INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE

FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

BRIEF | by Analía Jaimovich*

How do education systems improve?

What role can education management units play in promoting

systemic improvement?

In order to improve the quality of education, several countries in Latin America and the Caribbean are implementing
institutional reforms that affect the roles and responsibilities of education management units at different levels
(national, subnational, local, and school level). With the aim of contributing to the technical dialogue vis-à-vis these
reforms, the Education Division of the Inter-American Development Bank has carried out a comparative analysis
of the institutional architecture of five high-performing education systems: the Ontario Province in Canada, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the USA, Finland, the Netherlands, and New Zealand.

* Education Specialist, IDB. This brief is result of a study coordinated by Emiliana Vegas, Chief of the
Education Division of the IDB, and Analía Jaimovich. Catalina Covacevich, Chelsea Coffin, Katherina
Hruskovec, and Lorena Landeo participated in the study.
 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN:
IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCESS, STILL LAGGING BEHIND IN QUALITY

Latin American education systems have with a large percentage of students in the
improved access to education considerably. lowest performance level.
However, student achievement is still lagging
»» Moreover, less than 2% of Latin American
behind in the region:
students achieved a high performance level
»» In 2012, Latin American countries attained in Math, as compared to 55% in Shanghai,
positions between the 51st and the 65th place China. Results for Reading achievement were
in Math, and between the 47th and 65th place similarly low.
in Reading out of 65 countries participating in
the OECD’s PISA international examination,

HOW DO HIGH PERFORMING

EDUCATION SYSTEMS PROMOTE EDUCATION QUALITY?

Education management units (at the national, management of groups of schools. The
sub-national, local or school level) normally central Ministry of Education (at the national
have both administrative (i.e. hiring and payroll, level in Finland, at the provincial or state
transportation, school meals, etc) and/or level in Ontario and Massachusetts) interacts
academic functions (i.e. curriculum development, with schools through these intermediary
staff performance evaluations, teacher structures.
professional development, school improvement
»» At the other end of the spectrum, in New
programs, etc). This study focuses mainly in the
Zealand there is a more direct relationship
academic functions, particularly in the quality
between the central level and schools.
monitoring and school support mechanisms that
Schools are managed by school boards at the
these systems implement.
school level. The school board of each school
The five education systems analyzed have is responsible for the administrative and
different education management institutional academic management of the school, and
arrangements: interacts directly with the central Ministry.
»» At one end of the spectrum, Finland, »» The Netherlands are a hybrid case that
Ontario, and Massachusetts have local combines school boards at the school level,
education management units (municipalities, school boards that manage more than one
school boards, school districts) that are in school, and municipalities that manage
charge of the administrative and academic several schools.

2
Regardless of the details of their institutional
arrangements, in all five cases local education
management units (municipalities in Finland,
school boards in Ontario, school districts in
Massachusetts, school-level school boards in
New Zealand and the Netherlands) have both
administrative and academic (specifically, quality
monitoring and school support) responsibilities.

FIGURE 1: EDUCATION MANAGEMENT LEVELS

ONTARIO, MASSACHUSSETS, FINLAND NETHERLANDS NEW ZELAND

CANADA USA

INTERMEDIATE STRUCTURES CENTRAL MINISTRY + 1-to-1

3
 WHAT DO THESE SYSTEMS
HAVE IN COMMON?

Let me see how you are doing and we will in provincial examinations, demographic
know what you need: Use of information information, and other data. The system
makes the information available to different
to identify improvement needs
profiles of users (the central Ministry,
The five systems studied create data-rich districts, schools) so that improvement
environments. Data is routinely used to make needs at each level can be identified and
strategic decisions for school improvement at addressed.
the central, local (school district, school board,
etc), and school levels. Education information
systems use a variety of data sources, as well Zooming in: Use of information to focalize
as formal and informal mechanisms for data
support processes
collection. Data is geared towards identifying
improvement needs in the system. Such These education systems categorize schools
identification is done in a process that involves according to the level of support they need,
both the school and the local and/or central based on the analysis of student performance
management level. and other data. School support processes are
targeted to those schools that need it most.
»» The Netherlands have a risk-based school
inspection system. The Inspectorate »» In New Zealand, the Education Review
assesses each school’s risk of not attaining Office categorizes schools into three
minimum quality standards. It does so by groups, based on their self-assessment and
collecting information from several sources: an external evaluation: high-performing
student achievement data, school self- schools, average-performing schools,
evaluation reports, school financial reports, and at-risk schools. Schools receive
parental complaints, etc. Based on the risk differentiated monitoring depending on
assessment, the Inspectorate may visit what group they are in: every 4 or 5 years
schools to gather additional data. if they are in the first group, every 3 years
if they are in the second group, and every
»» The Ontario Statistical Neighbors is an
year if they are in the at-risk category.
information system designed to help
the Ministry and school boards monitor »» Massachusetts ranks schools and school
the quality of education and identify districts in five levels according to their
improvement needs in the system. It progress vis-à-vis the goal of reducing
gathers information from the Ministry of learning gaps in half by 2017. The districts
Education, data on student performance and schools that are furthest from

4
 achieving the goal receive priority academic the school improve, last resort measures –such
support from specialized centers called as intervention, de-financing, or closure of
DSACs. Districts and schools that, despite institutions– are taken.
the additional support, are still in critical
conditions regarding education quality go
FIGURE 2: NEW ZEALAND: NEEDS-BASED
through a turnaround process.
SUPPORT TO SCHOOLS

Improving from “inside” with support 14% Infrequent monitoring

(high-performing schools)
“from outside”
The theory of action behind support
mechanisms in these systems assumes
that schools are responsible for their own
improvement process, but that they need
external support to keep improving after
reaching the limit of their own capacity for
improvement. Specific characteristics of 72% Regular monitoring
(average schools)
support mechanisms vary, but a common
feature is the presence of an external agent
who can understand the needs of the school
and support it in its improvement process.
»» In Finland, Ontario, and Massachusetts, the
role of external support tends to be borne
primarily by local education management
units.
»» In New Zealand and the Netherlands, the
14% Frequent monitoring
(at-risk schools)
role of external support is carried out by
the central ministry and private agents
hired by school boards.

Focusing first on improvement processes,

only then in other consequences
Accountability mechanisms are aligned with
the provision of support for instructional
improvement. Once the improvement needs of
a school (or a local education management unit)
are identified, a process of support provision
is triggered. Only if this support doesn’t help

5
 HOW ARE THESE
SYSTEMS DIFFERENT?

I will help you to help: There are nested

support structures
In Finland, Ontario, and Massachusetts, each
level of the education administration, from the
I will help you: Local education
central office to the school level, is responsible
management units act as direct providers
for identifying needs and providing support to
of support services the lower levels. There is shared responsibility
In Finland, Ontario, and Massachusetts, local for improvement between the center, the
education management units (municipalities, local education management units, and the
school boards, districts) act as a direct provider schools. Each management level management
of support services for school improvement. is responsible for capacity building at the lower
Local management units have staff specialized levels.
in quality monitoring and the provision of »» In Ontario, the Student Achievement
technical assistance for school improvement. Division at the provincial Ministry of
In local education management units that Education is responsible for capacity
manage many schools, these are in general building and providing ongoing support
organized into networks of 15-30 institutions, to school districts so that they in turn
and pedagogical support is delivered according can provide support to their schools.
to the needs of the network. In addition, schools classified as
»» In Helsinki, Finland, schools are organized underperforming are supported jointly by
into networks of about 25 schools. Each of the central Ministry and the school district.
these networks is under the responsibility This nested structure allows not only
of a district leader in charge of providing focalizing provincial and district’s efforts
support for instructional improvement. in the schools that need it most, but also
allows capacity building at the district level.
»» In Boston, Massachusetts, primary schools
are organized into networks of 15 schools. »» In Massachusetts, school districts classified
Each of these networks has a network as low-performing districts receive extra
coordinator and a team of professionals support from specialized units at the state-
to provide direct instructional support level Education Department. Each of these
and facilitate links between schools in the offices works with a range of between 9 and
network and operational and academic staff 17 struggling districts to support their self-
at the district level. monitoring, the development of district

6
 improvement plans, and the implementation I will help you from the central level: The
of instructional improvement programs in central ministry provides support to schools
the district and in low-performing schools.
In extreme cases where, despite the In addition to the external support providers
external support, districts do not improve, that education management units may hire,
they may enter a turnaround process. in New Zealand and the Netherlands central
ministries have a role in providing direct
support to schools.
FIGURE 3: NESTED SUPPORT STRUCTURES
IN ONTARIO »» In the Netherlands, schools classified as at-
risk have priority access to services offered
by the Council of Primary Education.
Ministry of Education Services include expert evaluation and
school support teams to understand
the causes of stagnation and implement
instructional improvement actions.
Local education management units »» In New Zealand, the Ministry of Education
(districts / school boards) has a cadre of technical advisors who work
directly with schools and facilitate links
between schools and specialized units
within the Ministry. Technical advisors
high provide priority support to schools
at-risk
performing average schools classified as at-risk by the Education Review
schools
schools Office.

I will get someone to help you: Education

management units act as capacity brokers
In New Zealand and the Netherlands, education
management units (school boards) are generally
small units that operate at the school level.
Often these units do not have the expertise
to directly provide support to the school.
They act, rather, as a capacity brokers. They
are responsible for hiring external technical
assistance providers who will support schools in
their improvement process.

7
Cataloging-in-Publication data provided by the Inter-American Development Bank
Felipe Herrera Library

Jaimovich, Analía.

Institutional architecture for school improvement / Analía Jaimovich.

p. cm.

1. Total quality management in education—Latin America. 2. Total quality management in education—

Caribbean Area. 3. Educational evaluation—Latin America. 4. Educational evaluation—Caribbean
Area. I. Inter-American Development Bank. Education Division. II. Title.

IDB-BR-148

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Inter-American Development Bank, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.

The unauthorized commercial use of Bank documents is prohibited and may be punishable under the
Bank’s policies and/or applicable laws. Copyright © 2014 Inter-American Development Bank. All rights
reserved; may be freely reproduced for any non-commercial purpose.

WEBSITE: WWW.IADB.ORG/EDUCATION
BLOG: HTTP://BLOGS.IADB.ORG/EDUCACION/
CONTACT: [email protected]