International Journal of Educational Management

Emerald Article: Do the managerial characteristics of schools influence their performance? Tommaso Agasisti, Francesca Bonomi, Piergiacomo Sibiano

Article information:
To cite this document: Tommaso Agasisti, Francesca Bonomi, Piergiacomo Sibiano, (2012),"Do the managerial characteristics of schools influence their performance?", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 26 Iss: 6 pp. 593 - 609 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541211251415 Downloaded on: 08-12-2012 References: This document contains references to 44 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 71 times since 2012. *

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSIDADE CATOLICA DE BRASILIA For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

Do the managerial characteristics of schools influence their performance?

Tommaso Agasisti, Francesca Bonomi and Piergiacomo Sibiano
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of governance and managerial characteristics of schools. More specifically, the aim is to individuate the factors that are associated to higher schools performances, as measured through student achievement. Design/methodology/approach The research is conducted by means of a survey in the private junior-secondary schools in one Italian region (Lombardy). Findings The results show that some features characterize the group of high-performing schools: the presence of structured tests to measure student achievement; specific services for disabled and foreign students; a high level of principals autonomy in strategic decision making; the use of assessment for defining strategies; and a high collaborative attitude among teachers. Research limitations/implications The present paper focused only on the private sector, because non-public schools benefit from a substantial autonomy in their organizational and managerial profile. Some of the indicators collected in this study could be included in the Italian standardized tests protocol, by creating an ad hoc schools questionnaire. Originality/value This paper answers to the call by educational research, applied economic research and present institutional assessment activities for a renewed desire to build reliable indicators about schools performance in Italy. In this paper an analytical framework is developed to collect relevant information about schools characteristics. Keywords Italy, Private education, Schools, Governance, Educational administration, Educational management, School effectiveness, School performance, School autonomy, School-based management, Evaluation Paper type Research paper

Managerial characteristics of schools 593

Received 3 March 2011 Revised 2 August 2011 Accepted 13 September 2011

It has been demonstrated that the quality of education depends more on the way schools are managed than on the availability of resources (De Grauwe, 2005, p. 275).

1. Introduction and objectives The problem of identifying the characteristics of effective schools is not new, and a long tradition of educational literature focusses on this objective (Creemers et al., 1989; Mortimore et al., 1988; Scheerens and Bosker, 1997). It is evident that some schools are better than others in their activity of transferring knowledge to their pupils. Since the publication of the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966), researchers have compared the performance of schools in order to establish the characteristics that can explain the differences in students results. Usually, school performance is measured in terms of student achievement averages, assuming that the primary goal of a school is to increase knowledge and competency among its pupils.

The paper benefited from comments by an anonymous referee. Any eventual errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

International Journal of Educational Management Vol. 26 No. 6, 2012 pp. 593-609 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0951-354X DOI 10.1108/09513541211251415

IJEM 26,6

594

The Coleman Report provoked fierce debate in the educational community, arguing that out-of-school factors (such as socio-economic variables, race, etc.) affect students achievement much more than in-school variables (such as expenditure, teachers qualifications, etc.). Since then, a significant research effort has been directed at achieving a better understanding of the potential role of schools in improving students learning outcomes. Academic research has, therefore, focussed on the role of schools in the educational process. In this perspective, schools are considered as organizations in which the educational process takes place. While a part of the research effort has focussed on understanding the effects of different educational styles and strategies, another stream of literature has considered the differences between schools managerial, organizational and governing structures (Teddlie and Reynolds, 2000). More precisely, literature regarding school process indicators has defined several dimensions that can be analyzed to understand what happens in schools (processes). Some of these dimensions have managerial and organizational aspects e.g. management style (e.g. leadership) (Sammons et al., 2010), participation in decision making (Doyle and Wells, 1996), school climate (Freiberg, 1999), assessment practices, teachers behavior, parents involvement in school initiatives, etc. Economists have also focussed their attention on student achievement and school performance determinants by investigating the impact of resources on the educational processes following the assumption that resources should be positively associated with higher school performance. However, literature adopting an economic approach to regarding students achievement determinants, conducted through the estimation of Educational Production Functions (EPFs), generally agrees with the Coleman Reports conclusions and shows that school characteristics and resources have little or no influence on students results (Hanushek, 1986, 2003, 2006). Recently, this stream of literature has argued that international comparisons show that institutions at system level and school level do have a determining influence on performance differentials (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2010). If this is true, it follows that schools cannot actively influence students results at all. Obviously, this casts serious doubts on the effectiveness of school-level policies, management and governance. However, some authors have suggested that methodological problems in estimating EPFs are at the basis of these conclusions (Krueger, 2003). Our companion hypothesis is that the problem relies on the way in which school characteristics are described and measured (Goldhaber and Brewer, 1997). Therefore, better school-level indicators should be developed in order to open the black box (Scheerens, 2000) and describe more precisely what actually happens in schools. This issue is particularly relevant for the Italian educational system. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, schools are considered as organizations, in which the school heads and principals have a managerial role, whereas in Italy, until approximately ten years ago, schools were regarded as branches of the Ministry of Education. Thus, school principals did not have proper managerial duties, and were only responsible for applying national laws and regulations. This situation has changed since the national law no. 59/1997 and the Presidential Decree No. 275/1999. These regulations made schools autonomous in a number of fields, including allowing them to define their own educational programs, organize their own activities and introduce innovations in teaching methods and initiatives. This reform process is consistent with the general trends of school-based management (SBM) strategies, which devolve to schools a series

of functions that were previously in the hands of central and local government (Dimmock, 1993). Despite these changes, there is still a centralized system, where principals and governing bodies have little power to manage and organize their schools (Poggi, 2005), because the aforementioned laws have taken time to apply and are still incomplete. One example of this is that school principals are not yet directly responsible for selecting teaching staff and deciding their salaries. However, some changes have been identified regarding organization, teaching and funding. Viteritti (2009) argues that the managerial staff in Italian schools have begun to play an increasingly important role in decision-making role, that managerial responsibilities have become more common among teachers and that managerial skills have developed in administrative offices. Regarding funding, schools receive money from families (tuition) as well as other income in addition to the ordinary funds provided by the Ministry of Education. Finally, Biondi et al. (2009) have found that new teaching initiatives have been implemented, such as: the use of ICT for teaching practices; the use of new interdisciplinary forms of teaching; and the introduction of assessment projects. Such movements imply heterogeneity and differentiation between schools, and the problem of identifying managerial and organizational characteristics related to higher school performance therefore becomes more important (Heck and Mayor, 1993; Gaziel, 1998). Moreover (and consequently), after many years of debate, in 2007/2008 for the first time a nation-wide exercise was developed in Italy to use standardized student achievement tests as a measure of school performance. This test is divided into two sections, Italian (reading, understanding and grammar) and mathematics. The test covered all the students enrolled in the final year of the 5,896 Italian junior secondary schools (age 14) a total of 574,652 students. The standardized tests were administered by a national agency (Invalsi National Committee for the Evaluation of the Educational System). After three years, this experience is still in its first steps. For instance, the results are not publicly available at school level, but only at a regional level, so they are not useful for families when making their educational choices. However, the exercise is the first step toward an accountability revolution for the Italian educational system. To proceed effectively in this direction, it is now necessary to improve the quality of the Invalsi experience. At least, two major improvements appear to be urgent: (1) (2) to add information regarding individual students socio-economic status (SES); and to collect information regarding school characteristics.

Managerial characteristics of schools 595

Moreover, in Italy (and more generally in Europe) the question of using public money efficiently has become a major issue and given the critical situation of public finances a renewed focus on this matter is now required. There is also increased attention on the role of performance indicators as a measure of the ability of single institutions to pursue strategic objectives (Simpson, 2009; Karsten et al., 2010). As a consequence, schools are now required to disclose their results. However, measures regarding school performances should be adequately accompanied by information regarding their relevant characteristics, to provide a complete and unbiased picture of their effectiveness and efficiency.

IJEM 26,6

596

To sum up, the different perspectives (educational research, applied economic research, current institutional evaluation activities and the call for more accountability) have motivated a renewed desire to build reliable indicators regarding school performance in Italy. In this paper we develop an analytical framework for collecting relevant information regarding school characteristics, with particular reference to their governance, policies and management structures. The main aim of the paper is to apply this framework to a sample of non-public schools located in the Italian Region of Lombardy, and test its validity and capacity to find organizational and managerial factors related to higher school performance (as measured through student achievement scores). Thus, the specific research question is: Are there any organizational and managerial school characteristics related to higher school performances (in terms of student achievement)? The choice of focussing on non-public schools is due to the strict regulations that constrain public schools as many of their potential policies (admission procedures, teacher selection and pay and teaching activities) are defined in detail by strict national rules. Comparisons with schools outside Italy show that Italian (public) schools have little autonomy on critical issues (Table I).

School only Selecting teachers for hire Germany Italy Spain Sweden UK USA OECD average Determining teachers salary increases Germany Italy Spain Sweden UK USA OECD average Formulating the school budget Germany Italy Spain Sweden UK USA OECD average

School and government

Government only

15.0 5.2 34.0 97.8 94.3 97.7 59.1 3.8 2.7 6.7 61.4 69.1 78.3 21.3 79.0 17.9 77.0 56.9 62.5 85.7 57.1

29.8 17.5 0.7 2.2 5.6 2.3 10.5 5.6 0.2 2.3 32.0 21.0 15.7 9.3 12.6 14.3 10.1 32.0 25.0 12.4 18.8

55.2 77.3 65.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 30.4 90.6 97.0 91.1 6.6 10.0 5.9 69.5 8.4 67.7 12.9 11.0 12.5 1.9 24.1

Table I. The autonomy of Italian schools, comparison with other OECD-PISA countries (2006)

Note: Percent of decisions power, for each category, assigned to school, school and government, and government only Source: Elaborations on OECD-PISA (2006) data

In terms of their organizational and managerial characteristics, there is not, therefore, enough variation between public schools to construct an analysis regarding how these factors influence school performance. Non-public schools, on the other hand, have much higher margins of autonomy, and their governance and management structures can vary widely. Therefore, while Italian public schools have experienced a long history of bureaucratic administration, private schools have developed a much higher level of managerial professionalism, as private school principals have always determined strategies and actions themselves. The choice of limiting the analysis to a single Italian region is justified by the research method adopted in this study as due to the lack of official, detailed and reliable administrative information regarding Italian school characteristics, we finally decided to conduct our own survey. The choice of limiting the analysis to a single Italian region is justified by the decision to conduct an independent survey due to the lack of official, detailed and reliable administrative information regarding Italian school characteristics. A sub-aim of this study is to propose a methodological extension of the national standardized achievement tests managed by the Italian National Evaluation Committee for the Educational System (Invalsi, 2009). Currently, his evaluation procedure has not collected any information regarding school characteristics, but the results presented in this paper strongly call for an improvement in this direction (as well as providing suggested guidelines). The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical framework; Section 3, the methodology and data; Section 4, the main results; and Section 5 a discussion of the said results and a conclusion. 2. Theoretical framework To define the set of dimensions that identify the organizational and managerial characteristics of schools, we have referred to the classification of theories regarding educational management (Bush, 2003). In order to select the variables reflecting the relevant dimensions of school management, it is important to rely on a theory that effectively categorizes this issue. Bush and Glover (2002) propose six categories of management models in the educational context: (1) formal model, where the focus is on the official and structural elements of organizations, assuming that hierarchical systems exist and managers use rational means to pursue agreed goals; collegial model, which assumes that organizations determine policy and make decisions through a process of discussion leading to consensus, especially in organizations composed mainly of professionals (e.g. teachers); political model, that characterizes decision making as a bargaining process between the subunits that make up the organization; subjective model, that focus on individuals rather than on the organization as a whole thus, the decision-making process is the result of the interaction between individuals rather than an output driven by rational procedures; ambiguity model, which stresses uncertainty and unpredictability in organizations. Here, organizational objectives are problematic and institutions experience difficulty in managing the decision-making processes; and

Managerial characteristics of schools 597

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

IJEM 26,6

(6)

finally, cultural model, which emphasizes informal aspects of organizations as it believes that the values and norms of individuals matter more than official elements in other words, the common values shared by the organizations staff are the key element in describing the organizations strategic actions.

598

It is evident and widely acknowledged in the literature that [y] the six management models [y] represent different ways of looking at educational institutions; each screen offers valuable insights into the nature of management in education but none provides a complete picture (Bush, 2006, p. 20). However, in general terms this paper assumes that school is an organization in which the cultural element is crucial, but also where formal decision making is established with teachers playing a strong role as professionals (collegial perspective). The cultural element is particularly important for the sample of schools considered in this paper, as private schools strongly define their identity through their educational project, which often has a religious connotation. Moreover, principals have the authority (and the autonomy) to organize the decisionmaking processes as well as promoting strategies and actions. Finally, teachers are the key actors in the educational process, so they can interact with the management team to define priorities (ends) and activities (means). The choice of these theoretical perspectives has strongly influenced the way in which the analysis of school characteristics has been conducted through the definition of indicators and variables. Following a general model of school functioning, where inputs (e.g. students background, teachers, resources, etc.) are used in educational processes (e.g. schools organization and management, activities, etc.) to obtain outputs (e.g. achievement, participation, etc.), this paper focusses on the processes in order to identify which organizational elements effectively improve school performance (Sweetland and Hoy, 2000). This is particularly valid when this performance can be quantitatively measured, for instance through achievement scores. Therefore, the importance of a system of indicators for measuring and describing school processes has been widely discussed in existing literature (Porter, 1991). It is important to specify that the present paper adopts a wide definition of managerial and governance characteristics, following the heuristic model of schools proposed by Lee et al. (1993):
The internal organization of schools, the central feature in the model, contains several subunits: (a) the organization of authority, which includes constructs tapping the structure of governance; the nature of administration; the underlying beliefs, values and explicit goals of the school [y]; (b) the organization of teachers and students work; (c) the social organization of schools (i.e. the structure of social relations)(p. 174).

In operational terms, school characteristics reflecting governance and management are grouped into four families of indicators: school activities; school climate (including interaction between the social and cultural environment); teachers; and governance. A fifth category includes a description of the schools funding resources. The list of the specific indicators selected for the study are illustrated in Table II. The choice of indicator families, as well as the definition of the specific indicators, is preliminary based on the study of two strands of the relevant literature: first, effective schools (Creemers et al., 1989; Scheerens, 2000) and second, school process indicators (Porter, 1991; Sweetland and Hoy, 2000). Moreover, the choice of the specific indicators was discussed with the relative school principals in a focus group (see Section 3 regarding methodology).

Groups of schools characteristics Schools activities

Subgroups Assessment and orienteering

Indicators Presence of structured tests to measure students achievement Practices of students selection based on ability tests Schools self-evaluation practices Presence of an internal evaluation committee within the school Consequences of the evaluation results (feedbacks and consequent interventions) Instruments used for orienteering activities Support services Extraordinary teaching activities Activities to improve integration with the class Improving ad hoc initiatives Use of traditional teaching facilities (boards, etc.) Use of innovative teaching facilities (e.g. multimedia) Duration of teaching hours Possibility of integrative teaching activities in the afternoon Active collaboration with students families Participation of students parents to schools initiatives Parents self-organized activities Parents formal associations and clubs Supplementary services such as transport, lunch, etc. Cultural and/or sport activities Participation to schools networks Collaboration with third parties for developing common initiatives Activities organized by third parties in the schools building(s) Episodes of violence realized by the schools students Teachers and parents involvement in defining formative plans Main criteria for the selection of teachers Teachers who attend training activities to improve their competences Typologies of teachers training Collaboration attitude among teachers Teachers turnover in the last years Teachers and parents involvement in the decisionmaking processes Head-teachers autonomy in strategic decision making Principals autonomy in strategic decision-makinga Other actors involved in the decision-making processes Schools expenditure composition

Managerial characteristics of schools 599

Services for disabled and foreign students

Supplementary information

Schools climate and interactions with the social and cultural environment

Teachers

Governance

Formal decisionmaking processes

Funding

Note: aThe head teacher is responsible for the schools teaching activities and quality; the principal is in charge of administrative management

Table II. The managerial and organizational schools characteristics investigated in the present study

IJEM 26,6

600

Some of the indicator groups have been widely discussed in literature regarding the organizational health of schools (Smith, 2002), following the idea that educational administration can play a role in influencing student performance (Hoy and Miskel, 1996). School climate has been defined in this context as a multidimensional construct including several aspects, such as academic emphasis (e.g. setting high standards for academic performance), the principals influence and autonomy, resource availability and support, etc. (Goddard et al., 2000; Hoy and Hannum, 1997; Hoy et al., 1990). In the present study, this concept has also been expanded to include the group of activities promoted and implemented by each school with its stakeholders (e.g. families, local governments, public and private organizations, etc.). The role of the interaction with the local area is especially important in the perspective of SBM (De Grauwe, 2005). 3. Methodology and data In the first stage, a questionnaire was drawn up covering the domain of relevant (or potentially relevant) school characteristics. An action research approach was adopted here, with the following phases: (1) a preliminary draft of the questionnaire was drawn up in compliance with academic literature regarding educational effectiveness and school process indicators (see theoretical framework in Section 2); then, the questionnaire was discussed in a focus group, consisting of five principals of private schools located in the focus area (Lombardy Region Italy). More specifically, five meetings (two hours each) were dedicated to this activity; an amended version of the questionnaire was tested with three schools, to verify its feasibility and consistency; finally, a further version of the questionnaire (corrected after the tests) was validated in a meeting with the members of the focus group; and the managerial and organizational school characteristics examined in the present study are illustrated in Table II, which also shows the specific indicators collected.

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

Once the questionnaire was defined, the second step was started, which involved sending the questionnaire to all the secondary junior non-public schools located in the Lombardy Region (Italy). The use of surveys to analyze school characteristics, instead of the use of large administrative datasets is common in educational management literature (e.g. Sweetland and Hoy, 2000), because this strategy allows soft managerial and organizational features to be measured, which are not usually recorded in administrative datasets. In our research, 42 schools responded, out of a population of 177. The response rate was o50 percent. Thus, the survey should be regarded with significant caution as a basis for precise quantitative statements about the population from which the sample was drawn (Diamond, 2000). In order to verify the generalizability of the survey a comparison of the descriptive statistics between the respondents and the population has been provided in appendix[1] (see Tables AI and AII). This shows a substantial consistency. Thus, the survey has been judged reliable, also given the nature of the questionnaire (survey by e-mail and/or postal mail).

The data collected were entered in an excel worksheet, and analyzed through preliminary descriptive statistics. An analytical essay was drawn up by including all the relevant information from this analysis. As the research question investigated the school organizational and managerial characteristics associated with higher performance (measured through student achievement), the sample of schools was divided into two groups based on their reported average achievement scores derived from the Invalsi standardized tests. The two groups were named high-performance schools (Invalsis average test score 460/100), and non-high-performance schools (Invalsis average test score o60/100). The latter sample also included schools, which did not report their Invalsi average test score (12 out of 42). However, when excluding this group of schools, the main results remain unaffected (details available from the authors). Then a specific analysis was conducted to establish whether the two groups were characterized by certain organizational and managerial features. This analysis was carried out in two stages: first, through a simple observation of the distribution of the answers and then by statistically testing the differences of these distributions. The present study aims to collect school-level information regarding the non-public junior secondary schools located in the Italian Region of Lombardy. Lombardy is located in the north of Italy, and is the most economically developed region in the country. Moreover, it accounts for about 15 percent of the Italian public educational system (in terms of number of students and teachers), and around 20 percent of the Italian private educational system (Table III).

Managerial characteristics of schools 601

Lombardy (a) Number of schools in 2007 Primary schools Public Private Secondary junior schools Public Private Secondary schools Public Private (b) Number of students in 2007 Primary schools Public Private Secondary junior schools Public Private Secondary schools Public Private

Italy

2,223 234 1,038 177 581 302 398,570 37,033 231,452 22,482 329,891 32,947

15,912 1,456 7,054 652 5,027 1,425 2,598,528 189,463 1,670,728 66,252 2,539,752 143,468

14.0 16.1 14.7 27.1 11.6 21.2 15.3 19.5 13.9 33.9 13.0 23.0 Table III. Number of (a) schools and (b) students, Lombardy Region and whole Italy, 2007

Source: Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), http://archivio.pubblica.istruzione. it/dg_studieprogrammazione/index_new.shtml

IJEM 26,6

This data refers to the scholastic year 2007/2008. The descriptive statistics regarding the sample analyzed in this paper are listed in Table IV. 4. Results Overall, the results of our study suggest that, among the many school-level factors examined, only a few are clearly related to school performance. Moreover, for more of these factors there was no, or very little difference between high-performance schools and non-high-performance schools, as shown in Table V. The three columns indicate whether is there a difference in the answers provided by the high-performance vs non-high-performance school principals. A relevant distinction is assumed to exist if the differences between distributions are higher than 20 percent (it is important to remember that the answers are categorical, e.g. high medium/high medium/low low). A partial difference exists if the difference in the distributions of the answers is between 10 and 20 percent. Last of all, if the heterogeneity in the distribution of the answers is lower than 10 percent, no difference is considered. However, there are some managerial and organizational characteristics that actually characterize high-performance schools (Figure 1): (i) the presence of structured tests to measure student achievement; (ii) the use of assessment practice results to identify consequent intervention; (iii) the widespread use of specific activities for students at risk (foreign and disabled); (iv) a high collaborative attitude among teachers; and (v) a high level of autonomy in strategic decision making on the part of the principal. The distributions of the two groups characteristics over these five elements are given in the Table VI. Moreover, a further check has been conducted to test the statistical differences between the two distributions, by means of: (1) (2) a w2-test for independence (Table VII); and a non-parametric Kolgomorov-Smirnov test for the equality of the distributions (Table VIII).

602

The results seem consistent with the findings of a wide range of literature, recently surveyed by Kyriakides et al. (2010). Using the theoretical framework called the dynamic model of educational effectiveness (Creemers and Kyriakides, 2006, 2008) the authors argue that the main school-level factors related to higher school results are: (1) (2) the schools policy on teaching (i.e. on improving teaching quality); and the schools policy on creating a learning environment (i.e. on creating a valuable focus on achievement).

Schools characteristics Total number of students Foreign students with language difficulties Disabled students Student who repeated one or more years Number of teachers Number of classes Enrolments 2007/2008 Enrolments 2006/2007 Enrolments 2005/2006

Mean 195.9 0.93% 2.25% 2.35% 22.4 8.3 168.7 159.5 160.2

Median 145.5 0.00% 2.00% 1.00% 16.5 6.0 129.0 115.0 100.0

SD 180.6 0.02 0.02 0.03 19.6 6.9 176.7 172.0 188.3

Minimum 34 0% 0% 0.00% 8 3 27 25 14

Maximum 937 7% 7% 9.80% 102 34 886 870 1,002.00

Table IV. The sample of private junior secondary schools examined in this study

Indicators Presence of structured tests to measure students achievement Practices of students selection based on ability tests School self-evaluation practices Presence of an internal evaluation committee within the school Consequences of the evaluation results ( feedbacks and consequent interventions) Instruments used for orienteering activities Support services Extraordinary teaching activities Activities to improve integration with the class Improving ad hoc initiatives Use of traditional teaching facilities Use of innovative teaching facilities Duration of teaching hours Possibility of integrative teaching activities in the afternoon Possibility of 36 curriculum hours Active collaboration with students families Participation of students parents to schools initiatives Parents self-organized activities Parents formal associations and clubs Supplementary services such as transports, etc. Supplementary services such as lunch, etc. Cultural and/or sport activities Participation to schools networks Collaboration with third parties for developing common initiatives Activities organized by third parties in the schools building(s) Episodes of violence realized by the schools students Teachers involvement in defining formative plans Parents involvement in defining formative plans Main criteria for the selection of teachers Teachers who attend training activities to improve their competences Typologies of teachers training Collaboration attitude among teachers Teachers turnover in the last years Teachers and parents involvement in decision-making processes Head-teachers autonomy in strategic decision-making Principals autonomy in strategic decision making Other actors involved in the decision-making processes Schools expenditure composition

High differences X

Partial No differences differences

Managerial characteristics of schools 603

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Table V. Differences between highperformance schools and non-high-performance schools: an overview

Note: In italic, those characteristics which are related to high-performance status

According to this view, the determinants that emerged as positive in our study can be easily classified into the two groups: (i) and (iii) in the former, (ii) and (iv) in the latter. We would also suggest that (v) (high principals autonomy) is a key requirement, as it enables the principal to pursue the schools strategy and policies effectively.

IJEM 26,6

Structured tests to measure students achievement

604

High principals autonomy in strategic decision making

High-performance schools

Specific services for disabled and foreign students

Figure 1. Main characteristics of the high-performance schools

Real consequences of the evaluation results (feedbacks and consequent interventions)

High collaborative attitude among teachers

Characteristics High-performance schools (1) Presence of structured tests to measure students achievement (2) The use of evaluation practices results to identify consequent interventions (3a) The widespread use of integrative activities for foreign students at risk (3b) The widespread use of integration activities for disabled students at risk (4) Collaborative attitude among teachers (5) Principals autonomy in strategic decision-making Non-high-performance schools (1) Presence of structured tests to measure students achievement (2) The use of evaluation practices results to identify consequent interventions (3a) The widespread use of integrative activities for foreign Table VI. students at risk Differences between high- (3b) The widespread use of integration activities for disabled performance schools and students at risk non-high-performance (4) Collaborative attitude among teachers schools (5) Principals autonomy in strategic decision-making

High Quite high Low No Missing (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

17.6 58.8 17.6 35.3 47.1 58.8 12.0 28.0 20.0 32.0 4.0 32.0

52.9 41.2 5.9 29.4 52.9 23.5 28.0 56.0 24.0 48.0 56.0 40.0

11.8 11.8 0.0 11.8 17.6 0.0 17.6 40.0 16.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.9 0.0 64.7 17.6 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 56.0 16.0 0.0 4.0

5. Discussion and concluding remarks The findings of this paper show that some organizational and managerial characteristics of schools are associated with higher performance (in terms of student achievement). However, this does not mean that the introduction of these features will improve school performance automatically, as the contexts and

background are different in the various settings in which each school operates. The way in which any school characteristic will impact on its performance is different, and mediated by several school-specific identity, culture and structure issues. As pointed out by De Grauwe (2005): Not all schools have equal capacities; this means that each school needs to be treated as an individual institute (p. 284). Nevertheless, the results shown in Section 4 can provide a useful guideline for school managers and administrators who would like to attempt some changes in their institutions activities and structures. Some innovative ideas and approaches may also be derived from a comparison between real experiences and the evidence provided in this study. The results of this study also have some interesting implications. First, they call for more care when designing large-scale assessment exercises, like the Italian standardized Invalsi tests, or international experiences like OECD-PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, etc. Usually, the analyses of their results made by economists of education indicate that school resources and characteristics play a minor role. The present study also indicates that a potential measuring issue exists, as describing what really happens in schools could be described more accurately. It is important to remember here that a wide amount of educational effectiveness research (EER) literature has studied in detail the potential role of schools in (partly) explaining student achievement scores. As economists, we would ask for more integration between the two streams of literature (economics of education and EER); Vignoles et al. (2000, pp. 106-7) have already pointed out Future empirical research should be more closely linked to educational theory. [y] In particular, education production function

Managerial characteristics of schools 605

Characteristics (1) Presence of structured tests to measure students achievement (2) The use of evaluation practices results to identify consequent interventions (3a) The widespread use of integrative activities for foreign students at risk (3b) The widespread use of integration activities for disabled students at risk (4) Collaborative attitude among teachers (5) Principals autonomy in strategic decision making

w2 13.4 14.6 16.2 6.6 2.3 8.5

Critical value 9.4 7.8 9.4 9.4 7.8 9.4

Statistical difference (95%) Yes Yes Yes No No Weak Table VII. Statistical test on the differences between highperformance schools and non-high-performance schools: w2-test

Characteristics (1) (2) (3a) (3b) (4) (5)

p-value Equality of (KS test) distribution 0.394 0.291 0.974 0.988 0.907 0.537 No No No No No No Table VIII. Statistical test on the differences between highperformance schools and non-high-performance schools: KolgomorovSmirnov (KS) test

Presence of structured tests to measure students achievement The use of evaluation practices results to identify consequent interventions The widespread use of integrative activities for foreign students at risk The widespread use of integration activities for disabled students at risk Collaborative attitude among teachers Principals autonomy in strategic decision making

IJEM 26,6

606

models need to relate the theories of school organization, teaching and learning. [y] This requires interdisciplinary work between economists and educational researchers, in particular those researching teaching, learning and school effectiveness. Second, with specific reference to Italy, these results offer the recent experience of the Italian National Evaluation Committee for the Educational System (Invalsi, 2009) a number of suggestions. The national standardized tests are useful for understanding more about the characteristics of successful students, but the lack of information about their schools hinders the understanding of the schools role in their performance. Some of the indicators collected in this study could be included in the Invalsi standardized test protocol (e.g. by creating an ad hoc school questionnaire). Lastly, a policy reflection should be undertaken regarding the autonomy of Italian public schools. The present paper focusses on the private sector because non-public schools benefit from substantial organizational and managerial autonomy. On the contrary, public schools are constrained by strict public regulations (e.g. they do not have the autonomy to select teachers and establish salaries). Therefore, because this paper shows that some organizational and managerial processes are actually related to higher performances, then public schools should also be analyzed in order to establish whether the level of school autonomy affects their capacity of schools to create new tools and practices. As stated in the introduction, even a minimum level of school autonomy lead to some change. PISA data regarding low Italian students performance has also put Italian public schools under increased scrutiny and pressure (Bracci, 2009). Therefore, investigating public schools too, may give interesting insights about the capacity of schools to create their own strategies. If this is the case, new reforms aiming at increasing autonomy for public schools should be implemented in order to foster innovation.
Note 1. The variables chosen in the comparison was: total number of students, percentage of foreign students with language difficulties, percentage of disabled students and percentage of students who repeated one or more years. References Biondi, G., Mosa, E. and Panzavolta, S. (2009), Autonomia e innovazione: scenari possibili tra teoria e pratica, Working Paper No. 16, Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli, Torino, February. Bracci, E. (2009), Autonomy, responsibility and accountability in the Italian school system, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 293-312. Bush, T. (2003), Theories of Educational Management, 3rd ed., Sage, London. Bush, T. (2006), Theories of educational management, available at: http://cnx.org/content/ m13867/latest/ (accessed March 3, 2011). Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2002), School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, E., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F. and York, R. (1966), Equality of Educational Opportunity, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Creemers, B. and Kyriakides, L. (2006), A critical analysis of the current approaches to modeling educational effectiveness: the importance of establishing a dynamic model, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 347-66.

Creemers, B. and Kyriakides, L. (2008), The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness: A Contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in Contemporary Schools, Routledge, London. Creemers, B., Peters, T. and Reynolds, D. (Eds) (1989), School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisee. De Grauwe, A. (2005), Improving the quality of education through school-based management: learning from international experiences, Review of Education, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 269-87. Diamond, S.S. (Ed.) (2000), Reference guide on survey research, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd ed., The Federal Judicial Center, Washington, DC, pp. 229-76. Dimmock, C. (1993), School-Based Management and School Effectiveness, Routledge, London. Doyle, J.L. and Wells, S. (1996), LMS: the managerial climate and its effects on the interpersonal climate of the school, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 32-41. Freiberg, H.J. (Ed.) (1999), School Climate: Measuring, Improving and Sustaining Healthy Learning Environments, Falmer Press, London. Gaziel, H. (1998), School-based management as a factor in school effectiveness, International Review of Education, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 319-33. Goddard, R.D., Sweetland, S.R. and Hoy, W.K. (2000), Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in middle schools: a multilevel analysis, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 683-702. Goldhaber, D.D. and Brewer, D.J. (1997), Why dont schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 505-23. Hanushek, E.A. (1986), The economics of schooling: production and efficiency in public schools, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 1141-77. Hanushek, E.A. (2003), The failure of input-based schooling policies, The Economic Journal, Vol. 113 No. 485, pp. F64-F98. Hanushek, E.A. (2006), School resources, in Hanushek, E.A. and Welch, F. (Eds), Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 2, North-Holland, Oxford, pp. 865-908. Hanushek, E.A. and Woessmann, L. (2010), The economics of international differences in educational achievement, Working Paper No. 15949, NBER, Cambridge, MA, April. Heck, R.H. and Mayor, R.A. (1993), School characteristics, school academic indicators and student outcomes: implications for policies to improve schools, Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 143-54. Hoy, W.K. and Hannum, J. (1997), Middle school climate: an empirical assessment of organizational health and student achievement, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 290-311. Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (1996), Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J. and Bliss, J.R. (1990), Organizational health, climate, and effectiveness: a comparative study, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 260-79. Invalsi (2009), La prova nazionale al termine del primo ciclo a.s. 2007/08, available at: www.invalsi.it/EsamiDiStato/documenti/Rapporto_master_31_10_2008_finale_pdf (accessed March 3, 2010).

Managerial characteristics of schools 607

IJEM 26,6

Karsten, S., Visscher, A.J., Dijkstra, A.B. and Veenstra, R. (2010), Towards standards for the publication of performance indicators in the public sector: the case of schools, Public Administration, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 90-112. Krueger, A. (2003), Economic considerations and class size, The Economic Journal, Vol. 113 No. 485, pp. F34-F63.

608

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Panayiotis, A. and Demetriou, D. (2010), A synthesis of studies searching for school factors: implications for theory and research, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 807-30. Lee, V.E., Bryk, A.S. and Smith, J.B. (1993), The organization of effective secondary schools, Review of Research in Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 171-226. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Ecob, R. and Stoll, R. (1988), School Matters: The Junior Years, Open Books, Wells. OECD-PISA (2006), PISA 2006, Science Competencies for tomorrows world, Vol. 1, Data, OCSE, Paris. Poggi, A. (2005), La legislazione regionale sullistruzione dopo la revisione del Titolo V, Le Regioni, No. 5, pp. 927-38. Porter, A.C. (1991), Creating a system of school process indicators, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 13-29. Sammons, P., Gu, Q., Day, C. and Ko, J. (2010), Exploring the impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 83-101. Scheerens, J. (2000), Improving School Effectiveness, Unesco, Paris. Scheerens, J. and Bosker, R. (1997), The Foundations of Educational Effectiveness, Elsevier, New York, NY. Simpson, H. (2009), Productivity in public services, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 250-76. Smith, P.A. (2002), The organisational health of high schools and student proficiency in mathematics, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 98-104. Sweetland, S.R. and Hoy, W.K. (2000), School characteristics and educational outcomes: toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 703-29. Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (Eds.), (2000), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research, Falmer Press, London. Vignoles, A., Levacic, R., Walker, J., Machin, S. and Reynolds, D. (2000), The Relationship Between Resource Allocation and Pupil Attainment: A Review, Crown Copyright, Norwich. Viteritti, A. (2009), A Cinderella or a princess? The Italian school between practices and reforms, Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 10-32.

Further reading Buratti, C. (1995), Autonomia scolastica e quasi-mercati dellistruzione, Politica Economica, Vol. XI No. 1, pp. 129-48.

Appendix
Total number of students Mean Population Sample Median Population Sample SD Population Sample Minimum Population Sample Maximum Population Sample Disabled students Foreign students with language difficulties Students who repeated one or more years

Managerial characteristics of schools 609

140.9 195.9 121.0 145.5 101.2 180.6 5 34 1,129 937

1.90% 2.25% 1.35% 2.00% 0.02 0.02 0.00% 0.00% 19.51% 7.00%

1.97% 0.93% 0.72% 0.00% 0.04 0.02 0.00% 0.00% 38.46% 7.00%

1.74% 2.35% 1.06% 1.00% 0.02 0.03 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 9.80%

Table AI. The comparison of the descriptive statistics between the population and the respondents

t-test Total number of students Disabled students (%) Foreign students with language difficulties (%) Students who repeated one or more years (%) 1.2186 0.8718 1.7580 1.5687

Statistical difference (95%) No No No No Table AII. The statistical test about the difference between the respondents and the population: t-test

About the authors Tommaso Agasisti is Assistant Professor in the Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano (Italy). His research interests deal with the Economics and Management of Education; more specifically, he worked on the efficiency of educational institutions, funding models in educational systems and the socio-economic determinants of students and schools performances. He teaches Economics of Education in the Master of University Management of the Business School MIP-Politecnico di Milano. Among his latest publications: Agasisti, T. (2011), How competition affects schools performances: does specification matter?, Economics Letters, 110(3), 259-261. Tommaso Agasisti is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: tommaso.agasisti@polimi.it Francesca Bonomi is a Researcher in the Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano (Italy). Her research interests deal with the economics and management of education. She has been working on regional governance and funding of higher education, especially universities from an Italian region (Lombardy). Piergiacomo Sibiano is a PhD Student in the Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano (Italy). His PhD thesis deals with organization and funding of educational systems. More specifically, he has been working on: international comparisons between educational systems, especially on Italy and England; policies for families and students (such as voucher programs); and school autonomy and governance. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints