The Relationship Between Effective Classroom Environment - Research Paper Example

The effective classroom environment and its impact on learners’ achievement Introduction Statement of the problem Methodology of data gathering Significance of the paper Reporting, analysis and interpretation of data Environment and learning The effective school Hallmarks of effective education Emphasis on students’ academic performance Effective classroom instruction The physical environment School culture The climate of effective school A strong leadership A system of monitoring and assessment that is linked to planning Imposing high standards and great expectations Home-school synergy Conclusion References Introduction For more or less fifty (50) years, there has been an ongoing debate on what factors bring about learners’ achievement. A simplistic division of the educational researchers who are working on this issue would categorize them into two opposing schools of thought – i.e., the advocates of compensatory education and the members of effective school movement. Compensatory education group posits that students’ achievement is determined primarily by complex of factors that are out-of school. Following the lead of Coleman et al (1996) and Jencks et al (1972), they argue that, for instance, the socio-economic status of students has significant impact on the learners’ eventual accomplishments. The effective school movement, on the other hand, debates for the more momentous brunt of in-school factors, such as the quality of material resources that schools offer. Its advocates posit that the variability of students’ achievement is explainable by variance in school-level factors. After all, students actually spend a vast amount of time at school – that is, approximately seven thousand (7,000) hours by the end of the primary school and fifteen thousand (15,000) hours by the completion of secondary schools (see Fraser 1986, pp. 1), and – more importantly – variability of students’ achievements transcend a very simplistic correlation between home and school (see Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 1-3). This paper would focus on the thoughts of the second group, or the effective school movement. It would try to make the relationship between effective classroom environment and learners’ achievement more pronounced to be recognized. It will bring to the fore some nine (9) major characteristics of effective school environment that are said to have positively influenced students’ achievement, and, concomitantly, will zero in on the specific kinds of students’ achievements that were studied so far to have been occasioned by an effective school environment. Statement of the problem After decades of adapting and implementing the tenets of “effective school movement,” it is now proper to establish whether it really has contributed to improving outcomes for students. Descriptions of what constitutes an effective school environment vary – at least, semantically – from one educational researcher to another, but this paper would zero in on the unmistakable hallmark attributes of school setting that are widely and commonly believed to facilitate students’ success. While this paper clarifies at the outset that these school setting features are not predictive of – i.e., these do not directly cause or they are not the sure recipe for learners’ performance– learners’ achievement, they nonetheless are descriptive of students’ accomplishments. This is essential insofar as this paper has considered as its variable effective school environment. The question that this paper hopes to address is also inclusive of descriptions of specific achievements of students that effective school environment descriptively brings about. This is going to be deduced from the researches that were already done on the impact of school environment and particular areas of development by learners. As one research literature is considered after another, the apparent form of relationship between effective school environment and students’ achievement is going to be established. Methodology of data gathering This paper draws from the rich deposit of literature about the subject matter of the relationship between effective school environment and students’ academic performance. It is going to be particularly discriminate in choosing the literature that it uses as bases or elements and materials of its argumentation and eventual conclusion, for it wants to ensure that of the quality of its data. It will make avail only the information that is culled from scientific/academic experimentations. The topic of this paper is obviously a part of an existing, or on-going, academic debate. More than simply reporting in here the contending sides of the issue, this paper embarks on investigating the specific matter of how effective school environment is related to learners’ achievements, or what relationship effective school environment and learners’ achievements do have. The primary manner by which this paper is written satisfies the rigors of scientific or systematic research. As a cardinal rule, this paper goes on to treat its topic solely by considering evidences – which come in the form of studies that were actually done in the recent past. In this way, this paper is assured of using data that is born out of rational and scientific endeavor. Similarly, to ensure comprehensive treatment of the issue, this paper will prove to be not blind to counter arguments that other school of thought pursues. This is despite the fact that this paper is exclusive on effective school environment. Significance of the paper More than simply making an academic contribution, the significance of this paper consists of its potential to afford educational administrators and social policymakers with guidelines as to how students’ performance in particular and the quality of schooling in general may still be improved. This is because, among others, this paper would bring to light certain complexities of school systems. Moreover, this paper potentially offers sound arguments on the need to study school systems in their totality and to focus on organizational factors within the school systems. Readers of this paper would eventually come to know that learners’ achievement may be impacted by what transpires at the classroom level as well as by the school curriculum and the schools’ assessment practices – among others. Reporting, analysis and interpretation of data Environment and learning Accordingly, a school is social system. It is where educational outcomes are resulted by the transformation of the inputs from the external environment by the school internal environment. Consisting of the physical (e.g., the facilities, spaces, lighting, ventilation, desks and chairs, and air pollution) and the psychological (e.g., the social quality of the school and classroom especially as it relates to perceptions and feelings about social relationships among students and teachers) environments, the internal environment is the context of the learning. As such, school environment interacts with students’ personal characteristics. And, this interaction ultimately affects the learners’ attitude and behavior (see Lewin 1936; Fraser 1986, pp. 6; Yin 1994, pp. 222). The preceding explanation actually leads one to ask: how does one learn? Essentially, learning is a mental process. But, as the discipline of psychology has shown so far, the traditional views of the learning process has already gone expansion – that is, learning is now no longer grasped as an accumulation of knowledge but is now understood as the ability to construct knowledge in meaningful ways for a particular purpose or solution to a well defined problem. And, the different factors that bring learning about – including the consideration on learning environments – must be accommodated within the classroom space so as to enhance, and not hinder, the learning process. Consequently, for the purpose of this paper, it is held that the physical environment of the school needs to be made responsive and adaptive to individual student requirements (Lang, 1996). Supporting this line of contention, Moore (2005) writes that effective teachers must create and maintain an environment in which learning can take place. He further describes the skills (by the teachers) to create and sustain a positive learning environment for the learners – that is, creating an environment of respect and rapport (that is, creating caring teacher-student and peer relationships); establishing a culture for learning (i.e., create an environment in which learning is valued and meaningful experiences occur); managing the classroom (success at management of the business of the classroom); managing student behavior (effectively responding to appropriate and inappropriate student behavior); and, organizing physical space (positive use of classroom space) (pp. 9). Accordingly, these skills by the teachers can create schools with such characteristics as insistence that all participants take responsibility for improvement, persistence in seeking to attain high standards, resiliency in moving forward despite obstacles and discouragements, and consistency in implementing coordinated and coherent programs to improve instruction (see Levine 1990). The effective school As hinted on at the onset of this paper, effective school movement – which advocated for effective school environment – may be understood as a reaction to the belief that learners’ success is a result of factors such as the students’ socio-economic status (Coleman et al, 1969, pp. 21), family background (Jencks et al, 1972; Klinger 2000), family income (Lytton & Pyryt 1998), parents’ lack of education (Lezotte [n.d.]) – among others. Eventually creating what has been called “compensatory education programs” that dominated the discipline of education in the decades of 60’s and 70’s, the belief that learners’ achievement is determined by out-of-school factors resulted to efforts to change students’ behavior to compensate for their disadvantaged backgrounds, but made no effort to change school behavior (see Lezotte [n.d.]). “Effective school movement” may be a reaction to compensatory education, but it does not completely break from the latter in assuming the high degree and quality of influence by family over the academic performance of the learners (see Lezotte [n.d.]; Edmonds 1982). But it was Edmonds’ (1979) research that saw the successful education of urban poor students despite their poverty (pp. 16) which provided the convincing argumentation against the tenets of school of compensatory education. He found out that what make schools effective are the elements of strong administrative leadership, high expectations, an orderly atmosphere, basic skills acquisition as the school’s primary purpose, capacity to divert school energy and resources from other activities to advance the school’s basic purpose, and frequent monitoring of pupil progress (see Edmonds 1979). These characterizations eventually paved the way to the determination of what has been termed as correlates of effective schools (Lezotte [n.d.]). More formally defining the “effective school movement” and, by association, the effective classroom environment that it has always advocated can now be done. The early definition of effective schools involved the elements of equity among children from different socio-economic classes. The recognition of other fonts of (social) inequity – such as demography, gender, ethnicity, disabilities, family structure , and the like – had come in a later period. Similarly, early on, effectiveness of schools was gauged in terms of the students’ mastery of essential curriculum – e.g., reading and arithmetic. Too, other curricular outcomes such as problem solving ability, higher order thinking skills, creativity and communicative ability – among others – came as subsequent developments. In addition, as the fact that school improvement that results to increased student academic performance could only be had with strong organizational support, the traces of the influence and/or contributions of the discipline of organizational management – e.g., decentralization and empowerment, the importance of organizational culture, the principles of total quality management and continuous improvement – have started to become too obvious to be noticed (Lezotte [n.d.]). Hallmarks of effective education Emphasis on students’ academic performance Among the characteristics of effective school environment, the most frequently cited element is its verified link to student achievement particularly at the levels of school and classroom. This is understandable since the centerpiece of school system is academic instruction and the effective school environment exhibits a clear instructional focus (Stellar 1988, 23); and instructional focus means effective teachers are actually cognizant of students’ academic records and of their professional obligation to prepare the students to succeed with their next teacher (Stellar 1988, pp. 24). Differently put, effective school environment breeds scholastic achievement by the learners as it keeps school personnel focused on academic issues at hand and on how to help the learners achieve (Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 6). Centrally focusing on academic instruction, or maintaining clear instructional focus, is said to require two key components—that is, maximizing time for learning and mastery of central learning skills. The maximization of time for learning is undoubtedly necessitating reducing such occasions as time-consuming transitions between classes and off-task behaviors. And, the skill mastery is achieved by ensuring students’ concentration on academic content, adherence to principles of mastery learning, and explicitly teaching the students learning strategies (see Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 6). Actually, the second key component of centrally focusing on academic instruction – i.e., the learning skill mastery concept – supports the characteristic of an effective school environment ascertaining that no children must be allowed to fall below the minimum standard of efficacious levels of achievement (Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 7). Now, researchers are there who studied the correlation between effective schools’ emphasis on instructional quality and learners’ academic performance. Phillips (1997) dwelt on the emphasis that effective schools have placed on academic achievement, and he found that indeed schools that place academic learning at its center really bring about improvement of the learners’ learning skills (see pp. 657). Barth et al. (1999) reports that students are able to meet school standards, which in turn raise their level of achievement, when the educational institutions increase their instructional time in, say, reading and mathematics. Concluding in similar note, Henchey et al. (2001) identified what they called fourteen (14) elements of the best schools in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec – and one of these is focus on academic achievement (see pp. 50 & 53). Effective classroom instruction That academic instruction is the centerpiece of effective school system calls for effective instructional arrangements and implementation. The effective school recognizes the critical synergy between classroom instruction and learner achievement. In practice, effective classroom instruction is marked by time-on-task, appropriate reinforcement, lesson sequencing, wait time after questions, and quality student-teacher interaction – among others. Some researchers call it purposeful teaching. And, effective schools are taking note of the research findings classroom level variables are in fact more significantly responsible for students’ achievement than school level variables (see Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 8). This is confirmed by Henchey et al. (2001), who noted that schools that spent larger proportion of funds for classroom teachers’ professional development are usually numbered among the top-scoring schools (pp. 53). Yin (1994) studied the relationship between student affective performance and classroom (physical environment, social climate) and management style in a sample of classes in Hong Kong primary schools. It was found out that the strongest predictors of affective performance were perceived quality of physical environment and class master’s expert power, personal power and coercive power. This finding supports the importance of class master’s management style in the classroom environment. Students’ attitudes toward school and teachers appeared to be more sensitive to variation in the classroom environment, and self-concept was the least sensitive among the seven student affective measures. Students’ self-efficacy of learning and intention to drop out were moderately sensitive to classroom environment. Effective classrooms have class masters who care for students, pay attention to teaching, do not use force or punishment but do create a good classroom climate with their professional knowledge, personal morality, and personality. Physical environment and psychological environment are both important. At the end, Yin (1994) concluded that a good classroom environment is highly correlated with student affective performance. The physical environment There is no dearth of research proofs backing up the fact that physical environment of effective schools, for instance, the building where the students spend their time learning does influence how well they learn (see, for instance, Earthman 2004, pp. 18). Bowers & Burkett (1987) showed that students are affected positively or adversely by the visual, acoustical and thermal characteristics of the classroom environment. Their study involved a couple of groups of students who were housed in two separate school facilities. One group was in a modern facility; the second in old building. Their study found out a significant difference between the two groups of students in terms of their scores in thinking, listening, language and arithmetic – with the students in the modern facility performing better than those in the old structure. Too, the research was able to establish better records of health, attendance and discipline for the former group of students than for the latter. The researchers Lee & Bryks (1989), who studied learners’ mathematics achievement along class and academic background lines (pp. 185), arrived at complementing conclusion. They found out that large schools offering a shopping mall actually make their students track-able along class and academic lines – which eventually lead to greater variance in student achievement; and, students in schools where fewer alternatives are at hand are tending to achieve heterogeneously and much more highly. Waxman & Huang (1997) investigated whether there are significant differences between effective and ineffective urban schools based on students’ classroom behavior and students’ motivation and perceptions of their classroom learning environment. Students from effective schools were observed to be working in an individualized setting, interacting with their teacher and working on written assignments more. Too, they were observed to report significantly higher achievement motivation, academic self-concept, task orientation, rule clarity and student aspiration scores than students from the ineffective schools. Chin & Wong (n.d.) dwelt on the learning environment of the primary school science in Singapore and its impact on pupils’ achievement and attitudes. The found out that there is a positive associations between the nature of the primary science class environment and the pupils’ attitudinal and achievement outcomes. In fact, the plethora of research examining the effect of the physical conditions of teaching on students’ engagement in classes and their eventual academic performance has yielded some interesting items. Earthman (2004) contends that the most important individual element for students’ achievement is temperature, heating and air quality pp. 11-16). Higgins et al. (2004) found out that chronic noise exposure impairs cognitive functioning, and that color – depending on the age of the learners – affects morale and efficiency (pp. 21-22). And, Culp (2005) promotes the use of visual displays, which accordingly breeds success as the students are afforded with specific examples of how success is obtained (pp. 14). School culture Besides pedagogical and physical hallmarks, effective school environment is likewise known for the quality of its organizational culture, which primarily includes the kind of social dynamics of its staff. A review of literature would show that, indeed, school culture is counted among the characteristics of effective schools. In the concrete, organizational culture is said to be defined by vision and goals of an organization. This is so insofar as these visions and goals are the source of the organization’s purpose, practice and collegiality and collaboration. At least, on the classroom level, it comes in the form of consistency and continuity with respect to resources, curricula and result standards. Otherwise, it would be unproductive and confusing for students to dwell on the same lesson or activities repeatedly – that is, over two different school years under two different teachers (Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 10). Even the more practical level of the principal’s supervision over the classroom teachers’ daily planning of activities, for example, is facilitated by their uniform understanding of what constitutes the vision and mission of the school. Otherwise, the potential for conflict is very real. For, the cohesion and unity of staff result to an organizational culture of collaboration – which accordingly internally breeds climate for renewal for the good of the organization. Henchey et al. (2001) termed it a “sense of engagement and belonging among teachers (and students) and commitment to the basic mission and core values of the school” (see pp. 53). Accordingly, such culture unifies the working force of the school in preparing for whatever challenge – including the challenge to up the academic performance of the students – for which everyone in the institution would have a stake (Henchey et al. 2001, pp. 43). On the contrary, an ineffective school is characterized by lack of vision, distracted leadership, dysfunctional staff relations, and unproductive classroom practices. An ineffective school has and clings to maintenance mentality, and unfortunately appears less of an organizational entity than a storehouse of incongruent visions, goals and agenda, and where the personnel were working at cross-purposes (Wendell 2000, pp. 41). The climate of effective school A school climate is the combination of beliefs, values, and attitudes shared by students, teachers, administrators, parents, bus drivers, personnel, custodians, cafeteria workers and others in the school (Sweeney 1988, pp. 1). And an effective school climate is one that is orderly, not rigid, quiet but not oppressive, and generally conducive to the instructional business at hand (Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 11). In practice, it calls for a place where learners and staff feel safe. That is, it is a place where discipline is consistently applied throughout the school, and personnel demonstrate an attitude of caring by ensuring order and communicating behavioral expectations that learners understand and obey (Stellar 1988, pp. 34). In Lee & Bryk’s (1989) published study, there is a note that academic achievement is notably higher in schools with orderly environment and where disciplinary problems are kept to the minimum – which is a necessary condition for the routine pursuit of academic work. A strong leadership Particularly since school effectiveness is ensured not only the level of classroom but also at the level of the school, an effective school is also noted for the leadership qualities especially by its principal. The role of the principal’s strong administrative leadership is very crucial considering that without it the school elements cannot be kept together (Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 12). And, this is supported by a good number of studies that has examined the role the principals play in the school and concluded that among others the principals are important figures to improve instructional quality and student learning (see Andrews 1989, pp. 211; Bambers & Andrews 1989, pp. 309). This is because effective principals are focusing on academic goals, creating a climate of high expectations, acting as instructional leaders, consulting effectively with others, creating order and discipline, marshalling resources, using time well, allowing teachers to concentrate on the primary goal of academic achievement, and evaluating results (see Stellar 1988, pp. 21). Briefly said, a strong leadership that is being shown by the principal can actually result develop and maintain effective schools. The more practical study of Hajnal, Walker & Sackney (1998) proves this point. They found out that schools whose principals are visiting teachers in the classrooms are more effective and successful in carrying out their classroom duties (pp. 78). On the contrary, principals in compensatory education fulfill bureaucratic and passive roles. They are also observably holding multiple goals for their schools and regard the academic achievement of their students as something that is complex, personal and ambiguous. They, too, appear more externally directed in their outlook and are more likely to cite external forces as explanation for the problems besetting the school (see Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 13). A system of monitoring, assessment that is linked to planning Effective school system acknowledges the intrinsic significance of having monitoring means to keep track of the learners’ academic progress. This is conventionally known to be a part of instructional management, especially when educational management is understood to require ascertaining what students should learn, arrange resources and people to promote learning, and use results to guide adjustments. Fact is, educational management is no strange practice to teachers. For, as classroom teachers establish who among their students fall behind and require supplementary instruction, they put their instructional management into practice. On this account, and in this respect, effective schools distinguish themselves from schools of compensatory education because they do not only assess and monitor the academic performance of their students. More importantly, they use the results of their assessment and monitoring to inform their planning and school management (see Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 13-14). Imposing high standards and great expectations Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968) posited that students’ academic achievement improve when educators’ expectations and standards increase (pp. vii). The expectations of the teachers need not always be communicated verbally. When students are singled out for the teachers’ attention, or by the teachers’ expressions, postures and/or touch, teachers communicate to the students their expected improved intellectual performance (see Rosenthal & Jacobson 1968, pp. 180). And, this proposition has been widely accepted (Stellar, 1988, pp. 27). In fact, researchers observed that effective schools are permeated with a climate of expectation in which no learners are permitted to fall below par, but must maintain their efficacious levels of performance or achievement (Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 15). Nevertheless, a caveat needs to be voiced out here. For high expectations to be significant, there must be supporting clear institutional objectives that are categorically communicated to students in the context of an effective educational environment and along appropriate assessment measures to ensure that these objectives are et (Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 17). Home-school synergy Purely understood from the perspective of the effective school movement, which quite limited to in-school factors, parental involvement is a rather unusual inclusion among these hallmarks (see Stellar 1988, pp. 29). But, when this paper defined the effective school movement, it is made clear that while it developed as a reaction to compensatory education it altogether neither discarded nor abandoned the concept that home actually influences the academic performance of the learners. The essence of the connection between home and school is more succinctly captured by the terms parental involvement. Insofar as the research results are concerned, equivocation characterizes the effects of parental involvement in education. Some studies point out its positive impact on learners’ achievement; others cannot be very certain (Levine & Lezotte 1990, pp. 22). By and large, though, school-home connection includes the practices of good home-school communication, parental concern over the learners’ learning and shared school governance (Levine & Lezotte 1990, pp. 23). And effective schools are known to involve parents in helping students meet clearly delineated standards of schools (Raptis & Fleming 2003, pp. 19). Conclusion In the preceding pages, this paper belabors the task of bringing into the surface the nine (9) hallmarks of an effective school environment. It was deemed necessary to do such task since only by discussing these attributes of effective school can the relationship between effective school environment and learners’ achievement be vividly grasped. These attributes or characteristics are: focus on student achievement, effective instruction, the physical environment, the organizational culture of the school, the organizational climate, strong administrative leadership, a monitoring and assessment that informs the planning by school’s authorities, high standards and expectations, and the importance of parental involvement in furthering the learners’ academic achievement. The main point of parading and discussing the essentials of these attributes is that they prove to be the elements that are widely recognized and accepted as responsible for the furtherance of the learners’ academic achievement. This does not mean, for sure, that these attributes are predictive indicators of the academic success of the learners. Or, that these are recipe that would ultimately improve the learners’ school performance. Rather, these are descriptive indications of students’ achievement in schools. That is, these are telling that when schools have them there correlates an observed signs of students’ progress. Students improve academically when they happen to be in a school that considers scholastic achievement by the learners as its raison d’être. This kind of school has its personnel focused on academic issues at hand and on how to assist the learners to achieve. In this school, time is maximized for learning and learning skills are made to be mastered by the students. Now, since teaching and learning conventionally happen in the classroom, the learners’ scholastic achievement is made possible by an effective instructional arrangements and implementations – which do not solely include how the lessons are taught, but also how the classroom is managed and the students disciplined. Academic performance by the students is also said to be enhanced by the physical and psychological environment of the schools. The schools’ color, use of space, architectural design and the like are either distracting or facilitating the students’ acquisition of knowledge. Equally, the organizational culture of the school – particularly, the social dynamics within it among the administrative officials, the classroom teachers, the students and the society at large – promote a culture of learning. And, when the environment is relax and the culture is that of collaboration, students are observed to learn much better. The involvement of the parents, in particular, is counted in as an indispensable factor in learners’ education by effective schools. Just like other schools, an effective school embarks on the task of monitoring and assessing the performance of students. But, an effective school ensures that the baseline information that its personnel cull from their monitoring and assessing of students is made to inform their decisions and eventual future actions. This actually defines the being learner-centeredness of an effective school. And, in the light of all of these, the role of the principal stands to be better appreciated. The principal is very crucial, for under his/her direction and supervision, these elements of effective schools are kept intact and their attributes are realized. Finally, these attributes are telling about the basic tenet of the effective school movement pertinent to the fact that effective school does not necessitate effectiveness either on the level of the classroom or on the level of the school. For, an effective school is effective in all its levels – that is, organizational cross-sections. Naturally, it calls for the involvement of all stakeholders – principals, teachers, students, parents and all, in general, members of society. References: Andrews, R.L. (1989). Teacher and supervisor assessment of principal leadership and academic achievement. In B. Creemers, T. Peters & D. Reynolds, eds. School effectiveness and school improvement. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger. Bambers, J.D. & Andrews, R.L. (1989). Putting effective schools research to work: the process of change and the role of the principal. In In B. Creemers, T. Peters & D. Reynolds, eds. School effectiveness and school improvement. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger. Barth, P. et al. (1999). Dispelling the myth: high poverty schools exceeding expectations. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers. Bowers, H. & Burkett, C.W. (1987). Relationship of student achievement and characteristics in two selected school facility environmental settings [Abstract]. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the Council of Educational Facility Planners, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 3-7 October1987. Retrieved 22 March 2010, from Education Resources Information Center database on the World Wide Web: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED286278&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED286278 Chin, T.Y., & Wong, A. (n.d.). Pupils’ classroom environment perceptions, attitudes and achievement in science at upper primary level. Retrieved 22 March 2010, from http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/chi01432.htm Coleman, J.S. et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Culp, B. (2005). Management of the physical environment in the classroom and gymnasium: it’s not that different. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 17 (5), pp. 13-15. Earthman, G.I.(2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland. Retrieved on 27 March 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aclu-md.org/aTop%20Issues/Education%20Reform/EarthmanFinal10504.pdf Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37 (2), pp. 15-24. Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: an overview. Educational Leadership, 40 (3), pp. 8-11. Fraser, B. (1986). Classroom environment. Kent: Croom Helm Ltd. Hajnal, V., Walter, K. & Sackney, L. (1988). Leadership, organizational learning and selected factors relating to the institutionalization of school improvement initiatives. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44, pp. 70-89. Henchey, N. et al. (2001). Schools that make a difference. Kelowna (BC): Society of the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Higgins, S. et al. (2005). The impact of school environments: a literature review. The Center for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Science, University of Newcastle. Retrieved 24 March 2010, on the World Wide Web: http://www.cfbt.com/PDF/91085.pdf Jencks, C. et al (1972). Inequality: a reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books. Klinger, D. (2000). Hierarchical linear modeling of student and school effects on academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 25, pp. 41-55. Lang, D. (1996). Essential criteria for an ideal learning environment. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved 28 March 2010, from World Wide Web: http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/learning_environments/lang.htm Lee, V. & Bryk, A.S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, pp. 172-92. Levine, D. (1990). Update on effective schools: findings and implications from research and practice [Abstract]. Journal of Negro Education, 59 (4), pp. 577-584. Retrieved 24 March 2010, from Education Resource Information Center database on the World Wide Web: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ422273&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ422273 Levine, D. & Lezotte, L. (1990). Unusually effective schools: a review and analysis of research and practice. Madison (WI): National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lezotte, L.W. (n.d.). Revolutionary and evolutionary: the effective schools movement. Retrieved 24 March 2010, from World Wide Web: http://www.cascade.k12.mt.us/pages/administration/jsprout/Pages/EffectiveSchools/RevEv.pdf Lytton, H. & Pyryt, M.C. (1998). Predictors of achievement in basic skills: a Canadian effective schools study. Canadian Journal of Education, 23, pp. 281-301. Moore, K. 2005. Effective instructional strategies: from theory to practice. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc. Phillips, M. (1997). What makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 24, pp. 633-62. Raptis, H. & Fleming, T. (2003). Reframing education: how to create effective schools. C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, 118. Rosenthal, P. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stellar, A.W. (1988). Effective schools research: practice and promise. Bloomington (IN): Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Sweeney, J. (1988). Tips for improving school climate. Arlington (VA): American Association for School Administrators. Waxman, H.C. & Huang, S.Y.L. (1997). Classroom instruction and learning environment differences between effective and ineffective urban elementary schools for African American students [Abstract]. Urban Education, 32 (1), pp. 7-44. Retrieved 22 March 2010, from Sage Journals Online database on the World Wide Web: http://uex.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/1/7 Wendel, T. (2000). Creating equity and quality. Kelowna (BC): Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Wyatt, T. (1996). School effectiveness research: dead end, damp squib or smouldering fuse? Issues in Educational Research, 6 (1), pp. 79-112. Retrieved 24 March 2010, from IIER database on World Wide Web: http://www.iier.org.au/iier6/wyatt.html Yin, C.C. (1994). Classroom environment and student affective performance [Abstract]. Journal of Experimental Education, 62. Retrieved 22 March 22 2010, from Questia database on the World Wide Web: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LnvVfS399G0m5t4v3CRzTJ604Wqvfv3jr12qVRgB4YP4JYbdxy6c!-2000885492!-929797399?docId=99228752 Read More