The Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC) conducted research on school-based management (SBM) in twelve nations, including Australia, to help define the dimensions of reform in moving to a more local and accountable approach to school management, as required by the National Educational Act of 1999. As a result of this research, a project was conceived as a partnership of the governments of Australia and Thailand to share experiences of education reform, to establish an Australia Thai Network of Educational Reform that would result in various kinds of cooperation, and to convert mutual learning to long-term cooperation.

The objectives of this consultancy were to assist the Royal Thai Government (RTG) to develop a draft strategy for decentralising school education, specifically covering school autonomy and financing, to exchange information on school autonomy and financing reforms in Australia, to design further technical assistance, and to establish a Thai-Australia network of educational reformers to enable future cooperation.

The Consulting Partners were the Department of Education, Employment and Training (DEET) in Victoria, Australia; the University of Melbourne (UM); and the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). It was understood that ONEC is interested in developing a reform program that does not mirror but is substantially informed by SBM in Victoria that originated from 1992 as the Schools of the Future (SOF) Program. DEET and UM have worked closely in the development of SBM and SOF. ACER is Australia's leading educational research and development agency.

This consultancy was envisaged as the first of several stages, with the others being the provision of further expert advice, the design and delivery of short training courses in Thailand, and assistance with a national seminar on school autonomy and financing.

This Executive Summary is organised according to specific tasks that were agreed under the terms of the consultancy. The report is organised in three parts that broadly reflect the outcomes of these tasks, with Part 1 concerned with developments in Australia and a comparative analysis of these developments and those in Thailand, Part 2 providing advice on matters of strategic significance in school autonomy and finance, and Part 3 offering recommendations on strategies for implementation and training.

Three appendices are included. Appendix 1 provides background on the Australian context. Appendix 2 addresses the broad theme of 'Making the Link to Learning', reflecting one of the most important implications of experience in Australia, namely, that the greatest progress has been made when the focus of SBM has been on gaining improved learning outcomes for students, and when approaches to financing have been based on learning needs. There is now a substantial knowledge base on making the links to learning and this is summarised in Appendix 2, drawing in particular, on research in Schools of the Future in Victoria.

Appendix 3 contains drafts terms of reference for the next stages of the proposed project as it concerns the design and delivery of training programs.

Part 1 is concerned with the following features of school autonomy and financing in Australia:

1. Dimensions of and current trends in educational decentralisation, school based management (SBM) and school finance reform;
2. Relevant aspects of the social, political and economic background of the Australian education system in order to understand the context of the Australian experience;
3. A summary of the driving forces of education reform in Australia from 1980 – 2000, including major national and state policies, current movements, and innovations relating to educational decentralisation, SBM and school finance systems;
4. Comparison and assessment of the current policies and programs for school autonomy and financing implemented by the Governments of Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia; and future trends of national policies and programs needed for school autonomy and financing in the next twenty years.

Part 1 is also concerned with developments in Thailand, with a comparative perspective based on the following:

1. A brief review of current developments in Thai education reform since the enactment of the National Education Act of 1999 (August 1999) and the necessity for school autonomy and financing within the Thai context; and
2. A brief comparison of school reform developments in Thailand and Australia, especially initiatives of State Governments, such as the Schools of the Future in Victoria; the School-based Funding Model and School Global Budgeting in Queensland and South Australia.

While there are interesting developments in Queensland and South Australia, the most notable developments are in Victoria, with those that had their origin in the Schools of the Future program that commenced in 1992 attracting interest around the world.

An important feature of the review of developments in Australia is that SBM had its origins in a national report in 1973 that called for SBM throughout the nation. Every state, and the nation generally, has maintained a commitment to SBM in the intervening years, with periods of rapid acceleration, and periods of relative inactivity. It was in Victoria that a coherent package of reforms came together in the 1990s that resulted in the most sweeping change and the fulfilment of the vision of two decades earlier.

The last decade of what is arguably 'world best practice' is the legacy of careful planning, strong political will, coherence in the design and delivery of a package of reforms of which SBM was but one element, and substantial commitment of resources to the professional development of principals and teachers.

A major implication for Thailand of Victoria's experience is that it is vital that there is a rapid take-up of SBM by a substantial group of schools, and that their success is demonstrated and widely celebrated. As a target, the Ministry should be aiming for around 20 per cent of schools to have adopted SBM within 12 months.

The early adoption of SBM should be on a voluntary basis. Participation in SBM should be viewed by schools and their communities as a goal to be prized, and schools encouraged to apply. Schools that implement SBM early should be provided with extensive support and incentives to do so.

Part 2 offers advice on the following matters of strategic importance in the implementation of school autonomy and financing:

1. School functions in terms of international standards and the National Education Act, including good governance of schools;
2. Appropriate composition of school boards including required qualifications;
3. Areas of responsibility of school boards in different types of school;
4. Strategic planning processes, models and innovations that allow school board members to take more responsibility in teaching and learning, curriculum development, personnel management, and resource mobilisation;
5. School accountability to serve the national education framework and needs of local communities;
6. Effective roles of school principal, administrators, and teachers in school reform;
7. Models for teacher recruitment and professional development, promotion and disciplinary action at the school level;
8. Strategic management of resistance to change by teachers and support staff;
9. Student data record system based on international best practice;
10. Effective approaches to encourage students to participate in school autonomy;
11. The legal status of schools in a decentralised system;
12. Sources of school funding and income, including the possibility of block grants and students vouchers;
13. An effective process of school performance-based budgeting and link with those processes of the newly-established Local Educational Authorities (LEA);
14. Funds control and financial management;
15. Teacher recruitment and training, the quality of teaching and learning;
16. School procurement based on a national policy framework and a school's needs;
17. Asset management and infrastructure maintenance, including contracting out processes;
18. Internal auditing and financial reporting; and
19. School charters and reporting requirements.

The strategic advice offered on each of the 19 issues is based on world best practice as identified by the consultants through working closely on the design and implementation of SBM at all levels of school systems and in many countries throughout the world over a period of some 25 years. One of the most remarkable aspects of this work has been the similarity of problems identified and solutions found from Europe to North America to Australasia to Asia. There are also some unique aspects to solutions that are culturally based, and special attention has been given to consideration of the Thai culture in framing the strategic advice in Part 2.

Some of the issues on which advice has been sought are quite specific, for example, student participation in school autonomy, while others are quite broad, for example, school charters and reporting requirements. However, in all cases, an effort has been made to clarify understandings, explore options in relation to effectiveness and applicability, and then to offer advice as to possible best practice. Account has also been taken of information received during the consultancy from the sources in Thailand.

1. The 1999 Act is right to emphasise school-based management (SBM) as a critical element in reform. Compelling evidence from around the world shows that decentralization of decision-making power to schools and teachers is one strategy that can help inprove educational quality.
2. The 1999 Act set out a detailed program of implementation leading to the completion by August 2005 of the first round of external evaluation of all educational institutions. Implementation is already behind schedule and some of the more challenging areas of reform – including SBM – have only just got underway.
3. There is substantial resistance to reform in the Thai education system. In some quarters SBM is viewed as a threat to long-established power and influence.
4. It is vital to build a strong political commitment to reform. SBM needs "champions" in the Ministry and among the schools who can point to successful achievements, quickly achieved.
5. The challenge will be to keep the vision of a more learner-centred education system in front of educators and the wider Thai society. There is a risk that the participants may become so engrossed in the detail of new structures and processes that the ultimate purposes of the reforms are overlooked.
6. The consultancy has developed strategies to ensure that the key purpose of the Thai educational reforms – the improvement of student learning – remains paramount.
7. Based on experience in Australia and elsewhere, SBM will only become a reality if the model works and makes sense at the school level.
8. It is imperative that there is clarity about the respective responsibilities of schools, School Boards, Local Education Authorities and the Ministry, and how they interact with the key components of SBM.
9. Of equal importance is the need to build the capacity of the system and its people in their understanding of SBM and their skill in its operations.

Part 3 provides recommendations on strategies for implementation and the design of training programs.These recommendations provide a basis for further technical assistance, including preparation of terms of reference, and scope of services and the like for the next stages of the project.

The National Education Act of 1999 is exemplary in the manner in which it maps out the transformation of education in Thailand. It is a comprehensive and coherent act of legislation that reveals a sound intellectual understanding of, for example, the balance of centralisation and decentralisation that research around the world has shown is so important for success, for individuals and for the nation. It is especially noteworthy that learning lies at its centre.

Experience in many nations reveals varying levels of success with decentralisation and SBM. It is concluded that training programs at every level must make clear the nature of authorities and responsibilities that are being decentralised and, most important of all, that personnel at all levels, but especially their leaders, must acquire a knowledge of how to make the link between SBM and learning. These links are explicated in Appendix. 2

One of the reasons some nations have taken so long to introduce a system of SBM has been that links to learning have not been understood or if understood, there has been a lack of capacity to translate that understanding into action that has a real impact on learning. For Thailand, training must ensure that all teachers and their leaders have the same understanding as those who framed the National Education Act. Unnecessary resistance can occur at all levels if the constraints on powers at the school level are not well understood, and if the strategic importance of the work of those at the ministry, regional and district levels is not realised.

SBM needs to be underpinned by a Partnership Agreement or School Charter between the Ministry and the school level. The Agreement should clearly articulate the goals and strategies of school improvement, and establish the base for quality assurance, both internally and externally. Because of its critical importance, the Agreement or Charter needs to be negotiated and 'owned' by all stakeholders. The report details the key elements of Partnership Agreements and the steps required for their development and implementation.

The major implication for Thailand is to place learning at the heart of the training effort and to ensure coherence between approaches to management and approaches to learning and teaching. Pilot programs should be sufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate all elements of SBM. Significant research projects should be mounted at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the special ways that the link to learning in Thailand can be identified and disseminated. A new uniquely Thai literature in the fields of educational administration, curriculum, learning and teaching should find its way onto the bookshelves of the nation.

Part 3 contains a detailed proposed to assist Thailand with the further implementation of SBM. It is based on an appreciation of the commitment and substantial work that has already taken place, and an understanding of the importance of the dynamic interaction between the environment and the education reform agenda.

There are four elements in the proposed strategy. First, a conceptual overview of the strategy is provided, highlighting key aspects for the successful implementation of major educational reform such as SBM in Thailand. Second, a model for SBM at the school level is proposed. Details are provided of significant roles, responsibilities and relationships. Third, and central to Part 3, details are provided of a proposed training program. Fourth, recommendations are made for further embedding SBM in Thailand through establishing formal international networks. Appendix 3 contains draft terms of reference for the next stage of the project as it concerns the design and delivery of training programs.

The introduction of SBM fundamentally changes the role of the Ministry of Education. It needs to be reoriented from the direct provision of schooling to a role of steering and monitoring the system of schools, and guaranteeing their quality. The Ministry will have to develop the personnel capacity, information systems, and infrastructure to achieve this shift. The report suggests strategies to bring these changes about.

1. There needs to be an integrated policy framework that builds a comprehensive understanding of SBM reform, complements policy reform efforts across departments, reduces uncertainties, and avoids duplication and fragmentation.
2. A number of key elements must be in place to ensure success: a sense of urgency; a compelling vision; alignment between the vision and the structures; sustained and inspired leadership; political will; learning and training by key participants; strategies for overcoming resistance; and effective communication channels.
3. It is vital that there is a rapid take-up of SBM by a substantial group of schools, and that their success is demonstrated. As a target, the Ministry should be aiming for around 20 per cent of schools to have adopted SBM within 12 months.
4. The early adoption of SBM should be on a voluntary basis. Participation in SBM should become prized, and schools encouraged to apply. Schools that implement SBM early should be provided with extensive support and incentives to do so.
5. SBM needs to be underpinned by a Partnership Agreement or School Charter between the Ministry and the school. The Agreement should clearly articulate the goals and strategies of school improvement, and establish the base for quality assurance, both internally and externally. Because of its critical importance, the Agreement needs to be negotiated and 'owned' by all stakeholders.
6. Given the critical importance of teachers in the process, it is vital that schools be gradually given responsibility for teacher selection and professional development. As a key starting point the School Board needs to have the prime responsibility for selection of the principal.
7. The allocation of finances and other resources to schools, and their use within schools, needs to be related to the school's overall learning objectives, and monitored for effectiveness.
8. The very nature of the reforms has significant implications for training at all levels, and particularly for training at the school and board level. Unless this training is comprehensive, intensive, highly valued and on-going it is difficult to see that the full intentions of the reforms can be realised.
9. The training program needs to model in both design and delivery the key elements of the reform agenda. SBM training should focus on people (board members, principals, teachers, student representatives and LEA support staff), working cooperatively as teams, and learning by directly participating in the process.
10. The introduction of SBM fundamentally changes the role of the Ministry of Education. It needs to re-oriented from the direct provision of schooling to a role of steering and monitoring the system of schools, and guaranteeing their quality. The Ministry must develop the personnel capacity, information systems, and infrastructure to achieve this shift.