Research article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Progressive Education 2026, Vol. 22(4) 20-40

The Relationship Between Autonomy, Funding, And Instructional Barrier Perceptions in PISA Countries: A Comparison of Canada, Singapore And Estonia

Abdurrahman İlğan, Abdurrahman Ekinci, Muhammad Akram

pp. 20 - 40   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21786484

Publish Date: August 04, 2026  |   Single/Total View: 0/0   |   Single/Total Download: 0/0


Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the patterns of relationships between school autonomy, quality assurance systems, hindrances to a school's instructional activities, source of school funding, and school location in high-performing countries (Singapore, Estonia, and Canada) and middle- and low-performing countries in the PISA 2022 exams. The PISA 2022 school data were used for this study. Singapore, Estonia and Canada were selected as the three high-performing countries along with 26 countries with average scores and 28 low-performing countries were included in this study. Results revealed that in the countries included in the study, school autonomy ranges from high to low in Estonia, Canada and Singapore. In all three countries and in other countries of the world participating in the PISA exam, the proportion of decisions made within the school is higher than the proportion of decisions made by local and central governments. In each of the three high-performing countries in PISA, a single relationship pattern emerged for all three education systems among all variables examined. According to this pattern, there was a negative relationship between school autonomy and school funding coming from the government, and a moderate positive relationship between school funding coming from students and parents.

Keywords: School autonomy, quality assurance system, school funding, PISA.


How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Ilgan, A., Ekinci, A., & Akram, M. (2026). The Relationship Between Autonomy, Funding, And Instructional Barrier Perceptions in PISA Countries: A Comparison of Canada, Singapore And Estonia   . International Journal of Progressive Education, 22(4), 20-40. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21786484

Harvard
Ilgan, A., Ekinci, A. and Akram, M. (2026). The Relationship Between Autonomy, Funding, And Instructional Barrier Perceptions in PISA Countries: A Comparison of Canada, Singapore And Estonia   . International Journal of Progressive Education, 22(4), pp. 20-40.

Chicago 16th edition
Ilgan, Abdurrahman, Abdurrahman Ekinci and Muhammad Akram (2026). "The Relationship Between Autonomy, Funding, And Instructional Barrier Perceptions in PISA Countries: A Comparison of Canada, Singapore And Estonia   ". International Journal of Progressive Education 22 (4):20-40. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21786484

References

    Arcia, G., K. Macdonald, H. A. Patrinos, & E. Porta. (2011). School autonomy and accountability. System assessment and benchmarking for education results (SABER). Human development network. Washington DC: The World Bank

    Barrera, F. Fasih, T. Patrinos, H.A. & Santibáñez, L. (2009). Decentralized decision-making in schools. The theory and evidence on school-based management. Washington DC: The World Bank.

    Bédard, M. (2015). Pedagogical autonomy and accountability: A recipe for improving academic results. Montreal Economic Institute.

    Bloom, N., Lemos, R. Sadun, R. & Van Reenen, J. (2015). Does management matter in schools? Economic Journal (Royal Economic Society) 125(584) 647–674.

    Boman, B. (2020). What makes Estonia and Singapore so good?. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18(2), 181-193.https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1701420

    Bulkley K., Henig J., & Levin H. (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (2013). The self-transforming school (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387986

    Caldwell, B. J. (2016). Impact of school autonomy on student achievement: Cases from Australia. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1171-1187.

    Cheng, Y. C., Ko, J., & Lee, T. T. H. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and learning: a reconceptualisation. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(2), 177-196.

    Clark, D. (2009). The performance and competitive effects of school autonomy. Journal of political Economy, 117(4), 745-783.

    Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (2022). Education in Canada: An Overview.
    Retrieved from https://www.cmec.ca/299/Education-in-Canada-An-Overview/index.html

    Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: policy, practice, and performance. Harvard Education Press.

    European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2007). School autonomy in Europe: Policies and measures. Brussels: Eurydice.

    Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 62-89.

    Feri, R., Soemantri, D., & Jusuf, A. (2016). The relationship between autonomous motivation and autonomy support in medical students’ academic achievement. International journal of medical education, 7, 417-423. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5843.1097

    Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). PA: McGraw-Hill.

    Galiani, S., Gertler, P., & Schargrosky, E. (2008). School decentralization: helping the good get better, but leaving the poor behind. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 2106-2120.

    Greatbatch, D., & Tate, S. (2019). School improvement systems in high performing countries. London, UK: Department for Education.

    Gunnarsson, V., Orazem, P. F., Sánchez, M. A., & Verdisco, A. (2009). Does local school control raise student outcomes? Evidence on the roles of school autonomy and parental participation. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58(1), 25-52. https://doi.org/10.1086/605209

    Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning, School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95-110.

    Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessman, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 212-232.

    Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2004). The Effect of School Accountability Systems on the Level and Distribution of Student Achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association 2(2-3), 406-415.

    Hashim, A. K., Torres, C., & Kumar, J. M. (2023). Is more autonomy better? How school actors perceive school autonomy and effectiveness in context. Journal of Educational change, 24(2), 183-212.

    Heim, M. (1996). Accountability in Education: A primer for school leaders. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning, Hawaii Department of Education, Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2012). Autonomy and school improvement: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educational policy, 26(3), 465-495.

    Kukemelk, H., & Ginter, J. (2016). Estonia: School leadership in Estonia 2001–2013. In H. Arlestig, C. Day & O. Johansson. (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals: Studies in in educational leadership, cases from 24 countries, (pp. 125-135). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23027-6_7

    Ladd, H. F. (2007). Teacher labor markets in developed countries. Future Child. Spring, 17(1), 201-17. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2007.0006

    Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707-750.

    Mehisto, P., & Kitsing, M. (2022). Lessons from Estonia’s education success story: Exploring equity and high performance through PISA. Routledge.

    Monk, D. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children, 17(1).155-174. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2007.0009

    OECD. (2011a). School autonomy and accountability: Are they related to student performance? PISA in Focus, No. 9, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9h362kcx9w-en.

    OECD. (2011b). Lessons from PISA for the United States, strong performers and successful reformers in education, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en

    OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful (Volume IV): Resources, policies and practices, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en.

    OECD. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments, OECD, Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/9789264277274-en.

    OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-en.

    OECD. (2020). Education policy outlook in Estonia, OECD education policy perspectives, No. 13, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9d472195-en.

    OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

    Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(1), 37-53.

    PISA 2022 Worldwide ranking. (2024). PISA 2022 Worldwide Ranking – Average Score of Mathematics, Science and Reading, Web page: https://factsmaps.com/pisa-2022-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of-mathematics-science-and-reading-2/

    Quilabert, E. (2024). An ambiguous aspiration: school actors making sense of educational innovation policy. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 10(3), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2419472.

    Rechebei, E. (2010). Accountability and reality. who should do what? and who should be accountable? Research Into Practice Series, Pacific Resources for Education and Learning, Hawaii Department of Education, Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Révai, N. (2018). What difference do standards make to educating teachers?: A review with case studies on Australia, Estonia and Singapore. OECD Education Working Papers 174: 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1787/f1cb24d5-en.

    Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: identifying what works and why. best evidence synthesis iteration, Ministry of Education, Wellington.

    Savasci, H. S., & Tomul, E. (2013). The relationship between educational resources of school and academic achievement. International Education Studies, 6(4), 114-123. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n4p114

    Schleicher, A. (2012). Building a high-quality teaching profession. Lessons from around the world. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264113046-en

    Siddle, A., & Koelble, T. A. (2012). The failure of decentralisation in South African local government: complexity and unanticipated consequences. UCT Press, Cape Town.

    Supriadi, D., Usman, H., & Jabar, C. (2021). Good school governance: An approach to principal’s decision-making quality in Indonesian vocational school. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 6(4), 796-831.

    Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2019). Understanding teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 35. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3696

    UNESCO. (2021). Global education monitoring report 2021/2: Non-state actors in education: Who chooses? Who loses? Paris, UNESCO.

    van Amelsvoort, H. W. C. G., & Scheerens, J. (1997). Policy ıssues surrounding processes of centralization and decentralization in european education systems. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3(4), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/1380361970030404

    Williams, J. (2016). Quality assurance and quality enhancement: is there a relationship? Quality in Higher Education, 22(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2016.1227207

    Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2021). Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1926221

    Wöbmann, l. & Lüdemann, E. & Schütz, G. & West, M. R. (2007). School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the level of student achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 13, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/246402531617.

    Yuki, T., Igei, K. (2020). School autonomy and learning outcomes in Burkina Faso and Senegal. In: Nishimura, M. (Ed.), Community Participation with Schools in Developing Countries: Towards Equitable and Inclusive Basic Education for All. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 184–197.