This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]

On: 07 October 2014, At: 19:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

School Effectiveness and School

Improvement: An International Journal
of Research, Policy and Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nses20

A comprehensive framework for

effective school improvement
a b
Gerry J. Reezigt & Bert P. M. Creemers
a
Inspectorate of Education , Groningen, The Netherlands
b
GION, Groningen Institute for Educational Research , University
of Groningen , The Netherlands
Published online: 16 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Gerry J. Reezigt & Bert P. M. Creemers (2005) A comprehensive framework
for effective school improvement, School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International
Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 16:4, 407-424, DOI: 10.1080/09243450500235200

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243450500235200

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement
Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2005, pp. 407 – 424

A Comprehensive Framework
for Effective School Improvement
Gerry J. Reezigta* and Bert P. M. Creemersb
a
Inspectorate of Education, Groningen, The Netherlands, bGION, Groningen Institute for
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

Educational Research, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

The comprehensive framework was developed in the Effective School Improvement Project.
The initial framework was based on an analysis of a range of theories and an additional analysis of
case studies in the field of school improvement. A revision took place after an analytic confrontation
of the initial framework with successful improvement projects. Also, country conferences for
groups of researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers contributed to the revised version of the
framework. The framework builds on earlier work in the field of school effectiveness and school
improvement.

Introduction
In this article, we present the comprehensive framework for effective school
improvement as it was developed in the Effective School Improvement (ESI) Project
(Reezigt, 2001). In the development of the framework, the first stage was to define a
draft version of a framework on the basis of a theoretical analysis. The main steps in
this analysis are described by Scheerens and Demeuse (this issue). The framework
was elaborated using an analysis of improvement projects in each of the ESI project
countries (Wikeley, Stoll, Murillo, and De Jong, this issue). The final version was
refined on the basis of an analysis of successful internationally acknowledged
improvement projects (De Jong, Demeuse, Denooz, & Reezigt, 2001), and the
experiential knowledge gathered from practitioner conferences held in each of the
ESI project countries (see Creemers & Reezigt, this issue).
Because of the major differences between countries, especially in their educational
contexts, it was virtually impossible to draw a general model that would act as an

*Corresponding author. Inspectorate of Education, P.O. Box 706, 9700 AS Groningen, The
Netherlands. Email: G.Reezigt@owinsp.nl
ISSN 0924-3453 (print)/ISSN 1744-5124 (online)/05/040407–18
Ó 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09243450500235200
 408 G. J. Reezigt and B. P. M. Creemers

explanation of success or failure of improvement efforts and be applicable in all ESI

countries. We therefore decided to use the term ‘‘comprehensive framework’’ instead
of ‘‘model’’. Although we succeeded in defining and describing a set of factors at the
various levels of each educational system that are related to effective school
improvement in most countries (at least in some way), it was hard to isolate factors
that worked in exactly the same way in all countries, even at an abstract level. Even
when the factors were common, their influence varied from (very) positive to (very)
negative. In addition, there were also large differences between schools within
countries which added to the difficulty in creating a common model. For example,
improvement may be a different process for successful and failing schools (Stoll &
Fink, 1998). Moreover, the empirical evidence that we found for the factors that
constitute effective or ineffective school improvement could not be considered in any
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

way conclusive. However, we feel that the framework (see Figure 1) offers exactly
that—a framework within which effective school improvement can be developed or
explained. We do not pretend that the concepts used in the framework are new.
Instead, the main innovation that the framework offers is the combination of earlier
concepts from the often separated fields of school effectiveness and school
improvement (see e.g., Brown, Duffield, & Riddell, 1995; Dalin, 1994; MacBeath
& Mortimore, 2001; Reynolds, 1996; Stoll, 1999; Stoll & Fink, 1996). The com-
bination of factors enables countries to analyse their own improvement processes in
the light of effectiveness theories and vice versa. In this article, we outline the main
concepts, the factors implicit in those concepts, and also their interrelationship. More
detailed information about the framework and its originating history in the ESI
project can be found in Reezigt (2001) and in the articles preceding this final article.

Figure 1. Comprehensive framework for effective school improvement

 A Comprehensive Framework for Effective School Improvement 409

The framework shows that the concept of an improving school is firmly embedded
in the educational context of a country. School improvement can never be studied
separately from that educational context. This is indicated by the interrupted line
around the improving school. The improving school is always confronted with
contextual concepts such as pressure to improve, resources for improvement, and
educational goals. Even when schools can freely decide their own improvement
outcomes, these will always have to be in concordance with wider educational goals
determined by that context. The importance of context is obviously highlighted by
internationally comparative studies, but it can also be an influence at a local level and
therefore needs to be incorporated in all intracountry studies of effective school
improvement.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

Context Factors
The research identified three factors relating to context (see Lagerweij, 2001; Sun,
2003). At the start of improvement processes, the pressure to improve is the most
important contextual factor. Resources are the second context factor as school
improvement can only take place within the resource constraint of any given context.
Finally, the improvement outcomes for an individual school will always have to be in
line with the educational goals set by the context (see Table 1).

Pressure to Improve
Ideally, schools (as organisational units) define their own improvement needs, design
their improvement efforts, and evaluate them as to whether those needs have been
met. Theories about schools as learning organisations often depict this kind of
improvement (i.e., learning) process. In practice, however, schools often need some
form of external pressure to start improving. This pressure can be beneficial (i.e., a
positive influence) for schools able to do that, but it can be damaging (i.e., a negative

Table 1. Factors within the main contextual concepts of the framework

Pressure to improve Resources/support for improvement Educational goals

. Market mechanisms . Autonomy granted to schools . Formal educational goals in

terms of student outcomes
. External evaluation . Financial resources and favourable
and accountability daily working conditions
. External agents . Local support
. Participation of society
in education/societal
changes/educational
policies which
stimulate change
 410 G. J. Reezigt and B. P. M. Creemers

influence) for schools that do not have the skills to initiate change, especially if they
do not receive adequate support. The research identified four factors which constitute
pressure to improve:

. market mechanisms;
. external evaluation and accountability;
. external agents;
. the participation of society in education and societal changes.

Market mechanisms. The influence of market mechanisms varied between the ESI
countries. They were and still are a controversial factor and much debated (Cuban,
2003). In many of the countries, market mechanisms were either absent or not
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

considered a positive influence. In other countries, market mechanisms (e.g.,

freedom of school choice for parents and students, involvement of the community in
what happens in schools) created competition between schools. Competition is likely
to intensify the need to present a good image to potential customers and, as a
consequence, this can be the stimulus for school improvement.
Although market mechanisms do not automatically lead to better quality schools
(in fact the effect can be the opposite), they can offer an impetus for change. In the
United Kingdom, for example, there is a strong climate of pressure to improve
through competition for funding based on open-enrolment in schools and the type of
information (school performance tables) available to parents in the process of making
a choice. Although the pressure to improve can be too high for some schools, it was
found to be an incentive for many schools to focus on teaching and learning issues. In
The Netherlands there is an ongoing debate as to whether there is a real educational
market. There are no sanctions for underperforming schools and parents and
students do not act as consumers, most of the time choosing local schools.
However, parents have a free choice of school which would suggest that there is a
market. For example, market mechanisms are held responsible for the division in
‘‘black’’ (mainly immigrant students) and ‘‘white’’ schools (mainly Dutch students)
in the big cities, that is seen as a negative influence on the quality of education from
an equity point of view.

External evaluation and accountability. External evaluation is usually based on student

outcomes. When schools are held accountable for student outcomes, and especially
when outcomes are openly published, schools are often more or less ‘‘forced’’ to start
improvement efforts. When a school can formally expect sanctions for poor student
outcomes, improvement initiatives are imposed by a higher authority as the ultimate
sanction can be the closing down of a school. Although this has the effect of making
schools embark on school improvement processes it can also lower staff morale if they
perceive the evaluation process as being unfair.
However, in some of the ESI countries evaluation was not based on student
outcomes. In Finland, external evaluation is widely considered necessary and
favourable. According to new school laws and regulations, schools and other
 A Comprehensive Framework for Effective School Improvement 411

educational institutions are expected to evaluate their functions and processes.

Feedback for improvement is seen as part of that process. In Italy, teachers are not
used to being evaluated on the basis of student outcomes but only on processes. In
Greece, there is no formal external evaluation system although schools can be judged
to some extent by their success rates in the university entry examinations.

External agents. In some countries, schools may also be pushed towards improvement
by suggestions from external agents such as inspectors, policy-makers, educational
consultants, or researchers. Such bodies can be ideologically driven and recently
improvement efforts have come about in many countries that reflect ideas about
school effectiveness or constructivist learning. Sometimes these ideas have been
integrated into educational laws or standards that schools are supposed to meet.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

In the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Spain, government agents such as
the national inspectorate can exert pressure on schools to improve. In The
Netherlands, schools may also voluntarily hire external agents such as school
counsellors. Their perspective is obviously external but as their jobs partly depend on
the budget of the school how far they can influence improvement activities is
debatable.
The picture is more complex in those countries with very centralised systems. In
Portugal, teachers do not see external agents as important, although inspectors and
researchers think otherwise about their roles. Italian teachers are not comfortable with
external agents, who are perceived as outsiders trying to invade the school. In Greece,
there are no inspectors but the Ministry of Education is the main external agent who
designs and initiates improvement efforts.
However, the stability of educational policies is important in this respect too. As
discussed above, school improvement can be promoted by educational policies that
exert external pressure on schools to change. But, when educational policies change
too rapidly, schools can experience ‘‘initiative overload’’, which can be counter-
productive. Therefore, some stability in educational policies seems necessary unless
schools are to struggle with an imbalance between measures that reflect centralisation
and measures that reflect principles of decentralisation.

Participation of society in education and societal changes. The influence of society on

school improvement is also a factor which constitutes pressure to improve. The
essential goals of education, for example, are established by the society at large and
these can change when the society changes. This can be seen especially clearly in
vocational education, which is most affected by the requirements of the economic life
in trade and industry. Economic growth will influence schools as well as economic
recession. Whilst some of these effects may be indirect, the expectations of the
parents represent the influence of the society in a more direct way. The development
of information and communication technology (ICT) has not only altered teaching
methods, but also the wider goals of education.
In Belgium (French Community), general educational objectives and common
competencies given for all schools, are set by law. In the United Kingdom,
 412 G. J. Reezigt and B. P. M. Creemers

globalisation issues, which focus on the need for a better skilled workforce, have led to
benchmarking and target setting. In Portugal, general goals, centrally determined, are
seen as social expectations for schools.

Resources
In order to make school improvement effective, the resources made available by the
educational context are very important. Without these, schools are likely to
experience difficulties in their improvement efforts. Resources can be material,
but there are also other resources (or support) that may be essential for effective
school improvement. The identified factors that together constitute the concept of
resources are:
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

. autonomy granted to schools;

. financial resources and favourable daily working conditions for teachers and
schools;
. local support.

Autonomy granted to schools. The school improvement literature shows that at least
some autonomy is favourable for the success of improvement efforts. For example, an
improvement project developed outside the school and merely imposed upon it is
likely to fail unless it is tailored to fit the school’s needs. Even when some
implementation occurs, consolidation of improvement is not likely unless the initiative
is specific to the school’s needs. The extent of the autonomy of schools can relate to
several domains: educational goals (what to teach), educational means (how to teach),
organisation (including hiring and firing of personnel, management, and administra-
tion), and finances. There is some evidence that full autonomy in all these domains
does not necessarily promote improvement but the absence of autonomy in all
domains will inevitably lead to failure. Most ESI countries underline the importance of
autonomy, although the autonomy of individual schools varies strongly.

Financial resources and favourable daily working conditions of teachers and schools. The
improvement efforts of schools are heavily influenced by the daily working conditions
of teachers and schools. With sufficient financial resources and time, improvement
will succeed more easily. An important factor is also the number of available teachers.
When there is barely enough personnel for daily routines, improvement efforts will
easily be suppressed. The daily workload of teachers, defined by their number of
teaching hours and the size of classes, influences their motivation to be involved in
improvement initiatives.
In Finland, teacher unions can strongly promote or hinder improvement efforts, as
they can support staff stability and reduce the workload for teachers. This is also true
of budgets for educational means, the recruitment (or lack of recruitment) of
teachers, and the existence of national improvement projects. In The Netherlands,
the reduction of class size, especially in the lower grades of primary education, is
 A Comprehensive Framework for Effective School Improvement 413

supposed to enhance school improvement whilst in Portugal teacher career structures

and in-service training needs can be key variables in the success of improvement
initiatives.

Local support. Local support can be very important for effective school improvement.
While national support often sets the background for improvement, local support can
influence the efforts of schools much more directly. Local support includes the wider
community of the school, the parents of school students, district officials, school
administrations, and school boards.

Educational Goals
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

Although schools tend to set specific goals for improvement, the context generally
sets the wider educational goals and all improvement efforts have to fit within these.
For some countries, these nationally set goals form a broad framework, whereas for
others they are detailed and prescriptive. For example, in The Netherlands, core goals
for each school subject are defined for primary and secondary education. These give
expected student outcomes and occasionally ways of teaching. The government in the
United Kingdom sets national-, district-, and school-level targets in core subject
areas. Greece has detailed national goals for all schools, elaborated in a national
curriculum and centrally prescribed textbooks for school subjects.

School Factors
The central place of the school in the comprehensive framework is based on
effectiveness and improvement theories and research, which have shown that effective
improvement requires school-level processes (see also various publications of the
International School Improvement Project (ISIP), e.g., Cuban, 1998; Hopkins,
Ainscow, & West, 1994; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000; Van Velzen, Miles, Ekholm,
Hameyer, & Robin, 1985). Teachers are considered an essential lever of change,
because change is explicit in their classrooms and daily practices, but for effective
school improvement individual teacher initiatives are not enough. Teachers can
succeed in achieving major changes in their classrooms with strong effects on student
outcomes, but they cannot be expected to have a lasting impact on the school as an
organisation. Improvement efforts initiated by one teacher will generally disappear
(for example when the teacher changes schools) unless the school as an organisation
sustains the efforts. This important notion is problematic for educational systems that
have no strong tradition of school-level improvement, even when teacher improve-
ment activities may occur.
However, we are not arguing that all improvement activities necessarily concern
all members of a school staff. In practice, this will not happen very often, or it will
only happen in small schools. Improvement efforts in secondary education or in
larger primary schools often concern specific departments or other subsets of
school staff. In that case, we assume that the factors for the departments or groups
 414 G. J. Reezigt and B. P. M. Creemers

of teachers will be essentially the same as the factors that we have depicted in the
framework for the school. For reasons of convenience, however, we will use the
term ‘‘school level’’. Implications for teachers will be mentioned from this
perspective.
At the school level, the research in the ESI project identified three concepts
(see Table 2):

. improvement culture;
. improvement processes;
. improvement outcomes.

These concepts appear to be the key elements of the improving school. The culture
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

can be viewed as the background against which processes are taking place and the
outcomes are the goals of those processes. All three are interrelated and constantly
influence each other. The culture influences not only the choice of processes, but also
the choice of outcomes. The chosen outcomes will influence the choice of processes
but their success or failure can also change the culture of the school. The outcomes will
also depend on the successful implementation of the processes. These interrelation-
ships highlight the cyclical nature of effective school improvement that is one that has
no clearly marked beginning or end. The individual factors (see Table 2) therefore
have to be seen within the overarching framework of these concepts (improvement
culture, processes, and outcomes).

Table 2. Factors within the main school concepts of the framework

Improvement culture Improvement processes Improvement outcomes

. Internal pressure to improve . Assessment of improvement . Changes in the quality

needs of the school
. Autonomy used by schools . Diagnosis of improvement . Changes in the quality
needs of the teachers
. Shared vision . Phrasing of detailed . Changes in the quality
improvement goals of student outcomes
(knowledge, skills, and
attitudes)
. Willingness to become a learning . Planning of improvement
organisation/a reflective practitioner activities
. Training and collegial collaboration . Implementation of
improvement plans
. Improvement history . Evaluation
. Ownership of improvement, . Reflection
commitment, and motivation
. Leadership
. Staff stability
. Time for improvement
 A Comprehensive Framework for Effective School Improvement 415

Improvement Culture
Schools with a favourable culture for improvement will start and continue
improvement efforts more easily than schools that constantly try to avoid change
and are fearful of improvement. The improvement culture can be considered
the foundation of all improvement processes in the school. The research identified
nine factors as contributing to the improvement culture of a school:

. internal pressure to improve;

. autonomy used by schools;
. shared vision;
. willingness to become a learning organisation;
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

. improvement history;
. ownership;
. leadership;
. staff stability;
. time.

Internal pressure to improve. Schools can sometimes be forced into improvement by

their educational context, as we have described earlier, and a multinational study by
Rosenblatt (2004) shows that most changes are initiated by governments rather than
schools. However, schools (or groups of teachers) can also decide on their own that
they want to improve and the internal pressure to improve can be described as the
momentum within the school that feeds any potential improvement. For example,
schools may discover that their teaching procedures are no longer suitable for their
students, or that they want to improve the outcomes of students in a particular
subject. In this case, the pressure to improve and the motivation for improvement
mainly comes from within the school.

Autonomy used by schools. Earlier we stated that the educational context should grant
schools some autonomy in order to carry out improvement. This implies, however,
that schools use that freedom in improvement processes. Although this seems a
logical step, in practice it is not. Sometimes schools are not aware of the possibilities
or they simply do not use their powers fully. Even if the autonomy is there, the
perception can be that change is imposed. This is also true for teachers (Wikeley,
1998). When improvement activities are merely forced upon them by the senior staff,
implementation may not occur or will only be rudimentary. Therefore, it is essential
that teachers can participate in decision-making processes with regard to school
improvement.
In the United Kingdom, schools that successfully implement change are those that
have the capacity to work creatively within the parameters set by the external goals
and to adapt those goals to meet their own purposes. Portuguese schools, however,
although they have gained some autonomy, are not used to seeing themselves as
autonomous units and act accordingly. Greek schools formally have no autonomy
 416 G. J. Reezigt and B. P. M. Creemers

although in practice there is wide variation in the way public schools function, due to
lack of supervision and control. However, where improvement processes happen it is
more as the result of individual teacher’s initiatives than planned action at the school
level. Private schools are more likely to see themselves as autonomous units due to the
managerial role assumed by the owner/head teacher.

Shared vision. A shared vision within the school clarifies which goals the school is
trying to achieve and in what way they do so, and which values are promoted or
rejected. Without a clearly stated vision, schools cannot explain to others what they
stand for. Also, they cannot identify which elements in the school do not match the
vision and, consequently, which need to be changed or improved.
Preferably, the vision of the school is developed in consultation with parents and
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

students and shared by them. This is an accepted way in The Netherlands, where
many improvement initiatives put the development of a shared vision at the forefront.
But in Portugal the autonomy of teachers in their classrooms does not allow for the
development of a shared vision. Similarly, the school as a discrete organisation that
has a vision is not a concept that fits the current Greek situation especially in the
public sector.

Willingness to become a learning organisation. A major factor of school culture that

favours improvement is the willingness to become (or stay) a learning organisation.
This factor emerged from the theoretical analysis but was not matched in the
empirical data in most of the ESI countries. Schools that are not reflective are not
likely to become improving. In such schools, activities such as staff training and
development will be rare. Schools that accept change as a regular part of life
show more characteristics of a learning organisation and will feel the need to improve
more quickly. These schools can be considered flexible and are able to adjust to
change (Rosenblatt, 2004). In-service training and professional development will be
regarded as standard activities for the school staff as learning organisations cannot
function without personnel who are convinced of the need for continuous
professional development. Therefore improving schools need teachers who are
willing to become reflective practitioners as it is important that teachers who are
involved in improvement perceive themselves as learners. For improvement to be
successful, teachers need to be willing to participate in training, development, and
collaboration with other teachers (Hargreaves, 1993; Timperley & Robinson, 1998).
The empirical data showed that in most of the ESI countries teachers still mainly
work independently of each other rather than in collaborative teams.

Improvement history. Schools that have already been successful in bringing about
change are more likely to embark on further improvement efforts. Schools that have
no history of improvement processes find it hard to know where to start. For example,
in Spain, there is no tradition of schools improving themselves. In Greece,
improvements are designed at the central level and passed on to schools in the
form of school reform, in the assumption that they are equally applicable to all
 A Comprehensive Framework for Effective School Improvement 417

schools. However, schools do not have a history of implementing improvement

programmes designed to meet particular needs at the school level.

Ownership. Ownership of school improvement refers to a feeling amongst school stake-

holders that improvement is needed and that the planned activities are the right activities
for that school. Ownership will be more common in schools that are able to influence or
fully define the focus and the type of improvement that they engage in (Fullan, 1994;
Sarason, 1995). Improvement will be very hard when the school does not feel the
necessity to start and continue improving. Ownership issues are strongly related to issues
of commitment and the motivation of the school staff. Teachers must feel motivated and
committed to the improvement plans if they are to be successful. Alternatively, creating a
feeling of shared commitment can be the starting point for an improvement process.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

Ownership is obviously more likely where schools have some autonomy but even
where schools have a great deal of autonomy, as in The Netherlands, in practice
improvement sometimes starts before ownership has been established. This is
because decisions about improvement are often taken by people other than those who
implement the improvement activities. In the countries with more centralised
systems, for example Portugal, even schools with an improvement history do not
really feel that they have ownership of improvement processes.

Leadership. Without good leadership, improvement efforts are unlikely to succeed

(Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Reynolds, Creemers, Stringfield, Teddlie, & Schaffer 2002).
Often the school principal is seen as the most appropriate leader, but this depends on his or
her professional role. Sometimes the school culture simply does not allow for a strong
leader who clearly guides the other staff members. This may be the case in countries where
the relationship between the principal and teachers is based on equality and collegiality
rather than functional hierarchical differences: for example, in Spain, where school
principals are elected by the school staff. In such circumstances, teachers may not easily
accept clear directions from the principal. However, where the principal is the natural
leader of the staff and where it works well, he or she can inspire staff to work collectively
towards successful improvement. It is important therefore that at least one person
(although it can be a group of people) is qualified to take the lead in improvement efforts of
the school and have a core role in the change process. Involvement of teachers and middle
managers in leadership may be important for improvement successes (Muijs, Harris,
Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2004), but where leadership by the principal is not an obvious
concept, for example in Belgium (French Community), Portugal, Italy, and Greece,
where teachers are rather isolated and principals mainly have an administrative role,
implementing improvement is often problematic. In these countries, not only leadership
by the principal is absent but teacher leadership as well.

Staff stability. Another key factor identified in the research was staff stability,
although this can have a positive or negative effect. Some stability in the staff is
necessary when schools are improving (Doolaard, 1999). It is not only inefficient but
also often rather useless to start improving when the continuity of the improvement
 418 G. J. Reezigt and B. P. M. Creemers

efforts is at stake because of high staff turnover. However, a completely static staff
turnover can also act as a block to improvement efforts. For example, Finnish
teachers felt that staff stability may promote improvement through the introduction of
new ideas that facilitate improvement initiatives but hinder improvement when a key
member of staff leaving may mean that a particular initiative is not fully implemented.
Teachers in the United Kingdom also stressed the need for a balance between new
and more established staff. In the Greek public school sector, staff stability is a
problem, because teachers are allocated to schools by the central administration and
are often moved. In the private school sector staff turnover is more stable, as the
school itself is responsible for hiring personnel.

Time. One factor that came out very clearly in the research was the need for schools to
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

grant all members of staff involved in improvement activities some additional time for
consultations with colleagues or external agents. Improvement should be considered
a professional task that simply cannot depend on the goodwill and spare time of the
school staff (Reezigt & De Jong, 2001). This was apparent in Belgium (French
Community), where there are opportunities for staff to be involved in professional
training sessions but no cover is provided for teachers, which causes difficulties for
the school organisation. In the United Kingdom, there is concern that the pressure
exerted on teachers by national policy changes has a negative effect on the
implementation of school initiated improvement.

Improvement Processes
Some schools perceive improvement as a discrete event. Whenever a problem arises,
it is addressed, but after that business goes on as usual. These schools hold a static
view of improvement. More dynamic schools will consider improvement as an
ongoing process and as a part of everyday life. Improvement efforts are continuous,
cyclical by nature, and embedded in a wider process of overall school development
and might be referred to as such.
Although improvement processes will rarely move neatly from one phase to the
next, there are clearly identifiable stages in all successful improvement processes.
These stages may overlap or return repeatedly before the full cycle of improvement is
at its end. Planning, for example, will often not be a one-off activity that takes place
relatively early in the improvement process, but plans will be constantly returned to
and adapted on a continuous basis. This is especially so for complex improvement
efforts that involve many staff members.
The research identified five factors/stages of the improvement process:

. assessment of improvement needs;

. diagnosis of improvement needs and setting of detailed goals;
. planning of improvement activities;
. implementation;
. evaluation and reflection.
 A Comprehensive Framework for Effective School Improvement 419

Assessment of improvement needs. The cycle of improvement processes starts with a

phase of needs assessment. Before a school can start improving, it must be clear why
improvement is required in the first place and what is the starting point for this
school. Such an assessment can be made by representatives of the school (self-
diagnosis, self-assessment) or by external agents in the form of an audit. The
assessment phase ends when a diagnosis of the problems that need to be solved is
delivered. Improvement processes that are mandated by the educational context, for
example the state, also need this phase in order to assess how the specific needs of the
school can be best met.

Diagnosis of improvement needs and setting of detailed goals. The next phase involves
agreeing the detailed goals that the school wants the process to achieve. General
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

goals (e.g., higher achievement of students, a better attitude of students, or the

introduction of information technology in the school) must be broken down
into more detailed targets. These can function as support for the persons
involved in the improvement efforts by giving indicators of success, for example
student outcomes or school and teacher characteristics, that will promote such
outcomes.

Planning of improvement activities. The third phase is the planning of the improvement
activities. In this phase, decisions need to be made about:

. time needed for activities;

. priorities and therefore the order of activities (tackling visible issues first,
especially when the improvement undertaken is very complex);
. strategies that will be applied (such as in-service training for teachers, professional
courses outside the school, or coaching by colleagues);
. the (possible) involvement of external agents and what the specific roles and tasks
of these agents might be;
. which members of staff will be actively involved and what the division of tasks will
be;
. the role and authority of staff actively involved in the improvement efforts,
which prevents any misunderstanding about roles and power relations in the
school;
. the use of incentives (will there be specific rewards for persons involved in the
improvement efforts?);
. the role and influence of students, parents, and the community in the
improvement efforts;
. the dissemination of results of the improvement efforts.

Implementation. The implementation phase follows and may also influence the further
planning of activities, when developments differ from initial expectations. The precise
focus of the implementation depends on the goals that the school wants to achieve.
The implementation phase is the most substantial phase in the cycle of improvement
 420 G. J. Reezigt and B. P. M. Creemers

and when it is not successful, all preceding efforts have been in vain and the pursued
goals will not be achieved. Also, the implementation phase will generally involve more
staff than the other phases. Teachers are central to implementation and regular
feedback is necessary if it is to be successful.

Evaluation and reflection. The final phases of the cyclical improvement process,
and these will be seen to inform a new cycle of improvement, are evaluation and
reflection. The school needs to assess, by means of self-evaluating procedures or
the use of external agents, whether the goals of improvement have been achieved
(Miles, 1993).
In effective school improvement, the cyclical improvement processes will be
coordinated at the level of the school, the department, or a meaningful subset of
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

involved people who are able to sustain improvement (Harris, 2002). In some
countries, these phases were mainly executed at the context level (e.g., when the
national government sets goals and schools are obliged to follow) and in others at the
teacher level (e.g., when the school level is not strongly developed and improvement
is left to the initiative of teachers).
In The Netherlands, school improvement is regularly coordinated by persons
outside the school, such as school counsellors. This may result in the noted lack of
sustainability of improvement initiatives. In Greece, improvement processes are
developed at the context level transferred to schools as top-down improvement
programmes. Improvement efforts at the school and teacher level merely reflect
instances of self-regulation that can be performed in the absence of supervision. This
kind of improvement (which is not always considered as intentional by teachers) is
mostly executed by individual teachers without the involvement of the principal. In the
United Kingdom, which has a strong culture of school development planning, school
self-evaluation is becoming increasingly important. Schools have had to become
comfortable with using school data, both quantitative and qualitative, and including
evidence of student voice. We would argue that effective school improvement needs
coordination at the school level in all phases of the cyclical process.

Improvement Outcomes
Improvement efforts ideally focus on a clear set of goals that can be achieved in a
certain period of time. When goals are vague or unclear, improvement efforts are
more likely to fail. The goals for effective school improvement should be stated in
terms of student outcomes (the effectiveness criteria) or in terms of school and
teacher factors that are key influences on student outcomes (the improvement
criteria). This means that schools that want to improve pursue two types of goals
(Hopkins, 1995).

1. Goals that are explicitly written in terms of student outcomes. These can reflect a
wide range of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and are not necessarily narrowed
down to be based purely on cognitive skills achievement. For example, to
 A Comprehensive Framework for Effective School Improvement 421

enhance the student role in the learning processes would be a valid improvement
goal.
2. Goals that are focused on change. This type of improvement goal may include
changes in the school organisation, teacher behaviour, or the materials used by
students. Student outcomes still are the ultimate goal but the improvement
efforts can also be judged by the bringing about of change that will enhance these
outcomes.

In The Netherlands, goals in terms of student outcomes are becoming more

common in improvement efforts and in Finland, a focus on outcomes is often
stressed too. Without this, improvement processes can easily become entertainment
and seeking of pleasure during school hours. The role of students has to be clear,
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

observable, and important in all teaching and learning processes.

The Function of the ESI Framework

The comprehensive framework for effective school improvement is neither fully
descriptive, nor fully prescriptive in character. For example, the central place of the
school in the framework is based on effectiveness and improvement theories and our
empirical research that has shown that effective improvement requires school-level
processes. However, the framework does not dictate what those processes might be in
any individual school. Although the importance of teachers and their work in
classrooms is certainly acknowledged, individual teachers are generally not
considered to be the main lever of change for effective whole-school improvement.
However, the framework is prescriptive in its focus on student outcomes as the
primary goal. For improvement to be effective there must always be a link, at least at
the conceptual level, with student outcomes however they may be defined.
As was stated earlier, the framework does not pretend to present totally new
guidelines or concepts. The innovation that it does represent is that it brings together
ideas and concepts from different theories, builds on findings in improvement
studies, and tries to integrate them in a coherent way. The framework was developed
by research teams from a group of countries with strongly varying educational
histories and policies. The discussion of the framework in country conferences
showed that it can be of actual use in different settings, because the concepts in the
framework and their interrelationships can be interpreted in a way which fits the
specific educational context in any one country.
The comprehensive framework aims, therefore, to be of use to three different
audiences: practitioners, researchers, and policy-makers.

. For practitioners, the framework is intended to be useful in the design, planning,

and implementation of school improvement. The framework gives an overview of
many factors that may promote or hinder effective school improvement and as
such it can be used as a way of exploring educational practice. However, schools
must always interpret the factors in the framework within their own situation and
 422 G. J. Reezigt and B. P. M. Creemers

tailor them to their own needs. The framework can never prescribe how a specific
school in a specific country should act in order to achieve effective school
improvement, but it can help to indicate the starting points or issues for reflection.
. For researchers, the framework is especially important for further research in the
field of effective school improvement. It can be used to generate hypotheses and
to select variables that should be investigated and further operationalised. It
presents an overview of relevant variables but does not specify criteria (such as
how often school evaluation should take place to have an impact on improvement
outcomes). The international dimension of the framework, reflected in the
importance given to the context factors, provides insight into the influences of
these factors across countries but also within countries. In traditional improve-
ment research, the educational context is often excluded. Its importance is rarely
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

acknowledged or analysed.
. Policy-makers too, have to be aware that the framework can never be used as a
recipe for effective school improvement or as a ready-made toolbox for the
implementation of improvement in schools. The framework merely clarifies
which factors must be taken into consideration in the planning of improvement
processes in schools. It also shows which conditions must be taken into account,
both at the context and the school levels. The framework may help policy-makers
to see how important school improvement is for student outcomes or how
important the school is as a meaningful unit for improvement. Also, the
framework shows policy-makers how strongly schools are influenced by the
context. This implies that adequate context measures will often be needed in
improvement efforts. Leaving schools to improve on their own will not often be a
realistic option.

We cannot state strongly enough that the framework will always need interpretation
whenever it is used, whether for practice, research, or policy. Keeping this constraint
in mind, the framework may have the following functions for practitioners,
researchers, and policy-makers.

. It can start a debate and can contribute to ongoing discussions about effective
school improvement.
. It can introduce new arguments into the debate and thereby assist in decision-
making.
. It can act as an eye-opener about improvement factors that are different in
different countries or in different settings within countries.
. It can be used as a tool for the planning, designing, implementing, evaluating,
and reflecting on improvement projects and research on effective school
improvement.
. It can be used as an input in teacher training.

The exact functions of the framework will, however, always be dependent on the
context in which it is used and the persons who use it.
 A Comprehensive Framework for Effective School Improvement 423

References
Brown, S., Duffield, J., & Riddell, S. (1995). School effectiveness research: The policy maker’s tool
for school improvement? EERA Bulletin, 1(1), 6 – 15.
Cuban, L. (1998). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(5), 341 – 344.
Cuban, L. (2003). Why is it so hard to get good schools? New York: Teachers College Press.
Dalin, P. (1994). How schools improve. An international report. London: Cassell.
De Jong, R., Demeuse, M., Denooz, R., & Reezigt, G. J. (2001). Effective school improvement:
Programmes in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A re-analysis of school
improvement programmes. Groningen, The Netherlands: GION, Groningen Institute for
Educational Research, University of Groningen.
Doolaard, S. (1999). Schools in change or schools in chains? Enschede, The Netherlands: Twente
University Press.
Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. London:
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

Falmer.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research 1980 – 1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5 – 44.
Hargreaves, A. (1993). Changing teachers; changing times—Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern
age. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harris, A. (2002). School improvement: What’s in it for schools? London: Falmer Press.
Hopkins, D. (1995). Towards effective school improvement. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 6, 265 – 274.
Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of change. London:
Cassell.
Lagerweij, N. A. J. (2001). Met het oog op vernieuwing [A perspective on innovation]. In
B. P. M. Creemers & A. A. M. Houtveen (Eds.), Onderwijsinnovatie [Innovation of education]
(pp. 13 – 28). Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
MacBeath, J., & Mortimore, P. (2001). Improving school effectiveness. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Miles, M. (1993). 40 years of change in schools: Some personal reflections. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 29, 213 – 248.
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in
socioeconomically disadvantaged areas—A review of research evidence. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 15, 149 – 175.
Reezigt, G. J. (Ed.). (2001). A framework for effective school improvement. Final report of the ESI project.
Groningen, The Netherlands: GION, Groningen Institute for Educational Research,
University of Groningen.
Reezigt, G. J., & De Jong, R. (2001). Kenmerken van effectieve schoolverbeteringsprojecten
[Characteristics of effective school improvement projects]. In B. P. M. Creemers &
A. A. M. Houtveen (Eds.), Onderwijsinnovatie [Innovation of education] (pp. 99 – 118).
Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Reynolds, D. (1996). Making good schools: Linking school effectiveness and improvement. London:
Routledge.
Reynolds, D., Creemers, B., Stringfield, S., Teddlie, C., & Schaffer, E. (Eds.). (2002). World class
schools: International perspectives on school effectiveness. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Rosenblatt, Z. (2004). Skill flexibility and school change: A multi-national study. Journal of
Educational Change, 5, 1 – 30.
Sarason, S. B. (1995). School change. The personal development of a point of view. New York/London:
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Stoll, L. (1999). Realising our potential: Understanding and developing capacity for lasting
improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 503 – 532.
 424 G. J. Reezigt and B. P. M. Creemers

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1998). The cruising school: The unidentified ineffective school. In L. Stoll &
K. Myers (Eds.), No quick fixes: Perspectives on schools in difficulty (pp. 189 – 206). London/
Washington, DC: Falmer.
Sun, H. (2003). National contexts and effective school improvement. Groningen, The Netherlands:
University of Groningen/GION.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research.
London/New York: Falmer.
Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Collegiality in schools: Its nature and implications
for problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 608 – 629.
Van Velzen, W., Miles, M., Ekholm, M., Hameyer, U., & Robin, D. (1985). Making school
improvement work: A conceptual guide to practice. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
Wikeley, F. (1998). Dissemination of research: A tool for school improvement? School Leadership
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 19:07 07 October 2014

and Management, 18(1), 59 – 73.