Locally and across the EU, schools have undergone many reforms in the past 20 years, especially as regards school autonomy, that is, different aspects of school management. The main focus has been on the need to improve democratic participation, the management of public funding invested in education and, particularly in recent years, the quality of teaching.

In most countries, school autonomy has become an instrument to achieve primary educational goals, that is, to give more freedom to schools and teachers in order to improve the quality of education.

The optimal organisation of the school system, among other factors, was in fact strongly urged by the European Commission three months ago with the aim of maximising performance, following a PISA study which showed that the scientific and reading abilities of 15-year-olds across the EU had deteriorated.

It is in this light that Eurydice, the European network on education, was asked to contribute to a study, entitled School Autonomy In Europe - Policies and Measures, published last month, to compare the measure of reforms, the scale of the transfers of authority and the areas they apply to, the stakeholders who benefit from them and the control or accountability mechanisms in place.

The study on school autonomy focuses mainly on funding and human resources in primary and secondary schools, as documented in 2006-7. Its sets out on a historical journey in the 1980s which saw pioneering countries like the UK, Spain and France, leading to an expansion during the 1990s. "In the vast majority of cases, these reforms were imposed as part of a top-down decision-making process. Central governments allocated new responsibilities to schools, schools themselves were not the driving force; they did not participate in the development of the legislation beyond their traditional role in the consultation process for education reform," the study explains.

It is only by understanding the timescales that one comes to appreciate the different aims sought through the reforms.

With regards to the levels of autonomy, schools have been classified into fully autonomous, partly autonomous and having no autonomy at all.

"They are considered to be fully autonomous, or to have a high degree of autonomy, if they are fully responsible for their decisions subject to legal constraints or the general framework of education legislation. This does not preclude consultation with other education authorities.

"Schools are partly autonomous if they take decisions within a set of predetermined options or require approval for decisions from their education authority. Autonomy may also be implied where there is an absence of rules or regulations in a given area," the study explains. Malta is among only seven EU countries - the others being Spain, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, England and Ireland - which enjoy partial autonomy to decide on the use of public funds, while the majority of states have no discretion at all.

With regards to the acquisition of computer equipment, while Malta is similarly among a handful of countries enjoying limited autonomy, the majority enjoy absolute discretion.

Malta is also among the majority of states enjoying full autonomy to seek funding and sponsorships, and to let the premises for after-school-hours activities. However, whereas like most schools in Europe, local schools have no autonomy when it comes to acquiring property from private funds and employing teaching staff, it is however one of the few which do not enjoy full autonomy to acquire movables for the school from private funds.

With regards to accountability, the study goes through different models, which emerged roughly around the mid-1990s.

"Taking account of the myriad of schools of thought at work across the different experiences in school autonomy, the principle of accountability was not, initially, at the centre of thinking in all countries. However, from the middle of the 1990s this concept became increasingly important and assumed different forms in different countries."

Despite the different approaches undertaken by schools in the financial, human resources and accountability sectors, no one approach by any member state can be singled out as ideal or as more effective overall, Education Commissioner Ján Figel pointed out in the study, because "the histories and contexts of our countries are so diverse."

"Nevertheless, in moving forward, policy makers in individual countries and regions can learn a great deal from the approaches and experiences of others."