Special Needs Education in the Netherlands: A quantitative study on the effect of contextual conditions on the performance of Dutch secondary schools and their networks

(1)

Special Needs Education in the Netherlands

A quantitative study on the effect of contextual conditions on the

performance of Dutch secondary schools and their networks

A. M. G. Huisman, BSc Master Thesis Public Administration

Supervisors: Dr. J. Schalk & Dr. P. E. A. van den Bekerom Second reader: Dr. R. de Ruiter

Leiden University

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs June 2018 

(2)

Summary

In 2014, the Dutch government implemented Special Needs Education as a replacement of pupil-based financing. Special Needs Education aimed to provide extra facilities to pupils with special needs to prevent them from staying at home or going to special education (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). To realise this goal, the Dutch government allocated all Dutch regular schools to collaboration networks and provided them with a fixed healthcare budget. These networks became responsible for supporting special needs pupils in their learning environment by providing them with extra facilities (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). Although a network approach would, in theory, be suited to achieve common goals (O’Toole & Meier, 2011; Provan & Kenis, 2008; Provan & Lemaire, 2012), politicians and teachers have expressed concerns about the new financial system (NOS, 2014; Zijlstra, 2014; Van der Woud & Beliaeva, 2015; Maassen van den Brink & Van der Rest, 2016).

In the field of policy implementation, research on Special Needs Education has so far focussed on the managerial and personnel adjustments to the new system by conducting qualitative studies. As several scholars have stated that the context of an organisation can also determine performance (Provan & Milward, 1995; Provan & Kenis, 2008; Meier et al., 2015), this study examines to what extent contextual network and school conditions have affected performance of both schools and networks. For the purpose of this study, contextual conditions are defined as those characteristics that can create situational opportunities and constraints for the entities operating within that context. By conducting statistical analyses, this study analyses those conditions that were created by the network allocation in 2014.

The results indicate that geographical density - indicating the number of schools per km2_-

has a significant negative effect on network performance. The multilevel analyses that were used on the school level show that none of the included contextual network and school conditions significantly affect school performance. However, the random intercept-only models indicate that 14% of the variation in organisational output and 18% of the variation in organisational effectiveness, both indicators of school performance, can be attributed to the school’s network.

Based on these results, this study concludes that the network allocation by government has generally not led to the creation of contextual conditions that are either beneficial or obstructive to organisational performance, with geographical density as the exception. There are other network aspects than those examined (e.g. management approaches, network strategies) that could explain organisational performance. As such, this research has shown that a network context does matter for performance, but further research has to unravel what aspects create these differences. 

(5)

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction to Special Needs Education

Within the educational sector of the Netherlands, a division can be made between regular schools and special schools in both primary and secondary education. Special schools were first introduced in 1985, replacing “extraordinary” (in Dutch: buitengewoon) primary education, and provided places for pupils that are physically, sensory or mentally disabled (Rijksoverheid, n.d.). To limit the number of pupils having to go to these small-scaled special schools, the Dutch government has also provided regular schools with extra financial support. This support allowed schools to create a suitable environment for pupils with a limited number of special needs (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-b). In 2003, the Dutch government introduced a pupil-based financial support system, meaning that regular schools would receive an additional budget per pupil with special needs (Senate, n.d.-a). Simultaneously, the Dutch government introduced regional expertise centres to determine whether a pupil was eligible to participate in regular education or whether it would be better off in special education (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-b). However, due to an increase in special needs pupils, the costs of this pupil-based financial system increased, resulting in an situation that was financially unsustainable (Van Bijsterveldt, 2011; Hoogstad, 2012). The social issue at stake then became how to best provide special needs pupils with the care they need, given the government’s limited amount of resources. There was a wide consensus among politicians that these pupils need extra services (Funnekotter, 2012), but the question remained how to facilitate these services in the most effective and financially sustainable way possible.

After years of political discussion, Special Needs Education (in Dutch: Passend Onderwijs) got introduced in August 2014 (Senate, n.d.-b). With Special Needs Education, the Dutch government tried to use a network approach in both primary and secondary education in order to create a sustainable financial situation (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). In this new system, the Dutch regular schools became responsible for providing special needs pupils with extra facilities to support them in their learning environment (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). To realise this aim, all Dutch primary and secondary school locations were allocated to one of the mandated collaboration networks (in Dutch: samenwerkingsverbanden); 77 networks in primary education and 75 in secondary education (see Appendix 1). According to Provan & Kenis (2008, p. 231), these networks can be defined as “three or more legally autonomous organizations that work together to achieve not only their own goals but also a collective goal”. In this case, the collective goal of each network

(6)

is to limit the number of pupils that are staying at home because they cannot find a school in their region that facilitates in their special needs (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-c). To reach this goal, schools are expected to jointly formulate policies within their network and allocate the collective resources to facilitate all pupils with special needs in the network’s region (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). With the implementation of Special Needs Education, the Dutch government has changed its financial support system by switching from pupil-based financing, as was the case between 2003 and 2014, to network-based financing, referring to the system of Special Needs Education.

1.2 Problem Definition and Research Question

According to the former Minister of Education, Special Needs Education is based upon the assumption that a network approach would lead to a more efficient and sustainable provision of extra facilities for special needs pupils in regular education than the former system could (Van Bijsterveldt, 2011). By fostering collaboration and coordination among schools, the government expects primary and secondary schools to jointly provide extra services for special needs pupils (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). Given the increased importance of networks when dealing with complex societal issues (O’Toole & Meier, 2011), a network approach seems to be a rational choice, because this approach enables flexibility, knowledge exchange, and an efficient use of resources (Provan & Kenis, 2008; Provan & Lemaire, 2012). In the case of Special Needs Education, these expected benefits led to government choosing this specific approach.

However, in the past years, several actors raised concern about Special Needs Education. In 2014, the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation (NOS) reported that not all schools were yet ready to adopt the new system, and later that year stated that both schools and parents knew little about what had changed (NOS, 2014; Zijlstra, 2014). In 2015, DUO (the Dutch government’s executive educational service) published a report which stated that most teachers react negatively to the educational reform (Van der Woud & Beliaeva, 2015). As a result, parliamentarians questioned the effectiveness of the policy changes in the House of Representatives (NOS, 2015). A year later, the Educational Council concluded that schools had not yet specialised enough in certain facilities because they were unable to reach agreements within the networks (Maassen van den Brink & Van der Rest, 2016). As a result, schools provided too little support for pupils with special needs and the networks were unable to provide all pupils with a suitable place at one of the schools within the network (Maassen van den Brink & Van der Rest, 2016). Recently, politicians again expressed their concerns, demanding rapid improvement (Willemsen, 2018).

(7)

Hence, at face value, the expected positive effects of a network approach are not (yet) visible in all school collaboration networks in the Netherlands. Progress reports on Special Needs Education explain that there are managerial differences between school networks, which could explain variations in network performance (Ledoux, 2016; Eimers, Ledoux & Smeets, 2016). For instance, school networks vary in their choice for financial distribution models (Eimers et al., 2016). According to Eimers et al. (2016), this can be attributed to the varying contexts in which the schools operate; some networks have to deal with more special needs pupils than others, resulting in varying financial situations. Therefore, an explanatory reason for the above described concerns and differences between networks and schools may be the specific context in which each network and the associated schools have to function.

As all schools are eventually expected to reach certain standards of performance and to obtain the goals of the network, it is interesting to see what the impact of the context is on both organisational and network performance. When taking a closer look at these contexts, note that the collaboration networks were mandated. This means that the network allocation has been done by the Dutch Ministry of Education (Van Bijsterveldt, 2011); all primary and secondary schools were obligated to become part of a network, which means that each school got placed within a fixed network context. As a consequence, each network has certain contextual conditions, such as its size, that school managers cannot influence. The Dutch government expects each school and network to achieve the targets, so it is valuable to know whether these pre-determined contextual conditions matter for network and school performance.

Therefore, the goal of this explanatory research is to investigate which, if any, assigned contextual conditions of school collaboration networks have had a significant influence on school and network performance. This research will use a quantitive study to also examine the extent of the impact of contextual conditions on school and network performance. In line with Meier et al.’s (2015) distinction between the internal and the external context of an organisation, this study makes a distinction between (1) contextual conditions of the network environment, and (2) contextual conditions of the organisation itself. This distinction allows for a specification of the impact of both types of the contextual conditions on performance. The central question of this study reads:

RQ: To what extent do contextual conditions of school collaboration networks on Special Needs

Education, on both the network and the organisational level, influence the performance of regular schools and their networks in the Netherlands?

(8)

1.3 Academic and Practical Relevance

Conducting this research is of academic relevance, because it enlarges the scope of the current network literature and tries to complement existing theories on network effectiveness. Additionally, this research can be seen as an evaluation of the creation of collaboration networks in 2014, since it looks at the impact of contextual network conditions that have been determined by government when allocating the network borders. In that respect, this research is of practical relevance as well, as it provides relevant information for policy development. These contributions and other reasons for why this study is relevant are explained in the following sections.

1.3.1 Academic Relevance

The academic relevance of this research is based upon four contributions. First of all, this research aims to broaden the field of the network literature by focusing on contextual conditions of mandated networks. In recent years, multiple literature reviews have emphasised that the academic literature of the past decades has predominantly been focussed on how to govern networks (Lecy, Mergel & Schmitz, 2014; Kapucu, Hu & Khosa, 2014; Isett, Mergel, LeRoux, Mischen & Rethemeyer, 2011; Provan, Fish & Sydow, 2007). However, less research has been done on the contextual effects of either organisations or (mandated) networks on performance (Meier et al., 2015).

As stated by Meier et al. (2015, p. 132), “[scholars] have shown that managers can have statistically and substantively important effects on performance, but they have ignored the extent to which the findings on this point are themselves context-dependent”. Hence, “[s]ystematic attention needs to be directed to contextual features as well” (Meier et al., 2015, p. 132). Therefore, this research aims to broaden the scope of the network literature by researching whether contextual conditions of both networks and organisations have an impact on the performance of Dutch schools and their collaboration networks.

Secondly, this research tries to further refine the current knowledge on network governance by elaborating on the optimum contextual network conditions of a Network Administrative Organisation (NAO). An NAO is, according to Provan and Kenis (2008), a network that is externally governed by an administrative organisation. As the school collaboration networks are all externally governed and can hence be characterised as NAOs, the casuistic of this research is suited for further investigation of the optimal contextual conditions of this form of network governance. By looking more closely at especially the condition of the network size, this research tries to contribute to the academic knowledge on the key predictors of effective network governance forms.

(9)

Since information about the impact of contextual conditions is expected to be generalisable to other cases of mandated networks, this research contributes to the current body of knowledge.

Thirdly, the theoretical framework of this study connects the academic literature regarding the school as a context for development from the pedagogy discipline to research on networking for performance. By doing so, this research tries to enlarge the scope of the public administration discipline by integrating literature from other social sciences. This is of academic relevance, as this multidisciplinary approach provides a broader understanding of the school’s role in child development. By using such an approach, this research tries to connect the pupil’s development needs to governmental interventions in order to evaluate the current public policies. As the literature on network governance often solely uses a public administration approach, this research is academically relevant as it combines disciplines to evaluate a public issue.

Fourthly, this research conducts the first systematic empirical test regarding network and school performance in the system of Special Needs Education. In recent years, Special Needs Education has regularly been evaluated by government (e.g. Dekker, 2017) and other public institutions (Evaluatie Passend Onderwijs, n.d.; Steunpunt Passend Onderwijs VO, n.d.). For instance, the research programme Evaluation of Special Needs Education, financed by Nationaal

Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek, has published over 30 reports (e.g. Eimers et al., 2016; Ledoux,

Kuiper, Oomens, Bomhof & De Wijs, 2017), evaluating Special Needs Education and all its aspects (Evaluatie Passend Onderwijs, n.d.). The Steunpunt Passend Onderwijs of the VO-board, which is the association of secondary schools, has published reports and guides on how to implement Special Needs Education in practice (Steunpunt Passend Onderwijs VO, n.d.). Moreover, several research institutes, such as ITS/Radboud University and the Kohnstamm Institute, have researched specific aspects of Special Needs Education (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-d), reaching from competencies in primary education (Smeets, Ledoux, Regtvoort, Felix & Mol Lous, 2015) to short term evaluations in secondary education (Eimers, Roelofs, Walraven, & Wolbers, 2015). However, none of these reports conducted a systematic empirical test of contextual effects on multiple dimensions of performance. Hence, this research is of academic relevance, because it uses a distinct research approach and looks at multiple dimensions of network and school performance.

1.3.2 Practical Relevance

From a social perspective, studying Special Needs Education is valuable for policy developers and schools managers, as well as society at large, in order to gain knowledge about which contextual

(10)

conditions matter for both organisational and network performance. Although one of the reports of the research programme Evaluation of Special Needs Education has looked at the governance forms of the school networks (Ledoux et al., 2017), none of the earlier mentioned reports is focused on the contextual conditions that are created by the allocation of networks in 2014. The reports are generally focussed on managerial or personnel adjustments to the introduction of Special Needs Education (e.g. Eimers et al., 2016; Ledoux et al., 2017). As this research primarily looks at the contextual conditions that have been created by the mandated networks in 2014, it uses a different approach to Special Needs Education than the research that has been done so far. Therefore, the results of this research are a valuable addition to the currently available information for policy developers, and as such, society at large. The executive part of government could actually use this research to improve the contextual conditions the schools have to operate in and, as a result, improve the system of Special Needs Education.

The results of this research are not only useful in either the administrative or managerial field, but can also be important for other practical disciplines. When trying to explain why a pupil is performing below average, it is valuable to look not only at characteristics of the pupil itself (e.g. cognitive capacity), but also to the context it is operating in. Perhaps, a pupil’s (under)performance can be attributed to certain contextual network or school conditions that do not fit the pupil’s needs. Therefore, the results of this study are of practical value for child development-oriented disciplines.

1.4 Research Structure

To systematically come to an answer to the central question, this research has been structured in several chapters. First of all, some background information on the introduction and implementation of the system of Special Needs Education will be provided (chapter 2). Then, the theoretical framework discusses the current literature concerning the effect of networking and network conditions on performance (chapter 3). After that, the section on research design will detail the research approach, and the operationalisation of the key variables (chapter 4). Additionally, the unit of analysis, the relevant populations and the process of case selection will be discussed. In the section that follows, the research methods, including the data collection and processing, are outlined (chapter 5). The results of the data analyses are presented accordingly (chapter 6). This study concludes with some final remarks, study limitations, and suggestions for future research (chapter 7) and a discussion section with several academic, practical, and policy implications (chapter 8). The reference list is included at the end of this study, as well as the appendices. 

(11)

2. Background Information

In the past decennia, both regular and special schools have been receiving financial support for students with special needs (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-b). In 2014, the pupil-based financial system for regular schools was replaced by Special Needs Education (Senate, n.d.-b). This new system entails that mandated school networks receive a fixed budget that can be used by the schools within that network to provide extra facilities to pupils with special needs (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). In this section, the policy context of Special Needs Education is outlined, as well as the transition to the current system of Special Needs Education. The goals and functioning of Special Needs Education are explained afterwards, together with some information on the financial equalisation.

2.1 The Policy Context of Special Needs Education

From 1991 onwards, the number of pupils attending special education has continuously grown in the Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek [CBS], 2015). Since the budget allocation for special education is based on its number of pupils, the costs grew accordingly (House of Representatives, 2005). The relative high costs of special education - compared to regular education - were an incentive for the government to start controlling these costs. The ‘back to school together’ policy (in Dutch: Weer Samen Naar School [WSNS]) was created to reach that goal.

In 1998, the WSNS-policy, aiming to integrate pupils with extra needs in regular primary education to limit the costs of special education, was laid down in the Primary Education Act. After providing customised care for pupils with extra needs, these pupils were considered able to follow an uninterrupted learning path that was tailored to their abilities in regular education (House of Representatives, 2005). This WSNS-policy resulted in a stagnation of the additional expenditures on special education. In 1999, the total budget for pupils needing extra care in both special primary schools and regular primary schools got converted into a fixed healthcare budget (House of Representatives, 2005). As part of the WSNS policy, partnerships between regular and special primary schools were established.

In December 2001, the House of Representatives adopted a proposal to amend the Primary Education Act, the Secondary Education Act, and the Law on Expertise Centres to introduce pupil-based funding and to form regional expertise centres (Senate, n.d.-a). In April 2002, this amendment of the law was declared politically controversial, following the fall of the Cabinet Kok II (Senate, n.d.-a). After the political controversiality expired due to the installation of Cabinet Balkenende, a

(12)

majority of the House of Representatives accepted the arrangement for pupil-based funding and the Senate officially approved the proposal in November 2002 (Senate, n.d.-a).

This new system of pupil-based funding (in Dutch: Persoonsgebonden Budget [PGB]) got implemented in 2003 and meant that pupils with special needs received an additional budget to attend a regular primary or secondary school in the Netherlands (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-b). A national system was established to determine whether a pupil was eligible to participate in regular education with this additional budget (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-b). With this financial support, the regular school of the pupil’s choice could facilitate the extra care that the pupil needed within the school (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-b). In cases where a pupil had multiple special needs, they had to apply for different funds to receive extra financial support (Van Bijsterveldt, 2011).

Between 1997 and 2010, the costs of this pupil-based financing method expanded from 0.5 billion to over 3.5 billion euros due to a growth in diagnoses of pupils with disorders (Hoogstad, 2012; Van Bijsterveldt, 2011). These rising costs and a general dissatisfaction with the national classification system created an incentive for the Dutch government to change the system (Van Bijsterveldt, 2011). In November 2011, the Dutch Ministry of Education presented a policy proposal to alter several educational laws (Van Bijsterveldt︎, 2011). This proposal included ideas of network-based financing as opposed to pupil-based financing (Van Bijsterveldt, 2011). These fixed school networks would receive a fixed budget to provide extra facilities to pupils with special needs (Van Bijsterveldt, 2011).

In March 2012, the proposal and a list of amendments were put to a vote in the House of Representatives (Senate, n.d.-b). The coalition parties, being the People’s Party for Freedom & Democracy (VVD) and the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), as well as the Party for Freedom (PVV) and the Reformed Political Party (SGP) together formed a small majority and voted in favour of the policy proposal to alter several educational laws (Senate, n.d.-b). After the policy proposal was accepted by the Senate in October 2012, the so-called Special Needs Education system was ready to be implemented in the educational sector of the Netherlands (Senate, n.d.-b).

2.2 The Introduction of Special Needs Education

In August 2014, Special Needs Education was introduced in both primary and secondary schools in the Netherlands (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). From that month onwards, all schools have ‘a duty of care’, which means that schools have the responsibility to create a suitable environment for every pupil with special needs that prefers to go to that school (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). A ‘suitable

(13)

environment’ means a school is able to provide its special needs pupils with extra-curricular activities and other types of facilities to support them in their educational development (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). The school can, in consultation with the parents, choose to provide this place on the school itself or, in case the school cannot meet the pupil’s needs, on another regular school or special school within the region (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). The duty of care also means that a school may only remove a pupil at the moment that another school is willing to admit the pupil. This prevents pupils from having to stay at home when no other school has yet offered them a place (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a).

This new system of Special Needs Education has been introduced in primary and secondary education with four main objectives, being (1) to give clarity about the support that all schools offer, (2) to decrease the level of bureaucracy by providing the school collaboration networks with the financial resources for both light and severe support, and the task to determine the criteria and procedures for these forms of support, (3) to arrange good teachers in every class, and (4) to prevent that a pupil has to stay at home by facilitating the most suited possible education programme for all pupils who need extra support in education (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-c; Van Bijsterveldt, 2011).

Collectively, these goals have to ensure that all pupils get a suitable environment for their education. The central indicator of network performance is whether these pupils indeed all have a suitable place at on of the schools in the network (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-c). Additionally, as has been the case since the start of the WSNS-policy, Special Needs Education also aims to limit the number of pupils having to go to a school in special education (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-c).

2.2.1 School Collaboration Networks

Special needs pupils includes both pupils with learning or behavioural problems and also pupils physical or mental disabilities. To support all these different pupils who need extra support, all Dutch school locations are automatically part of one of the mandated collaboration networks (see Appendix 1): 77 in primary education and 75 in secondary education (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). The network borders are based on the earlier collaboration networks in secondary education (Van Bijsterveldt, 2011). A difference with the previous networks is that the current networks have been mandated and are comparatively larger than the networks in the previous system. This was done to create more decisive networks and to prevent parents from being sent from one network to another (Van Bijsterveldt, 2011).

(14)

In these new networks, schools are expected to formulate policies collectively and allocate the financial resources received by the network to improve the special need facilities and services (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). Regular schools and special schools work together to determine what guidance and support all schools in the region can offer. Additionally, the schools - as opposed to the former expertise centres - jointly decide which pupils are placed in special education and which pupils can function in a regular school (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). Within the collaboration networks, school also make agreements with the different municipalities about the use and coordination of (youth) care (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-a). Given that all networks have their own umbrella foundation that facilitates the network with administrative support (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-e), all networks can be defined as administrative organisation-governed networks (Provan & Kenis, 2008).

2.2.2 Financial Equalisation

With the implementation of Special Needs Education, the system of financial support allocation for pupils with special needs changed substantially. Before Special Needs Education, there were significant differences per region in the percentage of pupils who received pupil-based funding (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-f). This resulted in unevenly distributed financial support across the country. The Evaluation Commission on Special Needs Education (ECPO) investigated these differences and found no substantive arguments to assume that the need for extra support differs across the country (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-f). Therefore, the committee advised to stop the allocation of funding based on the number of special needs pupils per school, but rather to allocate it in proportion to the total number of pupils within a network (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-f).

To gradually implement this change in budget allocation, a special arrangement for the transitional period was made with all networks. The budget difference between financial allocation based on the number of pupils within a network and the number of special needs pupils, as was the case before 2014, has either been subtracted from (when the number of special needs pupils used to be above average) or added to (when the number of special needs pupils was below average) the normative budget over a period of 5 years from 2015 onwards (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-f). On 1 August 2020, the non-remunerated number will completely be reduced, resulting in a situation in which all networks receive the same proportionate amount of money (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-f).

(15)

3. Theoretical Framework

This chapter discusses the effect of network conditions on performance in order to provide an answer to the research question. As an introduction and to demarcate the context of this theoretical framework, the first part of this chapter briefly outlines the provision of public programmes with regards to (special needs) education. Then, the second part discusses the effect of inter-organisational networking and elaborates on the benefits and challenges of such management activities. Part three of the framework outlines the effect of networking on both the network and organisational level. Part four focusses on contextual conditions, subdivided into network and organisational conditions, and its impact on network and organisational performance. Subsequently, hypotheses are formulated about the impact of these conditions on the performance of organisations and their networks. The final part is concerned with a cross-level comparison of performance.

3.1 The Provision of Public Programmes

The educational experience of pupils is impacted by a variety of factors, reaching from the social organisation of the classroom to the instructional design (Lightfoot, Cole & Cole, 2013). Besides these factors in the classroom, pedagogues have also emphasised personal and cultural barriers to school success (Lightfoot et al., 2013). One of the personal barriers to educational success is that of learning disabilities, which refers to “the academic difficulties of children who fare poorly in school despite having normal intelligence” (Lightfoot et al., 2013, p. 445). Examples of common forms of specific learning disabilities are dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia (Lightfoot et al., 2013).

These specific learning disabilities cause pupils to have certain special educational needs that need to be met in order for them to perform well in school. To facilitate in the range of special education needs, schools have to provide contiguous programmes to special needs pupils (Halliwell, 2003). As stated by Halliwell (2003, p. 37), “the needs of most pupils with mild learning difficulties will be met by teachers through careful lesson planning and adapting their teaching styles to suit the pupil’s needs”. However, additional public programmes might be needed to provide extra support to those pupils with more special needs (Halliwell, 2003).

According to the model of public management by O’Toole and Meier, such public programmes are formed by both internal and external (or inter-organisational) management (Hicklin, O’Toole & Meier, 2007). In that respect, networks have become of increased importance for the execution of public programmes, as “[these programmes] call for the joint efforts of actors in two or more […] organizations” (O’Toole & Meier, 2011, p. 3). As outlined by O’Toole & Meier

(16)

(2004), public managers often have to operate in a network context and need to collaborate with other parties in order to achieve their (collective) goals. This logic suggests that a school’s management plays a key role in the provision of extra support for pupils with special needs (Hicklin et al., 2008). Therefore, in the context of Special Needs Education, it is worth to take the effect of external management into account when looking at the provision of public programmes for special needs pupils.

3.2 Benefits and Challenges of Inter-Organisational Networking

As outlined in Chapter 2 of this study, the Dutch school collaboration networks are expected to formulate policies collectively and facilitate public programmes for pupils with special needs (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-b). As implied by the name, these collaboration networks create a specific context for the provision of public programmes. Given this network context, inter-organisational networking is necessary to give pupils with special needs the support they need (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-b). By letting school managers collaborate and coordinate with other schools within the network, but also with governmental bodies, and for-profit organisations, the school becomes able to provide special needs pupils with extra facilities, such as remedial teaching and extra support classes to help them with their homework (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-g).

This network approach is expected to help school managers to optimise inter-organisational decision making and the implementation of public policies (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-b; Bovens, ’t Hart & Van Twist, 2012). The goal of external networking is to obtain certain network goals; in this case, providing all pupils with a suitable place within the network. In order to reach this goal, a network has to be effective. According to Provan and Kenis (2008, p. 230), network effectiveness is “the attainment of positive network-level outcomes that could not normally be achieved by individual organizational participants acting independently”. In that sense, network effectiveness can be seen as the conceptualisation of network performance.

Besides network performance, a network approach could also lead to increased performance on the organisational level (Provan & Lemaire, 2012; O’Toole & Meier, 2011). The mechanism behind this effect is that inter-organisational networking could lead to certain benefits that cannot be reached by internal management (Ostrom, 1990). As one of the goals of special needs eduction is to improve the educational quality of schools, the networks could also be used by managers to foster organisational performance (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-c).

(17)

To increase either network performance or organisational performance, school managers have to profit from the benefits of inter-organisational networking, whilst simultaneously dealing with the challenges that result from it (O’Toole & Meier, 2011). The next two sections will focus on the benefits and challenges of inter-organisational networking. As this study aims to make clear to what extent contextual conditions influence both organisational and network performance, the effect of the context in the relationship of inter-organisational networking and performance will be discussed after that.

3.2.1 Benefits of Inter-Organisational Networking

According to Ostrom (1990), external networking could be the result of a legal imperative, such as the creation of a government mandated network. Apart from a legal imperative, organisations could also choose to engage in inter-organisational networking to reduce organisational uncertainty in a complex environment, and to enhance their legitimacy (Ostrom, 1990). Furthermore, inter-organisational networking could help organisations to acquire resources, to gain equity, or to establish trust, which managers can use to learn from other organisation’s behaviour (Ostrom, 1990). Hence, whether a network is mandated or not, inter-organisational networking could be beneficial to an organisation’s performance and is therefore worth exploring for school managers.

While Ostrom (1990) seems to focus on benefits for a single organisation, Agranoff & McGuire (2001) argue that networks, as opposed to traditional bureaucratic organisations, are better suited to deal with ‘wicked’ problems. Wicked problems, defined as “problems with no solutions, only temporary and imperfect resolutions” (Harmon & Mayer, 1986, p. 9), generally are of concern to multiple actors and can therefore be viewed as a network affair, as opposed to the goal of a single organisation. In the case of Dutch education, pupils staying at home due to a lack of suitable education could be seen as a wicked problem.

Agranoff & McGuire (2001, p. 319) state, “[f]or wicked problems, agreement is forged by jointly steering courses of action and delivering policy outputs that are consistent with the multiplicity of societal interests. […] nonconventional modes of organizing, like networks, have emerged to do just that”. By emphasising joint action, they argue that networks can be used to reach certain network outcomes. When applied to this case study, the school collaboration networks could thus limit the number of pupils staying at home by jointly acting upon this societal problem.

Provan & Lemaire (2012) seem to agree with this line of argumentation, as they state that wicked problems often ask for a network approach. The authors state that, due to the flexibility and

(18)

adaptive abilities of a network and the dissemination of resources and knowledge, a network approach is most suited in cases of wicked problems (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). However, apart from the ability to solve wicked problems, networks could also be beneficial for organisational performance. Other reasons to choose for a network approach, as opposed to a hierarchy or market, are “the need for flexibility, enhanced learning, improved knowledge flow, and greater sensitivity to the needs of clients” (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 640). Thus, Provan & Lemaire (2012) argue that a network approach and inter-organisational networking could help to improve both network performance as well as organisational performance.

O’Toole & Meier (2004; 2011) have a different perspective on networking. Their model on the outcomes of public programmes implies that engagement in inter-organisational networking is in the interest of an individual organisation (O’Toole & Meier, 2004). According to these scholars, a manager has to use an external network approach to buffer the organisation against shocks stemming from the environment, whilst simultaneously allowing the exploitation of resources (O’Toole & Meier, 2004; O’Toole & Meier, 2011). Thus, a manager can improve the performance of its organisation by increasing collaboration within the network, but could also make the organisation more vulnerable to environmental uncertainty when such external management is absent (O’Toole & Meier, 2004; O’Toole & Meier, 2011). Therefore, inter-organisational management can be seen as a crucial contributor to organisational performance.

In conclusion, there seems to be a wide consensus among scholars that inter-organisational networking could lead to increased performance (Ostrom, 1990; Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Provan & Lemaire, 2012; O’Toole & Meier, 2011). According to some, inter-organisational networking can be used by managers to increase organisational performance (Ostrom, 1990; O’Toole & Meier, 2011), while others state that a network approach can also be used to achieve common goals (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). Provan & Lemaire (2012) acknowledge that inter-organisational networking could lead to both network outcomes as well as increased inter-organisational performance. In line with these articles, the premise of this study is that inter-organisational networking could positively contribute to both network and organisational goals.

The question that then remains is how large the impact is of inter-organisational networking on both levels of performance. With their cross-national comparison, Meier et al. (2015) found that the impact of internal and external management on school performance was highly dependent on the political and internal context of the organisation in which the manager is operating. They state that “[the] two contexts provide very different conditions for management, and this is clearly

(19)

reflected in the empirical results” (Meier et al., 2015, p. 145). This study will therefore more closely examine the contextual conditions in which managers have to operate, because these conditions are expected to have a significant influence on the extent to which managers can benefit from inter-organisational networking.

3.2.2 Challenges of Inter-Organisational Networking

In order for school managers to ultimately benefit from a network approach and to reach both network and organisational goals, the managers have to deal with several challenges that come along with inter-organisational networking. Based on earlier literature, Provan & Lemaire (2012) identified six of these challenges: (1) varying commitment to network goals, (2) cultural diversity, (3) autonomy losses, (4) reduced accountability, (5) costs of coordination, and (6) complex management structures. All these factors - that also interrelate with each other - can have a negative impact on network effectiveness, and hence need to be taken into account by managers when networking externally.

The first challenge is a varying commitment of actors to the network goals. This refers to the phenomenon that actors within a certain network can put unequal effort in realising network goals, given that they are not equally committed to these goals (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). A reason for this variation may be that the goals of the organisation and the network overlap only for a limited extent (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). When the network goals and the organisational goals do not align with each other, organisations may prioritise pursuing organisational goals over contributing to realising network goals. Moreover, as a result from unified decision making, it is hard to pinpoint which actor is responsible for either failure or success within a network context (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). This can result in a collective action problem, as “managers also face varying degrees of responsibility to activate, mobilize, and synthesize networks” (Rainey, 2014, p. 138; McGuire, 2002). This problem will be further discussed in section 3.5.

Secondly, cultural diversity may also be an obstacle when trying to achieve a common goal, because it can be challenging to reach agreement with actors that operate in different ways (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). For instance, actors may have a different approach to decision making. Such cultural differences imply that actors need to reach consensus about the decision making process before other decisions can be made. A network approach could therefore decrease accountability (O’Toole, 1997; Provan & Lemaire, 2012). As a consequence, Provan & Lemaire (2012, p. 642) state that “managers […] may resist coordinated decision making, especially when network

(20)

decisions are not seen as reflecting the interests of their own organization”. This resistance to coordinated decision making can be strengthened by the earlier described problem of varying commitment to network goals.

Lastly, costs of coordination may form an obstacle to engage in inter-organisational networking, as it could lead to considerable costs for managers in terms of time and effort (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). When incorporating O’Toole & Meier’s (2004; 2011) model, exploitations from the environment and the protection against environmental shocks have to outweigh these costs in order for inter-organisational networking to be beneficial for a manger. When this is not the case, the managerial costs could form a reason to not interact in external management.

Taking into account all these varying challenges (see Table 1), one could state that inter-organisational networking is complex, especially when a manager has to balance between internal and external management (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). In addition, “[b]uilding an effective network depends on many factors, all of which must be considered in the design and implementation of a network” (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 642). Hence, not only the above described challenges are important to take into account, other factors, such as the network design, have to be considered as well (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). Based on these considerations, this study argues that whether managers will face challenges of inter-organisational networking is dependent on contextual conditions. This will be further outlined in the upcoming sections.

Table 1. An Overview of Benefits and Challenges to Inter-Organisational Networking

Level Benefits Challanges

Network ability to reach network goals and to solve “wicked” problems

varying commitment to network goals; cultural diversity; reduced accountability; complex

management Organisation reduced uncertainty; enhanced

legitimacy, trust and equity; extra resources; greater flexibility and sensitivity; enhanced learning; improved knowledge flow

autonomy losses; costs of coordination

(21)

3.3 The Context of Inter-Organisational Networking

As emphasised in the previous sections, the extent to which a manager is in the position to benefit from inter-organisational networking, and to deal with the challenges that come along with it, is dependent on the context in which the manager finds himself. According to multiple scholars (Provan & Milward, 1995; Provan & Kenis, 2008; Meier et al., 2015), the context of an organisation and several network conditions determine network and organisational performance. While the context is often treated as a moderating variable, contextual conditions can also function as independent variables in the relationship with performance (Turrini, Cristofoli, Frosini & Nasi, 2010; Johns, 2006).

Therefore, the following sections further investigate the impact of contextual conditions on performance. First, it defines contextual conditions as a concept. Then, it moves on to elaborate on the most prominent contextual conditions, especially in the case of mandated school networks. The last section will discuss what the impact of these contextual network and organisational conditions is on both network and organisational performance.

3.3.1 Defining Contextual Conditions

Before this study can define contextual conditions, it first needs to take a look at what “context” actually means. In 1993, Mowday & Sutton defined context as “stimuli and phenomena that surround and thus exist in the environment external to the individual, most often at a different level of analysis” (1993, p. 198). Based on this definition, Johns (2006, p. 386) characterised context as those “situational opportunities and constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organisational behaviour as well as functional relationships between variables”. Contrary, Raab, Mannak & Cambre (2013, p. 483) have defined context as “the presence or absence of one or more (necessary or sufficient) conditions”. While Johns (2006) states that the context could be a constraint to organisational behaviour, Raab et al. (2013) see the context as necessary or sufficient conditions that can either be present or absent, which implies there are no negative consequences of the context after the threshold conditions have been met. This study expects that a school’s context can also be of negative influence, and will therefore uses Johns’s (2006) definition of context.

As a result from this definition, contextual conditions will for the purpose of this study be defined as those characteristics that can create the situational opportunities and constraints - as described by Johns (2006) - for the entities operating within that context. In their study, Meier et al. (2015) made a distinction between two specific contextual conditions, being the political (external)

(22)

context and the organisational (internal) context. By doing so, the authors empirically proved that there are both internal and external contextual conditions to an organisation that could influence the relationship between management and performance (Meier et al., 2015). Following this distinction, the contextual conditions in this study are also conceptualised along two levels; (1) contextual network conditions, and (2) contextual organisational conditions. Both these levels of conditions are expected to influence network or organisational performance.

3.3.2 Contextual Conditions on the Network and Organisational Level

According to Provan & Kenis (2008), there are four critical conditions that factor into effectiveness on the network level. In their article, the authors explain that a network can only be effective when four critical conditions - number of participations, trust, goal consensus, and need for network-level competencies - are in line with the adopted governance form of the network. The authors state that a governance form is most effective when these critical conditions are either low, moderate or high, depending on the governance form (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Provan & Kenis (2008) distinguish between three governance forms: (1) shared participant-governed networks, (2) lead organisation-governed networks, and (3) network administrative organisation-organisation-governed networks.

Shared participant-governed networks are expected to be effective when trust among network members is high, the number of participants is low, the goal consensus is high, and the need for network-level competencies is low (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Lead organisation -governed networks are effective when trust among network members is low, the number of participants is moderate, the goal consensus is low, and the need for network-level competencies is moderate (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Network administrative organisation-governed networks, also known as NAOs, are assumed to be effective when trust among network members is moderate, the number of participants is high, the goal consensus is high, and the need for network-level competencies is high (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Thus, when one of the named conditions is not meeting the contingent liabilities of the network form, the network is expected to be less effective than in cases where all conditions fit the chosen governance structure.

In this study, contextual network conditions can be defined as the characteristics of a network environment that can create situational opportunities and constraints for the entities operating within the network. While trust, goal consensus, and need for network-level competencies belong to managerial aspects of networking, the number of participants can be seen as a contextual network condition; the number of participants was known beforehand by government when

(23)

allocating the school networks. The level of trust and goal consensus could not be known beforehand and are therefore not contextual conditions. Hence, the number of network participants is an interesting contextual network condition to consider in this study on mandated networks.

Another contextual network condition that the government could have known during the creation of networks is the geographical density of each network. In the network literature, density refers to the connectedness or as the number of ties among organisations in the network (Provan et al., 2007; Kapucu et al., 2014; Borgatti, Everett & Johnson, 2013; Muijs, Ainscow, Chapman & West, 2011). The number of ties between organisations however is not a variable the government could have predicted during the creation of the networks. Especially because the government was trying to encourage schools to form new ties within the network. However, the geographical density of a network, defined as the number of schools in a network divided by the geographical size in the network, is information about the network that was available beforehand. Therefore, this study will specifically investigate whether geographical density as a contextual network condition has an impact on either network or organisational performance.

On the organisational level, contextual conditions are defined as the characteristics of the organisation that can create situational opportunities and constraints for that organisation. Fragmentation is an example of such a characteristic and has been considered as such in the academic literature on networks (Turrini et al., 2010; Provan et al., 2007). It refers to network structures with fragments of unconnected organisations; when a network is fragmented, it “may exhibit connections among organisations that are themselves unconnected” (Provan et al., 2007, p. 485). Although fragmentation is often seen as a network-level variable, it also characterises a context in which schools have to operate. In this case, school boards that operate in multiple networks could also create a fragmented network structure. Note that this interpretation is a variant to the definition of the academic literature that suits the case of Special Needs Education. When a school board has to operate in multiple networks, different school locations of the same school board are not encouraged to cooperate with each other’s partners, given that the networks do not cooperate. This study empirically tests what effect fragmentation has on school performance.

A final contextual school condition that will be accounted for is the relative issue size of each school, referring to the percentage of pupils in a school that had special needs in 2014. As stated earlier, there were significant differences in these percentages among regions. Because these percentages were known by government beforehand and could be of relevance for a school’s performance, the relative issue size is incorporated into this study as well.

(24)

3.4 The Effect of Contextual Conditions on Performance

Building on the academic literature described earlier, this section hypothesises the effect of contextual conditions on performance. First, the effect of contextual network conditions on both types of performance will be outlined. After that, this section will discuss the effect of contextual organisational conditions on organisational performance. Note that these organisational conditions are not expected to directly affect network performance, but rather indirectly through managerial action. This cross-level interaction of performance will be further discussed in section 3.5.

3.4.1 The Effect of Contextual Network Conditions on Performance

On the network level, network size and geographical density appear to be relevant contextual conditions for performance. The question remaining is in what way these contextual network conditions influence both network and organisational performance.

As stated earlier, the network size - the number of organisations that join a network - could play a key role in how effective a network is expected to be (Provan & Kenis, 2008). According to Hasnain-Wynia et al. (2003), a network becomes less effective when the number of network participants increases. O’Toole & Meier (2011, p. 26) acknowledge this as they state that “adding actors in networked arrays introduces substantial challenges of coordination and associated uncertainty”. Moreover, the network size might also contribute to challenges as cultural diversity, varying commitment, and management complexity (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). Based on this line of argumentation, one could expect worse network performance when the network becomes larger.

However, this argument does not take the type of governance structure into account. As the networks are obliged to operate as Network Administrative Organisation-governed networks, Provan & Kenis (2008) believe the networks to be effective when the number of network partners is moderate to high. Especially in the case of Special Needs Education, government believes a greater network size to be beneficial, because schools within a network are then able to specialise in certain special needs (Van Bijsterveld, 2011). Through specialisation, schools can profit from the existing differences between schools in abilities and skills, and foster further specialisation by allowing a focus on specific special needs rather than facilitating in the full range of special needs (Brue, Mcconnell & Flynn, 2013). Therefore, the first hypothesis reads:

Hypothesis 1a: The greater the network size of a Dutch school collaboration network, the

(25)

When discussing the effect of the network size on organisational performance, the benefits and challenges of inter-organisational networking on the organisational level have to be taken into account (see Table 1 on page 20). Whilst empirical evidence on the number of network partners is contradictory, since more network partners could both lead to increased (e.g. Sandström & Carlsson, 2008), and decreased performance (e.g. Milward & Provan, 2003; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993), this study expects that in this particular case a greater network will lead to higher organisational performance as benefits of inter-organisational networking that are relevant in this case grow with network size. For instance, larger networks profit from extra resources, improved knowledge flows, and enhanced learning (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). Although autonomy loss can be perceived as greater when the number of partners grows, the costs of coordination are not expected to increase, because NAOs appear to be more effective when the number of network partners is high (Provan & Kenis, 2008). This makes it likely that the average total coordination costs will actually decrease with the number of network partners (Brue et al., 2013). Therefore, the second hypothesis of this study reads:

Hypothesis 1b: The greater the network size of of a Dutch school collaboration network, the

higher the performance of the schools within such a network.

With regards to the network’s geographical density, performance on the network level and the organisational level are expected to be higher when the network is denser. The main reason for this is that, in order for schools to be able to specialise in specific special needs, other schools in the region need to facilitate students with different special needs. If the network is not dense, schools cannot redirect pupils to other schools (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-h). Thus, a network is expected to perform better when the network is geographically dense. Furthermore, schools are expected to perform better when they can more easily redirect pupils to other schools when facilities on the school do not suite the pupil. Therefore, the following two hypotheses read:

Hypothesis 2a: The greater the geographical density of a Dutch school collaboration network,

the higher the performance of the network.

Hypothesis 2b: The greater the geographical density of a Dutch school collaboration network,

(26)

3.4.2 The Effect of Contextual Organisational Conditions on Performance

On the organisational level, fragmentation and relative issue size are hypothesised to be relevant contextual conditions for performance (Provan et al., 2007). As with contextual network conditions, it remains unknown in what way these contextual organisational conditions influence organisational performance.

Starting with fragmentation, this study expects that this condition has a negative impact on performance. According to Turrini et al. (2010), overall network effectiveness is higher when external control is not fragmented over networked organisations. In this case, fragmentation of school boards that externally control school locations would lead to less network effectiveness.

Next to diminishing network effectiveness, fragmentation could also lead to lower organisational performance. In their article, Meyer, Scott and Strang (1987, p. 199) state that “a complex or fragmented organization environment is likely to expand the administrative burdens of an organization”. Thus, when a single school location functions under a school board that has to operate in multiple, separate networks, it becomes likely that school managers have to deal with greater administrative burdens than school managers of schools with school boards, that are not fragmented. Based on these considerations, the third hypothesis reads:

Hypothesis 3: Larger fragmentation of a school’s board over multiple networks leads

to lower performance of the school’s locations.

The remaining contextual organisational conditions, relative issue size, seems to be too specific for the academic literature on network contexts. Therefore, based on economic mechanisms of production costs (Brue et al., 2013; Rosen & Gayer, 2014), this study expects that a greater relative issue size negatively affects performance. A key factor here is that schools are no longer financed per special need pupil, but on the country’s average proportion of special needs pupils (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-f). This means that a greater relative issue size leads to a smaller average individual budget for pupils with special needs (Passend Onderwijs, n.d.-f; Brue et al., 2013). As the total budget does not grow with the proportion of special needs pupils, this study expects the following fourth hypothesis to be true:

Hypothesis 4: The greater the relative issue size within a school, the lower the performance

(27)

3.5 Cross-Level Comparison of Network and Organisational Performance

On an individual basis, the network conditions, as described in hypotheses 1 and 2, are expected to have a positive effect on network effectiveness on the one hand and organisational output and effectiveness on the other hand. This implies that network conditions as network size and geographical density lead to both greater performance on the network level as well as on the organisational level. However, in theory, there could be a certain cross-level interaction between network performance and organisational performance, meaning that an increase in organisational performance does not mean an increase in network performance and vice versa.

One of the mechanisms behind this cross-level interaction is known as the collective action problem: what is rational behaviour for an individual actor may not be rational for the network as a whole (Ostrom, 1990; Shepsle, 2010). In this case, schools might choose to focus on individual goals (e.g. increasing their student’s pass rate) as opposed to contributing to network goals (creating suitable places for pupils with special needs). As a result, if each individual organisation acts upon their own rational interests, the overall network might end up with suboptimal collective outcomes (Shepsle, 2010).

Crucial here is that the network is subject to a free-riders problem: all organisations within a network can profit from the benefits when the network’s goal is achieved, regardless of whether the organisation contributed to this goal or not (Ostrom, 1990; Shepsle, 2010). According to Oliver & Marwell (1988, p. 7), it is “the problem of [particular organisations] not being able to make a big enough difference in the outcome to compensate for the costs”. As a result, actors may not be motivated to contribute to the network goals, while profiting from the contribution of other actors. However, if each of these actors acts upon this metric, the network goals will not be reached (Ostrom, 1990; Shepsle, 2010). A network could resolve a collective action problem by setting up legally binding contracts (Ostrom, 1990). Governments could also choose to regulate the networks (Ostrom, 1990). As for now, such solutions have not been explored by the Dutch government in the case of Special Needs Education. Therefore, managers who focus on organisational goals are expected to negatively affect network effectiveness.

On the contrary, when school managers are trying to achieve network goals, they have the potential to negatively affect organisational performance; although admitting pupils with learning difficulties, that would otherwise stay at home, could contribute to network effectiveness, it also could lead to lower school performance. Thus, a school manager could either focus on network effectiveness (which is expected to negatively affect school performance) or focus on school goals

Special Needs Education in the Netherlands: A quantitative study on the effect of contextual conditions on the performance of Dutch secondary schools and their networks