School effectiveness and school improvement research over the last 50 years has made a major contribution to our understanding of outcome measures and the process of change in schools and beyond. However, school culture has not been a focus within these research traditions. Despite their different intellectual and methodological origins, some school effectiveness and school improvement scholars called for closer collaboration and even a merger of the two fields. As Teddlie & Reynolds (2008) observed, “the future benefits of a merger become even clearer if one considers how central the two disciplines or paradigms are to each other”. Further attempts at synergy were made (Reynolds et al., 1993, Creemers et al.,
33
1997) and show that a methodological merger highlights the importance of school culture as an improvement tool to secure greater school effectiveness. White and Barber (1997) adapted Sammon’s eleven effectiveness factors and incorporated improvement strategies to produce a tabular guide (White & Barber, 1997 p. 18). Despite its limitations, here was a clear attempt to merge school effectiveness and improvement outcomes. The complementary factors highlighted key components of school culture: vision, empowerment, collaboration, collegiality, staff development and others. Through the potential merger of improvement and effectiveness research, the importance of school culture emerged as a rich area of study.
On the international stage, the creation of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) in 1990, further encouraged collaboration between the School Effectiveness and School Improvement communities. A few years later, the launch of the first international handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000) reinforced the call for these two related, but separate, research fields to find more common ground and further opportunities to influence practice and policy. The re-focus on system- wide improvement is exemplified in the 2010 McKinsey report How the world’s most
improved school systems keep getting better (Mourshed, Chijioke & Barber, 2010). In this
extensive study, the authors analysed 20 systems from around the world and compiled the most “ambitious attempt so far to examine the improvement trajectories of educational systems” (Chapman et al., 2012, p. 174). Their findings identified strategies used globally to improve school outcomes, and whilst the report may be criticised for the way systems and comparable contexts are compared, it provides an example of how improvement and effectiveness research can combine to positive effect. It also recognises the “influence of history, culture, values, system structure, politics etc…in their improvement journey” (Mourshed, Chijioke & Barber, 2010, p. 71).
The development of school effectiveness and school improvement research has evolved from two distinct paradigms towards an embryonic academic consensus where the importance of school culture is visible but not yet fully exploited. Much of the research outlined has been mirrored by developments in the United States, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands and there is now significant interest in effectiveness and improvement work in economies both developing and ‘tiger’ (Mourshed, Chijioke & Barber, 2010). In fifty years, the notion that schools make little difference has evaporated and been replaced by almost a moral imperative that schools must be effective and therefore seek continuous improvement. School
34
effectiveness and school improvement research may have not fully converged, but
international comparisons of effectiveness and emergent strategies for school improvement are now widely accepted and continue to be developed (Townsend, in Chapman et al., 2012 p. 187 & Reynolds, in Chapman et al., 2012, p. 205). System leadership and Leadership for Learning have emerged as key areas of development (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Bubb & Earley, 2009; MacBeath, Dempster, Frost, Johnson & Swaffield, 2018) and research has also been undertaken on the importance of teacher quality, teacher leadership and the retention and development of teachers (Frost, Durrant, Head & Holden, 2000; Mincu, 2015; De Villiers & Pretorius, 2012; Wilson, 2012 & 2017). These developments are increasingly the focus of research and policy initiatives where research into school culture (how it is
developed and managed and how it contributes to whole system improvement) has an important role to play (Hopkins et al., 2014).
3.5.1 Educational Effectiveness Research and the role of school culture
The limitations of school effectiveness and school improvement (SESI) research, the
difficulties encountered in producing a ‘merged’ model and the convergence of international research on school-wide, regional and national systems has led, in recent years, to a
fundamental rethinking of the effectiveness / improvement research field. Chapman (2012) argues that SEIS research and practice has failed to address issues of equity and promoted a narrow view of what constitutes educational achievement. As an outcome, educational effectiveness research (EER) and educational effectiveness and improvement research (EEI) have emerged as new research communities. According to Creemers, Kyriakides & Sammons (2010), EER “attempts to establish and test theories that explain why and how some schools and teachers are more effective than others in promoting better outcomes for children” (p. 4).
Champions of EER refer to a 40 year history of research, which conveniently mirrors the history of school effectiveness research outlined. EER scholars suggest that most school effectiveness research is limited and is generic to all schools with little emphasis placed on school specific teaching behaviours (Creemers, Kyriakides & Sammons 2010). EER, it is suggested, is more comprehensive in approach and appeals because the methodological and technical advances, including multi-level modelling, structural equation modelling and meta- analysis, have enabled researchers to evaluate improvement practices and test effectiveness theories (Creemers, Kyriakides & Sammons 2010, p. xii). Despite the opportunities that EER
35
studies have provided to increase knowledge about what works at school, classroom and system level, the take up of ideas has not been widespread. The reasons for this are multi- faceted but may be linked to the contextual nature of some EER studies (Reynolds et al., 2014). For example, in England, successive governments have placed accountability for student outcomes at school, rather than classroom or system level (Altrichter & Kemethofer, 2015; Asebi, Midtsundstad & Willbergh, 2015). Equally, EER studies have tended to stress the importance of ‘context’ in school effectiveness, a theme which governments may have seen as ‘inconvenient’ in a system that financially wants a one size fits all approach.
On the other hand, EER research has also highlighted the importance of school culture or other contextual themes. In 2014, Reynolds, Sammons, De Fraine, Van Damme, Townsend, Teddlie and Stringfield developed nine global factors and made specific reference to the importance of a positive school culture as part of Educational Effectiveness. Similarly, Dunmay and Galand (2012) identified a causal link between school culture and the effectiveness of teachers. They conclude “the more schools are characterised by cultural strength, the more teachers feel they can, as a team, enhance students, learning” (Dunmay & Galand, 2012, p. 725). These findings confirm the importance of research into school culture within the educational effectiveness movement and complement other calls for more analysis of school culture as part of levers for change (Reynolds et al., 2014).
Despite research which suggests the crucial role school culture plays in student achievement, (Elbot & Fulton, 2008,MacNeil, Prater & Busch, 2009, Gruenert, 2005), a theme considered in more detail in Chapter 10, it has still not secured an established place amongst key
effectiveness and improvement strategies that appear to deliver educational success. Problems of definition around school culture may be at the heart of this omission, but the financial costs of improving teacher motivation through more personalised training, for example, may also be a factor. The convergence between effectiveness and improvement movements, however, continues to gather pace; advocates for research into school culture remain vocal.
Researchers in the United States have not waited for an international consensus that confirms school culture as a key factor in school effectiveness, school improvement, educational effectiveness or student success. Here, the trend is to move from theory to practice to show in practical terms how school culture can be created, developed, shaped and strengthened
36
(Elbot & Fulton, 2008). Elbot and Fulton (2008) were swift to build upon Gruenert’s (2005) conclusion that school leaders should actively create the conditions to promote healthy school cultures by developing their Four Mindset Model: dependence, independence,
interdependence and integration. Combined with the development of a school ‘touchstone’, a short statement encompassing the core qualities and values central to the school, the authors produced a blueprint for cultural development that could be fashioned in all schools; a template or development plan, including teacher training exercises and leadership strategies. Similarly, MacNeil et al., (2009), having established a statistical link between student achievement and a strong school culture, suggested that school leaders should be at the heart of cultural development, shaping values, beliefs and attitudes and focusing development on student learning. In more recent times, Gruenert and Whitaker (2015) have also produced a plan to improve school culture with examples of what to do, how to do it, and how to overcome obstacles. Perhaps, however, the most successful advocates of shaping school culture, particularly in US schools, are Deal and Peterson (2009) who, in the Shaping School
Culture Fieldbook, outline practical strategies for strengthening culture and if necessary,
transforming culture.
In this chapter, I have focused on school culture in a traditional school and system context, where there has been little significant structural change for students, teachers or parents over time. In the next section, I examine school culture in the specific context of newly merged or amalgamated schools and schools in new formal partnerships or multi-academy trusts. How does amalgamation or transformational change impact school effectiveness, school
improvement and, in particular, school culture?