Contractual or Responsive Accountability? Neo-Centrilist ‘Self-Management’ or Systemic Subsidiarity? Tasmanian Parents' and other Stakeholders' Policy Preferences
Free accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 1998
Contractual or Responsive Accountability? Neo-Centrilist ‘Self-Management’ or Systemic Subsidiarity? Tasmanian Parents' and other Stakeholders' Policy Preferences
WHEN state governments decentralised many administrative responsibilities to schools in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was assumed that they would develop better capacities to manage, develop and govern themselves. In general, such decentralisation attempted to replace bureaucracies with corporate management, focus school evaluation onto the auditing of performance indicators, cut ex-school support structures in favour of locally contracted expertise, and displace hierarchy with collegial networks. The principle of public accountability in public education was redefined as a local obligation to be discharged through managerial, market and political mechanisms.
The research reported here shows that Tasmanian parents actually prefer a far more educative and communitarian approach to accountability, and that this view is broadly shared with other key stakeholders: teachers, principals and state government officials. The empirical findings reported contradict orthodox structures, practices and theory and have substantial implications for policy making.
AngusL. (1992). ‘Quality’ schooling, conservative educational policy, and educational change in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 7(4), 379–397.
2.
Australian Council of State School Organisations & Australian Parents Council. (1996). Assessing and reporting student achievement: A report of the national parent consensus. Canberra: DEET.
3.
BeareH. (1995). New patterns for managing schools and school systems. In EversC.W.ChapmanJ.D. (Eds.), Educational administration: An Australian perspective (pp. 132–152). Melbourne: Allen & Unwin.
4.
BeareH.CaldwellB.J.MillikanR.H. (1989). Creating an excellent school. London: Routledge.
5.
BecherT. (1979). Self-accounting, evaluation and accountability. Educational Analysis, 1(1), 63–65.
6.
BecherT.ErautM.R. (1977). Accountability in the middle years of schooling. Swindon: SSRC.
7.
CaldwellB.J.SpinksJ.M. (1988). The self-managing school. Lewes: Falmer.
8.
CaldwellB.J.SpinksJ.M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school. London: Falmer.
9.
CaseyP.M. (1993). Subsidiarity, collegiality and consensus: Systems within the Australian Catholic school sector. In WalkerA.MacphersonR.J.S.DimmockC. (Eds.), Framing research in educational administration (pp. 166–179). Melbourne: ACEA.
10.
ChapmanJ. (Ed.). (1990). School-based decision making and management. London: Falmer.
11.
ChapmanJ.DunstanJ.F. (Eds.). (1991). Democracy and bureaucracy: Tensions in public schooling. London: Falmer.
12.
Department of Education and Science. (1977). Education in schools: A consultative document. Green Paper. London: HMSO.
13.
Department of Education and Science, Welsh Office (TaylorW., Chair). (1977). A new partnership for our schools. London: HMSO.
14.
EarleyP. (1994). School governing bodies: Making progress?Slough: NFER.
15.
East Sussex Accountability Project. (1980). Accountability in the middle years of schooling. Final report to the Social Science Research Council, Part 1. Brighton: University of Sussex.
16.
GrayJ.WilcoxB. (1995). Good school, bad school: Evaluating performance and encouraging improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
17.
HalsteadM. (1994). Accountability and values. In ScottD. (Ed.), Accountability and control in educational settings (pp. 146–165). London: Cassell.
18.
KeysS.FernandesC. (1990). A survey of school governing bodies: Report for the DES (2 vols.). Slough: NFER.
19.
KoganM. (1986). Education accountability: An analytic overview. London: Hutchinson.
20.
LevacicR. (1995). Local management of schools: Analysis and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
21.
MacphersonR.J.S. (1995). Educative accountability policy research and epistemological implications, International Journal of Educational Research, 25(6), 545–559.
22.
MacphersonR.J.S. (1996a) Accountability: Towards reconstructing a ‘politically incorrect’ policy issue. Educational Management and Administration, 24(2), 139–150.
23.
MacphersonR.J.S. (1996b). Educative accountability policies for Tasmania's locally managed schools: Interim policy research findings. International Journal of Educational Reform, 5(1), 35–55.
MacphersonR.J.S. (1997). Educative accountability: Theory, practice, policy and research in educational administration. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
26.
MacphersonR.J.S.TaplinM. (1995). Principals' policy preferences concerning accountability: Implications for key competencies, performance indicators and professional development. Journal of School Leadership, 5(5), 448–481.
27.
McBrienR.P. (1980). Catholicism. Melbourne: Dove Communications.
28.
NuttallD.L. (1981). School self-evaluation: Accountability with a human face?London: Schools Council.
29.
South Australian Commission for Catholic Schools. (1987). Annual report 1986/87. Adelaide: Catholic Education Office.
30.
Tasmanian Education Council (Roy Swain, Chair). (1993). Report to the Minister for Education and the Arts on reporting to parents. Hobart: Author.
31.
VannB. (1995). The accountability and assessment of schools in England and Wales: Current issues for practitioners. Leading and Managing, 1(3), 180–192.
