Vol. 9 (2004): Aspectos fundamentales y aplicados de la organización escolar
Artículos

La investigación sobre 'eficacia escolar' a debate. Análisis de las críticas y aportaciones.

Publicado octubre 15, 2015

Palabras clave:

Eficacia Escolar, Investigación, Organización escolar, Escuela.

Resumen

El Movimiento teórico-práctico de Eficacia Escolar ha pasado, en pocos años, de ser una humilde línea de indagación empírica que agrupaba a estudiosos de algunos países a convertirse en el movimiento de investigación educativa más influyente y que más ha aportado en la toma de decisiones educativas tanto en el nivel de la administración general como en la mejora de la escuela en todo el mundo. Sin embargo, esa influencia ha incidido en que se multipliquen las críticas hacia el mismo, criticas que están generando serias dudas acerca de la calidad de sus aportaciones. En este artículo haremos una revisión de las críticas más importantes formuladas y las contrastaremos, más brevemente, con algunas las aportaciones más relevantes del mismo, de esta forma estaremos aportando una información objetiva que nos permita determinar cuál es realmente la calidad y pertinencia de las lecciones que este movimiento nos ha legado. Con ello, esbozaremos algunas ideas de cómo tiene que desarrollarse este movimiento en el futuro.

 

Citas

Acton, T.A. (1980). Educational criteria of success: sorne problems in the work of Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore and Ouston. Educational Research, 22( 3), pp. 163-169.

Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London: Falmer Press.

Aitkin, M. YLongford, N. (1986). Statistical modelling issues in school effectiveness studies. [ournal of theRoyal Statistical Society, SerA, 149 , pp. 1-43.

Angus, L. (1993). The sociology of School Effectiveness. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14(3), pp. 333-345.

Hall, S.J. (1994). Comprehensioe schooling effectiveness and control: An analysis of educationaldiscurses. London: Centre for Educational Studies, King's College.

Bosker, R.J. YWitziers, B. (1996). The magnitude of school effects, or: Does it really matter which school a student attends? Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association. New York. Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld,

F.D. y York, R.L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity ~ashington: US Govemment Printing Office.

Creemers, B.P.M., Reynolds, D., Chrispels, J., Mortimore, P., Murpphy, J., Stringfield,

S., Stoll, L. y Townsend, T. (1998). The future of School Effectiveness and Improvement (a report on the special sessions and plenary at ICSEI 1998 in Manchester, UK). School Effectiveness and School Improoemeni, 9(2), pp. 125-134.

Cuttance, P. (1982). Reflections on the Rutter ethos: The professional researchers' response to Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children.

Urban Education, 16(4), pp. 483-492.

Elliott, J. (1996). School effectiveness research and its critics: Alternative visions of schooling. Cambridge Journalof Education, 26(2), pp. 199-223.

Fertig, M. (2000). Old wine in new bottles? School Effectiveness and School lmprooement, 11(3), pp. 385-403.

Fuller, B. y Clarke, P. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring the culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules and pedagogy. Review of

Educaiional Research, 64(1), pp. 119-157.

Gewirtz, S. (1997). Can all schools be successful? An exploration of the determinants of school 'success'. British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of York.

Goldstein, H. (1980). Fifteen thousand hours: a review of the statistical procedures. Journalof Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, 21, pp. 364-366.

Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel Statistical Models. New York: Willey.

Goldstein, H. y Woodhouse, G. (2000). School Effectiveness research and educational policy. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3-4), pp. 353-363.

Grace, G. (1998). Realizing the mission: catholic approaches to school effectiveness. En R. Slee, G. Weiner y S. Tomlinson (Eds.), School effectivenessfor iohom?Challenges to the school effectiveness and the school improuement mooements (pp. 117-127).

London: Falmer Press.

Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D., Wilcox, B., Farrel, S. y Jesson, D. (1999). lmproving schools. Performance & potential. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Hamilton, D. (1996). Peddling feel-goods fictions. Forum, 38(2), pp. 54-56.

Hamilton, D. (1998). The idols of the market place. En R. Slee, G. Weiner y S. Tomlinson (Eds.), School effectivenessfor iohom? Challenges to the schooleffectiveness and the school improvement movements (pp. 13-20). London: Falmer Press.

Harris, A. (2001). Contemporary perspectives on school effectiveness and school improvement. En A. Harris y N. Bennett (Eds.), School Effectiveness and School

lmprouement. Alternative perspectives (pp. 7-25). London: Continuum.

Hatcher, R. (1998). Social justice and the politics of school effectiveness and school improvement. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 1, pp. 267-289.

Heyneman, S.P. y Loxley, W.A. (1983). The effect of primary-school quality on academic achievement across twenty-nine high- and low-income countries. American

Journal of Sociology, 88(6), pp. 1162-1194.

Lingard, B., Ladwig, J. y Luke, A. (1998). School effects in postmodern conditions. En R. Slee, G. Weiner y S. Tomlinson (Eds.), School effectivenessfor tohom? Challenges to the school effectiveness and the school improvement mouements (pp. 84-100). London: Falmer Press.

Morley, L. y Rassool, N. (1999). School effectiveness. Fracturing the discourse. London: Falmer Press.

Mortimore, P. (1991). School Effectiveness Research: Wich way at the crossroads? Sehool Effectivenessand School Improoement, 2(3), pp. 213-229.

Mortimore, P. y Sammons, P. (1997). Endpiece: a welcome and a risposte to criticism. En J. White y M. Barber (Eds.), Perspectives on School Effectiveness and School lmprooemeni (pp. 175-87). London: Institute of Education.

Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. y Ecob, R. (1988). School matiers: The junior years. Somerset: Open Books.

Murillo, F.J. (Coord.) (2003). La investigación sobre Eficacia Escolar en Iberoamérica. Revisión internacionaldel estado de la cuestión. Bogotá: Convenio Andrés Bello.

Murillo, F.J. (2004). Los modelos multinivel: avances metodológicos en la investigación sobre organización escolar. Organización y Gestión Educativa,l, pp. 23-27.

Musgrove, F. (1981). School and the social order. Chichester: Wiley.

Pennycuick, D. (1993). School effectiveness in developing countries. A summary of the researcli evidence. London: Overseas Development Agency.

Preece, P. (1989). Pitfalls in research on school and teacher effectiveness. Reeearch Papers in Education, 4(3), pp. 47-69.

Pring, R. (1996). Educating persons: putting education back into educational research. Scottish EducationalReoieto, 27(2), pp. 101-21.

Ralph, J.H. y Fennessey, J. (1983). Science or l~form: sorne questions about the effective schools model. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(10), pp. 689-94.

Rea, J. y Weiner, G. (1997). Cultures of blame and redemption when empowerment becomes control: practioners views of the effective schools movement. British EducationalResearcn Association Annual Coference. University of York.

Reynolds, D. (1976). The delinquent school. En P. Woods (Ed.), The process of sehooling.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Reynolds, D. y Teddlie, C. (2000). The future agenda for school effectiveness research. En C. Teddlie y D. Reynolds (Eds.), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research (pp. 322-343). London: Falmer Press.

Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Creemers, B.P.M., Scheerens, J. y Townsend, T. (2000). An introduction to school effectiveness research. En C. Teddlie y D. Reynolds

(Eds.), The International Handbookof School Effectiveness Researclt (pp. 3-25). London: Falmer Press.

Riddell, A.R. (1999). Evaluations of educational reform programmes in developing countries: whose life is it anyway? Educational Development, 19, pp. 383-394.

Riddell, S., Brown, S. y Duffield, J. (1998). The utility of qualitative research for influencing policy and practice on school effectiveness. En R. Slee, G. Weiner y S.

Tomlinson (Eds.), School effectiveness for whom? Challenges to the school effectiveness and the school improoement movements(pp. 170-186). London: Falmer Press.

Rose, M. (1995). Possib1e 1ives - The promise of pub1ic education in America. New York: Penguin Books.

Rowan, B. (1984). Shamanistic rituals in effective schools. Issues in Education, 2, pp. 76-87.

Rowan, B., Bossert, S.T. y Dwyer, D.C. (1983). Research on effective schools: A cautionary note. Educationa1 researcher,12(4), pp. 24-31.

Rutter, M., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. y Maughan, B. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours. London: Open Books.

Sammons, P. (1999). School Effectiveness. Coming of age in the ttoentu-firs! century. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Scheerens, J. (1993). Basic school effectiveness research: items for a research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improoemeni, 4(1), pp. 17-36.

Scheerens, J., Bosker, R.J. y Creemers, B.P.M. (2001). Time for self-criticsm: on the viability of School Effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvemeni, 12(1), pp. 131-157.

Sirotnik, K.A. (1985). School Effectiveness: a bandwagon in search of a tune. Education Admisiration Quarter1y, 21(2), pp. 135-140.

Slee, R. y Weiner, G. (2001). Education Reform and Reconstruction as a Challenge to Research Genres: Reconsidering School Effectiveness Research and Inclusive Schooling. 5c11001 Effectiveness and School lmprooemeni, 12(1), pp. 83-98.

Slee, R., Weiner, G. y Tomlinson, S. (Eds.) (1998). School effectivenessfor iohom? Challenges to the schooí effectiveness and the school improuemeni mooemenis. London: Falmer Press.

Snijders, T. y Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multi1eve1 ana1ysis: an introduction to basie and adoancedmultileoel modeling. London: Sage.

Stoll, L. y Myers, K. (1998). No quickfixes: perspectives on schools in difficu1ty. LondonWashington D.C.: Falmer Press.

Szaday, C. (1994). Trends in schoole effectiveness and school improoemeni research: a survey of expert opinion. Ebikon: ZBS.

Teddlie, C. y Reynolds, D. (2000). Current topics and approaches in School Effectiveness research: the contemporary field. En C. Teddlie y D. Reynolds (Eds.), The Internationa1 Handbook of School Effeetiveness Research (pp. 26-51). London: Falmer Press.

Teddlie, C. y Reynolds, D. (2001). Countering the critics: responses to recent criticisms of School Effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improoemeni,

(1), pp. 41-82.

Teddlie, C., Reynolds, D. y Sammons, P. (2000). The methodology and scientific properties of school effectiveness research. En C. Teddlie y D. Reynolds (Eds.), The Internationa1 Handbook of School Effectiveness Researcli (pp. 55-133). London: Falmer

Press.

Thrupp, M. (1998). The art of the possible: organizing and managing high and low socioeconomic schools. Journa1 of Educationa1 Policy, 13(2), pp. 197-219.

Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: let's be realistic! School mix, school effectivenessand the sociallimits oJreform. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Thrupp, M. (2001). Recent school effectiveness counter-critiques: problems and possibilities. BritishEducational Researcn [ournal, 27(4), pp. 443-457.

Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read:[our successful schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. .

Weiner, G. (2001). Auditing Failure: moral competence and school effectiveness. Comunicación presentada en International Congress Jor School Effectiveness and Improvement. Toronto, Canada.

Willmott, R. (1999). School effectiveness research: an ideological commitment. The [ournal oJthe Philosophy oJEducaiion , 33(2), pp. 253-268.