1. bookVolume 14 (2021): Edition 2 (December 2021)
Détails du magazine
Première parution
03 Aug 2009
2 fois par an
access type Accès libre

Unanticipated Consequences of Reforms in School Governance

Publié en ligne: 02 Dec 2021
Volume & Edition: Volume 14 (2021) - Edition 2 (December 2021)
Pages: 273 - 298
Détails du magazine
Première parution
03 Aug 2009
2 fois par an

This article argues that policy development and evaluations should not only incorporate whether and to what extent the policies achieve the intended goals, but should also take the unintended consequences of the policies into account. Based on the classic work of the sociologist Robert Merton, this article addresses the side-effects of attempts that have been made by the Lithuanian national government to improve on the governance of basic and high-schools. The intended goals of the policies concerned the increase of autonomy of school governance through the decentralization of responsibilities; increasing autonomy of and control over school governance; increasing market-driven governance, inducing competition and collaboration between schools, and altering the relation between service providers and recipients.

An in-depth analysis shows that there were serious side-effects. Due to the limited knowledge and capabilities at the local level the policies resulted in sub-optimal decision-making at the school level. As the transfer went hand in hand with national laws and strict regulations, stipulating the financing and content of education, setting standards and uniform requirements this reduced the ability of schools to make autonomous decisions and rather turned them into bodies implementing national standards. A decrease in cost-efficiency is visible as every school has to make its own plans; administrative burdens increase, and insufficient funding results in a transfer of shortages instead of transferring the responsibility to find solutions for those shortages, and instead of becoming more collegiate, the relation between schools becomes competitive resulting in distrust with all the expected negative consequences.

The plans to increase the autonomy of school governance could have developed rather differently if these unintended consequences had been taken into account beforehand. If such side-effects would be anticipated, that could have resulted in more realism, less one-sided and unfounded optimism and in the end, less frustration and demotivation.


Adnett, N. and P. Davies. 2000. “Competition and Curriculum Diversity in Local Schooling Markets: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Education Policy 15(2), 157 – 167. Search in Google Scholar

Altrichter, H., M. Heinrich and K. Soukup-Altrichter. 2014. “School Decentralization as a Process of Differentiation, Hierarchization and Selection.” Journal of Education Policy 29(5), 675 – 699. Search in Google Scholar

Andrews, C. W., & Vries, M. S. D. (2012). Pobreza e municipalização da educação: análise dos resultados do IDEB (2005 – 2009). Cadernos de pesquisa, 42, 826 – 847.10.1590/S0100-15742012000300010 Search in Google Scholar

Auerbach, J. S. 1983. Justice without Law. New York. Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Benson, J. K. (1982) ‘A Framework for Policy Analysis’ in D. L. Rogers and D. A. Whetten (eds) Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation, Ames, IO: Iowa State University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Berger, P. 1963. Invitation to sociology. New York: Doubleday. Search in Google Scholar

Bernhard, B. J. and F. W. Preston. 2004. “On the Shoulders of Merton: Potentially Sobering Consequences of Problem Gambling Policy.” American Behavioral Scientist 47(11), 1395 – 1405. Search in Google Scholar

Boudon, R. 2016. The Unintended Consequences of Social Action. London. Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Brauckmann, S. and A. Schwarz. 2014. “Autonomous Leadership and a Centralised School System.” International Journal of Educational Management 28(7), 823 – 841. Search in Google Scholar

Chouvy, P. A. 2013. “A Typology of the Unintended Consequences of Drug Crop reduction.” Journal of Drug Issues 43(2), 216 – 230. Search in Google Scholar

Christ, C. and M. Dobbins. 2016. “Increasing School Autonomy in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis of its Causes and Forms.” European Societies 18(4), 359 – 388. Search in Google Scholar

Cook, D. T. 2007. “School Based Management: A Concept of Modest Entitivity with Modest Result.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 20(3 – 4), 129 – 145. Search in Google Scholar

De Vries, M. S. 2000. “The Rise and Fall of Decentralization: A Comparative Analysis of Arguments and Practices in European Countries.” European Journal of Political Research 38, 193 – 224. Search in Google Scholar

De Vries, M. S. 2016. Calculated choices in policy-making: the theory and practice of impact assessment. London: Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Edelman, M. 1967. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana, IL.: University of Illinois Press. Search in Google Scholar

European Commission. 2012. “Supporting the Teaching Professions for Better Learning Outcomes.” Commission staff working document accompanying the document “Communication from the Commission Rethinking Education: Investing in Skills for Better Socio-Economic Outcomes.” Available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2012:0374:FIN:EN:PDF (last accessed 12-06-2018). Search in Google Scholar

Eurydice. 2007. School Autonomy in Europe: Policies and Measures. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit, European Commission. Search in Google Scholar

Eurydice. 2019. Administration and Governance at Central and / or Regional Level. National Education Systems. Eurydice. Available at https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/organisation-and-governance-44_en (last accessed 01-03-2021). Search in Google Scholar

Eurydice. 2021. Lithuania Overview. National Education Systems. Eurydice. Available at https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/lithuania_en (last accessed 20-03-2021). Search in Google Scholar

Freeman, E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman. Search in Google Scholar

Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of management review, 24(2), 191 – 205. Search in Google Scholar

Fullan, M. 1991. The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassell. Search in Google Scholar

Glatter, R. 2012. “Persistent Preoccupations: The Rise and Rise of School Autonomy and Accountability in England.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(5), 559 – 575. Search in Google Scholar

Hanushek, E. A., S. Link and L. Woessmann. 2013. “Does School Autonomy Make Sense everywhere ? Panel Estimates from PISA.” Journal of Development Economics 104 (September), 212 – 232. Search in Google Scholar

Howard, M. 2006. “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” S. Ill. ULJ 31, 451. Search in Google Scholar

Karlsen, G. E. 2000. “Decentralized Centralism; Framework for a Better Understanding of Governance in the Field of Education.” Journal of Educational Policy 15(50), 525 – 538. Search in Google Scholar

Keddie, A. 2015. “School Autonomy, Accountability and Collaboration: A Critical Review.” Journal of Educational Administration and History 47(1), 1 – 17. Search in Google Scholar

Knill, C., & Tosun, J. 2012. Public policy: A new introduction. London: Palgrave.10.1007/978-1-137-00800-8 Search in Google Scholar

Levin, B. and M. Fullan. 2008. “Learning about System Renewal.” Educational Management Administration and Leadership 36(1), 289 – 303. Search in Google Scholar

Lithuanian Official Statistics Portal. 2020. Statistical Yearbook of Lithuania: Education. Available at https://osp.stat.gov.lt/ (last accessed 20-03-2021). Search in Google Scholar

Lithuanian Trade Union of Heads of Educational Institutions. 2021. Internal working document with the results from the survey of Lithuanian school leaders. Search in Google Scholar

Lowi, T. J. 1972. Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298 – 310. Search in Google Scholar

Maroy, C. 2008. The new regulation forms of educational systems in Europe: towards a post-bureaucratic regime. In N. C. Soguel and P. Jaccard (eds.). Governance and Performance of Education Systems. Springer Netherlands 13 – 33.10.1007/978-1-4020-6446-3_2 Search in Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1936. “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.” American Sociological Review 1(6), 894 – 904. Search in Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Search in Google Scholar

Merton, R. K., & Merton, R. C. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: Simon and Schuster. Search in Google Scholar

Nowosad, I. 2008. Autonomia szkoly publicznej w Niemczech. Poszukiwania – konteksty – uwarunkowania. Zielona Gora: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogorskiego. Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 1995. Decision-Making in 14 OECD Education Systems. Paris: OECD Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2011. School autonomy and accountability: Are they related to student performance ? PISA in Focus. Special Edition of Education Policy 9. Available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5k9h362kcx9wen.pdf?expires=1632989453&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=122BE76FF0FB-227213D2AA605B2E3E3C (last accessed 17-09-2020). Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2017. Education in Lithuania: Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

OECD. 2018. PISA 2018 Insights and Interpretations. Paris: OECD Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Search in Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511807763 Search in Google Scholar

Page, E. C. 1991. Localism and Centralism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198277279.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert. 2000. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Preston, F. W. and R. I. Roots. 2004. “Introduction: Law and its Unintended Consequences.” American Behavioral Scientist 47(11), 1371 – 1375. Search in Google Scholar

Ritzer, G. 2000. Modern sociological theory (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Search in Google Scholar

Rondinelli, D. A. and G. S. Cheema. 1983. “Implementing Decentralization Policies.” In G. S. Cheema and D. A. Rondinelli (eds). Decentralization and Development. London: Sage, 9 – 34. Search in Google Scholar

ŠMSM. 2019a. Bendrųjų programų atnaujinimo gaires, patvirtintos Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo, mokslo ir sporto ministro 2019 m. lapkričio 18 d. įsakymu Nr. V-1317 [Guidelines for the renewal of general education curricula, approved by the Minister of Education, Science and Sports of the Republic of Lithuania in 2019. November 18 by order no. V-1317]. Search in Google Scholar

ŠMSM. 2019b. LIETUVA. Švietimas šalyje ir regionuose 2019. Mokinių pasiekimų atotrūkis. [LITHUANIA. Education in the country and regions 2019. Student achievement gap]. Vilnius: UAB INDIGO print. Search in Google Scholar

ŠMSM. 2020. LIETUVA. Švietimas šalyje ir regionuose 2020. Finansavimas. [LITHUANIA. Education in the country and regions 2020. Funding]. Vilnius: UAB Lietuvis. Search in Google Scholar

Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400831456 Search in Google Scholar

Turner, D. 2004. “Privatisation, Decentralization and Education in the United Kingdom: The Role of the State.” International Review of Education 50(3 / 4), 347 – 357. Search in Google Scholar

Urbanovič, J. and J. Navickaitė. 2016. Lyderystė autonomiškoje mokykloje [Leadership in Autonomous Schools]. Vilnius: MRU. Search in Google Scholar

Urbanovič, J., J. Navickaite and R. Daciulyte. 2019. “Autonomy, Collaboration and Competition: The Impact of Education Management Reforms which Aim to Increase School Autonomy on Relations between Schools.” NISPAceeJournal of Public Administration and Policy 12(1), 175 – 197. Search in Google Scholar

Vaitiekūnas, V., D. Sujetaitė and S. Grigaitė-Mockevičienė. 2020. Lietuvos regionų būklė ir savivaldybių savarankiškumo apimtis: esamos situacijos analizė [The state of Lithuanian regions and the extent of municipal autonomy: an analysis of the current situation]. Vilnius: Kurk Lietuvai projekto medžiaga. Search in Google Scholar

Vedung, E. 2010. Four waves of evaluation diffusion. Evaluation, 16(3), 263 – 277. Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, C. E. 1996. Education Reform and Social Change: Multicultural Voices, Struggles, and Visions. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc. Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, J. Q. 1989. Bureaucracy. New York. Basic Books. Search in Google Scholar

Woessmann, L., E. Ludemann, G. Schutz and M. R. West. 2007. “School Accountability, Autonomy, Choice, and the Level of Student Achievement: International Evidence from PISA 2003.” Education Working Papers 13, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. Search in Google Scholar

Zajda, J. 2006. “Decentralization and Privatization in Education: The Role of the State.” In J. Zajda (ed.). Decentralization and Privatization in Education: The Role of the State. Dordrecht: Springer 3 – 27.10.1007/978-1-4020-3358-2_1 Search in Google Scholar

Želvys, R. 2002. “Švietimo reforma decentralizacijos / centralizacijos požiūriu.” In R. Bruzgelevičienė et al. (eds). Tarp dviejų pradžių: Bandymas kurti regiono švietimo politiką. Vilnius: Knygiai, 23 – 28). Search in Google Scholar

Articles recommandés par Trend MD

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo