This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]

On: 19 April 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773444416]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713699076

Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts: strategies for

improvement
Christopher Chapman a;Alma Harris a
a
University of Warwick Coventry UK.

To cite this Article Chapman, Christopher andHarris, Alma(2004) 'Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts:
strategies for improvement', Educational Research, 46: 3, 219 — 228
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0013188042000277296
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000277296

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Educational Research, Vol. 46, No. 3, Winter 2004

Improving schools in difficult and

challenging contexts: strategies for
improvement

Christopher Chapman* and Alma Harris

University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

This paper outlines the contemporary research evidence concerning school improvement in
challenging contexts. Drawing upon findings from recent studies in the UK funded by the
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the National College for School Leadership
(NCSL) the paper outlines some of the improvement strategies that have been successful in raising
achievement in schools in challenging contexts. It argues that school improvement interventions
must offer differential strategies for change that fit the particular developmental stage of the school.
The paper concludes by suggesting that more fine-grained and differentiated approaches to school
improvement are needed that offer more flexibility and choice, particularly for those schools facing
difficult or challenging circumstances.

Keywords: Challenging circumstances; Challenging contexts; Improvement; Strategies

Introduction
Raising educational standards is at the core of many developed countries’ public
policy agenda. Different countries have adopted different approaches and strategies to
achieve this aim. In the UK, especially in England, schools have been subjected to
high levels of central government intervention. This has especially been the case for
schools with low levels of academic attainment. Policies pursued by successive
governments have tended to incorporate a blend of pressure and support in an
attempt to drive up standards of the lowest-attaining schools. The increased use of
target setting has been at the core of many policies. One example is the expectation
that all secondary schools within the system will achieve above a uniform minimum
standard in terms of academic performance over time. Schools failing to meet these
standards or ‘floor targets’ and those serving socio-economically disadvantaged
communities have become known as schools facing challenging circumstances
(SFCC).

*Corresponding author: Institute of Education, University of Warwick, Warwick CV4 7AL, UK.
Email: chris.chapman@warwick.ac.uk
ISSN 0013-1881 (print)/ISSN 1469-5847 (online)/04/030219-10
# 2004 NFER
DOI: 10.1080/0013188042000277296
 220 C. Chapman and A. Harris

This group of about 600 schools remains at the core of the government’s drive to
raise performance and to increase levels of student achievement (TES, 30 August
2002). Within the SFCC group there is a high representation of schools serving
communities with low socio-economic status,1 urban areas (OFSTED, 1999),
schools with falling roles and schools serving inner city communities (Gray, 2000).
Many of these schools are, or have been, identified by OFSTED as requiring ‘special
measures’ or having ‘serious weaknesses’.2 Therefore, they have tended to encounter
high levels of external pressure in the form of compressed inspection cycles and
associated monitoring visits. The supportive element of the policy has been
underpinned by differentiating resource allocation within the system. SFCCs have
been in receipt of additional resources to raise attainment and improve performance.
Initially, £70 000 per school3 was allocated through the ‘Schools Facing Challenging
Circumstances’ initiative and, more recently, SFCCs have been able to bid for
£125 000 through the ‘Leadership Initiative Grant’ (LIG). In addition, a group of
eight schools facing ‘extremely challenging circumstances’ have received substantial
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

resource from a DfES developmental project over the past two years (Clarke et al.,
forthcoming). However, to date, the extent to which these interventions have
positively affected student outcomes and improved leadership within these schools
remains unclear.
An examination of the literature and ongoing research (Harris & Chapman, 2002;
Potter et al., 2002; Muijs et al., 2004) suggests that performance measures offer an
insufficient indicator of whether a school is in a ‘challenging context’. Proxy
indicators, such as free school meals, socio-economic status, parental education and
occupation, would, it has been argued, offer a more accurate picture of the degree of
challenge faced by such schools. As Gray (2000, p. 1) noted ‘the odds seem to be
stacked against schools in poorer areas’, and the link between disadvantage and
educational performance appears as strong as ever.
While there is a great deal of contemporary interest in improving schools in difficult
circumstances, the research base is far from extensive. The school improvement and
school effectiveness fields have tended to concentrate their considerable research
capacities on ‘improving’ or ‘effective’ schools. As a consequence, there is now a
considerable consensus and clarity about the characteristics of ‘good’, ‘effective’ and
‘improving schools’ (Sammons et al., 1999; Hopkins, 2001; Teddlie & Reynolds,
1995). By contrast, the contemporary research evidence concerning ‘ineffective’ or
‘failing’ schools is relatively small. As Barber and Dann (1996, p. 10) pointed out,
‘the steps required to help a school turn around are significantly less researched’.
Clearly there are some inherent difficulties in researching schools that are in
difficulty or in a potentially failing situation. This partly explains the paucity of the
evidence base. In addition, much of the research evidence concerning schools in
challenging or urban contexts has been derived from US studies (e.g. Louis & Miles,
1990; Louis & Marks, 1996; Elmore, 2000). Only relatively recently have researchers
in England focused their attention upon improving ‘failing’ or ‘ineffective’ schools
(Barber & Dann, 1996; Maden & Hillman, 1996; Hopkins et al., 1997; Stoll & Myers,
1998; Gray, 2000; Maden, 2001; Harris et al., 2003). Most recently, the emphasis
upon schools in challenging circumstances has prompted two important overviews of
 Strategies for schools facing challenging circumstances 221

the research evidence intended to inform improvement efforts in schools facing

challenging circumstances (Potter et al., 2002). This work has included an
improvement guide for schools facing challenging circumstances based upon the
most successful school improvement practice internationally (Hopkins, 2001b).
However, the empirical evidence focused on improving schools in challenging
circumstances in England remains limited. Maden (2001) has called for richer
descriptions of improvement practices within schools in difficulty. In response to this
call, the paper draws upon the findings of two research studies that focused
exclusively on schools in challenging circumstances. The first study commissioned by
the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) examined successful leadership
practices in ten schools facing challenging circumstances (Harris & Chapman, 2002).
The second study funded by the Department for Education and Skills explored the
strategies used for raising and sustaining attainment in eight schools that had
demonstrated sustained improvement over a five-year period (Harris et al., 2003).
Selection of schools for both studies was informed by trends in performance data and
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

maximum variation sampling (Maykutt & Morehouse, 1994). In both studies, data
were collected from a range of stakeholders, including headteachers, senior managers,
middle managers, teachers, non-teaching staff and students. Within and between case
analysis highlighted common themes and emerging trends in the data (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). While the possibilities for generalization from the findings of two
small-scale studies is clearly limited, both studies highlight key strategies schools
identified as being important in contributing to successful school improvement. In
summary, these are as follows.

Improve the environment

The majority of schools, in both studies, were located in positions that meant that
their immediate surroundings were often very poor. A number of schools were
located on estates with high levels of social housing or in inner city contexts. The
physical condition of the majority of the schools was initially very poor, with leaking
classrooms, broken windows, graffiti-covered furniture and litter-covered corridors.
Consequently, one of the first actions taken was to improve the immediate
environment in which students and staff worked. Resources were allocated to
painting and repair work, to new furniture, to a new reception area, to display-boards
and refurbishment of the staffroom. Emphasis was placed on litter removal and
students were given the task of sanding down desks to eradicate graffiti. This strategy
had both a symbolic and real purpose as it demonstrated to staff, students and parents
that the school was changing and improving.

Generate positive relationships

In schools, in both studies, the quality of the relationships between staff and also
between staff, students and parents had proved at some stage to be an issue. In many
cases, relationships had deteriorated over time resulting in a negative culture within
the school characterized by low expectations and a high degree of mistrust. The
 222 C. Chapman and A. Harris

studies revealed that the heads had invested a great deal of time in creating
opportunities for more positive relationships to be developed. For staff, opportunities
were provided to work together, to work across teams and within teams, social events
were organized and staff development activities included the expertise and
involvement of those within the school. For pupils, staff – student committees were
organized, student councils established, lunchtime and after-hours clubs were set up
and trips organized. For parents, there were evening classes and ‘drop-in’ sessions.
All parents’ evenings included a social component and there were more opportunities
created to give parents positive feedback and to invite them into the school. An
emphasis was placed upon breaking down social barriers and creating a climate within
school where staff, students and parents had more opportunities to talk.

A focus on teaching and learning

Schools that find themselves in difficulty can be subject to a wide range of external
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

interventions that can compete for time, energy and resource. The demands of
numerous initiatives can prove to be counter-productive in securing school
improvement, particularly in schools where there are additional problems of social
disadvantage. One way of rationalizing and focusing improvement efforts is to locate
them strictly in the area of teaching and learning. A clear focus on a limited number
of goals has also been identified as an important contributory factor to effective and
improving schools (Hopkins, 2001b; Potter et al., 2002).
The studies found that a central focus on teaching and learning was a common
denominator of the schools’ success. Teachers used a variety of approaches to
ensure that all students had access to learning in the most efficient and effective
manner. They also provided opportunities for student-initiated and student-directed
learning activities, and teachers related instruction to practical and meaningful
student experiences. In addition, the schools’ staff development opportunities
focused specifically on effective teaching strategies and approaches. The schools
placed a consistent and continual emphasis on improving the quality of teaching and
learning.
In both studies, all schools had adopted strategies to ensure the learning orientation
was not lost. These commonly focused on pupil mentoring and tracking. Similarly, all
schools had put in place clear discipline procedures and emphasized the need to
create an orderly learning environment. The research showed that lessons were highly
structured, with curriculum delivery in smaller packages, followed by rapid feedback.
There was an emphasis upon positive reinforcement from the teacher and need for
external rewards. In addition, creating consistency in teaching was considered to be
important and there tended to be more emphasis on basic skills and less on extending
the curriculum.

Building community
Schools in difficulty are most often located in communities of extreme poverty and
deprivation. As a consequence, they have to deal with problems that are a by-product
 Strategies for schools facing challenging circumstances 223

of the socio-economic context in which the school is located. Indeed the school may
be viewed with mistrust and suspicion by the community. It may be seen as having
relatively little to do with the lives and aspirations of those within the community it
serves. A main task facing many schools therefore was one of building bridges with
the outside community and to form relationships with families that extended beyond
just getting them, there was a very strong sense of community within the schools and
forging links with parents and local businesses was perceived as an important use of
resource. The heads believed that schools that have solid and lasting links with the
local community were more likely to gain their support and loyalty in difficult times.
Hence, they created opportunities for parents to come in to school, to talk to teachers,
to use the facilities and to see the school as a resource for them and their children.
The research showed that parents who were involved with school early on were also
more likely to stay involved. The heads tried to break down traditional barriers
between the school and the community by seeking ways to integrate and involve
parents in school life. Social, sporting and charitable events offered some points of
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

entry for parents, but evening classes and community meetings were also used to
encourage parents to view the school as an important resource for the local
community.

Continuous professional development

An increasing body of research has pointed to the need for schools to become learning
communities, engaged in continuous improvement efforts and enquiring into both
within-school conditions and out-of-school developments. Such schools are open to
change and experiment, and engaged in continuous improvement through enquiry
into existing practices and evidence-based adoption of innovation (Joyce et al., 1999).
Achieving this is no simple matter. Stoll (1999) sees continuous learning as
dependent on the school’s capacity that is, in turn, influenced by the school’s
teachers, the school’s social and cultural learning context and the school’s external
context. The ‘teacher as learner’ is central to school capacity, teachers’ practices
being the key to school improvement and school effectiveness. Creating a learning
community entails that considerable emphasis is put on continuous professional
development in schools, improving schools being found to expend more time and
effort on professional development than stable schools (Freeman, 1997). Many
effective and improving schools therefore have policies in place that support staff
professional development.
Staff development was found to be one of the most important factors in securing
school improvement in schools in both studies. There were opportunities for teachers
to visit other schools, to gather together examples of best practice and to take time to
reflect upon their own teaching skills; these were critically important in raising teacher
morale and increasing expectations of teaching performance. All the schools had
leaders who invested heavily in the development of their staff and placed an emphasis
upon providing opportunities for staff to learn from practice elsewhere. Of critical
importance too was the selection of developmental activities that teachers were
engaged in, their quality, duration and relevance to classroom practice.
 224 C. Chapman and A. Harris

Within many SFCCs a lack of attention, emphasis and investment in staff

development over time is a common feature. The resulting erosion of professional
confidence and capability can be a major barrier to improving schools in difficulty. In
such cases, teachers may feel devalued and de-skilled; and particularly if the school is
in ‘special measures’, they can become the prime focus of blame. It was considered
important by the heads in both studies that teachers were given the time and
opportunity to collaborate. Opportunities and new approaches to professional
development, such as mentoring, coaching and peer review, were put in place.
Where teaching practices were poor, improvements were achieved through investing
in forms of professional development and collaboration that raised teachers’
knowledge base and skills. Providing groups or teams of teachers who had not
worked together before with a specific task or an area for improvement resulted in
major benefits to the school and the individuals involved.
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

Leadership
The importance of clear and purposeful leadership is well established within the
school effectiveness literature (Sammons et al., 1995). This is particularly the case
for SFCC. In many cases, schools in difficulty can suffer from a sustained lack of
direction and can drift. While the provision of firm, directive leadership may be
required at the outset of turning around a school in difficulty, it would appear that a
more democratic form of leadership is needed as the school begins to move and
improve (Chapman, 2003). Effective leadership in improving SFCCs was
characterized by the building of leadership teams that motivated, raised morale
and sustained performance over time. Teachers were given leadership responsibility,
encouraged to work together in teams and had set targets to meet. In this sense,
effective leadership in SFCCs was a shared and dispersed entity, concerned with
knowing how to motivate others, how to establish and manage teams and how to
convince staff they can make a difference. Honesty, trust and openness in a leader
were perceived as important and this was modelled by giving staff real responsibility
to lead.
Within SFCCs there are often low expectations of what students can achieve. Many
SFCCs often expect little from the community and hence little from their students.
When faced with low expectations from staff and students, the heads tried to generate
a belief in a culture of improvement. A first step in achieving this was to set clear
expectations with students and staff, to share a vision of improvement, particularly
with students and to reaffirm this on a regular basis. Students, staff and parents were
constantly reminded by the head what the school had to offer them and what part they
played in its development. By setting clear expectations and creating a vision, and
sharing this vision with others, the possibility for improvement was significantly
enhanced. The headteachers in the NCSL study were able to establish a more positive
climate for learning within their school by ‘talking up’ the school, setting clear
expectations (e.g. behaviour, truancy, attendance) and by encouraging respect for
others. They imparted a sense of urgency for maintaining high academic standards
and exerted pressure upon staff and students to excel.
 Strategies for schools facing challenging circumstances 225

Leadership in improving schools is often described as transformational, seeking to

satisfy higher needs and engage the full person of the follower, as opposed to
transactional leadership, which is characterized by exchange relationships (Potter et
al., 2002). Transformational leadership is seen as better able to cope with complex
situations (such as schools in economically deprived areas), and along with
instructional leadership (focus on teaching and learning) was found to be a
characteristic of effective leaders in Hallinger and Heck’s (1998) review. Realistically
leaders will need to have roles at both ends of this spectrum. Leadership in effective
and improving schools has also been described as instructional, which means that
effective heads focus on teaching and learning issues more than on other
(administrative) aspects, a factor that has been found to distinguish less effective
schools (Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993; Stoll, 1999).

Creating an information-rich environment

Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

Data richness has long been found to be an important component of effective and
improving schools in studies in the UK, the USA and Canada. Reynolds et al.
(forthcoming) have recently found this factor to be strongly related to improvement.
However, being data rich does not just mean the collection of large amounts of data,
but also their effective use, so that data can be turned into information as a basis for
school and classroom decision-making (Joyce et al., 1999; Hopkins, 2001a; Potter et
al., 2002). The schools in both studies did collect and centralise a wide variety of
data, including exam results, standardized and teacher-made test results, ques-
tionnaires and qualitative data.
The schools continuously interrogated existing test data to see whether initiatives
were working, or whether there are problems with achievement in particular areas or
with particular populations (Barth et al., 1999). The schools also collected the views
of pupils and/or teachers through the use of questionnaires on student and staff
satisfaction, school conditions and classroom observation. In the majority of cases,
data were used for target setting and planning appropriate programmes of
individualized study.

External support
External support is another factor found to be important in improving schools in
disadvantaged areas (Stoll & Myers, 1998; Potter et al., 2002). Schools in both studies
generated external support through the creation of external networks that facilitated
the generation of ideas and dissemination of good practice. External agency
assistance from external sources, such as consultants or LEA advisers, is an
important dimension of the change process. The provision of external agency can
prevent innovation from being blocked and can ensure that the momentum for
change is maintained. Local education agencies, in both studies, were generally seen
as providing support for school improvement by acting as a resource for professional
development, helping schools with data analysis and giving intensive early support to
schools.
 226 C. Chapman and A. Harris

Commentary
The strategies highlighted in this paper are not intended to provide a blueprint for
change, but simply highlight some of the ways in which SFCCs have promoted
cultural change and succeeded in securing better teaching and learning conditions for
staff and students. It is self-evident that these strategies are not exclusive to SFCCs,
but they have been consistently identified by schools in both studies as making a
positive difference to the quality of teaching and learning which research shows is
central to securing sustainable school improvement (Hopkins, 2001a). Inevitably,
there are many unanswered questions about improving SFCCs and their associated
strategies for improvement that go beyond the scope of this paper. It would be
interesting to know, for example, how far these strategies resonate with a larger group
of schools in challenging contexts. Similarly, it would be interesting to know if, and to
what extent, the improvement approaches and practices in schools in challenging
contexts mirror those in schools in more affluent circumstances. The issue of the
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

relationship between school context and differentiated approaches to school

improvement is also important, and to date, a neglected area of exploration that
warrants much more investigation.
Both studies highlighted how SFCCs are constantly managing tensions and
problems stemming from the particular circumstances and context of the school. In
many cases, the problems they face are beyond their control and thus the challenges
associated with improving the school are far greater for schools in such contexts.
However, the message that all schools can improve irrespective of their socio-
economic situation is still strongly held and widely promulgated by the government.
There is emerging evidence to suggest, in the most challenging circumstances,
schools face a range of problems that limit the extent of the improvement that can be
achieved (Reynolds et al., forthcoming). This research also highlights that, in SFCCs,
variations in performance over time are more likely to be expected than a steady,
upward trajectory of improvement. These social limits of school reform are
highlighted by Thrupp (1999, p. 182), who notes: ‘We should bear in mind that
being optimistic about school reform has helped avoid dealing with tough questions
about the impact on education of social inequalities of power and resources.’
Similarly, writers such as Slee et al. (1998) have argued that those involved in school
improvement have taken insufficient account of the socio-economic context in which
schools find themselves. They suggest that the ‘marketization’ of education has
exacerbated differences between schools in different socio-economic settings. In
addition, schools with little parental or community support face a particularly difficult
school improvement task.
Taking account of socio-economic differences points towards school improvement
approaches that are contextually sensitive and encompass differential strategies for
schools at different stages of development. Earlier work has suggested that
improvement approaches are needed that match the ‘growth state’ of the school
and fit its particular set of developmental needs (Hopkins et al., 1997). More recently,
Hopkins (2001a, p. 3) has reiterated the need for differentiated school improvement
approaches and strategies:
 Strategies for schools facing challenging circumstances 227

Put simply, schools at different stages of development require different strategies not
only to enhance their capacity for development, but also to provide a more effective
education for their students. Strategies for school development need to fit the ‘growth
state’ or culture of the particular school. Strategies which are effective for improving
performance at one growth state are not necessarily effective at another.

The implications are clear. First, schools need to be highly discerning in selecting
school improvement strategies and approaches. Second, even more caution is needed
in approaching development and change in schools in particularly challenging
circumstances. Third, schools should be freed from prescription to select their own
approaches to change and development to meet their particular needs. Further top-
down reform that treats all schools as the same is unlikely to secure long-term
improvement and change. What is needed is more fine-grained and differentiated
approaches to school improvement that offer more flexibility and choice, particularly
for those schools facing difficult or challenging circumstances (Harris & Chapman,
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

2004). In this way schools can implement those improvement strategies that best
meet the needs of their students and teachers in their context.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the NCSL and DfES for allowing us to draw upon the research
work undertaken for them. We are particularly grateful to all the schools and teachers
who have supported our work in this area. It is their relentless energy and enthusiasm
that continue to challenge social inequalities faced by communities that many of these
schools serve.

Notes
1. An average of 36% of pupils in SFCC schools are entitled to free school meals compared to the
national average of 13.5%. However, the range is from 84% to 6%.
2. Some 10.6% were in special measures at the end of the summer term 2000 compared to the
national average of 2% to 3%.
3. Due to increased levels of funding, schools that were also part of the Education Action Zones
initiative received only £20,000 from the SFCC initiative.

References
Barber, M. & Dann, R. (Eds) (1996) Raising educational standards in inner cities (London, Cassell).
Barth, P., Haycock, K., Jackson, H., Mora, K., Ruiz, P., Robinson, S. & Wilkins, A. (1999)
Dispelling the myth: high poverty schools exceeding expectations (Washington, DC, Ed Trust).
Chapman, C. (2003) Leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances: speculations and
propositions, paper presented at the Symposium: School Improvement in Challenging
Circumstances, ICSEI 2003, Sydney, 5 January.
Elmore, R. (2000) Building a new structure for school leadership (Washington, DC, The Albert
Shanker Institute).
 228 C. Chapman and A. Harris

Freeman, J. A. (1997) Contextual contracts between improving and stable elementary schools in
Louisiana, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association.
Gray, J. (2000) Causing concern but improving: a review of schools’ experience (London, DfEE).
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (1998) Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness:
1980 – 1995, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157 – 91.
Harris, A. & Chapman, C. (2002) Leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances (Nottingham,
National College for School Leadership).
Harris, A. & Chapman, C. (2004) Developing differentiated approaches to school improvement for
schools in challenging contexts, British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(4).
Harris, A., Muijs, M., Chapman, C., Stoll, L. & Russ, J. (2003) Raising attainment in schools in the
former coalfields areas (London, DfES).
Hopkins, D. (2001a) School improvement for real (London, Falmer Press).
Hopkins, D. (2001b) Meeting the challenge: an improvement guide for schools facing challenging
circumstances (London, DfES).
Hopkins, D., Harris, A. & Jackson, D. (1997) Understanding the school’s capacity for
development: growth states and strategies, School Leadership and Management, 17(3), 401 –
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 17:09 19 April 2010

411.
Joyce, B., Calhoun, E. & Hopkins, D. (1999) The new structure of school improvement (Buckingham,
Open University Press).
Louis, K., Marks, H & Kruse, S. (1996) Teachers’ professional community in restructuring
schools, American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757 – 789.
Louis, K. S. & Miles, B. M. (1990) Improving the urban high school: what works and why (New York,
Teachers College Press).
Maden, M. (2001) Further lessons in success. Success against the odds: five years on (London, Routledge
Falmer).
Maden, M. & Hillman, J. (1996) Success against the odds (London, Routledge).
Maykutt, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994) Beginning qualitative research: a philosophical and practical guide
(London, Falmer).
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source book (2nd
edn) (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L. & Russ, J. (forthcoming) Raising attainment in
schools serving disadvantaged communities: a review of the literature, School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 15(2), 149 – 177.
OFSTED (1999) Lessons learned from special measures (London, HMSO).
Potter, D., Reynolds, D. & Chapman, C. (2002) School improvement for schools facing
challenging circumstances: a review of research and practice, Schoool Leadership and
Management, 12(3).
Reynolds, D., Harris, A. & Clarke, P. (forthcoming) Improving schools facing extremely
challenging circumstances, School Effectiveness and School Improvement.
Sammons, P., Hillan, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995) Key characteristics of effective schools: a review of
school effectiveness research (London, OFSTED/ Institute of Education, University of London).
Slee, R., Weiner, G. & Tomlinson, S. (Eds) (1998) School effectiveness for whom? Challenges to
the school effectiveness and school improvement movements (London, Falmer).
Stoll, L. (1999) Realising our potential: understanding and developing capacity for lasting
improvement, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 503 – 532.
Stoll, L. & Myers, K. (1998) Introduction, in: L. Stoll & K. Myers (Eds) No quick fixes: perspectives
on schools in difficulty (London, Falmer Press).
Teddlie, C. & Stringfield, S. (1993) School matters: lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects
(New York, Teachers College Press).
Thrupp, M. (1999) Schools make a difference: let’s be realistic (Buckingham, Open University Press).