Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 7–31 | Cite as

Does decentralisation enhance a school’s role of promoting social cohesion? Bosnian school leaders’ perceptions of school governance

  • Taro Komatsu
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study seeks to understand whether and how decentralised school governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) enhances the schools’ role of promoting social cohesion. This includes increasing “horizontal” trust among different ethnic groups and “vertical” trust between civilians and public institutes. The study examined secondary school leaders’ perceptions regarding school board influence on social cohesion policies and practices, their interactions with school board members, and their accountability to the school-based governing body. The results show that school leaders and school boards, supposedly representing the interests of local stakeholders, did not appear to be actively engaged in the deliberate process of promoting social cohesion. While school directors tended to view themselves as being independent from the school boards, ethnically diverse school boards provided important support to proactive school leaders for their inter-group activities. Given that the central level is not providing initiatives to promote social cohesion and that BiH citizens appear to generally support social cohesion, decentralised school governance has the potential to improve social trust from the bottom up. To promote participatory school governance, the study recommends that BiH school leaders should be provided with opportunities to re-examine and redefine their professional accountability and to assist local stakeholders to improve their involvement in school governance.

Keywords

Decentralisation School governance Social cohesion Post-conflict society Accountability Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Résumé

La décentralisation renforce-t-elle le rôle de l’école en faveur de la cohésion sociale ? Perceptions de directeurs d’établissement bosniens sur la gouvernance scolaire – La présente étude a tenté de cerner si et comment la gouvernance scolaire décentralisée en Bosnie-Herzégovine renforce le rôle de l’école en faveur de la cohésion sociale. Cette interrogation porte notamment sur l’accroissement de la confiance « horizontale » entre les différents groupes ethniques et de la confiance « verticale » entre les citoyens et les institutions publiques. L’étude a permis d’analyser les perceptions de directeurs d’établissements secondaires quant à l’influence du conseil d’établissement sur les politiques et pratiques de cohésion sociale, à leurs interactions avec les membres de ce conseil, et à leur redevabilité envers l’organe directeur ancré dans l’établissement. Les résultats révèlent que les directeurs d’école et les membres du conseil d’établissement, qui sont supposés défendre les intérêts des parties prenantes locales, ne semblent pas engagés activement dans une démarche délibérée en faveur de la cohésion sociale. Et si les directeurs ont tendance à se considérer comme indépendants des conseils d’établissement, ces derniers, lorsque leur composition est multiethnique, apportent un important soutien aux directeurs qui se montrent proactifs dans leurs activités inter-groupes. Du fait que le gouvernement central n’organise pas d’initiatives en faveur de la cohésion sociale, et que les citoyens bosniens semblent généralement adhérer à celle-ci, la gouvernance scolaire décentralisée peut potentiellement améliorer la confiance sociale à partir de la base. Dans le but de promouvoir une gouvernance scolaire participative, l’étude recommande que les responsables des établissements bosniens aient la possibilité d’analyser et de redéfinir leur redevabilité professionnelle, et d’aider les parties prenantes locales à accroître leur participation à la gouvernance scolaire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The field data-collection work was funded by a grant from the Toyota Foundation (D10-R-42). I would like to thank the Foundation for their generous support.

References

  1. Arnhold, N., Bekker, J., Kersh, N., McLeish, E., & Philips, D. (1998). Education for reconstruction: The regeneration of educational capacity following national upheaval. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bakke, K. M., Cao, X., O’Loughlin, J., & Ward, M. D. (2009). Social distance in Bosnia–Herzegovina and the North Caucasus region of Russia: Inter and intra-ethnic attitudes and identities. Nations & Nationalism, 15(2), 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baranovicé, B. (2001). History textbooks in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. Intercultural Education, 12(1), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauvais, C., & Jenson, J. (2002). Social cohesion: Updating the state of the research. CPRN Discussion Paper, No. F22. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D. J. (1990). Decentralisation and school-based management. New York, NY: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buckland, P. (2005). Reshaping the future. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  7. Catana, S. W. (2003). Vital approach to transition: Slovene multiple case study. Managing Global Transitions, 1(1), 29–48.Google Scholar
  8. Chan, J., To, H., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75, 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman, D. W. (2000). Trends in educational administration in developing Asia. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. M., & Peterson, S. B. (1996). Methodological issues in the analysis of decentralisation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International Development.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, L. J., & Warwick, P. (1983). Political cohesion in a fragile mosaic: The Yugoslav experience. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  12. Colletta, N. J., & Cullen, M. L. (2000). Violent conflict and the transformation of social capital. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  13. Cook, T. D. (2007). School-based management in the United States. Background paper prepared for the programmatic study on school-based management for the World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Corkalo, D., Ajdukovic, D., Weinstein, H. M., Stover, E., Djipa, D., & Biro, M. (2004). Neighbours again?—Intercommunity relations after ethnic cleansing. In E. Stover & H. M. Weinstein (Eds.), My neighbour, my enemy: Justice and community in the aftermath of mass atrocity (pp. 143–161). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Council of Europe. (1999). Appendix, Country report: Bosnia and Herzegovina. In S. Gabršček & N. Dimc (Eds.), Strategies of educational reform in South East European countries (pp. 153–190). Ljubljana: Open Society Institute (OSI) Slovenia. Retrieved 3 February 2014 from http://www.cpz-int.si/Assets/pdf/Strategies.pdf.
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. DFID (Department for International Development). (2012). Synthesis Research Report. State-building, peace-building and service delivery in fragile and conflict-affected states. Retrieved 3 February 2014 from http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2012/r-service-delivery-and-state-legitimacy-report-2012.pdf.
  18. Duilović, D. (2004). Strategy and quality in education: Bosnia and Herzegovina. In P. Radó (Ed.), Decentralisation and the governance of education: The state of education systems in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Poland and Romania (pp. 19–38). Budapest, Hungary: Open Society Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Firestone, W. A. (1989). Educational policy as an ecology of games. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Firestone, W. A., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Schools as cultures. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 297–322). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  22. Friedman, F. (1997). The Bosnian Muslims: The making of a Yugoslav nation. In M. Bokovoy, J. A. Irvine, & C. S. Lilly (Eds.), State-society relations in Yugoslavia, 1945–1992 (pp. 267–290). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  24. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Thinking about empowered participatory governance: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. In A. Fung & E. O. Wright (Eds.), Deepening democracy (pp. 3–42). New York, NY: Verso.Google Scholar
  25. Goddard, J. T. (2004). The role of school leaders in establishing democratic principles in a post-conflict society. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 685–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Government of BiH. (2002). Education reform. Sarajevo, BiH: Government of BiH.Google Scholar
  27. Government of BiH. (2003). Framework law on primary and secondary education. Sarajevo, BiH: Government of BiH.Google Scholar
  28. Government of BiH. (2011). Education statistics. Sarajevo, BiH: Agency for Statistics.Google Scholar
  29. Håkansson, P., & Sjöholm, F. (2007). Who do you trust? – Ethnicity and trust in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Europe-Asia Studies, 59(6), 961–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heyneman, S. P. (2003). Defining the influence of education on social cohesion. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice., 3(4), 73–97.Google Scholar
  31. ICVA (International Council of Voluntary Agencies). (2005). NGO monitoring report on the implementation of the development strategy BiG in education, social protection, and environment sector, March 2004–December 2004. In Compendium of selected reports on education in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Sarajevo, BiH: OSCE.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, B. L. (2003). Those nagging headaches: Perennial issues and tensions in the politics of education field. Education Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kardelj, E. (1960). Razvoj Slovenackog Nacionalnog Pitanja [Development of the Slovenian national question]. Beograd, Yugoslavia: Kultura.Google Scholar
  34. Karlsson, J. (2002). The role of democratic governing bodies in South African schools. Comparative Education, 38(3), 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kasumagic, L. (2008). Engaging youth in community development: Post-war healing and recovery in Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Review of Education, 54(3–4), 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kogan, M. (1986). Education accountability: An analytic overview. Dover, NH: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
  37. Kolouh-Westin, L. (2002). Bosnia and Herzegovina and its tripartite education system. In H. Daun, P. Enslin, L. Kolouh-Westin, & D. Plut (Eds.), Democracy in textbooks and student minds: Educational transitions in Bosnia–Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Mozambique and South Africa (pp. 27–46). New York, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Komatsu, T. (2012). A comparative analysis of civic education in pre- and post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina through the lens of multiculturalism. Educational Studies, 55, 1–13. IERS/International Christian University.Google Scholar
  39. Komatsu, T. (2013). Why do policy leaders adopt global education reforms? A political analysis of SBM reform adoption in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(64), 1–16.Google Scholar
  40. Kreso, A. (2008). The war and post-war impact on the educational system of Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Review of Education, 54, 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lauglo, J., & McLean, M. (1985). Introduction: Rationales for decentralisation and a perspective from organization theory. In J. Lauglo & M. McLean (Eds.), The control of education: International perspectives on the centralization–decentralisation debate (pp. 1–25). London, UK: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  42. Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy, 12(3), 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McGinn, N. (2008). Education policies to promote social cohesion. In W. K. Cummings & J. H. Williams (Eds.), Policy-making for education reform in developing countries: Policy options and strategies (pp. 277–305). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  44. McGlynn, C. (2004). Education for peace in integrated schools: A priority for Northern Ireland? Child Care in Practice, 10, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mojzes, P. (1997). The role of religious communities in the development of civil society in Yugoslavia, 1945–1992. In M. Bokovoy, J. A. Irvine, & C. S. Lilly (Eds.), State-society relations in Yugoslavia, 1945–1992 (pp. 211–231). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  46. O’Loughlin, J. (2010). Inter-ethnic friendships in post-war Bosnia–Herzegovina: Socio-demographic and place influences. Ethnicities, 10(1), 26–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2001). Thematic review of national policies for education: Bosnia and Herzegovina, stability pact for South Eastern Europe. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  48. OHR (Office of the High Representative). (1995). General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina [also known as the Dayton Agreement]. Retrieved 3 February 2014 from http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=379.
  49. Oplatka, I. (2004). The principalship in developing countries: Context, characteristics and reality. Comparative Education, 40(3), 427–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). (2005a). Raising debate: Is BiH respecting its international commitments in the field of education questions for citizens of BiH?. Sarajevo, BiH: OSCE.Google Scholar
  51. OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). (2005b). School directors. Retrieved 3 November 2011 from http://www.oscebih.org/Default.aspx?id=154&lang=EN.
  52. OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). (2006a). Highlights of public opinion survey on education in BiH: Citizen opinion in December 2006. Sarajevo, BiH: OSCE.Google Scholar
  53. OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). (2006b). School boards in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Potential advocates for change and accountability in education. A status report prepared by the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo, BiH: OSCE.Google Scholar
  54. Radó, P. (2004). An introductory summary. In P. Radó (Ed.), Decentralisation and the governance of education: The state of education systems in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Poland and Romania (pp. 11–17). Budapest, Hungary: Open Society Institute.Google Scholar
  55. Sekulić, D., Massey, G., & Hodson, R. (1994). Who were the Yugoslavs?—Failed sources of a common identity in the former Yugoslavia. American Sociological Review, 59, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sinclair, M. (2002). Planning education in and after emergencies. Paris, France: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, A., & Vaux, T. (2003). Education, conflict and development. London, UK: UK Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  58. Spector, B. I. (2011). Negotiating peace and confronting corruption: Challenges for postconflict societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
  59. Svensson, J. (2000). Foreign aid and rent-seeking. Journal of International Economics, 51(2), 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tomiak, J. (1985). The control of education: Contrasting interpretations of Marxism. In J. Lauglo & M. McLean (Eds.), The control of education: International perspectives on the centralization-decentralisation debate (pp. 45–52). London, UK: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  61. Transparency International. (2013). Corruption perceptions index 2009. Berlin: Transparency International. Accessed 25 June 2013 from http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results.
  62. UN (United Nations). (2011). Core document forming part of the reports of States parties, Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Human Rights Instruments. New York, NY: UN.Google Scholar
  63. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2003). Bosnia and Herzegovina human development report/millennium development goals 2003. Sarajevo, BiH: UNDP.Google Scholar
  64. Whitt, S. (2003). Research on inter-ethnic cooperation in Bosnia–Herzegovina. Research Report. International Research & Exchanges Board. Retrieved 20 June 2013 from http://www.irex.org/programs/stg/research/03/whitt.pdf.
  65. World Bank. (2008). What is school-based management? Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  66. World Bank. (2012). World Development Indicators & Global Development Finance. Retrieved 18 March 2012 from http://databank.worldbank.org.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education, Faculty of Human SciencesSophia UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options