CHAPTER 7
THE CAUTIOUS OPTIMIST
COPING WITH THE TENSIONS BETWEEN AUTONOMY AND THE
DEMANDS OF THE SYSTEM
People do not change on command. In the first place because they need to feel
real ownership, and secondly, because they need at least a minimum of
manoeuvering space, so as to be able to adapt the changes to their own needs
and environment. In one word: they need at least a certain degree of autonomy.
As a matter of fact, what holds for human beings, also holds for organizations, in
any case for knowledge-intensive organizations like schools. Sustainable change
will not, or even cannot, come about when people and organizations have no
grip on their situation. This article is dedicated to this essential but often
somewhat neglected condition for sustainable change: the autonomy of schools.
However, before embarking on this topic, just one last preliminary remark. The
theme of this article is, to say the least, rather complex. So unavoidably the
picture I am going to paint, will be painted in unwarranted broad strokes. I trust,
however, the kind reader will understand that; and excuse me.
7.1
INTRODUCTION
Most or perhaps even all EU countries are in one way or another engaged in the
development of more active forms of learning. Politicians and government
officials might see this as a logical consequence of the Lisbon objectives. For the
innovativity the Lisbon strategy aims at, unmistakeably asks for curiosity and
entrepeneurship, and these days most of us are convinced that qualities like these
will not easily develop in your traditional teacher- centred learning environment.
Elsewhere in this book Marc van den Brande deals more in detail with Europe’s
influence on education; here I suffice with just one remark. Apart from the
question whether the Lisbon strategy is adequate or not, I doubt whether the
Lisbon statements could possibly have produced such an immediate effect. They
may act as a catalyst as Van den Brande points out, at least at the level of
educational policy. But, as such, the developments we are speaking about have
been in the air for a long time. The search for more active forms of learning is an
unavoidable development in the various EU societies.
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
1
The Lisbon strategy
In March 2000 the European Council decided that “the Union must become the
most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable
of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social
cohesion”. To achieve this ambitious goal, Heads of States and Government
asked for "not only a radical transformation of the European economy, but also
a challenging programme for the modernisation of social welfare and education
systems". And in 2002, they added that by 2010, “Europe should be the world
leader in terms of the quality of its education and training systems”.
In the course of the last two centuries the societies of all European countries
underwent dramatical changes. Industrialization, individualization and
urbanisation left their unmistakeable marks, and in all countries educational
levels rose exponentially. The common denominator of developments is what
sociologists call the modernisation process. I.e. the process in which countries
develop from traditional, hierarchic, class- based, and mainly agragrian societies
into the type of society we are used to nowadays, or at least are getting used to;
that is, an open society, at an ever increasing pace technologizing, characterized
by exponentially developing communication networks, a steadily growing
mobility and rapidly changing professions, and nowadays with a shift from – in
very broad terms – heavy industry to service industry. 1 The members of societies
like ours are far more educated than most of their ancestors. Combined with
things such as the welfare state that protects against all sorts of troubles, the
relative affluence most of us enjoy, the decent working conditions and the
possibilities for personal development, this high level of education fosters the
self-confidence of the average citizen. That makes the average citizen of the
present open, democratic societies an emancipated individual2.
For education the consequences of all these developments are considerable. First,
although there still remains a considerable body of (basic) knowledge to be
taught, at the same time, in view of the permanently changing world much
attention has to be given to life-long learning and learning to learn. Second,
1
2
In its succinctness this paragraph seems to strike an optimistic tone. As if
history unavoidably works towards open, democratic societies, more or less
like Francis Fukayama predicted in his 1992 book The End of History and the
Last Man: "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or
the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as
such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the
universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human
government." That, however, is certainly not what I mean. Open and
democratic societies do not come automatically. They do need permanent
maintenance and defence.
Evidently, the state of affairs differs from country to country. It needs no
discussion that citizens of some of the former Eastblock countries are still
trying hard to get the picture, but on the other hand, within the EU things are
gradually converging.
2
Spirals of change
education will have to meet the needs of the emancipated citizens. They and their
children want to be treated as independent persons, and that explains why active
learning becomes or already has become the motto. 3.
7.2
THEME
The theme of this article is that, in order to give shape to the desired more active
learning environments, schools need a reasonable extent of autonomy. Only
when their own policy-making capacity is big enough, will they be able to meet
the needs of the individual pupil and to create the necessary individual learning
routes, while at the same time meeting the demands of other stakeholders. At
least in some countries and/or circles, however, a statement like this calls for
mixed reactions. Are schools really capable of standing on their own feet? Won’t
the moral purpose of education be falling between two stools? Will the
educational system not become something of a free market, with sharp divisions
between the haves and the have nots, and where only the fittest survive? In this
article I hope to make clear why it will not be as bad as that. That is, of course,
provided certain conditions are met.
In the first part, I define what I mean by autonomy for schools, amongst other by
demarcating the term on the one hand against the notion the Germans baptized
the pädagogische Provinz (i.e. pedagogical province), and on the other against
the free market approach. In the second part I deal with some of the pitfalls and
bottlenecks on the road to autonomy for schools. My article closes with two
appendices. The first one dwells on the question to what extent autonomy yields
a better performance of schools. It is a description of Dutch experiences in this
field, a description I feel rather sure of thanks to the fact that it is based upon
what ethnologists call ‘participating observation’. The second appendix dwells
on the question to what extent cultural differences between EU countries might
hamper the discussion.
7.2.1
Validity
To conclude this introduction, just a final remark about the validity of my point
of view. What I have to say about the uses of autonomy of schools is not
evidence based in the sense that it is based on extensive scientific research. In the
first place it originates from my own humanistic philosophy of life that sees man
as a being that can only prosper when given enough manoeuvering space. Next
to that, however, I found considerable confirmation in management literature
dealing with business and industry such as the works of Nancy Dixon, Manfred
3
The attentive reader will have noticed that I don’t mention educational research
as a source for the shift to active learning. The reason is that, in my opinion,
apart from a single visionary, educational researchers act more as followers
than as pioneers: they rather link to the trend than starting it.
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
3
Kets de Vries and a lot of – unfortunately - internationally less wellknown Dutch
writers. But most of all, I have learned a lot from supervising networks of
schools in the Netherlands that were (or still are) engaged in the innovation of
(secondary) education. In the course of the nineties, several organizational
responsibilities were transferred to schools. In that context the networks were
one of the means to help schools to develop ownership of the necessary
innovations by sharing knowledge and coaching each other. Over the course of
the years, I have seen this approach work. That is, if you treat schools as normal,
responsible organizations, like any other organization, they gradually learn to
bear responsibilities and take their own development in hand. Evidently, they
still make mistakes, they still blunder from time to time. But they unmistakeably
prove to learn the trade. In that respect, of course, organizations closely resemble
human beings.
7.2.2
Autonomy is …
Nobody can deny that a person without agency - that is: without any say
whatsoever about what to do and how to do it – will eventually fall mentally ill.
He or she might become hyperdependent, depressive, complaining, openly or
more secretly opposing anything the boss orders. As I said above, organizations
closely resemble human beings. If they have no grip on their work and working
conditions they will eventually become sick4. So autonomy for schools has to do
with the extent to which they can organize their work and have responsibility for
the quality.
For a start, in any case autonomy of schools encompasses the organization of the
primary process (i.e. the actual teaching and learning) and the organization of
the work5. The first indicator deals for instance with the question to what extent
schools can draw up their own timetable: the number of hours and/or days per
week and/or per year, the start and end of lessons, the duration of periods, and
the distribution of subjects over the week; or another important point: to what
extent schools can decide upon the choice of textbooks and teaching methods.
The second indicator, the organization of the work, deals with human, financial
and material resources, in other words, with the extent to which schools have a
grip on the hiring and firing of staff, on human resources management (including
4
5
The INSEAD scientist - and psycho-analist - Manfred Kets de Vries has
published a lot on this subject. One of his more recent, and more
comprehensive publications is: The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual
for the Human Enterprise, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London, 2001.
These first two indicators I derived from Eurydice, Key data on Education in
Europe (2002). Eurydice restricts herself to a neutral description of the extent
of autonomy on the points mentioned: complete autonomy, limited autonomy,
no autonomy. Although striking differences have been found, no link is made
to innovativity or policy making capacity. The reason for that is undoubtedly
that interpreting the data is skating on thin ice. In this article I felt free to be
more speculative.
4
Spirals of change
continuous professional development), on financial resources (buildings,
equipment, running costs) etcetera. Indeed, on these two points schools need
sufficient autonomy. If the government decides on the choice of textbooks or
even draws up the timetable, it is next to impossible for schools to create the
necessary learning routes, corresponding with the various individual needs of
pupils, or to account for the various working styles of teachers. And if the school
has no grip on human resources management and has no say in the hiring and
firing, it is – to say the least - very difficult to systematically create coherent
teams6.
However, autonomy with respect to the organization of the primary process and
the organization of the work is not something isolated. At the level of the schools
themselves it presupposes a vision of what the school stands for and where it
wants to go. Only on that basis sound decisions concerning the organisation of
the primary process and the organization of the work can be taken; provided of
course that the vision is a shared one, and not just a plaything of the
management, and in its turn that means that the autonomy is transferred within
the schools. Teachers should be involved in the decision processes, share
responsibilities, work in self- steering teams etcetera. To facilitate and support
that, people on the shop floor should have dashboards at their disposal so they
can keep track of how they are doing7.
Moreover, the school as a whole should regularly take time to discuss questions
such as: how are we doing? how do we know? what should be improved? For
systematic but non-bureaucratic8 internal quality care is the essential counterpart
of the school’s vision;
as is a sound external orientation. Like most organizations, schools have an
innate tendency to turn inwards, to stand with their backs to other schools, or
even the rest of the outside world. The risks of that are evident. Sometimes such
an attitude creates self-complacency, and sometimes it leads to a creeping
deterioriation of standards. But in all cases it makes innovation difficult because
of all the missed chances to cooperate, to look for benchmarks and share
knowledge.

6
7
8
Evaluation cycle
As a matter of fact, practice shows that even under unfavourable circumstances
some schools succeed in creating coherent teams. If, however, the hiring and
firing is done by the government, you never know what might happen if
someone is replaced. Under circumstances like that, sustainable development is
difficult to achieve.
Cf. for instance Nancy Dixon, The Organizational Learning Cycle (1999).
The reason that quality care should be non-bureaucratic is that standard
instruments (questionnaires etcetera) as a rule seldom yield useful results.
Quality care should start from your own questions, depending from the actual
situation and your own goals and objectives.
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
5
To sum up, if the school is not a learning organization, in the end the autonomy
will lead nowhere. But this is still not the whole story. It needs little or no
discussion that the autonomy will always be a relative one. To phrase it
somewhat lapidarily governments are, as representatives of society, perfectly
entitled to make certain demands in exchange for a workable legal framework
and acceptable facilities and working conditions. But the check as to whether
these demands are met, should be made in a sensible way, with respect for the –
relative – autonomy of the schools. In this context the most adequate approach
places the self evaluation of schools at the centre, as in the model below 9. The
core of this approach is that schools try to account for what they do and have
done to external stakeholders in a transparent way. The compact description
below might make the reader think that it is one of those nice but totally
unfeasible products of experts that never leave their office. But then again, you
must realize this is not something to be done in the last month of every school
year, but a description of on ongoing (and cyclical) process, spread over the
years10.
The starting point of an evaluation cycle is the internal accounting for the
activities of a certain period (and it needs no discussion that this should be a
matter of two way communication and not just the management asking the
professionals to account for what they have done). The next step is the external
accounting for in several directions:



the parents
previous and further education (in view of the educational career of the
students) and rival organizations
and organizations that act as complementaries.
The first point needs no further clarification I suppose. As for the second one, I
think only ‘rival organizations’ needs some explanation. Their involvement in
this approach is based on the idea that it is very instructive to judge your own
accomplishments by those of comparable organizations. Therefore, in this
approach, benchmarking and peer review are seen as very useful instruments in
the accounting process. As for the last one, ‘organizations that act as
9
The approach I describe in this text is a.o. based on several Dutch publications
about accountability and quality care such as : Jos van der Lans, De kunst van
het verantwoorden (Meso magazine 147, 2006) and Q5-publications as Kees
Horsman/Paulien Langedijk (red.), Vreemde ogen dwingen (Meso Focus 60,
2006).
10
Actually, quality care should not be something that is carefully kept apart from
the day to day work. In a well functioning, healthy school (see Freding and
Tobin earlier in this book), teachers discuss, as a part of their daily work on a
regular basis, the quality of what they are doing, and act as critical friends by
visiting each other’s classes etcetera. Under such circumstances, a lot of the
thinking required in the model is already done.
6
Spirals of change
complementaries’: experiences and comments of e.g. local churches, welfare
work, the police and the like can, of course, be extremely helpful for schools.
The process is rounded off with the accounting for in the direction of
government and politicians, i.e. the stakeholders that carry the final
responsability11. And that brings me to an important point in the model: the
quality of the judgments of governments and politicians. Obviously, in an
approach like this much depends on how governments and politicians react, the
extent to which they really understand how processes develop in schools or nonprofit organizations in general. Quite understandably in that respect,
governments and politicians rely heavily on their perceptions of what the average
citizen (or voter) thinks. In this context the media, and especially television and
national newspapers play an important role. They map and influence the public
discussion, and with that the quality of the judgments of governments and
politicians, so this approach will only function satisfactorily if the media act as
informed, responsible partners in the system.
public discussion
parliament, politics
government
(central, local)
previous and
further education;
competitors
non-educational
school
stakeholders
parents
Fig. 1: Accountability and the autonomous school
11
In this stage, evidently the inspection will play an important role, but its role is
determined by the government. That is why in the text I restrict myself to the
latter.
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
7
Conditions: normal
Just for the sake of completeness, it needs no discussion that all I have said so
far, pertains to schools in an open, democratic society. Schools in closed, static,
authoritarian, hierarchical societies are quite another matter. In societies like that
their main function has to do with securing cultural continuity, or indoctrination,
and the government is the only authority to judge on that. Actually, some of the
former Eastern block states are still experiencing how difficult it is to come to
terms with a past like that in a young democratic state.
But apart from that, even in (more) open societies a necessary precondition is
that the conditions are – at least relatively – normal. In case of, for instance, an
economic crisis it might be terribly difficult for governments to maintain the
right conditions. If moonlighting (i.e. working at more than one job) is absolutely
necessary in order to make a living, it cannot come as a surprise that people do
not heartily welcome proposals for change. But as the Dutch experience shows,
that is even the case in less demanding situations. In the eighties the Dutch
government faced severe budget problems, while at the same time the numbers
of pupils in primary and secondary education decreased dramatically. As a
consequence of that last factor schools became competitors and turned their
backs on each other and resistant to the pressures for innovation. Unfortunately,
the government could not think of anything to prevent that. Instead it rather
made things worse by protecting, in close cooperation with the unions, the
incumbent staff and making the influx of younger staff difficult. At that
particular moment the government’s measures set schools at rest, but in the end
the effects proved to be alarming. The number of burnouts of teachers increased
in the course of the years and the innovation capacity of schools was severely
hampered (Prick 2006).
7.2.3
Between pädagogische Provinz …
Of course, the primary process of schools differs widely from that of, let’s say, a
sweets factory, a shipping firm, a consultancy partnership or a hospital, but given
that difference, in many respects schools are organizations like any other. This,
however, certainly is not an uncontested point of view. For a long time certain
circles viewed (and some still do) education as something very special,
something the Germans call the pädagogische Provinz. That is: an area,
protected (or at least to be protected as much as possible) against the mean
outside world, against the whims of the market, against societal discord. In this
safe haven teachers educate students in the love of culture and wisdom, science,
or a certain profession. The duty of the government is to maintain this happy
world by caring for the entry to the educational profession, its financing, the
necessary legal regulations. Between the sixties and the seventies, in the wake of
the increasing attention to management sciences for the workings of labor
organizations, some experts even contended that schools obeyed quite another
type of law than so-called ‘normal’ organizations. They considered schools to be
absolutely unique due to, for instance, the obscure decision-making processes,
the low degree of interdependence of the organization members, the unclear
coupling of goals, technology, practice and outcomes.
8
Spirals of change
Well-meant as this approach might be, as a rule due to its strong paternalistic
vein, its effects are counterproductive. Treating education as a pädagogische
Provinz reinforces the innate tendency of schools to turn inwards and what is
more important, job satisfaction often is much smaller than you would expect.
The explanation is surprisingly simple. The more responsibilities you take over
from people, the more people become helpless and the more they expect you to
protect them against all sorts of trouble; and the moment you fail, there is, of
course, no end of complaining and dissatisfaction. If organizations have little or
no autonomy, they become what Manfred Kets de Vries calls a neurotic
organization. The members of such an organization often show symptoms of
depressive behaviour. To name a few: they all too often act defensively and
politically, lean towards external attribution, seem addicted to rules and
regulations, believe they themselves are not capable of solving the problems they
think they face. To say the least, organizations like that are not quite fit for
innovation. Indeed, they might count quite a few innovative individuals among
their members, but as a whole, as teams, they are not fit for innovation, let alone
for sustainable change to happen. The state of affairs in organizations like these
once made Henry Mintzberg remark, while speaking about universities, that they
had the innovation capacity of a churchyard.
7.2.4
… and McEducation
Perhaps this problematic organizational culture is one of the reasons why several
European governments have been trying to introduce the market in education.
They may do so in the hope of promoting the educational innovation they see as
necessary, while – of course - at the same time realizing a considerable saving of
costs. An approach like that, however, closely resembles that of laymen who
when dealing with persons suffering from depression, prefer advice such as:
please, stop making a fuss, carry on, act normal. A cure like that is worse than
the disease. For although in many respects schools are organizations like any
other, there still remain some striking differences. Education is not just a
commodity like a television set or some service, first because the client is at the
same time a co-producer. In other words, he or she is in many ways coresponsible (or even as some prefer it: the prime-responsible) for the quality of
the learning process and outcomes. Secondly, education undoubtedly has a moral
purpose, varying from educating students as citizens to securing equality.
Ironically, the market approach seldom works in practice. Unlike the way
policymakers and top managers think, focussing on performance does not
promote innovation, but leads to conformity and window dressing (De Bruijn
2002). In that respect, there is an interesting story from the UK. Between 1892
en 1895 the central government of the UK introduced a detailed syllabus and
teachers were paid according to their success in teaching this new syllabus. As a
result teachers mainly executed the commands from higher up and pupils had to
do exactly what the teachers said. Because of these poor results, payment on the
basis of outcome was rapidly abandoned. But given the historical amnesia of
educational policy, the idea keeps popping up from time to time.
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
9
Autonomy and the System
In the above, I stated that the autonomy of schools is a relative one and to
operationalize the notion I introduced several indicators of autonomy:
organisation of the primary process, organisation of the work, shared vision,
internal autonomy, external orientation, and internal and external quality care.
For at least three of these – organisation of the primary process, organization of
the work, and quality care - the manoeuvering space is to a large extent
determined by the educational system. So let us now have a look at the system.
Below you find a model that specifies the various possible elements of
educational systems:
unions,
professional
organizations,
lobbies
PARLIAMENT
GOVERNMENT
legislation
conditions of employment
programs, curriculum
quality assurance
INSPECTION
SCHOOL
INITIAL
TRAINING;
RESEARCH
management
SUPPORT
teachers
pupils
Fig. 2: The educational system
Some of the elements and relations in this model are more or less universal. For
instance relations such parliament–government–school, or government–
inspection–school. The exact operationalisation of these relations, however, may
of course differ widely. Other elements and relations within this model differ
from country to country. Moreover, even within countries the relations might
change with the times as can be demonstrated by experiences in The
Netherlands. Before the seventies, the government decided in broad lines on the
10
Spirals of change
curriculum, while teacher organizations (not unions but associations by subject)
played an important role in what then was called in-service training. In that
context these – subsidized - organizations maintained more or less direct lines
not with the school but with the individual teachers. During the course of the
sixties the government realized that innovation was needed (modernization of the
curriculum, improvement of accessibility and transition between sectors). To
realize the intended innovations, from the seventies to the nineties the
government abolished the funding of teacher associations and shifted to initial
training institutions in support organizations as levers. But at a certain moment
the government, like many other in the world (cf. for instance the publications of
the last decade of Michael Fullan and Andy Hargreaves), understood that most of
her efforts were wasted. Under the influence of the ideas of, for instance, New
Public Management, it made schools more autonomous and responsible for
innovation12. During these developments the place of external support
organizations shifted dramatically: from motors of innovations to advisors and
consultants who were just waiting to be hired.
In the analysis of (the influence exerted by) a specific educational system,
important questions are for instance:




Who decides on what?
What trends can be seen. E.g.: if a decentralisation process is under way,
does the government really devolve power to the schools or just halfheartedly?
How powerful are unions and/or teacher associations? To what extent can
they block innovations? How is decided upon working conditions?
What role do institutions for initial training and/or INSEt play? To what
extent are they used as levers in innovation processes?
A model like the one above can help you to analyze what is going on, why
certain problems arise or keep arising etcetera. In this context, however, I just
focus on the position of the relatively autonomous school in the sense I defined it
above. If you try to describe that position within the educational system, it is
evident that at least part of the resulting picture mirrors fig. 1, Accountability and
the autonomous school. In consensus with parliament the government decides in
broad lines on e.g. working conditions, curriculum etcetera, and, the steering
process does not proceed via intermediaries such as teacher training, support
12
To a certain extent the government thus repaired something that had gone
terribly wrong in the sixties and seventies. For then, exactly at the moment
schools had to become more innovative, a lot of their young and innovative
teachers were recruited for the new intermediary institutions. In other words:
exactly at the moment the innovation capacity of schools had to be boosted, it
was severely mutilated.
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
11
organizations but via more or less direct lines with the schools13. And evidently
the accounting process has to reflect that in an upside-down way
7.3
EDUCATIONAL AGENDAS
The term educational system suggests that we are talking about something very
complex but perfectly clear, something like the complex system of mutually
linked airports, with their flight lanes, flight control, sophisticated booking
systems and what not. But actually, the educational system is quite the opposite.
Apart from its tremendous dimensions, it is loaded with loose couplings,
amoebic elements, permeable walls, and is regularly harassed by unforeseen and
perverse effects14. In other words, more often than not there appears to be a great
many possibilities for unbalancing the system. Many instructive examples of this
are offered by what Bengt-Göte Freding and Bernie Tobin discussed earlier in
this book: the ‘why’ of schools. As Freding and Tobin rightly state, the whyquestion is one of the most important. Unfortunately the answer is open to a
considerable difference of opinion.
Everybody expects a sweets factory to produce sweets and a consultancy
partnership to sell advice. With education it is not as easy as that. In an open
society the public discussion about the goals of education is essential. To a large
extent the discussion in the public arena determines the functioning of the system
because politicians keep a close watch on what the voters think (or seem to
think) and as we all know, the government is the servant of the politicians, or to
be more precise: the parliament. Unfortunately, public discussion on education is
often quite problematic. For more than anything else, education is seen by
politicians, national and local governments and literally all manner of pressure
groups and lobbies as a means for very different and often conflicting goals, to
name only a few examples (mainly derived from Dutch educational history but I
trust many of them are quite recognizable for readers from other EU countries):



the disciplining of the – unruly – lower classes (19th century and in a certain
sense nowadays)
the rise of the working classes (socialists during the first half of the 20th
century)
more equality (in Western-Europe especially after the Second World War)
I use the term ‘more or less’ because for obvious reasons negotiations about
financing, working conditions etcetera will be conducted by interfaces like
representative bodies of school heads or school boards.
14
We speak of perverse effects in the case the outcome of a certain measure is
the opposite of what was intended. An example: superficially centralized
exams seem to be an excellent means of guarding standards. In fact they
produce several perverse effects. They narrow down the focus of teachers to
what is measurable (i.e.: quality is the number of pupils that pass a certain test)
and away from the processes, the competencies etcetera.
13
12
Spirals of change





emancipation (feminists during the sixties and seventies)
environment-mindedness (from the sixties onwards)
integration and promotion of national consciousness (19th century and again
in the 21st century)
the cultural canons or the scientific ones (recurrent on a regular basis, often
boosted by renowned scientists and publicists)
the concept of excellence (recurrent on a regular basis).
As topics like these can deeply move people, fierce discussions regularly flare
up, but because the discussions are conducted with innumerable participants in
terribly complex surroundings, in many cases the results sound like dialogues
between the deaf15. The exchange of views may run in all directions and the
complexity of the matter more often than not leads to relying on distorted
memories and the use of coarse simplifications. The fact that these discussions
are conducted in the press makes things even worse. Journals and TV play an
important role in an open society. They inform the citizen and as I stated before,
the informed citizen is the point of reference for the politician. Unfortunately,
especially in the news reels on TV - the media the citizens trust in most dramatic pictures have the upper hand over facts and analysis. In several
countries we now live in what the Flemish sociologist Mark Elchardus called a
drama democracy (Elchardus 2002). And because of the overwhelming necessity
to make a good impression on voters, in a drama democracy politicians and
policy makers tend to show off, to apparently cut the knots in an energetic way.
This state of affairs evidently has its repercussions on the educational system,
and especially on the way governments act, or rather, on their possibilities to act
and their manoeuvering space (Leenheer 2006).
Governments and schools
As I mentioned before, governments are responsible for the creation of
conditions that enable schools to deliver quality at acceptable costs, while
promoting equality and integration, preventing drop out etcetera, but that
certainly is not an easy task. First and foremost, governments have to operate in
the unquiet, often changing environment I described in the preceding section.
Obviously they cannot afford to neglect the signals from outside the walls of the
Ministry.
Secondly, most governments - and of course parliaments - are still trying to
figure out what type of steering is the most effective in our type of societies.
After the nineteenth century ‘night watchman state’ several approaches have
been tried. In changing order, dependent of the country: from central control with
steering on input (standardisation etcetera), or steering via support in teacher
15
Given the importance of the discussion for their daily practice, it is an
interesting point is that in most cases teachers – at least as far as I can see seldom or never participate in discussions like these as professionals or group
of professionals.
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
13
training, to the completely free market or the type of steering on output like that
promoted by the New Public Management with its focus on management by
objectives, accreditation, codes of conduct etcetera, but none of these approaches
suffice in all respects. A strong central control makes schools depressive,
dependent organizations. Management by objectives often yields comparable
results because those who have to realize the objectives were not involved in
fixing them. And deregulation as is the trend in several countries, more often
than not leads to a lot of new rules because accountability asks for its own rules.
So far, apparently, nobody has found the stone of wisdom. And this is one of the
main reasons why in some countries from time to time the helm is completely
changed over or something is re-introduced that did not work in the past. The
other reasons for this course of affairs are: the faults of any current approach are
always most evident, plus the historical amnesia of governments and their lack of
real knowledge of the processes on the shop floor (WRR 2004).
So, in an unquiet environment, and by using insecure and unstable steering
instruments, governments try to create conditions that enable schools to deliver
quality at acceptable costs; and that last point is again a terribly difficult one.
How on earth can you control the costs of education while increasing the
participation of pupils and students and improving the quality? Some people
contend that ICT for instance might be a mighty instrument to reduce
educational costs. As a matter of fact, I must admit that ICT offers tremendous
opportunities to individualize and modernize education, in a way pupils (and
teachers) certainly appreciate very much. However, I cannot imagine schools
could ever do without a considerable appeal to human effort, for as Karine van
Thienen points out elsewhere in this book, learning is basically a social activity.
But since teachers do not deserve to live on the edge of poverty, the consequence
is that the costs of education will keep rising if you increase participation, and as
invidual citizens even teachers will not accept that last point. Nevertheless, the
discussion about this is problematic and often dominated by the feeling that the
government imposes intolerable budget cuts.
7.4
SCHOOLS AND GOVERNMENTS
I am convinced that within the EU most or even all governments sincerely strive
for an educational system in which schools are relatively autonomous. For as far
as it goes, the failure of all ‘Total Central Control’ approaches leaves no other
option. But understandably enough from time to time governments shrink back
from the consequences of their doings, or opt for counterproductive of even
obsolete measures. And to complicate things, governments have to operate from
an uncomfortable position. They have to find a balance between the often
conflicting views of the various stakeholders and the general public, and under
circumstances like that it is not easy to keep track.
In their turn, schools show a comparable mixed picture. Of course, I suppose
there still are schools that have no idea what you are talking about when talking
about autonomy, but most schools want to be (more) autonomous or are even
working on it. Nevertheless, old habits die slowly. Even in systems like the
14
Spirals of change
Dutch one, in which schools enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy, from time
to time some schools, schoolleaders, teachers ask for clarity in cases in which
they themselves are unmistakeably the ones who should make the rules.
Apparently it is not always that easy or attractive to come loose from the
infusion.
7.5
IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO
An interesting problem can be seen inside schools. There are indications that an
increase of autonomy sometimes reinforces the internal pursuit of cost efficiency
and forms of managerializing to keep things under control. Notably this last
phenomenon is somewhat alarming. One of the biggest mistakes managers –
especially managers of big schools or conglomerates of schools - can make, is
that they take over the ‘old’ role of the government and try to run or change the
school in a topdown way. If that is the case, we go from bad to worse. Earlier in
this article I stressed that autonomy should not stop at the door of the school
head or school board, for if the autonomy of the school as an organization is not
reflected in autonomy at the shop floor, autonomy doesn’t mean anything.
Schools can only make good use of their autonomy, if they act as a unity. People
should feel related to each other, share principles and vision (which is not the
same as all noses pointing in exactly the same direction!), feel responsible for the
proper course of affairs etcetera. All this means that autonomy should be
transferred.
But as everywhere else in the system, this too is a matter of two-way
communication. If autonomy is transferred to a shop floor full of your traditional
autonomous professionals, the trouble is incalculable. Autonomy asks for
professionals with characteristics such as the following:



7.6
at least a certain knowledge of organizational processes, the necessity of
cost effiency etcetera. Autonomy doesn’t work if teachers think they are just
there for the teaching, while the task of the management consist of the nasty
things like drawing up the time table and coping with the troubles coming
from outside.
consciousness of the fact that the organization, the school, is a whole. They
should realize that all work is interdependent, even if it is not very clear on
the surface, as unfortunately it is often the case.
preparedness to address colleagues about their behaviour. In the traditional
school the non intervention principle often reigns. In an autonomous schools
that would be disastrous.
THE CAUTIOUS OPTIMIST
Educational writers often strike a positive tone. Not unlike those American How
to books they love to focus on good practices and normative models in the hope
of enthusing the reader. In this article I have tried to avoid that pitfall. Earlier in
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
15
this article I contended that relative autonomy is essential for sustainable change.
But after the last few sections, it cannot be denied that the road to that is long
and windy, and full of pitfalls and bottlenecks. Moreover, in all probability,
paradise is out of reach, for there is no definitive equilibrium and all solutions
will have their own drawbacks.
I do realize that attention to the problems and pitfalls might demoralize or
perhaps even suggest that after all it doesn’t matter very much whether we grant
schools autonomy or not. but that is certainly not what I intend. I am deeply
convinced that relative autonomy is an absolute precondition for sustainable
change or, more broadly, quality in education. To be able to realize that, you
have to face the problems; denying them won’t help. The challenge is, of course,
to keep your courage without becoming imprudent. That is why I titled this
article ‘the cautious optimist’. And as for what he or she can do, between the
lines I have made some suggestions, but in the end it is not for me to decide on
that. That, of course, is also a matter of autonomy.
7.7
APPENDIX 1
IS AUTONOMY WORTH THE TROUBLE?
Experiences from The Netherlands
In the course of the last 15 to 20 years the Dutch government transferred quite a
few responsibilities to schools in such varying fields as financing, personnel,
policy- making, continuous professional development etcetera. In that way it
created necessary conditions for autonomy of schools. At this moment schools
are still learning what it means to be a relative autonomous, more or less self steering organization. Nevertheless, the developments have been going on long
enough to try and assess the effects. Below you find an attempt of my own hand,
not based on extensive research but on observation and conversations with
Dutch colleagues16.
Assessing external signs is the easiest. For instance, unmistakeably the external
orientation of schools has increased. More than in the seventies and eighties
Dutch schools cooperate a lot in networks, and love to look in each other’s
‘kitchens’ and to learn from each other. Thanks to the mutual support they
experience and to the increased grip on their situation, their self -confidence has
grown. No longer do they act as defensive or passive as they did years ago. In
this context the changed position of support organizations is instructive. People
from organizations like that are no longer the missionaries who have to convert
the schools, but they are hired in the context of the policy a school. Another sign
16
Actually, I understand in all probability Finland might also offer a good
example of the blessings of autonomy for schools; cf. for instance Schleicher
2006. But as this is for me rather third than first hand knowledge, it is difficult
for me to assess the information satisfactorily. Therefore I let it pass.
16
Spirals of change
of the increased self- confidence is that schools are not afraid of having to
account in full publicity for what they do and have done.
But the ultimate proof of the pudding is, of course, the extent to which more
autonomy yields better results. To what extent that really is the case, is not easy
to assess because that requires a close look behind the screens. For several years
now, a national newspaper, Trouw, has published a yearly survey of the
performance of secondary schools. The autumn 2005 survey showed that the
performance of by far most of the schools had improved over a period of 5 years,
measured by indicators such as the improved transition from lower to upper
secondary, the number of uninterrupted school careers and the results of exams.
Provided the abilities of pupils have not changed and provided the leaving
standard is still as high as it was, the performance of the schools involved has
really improved. Unfortunately, however, on this nice conclusion, pessimists can
make some considerable comment.
According to some people, for decades the leaving standard is going down, so
any performance improvement is just a phantom. But even if you put comments
like this aside as the usual grumbling of the aged, there still remains something
problematic. Like all organizations and humans in general, schools try to protect
themselves from negative public relations by all sorts of window-dressing and
tricks and hiding of mistakes. So the Trouw survey I cited above, might be more
or less distorted and unreliable. All in all, the survey provides just an indication
but certainly no definitive proof of the blessings of autonomy. But fortunately
Q5’s Kees Horsman17 could suggest an elegant way out: an indirect proof.
7.7.1
Proof
In a recent survey about how underperforming schools operate, researchers have
tried to assess the cause of the underperformance and to make an inventory of
successful interventions. They found as causes for underperformance:






17
visions that are not shared or underdeveloped
weak leadership
a weak relationship between curriculum and goals
weak teaching strategies
inadequate pastoral care
a prolonged disfunctioning of the school organization (discord, conflicts,
unstable teams, inadequate coping with the characteristics of the school
population).
Cf. note 9, earlier in this text.
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
17
In their turn, successful interventions proved always to have been based on
things such as the following:





a meticulous analysis in which the team itself was involved
a shared idea of the course, focussing on visible results
accepted leadership
no series of unrelated interventions, but an integral route over a longer time,
focussing on sustainability and not on quick successes, school specific with
enough possibilities for school choices
the calling in of external critical friends.
In short, apparently quite a few of the characteristics of successful interventions
are closely related to the notion of the relative autonomous school I discussed in
this chapter.
7.8
APPENDIX 2
BETWEEN 25 CULTURES.
Or: do we really mean the same?
These days, the naive traveller might think that the cultures of the EU countries
are converging at a rapid pace. Everywhere he can listen to more or less the same
pop music and muzak. In all book shops they sell the same bestsellers and even
in the small towns all over Europe he can find Italian restaurants, McDonalds,
H&M shops, Shell gas stations. Supermarkets all over Europe sell French
cheeses, Sicilian wines, Belgian beers, Danish feta, Dutch seafood, and
everywhere our traveller sees the same cars driving past the same bill boards.
Young people everywhere are wearing the same T-shirts and jeans, with
hairstyles that closely resemble each other, nearly always with a small or middlesized rucksack on their backs, and forever speaking into mobile phones while
listening via their other ear to music on their I-pods.
The question is, however, how deep rooted are these similarities. It is plausible
that when you look more closely, below the surface, you may find striking
cultural differences; even in the case of education. In my experience, schools
look more or less the same in all countries I have visited. Most buildings could
be transferred to another country and be fit for immediate use. Moreover,
teachers show the same or at least comparable characteristics, like the preference
for non- intervention (or leaving each other alone) and the idea that the
management is just there to procure the chalk and the time table. Nevertheless, as
far as I can see, a lot of the resemblance is just superficial and there are cultural
differences that are here to stay. At least for still some time.
Rudi Schollaert once told me an interesting example about the extent to which
cultural differences can play a role in the discussion about autonomy. Rudi had
presented an exposé about self- steering teams, one of the core characteristics of
a healthy autonomous school, but after that, one of the participants, a French
18
Spirals of change
teacher – not your average teacher, but a woman who was a also a trainer and, in
addition, did quite a lot of development work – exclaimed, Ça n’existe pas (i.e.:
that doesn’t exist, or more bluntly: that’s impossible here on earth). Apparently,
in the French highly centralistic system, this archetypical expression of French
culture, self-steering teams are unimaginable, even for people on the shop floor.
Actually, it would not surprise me if comparable problems did not exist in some
of the former Eastern block countries.
Culture =
The definition of culture I use in this appendix, is loosely based upon the work
of Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), who define culture as the rules of the social
game that individuals have learned. This collective mental programming results
in deep rooted values. Actually so deep as to make people often think their ideas
are uniquely true. A culture is visible by symbols (language, clothing, flags,
status symbols), heroes (fictive and non-fictive) and rituals (greeting,
ceremonies, conversation style).
Below I present some considerations on the question to what extent we might (or
might not) mean the same when speaking about autonomy, education, teaching
and learning. This appendix is not research based, but based on discussion with
Basics colleagues and eclectic reading of, for instance, Hofstede and Hofstede
(Allemaal andersdenkenden), Wouters (België – Nederland.Verschil moet er
zijn), The Atlas of European Values, Gubert and Saint-Martin (L’arrogance
française), Baverez (La France qui tombe), Julliard (Le malheur Français) and
autobiographies like those of Czeslaw Milosz, Ivan Klima, Sebastian Hafner. But
in the end, of course, this appendix describes cultural differences as seen through
my own glasses. All mistakes and distortions come into my own account.
7.8.1
Cultural differences
To start with, four questions of a more general nature. Some of them have
implications for the autonomy issue (is autonomy for schools feasible?), others
pertain more to intercultural communication (do we really mean the same?).
For ages France has known a highly centralistic government system. Before the
Revolution the king acted as the father who took care of all, and after the
Revolution, the state took over that role. To use a notion that Cvetka Bizjak and
Danuta Elsner describe in more detail elsewhere in this book: it is a.o. this
mental model that authors like Jacques Julliard hold responsible for the existing
immobilisme français, the French incapacity to realize necessary changes. To a
certain extent, of course, you find comparable mental models in some of the
former Eastern block countries. The Atlas of European values states, for
instance, that most Eastern European countries prefer a strong state and
authoritarian leadership. Mental models like these are, however, rare in, for
instance, Flanders. It would be interesting to know to what extent the French or
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
19
Eastern European mental models slow down innovations or cause
misunderstandings such as in the Ça n’existe pas anecdote earlier in this text.
Cultures often foster very strong ideas about what makes a good, scientific text,
and if a certain text does not meet these requirements, the reader will have great
difficulty in doing this text justice. In this context, it is interesting to note the
striking differences between, let’s say, the Anglo-Saxon writing model (more
journalistic) and the Middle European one (more abstract, theoretical). To what
extent does this influence negatively the communication between EU countries?
Or are we converging on that point?
Paul Wouters states in his book on Belgian-Dutch relations, that the Flemish
boss, far more than his Dutch counterpart, is the boss and that it is absolutely not
done to contradict him. In any case, as far as I can see, the position of managers
seems in some countries (the UK, Poland) more unassailable than in others (The
Netherlands, Sweden). In The Netherlands and in Sweden managers look for
consensus, where in the UK and in Poland the managers are the ones who
decide, as is the case in France. As these observations are of a very general
nature, it would be interesting to know to what extent these differences also hold
for education, and if so, what effect does all this have on internal autonomy? Is it
possible that in certain countries, the official discourse is that the shop floor
should have (some) autonomy (in line with modern management thinking), while
in reality the shop floor has nothing to say?
Despite their sometimes anarchistic appearance, the Dutch and the Swedes love
planning and rules, whereas the Flemish and French are better in improvising
and dodging the rules. Perhaps this explains why there are in Sweden and The
Netherlands so many ‘perceived’ (but actually non- existing) rules. Or are there
as many in France and Flanders?
7.8.2
Differences in teaching and learning
Another interesting question, and of course in this book a very relevant one, is to
what extent cultural differences are reflected in visions of teaching and learning.
In this article and elsewhere in this book we all talk about active learning as if
we mean exactly the same. But is that so? In any case the most recent Hofstede
& Hofstede publication presents several contrasting statements that shed, to say
the least, some doubt on that. The contrasting pairs are the following:
pupils treat teachers as equals
pupils treat teachers with respect, even
outside school
teachers expect pupils to take
initiatives
teachers always take the initiative
pupils value kind teachers
pupils value brilliant teachers
the individual is prepared for new
pupils are initiated in the tradition
20
Spirals of change
situations, for coping with the
unknown, they learn how to learn new
things, lifelong learning
(education as rite of passage), you only
learn once
impersonal skills, competencies
knowledge and wisdom of teachers
open learning situations
detailed time table, exact circumscribed
objectives and goals
originality, teacher does not know
everything
accuracy, teacher is expert, knows the
answers
clear, plain language is indicator of
quality
intricate, complex language is indicator
of quality you
have a good theory at your disposal <> trial and error.
As is always the case with contrasting pairs, of course the differences are
somewhat exaggerated. In daily practice the picture is always more blurred.
Nevertheless, as far as I can see, we cannot ignore the fact that ‘active learning’
might mean quite different things in a culture where the teacher is the expert who
knows the answers as opposed to one in which originality is encouraged. The
problem is, however, that research into that asks for prolonged participative
observation and immersion in another culture-and the feasibility of that is highly
questionable.
7.9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atlas of European Values, www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.com
Baverez, N. (2003), La France qui tombe. Tempus. Editions Perrin, Paris
Bruijn, J.A. de, Outputsturing in publieke organisaties. In: M&O 56/3, mei/juni
2002, 5-21
Bruijn, J.A. de, Maak spanningen management & professionals vruchtbaar. In:
G. van den Brink et al. (eds.), Beroepszeer. Waarom Nederland niet goed werkt.
Boom. Amsterdam 2005. 143-154
Dixon, N. (1999) The Organizational Learning Cycle. Gower. Aldershot
Elchardus, M. (2002) De dramademocratie. Lannoo. Tielt
Eurydice, Key data on Education in Europe 2002. www.eurydice.org
Hofstede G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Allemaal andersdenkenden. Omgaan met
cultuurverschillen. Contact. Amsterdam/Antwerpen
Horsman, C. and Langedijk P. (red.) (2006), Vreemde ogen dwingen. Meso
Focus 60. Kluwer. Alphen aan den Rijn.
Julliard, J. (2005), Le malheur Français. Café Voltaire. Flammarion. Paris
Chapter 7: The cautious optimist
21
Kets de Vries, M. (2001), The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the
Human Enterprise, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London,.
Lans, J. van der, De kunst van het verantwoorden. In: Meso magazine 147, april
2006, 3 - 6
Leenheer, P. Het studiehuis stinkt. De tragedie van onderwijshervormingen in
pers en publieke opinie. In: Meso Magazine 26/147, april 2006, 10 - 14…
Prick, L. (2006), Drammen dreigen draaien. Hoe het onderwijs twintig jaar lang
vernieuwd werd. Mets & Schilt. Amsterdam
Schleicher, A. (2006), The economics of knowledge: Why education is key for
Europe’s success. In: Lisbon Council Policy Brief
WRR, (2004), Bewijzen van goede dienstverlening. Amsterdam University Press.
Amsterdam
Wouters, P. (2005), België – Nederland. Verschil moet er zijn. Lemniscaat.
Rotterdam
22
Spirals of change