[
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
