systemic factors in school improvement

This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 15 November 2014, At: 06:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Papers in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rred20

Systemic factors in school improvementGrainne Byrne a & Tony Gallagher ba University of Ulster , Northern Irelandb Queen’s University of Belfast , Northern IrelandPublished online: 03 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Grainne Byrne & Tony Gallagher (2004) Systemic factors in school improvement, Research Papers inEducation, 19:2, 161-183, DOI: 10.1080/02671520410001695416

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520410001695416

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rred20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02671520410001695416

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520410001695416

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research Papers in EducationVol. 19, No. 2, June 2004

ISSN 0267–1522 (print)/ISSN 1470–1146 (online)/04/020161–23© 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/02671520410001695416

Systemic factors in school improvement

Grainne Byrne

1

* & Tony Gallagher

2

1

University of Ulster, Northern Ireland;

2

Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland

Taylor and Francis LtdRRED19202.sgm10.1080/02671520410001695416Research Papers in Education0267-1522 (print)/1470-1146 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis Ltd192000000June 2004GrainneByrneSchool of Business, Retail and Financial ServicesUniversity of Ulster, Cromore RoadColeraine BT52 1SANorthern [email protected]

Many official strategies for school improvement appear to be based on an assumption that schoolsoperate as autonomous units, hence the privileging of school-based characteristics that are taken toprovide indicators of effectiveness. However, if the systemic relationships between schools arerecognized then it may be that the establishment of effective characteristics in one school maysimply shift problems onto other schools in the system rather than dealing with underlying issues.This paper explores this notion using data that have been drawn from a large-scale examination ofthe effects of the selective system of education in Northern Ireland (Gallagher & Smith, 2000). Intheory the systemic constraints on school improvement may be less evident in a selective systemsince the role and mission of the schools are differently designed. The paper, however, argues thatthe selective system actually exacerbates the pressures identified above. A system of academic selec-tion, allied with open enrolment, exaggerates systemic pressures and creates a situation where mostof the negative consequences of the system bear down on a limited number of secondary schools,typically those located in urban areas and serving economically disadvantaged communities.

Keywords:

Systemic pressures; School effectiveness; School improvement; Selective system; Autonomous units; Interdependence

Introduction

In his Presidential address to the British Education Research Association (September1999) Peter Mortimore (2000) raised a number of questions in relation to the valueand purposes of educational research. Posing the question ‘Does EducationalResearch Matter?’, he perhaps cautions against research for research’s sake andemphasizes that one of the main tasks of such research is to ‘further educationalimprovement’ (p. 12), to cause something to happen. Any chance to occasion changein education, or elsewhere for that matter, however, depends ultimately on whetherthe findings are understood by, are of practical value and are made accessible to thosethat can influence and shape measures for change—those who can legislate and thosewho can, in turn, implement policy. This is important in any area of educational

*Corresponding author: School of Business, Retail and Financial Services, University of Ulster,Cromore Road, Coleraine BT52 1SA, Northern Ireland. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

162

G. Byrne & T. Gallagher

research, but arguably most important in a field of study which has developed quiteconsiderably over the past two decades—research that addresses school effectivenessand school improvement.

We have seen the development of an enormous corpus of literature on schooleffectiveness and school improvement over recent years, but some argue that thereremain some issues that are not sufficiently accommodated within these frameworks.Criticisms have focussed variously on: the value of ‘lists’, and in particular the natureof causality (e.g. Morley & Rassool, 2000); the extent to which findings are servingpolitical agenda, or perhaps the way the research is used to pursue political agendas;the absence of research which accounts for structural inequalities (e.g. Mortimore &Whitty, 1997; Gewirtz, 1998; Gibson & Asthana, 1998a,b); the argumentssurrounding the school improvement debate are oversimplified (e.g. Gewirtz, 1998);and schools are treated as if they are non-interacting entities (Goldstein & Wood-house, 2000). These criticisms are among the issues addressed in this paper usingdata from schools in Northern Ireland. It is argued that the continued operation ofacademic selection poses a major constraint on some schools in their pursuit ofimprovement. Particularly affected are secondary schools as they are presented witha series of problems that are largely beyond their control, but that nevertheless haveto be addressed and managed.

Background

Northern Ireland has operated a selective system of secondary and grammar schoolssince 1947. The last serious attempt to move away from the selective arrangementswas made under the Labour government of James Callaghan. This initiative washalted when Margaret Thatcher’s first government was elected in 1979. Followingthe election of the new Labour government in 1997 there was some expectation thatchanges to selection might occur. However, the then Education Minister, TonyWorthington, decided that any proposals for change should be based upon informeddiscussion and debate. Towards this end two research projects were commissioned.The first involved an evaluation of the system of delayed selection (at age 14 years)used in the Craigavon area (Alexander

et al

., 1998) while the second involved a widerexamination of the effects of the selective system of secondary education (Gallagher& Smith, 2000). The findings of the second project are discussed in more detailbelow. First we consider some of the themes emerging from the research on schooleffectiveness and school improvement.

School effectiveness research and criticisms

There have been a number of studies that have both informed and driven schooleffectiveness (SER) and school improvement (SI) research in recent years. Despitebeing criticized, one of the most influential was the US-based study by James Cole-man

et al

. (1966) which concluded that schools had a minimal effect on a child’sachievement once the effects of home background had been taken into consideration.Further support for these findings later came in the research by Jencks

et al

. (1972)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


163

and, in the UK, similar conclusions were reached (Coopers, 1966, and Tylerman,1968, cited in Gallagher

et al

., 1998). Such negative findings, however, were to bechallenged. There later emerged a body of research which sought to separate theimpact of home background from that of the school ‘to ascertain whether someschools were more effective than others and, if so, to identify which factors contrib-uted to the positive effects’. (Stoll & Mortimore, 1997, p. 10) In this respect the five-factor theory developed by Ron Edmonds (1979) in the US is significant as is the UKresearch conducted by Michael Rutter

et al

. which also appeared in 1979. Althoughthere were mixed responses to Rutter’s research (see Mortimore, 1991) it did succeedin challenging the notion that schools make little difference and provided evidencethat, even when accounting for differences in intake, schools do indeed matter.

A key feature of these and later contributions (such as Reynolds, 1982, and Morti-more

et al

., 1988) was that they had a distinct focus on schools and school processes(e.g. organizational and pedagogical practices), with a wide range of factors emerging.Based on Mortimore’s research, for example, these included: purposeful leadershipby the head; the involvement of the deputy head (in policy issues) and teachers (incurriculum planning and being consulted in decision-making); structured teaching;challenging lessons; parental involvement; work-centred environment; enhancedcommunication between teachers and students; record-keeping and evaluation; anda positive ethos within the school. The implications for schools were clear:

No longer cast as passive observers in an unalterable process, school effectiveness researchcharacterises those who teach in and manage schools as the key actors in the productionof a better education system. The difficult task is to identify which factors are likely toproduce high quality teaching and learning. (Riddell & Brown, 1991, p. 2)

The tendency to focus on the factors that characterize ‘effective’ schools, however,has featured in many of the criticisms of school effectiveness research, especially thepresentation of ‘lists’ as typified in the review by Sammons

et al

. (1995). Concernshave also been raised about the nature of ‘causality’. For example, Morley and Rassool(2000) suggest that while a correlation between particular features of schools and theirdegree of success may exist, ‘it is a major conceptual leap to suggest a causal relation-ship’. (p. 176) Coe and Taylor Fitz-Gibbon (1998) also address the issue of ‘causality’stressing its importance given that any conceptualization of school effectiveness ulti-mately depends on an understanding of the issue. They argue that among the generalfailings of SER is that it has yet to ‘…demonstrate the extent to which differencesamong schools in their ‘effectiveness’ are really caused by identifiable factors withinthe school and, perhaps more importantly, factors within their control …’. (p. 422).

This latter qualification is an important one highlighting the importance of thewider social and environmental context in which schools operate—a point that will bedeveloped shortly. They further suggest that school effectiveness research has tendedto define ‘effectiveness’ in terms of a restricted and often inappropriate range ofoutcomes and that generally it has not offered any insight into the mechanisms bywhich schools are effective. ‘In short, much research on school effectiveness has beencharacterized by largely overstated claims and poor modelling.’ (p. 422)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

164


Some of these concerns are also evident in the critiques offered by Hamilton (1997,1998) and Elliott (1996). Both challenge some of the implicit values which they feelunderpin SER and argue that they promote a commodification of education. Perhapsmore significantly, they argue that the findings of SER are used by politicians andgovernments to promote a narrow ‘standards’ agenda in which measurable attainmentoutcomes are represented as the most important, if not the sole, purpose of education.

Elliott’s critique is among those that are discussed, and largely rejected, bySammons and Reynolds (1997). They argue that while they regard his criticisms asprovocative, they are ‘ignorant of much of the existing knowledge base and seeminglyunaware of the considerable body of reflexive criticisms that SER is now subjectingitself to’. (p. 134) In this respect they cite the need for better theoretical underpin-nings and the forging of stronger links with the school improvement tradition. Moreresearch is needed on ‘ineffective’ as opposed to ‘effective’ schools, as well as on themeans through which change can actually be effected. Finally, they propose that‘context specificity’ must be explored as this will influence the extent to which theresults of school effectiveness research can in fact be generalized and, indeed, be ableto provide some practical conclusions.

Further concerns centre around the limited way in which research takes account ofstructural inequalities (Gewirtz, 1998; and Mortimore & Whitty, 1997). Gewirtz, forexample, challenges what she perceives to be the oversimplification of many of thearguments surrounding school effectiveness and school improvement research. Sheargues that the success or otherwise of schools cannot simply be attributed to thequality of management and teaching. Schools do not exist in a vacuum and due atten-tion has to be paid to the ‘socio-economic and discursive’ environments in which theyare located and operate. Her research therefore leads her to conclude that:

… internal, school-based determinants of ‘success’ do not operate independently of exter-nal, context-based determinants—and any analysis of ‘effective’ schooling which does notrecognise this must be regarded as deeply flawed. (p. 455)

These concerns are shared by Gibson and Asthana (1998a,b). In particular theyhave argued that to focus on value-added by schools is effectively to:

… ‘design out’ a concern with underlying socio-economic explanations of variations inperformance. There is no longer a need to consider the home background of studentsbecause the baseline for school assessment now lies with measures of prior attainment.(1998a, p. 199)

While the effect of home background may be present in measures of prior achieve-ment, this potentially serves to mask the real difficulties presented by variations insocio-economic background, particularly when there are schools that are beinglabelled as ‘failing’ which largely serve disadvantaged communities. Gibson andAsthana (1998b) argue, therefore, that to focus on these schools may divert attentionaway from the manner in which schooling serves to reflect, even reinforce, existingpatterns of disadvantage.

Rather than focusing on the relationship between schools and the wider social struc-ture, or between schools and the political framework provided by educational policy,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


165

the present paper seeks to concentrate on the relationship between schools as part ofa schools’ system. One of the potential limitations in SER and SI is the assumptionthat schools operate as largely autonomous units (the statistical controls used in anal-ysis relate to fixed aspects of circumstance, rather than the dynamic interplay betweenschools). This certainly appears to be an assumption made by policymakers in thattheir seemingly endless pursuit of

the

strategy which will improve performance for allassumes that all schools could, and hence should, adopt the organizational and peda-gogical practices that will ‘guarantee’ higher standards for all. In this respect, Gold-stein and Woodhouse (2000) have argued that there is an assumption that schools are‘non-interacting entities’. As they point out, this is not the case; ‘the actions and char-acteristics of any one school are linked to those of other schools’. (p. 356)

This weakness is probably most marked in a public system of comprehensiveschools where, at least in theory, all schools aspire to a level of broad equivalence inthe quality and standard of education they can deliver. The reality is that there remainwidespread social and other differences between schools, despite the ostensible claimsof the system. The move to competition between schools following the 1988 Educa-tion Reform Act exacerbated those differences to the disadvantage of those alreadydisadvantaged within the system. The response of the Labour government has beento accept that the schools are, in fact, diverse and to seek to build diversity into theschools’ system. The assumption, presumably, is that if the schools are diverse andoffer distinctive missions and purposes to pupils, then this explicit diversity willenhance choice and allow schools to flourish in distinctive ways. Thus, the hopemight be that the formalization of diversity in the schools’ system will avoid the prob-lems created by competition and provide the basis for all schools to be enabled toimprove.

Northern Ireland is the one part of the UK where a system of formalized differen-tiation has always existed in the school system through the retention of a selectivesystem of grammar and secondary post-primary schools. The 1989 EducationReform (NI) Order introduced many of the measures applied in England and Walesthrough the 1988 Education Reform Act, including open enrolment and competitionbetween schools. Thus, the Northern Ireland example provides a test of whethercompetition in a formally diverse system enables all schools to improve. The data weuse are derived from a recently completed major investigation of the effects of theselective system of education in Northern Ireland.

Below we briefly outline the background to this project, provide detail on the crite-ria used for selecting the sample of schools that were used as case studies and outlinethe nature of the data collected in the study as a whole. Our findings are presentedand we then consider the implications for school improvement and offer a conclusionon the impact of competition in a formally diverse system.

Selection research project

The research on the effects of the selective system of secondary education inNorthern Ireland was organized around two main elements. The first comprised a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

166


consideration of systemic change in schools in Northern Ireland over the last 10years both as a consequence of the selective system and the new arrangements intro-duced through the 1989 Education Reform (NI) Order. The second explored theimpact of the selective system across a number of more specific domains; theseincluded the impact of selection on primary schools, teachers, pupils, public atti-tudes and perceptions and, finally, the impact on post-primary schools. It is this lastaspect that is the main focus of the present paper.

The work on post-primary schools was based on a series of in-depth case studies ofschools and comprised two approaches. The first was a sample of grammar and second-ary schools chosen from across Northern Ireland—the Main Study schools. Thesecond comprised a set of grammar and secondary schools that operated within a desig-nated geographical area—the Area Study schools. This paper draws on the evidencefrom the Main Study schools and, although there was a wide range of data collectedin each (as detailed below), we draw mainly on data from interviews with school prin-cipals and members of senior management teams. In the research project these inter-views were analysed separately, but are presented jointly for current purposes.

Case study schools

The Department of Education provided details of the entry patterns of pupils for allpost-primary schools from 1993 to 1997. These data comprised the number of pupilsentering each school disaggregated by the transfer grade status and gender. Thesampling criteria used for the Main Study schools made use of transfer status, entrynumbers and gender patterns. The defining characteristic of grammar schools is thatthey are permitted to select pupils on the basis of their academic ability, as measuredby the Transfer Tests. Since the introduction of open enrolment there has been anincrease in the proportion of pupils entering grammar schools which may haveresulted in a widening of the ability profile of grammar entrants. In addition, there isa known relationship between academic attainment and gender (Gallagher, 1997,1998). Therefore, it was decided to use these two criteria, academic ability asmeasured by the Transfer Test, and gender as the criteria for identifying the sampleof grammar schools.

The proportion of pupils with A or B grades entering each grammar school wascalculated over the period 1993 to 1997. The schools were rank-ordered on the basisof these data and then divided into four equal groups. In the top group the proportionof pupils entering with A or B grades varied between 99 and 100%, for the secondgroup it varied between 96 and 98%, for the third group it varied between 90 and96%, and for the fourth group it varied between 59 and 90%. Within each group theschools were rank ordered on the basis of the proportion of girls in the schools. Then,within each cohort the schools at the 33rd and the 66th percentiles were selected forthe sample. This provided a total of eight schools, all of which agreed to participatein the study.

Secondary schools are permitted to use a variety of criteria for identifying entrantsfrom amongst those pupils who apply, but they are not permitted to use academic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


167

ability as one of these criteria. Thus, while many of the pupils entering secondaryschools will hold Transfer grades, a significant proportion of entrants will have optednot to take the tests. As noted above, one consequence of open enrolment has beenan increase in the proportion of pupils entering grammar schools and a consequentoverall decrease in the proportion entering secondary schools. For this reason we usedentry number and gender as the two criteria for selecting the sample of secondaryschools. Using the data provided by the Department of Education all secondaryschools were rank-ordered on the basis of the change in the number of Year 8 pupilsentering the schools between 1993 and 1997. The small number of schools that oper-ated alternative transfer arrangements and schools that had opened or closed withinthose years were excluded. When the schools had been rank-ordered they weredivided into twelve equal groups and, within each group, the schools were rank-ordered on the basis of the proportion of girls in each school. Following this, theschools at the 33rd and 66th percentiles were selected for the sample. This gave a totalof 24 schools. Eight of these schools declined to participate in the study. A furthereight schools, as similar as possible to those which had declined to participate, wereidentified and invited to participate. Of this group, two accepted the invitation. Thisgave a final total of 18 secondary schools in the Main Study sample.

In combination with the case study schools that were identified for the Area Study,overall the case study schools comprised 11 grammar schools and 21 secondaryschools. Of these, eight grammar and 18 secondary schools were in the Main Study,while four grammar and six secondary schools were in the Area Study. In the MainStudy, three of the grammar schools and 10 of the secondary schools operated Cath-olic management systems, and there was one Grant Maintained Integrated school. Inthe Area Study, two of the grammar schools and two secondary schools operatedCatholic management systems, and there was one Grant Maintained Integratedschool. In the Main Study there were two single-sex boys’ schools and two single-sexgirls’ schools. The remaining 22 schools were co-educational, with the proportion ofgirls ranging from a low of 29% to a high of 62%. In the Area Study there were twosingle-sex boys’ schools and two single-sex girls’ schools.

Data collected

Fieldwork for the project was carried out during the 1998/99 school year. In

all

thecase study schools we collected a wide range of data. Quantitative data included theGCSE results and post-16 destinations for the Year 12 cohort in 1998/99. A ques-tionnaire was also administered to all Year 8 and Year 12 students; this included aseries of items seeking social and demographic data on the students. In addition, theYear 12 questionnaire included an ‘attitudes to school’ questionnaire that was usedwith permission from the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).Thereafter we collected a range of qualitative data focusing on aspects of within-school processes.

The qualitative data focused on policy and practice in the schools and at depart-ment level, the impact of selection on the perception of teachers and students, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

168


the way schools had responded to the changes that have occurred since 1989. In orderto collect data on these issues in each case study school we interviewed the principaland members of the senior management team; the Heads of Department of Mathe-matics, English and Science; the teacher or teachers with special responsibility forYear 8 students; and a group of classroom teachers. In addition, we interviewed agroup of Year 8 students and a group of Year 12 students.

The project resulted in 23 research papers, published in two volumes, and an over-all report (Gallagher & Smith, 2000) which were published by the Department ofEducation in September 2000. All the papers are available online at: http://www.deni.gov.uk/pprb/research_docs/index.htm (last accessed 3 June 2003).

Main findings: interviews with principals and senior management teams

Based on an analysis of interviews with both school principals and members of seniormanagement teams six broad themes emerged. These were the impact of open enrol-ment; the transition from primary to post-primary school; mechanisms for monitor-ing pupil progress; curricular organization; ability grouping of pupils; and views onthe selective system itself.

The impact of open enrolment

In grammar schools open enrolment was not reported as having had a major impact.Changes, where they had occurred, were described in terms of increases in pupilnumbers and, in some cases, a widening of the ability range of the pupil intakealthough it was reported that this had not had an impact on the overall performanceof the schools:

I think [now] we probably have a significant number of students to whom academic workwould not come quite so easily, but by and large those students have been very successful.(Grammar school SMT member)

Among secondary schools, however, a different picture emerged. Many of the prin-cipals and senior managers interviewed reported a decline in their Year 8 (Form 1)intake, which most attributed directly to the actions of grammar schools under openenrolment. A further consequence reported was in terms of the ability profile of pupilsupon entry. A significant number of secondary schools principals reported the loss ofalmost all of their better grade pupils to grammar schools with the result that theirintake was increasingly skewed towards the lower ability range. This applied equallyto those secondary schools where intake numbers had remained relatively stable orhad increased over the period since education reform:

We would find that the new system is allowing the grammar schools to fill up their places… In the older days when selection was selection, and the best pupils were selected, thenyou had the A pupils, then maybe a few after that, but the majority of pupils came our way.But now the local grammar schools are taking pretty well anybody, down to grade Cs andDs …Yes, that is one of the things we have noticed in the last 10 years. Even though wehadn’t great numbers, there was a band of very good youngsters who just didn’t make the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


169

‘Eleven Plus’, but they were our top pupils and they always did extremely well. Now overthe years that has been creamed off and creamed off, until—no reflection on the pupilswho are here—but we are left with, really, a very narrow band of the ability range, but weare expected to produce results with those youngsters. (Secondary school principal)

The potential effect of this ‘creaming off’ of more academically able pupils in aselective system is to leave other (i.e. secondary) schools with an ‘inappropriatebalance’. For example, it has been suggested that for a school to be effective thereshould be a balance of intellectually able and less able children. Moreover, in situa-tions where too many children are unlikely to achieve academic success, an anti-authority peer group culture may develop (Rutter

et al

., 1979 cited in Ireson &Hallam, 1999).

Our research evidence certainly highlights a variety of problems that such changesbring in their wake, especially in those secondary schools where it was felt that theirtask has been measurably worsened in recent years. The removal of their ‘top stream’to grammar schools, for example, was reported by some secondary school principalsto have changed the ‘ethos’ of their schools given that these pupils had been muchmore motivated and had helped stimulate other pupils. One senior managerdescribed the situation facing his school in the following terms:

Our numbers have remained reasonably healthy … against a background of decliningenrolments … [but], if I could use the term, ‘the quality of pupil’ has changed over the past10 years … There would have been a fairly identifiable ‘grammar school stream’ here…[Then we noticed] that the grammar school stream was getting thinner and thinner…[Now] it has become extinct to a large extent … As a result, not only does it affect thequality of interaction within the classroom with the top group … [but it affects the ethos]of the school. [Those] pupils had a tremendously uplifting effect on the rest of the school.They were natural leaders. They weren’t all natural leaders, but within that [group] youwould always get a number [who] would set a good tone for the rest. (Secondary schoolSMT member)

This contrasts sharply with the situation in grammar schools where the confidenceand self-esteem of their pupil cohort were generally reported; these characteristics, inturn, impacted positively on their attitudes to learning:

I … would have to say the children in this school, which is my experience of the grammarsector, are highly motivated to learning. Now that doesn’t mean that they are all of the timehighly motivated but, for the most part, the majority of children on the majority of daysare keenly competitive and becoming even more so. (Grammar school principal)

It should be noted that following the implementation of open enrolment schoolswere required to accept pupils up to their enrolment number. The only exception wasthat grammar schools could refuse a place to a pupil if it was felt that the pupil wouldnot benefit from the academic curriculum provided by the school. In fact grammarschools almost always accepted pupils up to their enrolment numbers. This resultedin an increase in the proportion of pupils overall who transferred to grammar schools.Thus, 29% of pupils transferring in 1984 went to grammar schools, but in 1994 thisfigure had increased to 35%. During the 1990s the relative proportions transferringto grammar and secondary schools stabilized as the total number of pupils in each

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

170


transferring cohort remained stable. If, as expected, the size of the cohort decreasesin future years then it is likely that the proportion entering grammar schools willincrease once more.

Thus, the negative consequences for secondary schools in a selective system, andin a post education reform context, become apparent. That said, the extent to whichthis group of schools has been detrimentally affected has not been uniform in termsof the impact across Northern Ireland, but has varied according to circumstancessuch as geographical location. Some schools, for example, faced with declining rollshave widened their catchment area, while others have been able to sustain theirnumbers trading on the reputation they had established. However, as indicated, thebelief that their circumstances were being adversely affected due to a reduction in the‘quality’ of pupil intake was raised by the majority of secondary school principals andsenior managers. As a direct result their response was to revise or develop new insti-tutional strategies to cope with the changes. In this respect discussions focussed firstlyon arrangements to facilitate the transition from primary to post-primary schools(which included the information transferring with pupils and pastoral care) and,secondly, on academic related issues such as mechanisms for monitoring pupilprogress, the curriculum and ability groupings. Of particular significance is the chasmbetween the reported accounts from grammar and secondary schools.

Transition from primary to post-primary school

Aspects of the transition from primary to post-primary school emerged in a numberof interviews with senior management teams. Discussions focused on the limitedamount of information that now transfers to secondary schools with pupils and on theinduction and pastoral care systems.

In the past the information transferring from the primary to the post-primaryschool included evaluative comments from the primary school principal. Morerecently, however, the information is now limited strictly to the results of the KeyStage Two assessments and the grade received in the Transfer Procedure. Ironically,one of the reasons why the amount of information transferring has been reduced is aperceived need to keep the data as empirical and limited as possible in case allocationdecisions are appealed to a tribunal. However, some of the secondary school SMTsexpressed doubts about the reliability of the information they received on pupils withtheir comments usually focused on the Key Stage Two assessment levels attributedto pupils:

We would find that the transfer information is not always accurate … You can’t compareschools. Some teachers are more lenient with their grading than others and so it tends tovary from one primary school to another. (Secondary school SMT member)

[T]he information is very limited and not very useful … There is no consistency at all.(Secondary school SMT member)

In general, within both grammar and secondary schools it was reported that pupilssettled in relatively quickly which was attributed to the induction and pastoral care

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


171

systems they had in place to ease the transition from primary to post-primary educa-tion. Among grammar SMTs there was relatively little discussion of these issues andlittle sense that they had become a priority in recent years and, in interview, only asmall number of grammar school principals outlined the systems in any detail. It wassignificant that in induction there was a clear emphasis on academic priorities. Thus,for example, one grammar school principal described the mechanisms that were beingdevised to strengthen the curricular links in the three core subject areas with theirfeeder primary schools. This operated on a number of levels beginning with a meetingwith the principals of the feeder primary schools to discuss a range of issues affectingpupils during the transition period. In recent years these links had been furtherenhanced with the primary schools’ English and mathematics coordinators meetingheads of department to discuss curricular issues. It is planned to extend this to includescience coordinators and all of this is underpinned by a range of additional extra-curricular links as well as a strong support system provided by senior pupils who havedesignated responsibilities for the junior classes. The importance of the induction andpastoral care system was emphasized by this school principal:

There is a strong emphasis on [pastoral care] … I am a great believer that if the childrenaren’t happy they won’t be learning. So we would start with a happiness factor and a secu-rity factor … So, it’s about creating a secure and happy environment to help children learnand to motivate them to do so. (Grammar school principal)

This emphasis on academic issues is significant in so far as it contrasts sharply withthe accounts from secondary schools. Within this group considerable importance wasattached to induction and pastoral care, but with an explicit aim of rebuilding the self-esteem and confidence of their pupil intake, particularly in the aftermath of selection.Senior staff often talked of having to deal with the ‘casualties’ of selection and ofhaving to ‘pick up the pieces’. One principal, for example, spoke of the time spent‘actively nursing [the pupils] back to mental health’, and another of the need to:

… raise pupils’ perceptions … just really trying to get them to believe in themselves. Thereis no question that some [pupils] when they arrive here do perceive themselves as not goodenough. They maybe don’t perceive themselves as failures necessarily, but they perceivethemselves to be not as good as some of their friends who have gone elsewhere. We reallyneed to start working on that very quickly. And we do that at all levels, from the lowestability right up. (Secondary school principal)

Other staff also discussed the evidence to support their view that the self-esteem ofsome of their pupils had suffered following the selection procedure. These includedthe apparent resentment of some of the pupils, having felt rejected by grammarschools; their reluctance to speak in class; their lack of motivation and attitude to work;the low targets that they set for themselves; and, in many cases, the increased incidenceof discipline problems was cited. Moreover, it was indicated that there had been anincrease in the proportion of pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds who werereported to need a considerable amount of support. As one secondary school principalobserved, ‘these are the children that require stability, [and] they require stability morethan any other child because they are coming from this type of background’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

172


Research has shown that there is a link between social disadvantage and lower levelsof educational achievement. This is an area that was also addressed as part of theresearch into selection (e.g. Shuttleworth & Daly, 2000) and there is evidence toconfirm that in secondary schools social disadvantage is the most significant factoraccounting for performance in GCSEs. It is therefore not surprising that the signifi-cance of pupils’ backgrounds, as it impacted for example on their attitude to work,was developed in interview by other secondary school staff. One principal, for exam-ple, perceived that many pupils entered grammar schools with the motivation thatcame with their socio-economic background, where they had more access to learningmaterials and came from a culture of learning within the home. For these reasons thisprincipal suggested that these pupils were better placed to learn themselves, and oftento ‘learn despite the system’. Within grammar schools it was confirmed that theirpupils did tend to be highly motivated and one principal, who was an advocate of thecurrent system of selective education, further recognized the advantages to pupilsarising from their family backgrounds. He also argued that any problems that wereencountered within the system arose because of its inflexibility:

There is absolutely no doubt that those who come from more privileged backgrounds havedone far better in our [grammar school] system … as they have done in almost everysystem, everywhere else. But that has a great deal to do with home background, parentalsupport, availability of books and computers, whatever it may be. It is not, I would argue,the system of education. Indeed there is some evidence of larger numbers from less privi-leged backgrounds from Northern Ireland proceeding to higher education than is the casein other parts of the United Kingdom. That is not to say there isn’t a problem. Of coursethere is. I sometimes think it would be great for a school like this to have the flexibility totake in some of those pupils who haven’t quite made it because they have had to jumpthrough those hoops, because of all those things in their background. But we can’t becausewe have to work with the grades and criteria. (Grammar school principal)

For the reasons cited above, much of the discussion on academic related issueswithin secondary schools was explicitly linked to the arrangements for pastoral care.This was advanced on the grounds that, first, without a strong induction and pastoralcare system learning could not even take place, and secondly, it allowed staff to iden-tify if some pupils’ academic problems had their roots in non-educational issues. Inmany cases staff were alerted to problems through the innovative programmes thathad been developed in recent years to monitor pupil progress.

Mechanisms for monitoring pupils’ progress

Although there were some differences across schools in terms of the degree of formal-ity adopted, typically monitoring was the responsibility of Heads of Department andYear Heads. Grammar and secondary school principals reported the regular reviewof homework, class assessments, end of term examination results, as well as results forKey Stage 3 and GCSEs, which were discussed at departmental meetings and, ingrammar schools, these were the principal means of identifying pupils who wereunder-performing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


173

There were examples of some more elaborate systems for monitoring that hadbeen developed in recent years, but these were mainly in secondary schools. Forexample, a system operating in one secondary school involved conferences on pupils’progress that took place once a term. At these meetings a core group considered theprogress of every pupil within a year group. The key part of the meeting was wherereports were received from each class teacher of each pupil; this report was bothquantitative, based on class test and examination results, and qualitative. Althoughsenior managers described this process as very time-consuming, they neverthelessliked the system because of the interaction it provided between teachers and theinsights that all gained from hearing different perspectives on individual pupils.Furthermore, it seemed to contribute to a more general ethos within the school thathighlighted the importance of learning. Another innovative approach arose, in part,from a concern to increase the flow of information from primary to post-primaryschools. The heart of this approach was based on the collection of matched datasetsfor individual pupils as they proceeded from primary through secondary school. Theuse of matched datasets allowed for the calculation of value-added measures and theestablishment of individualized targets for pupil progress. Inter alia this provided amechanism for identifying pupils who were either under-performing or over-performing. In both cases other parts of the school’s arrangements operated to takeameliorative action. Thus, in the case of under-performing pupils a closer look wastaken at a range of the pupil’s work to try and assess the source of any problem.Indeed, this approach was used more generally to monitor not only pupils’ work butalso the extent to which departments and teachers were keeping to school policy onissues such as marking and homework.

Each of these approaches involves the use of various types of data as a managementdevice in monitoring pupil progress and all are claimed to provide valuable informationand an early warning of situations where pupils are beginning to get into difficulties.

Curricular organization

The Common Curriculum, which was among the measures introduced under the1989 Education Reform (NI) Order, requires schools to provide pupils with a definedcurricular experience throughout the period of compulsory schooling. For grammarand secondary schools this has meant that the extent to which pupils can choose thesubjects they will take for GCSE public examinations is limited as all are obliged totake English, mathematics, science and a modern language.

Among grammar schools senior staff reported a fairly common pattern. In mostschools all pupils take the same range of subjects during their first three years, withsome offering a degree of variation around the modern language choices. For years11 and 12 (the GCSE years) the main basis for differentiating pupils appeared to bearound science and mathematics. Most of the grammar schools offered either doubleor triple award science and most offered additional mathematics although, ingeneral, this option was not available to all pupils. All of the grammar schools offered‘A’ levels and, while most offered additional qualifications for post-16 pupils to take

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

174


alongside ‘A’ levels, only one of the case-study grammar schools was operatingGNVQs in conjunction with the local FE college as a main alternative to a three ‘A’level menu.

While the accounts from secondary schools shared many common features, therewere also a number of significant differences. For example, the extent to whichsecondary schools have been able to offer a range of curricular options was reportedto have become more constrained than in the past. This was attributed, in part, to thefact that they were coping with a lower range of ability, with some principals reportingthat they were no longer offering English Literature and additional mathematics atGCSE. For other schools, declining rolls, with the corresponding decrease in schoolbudgets, presented additional problems because of the considerable financial pres-sures. Thus, some secondary schools were coping with a reduced staffing comple-ment and some were finding it difficult to achieve a viable class size to enable them tooffer a wider choice of options, particularly in Years 11 and 12.

Secondary school accounts also differed from those of grammar schools in terms ofthe wider range of alternative qualifications they provided so they could meet thevarying needs and abilities of their pupil cohort. Thus, these schools were trying toidentify those pupils who would benefit from, and could cope with, being entered fora full range of GCSE examinations. Yet, at the same time, they also had to identifythose who would benefit more from the alternatives they sought to offer such as arange of vocationally oriented subjects and GCSEs from examination boards otherthan the Northern Ireland Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment(CCEA). One principal described some of the options they pursued:

We have a range of other subjects: for example GOML in languages to pick up those whoobviously couldn’t cope; we have a maths exam which is sponsored by the [education andlibrary] board for those who could not cope with GCSE, even the lowest level of it. We dohave others; we do have a safety net … [But] the vast majority of pupils here sit seven ormore GCSEs … some would do 10. (Secondary school principal)

While secondary schools have always had to deal with a wider range of ability, thereis no doubt that they have been presented with a whole new set of problems as a resultof the changes that have taken place over the past ten years. Open enrolment is oneof these, but so too is the operation of a standardized curriculum in a differentiatedschool system:

We are teaching a common curriculum [in] which the majority of children see very littlerelevance. They do not see the relevance of all the theoretical work which is being handedout to them. These children need to learn to use their hands; [they] need to learn how tosurvive in the day-to-day world. And the common curriculum does not teach them to dothat. (Secondary school SMT member)

Concerns over the standardized curriculum, however, were not restricted tosecondary schools. Some grammar school principals and SMT members also believedthat the new curriculum made little sense in a system that was institutionally differ-entiated; others believed that it was restrictive and inflexible, particularly for second-ary schools:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


175

[I do not believe that] the National Curriculum has given equal opportunities for all. Ithink the National Curriculum has been disaster for 11–16 schools, and a disaster forcertain sections of the grammar schools as well. For example, this requirement that every-one does modern languages—it’s not working. It is simply not working. That is the key testof it. It doesn’t work… (Grammar school principal)

It’s just not true that we all follow the same curriculum, and at 14 [years of age that] thestudents are better able to make appropriate choices. The danger is that some youngpeople are turned off the learning process because of the inflexibility of the system … Ifsecondary schools had a distinct curriculum, as in Germany, with different mission andpurposes, the situation would be different. (Grammar school principal)

The evidence presented to date clearly shows the pressures that secondary schoolsare under as a result of the systemic changes that have taken place. Although the prob-lems they face are not of their own making, they have nevertheless had to adapt and/or devise new strategies to cope. The differentiated curriculum is part of this, as is thefurther differentiation that takes place within the school. As before, there are signifi-cant differences between both grammar and secondary schools.

Ability grouping of pupils

The general pattern reported among grammar schools was that there was no need fordifferentiation between pupils in their junior years, until after Key Stage Three.Thereafter in many schools streaming, where it took place, was based largely onsubject options, typically according to whether pupils were taking triple or doubleaward science and/or additional mathematics, with decisions in some cases beinginformed by Key Stage Three results. Among the case study schools there was anexception to this broad pattern: a grammar school that was taking pupils with lowertransfer test grades, although traditionally it had always accepted pupils with varyingdegrees of ability. The principal explained that previously in the school they had tradi-tionally streamed and banded their pupils, but that he had stopped this practice whenhe arrived, feeling that it could not be justified ‘morally [or] educationally’. However,this was once again under review:

…With the wider ability range, we’re going to have to watch this more carefully … Thequestion as to whether or not we would consider introducing banding or streaming—it’sin the back of my mind, it’s a watching brief. I haven’t been put under pressure from staffto do it. We already have support classes for numeracy and literacy in operation and, forthose who need the 4 short periods of time, we will probably do more careful assessmentand identify if there are wider gaps, and if we need to deal with them. But we are consciousthat they may be there, and we’re very conscious that we’re going to have to deal withthem. (Grammar school principal)

In secondary schools, on the other hand, the immediate problem they faced withregard to decisions about differentiation arose from the wider range and lower baseof ability among pupils. Although there were variations in practice among the casestudy secondary schools, differentiation did occur, without exception, and it wasgenerally reported that these practices were much more rigorous than in the past.Examples of streaming, banding and setting were cited as well as remedial assistance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

176


through small class teaching or withdrawal and intensive recovery programmes inEnglish and mathematics for the weakest pupils. Tighter streaming, for example, wasdesigned to narrow the range of ability that teachers had to cope with. The principalswho argued in favour of this approach debated the value of mixed ability teaching,arguing that it failed to support weaker pupils and yet, at the same time, challengethose who were capable of achieving higher standards. Some principals, however, didreport that they had adopted a policy of mixed ability for a limited number of practicalsubjects. They felt that in the aftermath of the transfer procedure it was important totry to minimize any further selection of pupils. One secondary school principalexplained the need for differentiation and differing expectations:

… we differentiate here, of course we do. And we challenge classes and we say, ‘you areexpected to get x, y and z because we know you can do it’. And ‘you are expected to get a,b and c because we know you can do it’. Two different sets of expectations, but for each,totally valid. Whereas I would expect that in a grammar school there is only one set ofexpectations, which is an academic one, which celebrates seven GCSEs at grade C orabove … (Secondary school principal)

There is a considerable wealth of research on the positive and negative impact ofability grouping, with much of this coming from the US. Among the main justifica-tions offered for grouping students are that: (1) students learn better when they aregrouped with others of similar ability; (2) they develop more positive attitudestowards themselves and schools when they are not placed with more able students;(3) allocation criteria and procedures are fair and accurate, and represent both priorachievement and innate ability; (4) it is easier for teachers to accommodate individualdifferences in homogeneous groups (Kulik & Kulik, 1982; 1984; 1987; Oakes, 1985,1998; Lynn & Wheelock, 1997; Loveless, 1998). At the same time, however, there isa wide range of studies that also illustrate the negative consequences that can arisewhen students are differentiated in this way (Slavin, 1990a,b; Ascher, 1992; Daven-port, 1993; Burnett, 1995; Brewer

et al

., 1995; Lockwood & Cleveland, 1998;Tomlinson, 1995; Hallam & Toutounji, 1996; Harlen & Malcolm, 1997; Ireson &Hallam, 1999) or even when they are grouped in less rigid ways, through setting forindividual subjects (Boaler, 1997; Boaler

et al

., 2000). Among the potential outcomesis the negative impact on the motivation and self-esteem of those pupils assigned tothe lower ability classes.

There was some support among the case-study schools, both grammar and second-ary, for these findings but, at the same time, the research evidence raises questions.Thus, among grammar schools, and to some extent among secondary schools also,there was support for the selective system of education. It was believed that groupingpupils of similar ability within different schools was more effective and less divisivethan differentiation within schools, although in general it was argued that selectionshould take place when pupils were older. However, in a selective system of educationthe test used for the purposes of allocating pupils to different school types has to bereliable. Although the Transfer Test per se did not fall under the remit of the researchproject, senior staff in both grammar and secondary schools did question the extentto which it was a reliable indicator. Thus, some principals cited examples of pupils

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


177

who they believed had been ‘misplaced’ after selection and this was attributed to theamount of coaching for the transfer test that they believed was taking place. Iresonand Hallam (1999) have raised this issue, suggesting that ‘[s]election error is a partic-ularly serious problem in a selective school system. A pupil who just gains access to agrammar school is likely to end up with very different life chances than a similar pupilwho just fails to do so’. (p. 350) In this respect the ‘grammar school effect’ is signifi-cant. Essentially this means that if one compares two pupils, one of whom is in a gram-mar school and the other is in a secondary school, and who are similar in every otherrespect, including Transfer Grade, then the grammar school pupil will achieve signif-icantly higher GCSE performance. The analysis suggests that being in a grammarschool can add almost 16 GCSE points to a pupil’s achievement at 16 years, which isequivalent to three GCSEs at grade C (see Shuttleworth & Daly 2000). The evidencecollected throughout the selection project suggests that this ‘effect’ is explained by acombination of factors. These include the clear academic mission of the grammarschools, high expectations for success on the part of the teachers and the learning envi-ronment created by a pupil peer group which is selected on academic grounds. More-over, pupils entering grammar schools are more likely to come from sociallyadvantaged backgrounds, as compared with pupils entering secondary schools, andthis may provide them with additional parental support and encouragement.

At the same time, there are negative consequences arising from ability grouping.Our research evidence shows that particularly in secondary schools senior staff wereacutely aware of the labelling problems that could emerge for a class that was put atthe bottom of the hierarchy and they had therefore adopted a range of measures todeal with the issue. Yet, despite these problems, it was striking that in the accountsfrom secondary school SMTs there was a virtual absence of any articulated case formixed ability teaching. Indeed, some of the senior managers offered justifications fortheir streaming systems that could, in another context, be used to provide a justifica-tion for the form of institutional differentiation that operates in the current selectivesystem:

I do think that it is good that children of high ability are together and that there is compe-tition and they help one another. In the same way, [they shouldn’t be mixed with] lowachievers because they [would] give up and say, ‘Oh, he’s always at the top’. You knowsome days some child will do well, and another day another child will do well, and it moti-vates them and helps them forward. (Secondary school SMT member)

Thus, the evidence so far points to a situation where grammar schools are in a posi-tion to work towards high academic attainment with any differences between themoperating at the margins. Secondary schools, on the other hand, are trying to hit anumber of quite distinct targets simultaneously and are attempting to do this incircumstances that are often changing and where the stable conditions necessary formedium to long term planning appear to be largely absent. This confirms earlierresearch by Byrne and McKeown (2000) who highlighted the problems faced bysome secondary schools when trying to plan ahead in the context of an increasinglyuncertain environment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

178


Views on the selective system of education

A wide range of views was expressed on selection. Generally those who supported thecurrent system tended to be grammar school SMTs and principals. Supporters of thesystem focused on the claim that pupils had different levels of ability and emphasizedthe strength and value of the academic curriculum provided by grammar schools.Most of the comments that were critical of the current selective system came fromsecondary schools, although some grammar SMTs were also critical. Concerns wereshared over the extent of coaching that was believed to be taking place, that primaryschools might ‘teach to the test’ and that the primary school curriculum had becomedistorted. In addition both grammar and secondary school staff raised the issue ofgeographical differences in access to grammar schools. Among secondary school prin-cipals and senior managers further issues were raised. In particular they believed thatselection at 11 years of age was too young and that there needed to be clearer voca-tional routes post-14. As illustrated below, some also felt that the system potentiallyoperated to the detriment of a significant number of pupils:

I will accept, and do accept, that there are some grammar schools that do an excellentjob—maybe many grammar schools do an excellent job. But that is akin in sporting termsto having all your top stars playing in the one team, and you would expect them to do agood job and you would expect them to get the results that they do. But it is the impactthat that has on the whole population. We are looking at maybe 25%/30%, or thenumbers are going up now, so maybe 30%/35% of children and we are declaring thatthese other 65% matter a lot less. Now, no-one will come out and say it. But that is thereality of the way the system operates. Because children, … it is not that they are treateddifferently, but the system will impact on them in different ways depending on whatschool they attend. So there are lots of aspects of the system that worry me. (Secondaryschool principal)

It should be noted, however, that not everyone agreed that the impact on pupils wasas negative as some of the opponents of selective education would suggest:

I don’t understand how 70% plus of the population have the feeling of inferiority, thatthey’re not as good as the other 30% or whatever. The other thing that always amuses me,to a certain extent, is the anti-grammar approach and that people are so against the gram-mar schools. First of all, why do they permit their children to sit the transfer tests, and whydo they clamour to get their children into grammar schools? If there has been such a feelingthat selection is a bad thing, then I’m amazed that larger numbers haven’t withdrawn theirchildren from the system. They haven’t, and that actually tells me quite a lot. (Grammarschool principal)

At the end of the day we have to remember that pupils do not have to sit the selectionprocedure; they do not; it is not compulsory; it is optional. And if parents wish them to sitit, it’s … parental pressure on schools because it is not compulsory. … So sometimes Ithink in all of the discussion about the selection procedure people forget it’s optional, youdon’t have to take part if you are genuinely against the system, of what it does to children.And if you genuinely believe that from 11–16 that all secondary schools are offering thesame curriculum, then you have a choice and you can quite simply send them to the highschool/secondary school. … It is an optional system, not a compulsory system. (Grammarschool principal)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


179

Discussion and conclusions

Sharon Gewirtz (1998) is among those who have argued that the debates surroundingschool effectiveness and school improvement research have been ‘oversimplified’.Based on research she has conducted she contends that ‘school ‘success’ contributesto ‘good’ management and teaching and school ‘failure’ contributes to ‘less’ effectiveteaching and management’. (p. 454) She explains that schools deemed to be success-ful will be able to attract a significant number of pupils who are both high attainingand undemanding, will be adequately resourced and will be in a position to attracttalented teachers. As a result morale will be relatively high and teachers will be in aposition to focus their attention on developing imaginative curricula. On the otherhand, in so called ‘failing’ schools, pupils will be more demanding of teachers ‘phys-ically, emotionally and intellectually’. School discussions are likely to be hijacked bybehavioural and resource-related issues and morale is likely to be lower with insuffi-cient resources to develop imaginative schemes of work, classroom materials andpedagogical practices.

Our data would lend some weight to Gewirtz’s conclusions. Secondary school prin-cipals and senior managers have argued that their schools are disadvantaged vis-à-visgrammar schools and all pointed to the inherent unfairness of the current system ofselection - problems that have been exacerbated since the 1989 education reforms.These included the higher regard that they believed parents accorded to grammarschools and the fact that grammar schools were able to select all of their pupils on thebasis of academic achievement. These schools have also been adversely affected byopen enrolment through a decline in the overall ability profile of their pupil intake,often combined with a decline in numbers and the financial pressures this brings. Asthe evidence has shown all of the changes that have occurred have placed theseschools under considerable pressure. The concentration of lower ability pupils,combined with a much higher concentration of pupils from socially disadvantagedbackgrounds than one would find in grammar schools, have left many secondaryschools coping with a much more demanding and, in some cases, a much more diffi-cult, cohort of pupils.

1

Of necessity new approaches and practices have had to bedevised and used. At the same time some of the most innovative practices were foundamong secondary schools such as the mechanisms for information gathering andmonitoring which were described in some detail earlier in this paper. Moreover, manysecondary principals talked about, and commended their staff for the diversity ofteaching and learning strategies that they were able to use as they continuously soughtto cater for the diverse and changing needs of the pupil body.

Senior staff in secondary schools were also firm in their belief that in terms of ‘valueadded’, given the ability profiles of their intakes, they achieved more than their coun-terparts in grammar schools, and yet they perceived that they were neither given suffi-cient recognition nor credit for these achievements. Overarching all of this was aconcern that while the schools were trying to meet a series of different targets simul-taneously, the only ones that mattered in the eyes of the public were academic criteria.This has been reinforced by School Performance Tables that have focused attention

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

180


on a specific set of indicators of the worth of a school. For their part, senior staff ingrammar schools also talked about the considerable pressures they were under whichwere discussed primarily in terms of achieving results, particularly at ‘A’ level. Ourevidence, however, suggests that grammar schools are much better placed to focus onhigh academic attainment and are in a position to plan to this end.

There was therefore a clear sense that many in the secondary schools feel the systemconstrains them to the extent that, while they are under constant pressure to improvetheir performance, the context within which they are required to work gets steadilymore difficult. These are not conditions that are conducive to forward planning, nordo they facilitate strategies for improvement. The evidence presented also suggeststhat despite the diversity in mission among the schools due to the institutional differ-entiation created by the selective system, competition through open enrolment hasled to a narrowed sense of value in educational outcomes. The desirable outcome forall schools has focused on a specific set of attainment indicators. In order to try andattract pupils, secondary schools felt obliged to orient themselves towards this indica-tor even though they were very much worse positioned to do so, vis-à-vis the grammarschools. Diversity in purpose, in other words, is constrained by competition and openenrolment, not enabled by it.

The main reason this occurs is because of the interdependence that exists betweenschools in an educational system. This perhaps implies a higher level of relationshipbetween the schools than simply that they affect each other locally. In the NorthernIreland example the interdependencies operate between schools in a local area, butalso at a systemic level in terms of the policy frameworks that establish the conditionswithin which the schools operate. Clearly this has implications for school improve-ment strategies that assume that schools operate as largely autonomous units, withthe potential to engage in self-improvement almost regardless of their context. In thisrespect, this evidence from the rather idiosyncratic system still operated in NorthernIreland has relevance to other education systems which involve parental choice and/or competition between schools as it underlines the importance of the interdependentrelationships that exist between schools. Moreover, it emphasizes the need to takeaccount of these interdependencies in the determination and application of policiesfor change.

Acknowledgements

We would like to place on record our thanks to the school principals, senior managers,heads of departments, teachers and students we interviewed. As will be appreciated,the demands placed on the schools that agreed to participate as case study schoolswere considerable. We were, and remain, most grateful for this co-operation.

Once the research on the effects of selection was published the Minister of Educa-tion established a Post Primary Review Body to bring forward recommendations onthe future organization of schools. The report of the Review Body (Post PrimaryReview Body, 2001) recommended an end to academic selection in the transfer ofpupils from primary to post-primary school, the establishment of a system of formative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014


181

assessment to operate across the years of compulsory education and the creation ofcollaborating collegiates of post-primary schools. The third recommendation wasbased on the notion that schools operated in interdependent relationships with oneanother, but sought to create a context within which this interdependence operatedto encourage co-operation rather than competition. In April 2003 the Department ofEducation announced the establishment of working group to consider responses tothe consultation on the Post Primary Review Body recommendations. This workinggroup reported in November 2003 and its report was published at the end of January2004. The report recommended,

inter alia

, greater collaboration between schools andFE colleges and an end to the transfer procedure by no later than Autumn 2008. Theserecommendations have been accepted in full.

Notes on contributors

Dr Grainne Byrne is a lecturer in the School of Business, Retail and FinancialServices at the University of Ulster. Her main research interests lie in the area ofeducation management and policy and she has been involved in a number ofprojects that have investigated aspects of education reform and selection inNorthern Ireland.

Tony Gallagher is a Professor of Education at Queen’s University Belfast. Between1998 and 2000 he co-directed the research project on the effects of the selectivesystem of secondary education in Northern Ireland and, from 2000 to 2002, heacted as an academic adviser to the Post Primary Review Group.

Note

1. Comparative research in Scotland suggests that some social differentiation will occur in acomprehensive system (Gallagher & McKeown, 2000), but the selective arrangements in North-ern Ireland appear to create particular difficulties for some schools by combining social differen-tiation with ability differentiation.

References

Alexander, J., Daly, P., Gallagher, A., Gray, C. & Sutherland, A. (1998)

An evaluation of theCraigavon two-tier system

(Bangor, Department of Education).Ascher, C. (1992)

Successful detracking in middle and senior high schools.

ERIC/CUE Digest Number82 (ED351426).

Boaler, J. (1997) Setting, social class and survival of the quickest,

British Educational Research Jour-nal,

23(5), 575–595.Boaler, J., Wiliam, D. & Brown, M. (2000) Students’ experiences of ability grouping – disaffec-

tion, polarisation and the construction of failure,

British Educational Research Journal,

26(5),631–648.

Brewer, D. J., Rees, D. I. & Argys, L. M. (1995) Detracking America’s schools: the reform withoutcost?

Phi Delta Kappan,

77(3), 210–215.Burnett, G. (1995)

Alternative to ability grouping: still unanswered questions.

ERIC/CUE DigestNumber 111 (ED390947).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

182


Byrne, G. & McKeown, P. (2000) Learning to Manage Spending: Experiences of Schools inNorthern Ireland,

Oxford Review of Education,

26(2), 159–174.Coe, R. & Taylor Fitz-Gibbon, C. (1998) School effectiveness research: criticisms and recommen-

dations,


24(4), 421–438.Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F. & York, R.

(1966)

Equality of educational opportunity

(Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office).Davenport, L. R. (1993)

The effects of homogeneous groupings in mathematics

. ERIC/CUE Digest(ED359065).

Edmonds, R. (1979) Effective schools for the urban poor,

Educational Leadership,

37(1), 15–27.Elliot, J. (1996) School effectiveness research and its critics: alternative visions of schooling,

Cambridge Journal of Education,

26(2), 199–224.Gallagher, T. (1997)

Educational achievement and gender: a review of research evidence on the apparentunderachievement of boys.

Research Report No.6 (Bangor, Department of Education for North-ern Ireland).

Gallagher, T. (1998) Gender and achievement: evidence from Northern Ireland,

InternationalJournal of Inclusive Education,

2(2), 155–168.Gallagher, T., Shuttleworth, I. & Gray, C. (1998)

Improving schools in Northern Ireland

. ResearchMonograph No 7 (Belfast, Northern Ireland Economic Council).

Gallagher, T. & McKeown, E. (2000) Case study schools in Northern Ireland and Scotland.Research Paper SEL9.2, in:

The effects of the selective system of secondary education in NorthernIreland,

Volume 2 (Bangor, Department of Education).Gallagher, T. & Smith, A. (2000)

The effects of the selective system of secondary education in NorthernIreland

(Main Report) (Bangor, Department of Education).Gewirtz, S. (1998) Can all schools be successful? An exploration of the determinants of school

‘success’,


24(4), 439–457.Gibson, A. & Asthana, S. (1998a) School performance, school effectiveness and the 1997 White

Paper,


24(4), 195–210.Gibson, A. & Asthana, S. (1998b) Schools, pupils and examination results: contextualising school

‘performance’,

British Educational Research Journal,

24(3), 269–282.Goldstein, H. & Woodhouse, G. (2000) School effectiveness research and education policy,


26(3/4), 353–363.Hallam, S. & Toutounji, I. (1996)

What do we know about the grouping of pupils by ability? A researchreview

(London, Institute of Education).Hamilton, D. (1997) Peddling feel good fictions, in: J. White & M. Barber (Eds)

Perspectives on schooleffectiveness and school improvement (London, Institute of Education, Bedford Way Papers).

Hamilton, D. (1998) The idols of the market place, in: R. Slee, G. Weiner, S. Tomlinson (Eds)School effectiveness for whom: challenges to the school effectiveness and school improvement move-ments (London, Falmer Press).

Harlen, W. & Malcolm, H. (1997) What the research says about ability groups and setting. (Scotland,SCRE) (Originally published in SCRE newsletter and presented at Strathclyde Universityconference on Differentiation S1 to S4: the ways forward, May, 1997).

Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. (1999) Raising standards: is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review ofEducation, 25(3), 343–358.

Jencks, C. S., Smith, M., Ackland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B. & Michol-son, S. (1972) Inequality: a re-assessment of the effect of family and schooling in America (NewYork, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).

Kulik, C. L. & Kulik, J. A. (1982) Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: a meta-analysis of evaluation findings, American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415–428.

Kulik, J. A. & Kulik, C. L. (1984) Effects of accelerated instruction on students, Review of Educa-tional Research, 54, 409–425.

Kulik, J. A. & Kulik, C. L. (1987) Effects of ability grouping on student achievement, Equity andExcellence, 23, 22–30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Systemic factors in school improvement 183

Lockwood, J. H. & Cleveland, E. F. (1998) The challenge of detracking: finding the balance betweenexcellence and equity. ERIC Database. Available online at: http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/npinpdfs/detracking.pdf

Loveless, T. (1998) The tracking and ability grouping debate (Washington, DC, Thomas B FordhamFoundation).

Lynn, L. & Wheelock, A. (Eds) (1997) Special issue on detracking, Harvard Education Letter,13(1).

Morley, L. & Rassool, N. (2000) School effectiveness: new managerialism, quality and theJapanization of education, Journal of Education Policy, l5(2), 169–183.

Mortimore, P. (1991) The front page or yesterday’s news, in: G. Walford (Ed.) Doing educationalresearch (London, Routledge).

Mortimore, P. (2000) Does educational research matter? British Journal of Educational Research,26(1), 5–24.

Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. & Ecob, R. (1988) School matters: the junior years(Wells, Open Books).

Mortimore, P. & Whitty, G. (1997) Can school improvement overcome the effects of disadvantage?(London, Institute of Education).

Oakes, J. (1985) Keeping track: how schools structure inequality (New Haven, CT, Yale UniversityPress).

Oakes, J. (1998) Ability grouping and tracking in schools, in: T. Husen, T. N. Postlethwaite, B. R.Clark & G. R. Neave (Eds) Education: the complete encyclopedia, CD ROM. (London, ElsevierScience).

Post Primary Review Body (2001) Education for the 21st century (Bangor, Department of Educa-tion).

Reynolds, D. (1982) The search for effective schools, School Organisation, 2(3), 215–237.Riddell, S. & Brown, S. (1991) School effectiveness: establishing the link with research, in: S.

Riddell & S. Brown (Eds) School effectiveness research: its message for school improvement (Edin-burgh, HMSO).

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. & Ouston, J. (1979) Fifteen thousand hours: secondaryschools and their effects on children (London, Open Books).

Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995) Key characteristics of effective schools: a review ofschool effectiveness research. Report commissioned for the Office for Standards in Education(London, Institute of Education and OFSTED).

Sammons, P. & Reynolds, D. (1997) A Partisan Evaluation – John Elliott on School Effectiveness,Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 123–136.

Shuttleworth, I. & Daly, P. (2000) The pattern of performance at GCSE, Research Paper SEL3.1,in: The effects of the selective system of secondary education in Northern Ireland, Volume 1 (Bangor,Department of Education).

Slavin, R. E. (1990a) Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: a best-evidence synthesis, Review of Educational Research, 57, 347–350.

Slavin, R. E. (1990b) Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: a best evidencesynthesis, Review of Educational Research, 60, 471–499.

Stoll, L. & Mortimore, P. (1997) School effectiveness and school improvement, in: J. White & M.Barber (Eds) Perspectives on school effectiveness and school improvement (London, Institute ofEducation, Bedford Way Papers).

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995) Gifted learners and the middle school: problem or promise? ERIC DigestE535 (ED386832).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

39 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

systemic factors in school improvement

Documents