Effective School Governance: Improving Performance and Reducing Achievement Gaps in Education? A Five Country Comparative and Longitudinal Analysis

随着新公共管理（NPM）的兴起，一种基于委托/代理理论的有效学校管理范式在世界范围内建立起来。它的中心假设是，学校自治、强有力的学校领导、高素质的教师和定期的绩效测试的相互作用提高了教育绩效，并减少了家庭背景影响下的绩效差异。这一假设与另一种假设相矛盾，即父母和学生在使用新的控制手段时，经济、社会和文化资本方面的优势也会变得有效，因此教育表现的不平等得以维持。学生之间的社会不平等越大，情况就越应该如此。教育成就高低之间可能存在纵向对比，教育过程的自主决定和对这一过程的他治控制之间可能存在横向对比，即教育领域的分层，分为自主的精英阶层，在期望的自决和增加的控制之间撕裂的中产阶级，以及控制无法触及的下层阶级。这些假设的证据将在根据教育制度选择的五个国家的基础上进行检验：英国的自由主义制度、瑞典的平等主义制度（在20世纪90年代转向竞争）、德国的保守联邦制度、芬兰的教师专业主义制度和韩国的儒家制度。在这些国家的文化、结构和制度背景下，NPM的指导手段有自己的解释。这一背景构成了本项目分三步进行统计分析的背景和解释基础。在第一步中，将利用国际学生评估项目（PISA）的数据，借助主成分分析和多重对应分析，探索各自国家的教育领域在2000年、2009年和2015年教育过程设计中的高与低教育成就和自主与他律的双重二分法。第二步，使用相同的数据，在学校和学生层面进行多层次回归分析，阐明在何种程度上转向工具提高了这一时期的教育绩效并减少了绩效差异。在第三步中，这些分析被扩展到包括每年参加PISA测试的国家的水平。同样的因素也记录在国家一级，并辅以人均国内总产值、社会不平等、统一或有组织的学校制度和一国的教育制度等因素。

In the wake of New Public Management (NPM), a paradigm of effective school management based on principal/agent theory has become established worldwide. Its central hypothesis reads that the interaction of school autonomy, strong school leadership, highly qualified teachers, and regular performance tests increases educational performance and reduces performance differences against the effect of family background. This hypothesis is contradicted by the assumption that advantages in the availability of economic, social and cultural capital also become effective in the use of the new control instruments by parents and students, so that inequality in educational performance is maintained. This should be true all the more the greater the social inequality among students. There could be a vertical contrast between high and low educational achievement and a horizontal contrast between autonomous determination of the educational process and heteronomous control over this process, i.e. a stratification of the educational field into an autonomous elite, a middle class torn between expected self-determination and increased controls, and an underclass not reached by the controls. The evidence for these hypotheses will be examined on the basis of five countries selected according to educational regimes: the liberal regime of the United Kingdom, the egalitarian regime of Sweden, which switched to competition in the 1990s, the conservative federal regime of Germany, the regime of teacher professionalism of Finland, and the Confucian regime of South Korea. In the cultural, structural, and institutional context of these countries, NPM's steering instruments experience their own interpretation. This context forms the background and the basis of interpretation for the statistical analyses conducted in this project in three steps. In the first step, the educational field in the respective countries will be explored in its double dichotomy of high versus low educational achievement and autonomy versus heteronomy in the design of the educational process in the years 2000, 2009 and 2015 with the help of a principal component analysis and a multiple correspondence analysis using data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In a second step, multi-level regression analyses at the school and student levels using the same data clarify to what extent the steering instruments have increased educational performance during this period and reduced performance differences. In the third step, these analyses are expanded to include the level of the countries that took the PISA test in each of these years. The same factors are recorded at the country level and supplemented by factors of per capita GDP, social inequality, the uniform or structured school system and the educational regime of a country.