managerial caracteristict

7/29/2019 managerial caracteristict

1/18

International Journal of Educational ManagementEmerald Article: Do the managerial characteristics of schools influenceheir performance?

Tommaso Agasisti, Francesca Bonomi, Piergiacomo Sibiano

Article information:

To cite this document: Tommaso Agasisti, Francesca Bonomi, Piergiacomo Sibiano, (2012),"Do the managerial characteristics of

chools influence their performance?", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 26 Iss: 6 pp. 593 - 609

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541211251415

Downloaded on: 08-12-2012

References: This document contains references to 44 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

This document has been downloaded 71 times since 2012. *

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSIDADE CATOLICA DE BRASILIA

For Authors:

f you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

nformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit

www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in

usiness society public policy and education In total Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series as


2/18

Do the managerial characteristicsof schools influence their

performance?Tommaso Agasisti, Francesca Bonomi and Piergiacomo Sibiano

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of governance and managerialcharacteristics of schools. More specifically, the aim is to individuate the factors that are associated tohigher schools performances, as measured through student achievement.Design/methodology/approach The research is conducted by means of a survey in the private

junior-secondary schools in one Italian region (Lombardy).

Findings The results show that some features characterize the group of high-performing schools:the presence of structured tests to measure student achievement; specific services for disabled andforeign students; a high level of principals autonomy in strategic decision making; the use ofassessment for defining strategies; and a high collaborative attitude among teachers.Research limitations/implications The present paper focused only on the private sector, becausenon-public schools benefit from a substantial autonomy in their organizational and managerial profile.Some of the indicators collected in this study could be included in the Italian standardized testsprotocol, by creating an ad hoc schools questionnaire.Originality/value This paper answers to the call by educational research, applied economicresearch and present institutional assessment activities for a renewed desire to build reliable indicatorsabout schools performance in Italy. In this paper an analytical framework is developed to collectrelevant information about schools characteristics.

Keywords Italy, Private education, Schools, Governance, Educational administration,Educational management, School effectiveness, School performance, School autonomy,

School-based management, EvaluationPaper type Research paper

It has been demonstrated that the quality of education depends more on the way schools aremanaged than on the availability of resources (De Grauwe, 2005, p. 275).

1. Introduction and objectivesThe problem of identifying the characteristics of effective schools is not new, and along tradition of educational literature focusses on this objective (Creemers et al., 1989;Mortimore et al., 1988; Scheerens and Bosker, 1997). It is evident that some schools arebetter than others in their activity of transferring knowledge to their pupils. Since the

publication of the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966), researchers have comparedthe performance of schools in order to establish the characteristics that can explainthe differences in students results. Usually, school performance is measured in termsof student achievement averages, assuming that the primary goal of a school is toincrease knowledge and competency among its pupils.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

Received 3 March 20Revised 2 August 20

Accepted 13 September 20

International Journal of Educatio

Managem

Vol. 26 No. 6, 2

pp. 593-

r Emerald Group Publishing Lim

0951-3

DOI 10.1108/09513541211251

The paper benefited from comments by an anonymous referee. Any eventual errors are the soleresponsibility of the authors.

59

Manageriacharacteristic

of schoo


3/18

The Coleman Report provoked fierce debate in the educational community, arguingthat out-of-school factors (such as socio-economic variables, race, etc.) affect studentsachievement much more than in-school variables (such as expenditure, teachersqualifications, etc.). Since then, a significant research effort has been directed at

achieving a better understanding of the potential role of schools in improving studentslearning outcomes.

Academic research has, therefore, focussed on the role of schools in the educationalprocess. In this perspective, schools are considered as organizations in which theeducational process takes place. While a part of the research effort has focussed onunderstanding the effects of different educational styles and strategies, another streamof literature has considered the differences between schools managerial, organizationaland governing structures (Teddlie and Reynolds, 2000). More precisely, literatureregarding school process indicators has defined several dimensions that can beanalyzed to understand what happens in schools (processes). Some of these dimensionshave managerial and organizational aspects e.g. management style (e.g. leadership)(Sammons et al., 2010), participation in decision making (Doyle and Wells, 1996),

school climate (Freiberg, 1999), assessment practices, teachers behavior, parentsinvolvement in school initiatives, etc.

Economists have also focussed their attention on student achievement andschool performance determinants by investigating the impact of resources on theeducational processes following the assumption that resources should be positivelyassociated with higher school performance. However, literature adopting an economicapproach to regarding students achievement determinants, conducted throughthe estimation of Educational Production Functions (EPFs), generally agrees with theColeman Reports conclusions and shows that school characteristics and resourceshave little or no influence on students results (Hanushek, 1986, 2003, 2006). Recently,this stream of literature has argued that international comparisons show thatinstitutions at system level and school level do have a determining influence on

performance differentials (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2010). If this is true, it followsthat schools cannot actively influence students results at all. Obviously, this castsserious doubts on the effectiveness of school-level policies, management andgovernance. However, some authors have suggested that methodological problems inestimating EPFs are at the basis of these conclusions (Krueger, 2003).

Our companion hypothesis is that the problem relies on the way in whichschool characteristics are described and measured (Goldhaber and Brewer, 1997).Therefore, better school-level indicators should be developed in order to open theblack box (Scheerens, 2000) and describe more precisely what actually happens inschools.

This issue is particularly relevant for the Italian educational system. In theAnglo-Saxon tradition, schools are considered as organizations, in which the school

heads and principals have a managerial role, whereas in Italy, until approximatelyten years ago, schools were regarded as branches of the Ministry of Education. Thus,school principals did not have proper managerial duties, and were only responsible forapplying national laws and regulations. This situation has changed since the nationallaw no. 59/1997 and the Presidential Decree No. 275/1999. These regulations madeschools autonomous in a number of fields, including allowing them to define theirown educational programs, organize their own activities and introduce innovations inteaching methods and initiatives. This reform process is consistent with the generaltrends of school-based management (SBM) strategies, which devolve to schools a series

594

IJEM26,6


4/18

of functions that were previously in the hands of central and local government(Dimmock, 1993). Despite these changes, there is still a centralized system, whereprincipals and governing bodies have little power to manage and organize theirschools (Poggi, 2005), because the aforementioned laws have taken time to apply

and are still incomplete. One example of this is that school principals are not yetdirectly responsible for selecting teaching staff and deciding their salaries.

However, some changes have been identified regarding organization, teaching andfunding. Viteritti (2009) argues that the managerial staff in Italian schools have begunto play an increasingly important role in decision-making role, that managerialresponsibilities have become more common among teachers and that managerial skillshave developed in administrative offices. Regarding funding, schools receive moneyfrom families (tuition) as well as other income in addition to the ordinary fundsprovided by the Ministry of Education. Finally, Biondi et al. (2009) have found that newteaching initiatives have been implemented, such as: the use of ICT for teachingpractices; the use of new interdisciplinary forms of teaching; and the introduction ofassessment projects.

Such movements imply heterogeneity and differentiation between schools, and theproblem of identifying managerial and organizational characteristics related to higherschool performance therefore becomes more important (Heck and Mayor, 1993; Gaziel,1998).

Moreover (and consequently), after many years of debate, in 2007/2008 for the firsttime a nation-wide exercise was developed in Italy to use standardized studentachievement tests as a measure of school performance. This test is divided into twosections, Italian (reading, understanding and grammar) and mathematics. The testcovered all the students enrolled in the final year of the 5,896 Italian junior secondaryschools (age 14) a total of 574,652 students. The standardized tests were administeredby a national agency (Invalsi National Committee for the Evaluation of theEducational System).

After three years, this experience is still in its first steps. For instance, the resultsare not publicly available at school level, but only at a regional level, so they arenot useful for families when making their educational choices. However, the exerciseis the first step toward an accountability revolution for the Italian educationalsystem. To proceed effectively in this direction, it is now necessary to improve thequality of the Invalsi experience. At least, two major improvements appear to beurgent:

(1) to add information regarding individual students socio-economic status (SES);and

(2) to collect information regarding school characteristics.

Moreover, in Italy (and more generally in Europe) the question of using public moneyefficiently has become a major issue and given the critical situation of public financesa renewed focus on this matter is now required. There is also increased attention on therole of performance indicators as a measure of the ability of single institutions topursue strategic objectives (Simpson, 2009; Karsten et al., 2010). As a consequence,schools are now required to disclose their results. However, measures regardingschool performances should be adequately accompanied by information regardingtheir relevant characteristics, to provide a complete and unbiased picture of theireffectiveness and efficiency.

59


of schoo


5/18

To sum up, the different perspectives (educational research, applied economicresearch, current institutional evaluation activities and the call for more accountability)have motivated a renewed desire to build reliable indicators regarding schoolperformance in Italy.

In this paper we develop an analytical framework for collecting relevantinformation regarding school characteristics, with particular reference to theirgovernance, policies and management structures. The main aim of the paper is toapply this framework to a sample of non-public schools located in the Italian Region ofLombardy, and test its validity and capacity to find organizational and managerialfactors related to higher school performance (as measured through studentachievement scores).

Thus, the specific research question is: Are there any organizational and managerialschool characteristics related to higher school performances (in terms of studentachievement)?

The choice of focussing on non-public schools is due to the strict regulations thatconstrain public schools as many of their potential policies (admission procedures,

teacher selection and pay and teaching activities) are defined in detail by strict nationalrules. Comparisons with schools outside Italy show that Italian (public) schools havelittle autonomy on critical issues (Table I).

Schoolonly

School andgovernment

Governmentonly

Selecting teachers for hireGermany 15.0 29.8 55.2Italy 5.2 17.5 77.3Spain 34.0 0.7 65.2

Sweden 97.8 2.2 0.0UK 94.3 5.6 0.1USA 97.7 2.3 0.0OECD average 59.1 10.5 30.4

Determining teachers salar y increasesGermany 3.8 5.6 90.6Italy 2.7 0.2 97.0Spain 6.7 2.3 91.1Sweden 61.4 32.0 6.6UK 69.1 21.0 10.0USA 78.3 15.7 5.9OECD average 21.3 9.3 69.5

Formulating the school budgetGermany 79.0 12.6 8.4

Italy 17.9 14.3 67.7Spain 77.0 10.1 12.9Sweden 56.9 32.0 11.0UK 62.5 25.0 12.5USA 85.7 12.4 1.9OECD average 57.1 18.8 24.1

Note: Percent of decisions power, for each category, assigned to school, school and government, andgovernment onlySource: Elaborations on OECD-PISA (2006) data

Table I.The autonomy of Italianschools, comparison withother OECD-PISAcountries (2006)

596

IJEM26,6


6/18

In terms of their organizational and managerial characteristics, there is not, therefore,enough variation between public schools to construct an analysis regarding howthese factors influence school performance. Non-public schools, on the other hand,have much higher margins of autonomy, and their governance and management

structures can vary widely. Therefore, while Italian public schools have experienceda long history of bureaucratic administration, private schools have developed a muchhigher level of managerial professionalism, as private school principals have alwaysdetermined strategies and actions themselves.

The choice of limiting the analysis to a single Italian region is justified by theresearch method adopted in this study as due to the lack of official, detailed and reliableadministrative information regarding Italian school characteristics, we finally decidedto conduct our own survey.

The choice of limiting the analysis to a single Italian region is justified by thedecision to conduct an independent survey due to the lack of official, detailed andreliable administrative information regarding Italian school characteristics.

A sub-aim of this study is to propose a methodological extension of the national

standardized achievement tests managed by the Italian National EvaluationCommittee for the Educational System (Invalsi, 2009). Currently, his evaluationprocedure has not collected any information regarding school characteristics, but theresults presented in this paper strongly call for an improvement in this direction(as well as providing suggested guidelines).

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical framework;Section 3, the methodology and data; Section 4, the main results; and Section 5a discussion of the said results and a conclusion.

2. Theoretical frameworkTo define the set of dimensions that identify the organizational and managerialcharacteristics of schools, we have referred to the classification of theories regarding

educational management (Bush, 2003). In order to select the variables reflecting therelevant dimensions of school management, it is important to rely on a theory thateffectively categorizes this issue.

Bush and Glover (2002) propose six categories of management models in theeducational context:

(1) formal model, where the focus is on the official and structural elements oforganizations, assuming that hierarchical systems exist and managers userational means to pursue agreed goals;

(2) collegial model, which assumes that organizations determine policy and makedecisions through a process of discussion leading to consensus, especially inorganizations composed mainly of professionals (e.g. teachers);

(3) political model, that characterizes decision making as a bargaining processbetween the subunits that make up the organization;

(4) subjective model, that focus on individuals rather than on the organization as awhole thus, the decision-making process is the result of the interactionbetween individuals rather than an output driven by rational procedures;

(5) ambiguity model, which stresses uncertainty and unpredictability inorganizations. Here, organizational objectives are problematic and institutionsexperience difficulty in managing the decision-making processes; and

59


of schoo


7/18

(6) finally, cultural model, which emphasizes informal aspects of organizations asit believes that the values and norms of individuals matter more than officialelements in other words, the common values shared by the organizationsstaff are the key element in describing the organizations strategic actions.

It is evident and widely acknowledged in the literature that [y

] the six managementmodels [y] represent different ways of looking at educational institutions; each screenoffers valuable insights into the nature of management in education but none providesa complete picture (Bush, 2006, p. 20). However, in general terms this paper assumesthat school is an organization in which the cultural element is crucial, but also whereformal decision making is established with teachers playing a strong role asprofessionals (collegial perspective). The cultural element is particularly important forthe sample of schools considered in this paper, as private schools strongly define theiridentity through their educational project, which often has a religious connotation.Moreover, principals have the authority (and the autonomy) to organize the decision-making processes as well as promoting strategies and actions. Finally, teachers are the

key actors in the educational process, so they can interact with the management teamto define priorities (ends) and activities (means).The choice of these theoretical perspectives has strongly influenced the way in

which the analysis of school characteristics has been conducted through the definitionof indicators and variables. Following a general model of school functioning, whereinputs (e.g. students background, teachers, resources, etc.) are used in educationalprocesses (e.g. schools organization and management, activities, etc.) to obtain outputs(e.g. achievement, participation, etc.), this paper focusses on the processes in order toidentify which organizational elements effectively improve school performance(Sweetland and Hoy, 2000). This is particularly valid when this performance can bequantitatively measured, for instance through achievement scores.

Therefore, the importance of a system of indicators for measuring and describing

school processes has been widely discussed in existing literature (Porter, 1991).It is important to specify that the present paper adopts a wide definition ofmanagerial and governance characteristics, following the heuristic model of schoolsproposed by Lee et al. (1993):

The internal organization of schools, the central feature in the model, contains severalsubunits: (a) the organization of authority, which includes constructs tapping the structure ofgovernance; the nature of administration; the underlying beliefs, values and explicit goalsof the school [y]; (b) the organization of teachers and students work; (c) the socialorganization of schools (i.e. the structure of social relations)(p. 174).

In operational terms, school characteristics reflecting governance and managementare grouped into four families of indicators: school activities; school climate(including interaction between the social and cultural environment); teachers;and governance. A fifth category includes a description of the schools fundingresources. The list of the specific indicators selected for the study are illustrated inTable II.

The choice of indicator families, as well as the definition of the specific indicators, ispreliminary based on the study of two strands of the relevant literature: first, effectiveschools (Creemers et al., 1989; Scheerens, 2000) and second, school processindicators (Porter, 1991; Sweetland and Hoy, 2000). Moreover, the choice of thespecific indicators was discussed with the relative school principals in a focus group(see Section 3 regarding methodology).

598

IJEM26,6


8/18

Groups of schoolscharacteristics Subgroups Indicators

Schools activities Assessment and

orienteering

Presence of structured tests to measure students

achievementPractices of students selection based on ability testsSchools self-evaluation practicesPresence of an internal evaluation committee withinthe schoolConsequences of the evaluation results (feedbacksand consequent interventions)Instruments used for orienteering activities

Services for disabledand foreign students

Support servicesExtraordinary teaching activitiesActivities to improve integration with the classImproving ad hoc initiatives

Supplementary

information

Use of traditional teaching facilities (boards, etc.)

Use of innovative teaching facilities (e.g. multimedia)Duration of teaching hoursPossibility of integrative teaching activities in theafternoon

Schools climate andinteractions with thesocial and culturalenvironment

Active collaboration with students familiesParticipation of students parents to schoolsinitiativesParents self-organized activitiesParents formal associations and clubsSupplementary services such as transport, lunch, etc.Cultural and/or sport activitiesParticipation to schools networksCollaboration with third parties for developingcommon initiatives

Activities organized by third parties in the schoolsbuilding(s)Episodes of violence realized by the schoolsstudentsTeachers and parents involvement in definingformative plans

Teachers Main criteria for the selection of teachersTeachers who attend training activities to improvetheir competencesTypologies of teachers trainingCollaboration attitude among teachersTeachers turnover in the last years

Governance Formal decision-

making processes

Teachers and parents involvement in the decision-

making processesHead-teachers autonomy in strategic decisionmakingPrincipals autonomy in strategic decision-makinga

Other actors involved in the decision-makingprocesses

Funding Schools expenditure composition

Note: aThe head teacher is responsible for the schools teaching activities and quality; the principal isin charge of administrative management

Table The managerial a

organizational schoocharacterist

investigated in tpresent stu

59


of schoo


9/18

Some of the indicator groups have been widely discussed in literature regarding theorganizational health of schools (Smith, 2002), following the idea that educationaladministration can play a role in influencing student performance (Hoy and Miskel,1996). School climate has been defined in this context as a multidimensional construct

including several aspects, such as academic emphasis (e.g. setting high standardsfor academic performance), the principals influence and autonomy, resourceavailability and support, etc. (Goddard et al., 2000; Hoy and Hannum, 1997; Hoyet al., 1990). In the present study, this concept has also been expanded to include thegroup of activities promoted and implemented by each school with its stakeholders(e.g. families, local governments, public and private organizations, etc.). The role ofthe interaction with the local area is especially important in the perspective of SBM(De Grauwe, 2005).

3. Methodology and dataIn the first stage, a questionnaire was drawn up covering the domain of relevant(or potentially relevant) school characteristics. An action research approach wasadopted here, with the following phases:

(1) a preliminary draft of the questionnaire was drawn up in compliance withacademic literature regarding educational effectiveness and school processindicators (see theoretical framework in Section 2);

(2) then, the questionnaire was discussed in a focus group, consisting of fiveprincipals of private schools located in the focus area (Lombardy Region Italy). More specifically, five meetings (two hours each) were dedicated to thisactivity;

(3) an amended version of the questionnaire was tested with three schools, toverify its feasibility and consistency;

(4) finally, a further version of the questionnaire (corrected after the tests) wasvalidated in a meeting with the members of the focus group; and

(5) the managerial and organizational school characteristics examined in thepresent study are illustrated in Table II, which also shows the specificindicators collected.

Once the questionnaire was defined, the second step was started, which involvedsending the questionnaire to all the secondary junior non-public schools located inthe Lombardy Region (Italy). The use of surveys to analyze school characteristics,instead of the use of large administrative datasets is common in educationalmanagement literature (e.g. Sweetland and Hoy, 2000), because this strategy allowssoft managerial and organizational features to be measured, which are not usually

recorded in administrative datasets. In our research, 42 schools responded, out of apopulation of 177. The response rate was o50 percent. Thus, the survey shouldbe regarded with significant caution as a basis for precise quantitative statementsabout the population from which the sample was drawn (Diamond, 2000). In order toverify the generalizability of the survey a comparison of the descriptive statisticsbetween the respondents and the population has been provided in appendix[1](see Tables AI and AII). This shows a substantial consistency. Thus, the survey hasbeen judged reliable, also given the nature of the questionnaire (survey by e-mailand/or postal mail).

600

IJEM26,6


10/18

The data collected were entered in an excel worksheet, and analyzed throughpreliminary descriptive statistics. An analytical essay was drawn up by including allthe relevant information from this analysis.

As the research question investigated the school organizational and managerial

characteristics associated with higher performance (measured through studentachievement), the sample of schools was divided into two groups based on theirreported average achievement scores derived from the Invalsi standardized tests. Thetwo groups were named high-performance schools (Invalsis average test score460/100), and non-high-performance schools (Invalsis average test scoreo60/100).The latter sample also included schools, which did not report their Invalsi average testscore (12 out of 42). However, when excluding this group of schools, the main resultsremain unaffected (details available from the authors).

Then a specific analysis was conducted to establish whether the two groupswere characterized by certain organizational and managerial features. Thisanalysis was carried out in two stages: first, through a simple observation of thedistribution of the answers and then by statistically testing the differences of

these distributions.The present study aims to collect school-level information regarding the non-public

junior secondary schools located in the Italian Region of Lombardy. Lombardy islocated in the north of Italy, and is the most economically developed region in thecountry. Moreover, it accounts for about 15 percent of the Italian public educationalsystem (in terms of number of students and teachers), and around 20 percent of theItalian private educational system (Table III).

Lombardy Italy %

(a) Number of schools in 2007Primary schoolsPublic 2,223 15,912 14.0Private 234 1,456 16.1Secondary junior schoolsPublic 1,038 7,054 14.7Private 177 652 27.1Secondary schoolsPublic 581 5,027 11.6Private 302 1,425 21.2(b) Number of students in 2007

Primary schoolsPublic 398,570 2,598,528 15.3

Private 37,033 189,463 19.5Secondary junior schoolsPublic 231,452 1,670,728 13.9Private 22,482 66,252 33.9Secondary schoolsPublic 329,891 2,539,752 13.0Private 32,947 143,468 23.0

Source: Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), http://archivio.pubblica.istruzione.it/dg_studieprogrammazione/index_new.shtml

Table INumber of (a) schoo

and (b) studenLombardy Region a

whole Italy, 20

60


of schoo


11/18

This data refers to the scholastic year 2007/2008. The descriptive statistics regardingthe sample analyzed in this paper are listed in Table IV.

4. Results

Overall, the results of our study suggest that, among the many school-level factorsexamined, only a few are clearly related to school performance. Moreover, for more ofthese factors there was no, or very little difference between high-performance schoolsand non-high-performance schools, as shown in Table V. The three columns indicatewhether is there a difference in the answers provided by the high-performance vsnon-high-performance school principals. A relevant distinction is assumed to exist ifthe differences between distributions are higher than 20 percent (it is important toremember that the answers are categorical, e.g. high medium/high medium/low low). A partial difference exists if the difference in the distributions of the answersis between 10 and 20 percent. Last of all, if the heterogeneity in the distribution of theanswers is lower than 10 percent, no difference is considered.

However, there are some managerial and organizational characteristics that actually

characterize high-performance schools (Figure 1): (i) the presence of structured teststo measure student achievement; (ii) the use of assessment practice results to identifyconsequent intervention; (iii) the widespread use of specific activities for students atrisk (foreign and disabled); (iv) a high collaborative attitude among teachers; and(v) a high level of autonomy in strategic decision making on the part of the principal.

The distributions of the two groups characteristics over these five elementsare given in the Table VI. Moreover, a further check has been conducted to test thestatistical differences between the two distributions, by means of:

(1) a w2-test for independence (Table VII); and

(2) a non-parametric Kolgomorov-Smirnov test for the equality of the distributions(Table VIII).

The results seem consistent with the findings of a wide range of literature, recentlysurveyed by Kyriakides et al. (2010). Using the theoretical framework called thedynamic model of educational effectiveness (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2006, 2008)the authors argue that the main school-level factors related to higher school results are:

(1) the schools policy on teaching (i.e. on improving teaching quality); and

(2) the schools policy on creating a learning environment (i.e. on creating avaluable focus on achievement).

Schools characteristics Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum

Total number of students 195.9 145.5 180.6 34 937Foreign students with language difficulties 0.93% 0.00% 0.02 0% 7%Disabled students 2.25% 2.00% 0.02 0% 7%Student who repeated one or more years 2.35% 1.00% 0.03 0.00% 9.80%Number of teachers 22.4 16.5 19.6 8 102Number of classes 8.3 6.0 6.9 3 34Enrolments 2007/2008 168.7 129.0 176.7 27 886Enrolments 2006/2007 159.5 115.0 172.0 25 870Enrolments 2005/2006 160.2 100.0 188.3 14 1,002.00

Table IV.The sample of privatejunior secondary schoolsexamined in this study

602

IJEM26,6


12/18

According to this view, the determinants that emerged as positive in our studycan be easily classified into the two groups: (i) and (iii) in the former, (ii) and (iv) inthe latter. We would also suggest that (v) (high principals autonomy) is a keyrequirement, as it enables the principal to pursue the schools strategy and policieseffectively.

IndicatorsHigh

differencesPartial

differencesNo

differences

Presence of structured tests to measure students achievement X

Practices of students selection based on ability tests XSchool self-evaluation practices XPresence of an internal evaluation committee within the school XConsequences of the evaluation results ( feedbacks andconsequent interventions)

X

Instruments used for orienteering activities XSupport services X

Extraordinary teaching activities XActivities to improve integration with the class XImproving ad hoc initiatives XUse of traditional teaching facilities XUse of innovative teaching facilities XDuration of teaching hours XPossibility of integrative teaching activities in the afternoon XPossibility of 36 curriculum hours XActive collaboration with students families XParticipation of students parents to schools initiatives XParents self-organized activities XParents formal associations and clubs XSupplementary services such as transports, etc. XSupplementary services such as lunch, etc. XCultural and/or sport activities XParticipation to schools networks XCollaboration with third parties for developing commoninitiatives

X

Activities organized by third parties in the schools building(s) XEpisodes of violence realized by the schools students X

Teachers involvement in defining formative plans XParents involvement in defining formative plans XMain criteria for the selection of teachers XTeachers who attend training activities to improve theircompetences

X

Typologies of teachers training XCollaboration attitude among teachers X Teachers turnover in the last years XTeachers and parents involvement in decision-makingprocesses

X

Head-teachers autonomy in strategic decision-making XPrincipals autonomy in strategic decision making XOther actors involved in the decision-making processes XSchools expenditure composition X

Note: In italic, those characteristics which are related to high-performance status

Table Differences between higperformance schools a

non-high-performanschools: an overvie

60


of schoo


13/18

5. Discussion and concluding remarksThe findings of this paper show that some organizational and managerialcharacteristics of schools are associated with higher performance (in terms ofstudent achievement). However, this does not mean that the introduction of thesefeatures will improve school performance automatically, as the contexts and

Structured tests tomeasure students

achievement

High principalsautonomy in

strategic decisionmaking

Specific servicesfor disabled andforeign students

Real consequences of theevaluation results

(feedbacks and consequent

interventions)

High collaborativeattitude among

teachers

High-performanceschools

Figure 1.Main characteristics of thehigh-performance schools

CharacteristicsHigh(%)

Quite high(%)

Low(%)

No(%)

Missing(%)

High-performance schools(1) Presence of structured tests to measure students

achievement 17.6 52.9 11.8 11.8 5.9(2) The use of evaluation practices results to identify

consequent interventions 58.8 41.2 0.0 0.0 0.0(3a) The widespread use of integrative activities for foreign

students at risk 17.6 5.9 11.8 0.0 64.7(3b) The widespread use of integration activities for disabled

students at risk 35.3 29.4 17.6 0.0 17.6(4) Collaborative attitude among teachers 47.1 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.0(5) Principals autonomy in strategic decision-making 58.8 23.5 17.6 0.0 0.0

Non-high-performance schools(1) Presence of structured tests to measure students

achievement 12.0 28.0 40.0 8.0 12.0(2) The use of evaluation practices results to identify

consequent interventions 28.0 56.0 16.0 0.0 0.0(3a) The widespread use of integrative activities for foreign

students at risk 20.0 24.0 0.0 8.0 56.0(3b) The widespread use of integration activities for disabled

students at risk 32.0 48.0 4.0 0.0 16.0

(4) Collaborative attitude among teachers 4.0 56.0 4.0 0.0 0.0(5) Principals autonomy in strategic decision-making 32.0 40.0 24.0 0.0 4.0

Table VI.Differences between high-performance schools and

non-high-performanceschools

604

IJEM26,6


14/18

background are different in the various settings in which each school operates. Theway in which any school characteristic will impact on its performance is different, andmediated by several school-specific identity, culture and structure issues. As pointedout by De Grauwe (2005): Not all schools have equal capacities; this means that each

school needs to be treated as an individual institute (p. 284). Nevertheless, the resultsshown in Section 4 can provide a useful guideline for school managers andadministrators who would like to attempt some changes in their institutions activitiesand structures. Some innovative ideas and approaches may also be derived froma comparison between real experiences and the evidence provided in this study.

The results of this study also have some interesting implications.First, they call for more care when designing large-scale assessment exercises, like

the Italian standardized Invalsi tests, or international experiences like OECD-PISA,TIMSS, PIRLS, etc. Usually, the analyses of their results made by economists ofeducation indicate that school resources and characteristics play a minor role. Thepresent study also indicates that a potential measuring issue exists, as describingwhat really happens in schools could be described more accurately. It is important

to remember here that a wide amount of educational effectiveness research (EER)literature has studied in detail the potential role of schools in (partly) explainingstudent achievement scores. As economists, we would ask for more integrationbetween the two streams of literature (economics of education and EER); Vignoles et al.(2000, pp. 106-7) have already pointed out Future empirical research should be moreclosely linked to educational theory. [y] In particular, education production function

Characteristics w2Criticalvalue

Statisticaldifference

(95%)

(1) Presence of structured tests to measure students achievement 13.4 9.4 Yes(2) The use of evaluation practices results to identify consequent

interventions 14.6 7.8 Yes(3a) The widespread use of integrative activities for foreign students

at risk 16.2 9.4 Yes(3b) The widespread use of integration activities for disabled students

at risk 6.6 9.4 No(4) Collaborative attitude among teachers 2.3 7.8 No(5) Principals autonomy in strategic decision making 8.5 9.4 Weak

Table VStatistical test on t

differences between higperformance schools a

non-high-performanschools: w2-t

Characteristicsp-value(KS test)

Equality ofdistribution

(1) Presence of structured tests to measure students achievement 0.394 No(2) The use of evaluation practices results to identify consequent interventions 0.291 No

(3a) The widespread use of integrative activities for foreign students at risk 0.974 No(3b) The widespread use of integration activities for disabled students at risk 0.988 No

(4) Collaborative attitude among teachers 0.907 No(5) Principals autonomy in strategic decision making 0.537 No

Table VIStatistical test on t

differences between higperformance schools a

non-high-performanschools: Kolgomoro

Smirnov (KS) te

60


of schoo


15/18

models need to relate the theories of school organization, teaching and learning. [y]This requires interdisciplinary work between economists and educational researchers,in particular those researching teaching, learning and school effectiveness.

Second, with specific reference to Italy, these results offer the recent experience of

the Italian National Evaluation Committee for the Educational System (Invalsi, 2009)a number of suggestions. The national standardized tests are useful for understandingmore about the characteristics of successful students, but the lack of information abouttheir schools hinders the understanding of the schools role in their performance. Someof the indicators collected in this study could be included in the Invalsi standardizedtest protocol (e.g. by creating an ad hoc school questionnaire).

Lastly, a policy reflection should be undertaken regarding the autonomy of Italianpublic schools. The present paper focusses on the private sector because non-publicschools benefit from substantial organizational and managerial autonomy. On thecontrary, public schools are constrained by strict public regulations (e.g. they do nothave the autonomy to select teachers and establish salaries). Therefore, because thispaper shows that some organizational and managerial processes are actually related to

higher performances, then public schools should also be analyzed in order to establishwhether the level of school autonomy affects their capacity of schools to create newtools and practices. As stated in the introduction, even a minimum level of schoolautonomy lead to some change. PISA data regarding low Italian students performancehas also put Italian public schools under increased scrutiny and pressure (Bracci,2009). Therefore, investigating public schools too, may give interesting insightsabout the capacity of schools to create their own strategies. If this is the case, newreforms aiming at increasing autonomy for public schools should be implemented inorder to foster innovation.

Note

1. The variables chosen in the comparison was: total number of students, percentage of foreignstudents with language difficulties, percentage of disabled students and percentage ofstudents who repeated one or more years.

References

Biondi, G., Mosa, E. and Panzavolta, S. (2009), Autonomia e innovazione: scenari possibilitra teoria e pratica, Working Paper No. 16, Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli, Torino,February.

Bracci, E. (2009), Autonomy, responsibility and accountability in the Italian school system,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 293-312.

Bush, T. (2003), Theories of Educational Management, 3rd ed., Sage, London.

Bush, T. (2006), Theories of educational management, available at: http://cnx.org/content/m13867/latest/ (accessed March 3, 2011).

Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2002), School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence, National College forSchool Leadership, Nottingham.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, E., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F. and York, R. (1966),Equality of Educational Opportunity, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Creemers, B. and Kyriakides, L. (2006), A critical analysis of the current approaches to modelingeducational effectiveness: the importance of establishing a dynamic model, School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 347-66.

606

IJEM26,6


16/18

Creemers, B. and Kyriakides, L. (2008), The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness:A Contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in Contemporary Schools, Routledge,London.

Creemers, B., Peters, T. and Reynolds, D. (Eds) (1989), School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisee.

De Grauwe, A. (2005), Improving the quality of education through school-based management:learning from international experiences, Review of Education, Vol. 51 No. 4,pp. 269-87.

Diamond, S.S. (Ed.) (2000), Reference guide on survey research, Reference Manual on ScientificEvidence, 2nd ed., The Federal Judicial Center, Washington, DC, pp. 229-76.

Dimmock, C. (1993), School-Based Management and School Effectiveness, Routledge,London.

Doyle, J.L. and Wells, S. (1996), LMS: the managerial climate and its effects on the interpersonalclimate of the school, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 10 No. 6,pp. 32-41.

Freiberg, H.J. (Ed.) (1999), School Climate: Measuring, Improving and Sustaining HealthyLearning Environments, Falmer Press, London.

Gaziel, H. (1998), School-based management as a factor in school effectiveness, InternationalReview of Education, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 319-33.

Goddard, R.D., Sweetland, S.R. and Hoy, W.K. (2000), Academic emphasis of urban elementaryschools and student achievement in middle schools: a multilevel analysis, Educational

Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 683-702.

Goldhaber, D.D. and Brewer, D.J. (1997), Why dont schools and teachers seem to matter?Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity, The Journal of

Human Resources, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 505-23.

Hanushek, E.A. (1986), The economics of schooling: production and efficiency in public

schools, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 1141-77.Hanushek, E.A. (2003), The failure of input-based schooling policies, The Economic Journal,

Vol. 113 No. 485, pp. F64-F98.

Hanushek, E.A. (2006), School resources, in Hanushek, E.A. and Welch, F. (Eds), Handbook ofthe Economics of Education, Vol. 2, North-Holland, Oxford, pp. 865-908.

Hanushek, E.A. and Woessmann, L. (2010), The economics of international differences ineducational achievement, Working Paper No. 15949, NBER, Cambridge, MA, April.

Heck, R.H. and Mayor, R.A. (1993), School characteristics, school academic indicators andstudent outcomes: implications for policies to improve schools, Journal of Education

Policy, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 143-54.

Hoy, W.K. and Hannum, J. (1997), Middle school climate: an empirical assessment of

organizational health and student achievement, Educational Administration Quarterly,Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 290-311.

Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (1996), Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice,5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J. and Bliss, J.R. (1990), Organizational health, climate, and effectiveness: acomparative study, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 260-79.

Invalsi (2009), La prova nazionale al termine del primo ciclo a.s. 2007/08, available at:www.invalsi.it/EsamiDiStato/documenti/Rapporto_master_31_10_2008_finale_pdf(accessed March 3, 2010).

60


of schoo


17/18

Karsten, S., Visscher, A.J., Dijkstra, A.B. and Veenstra, R. (2010), Towards standards for thepublication of performance indicators in the public sector: the case of schools, Public

Administration, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 90-112.

Krueger, A. (2003), Economic considerations and class size, The Economic Journal, Vol. 113

No. 485, pp. F34-F63.

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Panayiotis, A. and Demetriou, D. (2010), A synthesis of studiessearching for school factors: implications for theory and research, British Educational

Research Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 807-30.

Lee, V.E., Bryk, A.S. and Smith, J.B. (1993), The organization of effective secondary schools,Review of Research in Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 171-226.

Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Ecob, R. and Stoll, R. (1988), School Matters: The Junior Years, OpenBooks, Wells.

OECD-PISA (2006), PISA 2006, Science Competencies for tomorrows world, Vol. 1, Data, OCSE,Paris.

Poggi, A. (2005), La legislazione regionale sullistruzione dopo la revisione del Titolo V,Le Regioni, No. 5, pp. 927-38.

Porter, A.C. (1991), Creating a system of school process indicators, Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 13-29.

Sammons, P., Gu, Q., Day, C. and Ko, J. (2010), Exploring the impact of school leadership onpupil outcomes, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,pp. 83-101.

Scheerens, J. (2000), Improving School Effectiveness, Unesco, Paris.

Scheerens, J. and Bosker, R. (1997), The Foundations of Educational Effectiveness, Elsevier,New York, NY.

Simpson, H. (2009), Productivity in public services, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 23 No. 2,

pp. 250-76.

Smith, P.A. (2002), The organisational health of high schools and student proficiency inmathematics, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 98-104.

Sweetland, S.R. and Hoy, W.K. (2000), School characteristics and educational outcomes: towardan organizational model of student achievement in middle schools, Educational

Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 703-29.

Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (Eds.), (2000), The International Handbook of School EffectivenessResearch, Falmer Press, London.

Vignoles, A., Levacic, R., Walker, J., Machin, S. and Reynolds, D. (2000), The RelationshipBetween Resource Allocation and Pupil Attainment: A Review, Crown Copyright,

Norwich.Viteritti, A. (2009), A Cinderella or a princess? The Italian school between practices and

reforms, Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 10-32.

Further reading

Buratti, C. (1995), Autonomia scolastica e quasi-mercati dellistruzione, Politica Economica,Vol. XI No. 1, pp. 129-48.

608

IJEM26,6


18/18

Appendix

About the authors

Tommaso Agasisti is Assistant Professor in the Department of Management, Economics and

Industrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano (Italy). His research interests deal with the

Economics and Management of Education; more specifically, he worked on the efficiency of

educational institutions, funding models in educational systems and the socio-economic

determinants of students and schools performances. He teaches Economics of Education in the

Master of University Management of the Business School MIP-Politecnico di Milano. Among

his latest publications: Agasisti, T. (2011), How competition affects schools performances: does

specification matter?, Economics Letters, 110(3), 259-261. Tommaso Agasisti is the

corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Francesca Bonomi is a Researcher in the Department of Management, Economics and

Industrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano (Italy). Her research interests deal with the

economics and management of education. She has been working on regional governance andfunding of higher education, especially universities from an Italian region (Lombardy).

Piergiacomo Sibiano is a PhD Student in the Department of Management, Economics and

Industrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano (Italy). His PhD thesis deals with organization

and funding of educational systems. More specifically, he has been working on: international

comparisons between educational systems, especially on Italy and England; policies for families

and students (such as voucher programs); and school autonomy and governance.

t-test Statistical difference (95%)

Total number of students 1.2186 NoDisabled students (%) 0.8718 NoForeign students with language difficulties (%) 1.7580 NoStudents who repeated one or more years (%) 1.5687 No

Table AThe statistical test abo

the difference between trespondents and t

population: t-t

Total numberof students

Disabledstudents

Foreign students withlanguage difficulties

Students who repeatedone or more years

MeanPopulation 140.9 1.90% 1.97% 1.74%Sample 195.9 2.25% 0.93% 2.35%

MedianPopulation 121.0 1.35% 0.72% 1.06%Sample 145.5 2.00% 0.00% 1.00%SDPopulation 101.2 0.02 0.04 0.02Sample 180.6 0.02 0.02 0.03

MinimumPopulation 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Sample 34 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Maximum

Population 1,129 19.51% 38.46% 16.67%Sample 937 7.00% 7.00% 9.80%

Table AThe comparison of t

descriptive statist

between the populatiand the responden

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

60


of schoo

managerial caracteristict

Documents

Transcript of managerial caracteristict