Upload
ivalua-institut-catala-davaluacio-de-politiques-publiques
View
453
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
School Autonomy in the UK
Damon Clark
Cornell University
Presentation at Workshop on Evaluation of Education Policies, October 7 2011
Background: How to Improve Schools?
Three approaches:
(3) Structural reforms
(1) Resources
Spending, class size reductions
Autonomy, choice, competition
(2) Standards & Accountability
Incentives for schools, teachers and students
Outline of the talk
(A) UK school system
(B) Autonomy reforms in the UK
(C) Evaluation of a radical UK autonomy reform
(D) Outlook for school autonomy in the UK
(E) Summary, conclusions and questions
(A) UK school system
Brief History
State schooling gradually more important in 19th & early 20th century
By 1950, most schooling was state-provided (private school ~7%)
1950-1975: moved to comprehensive system of state schooling
In 1950, state system had two tiers: elite & non-elite schools
(A) UK school system
1975
National Government
Local Schools Authority
Neighbourhood Enrollment
Needs-Based Funding
S1 S2 S3
(A) UK school system1975 1988
National Government
Local Schools Authority
Neighbourhood Enrollment
Needs-Based Funding
Open Enrollment
Money follows Pupils
League Tables
‘Virtual Voucher’ system=
S1 S2 S3 S1 S3S2
Local Schools Authority
National Government
(B) UK Autonomy reforms
Reform #1: Local Management of Schools (1988)
S3S2
Local Schools Authority
National Government
S1
More decisions given to schools (especially on budgets)
(B) UK Autonomy reforms
Reform #2: Grant Maintained Schools (1988)
S3S2
Local Schools Authority
National Government
S1
‘Opt-Out’ = Quasi-independent
(must win vote among parents)
(B) UK Autonomy reforms
GM schools like private schools:
Owned the school grounds and buildings
Employed all teaching and non-teaching staff
GM schools like (UK) public schools:
Had to follow National Curriculum
Same current funding as non-GM schools (but from central gvt)
Admitted students (but no fees or tests)
GM schools like non-profits:
Established a board (governing body), principal like CEO
Complex formula for capital funding
(B) UK Autonomy reforms
Around one-third of high schools voted on GM status…
050
100
150
200
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 19971 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Lose Vote Win Vote
Around one-quarter of high schools became GM
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
0.3
0.2
0.1
Why not hold a GM vote? Why lose a GM vote?
Local resistance to GM reform
GM Voting: Typically
Principal For
Against
District Neutral
District Oppose
Teachers support Win ?
Teachers oppose ? Lose
(Q)
(A)
(B) UK Autonomy reforms
rb
r
r
bb b
b
b
bb
br
r
bb
bb
r
brr
b
bb
b rbr
b
r
b
b
b
r
bb
b
b
b
rb b
bb
bb
r br
r
bb
bb r
b
bb bb
b
bbb
b
b
b r
bb
b b bbb
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b b
r
b
r
b
bb
b
r
b
b
r
b
bb
r
br r
bb
r
r rbb
b
r
bb
rbbb b
r
b
bb
b
b
r b
b
b
bb bb
rbr
b
r
b
b bbb bb
bb
bb
Labour
Conservative
(B) UK Autonomy reforms
GM votes in London
No – GM and never-GM schools may already be different
(2) Compare narrow vote winners and narrow vote losers
Yes – pre-GM vote, these schools should be same on avg
Possible methods
(1) Compare GM schools with never-GM schools?
(C) Evaluation of UK Autonomy Reform
-> narrow losers = good counterfactual for outcomes of narrow winners without GM status
= “regression discontinuity” design
Outcome = school pass rate
Sample = all secondary schools that voted
Age Grade
5 1
6 2
7 3
8 4
9 5
10 6
11 7
12 8
13 9
14 10
15 11
18
19
20
16 12
17 13‘O’ Level Exams
‘A’ Level Exams
Primary School
High School
College
University
(C) Evaluation of UK Autonomy Reform
11 7
12 8
13 9
14 10
15 11
‘O’ Level Exams (now GCSEs)
High School
Outcome = % students in school that pass >=5 exams
Sample
(C) Evaluation of UK Autonomy Reform
“School pass rate”
(C) Evaluation of UK Autonomy Reform
020
4060
8010
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Vote counts by vote share (Figure 1)
GM status by vote share (Figure 2)
00.
250.
50.
751
0 20 40 60 80 100
(C) Evaluation of UK Autonomy Reform
School performance before the vote (Figure 3a)
School performance two years after the vote (Figure 3b)
3540
4550
0 20 40 60 80 100
-50
5
0 20 40 60 80 100
(C) Evaluation of UK Autonomy Reform
Estimates of the effects of becoming GM:
02
46
810
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Percentage points
Year after vote
-> effects large: 10% of bass pass rate, 0.25 st devin in base pass rate s
-> effects are stable for 8 years after the vote
(C) Evaluation of UK Autonomy Reform
How did schools improve?
(1) No evidence of student cream-skimming, at least in short-run
(2) Evidence for reduced student absences
(3) Evidence for increased teacher hiring
(4) Evidence for increase in teacher turnover following vote
(5) Evidence for more flexible teacher pay (e.g., bonuses)
(D) Outlook for Autonomy in the UK
GM policy made by Conservative gvt, in power until 1997
Labor government that came to power in 1997 froze policy
No new GM schools but existing GM schools kept freedoms
Non-GM schools given more flexibility -> became more like GM
“Academy schools” created
New magnet-like schools in poor areas
Given a lot of resources, given GM-like freedoms
(D) Outlook for Autonomy in the UK
Coalition government elected in May 2010
Flagship policy = “free schools”
New schools (like start-up charter schools in the US)
Can be set up by parents, teachers, charities but not for-profits
Only a handful of free school applications/approvals
(D) Outlook for Autonomy in the UK
Coalition government elected in May 2010
More important policy = let schools rated “outstanding” become academies
200 new Academies created between January 2002 and election
68 new Academies created since election
194 schools converted to Academy status since election
-> another (quieter) revolution
(E) Summary & Conclusions
In 1975, UK school system like that in most countries
1988-1997: first autonomy revolution; appears to be have been successful
2010-?: second autonomy revolution; results as yet unknown
Interesting questions:
What do successful autonomour schools need? E.g., Great leaders?
Why can autonomy help? E.g., flexibility re staff decisions?