12 minute read

School Effectiveness1

Marmar Mukhopadhyay
Scholars have defined school effectiveness in a variety of ways. To quote one, “Educational effectiveness
can be defined as a degree to which an educational system and its components and stakeholders achieve
specific desired goals and effects. Since in the context of educational systems goals and effects are
represented in terms of achievement, an educational system that contributes more to better student
achievement is considered more effective than some other educational system”. 2 Burusic et al. referred to
several studies to support their contention. There are also several studies differentiating effective schools
from non-effective schools on specific criteria. The most commonly found criteria are teacher attendance,
teacher quality, effective teaching, and capable school leadership. 3
To develop a viable conceptual framework of school effectiveness, I will prefer to refer to the two sets of
experiences of schooling with which I have deep and long experience. One is our village kind of school
representing the large majority of the government-funded (public schools) schools in many developing and
developed countries. Second is the set of English-medium self-financing schools set up by private initiative,
usually in the urban and semiurban areas. In the latter category, out of hundred children admitted in the
nursery grade, all hundred reach grade 12, either in the same school or migrating to another. But no one
drops out. The majority of them, often between 60 to 70%, perform in the 12 th board examination in the
first division, with many getting letter grades. There may be rare exceptions.
On the other hand, out of hundred children admitted in the preschool in the rural primary schools around
my village school, not more than 22 ultimately qualify for the higher secondary examination. As many as
78 lose their way to the goal; every parent expects their child to complete schooling. First division and high
performance is often an accident or a celebration incidence. The two kinds of schools differ widely in the
transition of the alumni to higher and professional education; and choice of and performance on the career.
We need to consider the other side of the story. Students in the small number of high performing schools
and the large majority of publicly funded schools are equally intelligent if we strictly follow the intelligence
test results. Both schools have the minimum essential facilities with some advantage of desirable facilities
in the private schools. The children in most schools seriously lack home support for education compared
to their peers in urban private schools. Studies indicate that the socio-economic and educational status of
the parents and home facilities and support seriously impact student performance. These and other demands,
e.g. cultural compatibility with teachers and elite classroom ethos, create pressure on the students
compelling them to leave and get disenfranchised from schooling4.
Some studies classified highly effective schools as those that perform above the level of expectation, and
less effective schools perform below the level of expectation. The level of expectation as the criteria is a
little tricky. The schools have their own goals. There are social expectations for the schools as they are
established and run at public cost. The rural government schools, for example, often perform as the

1
Excerpts from the initial draft Chapter from the forthcoming book, Academic Leadership for School Effectiveness
by Prof Marmar Mukhopadhyay, Chairman, Educational Technology and Management Academy, Gurugram.
2
Burusic, Josip & Babarović, Toni & Velić, Marija. (2016).
3
Stone 2010, Teddlie, Kirby and Stringfield (1989).
4
Schoone, A. (2020).

1
community centre. This is not true for the other variety of schools. Thus, it is impossible to precisely define
expectation and use it as a criterion for assessing school effectiveness.
Though the private schools are performing very well and can be easily classified as effective schools, the
level of expectation from them and also by them is still higher. So, they don’t perform higher than the level
of expectation. On the contrary, the problem with the other kind of village schools is there is no defined
expectation. As a result, schools are allowed to drift; and learn to accept the outcome as it comes in syrup,
shaping the outcomes. The article related expectations of teacher’s behaviour and student performance
influence the school climate and the working ethos; hence, although the formulation of performing above
and below the level of expectation as a criterion for classifying effective and non-effective schools is
questionable if the effect of levels of expectations on school effectiveness careful re-examination.
The two sets of schools cited above may not be comparable in terms of the infrastructure, instructional
facilities and per-student cost. Such comparison may also not be necessary for developing the conceptual
framework of school effectiveness. The concept of school effectiveness began with the issue of equality of
educational opportunity for all5.
There has been a lively debate between equity and quality 6. The two sets of schools mentioned above
seem to be on two different tracks. The large majority of the schools are on the equity track - providing
some opportunity for schooling irrespective of the quality. A relatively small number of private schools
are focused on quality as they can afford to select students who have left the equity issue behind by dint of
their home environment. The OECD (2012) mentioned, “The highest performing education systems are
those that combine equity with quality. (OECD, 2012, p. 3). In an equitable education system, all students
can attain the necessary knowledge and skills irrespective of their personal and social background (e.g.,
students with different socio-economic backgrounds do not differ in attaining knowledge and skills).
There is a serious lacuna in the equity versus quality debate. Achieving equity with poor quality education
is like an effort to fill a bucket with a hole at the bottom. Quality is the necessary condition for achieving
equity. There have been some interesting experiments on retention and improvement of quality of education
by changing instructional processes and life in rural schools 7.
The world community has moved to redefine EFA as Access to Quality Education for All – a combination
of ‘No Child Left Behind’ and ‘Every Student Succeeds Act’ 8. The issue of the school effectiveness has to
be deconstructed, creating a new benchmark. A more scientific benchmark should be the potentiality of the
students and their performance. A large number of research studies point out mismatch of potential and
performance, classified as underachievement. School effectiveness should be judged concerning the degree
of underachievement. Research indicates that the inculcation of a growth mindset can improve students’
performance9. Several experimental studies have suggested that students can enhance intellectual
capabilities to optimise performance and reduce underachievement without any change in the socio-
economic condition of the parents.
Robert Kozma’s Ladder Model (UNESCO, 2011) can provide another valuable framework for developing
a conceptual framework of school effectiveness. According to this model, schools belong to four categories:
 Basic education: This kind of school, the most common in all the developing countries, is
characterised by many students squeezed into small classroom space, either squatting on the floor or
tightly packed four or five children on a bench or a desk that could accommodate maximum three. I

5
Coleman, J.S., et al. (1966) & Coleman, J. S. (1968)
6
Rossmiller, R. A. (1987).
7
Kundu, A. Bej, T. & Rice, M. (2021) & Mukhopadhyay, M. (2020).
8
NCLB is an US Law enacted in (2002-2015) and ESSA was enacted in December 2015 at the expiry of the NCLB
Law period.
9
Dweck (2011)

2
 have seen classes with as many as 92 children in grade 4, and a good number of them are first-
generation learners and without a textbook. Lectures often characterise teaching without any classroom
activities and home works without any checking and feedback.

 Knowledge Acquisition: Knowledge acquisition kind of schools focus on delivering contents from
the prescribed syllabus and textbooks. The transaction of the content is primarily through lectures,
occasionally assisted by technological tools like PowerPoint slides. There may be occasions when,
after the lecture, the students have involved in group assignments, either browsing and exploring the
Internet or collectively solving the problem. Some formative assessment, giving feedback on home
works, asking questions in the class and administering short unit tests are also held.

 Knowledge Deepening: In these kinds of schools, students explore knowledge from a variety of
resources like a textbook, the Internet, the consultation of the adults in the community and family,
collecting pieces of evidence through field investigation, and thereby deepen the knowledge. The
learning in such schools is contextual; students collectively solve a complex real-life problem. For
example, In the experimental rural primary school in Udang, children were assigned to learn about
Gujarat Earthquake 2001 from the chapter in the NCERT textbook. I developed an amateur educational
video on the theme and presented it to the students. Without any academic assistance from the teachers,
the students watched the video twice. The teacher uploaded the video programme on the laptops. The
students watched the video in groups of three (per laptop), discussed, took notes, and debated each
other. Next, they completed three online assignments: the earthquake history, earthquake in Japan,
and seismograph. They shared their findings with the whole group. Another assignment was consulting
parents and village elders about their earthquake experience. The students were administered a test in
writing or orally. More than 80% of students scored 80% and above.

 Knowledge-Creating: “Teaching consists of challenging students to build on their knowledge and

explore new topics. Collaborative projects and investigations involve searching for information,
collecting and analysing data, generating knowledge products, and communicating with outside
experts and audiences to share results” (Kozma 2011). In these schools, the students explore, collect
and collate data; analyse and draw conclusions and find new procedures and products. In the process
of knowledge creation, students extend the boundaries. They consult experts outside the schools and
even outside the country. Like the school networks, they create learning networks with students
within and outside schools in the country and outside. They construct, and they share the knowledge.
The parameters of effectiveness of schools of each of these categories have to be different. In the Basic
Education model, the school effectiveness may be survival rate – the proportion of students in the preschool
stage reaching school completion grade and qualifying public examination. In knowledge-creating schools,
the school effectiveness can be judged based on the quantum of knowledge created and the students' critical
and creative thinking abilities.
Keeping in view the goals of education and the educational status of the large majority of schools, we need
to develop a more rational conceptual framework.
The stated goals of schools are all-round development of the students and providing full opportunity to
optimise the talent. The all-round development implies physical, intellectual, emotional, social and spiritual
growth. Hence, every child must get a chance for developing in all five dimensions.
Every student possesses multiple intelligence. Conventional schooling supports the development of verbal
intelligence and mathematical-logical intelligence. Although multiple intelligence-based conceptual
frameworks would be ideal, their implementation will be challenging. The demand for resources and human
skills will be phenomenal. It is possible to adopt a workable formula whereby every student

3
 A. Performance in academics at par with his/her potential arresting underachievement. Mastery
learning experiments prove that 80% of students can perform at 80% by altering and reforming
pedagogical practices. In other words, school effectiveness would be determined by the criteria
of school completion - more than 80% of students admitted in preschool classes would reach
and complete 12 years of education.
B. The learning outcome of more than 80% of students would match the prespecified expected
learning outcome,
C. Develop hobbies, and demonstrate superior skills in at least two areas of co-scholastic and co-
curricular activities.
D. Develop and demonstrate life skills that are measurable against a set of criteria with the help of
a psychological instrument.
E. Develop and demonstrate specific prespecified moral and ethical values.
Factors influencing School Effectiveness
Several factors affect school effectiveness 10. A few of them are:
 The teacher is the most critical factor in school effectiveness. Very often, the emphasis is on
effective teacher - knowledgeable with good communication skills. A new body of research is
emerging that indicates children prefer and learn better with not so academically excellent but
caring teacher, compared to academically excellent teachers but without deep relationship and
engagement with the students. This changes the definition of an effective teacher. The caring
(affective quality) teachers are more effective than teachers with strong cognitive but weak affective
skills.
 Studies further indicate that collective teacher efficacy is the key to students’ performance and
school effectiveness (Hattie 2017). by implication, a school with few outstanding teachers in the
ocean of mediocrity is less effective than a school with most teachers caring and even moderately
effective. Collective teacher efficacy is a key to improving school effectiveness.
 Continuous professional learning is an inseparable component of effective schools. Instead of one-
shot training, school effectiveness increases when teachers regularly engage themselves in self-
regulated learning with or without an external expert mentor. The focus is on continuing self-
learning and development.
 Effective schools demonstrate a continuous and emphatic focus on the learning-teaching process.
Teachers adopt flexible blended learning designs to suit students' learning needs and styles to
achieve excellence; the teachers adopt differentiated instruction.
 Effective schools identify talents in scholastic, co-scholastic and co-curricular domains; they create
an opportunity for excelling every student in the selected areas of talent and potential.
 Effective schools effectively use student data to monitor their progress along with parents.
 School climate characterised by a feeling of safety and a positive growth mindset contributes to
school effectiveness. With the growth mindset, every teacher and student believe that they can do
better; and make efforts. This positive growth mindset contributes to the development of enhanced
expectations for all students, staff and parents.
 The positive and productive involvement of parents is another factor in school effectiveness. Every
parent meets the teacher of the child every month in the effective school mentioned in the
beginning. In the usual rural government schools, parents outsource education to schools and
private tutors. There is a direct relationship between parental involvement in a child’s education as
a teaching partner and the school's developmental efforts and school effectiveness.
 The principal’s direct influence on student achievement is only second to the teachers. Principals
actively supervise instructional preparation, instructional resources and learning materials,

10
http://edureach101.com/8-key-factors-of-school-effectiveness/

4
 instructional processes, and a supportive environment. The principal creates a proactive
environment in the school.

Summary & Key Takeaways

1. School effectiveness has been defined in many different ways. A school that contributes to
improving student achievement is considered an effective school.
2. A large majority of students are underachievers – achieve less than their potential indicating
poor effect of school.
3. The issue of school effectiveness emerged out of the concern for educational opportunity.
James Coleman Report of 1966 is considered to be the beginning point of this discourse.
4. Quality education for all is the new norm of school effectiveness.
5. Robert Kozma’s Ladder Model provides another scaffolding for developing a conceptual
framework for school effectiveness. There have to be different parameters of school
effectiveness for Basic Education, Knowledge-Acquiring, Knowledge-Deepening and
Knowledge-Creating schools.
6. An effective school ensures the survival of all students through the school years and 80%
successfully qualifying school completion with mastery learning; each student develops a high
level of skills and passion for at least two hobbies; and demonstrates ethics and moral values.
7. Teacher quality and effectiveness, collective teacher efficacy are the most potent determinant
of school effectiveness.
8. Continuous and deep focus on teaching-learning process ensuring learning is necessary for
enhancing school effectiveness.
9. A school environment characterised by a sense of safety, a growth mindset and deeper teacher-
student relationships contribute to school effectiveness.
10. The Principal’s influence on students’ academic performance is the second most potent factor,
next to teachers. Academic leadership is necessary for enhancing school effectiveness.
References

Burusic, Josip & Babarović, Toni & Velić, Marija. (2016). School Effectiveness: An Overview of Conceptual,
Methodological and Empirical Foundations. 10.1007/978-3-319-29880-1_2.
Coleman, J. S. (1968) Equality of Educational Opportunity, Equity & Excellence in
Education, 6:5, 19-28, DOI: 10.1080/0020486680060504
Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, F., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, G.D., & York. R.L.
(1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dweck, C. S. (2011). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books
Kozma, R. (2011). A Framework for ICT Policies to Transform Education, In UNESCO (2011), Transforming
Education: The Power of ICT Policies. Paris: UNESCO.
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Dakar/pdf/Transforming%20Education
%20the%20Power%20of%20ICT%20Policies.pdf
Kundu, A. Bej, T. & Rice, M. (2021). Time to engage: Implementing math and literacy blended learning
routines in an Indian elementary classroom, Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:1201–
1220 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10306-0
Mukhopadhyay, M. (2020). Total Quality Management in Education (3rd Edition), New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Rossmiller, R. A. (1987). Achieving equity and effectiveness in schooling. Journal of Education Finance,
12(4), 561–577. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40703574

5
Schoone A. (2020). Returning to the Heart of Pedagogy: Social Pedagogy as Phenomenological Pedagogy.
International Journal of Social Pedagogy, 9(3).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343996808_Returning_to_the_heart_of_teaching_Social_peda
gogy_as_phenomenological_pedagogy
Stone, C. L. (2010). What are the Differences between Effective and Ineffective Charter Schools in North
Carolina? Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of North Carolina.
http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncc/f/Stone_uncc_0694D_10130.pdf
Teddlie, C., Kirby. P.C. and Stringfield, S.(1989). Effective versus Ineffective Schools: Observable Differences
in the Classroom, American Journal of Education, 97(3), May, 1989 , pp. 221-236