Research Papers 04/2021 - Research paper accepted for the European Educational Research Association (EERA) Conference 2021 in Geneva (Switzerland) ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Research Papers
04/2021
“Why do you think your school is effective?”
School leaders’ strategies for improving quality in highly effective
schools in disadvantaged contexts
Research paper accepted for the European Educational Research Association (EERA)
Conference 2021 in Geneva (Switzerland)
Roland Bernhard (University of Salzburg)
Dominik Harnisch (University of Salzburg)
School Quality and Teacher Education Research Papers, 04/2021
SQTE RESEARCH PAPERS 04/2021
“Why do you think your school is effective?” School leaders’ strategies for
improving quality in highly effective schools in disadvantaged contexts
Research paper accepted for the European Educational Research Association
Conference ECER 2021 in Geneva (Switzerland)
Authors:
Roland Bernhard, Dominik Harnisch
The FWF project ‘School Quality and Teacher Education’ (SQTE) conducts research on the historico-
political, social and pedagogical factors of successful school quality development and school turnaround in
England (1990-2020). Which policies and initiatives enabled school development? Which measures
contributed to the compensation of social disadvantage in London and other regions of England, which
received worldwide attention?
The project focuses particularly on schools in difficult circumstances that attain excellent learning outcomes
despite a high proportion of pupils from disadvantaged home backgrounds; specifically, the research looks
at schools in deprived areas of London that have improved considerably over the last 15 years in the
context of the „London effect“. Funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), the project is based at the
universities of Salzburg and Oxford.
In the SQTE research papers, we regularly inform about the project’s progress and insights and we publish
papers we have presented at international conferences.
PEER REVIEW
This paper has been peer-reviewed by the European Educational Research Association.
CONTACT
The School Quality and Teacher Education Research Papers are edited by
Priv.-Doz. Mag. Dr. Roland Bernhard
Paris Lodron Universität Salzburg | School of Education
Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1, Room 2.422, 5020 Salzburg, Austria Funded by the Austrian
Mail: Roland.Bernhard@sbg.ac.at Science Fund, P31965_P
HOW TO CITE THIS PAPER
Bernhard, R., Harnisch, D., (2021). "Why do you think your school is effective?” School leaders’ strategies for improving
quality in highly effective schools in disadvantaged contexts. Paper accepted for the European Educational Research
Association Conference ECER 2021, Geneva, Switzerland.
PAGE 1
SQTE RESEARCH PAPERS 04/2021
SQTE RESEARCH REPORT 04/2021
Zusammenfassung
“Why do you think your school is effective?”
School leaders’ strategies for improving
quality in highly effective schools in
disadvantaged contexts
Roland Bernhard, Dominik Harnisch
Theoretical Framework, Objectives, Research The central element of our interest in this
Question context is school leaders’ views of the factors
they consider crucial to their schools’
Recent years have seen schools in London and effectiveness and recent improvement. An
other English regions undergo marked processes inductive exploration of interviewees’ responses
of improvement, with what is known as the revealed that these school leaders place
“London Effect” boosting student outcomes improving the quality of teaching and learning
considerably since the early 2000s (Greaves, and the learning environment at their schools as
Macmillan, & Sibieta, 2014; Baars et al., 2014). the center of their leadership. Our intent in this
The improvement has been particularly striking work was to uncover the practices school
in disadvantaged neighborhoods of London leaders associate most closely with the
(Blanden, Greaves, Gregg, Macmillan, & Sibieta, improvements they have seen in, and the
2015), a phenomenon Baars et al. (2014) associate current effectiveness of, their schools. To this
with interventions that may have proved end, we proceeded from the following research
particularly effective in such contexts. question:
Subsequent political initiatives aimed to achieve
similar improvements in 12 designated “Social Which elements of the quality of teaching and
Mobility and Opportunity Areas”, regions of learning or the learning environment at their
England characterized by particularly high social schools did school leaders focus on when they
disadvantage and low social mobility were asked to talk about the factors that make
(Department for Education [DfE], 2017a, 2017b, their school effective?
2018). This paper, stemming from a funded
mixed-methods research project exploring the
© Iawcain – Getty Images
practices and perspectives of school leaders in
highly effective schools, draws on face-to-face
interviews with 18 persons (44% female). We
drew this sample from a larger sample of
interviews with 43 principals and other leaders
from 17 schools located in various regions of
England and serving various types of student
population. Our focus for this paper was on
schools which had experienced a marked
process of improvement over recent years and
are highly effective despite serving a
disadvantaged student population.
PAGE 2SQTE RESEARCH PAPERS 04/2021
Accordingly, this paper provides insights into Methods
Zusammenfassung
effective policies and strategies that could benefit In recruiting interviewees, we focused on inner
the work of researchers, practitioners and London boroughs whose schools showed very
policymakers in education in both England and poor performance in standardized tests and on
the wider European context. The research project the Social Mobility and Opportunity Areas as
from which this paper emerged has the specific defined above. In these areas we selected schools
aim of translating its findings to the context of that
another European country (Austria).
1) have, since 2003, improved their rating by
The conceptual basis of this paper is the Dynamic England’s national school inspection agency
Approach to School Improvement (DASI) (OFSTED) from “inadequate” or “requires
(Creemers & Kyriakides, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012), a improvement” to the best rating, “outstanding”;
model which emerged in response to a need and
identified by researchers for an approach that
assesses school effectiveness beyond student 2) serve a very high proportion of disadvantaged
outcomes and in consideration of a more complex students, as reflected in the school’s Free School
array of factors (Creemers & Kyriakides 2012; Meal Score (average Free School Meal Score of
Sammons, 2009; Van der Werf, Opdenakker, & the schools in the sample: 52.5 %; SD = 9.45 %).
Kuyper, 2008). In particular, the model defines From these schools, we further selected those
factors relating to the education system, the with
school environment, the quality of teaching and
characteristics of the student body, all of which 3) the highest Progress 8 scores in their local
require consideration when assessing a school’s authorities (the Progress 8 score is a value-added
effectiveness (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2012). measure which compares academic performance
Besides emphasizing the central role of teachers to “the actual achievements of other pupils with
in increasing the quality of teaching and learning similar prior attainment” [DfE, 2016]).
(see Cheng & Mok, 2008), the model identifies the
learning environment within a school as a central The current sample is thus a subsample of the
lever of school development, the improvement of research projects’ broader sample. Six schools (of
teaching, and raising student outcomes. The DASI the 13 corresponding to these three criteria that
model regards schools and their improvement as we contacted) agreed to take part (four from
inherently dynamic processes and addresses London and two from the Opportunity Areas). We
several factors in school effectiveness alongside additionally included in the sample for this paper
their mutual interplay (Creemers & Kyriakides, two schools from a highly effective “academy”
2012). These characteristics make it an school trust, which has taken over a number of
appropriate framework from which to analyze the previously struggling schools in London and
perspectives presented in our interviews. rapidly improved their performance. From this
© johny007pan – Getty Images Pro trust, we included one school that had
experienced particularly marked improvement
and one school that the trust had recently taken
over. Both schools have a Free School Meal Score
of more than 60 %. Both of the principals we
interviewed from these schools had experiences
with successful school quality development not
only in their current school, but also in other
schools before. .
PAGE 3SQTE RESEARCH PAPERS 04/2021
The interviews, lasting an average of 43 minutes
Zusammenfassung
(SD = 16 minutes), were audio recorded and
subsequently transcribed in full. Their focus was
the interviewees’ approaches to and views on
school quality development, a tone we set in an
initial question put to all participants, which
elicited their opinion on why they thought their
school was effective. We put the answers to this
question through content analysis using
MAXQDA (2020) and applying a theory-driven
approach using categories based on the © andresr – Getty Images
components of the DASI model. The results of
the analysis demonstrated that the participants
linked their schools’ effectiveness particularly to 1) Enabling teachers to focus on their
policies on the learning environment within the professional development through establishing
school and to a focus on developing the quality clear systems, routines and specialized roles.
of teaching and learning. 2) Lesson observations, coaching and provision
of feedback to the end of improving lessons and
Conclusions providing appropriate support to improve.
When asked about why they think their school is
effective, the school leaders we interviewed Finally, interviewees identified ongoing
described various “policies for creating the evaluation of “school policies and the school
school learning environment” (Creemers & learning environment” (Creemers & Kyriakides,
Kyriakides, 2012, pp. 40-41). The most frequently 2012, pp. 41-42) as a source of effectiveness.
mentioned were: They described tracking students’ performance,
evaluating systems and conducting surveys
1) Clear rules and expectations for “students’ within their schools as means of assessing the
behavior” to avoid disruption of teaching. effectiveness of their policies and identifying
2) A “partnership policy” within which the school potential areas for improvement.
and the community engage in mutual guidance This paper adds to existing research in this area
and support as partners. and provides valuable insights for educational
3) Providing, and maximizing the use of, practitioners by exploring factors that leaders of
“sufficient learning resources” for teachers and highly effective schools in difficult socio-
students (e.g. money, laptops, software) and economic circumstances associate with their
enrichment activities (e.g. training, trips, schools’ performance. Further, it expands on
internships) supported by universities and central, research-based categories of the DASI
businesses. model by applying them to data from interviews
4) Promoting a school culture built on high with school leaders from highly effective schools
expectations as a “value in favor of learning”. that have seen emphatic processes of
improvement.
Alongside these policies, several interviewees
described strategies for the improvement of the
school learning environment, with raising the
“quality of teaching” (Creemers & Kyriakides,
2012, pp. 38-39) as a central feature:
PAGE 4SQTE RESEARCH PAPERS 04/2021
References
Zusammenfassung
Blanden, J., Greaves, E., Gregg, P., Macmillan,
L., & Sibieta, L. (2015). Understanding the
improved performance of disadvantaged
pupils in London. London, UK: Centre for the
Department for Education (2017b).
Opportunity Areas Selection Methodology.
London, UK.
Department for Education (2018).
Analysis of Social Exclusion. Opportunity Areas Selection Methodology.
Cheng, Y.C., & Mok, M. (2008). What effective London, UK. Analysis of Social Exclusion.
classroom? Towards a paradigm shift. School Greaves, E., Macmillan, L., & Sibieta, L. (2014).
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(4), Lessons from London schools for attainment
365-385. gaps and social mobility. London: Social
Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2006). Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.
Critical analysis of the current approaches to Retrieved from
modelling educational effectiveness: The https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publicatio
importance of establishing a dynamic model. ns/docs/london_schools_june2014.pdf
School Effectiveness and School Van der Werf, G., Opdenakker, M.C., &
Improvement, 17(3), 347–366. Kuyper, H. (2008). Testing a dynamic model
https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345060069724 of student and school effectiveness with a
2 multivariate multilevel latent growth curve
Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). approach. School Effectiveness and School
The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A Improvement, 19(4), 447-462.
contribution to policy, practice and theory in Sammons, P. (2009). The dynamics of
contemporary schools. London, UK: educational effectiveness: A contribution to
Routledge. policy, practice and theory in contemporary
Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). schools. School Effectiveness and School
School factors explaining achievement on Improvement, 20(1), 123-129.
cognitive and affective outcomes:
Establishing a dynamic model of educational
effectiveness. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 54(3), 263–294.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383100376452
9
Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2012).
Improving quality in education: Dynamic
approaches to school improvement. London,
UK: Routledge.
Department for Education (2016). Progress 8:
How Progress 8 and Attainment 8 measures
are calculated. London, UK.
Department for Education (2017a).
Implementation of Opportunity Areas: An
independent evaluation. Final Research
report. London, UK.
PAGE 5You can also read
