1

Current Views of the Characteristics of School

Effectiveness

in

the

context

of

National

secondary Schools From the Perception of

Principals, Heads of Department and Teachers

Dr.Mohan Gopala Iyer, EdD (University of Leicester,

U.K.

Currently Free-Lance Researcher, Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia

ABSTRACT

In the light of the introduction of the NPE in 2000 and the subsequent rapid
developments in education in Malaysia, there was a need for fresh School
Effectiveness research.This research focused on the synthesis of current and key
characteristics of school effectiveness as well as a current definition of an effective
school.The sample consisted of 120 respondents consisting principals, Heads

of

Department and teachers from 40 national secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur.

The selection was by random stratified sampling with pre-set criteria. The response
rate was 84%. The instrument used was a questionnaire triangulated by interviews
with respondents from two randomly selected schools. The five current
characteristics selected were effective teaching and learning, principals leadership
skills, student self-discipline, good behavior among students and greater cooperation
between principal and teacher and among teachers. Five main qualities of an effective
principal were also synthesized. The five key characteristics of school effectiveness
selected are: A principal who is strong, purposeful and involved; effective teaching and
learning; greater cooperation between principal and teacher and among teachers;
greater collegiality between principal and teacher and among teachers and effective
parental involvement. 22 additional characteristics of school effectiveness were
suggested. The definition of an effective school synthesized in this research had one
descriptor in line with the NPI and other descriptors in line with the selected current
and key characteristics of school effectiveness. Records with the FIS indicated that
currently majority of the national secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur were effective.
The interview with the respondents from two schools indicated that their item
responses had a significant (p<0.05) convergent validity, test-retest and parallel-form
reliability in responses and that the definition of an effective school synthesized was

reliable.

Abbreviations:
NPE: National Philosophy of Education
KPI: Key Performance Indicator
CDC:Curriculum Development Centre
FIS :Federal Inspectorate of Schools

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this research are

(i)

to synthesize current and key characteristics of school effectiveness

from the perspective of principals, heads of department and teachers
of national secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

(ii)

to triangulate the findings by interviews in two selected schools.

(iii)

to identify the keywords or descriptors used in defining an effective

school to synthesize a definition based on the keywords identified in
the research.

This research is focused on national secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur. In

Kuala Lumpur there are 95 national secondary schools, nine private
secondary schools and four private Chinese secondary schools (School
malaysia, 2008). As the majority of secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur
(88%), are national secondary schools, it is meaningful to carry out the
research in national secondary schools. This is the setting of this research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Concept of School Effectiveness

Researchers generally lack consensus on what constitutes school
effectiveness: It has been argued in the input-output

perspective

(Cheng,1996; Lockheed and Hanushek,1988); in the perspective of schools

in which students progress further than might be expected from consideration
of its intake (Sammons and Mortimore, 1995, p.1); growth in student
achievement (Willms, 1992, p.34). and on a more broader stand that should
not focus on mere academic achievement (Rutter, 1983; Sammons et al.,

4
1996 ; Mc Gaw et al. (1992, p. 4). Reynolds et. al. (1996) are of the view
that effectiveness is dependent on people and the resources available. Hence
the difficulty in defining school effectiveness is dependent on people who are
forced to choose from competing values. (Stoll and Fink, 1996).

HM Inspectorate of Schools in Scotland (Drever, 1991) take the view that

effectiveness should be judged by the product, and that the ultimate product
of schooling is the 'value added': what pupils have gained from their years in
school. The fact that the report noted non-cognitive areas that should be part
of the product are supported by other researches (e.g. Rutter, 1979;
Mortimore et al., 1988a;).

There is an argument that a school is effective if school processes result in

observable (not always quantifiable) positive outcomes among its students
consistently over a period of time (Reynolds, 1985; Ninan, 2006) This
implies that the effectiveness of a school is dependent more on its 'processes'
and gauged by its 'outcomes' than on its 'intake'. 'Intake', plays only a
marginal role in school effectiveness (HMI, 1977). This is in contrast with
the argument that differential effects of schools plays a role in school
effectiveness (Teddlie and Reynolds, 2000, p.15).

Mortimores view was that an effective school adds an extra value to its
students outcomes in comparison with other schools serving similar intakes
(Sammons and Mortimore, 1995). This concept of the value added by the
school resulted in a need to explicitly focus on student outcomes in all
methodologies involving school effectiveness research (McPherson, 1992).
This then led to methodological issues such as consistency and stability in
effectiveness .

Hoy and Miskel (2001, p.290) argued that a school is deemed as effective if
the outcome of its activities meets or exceeds its goals. Relevant here is the

5
view that an effective school is one that promotes high levels of student
achievement for all students in the school (Murphy, 1990) It is no surprise,
therefore that academic emphasis and frequent monitoring of student
academic progress has been viewed as important correlates of an effective
school (Al Waner, 2005). An effective school hence is a school that can
achieve or exceed its academic goals. A rather different view is that schools
are effective if their pupils perform at a higher than average level than an
average school (Cuttance, 1985, p.13). school effectiveness is the ability of a
school to achieve or exceed its goals. The goals set should be reflective of
students academic ability. There is a need to take value added scores into
consideration of prior achievement of pupils on entry to school (Sammons et
al, 1996a in Teddlie and Reynolds, 2000, p.72). An effective school hence is
argued as a school that can achieve or exceed its prior set goals.

An Australian view that effective schools are those that successfully

progress the learning and personal development of all of their students (ACT,
2005) is a stark contrast from the UK and USA perspective of an effective
school being judged merely by academic performance.
Though studies give various perspectives of what constitutes school
effectiveness or what an effective school is, the diversified views lead to the
conclusion that
while all reviews assume that effective schools can be differentiated
from ineffective ones, there is no consensus yet on just what constitutes an
effective school.
(Reid, Hopkins and Holly, 1987, p.22)
Schreerens (2000) adds that
School effectiveness is a difficult concept to define and once defined is of a
nature difficult to reason

6
Hence the concept of school effectiveness has various approaches
and as Firestone (1991, p.2) noted that Defining the effectiveness of a
particular school always requires choices among competing values. Hence
he further adds that the criteria of effectiveness will be a subject of political
debate.
School effectiveness from the Malaysian perspective

Studies of\ school effectiveness in Malaysia, emphasizes on good school

management (Cheng, 1993; Ministry of Education, 1989) fulfillment of the
NPE

(Ministry of Education, 1989), effective teaching and learning

(Ministry of Education,1989) a greater focus on improvement in academic

performance (Sharifah, 1998; Ramaiah, 1992; Hussein, 1993; Mohd. Zaid,
1993) staff job satisfaction (Sharifah, 1998; Hussein, 1993) and less
disciplinary problems (Hussein, 1993; Ministry of Education, 1989) and
fulfillment of aspirations of Vision 2020 (Mohd.Shah, 1996). The interesting
perspective is that school effectiveness is inclusive of the government
(policies), principal, staff and students. A broader context emerges here that
every stakeholder in the school has a role in ensuring school effectiveness.

Characteristics of effective schools

Researches in Malaysia on the correlates or characteristics of school

effectiveness indicate similarities and differences between the characteristics
chosen in Malaysia and those chosen internationally. Among the
characteristics that have a commonality are

(a)

A strong, purposeful and involved principal (Abdullah, 2002; Ang Thien

Sze, 2002; Nazrol, 2000; Mortimore et al., 1998; Levine and
Lexzotte,1990 ;Sammons et al., 1995)

7
(b)

Shared visions and goals including collegiality and cooperation among

teachers (Abdul Halim, 1989; Ministry of Education, 1989; Norazian,
2003; Jebon, 2002; Nazrol, 2000; Sammons et al., 1995; Louisiana
School Effectiveness Studies in Teddlie and Springfield, 1993)

(c)

Effective teaching and learning (Abdullah, 2002; Rahimah and Zulkifli,

1996; Nazrol, 2000, Sammons et al, 1995; Levine and Lezotte, 1990;
Bergeson, 2002 )

(d)

Effective evaluation and monitoring (Sam Kit Mun, 2004; Lam Pow Lien,
1997; Abdullah, 2002; Sammons et al., 1995; Levine and Lezotte, 1990;
Al Waner, 2005)

(e)

Positive Learning Environment (Wan Zaid, 1993; Abdullah, 2002; Nazrol,

2000; Sammons et al., 1995; Vermulen, 1987)

(f)

Focused professional Development (Sam Kit Mun, 2004; Lam Pow Lien,
1997; Abdullah, 2002; Siew Ban Lee, 1998; Narimah 1997; Bergeson,
2002; Sammons et al., 1995; Levine and Lezotte, 1990; Greenberg, 2001)

(g) Effective parental involvement (Abdul Halim, 1989; Ministry of Education

Malaysia, 1996; Nazrol, 2000; Levine and Lezzotte, 1990; Sammons et al.,
1995; Mortimore et al., 1988a; Reynolds et al., 1994)

The similarity in characteristics indicate that they are widely accepted

across countries and are stable over years (e.g. effective parental
involvement). It is therefore not a surprise that all seven characteristics are
part of Mortimores 11 characteristics of school effectiveness widely
accepted by researchers internationally.

8
Among differences observed within the framework of this research. Were
teachers attitude towards student (Abdul Halim, 1989; Nazrol, 2000),
effective use of school resources (Abdul Karim, 1989), teacher job
satisfaction (Hussein, 1993) and good organizational culture (Cheng, 1993).

Malaysian Government Policy Issues

Accountability

The Government of Malaysia has indicated that it wants to use Key

Performance Indicators (KPI) to develop a high performance culture. Among
requirements were focus on quality and accountability (Najib, 2004, p.1). In
the context of a national secondary school, there is a need for accountability
by teachers, administrators and the principal and to the profession, the ideals
of the NPE, parents and the education service (Awang, 2003 pp.17-19). This
will be assessed by the FIS to ensure compliance (Alimuddin, 2005, p.12)

Effective Co-curricular activities including sports

The announcement by the Minister of Education of Malaysia to make

Physical Education as an examination subject as well as the need in
enhancing professionalism in sports with greater focus commencing in
schools reflects current expectations that schools in Malaysia need to foster
(Hishamuddin, 2005, p.1). The view was endorsed by the Cabinet itself. It
had recommended that Olympic medal winners be given a life-long pension
(Najib, 2005, p.1).

This was further supported in the Blueprint of the Ministry of Education:

Educational Development 2001-2010 (Komala Devi, 2005, p.7) where the
strategy of implementation of co-curricular activities was announced. The

9
rationale was that extra curricular activities are important in the realization of
the NPE (CDC, 2001a).

Effective principal leadership in Malaysian schools includes management of

co-curricular activities (Faisal Sayuti, 1997). In the FIS assessment of school
Effectiveness, (FIS, 2004, p.11) co-curriculum achievement is recognized as
an important element of effective schools.

The effective use of ICT and English in teaching and learning

The Ministry of Education Malaysia had announced the consolidation of

ICT initiatives and linking up schools with renowned foreign schools as part
of educational reforms (Hishamuddin, 2006a).The views are in line with the
Smart School Project with teaching-learning courseware for Malay, English,
Science and Mathematics as well as Smart School Management System with
software for management and administration (Ministry of Education, 2004).
Teaching and learning processes are to be reinvented with the aid of ICT.
Proficiency in English and ICT became a requirement for salary appraisals
and promotions in the teaching profession (NUTP, 2004, p.15).

Effective Counselling

One of the desired outcomes in the NPE of Malaysia (CDC, 2001a) is to

produce students who among other features are emotionally stable. In fact
effective counselling was cited additionally as an important characteristic of
school effectiveness (Mohan, 2004). Though all national schools in Malaysia
have counsellors, majority of students have low awareness of its benefits
(Usha, 2000). Others argue that usage is highest for emotional, achievement
and social problems (Jegathesean, 1990). The argument here is not whether
counselling is effective but how to make it more effective in areas such as
emotional stability which in turn facilitates effective learning.

10

In view of an increase in crime rates among school students (Malaysia Crime

Prevention Foundation, 2006, p.8) the Government started a pilot programme
called Jati Diri (Integrity) Camps for problem students. This is perceived to
assist in tackling problem students. There was even a suggestion to the
Cabinet to make truancy an offence (Noh Omar, 2006) and to organize
courses in parenting skills as well as highlighting parenting skills by way of
TV commercials, movies and dramas (Hon Choon Kim, 2006, p.8).

Hence these government policy issues were added to the questionnaire to

gauge

perceptions on current

characteristics of school effectiveness in

Malaysia.

INSTRUMENTATION AND METHODOLOGY

The epistemology of this research has a positivistic paradigm with an

objectivist base using quantitative analysis(Briggs and Coleman, 2007, p.20).
as well as a subjectivist approach using qualitative analysis utilising an
emperical scientific approach (Cohen and Manion, 1998, p.13).

Of the 95 schools forming the population, 40 schools were selected for this
study with a total of 120 respondents -the Principal, Head of Department and
a teacher from each of the 40 schools. A stratified equivalence sampling was
done to select almost equal participants from each of the four zones schools
in Kuala Lumpur are classified..There was 84.2% response rate, which is a
good response rate (Babbie,1973).The pilot sample consisted of all the nine
private secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur that followed the same
curriculum as the national secondary schools. It had a 56% response rate, an
anticipated likelihood in postal questionnaires (Denscombe,1998, pp.23-24).

11
Informed consent was obtained from the Economic Planning Unit of the
Prime Ministers Department , the Education al Research and Planning Unit
of the Ministry of Education and the Director of Education of the Federal
Territory of Kuala Lumpur in accordance with ethics in research (Johnson,
1994; Frankfort -Nachiamas and Nachiamas,1992).

The instruments used was questionnaire and interviews. The questionnaire

had nine items, with an open-ended question that requested a list of keywords
to define an effective school and a part open-ended section that requested
further suggestions for characteristics of school effectiveness. For interviews,
two schools were selected at random from the 36 schools that responded to
the questionnaire.The interviews were semi-structured and with a interview
guide.

A Standard Evaluation Instrument was obtained from the Federal

Inspectorate of Schools Office in Kuala Lumpur. It had KPIs based on a
performance-based evaluation (Brualdi, 1998) involving knowledge and
skills (Hibbard et at al, 1996, p.5) with rubrics that add reliability and
validity(Moskal and Leydens, 2000).

SPPS 12.0 as well as descriptive and comparative ststistics was used in data
analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Current characteristics of school effectiveness was synthesized from

responses to listed characteristics that emerged from the current literature
review in Malaysia with a scaled score of 1 till 5 delegated as least to most
important.

12
Key Characteristics listed the questionnaire had 14 characteristics which
were synthesized from literature review local and abroad- nine had
commonality and five were government policy issues.

Results

The five most important current characteristics of school effectiveness were

(i) Effective teaching and learning
(ii) Principals leadership skills
(iii) Student self-discipline
(iv) Good behaviour among students
(v) Greater cooperation between principal and teachers and among teachers

The five most important key characteristics were

(i) A school with shared visions and goals
(ii) Effective teaching and learning
(iii) Greater cooperation between principal and teacher and among teachers
(iv) Positive Learning Environment
(v) Effective evaluation and monitoring

A total of 22 other characteristics were suggested by respondents.They are

Principal Factors:

1. A principal who does not talk behind the back

2. Does not practice any form of discrimination
3. Values teachers contributions
4. Able to accept constructive criticism from teachers
5. Able to know the strengths and weaknesses of staff and hence make a
fair judgment in appraisals

13
School Factors:

1. Competent Human Resource Management

2. Networking between schools
3. Respect and understanding among staff of all categories
4. Having a school canteen that is tidy, hygienic and with food sold at
affordable prices
5. Efficient financial clerks
6. An administration that has concern for the welfare of teachers
7. Having a sufficient number of experienced teachers
8. Having effective Senior Assistants and Heads of Department

Teacher Factors:

1. Provision of financial aid in ICT for teachers and students

2. Serving as good role models for students
3. Teachers focusing on life-long and self-directed learning
4. Possessing a good personality and self-respect.
5. A focus on enrichment activities in teaching and learning
6. Intellectualism among teachers
7. Should be agents of change by being creative and innovative

Student Factors:

1. Have a vision, clear ambition and purpose to acquire knowledge

Others:

1. Involvement of other Government agencies and NGOs.

14
A possible definition of an effective school synthesized from the five
keywords with the five highest frequency is:

An effective school is one with an effective and fair principal with a shared
vision and mission, striving for excellence in all fields, has effective
cooperation and collaboration among its staff and ensures a conducive and
safe learning environment

Among keywords that had eight and less responses were:

(i)

Effective Tactical and operational planning

(ii)

Visibility

(iii)

Integrity

(iv)

Teachers equipped with ICT

(v)

Creative and innovative

(vi)

Students with high IQ and EQ

(vii)

Efficient

(viii) Focused
(ix)

Effective co-curriculum

Among keywords with more than eight responses but not the five highest
were:
(i)

Charismatic

(ii)

Love and care

(iii)

Excellence in all fields

(iv)

Dedicated and knowledgeable staff

(v)

Accountability

15
Data from FIS Office in Kuala Lumpur:

Current data of effective schools in Kuala Lumpur indicated that 91.8 % of

the secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur were effective.

Interview with respondents from two selected schools:

Correlation between Questionnaire Scores

and Interview Scores

School A
P
0.773*

H
0.921**

School B
T
0.764*

P
0.816**

H
T
0.667* 0.802**

Note : P-Principal; H-Head of Department; T-Teacher

The results indicate that there is a significant correlation (p < 0.05) between
the scores between the questionnaire and interview and convergent validity
is established.

Results of probe:

(a) Generosity in praises is a means to assist in collegiality and

cooperation between principal and teachers.

(b) The principal is an authority for the subordinates to be accountable to.

(c) While ICT makes teaching more interesting, having a good command of
ICT alone does not determine a good teacher.

(d) While one respondent agrees that parents can offer services to schools
e.g. sponsor medals, another respondent says they can donate airconditioners and books too. A third respondent feels that they should be

16
best outside the perimeter of the school as they are a potential source of
stress. A good home is viewed by a respondent as a determinant of good
schools rather than mere good principals.

(e) The local community can help to check truancy, run seminars and offer
their talents to the school and organize programmes like adventure camps.

(f) While one respondent states that effective teaching and learning is the
most important characteristic of school effectiveness he adds that
collegiality and cooperation reduce teacher stress. Interestingly he adds
that for a school to be effective, it must extend to clerks and general
workers in the school too.

(g) There is recognition of the role of heads of department in effective

supervision and monitoring.

The data indicate that the interviews in the two schools served their dual
purposes of triangulation and probe with new or additional information and
insights.

DISCUSSION

Current characteristics of school effectiveness

The choices made by the respondents in this research indicate that

commonalities exist between each category of respondents and all
respondents as a whole. While effective teaching and learning and
principals leadership skills emerge as common characteristics between
principals and heads of department, the common characteristics between
principals and teachers are student self-discipline, good behaviour among
students and principals leadership skills. In comparing with the choices of

17
heads of departments and teachers in the sample, effective teaching and
learning as well as greater collegiality between principal and teachers and
among teachers are common characteristics. The results indicate that there is
one common characteristic of school effectiveness selected by all the
respondents - effective teaching and learning.

Effective teaching and learning has emerged as a common current

characteristic of school effectiveness (e.g. Mortimore et al., 1988; Levine
and Lezotte,1990; Sammons et al.,1995; Reynolds et al., 1994; Greenburg,
2001; Bergeson, 2002; State of Victoria, Department of Education and
Training, 2002) and in Malaysia (e.g. Ministry of Education, 1989; Nazrol,
2000). School effectiveness is dependent on effective teaching and learning
(Schreens, 1992; Mortimore, 1993; Creemers, 1994).

Principals leadership skills

are viewed as the second most important

current characteristic of school effectiveness.In Malaysia, since the role of a

principal was transformed from a mere administrative head to a leader of
teaching (Ministry of Education, 1982) there was a paradigm shift towards a
dual function of a principal as an administrative and as an instructional leader
(Sharil, 2002). To realize this objective principals had to be creative,
innovative and work towards a change (Hussein, 1993, p.193), possess
effective communication (Ramaiah, 1999,p.115; Shahril, 2004) and
motivational skills (Zaidatul, 1999, p.108); high IQ and EQ (Shahril, 2002;
Ang Thien See, 2002; Leanne Goh, 2006, p.7); ability to manage finance,
curriculum and co-curriculum (Faisal Sayuati, 2001); possess leadership
styles that can contribute to better academic achievement (Parwazalam,
2000); love for subordinates and serve as an effective coach (Ang Thien See,
2002); ability to ensure quality of students school life (Lam Pow Lien,
1997); using tactfulness and making the subordinates feel important (Lim
How, 2006, p.1) and of recent mastery of English and ICT skills (Ambrin,
2005, p.7) more so with the Governments intention of converting all national

18
schools to smart schools (Ministry of Education, 2004) by 2010. As greater
focus is seen towards principals leadership skills in most studies on school
leadership since the mid 1990s in Malaysia, the due recognition given to this
role by the respondents is understandable.

Interestingly the third and fourth current characteristics of school

effectiveness by the respondents focused on students-student self-discipline
and good behaviour among students. The type of students a school produces
is the product of schooling. In Malaysia, student self-discipline was seen as a
key characteristic of school effectiveness either directly (Abdul Karim, 1989:
Ministry of Education, 1989) or as part of a conducive learning environment
(Nazrol, 2000; Hussein, 1993). The fact that management of student
discipline is incorporated as a sub-element of management of student related
programmes in schools (FIS, 2004, p.72) reflects the importance attached to
student discipline in determining school effectiveness. Pressure from students
has been a predominant cause of teacher stress in Malaysia (Loke Yim
Pheng, 2006a) and with the increasing involvement of secondary school
students in crime (Hishamuddin, 2006f) resulting in the need for discipline
camps to provide counselling for problem kids (Noh Omar, 2006) it is
understandable that student self-discipline and student behaviour be valued as
highly important characteristics of school effectiveness by the respondents.

Greater cooperation between principal and teachers and among teachers

emerged as the fifth most important current characteristic of school
effectiveness. Shared vision and mission has emerged as a key characteristic
of school effectiveness in studies done in Malaysia and overseas
(e,g.Sammons et al., 1995; Levine and Lezotte, 1990; Sammons et al., 1995;
Barber et al., 1995; Nazrol, 2000; Sam Kit Mun, 2004; Ministry of Education
Malaysia, 1989).A shared vision and mission requires among others, close
rapport, cooperation and collaboration between principal and teachers and
among teachers (Sammons et al., 1995). Rutter et al. (1979) stressed that the

19
atmosphere of a school will be greatly influenced by the degree to which it
functions as a coherent whole while Lee, Bryk and Smith (1993) in
reviewing literature on effective secondary schools state that effective
schools require a sense

of community Such elements of community as

cooperative work, effective communication and shared goals have been

identified as crucial for all types of successful organizations, not only
schools ( p. 227). Mortimore et al. (1995) sums values such as cooperation
under what they term as Unity of purpose. It is this unity of purpose
coupled with a positive attitude towards learning and towards pupils that is
what they call as a powerful mechanism for school effectiveness (Mortimore
et al., 1995, p.11). Almost all respondents rated this as high. Almost all the
six respondents who were interviewed mentioned the importance of
cooperation. Hence the fifth choice of current characteristics of school
effectiveness reflects its importance as seen in local and foreign researches
and by respondents in this research as well as the interview.

The findings indicate that the current characteristics of school effectiveness

has not changed despite current changes in education policies in Malaysia.
The five characteristics are similar to characteristics of school effectiveness
seen in studies in Malaysia and overseas. The fact that two of the
characteristics

are student based indicate that students are perceived as

important stakeholders of school effectiveness. The fact that the other three
characteristics evolve around the teacher, and principal indicates that
teachers, students and principal are acknowledged as the more important
stakeholders of school effectiveness.

Key characteristics of school effectiveness

Choices of Principals
The choices of the principals reflect that none of the choices had more than
40% response reflecting a lack of consensus on priority of choices of the key

20
characteristics of school effectiveness. While the first three choices have
similarity with the selection of current characteristics of school effectiveness,
23.9% chose effective evaluation and monitoring as the fourth choice.

Any evaluation needs monitoring (Bush and West-Burnham, 1994, p.158).

Whilst evaluation may identify issues to be addressed, it is monitoring that
can effectively pinpoint any remedial action to be taken (Bush and Bell,
2003, p.177). Evaluation serves the purpose of accountability and school
improvement too (Bush and Bell, 2003, p.158). The implication here is a link
between evaluation and accountability. Evaluation is linked with school
improvement and itself is linked to QEA (Teddlie,T. and Reynolds, D., 2000,
pp.219-222). In this perspective the selection of evaluation and monitoring as
the fourth choice of key characteristics of school effectiveness reflects a
possible understanding of its link to quality in education.

The selection of Effective Parental Involvement as the fifth choice reflects

the acknowledgement of parents as important stakeholders of school
effectiveness. This is also reflected as a common characteristic of school
effectiveness in School Effectiveness Research carried out in USA (Levine
and Lezotte, 1990), U.K. (Sammons et al., 1995), Australia (Greenberg,
2001) and in Malaysia (Abdul Karim, 1989; Nazrol, 2000; Mohd.Sani and
Zaharah, 2001). It can also have a positive effect on student achievement
(Fantuzzo, 1995; Kathleen and Howard, 1997). Interestingly none of the
respondents in the research sample selected effective parental involvement
as a current characteristic of school effectiveness.

Choices of heads of department

On the choice made by heads of department, three of the five characteristics

had a commonality with the choices made either by teachers or principals
with effective teaching and learning emerging as the only common

21
characteristic selected by principals, heads of department and teachers. The
first choice made by the heads were the first choice of the principals A
principal who is strong, purposeful and involved with a good majority of
52.6% of the heads selecting it as the first choice. This indicates a greater
conviction on the part of the departmental heads on the importance of the role
of the principal. There is also a greater focus on relationships collegiality
and cooperation. They are the only category of respondents in the research
sample to select effective co-curricular activities as a characteristic of school
effectiveness.

Choices of teachers

The teachers too focus on shared values in their first choice and shared
relationship of cooperation as the third choice. The importance paid to
effective teaching and learning as the second choice is understandable. Three
of the five choices had commonality with the choices of principals indicating
a coherence of perceptions between them. fourth choice of a positive learning
environment that has been viewed as an important characteristic of school
effectiveness (Sammons et al., 1995; Greenburg, 2001). The selection of
effective evaluation and monitoring as the fifth choice indicates a realization
of its importance to teaching and learning, better academic effectiveness,
accountability and school improvement as discussed earlier in the chapter.

Overall choices from all respondents

The overall choices from all the respondents reflect a broad perspective but
the characteristics have similarities with researches on key characteristics of
school effectiveness abroad. All five characteristics were part of the 11 key
characteristics of school effectiveness put forward by Mortimore et al.
(1995). One or more of the five key characteristics were similar
characteristics

synthesized

in

researchers

overseas.

While

parental

22
involvement in itself was seen in the study by Brookover and Lezotte (1979),
it was also seen with other characteristics: with purposeful leadership
(Mortimore et al., 1988; Reynolds et al, 1994); with purposeful leadership,
cooperation, collegiality (Sammons et al., 1995; Levine and Lezotte, 1990;
Barber et al., 1995) and effective teaching and learning in Australia
(Greenberg, 2001; Department of Education and Training, State of Victoria,
2002). Purposeful leadership and collaboration was seen recently in the USA
among nine key characteristics of school effectiveness (Bergeson, 2002). The
results lead us to an argument that Mortimores 11 key characteristics remain
as pillars of school effectiveness even after a decade in distant Malaysia. The
fact that cooperation and collegiality emerged as two of the five
characteristics indicates a conviction that teamwork is the answer to greater
school effectiveness. The fact that effective parental involvement emerged as
the fifth characteristic indicates an acknowledgement that parents cannot be
divorced from the school processes and their involvement enhances school
effectiveness.

The fact that the chi-square tests revealed that the choices made by the
respondents did not have a significant relationship with position, years of
service, sex, type of school and category of school adds reliability to the
findings and reflects lack of bias in the findings. It also reflects that the
questionnaire had stability and consistency of measurement of concept, in
this case the key characteristics of school effectiveness. (Uma, 2003, p.203)

Additional Characteristics of School Effectiveness

While 23% were focused on principal factors, the majority of views (68%)
were focused on school and teacher factors. The principal factors focus only
on the qualities of the principal-being fair, non-discriminatory and valuing
contributions of and criticisms from teachers. These suggestions are
important in a multi-racial nation like Malaysia in promoting goodwill and

23
harmony as well as winning the respect of subordinates (Ang Thien See,
2002) that in turn can assist in collegiality (Abdul Halim, 1988), cooperation
and collaboration (CDC, 1989). These will assist effective teamwork that will
be necessary if schools are to achieve the aspirations of Vision 2020 in line
with the findings of Hussein (1993), Shahril (2002) and the view of an
effective school by Mohd.Shah (1996).Valuing contributions and criticisms
are as Lim How (2006) postulates, qualities of competency in effective
leadership.

Among the school factors, issues of staffing, having sufficient senior

teachers as well as effective senior assistants, heads of department and clerks
have been raised. Senior assistants in Malaysia act as principals in their
absence and assists principals in their duties. Hence for a principal to be
effective, his assistants too ought to be effective. Senior assistants fully
understand the need for a vision and mission under the NPE (Jebon, 2002)
and as discussed earlier form part of the effective teamwork in the school.
Very few researches have focused on the role of clerks in school
effectiveness and the suggestion is certainly food for future School
Effectiveness Research in Malaysia and overseas.

The issue of cleanliness canteen and food sold to students has been seen as
as part of characteristics of school effectiveness (Greenberg, 2001; Rutter,
1979). Cleanliness at the school canteen can also be categorized under a safe
and orderly environment (Lee Poh Eng, 1986; Lam Pow Lien, 1997) as
cleanliness of canteen is imperative to safety of students from infection and
disease. The suggestion of networking between schools as a characteristic of
school effectiveness is in line with the Governments policy of fostering ICT
in teaching and learning as well as in administration and in appraisals (CDC,
2001b; NUTP, 2005; Ambrin, 2005, p.7, Hishamuddin, 2006e, p.15).\

24
Among teacher factors suggested include qualities to be prevalent among
teachers in effective schools that include life-long self-directed learning,
good personality, intellectualism and being creative and innovative. This is
line with the call for teachers to strive for excellence (Mohd.Ali, 2006, p.2),
to work towards a better quality in education (Kuah Bee Tin, 1998; Wan
Mustama, 2006, p.6), to be creative and possess increased knowledge and
skills (Ambrin, 2005, pp. 7-10; Siew Ban Lee, 1998) and a commitment to
continuous improvement (Najib, 2004, p.2).

The student factor of vision, clear ambition and purpose in acquiring

knowledge can be categorized as recognition of students rights and
responsibilities a characteristic of school effectiveness suggested by Abdullah
(2002) and the need for a wholesome development of a student enshrined in
the NPE (CDC, 2001a).

Under other factors, involvement of other Government Agencies and

NGOs in co-curricular activities has been clearly encouraged by the
Government (Komala Devi, 2005, p.7), in the realization of the NPE (CDC,
2001a) and in the need for a holistic concept in Malaysian schooling
(Ambrin, 2005).

Hence the study saw the emergence of a few characteristics of school

effectiveness unique to Malaysia and not seen in studies reviewed in this
study. These include
(i)

effective senior assistants (deputy principals)

(ii)

effective (financial) clerks

(iii)

effective networking between schools

(iv)

Increased concern for welfare of teachers

25
Descriptors leading to definition of an effective school

One of the distinctly new keywords seen from the perception of the
principals is charismatic. Another distinct keyword chosen by principals,
heads of department and teachers is excellence in all fields. Though it has
an element of similarity with the views of McGaw et al. (1992) and ACT
(2005), it is in line with the NPE (CDC, 2001a) and the holistic concept of
education that Malaysia envisages currently (Ambrin, 2005).

All other keywords selected by the respondents reflect existing literature on

characteristics of school effectiveness. There were three common descriptors
out of the five main descriptors conducive and safe earning environment
and excellence in all fields, effective and fair principal chosen by all the
respondents.This reflects a coherence in the perceptions of all the respondents
in defining an effective school. This reflects a greater reliability without bias
of the category of respondents. It has external validity as it provides a strong
generalizability in defining an effective school in Malaysia. (Uma, 2003, pp.
203-206).

One of the most interesting features of this research are descriptors with a
single response only. They contain very important descriptors that are
reflective of current needs in Malaysia EQ (Ang Thien Sze, 2006; Shahril,
2004; Wan Mustama, 2006; Leanne Goh, 2006), creative and innovative
(Shahril, 2004), lesser teacher workload (Loke, 2006a), teachers equipped
with ICT (Ministry of Education, 2004; Wan Mustama, 2006; Ambrin, 2005;
Hishamuddin, 2006e) and focus on strength of teachers (Ang Thien See,
2002). Qualities such as integrity, visibility, progressive and considerate form
part of qualities of principals which are part of community expectations in
Malaysia (Shahril, 2004) and national interests (CDC, 2001a).

26
One last but least keyword is effective tactical and operational planning.
Tactical and operational planning together with strategic planning are part of
the integrated planning processes that have been incorporated into the
accountability framework as well as school leadership and management
(Davies and West-Burnham, 2003, pp.82-91), current characteristics of
school effectiveness seen in this research.

Among the category of two to eight responses, efficient is the only

descriptor not mentioned in any study reviewed. Ruin (2006) argues that once
you are effective, you can be efficient. Hence effectiveness can also be
viewed as a means to efficiency.

Shared vision and mission was chosen by all respondents except heads of
department. Hence the definition of an effective school from the perceptions
of the research sample is as argued earlier reliable and valid and
generalizable. It reflects that the ideals of the NPE is well taken into account
in their definition.

Interviews with respondents in two schools

The significant ( p < 0.05) and strong correlation between questionnaire and
research scores on ten selected items reflects a test-retest reliability that over
a period of

more than a month, the responses to items were stable.

Convergent validity is also established as the instruments used were different.

The respondents identical answers same item in the questionnaire
established inter-item reliability.

There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) in the number of keywords

used to define an effective school in the two instruments used. Hence this
adds greater reliability of the keywords used in defining an effective school

27
in this research. Hence the definitions of an effective school synthesized in
this research is reliable.

Information from probes

One of the most interesting information obtained is that generosity of

praises assists in collegiality and cooperation between principal and teachers.
Another respondent states that collegiality and cooperation reduces teacher
stress, suffered by at least 69% of teachers in Malaysia (Loke, 2006a). The
argument here is that if praises enhance collegiality and cooperation, then
they should reduce teacher stress. If teacher stress is reduced, then more
effective teaching and learning should result. The implication here is that
principals of effective schools in Malaysia should be benevolent with praises
if effective teaching and learning, an important characteristic of selected by
all categories of respondents, is to be prevalent.

Another interesting information is the role of the local community assisting

in combating truancy. The argument here is that if truancy can be reduced,
then their likelihood of involvement in crime can be reduced noting an
increase in crime among secondary school students in Malaysia (Malaysia
Crime Prevention Foundation, 2006). In addition, indiscipline in schools can
be arrested. Hence this implies that the local community can assist in
effective discipline a characteristic of school effectiveness (e.g. Abdul Karim,
1989; Sammons et al., 1995)

A third information is that school clerks and general workers are also
important stakeholders of school effectiveness.

Hence the interviews

established

their purposes of triangulation

(Denscombe, 1998, p.112) and generation of new information (Gall et al.,

2003, pp.238-240). They also added validity and reliability to the findings.

28
CONCLUSION

The fact there was a common current characteristic-effective teaching and

learning among all categories of respondents in the selection of current
characteristics of school effectiveness indicated a greater coherence in view
that as Mortimore puts it, that teaching and learning are the core business of
schools (Sammons et al., 1995, p.13). The fact that the views of respondents
in the research sample were not significantly (p < 0.05) related to their sex,
type of school, category of school or their positions added reliability and
validity to the findings. The findings lead to an argument that the respondents
of the research sample acknowledge that student indiscipline is their main
problem and it is indeed to the extent of the necessity for discipline camps
(Hishamuddin, 2006f; Noh Omar, 2006) and is a major cause of teacher
stress (Loke, 2006a).

The choices of key characteristics of school effectiveness revealed one

common characteristics between the respondents-effective teaching and
learning. Either than the first choice of a strong, purposeful and involved
principal, the selection of other choices reflects a dispersion in selection or
lack of coherence between the respondents. The implication here is that the
choices other than the first choice were divergent in nature. The fact that
collegiality and cooperation were the third and fourth choices reflects the
perception of teamwork as a key to success in effective schools. While the
choice of effective teaching and learning as rank 2 is understandable, the
choice of effective parental involvement as a characteristic of school
effectiveness reflects a perception that parents cannot be divorced from
school to be effective. The fact that the selection of the characteristics were
independent of position, seniority, sex, school types and categories added
reliability and validity to the findings.

29
The finding that the choices are among the characteristics of school
effectiveness synthesized by Mortimore (Sammons et al., 1995) reflect that
the correlates are stable over more than a decade. This is contrary to the
Creemers and Reezigts view that the correlates of school effectiveness are
not stable and the argument that

They often do not hold over time, subjects, grades, groups of students,
departments within schools, districts, countries and so on.
(Creemers and Reezigit,1997, p.411)

Hence this research repudiates Creemers and Reezigts assertion and reflect
that characteristics of school effectiveness can hold over time and in
countries even as far away as Malaysia.

The additional characteristics of school effectiveness had 22 suggestions.

Though 68% of these suggestions focused on school and teacher factors, few
unique characteristics were synthesized. They are as follows:

(a) Networking between schools

(b) Having a school canteen that is tidy, hygienic and with food sold at
affordable prices
(c) Efficient financial clerks
(d) An administration that has concern for the welfare of teachers

Though these new suggestions offer avenues for future School Effectiveness
Research in Malaysia and abroad, it clearly indicates a perception that
principals of effective schools in Malaysia should take heed- the need to
value the potentials of teachers and utilize them effectively while valuing
their services and being empathetic. The suggestions concerning teachers
emerging from heads of departments and teachers clearly indicate a

30
perception that principals in Malaysia should work on a win-win situation
with teachers using emotions effectively as suggested by several researchers
too (Ang Thien Sze, 2002; Shahril, 2004; Wan Mustama, 2006: Lim How,
2006).

The definition of an effective school synthesized from the keywords put

forward by all respondents in the research, indicated that there is only one
distinct keyword: excellence in all fields not seen in international researches
reviewed in this study. This indicates that the definition falls in line with the
aspirations of the NPE (CDC, 2001a). The other keywords in the definition
clearly reflect a view that characteristics of school effectiveness have been
stable and fall in line with Mortimores 11 characteristics of school
effectiveness discussed earlier. However, the emergence of new descriptors
was seen. Among them were effective tactical and operational planning,
lesser teacher workload, visibility, has creative and innovative programmes,
focus on the strength of teachers and students, EQ, and efficient. Hence these
descriptors offer new dimensions in defining an effective school and could
steer future definitions from the conventional descriptors to new innovative
descriptors.

The FIS Instrument was the criteria of determining school effectiveness and
it was of ISO 9001: 2000 standards and reflective of the NPE. It was clearly
spelt out in rubrics and explicitly clear to all schools in Malaysia. The fact
that from their report that more than 90% of the secondary schools in Kuala
Lumpur were effective, reflect that national secondary schools in Kuala
Lumpur are conscientiously working towards further improvement. Hence a
better quality in education is envisaged in the near future.

The interviews established convergent validity. Even in the keywords used

to define an effective school, there was no significant difference ( p < 0.05) in
responses between questionnaire and interview. This indicated a test-retest

31
reliability and parallel-form reliability attesting to the goodness of the data
in the research (Uma, 2003, pp.203-204).

The probes offered several additional information. Among the most

interesting data obtained from the probes include

(a) the mention of two new stakeholders of school effectiveness

clerks and general workers

(b) generosity of praise as a means to assist collegiality and cooperation

between principal and teachers

These statements will also offer information not seen in researches reviewed.
They reflect that the respondents are creative and innovative indeed.

Recommendations and suggestions for further research

(a)

There is a need for future studies

to

consider the views of

characteristics of effective schools from parents, local community

leaders and NGO heads as well as two new stakeholders that
emerged in this research- school clerks and school general workers.

(b)

Another interesting comparative study would be to

gauge

the

view of the characteristics of school effectiveness from principals,

heads of department, teachers and students in private schools; rural
school with urban school; a boys school with a girls school and
primary with secondary schools.

(c)

Another interesting perspective is obtaining the characteristic of

school effectiveness from the perceptions of senior assistants or
deputy principals.

32

In this research, the definition of an effective school was synthesized from

the keywords chosen by the respondents. An interesting feature was
commonalities in keywords that were seen.

CONCLUSION
While the characteristics of school effectiveness synthesized in this research
are a guide to areas schools need to focus in order to be effective, it is as this
research reveals, a shared and firm commitment by three stakeholders in the
school principal, teachers and students that offer the path to greater school
effectiveness.

REFERENCES

Abdul Halim Mohd. Awin (1989), Enhancement of Collegiality as a

means to improvement in the effectiveness of secondary days schools of
Malaysia, Thesis: B.Ed., Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya.

Abdul Karim Mohd.Nor (1989), Characteristics of Effective Rural

Secondary Schools in Malaysia, Thesis (Ph.D), The University of
Wisconsin-Madison,
ONLINE: http://www.ppk.kpm.my/eprd/atx85.htm - 20th October 2005.

ACT (2005), What makes an effective school, ONLINE:

http://www.schoolparents.canberra.net.au/effective_schools- 1st May
2005.

Alimuddin Mohd.Dom (2005), Jemaah Nazir Sekolah (Inspectorate of

Schools), Pendidik (Educationist), No.17, 2005.

33
Al Waner (2005), Correlates of Effective Schools, ONLINE:
http://www.k12.wa.us/SchoolImprovement/success.aspx?printable=true
-15th May 2005.

Ambrin Buang (2005), KPM sentiasa mengutamakan kualiti (Ministry of

Education always values quality), Pendidik (Educationist), No.17, 2005.

Ang Thien Sze (2002), Competencies of School Principals and School

Effectiveness, 11th Proceedings of National Seminar on Leadership and
Management of Education, IAB, Ministry of Education Malaysia, 16-19
December 2002.

Awang Had Salleh (2003), Accountability in the Teaching Profession,

paper presented at the National Convention of Teachers 17-19
August 2003, Kuching, Sarawak.

Babbie, E.R. (1973), Survey Research Methods, Belmont, CA,

Woodsworth.

Barber, M., Stoll, L., Mortimore, P. and Hillman, J. (1995), Governing

Bodies and Effective schools in Bush, T., Bell, L., Bolam, R.,
Glatter, R. and Ribbins, P. (1999), Educational Management: Refining
Theory, Policy and Practice, London, Sage Publications.

Bergeson, Terry (2002), What Makes a School Successful? Common

Characteristics of High-Performing Schools, ONLINE:
http://www.k12.wa.us/SchoolImprovement/success.aspx?printable=true
-15th August 2006.

Briggs, Ann R.J. and Coleman, Marianne (2007), Research Methods in

Educational Leadership and Management, London, Sage Publications.

34

Brookover, W.B. and Lezotte, L. (1979) in Teddlie, Charles and

Reynolds, David (2000), The International Handbook of School
Effectiveness Research, London, Falmer Press.

Brualdi, Amy (1998), Implementing performance assessment in the

classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 6(2),
ONLINE: http://edresearch.org/pare/getvn.asp?v=6&n=2-18th July 2009.

Bush, Tony & West-Burnham, John. (1994), The Principles of

Educational Management, Leicester, Pitman Publishing.

Bush, Tony and Bell, Les (2003), The Principles and Practice of
Educational Management, London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

CDC (1989), A study of the climate in some effective and noneffective secondary schools in Penninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Ministry of Education Malaysia.

CDC (2001a), New Integrated School Curriculum: Process of Postulation

and Review, Kuala Lumpur, Ministry of Education, Malaysia.

CDC (2001b), Use of ICT in teaching and learning, Kuala Lumpur,

Ministry of Education, Malaysia.

Cheng, Y.C. (1993), Profiles of Organisational Culture and Effective

Schools, School Effectiveness and Improvement, 4(2), pp.85-110.

Cheng, Y.C. (1996), School Effectiveness and School-Based

Management, A Mechanism for Development, London, Falmer Press.

35
Creemers, B.P.M. (1994) , The Effective Classroom, London, Cassell.

Creemers, B. and Reezigt, G. (1997), School Effectiveness and

School Improvement: Sustaining Links in School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, Vol.8, No.4, pp.396-429.

Cuttance, P. (1985) in Reynolds, D. (1985), Studying School

Effectiveness, London, Falmer Press.

Davies, Brent and West-Burnham, John (2003), Handbook of

Educational Leadership and Management, London, Pearson Education
Ltd.

Denscombe, Martyn (1998), The Good Research Guide for smallscale social research projects, Buckingham, USA, Open University
Press.

Drever, Eric (1991), School Effectiveness: Criteria and Evidence,

ONLINE: http://www.scre.ac.uk/spotlight/spotlight31.html
-14th October 2005.

Faisal Sayuati (2001), Study of Effective Leadership in SMK Agama,

Johore Bahru, Thesis: M.Ed., Scudai, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Fantuzzo, J.W. (1995), Effects of Parental Involvement in isolation or in

combination with Peer Tutoring on students self-concept of
mathematics achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (2),
pp.272-281.

Firestone, W.A. (1991) in Mortimore, P. Key Characteristics of effective

Schools, Paper presented at Effective Schools Seminar, Ministry of

36
Education Malaysia, 13-14 July 1995.

FIS (2004), Instrument of Standards of Quality in Education in Malaysian

Schools, Kuala Lumpur, Affluent Master Sdn.Bhd.

Frankfort-Nachiamas, C. and Nachiamas, D. (1992) in Cohen, Louis,

Manion, Lawrence and Morrison, Keith (2000), Research Methods in
Education, 5th Edition, London, Routledge-Falmer.

Gall, Merendith D., Gall, Joyce P. and Borg, Walter, R. (2003),

Educational Research: An introduction, 7th Edition, Boston, Allyn and
Bacon.

Greenberg, J. (2001), Characteristics of Effective Schools, ONLINE:

http://www.education.umd.edu/k-16/effectiveSchools/summary.html29th August 2005.

Hibbard, K. Michael, Linda, V.W., Samuel, L., Stacey, W.W. and Susan,
S. (1996), A Teachers Guide to Performance-Based Learning and
Achievement, Massachussets, USA, ASCD.

Hishamuddin Hussein (2005), PE gets serious, New Straits Times,

February 18, 2005.

Hishamuddin Hussein (2006a), Education reforms under way, New

Straits Times, January 18, 2006.

Hishamuddin Hussein (2006b), Use of computers for all subjects, The

New Straits Times, July 25 2006.

Hishamuddin Hussein (2006c), Aiming to rope in parents to help tackle

37
indiscipline, The New Straits Times, August 14 2006

Hon Choon Kim (2006), Aiming to rope in parents to help tackle

indiscipline, New Straits Times, 14th August 2006.

Hoy, Wayne K.and Miskel, Cecil G. (2001), Educational Administration

Theory, Research and Practice, 6th Edition, New York, McGraw-Hill.

HMI (1977), Ten Good Schools, London: HMSO

Hussein Mahmood (1993), in Sharifah Sheikh Brix (1998), Perceptions of

teachers regarding an effective and ineffective school in two national
secondary schools in the district of Gombak, Project Paper (M.Ed.),
Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya.

Jebon Janaun (2002), Vision and Mission: A case study in five national
secondary schools in the Kota Marudu District of Sabah, Thesis (M.Ed),
Kota Kinabalu, Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

Jegathesan Rajadurai (1990), Students Perception of effective

counselling, Research Report (B.Sc.), Bangi, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia.

Johnson, D. (1994), Research Methods in Educational Management,

London, Prentice Hall.

Kathleen, V.H. and Howard, M.S. (1997),Why do parents become

involved in their childrens education? Review of Educational
Research, 67(1), pp.3-42.

Komala Devi (2005), Co-curriculum helps students to develop their

38
individual personalities, Pendidik, No.18, 2005.

Kuah Bee Tin (1998), A study of the perceptions of secondary school

principals and teachers in the district of Petaling, Selangor on the Zero
Defect Concept, Thesis (M.Ed.), Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya.

Lam Pow Lien (1997), School Effectiveness and the quality of student life
in national secondary schools, Thesis (M.Ed.), Kuala Lumpur,
University of Malaya.

Leanne Goh (2006), EQ vs IQ, The Star, 6 August 2006

Lee Poh Eng (1986), Relationship between management of co-curriculum

effectiveness and participation level of students, Thesis (B.Ed), Kuala
Lumpur, University of Malaya.

Lee, V., Bryk, A. and Smith, J. (1993), in Mortimore, P., Sammons, P.

and Thomas, S. (1995), in Mortimore, P. Key Characteristics of
effective Schools, paper presented at Effective Schools Seminar,
Ministry of Education Malaysia, 13-14 July 1995.

Levine, D.U. and Lezotte, L.W. (1990), Unusually effective schools: A

Review and Analysis of research and Practice in Teddlie, Charles and
Reynolds, David (2000), The International Handbook of School
Effectiveness Research, London, Falmer Press.
Lim How (2006), An effective leader, The Star, 13 July 2006.
Lockheed, M.E.

and Hanushek, E.A. (1988),

Educational efficiency in

developing countries, in Pennycuick, David (1998), Centre for

International Education, University of Sussex, ONLINE:
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/3wdev/HDLHTML/EDUCRES/DEP01E/

39
BEGIN.HTM- 15th April 2006.

Loke Yim Pheng (2006a), Teaching in Boiler Rooms, The New Straits
Times, 29 March 2006

Loke Yim Pheng (2006b), Major Teaching Overhaul, The New Straits
Times, 14 July 2006.

Malaysia Crime Prevention Foundation (2006), Juveniles and students

involved in crime, The New Straits Times, 14 August 2006

McGaw, B., Piper,J., Banks,D. and Evans,B.(1992), Making Schools more

effective, Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational
Research.

McPherson, A (1992), Measuring value added in schools in Teddlie,

Charles and Reynolds, David (2000), The International Handbook of
School Effectiveness Research, London, Falmer Press. .

Ministry of Education Malaysia (1982), Report of the Committee to

Review the Standard of Education in Malaysia in Sharil Marzuki (2004),
Features of an Effective Principal/Headmaster who is able to face the
challenges and aspirations of the 21st Century) in Human Resource
Management, IAB 330, Reading Material Vol.2/2004

Ministry of Education (1989), School Effectiveness Research: A Study of

the climate in several effective and ineffective schools,
ONLINE: http://www.ppk.kpm.my/eprd/ATX32.HTM-20th May 2005.

Ministry of Education (2004), Benchmarking of the Smart School

Integrated Solution, Kuala Lumpur: Educational Technology Division,

40
Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Mohamad Shah Hashim (1996), Effective Schools, Thesis (B.Ed.), Bangi,

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Mohan, Gopala Iyer (2004), Characteristics of School Effectiveness in

Malaysia: A case Study in a national secondary school in Kuala
Lumpur, Unpublished Assignment for Doctoral Programme, University
of Leicester.

Mortimore,P., Sammons,P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. and Ecob,R.(1988a),

School Matters: The Junior Years in Teddlie, Charles and Reynolds,
David (2000), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness
Research, London, Falmer Press.

Mortimore, P. (1993), School effectiveness and the management of

effective learning and teaching, School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 4, pp. 290-310.

Mortimore, P., Sammons, P. and Thomas, S. (1995), School

Effectiveness and Value added Measures in Mortimore, P. Key
Characteristics of effective Schools, paper presented at Effective
Schools Seminar, Ministry of Education Malaysia, 13-14 July 1995.

Moskal, Barbara M. and Leydens, Jon.A. (2000), Scoring rubric

development validity and reliability, Practical assessment, Research
and Evaluation, 7(10).
ONLINE: http://edresearch.org/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=10 - 16th June
2009.

Murphy, J. (1990), Review of The School Effect: A Study of multi-racial

41
comprehensives in Teddlie, Charles and Reynolds, David (2000), The
International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research, London,
Falmer Press.

Najib Tun Razak (2004), More objective evaluation of government staff,

New Straits Times, June 25 2004.

Najib Tun Razak (2005), Pension for medal winners, New Straits Times,
February 15 2005.

Nazrol Hassan (2000), Analysis of Effectiveness: An Analysis in Sekolah

Menengah Sains Sultan Ahmad Shah, Pekan, Pahang Darul Makmur,
Thesis (B.Ed.), Scudai, Johore, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Ninan, Mathew (2006), School Climate and its impact on School

Effectiveness: A Case study, paper presented at the International
Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, USA, 4th January 2006 ONLINE:
http://www.leadership.fau.edu/icsei2006/Papers/Ninan.pdf - 12th October
2009.

Noh Omar (2006), Counselling for problem kids, The Sunday Star, 30
July 2006.

NUTP (2004), NUTP Newsletter, July 2004

Perwazalam Andul Rauf (2000), Principal Leadership Styles and

relationship with Effective Schools in private Chinese secondary schools
in Perak, Thesis (M.A.), Sintok, Kedah, Universiti Utara Malaysia

Ramaiah, A.L. (1992), Kepimpinan Pendidikan: Cabaran masa kini

42
Educational Leadership: Present Challenges), Petaling Jaya, IBS Buku
Sdn.Bhd.

Ramiah, A.L. (1999) in Sharil Marzuki (2004), Features of an Effective

Principal/Headmaster who is able to face the challenges and aspirations
of the 21st Century in Human Resource Management, IAB 330,
Reading Material Vol.2/2004.

Reid, K., Hopkins, D. and Holly, P (1987), Towards the Effective School,
Oxford, Blackwell.

Reynolds, D. (1985), Studying School effectiveness, London, Falmer

Press.

Reynolds D., Creemers, B.P.M., Nesselrodt, Pamela S., Schaffer, Eugene

C., Stringfield and Teddlie, Charles (1994a), Advances in School
Effectiveness: Research and Practice, Oxford, Elsevier Science Ltd.

Reynolds, D., Creemers, B. P.M., Hopkins, D., Stoll, L. and Bollen,

R. (1996), Making Good Schools in Teddlie, Charles and Reynolds,
The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research,
London, Falmer Press.

Ruin, Josef Aby (2006), Balancing efficiency and effectiveness, New

Straits Times, Appointments, p.2, 19th August 2006.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. and Smith, A. (1979),
Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their Effects on
children in Teddlie, Charles and Reynolds, David (2000), The
International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research, London,
Falmer Press.

43

Rutter, M (1979) in Al Waner (2005), Correlates of Effective Schools,

ONLINE:
http://www.k12.wa.us/SchoolImprovement/success.aspx?printable=true
th

15 May 2009.

Sam Kit Mun (2004), Role of Principals as leaders of teaching in an

effective school in Kepong, Kuala Lumpur: Perceptions of teachers,
Project Paper, M.Ed., Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya.

Sammons, P. (1995), Findings from School Effectiveness Research:

Some improvements for improving the quality of schools in
Mortimore, P. Key Characteristics of effective Schools, paper
presented at Effective Schools Seminar, Ministry of Education
Malaysia, 13-14 July 1995.

Sammons, P. Hillman, J. and Mortimore, P. (1995), Key Characteristics of

Effective schools: A Review of School Effectiveness Research in Teddlie,
Charles and Reynolds, David (2000), The International Handbook of School
Effectiveness Research, London, Falmer Press.

Sammons, P., Mortimore, P. and Thomas, S. (1996a), Do schools

perform consistently across outcomes and areas? in Teddlie, Charles and
Reynolds, David (2000), The International Handbook of School
Effectiveness Research, London, Falmer Press.

Schoolmalaysia (2006), schoolmalaysia.com by Webway E-services

ONLINE: http://schoolmalaysia.com/ips/info/stats_negeri htmlnp 15th June 2006

Schreens, J.(1992), Effective Schooling: Research, Theory and Practice,

44
London, Cassell.

Scheerens, J. (2000), Improving School Effectiveness, Paris, UNESCO.

Sharifah Sheikh Brix (1998), Perceptions of teachers regarding an

effective and ineffective school in two national secondary schools in the
district of Gombak, Project Paper (M.Ed.), Kuala Lumpur, University of
Malaya.

Shahril Marzuki (1997), SER in Malaysia: Five Factor Model, Thesis

(Ph.D), Bangi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Shahril bin Marzuki (2002), Staff and Students Perception of Effective

Schools correlates in the Secondary Schools in Johore, paper presented
at the International Conference in Principalship and School Management
Practices in the Era of Globalization: Issues and Challenges, Kuala
Lumpur, University of Malaya,

Sharil Marzuki (2004), \Features of an Effective Principal/Headmaster who

is able to face the challenges and aspirations of the 21st Century) in Human
Resource Management, IAB 330, Reading Material Vol.2/2004

Siew Ban Lee (1998), Effectiveness of Program of Staff Development: A

Case study in a national secondary school in Kuala Lumpur, Thesis
(M.Ed.), Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya.

Stoll, L. and Fink, D. (1996) Changing our schools in Teddlie, Charles and
Reynolds, David (2000), The International Handbook of School
Effectiveness Research, London, Falmer Press.

Uma Sekaran (2003), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building

45
Approach, New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Usha, Damodaran (2000), The awareness among students in a national

secondary school in Mentakab, Pahang on Guidance and Counseling
services, Thesis (M.Ed.), Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya.

Vermeulen, C.J. (1987), Educational effectiveness in seventeen

educational priority schools in Rotterdam in Teddlie, Charles and
Reynolds, David (2000), The International Handbook of School
Effectiveness Research, London, Falmer Press.

Victoria, Australia, Department of Education (2002), Blue Print for Effective

Government schools, ONLINE:
http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/blueprint/es/ - 6th May 2006

Wan Mohammad Zahid Mohd.Nordin (1993), Main Paper: Malaysian

Educational Conference, Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Wan Mustama Wan Abdul Hayat (2006), Creating a new breed of

teachers who are passionate, New Straits Times, August 5 2006.

Willms, J.D. (1992), Monitoring School Performance: A guide for

Educators, London, Falmer Press.

Zaidatul Akmaliah (1999) in Sharil Marzuki (2004), Features of an Effective

Principal/Headmaster who is able to face the challenges and
aspirations of the 21st Century) in Human Resource Management,
Reading Material,Vol.2/2004.

46

47

48

49