Modelling School Effectiveness

  • Jaap Scheerens


In this chapter models of school functioning are discussed. These should be seen within the framework of multi-level educational systems, where the school-level is seen as operating within the context of national structures and policies and as having the function to create facilitating and stimulating conditions for effective instruction at class level. The theoretical models of the school that are discussed are compared to a first impression of the results of empirical school effectiveness research. It appears that each of the models highlights a specific subset of the effectiveness enhancing factors, supported by school effectiveness research. The models that are discussed are: Fend’s theory of the school, schools as professional bureaucracies, schools as learning organizations, and schools as high reliability organizations. In combination with the model that can be induced from the empirical research results, here indicated as the “effective school model,” the models support a selection of relevant school effectiveness enhancing variables. In a summary table these variables are described as results of school management strategies. Several models of the school point are covered and “in-official” organizational behavior that might interfere with rational strategies to enhance effectiveness. Such features of “in-effectiveness” will be analyzed in more detail in Chap.  11.


School effectiveness School leadership School management School effectiveness research Professional bureaucracy The learning organization Schools as high reliability organizations Participatory leadership Single and double loop learning School climate School culture 


  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, J. (1997). The effect of national standards and curriculum-based exams on achievement. The American Economic Review, 87(2), 260–264.Google Scholar
  3. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis. Update., School improvement research series Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  5. Creemers, B. P. M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  6. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Deal, T. E. (1985). The symbolism of effective schools. Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 601–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Fend, H. (1981). Theorie der Schule. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
  10. Fend, H. (2006). Neue Theorie der Schule. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  11. Fuchs, Th., & Woessmann, L. (2004). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using PISA data. CESifo Working paper No. 1235. Munich: University of Munich.Google Scholar
  12. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(6), 654–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heck, R. H., & Moriyama, K. (2010). Examining relationships among elementary schools’ contexts, leadership, instructional practices, and added-year outcomes: A regression discontinuity approach. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 377–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoewijk, P. M. Th. van (1991). Schoolcultuur. In P. J. J. Stijnen & J. F. M. Claessen (Eds.), Leerboek Schoolmanagement (pp. 83–102). Heerlen: Open Universiteit.Google Scholar
  15. Huber, S. G., & Muijs, D. (2010). School leadership effectiveness. Studies in Educational Leadership, 10, 57–77 (Springer).Google Scholar
  16. Irwin, C. C. (1986). What research tells the principal about educational leadership. Scientica Paedagogica Experimentalis, 23, 124–137.Google Scholar
  17. Kerr, St., & Jermier, J. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 22, 375–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lotto, L. S., & Clark, D. L. (1986). Understanding planning in educational organizations. Planning and Changing, 19, 9–18.Google Scholar
  19. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52, 309–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levine, D. K., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, Wise: Nat. Centre for Effective Schools Research and Development.Google Scholar
  22. Luyten, H. (2009). School leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy: The development and testing of a causal model. In: G. ten Bruggencate, H. Luyten, & J. Scheerens (Eds.) Quantitative analyses of international data, exploring indirect effect models of school leadership. Report for the EU-funded LISA (Leadership and International Student Achievement). Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  23. Maslowski, R. (2001). School culture and school performance. An explorative study into the organizational culture of secondary schools and their effects. dissertation, Enschede: Twente University Press.Google Scholar
  24. McMeekin, R. W. (2003). Incentives to improve education: A new perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective teaching. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  28. Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  29. Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Townsend, T., Van Damme, J., & Teddlie, C., et al. (2014). Educational Effectiveness Research (EER): A state of the art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25, 197–230 (2012).Google Scholar
  30. Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London: OFSTED.Google Scholar
  31. Scheerens, J. (2004). The evaluation culture. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling, research, theory and practice. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  33. Scheerens, J., Glas, C., & Thomas, S. (2003). Educational evaluation, assessment and monitoring. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  34. Scheerens, J. (Ed.). (2012). School leadership effects revisited. Review and meta-analysis of empirical studies. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Scheerens, J. (2014). School, teaching, and system effectiveness: Some comments on three state-of-the-art reviews. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Stringfield, S. C., & Slavin R. (1992). Raising societal demands, high reliabilty organizations, school effectiveness, “Succes for All”, and a set of modest proposals. Enschede: Address to the ICO-symposium.Google Scholar
  38. Stringfield, S. (1995). Attempting to enhance students’ learning through innovative programs: The case for schools evolving into high reliability organizations. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(1), 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stringfield, S. (1998). An anatomy of ineffectiveness. In L. Stoll & K. Myers (Eds.), No quick fixes: Perspectives on schools in difficulties (pp. 209–221). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  40. Stringfield, S. C., Bedinger, S. & Herman R. (1995). Implementing a private school program in an inner-city public school: Processes, effects, and implications from a four year evaluation. Paper presented at the ICSEI Conference, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  41. ten Bruggencate, G., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2013). Modeling the influence of school leaders on student achievement: How can school leaders make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(8), 699–732.Google Scholar
  42. Van der Werf, M. P. C. (1988). Schoolwerkplanontwikkeling in het basisonderwijs (School development plans in primary education). Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  43. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of organizations. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Willms, J. D., & Somers, M. A. (2001). Family, classroom, and school effects on children’s educational outcomes in Latin America. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(4), 409–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woessmann, L. (2000). Schooling resources, educational institutions, and student performance: The international evidence. (Kiel Working paper No. 983). Kiel, Germany: Kiel Institute of World Economics.Google Scholar
  47. Woessmann, L. (2004). The effect heterogeneity of central exams: Evidence from TIMSS, TIMSS-Repeat and PISA. CESIFO Working paper no. 1330, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  48. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? From two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social SciencesUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations