Prof.

Debjani Sengupta
Department of Education;
University of Calcutta,
1, Reformatory Street,
Alipore Campus,
Kolkata-7000027
INDIA

In Indian context there is dearth of such efforts in identifying components of school effectiveness in
light of citizenship education. Vasantha (1977) studied influence of school environment in work
values and occupational value orientation. Shyamsundar (1979) investigated the problems and
personality profiles of truants in various types of schools in Delhi with a view to suggesting measures
to check them. He concluded in view of the school and facilities of the truant that the major
stumbling blocks were school discipline, physical environment, poor performance positive measures,
absence of recreational facilities, school timing, and monotonous time table. Sahgal, (1980) also
drew the effect of school environment on values of women students; a significant effect of schools
was found in developing the qualities of being wise, systematic, intelligent, critical, curious,
argumentative, efficient, precise, competent having clear thinking and inventive spirits likeable,
polite, open minded, cooperative, friendly, social humorous, graceful, artistic, attractive and
sophisticated. Goswami (1983) studied value orientation of post basic schools in Gujarat and found
that the post basic schools provided a better atmosphere in schools to inculcate moral, social and
religious values and Gandhian thoughts of self-reliance and cleanliness among students than
ordinary schools. Gupta (1984) studied moral development of school children and advocated the
effect of schools in moral development of the school children. Gardia (2008) studied determiners of
democratic values among higher secondary students; the creative stimulus provided in the school
and permissive environment in the schools were found to be significantly determining democratic
values. All the above studies in Indian context too explored the importance of schools in nurturing
democratic values, although no study was conducted on redefining school effectiveness in light of
citizenship education.

Concept of school effectiveness

The word effectiveness is a relative term. .Fraser (1994) defined effectiveness as a measure of the
match between stated goals and their achievement. Erlendsson (2002) defines effectiveness as the
extent to which objectives are met. Thus, it can be inferred that effectiveness is always described on
predetermined goals and objectives. Therefore, the word school effectiveness in its very raw sense
conveys that how far a particular school is capable of fulfilling its assigned tasks and responsibilities.

The task of defining school effectiveness includes some practical problems, for example, a company
can define its effectiveness by reference to the profit or loss it makes, but looking to the multifarious
tasks that a school performs; operationalising school effectiveness is quite cumbersome task. Kelly
(2001) also remarks that a school is a much more difficult enterprise to define the extent to which it
has achieved its goals. On the ground of such problems in defining school effectiveness, various
models have been derived which define school effectiveness in the context of dimensions identified
by a particular model. Reference of such definition is provided in the table given below (Adapted
from Cameron, 1984).

Model name Definitions

Goal model A School is Effective if………………………………. it can
achieve its stated goals

System resource model it can acquire needed resources and inputs

Internal process model the school process can be smooth and "healthy"

Strategic constituencies model all the powerful constituencies are at least minimally
satisfied

Legitimacy model it can survive as a result of engaging in legitimate activities

Organizational learning model it can learn to deal with environmental changes and internal
barriers

Ineffectiveness model there is an absence of

characteristics of ineffectiveness

The table above indicates that school effectiveness is a multi-dimensional construct in which various
researchers have developed their own view of operationalising school effectiveness.
Scheerens (2000) provides the organizational effectiveness models which show the approach,
effectiveness criterion and the main area of attention for defining school effectiveness.

Organizational – Effectiveness Models (Scheerens, 2000)

Theoretical background Effectiveness criterion Level at which the Main areas of attention
effectiveness question
is asked

Economic rationality Productivity The organization Output and its

determinants

Organic system theory Adaptability The organization Acquiring essential

outputs

Human relations approach Involvement Individual members of Motivation

the organization

Bureaucratic theory; Continuity The organization and Formal structure

system members theory; individuals
social, psychological,
homeostatic theories

Political theory on how Responsiveness to Sub-groups and Independence, power

organization works external stakeholders individuals

All the theoretical backgrounds cited above propose that the operationalization of school
effectiveness need to be viewed in a contextual framework. It will be the approach which will decide
the possible parameters of effectiveness for a particular school. The various stakeholders of a school
may be the source of understanding and measuring school effectiveness.

In the research front some studies have been conducted in line of school’s effectiveness in a
democracy which are worth reporting here. Various rules and regulations in the school also
contribute among individuals in the development of a sense of authority. A child learns to be a
subordinate of a system through the agency called school. In this regard Jackson (1968) considers
school classroom life as ritual and cites a number of situations in the school premise which teaches a
child to be obedient and patient. He cites that classroom life contains great amounts of delay
(waiting in line, waiting to get the teacher’s attention, waiting for someone else to catch up),
interruption (activities begin and end in accordance with the class schedule rather than in
accordance with student interest and progress), and distraction paired with denial (the student is
surrounded by peers but is not allowed to talk with them during much of the school day) and
concludes that in addition to learning to live in a crowd, the successful student learns how to deal
with authority and how to face constant judgment of himself and his behavior. Researchers from
other disciplines have given serious attention to the effects of environment on individuals. Political
scientists Eckstein and Gurr (1975) discuss the importance of the congruence of authority patterns in
social institutions for positive attitudes and behavior of citizens. In particular, they assert that
frequent participation in responsive and receptive institutions like schools promote self-direction,
and increases citizens’ allegiance to and satisfaction with the society.

There are a number of empirical evidences that support the view that schools are very helpful in
nurturing democratic way of life among students. The first major study of school value climates was
Coleman’s The Adolescent Society (1961); Coleman showed that the prevailing peer opinions in a
school shaped the attitudes and efforts of students. A follow-up study by McDill (1967) indicated
that ‘in those schools where academic competition, intellectualism, and subject matter competence
are emphasized and rewarded by faculty and student bodies, individual students tend to conform to
the scholastic norms of the majority and achieve at a higher level’. These climate effects, moreover,
were independent of the personal characteristics of students, either individually or aggregated (that
is, as social context). Social context and value climate appear to be separate dimensions of school
structure, both having an independent effect upon student’s overall personality development.

There is also evidence that more open, democratic classrooms can foster a range of democratic
political orientations such as greater political interest, less authoritarianism, greater political
knowledge and a greater sense of political efficacy (Ehman, 1980).

Research evidence from the United States suggests that a democratic school environment can
indeed foster democratic values, skills and behaviours. Hepburn (1984) summarizing five pieces of
research in the United States concluded that: ‘Collectively, the five research studies reviewed here
provide evidence that democratic schooling is more than just a philosopher’s dream. Carried out in
different conceptual frameworks with differing methods, these studies indicate that democratic
education is not only possible but that it is feasible, even within the bureaucratic structure of
American schools and in the shifting attitudes of society. Moreover, the five studies add to the
evidence, collected in other democratic countries; that democratic experiences in the school and the
classroom do contribute to the participatory awareness, skills and attitudes fundamental to life in
democratic societies’.
Wehlage, et al. (1989) have shown that small school size, autonomy of the school within the larger
school system, and the school’s ability to control the school schedule and flexibility within it are
school variables that enhance the sense of community among school students. Battistich et al.
(1995) and Higgins (1997) also found similar results.

Democratic and co-operative teaching methods have also been shown to reduce inter-ethnic conflict
and to promote cross-cultural understanding (Lynch, 1991). Research in Britain (John and Osborn,
1992) compared two secondary schools, one traditional and authoritarian and one democratic, in
terms of the development of civic attitudes. The research suggested that there were somewhat
stronger democratic attitudes among the students from the democratic school than the traditional
one. Also, students at the democratic school were more ardent supporters of race and gender
equality but were also more sceptical about whether the government actually operated
democratically. The findings also suggested that the democratic school was also more likely to
encourage freedom of expression in the classroom.

A study of ethnically mixed schools in the south-eastern United States compared two schools that
stressed cooperative learning, the development of interpersonal relationships, values clarification
and the heterogeneous grouping of students with three traditional schools where students were
streamed by achievement and taught in a lecture-recitation style in predominantly same-‘race’
classes. The study found that cross-‘race’ interaction and friendships and a positive evaluation of
different ‘race’ students were significantly higher in the former than the latter schools (Conway and
Damico, 1993).

In Africa there is also evidence that more democratically organized schools affect student attitudes
and behaviour. In interviews carried out in two schools in Tanzania with active student councils, it
was noted by both staff and students that participation had helped to develop responsibility,
confidence, problem-solving through discussion and a friendlier and more co-operative environment
(Harber, 1993).

Further, Battistich et al., (1995) and Solomon et al., (1992) concluded that teacher practices
stimulates active student participation and teachers who model positive interpersonal behavior are
critical to building a sense of community among elementary school students. Classroom activities,
especially cooperative learning strategies that occur in an open classroom setting consistently show
improved student interrelationships and more positive feelings among the students or a sense of
community (Slavin, 1990) as well as the development of a normative value of helping (Brown &
Solomon, 1983). Ehman (1980) showed that open classrooms are important in promoting students’
democratic attitudes and values. In terms of teachers influence over the students democratic values
Shouse (1996) found correlations between school and teacher variables which were found to be
conceptually linked to a sense of community and academic performance of students.

The sense or strength of community has been looked at as primarily an outcome variable in
evaluations of interventions focused on fostering collaboration, joint or group decision making, and
active learning in school Environment. DeVries et al. (1991) described constructivist preschools as
encouraging students to be active and independent and to participate with others. Battistich et al.’s
(1995) evaluation of 24 Child Development Project schools measured both student’s and teacher’s
sense of community. The two views correlated significantly.

Fielding (1973) studied role of different functions of schools and concluded that the school enhances
the pupils moral development; fosters self discipline and a sense of responsibility. It also develops a
feeling of cooperation and community encouraging participation in running the school and gives the
pupils an experience of what it means to govern responsibly, thus, preparing them for democratic
citizenship, Chapman (1970; 1971) also found similar results.

In a study of democratic identities and citizenship skills through student activism MacGillivray (2005)
too concluded that in democratic societies schools plays a large role in helping students learn the
values and skills necessary for adult participation in a free and open society. Harber (2008) in his
paper ‘school effectiveness and education for democracy and non-violence,’ has reported various
empirical evidences which support an effective school under different parameters of effectiveness in
citizenship education to develops democratic outlook of students.

In Indian context there is dearth of such efforts in identifying components of school effectiveness in
light of citizenship education. Vasantha (1977) studied influence of school environment in work
values and occupational value orientation. Shyamsundar (1979) investigated the problems and
personality profiles of truants in various types of schools in Delhi with a view to suggesting measures
to check them. He concluded in view of the school and facilities of the truant that the major
stumbling blocks were school discipline, physical environment, poor performance positive measures,
absence of recreational facilities, school timing, and monotonous time table. Sahgal, (1980) also
drew the effect of school environment on values of women students; a significant effect of schools
was found in developing the qualities of being wise, systematic, intelligent, critical, curious,
argumentative, efficient, precise, competent having clear thinking and inventive spirits likeable,
polite, open minded, cooperative, friendly, social humorous, graceful, artistic, attractive and
sophisticated. Goswami (1983) studied value orientation of post basic schools in Gujarat and found
that the post basic schools provided a better atmosphere in schools to inculcate moral, social and
religious values and Gandhian thoughts of self-reliance and cleanliness among students than
ordinary schools. Gupta (1984) studied moral development of school children and advocated the
effect of schools in moral development of the school children. Gardia (2008) studied determiners of
democratic values among higher secondary students; the creative stimulus provided in the school
and permissive environment in the schools were found to be significantly determining democratic
values. All the above studies in Indian context too explored the importance of schools in nurturing
democratic values, although no study was conducted on redefining school effectiveness in light of
citizenship education.

The discussion above infers that schools are the stronger source of inculcating citizenship values
among students. However, it is essential to deeply analyzing the kind of school which maximally
performs the task of shaping democratic outlook of the individuals. Thus, there is need of rethinking
school effectiveness for ensuring quality citizenship education.