Frequently asked questions
The development of the School Success Model considered a range of primary and secondary research into best-practice educational governance, strategies to drive system-wide improvement to student outcomes, and effective methods of school reform design and evaluation. A condensed reference list is included below.
This summary outlines the three main research questions considered during the policy development of the School Success Model. Additional primary evidence included the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation’s Local Schools, Local Decisions (LSLD) evaluation interim report, final report, and the NSW Auditor General’s performance audit, Local Schools, Local Decisions: needs-based equity funding.
As regional and national schooling systems have grown and become more complex over the past decades, effective education governance has increasingly become the subject of research attention.
There are significant differences in the ways in which countries such as Australia, the UK, and the US have pursued reform. Given the large degree of variation in the size and complexity of education systems like these, evaluation of their different education governance structures does not provide definitive evidence to other countries about ideal system organisation and management.
The OECD has sought to address this gap in the evidence-base with their Strategic Education Governance project, which identifies and interrogates six interrelated domains of effective governance for further investigation: accountability, capacity, knowledge governance, stakeholder involvement, strategic thinking, and whole-of-system perspective.
Establishing strong accountability within education systems requires the clear allocation of responsibility for decision making, with corresponding mechanisms for outcome measurement. Both localised and centralised decision-making are associated with costs and benefits, and some policy actions require responsibility to be shared. The responsiveness of schools to their community, for example, means that principals are best-placed to make decisions about how to select remedial programs for students facing disruptions due to unforeseen events, where the institutional stability of the department enables it to oversee evaluation of the effectiveness of these resources. Decisions should be made according to consistent principles which take these costs and benefits into account and have transparent logic which can be applied to new policy contexts as priorities change.
Evidence from successful international education systems demonstrates that carefully calibrated accountability measures are vital in ensuring that school improvement lifts the performance of all schools, high expectations are maintained for all students, and outstanding performance is recognised in a range of school contexts. Education governance should be designed to maximise transparency while minimising accountability burdens, such as reporting and compliance costs, perverse incentives and inhibiting innovation, and this is why strengthened education governance is a central focus of the School Success Model.
OECD research provides evidence of a relationship between school autonomy and accountability and improved student outcomes, in instances where autonomy and accountability are ‘intelligently combined’ (OECD 2010, as cited by NSW Department of Education and Communities 2012, p. 26).
In its LSLD final evaluation report, CESE recommended that schools should be subject to appropriate scrutiny and accountability around the decisions they make to target school and student outcomes, while the department should take a greater role in providing support to schools to make these local decisions.
The NSW Government's review of Local Schools Local Decisions was undertaken to ensure the right balance between autonomy, accountability, and support for schools.
The development of the School Success Model included consideration of system improvement programs in New Zealand and Ontario, Canada. While the differences between each system are considerable, both Ontario and New Zealand serve cohorts with demographic similarities to New South Wales and have developed promising programs that target support resources to schools according to performance and need.
One feature the two systems share is the use of student outcome data to target support to underperforming schools and disadvantaged student cohorts. The Ontario Focused Intervention Partnership program, for example, provides support to schools that underperform in comparison to contextually comparable schools, where this support is tailored according to need. In New Zealand, research has indicated the effectiveness of data-targeted support in addressing the needs of disadvantaged cohorts, with particular success in improving educational outcomes for Māori and Pasifika student cohorts in a variety of outcome areas, including literacy, numeracy, and participation in tertiary education.
In order to effectively and equitably drive performance improvement, performance accountability frameworks must be appropriately calibrated. This requires the reform program to:
- determine a range of nuanced performance targets, avoiding the creation of perverse incentives
- select corresponding accountability measures, and evaluate performance against these measures with consideration of school and student context
- develop school support mechanisms which are fit-for-purpose, provided in a timely manner, and evaluated regularly.
Another common feature of many high-achieving education systems is the use of programs to facilitate collaboration between high-performing schools and educators via research networks and professional learning communities. Research networks capitalise on the expertise of teachers and encourage peer-to-peer learning and the alignment of evidence and practice. In Ontario, for example, the Leading Student Achievement: Networks for Learning project, developed in partnership between principals and the Ontario Ministry for Education, was identified by principals to be particularly impactful because of the way the project linked research and professional practice.
Successful reform strategies distinguish between the needs of schools operating in different contexts but also take advantage of the benefits of system size by encouraging collaboration between schools and practice-led research. In response, the School Success Model has sought to incorporate non-punitive use of performance data that is regularly reviewed for effectiveness.
The School Success model has also been developed in response to feedback regarding the necessity of clearly defined program aims and the importance of careful implementation management and evaluation.
Evaluation of system-wide education reform initiatives also highlights the necessity of well-planned policy implementation, the delivery of appropriate support to school staff, and the need for reform programs to be designed for flexibility, adaptability, and to include regular evaluation and adjustment.
Evaluations of both the 2013 LSLD reform and of policy programs involving the redistribution of decision-making authority in other Australian jurisdictions have emphasised the importance of capacity building and implementation management when designing system reforms. Where there is a focus on capacity building and implementation management, this helps to minimise disruption to schools. The need for robust program logic design was also identified in CESE’s evaluation and the NSW Auditor General’s audit of the 2013 LSLD reform, including the identification of clear policy objectives, evaluation criteria, outcome measurement, and robust reporting requirements
The phased implementation and regular evaluation schedule of the School Success Model have been developed to address these concerns, allow for the development and refinement of appropriate evaluation criteria, and support flexibility as our schooling system evolves.
- Abu-Duhou I. (1999) School-based management, UNESCO.
- Andrews R & van de Walle S (June 2012) ‘New public management and citizens perceptions of local service efficiency, responsiveness, equity and effectiveness’ COCPS Working Paper No. 7..
- Beare H. (1991) ‘The restructuring of schools and school systems: a comparative perspective’, Restructuring school management: recent administrative reorganization of public school governance in Australia, G Harman, H Beare, & G Berkeley (eds).
- Blanchenay P, Burns T, and Köster F (2014) ‘Shifting Responsibilities – 20 Years of Education Devolution in Sweden – A governing complex education systems case study,’ OECD Education Working Papers, No. 104, OECD Publishing.
- Brandsen T, Oude Vrielink M, Schillemans T, and van Hout E (2011) ‘Nonprofit organisations, democratization and new forms of accountability: a preliminary evaluation,’ In A. Ball and S. Osbourne, Social Accounting and Public Management, Routledge, pp. 90-102.
- Brewer D and Smith J (2006) ‘Evaluating the ‘Crazy Quilt’: Educational Governance in California,’ Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice, Stanford University.
- Bullock A. & Thomas H. (1997) Schools at the centre? A study of decentralisation, Routledge, New York.
- Caldwell, B. (1993) Decentralising the management of Australia’s schools, The University of Melbourne.
- Campbell C (2020) ‘Educational equity in Canada: the case of Ontario’s strategies and actions to advance excellence and equity for students,’ School Leadership & Management.
- Canadian Language and Literacy Network (2009) ‘Evaluation report – the impact of the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat: Changes in Ontario’s Education system, Canadian Language and Literacy Network.
- Education and Health Standing Committee, Legislative Assembly, Parliament of Western Australia (August 2016) ‘IPS Report Card: The Report of the Inquiry into the Independent Public schools initiative,’ Report No. 8, Education and Health Standing Committee, Legislative Assembly, Parliament of Western Australia.
- Fakharzadeh, T. (2016) Budgeting and Accounting in OECD Education Systems. OECD.
- Gobby, B (2013). ‘Principal self-government and subjectification: the exercise of principal autonomy in the Western Australian Independent Public Schools programme’(PDF). Critical Studies in Education. 54 (3): 273–285 Available at:
- Norton GW, and Allen R. (2011) ‘Rethinking school funding, resources, incentives, and outcomes.’ Journal of Educational Change 12.1 pp121-130.
- Harman G. (1991) ‘The restructuring of Australian public school management’, Restructuring school management: recent administrative reorganization of public school governance in Australia, G Harman, H Beare, & G Berkeley (eds).
- Nina H. (2017) ‘From Tinkering to Intelligent Action: Designing an R&D system to support innovation and improvement in New Zealand schools,’ The Education Hub.
- Hooge, E, Burns T, Wilkoszewski H (2012) ‘Looking Beyond the Numbers: Stakeholders and Multiple School Accountability’, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 85, OECD Publishing.
- Jensen B, Downing P, & Clark A. (2017) ‘Preparing to lead: shanghai continuing professional development: case studies for school leadership development programs in high-performing education systems,’ Learning First.
- McInerney P (2001) Moving into dangerous territory? Educational leadership in devolving education systems, Flinders University.
- McKinley E & Webber M (2018) ‘Wāia te Ara Whetu: Navigating Change in Mainstream Secondary Schooling for Indigenous Students,’ Handbook of Indigenous Education, E. A. McKinley and L. T. Smith (eds.).
- McNaughton S & Kuin Lai M (2008) ‘A model of school change for culturally and linguistically diverse students in New Zealand: a summary and evidence from systemic replication,’ Woolf Research Centre, The University of Auckland.
- National Public Education Support Fund (2011) ‘Report – System on the Move: Story of the Ontario Education Strategy,’ U.S. Education Delegation to Ontario Canada, National Public Education Support Fund.
- Northern AM, and Finn Jr CE (9 January 2015) ‘Education governance: who makes the decisions and who has the power,’ Education Next
- NSW Department of Education and Communities (2012) ‘Local Schools, Local Decisions: Report on the consultation’, CESE.
- Nusche D, Laveault D, MacBeath J & Santiago P (2012) ‘OECD Review of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: New Zealand,’ OECD Publishing.
- Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2011) PISA in Focus: School Autonomy and Accountability. Are they related to student performance?, OECD.
- OECD (2010) PISA 2009 results: what makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices, Vol IV, OECD.
- OECD (2013) Synergies for Better Learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD, OECD Publishing, Paris.
- Ontario Ministry of Education, 2006, ‘Schools on the move – lighthouse program,’ The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Education.
- Potential Solutions (2018) ‘Evaluation of the Independent Public Schools Initiative,’ Potential Solutions.
- Pollock K & Winton S (2015) ‘Juggling multiple accountability systems: how three principals manage these tensions in Ontario, Canada.’ In Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 28.
- Robinson V, McNaughton S & Timperley H (2011) ‘Building capacity in a self-managing schooling system: The New Zealand experience,’ Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6).
- Schleicher, A (2018) World Class: How to build a 21st-century school system. OECD.
- Suggett D (2015) ‘School autonomy: Necessary but not sufficient.’ Evidence Base: A journal of evidence reviews in key policy areas, vol. 2015, no. 1.