The first area of literature I have chosen to discuss, related to decline and failure, is the broad topic of school effectiveness which has been an important and popular area of study for several decades (Boyd & Shouse, 1997; Caldwell & Spinks, 1988; Hargreaves, 2003; MacBeath & Mortimore, 2001; Reynolds et al, 2001; Rosenholtz, 1985; Sammons, Mortimer & Thomas, 1995; Stoll & Fink, 1996; Weiner, 2001). As MacBeath and Mortimore (2001) explain, it is generally accepted that “good” schools do have a positive effect on student learning:
The unambiguous finding from three decades of studies across the world… is that schools do indeed make a difference… in other words there is a “school effect” …. with all the other factors held constant, there is a 5 to 15 per cent variance between more and less effective schools. (p.6)
Key words in school effectiveness literature include “successful”, “empowered” and “self- managing” schools that “make a difference”.The research and writings in this field usually generate a list of factors that positively correlate with, and may explain, the effectiveness of schools. These lists vary in length from, “Borger’s sparse study of three to Scheerens and Bosker’s generous review of over seven hundred” (as cited in MacBeath, 1999). The lists tend to cover similar factors that usually include a shared vision, an effective learning environment, a focus on student achievement, high teacher expectations of students, a home/school partnership, professional development, staff collegiality and effective self- review (Caldwell & Spinks, 1988; Sammons, Mortimore & Thomas, 1995; Stoll & Fink, 1996). Regardless of this broad consensus on what makes a school effective, MacBeath (1999) argues that the search to identify and describe effective schools is “like the hunt for the unicorn” and that the lists of descriptors are of little use for teachers wanting to improve their practice:
Nevertheless it has been widely seen as important to try to pin schools down and for three decades we have tried to get to grips with the questions, “What are the essential ingredients of effective schools?” and “What makes one school more effective than another?” The two groups most absorbed with this question have been researchers and policy makers; researchers because it’s their job to find answers to their own questions; policy makers because they want answers which will justify their decisions. (p. 9)
Effective leadership is always one of the key success indicators of an effective school and there is an overlap between school effectiveness literature and literature on effective school leadership (Barth, 1990; Bush & West-Burnham, 1994; Edwards, 1986; MacBeath, 1999; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005; Sergiovanni, 1991; Stewart & O’Donnell, 2007). There are also strong links between literature on school effectiveness, effective leadership and effective change management (Alvy & Robbins, 2005; Evans, 1996; Fullan, 1991; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Murphy & Meyers, 2008; Rosenblatt & Schaeffer, 2000; Scott, 1999). The distinction between transactional and transformational leadership provides clues to the
links between leadership and change management; the former being unlikely to guarantee successful implementation of change (Bush & West-Burnham, 1994; Caldwell & Spinks, 1988; Sergiovanni, 1991). While there is consensus on the view, and the evidence, that a school principal plays a significant role in the effectiveness of a school, there is a lack of clarity on the impact an ineffective leader has on an effective school or on how much impact an effective leader has on a dysfunctional school. It would appear that effective leadership is necessary, possibly essential in the long term, for school effectiveness but that it is not sufficient as a sole factor.
While effective schools clearly share important practices, Stoll and Fink (1996, p. 32) argue that it is insufficient to describe these characteristics, “and assume that ineffective schools possess the mirror opposite of these factors”. In fact, there is no evidence that ineffective schools could become more effective by trying to adopt these features (Boyd & Shouse, 1997; Luyten, Visscher & Witziers, 2005). Stark (1998) provides a helpful medical analogy:
The treatment that a sick person needs to recover is different from the regime that will make an ordinary person fit. Indeed a fitness regime imposed on invalids may make them worse. The same seems to apply to schools; competence must precede excellence. (p.36)
Though there may be a connection between the factors that correlate with school effectiveness and those that correlate with school ineffectiveness, some writers concur that there is no research evidence to support this assumption (Reynolds, 1991, 1998; Reynolds, Hopkins, Potter & Chapman, 2001; Weiner, 2001). Even if it were true that the reverse applies, and that ineffective schools are polar opposites of effective schools on all the correlating factors, this tells us nothing about how the decline process begins or how to stop it. Reynolds (1991) claims the track record of attempting to improve ineffective schools, using factors shown to be present within effective schools, is not good. Reynolds’ concern indicates the need for research which identifies factors associated with ineffectiveness and decline and strategies to halt or to reverse decline.
Building on Stark’s (1998, p. 36) medical analogy of the needs of a sick person, my study has been designed to investigate how the study schools came to be so unwell without comparing them to healthy and effective schools. It is a study of ineffectiveness that does not rely on using characteristics of effectiveness as a comparative tool.