Lyderystė autonomiškoje mokykloje

• Urbanovič, Jolanta
• Navickaitė, Jolanta

LTMokslo monografijoje nagrinėjami konceptualūs švietimo valdymo kaitos elementai, lėmę mokyklų valdymo pokyčius. Knygoje pagrįstos ir išplėtotos autonomiškos mokyklos bei lyderystės mokykloje sampratos, atskleista lyderystės Lietuvos bendrojo ugdymo mokyklose raiška ir vyraujantis autonomiško valdymo principų suvokimas bei pageidaujamo autonomiškumo lygis, aprašyta autonomiško valdymo diegimo praktika bei lyderystės raiška šiame procese. Ši monografija skiriama visiems, besidomintiems mokyklų valdymu ir švietimo lyderyste. [Anotacija knygoje]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Švietimo sistema; Vadovavimas; Mokyklos autonomija; Education system; Governance; Autonomy of schools.

ENThe education system is constantly affected by a variety of national factors, international trends, ideologies, values dominant in society, social and economic context, and the like. The rapidly changing environment determines the need to respond and change the principles of governance of the education system. This resulted in a wave of decentralization of education governance in many countries around the world over the past decades. It should be noted that this ‘transnational trend’ was contextualized, hybridized and gained a different pace depending on the political, economic, cultural or national characteristics of the country. The decentralization reform is based on the changing role of the state in the functioning of the education system. The greatest influence of the state regulation on the provision of education services in the twentieth century is characteristic of the bureaucratic (hierarchical) model of governance which had dominated for a long time. The objective of the New Public Management model, which replaced the former, on the contrary, is to minimize the impact of the state, to decentralize the system, and to promote the formation of the educational services market. In recent decades, the state has regained greater responsibility for the parameters of service quality through the application of principles of cooperation, citizen involvement and empowerment, and mutual agreement (Monkevičius, Urbanovič, 2016). As a result of these shifts in the public governance paradigm, a mixed education governance model was formed which can be identified as a combination of elements of ‘hierarchical management (central government control and monitoring), self-government (autonomy, market pressure), co-governance (networking and cooperation) and democratic governance’ (Woods, Simkins, 2014, p. 328).It should be noted that the relation of the education system and educational institutions to the change is controversial. On the one hand, education decentralization strengthens the local and autonomous nature of school activities; on the other hand, the school must take into account the social and economic context and develop skills necessary for functioning in a positive manner in the modern global environment. Educational decisions can be centralized or decentralized, i.e. more discretion is given to local authorities. The education system can be decentralized in one area (for example, the curriculum), but remain centralized in another (for example, funding) (Cerych, 1997, p. 86–89). Such ambivalence makes the process of implementation of education decentralization complicated and raises questions about the harmonization of principles of centralization and decentralization. In recent decades, the issue of how the ratio of centralization and decentralization of education system governance is expressed, which in turn reflects the degree of concentration of the decision- making power and responsibility for the implementation thereof at different levels of the education system, has become relevant under conditions of uncertainty due to the external environment (Gumuliauskienė, 2013, p. 19). One of the consequences of the decentralization of education is the increasing school autonomy. More and more powers are being transferred from the central government to schools, thus expanding the limits of school autonomy. Research suggests that there are many types of autonomy in the world, which can be characterized by two common features: the entity holding the decision-making power and the degree of decisionmaking freedom granted to schools in a certain area of activity. Researchers emphasize that school autonomization is a complex and contextual process (Keddie, 2015).It was noticed that greater school autonomy is usually accompanied by the centralized control of school performance (Brauckmann, Schwarz, 2014, p. 828). The process is complicated by the paradoxical relation between autonomy and accountability, because, on the one hand, the concept of school autonomy is focused on school freedom when choosing the parameters of the provision of services, taking into account local needs and possibilities; on the other hand, while giving more freedom to schools, the governments at the same time create various forms and standards of school accountability which limit the decisionmaking freedom of schools (Keddie, 2015). School is one of the elements of the entire education system, which is a subsystem of the entire social system of a state. Consequently, schools cannot exist in isolation and their activities have to be coordinated with other elements of the social system (Fullan, 1998; Kubiczek, 2002; Nowosad, 2008). S. Betz (1997, cited in Nowosad, 2008, p. 138) claims that an autonomous institution is perceived as an institution which is incorporated into the society, performs the functions defined in the existing social system, and coordinates its activities with other public interest groups. On the other hand, a school is an entity that provides educational services and has to coordinate its curriculum at the national level in order to achieve harmony of the entire system (Kubiczek, 2002; Zajda, 2006; Nowosad, 2008). Strict limits on school autonomy are determined by financial dependence on the authorities, especially since the education system consumes one of the largest shares of public resources. Hence, on the one hand, the school is required to provide high-quality and efficient services, be customer-orientated, promote a variety of educational services, create a competitive environment, support school self-governance, school democracy and the like. [...]. [From the publication]