ArticlePDF Available

School autonomy, school accountability and social justice: stories from two Australian school principals



This paper explores issues of social justice in relation to the practice of two principals from two Australian public schools. The stories of these principals are set against a policy backdrop in Australia that has seen renewed emphasis on school autonomy reform, on the one hand, and heightened external accountability and compliance, on the other. Drawing on interview data from a small-scale study, we highlight some of the tensions for redistributive justice arising within this context. We examine the ways in which the principals’ efforts for redistributive justice at the local school level compromise redistributive justice more broadly. We highlight the ongoing significance of examining how principals are framing their decision-making in relation to social justice. Within the freedoms of the present climate, the paper draws attention to the enduring imperative of centralised equity-focused accountabilities.
School autonomy, school accountability and social justice: stories from two Australian school
1. Amanda Keddie (Research for Educational Impact, Deakin University,, t: +61 3 924 68426)
2. Jessica Holloway (School of Education, Deakin University,
Corresponding Author:
Amanda Keddie
Research for Educational Impact
Faculty of Arts and Education
Deakin University
Burwood, Australia, 3125
Phone: +61 3 924 68426
Word count: 6444
School autonomy, school accountability and social justice: stories from two Australian school
This paper explores issues of social justice in relation to the practice of two principals from two
Australian public schools. The stories of these principals are set against a policy backdrop in Australia
that has seen renewed emphasis on school autonomy reform, on the one hand, and heightened
external accountability and compliance, on the other. Drawing on interview data from a small-scale
study, we highlight some of the tensions for redistributive justice arising within this context. We
examine the ways in which the principals’ efforts for redistributive justice at the local school level
compromise redistributive justice more broadly. We highlight the ongoing significance of examining
how principals are framing their decision-making in relation to social justice. Within the freedoms of
the present climate, the paper draws attention to the enduring imperative of centralised equity-
focused accountabilities.
Key words:
Redistributive justice
School leaders
School autonomy
School accountability
Kevin and Grant are the principals of two large Australian public schools. They are committed to
leading their schools in ways that reflect equity for their students and their local communities. For
Kevin, this means utilising his Parents and Citizens fund-raising to resource an extra learning space in
his school to accommodate his growing student population and for Grant, it means partnering with a
philanthropic donor to realise his school’s vision of an ‘alternative’ holistic education for migrants
and refugees. These practices can be seen as reflecting social justice or, more specifically,
redistributive justice through their efforts to ensure a more equitable allocation of resources for
students (Fraser 2009). However, they also reflect potential to undermine redistributive justice. In
building an extra learning space at his school, for example, Kevin does not adhere to centralised
funding rules designed to ensure equitable resourcing across the system, while Grant’s reliance on
philanthropy potentially compromises his school’s holistic vision given this philanthropy’s prioritising
of business imperatives.
We locate these stories within the current policy context in Australia that has seen renewed
emphasis on school autonomy reform, on the one hand, and heightened external accountability and
compliance, on the other. School autonomy reform reflects a freeing up of the education system in
its devolving of responsibility away from the state to schools and other organisations. These
processes have ‘empowered’ school principals to self-govern, pursue opportunities and innovate. At
the same time, new forms of external accountability and compliance have reigned in and re-
embedded this system circumscribing this freedom for principals. These processes have generated
mixed effects for social justice.
With reference to the stories of Kevin and Grant, we analyse these mixed effects and their tensions
through the work of Nancy Fraser (2009). We draw attention to matters of redistributive (economic)
justice and, in particular, the principals’ efforts to dismantle the economic obstacles within the
context of their school that they see as impeding their students’ parity of participation i.e. their
capacity to participate on par with others (Fraser 2009). Such efforts reflect a mobilising of
autonomy, consistent with its policy intention, to better respond to the needs of students at the
localised community level. We also consider how such efforts can undermine redistributive justice.
Here we examine how the freedoms these principals take up 1) erode some of the social protections
within departmental regulations that oversee equity across the system and 2) open spaces for new
forms of governance that prioritise business imperatives. These issues highlight the ongoing
significance of examining how principals are framing their decision-making in relation to social
justice. Within the freedoms of the present climate, the paper draws attention to the enduring
imperative of centralised equity-focused accountabilities.
School autonomy reform and social justice
In Australia school governance differs markedly from state to state. While national mandates
powerfully shape the direction of public schools in relation to school funding, curriculum and testing,
governance of these schools remains the responsibility of the states. Within these arrangements
state policy and practice in relation to school autonomy have varied considerably. Nevertheless, it
can be said that the thrust of such arrangements are similarly framedto foster schools greater
independence from state governance. Such independence purports to afford school leaders the
flexibility and freedom in governance and decision-making around issues such as finance, staffing
and resourcing so that they can better and more efficiently respond to their local communities (see
Cobbold 2014; Gobby 2013; Wilkinson et al. 2018). This rationale for school autonomy is consistent
with the rationale undergirding similar reforms in other western nations e.g. the charter school
(USA) and academies (UK) movements. And as this reform is associated with driving up education
standards and outcomes, it has been endorsed at a global policy level (OECD 2011; World Bank
2014). In Australia, the federal government has committed $70 million to ‘build on current
developments across the states to help schools become more autonomous and independent if they
so choose’ (see Australian Government 2015), while at a state level the Independent Public Schools
(IPS) policy has been introduced in Western Australia (in 2010) and Queensland (in 2013) to support
greater managerial freedom for a growing number of schools.
Despite the work pressure and intensification involved, principals have long embraced the imaginary
of greater autonomy in Australia as they have elsewhere (Thomson 2010; Kimber and Ehrich 2011).
As Thomson (2010) points out, principals continue to both support and actively lobby for more and
more autonomy as it accords them a greater voice in decision making about their schools. School
autonomy reform reflects a sense of confidence and trust that school leaders can make a positive
difference to their schools and the broader system (see Hamilton and Associates, 2015; Blackmore
2016). Certainly, there is strong evidence to indicate the advantages and innovations arising for
schools from the freedoms within this reform agenda for leaders to, in particular, make decisions
about staffing and resourcing that are contextually responsive and enriching (see Leithwood and
Menzies 1998; Gobby 2014; Wilkinson et al. 2018).
While linked in policy discourse to driving up education standards, there is little conclusive research
evidence that can attest to the efficacy of this reform in generating school improvement whether
this be in relation to Academy reform in England (Academies Commission 2013), charter schools in
the USA (Ravitch 2011; Darling-Hammond & Montgomery 2008) or Self-Managing Schools in
Australia (Jensen et al. 2013; Smyth 2011). In relation to its potential to support redistributive justice
(towards a more equitable allocation of resources for all students), the impacts of this reform are
mixed. On the positive side, more direct and increased flexibility in relation to school funding has led
in some cases to a more equitable distribution of material and human resources for marginalised or
disadvantaged students. There is evidence to indicate that the greater freedoms afforded by this
policy are being mobilised to support school retention, participation and achievement initiatives that
reflect redistributive principles; for example, food programs, uniform/clothing provision, family and
parenting support, housing assistance, welfare and health services and other community services.
There is also evidence to indicate that these greater freedoms are being mobilised to reflect a more
efficient use of material and human resources than was previously possible under more centralised
governance (see Bandaranayake 2013; Keddie 2015; Holloway & Keddie 2018).
The negative impacts of school autonomy reform in relation to redistributive justice become
apparent when considering how it is shaped by the market imperatives of economic efficiency,
competition and external auditing. These imperatives have forced schools to run themselves like
businesses against a backdrop of increasingly limited public resourcing (see Blackmore 2011;
Heffernan 2018; Gobby 2018). This privatizing of education where responsibility for education
governance and performance has shifted away from the state towards the individual school is a
feature of devolved or ‘autonomous schooling’ across western contexts (e.g. England and the USA)
that has attracted much opposition and critique (see Ball and Junemann 2012; Keddie and Mills
2019; Ravitch 2011; Lipman 2011).
(Blackmore 2016). Coupled with an increase in centralised systems of external and public
accountability, this shift has generated greater competition between schools which has, in turn,
increased stratification and residualisation within school systems i.e. through valuing (publicly
rewarding) and de-valuing (publicly shaming) schools on the basis of their performance on these
measures, ‘good’ schools (that do well on these measures) tend to improve their reputation and
attract more students thus securing their place at the top of the system hierarchy while the reverse
situation tends to be the case for ‘bad’ schools (that do not do well on these measures). Other
perverse(i.e. anti-educational) effects arising from these public accountabilities are the increased
gaming practices they encourage where schools exclude more ‘needy’ [i.e. underperforming]
students to prevent reputational damage and a narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy to a teach (or
lead) -to-the-test mentality (see Lingard and Sellar 2012; Blackmore 2016; Heffernan 2018). Such
effects have led to increasing the inequities of maldistribution within Australia’s education system
(Smyth 2011; Keddie 2017; Gobby et al. 2017; Wilkinson et al. 2018).
Further compromising inequities of maldistribution, and related to the privatisation of public
education, is the new role that philanthropic and corporate actors are playing in school governance.
This is a move away from state-dominated service provision to a mixed economy approach where
‘the state, the voluntary sector and commercial actors interact as co-partners in the planning and
delivery of what previously were state services’ (Blackmore 2011, 456; see also Rizvi and Lingard
2010; Gunter 2012). Governments are increasingly looking to the voluntary and commercial sector
for ‘solutions’ to education ‘problems’ which has led to an enabling within state regulatory
mechanisms for increased private sector involvement (see Ball and Junemann 2012). Indeed, there
are clear expectations within the school autonomy movement for schools to be enterprisingto, for
example, work with business, industry and community organisations in developing innovative
partnerships and sponsorships that will provide extra support for students, schools and the local
community (see The State of Queensland 2014; Gobby et al. 2017; Gobby 2018; Holloway and
Keddie 2018).
The ‘reduced capacity of the state has opened up spaces and opportunities for philanthropic and
corporate providers to expand their role in the governance of schools and schooling systems, [often]
on a for-profit basis’ (Lingard et al. 2017, 3; Blackmore, 2011; Holloway and Keddie 2018). These
non-state actors might offer resources (e.g., funding, professional development, etc.) to help
mitigate the absence of the state. The intentions, goals and values of these organisations, however,
tend to undermine educative and social equity goals through a prioritising of economic efficiency
and through a lack of transparent and participatory governance (see Dardot and Laval 2013; Ball and
Junemann, 2012; Gobby et al. 2017; Wilkinson et al. 2018). Also potentially undermining social
equity goals is the lack of oversight and monitoring of these players on the Australian schooling
landscape. Set against a competitive backdrop of audit and accountability, and increasingly limited
resourcing to public schools, the increasing role of philanthropic and corporate players within
Australia’s education system has contributed to inequities of maldistribution.
On a more positive note, there are many accountability mechanisms in this space that reflect equity
principles. There are mechanisms, for instance, that restrict the encroachment of for-profit
enterprise within Australian public schools. The Queensland IPS policy, for example, includes
regulations that prevent school councils from controlling funds or acquiring, holding and disposing of
property (The State of Queensland 2014). More broadly, a strong feature of IPS policy in Western
Australia and Queensland is the explicit delineation that IP schools remain part of the public system
thus ensuring that teachers and students receive the same entitlements and protections of the
public system. These entitlements and protections play out in mandates that most public schools in
Australia are subject to such as compliance mechanisms that control enrolment practices to ensure
equitable access for students across the system to prevent stratification and residualisation; pay
equity and resourcing for staff; and stipulations around how particular funds can be spent (Gobby
School leaders are navigating this space. On the one hand, school autonomy reform has notionally
‘empowered’ them to self-govern and make their own decisions about how they can improve their
performance and better meet the needs of their specific community (Australian Government 2015).
A more autonomised and devolved system (from the regulatory regimes of the state) is meant to
enable the freedom and flexibility for principals to engage in creative problem solving and to pursue
opportunities for change and innovation (The State of Queensland 2014). On the other hand, this
freedom is circumscribed by the market imperatives reflected in a re-embedding of the system
around increased regulation and accountability. While many of these regulations and
accountabilities are seen as compounding maldistribution within education systems, others are
equity-focused and support redistributive justice. Amid these tensions, school leaders are making
decisions about improving school performance and meeting students’ needs that are producing
mixed effects for social justice.
Research context and processes
The data presented in this paper derive from a small-scale study that sought to explore the
relationship between school autonomy and school improvement in a selection of ‘autonomous’
government schools across three education systems in Australia (Victoria, Western Australia and
Queensland). The study involved interviews with a total of thirteen school principals via Skype (six
from Victoria, four from Queensland and three from WA). These principals were invited to
participate based on their reputation as exemplary leaders within the context of school autonomy
reform (according to department representatives). The interviews were focused on exploring the
participants’ thoughts about the renewed focus nationally and internationally on school autonomy
reform, the impacts of this reform on their school and their leadership especially in relation to
equity issues and the contextual factors they viewed as supporting them to take up autonomy in
positive ways. The interviews were conducted at a time convenient to each of the leaders and lasted
in duration from 60-90 minutes.
The two stories were constructed from two of these interviews with leaders of schools in two of the
states in the study (the particular states are not identified here to adhere with the conditions of
ethical clearance from one of the departments of education). The particular interviews were
selected as best illustrating some of the key themes across all of the interview data in relation to
school autonomy reform and social justice. The stories are presented here as individual stories in an
effort to capture the relevancies and complexities of this process for each principal within the
context of their school. They are thus not intended to be generalisable in any way. As with all of the
principals in the study, Kevin and Grant are highly experienced educators and leaders and expressed
strong support in principle for school autonomy. Further detail about these leaders and their schools
is elaborated in their stories. The principal and school names have been given pseudonyms to
protect anonymity.
The data were analysed in light of the conceptual and theoretical literature outlined earlier. Fraser’s
work (2009) is drawn on to analyse matters of redistributive justice. Fraser (2009) argues that there
are three areas of justice that need to be considered if we are to work towards the principal of parity
of participationwhich is the capacity for all members of society to participate in social life on par
with others. These areas or dimensions are associated with economic, cultural and political justice.
Transforming the injustices of society towards greater parity of participation, Fraser argues the
significance of economic justice (which requires a more equitable distribution of material resources
across social groups); cultural justice (which requires a greater recognition and valuing to those who
have been discriminated against on the basis of their culture or identity [e.g. gender, race, ethnicity,
sexuality, religion, ability]; and political justice (which requires according greater representation or
voice to those who have been silenced on the basis of their culture or identity (Fraser, 2009). We
recognise the significance of all three dimensions in pursuing social justice as well as the complex
ways in which they intersect and overlap. However, our focus in this paper is limited to matters of
redistributive (economic) justice given their salience to the issues we are exploring within the
context of the study and the research in Australia more broadly (Holloway and Keddie 2018;
Wilkinson et al. 2018).
Our focus is on the principals’ efforts to dismantle the economic obstacles within the context of their
school that they see as impeding their students’ parity of participation. We also consider how such
efforts may undermine redistributive justice beyond their schools. In so doing, our analysis highlights
some of the tensions that principals are grappling with in their support for social justice within the
context of school autonomy reform how, on the one hand, the idea of freeing school principals
from departmental regulations does allow schools to better respond to the material and human
resource needs of students within their schools but, how on the other hand, it can lead to new forms
of injustice (Holloway and Keddie, 2019). In exploring these issues our analysis turns to focus on how
these principals are framing their decision-making in relation to social justice (Fraser 2008)
Kevin’s story
Kevin is the principal of Sunflower Primary School which caters to 1000 students and is located in a
suburban area. For Kevin, the ‘freedoms’ of school autonomy reform were compromised by the
regimes of compliance associated with being part of the state system. He described the ‘red tape’ in
the department as ‘huge’ and generating regulation and compliance issues around staffing and
resourcing that meant that there were ‘decisions that [he] just [could not] make’. He noted that
being part of the government system meant that he could not work ‘outside the box’. However, he
had ‘learned to stay within the box and just push those sides as far as [he could], before they
[broke]‘. One of the ways in which the school did ‘push those sides’ was in relation to the use of
Parent and Citizens’ Association fund raising to construct a building in the school so that he could
adequately provide for his growing student population, as Kevin explained:
My P&C raised quite a bit of money and they wanted to build another building for the school
… to help us with learning spaces, but they were told by our Department [of Education] if
they [built] it that for the rest of the natural life of that building, it would not come under
the security/insurance of the Department … We would have to maintain it, clean it, provide
the electricity, because it is not something the Department provided.
…even when parents are prepared to spend money to invest in the school, the Department
will say, "Well, you don't need that building so we are not going to take the on-costs of it. If
you want to build it, it's all yours". So that gets frustrating; but that's because, I guess … their
formula will say, "These are the buildings you have got and you do not need anything else"
[given your student numbers] [and] the three state schools around me have got empty
buildings … so [the Department is] not going to build a building at my school for students
who are passing three schools that have empty buildings.
…my P&C is quite affluent so they roughly raise between $400/$500,000 a year in profit,
which they are very happy to plough back into the school. As I tell them, we just have to do
things more creatively … it's about them being strategic … [so] with [the] building … we are
going to build a multi-purpose, after-school building type thing [rather than a ‘classroom’];
and then we can use it for whatever we want during the week … have a different sign …
Velcro a different sign over the top, when someone comes to visit, you know … we have got
to be innovative.
In this story Kevin understands the forms of compliance set out by the department of education in
relation to his school’s use of private funding as curtailing his independence and decision-making
and as unfair to his students. Such compliance prevents or makes it difficult for him to fund the
construction of an extra building for his growing student population. Kevin creatively defies these
limitations through going ahead with his building but labelling it a particular way to allow him to
draw on departmental funding for its maintenance. These actions can be seen as reflecting
redistributive justice i.e. in going ahead with building the ‘multi-purpose’ room, Kevin’s actions
generate positive material change at his school. In order to do this, Kevin by-passes (at least in his
view) unjust state imposed regulations (that present economic obstacles to his efforts to adequately
materially provide for his growing student body) (Fraser 2009).
Kevin’s actions can, however, also be seen as undermining economic justice. The departmental
regulations that Kevin is attempting to avoid are based on social protection and social justice (Fraser
2013). They aim to ensure that resources are evenly distributed across the system. The lack of
departmental support for the maintenance of Kevin’s proposed building is designed to prevent
schools like his (oversubscribed and well resourced) from growing such that they take resources and
students away from neighbouring schools. His actions further advantage his already privileged
school and thus are compromising of economic justice at the broader systems level. His actions
erode the forms of social protection embedded within departmental regulations. They may also lead
to new forms of oppression in further advantaging his school and disadvantaging neighbouring
schools (Fraser 2013).
The tensions Kevin is navigating between autonomy and compliance reflect ambivalences for social
justice in their differential impacts at the school and broader system levels. Kevin effectively frees
his school from what he describes as excessive ‘red tape’ compliance around resourcing to maximise
the benefits of private and public funding. For his school and students this freedom reflects
redistributive justice. Such actions, however, generate injustice at the system level. Greater (private)
resourcing for this already privileged school works against the social protections embedded in the
department’s compliance regimes. The funding formula within these regimes reflects redistributive
justice ensuring a fair allocation of resources across the system reflects potential to flatten the
hierarchical tiering and stratification characterising this system (Smyth 2011, Keddie 2017; Holloway
and Keddie, 2019). Kevin’s practice undermines these attempts. While working to provide better
resources for his own students and school, he compromises economic equity for other schools and
students i.e. the three state schools around him will continue to have empty buildings (and less
resources for their students).
Grant’s story
Grant is the principal at Brookvale College. The College is located in a different state in Australia to
the schools led by Kevina state with a longer history of school autonomy. Brookvale was designed
as part of a government initiative to revitalize schooling in disadvantaged areas. It came into being
about five years ago through generous government funding subsidized by ongoing philanthropic
support. According to Grant, the College is committed to providing an ‘alternative’ holistic education
for its migrant and refugee community. It is a birth to Year 9 learning centre, which includes early
childhood services, a primary and secondary school, allied and child health support and adult
learning. Grant described it as at the ‘forefront’ of socially just education provision a ‘whole hub’
with a platform of programs for children, their families and the community.
For Grant, being a principal at Brookvale is like ‘running a big enterprise’ as a CEO. He embraced the
managerial responsibilities of this role. While accountable to his philanthropic donor with regular
weekly meetings to discuss the school and monitor progress, he described this relationship as very
autonomous in its respect for his decision making and ‘discretionary’ use of funds. Grant’s view of
his autonomy in relation to departmental regulations, however, was a different story. He described
his decision-making as:
…bordering on the edge of what’s allowed and what’s not allowed [where you make the
decision] and ask for forgiveness [later] … and the reason for that is bureaucracy. I mean,
bureaucracy changes every five minutes, anyway … you don't know who you talk to; half the
time, they disappear.
…if I went to [the Department of Education] and talked about this [the school’s holistic vision
and practices], they would give me every reason not to do [it]; every reason and they would
start with the deficit model; that's what they start with all the time and basically, we have
started with the opposite approach which is an asset kind of rich model of saying, "Okay,
what do we need to do to ensure this would work?", as distinct from, "Why can't it work?" I
think that is the problem with the bureaucracy; they find every reason not to have
something occurring…
In contrast, Grant characterized the philanthropic involvement at Brookvale as being supportive of
his leadership with ‘no strings attached’. He did, however, mention matters of accountability in
dealing with his philanthropic donor, an ‘ex-lawyer’ and ‘businessman’. Grant spoke of having to
temper some of the enthusiasm of his donor:
…he's looking for a student-based, data-driven outcome. He wants our results to improve.
So, from the level of attendance to participation in programs, to our NAPLAN program, to
our engagement outcomes, all those; he wants to see those figures improved … he thinks
things can turn around in five minutes, like all business people and I have to tell him that
cohorts of kids take basically five, six, seven years to come through a system so we have to
kind of slow him down occasionally.
The focus in this story is similar to Kevin’s in relation to Grant’s desire to free his school from what
he views as excessive forms of departmental compliance. Like Kevin, Grant is critical of the
compliance discourses within his department of education that restrict what he is able to do.
Although initially receiving generous government funding for creating Brookvale, Grant views
departmental regulations as curtailing his innovation in what he views as a deficit approach to what
is possible in his community. Indeed, Grant contrasts his positive, efficient and productive CEO type
leadership with the cumbersome and restrictive mode of working of the Department (see Ball and
Junemann 2012; Wilkins 2015; Holloway and Keddie, 2019). Like Kevin, he seeks to liberate his
school from what he views as oppressive department regulations that tie him down and compromise
his ‘asset rich’ view of his school. He creatively by-passes these regulations, ‘bordering on the edge
of what’s allowed’. Such by-passing or bordering can be seen as producing ambivalences for
redistributive justice. For Grant it enables him to sustain the holistic focus at Brookvale and the
education, health and social needs of its refugee and migrant communitya focus that reflects
positive material impacts for this community.
Grant’s actions, however, as in Kevin’s story, may also be seen as leading to a compromising of
redistributive justice. This is perhaps most apparent when considering his relationship to his
philanthropic sponsor. As noted earlier, there are concerns about the non-educative agenda of the
various new stakeholders responsible for schooling in Australia, especially new philanthropies (see
Lingard et al. 2017). A key part of this concern relates to the business or market priorities guiding
philanthropic involvement where contribution is conditional on level of productivity and output (i.e.
generally test score attainment). Other concerns are that such involvement may not reflect inclusive
and democratic forms of governance and may be eroding some of the social protections embedded
in traditional school governance including those associated with equity provision and support for
marginalised groups (see also Ball and Junemann, 2012; Blackmore, 2016).
While Grant speaks of his relationship with his philanthropic sponsor in positive ways as allowing
him the funding to run his school autonomously – it is important to consider the potential vested
interests of the philanthropy supporting Brookvale that may reflect a non-educative agenda or lead
to non-inclusive forms of governance. While Grant states that there are ‘no strings attached’ in the
philanthropy’s involvement in his school, there clearly are reflected in his statement about the
enthusiasm his donor expresses for student-based, data-driven outcomes and raising performance
on external tests such as NAPLAN and his keenness for ‘things to turn around’ quickly. While these
are reasonable expectations, their focus is narrow. Such a focus detracts from social outcomes and
the public purposes of schooling (see Ball and Junemann 2012; Blackmore 2016) upon which
Brookvale’s holistic approach is based. Should the philanthropic support of Brookvale be conditional
upon only narrow, test-based markers of success, then the future of the school is arguably
Grant’s story illustrates ambivalences for social justice arising from tensions between autonomy and
compliance. On the one hand, freedom from departmental compliance enables Grant to develop the
holistic focus of his school towards greater material and human resourcing (and a quality and
inclusive education) for his marginalised refugee and migrant community. This focus clearly supports
a dismantling of some of the economic obstacles impeding parity of participation for this
community. Such freedom enables him to direct resources in localised and nuanced ways to support
disadvantaged students. On the other hand, partnering with a philanthropy in doing so potentially
leads to new forms of oppression. While this partnering brings new opportunities that would not
have been possible if the school remained under the auspices of the department, this partnership
may end up eroding redistributive justice given the philanthropy’s data-driven and quick results
Concluding discussion
School leaders in Australia are navigating a complex and contradictory policy mix of school
autonomy reform, on the one hand, and heightened external accountability, on the other hand. As
they are ‘empowered’ to self-govern and encouraged to pursue opportunities and innovate, they are
also compelled to adhere to a myriad of centralised forms of compliance. These policy imperatives
are producing mixed effects for social justice. As the stories in this paper have illustrated, efforts to
pursue redistributive justice at the school level may better respond to the needs of students at this
localised levelwhether in the form of an extra building to adequately provide for students (as in
Kevin’s story) or in the form of a holistic education and the provision of health, early childhood and
adult learning services for refugee and migrant students (as in Grant’s story). However, as these
stories also illustrated, such efforts can undermine redistributive justice at the broader systems level
when they erode the social protections within departmental regulations that oversee equity across
the system (as in Kevin’s story) or when they open up spaces for new forms of governance that
prioritise enterprise and business imperatives (as in Grant’s story).
These issues highlight the ongoing significance of examining how principals are framing their
decision-making in relation to social justice within the freedoms and compliance of the present
climate. For the principals in this paper, as with most school leaders, there is an active embrace of
school (or principal) autonomy. They clearly value the autonomy to innovate and create in ways that
make a positive difference to their schools and they resist forms of compliance that disable such
innovation and creativity (Thomson 2010). They frame their decision-making in relation to their own
school contexts. Who and what counts in their efforts for social justice remain bounded in this
space. Such framing ‘furnishes the stage’ upon which struggles for justice play out (Fraser 2008). For
Kevin such struggles are associated with creatively avoiding ‘red tape’ compliances so that he can
build his extra classroom and draw on departmental funds to maintain it. What and who counts in
Kevin’s framing of justice issues is reflected in his efforts to materially provide for the students at his
school. For Grant such struggles are associated similarly with avoiding the compliances of the
department by partnering with a philanthropic sponsor. What and who counts in Grant’s framing of
justice reflects, as with Kevin, materially providing for the needs of his students. Such prioritising is
not surprising given these schools are operating within a highly competitive and punitive
environment. School leaders must invest in their own schools to thrive and survive within this space.
Conversely, the framing of the centralised compliance mechanisms that Kevin and Grant avoid and
resist reflect much broader boundaries all schools and students within the public education
system. While many of these mechanisms, as noted early in this paper, have led to perverse effects
in the context of school autonomy reform, some are designed to protect equity within this system.
The significance of these mechanisms are illustrated in the stories of Kevin and Grant. While Kevin
works around it, his story illustrates the significance of a centrally imposed funding formula designed
to ensure equitable resourcing across the system potentially leading to a less hierarchical and
residualised system. Grant’s story illustrates the significance of compliance mechanisms in relation
to school-philanthropy partnerships that, for example, temper the ways in which the business
imperatives characterising such partnerships may over-ride educative and social imperatives. As we
noted earlier, these sorts of protective mechanisms exist in current policy that restricts the
encroachment of for-profit enterprise in public schools and ensures all public schools receive the
same entitlements.
Within the context of an increasingly devolved Australian education system market imperatives of
economic efficiency, competition and external auditing are forcing school leaders to invest in their
own schools at the expense of other schools. Coupled with the growing involvement of the
philanthropic and corporate sector in the governance of public schools, centralised equity-focused
compliance mechanisms remain imperative. These mechanisms may be seen, as in Kevin’s story, as
negative in their compromising of the freedoms of school autonomy reform. They may also be seen
as negative given their association with audit requirements. The renewed emphasis and resourcing
for school autonomy reform in Australia is further dismantling the power of overarching bodies to
protect equity across the system. Countering the perverse effects that many of the market-oriented
accountabilities in this climate are creating that narrow efforts for redistributive justice to the school
level will be equity-oriented accountabilities designed to support redistributive justice for all.
Academies Commission. 2013. Unleashing greatness. London: RSA.
Australian Government. 2015. StudentsFirst, school autonomy. Accessed 14 June 2016.
Ball, S. and Junemann, C. 2012. Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Bandaranayake, B. 2013. “Formula-based public school funding system in Victoria:
An empirical analysis of equity,” NCPEA. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation
8 (2): 191-207.
Blackmore, J. 2011. “Bureaucratic, corporate/market and network governance: Shifting spaces for
gender equity in education,” Gender, Work and Organization 18 (5): 443-466.
Blackmore, J. 2016. Educational leadership and Nancy Fraser. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Cobbold, T. 2014. Pyne’s school autonomy myth, Save our schools. Accessed 30 March 2014.
Dardot, P. and Laval, C. 2013. The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. London: Verso.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Montgomery, K. 2008. “Keeping the promise: the role of policy in reform.” In
Keeping the promise?: The debate over charter schools. edited by L. Dingerson, B. Peterson and B.
Miner, 91-110. Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools.
Fraser, N. 2008. “Rethinking recognition: overcoming displacement and reification in cultural
politics.” In Adding Insult to Injury: Nancy Fraser debates her critics, edited by K. Olson, 129-141.
London: Verso.
Fraser, N. 2009. Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalising world. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Fraser, N. 2013. Fortunes of feminism. London: Verso.
Gobby, B. 2013. “Enacting the Independent Public Schools program in Western Australia.” Issues in
Educational Research 23 (1): 19-34.
Gobby, B. 2014. “Putting ‘the system’ into a school autonomy reform: the case of the Independent
Public Schools program.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37 (1): 16-29.
Gobby, B. 2018. “Competitive entrepreneurship and community empowerment: Competing
practices of a school autonomy reform.” In Challenges for public education, edited by J. Wilkinson, R.
Niesche, S. Eacott, 59-72. London: Routledge.
Gobby, B., Keddie, A. and Blackmore, J. 2017.Professionalism and competing responsibilities:
moderating competitive performativity in school autonomy reform.” Journal of Educational
Administration and History,
Gunter, H. 2012. Leadership and the reform of education. Bristol: Policy Press.
Jensen, B. Weidmann, B. and Farmer, J. 2013. The myth of markets in school education. Melbourne:
Grattan Institute.
Hamilton & Associates. 2015. School autonomy: building conditions for school success, Western
Australian Department of Education.
Heffernan, A. 2018. “Exploring a school improvement initiative: Leadership and policy enactment in
Queensland’s Independent Public Schools.” In Challenges for public education, edited by J.
Wilkinson, R. Niesche, S. Eacott, 73-86. London: Routledge.
Holloway, J. & Keddie, A. 2018. “Make money, get money’: How two autonomous schools have
commercialized their services.” Discourse,
Holloway, J. & Keddie, A. 2019. “Competing locals in an autonomous schooling system: Fracturing
the 'social' in social justice.” Educational Management and Leadership,
Keddie, A. 2015. School autonomy as ‘the way of the future’: issues of equity, public purpose and
moral leadership.” Educational Management Administration and Leadership 44(5): 713-727.
Keddie, A. 2017. “School autonomy reform and public education in Australia: implications for social
justice.” Australian Educational Researcher 44(4-5): 373-390.
Keddie, A. & Mills, M. 2019. Autonomy, accountability and social justice: stories of English schooling,
London: Routledge.
Kimber, M. and Ehrich, L.C. 2011. “The democratic deficit and school-based management in
Australia.” Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (2): 179199.
Leithwood, K. and Menzies, T. 1998. “A review of research concerning the implementation of site-
based management.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9 (3): 233-85.
Lingard, B. and Sellar, S. 2012. “A policy sociology reflection on school reform in England: from the
‘Third Way’ to the ‘Big Society’.” Journal of Educational Administration and History 44 (1): 43-63.
Lingard, B. Sellar, S. Hogan, A. and Thompson, G. 2017. Commercialisation in public schooling (CIPS).
News South Wales Teachers Federation: Sydney, NSW.
Lipman, P. 2011. The New Political Economy of Urban Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right
to the City. New York and London: Routledge.
OECD. 2011. PISA in focus. Accessed 1 June 2012.
Ravitch, D. 2010. The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are
undermining education. Basic Books: New York.
Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B. 2010. Globalising education policy. London: Routledge.
Smyth, J. 2011. “The disaster of the ‘self-managing school’ genesis, trajectory, undisclosed agenda,
and effects.” Journal of Educational Administration and History 43 (2): 95-117.
The State of Queensland. 2014. Independent public schools. Accessed 8 August 2015.
Thomson, P. 2010. “Headteacher autonomy: a sketch of a Bourdeuian field analysis of position and
practice.” Critical studies in education 51 (1): 5-20.
Wilkins, C. 2015. “Education reform in England: Quality and equity in the performative school.”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (11): 1143-1160.
Wilkinson, J., Niesche, R. and Eacott, S. (eds) 2018. Challenges for public education, London:
World Bank. 2014. School autonomy and accountability. Accessed 1 June 2012.
... The quasi-marketisation of education, through which schools compete for students that may enhance their position in academic performance league tables (Keddie and Holloway, 2020) and tend to exclude students that risk dilution of that performance (Done and Knowler, 2020a), has exacerbated tensions between the education policy agendas of raising academic 'standards' and inclusion (Done, 2019;Done and Knowler, 2020b). The risk for 'twice-exceptional' students here is that, far from viewing such students as a homogeneous group, schools will select and support those that promise to contribute to valued school rankings. ...
... The risk for 'twice-exceptional' students here is that, far from viewing such students as a homogeneous group, schools will select and support those that promise to contribute to valued school rankings. A process of residualisation has been identified by Exley and Ball (2011) and most recently in an Australian context by Keddie and Holloway (2020), which has implications for 'twiceexceptional' students and, indeed, for all students categorised as having 'special' needs or disabilities in statemaintained schools. Residualisation involves a selfperpetuating dynamic whereby schools with high proportions of these students are a less popular parental choice and may, eventually, have rolls showing almost 50% of students as on the school's SEN/D register. ...
Full-text available
‘Twice exceptionality’ describes the coexistence of a learning difficulty or disability (SEN/D) and exceptional performance in one area of learning. A popular discourse around autism and savantism in the US promotes a hierarchical differentiation of the ‘twice exceptional’ based on measured intelligence and commodifies support for this group. Such support is designed to appeal to a neoliberal ethos of seeking competitive advantage in a marketised system. Alternatively, Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCos) could raise awareness and promote a non-hierarchical understanding of ‘twice exceptionality’ in schools, thereby highlighting what is missed when allegedly science-based discourses become hegemonic within education and when governmentally-mandated accountability practices are prioritised over professional judgement and the interests of individual students. Calls for ‘twice exceptionality’ to be recognised as a SEN/D category risk additional pressures on SENCos at a time when governmental demands on SENCos throughout the Covid-19 pandemic have served to heighten existing tensions associated with the neoliberalisation of education (commercialisation, commodification, decentralisation, residualisation). Nevertheless, SENCos could play a key role in addressing longer-term processes affecting children with dis/abilities and learning difficulties such as stigmatisation and, in this instance, discriminatory configurations of ‘giftedness’ .
... In the education sector, most studies have focused on school leaders' budgeting (Sinclair & Malen, 2021), accountability (Keddie & Holloway, 2020;Paletta et al., 2020;Wang et al., 2022), cost-sharing (Alazmi & Al-Kubaisi, 2020;Hayes & Burkett, 2021), internal revenue generation (Mbah & Onuora, 2018;Odigwe, 2020;Onyeche, 2018) fund management (Aliyu, 2018;Odigwe & Owan, 2022;Owan et al., 2021), and resource procurement practices (Buys et al., 2020;Prabhakar et al., 2022) and other related constructs. Although some of these variables are tied to administrative expenses in one or the other (for example, resource procurement), the extent to which principals' day-to-day expenditure predicts students' outcomes was not the focus of the cited studies. ...
Full-text available
Keywords Abstract Factor analysis; hierarchical regression; learning; Nigeria; school inputs; students' achievement. Previous research has assessed school facilities, administrative expenditures and curriculum and their relative contributions to students' cognitive learning outcomes. This suggested the need to investigate further how these predictors may impact students' affective and psychomotor outcomes. The current research studied the combined and relative prediction of school facilities, administrative expenses and curriculum on students' overall cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning outcomes in public secondary schools. A cross-sectional research design was employed in this study, involving 87 school administrators and a randomly selected group of 915 senior secondary class II (SS2) students. For data collection, we utilised the School Inputs Questionnaire (SIQ) and Educational Outcomes Questionnaire (EOQ), both developed by the researchers and validated through expert assessments, including content validity, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for dimensionality, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for goodness of fit, and reliability using Cronbach's alpha. The results of these assessments demonstrated acceptable outcomes aligned with international standards. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to analyse the collected data. The findings indicated that enhancing the provision of quality school facilities, administrative expenses, and school curricula improved students' overall cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning outcomes. Specifically, administrative expenses and school curriculum had significant predictive power for students' overall cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning outcomes. However, while school facilities significantly predicted students' overall, affective, and psychomotor dimensions, they did not significantly predict the cognitive dimension. These findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and educators aiming to enhance the educational quality in public secondary schools.
... School principals such as the one reported in this study are often charged with the difficult task of navigating a complex and often contradictory policy landscape that promotes school autonomy while adhering to centralised forms of compliance. Dealing with these expectations and requirements, as Keddie and Holloway (2020) argue, produces mixed effects for social justice. Inadequate funding combined with stringent forms of reporting based on performative criteria tends to 'striate' the space (Deleuze & Guattari, 1988) for equitable practices in school leadership. ...
Full-text available
In this paper, I examine the tensions that a school principal experienced in reconciling performative priorities with equitable practices in a government secondary school in a low Socio-Economic Status suburb in Victoria, Australia. I use the notion of paradox to explore how the principal navigated contradictions and tensions. I aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of sense-making processes, agency, and capacity for action in the face of resource constraints, competing priorities and conflicting options in educational spaces. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari’s notions of ‘striated spaces’ and ‘lines of flight’, I discuss how the principal worked simultaneously within and against inadequate resourcing and performativity pressures to cater for the more complex needs of a group of marginalised students in his school. I highlight the tensions that arose from this work. These tensions remained mostly unresolved, setting in motion an ongoing cycle of compliance, compromise, contradictions, and contestation. The findings show the complex interactions between material realities, punitive modes of accountability, self-discipline, and subjectivity. I conclude by discussing the need for an equity-informed policy agenda driven by a positive mode of accountability to enable equitable practices in school leadership and management.
... While there is a significant body of work on the evaluation of teachers' practices, the intersection of teacher pedagogy and learning environments is less researched (Blackmore et al., 2011;Cleveland & Fisher, 2014). Evaluation is a necessary process to inform evidence-based reporting, which many international education ministries are mandating for school accountability (Altrichter & Kemethofer, 2015;Keddie & Holloway, 2020). However, the need for evidence-based practices can create tension in terms of how good practice or good learning is measured. ...
Full-text available
As many schools are moving towards more innovative learning environments, there is an ongoing need for evidence about how teachers and students use these innovative spaces to enhance learning. While innovative learning environments have been characterised as spaces that are more flexible, with ubiquitous technology and the ability to reconfigure space dependent on the learning task, there is no universal definition of what constitutes a truly ‘innovative’ learning environment because each school context is unique. Consequently, how innovative learning environment designs are used in practice will vary depending on the needs of students, teachers and school communities. The Plans to Pedagogy project, developed by the University of Melbourne’s Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) team, is exploring the educational issues school leaders and teachers identify as they transition to and use innovative learning environments. It acknowledges that no two schools are the same, and each school has unique spatial challenges. Plans to Pedagogy, embedded in a range primary and secondary schools across Australia and New Zealand, has eight current projects. Each school is assigned a LEaRN academic who works with a small teaching team to co-design and implement a research project targeting the school’s identified spatial challenge. The eight current projects focus on issues such as promoting student agency and developing 21st century learning skills in students, mapping collaborative teaching practices, assessing the impact of furniture on student engagement, and supporting the transition of teachers’ pedagogy as they move from traditional to innovative environments. As each has a unique focus, the research methods used differ case to case. However, a common principle is that each case needs to build evidence that is disseminated to the school community, with the aim of sharing learning to support teachers’ and students’ praxis in innovative learning environments. To examine this further, this paper will briefly overview each of the current eight Plans to Pedagogy projects to give a sense of the scope and focus of issues faced by teachers in schools in terms of using their learning environments well. It will then focus on two projects for a deeper examination that will illustrate how the researcher/school partnership operates. The first is the journey of a large composite primary-secondary school, where the staff are exploring how their complex student cohort is using their open-plan new build to assist an adventurous student-centred curriculum approach. The second case study is an example of a retrofit project in a rural primary school, where teachers kept their existing classrooms but changed the furniture in their rooms from traditional desks and chairs to flexible furniture arrangements, exploring the impact of this change on student engagement and teachers’ pedagogy. The paper makes the case that Plans to Pedagogy warrants close examination by others working in this field as each project starts by identifying schools’ unique spatial challenges, it builds research expertise of staff in these schools, and it supports these actions by aligning a specialist learning environments researcher to ensure robust methods and results that directly impact school improvement.
Purpose As part of a broader qualitative study on well-being and social support, the study reported here explored the issue of principal well-being to provide further insight into the concerns of principals. Its aim was to identify aspects of the principal role that impact on well-being. Design/methodology/approach A phenomenological approach was used to study the experiences of the principals. Eight primary school principals in New South Wales, Australia participated in semi-structured interviews that examined this area and identified aspects of their leadership role that influence their well-being. Purposive sampling was used to ensure representation in terms of gender and school size. Findings Five themes emerged as the key concerns of the principals: the responsibility of the role; managing people; feelings of isolation; the stress caused by the role; and prioritising the well-being of staff. Comments from the principals highlight how each of these areas is experienced. Originality/value Identifying and exploring these concerns added to the extant research on principal well-being by providing detail on the specific experiences of principals. The study also offers a basis to consider how the current situation may be improved by addressing the well-being concerns that are common, as well as highlighting areas that warrant further research attention.
Marketisation and competition within public schooling systems impact the work of principals in varying ways. Previous work on the marketisation of schooling and school autonomy has drawn attention to the ‘entrepreneurial principal’ as an effect of marketisation. In this paper we explore principals’ engagements with marketisation based on 21 interviews with public school principals across two Australian states. Using the work of Christiaens (2020 Christiaens, Tim. 2020. “The Entrepreneur of the Self beyond Foucault’s Neoliberal Homo Oeconomicus.” European Journal of Social Theory 23 (4): 493–511. doi:10.1177/1368431019857998.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), we highlight a difference between entrepreneurialism and utility-maximisation in marketised systems, evident in how principals engage with leadership within these systems. For most principals in our study, engagements with marketisation were entangled with different orientations toward utility maximisation. Evidence of genuine entrepreneurship was far more scarce. We argue that the need to ensure school survival in a saturated market gives rise to a performative veneer of entrepreneurialism that is largely absent of innovation and the ‘leap of faith’ that lies at the heart of true entrepreneurialism.
School leaders are increasingly adopting diverse approaches to strategic planning to lead organisational change. One such approach is appreciative inquiry, defined as a strength-based approach to change adopting the 4-D cycle of discovery, dream, design, and destiny. While there are case studies of the application of appreciative inquiry in the top quarter of distribution of socio-educational advantage, a limitation of the field is there are very few examples in disadvantaged school contexts. This chapter aims to provide a different case study of the application of the appreciative inquiry process and address this research gap. It describes how a school–university partnership facilitated a day-long strategic planning appreciative inquiry summit in a culturally diverse, low socio-economic Reception to Year 6 non-government Catholic school in South Australia. The chapter focuses on how the school–university partnership planed, collaborated, and made decision-making steps to operationalise the first three stages of the 4-D process and describes the output.KeywordsAppreciative inquiryEducational administrationEducational leadershipStrengths
Full-text available
In this work we attempt to highlight the role of the OECD in promoting neoliberal policies and in particular the marketization of education in Greece in the period 2010-2015. In reference to the policies of the "Global Educational Reform Movement" (GERM) and in general the neoliberal policies in education, we are studying the OECD's 2011 report on education in Greece as well as the educational policy documents of the period. Greece's debt crisis that begins in 2010, acted as a "policy window" for the introduction of extensive cuts and the impetus of a first wave of policies of marketization in education in Greece, but also as an obstacle to their implementation due to cuts in funding. The OECD played a mediator role between the Greek government and the lenders in order to implement the required reforms as well as a validating role for policies already imple-mented by the "New School" reform of Papandreou government. The imprint of the OECD's ne-oliberal recommendations on education policies during this time is strong and concerns the Sama-ras government as well, which adopts and continues the same path. The neoliberal education of austerity and precariousness in Greece during the crisis is the result of the accelerated social duali-zation, but also a means of manipulating and subjugating a youth whose future looks bleak
Full-text available
Autonomy, Accountability and Social Justice provides an account of recent developments in English state education, with a particular focus on the 'academisation' of schooling. It examines how head teachers, teachers and others working in diverse education settings navigate the current policy environment. The authors provide readers with insight into the complex decision-making processes that shape school responses to current educational agendas and examine the social justice implications of these responses. The book draws on Nancy Fraser's social justice framework and her theorising of neoliberalism to explore current tensions associated with moves towards both greater autonomy for and accountability of state schooling. These tensions are presented through four case studies that centre upon 1) a group of local authority primary schools, 2) an academy 'chain', 3) a co-operative secondary school and 4) an alternative education setting. The book identifies the 'emancipatory' possibilities of these approaches amid the complex demands of autonomy and accountability seizing English schools. Informed by a consideration of market parameters and social protectionist ideals, this examination provides rich insights into how English schools have emancipatory capacity. Autonomy, Accountability and Social Justice makes a major theoretical contribution to understandings of how the market is working alongside the regulation of schooling and the implications of this for social justice. By drawing on the experiences of those working in schools, it demonstrates that the tensions associated with autonomy and accountability within the current education policy environment can be both productive and unproductive for social justice.
Full-text available
The renewed commitment to school autonomy reform in Australia is based on the view that it will drive up academic standards. There remains, however, little conclusive evidence to support this view. Simply instating the structural changes to bring about greater autonomy for schools within public education systems across the world has not led consistently to an improvement in academic outcomes. Indeed, in some systems, this reform is associated with increasing social injustices. As Australian education is engaging in new iterations of this reform at federal and state levels, it is both urgent and timely to reconsider the relationship between school autonomy and social justice. This paper provides a review of largely Australian-based research concerning school autonomy reform within public education. It considers how such reform has supported and detracted from social justice outcomes in relation to political representation, cultural recognition and economic redistribution. The paper’s contribution to the field is theoretical in presenting a multidimensional account of the social justice implications of school autonomy policy and practice in Australia.
This paper troubles notions of ‘social justice’ as being compromised and fractured by the autonomous school agenda. Drawing on interviews with 13 autonomous school principals in Australia, it demonstrates how the devolution of schooling simultaneously rips the seams of the ‘social’ fabric that makes collective justice possible. The stories of these principals signal a fracturing of the social cohesion that is necessary for creating a just and equal society. We aim to distinguish between individual efforts to create socially just conditions at the local level versus collective projects to create socially just conditions at the system level. We argue that, on the one hand, school autonomy affords individual principals opportunities to exercise what might be considered socially just discretion; on the other hand, this sometimes occurs at the expense of fracturing the cohesion of the greater public education system. In doing so, we challenge the extent to which social justice can be realised within a decentralised schooling system.
Western politicians consider that leadership is essential for the delivery of educational reform. This important and timely book examines how leaders, leading and leadership became the dominant theme in education. It presents an analysis of the relationship between the state, public policy and the types of knowledge that New Labour used to make policy and break professional cultures. It is essential reading for all those interested in public policy, education policy, and debates about governance and will be of interest to policymakers, researchers and educational professionals.
Using the stories of two autonomous public schools in Australia, this paper demonstrates how commercialisation can simultaneously position schools as both consumer and for-profit producer. Drawing on Foucault's articulation of discourse as that which constitutes and makes available what is possible to be said, done and imagined, the paper illustrates how the current marketised articulation of education is allowing for new possibilities of commercialisation in schools. Together these stories demonstrate that there are creative ways that these schools have embraced their autonomy, while relying on market solutions to acquire the resources they deem necessary for their students and their communities. However, it also shows how these resources and the attainment for them are inextricably constituted by the market orientation of education more broadly and how this presents potential dangers for what schools may be and become as a result.
Discourses promoting the benefits of school autonomy have floated freely internationally since moves in the 1980s to greater devolution in the UK, New Zealand, the USA, Australia and Sweden. The most recent Australian version, Independent Public Schools (IPS), grants school leaders more latitude over aspects of their work. But this autonomy is constrained by technologies of competitive performativity, now the norm across Australian and other school systems. Entrepreneurial policies focused on competition, compliance and improved performance make schools, their leaders and teachers, more responsible to external accountabilities. At the same time, autonomy is creatively exercised by leaders due to public service orientations associated with traditional teacher professionalism. This analysis of two Australian case studies of IPS, a secondary school in Queensland and a primary school in Western Australia, illustrates how school leaders navigate conflicting demands of the audit and performance culture by exercising autonomy according to differing notions of professional responsibility, disrupting and moderating the more inequitable priorities and effects prevalent in many performative systems.