WP2. Comparative Review of school governance structures and approaches

1. WP2. Comparative Review of school governance structures and approaches

2. tasks • i) constructing an analytical framework • ii) carrying out a systematic review of what is being done in the field of senior teacher, governor and other school stakeholder training and in education for democratic citizenship • iii) developing a governance typology.

3. The data searches cover two content types 1. key published material • policy reviews and impacts analysis (e.g. EC impacts assessment on improving the quality of teaching ); • Studies (e.g. Insight Observatory Study; UK OFSTED Report; Huddleston, 2007; Birzea, 2005; Harrison and Baumgartel, 2002); • research projects funded under EC and national programmes (e.g. SPICE project ). 2. ‘Grey’ literature • (unpublished research reports; conferences; working papers; commissioned reports; web-based content; theses and dissertations)

4. Deliverable • Report on school governance in the EU Comparative assessment of state of the art on schoolgovernance in EU states, includingwhatisbeingdone in Education for DemocraticCitizenship (EDC). Particular focus on senior teacher, governor and schoolboard training. providestypology of schoolgovernancesystems and training approaches. Identifies gaps in knowledge base. Available on-line and printedExecutiveSummary version.

5. Report content 1. National context • Practices and organisations (universities, institutions providing teacher training, teachers’ unions) dealing with school governance, education policies and teacher training

6. Report content 2. Policy environment • Main features of the national policy documents and strategies concerning education policies on school governance? • Existing teacher / school governors competencies frameworks • Reasons - underlying dynamics that cause stuckness or reinforce change Teacher training (formal and informal) • Change “agents” (top down, bottom up) • Which are the actors? Constrains to change. Identifying the obstacles; • Central laws and regulations reflecting the models of governance of schools • Professional development opportunities • Performance management, assessment and evaluation issues • Recruiting of school governors • Current state of the art in developing emotional intelligence, particularly in schools • Evidence of stuckness in schools and how does this occur

7. Report content 3. Levels of training (teacher, governor, school board) • General status of programs • Main features of programs • Types of programs • Methods of implementation • Organisation of programs • Non formal and informal opportunities for teacher training (i.e. platforms, communities, local organisations)

8. Countries reviewed • BELGIUM • FRANCE • GREECE • IRELAND • LITHUANIA • PORTUGAL • SPAIN • UK

9. Belgium • Decentralized system • Flemish, French, German speaking (quite a difficult report ;-)

10. Belgium – Flemish community • Active on school – local level • School board • School counsil • Principal responsibilities • “Unofficial” teacher / school governors competencies frameworks • No information on emotional intelligence

11. Belgium – French community • Active on school – local level • Local consultation committee • School plan • “Unofficial” teacher / school governors competencies frameworks • No information on emotional intelligence

12. FRANCE • centralized in terms of powers and standardized in school provision. • relative autonomy framed by national rules • Conseild'école (School Council) • inspecteur de l'Éducationnationale (IEN - school inspector) • school project (secondary schools) • no official teacher or school governors competencies frameworks • no official policy regarding the development of emotional intelligence in schools

13. GREECE • All schools are supervised at central level by Advisory and Scientific Services and Boards at the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, Culture and Sport. • considerable number of formal qualifications described mainly concerning educational management experience and studies profile. An important one is seniority. • the central government has adopted a rather “control-and-provide” role, due to the “fiscal crisis”. For the last two decades no mutual understanding (exchanging information and forming feedback procedures] between the central government and the actual situation in schools all over the country. • no official teacher or school governors competencies frameworks • no official policy regarding the development of emotional intelligence in schools

14. IRELAND • Irish primary schools are mostly regulated by the State through the Dept of Education and Skills with schools being administered by a board of management appointed by established patron bodies. • Secondary schools are privately owned and managed • Comprehensive and Community (CC) schools • Board of Management • Board of Management Training programme - Leadership Development in Schools • no official teacher or school governors competencies frameworks • no official policy regarding the development of emotional intelligence in schools

15. LITHUANIA • National School Leadership Development Programme • Need of a national school leadership framework • The School Council • The Teachers' Council • Description of the Professional Competences of Teachers (Description) regulates the competence groups, competences and abilities related with the professional activities of teachers • requirements for competences and professional skills of school principals are regulated by decree • Emotional intelligence is part of the Competencies of Lithuanian school heads according to Certification Standard

16. PORTUGAL • educational authorities only exist at the national level • Up to 2008, school were governed by an “executive council” elected by the teachers. From 2008 on, schools are governed by a “director” elected by the “general council” were teachers no longer are in majority and were the municipalities have an important role. • schools have been grouped under one board for the sake of fiscal efficiency • There are no competencies frameworks for school governors. As for teachers, there is a national statute for public school teachers but it does not establish a clear professional framework • no official policy regarding the development of emotional intelligence in schools

17. SPAIN • the competences in terms of Education are shared between the State General Authority (Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport) and the Autonomous Communities (Regional Ministries or Departments of Education) • Regional Ministries of Education or the municipal education institutes • school development plan • School Yearly General Programme • School Board • Competencies frameworks are interlinked with the training as every teacher is obliged to have a university degree which provides a concrete competence framework • no available information regarding the development of emotional intelligence in schools

18. UK • The 2011 Education Bill sought to reduce bureaucracy in education. • Education in England is overseen by the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Local authorities (LAs) take responsibility for implementing policy for public education and state schools at a local level. • In Scotland, the schooling system is supervised by the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) which acts in cooperation with the local authorities who provide schooling within their areas. • In Wales, the overarching trend since devolution from centralised UK government in 1998 has been that of comprehensive, community-based schooling. • Academy Trust • Emotional intelligence is not directly embedded in teaching practice • National Professional Qualification for Headship

19. Implications for IGUANA STRENTHS • Large direct target group (teachers - school heads) • Little is known conceptually or in terms of research and practice about stuckness • Much to be said about emotional intelligence WEAKNESSES • Diverse and complex nature of the school system • Level of "readiness" • Economic conditions...