Urban School Improvement

  • Barbara MacGilchrist
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 19)

The chapter concludes by arguing that current approaches to school improvement in urban settings need a radical re-think as does the current definition of an effective school. It then suggests that there is potentially an opportunity in England at the turn of the twenty-first century to have a joined-up holistic approach to breaking the link between social class, disadvantage and educational outcomes that could bring about sustained improvements over time. It suggests four building blocks for achieving this. These concern: the government’s Children’s Agenda; the New Deal for Communities program; the importance of high quality early childhood education; and the need to rethink the curriculum and assessment arrangements in the 14–19 phase of schooling. It explores some of the factors that need to be overcome for these strategies to be effective in urban settings.

Keywords

Income Assure Stratification Ethos 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Athey, C. (1990). Extending thought in young children – A parent-teacher partnership. London: Paul Chapmam Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, B. (1970). Education cannot compensate for society. New Society, 387, 344–347.Google Scholar
  3. Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1998). Beyond the self-managing school. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  4. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  5. Callaghan, J. (1976). Towards a national debate: The Prime Minister's Ruskin speech. Education, 148(17), 332–333.Google Scholar
  6. (DfEE) Department for Education and Employment. (1997a). Excellence in schools. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  7. (DfEE) Department for Education and Employment. (1997b). The road to success. London: Institute of Education/DfEE.Google Scholar
  8. Douglas, J. W. B. (1964). The home and school. London: MacGibbon & Kee.Google Scholar
  9. Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., Leithwood, K., Fullan, M., & Torrance, N., with Jantzi, D., Mascall, B., & Volante, L. (2003). Watching and Learning 3. Final report of the External Evaluation of England's National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Ontario: Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  10. Edmonds, R., & Frederiksen, J. (1979). Search for effective schools: The identification and analysis of city schools that are instructionally effective for poor children. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170396. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, Centre for Urban Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Foxman, D. (1997). Educational league tables: For promotion or relegation? London: ATL Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Gillborn, D. (2002). Education and institutional racism. London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  14. Gillborn, D., & Gipps, C. (1996). “Recent research on the achievements of ethnic minority pupils”. In Ofsted Reviews of Research. London: Office for Standards in Education.Google Scholar
  15. Goldstein, H. (1996). Relegate the leagues. New Economy, 199–203.Google Scholar
  16. Goldstein, H., & Spiegelhalter, D. (1996). League tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons on institutional importance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, 159, 385–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray, J. (2000). Causing concern but improving: A review of schools' experiences. London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  18. Gray, J. (2001). Building for improvement and sustaining change in schools serving disadvantaged communities. In M. Maden (Ed.), Success against the odds – five years on (pp. 1–39). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  19. Gray, J., Goldstein, H., & Jesson, D. (1996). Changes and improvements in schools' effectiveness: Trends over five years. Research Papers in Education, 11(1), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray, J., Goldstein, H., & Thomas, S. (2001). Predicting the future: The role of past performance in determining trends in institutional effectiveness at A level. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D., Wilcox, B., Farrel, S., & Jesson, D. (1999). Improving schools: Performance and potential. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, P. N. (2001). What principals need to know about teaching and learning. Victoria, Australia: The Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria.Google Scholar
  23. Hopkins, D. (1996). Towards a theory for school improvement. In J. Gray, D. Reynolds, C. Fitz-Gibbon, & D. Jesson (Eds.), Merging traditions: The future of research on school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 30–50). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  24. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Ackland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1–123.Google Scholar
  26. Kennedy, H. (1997, July 1–3). The Report Guardian Education.Google Scholar
  27. Lawton, D. (1996). Beyond the national curriculum: Teacher professionalism and empowerment. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  28. Lawton, D. (2003). Pedagogy reborn: Opportunities and dangers? In B. Davies, & J. West-Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management (pp. 404–408) . London: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  29. Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lupton, R. (2005). Social justice and school improvement: Improving the quality of schooling in the poorest neighbourhoods. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 589–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacBeath, J. (1999). Schools must speak for themselves: The case for school self-evaluation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. MacBeath, P., & Mortimore, P. (Eds.). (2001). Improving school effectiveness. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Maden, M. (Ed.). (2001). Success against the odds – five years on. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  34. Melhuish, E. C. (2004). Child benefits: The importance of investing in quality child care. London: Daycare Trust.Google Scholar
  35. Mortimore, P. (1991). The nature and findings of research on school effectiveness in the primary sector. In S. Riddell, & S. Brown (Eds.). School effectiveness research: Its messages for school improvement (pp. 9–19). Edinburgh: HMSO.Google Scholar
  36. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters: The junior years. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Mortimore, P., & Whitty, G. (2000). Can school improvement overcome the effects of disadvantage? (2nd ed.). London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  38. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas – a review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Audit Commission. (2004). An early progress report on progress of the new deal for communities programme. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  40. National Commission on Education. (1993). Learning to succeed. London: Heinemann Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. National Commission on Education. (1996). Success against the odds: Effective schools in disadvantaged areas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Nuttall, D. L., Goldstein, H., Prosser, R., & Rasbash, J. (1989). Differential school effectiveness. International Journal of Education Research, Special Issue: Developments in School Effectiveness Research, 13(7), 767–776.Google Scholar
  43. OECD. (2002). The PISA 2000 Technical Report. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  44. Ofsted. (1993). The annual report of her majesty's chief inspector of schools 1992/3. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  45. Ofsted. (1996). The annual report of her majesty's chief inspector of schools 1994/5. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  46. Ofsted. (2005a). The key stage 4 curriculum: Increased flexibility, work-related learning and young apprenticeship programmes. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  47. Ofsted. (2005b). Developing a coherent 14–19 phase of education and training. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  48. Plowden Report, Central Advisory Council for England. (1967). Children and their primary schools. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  49. Reynolds, D., Hopkins, D., & Stoll, L. (1993). Linking school effectiveness knowledge and school improvement practice: Towards a new synergy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4, 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reynolds, D., & Teddlie, C. (2001). Reflections on the critics, and beyond them. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(1), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robinson, P. (1997). Literacy, numeracy and economic performance. London: CEP/London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  52. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. London: Open Books.Google Scholar
  53. Sammons, P. (1995). Gender, socio-economic and ethnic differences in attainment and progress: A longitudinal analysis of student achievement over nine years. British Educational Research Journal, 4(21), 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. Report commissioned by the Office for Standards in Education. London: Institute of Education and Office for Standards in Education.Google Scholar
  55. Sammons, P., Thomas, S., & Mortimore, P. (1997). Forging links: Effective schools and effective departments. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  56. Scheerens, J. (1997). Theories on effective schooling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(3), 220–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn. London: Nicholas Brealey.Google Scholar
  58. Slee, R., Tomlinson, S., & Weiner, G. (Eds.). (1998). School effectiveness for whom? London and Bristol, PA: Falmer.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, D., & Tomlinson, S. (1989). The school effect: A study of multi-racial comprehensives. London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  60. Stoll, L., & Myers, K. (1998). No quick fixes: Perspectives on schools in difficulty. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project: Final report. Nottingham: DfES Publications.Google Scholar
  62. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  63. Thomas, S., & Mortimore, P. (1994). Report on value added analysis of 1993 GCSE examination results in Lancashire. London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  64. Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: Let's be realistic. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Thrupp, M. (2001). Sociological and political concerns about school effectiveness research: Time for a new research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(1), 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tizard, B., Blatchford, P., Burke, J., Farquhar, C., & Plewis, I. (1988). Young children at school in the inner city. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  67. Tomlinson, M. (2004). 14–19 curriculum and qualifications reform: Final report of the working group on 14–19 reform. Annesley: DfES Publications.Google Scholar
  68. Treasury. (2003). Every child matters. Norwich: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  69. US Department of Health and Human Service. (2004). A brief history of the national head start public school early childhood transition demonstration project: Executive summary. Washington DC: Administration for children and families.Google Scholar
  70. van Velzen, W., Miles, M., Ekholm, M., Hameyer, U., – Robin, D. (1985). Making school improvement work: A conceptual guide to practice. Leuven, Belguim: Acco.Google Scholar
  71. Willms, J. D., & Kerr, M. (1987). Changes in sex differences in school examination results since 1975. Journal of Early Adolescence, June.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara MacGilchrist
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Education, University of LondonU.K.

Personalised recommendations