OFSTED (cited in Wilkins) adopts the view that a good school must be offering good value for money. Value-for-money notions are greatly connected to the resources and financial decision-making as it is an indicator of schools effectiveness and efficiency related to its annual budget and cost per student (Glover and Levačič). The way schools’ headteachers and staff manage resources can secure the value-for-money. Glover and Levačič indicate the need for a more cohesive system of funding where schools’ priorities can be identified and objectives will be planned in prior. School developments and initiatives must be closely linked with resource decisions. Thus schools will achieve better value-for-money.
In general school funding is a complex issue as funds are not the only determinate factor of educational success. Distinguishing school resource management as a separate field of enquiry from school management and leadership is definitely problematic. Many factors within a school can be ‘responsible’ for effectiveness and efficiency (teachers’ ethos, willingness, creativity and motivation). Same funds in difference contexts will probably bring different results (Wilkins. 2002). The extent to which financial resources are related to learning is in doubt.
Researchers face many difficulties in determining the link between financial management and learning. School’s funding is formularized around historical patterns of spending as government’s sources of funding schools are not permanent and this causes further problems in research. Wilkins infers that ‘the linking of resources to learning appears to be still at a tentative stage of development at the highest level of policy-making’. There needs to be further development in central funding formula and government’s strategies of resource allocation in order to link more effectively resources to learning. According to Campbell (2001, cited in Wilkins) ‘the proposed and actual educational benefits of school based management require ongoing research’.
Part B
Education reform in recent decades brought changes in the models of accountability in order to direct and assess schools’ performance. Within any educational institution headteachers and staff are accountable to stakeholders (government, community, parents, and students) for the quality of their services. The fact that financial resources are delegated to schools raised the issue of control in the form of accountability. Schools are responsible to a number of people who need to know whether the resources allocated to education are efficiently deployed. Those who enhance school financially are usually interested on measurable criteria like exams. In essence the issue of accountability is inevitably linked to performance indicators. Annual tests, reports, tests about children’s mastery of the curriculum and other evaluation tools are the most common ways for schools to illustrate whether or not they succeeded in meeting the expectations of those being accountable to. Different models of resource management reflect various accountability models.
School-based accountability systems focus on the evaluation of each school (test scores). ‘The state is interested in whether a school’s students have gained a year’s worth of knowledge for a year’s worth of work’ (Ladd and Zelli, 2002). ABC’s program in North Carolina is one example of such government initiatives. Principal-agent accountability systems aim to increase students’ performance. The principal (policy makers) hire an agent (school principals) to perform work to raise students achievement (Gibbons, 1998; Kreps,1990; Milgrom & Roberts, 1992) (cited in Ladd and Zelli). Schools have more flexibility and incentives are provided to staff to meet the state goals as they usually do not share the same objectives as the policy makers. If the schools reach these goals the ABC’s program give them new budgetary and managerial tools. They also get financial rewards or sanctions accordingly. However such accountability systems are powerful policy tools and must be used with caution from policy makers.
Miller and Rose (1990:8, cited in Taylor et al) address the issues of funding mechanics and accountability relations as ‘technologies of government’ to ‘shape normalise and instrumentalise the conduct, through, decisions and aspirations of others in order to achieve the objectives they consider desirable’. Through these mechanisms the government aim to influence school’s practise by applying a technocratic accountability model. Such reforms tighten government’s control by increasing reporting. Schools attempt to link inputs and outputs in their reports.
Belfield and Thomas refer to the public sector accountability which is concerned for both management and provision outcomes. Such accountability mechanisms are employed by the FE Funding Council (Belfield and Thomas) to ensure that education of a particular quality is being delivered. The importance given to this model is the process which is an indicator of the college’s performance.
Finally the rational model presented by Glover and Levačič gives guidelines to schools in order to reach the state’s expected goals. Schools are based on these objectives and the given resources to prepare their plan. Their results are evaluated through a national system of school inspection operated by the OFSTED. Although schools seem to have the flexibility to apply their own plan they still have to follow states guidelines in order to succeed in their evaluation.
To conclude the accountability model prevailed within my professional context is quite different to those referred above. Schools in Cyprus are supervised by the ministry through inspectors who evaluate schools’ performance with respect to the objectives determined centrally. The professional accountability model dominates in public schools as the responsibility for policy decisions and their implementation lies on the staff by acting together for the best interest of the students (Simkins, 2003).
Part C
Different research methodologies were applied in researching the relationship between resources decision-making and learning effectiveness in order to reach valid and reliable conclusions. Apart from the research results about resource effectiveness much attention must be given to the processes as well. The analysis of the referred articles indicates the important contribution of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in researching resource effectiveness.
Wilkins and Taylor et al. apply a qualitative approach in their research. A case study approach is adopted by Wilkins in obtaining headteachers’ perceptions about the funding issues of their school and in particular the relationship between resourcing decisions and educational aims. However findings from case studies ‘are rarely generalizable, precisely because they are mostly related to specifics, uniqueness, interpretation and subjectivity’ (S.G.2-p.8). Taylor et al. (2002) elicit data through interviews at the district and school level in order to present the effects of techniques of financial governance. Qualitative studies focus in ‘how understandings are formed, how meanings are negotiated…’ (RME-p.55). Thus they may contribute substantially in researching resource effectiveness from the perspective of those involved in financial decision-making.
On the other hand Belfield and Thomas and Ladd and Zelli applied a quantitative approach. Two data sets were used by Belfield and Thomas to describe the production function relationship in colleges. A quantitative approach was considered to be appropriate as their sample was large (190 colleges). This approach is considered to be also appropriate in Ladd and Zelli’s research as it is based on two waves of survey data from a sample of 70 elementary school principals. Surveys can be used to investigate a wide range of research questions (S.G.2-p.11) and their findings are usually generalizable.
Glover and Levačič applied a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. They use school inspection reports to examine ‘the extent to which schools were implementing a ‘rational-technicist’ model of resource management, and the association between adoption of this model and the educational effectiveness in schools’. Using documents is ‘the next best thing to personal involvement’ (Glover and Levačič), it is easy to be accessed, can be applied to a large sample and does not demand much time and funds. The documents analysed contain both qualitative and quantitative information. For the purposes of their research they ‘quantify the qualitative’ using classificatory systems to use statistical analysis. The combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is, according to Gorard (2002) (S.G.1-p.63), a good research technique as it ‘satisfies most reasonable concerns about validity and methodological consistency’ (RME-p.243).
The above analysis indicates the importance of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Qualitative studies can only be applied to small samples, thus their results are not generalizable, but give valuable insights about peoples’ everyday lives. On the other hand quantitative studies can gather information from larger samples, reach generalizable conclusions but the contact with these samples is limited. Quantitative research methods have been accused for targeting solely the outcome while paying no attention to the processes used (RME, p.16, p.55). On the other hand it is argued that “qualitative studies singly cannot provide grounds for generalizing across cases” (RME, p.66). Each research approach has its strengths and weaknesses but can contribute considerably to the existing knowledge. A researcher has to be skilful in choosing the best approach according to the issue he/she aims to explore. To conclude as Gorard notes (S.G.1-p.63) ‘qualitative/quantitative distinctions are rarely meaningful, mainly because in practise good research techniques involve both’.
Part D
The effectiveness of most activities within a school is directly connected to the management of resources allocated for its implementation. The articles analysed present different models of financial resource management. This last part of the assignment will explore resource management practise in the context of a public primary school in Cyprus.
The funding model in Cyprus is similar to the technocratic approach due to the centralization of decision-making (Burris, 1993, cited in Taylor et al.). The Ministry of education determines the aim and purpose of education and the content through the National Curriculum. Further more the government determines the school budget, the teachers’ posts and the accountability models. Schools’ financial management is controlled centrally. No autonomy is given to schools as they do not have the authority to deploy any funds. Schools’ funding refers to equipment for specific subjects (e.g. maths) and material necessary to students (e.g. exercise books). As Taylor et al. argue such ‘financial control mechanisms are seen as an efficient means of governing at a distance’.
Some funds are allocated to schools at the beginning of each school year based on pupils’ number. This amount is usually small and is used for school’s operational needs. Fortunately external stakeholders (the local community and the Parents Committee) provide sometimes the funds to support specific needs which are not fully covered by the resources provided centrally. The allocation of these resources is driven by school’s perceived needs as they are addressed by the headteacher and staff. For example the school libraries were very poor. Thus the amount offered by the parents committee was deployed for buying books.
Resource management practise is definitely of crucial importance in the effective management of a curriculum activity. However as it was described above financial decision making is not delegated to public schools in Cyprus. As Wilkins states ‘from the headteacher’s point of view, the deployment of limited resources, including her own time, represented a major part of resourcing decisions’. The limited resources provided to the school call for flexibility in decision making. As Panagiwtis P. quoted (E859, Web activity 2, 15 July 2008) ‘a headteacher must know the needs of his/her school very well before taking a decision on how to spend school’s resources’. Any decisions concerning funding from the community or parents committee are led by an analysis of school needs. For example an amount raised from an Ecology festival within the community was used for the equipment of the school’s special needs section which was under-equipped.
In general it must be noted that the needs assessment is prepared by the headteacher and reviewed by the Ministry of Education. In essence internal financial decisions are rarely taken within my school context. Finally it must be noted that a public school can increase its resources by participating in specific programmes (Ecology Schools, OIKADE). Some grants are given to schools after the successful completion of such projects.
Another important issue of this centralised model of funding is the involvement of too few people in managing budgets (Mark R., E859, Web activity 2, 7 July 2008). Funding information should be shared among staff and the process must be transparent. Research concerning the management of financial decisions has nothing to do with the school itself. Thus leaves the government as the only decision making body. The exploration of this issue in public schools in Cyprus is an imperative need.
Word count: 2750
References
BELFIELD, C. and THOMAS, H. (2000) ‘The Relationship Between Resources and Performance in Further Education Colleges’ Oxford Review of Education 26(2), pp.239-253.
GLOVER, D. and LEVAČIČ, R. (2003) ‘Investigating effective resource management in secondary schools: the evidence of inspection reports’, in Wallace, M. and Poulson, L. (eds) (2003) Educational Leadership and Management, London, Saga.
LADD, H. and ZELLI, A. (2002) ‘School-Based Accountability in North Carolina: The Responses of School Principals’ Educational Administration Quarterly 38 (4), pp.494-529.
TAYLOR, A., NEU, D. and PETERS, F. (2002) ‘Technocratic Control and Financial Governance: A case study two school districts’, Educational Management and Administration 30 (4), pp.469-486.
WILKINS, R. (2002) ‘Linking Resources to Learning: conceptual and practical problem’, Educational Management and Administration 30 (3), pp.313-326.
Research Methods in Education – Handbook (2003) Open University of London.
Conference references
PANAGIDES, P. (E859, Web activity 2, 15 July 2008)
REDMAYNE, M. (E859, Web activity 2, 7 July 2008)
