School Autonomy and Leadership in Lithuania: Can School Leaders Help Schools to Take a Step forward ?

• Authors: Marlies Honingh , Jolanta Urbanovič
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In the literature, the school leader (head of school) is considered a key figure in strengthening school autonomy and stimulating the further development of the school organization. To improve the functioning of school leaders a centralized assessment of all candidates who want to become school leaders was introduced in Lithuania in 2011. The findings of a qualitative study into the first experiences with the assessment provide a deeper understanding of current school leadership problems in Lithuania. A comparison of these findings with the literature on school leadership and the assumptions underlying the recently changed school-leader appointment procedure reveal the lack of a clear vision on school leadership. Some general management competences - such as managing and motivating people, making decisions and strategic thinking - are underdeveloped.

Keywords

EN

school autonomy; school leader; assessments

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 61-78

Dates

published

2013-07-01

online

2013-09-07

Contributors

author

Marlies Honingh

• Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

author

Jolanta Urbanovič

• Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

References

• Caldwell, B. J. and J. M. Spinks. 1992. Leading the Self-Managing School. London: Falmer.
• Davies, B. and G. C. Hentschke. 1994. “School Autonomy: Myth or Reality - Developing an Analytical Taxonomy.” Educational Management & Administration 22(2), 96 - 103.
• Guthrie, J. W. and L. C. Pierce. 1990. “Th e International Economy and National Education Reform: A Comparison of Education Reforms in the United States and Great Britain.” Oxford Review of Education 16(2), 179 - 203.[Crossref]
• Hannaway, J. and J. Talbert. 1993. “Bringing Context into Eff ective Schools Research: Urban and Suburban Diff erences.” Education Administration Quarterly 29, 164 - 186.
• Heck, R. H. and P. Hallinger. 2005. “Th e Study of Educational Leadership and Management: Where does the Field Stand Today ?” Educational Management, Administration& Leadership 33(2), 229 - 244.
• Hooge, E. 1998. Ruimte voor beleid. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
• Huber, S. and D. Muijs. 2010. “School Leadership Eff ectiveness: Th e Growing Insight in the Importance of School Leadership for the Quality and Development of Schools and their Pupils.” In S. Huber (ed.). International Perspectiveson School Leadership. Oxford, UK, Springer, 57 - 77.
• Jackson, C., S. Blandford, E. Pranckuniene and M. Vildziuniene. 2011. “Time for Leaders: Lithuania’s Response to Changing Leadership and Learning in their Schools.” Professional Development in Education 37(5), 701 - 719.
• Karsten, S. 1998. “School Autonomy in the Netherlands: Th e Development of a New Administrative Layer.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 26(4), 395.
• Leithwood, K., A. Harris and D. Hopkins, D. 2008. Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. School Leadership & Management: FormerlySchool Organisation, 28(1), 27 - 42.
• Leithwood, K., D. Jantzi and R. Steinbach. 2002. “School Leadership and the New Right.” In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, G. Furman, P. Gronn, J. MacBeath, B. Mulford and K. Riley (eds). Second International Handbook of EducationalLeadership and Administration. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 849 - 880.
• Ministry of Culture and Education of Lithuania. 1994. General Concept of Educationin Lithuania. Vilnius: Leidybos Centras.
• Mulford, B. 2003. “Balance and Learning: Crucial Elements in Leadership for Democratic Schools.” Leadership and Policy in Schools 2(2), 109 - 124.
• Nicolaidou, M. Petridou, A. 2011. “Evaluation of CPD Programmes: Challenges and Implications for Leader and Leadership Development.” School Eff ectivenessand School Improvement 22(1), 51 - 85.
• NMVA. 2011. “Vadovų vertinimas” [Assessment of heads]. Nacionalinė mokyklų vertinimo agentūra [National Agency of School Assessment]. Available at http://www.nmva.smm.lt/ltl/content/informacija-0 (last accessed 20 june 2013.
• OECD. 2002. Reviews of National Policies for Education: Lithuania. Paris: OECD Publications.
• OECD. 1996. Secondary Education Systems in PHARE countries: Survey and ProjectProposals. Paris: OECD Publications.
• Sleegers, P. J.C. 1999. Leidinggeven aan leren. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universtiteit Nijmegen.
• Snipiene, R. and Alisauskas, R. 2010. Comenius Report on Lithuania: A EuropeanQualifi cation Network for Eff ective School Leadership. Lithuania: Ministry of Education and Science.
• Spicker, P. 2012. “‘Leadership’: A Perniciously Vague Concept.” International Journalof Public Sector Management 25(1), 34 - 47.
• Spillane, J. P. 2006. Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Spillane, J. P., R. Halverson and B. Diamond. 2004. “Towards a Th eory of Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 36(1), 3 - 34.
• Urbanovič J. 2011. Mokyklos autonomijos valdymo modelis [Th e Model of School Autonomy Management]. Doctoral dissertation, Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University.
• Urbanovic, J. 2009. “Aspects of Decentralization in Management Reforms of the Education System in Lithuania.” Public Policy and Administration 30, 102 - 113.
• Wenzel, H. 1997. “Autonomia szkoły a reforma oświaty.” In Z. Radwan (ed.). Rozwójorganizacyjny szkoły. Radom: Instytut Technologii Eksploatacji, 97 - 112.
• Želvys, R. 2004. “Development of Education Policy in Lithuania during the Years of Transformations.” International Journal of Educational Development 24(5), 559 - 571.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/nispa-2013-0003