Abstract
|
Abstract prepared for the meeting of the 20th NISPA conference, May 23-26, 2012 Ohrid.
Marlies Honingh & Jolanta Urbanovic
Against the background of policies of decentralization and school autonomization in Lithuania school leadership has become a far more demanding job (Urbanovic, 2009). School leaders not only need to focus on the implementation of national and local policy initiatives but are also asked to plan the school’s activities, to give approval to the school’s educational program, supervise its implementation, to hire and dismiss teachers, to identify problems, to find solutions and be able to choose an adequate strategy to address problems. As it is required to have at least three years of teaching experience to become school leader, most of the school leaders in Lithuania are former teachers that lack management experience (Urbanovic, 2009). Since school leadership is one of the key factors to stimulate a smooth school autonomization process it is crucial to get a grip on the formal position of school leaders, their role and position, their competencies and the professionalization of school leaders. To get a better understanding of the current position of school leaders in Lithuania we formulated the following question: What role can and do school leaders fulfill in the process of school autonomization? And which contextual and institutional factors facilitate or hinder school leaders to be successful?
Methods
To answer these question we analyzed whitepapers and scientific literature on school autonomization In Lithuanian and Western European countries, on school management, educational leadership and professionalism (e.g. Zelvys,2004; Welsh, 1999; Hargreaves, 1994; Hooge, 1998; Freidson, 2001; Hargreaves). Furthermore we collected qualitative data by interviewing Lithuanian educational experts and carried out a content analysis. The focus of these interviews was to explore autonomization processes and to determine key factors that stimulate or hinder the autonomization of schools. The results of our analysis reveals a lack of competency on the level of school leaders as well as passivity on the local level. Moreover, school autonomization processes seem to differ from school to school due to regional disparities. The results of this study challenge us to reflect on the process of school autonomization, tensions between centralization and decentralization and the intra-organizational structure and development of schools.
References
Urbanovic, J. (2009) Aspects of decentralization in management reforms of the education system in Lithuania. Public Policy and Administration, No. 30 p102-113.
Freidson, E. 2001. Professionalism. The third logic. Cambridge: Polity press.
Hargreaves, D. H. 1994. The new professionalism: the synthesis of professional and institutional development. Teaching & Teaching Education, 10 (4), 423-438.
Hooge, E. H. 1998. Ruimte voor beleid. Autonomievergroting en beleidsuitvoering door basisscholen (Room for policymaking. Increased autonomy and policy execution by Dutch primary schools). Dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Welsh, T., McGinn, N.F. (1999). Decentralization of Education: why, when, what and how? Paris: Unesco: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Zelvys, R. (2004). Development of education policy in Lithuania during the years of transformations. International Journal of Educational Development, 24- p.559-571.
Contact details
Marlies Honingh
Radboud University Nijmegen,
Department of Public Administration
P.O. Box 9108
6500 HK Nijmegen
0031(0)24-3611513
m.honingh@fm.ru.nl
Jolanta Urbanovič
Mykolas Romeris university,
Department of Public Administration
Faculty of Politics and Management
Valakupių g. 5, LT-10101 Vilnius
Lithuania
(370 5) 274 0613
jolanta@mruni.eu; jolanta.urbanovic@gmail.com
|
