The presented study aims to reflect the quality of cooperation between headteachers, statutory authorities, and employees of the Middle Tier in education in selected regions in the Czech Republic as seen from the perspective of the aforementioned people. 

The main research question was: “How do elementary school headteachers, statutory authorities and employees of the Middle Tier reflect on their mutual cooperation concerning the fulfilment of perceived needs in the area of management support and legislation?” The primary goal of the study was to study and describe how exactly was this cooperation carried out and how the individual actors perceived it.

The formation of the Middle Tier  is associated with the decentralization processes of educational systems in various countries. Decentralization involves the redistribution of power from the central level (such as the ministry/department) to local levels, e.g. regional offices, headteachers themselves statutory authorities – meaning primarily municipalities (Mwinjuma et al., 2015). 

As a result, complete control over larger territories in the field of education slowly diminishes. The academic literature distinguishes three forms of decentralization in association with education. The first is called deconcentration with the second being delegation and the third devolution (Florestal & Cooper, 1997; Hanson, 1997; Mwinjuma et al., 2015). 

Deconcentration is defined as a process in which decision-making authority regarding certain matters is transferred down to regional bodies of central power, while these delegated officials remain under central control. Delegation refers to the transfer of power from one authority to another. Finally, devolution describes the transfer of responsibility to a local body which then makes decisions and acts accordingly to rules and laws previously established by the central authority (Florestal & Cooper, 1997). 

Deconcentration involves the division of central power into lesser – directly subordinate – local levels. Delegation can be understood as a transfer of authority to completely different entity rather than a mere branch of central power. In the case of devolution, predefined statutes must be followed by a local body upon which the power is bestowed and the responsibility for the compliance lies with the respective local authority.

A decentralized educational system has many advantages, such as limitation of the direct influence political decisions may have on education or enablement of efficient and responsible financing (Fiske, 1996; Hanson, 1997). However, the monitoring of the quality of such an education system proves challenging. For this reason, Middle Tiers play a crucial role worldwide in overseeing the quality of these systems. Their primary goal is to generally monitor and support schools. In short, the Middle Tier can be defined as an entity positioned between the central ministry/department and local officials – it is thus geographically closer to schools than central authorities (Childress et al., 2020). The Middle Tier is typically tasked with the task of effectively assisting schools in performing their functions, though that concept varies globally (Clarke & Wildy, 2011; Bubb et al., 2019).

The Czech Republic is one of the most politically decentralized countries according to the OECD (Kameshwara et al., 2020). Compared to international practice, the Czech model of the Middle Tier also supports statutory authorities, whom it is supposed to assist specifically in educational matters, according to strategic documents (Czech Ministry of Education, 2020). However, it still also focuses on supporting school principals, making this study relevant for international contexts where the Middle Tier is utilized.

This work was supported by the NPO ‘Systemic Risk Institute’ number LX22NPO5101, funded by European Union—Next Generation EU (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, NPO: EXCELES) and by the project Mediated Society (MEDIS:ON) CZ.02.01.01/00/23_025/0008713 co-financed/supported by the European Union and Czech Republic.

To achieve the research objective and to answer the described research question, I opted for a qualitative research design, more specifically a case study. The case is represented by a statutory authority, a headteacher, and an employee of the Middle Tier. Each group represents a unique perspective leading to a wider and richer dataset in relation to the studied phenomenon (Yin, 1994). I have conducted a series of individual semi-structured interviews. The research sample included ten participants – four representatives of statutory authority, four headteachers and two employees of the Middle Tier of Support. These participants overall represent the entirety of one regional Middle Tier branch. The study focused on four small municipalities (700–1400 inhabitants). The headteacher and the statutory authority were in every case representing the same municipality. Interviews with Middle Tier employees were conducted online due to their time constraints, while the others took place in the respondents' offices. Before the interviews, participants signed informed consent forms, and all data were strictly anonymized. For data analysis, I used the method of open two-level coding (Friese, 2014), which allowed me to create distinct categories of data for further analysis. The coding process involved dividing the transcript into meaningfully distinct segments and labelling those with codes reflecting on their significance rather than being purely descriptive. During the coding process, I wrote memos next to the points indicating connections with other codes and significant correlations. I later used those for interpretation. The final set of two-level codes essential for data interpretation (Gibbs, 2007) consisted of 234 codes, which were then categorized into several groups and subgroups. There are, of course, several limitations associated with my research. The first and most significant is the selection of the research sample, which was largely conducted in consultation with the Middle Tier office to avoid disrupting potentially delicate relationships in some municipalities. Another observable limitation is that statutory authorities interacted with the Middle Tier less frequently than headteachers. Lastly, my data primarily come from those willing to participate, often those with positive experiences with the Middle Tier. Lastly, another limitation lies in the fact that interviews with the regional Middle Tier employees were conducted online rather than in person. Despite using video conferencing, my ability to observe non-verbal communication was thus limited.

I have identified two major challenges associated with the functioning of the Middle Tier. The first lies in setting up a functional cooperation with the second being the process defining the competencies of the Middle Tier in relation to other official educational bodies in the region. Functional cooperation relies on sharing a common goal or vision, mutual professional trust, and geographical proximity between principals, school founders, and Middle Tier employees. When a headteacher and statutory authority share the same educational goal, cooperation flows smoothly – the headteacher communicates their needs, and the statutory authority responds back through dialogue. Professional trust is crucial for collaboration between statutory authorities, headteachers and Middle Tier employees. The fact Middle Tier employees have prior experience as headteachers or teachers enhances trust in them and this encourages current headteachers or statutory authorities to seek their support. The local presence of Middle Tier employees also personalizes the support process, fostering trust of others in their knowledge of regional issues. The sole definition the competencies of the Middle Tier was identified as problematic. While close cooperation was established with headteachers, the expected response from statutory authorities was rather lacking. This may be due to insufficiently communicated competencies as well as benefits the statutory authority can take advantage of. Similarly, the Middle Tier’s role concerning other bodies, such as NGOs, remains unclear, with some even perceiving it as a threat to their existence or funding. My findings help to deepen existing knowledge of Middle Tier’s functioning and related challenges. They highlight essential aspects of effective cooperation and emphasize the necessity of clear competency delineation in accordance with existing literature (e.g., Bubb et al., 2019).

Bubb, S., Crossley-Holland, J., Cousin, S., & Earley, P. (2019). Understanding the Middle Tier Comparative Costs of Academy and LA-maintained School Systems. Childress, D., Chimier, C., Jones, C., Page, E., & Tournier, B. (2020). Change agents Emerging evidence on instructional leadership at the middle tier. Education Development Trust. Clarke, S., & Wildy, H. (2011). Improving the small rural or remote school: The role of the district. Australian Journal Of Education, 55(1), 24-36. Fiske, E. B. (1996). Decentralization of education: Politics and consensus. World Bank Publications. Friese, S. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti. Sage. Florestal, K., & Cooper, R. (1997). Decentralization of Education: Legal Issues. WorldBank Publications. Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing Quantitative Data. Sage. Hanson, M. (1997). Educational Decentralization: Issues and Challenges. Kameshwara, K. K., Sandoval-Hernandez, A., Shields, R., & Dhanda, K. R. (2020). A false promise? Decentralization in education systems across the globe. International Journal Of Educational Research, 104. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. (2020). Strategy of educatin policy of the Czech Republic until 2030+. Mwinjuma, J. S., Kadir, S., Hamzah, A., & Basri, R. (2015). Characteristics and Experiences of Decentralization of Education. International Journal Of Education And Literacy Studies, 3(1), 34-41. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd.ed.). Sage.