Content uploaded by Jan Herczyński
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan Herczyński on Jun 06, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
E , (), –
: ./.
: -
Organisational models
of gymnasium in Poland
J H, A S
Educational Research Institute*
In 1999, as a result of reforms of the education system, a new type of lower secondary school, called gymnasium,
was introduced in Poland. e main objectives of introducing the gymnasium were to equalize the educational
opportunities of rural youth, improve the level of education and extend general education by one year. e
reformers envisioned gymnasiums as an autonomous school, located in new, well-equipped buildings, or as
schools functioning alongside existing secondary schools. Aer 16 years of operation, four structural models
of gymnasiums evolved: autonomous gymnasium, aggregate gymnasium in a complex with a primary school,
gymnasium in a complex with a primary school having the same catchment area, and gymnasium with upper
secondary school. e article investigates the dierences in the organisational characteristics for each model of
gymnasium, educational outcomes from dierent types of school, and their geographic distribution. Results
show that even though gymnasiums in a complex with an upper secondary school attain on average the best
results on the gymnasium completion exam, the highest scores in teaching eectiveness are achieved by gymna-
siums in complexes with a primary school having the same catchment area.
K: gymnasium; structural model of school; local education policy.
© Educational Research Institute
* Address: ul. Górczewska 8, 01-180 Warszawa, Poland.
E-mai l: j.herczynski@ibe.edu.pl
was envisioned to be linked to the curricu-
lum of general upper secondary schools, the
reformers proposed that, wherever possible,
gymnasiums be established in complexes1
with general upper secondary schools, or that
upper secondary school classes be created in
large rural gymnasiums (Handke, 2006). In
other words, an autonomous gymnasium
and agymnasium in aschool complex with
ageneral upper secondary school were the
two preferred organisational models.
The most important controversy of gymna-
sium reform was the issue of establishing com-
plexes of gymnasiums and primary schools
(grades 1 to 6). From the very beginning,
1 Aschool complex, clearly defined in Polish education
legislation, is a group of schools functioning together,
under one director and with a single budget, typically
located in one school facility.
Gymnasiums, or lower secondary schools
encompassing grades 7 to 9, were intro-
duced to the Polish education system on Sep-
tember 1, 1999. The intention of the refor-
mers introducing this new type of school
was to establish a small network (not more
than about four thousand schools, Książek,
2001) of large and well-equipped institutions,
employing the best teachers. The reformers
insisted on establishing autonomous gymna-
siums, since they believed that this was
acondition of achieving the main goals of
the reform, namely to equalize educational
opportunities and improve educational qua-
lity. As the programme of the gymnasium
Herczyński, Sobotka
the Law on the education system2 prohibited
the establishment of such school complexes.
Municipalities3 warned that they would not be
able to open autonomous gymnasiums unless
they received sufficient grants for erecting new
buildings. On the other hand, the reformers
were afraid that locating gymnasiums together
with primary schools would defeat the aims of
the reform by recreating the inherited network
of primary schools.
Sixteen years after gymnasium reform
was introduced, half of municipal gymna-
siums in Poland operate in school comple-
xes with aprimary school. This means that
children aged six/seven to sixteen are being
taught in the same building. Due to inde-
pendent decisions of municipalities, the
organisational model of the gymnasium,
which reformers most wanted to avoid has
become the most frequent one. Only 6% of
gymnasiums operate in school complexes
with upper secondary schools4, while the
number of autonomous gymnasiums has
decreased (Herczyński and Sobotka, 2014).
The development of various types of gymna-
siums means that Polish gymnasium stu-
dents attend institutions that differ organisa-
tionally, e.g. in the age range of the students
at school (7–16, 13–16, 13–19), the number
of educational thresholds they pass while at
school (1 or 2), and the age at which the first
educational threshold is crossed (13 or 16).
The purpose of this article is to analyse
the functioning of various organisational
models of gymnasiums established by muni-
cipal authorities. We identify the following
four types of gymnasiums: an autonomous
2 Law of 7 September 1991 on the education system (as
amended).
3 Municipality refers to first tier of local government, called
gmina in Polish. The second tier of local government is the
county, powiat in Polish. About 70 large cities are both
municipalities and counties, they are referred to as cities
with county rights.
4 By secondary schools we mean upper secondary schools,
encompassing grades from 10 to 12, both general academic
and professional.
gymnasium, agymnasium in aschool com-
plex with aprimary school, whose catchment
area encompasses catchment areas of seve-
ral primary schools (an aggregate gymna-
sium), agymnasium in a school complex
with aprimary school, where both have the
same catchment area and essentially, the
same students attend both, creating in effect
anine-year school (asingle district gymna-
sium) and agymnasium in a school com-
plex with an upper secondary school. These
models exhibit different organisational fea-
tures (size of the school, class size), school
functioning (homogeneity, repeated grades,
outflow of students, after-school club activi-
ties and extracurricular activities), results of
gymnasium completion exam5 conducted by
the Central Examination Board (Centralna
Komisja Egzaminacyjna, CKE), and the edu-
cational value added (EVA) indicator.
The impact of grade configuration
on the learning results of students
The impact of the organisation of
aschool on its operation is often analysed
in American studies. These analyses assess
the impact of grade configuration on stu-
dent knowledge, measured by external tests
(Rockoff and Lockwood, 2010; Schwerdt
and West, 2013). The American education
system, like the Polish one, has 12 years of
school education and is divided into three
types of schools: elementary schools, middle
schools and high schools. Unlike Poland,
however, the organisation of the grades in
individual schools is quite f lexible and many
grade configurations are allowed6 – an ele-
5 Polish students take three nationally mandated exams:
towards the end of the primary school (6th grade), at the
completion of gymnasium (9th grade) and so called matura
at the completion of secondary schools (12th grade).
6 School districts can organise schools that have either single
grades (for example, only the seventh grade), selected grades
(for example 6–8), or all grades from kindergarten (K-12). For
example, as many as 64 various configurations of grades have
been identified in Louisiana (Franklin and Glascock, 1998).
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
mentary school may have five grades, but it
can also be an eight- or twelve-grade school.
Amiddle school includes “in-between” stu-
dents, and here too, the limits are not clear
cut. Studies of grade configurations are
mainly focused on the results achieved by
6th grade students, who can attend various
types of schools: elementary schools (K-6,
K-8), middle schools (6–8) or compre-
hensive schools (K-12) covering the entire
period of mainstream education. Research
on over 700 rural schools in Louisiana car-
ried out by Bobby Franklin and Catherine
Glascock (1998) show that 6th grade students
who attend schools with a1–6/7 and 1–12
system achieved significantly better learning
results (school size and socio-economic sta-
tus were controlled) and had better school
attendance than their peers at schools with
a6–8 or 6–9 system. David Wihry, Theo-
dore Coladarci and Curtis Meadow (1992)
surveyed 8th grade students who achieved
significantly better results at schools with
configurations: K-8, K-9 and 3–8 than stu-
dents at middle schools (4–8, 5–8, 6–8) or
schools consisting of a middle and high
school (6–12, 7–12, 8–12). On the other hand,
analyses carried out by Henry Becker (1987)
showed that attending an elementary school
(K-9) instead of amiddle school (7–9) had
asignificant positive impact on the results of
students from backgrounds of apoor socio-
-economic status.
Difficulties resulting from changing
the school environment are the main rea-
son for poorer results at American middle
schools. John Alspaugh (1999) proved that
in each year following transition from one
school to another, students’ results signifi-
cantly fell, while Roberta Simmons and Dale
Blyth (1987) showed that students changing
schools had not only lower school results,
but also adecrease in motivation and self-
-assessment. American middle schools, as
Polish gymnasium, are often criticised for
the lack of effective personal development
programmes for students who are at the
most difficult stage of puberty. Supporters
of establishing separate schools for younger
teenagers believe that such aschool can bet-
ter meet the needs of this age group. Howe-
ver, because of worsening learning outcomes,
students leaving the education system, and
other behavioural problems, middle schools
are informally referred to as the “Bermuda
triangle of education” (see example Ward,
2008). In recent years, some American school
districts have started to abandon the K-5 and
6–8 division and are returning to the K-8
school model (Chaker, 2005).
In Poland, the education structure is
more rigid, and since 1999 it has been opera-
ting in a6+3+3 model. This seemingly sim-
ple structure is somewhat obscured by orga-
nising schools into complexes, which enables
some diversification of the general education
system. Art. 62.1 of the Law on the education
system allows school founders to join several
different schools into acomplex. To establish
aschool complex, as in opening anew school,
apreliminary decision and statutes must be
adopted by the founder (for public schools,
the municipal council). Schools in acomplex
share buildings and infrastructure (agym,
acanteen and alibrary), are managed by one
director, and the same staff typically teaches
in all the schools belonging to the complex.
Students who learn in the same school buil-
ding, participate together in school events, or
spend time together during class breaks form
acommunity, irrespective of their formal
enrolment in individual schools. According
to the adopted statute, aschool complex may
also have one teachers’ council, one parents’
council and one student government. In con-
sequence, schools belonging to one complex
function as one organism and, in terms of
their organisation and education processes,
form one school structure. As in the Ame-
rican system, aPolish gymnasium student
may attend an “extended” primary school
(SP+G model), astand-alone gymnasium for
Herczyński, Sobotka
students aged 13–16 (SAMG) or agymna-
sium operating with an upper secondary
school (G+PG).
The number of Polish studies describing
the operation of school complexes is small.
Artur Bajerski (2011) observed that the
municipalities establishing school comple-
xes of aprimary school and gymnasium used
this as a method of reducing the negative
consequences of the periodically changing
number of students in individual grades and
of lowering the costs of maintaining schools
– so this is usually dictated by administra-
tive and financial reasons. When studying
21 municipalities in the Małopolska region,
Jerzy Lackowski (2008) stated that there
was no relation between the structure of the
gymnasium network (understood as the ope-
ration of an autonomous gymnasium or one
in aschool complex) and the results achieved
by students in gymnasium completion exam.
However, he noted that the worst results were
those of students from municipalities with
large, autonomous gymnasiums, whereas the
best were achieved by students from small
gymnasiums attached to primary schools
with only one class per grade.
In the case of single district gymnasiums
(that is agymnasium in a complex with
aprimary school with the same catchment
area), the key issue is the smooth transition
of students from the 6th grade of the primary
school to the first year of gymnasium, and
the continuation of education in an unchan-
ged environment (usually in the same class).
In this context, the findings of research on
students’ migration between classes as part
of their transition from aprimary school to
agymnasium are of interest. The analysis
conducted by Grzegorz Humenny, Maciej
Koniewski, Przemysław Majkut and Paulina
Skórska (2014) indicates that in areas with
asmaller population density and less deve-
lopment, unlike in large cities, only asmall
reshuffling of students takes place between
primary school and gymnasium. Only 5.5%
of children from rural areas attended aclass
with no colleagues from their previous pri-
mary school class, while in cities of over 100
000 inhabitants, 25% of students experience
this. The study shows that there is apositive,
though very small impact of maintaining
class composition between primary school
and gymnasium on the results of the gymna-
sium completion exam. This effect is parti-
cularly noticeable in rural areas. However,
these analyses did not include EVA.
Establishing the network of gymnasiums
Gymnasiums were planned as educa-
tional institutions teaching at least 150 stu-
dents and operating in separate buildings7.
In 1998, the Ministry of National Education
carried out asimulation of the new network
of gymnasiums and on this basis planned,
according to the so-called efficiency option,
the establishment of about 5500 such schools
across Poland. In 2001, an average number
of 307 students per gymnasium and average
class size of 24.9 students were planned.
However, the simulations of the Ministry of
National Education were not in agreement
with the plans of municipalities. Asurvey
carried out in April 1998 on establishing the
network of gymnasiums showed that muni-
cipalities planned to open 7093 gymnasiums
(MEN, 1998).
Dedicated central investment program-
mes, including the co-financing of school
projects8 and computer labs9, were intro-
duced to achieve the aims of the reform. At
7 § 2 of the Regulation of the Minister of National Education
of 15 February 1999 on the manner of and time limits for
adapting the operation of existing state schools to the require-
ments of the new school system and the opening of gymna-
siums. In justified cases the regulation allowed smaller
gymnasiums to be opened.
8 In 1999, specific-purpose provision no. 56 of the state bud-
get for “necessary investments related to the establishment of
gymnasiums” and for other purposes totalled PLN 45 million.
9 The program “Internet lab in each gymnasium” financed
the establishment of over 800 labs in gymnasiums in 1999.
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
the same time, two important organisatio-
nal limits were introduced. First, unlike in
the case of primary schools, the Law on the
education system did not provide for affilia-
ted gymnasiums10 (art. 61 of the Law on the
education system allowed to establish only
affiliated primary schools). In cases where
it was not possible to organise agymnasium
in aseparate single building, locating some
classes in different buildings was temporarily
permitted11.
Gymnasiums operating in several buil-
dings received the unfortunate name of vir-
tual gymnasiums. Off-site gymnasium bran-
ches were originally allowed to operate until
the end of August 2003, but in June of that
year, this time limit was extended to August
200512. Because of the temporary nature
of this solution, data about off-site classes
were not collected by the Central Statistical
Office of Poland. However, the number of
such classes must have been large, since in
September 2003, the number of gymnasiums
reported to the Central Statistical Office of
Poland suddenly increased by over 300 in
comparison to the previous year (in rural
areas, an increase by 8.7% during one year
was reported). These organisational chan-
ges, consisting of the “disclosure” of off-site
branches, the separation from their parent
gymnasiums, and the establishment as sepa-
rate schools led to aconstant increase of the
number of gymnasiums, despite the decrea-
sing number of their students (Herczyński
and Sobotka, 2014).
Another important organisational
restriction was the prohibition on establis-
hing aschool complex consisting of apri-
mary school and agymnasium (art. 62 § 1a
10 An affiliated school in Polish terminology is asepa-
rate faci lity of the given s chool, operating w ithin the s ame
budget and under the same director as the main school.
11 § 4 of the Regulation of the Minister of National Education
of 15 February 1999.
12 Law of 27 June 2003 on the amendment to the Law on
the education system and amendment to certain other acts.
of the Law on the education system). The
purpose of this restriction was to prevent
municipalities from recreating, as gymna-
sium level, of the existing network of primary
schools. This prohibition, like the first one,
was opposed by many rural municipalities,
which stated that to meet the requirement
of locating the schools in separate buildings,
they would need financial support from the
central budget for such investments.
In September 1999, 5403 gymnasiums
were established in Poland (of which 4990
were municipal ones, see Konarzewski,
2001a). Although the number of new schools
was close to the estimates of the Ministry of
National Education and smaller than the
number declared by municipalities before
the introduction of the reform, the Ministry
of National Education deemed the network
of gymnasiums as “unsatisfactory” (MEN,
2000). Indeed, as many as 300 gymnasiums
were schools with only one class per grade,
and over 400 classes had fewer than 20 stu-
dents enrolled. Nearly 3000 gymnasiums
were organised as schools attached to pri-
mary schools and about 600 were disper-
sed in buildings of several schools. The
Ministry of National Education (2000, p.3)
admitted that:
Easing the legal requirements relating to
opening gymnasiums resulted in having an
exception become the rule. […] Gymnasiums
meant to be achance for the better education
of children living in rural areas remained, in
many cases, within the walls of the existing
primary school. They became “virtual gymna-
siums”. In such organized gymnasiums, the
child remains in the same school environ-
ment, although the intention of reformers was
most of all to educate better, not closer.
Thus, from the introduction of the
reform in 1999, several models of operating
agymnasium developed. T he analysis c arried
out in 2000 based on arepresentative sample
of 266 gymnasiums (Ignar-Golinowska and
Gajewska, 2002) identified 7 location models
Herczyński, Sobotka
August 2001, the deadline for terminating
the existing complexes of primary schools
and gymnasiums was postponed until
August 31, 2003 with the approval of the
Curator of Education15. School complexes
in which the primary school was gradually
closed16 could function until the full liqui-
dation of the primary school, however not
longer than August 31, 2005. Unexpectedly,
in March 2002, both the prohibition on ope-
ning school complexes of primary schools
and gymnasiums, as well as the requirement
of the written approval of the Curator of
Education were removed from the Law17.
In other words, the Law on the education
system ceased to prohibit the establishment
of such school complexes.
The legal situation of primary school/
gymnasium school complexes was regula-
ted again in June 2003, when anew § 5b was
added to art. 62: “Developing aschool com-
plex of apre-school with aprimary school
or with agymnasium, aprimary school with
agymnasium or apre-school with aprimary
15 Law of 23 August 2001 on the amendment to the Law on
the education system, the Law – Regulations introducing the
school system’s reform, the Law – Teacher’s Charter and certain
other acts, article 23. Education Curator is ahighest ranking
education official in voivodship, nominated by the govern-
ment and served by astrong office, called kuratorium.
16 Meaning those primary schools which stopped enrolling
new students.
17 Law of 15 March 2002 on the amendment to the Law on the
education system and certain other acts, art. 3 and art. 1, § 5.
of agymnasium based on the school facility
(Table 1). “Virtual gymnasiums” are insti-
tutions educating students in several buil-
dings located away from each other, while the
“other models” include schools located, for
example, at aspecial school and education
centre or in adormitory.
Only 7% of gymnasiums operated in
separate buildings, whereas a substantial
majority of them were in aprimary school13.
During the initial years after introducing
the reform, the number of autonomous
gymnasiums increased – municipalities
obtained loans for their construction, clo-
sed primary schools and reorganised the
off-site branches. In addition, the number
of gymnasiums in complexes with upper
secondary schools grew (see Table 4). Refor-
mers gave municipalities two years to adapt
the network of gymnasiums to the princi-
ples of the new system and to organisatio-
nally separate gymnasiums from primary
schools. Thus, the reform stated from the
very beginning that combining primary
schools with gymnasiums was prohibi-
ted as of September 1, 2001, i.e. from the
moment of full gymnasiums with three
grades14 appeared. However, as early as
13 These data do not agree with the assessments presented
by Rafał Piwowarski (2006) that in 1999, over 60% of gym-
nasiums out of 5400 operated in aseparate location.
14 Law of 25 July 1998 on th e amendment to the L aw on the
education system, art. 62, §1a.
Table 1
Percentage distribuon of locaon models of a gymnasium (1999/2000 school year)
Model of a gymnasium
School locaon
Country Tow n Total
Gymnasium in a separate building 7.8 7.3 7.6
Gymnasium in a primary school 72.2 63.6 67.8
Gymnasium in a complex of schools 13.0 19.2 16.7
Gymnasium in a general upper secondary school 0.0 2.0 0.8
“Virtual gymnasium” 4.3 2.6 3.4
Other models of a gymnasium 2.6 5.3 3.8
Source: Ignar-Golinowska and Gajewska (2002).
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
school and agymnasium requires the appro-
val of the Curator of Education”18. This pro-
vision has been in force to this day. Moreo-
ver, the following provision was introduced
regarding the already functioning school
complexes:
e following school complexes existing on
the day this Law enters into force: 1) of apre-
school and aprimary school, 2) of apre-school
and agymnasium, 3) of aprimary school and
a gymnasium, 4) of apre-school, aprimary
school and a gymnasium may function not
longer than until 31 August 2005, unless they
receive before said date apositive opinion as
referred to in art. 62, § 5b of the Law cited
in art. 1 of this Law (Law of 27 June 2003 on
the amendment to the Law on the education
system and amendment to certain other Acts,
art. 15, § 2, p. 9215).
18 Law of 27 June 2003 on the amendment to the Law on
the educa tion system and ame ndment to certai n other acts,
art. 1, § 47, p. 9203.
Methodology of identifying
the organisational models of gymnasium
An organisational model of agymnasium
is understood as an organisational combi-
nation of agymnasium with adifferent type
of school or the lack of such acombination,
with corresponding impact on the opera-
tion of the school. To identify the models
of gymnasiums, we used the database of
the Education Information System (System
Informacji Oświatowej, SIO) from Septem-
ber 2012. We restrict the analysis to public
gymnasiums in municipalities, since non-
-public gymnasiums operate under different
conditions and regulations.
The SIO database indicates whether
aschool is part of a school complex and
identifies all other schools belonging to
the complex. The distribution of municipal
gymnasiums in school complexes of various
Table 2
Municipal gymnasiums by type of school complex (2012/2013 school year)
Schools in a complex
No. of
schools
% of
schools
% of
students
Autonomous gymnasium 2 327 41.5 56.9
Pre-school, primary school, gymnasium 620 11.1 6.9
Pre-school, primary school, gymnasium, general upper secondary school 12 0.2 0.2
Primary school, gymnasium 2 184 39.0 26.5
Primary school, gymnasium, general upper secondary school 87 1.6 1.6
Primary school, gymnasium, basic vocaonal school 16 0.3 0.2
Primary school, gymnasium, general upper secondary school, basic
vocaonal school
11 0.2 0.2
Gymnasium, general upper secondary school 230 4.1 5.5
Gymnasium, general upper secondary school, vocaonal upper
secondary school
25 0.4 0.5
Gymnasium, general upper secondary school, basic vocaonal school 19 0.3 0.4
Gymnasium, general upper secondary school, basic vocaonal school,
vocaonal upper secondary school
19 0.3 0.3
Gymnasium, vocaonal upper secondary school 11 0.2 0.2
Gymnasium, vocaonal upper secondary school, basic vocaonal school 10 0.2 0.1
Gymnasiums in other school complexes 36 0.6 0.6
Total 5 607 100.0 100.0
Based on SIO data.
Herczyński, Sobotka
agymnasium a nine-year school is justi-
fied only if the same children attend both
schools. The specific character of opera-
ting such agymnasium, in which teachers
know the students – their skills, problems
and their family situation – is completely
different from agymnasium that, though
functioning in one building with a pri-
mary school, also admits children from
other neighbouring primary schools. In the
second situation, most students change their
school environment – the so-called gymna-
sium shock, observed as a difficult period
of mutual adaptation to education in new
conditions (see Appelt, 2004; Konarzewski,
2001a; 2004).
In consideration of this difference
between the two types of gymnasium/pri-
mary school complexes, afourth organisatio-
nal model should be defined: the g ymnasium
in aschool complex with aprimary school
with both sharing the same catchment area.
However, the SIO database does not include
information about school catchment areas.
To overcome this, we estimated the homo-
geneity of gymnasiums, analogously to the
homogeneity of school classes introduced
in the study of Humenny and his colleagues
(2014). For each 3rd year student taking the
gymnasium completion exam, we speci-
fied the percentage of students who three
years earlier had attended the same primary
school, and then calculated the maximum of
these values for each school. Homogeneity
thus defined is equal to the largest percen-
tage of students who had earlier attended
the same primary school among the stu-
dents of a given gymnasium. For exam-
ple, if the homogeneity of agymnasium is
close to 100%, then almost all students of
agiven gymnasium attended the same pri-
mary school. Thus, it can be assumed that
both these schools de facto share the same
catchment area.
Estimation of gymnasium homogene-
ity requires acombination of SIO data with
configurations is presented in Table 2. School
complexes with one or more schools of
agiven type (for example, technical schools)
are treated identically. Basic vocational
schools and post-secondary schools are tre-
ated jointly, as are general upper secondary
schools and specialised secondary schools.
Municipal gymnasiums in school comple-
xes whose configuration exists in Poland in
fewer than ten cases (for example aschool
complex of agymnasium and apre-school)
are included in the category “Gymnasiums
in other school complexes”.
Municipal gymnasiums operate in most
cases in school complexes with aprimary
school (50%), either with (11%) or without
a pre-school (39%), autonomously (41%),
and much less frequently in acomplex with
a general upper secondary school (4%).
About 2% of gymnasiums operate in school
complexes including both aprimary school
and any of the upper secondary schools,
while gymnasiums in other “exotic” comple-
xes are even fewer. This indicates that we can
identify three main models of gymnasiums
in Poland: an autonomous gymnasium,
agymnasium in aschool complex with apri-
mary school (with or without apre-school)
and agymnasium in aschool complex with
an upper secondary school (atotal of 6%
of gymnasiums, with aclear dominance of
school complexes only with ageneral upper
secondary school). Gymnasiums in other
types of school complexes, atotal of 162
schools (2.9%) are not included in the furt-
her analysis.
The model of gymnasium operating in
aschool complex with aprimary school, i.e.
the one that the reformers wanted to avoid,
seems particularly interesting. Combining
these types of schools, in which some chil-
dren attend one school for nine years, is
reminiscent of the nine-year primary school
operating in some Scandinavian countries
(Sweden, for example). However, calling
aschool complex of aprimary school and
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
CKE data. This combination was obtained
for 5030 municipal gymnasiums (90% of
all municipal schools). The average homo-
geneity of municipal gymnasiums was 66%.
The histogram of homogeneity of municipal
gymnasiums is presented in Figure 1.
The number of gymnasiums with
ahomogeneity below 30% is small – these
are mainly large and aggregate gymnasiums
in cities. Asignificant increase in the num-
ber of students at gymnasiums is observed
when homogeneity is equal to 90% and
95%. We take the second value (95%) as the
criterion of acommon catchment area for
agymnasium and primary school. Gymna-
siums with ahomogeneity lower than 95%
are considered aggregate. In other words,
we allowed the possibility that during three
years of gymnasium education, one out of
20 students arrived from another primary
school district.
We can see that homogeneous gymna-
siums include asmall number of autonomous
schools and several schools in acomplex with
an upper secondary school (Table 3). This
probably is due to the conditions of the faci-
lities, when aprimary school and agymna-
sium with acommon catchment area could
Figure 1. The histogram of homogeneity of municipal gymnasiums (2012).
Table 3
Municipal gymnasiums by structural model and homogeneity
Type of gymnasium Non-homogenous Homogenous Total
Autonomous gymnasium 2 029 134 2 163
In a school complex with a primary school 1 829 762 2 591
In a school complex with an upper secondary school 267 9 276
Total 4 125 905 5 030
Based on SIO and CKE data.
Herczyński, Sobotka
not fit into one school building (or operate
in the same building but were not formally
combined to form aschool complex). We
excluded these schools from further analy-
sis. To conclude, the analysis includes 4887
gymnasiums (87.2% of all municipal g ymna-
siums in Poland).
To summarise this met hodological ana ly-
sis, we identified four organisational models
of agymnasium (the abbreviation denoting
agiven model used in tables and graphs is
provided in brackets):
Autonomous gymnasium (SAMG),
Aggregate gymnasium, a gymnasium in
aschool complex with a primary school
attended by graduates of several primary
schools (SP+G),
Single district gymnasium, agymnasium
in aschool complex with aprimary school,
with the same catchment area (SP=G),
Gymnasium in aschool complex with an
upper secondary school (G+PG).
Table 4 presents basic information on the
number of municipal gymnasiums belon-
ging to various organisational models and
their students in the school year 2012/2013.
Other, not analysed gymnasiums presented
in the penultimate row include institutions
in rare school complexes, gymnasiums for
which no EVA is calculated and gymna-
siums whose data could not be linked in
various databases.
Characteristics of
organisational models of agymnasium
The basic data characterising the structure
of gymnasiums belonging to organisational
models are presented in Table 5. It is worth
emphasising that municipalities operate
acertain number of gymnasiums that have
no catchment area (these are sports schools,
bilingual schools and integration schools).
Table 5 shows that autonomous gymna-
siums are the largest, while gymnasiums in
aschool complex with an upper secondary
school are alittle smaller. Gymnasiums with
aprimary school are on average nearly half
the size of autonomous ones, while single
district gymnasiums are almost three times
smaller. However, the variation of school
size is very large within each model. Table5
indicates that autonomous gymnasiums
and the ones in school complexes with an
upper secondary school are mainly schools
with three classes in each grade, aggregate
gymnasiums are schools with two classes in
each grade, and single district gymnasiums
are schools with one class in each grade.
The largest share of students from out-
side the catchment area (36%) is observed
in gymnasiums in school complexes with
an upper secondary school (Table 5). These
schools are often renowned and students
want to attend them, despite the greater
Table 4
Number of gymnasiums and students by structural model
Type of gymnasium Symbol
No. of
schools
No. of
students
% of
schools
% of
students
Autonomous gymnasium SAMG 2 029 539 845 36.2 50.8
Aggregate gymnasium SP+G 1 829 266 306 32.6 25.1
Single district gymnasium SP=G 762 62 401 13.6 5.9
In a school complex with
an upper secondary school
G+PG 267 65 939 4.8 6.2
Other (not analysed) 720 128 465 12.8 12.1
Total 5 607 1 062 956 100.0 100.0
Based on SIO data.
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
distance from home. As non-catchment
area students are not entitled to free trans-
portation to school, it is not surprising that
these schools have the lowest percentage of
students entitled to transportation. The sig-
nificantly larger share of students entitled to
transportion in aggregate gymnasiums than
in single district gymnasiums is also easy to
understand. Single district gymnasiums,
together with their primary schools, are
located closer to astudent’s residence. The
relatively large percentage of students from
outside the catchment area in single district
gymnasiums (9%), even though smaller than
in other organisational models, is quite sur-
prising. Perhaps agiven primary school is
attended by acertain number of non-local
students or perhaps this situation results
from erroneous data in the SIO (which is also
manifested by the large standard deviation).
Gymnasiums belonging to various models
are quite different in terms of average homo-
geneity. The greatest homogeneity is found in
single district gymnasiums, which is the effect
of the definition of the model adopted. Howe-
ver, aggregate gymnasiums are more homoge-
neous than autonomous gymnasiums, which
in turn are more homogenous than gymna-
siums in aschool complex with an upper
secondary school. This gradation indicates an
increasing degree of “inflow” of students to
gymnasiums found in various models.
Data on the operation of gymnasiums in
various organisational models are provided in
Table 6. The effectiveness of aschool’s opera-
tion may be measured by analysing statistics
on promotion and dropout. As we cannot use
SIO data to determine how many students
actually dropped out of the school system
and how many left agiven school to continue
education in another gymnasium (probably
asubstantial majority), we analysed t he num-
ber of “student dropouts”: we examined, for
each gymnasium, by how much the number of
graduates in 2012 was smaller than the num-
ber of first year students in September 2009. If
during these three school years, the number of
students increased, we treated it as zero dro-
pout (we did not “compensate” the dropout
of students from agiven gymnasium with the
inflow of students to another gymnasium in
the same group of schools). The percentage
of participants of extracurricular activities
per one hundred students was obtained by
dividing the number of participants of these
activities by the number of students in agiven
gymnasium and multiplying by one hundred.
As some students participated in more than
Table 5
Characteriscs of organisaonal models of gymnasiums (2012/13 school year)
Characteriscs SAMG SP+G SP=G G+PG
Average no. of students in the school 266.1 (136.7) 145.6 (83.7) 81.9 (42.6) 247.0 (128.9)
Average no. of students in the class 23.6 (3.1) 21.9 (3.7) 19.4 (3.9) 24.6 (4.0)
Average number of classes in a grade 3.8 (1.7) 2.2 (1.1) 1.4 (0.6) 3.4 (1.6)
Homogeneity of a gymnasium 54.5% (19.1%) 67.8% (18.7%) 99.0% (1.6%) 44.5% (22.5%)
Share of students from outside the
catchment area (catchment area
gymnasiums only)
24.4% (26.4%) 17.3% (26.7%) 9.5% (26.9%) 36.0% (35.5%)
Share of students entled to
transportaon (catchment area
gymnasiums)
26.5% (31.0%) 35.2% (28.6%) 23.6% (24.2%) 14.4% (23.2%)
N2 029 1 829 762 267
Based on SIO and CKE data. Standard deviaons in parentheses.
Herczyński, Sobotka
one extracurricular activity, the result is not
a percentage of students participating in
extracurricular activities.
The information presented in Table6
confirms that gymnasiums belonging to
various organisational models function
differently. Grade retention is marginal in
municipal gymnasiums. However, there are
significant differences between gymnasium
models. The fewest students repeat agrade in
single district gymnasiums, while the largest
number of them – more than twice as often
– are from gymnasiums in aschool complex
with an upper secondary school. The distri-
bution of student dropout is similar. The lar-
gest number of student dropouts (over 11%)
are from gymnasiums in aschool complex
with an upper secondary school. This may
result from the strict requirements imposed
on students, but may also reflect the diffi-
culties of travelling to adistant school. The
smallest number of dropouts is characteristic
of single district gymnasiums (7%).
The share of students using an afters-
chool club is very similar in autonomous
gymnasiums and gymnasiums in aschool
complex with aprimary school. It is signi-
ficantly smaller in gymnasiums in aschool
complex with an upper secondary school and
these schools organise such facilities least
often (less than every third gymnasium).
The percentage of students participating in
extracurricular activities is very similar for
the different models and equals about 80%,
except for single district gy mnasiums, where
it is higher by 9%. All four variables are quite
dispersed within each model.
The data presented in Table 6 seem to
indicate that the percentage of students repe-
ating agrade is correlated with the percentage
of students dropping out of school. However,
at the school level, this correlation is strong
only for municipal gymnasiums in aschool
complex with an upper secondary school
(R = 0.61) and for autonomous gymnasiums
(R = 0.57), while it is significantly weaker for
the other models (R = 0.28 for SP+G; R = 0.19
for SP=G). Explaining this variation requires
more in-depth analysis.
Because of the large standard deviations,
in addition to areview of average values given
in Tables 5 and 6, it is also useful to analyse the
distribution of relevant variables. In Figure2,
the distribution of the sizes of gymnasiums
belonging to various models is presented.
The number of students in two-thirds
of the single district gymnasiums does not
exceed 90 (potentially schools with one class
per grade), while aggregate gymnasiums
often consist of 90–180 students (potentially
schools with two classes per grade). Among
autonomous gymnasiums and gymnasiums
in aschool complex with an upper secondary
school, there are virtually no small schools,
(2)
(3)
Table 6
Characteriscs of structural models of gymnasiums – school operaon (2012/2013 school year)
Characteriscs SAMG SP+G SP=G G+PG
Percentage of students repeang
a grade
3.0% (4.3%) 2.2% 4.0%) 1.7% (4.3%) 3.4% (4.8%)
Dropout of students during three years
of educaon
9.4% (8.8%) 7.6% (8.3%) 7.0% (8.1%) 11.1% (11.4%)
Percentage of students using an
aerschool club
21.5% (32.4%) 23.2% (31.0%) 22.3% (29.4%) 12.3% (26.5%)
Parcipants of extracurricular acvies
per 100 students
83.8 (58.1) 79.9 (65.5) 88.9 (75.6) 83.3 (64.2)
Based on SIO and CKE data. Standard deviaons in parentheses.
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
(2)
(3)
Less than 90
90 to 180
180 to 270
270 to 360
360 and more
Figure 2. Percentage distribuon of sizes of gymnasiums by structural model in the 2012/2013 school year.
Figure 3. Percentage distribuon of the number of classes per grade by structural model in the
2012/2013 school year.
1 class per grade
2 classes
3 classes
4 classes
More than 4 classes
Herczyński, Sobotka
while other schools are present in similar
proportions.
The actual number of classes per grade
may be estimated based on the number
of classes in a school. We assumed that
agymnasium with one class per grade has
one to three classes, agymnasium with two
classes per grade has from four to six classes,
etc. The distribution of the number of classes
per grade of gy mnasiums by structural model
is illustrated in Figure 3. It shows that among
single district gymnasiums, schools with one
class per grade dominate, while among aggre-
gate gymnasiums – schools with two classes
per grade. Among autonomous gymnasiums,
the highest number of schools are those with
over four classes per grade.
The variation of class size (number of
students per class) among gymnasiums in
various models is much smaller than the
variation of the size of school (see Table 5).
The smallest classes are observed in sin-
gle district gymnasiums, the largest ones
– in gymnasiums in aschool complex with
an uppersecondary school. However, the
distributions of class size in various models
are quite different, as shown in Figure 4.
The distribution of class size in auto-
nomous gymnasiums is even (except for
gymnasiums in which the average class size
is less than 18 students), while this distribu-
tion in single district gymnasiums is oppo-
site to the distribution in gymnasiums school
complexes with an upper secondary school.
We complete the comparative analysis of
gymnasium models with areview of average
results of schools and their EVA19. We used
the results of the gymnasium completion
exam from 2012 and three years of gymna-
sium EVA averages for 2010–2012. National
average values and standard deviations are
provided in Table 7.
In the sample of gymnasiums under
review (which constitutes almost 89% of the
entire population), standard deviations of the
19 According to the convention adopted by the EVA Team
(Dolata et al., 2013; Pokropek, 2009), the results of primary
school completion exam and of gymnasium completion
exam are normalised with M = 100 and SD = 15. EVA is
normalised with M = 0 and SD = 15.
Figure 4. Percentage distribuon of class size by structural models in the school year 2012/13.
Less than 18
18 to 21
21 to 23
23 to 25
25 and more
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
average result of the gymnasium completion
exam among gymnasiums totalled about 4.5.
The average EVA for the humanities and
mathematics and natural sciences are very
close to zero, while their standard deviations
are slightly over 2. These low standard devia-
tion values result from the fact that school
data, namely data averaged over large groups
of students, are less dispersed than indivi-
dual data. Average results and average EVA
by structural model of gymnasiums were
presented in Table 8.
Schools’ average gymnasium exam
results do not differentiate the models,
except for gymnasiums in aschool complex
with an upper secondary school, whose grad-
uates have slightly better results (this may
be due to the selectivity of these schools).
This model also has the largest variation of
results. However, the average EVA for var-
ious structural models of gymnasiums is
quite different. Autonomous gymnasiums
have the lowest, negative EVA. Aggregate
gymnasiums and those in acomplex with
upper secondary school have apositive EVA,
somewhat higher for mathematics and nat-
ural sciences. The highest EVA is achieved
by single district gymnasiums. This is an
unexpected and very important result of our
analyses, confirming the earlier findings of
Lackowski (2008) resulting from areview of
asmall sample of municipalities. The teach-
ing effectiveness of gymnasiums in school
complexes with an upper secondary school
is lower, though still higher than for auton-
omous gymnasiums.
It should be stressed that differences of
the average EVA between an autonomous
gymnasium and asingle district gymnasium
are over 1 for the humanities and nearly 1.5
for mathematics and natural sciences, which
is about half of the standard deviation at the
Table 7
Averages and standard deviaons of gymnasium compleon exam results and EVA of schools
Value
Humanies Mathemacs and natural sciences
Result EVA Result EVA
M98.9 -0.04 98.9 0.04
SD 4.54 2.38 4.63 2.22
Based on CKE data (school year 2012/2013).
Table 8
Average results and EVA of gymnasiums by structural model
Characteriscs SAMG SP+G SP=G G+PG
Humanies
Mean of gymnasium compleon exam result 98.76 (4.51) 98.75 (3.78) 98.69 (3.58) 101.92* (9.25)
Mean of EVA -0.47 (2.38) 0.13* (2.22) 0.64* (2.28) 0.18* (3.20)
Mathemacs and natural sciences
Mean of gymnasium compleon exam result 98.69 (4.41) 98.68 (3.71) 98.88 (3.52) 102.13* (10.52)
Mean of EVA -0.47 (2.09) 0.19* (2.00) 0.99* (2.00) 0.12* (3.78)
N2 029 1 829 762 267
* Signicant dierences at the level of 0.05. Autonomous gymnasiums constute the reference group.
Based on SIO and CKE data. Standard deviaons in parentheses.
Herczyński, Sobotka
level of schools. This difference is statistically
significant, but not very large. In addition,
standard deviations of EVA within the mod-
els are high.
The data presented in Table 8 are so
surprising that the same analysis should be
repeated for typical rural municipalities20
and for towns with county rights. Because
the number of gymnasiums in rural munic-
ipalities operating in complexes with upper
20 These are rural municipalities located away from
urban agglomerations, in which no significant industrial
production was present and agricultural activity was not
dominated by state agricultural farms (Herczyński, 2012).
secondary schools is typically very small (14),
we excluded them from the analysis. Exam-
ination data for the remaining models are
presented in Table 9.
After limiting the analyses to typical
rural municipalities, the variation among
models of gymnasiums remains unchanged.
In these municipalities, the average EVA of
single district gymnasiums is even higher
than the national average. The distribution
is different for data for towns with county
rights (Table 10). This time we excluded the
SP=G model, since towns with county rights
operate only nine such gymnasiums.
Table 9
Average results and EVA of gymnasiums by structural model in typically rural municipalies
Characteriscs SAMG SP+G SP=G
Humanies
Mean of gymnasium exam result 98.33 (2.85) 98.38 (3.02) 98.90* (3.23)
Mean of EVA -0.24 (2.19) 0.21* (2.21) 0.89* (2.26)
Mathemacs and natural sciences
Mean of gymnasium exam result 98.21 (2.65) 98.36 (2.95) 99.03* (3.23)
Mean of EVA -0.24 (1.89) 0.36* (1.98) 1.17* (2.10)
N548 764 371
Mean of students in schools 175.5 123.6 72.4
* Signicant dierences at the level of 0.05. Autonomous gymnasiums constute the reference group.
Based on SIO and CKE data. Standard deviaons in parentheses.
Table 10
Average results and EVA of gymnasiums by structural model in towns with county rights
Characteriscs SAMG SP+G G+PG
Humanies
Mean of gymnasium exam result 100.51 (6.45) 101.31* (5.08) 103.33* (10.45)
Mean of EVA 0.17 (2.56) 0.61* (2.17) 0.66* (3.43)
Mathemacs and natural sciences
Mean of gymnasium exam result 100.09 (6.68) 100.89* (5.44) 103.70* (11.98)
Mean of EVA -0.32 (2.40) 0.12* (2.12) 0.58* (4.19)
N458 197 182
Mean of students in schools 329.7 205.7 240.9
* Signicant dierences at the level of 0.05. Autonomous gymnasiums constute the reference group.
Based on SIO and CKE data. Standard deviaons in parentheses.
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
In towns with county rights, both the
results of agymnasium completion exam
and EVA are higher than the domestic ave-
rages. This mainly relates to gymnasiums
in school complexes with aprimary school.
However, the EVA in these schools is quite
dispersed. Autonomous gymnasiums have
the lowest EVA.
As in our earlier analyses of the average
size of the school and class size, in addi-
tion to calculating the average results of the
gymnasium completion exam and EVA, we
should also analyse the variation of these
values within each model. Figure 5 shows the
distribution of the humanities component of
gymnasium completion exam results.
As we can see, the distribution of average
exam results for autonomous gymnasiums
and gymnasiums in aschool complex with
aprimary school are very similar. The largest
number of schools had an average result of
between 95 and 105 points (on ascale with an
average of 100), while for autonomous schools,
the share of schools with an average result
between 100 and 105 was slightly lower, and
among single district gymnasiums – slightly
higher. However, the distribution of average
results of gymnasiums in aschool complex
with an upper secondary school is comple-
tely different. For this model, the number of
schools with average results is lower, while the
number of schools with very good results is
higher. Also, the share of schools with poor
results (below 90) is higher in the G+PG
model. This means that this model is parti-
cularly differentiated: it includes both schools
with students achieving very good results and
many schools with students attaining poor
results. Probably the group of gymnasiums
with particularly good exam results includes
those affiliated with renowned, autonomous
general upper secondary schools, while those
with poor results are observed at gymna-
siums operating in complexes with vocatio-
nal schools. The distribution of the average
results of the mathematics and natural scien-
ces exam is very similar to the distribution
shown in Figure 5.
The distribution of teaching effectiveness
of subjects in the humanities for individual
gymnasium models is very differentiated
(Figure 6). Gymnasiums in aschool complex
Figure 5. Percentage distribuon of a gymnasium exam results by structural model (humanies).
Less than 90
90 to 95
95 to 100
100 to 105
105 to 110
110 and more
Herczyński, Sobotka
with an upper secondary school are equally
divided into groups of schools in individual
EVA ranges. Among autonomous gymna-
siums, the share of schools with high effec-
tiveness is slightly lower, while the share with
an effectiveness below -1 is higher. On the
other hand, gymnasiums in aschool com-
plex with aprimary school are dominated by
schools with average effectiveness. They also
have avery small share of schools with low
effectiveness (especially in the case of single
district gymnasiums). This means that the
relatively high average EVA for these gymna-
siums results mainly from the fact that these
gymnasiums include only asmall number of
schools with low effectiveness. The distribu-
tion of teaching effectiveness for mathema-
tics and natural sciences is similar.
An initial attempt at an explanation is
proposed for the differences illustrated in
Table 8 and in Figures 5 and 6. Autonomous
gymnasiums encounter significant trans-
ition problems of all their students to anew
school, new classes and new teachers (see
Appelt, 2004). Both the ability of teachers
to recognise the potential and problems of
their students, as well as students’ adapta-
tion to new requirements take some time.
Gymnasiums in school complexes with an
upper secondary school also experience this
problem, but perhaps the initial selection of
candidates to this type of gymnasium elimi-
nates some of those students who are poorly
motivated or have behavioural issues. The
problem of transition to anew school is sig-
nificantly smaller in gymnasiums in school
complexes with aprimary school and virtu-
ally non-existent when the primary school
and gymnasium have the same catchment
area. In this case, this is a de facto nine-
-year school and presumably – with respect
to configuration – many members of the
1st year gymnasium classes are from the 6th
grade classes.
The differences in gymnasium comple-
tion exam results and in EVA of gymnasiums
from different structural models may also
have other reasons, not directly linked to the
model itself. These issues, though very inte-
resting, are outside of the scope of this article.
Figure 6. Percentage distribuon of EVA of gymnasiums by structural model (maths and natural sciences).
Less than -3
-3 to -3
-1 to 1
1 to 3
3 and more
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
Social and territorial distribution of
gymnasiums belonging to various models
The social distribution of gymnasiums
belonging to various structural models is
illustrated with the use of aclassification of
municipalities. The functional typology of
municipalities introduced by Paweł Swianie-
wicz (2012) and modified by Jan Herczyński
(2012) is used. One-third of municipal gymna-
siums are in typical rural municipalities, and
18% of them in towns with county rights (see
the “Total” column in Table 4, which includes
municipal gymnasiums not representing any
of the four types). The number of industrial
municipalities is small. Typical rural munici-
palities, mixed agricultural and post-state farm
municipalities operate 60% of all gymnasiums.
Table 11 provides the distribution of
gymnasiums among various types of muni-
cipalities by structural model. The column
“Other” includes data on gy mnasiums exclu-
ded from the analysis, as in the penultimate
row of Table 4.
The distribution of gymnasiums in dif-
ferent structural models is very different.
Gymnasiums in school complexes with upper
secondary schools are most often found in
towns with county rights (68%). In other
types of municipalities, this model appears
rarely, which is simply the effect of the sta-
tutory responsibilities of the different tiers of
local government: primary schools are the
responsibility of municipalities, secondary
schools of counties. Thus, the only munici-
palities that may operate both gymnasiums
and upper secondary schools are towns with
county rights. Municipalities may delegate
tasks among each other based on an agre-
ement – amunicipality may assume the ope-
rations of asecondary school from acounty,
while a county may operate agymnasium
and together they can form agymnasium
and post-lower secondary school complex
(G+PG). However, this happens rarely. As
aresult, this model is found most frequently
in towns with county rights. Gymnasiums in
school complexes with aprimary school can
be found primarily in ty pical rural municipa-
lities, mixed agricultural municipalities and
post-state farm municipalities (68% of SP+G;
84% of SP=G respectively). The concentration
of single district gymnasiums in typical rural
municipalities is particularly striking (49%).
Autonomous gymnasiums are more evenly
distributed among types of municipalities,
their number in typical rural areas is relati-
vely lower. Gymnasiums not belonging to any
model are distinctly overrepresented in towns
with county rights and underrepresented in
typical rural municipalities.
The domination of types of structural
models by type of municipality is also worth
analysing; this is presented in Table 12. The
Table 11
Distribuon of municipal gymnasiums among funconal types of municipalies by structural model
Funconal type of municipality SAMG SP+G SP=G G+PG Other Total
Towns with county rights 22.6 10.8 1.2 68.2 26.3 18.5
Towns outside metropolitan areas 11.8 5.6 5.1 5.2 10.8 8.4
Municipalies in metropolitan areas 11.1 13.1 6.2 7.5 9.0 10.6
Industrial municipalies 3.2 2.5 3.5 0.7 2.1 2.7
Post-state farm municipalies 13.9 14.3 17.8 7.9 13.3 14.2
Mixed agricultural municipalies 10.4 12.0 17.5 5.2 11.1 11.7
Typical rural municipalies 27.0 41.8 48.7 5.2 27.4 33.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Herczyński, Sobotka
row “Total” repeats data already provided in
Table 4. In accordance with earlier findings,
only towns with county rights have asig-
nificant percentage (18%) of gymnasiums
in school complexes with upper secondary
schools. Towns outside of urban agglomera-
tions have the highest percentage of autono-
mous gymnasiums (50%), while typical rural
municipalities – the lowest (29%). On the
other hand, 60% of all gymnasiums operated
by rural municipalities are those in aschool
complex with aprimary school.
Territorial differentiation
of gymnasium models
The appearance of four structural models
of gymnasiums is geographica lly differentia-
ted, but this variation is not clear or easy to
interpret. This is due to many overlapping
factors that led to the development of some
models in different regions of Poland. For
this reason, comments to the maps presented
below are mostly hypothetical. We start with
the model of the autonomous gymnasium
(Map 1), recognised by education reformers
as their basic target model.
Autonomous gymnasium
The autonomous gymnasium c an be found
throughout Poland, both in cities and rural
areas. The la rgest number of such schools are in
the Łódzkie Voivodship (55.7%), Dolnośląskie
Voivodship (53.4%) and Opolskie Voivodship
(49.6%). This model was probably established
primarily in areas where it was relatively easy
to open autonomous gymnasiums, due to the
number of gymnasium-aged children living
in the given area and the numerous school
buildings that could house the gymnasium.
However, the settlement network is obviou-
sly not the only factor that contributed to the
dominance of this structural model in indi-
vidual municipalities. The degree of urbani-
sation of the Pomorskie Voivodship is com-
parable to that of the Zachodniopomorskie
Voivodship. However, significant differences
in the occurrence of autonomous gymna-
siums are noticeable between these two voi-
vodships, which suggests the impact of other
factors. One of them may be the decisions of
Curators of Education. We have no data on the
number of rejected requests to open agymna-
sium and primary school complex. However,
we can assume that education curators do
not always approve the establishment of this
type of school complex. In voivodships where
education curators are less inclined to approve
such complexes, more autonomous gymna-
siums may operate. The analysis of changes
in the network of gymnasiums (Herczyński
and Sobotka, 2014) shows that in 2007–2012,
Table 12
Percentage distribuon of structural models of municipal gymnasiums in funconal types of
municipalies
Funconal type of municipality SAMG SP+G SP=G G+PG Other Total
Towns with county rights 44.3 19.0 0.9 17.6 18.3 100.0
Towns outside metropolitan areas 50.5 21.8 8.2 3.0 16.5 100.0
Municipalies in metropolitan areas 37.9 40.0 7.9 3.4 10.9 100.0
Industrial municipalies 41.6 29.9 17.5 1.3 9.7 100.0
Post-state farm municipalies 35.4 32.8 17.1 2.6 12.1 100.0
Mixed agricultural municipalies 32.2 33.3 20.2 2.1 12.2 100.0
Typical rural municipalies 28.9 40.3 19.6 0.7 10.4 100.0
Total 36.2 32.6 13.6 4.8 12.8 100.0
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
Map 1. Territorial variaon of the SAMG model in municipalies.
Based on SIO and CKE data.
Map 2. SAMG model and a network of main roads near Warsaw and Łódź.
Based on SIO and CKE data.
0–25%
25,1–50%
50,1–75%
75,1–100%
Herczyński, Sobotka
out of all schools existing in 2007, only 2.8%
of gymnasiums in the Zachodniopomorskie
Voivodship were in aschool complex with
aprimary school, while, for example, in the
Podlaskie Voivodship, nearly every seventh
gymnasium was included in such aschool
complex. These differences may certainly
result from the number of requests submitted
by municipalities in individual voivodships.
However, they show that not only relatively
constant factors (such as, for example, urba-
nisation or population density) but also fac-
tors changing over time, such as the terms of
successive Education Curators, who may or
may not approve agymnasium and primary
school complex, may impact the development
of individual models.
Establishing an autonomous gymnasium
in amunicipality with asmall concentration
of students requires organising asystem of
transporting children to school. However,
the efficient provision of transportation lar-
gely depends on the local network of roads,
their density and quality. In some parts of
Poland, municipalities with autonomous
gymnasiums sometimes form elongated
special strips, which suggests that the road
network may influence the location of auto-
nomous gymnasiums.
The elongated spatial strips are particu-
larly clearly visible near Warsaw and Łódź
(Map 2), where municipalities with alarge
share of autonomous gymnasiums reflect
the radial system of the main exit roads
from both cities. Ahypothesis may be pro-
posed that the establishment of autonomous
gymnasiums was motivated in part by the
developed road network, which allowed stu-
dents to be more easily transported to school.
Aggregate gymnasiums
The second identified structural model is
the aggregate gymnasium, that is, agymna-
sium in acomplex with aprimary school,
enrolling graduates of several primary
schools (SP+G, see Map 3).
The municipalities where this model
dominates sometimes form compact areas,
for example, in the centra l part of the Pomor-
skie Voivodship or in the eastern part of the
Podlaskie Voivodship. This model develo-
ped mainly in rural areas, dominating in the
poorly urbanised Świętokrzyskie Voivodship
(47.2%) and the eastern part of the Podlaskie
Voivodship. The popularity of this model
in the urbanised Pomorskie Voivodship is
puzzling. The development of this model pri-
marily in rural areas (40.3% in typical rural
municipalities) confirms the difficulties
reported by such municipalities at the start
of the reform in establishing autonomous
gymnasiums. Many rural municipalities
at that time had no funds to construct new
school buildings, so they located gymna-
siums in the facilities of primary schools.
The analysis of changes in the network of
gymnasiums taking place in 2007–2012
(Herczyński and Sobotka, 2014) shows that
the number of schools operating in this
model is still growing. The declining number
of children in primary schools and gymna-
siums and, in consequence, the reduced edu-
cation subvention received by municipalities
force them to look for savings. Organising
schools into school complexes makes such
savings possible: aschool complex has only
one director and one office, and the staff is
better managed.
Single district gymnasiums
The third identified model is the single
district gymnasium, that is, agymnasium in
aschool complex with aprimary school having
the same catchment area (SP=G, Map4).
Single district gymnasiums can be mai-
nly found in Podkarpackie Voivodship – this
model is found for every third municipal
gymnasium there (34.1%). Many schools of
this type also operate in the Małopolskie
Voivodship (23.3%) and in the south-eastern
part of the Podlaskie Voivodship (19.3%).
At least three reasons for establishing this
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
Map 3. Territorial variaon of the SP+G model in municipalies.
Based on SIO and CKE data.
Map 4. Territorial variaon of the SP=G model in municipalies.
Based on SIO and CKE data.
0–25%
25,1–50%
50,1–75%
75,1–100%
0–25%
25,1–50%
50,1–75%
75,1–100%
Herczyński, Sobotka
type of school may be formulated. First,
such amodel may be result of the functio-
ning of remote gymnasium classes during
the first years of the reform. Statistics on
the number of remote classes in individual
voivodships are not available, however, the
establishment of new gymnasiums between
2002 and 200321 indicates that remote clas-
ses were most common in the Podkarpackie
Voivodship – the number of gymnasiums
there increased in 2003 by as much as 11%.
The number of gymnasiums also increased
in the Małopolskie (8%) and Lubelskie Voi-
vodships (7.6%), while in other voivodships
(e.g. Warmińsko-Mazurskie, Dolnośląskie
and Kujawsko-Pomorskie) the increase was
only about 1%. In certain municipalities of
the Podkarpackie Voivodship, we notice sud-
den increase in new gymnasiums from one
year to the next. For example, in Ropczyce,
only three gymnasiums operated in 2002 and
ayear later their number grew to as many
as 12. The situation was similar in neighbo-
uring Dębica (the number of gymnasiums
increased there from 5 to 13) or in Przeworsk
(Herczyński and Sobotka, 2014).
In the case of the Podlaskie Voivodship,
another hypothesis on the establishment of
single district gymnasiums may be propo-
sed. In 1999–2009, the yearly increase in the
number of municipal gymnasiums was very
insignificant there, which suggests that the
process of transforming remote classes into
autonomous gymnasiums had not taken
place in this region. Thus, the reasons for
the development of this model in the Pod-
laskie Voivodship must be different. Pod-
laskie has the smallest average population
density in Poland (59 persons/km2 i n 2014),
21 Recall that from September 2003 and with the approval of
the Education Curator, gymnasiums could operate in aschool
complex with aprimary school, which encouraged many
municipalities to transform remote classes of gymnasiums,
invisible for the public statistics system, into autonomous
schools. The increase in the number of gymnasiums between
2002 and 2003 is thus areporting artefact.
which makes organising anetwork of schools
challenging. Gymnasiums operating with
aprimary school (SP+G and SP=G models)
constitute nearly 60% of the models there.
Over 37% of primary schools (2012) are
small schools, enrolling fewer than 70 stu-
dents, and often threatened with liquidation.
Organising such small primary schools into
school complexes with gymnasiums increa-
ses the efficiency of the institution, enhances
the effective use of school staff, and reduces
administration costs. The intention to save
small primary schools in this region may
have led to establishment of single district
gymnasiums. Another factor, not connected
with spatial distribution but influencing the
development of this model in certain muni-
cipalities, relates to the education policy
adopted by amunicipality. There are cases
of municipalities where this type of gymna-
sium model was developed (Herczyński and
Sobotka, 2014) mainly to reduce the adapta-
tion difficulties experienced when changing
schools and the environment.
Gymnasium in aschool complex
with asecondary school
The last identified structural type of
agymnasium is the gymnasium in aschool
complex with an upper secondary school
(G+PG model, Map 5).
Municipalities which have asignificant
proportion of this structural model are scat-
tered throughout Poland and their number
is small. As we have already observed, over
two-thirds of gymnasiums in school com-
plexes with upper secondary schools are in
towns with county rights (Table 11). Thus,
the territorial distribution of this model
is related to the occurrence of towns with
county rights in Poland, although this not
apopular model in the largest cities. The
largest number of gymnasiums in this
model is present in the strongly urbanised
Śląskie (12%) and Zachodniopomorskie Voi-
vodships (10.6%).
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
Summary
The autonomous decisions of munici-
palities over the last 16 years have led to the
development of four structural models of
the gymnasium. Autonomous gymnasiums,
gymnasiums in aschool complex with apri-
mary school (aggregate or single district)
and gymnasiums in aschool complex with
an upper secondary school are different types
of schools, operate in different school envi-
ronments and have different structural and
organisational characteristics. A particu-
larly surprising feature of these models is the
relatively low teaching effectiveness (EVA) of
autonomous gymnasiums and the high tea-
ching effectiveness of single district gymna-
siums, which the reformers wanted to avoid.
The distribution of the four structural
models of municipal gymnasiums is also
contrary to the expectations of the refor-
mers of 1998: gymnasiums in aschool com-
plex with aprimary school dominate, while
the number of gymnasiums in a school
complex with an upper secondary school is
small and not increasing. Although the deci-
sions of municipalities about the network of
gymnasiums largely depend on financial
issues (need to curb expenses) and the avai-
lability of school facilities (high cost of new
investments), the analysis presented here
indicates that, contrary to the intentions of
the reform, gymnasiums in school complexes
with primary schools have higher teaching
effectiveness as measured by EVA.
Based on our analysis, two open rese-
arch problems can be formulated. The first
relates to the determinants of the decision to
establish agymnasium of agiven type. The
following factors undoubtedly impact the
decisions of municipalities: fragmentation
of the settlement network and the network
of roads, the small or large distance from
large urban centres, as well as the attitude of
the Education Curators. However, how much
these factors are significant in the functio-
ning of municipalities, which of them are
important, and how the different factors
Map 5. Territorial variaon of the G+PG model in municipalies.
Based on SIO and CKE data.
0–25%
25,1–50%
50,1–75%
75,1–100%
Herczyński, Sobotka
interact with one another – these are que-
stions requiring empirical analysis. Of par-
ticular urgency is the question of whether,
given the conditions in Poland, it was inevi-
table that few gymnasiums would be opened
in complexes with upper secondary schools,
or, as Professor Mirosław Handke believes,
this was the result of political decisions taken
by his successors.
The second significant research prob-
lem is understanding what determines the
differences in the operation of gymnasiums
representing the various models. This cer-
tainly relates to such issues as the higher
indicators of grade retention and student
dropout at gymnasiums in school complexes
with upper secondary schools. However, the
most urgent fact requiring clarif ication is the
variation of EVA results among gymnasiums
of different types. Small rural single district
gymnasiums have statistically higher tea-
ching effectiveness than large autonomous
urban schools. Understanding the institu-
tional and educational mechanisms that
underlie these differences is necessary for the
better management of local school networks.
Literature
Alspaugh, J. W. (1999). The interaction effect of
transition grade to high school with gender and
grade level upon dropout rates. ERIC Document
No. ED431066. Montreal: American Educational
Research Association.
Appelt, K. (2004). Gimnazjum. Trudności wycho-
wawcze wokresie dorastania. Psychologia wSzkole,
4(4), 19–25.
Bajerski, A. (2011). Organizacja przestrzenna ifunk-
cjonowanie usług edukacyjnych waglomeracji
poznańskiej. Biblioteka Aglomeracji Poznańskiej,
14, Poznań: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Becker, H. J. (1987). Addressing the needs of dierent
groups of early adolescents: eects of varying school
and classroom organizational practices on students
from dierent social backgrounds and abilities.
Report No. 16. Baltimore: Center for Research on
Elementary and Middle Schools, e Johns Hop-
kins University.
Chaker, A. M. (2005). Middle school goes out of fash-
ion, districts shi to K-8 model. e Wall Street
Journal, April 6. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.
com/articles/SB111274377335098942
Dolata, R., Hawrot, A., Humenny, G., Jasińska, A.,
Koniewski, M., Majkut, P. and Żółtak, T. (2013).
Trafność metody edukacyjnej wartości dodanej dla
gimnazjów. Warszawa: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.
Franklin, B. J. and Glascock, C. H. (1998). e rela-
tionship between grade conguration and student
performance in rural schools. Journal of Research
in Rural Education, 14(3), 149–153.
Handke, M. (2006). Reformę szkoły zepsuto później.
[Radio interview.] Retrieved from http://www.
rmf24.pl/ tylko-w-rmf24/wywiady/news-handke-
-reforme-szkoly-zepsuto-pozniej,nId,210846
Herczyński, J. (2012). Wskaźniki oświatowe. Biblio-
teczka Oświaty Samorządowej, 6. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo ICM.
Herczyński, J. and Sobotka, A. (2014). Diagnoza z mian
wsieci szkół podstawowych igimnazjów 2007–2012.
Warszawa: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.
Humenny, G., Koniewski, M., Majkut, P. and Skór-
ska, P. (2014). Migracje uczniów między zespołami
klasowymi przy przejściu ze szkoły podstawowej
do gimnazjum. In B. Niemierko and M. K. Szmigel
(eds.), Diagnozy edukacyjne – dorobek inowe zada-
nia (pp. 128–141). Kraków: Polskie Towarzystwo
Diagnostyki Edukacyjnej.
Ignar-Golinowska, B. and Gajewska, M. (2002).
Warunki nauczania w gimnazjach miejskich
iwiejskich w pierwszym roku reformy systemu
edukacji. Rocznik Państwowego Zakładu Higieny,
53(1), 89–96.
Konarzewski, K. (2001a). Sieć szkolna. In K. Kona-
rzewski (ed.), Szkolnictwo wpierwszym roku reformy
oświaty. Warszawa: Instytut Spraw Publicznych.
Konarzewski, K. (2001b). Reforma strukturalna:
gimnazjum. In K. Konarzewski (ed.), Szkolnictwo
w pierwszym roku reformy oświaty. Warszawa:
Instytut Spraw Publicznych.
Konarzewski, K. (2004). Reforma oświaty. Podstawa
programowa i warunki kształcenia. Warszawa:
Instytut Spraw Publicznych.
Książek, W. (2001). Rzecz oreformie edukacji 1997–
–2001. Warszawa: Ocyna Wydawniczo-Poligra-
czna „Adam”.
Lackowski, J. (2008). Decentralizacja zarządzania
polskim systemem oświatowym aspołeczne nierów-
ności edukacyjne. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwer-
sytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Organisational models of gymnasium in Poland
This article is based on data gathered during research carried out within the systemic project “Quality and effectiveness of
education – strengthening of institutional research capabilities” implemented by the Educational Research Institute and
co-financed from the European Social Fund (Human Capital Operational Programme 2007–2013, Priority III High quality
of the education system). A preliminary version of this article was published in Polish in Edukacja, 135(4), 2015.
Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej (1998). Minister-
stwo Edukacji Narodowej osieci szkół (Biblio-
teczka Reformy, vol. 2). Warszawa: Ministerstwo
Edukacji Narodowej.
Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej (2000). Minister-
stwo Edukacji Narodowej oreorganizacji sieci szkół
(Biblioteczka Reformy, vol. 19). Warszawa: Mini-
sterstwo Edukacji Narodowej.
Piwowarski, R. (2006). Modele edukacji dla potrzeb
koncepcji przestrzennego zagospodarowania kraju.
Warszawa: Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego.
Pokropek, A. (2009). Metody statystyczne wykorzysty-
wane wszacowaniu trzyletnich wskaźników egza-
minacyjnych. In B. Niemierko and M. K. Szmigel
(eds.), Badania międzynarodowe iwzory zagraniczne
wdiagnostyce edukacyjnej (pp. 137–153). Kraków:
Polskie Towarzystwo Diagnostyki Edukacyjnej.
Rocko, J. E. and Lockwood, B. B. (2010). Stuck in
the middle: impacts of grade conguration in pub-
lic schools. Journal of Public Economics, 94(11–12),
1051–1061.
Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej zdnia
15 lutego 1999 roku wsprawie sposobu iterminów
dostosowania działalności dotychczasowych szkół
państwowych do wymogów nowego systemu szkol-
nego oraz tworzenia gimnazjów (1999). [Dz.U.
Nr14, poz. 124]. Retrieved from http://isap.sejm.
gov. pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19990140124
Schwerdt, G. and West, M. R. (2013). e impact of
alternative grade congurations on student out-
comes through middle and high school. Journal
of Public Economics, 97, 308–326.
Simmons, R. G. and Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving
into adolescence: the impact of pubertal change
and school context. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Swianiewicz, P. (ed.). (2012). Edukacja przedszkolna.
Biblioteczka Oświaty Samorządowej, 4. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo ICM.
Ustawa z dnia 7 września 1991 r. o systemie
oświaty (1991). [Dz.U. Nr95 poz. 425]. Retrie-
ved from http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServ-
let?id=WDU19910950425
Ustawa z dnia 25 lipca 1998 r. ozmianie ustawy
osystemie oświaty (1998). [Dz.U. Nr117, poz.
759]. Retrieved from http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/
DetailsServlet?id=WDU19981170759
Ustawa zdnia 8 stycznia 1999 r. Przepisy wprowadza-
jące reformę ustroju szkolnego (1999). [Dz.U. Nr.
12, poz. 96]. Retrieved from http://isap.sejm.gov.
pl/ DetailsServlet?id=WDU19990120096
Ustawa zdnia 21 stycznia 2000 r. ozmianie nie-
których ustaw związanych z funkcjonowaniem
administracji publicznej (2000). [Dz.U. Nr. 12,
poz. 136]. Retrieved from http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/
DetailsServlet?id=WDU20000120136
Ustawa zdnia 23 sierpnia 2001 r. ozmianie ustawy
osystemie oświaty, ustawy – Przepisy wprowadzające
reformę ustroju szkolnego, ustawy – Karta Nauczy-
ciela oraz niektórych innych ustaw (2001). [Dz.U.
Nr111, poz. 1194]. Retrieved from http://isap.sejm.
gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20011111194
Ustawa zdnia 15 marca 2002 r. ozmianie ustawy
osystemie oświaty oraz niektórych innych ustaw
(2002). [Dz.U. Nr41, poz. 362]. Retrieved from
http:// isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=W-
DU20020410362+2002%2405%2404&min=1
Ustawa zdnia 27 czerwca 2003 r. ozmianie ustawy
osystemie oświaty oraz ozmianie niektórych innych
ustaw (2003). [Dz.U. Nr137, poz. 1304]. Retrieved
from http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?
id=WDU20031371304
Uzasadnienie projektu ustawy ozmianie ustawy osyste-
mie oświaty (1998). Retrieved from http://orka. sejm.
gov.pl/Rejestrd.nsf/wgdruku/389/$le/389.pdf
Ward, D. S.(2008). Middle school: the “Bermuda
triangle” of education? [Website of New York
State School Boards Association.] Retrieved from
http://www.nyssba.org/news/2008/11/24/on-
-board-online-nov-24-2008/middle-school-the-
-bermuda-triangle-of-education/
Wihry, D. F., Coladarci, T. and Meadow, C. (1992).
Grade span and eighth-grade academic achieve-
ment: evidence from apredominantly rural state.
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 8(2), 58–70.
