political agenda driving this growth of interest in school autonomy? How is the new demand for school autonomy being addressed by school principals in Spanish high schools? What are the effects (in terms of choice of school, reputation, and students’ performance) of following IBDP curriculum, teaching methods and assessment standards?

Ball, S. J. & Youdell, D. (2008). Hidden Privatisation in Public Education. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Bieber, T. & Martens, K. (2011). The OECD PISA Study as a Soft Power in Education? Lessons from Switzerland and the US. European Journal of Education, 46(1), 101-116. Bolívar, A. (2012). Políticas actuales de mejora y liderazgo educativo. Málaga: Aljibe. Breakspear, S. (2012). The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in School System Performance. OECD Education Working Papers, 71. OECD Publishing. Clark, D. (2009). The Performance and Competitive Effects of School Autonomy. Journal of Political Economy, 117(4), 745-783. Colburn, B. (2012). Responsibility and School Choice in Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 46(2), 207-222. Dronkersab, J. & Avram, S. (2015). What can international comparisons teach us about school choice and non-governmental schools in Europe? Comparative Education, 51(1), 118-132. Eurydice (2008). Levels of Autonomy and Responsibilities of Teachers in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Eurydice (2007). School Autonomy in Europe. Policies and Measures. Brussels: European Commission. International Baccalaureate (2010a). Guide to school authorization: Diploma Programme. UK: IBO. International Baccalaureate (2010b). Diploma Programme assessment. Principles and practice. UK: IBO. Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 295, de 10 de diciembre de 2013, pp. 97858 a 97921. Maroy, C. (2008) ¿Por qué y cómo regular el mercado educativo? Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 12(2), 1-11. OECD (2013a). PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). OECD Publishing. OECD (2013b). Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment. OECD Publishing. OECD (2008). Improving school leadership (Volume 1: Policy & Practice). OECD Publishing. Prieto, M. & Villamor, P. (2012). Libertad de elección, competencia y calidad: las políticas educativas de la Comunidad de Madrid. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 16(3), 127-144. Rambla, X., Valiente, O. & Frías, C. (2011). The politics of school choice in two countries with large private‐dependent sectors (Spain and Chile): family strategies, collective action and lobbying. Journal of Education Policy, 26(3), 431-447. Saura, G. & Luengo, J. J. (2015). Política global más allá de lo nacional. Reforma educativa (LOMCE) y el régimen de estandarización (OECD). Bordón. Revista de pedagogía, 67(1), 135-148. Scheerens, J. (Ed.) (2012). School Leadership Effects Revisited. Review and Meta-Analysis of Empirical Studies. New York: Springer.