Decentralisation and Effective School Leadership

Expectation versus Reality

Cecep Somantri

School of Education, The University of Nottingham, United Kingdom (UK)

ttxcs57@nottingham.ac.uk

Keywords: Decentralisation, leadership, principal.

Abstract: Decentralisation is a management reform that is widely believed to promise a range of benefits in transforming

the effectiveness of local governance and broaden local participation. By 1999, nearly all countries in the

world were experimenting with decentralisation, at least in policy level. In line with it, education is one of the

sectors that has been affected by decentralisation. In a devolved education system, schools are given both

autonomy and responsibilities in decision-making authority. At school level, those who receive the

transferred-authority are mainly principals, and hence, they have broadened-roles and responsibilities.

However, research and literature drawn from more than four decades show that a devolved environment urges

for accountability that is oftentimes regarded as pressure and dilemma by school leaders and teachers. When

the curriculum and standardised tests remain under the control of central government, accountability is valued

in the context of performativity. Furthermore, it is also evident that a devolved education system requires an

approach that does not lead to solitude autonomy, segregated collaboration and regulation-based

accountability. Therefore, there is an urgency to have s systemic solution that acknowledges the important

role of principals, clarifies the responsibilities and roles of principal, and develops capacity of principals.

1 INTRODUCTION

Decentralisation has become a global development

strategy and management reform. Jütting,

Kauffmann, Mc Donnell, Osterrieder, Pinaud, and

Wegner (2004, p.7) argue that, ’decentralisation has

been advocated by donors and development agencies

as an important factor broadening citizen

participation and improving local governance,

thereby promoting poverty reduction from the bottom

up.’ As a result, it has been at the centre stage of

policy experiments in many countries in various

regions (Lugaz, De Grauwe, with Balde, Diakhate,

Dougnon, Moustapha, and Odushina, 2010). For

example, in many African countries, decentralisation

is regarded as a key component of restructuring

management of service delivery (UNESCO, 2004).

Despite receiving much attention worldwide, both

literature and research show that decentralisation

results variously in its practice. Litvack, Ahmad and

Bird (1998, p.1), for example, explain that, ‘whatever

its origins, decentralisation can have significant

repercussions for resource mobilisation and

allocation, and ultimately macroeconomic stability,

service delivery, and equity.’ Meanwhile, King and

Guerra (2005) argue that, decentralisation is not a

policy panacea, since the reform process is never

smooth and is likely to be punctuated by either

progress or setbacks. However, statistical tests by

Triesman (2000), using data from 54 countries,

suggest that, ‘states which have more tiers of

government tend to have higher perceived corruption,

and may do a worse job of providing public (health)

services’ (p.2).

In accordance with decentralisation that has been

a “fashion” of management and development reform,

Fiske (1996) claims that, decentralisation of

education has also become a global phenomenon.

Allied to this idea, McGinn and Welsh (1999, p.7)

argue that, ‘decentralisation is one of the most

important phenomena to come to the educational

planning agenda....’ Driven by different reasons,

many countries have practiced decentralisation of

education to varying degrees with the hope to foster

student and teacher motivation, community

participation, and curriculum adaptation to local

context (Fiske, 1996; McGinn and Welsh, 1999).

Somantri, C.

Decentralisation and Effective School Leadership - Expectation versus Reality.

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2017) - Volume 1, pages 5-16

ISBN: 978-989-758-314-8

However, international experiences show mixed

results of its implementation.

A study by Habibi, Yuang, Miranda, Murillo,

Ranis, Sarkar and Stewart (2001) reports a positive

impact of decentralisation on education in Argentina

in improving access to compulsory education, by

using ‘the ratio of students enrolled in secondary

school per one thousand primary students’ (p.17).

Meanwhile, a study by Behrman, Deolalikar and

Soon on the role of education decentralisation in

promoting effective schooling in Asian developing

countries (2002) found that, ‘while virtually all

developing countries have made impressive gains in

expanding the coverage of primary schooling,

enrollment rates remain generally low at secondary

and tertiary levels, particularly for children coming

from disadvantaged backgrounds’ (p.i). Behrman et

al (2002) also discovered that the quality of education

is a concern, when viewed from the dropout and grade

repetition rates, and standardised test scores.

King and Guerra (2005), furthermore, studied the

impact of decentralisation of education in East Asia.

The study found that, ‘decentralisation laws

encourage greater local and community participation

in providing and financing education, but this feature

exposes inequalities between prosperous and poor

areas, and the inability of poor areas to mobilise

adequate resources’ (King and Guerra, 2005, p.195).

In line with these study findings, Donald and Boon-

Ling (2007) identified the impact of decentralisation

on the quality of education in developing countries.

The study found that effective decentralisation

requires strong institutional capacity building, and

effective exercise of responsibilities is dependent

upon the capacity of school leaders (Donald and

Boon-Ling, 2007).

Based on the implementation of decentralisation

that has various results as mentioned above, the paper

aims at exploring what research says about the

challenges of decentralisation to the existing

leadership cultures in schools so that their

effectiveness is further improved. While attempting

to do so, the paper seeks to figure out what is meant

by decentralisation and decentralisation of education,

why many countries are adopting it, as well as what

its impacts are towards education in general and

effective school leadership in particular, by referring

to relevant international literature and research.

2 DECENTRALISATION: WHAT

AND WHY?

Although widely being experimented as a mechanism

for transforming society, decentralisation has been an

old debate. Conyers (1984, p.188) argues that ‘the

decentralisation of government in developing

countries has been a topic of debate ever since 1950s.’

However, for more than sixty years, the centralisation

of power and resources became the trend among

industrial nations as it led to massive economic gains

and growth (Manor, 1999). As a result, after receiving

independence from colonial regimes in 1950s and

early 1960s, centralisation also became the model for

development in many countries in Africa, Latin

America and Asia (Rondinelli, Nellis, and Cheema,

1983; Manor, 1999).

By time, however, it is proven that centralisation

has failed to promote development and reduce

poverty, since it is often misused as a negative

political instrument to create class stratification

among people and preserve elitism of the “privileged”

(Parker, 1995; Manor, 1999). As a consequence,

during the 1980s, the situation began to change in

which decentralisation became a widespread

phenomenon (Rondinelli et al, 1983; Fiske, 1996;

Manor, 1999; McGinn and Welsh, 1999). A study

from the World Bank in 1992 shows that 63

developing countries with populations over 5 million

claim to exercise some form of political power

transfer to local units of government (Dillinger,

1994). By 1999, nearly all countries in the world were

experimenting with decentralisation, at least in policy

level (Manor, 1999; Lugaz et al, 2010).

Dillinger (1998) reviewed country reports on the

spread of decentralisation in developing countries.

The review (Dillinger, 1998) notes that, in parts of

Africa, for example, decentralisation is shown with

the establishment of local-political entities by the

national governments in areas formerly under their

administration. In Latin America, decentralisation is

portrayed through a change in appointing mayors:

from centrally appointed to locally elected (Dillinger,

1998). In Asia-Pacific, decentralisation could be seen

in the enhanced local democracy as a result of

governance reform (United Cities and Local

Governments, 2007). In Europe, Crucq and

Hemminga (2007) claim that, although

decentralisation has been under discussion since

1980s, its adoption became stronger after the creation

of Committee of the Regions (CoR) in 1994. The

main task of the Committee is to ensure that ‘the

European Union give decision-making levels close to

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

citizens as much scope for action as possible’ (CoR,

2000, p.8).

It is, however, important to note that

decentralisation is a broad concept, because it

embraces a complex, and at times confusing, set of

policies (Lugaz et al, 2010). Defined simply,

decentralisation is about authority-transfer from

people in one location to those in another level

(Rondinelli et al, 1983). Allied to this definition,

Florestal and Cooper (1997, p.2) mention that ‘the

broad meaning of decentralisation [is] to move

decision-making away from the centre and closer to

the users of the service.’ More specifically, Gash,

Randall and Sims (2014, p.7) explain that,

‘decentralisation can be broadly defined as the

movement of power from central government to

lower levels of aggregation.’

Although the terminology is contested, Rondinelli

et al (1983) explains that there are four different

categories of decentralisation, namely:

 Deconcentration: the handing over of some

amount of administrative authority or

responsibility to lower levels within central

government ministries and agencies;

 Delegation: the transfer of managerial

responsibility for specifically defined functions

to organisations that are outside the regular

bureaucratic structure, and that are only

indirectly controlled by the central government;

 Devolution: the creation or strengthening –

financially or legally – of subnational units of

government, the activities of which are

substantially outside the direct control of the

central government; and,

 Privatisation: the transfer of power or

responsibility to the private sector.

(Rondinelli et al, 1983, pp.15-28)

Besides variation in its categories, in many cases,

decentralisation has also been motivated by numerous

reasons. For example, a study by Jütting et al (2004)

shows that decentralisation in 19 countries (Bolivia,

Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Viet

Nam, Ghana, Gunea, India, Malawi, Mozambique,

Mexico, Nepal, Paraguay, Philippines, South Africa,

Sri Lanka, and Uganda) has been motivated by two

main arguments: increasing efficiency and improving

governance. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, Kristiansen

and Pratikno (2006) explain that, the country adopted

decentralisation in 1999 due to a severe economic

crisis in 1997, the introduction of free elections and

democratic governance in 1999, the central

government’s inability to cover national

expenditures, and the “push” from international

agencies, such as the World Bank and the

International Monetary Fund (IMF), to see policy

reforms in the direction of devolution.

Different reasons for decentralisation are found in

the United Kingdom (UK). By conducting a study on

UK’s seven main decentralising reforms in 30 years,

Gash et al (2014) conclude that decentralisation is

important in the UK because: (i) although the

evidence is varied, decentralisation is necessary

condition to boost economic growth, reflect local

identities and preferences, and foster innovation in

public services; (ii) there are people attempting to

govern locally who feel they could do more, or better,

with greater control and influence over decisions in

their areas; (iii) national decisions and negotiations

with central government institutions are felt to be

highly burdensome and bureaucratic; and, (iv) there

are self-interested reasons from those in central

government to support pressures from public and

local level for decentralisation.

3 DECENTRALISATION OF

EDUCATION

Education is one of the sectors that has been affected

by decentralisation in countries adopting it. McGinn

and Welsh (1999, p.9) argue that after going through

some ideological debates on who should make

decisions and finance public schooling for more than

fifteen years, many countries turned their attention to

the decentralisation of education. Defined broadly,

decentralisation of education is the ‘transfer of

authority for the financing or governance of schools

to a subnational agency’ (Kemmerer, 1994, p. 1412).

It also refers to the transfer of authority, at least in

basic and secondary education, to more local units of

government – provinces, municipalities – or even to

the smallest units in the education system, that are

schools (Florestal and Cooper, 1997; McGinn and

Welsh, 1999; Lugaz et al, 2010).

Since decentralisation itself is conceptually and

practically contested, the same situation also goes to

decentralisation of education. In some countries like

Germany, the USA, and some parts of the UK,

decentralisation of education refers to ‘the transfer of

responsibilities away from the educational

administration to elected representatives at regional

or district level, such as the regional councils or

district development committees’ (Lugaz et al, 2010).

In addition, Bush (2016, p.1) adds that

decentralisation of education in England ‘involves the

granting of powers by national governments to

Decentralisation and Effective School Leadership - Expectation versus Reality

subordinate bodies’. Therefore, in England, ‘each

school has a governing body, with representatives of

parents, the local community, teachers and other staff,

with the head teacher as an ex officio member’ (Bush,

2016, p.1). To limit its complexities, decentralisation

of education in this paper is taken to mean as

devolution of education. McGinn and Welsh (1999)

explain that, when decentralisation is understood in

the view of devolution, it signifies not simply the

transfer of authority, but also responsibilities.

There are numerous reasons why a country adopts

decentralisation of education. The reasons could be

categorised in three motives: political, financial and

efficiency (Fiske, 1996; Florestal and Cooper, 1997;

McGinn and Welsh, 1999; Behrman et al, 2002).

Political motives refer to increasing demand for

participation in public decision-making by people

who have or claim to have been excluded earlier

(McGinn and Welsh, 1999). A case study by Fiske

(1996) shows that Chile is an example of a country

decentralising education due to political motives.

Chile went through an opposite political transition –

from democratic to a military government, and there

was a strong support from neoliberal economists and

social planners for more decentralisation in education

(Fiske, 1996).

Financial motives mean that central governments

are no longer capable of providing finance to meet the

demand for education and schooling (McGinn and

Welsh, 1999; King and Guera, 2005; Kristiansen and

Pratikno, 2006). A case study by Pascoe and Pascoe

(1998), involving 25 high ranking Australian policy

makers and educational bureaucrats and practitioners,

discovered that Australia decentralised education due

to financial reasons. Decentralisation of education in

Australia came in effect after ‘the Victorian

Commission of Audit found public expenditure on

education was far too high’ and required for

incremental change (Pascoe and Pascoe, 1998, p.3).

Efficiency motives are arguments supporting that

more local decision-making will reduce the cost and

long ladder of bureaucracy (Florestal and Cooper,

1997; McGinn and Welsh, 1999; Behrman et al,

2002; Kristiansen and Pratikno, 2006; Gash et al,

2014). With fifty state governments and

approximately 85,000 local governments,

Rosenbaum (2013) claims that, to some extent, USA

is an example why decentralisation is important for

efficient management and public services reform,

including education.

In addition to the three major motives above,

another reason is raised in relation to the role of

development agencies and donors in reinforcing the

decentralisation of education in developing countries

(Manor, 1999; Rhoten, 2000; Jütting et al, 2004;

Kristiansen and Pratikno, 2006). In Argentina, for

example, a study in three different provinces by

Rhoten (2000) found that UNESCO, USAID, and the

World Bank, to a certain extent, advocated

decentralisation of education by ‘touting school

autonomy and education decentralisation as “must

have” reforms in progressive public services

management’ (p.603). In fact, Rhoten’s (2000) study

finding was implicitly mentioned in the World Bank’s

world review, Priorities and Strategies for Education,

in 1995. In the review, the World Bank (1995, p.5,

p.120) states that, ‘Increasing the involvement of

parents and communities by making schools

autonomous and accountable can offset the power of

vested interests…. Around the world, parents and

communities are becoming more involved in the

governance of their children's schools…. Many

countries have found that communities which

participate in school management are more willing to

assist in the financing of schooling.’

Although the motives are different from one

country to another, however, there are similarities in

the objectives why decentralisation of education

becomes a “fashionable” method of educational

reform. Florestal and Cooper (1997, p.1) argue that

many countries decentralise their (at least basic)

education systems ‘to give users a greater voice in

decisions that affect them, to better recognise local

linguistic or ethnic diversity.’ Allied to this idea,

McGinn and Welsh (1999, p.29) add that

decentralisation of education will ‘improve the

operation of education system’ from a formerly

centralised system to a local-based one. For example,

with decentralisation of education, schools will have

stronger autonomy to utilise available funding,

increase learning innovations, or match curriculum to

local interests (McGinn and Welsh, 1999). In the end,

by borrowing OECD’s language, Ball (2003, p.217)

explains that “a devolved environment” will give

‘managers and organisations greater freedom in

operational decisions and remove unnecessary

constraints in financial and human resource

management.’ In other words, since decentralisation

of education, to some extent, locates decision-making

authority to school-level (Carr-Hill et al, 2014),

schools will have more rooms for improvement to be

effective.

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

4 IMPACT OF

DECENTRALISATION ON

EFFECTIVE SCHOOL

LEADERSHIP

In a decentralised system, schools are given more

autonomy in decision-making authority (De Grauwe,

2004; the World Bank, 2008). However, which

decisions are transferred? and to who (at the school

level)? In responding to the first question, De Grauwe

(2004) explains that, in the decentralisation of

education, the decisions transferred to schools

emphasise on: (i) authority to the principal to manage

the school’s financial and human resources,

including, for example, staff recruitment and the use

of school’s budget; and, (ii) authority to the

community, for example on the selection of the

principal and the adaptation of the curriculum.

Meanwhile, in writing the second question,

Leithwood and Menzies (1998) identify four types of

authority transfer along with its recipients in the

decentralised-education system, namely: (i)

administrative control: the principal; (ii) professional

control: teachers; (iii) community control: the

community or parents; and, (iv) balanced control:

parents, teachers and principal in balance authority.

In line with these answers, Pont, Nusche and

Moorman (2008a) argue that, decentralisation of

education makes school leaders, as the ones holding

the authority at school level, have broadened-roles

and responsibilities.

Gessler and Ashmawy (2014) conducted an

explorative qualitative study on the effect of

decentralisation on vocational school leadership in

Bremen and Lower, Saxnomony in Germany. With

increased autonomy and greater role and

responsibilities, Gessler and Ashmawy (2014) argue

that the school principals are responsible to manage

various aspects, namely: (i) teaching environment: all

affairs related to instructional issues; (ii) personnel

management: affairs associated with human

resources; (iii) financial management: all about

financial efficiency; and, (iv) school buildings and

furnishings: finance purchases, maintenance and

repair.

With these responsibilities, Gessler and Ashmawy

(2004, p.184) conclude that ‘decentralisation entails

the creation of elected bodies through which various

stakeholders are involved in the decision-making

process, and that schools are able to discretionally

plan their own goals and objectives’. As a result,

Gessler and Ashmawy (2004) mention that, effective

vocational school principal’s exercise “participatory

leadership”. It is a leadership practice that allows the

participation of various stakeholders in making

decisions through the school conference consisting of

the principals and representatives of teachers,

students, parents and relevant enterprises in

vocational schools (Gessler and Ashmawy, 2004).

Ashmawy (2004) carried out the same study, yet

bigger in its coverage, by comparing the effect of

education decentralisation on school leadership in

vocational schools in Germany and Egypt. With 30

vocational school principals as the samples (15 from

Germany and 15 from Egypt), the study found that

principals from both countries have an important role

in: (i) being the responsible persons for the

compliance to the rules and regulations set by the

governments; (ii) motivating teachers and

stakeholders to participate in the school life; (iii)

sharing information and building good relationships

with local educational authorities; (iv) involving

stakeholders in the decision-making; and, (iv) guiding

the decision-making processes. Based on these

findings, Ashmawy (2004) argues that, in order to be

effective, the principals from both countries

demonstrate “participatory leadership”. However, it

is clear that the study by Ashmawi (2004) as well as

the one by Gessler and Ashmawy (2004) are both

limited in their generalisability as the samples are

confined to vocational schools, and hence a further

study is needed.

Steinberg (2013, p.6), on the other hand, argues

that in a decentralised system, ‘the role of school

principals has shifted from one emphasising

instructional leadership to one focused on

transformational leadership, and finally to one

involving leadership practices that contains both

elements.’ This argument is somehow backed up by

different research with different findings that, while

being contradictory to each other, all show the shift in

effective leadership strategies.

Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2007) carried out a

meta-analysis study by involving 27 published

studies of the relationship between leadership and

student outcomes. The study found that, ‘the more

leaders focus their relationships, their work, and their

learning on the core business of teaching and

learning, the greater their influence on student

outcomes’ (Robinson et al, 2007, p.636). Based on

the findings, Robinson et al (2007, p.655) claim that,

‘the impact of instructional leadership on student

outcomes is three to four times greater than that of

transformational leadership’.

Narrowly defined, instructional leadership, also

known as “learning-centred leadership” (Murphy,

Elliot, Goldring and Porter, 2006) or “leadership for

Decentralisation and Effective School Leadership - Expectation versus Reality

learning” (Hallinger and Heck, 2010), focuses on

‘actions that are directly connected to teaching and

learning’ (Murphy, 1988, p.127). Viewed broadly,

instructional leadership also means leadership actions

that centre on student learning, including managerial

tasks (Murphy, 1988; Donmoyer and Wagstaff,

1990). The actions cover many things a principal does

to support students’ learning achievement and

teachers’ teaching ability (Sebring and Bryk, 2000).

In addition, Robinson (2010, p.2) explains that,

instructional leadership also encompasses ‘sets of

leadership practices that involve planning,

evaluation, coordination, and improvement of

teaching and learning.’

In practice, however, critics regard instructional

leadership models to heavily rely on principal-centric

approach. Sergiovanni (1995, p.155), for example,

explains that, ‘being a strong instructional leader may

be a good idea in schools where teachers are poorly

trained or lacking in commitment, but it is not a good

idea in schools where competence and commitment

are not issues.’ Lambert (2002, p.37), furthermore,

argues that ‘the days of the lone instructional leader

are over. We no longer believe that one administrator

can serve as the instructional leader for the entire

school without the substantial participation of other

educators.’ Allied to these arguments, Leithwood

(2007, p.629) explains that,

“Instructional leadership has admonished

principals to become closely and directly involved in

teachers’ classroom instruction. Especially in larger

schools and those offering the kinds of diverse

curricula common to high schools, this admonition

has never seemed more than a fond but unrealistic

dream to even the most conscientious of principals. It

simply flies in the face of the unavoidable demands

on principals’ time, attention, and professional

resources. It is an image of the principal as an

educational “superhero”.”

Day, Gu, and Sammons (2016), on the other hand,

conducted a study that drew empirical data from a

three-year mixed-methods national study

investigating the association between the work of

more than six hundred effective and improving

primary and secondary school principals in England

and student outcomes over three years. The study

found that,

“Schools’ abilities to improve and sustain

effectiveness over the long term are not primarily the

result of the principals’ leadership style but of their

understanding and diagnosis of the school’s needs

and their application of clearly articulated,

organisationally shared educational values through

multiple combinations and accumulations of time and

context-sensitive strategies that are “layered” and

progressively embedded in the school’s work, culture

and achievements”.

(Day et al, 2016, p.222)

Based on the findings, Day et al (2016, p.253)

conclude that there is ‘…no single leadership formula

to achieve success…. successful school principals

draw differentially on elements of both instructional

and transformational leadership and tailor (layer)

their leadership strategies to their particular school

contexts and to the phase of development of the

school.’

Transformational leadership, put briefly, is ‘a

leadership that facilitates the redefinition of a

people’s mission and vision, a renewal of their

commitment and the restructuring of their systems for

goal accomplishment’ (Leithwood, 1992, p. 9). Based

on seven quantitative studies, Leithwood (1994,

p.506) concludes that, ‘transformational leadership

practices, considered as a composite construct, had

significant direct and indirect effects on progress with

school-restructuring initiatives and teacher-perceived

student outcomes.’ Transformational leadership

focuses on five broad sets of leadership practices,

namely: setting directions, developing people,

redesigning organisation, managing people, and

coalition building (Letihwood, 2007; Leithwood and

Day, 2007). Under these core practices, there are

twenty-three more specific practices within each

category (Leithwood and Day, 2007). In line with it,

Bush (2014) argues that, ‘the transformational model

is comprehensive in that it provides a normative

approach to school leadership which focuses

primarily on the process by which leaders seek to

influence school outcomes rather than on the nature

or direction of those outcomes.’

There are, however, criticisms against

transformational leadership. Chirichello (1999, p.5)

argues that transformational leadership might be used

as a means by ‘principals to be highly directive and

offer little support, yet controlling at the same time.’

Moreover, Bottery (2004, p.17) states that,

‘transformational leaders were to be social architects,

who in creating vision, developed the trust of their

followers, building loyalty, self-confidence and self-

regard.’ Meanwhile, by mentioning that in South

Africa the language of transformation is used to

underpin a non-racist post-Apartheid education

system, Bush (2014, p.558) questions the validity of

the transformational model in the policy climate

within which schools have to operate.

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

The study by Day et al (2016), to some extent,

relates back to what Marks and Printy (2003) found

almost thirteen years ago. Marks and Printy (2003)

conducted a study to see the association between

principal leadership and school performance by

employing twenty-four nationally selected

restructured schools in the USA. The study found

that, ‘When transformational and shared instructional

leadership coexist in an integrated form of leadership,

the influence on school performance, measured by the

quality of its pedagogy and the achievement of its

students, is substantial’ (Marks and Printy, 2003,

p.370). In other words, Marks and Printy (2003) argue

that both shared instructional leadership and

transformational leadership are important in

influencing pupils’ learning outcome. The former

functions to evaluate the principal’s interactive role

with teachers in the central areas of curriculum,

instruction, and assessment, while the latter is needed

to lead schools through reform as it emphasises the

ingredients of change—ideas, innovation, influence,

and consideration for the individual in the process

(Marks and Printy, 2003, p.391). However, unlike

Day et al’s (2016) study, Mark and Printy’s (2003)

study has a minor limitation in the extent of its

generalisation as the subjects of the study were

purposively selected.

Although these three research are, to some extent,

contradictory, they support Steinberg’s (2013)

argument on the shift of effective leadership practices

in a decentralised system mentioned earlier.

Literature and research show that decentralisation

makes school principals have broadened-authority,

roles and responsibilities (Leithwood and Menzies,

1998; De Grauwe, 2004; Pont et al, 2008a; the World

Bank, 2008), and therefore, in order to be effective,

school principals will have to combine both

instructional and transformational leadership

practices, not solely focusing on teaching, learning,

and pupils’ achievements. The studies by Gessler and

Ashmawy (2014) and Ashmawy (2014) basically

show how effective principals in vocational schools

in Germany and Egypt have to combine instructional

and transformational strategies in order to undertake

their responsibilities in managing teaching

environment, personnel management, financial

management, and school buildings and furnishings.

Up to this point, it is safe to say that

decentralisation gives wider autonomy in decision-

making to schools to be effective. However, what are

the challenges that it gives to the existing school

leadership cultures to further improve their

effectiveness?

5 CHALLENGES OF

DECENTRALISATION TO THE

EXISTING LEADERSHIP

CULTURES IN SCHOOLS

A decentralised-education system is not only a matter

of giving schools broader autonomy in their decision-

making, but it is also followed with a transfer of

responsibilities that demands accountability. In the

same way, De Grauwe (2004, p.3) explains that

giving authority and responsibilities to schools is not

the same as giving them a “blank cheque”, because

more autonomy equals more accountability. In this

context, OECD (2010; 2011) research findings imply

that there is positive association between positive

outcomes and school autonomy, when it is combined

with accountability. Both PISA 2009 and 2015 results

(OECD, 2010; 2011) conclude similarly by

confirming the interplay between school autonomy

and accountability. OECD (2010; 2011) explain that

when school autonomy and accountability are

intelligently combined, and supported with systems

where principals have more autonomy over resources,

curriculum and other school policies, students gain

better performance.

Accountability is, however, a contested notion.

For example, Møller (2007) regards that the term

might be difficult to put into practice, since it is rather

“elusive.” In the same way, Levitt, Janta, Wegrich

(2008) argue that accountability can be a “slippery”

concept, because it can be defined differently in

theory and practice, and applied variously in a range

of circumstances. In addition, Levitt et al (2008, p.2)

explain that accountability is an ethical term as ‘it

concerns proper behaviour, and deals with the

responsibilities of individuals and organisations for

their actions towards other people and agencies.’

To fulfil the semantic as well as academic clarity,

accountability, as defined by Bovens (2005), based on

a research on public accountability, refers to ‘the

methods by which the actor may render an account

(i.e. justify their actions and decisions) to the

stakeholders and by which the stakeholders may hold

the actor to account (i.e. impose sanctions or grant

permissions).’ In line with this definition, Levitt et al

(2008) explain that the “actor” refers to individual or

organisation, while “stakeholders” refer to people

with a particular interest in the work of the actor

(including the actor’s conduct, perceptions, attitudes

and the outcomes of the actor’s activities).

In school context, accountability is oftentimes

regarded as “pressure” (Mulford, 2006) or “dilemma”

(Fullan and Hargreaves, 2015). It becomes “pressure”

and “dilemma” when authority, responsibilities, and

management of education have been decentralised to

Decentralisation and Effective School Leadership - Expectation versus Reality

school level, but the curriculum and testing remain

centralised (Behrman et al, 2002). When this

happens, accountability is oftentimes valued in the

context of “performativity”. By formulating it based

on individualised comments from teachers in the UK,

Ball (2003, p.216) explains that, ‘performativity is a

culture and a mode of regulation that employs

judgements, comparisons and displays as means of

incentive, control, attrition and change – based on

rewards and sanctions (both material and symbolic).’

Based on the definition, Ball (2003) regards

“performativity” as a “terror” for teachers.

Allied to Ball’s (2003) argument, Fullan (2003a,

p.xiii) argues that, unrealistic expectations and a

policy environment that contributes to increased

prescription of the statistical targets of learning

outcomes, and diminished coherence between

learning needs and curriculum, cause “a dismal for

principalship.” Meanwhile, a case study in five local

authorities in England by Stevenson (2013) found that

when educational achievement is measured solely by

standardised tests and the publication of “league

tables” of school performance, school leaders,

especially principals, are faced not only with “right

versus wrong” issues, but also “right versus right”

dilemmas. As a result, inevitably, there will be

“either/or” situations ‘where there exists a clear

opportunity cost resulting from whatever action is not

pursued’ (Stevenson, 2003, p.380). Taken together,

Ball’s (2003), Fullan’s (2003a) and Stevenson’s

(2013) arguments show that, accountability as

perceived in the sense of “performativity” becomes

“pressure” and “dilemma” for both school principals

and teachers.

By borrowing Ball’s (2003) language, “the terror

of performativity” is faced by different countries with

devolved-education system. In England, for example,

Bush (2016) explains that although affairs related to

budgets, school choice and governance have been

dencentralised to school level, the curriculum remains

centralised. The national curriculum is set by the

central government through the Department for

Education, and its implementation is monitored by

the statutory Office for Standards in Education

(Ofsted). The inspection covers a number of areas,

namely overall effectiveness, leadership and

management effectiveness, quality of teaching,

learning and assessment, personal development,

behaviour and welfare, and outcomes for pupils

(Ofsted, 2016, p.33). Based on the inspection, Ofsted

inspectors use the following four-point scale to make

all judgements, ranging from: (i) grade 1:

outstanding; (ii) grade 2: good; (iii) grade 3: requires

improvement; to, (iv) grade 4: inadequate (Ofsted,

2016). These judgments will then result in the form

of “league tables” (Stevenson, 2013), allowing, to

some extent, the public to make another judgment on

the schools’ accountability based on the ranking.

Indonesia, on the other hand, is an example of a

country where accountability in school context is

somewhat measured by standardised tests. Since its

implementation in 1950, there has been continuous

debate on the fairness of determining learning quality

through national examination (Ministry of Education

and Culture, Republic of Indonesia, 2015). The

debate is raised due to the country’s demographic

diversity, covering 81,626 villages, around 17

thousand islands and 680 native languages, as well as

discrepancy in education quality among more than 50

million students enrolled in over 200 thousand

schools throughout the country (Central Bureau of

Statistics, 2016; Ministry of Education and Culture,

Republic of Indonesia, 2015).

In its broadest sense, however, accountability

does not only bring pressure, but it also opens up

opportunity for school leaders and teachers to be

effective by showing responsibility. In Indonesian

context, for example, a quantitative study by Pritchett

(2013, p.118) suggests that the country would need at

least 101 years to reach average OECD levels at

Finland‘s pace. In line with it, de Ree, Muralidharan,

Pradhan, Rogers (2016) conducted a large-scale

randomised experiment across more than 3,000

teachers and 80,000 students in Indonesia. The study

found that, ‘the doubling in pay led to no

improvements in measures of teacher effort or student

learning outcomes, suggesting that the salary increase

was a transfer to teachers with no discernible impact

on student outcomes’ (de Ree et al, 2016, p.1). Based

on these studies, it can be safely argued that,

accountability cannot be solely taken as pressure,

because it also seeks for responsibility from

(Indonesian) school leaders and teachers to work

more effectively.

Case studies in Indonesia by Raihani and Gurr

(2006), Raihani (2007), and Raihani, Gurr and

Drysdale (2013) signify how the pressure from the

public as well as the newly adopted decentralisation

of education system has been able to make the

principals become more “transformational”. Raihani

and Gurr (2006) found that, three successful public

senior secondary school principals in Yogyakarta

Province demonstrated several common values and

beliefs of successful school leadership found by Day,

Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, and Beresford (2000),

namely trust, caring and empathy. In addition, the

principals also performed beliefs and values related to

their Islamic values (e.g. the responsibility to God to

do one’s best, and faith and piety), the family-

relationship value, and promotion of Javanese values.

However, emphasised more in the research, Raihani

and Gurr (2006, p.121) found that, ‘trust was an

important feature of the principals’ leadership due to

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

concerns in Indonesia about corruption.’ Based on

these findings, Raihani (2007) argues that, the three

effective principals in Yogyakarta Province exercised

transformational leadership practices. Raihani (2007,

p.481) claims that, ‘the principals demonstrated

ability in developing the school vision, setting

strategies, building capacity, and establishing a

broader network to achieve the benefits of school

improvement.’

Raihani et al (2013), furthermore, explored the

work of Mr. Mulyono, a successful public Islamic

senior secondary school (MAN) in Palangkaraya,

Central Kalimantan Province. The study is worth

attention, because ‘whilst MAN is a school for

Muslim children staffed by Muslim teachers, both

students and staff come from diverse cultural

backgrounds that reflect this complex part of the

world.’ The study found that, in order to be effective,

the principal was being humble by showing empathy

and respecting others, put quality teaching over

ethnicity, worked with religious differences, and

developed students’ multicultural awareness (Raihani

et al, 2013). An important aspect found in the study

also relates to trust, since Mr. Mulyono is not

originally from Palangkayara. Raihani et al (2013,

p.185) explain that, ‘Mr. Mulyono is not only charged

with leading a school in a culturally diverse

community, but [also] doing [it] as an ‘outsider’.’

From the case studies, it could be seen that the

“pressure” given to Indonesian school principals to

show accountability could result positively. Since

corruption was extensive under the centralised system

that anchored in the country for more than 54 years

(Bjork, 2003; Kristiansen and Pratikno, 2006), school

principals are entitled to show their accountability by

being trustworthy as a way to create a culture of trust.

In fact, research findings by Day (2013, p.105)

conclude that, ‘trust has been found to be key

elements in all countries.’

However, the question now is how to develop an

approach ‘in which the elements of a devolved system

are held in creative tension, with checks and balances

to make sure that autonomy does not lead to isolation,

that diversity does not become a barrier to

collaboration and that accountability does not slip

into regulation’ (National College, 2012, p.3). More

than a decade ago, Fullan (2003, p.22) argued that

‘the solution is to acknowledge the extreme

importance of the principalship, clarify the power

nature of the principal’s role, and invest in developing

capacity of principals in numbers to act as chief

operating officers.’ In order to realise it, Fullan

(2003b) explains that it requires individual and

system action independently and conjointly.

At the individual level, school leaders are to take

actions consistent with the moral purpose, and push

for and be responsible to the opportunities they have

(Fullan, 2003, p.63). Meanwhile, at the system level,

Fullan (2003b) emphasises that, ‘the point is that

leaders learning in context and fostering leaders at

many levels is the core strategy….’ Although

Fullan’s (2003) proposed-solution might be outdated

and was not based on research, Austria, England,

Finland, Belgium and Australia provide examples of

how the solution is implemented in practice (Pont,

Nusche and Hopkins, 2008b).

Case studies conducted by Pont et al (2008b)

show that, the five countries ‘demonstrated models of

school organisation and management that distribute

education leadership roles in innovative ways; and

showed promising practices for preparing and

developing school leaders’ (p.10). In England, for

example, Pont et al (2008b) found a systemic

approach that provides opportunities for schools and

school leadership to collaborate for school

improvement through the role of the National College

for School Leadership (NCSL). NCSL has played an

important role in developing national school leaders,

promoting school networks, and enhancing

collaboration among schools (Pont et al, 2008b,

p.111). In 2013, NCSL was merged with the Teaching

Agency to form National College for Teaching and

Leadership (NCTL) (the UK Department for

Education [DfE] and Gove, 2013). NCTL has

responsibilities to: (i) improve academic standards

by: ensuring the availability of a well-qualified and

motivated teaching profession, in sufficient numbers

to meet the needs of the school system; and (ii) help

schools to help each other to improve (NCTL, 2016,

p.8). With its important role and wide range of

responsibilities, to some extent, NCTL represents

England’s serious commitment and effort to improve

the quality of teaching and educational leadership

workforce through individual and systemic approach

as suggested by Fullan (2003).

6 CONCLUSIONS

Decentralisation is a globally adopted development

strategy and management reform. It widely is

believed to promise a range of benefits by being an

important element to improve the effectiveness of

local governance and broaden local participation.

However, since it is motivated by different reasons,

decentralisation is defined and exercised variously in

actual practice. In line with it, literature and research

show mixed results in the implementation of

decentralisation in different countries. One common

feature found from research is that, decentralisation

depends on the capacity and commitment of central

government to devolve authority to lower units of

government.

Decentralisation and Effective School Leadership - Expectation versus Reality

Education, on the other hand, is one of the sectors

that has been affected by decentralisation in many

parts of the world. Yet, since decentralisation itself is

conceptually and practically contested,

decentralisation of education is practiced variously.

In this paper, decentralisation of education is

interchangeable with devolution of education. In a

devolved education system, schools are given both

autonomy and responsibilities in decision-making

authority. The decisions transferred to school level

encompass the authority to the principal to manage

the school’s financial and human resources, and the

authority to the community (e.g. to select the

principal). At school level, those who receive the

transferred-authority are school leaders, mainly

principals. Therefore, under a decentralised-

education system, school principals have broadened-

roles and responsibilities.

Research show that decentralisation of education

allows the creation of elected bodies to involve

various stakeholders in the decision-making process,

and enables schools to plan their own goals and

objectives independently. As a result,

decentralisation of education makes principals

demonstrate participatory leadership model in order

to be effective. In addition, research also support the

argument that decentralisation of education has made

effective school principals combine elements of

instructional and transformational leadership

practices.

Despite giving schools broader autonomy in their

decision-making, however, decentralisation of

education creates a number of challenges to the

existing leadership cultures in schools. A devolved

environment urges for accountability that is

oftentimes regarded as pressure and dilemma by

school leaders and teachers. When the curriculum and

standardised tests remain under the control of central

government, accountability is valued in the context of

performativity. Yet, when viewed broadly,

accountability opens up opportunity for school

leaders and teachers to show responsibility in order to

be effective.

Another challenge relates to developing an

approach in which elements of a devolved system do

not lead to solitude autonomy, segregated

collaboration and regulation-based accountability. A

solution worth considering is by acknowledging the

important role of principals, clarifying the

responsibilities and roles of principal, and developing

capacity of principals. However, it is important to

take into account that it takes individual and systemic

approach to realise it.

REFERENCES

Ashmawy, I. K., 2014. The effect of political

decentralization on school leadership in the vocational

schools: A Comparative Study between the German and

the Egyptian Practice. Dissertation to attain the Ph.D.

degree by the doctoral commission Dr. Phil at Bremen

University.

Ball, S. J., 2003. The teacher's soul and the terrors of

performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18:2, 215-

228.

Behrman, J. R., Deolalikar, A. B., Soon, L. Y. 2002.

Conceptual Issues in the Role of Education

Decentralization in Promoting Effective Schooling in

Asian Developing Countries. [Online] Manila: Asian

Development Bank.

Bovens, M., 2005. Public accountability. In Ferlie, E.,

Lynn, L. E. and C. Pollitt, The Oxford Handbook of

Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bush, T., Glover, D., 2003. School Leadership: Concepts

and Evidence. [Online] Nottingham: National College

for School Leadership NCSL.

Bush, T., Glover, D., 2014. School leadership models: what

do we know?. School Leadership and Management:

Formerly School Organisation, 34:5, 553-571.

Bush, T., 2016. School leadership and management in

England: the paradox of simultaneous centralization

and decentralisation. Research in Educational

Administration and Leadership, 11, pp. 1-23.

Carr-Hill, R., Rolleston, C., Pherali, T., Schendel, R., 2014.

The Effects of School-Based Decision Making on

Educational Outcomes in Low and Middle Income

Contexts: A Systematic Review. [Online] Oslo: The

Campbell Collaboration.

Crucq, P., Hemminga, H-J., 2007. Decentralization and

Economic Growth per capita in Europe. [Online]

Available at:

http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14621122/EC_

178_Decentralization.pdf. [Accessed 12 January 2017].

Country of the Regions CoR., 2000. OPINION of the

Committee of the Regions of 17 February 2000 on the

2000 Intergovernmental Conference [online]. Brussels:

CoR. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/dorie/fileDownload.do;jsessionid=

7R2Xz5VieexfSHTjc7QP08KT23Lh8LOtnrrp3ulZSY

IuCRrjvE0q!2096757176?docId=177179andcardId=1

77179 [Accessed 12 January 2017].

Day, C., 2003. Successful leadership in the twenty-first

century. In Harris, A., Day, C., Hopkins, D., Hadfield,

M., Hargreaves, A., and Chapman, C. Eds. Effective

Leadership for School Improvement pp.157-179..

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Day, C., 2015. International Successful School Principals

Project ISSPP.: Multi-Perspective Research on School

Principals. [Online] Nottingham: The University of

Nottingham.

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., Beresford, J.

2000. Leading Schools in Times of Change.

Philadelphia: Open University Press.

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

Day, C., Gu, Q., Sammons, P. 2016. The Impact of

Leadership on Student Outcomes: How Successful

School Leaders use Transformational and Instructional

Strategies to Make a Difference. Educational

Administration Quarterly, Vol 52., pp.221-258.

De Grauwe, A. 2004. School-based management SBM.:

does it improve quality?: Paper commissioned for the

EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005, The Quality

Imperative [Online] Paris: UNESCO.

Department for Education and The Rt Hon Michael Gove

MP 2013. Launch of National College for Teaching and

Leadership [online]. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/launch-of-

national-college-for-teaching-and-leadership

[Accessed on: 7 January 2016].

Diana, C. 1984. Decentralization and development: a

review of literature. Public Administration and

Development, [online] Vol. 4, pp.187–197.

Dillinger, W. 1994. Decentralization and its implications

for Service Delivery. [Online] Washington, D.C.: The

World Bank.

Donald, W., Boon-Ling, Y. 2007.. Identifying the Impact of

Education Decentralization on the quality of

Education. AED: Education Quality Improvement

Program 2 EQUIP 2. working Paper. Available at:

http://www.equip123.net/docs/e2-

DecentQuality_WP.pdf [Accessed on: 25 December

2016].

Donmoyer, R., Wagstaff, J. G. 1990.. Principals can be

effective managers and instructional leaders. NASSP

Bulletin [online], 74525., pp.20-29.

Fiske, E., B. 1996. Decentralization of Education: Politics

and Consensus. [Online] Washington, D.C.: The World

Bank.

Florestal, K., Cooper, R. 1997. Decentralization of

Education. [Online] Washington, D.C.: The World

Bank.

Fullan, M. 2003a. The Moral Imperative of School

Leadership. London: Sage Publications.

Fullan, M. 2003b. Leading in a Culture of Change Personal

Action Guide and Workbook. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Fullan, M., Hargreaves, A. 2015. Professional Capital as

Accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives,

2315. This article is part of EPAA/AAPE’s Special

Series on A New Paradigm for Educational

Accountability: Accountability for Professional

Practice. Guest Series Edited by Dr. Linda Darling-

Hammond.

Gash, T., Randall, J., Sims, S. 2014. Achieving Political

Decentralisation: Lessons from 30 years of attempting

to devolve political power in the UK. [Online] London:

Institute for Government.

Gertler, P., Patrinos, H. A., Rubio-Codina, M. 2008. Impact

Evaluation for School-Based Management Reform

[online]. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Gessler, M., Ashmawy, I. K. 2014. The effect of political

decentralization on school leadership in German

vocational schools. Educational Management

Administration and Leadership, Vol 442., pp.184-204.

Habibi, N., Huang, C., Miranda, D., Murillo, V., Ranis., G.,

Sarkar, M., Stewart, F. 2001.

Decentralization in

Argentina. Center Discussion Paper No. 825. [Online]

Yale University.

Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H. 2010. Leadership for Learning:

Does Collaborative Leadership Make a Difference in

Student Learning? Educational Management,

Administration and Leadership [online], 38 6.: pp.654–

678.

Hargreaves, A. 2003. Professional learning communities

and performance training cults: the emerging apartheid

of school improvement. In Harris, A., Day, C.,

Hopkins, D., Hadfield, M., Hargreaves, A., Chapman,

C. Eds. Effective Leadership for School Improvement

pp.180-195.. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Jütting, J., Kauffmann, C. Mc Donnell, I., Osterrieder, H.,

Pinaud, N., Wegner, L. 2004. Decentralisation and

Poverty in Developing Countries: Exploring the

Impact. [Online] Paris: OECD Publishing.

Kemmere, F. 1994. Decentralization of Schooling in

developing nations. In T. Husen, T.N. Postlethwaite

Eds., The International Encyclopedia of Education pp.

1412-1416.. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

King, E., M. Guerra, S., M. 2005. Education Reforms in

East Asia: Policy, Process, Impact. East Asia

Decentralizes: Making Local Government Work,

[online] pp. 179-208.

Kristiansen, S., Pratikno 2006. Decentralising education in

Indonesia. International Journal of Educational

Development, [online] Vol. 26, pp.513-531.

Lambert, L 2002. A Framework for Shared Leadership.

Educational Leadership [online], 59 8.: pp.37–40.

Leithwood, K. 2007. What We Know About Educational

Leadership. In Burger, J.M., Webber, C.F., Kleinck, P.

Eds. Intelligent Leadership: Constructs for Thinking

Educational Leaders pp. 41-66.. Dordrecht: Springer.

Leithwood, K. 2007. The Emotional Side of School

Improvement: A Leadership Perspective. Chapter 34,

International Handbook of School Effectiveness and

Improvement pp.615-634.. Dordrecht: Springer.

Leithwood, K., Day, C. 2007. What we learned: A broad

view, in K. Leithwood, C. Day Eds. Successful School

Leadership in Times of Change. Toronto: Springer., pp.

189-203.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., Hopkins.

D. 2006. Seven strong claims about successful school

leadership. [Online] Nottingham: National College for

School Leadership NCSL.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, R. Steinbach 1999. Changing

Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K., S., Anderson, S., Wahlstrom, K.

2004. How leadership influences student learning.

[Online] New York: The Wallace Foundation.

Leithwood, K., Menzies, T. 1998. A Review of Research

Concerning the Implementation of Site

‐

Based

Management, School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, [online] Vol 9:3, 233-285.

Decentralisation and Effective School Leadership - Expectation versus Reality

Levitt, R., Janta, B., Wegrich, K. 2008. Accountability of

Teachers: Literature Review. [Online] Cambridge:

General Teaching Council England.

Litvack, J., Ahmad, J., Bird, R. 1998. Rethinking

Decentralization in Developing Countries. [Online]

Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Lugaz, C., De Grauwe, A., with Balde, D. Diakhate, C.,

Dougnon, D., Moustapha, M., Odushina, D. 2010.

Schooling and Decentralization: Patterns and Policy

Implications in Francophone West Africa. [Online]

Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning

IIEP.

Manor, J. 1999. The Political Economy of Democratic

Decentralization. [Online] Washington, D.C.: The

World Bank.

Marks, H., Printy, S. 2003. Principle leadership and school

performance: An integration of transformational and

instructional leadership. Educational Administration

Quarterly, Vol 393., pp.370-397.

McGinn, N., Welsh, T. 1999. Decentralizarion of

education: why, when, what and how?. [Online] Paris:

International Institute for Educational Planning IIEP..

Møller, J. 2007. School Leadership and Accountability:

Moving beyond Standardization of Practice. [Online]

Available at http://www.fm-kp.si/zalozba/ISBN/978-

961-6573-65-8/001-008.pdf. [Accessed 24 December

2016].

Mulford, B. 2006. Leadership for Improving the Quality of

Secondary Education: Some International

Developments. Revista de currículum y formación del

profesorado, [online] Vol 10:1.

Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., Goldring, E., Porter, A. C. 2006.

Learning-Centered Leadership: A Conceptual

Foundation. [Online] New York: The Wallace

Foundation.

Murphy, J. 1988.. Methodological, measurement, and

conceptual problems in the study of instructional

leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

[online], 102., pp.117-139.

National College for Teaching and Leadership NCTL.

2016. National College for Teaching and Leadership

Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31

March 2016 [online] Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa

ds/attachment_data/file/537534/56348_HC_399_web.

pdf [Accessed on: 7 January 2016].

OECD 2015. PISA 2015 Results in Focus [online]. PISA:

OECD Publishing.

OECD 2014. PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and

Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics,

Reading and Science Volume I, Revised edition,

February 2014. [online]. PISA: OECD Publishing.

Office for Standards in Education 2016. School inspection

handbook. [Online] London: Ofsted.

Parker, A., N. 1995. Decentralization: The Way Forward

for Rural Development. [Online] Washington, D.C.

DC: The World Bank.

Pont, B., Nusche, D., Moorman, H. 2008a. Improving

School Leadership, Volume 1: Policy and Practice.

[Online] Paris: OECD.

Pont, B., Nusche, D., Hopkins, D. 2008b. Improving School

Leadership,

Volume 2: Case Studies on System

Leadership. [Online] Paris: OECD.

Pritchett, L. 2013.. The Rebirth of Education: Schooling

Ain’t Learning. Washington DC: Center for Global

Development.

Raihani 2007. An Indonesian model of successful school

leadership. Journal of Educational Administration

[online], 464., 2008, pp.481-496.

Rhoten, D. 2000. Education decentralization in Argentina:

a ‘global-local conditions of possibility’ approach to

state, market, and society change, Journal of Education

Policy, 15:6, pp.593-619.

Robinson, V. 2010.. From instructional leadership to

leadership capabilities: empirical findings and

methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in

Schools, 91., pp.1-26.

Robinson, V., M., J., Lloyd, C., A., Rowe, J., R. 2007. The

Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An

Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership

Types. Educational Administration Quarterly, [online]

Vol 445., pp635-674.

Rondinelli, D., Nellis, J. R., Cheema, G.S. 1983.

Decentralization in Developing Countries: A Review of

Recent Experience. [Online] Washington, D.C.: The

World Bank.

Rosenbaum, A. 2013. Decentralization and Local

Governance: Comparing US and Global Perspectives.

Administrative Culture, [online] 14 1., pp.11-17.

Sergiovanni, T. 1995.. The Principalship: A Reflective

Practice Perspective. 3rd Edition. Massachusetts:

Allyn and Bacon.

Steinberg, M., P. 2013. Leadership and the decentralized

control of schools. [Online] Rockville: REL Mid-

Atlantic.

The World Bank 1995. Priorities and Strategies for

Education: A World Bank Review. [Online]

Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

The World Bank 2007. What Is School-Based

Management? [Online] Washington, D.C.: The World

Bank.

United Cities and Local Governments 2007.

Decentralization and Local Democracy in the World.

Executive Summary. First Global Report. [Online]

Barcelona: United Cities and Local Governments.

UNESCO 2004. Decentralising Education Management.

Newsletter – a quarterly publication in English and

French, International Institute for Capacity Building in

Africa [online], 61.

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences