Recent Policy Developments Designed to Boost Educational Achievement

Recent Policy Developments Designed to Boost Educational Achievement

1

Recent Policy Developments Designed to Boost

Educational Achievement

The Concept and Implementation of School Based-Management: Comparative Study Between Malaysian Cluster Schools and UK

Autonomous Schools

byMohamed Yusoff bin Mohd. Nor

EDITORS:Hjh Nor Asiah bt Hj. Ibrahim

Hjh Nor Hasimah bt Hj. HashimShadhana Popatlal


2

CONTENTS

Page Abbreviations and Definitions 3Figures and Tables 4Acknowledgments 5

1 Introduction 62 Purpose 73 School-Based Management Concept 84 Recent UK and Malaysian Schooling System 11

5 Malaysian Recent Policy Innovation to Boost Educational Achievement 14

6 School-Based Management in Malaysia under the Cluster Concept 15

7 Issues and Challenges 178 Rationale for using SBM in Cluster Schools 199 What is Autonomous School in UK: An Overview 2310 The Level of Autonomy in Malaysian Cluster Schools as

Compared to UK Autonomous School 27

11 Potential Benefits of SBM 2812 How to Implement SBM Effectively 29

13 The Implementation of School-Based Management in Malaysian Cluster Schools 29

14 Discussion: Implication for Policy and Practice 3115 Conclusion and Recommendations 3116 References 33


3

Abbreviations and Definitions

CS Cluster Schools The excellent schools among their cluster in terms of management as well as pupils’ good personality outcomes

DfES Department for Education and Skill

The central government department responsible for planning and monitoring the education in England. DfES publishes guidance to assist LEAs and schools to implement legislation and other regulations.

EPRD Educational Planning and Policy Research Division

A division under MoEM

EDMP 2006 -2010

Education Development Master Plan

EDMP 2006 – 2010 is the recent policy as well as strategic plan for Malaysia Educational Planning aimed at producing excellent human capital with first class mind.

ERA Education Reform Act 1988

United Kingdom Education Reform

IQEA Improving the Quality of Education for All

The project aimed to strengthen a school’s ability to provide quality education for its entire pupil by building upon existing good practice.

LEA Local Education Authority

LEA are locally elected county, which have a statutory duty for provision and organization of public education services in their area.

LMS Local Management of School

LMS refer to the set of measures by which LEA control of schools was diminished and the autonomy of schools enhanced, and which were set in train by the 1988 Education Reform ACT.

MoEM Ministry of Education Malaysia

Ministry of Education Malaysia

SA School Autonomy School autonomy refers to self managing school

SBM School-Based Management

School-based management is a strategy for improving schools that involves a diverse group of stakeholders.


4

SDP School Development Plan

School development plan summarises the relationship between aims, resources and planning, which are placed in the separate categories of staff, premises and curriculum.

SMS Self Managing Schools

Self Managing School refers to School Autonomy

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of the Concept and Implementation of SBM in Malaysia Cluster Schools and Experience UK Autonomous Schools

16

Figure 2 SBM Implementation: Malaysian Cluster Schools 20Figure 3 SBM Implementation Strategies 30

Table 1 Level of Readiness Malaysia Cluster Schools Head Teachers to Become Autonomy School

22

Table 2 An instrument to measure and compare the element of autonomy between Malaysian Cluster Schools and UK Autonomous School

26

Table 3 The Result of Level of Autonomy in Malaysian Cluster Schools as compared to UK Autonomous Schools

27


5

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Gerard Lum, Dr. Bob Burnstow, and all lecturers of King’s College, University of London as well as all participants of Cohort 4, Malaysian Cluster Schools’ Head Teachers for providing valuable input and bestowing me with added confidence to complete this writing.Last but not least, my gratitude goes to my wife and children for their continuous support, care, love and understanding, without which this study would be incomplete.


6

The Concept and Implementation of School Based-Management: A Comparative Study between Malaysian Clusters Schools and UK

Autonomous Schools

1. Introduction

Educational reform has been a worldwide movement since the last two decades. Many developed countries led by the United Kingdom (UK) have transformed their educational systems since the end of the 1980s1 (Caldwell, 2002; Bush & Bell, 2002; Levacic, 2002). In the present decade, educational reform appears to be accelerating rapidly in most developing countries to boost educational achievement. The most current and popular reform for many developing countries is decentralised school management or just simply known as ‘School-Based Management’(SBM)2.

An increasing number of developing countries are introducing SBM reforms policy aimed at empowering principals and teachers, or to strengthen their professional motivation, thereby enhancing their sense of ownership of the school (World Bank, 2007)3. Many of these reforms have also strengthened parental involvement in the schools, at times by means of school councils or in the UK by school governing bodies4 (Levacic, 1995; Caldwell, 1988; Creese, 1999; Bush, 2002; Holt et.al., 2002).

Similarly, in the last two decades, the Malaysian Education System at macro level has also embarked on an innovative scheme known as the restructuring of education management and administration, curriculum and assessment policy. Formulating, reviewing and updating the education policy is part of the important processes of enhancing the quality of the Malaysian Education System in line with the current development of the world, which is becoming even more competitive. It is also in line with the desire of making Malaysia a centre for educational excellence, which would accelerate the efforts of achieving the status of a developed nation by the year 2020 (MoEM, 2005).

However, some of policy changes and innovations implemented in developing countries, for example in the Malaysian education system, often fail to

1 Refer to ERA 1988, this reform introduction of National Curriculum and associated National Assessment at Key Stage in students’ school careers.

2 School-based management is a strategy for improving schools that involves a diverse group of stake holders.

3 see World Bank Report 20074 The legally required boards of lay and professional people who are elected or appointed to govern a

school or college and have the final say over school policy and staffing appointment.


7

achieve the desired target because of inferior planning, poor implementation strategy as well as the lack of monitoring system at all levels of implementations. According to educational researchers (EPRD, 2000; Fullan, 2006) this phenomenon happened due to the lack of understanding on the concept and strategy for implementations of that particular program at micro and sub micro level.

2. Purpose

Based on the issues presented in the Introduction section earlier, this essay is written with the purpose of discussing and analysing the concept and strategy of implementation of SBM in Malaysia which is one of the recent policies development that is formulated to boost educational achievement, specifically focusing on the Malaysian Cluster Schools of Excellence Programme. This study will take into consideration the success and viability of implementation of the Autonomous School Policy in the United Kingdom. The data and information for this study is based on library research undertaken at Kings’ College, London (KCL) as well as input from Head Teachers (HT), Deputy HT, and Assistant HT and teachers in several schools in London for the duration of school placement program. The input also came from the Malaysian Cluster Schools’ principals who had attended the Postgraduate Course at KCL.

3. School-Based Management Concept

Based on the literature explored, several definitions had emerged on decentralisation of the school management. SBM is also known as site-based management (particularly) in the USA in the past, delegated or devolved management, school autonomy5 or local management school6 (LMS) in Britain (Yancey, 2000; Buss and Bell, 2002).

According to Myers et.al. (1993), SBM is a strategy to improve educational achievement by transferring significant decision making authority from federal, state and district offices to the individual schools. SBM provides principals, teachers, students, and parents greater control over the education process by giving them responsibility in decision making pertaining to budget, personnel, and curriculum. Through the involvement of teachers, parents, and other community members in formulating key decisions, SBM could create a more effective learning environment for children.

5 �he �ictionary defi nition of a�tonomy� derived from the �ree�� is �self�governing� and hence �f�nc��he �ictionary definition of a�tonomy� derived from the �ree�� is �self�governing� and hence �f�nc-tioning independently without the control of others’ (West, 1992)

6 LMS refer to the set of measures by which LEA control of schools was diminished and the autonomy of schools enhanced, and which were set in train by the 1988 Education Reform ACT.


8

Oswald (1995) defined SBM as the decentralisation of decision making authority to the school site, focusing on aspects such as the management of budget, curriculum and instruction, and personnel decision. The concern of this study is to identify the extend of the definition as offered by Myers (1993) and Oswald (1995) could ensure that the school management is able to run the school independently such as the organizational structure, power, knowledge, information and reward (Murphy, 1997; Wohlstetter and Mohrman, 1996). The combination or the package of the authority signifies the transfer of real change to the school institution.

Lisa and Marianne (2000) pointed out that SBM is one of the strategies in providing people with more opportunities to make decisions that determine the goals and future direction of the school. They added that there are several terms commonly used to describe this school governance model, i.e. ecentralization, restructuring, site-based management, participatory decision making, shared decision making, and school-based decision making.

Two comprehensive definitions of SBM are offered by Malen, Ogawa and Kranz (1990); Hallinger, Murphy, and Hausman (1992), respectively. Malen, Ogawa and Kranz stated that:

“School-based management can be viewed conceptually as a formal alteration of government structure, as a form of ecentralization that identifies the individual school as the primary unit of improvement and relies on the redistribution of decision making authority as the primary means through which improvement might be stimulated and sustained”. (page no.?)

Fullan’s definition (1999) is quite different from the others. According to Fullan, SBM is clearly not just a structural reform, or not even just an educational reform. There are two more fundamental elements that are required. First, within the educational system, the strategy must focus on the preparation and support of trained teachers, the fostering of leaders and supervisors, and the availability of books and learning materials. It may be necessary to rely heavily on learning materials as the capacity of teachers and supervisors is building up. Second, parents and local communities are both means to better education, and more basically, a component of local development. In this sense, the goal is not school development, but social change towards greater equity and responsibility. In comparision with others, clearly Fullan (1999) focused more on capacity building in education system which involved structure, people and technology.


9

The most current, broad and focussed on student achievement definition of SBM comes from the World Bank (2008). According to the World Bank definition, SBM in almost all of its manifestations involves community members in the school decision making process. Because these community members are usually parents of children enrolled in the school, they have an incentive to improve their children’s education. As a result, SBM can be expected to improve students’ achievement and other outcomes as these local people demand closer monitoring of school personnel, better students’ evaluations, a closer match between the school’s needs and its policies, as well as more efficient use of resources.

As a conclusion, SBM is a strategy to improve education by transferring significant decision making authority from central government, state and district offices to individual schools. SBM provides principals, teachers, students, and parents greater autonomy to control the education process by giving them responsibility in making decisions pertaining to the budget, personnel and curriculum. Through the involvement of teachers, parents, and other community members in key decision areas, SBM can create a more effective learning environment for students because all of them have their own expectations towards their school.

4. Recent Developments in the UK and Malaysian Schooling System

The landmark for the educational reform in the UK is the Education Reform Act 1988 (ERA) which introduced a series of changes to the schooling system. This reform had introduced the National Curriculum and associated National Assessment at the Key Stage in students’ school careers. Legislation was intended to raise the standard and improve the quality of teaching and learning. It had the explicit aim of encouraging the operation of market forces by increasing both parental choice and the emphasis on value for money (Mortimore, 2007; Sammon, P., 1999).

In line with the above reform, the Education Reform Act 1988 (ERA) had delegated responsibilities for the LMS to empower school governors of all secondary schools and large primary schools – later extended to all primary schools – the management of their own budgets. LEA had to delegate at least 85 per cent of their budget to schools.

According to the HT respondents that were interviewed, they strongly agreed that ERA 1988 brought about far more fundamental changes to LMS. Governors now had full powers to hire school staff, whereas previously they could only recommend, after which LEA then appointed their chosen candidates. They had extensive power over the public funds of the school through local financial management (LFM). Interview results of most Deputy HT as well as assistant HT suggested that Head Teacher and School Governors are required to work together to ensure that pupils


10

received the best possible education through the optimum use resources. However, the current development had shown that many governing bodies are looking into cost-benefit analysis of the budget allocation; the detailed deployment of resources, monitoring of the effectiveness of decision making, and evaluation of the school’s major activities of caring and learning. (David Oldroyd, Danuta Elsner and Cyril Poster, 1996).

In the UK schooling system, the concept of SBM, or more specifically the autonomous schools policy, has moved to the centre stage with the release of a White Paper that contains the plans of the Blair government for its second term (DfES, 2001). SBM was one of several thrusts in the 1988 Education Reform of the Thatcher government, extending to all schools in Britain a practice that had successfully pioneered in several authorities as Local Financial Management. The Blair government went further by requiring the Local Education Authorities to decentralise a larger part of their education budgets to the school level (now approaching 90 per cent across all authorities). The Blair government had previously abandoned the contentious reform of the Thatcher government that created a number of grant-maintained schools, moving beyond self-management to self-government. These schools had a majority vote of parents in favour of a change in status (Caldwell, 2002).

Researchers (Malen, Ogawa, & Kranz, 1990; Hallinger, Murphy, and

Hausman, 1992) who had conducted studies on the implementation of SBM revealed that there are so many variations on its practices. But in recent situation, based on the interviews and observations in the school placement program in the UK, it is obvious that under the system, the central authority would transfer its authority to the LEA. LEA would then transfer it to the board of governance which would then transfer it to the school board. The school board would delegate it to the principal, and from principal to other members of the school community such as teachers and parents, or two or more of these. In addition, schools and districts implementing SBM vary widely in the way the decision making process is distributed. A school may have an active school council made up of teachers, parents, and the principal who is involved in drawing up the budget, hiring and firing, and determining the curriculum.

In the Malaysian education system, the idea of decentralisation was mooted more than a decade ago. However, the adoption of the concept is highly questionable, and it is not well-received especially at the political level (Rahmad & Abd. Rahman et.al., 2008). The Malaysian public educational management is highly centralised with the Ministry of Education at the centre; exercising power and authority over the State Education Departments, District Education Departments, Teacher Training Institutions and schools. The management structure of the educational organization, including school is predominantly bureaucratic with hierarchy of authority levels.


11

The main rationale for such a system and structure is the need for strong central control which is believed would contribute towards nation building (Malaysian Education Act, 1996). This notion is based on the school of thought which believe that the national curriculum, national assessment and national policy implementation would bring about unity in diversity for a young country like Malaysia. But the strong wave of educational reforms has placed tremendous pressure on the government, especially the Minister of Education to reconsider the adoption and implementation of decentralisation of education. Some aspects of the reform movement have been implemented in the Malaysian schools, such as the efficient and improvement in quality assurance for schools, cluster school concept and self-managing school7.

5. Recent Policy Innovation to Boost Educational Achievement in Malaysia

The recent Malaysian Education Management System aims in developing, improving and strengthening the level of efficiency and effectiveness of management in all aspects of administration, including monitoring and evaluation, curriculum and assessment, personnel, information and communication, research and development (R&D), finance and infrastructure.

To accomplish the above policy of intend, the government launched the most and current policy development which is very significant with the recent policy development to boost the educational achievement which is known as EDMP8 2006 -2010. The ultimate goal of EDMP is to provide access, equity and quality education for all, which are the prerequisites for education for sustainable development. The plan promotes two main approaches namely to provide equal opportunity for all and to develop excellence of educational institutions.

In the first approach, the MoEM is committed in ensuring that all citizens receive fair and equal educational opportunities regardless of location, race, ability or ethnic background. The MoEM will ensure all students master the reading, writing and arithmetic skill (3Rs) and that no student will drop out from school due to poverty or locality.

In the second approach, special attention will be given to excellent schools to sustain and achieve greater success. The MoEM will identify excellent schools in the respective clusters of national schools, national-type schools, fully residential schools, premier schools, technical schools, national religious secondary schools, centennial schools, smart schools and schools in Putrajaya and Cyberjaya.

7 SBM actually exists in Malaysia as it is being practiced by the private schools8 EDPM was launched by the previous Prime Minister in January 2006


12

As an innovative approach, the MoEM identifies their niche areas9 and introduces various programs to build upon the strengths and competitiveness of these particular schools. These schools, known as “cluster schools” are given autonomy in their niche areas to enable them to become a model for other schools in the same cluster. The model school will also serve as a showcase at international level10. However, the concept and scope of authority in cluster schools is still debatable among the various groups of stakeholders as they still question the rationale and viability of this policy.

6. School-Based Management in Malaysia under Cluster School Concept

Cluster School Concept is one of the significant thrusts in the EDPM 2006-2010 which attempts to accelerate excellence of educational institutions which is closely related with the SBM implementation. As a researcher in education, there is a need to analyse to what extent the feasibility and viability of the SBM implementation would transform the Malaysian education system as world class.

Based on the literature (Fullan 2006), the failure of the educational reform in most developing countries is not because of the weakness of the policy but the failure of the implementer to translate the policy reforms into action plan to become a reality. The viability of the educational change depends on to what extend the concept and strategies of implementation are understood and viewed similarly among interest groups such as decision makers, policy planners, policy implementers, stakeholders and interest groups.

The objectives and purpose of the educational reforms in Malaysia in the 2006 Cluster School concept are to enhance schools to global level status, to enhance students’ learning outcomes and actively fostering the attributes of a good school in one or two niche areas. In terms of the teaching professionalism, this concept would help transform teachers into true professionals. Not the least important but even crucial is to allow the head teachers to be true leaders in determining the destiny of the school, in terms of its character, ethos and accountability for the progress of the school in order to upgrade students’ achievement. However, the problem lies mostly on the policy implementers and interest groups who do not fully understand the concept nor the best strategy to accomplish the desired policy. As an interest group to education, we need to have very clear conceptual framework. Figure 1 below shows the conceptual framework to be discussed further.

9 In the UK schooling system, this is known as “Specialist Schools”10The government has approved a sum of RM30 million to cluster schools to further improve their

achievement in their niche areas.


13

Figure 1: The Conceptual Framework of the SBM and its Implementation with reference to the Malaysian Cluster Schools and Experience of the UK Autonomous Schools

For the purpose of discussing the above issues, experiences of the UK schooling system would be the point of depart of the implementation model. The decentralised school policy in the UK is significantly similar with the schooling system in Malaysia because of the historical background as well as policy development for both the countries. However, caution ought to be given so as not to duplicate the British Education System for both countries faced different issues and problems.

7. Issues and Challenges

The challenge to the MoEM in education management is to overcome issues and problems due to its structure that is hierarchical in nature, i.e. highly centralized, heavy at the top (sector, division) but small at the bottom (district, school), bureaucratic issues for both, as well as inefficient and ineffective management of resources and personnel, and the implementation of certain policies.

The concern for both policymakers and educators in Malaysia is whether SBM in cluster schools is an effective strategy for improving schools. Specifically, the concern is to identify to what extent does SBM through the implementation of cluster schools policy, are viable in terms of:

• school capacity and level of readiness school authority• efficiency in term of value for money• effectiveness in term of student learning outcome• equity in term of equal opportunity for all


14

If all the above aspects exist, the question to follow suit is to what extent does this Recent Policy Development contribute to Boost Educational Achievement? As an educationist, we might say that although the SBM concept and its implementation is an ideal policy to increase school effectiveness and improvement, we have to take into account various factors and variables. These contributing factors to school improvement can be easily identified, but at the same time facing problems in managing change in the school organization could be problematic due to lack of information and understanding the rationale for change. Not withstanding, these issues might become stumbling block in organization if not handled carefully.

Based on literature review, a number of issues and concerns have also emerged from a decade of experiences in the UK, Australia, United States and Canada (Caldwell, 1990). One of the critical issues is whether equity can be maintained with lump-sum allocation to school on a per pupil basis. Most respondents that were interviewed stated that the allocation is not enough to manage the schools especially to provide resources and good facilities. Furthermore, the manner in which resources are allocated must be reflected in what actually transpires in the classroom as far as learning and teaching is concerned.

According to the respondents, SBM has the potentials to provide schools with the flexibility in order to meet the needs of the students. This potential can only be realized should the central, state and district delegate full authority to the schools to make decisions and carry out improvement activities, particularly in the areas of curriculum and instruction. Shifting power to the school site presents a direct challenge to the traditional pattern of governance and can often ignite power struggle. Majority of respondents claimed that, in order to use SBM effectively, schools and districts must be committed to the goal of school improvement and should devote a great deal of time and effort towards learning the new roles. There is a need to know through pilot project implementation the pros and cons of SBM in terms of school capacity, effectiveness and efficiency as well equity or equal opportunity. While welcoming the trend towards greater autonomy for schools, further research is needed before we can formulate any theory concerning the relationship between school autonomy and school effectiveness under the SBM concept of cluster school policy.

8. Rationale for Using SBM in Cluster School

The rationale why MoEM needs to change from the very centralised management to a decentralised one is because every school has different capacities and opportunities to develop and fulfill the stakeholders expectations towards the school achievement. The management of the school must fulfill the stakeholders’ desires especially the


15

parents11 which is the first interest group who reap the benefit from the effectiveness of the school policy and would perhaps be in a risky situation if the school fails to deliver the national target12 based on their expectations.

This strategic innovation is among the six strategic thrusts for future educational development with the human capital development as its core. Under the sixth thrust, namely striving for excellence in educational institutions, the EDMP proposes granting greater autonomy to schools. One of the purposes of the policy is to give the opportunity to schools to excel in one niche area at the international level. Therefore, in the pilot implementation of the cluster school concept, clear definition is needed, review of evidence must be transparent, using impact assessments in various countries as guidelines and provisions of some initial feedbacks to assist teams preparing educational projects.

After several discourses among the experts in education13, autonomy is given to cluster schools to develop:

• several niche areas in which schools have the capacity to develop;• innovative approach to enhance the current strength in schools;• capacity to select human resource;• strength of support staff in terms of numbers and skills;• ways to utilize school facilities to generate income;• means to select 10% of the students from overall enrolment;• creative ways to implement the National Curriculum; • freedom to offer subjects which are not in the national curriculum with

reference to CCD;• examination and assessment based on curriculum offered; and • income generating means and financial management.

However, the crucial and critical aspect would be to what extent the Head Teachers, senior teachers and the community in school understand and support whole heartedly the concept of cluster school. So this comprehensive study is to measure the level of readiness amongst the Head Teachers to embrace the cluster school concept. This study would introduce a simple framework in accomplishing School-Based Management through the cluster school concept as shown in Figure 2 below:

11 In the UK this policy was based on parental choice policy12In the UK schooling system league table practice to rank the school performance using CVA measures13 Refer to the committee adviser report for cluster school appointed by the Minister of Education


16

Figure 2: Implementation of SBM in Malaysian Cluster Schools

The above framework shows the relationships between implementation of SBM with five major aspects of SBM, namely the understanding of the concept of school-based (what, why and how), management, training and development of the staff, Head Teachers’ competencies to lead the school effectively, school capacity and decision making process. These factors actually contribute to the effectiveness of the cluster school implementation because this particular characteristic is part of autonomy given by MoEM to the Cluster School of Excellence Programme.

To ensure that Head Teachers are competent to manage the change involving this innovation, a sample of them were exposed to leadership and management in theory and practices in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. Thus the need to measure the level of competencies as well as readiness of the Head Teachers after very huge exposures to SBM locally and internationally would be appropriate to justify the investments into the project.

Based on the above mentioned features of autonomy given to cluster schools,

a survey was conducted. The objective of the survey is to measure the level of readiness among the 30 Principals under the Cluster School of Excellence (Cohort 4) who participated the KCL programme. Specifically, the survey would try to measure the level of readiness before and after the participants attended the two-month programme at King’s College, London which was to equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge to undertake the cluster schools concept.

Table 1 shows the result of the survey among the 30 Malaysian Cluster Schools Principals regarding the level of readiness before and after they attended the course at King’s College, London for the duration of three months, i.e. from May to July 2009.

20

• means to select 10% of the students from overall enrolment;

• creative ways to implement the National Curriculum;

• freedom to offer subjects which are not in the national curriculum with reference to

CCD;

• examination and assessment based on curriculum offered; and

• income generating means and financial management.

However, the crucial and critical aspect would be to what extent the Head Teachers,

senior teachers and the community in school understand and support whole heartedly the

concept of cluster school. So this comprehensive study is to measure the level of readiness

amongst the Head Teachers to embrace the cluster school concept. This study would

introduce a simple framework in accomplishing School-Based Management through the

cluster school concept as shown in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Implementation of SBM in Malaysian Cluster Schools

SBM Implementation Concept

Understanding SBM clearly

Training for Development

Head teacher Competencies

School Capacity

Decision Making

Effective Cluster School


17

Table 1: Level of Readiness of Malaysia Cluster Schools Head Teachers to Become Autonomy School

1: very low 2: low 3: middle 4: high 5: very high Before Program After Program

Mean (sd)N=30 Item Mean (sd)

N=30

3.40 (0.855) Capability to identify several niche areas which I want to develop in my school 4.46 (0.507)

3.33 (0.660) Capability to identify an innovative approach to enhance the current strength 4.76 (0.430)

3.60 (0.855) Ability as a Head Teacher and person of authority to select human resource 4.56 (0.568)

3.53 (0.819)Capability to determine the number of support staff who have the potential to support the school vision

4.56 (0.568)

3.43 (0.935) The confidence to utilize school facilities to generate school income 4.46 (0.571)

3.66 (0.802) The confidence as being an authority to choose 10% of students from overall enrolment 4.76 (0.504)

4.16 (0.746) The competence to implement the National Curriculum 4.70 (0.534)

3.03 (1.033)The ability as a person in authority to offer subjects which are not in the national curriculum with reference to CCD

4.20 (0.714)

3.43 (0.971)The ability as Chief Educational Leader to choose specialist areas to be implemented in my school

4.60 (0.563)

3.70 (0.952) The confidence to use the examination and assessment results based on curriculum offered 4.76 (0.430)

3.50 (0.861) The capability to generate income and running the school’s financial management 4.33 (0.711)

3.90 (0.844) The confidence to manage the budget provided by the MoEM 4.73 (0.520)

In general the results of the survey showed that there is obviously a sizeable difference in the means in the items between before and after they attended the course at KCL in terms of abilities, confidence, as well as capabilities to manage the


18

school given limited autonomy. However, the results showed that Head Teachers in the sample were still less confident in offering subjects which are not in the national curriculum with reference to Curriculum Development Centre (4.20), as well as the capability to generate income and financial management (4.33) as compared to other aspects. Interestingly, the result showed that HT are very highly confident in identifying innovative approaches to enhance the current strength in their schools. They are very confident as being a person in authority to choose 10% students from the overall enrolment (4.76). They are also very confident to use examination and assessment results based on the curriculum offered (4.76) and to manage the budget provided by the MoEM (4.73). As a conclusion, all the HT used in this study basically has confidence in managing and leading the cluster schools. Another aspect the HT would need to explore in aspiring to be a learning leader is their intrinsic drive for life long learning and grabbing the opportunity to fit in as much skills and knowledge as possible in their school set up through professional development.

9. What is Autonomous School in UK: An Overview

According to most of the HT interviewed, the main assumption underpinning self-management is that decision for individual within the educational system should be made by people within school rather than by national or local politicians or officials. Their arguments are in line with Bush’s (1999) view that principals, staff and governors are able to tailor spending to perceive requirement of their pupils better than the national and local decision-makers.

An OECD synthesis of studies pertaining to autonomy in nine countries

gave a cautious welcome to self-management and concluded that it is likely to be beneficial:

“Greater autonomy in school … [leads] to greater effectiveness through greater flexibility in and therefore better use of resources; to professional development selected at school level; to more knowledgeable teachers and parent so to better financial decision; to whole school planning, and implementation with priorities set on the basis of data about student [outcome] and needs.”

(Quoted in Thomas and Martin, 1996: 28)

The recent policy in the UK is the delegation of responsibility for school budgeting and staff appointment from the LEA to each individual school’s governing body and senior management team. According to Levacic (1995) the justifications for school-based management in the UK can be summarised as follows:


19

• Increased efficiency in schools’; • Increased school effectiveness through improvement in quality teaching

and learning; and• Greater responsiveness to clients and more ‘consumer’ choice.

Karstanje (1999) and Levacic (1995) introduced the main domains of decision making in Autonomous Schools which are:

• School organization: structure, differentiation, decision making processes, capacity, class size;

• Curriculum: teaching method and assessment;• Staff: regulations on qualifications, appointment and dismissal, in-service

training, appraisal, pay and conditions of service, including methods of performance management;

• Financial and resources management: spending decision, size of staffing establishment, premises, information system, financial assets and liabilities; and

• External relations: admissions policies, pupil recruitment, relationships with other organization.

Bush and Bell (2002) asserted that evaluating the effectiveness of school autonomy is difficult because it takes on different form and its nature can vary within and between educational systems. However they concluded that certain elements might be delegated to autonomous schools. They are:

• Knowledge (decision relating to curriculum, including decision relating to the goals or ends of schooling);

• Technology (decision relating to the means of teaching and learning);• Power (authority to make decision);• Material (decision relating to the use of facilities, supplies and equipment);• People (decision relating to the allocation of people in matters relating to

teaching and learning, and the support of teaching and learning);• Time (decision relating to the allocation of time); and• Finance (decision related to the allocation of money) • (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988)

In addition, Thomas and Martin (1996) suggested five items which could be included in the above list. They are:

• Funding (decision over fees to be charged for the admission of pupils and other income generating matters);

• Admission arrangement (decision over which pupils are to be admitted to the school);

• Assessment (decision over how pupils are to be assessed);


20

• Information (decision over the selection of data to be published about the school’s performance); and

• School governance (decision over the power and composition of the governing body)

Based on the elements proposed by Karstanje (1999), Levacic, (1995), Bush and Bell (2002) and Thomas and Martin (1996), an instrument was built to get data and analysis to investigate how far these elements exist in Malaysia as well as in the UK autonomous schools. The respondents of the study comprised of HT, DPT and AHT of UK autonomous schools under the school placement program and 30 HT of the Malaysian Cluster School who attended a two-month course at KCL. The purpose of the study was to know the level of autonomy practiced by both countries.

Table 2: An instrument to measure and compare the elements of autonomy between Malaysian Cluster Schools and UK Autonomous School

1 : very low, 2 : low, 3 : middle, 4 : high 5 : very high Malaysia United Kingdom

Low High Domain of Decision Making (Karstanje, Levacic) model) Low High

1 2 3 4 5 To what extent an item below exist in M’sia –UK school 1 2 3 4 5

School organizationCurriculumStaffFinancialExternal Relation

Low High Domain of Delegation (Bush and Bell model) Low High

1 2 3 4 5 To what extent an item below exist in Msia –UK school 1 2 3 4 5

KnowledgeTechnologyPowerMaterialPeople TimeFinance


21

Low High Domain of Delegation (Thomas and Martin Model) Low High

1 2 3 4 5 To what extent an item below exist in Msia –UK school 1 2 3 4 5

FundingAdmissionAssessmentInformationSchool Governance

10. The Level of Autonomy in Malaysian Cluster Schools as Compared to the UK Autonomous School

Based on a simple survey and backed up by document analysis, interviews as well as observations, it is concluded that the level of autonomy practised between Malaysia and the UK schools is as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: The Result of Level of Autonomy in Malaysian Cluster Schools as Compared to the UK Autonomous School

Area of SBM Malaysia Clusters Schools

UK autonomous School

School organization High Very HighStaff Very Low Very HighExternal Relation External Relation High HighKnowledge High HighTechnology Very High Very HighPower Low HighMaterial High HighFinance Very Low Very HighPersonnel Low HighCurriculum Very Low Very HighAssessment Middle MiddleStaff development Very High Very HighSchool Development Middle Very HighPlanning High HighOrganizing Very High Very HighLeading Very High Very HighControlling Very High Very High


22

Based on Table 3 above, it is concluded that the level of autonomy in the UK schools are greater than in the Malaysian Schools in most areas. In Malaysian schools, certain areas such as organizing, leading and controlling revealed high in scores ranking as compared to other aspects. However, in areas such as staffing, curriculum development as well as finance autonomy, the scores obtained are low. Based on these results, this study strongly proposes that MoEM need to consider on broadening the scope of autonomy of the Malaysian Schools to boost the educational achievement because SBM could offer several potential benefits.

11. Potential Benefits of SBM

According to the World Bank Reports (2007), SBM has some potential benefits only at marginal cost. These benefits would include:

• More input and resources from parents; • More effective use of resources since those making the decisions for each

school are intimately acquainted with its needs; • Better quality education as a result of the more efficient and transparent use

of resources; • A more open and welcoming school environment since the community is

involved in its management; • Increased participation of all local stakeholders in decision making processes,

leading to a more collegial relationship and increased satisfaction; and• Improved student performance as a result of reduced repetition rates,

reduced dropout rates and better learning outcomes.

Based on information from the HT, DHT, AHT as well the staff from several autonomous schools in London, it can be concluded that all of the six benefits mentioned above exist in their schooling system. It is shown that SBM is viable and desirable because all of them know better than other entity about their school. As professionals, they have the integrity to ensure that their schools are run effectively and efficiently. However in Malaysian educational system, it is strongly proposed that R&D need to be carried out by a third party to identify the viability of the SBM so as to avoid biasness as well as to ensure reliability of the results obtained.

12. How to Implement SBM Effectively

The feasibility, practicality, desirability and the viability of school management system depends on the needs of the stake holders involved. Based on this rationale, every school has to know the expectations of the various stakeholders in the organization. Certainly, the school heads cannot manage the school effectively without getting the mandate from its stakeholders. SBM can only be implemented properly after all parties in the schooling system fully understood the effectiveness


23

and the efficiency of the system. However, based on the experiences of several countries, the implementation of the decentralised policy is not as easy as it sounds because it tends to be problematic with the quality assurance due to the nature of the mechanism for assessment and benchmarking.

To ensure that SBM implementation is desirable to all the parties, especially the interest groups, it is important to have a written agreement that specifies the roles and responsibilities of the school board, superintendent and district office, principal and SBM council. The agreement should explicitly state the standards against which each school will be held accountable. James Gutrie (1986) states that each school should produce an annual performance and planning report covering “how well the school is meeting its goals, how it deploys its resources, and what plans it has for the future,”

13. The Implementation of School-Based Management in Malaysian Cluster Schools

The scope and approach of the SBM implementation in Malaysia is still new and limited to certain areas. Most developing countries are still looking for an ideal SBM model. In the Malaysian context, the concept of SBM is debatable, and was not well-received, especially at the political level. Certainly, this could be due to the fact that Malaysia is a multi racial country with diverse cultural and religious composition of its people. Inevitably, any policy implementation would be concerned on how to create unity in the diversity. As a result, the educational reform in the Malaysian educational system needs to be changed dramatically to ensure that no one is left behind. There should be equal opportunity to access quality education in order to be versatile in the competitive age in the main stream of the education system.

SBM in Malaysia can be achieved if it can transform ineffective schools to become effective schools in terms of improved teaching and learning. The feasibility and the viability of the implementations of the Cluster School concept in Malaysia depends on the principal and staff understanding the SBM concept in its true sense and utilising all of the internal and external mechanism available at their disposal. The first step to be taken by MoEM is to set the criteria in selection of Cluster Schools and to ensure the particular schools are ready. Secondly, provide structured training and relevant exposures on leadership and management at the National Institute of Educational Leadership and Management (IAB) to all principals of cluster schools.

The provision of SBM in the Malaysian Cluster Schools does not mean that all decisions are made at the school level. Instead, it means that the schools are provided with some flexibility in decision making in those areas most likely to improve pupil learning as well as in the niche areas which they want to develop.


24

The matrix below shows the current issues, strategies and programme implementation in order to meet the challenges of the changing educational environment.

Figure 3: Implementation StrategiesIssues Strategies Programmes

Hierarchical and centralized organization structure

Increasing autonomy and decentralizing the process of decision making in educational organization

• Restructuring the states and districts education offices

• Planning and Implementing:o Cluster Schools

Concepto Autonomous

School Conceptso Premier School

Concept

Improving School Management for Leadership Competencies

Plan and implement continuous training through short term and long term courses.

Train current principals and Head Teachers through Educational Leadership and Management Course

14. Implications for Policy and Practice

When policy makers adopt SBM as a dynamic change and innovation in the system, they need to plan for change at all levels of the educational system. In the Malaysian context, the organization at the ministry, state, district and schools must understand the concept of SBM and the rationale why the policy should be embraced. Previous school reforms often failed because of misunderstandings among policy makers, policy planners, policy implementers as well as the stakeholders and interest groups rather than policy problems per se. The reasons for implementing SBM must be the underlying factors in the strategies implementation. At the same time, the ministry of education should establish a steering committee to monitor the implementation of SBM.


25

15. Conclusion

SBM has the potentials to provide schools with the greater flexibility they need to meet the needs of pupils. However, for these potentials to be realized depend on the extent the central, state and district education offices empower the schools to make decisions and carry out improvement activities, particularly in the areas of curriculum and instruction. Shifting powers to the school site present a direct challenge to the traditional pattern of governance, and can often ignite power struggle. For SBM to be implemented effectively, the schools and districts must be committed to school improvement plans and devote a great deal of time and effort towards learning the new roles.

Any educational change and innovation in policy planning must be well planned14 to ensure that it is practical and desirable to all interest groups and stakeholders in education. This is critical and crucial as Fullan (2006) had posed this question ‘Why does Educational Reform Often Fail?’; it is because the failure to relate between the researcher and the decision maker. As a result, there is a gap in terms of concept and understanding between the decision maker and the implementer. Because of that, there is a need to review the current structure of educational administration, policies and the management practice to increase effectiveness and efficiency of educational management.

The viability of SBM implementation depends on the ability of school governance in decision making, problem solving as well as how dynamic all parties and community members are, especially in the early years of implementation. The high impact of sustainability of SBM also depends on the principal’s leadership skills and of course the ability of all stakeholders to play their roles, high values of responsibility, accountability and integrity. The successful implementation of SBM requires several preconditions to be met at local level such as:

• A strong support from school staff;• School and district community must be given administrative

training;• Understand the new role and channels of communication;

• Financial support must be provided to make training and time for regular staff meeting available;

• Central office administration must transfer authority to principals; and

• Principal must share the authority with teachers and parents.

14Planned change involved identified performance gap� set objective� identified so�rce of resistance� monitoring etc.


26

References

Apodaca, T., Mary,T., & Slate, J. R. (2002). School-Based Management: View from Public and Private Elementary School Principals. Educational Policy Analysis Archives,10 (23).

Audit Commission. (1993). Adding up the sums: Schools’ Management of their Finance, London: HMSO.

Bush, T., & Bell, L. (2002). The Principles and Practice of Educational Management (eds). London: Paul Chapmen Publishing.

Caldwell, B.J., & Spinks, J.M. (1990). The Self-Managing School. London: The Falmer Press.

Caldwell, B.J. (2002). Autonomy and Self-Management: Concept and Evidence, in Bush, T., Bell, L. (eds) The Principles and Practice of Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman:.

Creese, M., & Earley, P. (1999) Improving School and Governing Bodies. London: Routledge.

Myers, D., & Stonehill, R. (1993). Consumer Guide: Office of Research. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of the U.S. Department of Education.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change force: The sequel. London. Routledge Falmer.

Fullan, M. (2006) Change forces: Education in motion. www.michaelfullan.ca

Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-based Management: Reconceptualizing to Improve Learning Outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,11 (4): 453-73.

Guskey, T.R., (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. California: Corwin Press, INC.

Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., & Hausman, C. (1993). Conceptualizing School Restructuring: Principals’ and Teachers’ Perceptions. In C. Dimmock (ed.), School-based Management and School Effectiveness. London: Routledge.


27

Hamel, G., (2007). The Future of Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Holt, G. et.al. (2002). Education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland:A Guide to The System. NFER.

Hopkins, D., (1987). Improving the Quality of Schooling: Lessons from the OECD International School Improvement Project. London: The Falmer Press.

Karstanje, P., (1999). Decentralisation and Deregulation in Europe: Towards a Conceptual Framework. In T. Bush, L. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter and P. Ribbins (eds), Educational Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Cotton, K. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS) www.nwrel.org/scpd/sir/

Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of School: Analysis and Practise. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lisa, A., & Marianne R. (2000). The Promises and Problem of School-Based Management.

Malen, B., Ogawa, R.T. & Kranz, J. (1990). What Do We Know About School-based Management? A Case Study of the Literature: A Call for Research. In W.H. Clune & J.F. Witte (eds.) Choice and Control in America education, Volume 2: The Practice of Choice, Decentralization and School Restructuring. New York: The Falmer Press.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2006). EDMP 2006-2010, Putrajaya: Educational Planning and Policy Research Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (1996). Malaysian Education Act 1996. Kuala Lumpur: National Publisher.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2005). The National Education Policy: Pre-School to Post-Secondary Level. Putrajaya: Educational Planning and Policy Research Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Mortimore, P. (2007). The Road to Improvement: Reflections on School Effectiveness. London: Taylor & Francis.


28

Murphy, J. (1997) Restructuring Through School-based Management: Insight for Improving Tomorrow’s Schools. In T. Townsend (ed.), Restructuring and Quality: Issues for Tomorrow’s Schools. London: Routledge.

Myers, D., & Stonehill, R. (1993). School-Based Management. Education Research Consumer Guided, 4.

Oswald, L. J., (1995). School-Based Management. ERIC Digest, 99.

Prasch, J. C., (1990). How to Organize for School-based Management. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rahmad & Abdul Rahman. (2008). School-Based Management: A Model of Implementation for Malaysian Primary School. In Proceeding of ICEI 6-8 May 2008. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia.

Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (2006). The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research. London: Routledge.

Thomas, H., and Martin, J. (1996). Managing Resources for School Improvement. London: Routledge.

Townsend, T. (ed.) (1997). Restructuring and Quality: Issues for Tomorrow’s School. London: Routledge.

World Bank. (2007). What is School-Based Managemen?. Washington, DC: The World Bank.


29

ANNEX 1

The National Institute of Educational Leadership and Management (IAB) seek to find answers to the question: To what extent does Cohort 4 participants who have attended a two-month course at King’s College, London have achieved the ability and confidence to lead Cluster Schools.

Please answer the items on both sides: on the left hand side as the indicator of your level of confidence before attending the KCL course and on the right hand side, after you have attended the KCL course. PLEASE use the scale 1 to 5 below on the items provided.

1: very low 2: low 3: middle 4: high 5: very high

Before Training at KCL After Training at KCLLow High Item Low High

1 2 3 4 5 Identify with several niche areas that I want to develop in my school 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Identify with an innovative approach to enhance the current strength 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Have the ability as a head teacher and authorized person to select human resource

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Determine the number of support staff who have the potential to support the school vision

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Have the confidence to utilize school facilities to generate own income 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Have the confidence as the school authority to chose 10% of pupils from overall enrolment

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Demonstrate competence to implement the National Curriculum 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Have the ability as the authority to offer subjects not in the National Curriculum with reference to CCD

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Ability as Chief Educational Leader to choose specialist areas to implement in my school

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Have the confidence to use examination and assessment based on the curriculum offered by CDC

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Capable to generate income and financial management 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Show confidence to manage the budget provided by the MOE 1 2 3 4 5


30

Documents

Recent Policy Developments Designed to Boost Educational Achievement