EEffective schools: what really matters in the opinion of parents, students,
teachers and principals?
Paulo Sérgio Garcia (garciaps@usp.br) and Nélio Bizzo (bizzo@usp.br) –
São Paulo University and Research Nucleus on Biological Evolution Epistemology, Education and Outreach
(EDEVO-Darwin/São Paulo University) - BRAZIL
Abstract:
The student academic performance is related to several factors. Socioeconomic status and parent
education are some of them. At school, other determinants also influence learning. This study
investigates which school factors explain student academic performance under the perspective of the
groups that are involved in the teaching and learning process: families, students, teachers and
principals. A case study was conducted in two schools, one in Brazil and another in Italy, where
students achieved high academic performance. The results showed that it was not found a single
factor explaining student performance. There were multiple factors acting together, with different
intensities throughout the year, maintaining and supporting learning. Twelve factors in Brazilian
reality and eight in the Italian were found. Teacher was considered the main factor that influenced
student performance principally through the teacher’s commitment to the school and to the students.
These data can be used by universities professors in pre and in-service education to promote
discussion about school quality, and can be also used by principals in their schools as a way of better
organizing the school.
Keywords: School improvement. Students’ performance. School Factors.
INTRODUCTION
In Brazil, in the past decades many progresses were done in terms of democratization of access to
education, and new educational policies started being discussed concerned with the quality of
education. This concern, started with the Federal Constitution, 1988, followed by the Law on
Guidelines and Foundations of National Education (Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional
- LDBEN/96). As from these legislations, some instruments were created (Sistema de Avaliação da
Educação Básica/SAEB) to analyze Brazilian education and students’ performance. The earlier
studies have confirmed international data, revealing that the most of the students’ performance was
related to the family (socioeconomic status, and parents’ education).
In fact, researches in sociology area in 1950s and 1960s and more recent studies have demonstrated
a strong relationship between students’ social origin, socioeconomic status (SES) and academic
performance. These studies have shown that children with lower SES, lower income, which usually
parents have low education, they reach in general lower levels of academic performance (Coleman
et al, 1966; Cresas, 1978). Earlier studies conducted in the United States (Coleman, 1966), in France
(Sauvy and Girand, 1965; Cresas, 1978), England (Douglas, Ross and Simpson, 1968) and more
recent (Crahay and Baye, 2013), also had already shown that SES and parents’ education are the
main factors that affect student performance.
In addition to SES and parent education, school factors (i.e. school’ physical infrastructure,
leadership skills) also determine student performance. In fact, Brazilian studies have showed that: 1)
most of the student performance (SP), almost two-third, is related to parents’ education and
socioeconomic status (Albernaz, Ferreira and Creso, 2002; Felicio and Fernandes, 2005), 2) the
other part is related to the school characteristics (Fletcher, 1997; Ferrão, Beltrão and Santos, 2002).
The school effect, although small, plays an important role in student life (Cesar and Soares, 2001).
In fact, studies have shown that the school has a great effect on the student lives, contrary to what
was initially thought and presented by Coleman et al. (1966). This study brought negative and
pessimistic views about schools and teachers and their roles to enhance students’ achievement.
However, Coleman’ study has triggered numerous studies demonstrating that schools can make a
great difference in a student's life (Brooke and Soares, 2008).
These studies, triggered by Coleman’ study, also showed that schools can be more effective,
influencing students’ performance. Mortimore (1991) stated that effective schools can be understood
as those in which students’ progress further than might be expected from consideration of its intake.
Soares (2007), in Brazil, stated that trying to understand schools processes, those that determine and
affect positively students’ performance (educational policies and pedagogical practices), form a line
of research called "effective school". This author also revealed that the school characteristics have
great potential to improve student learning and that this kind of research is still recent in Brazil.
This research line seeks to understand the capacity of schools to influence the students’ performance
(magnitude), and at the same time, to comprehend what factors contribute to create an effective
school (effects). In the international context, many researchers have sought to understand the effects
of school effectiveness (Willms, 1992; Lee, Bryk and Smith, 1993; Meuret, 2000; Scheerens and
Bosker, 1997). One of the most relevant studies identified eleven interdependent school factors
related to the characteristics of effective schools: professional leadership, shared visions and goals,
learning environment, concentration on teaching and learning, purposeful teaching, high
expectations, positive reinforcement, monitoring progress, pupils’ rights and responsibilities, homeschool partnership, and a learning organization (Sammons, Hillman and Mortimore, 1995).
In Latin America, Mela et al. (2002) revealed that the category “favorable learning environment”, in
the classroom, is one of the major relevant factors of students’ performance. In Chile, Raczynski and
Muñoz (2005) also showed schools factors that influenced poor schools in promoting students’
performance in national assessment. The authors indicated that there were some factors linked to
school, classroom, and students.
In Brazil, the educational reality has been explored by the use of official data (Census, SAEB,
Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios), including specific information to monitor students’
performance and school flows at primary (students from 6 to 10) and lower secondary (students
from 11 to 14) education in Mathematics and Portuguese.
Brazilian studies on effective schools began in the 1990s. Fletcher (1997) conducted a study based
on data from SAEB (1995) using hierarchical models of two levels, students and school, and
revealed that, after controlling socioeconomic status of students, the school effect was 14%. Barbosa
and Fernandes (1997) showed that the school effect (mathematics, 8th grade - southeast), without
the control of socioeconomic status, was 37%. Franco and Bonamino (2005) investigated in Brazil
the factors associated with school effectiveness and grouped them into five categories: schools'
physical infrastructure (school resources), school organization and governance, school climate,
teacher education and salary, and classroom pedagogy.
a) Schools' physical infrastructure (school resources)
Regarding schools' physical infrastructure (facilities and school resources), the study of Castro and
Fletcher (1986) was one of the first to show the importance of these resources in the learning
process. This study identified the precarious situation of schools' physical infrastructure (SPI), and
the little amount of resources available for pedagogical and educational activities. Data based on
SAEB 2001, 8th grade (Soares, Mambrini, Pereira and Alves, 2001; Lee, Franco and Albernaz,
2004) showed that SPI had a positive effect on students’ performance who participated in PISA
2000. More recently, a group of researchers (Soares Neto et al., 2013) analyzed SPI using a national
scale. These authors showed that only 14.9% of Brazilian schools were on adequate level, and only
0,6% on the advanced level in terms of SPI.
b) School organization and governance
Regarding the school organization and governance, Franco, Albernaz and Ortigão (2007) and Soares
and Alves (2003) showed that schools are more effective when school leadership is both dedicated
and appreciated by teachers. Soares, Mambrini, Alves and Pereira (2001) highlighted the principal
dedication to the school and the inventing ability as essential factors for school improvement.
Esposito, Davis and Nunes (2000) and Lee, Franco and Albernaz (2004) revealed that a sense of
collective responsibility for student and a collaborative work environment had positive effects on
student performance.
The school management (SM) is one of the educational dimensions which organize and coordinate
human and school resources, and pedagogical and educational outcomes in order to make the school
more effective. The SM generally uses knowledge from educational legislation (Law on Guidelines
and Foundations of National Education of 1996 -LDBEN/96) and school management theories
(sociology, psychology) to ensure student learning; to foster the school vision, goals and high
expectations on student outcomes; to integrate school objectives and student achievement, and to
transform the school into an effective place for learning (Lück, 2009).
The school management is responsible for planning and organizing, among other things, students’
pedagogical activities. The school planning is composed of multiple factors that are immersed inside
and outside of school culture and that usually are isolated and disconnected. In fact, the action of
making the school planning demands a profound reflection on the school and its surroundings, as a
way to diagnose problems and establish goals for improvements. This process involves seeking
resources, defining people responsibilities, establishing times and forms of monitoring the process.
Several documents are part of the school planning. The Political Pedagogical Project (PPP)
establishes a guideline and seeks to connect, among other things, the school’s principles to students’
achievement. This document is produced collectively by teachers and principals, revealing school
mission, values, and pedagogical programs. It shows the school identity. The school planning is still
composed of teacher's lesson planning, which reveals the curricular organization adopted in
accordance with the Brazilian curriculum guidelines.
The school management is also responsible for monitoring and evaluating school projects. The
process of monitoring is a systematic way of analyzing implemented educational programs and
projects, aiming at ensuring effectiveness, including resources control. Evaluation is the process of
measuring and judging the partial and final project outcomes. (Lück, 2009).
The school management still deals with educational outcomes, analyzing, among other things,
students and teachers achievements, using many indicators such as: academic (grades in the
subjects, average grades, and absenteeism rate), social (relationships with colleagues, degree of
solidarity and collaboration) and attitudinal (respect for colleagues, discipline, enjoyment of
learning). As for teachers, this system can monitor their teaching strategies, rate of absenteeism,
degree of collaboration, and professional development. It still uses external indicators to monitor the
quality of learning (i.e. IDEB1, ENEM2).
c) School climate
School climate is oriented towards academic results, as measured by teacher emphasis on homework
(Franco, Albernaz and Ortigão, 2002). Lee, Franco and Albernaz, (2004) reported that a low rate of
absenteeism contribute significantly to school effectiveness. The same authors also showed that the
use of homework had a positive impact on student learning. Castro et al., (1984) revealed that
maximization of time for teaching also had positive effects on student performance.
d) Teacher education and salary
Although more sparse and less emphatic, the studies also produced enough evidence of the positive
effect of an increase in the teachers' educational level (Albernaz, Ferreira and Franco, 2002) and that
recent salary increases for public school teachers has reduced performance differences between
public and private schools.
Klein and Fontanive (2010) and Scartezini and Viana (2012) stated that the most important factor
determining students’ performance is the teacher, and that we do not know in detail how his/her
pedagogical practice impacts student learning. The authors also stated that teacher behavior
interferes in classroom results and we need to better identify and study this effect called teacher.
Gomes (2005, p. 239) showed that the characteristics of good teacher are precisely those that is
difficult to measure. Paul and Barbosa (2008) showed that teaching experience and low turnover in
schools had positive impacts on student learning.
e) Classroom pedagogy
Although deserving of much greater interest by researchers, outcomes of work concerning different
styles of classroom pedagogy seem to show the superiority of methods employing higher order
thinking in mathematics (Franco, Sztajn and Ortegão, 2004), and more active methods of teaching
(Soares, Mambrini, Pereira and Andrade, 2004).
Because of the characteristics of this type of research (studies on school effectiveness), the vast
majority of Brazilian studies are based on quantitative approach and on data from the School Census
and SAEB. In addition to that, these studies identify the school factor, but not its intensity
throughout the school year. This study, in order to fill up this gap, aim at investigating the school
factors that explain the students’ performance in two realities (Brazil and Italy) and their intensities
throughout the school year, from the perspective of groups that are involved in the teaching and
learning process: families, students, teachers and principals.
THE STUDY OBJECT
The general educational guidelines of Brazil are defined upon the Law 9394/96 (LDBEN/96), which
divides education in Basic Education and Superior. Basic Education is formed by Infant Education
(zero to six years-old), Fundamental Education (six to fourteen years-old) and Middle Education
(fifteen to seventeen years-old). In terms of numbers, there are 192.676 Brazilian schools in Basic
Education, with 50.545.050 students enrolled: 83,5% (42.222.831) are in public schools and 16,5%
(8.322.219) privates ones.
1
2
Índice de desenvolvimento da Educação Básica.
Exame Nacional do Ensino Médio (ENEM - Brazilian High School Examination.
The Italian system of Education is formed by the Dipartimento per l'istruzione, per l'università, l'alta
formazione artistica, musicale e coreutica e per la ricerca e per la programmazione e la gestione
delle risorse umane, finanziarie e strumentali. (Ministero, 2014).
The system is divided in Infant School, Primary, Secondary, Superior, and Professional and
Technical Education. The Infant School has five years of duration, but the compulsory education is
composed by nine years (students from 6 to 15 years-old), being five years of primary school, three
of the first cycle of secondary (média inferiore) and one year of second cycle (media superiore). The
Secondary School consists of two cycles (Scuola di I grado Secondary, from 11 to 13/14 years and
Scuola secondary superiore from 14 to 18/19 years).
In 2013/2014, there were 8.644 Italian schools. In the Campania and Lombardia regions were
located the greater number of schools: 1030 e 1149, respectively. There were also almost eight
millions students, with about two millions and five thousands in the Primary schools.
The schools investigated are located in Italy, in the city of Vicenza, Veneto region (School A), and
in Brazil, in the region of ABC Paulista (School B). These secondary schools were selected because
their students presented good results in national tests, and both were considered by its communities,
(principals, students and teachers) schools of quality.
Italian school students has achieved good results in national examination (Istituto Nazionale per la
Valutazione del Sistema Educativo di Istruzione e di Formazione). Such examination occurs in the
third year of secondary school. In 2011, the school average was 86.9 in Italian language and 75.4 in
math. Italian schools average was 78.3 and 53.3, and Veneto’ schools were 81.9 and 57.0,
respectively. The school average socioeconomic status was considered middle and high.
In 2013/14 this school had 56 classrooms, a total of 1.398 students, about 120 teachers, one
principal, four assistants and over 100 educational employees (i.e. technicians). This school also had
good school’ physical infrastructure with modern facilities, auditorium, library, laboratories
(Physics, Chemistry, Computing, and Languages) and planetarium. The institution offers courses in
four areas: Scientific, Scientific emphasizing Applied Sciences, Scientific emphasizing Economic
and Social Science. The failure rate was 23% in 2009, 19% in 2010 and 24% in 2011.
Brazilian school students also presented good performance in national assessments. In the ENEM
this public institution got one of the best grades in its category in 2010. The school scored 618.27
points. The average score among the nation's schools in the same category was 599 points.
The school is highly sought after by its community. In 2013, the school had 35 classrooms, 1.123
students, over 100 teachers, one principal, two assistants and a group (5) of pedagogical
coordinators. The school had great school’ physical infrastructure (auditorium, gymnasium, library
and laboratories - Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Computer Science and Language). In all classrooms,
you could find a digital whiteboard, data projector and computer. The failure rate was 12% in 2009,
14% in 2010 and 13% in 2011. The school’ average socioeconomic status was considered middle
and high.
METHODOLOGY
This is an international project aiming at investigating which school factors explain student
academic performance under the perspective of the groups that are involved in the teaching and
learning process: families, students, teachers and principals. In this study, we present the results of
two schools, one in São Paulo state (Southeast Brazil) and other in Vicenza (Northern Italy).
Acknowledging the unique political, cultural, and historical differences among nations raises
questions about the potential benefits of conducting studies in different realities. To address this
concern, Phillips (2000) identified a number of reasons for pursuing research of this type based
around the possible discovery of alternative models for organizing educational systems; descriptions
of consequences from reform interventions tried in other countries, and; opportunities for fostering
co-operation and mutual understanding among nations by discussing differences and similarities and
the reasons for these variations.
In this study, we used a case study methodology with the purpose of understanding the school
realities. We opted by a descriptive and exploratory case (Yin, 1993), with some detailed analysis.
The data collection was based on qualitative research, school ethnography, and quantitative one,
using questionnaires with open-ended questions and Likert scales.
In qualitative research, we selected the ethnographic approach, using observation and interviews.
This situation requires the continuous presence of the researcher, observing inside and outside of
school where interactions occur among participants (students, teachers, parents), with the goal of
understanding the logic of symbolic relations that are used by the groups. In this process, the
observation was planned and controlled using protocols with goals, time tracking and records of
activities, including participants’ speeches and gestures. The data collection was, at the same time,
descriptive and reflective. Interpersonal relationships were experienced in school (in different
schools areas - schoolyard, classrooms, laboratories, parent-teacher conference, and class councils,
among others), through conversations, dialogues, discussions, and these situations ended up creating
affective, cognitive, social and emotional involvements with participants.
In addition to observation, it was also used interviews. In Brazil, ten parents, teachers and students
and 4 principals, and in Italia 12 participants, three from each group, were interviewed. We collected
information on: 1) Participant profile (gender, age, marital status, education, teaching experience).
2) Socioeconomic status and use of technology, Internet access, etc., 3) Parent involvement with the
student education (family participation in student life, parents’ visits at school). 4) Cultural capital
(parents education, teachers and principals education, including the mastery of other languages). 5)
School factors that explain student performance.
In the Brazilian school, the ethnographic study and interviews happened in 2012, in eleven months.
In Italian school, it took place in 2013/14, totaling three months. Analysis of the qualitative data
involved a grounded theory approach (Creswell, 2002). The first phase was open coding by
segmenting the data collected. Overarching categories were then identified by filtering the data
using codes and descriptors.
Results from these interviews were used to prepare a questionnaire which was answered: 1) In
Brazilian school by 17 students and parents, 16 teachers and four principals; 2) In Italian school by
15 families and teachers, 14 students and three principals. The questionnaire consisted of openended questions and Likert scale. We collected data on the: a) participant profile (gender, age,
marital status, education, teaching experience). b) Socioeconomic conditions and use of technology,
Internet access, etc., c) Parent involvement with the student education (family participation in
student life, parents’ visits at school); d) Cultural capital (parents’ education, teachers and principals
education, including the mastery of other languages). e) Continuing education (attendance at
conferences, production of teaching materials); g) School factors that explain student performance.
In the Table 01 is possible to see the school factors that were identified in the interviews.
F01
Teacher, who make a difference.
F12
School size (number of students, teachers).
F02
Principal and his team, who make a difference.
F13
F03
Schools' physical infrastructure (school resources:
library, computers, internet, laboratories)
Parents (involvement in student learning and
support).
F14
School discipline (Strategies to maintenance of
order).
School climate (good environment for learning).
F15
The school relationship with surroundings
F05
Student (dedication to study).
F16
F06
Political Pedagogical Project prepared to student
learning.
Learning environment as core focus of the school.
School management (capacity of planning and F17
organizing processes in the school) .
Principal Leadership (capacity of influencing F18 Teamwork of teachers and principals.
people).
Financial resources available at school.
F19 Teacher employment stability.
Teaching resources available at school (textbooks, F20 High expectations that teachers have on student
educational software, etc.)
achievement.
School localization.
F21 The non-occurrence of violence.
Curriculum designed for students to learn.
Table 01: school factors that were identified in the interviews
F04
F07
F08
F09
F10
F11
In total, 104 participants completed the questionnaire and 46 interviews were conducted in both
research realities. After the initial analysis, other demands were met. These questions were
investigated through new observations and interviews.
In Brazilian school, some school factors were analyzed using observation, document analysis and
interviews: teacher, school management, learning environment, infrastructure and discipline. In this
case we tried to understand how these factors influence student performance, and in which part of
the year they are more intense and frequent.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The presentation of the results does not intend to compare schools with different realities, but to
consider what we can learn from each one of the realities studied. Table 02 shows Brazilian
participant profile:
Gender (Female)
Average age
Marital status (Married)
Higher Education
Computers (at least one)
Celular (at least one)
Internet (acess)
Study time (6 hours -week)
Frequency of study per
week (three times a week)
Workload (40 hours per
week)
Professional experience
(more than 10 years)
Parents
(%)
Students
(%)
Teachers
(%)
Principals
(%)
95
47
90
55
100
100
100
60
16
30
44
70
100
100
100
100
65
51
85
100
100
100
100
90
90
75
75
100
100
100
60
50
Table 02: participant profile of the Brazilian school.
This set included parents who were involved in the school life of their children, talked to them about
the school, monitored their homework and attended the school meetings. These parents were
newspaper and book readers. The students, who were also newspaper and book readers, in general
were committed with the studies, spoke a second language, and participated in the classes. Both
groups used the technologies. The group of teachers also used the technologies, was newspaper and
book readers, and attended continuing education courses. The school principals, generally, were
involved in continuing education, through courses and workshops, where they explored the
production of didactic material as educational tools.
The data related to the explanatory factors of the students' performance has been summarized in
Table 03.
Score higher
than 75%
F A P G
F01
F02
F05
F06
Teacher, who make a difference.
Principal and his team, who make a difference.
Student (dedication to study).
School management (capacity of planning
organizing).
F07
F11
F13
F16
F17
F18
Principal Leadership (capacity of influencing people).
Curriculum designed for students to learn.
School discipline (Strategies to maintenance of order).
Political Pedagogical Project prepared to student learning.
Learning environment as core focus of the school.
Teamwork of teachers and principals.
X
and
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F
X
Score of
100%
A P
X X
X X
X
G
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 03: explanatory factors of the students' performance
Regardless of the profile (gender, age), education, technology access, cultural capital and level of
participation in the school, all the groups agreed that the following are important factors for the
students' performance: the school principal and his/her team; his/her management strategies,
including the school organization and discipline; the students' efforts, through homework and extraclass reading, among others. However, the teacher was the main factor mentioned for the student's
success.
The teachers and principals, those who are closest to the education process, pointed out 14 factors,
which, in their opinion, bring about the students' good performance: F01, F02, F03, F05, F06, F07,
F11, F13, F14, F16, F17, F18, F19 and F20. The teacher, school management, learning environment
as the core focus of the school, schools' physical infrastructure and discipline factors were analyzed
through observation and interviews.
The teacher's effect (TE) was spread mainly through the teacher’s commitment to the school (TCS)
and commitment to the students (TCST) and the requirement of high-level of teaching, which ended
up reaching and affecting the students' performance. According to the participants, the TCS
comprised the attention given to the student's records (e.g. classroom diary), the punctuality in the
classroom, the preparation and timely submission of lesson plans, the reports and tests, the
participation in the school projects and, especially, the achievement of the contents proposed and the
low number of absences during the month. The TCST involved the teacher's interest in the students,
their attitudes, behavior and learning. The requirement of high-level of teaching included the
effective use of class time to promote learning, the students' efforts to accomplish their tasks, the use
and correction of homework, the students' efforts to attain the objectives proposed, the valuation of
discipline in the classroom and the valuation of students’ results. Some of these categories have
been already mentioned in studies on the school climate. (Sammons, Hillman and Mortimore, 1995;
Lee, Frank and Albernaz, 2004).
The analysis of the intensity of the teacher factor has shown that this factor was present during the
year through TCS and TCST. This effect, however, began even before the classes, in the period of
preparation of the educational plans. At that stage, which had impacts on the whole year, the
teachers sought subsidies for the teaching process that would take place. An interesting fact, noted
was that the factor was a little more intense on the students, right before the quarterly tests, which
were applied for all the subjects at the end of each quarter. During those periods, teachers taught
review classes, performed activities focused on the content that they considered important for the
tests and strengthened the advice regarding the risks that the lack of dedication to studies may
represent at the tests. At the same time, students were more attentive, accomplished the homework
required and attended the regular classes, as well as classes for review lessons. The intensity of this
effect was not higher, as we noted, only because the teachers did not prepare different lesson plans
for those students with difficulties and learning disorders.
The school management effect was spread, among other means, through the leadership in the
management of materials, the organization of the school meals and school budget, the guarantee of
improvement and proper operation of the equipment (labs/computers), the organization and
compliance with the annual calendar, the guarantee of the order, by talking to and punishing the
students when necessary, and the teachers' participation in weekly meetings (professional
development). This effect also influenced the schoolwork, the monitoring and the management of
the students' results. However, some of these effects were superficial, fragmented and did not reach
the school as a whole.
We found initially that the principal and his team did not make much use of the local and national
legislation (Law on Guidelines and Foundations of National Education of 1996 -LDBEN/96-,
National Curricular Guidelines, Statute of the Teaching Profession and Statute of the Child and
Adolescent), and also did not use theories of education (sociology, psychology) to solve problems.
Most of the times, the principals knew some law or theory, but did not use this knowledge in a
thoughtful manner, such as, for example, in their planning.
We also noted that the school planning was mixed up with the teacher lesson plans prepared by them
at the beginning of the school year. There was not an annual planning based on the diagnosis or
discussion on the school reality and surroundings, aimed at improving the school within a
continuous process, with shared responsibilities.
It was noted that the principals knew and valued the Political and Pedagogical Project (PPP), but the
school did not have that instrument to create a comprehensive view. The pedagogical projects
created and developed had no connection with the design, mission and values of the school. Without
the PPP guidance, the proposals were diffuse and only mentioned in the annual schedule. In the
same sense, the lesson plans were valued for the purpose of organizing the time and classroom
activities and improving the teaching process, but the corresponding documents were not prepared.
The teacher work was carried out without these guidelines and using the same didactic and
pedagogical strategies to all the students, including those who had difficulties and learning
disorders.
The school monitoring and evaluation management was seldom performed. A systematic monitoring
of the projects, intended to verify and ensure their effectiveness, was rarely seen. In addition, the
educational results were sporadically managed. These results were superficially discussed at class
council and parent-teacher meetings. These meetings, which took place three times in the year, were
marked by shallow discussions about the students' performance and actions to be taken to help them
improve their grades or correct some inappropriate behavior. Accordingly, little accurate
information was made available on subjects such as the students' academic performance and
personal behavior, absenteeism rate of teachers and students, pedagogical practice, age/grade
distortion, school average socioeconomic status and parents' participation in their children's
education. In this process, external evaluations were also only superficially managed. Although the
school offered lectures and materials on the Brazilian High School Examination (ENEM), there was
no systematic monitoring of the relating indicators. In fact, there was not a clear policy for valuation
of the results.
The school management factor presented effects throughout the year. In this school, this effect was
more intense at the beginning of the year, in the moment of organizing the school and projects and
launching the guidelines for all the subjects. The initial planning meetings took place in this period.
Throughout the year, the role of management focused more intensely on the students’ discipline and
only superficially on the teachers' education and support to parents. The teachers, for example,
received little or no feedback at all on their teaching practices. At the end of the quarters, when the
class councils and teacher-parent meetings took place, the effect was intensified, with greater
intervention and decision-making on the students' school life. At those moments, management's
knowledge about the students affected their pass or fail status.
The schools' physical infrastructure factor had a more centralized effect over the year, depending on
the subject and the teacher. We talked with teachers about the use of the laboratories (Physics,
Chemistry, Biology, Languages) and the library, which are components of the school infrastructure
and determinant factors of the students’ performance (Menezes Filho, 2007; Biondi and Felício,
2007). The use of laboratories with access to the internet, in general, increased from the beginning
of March and decreased at the end of October and beginning of November. In periods next to the
quarterly tests, the use also decreased and stopped near the end-of-year tests. It was as if these
spaces (labs) and equipment lost their importance in the evaluation period. On the other hand, the
library effect increased, since the students used these premises to get together and study for the
finals.
The discipline factor was more intense from March to November, when the number of indiscipline
occurrences increased. Indiscipline, a factor that competes in time with the learning process, was
less noted at the beginning and the end of the year. According to teachers and school principals, one
of the explanations for the fact, is that at the beginning of the year the students would still be getting
to know each other and, therefore, they would be less likely to mess around; and, at the end of the
year, initiatives of insubordination were hindered by the threat of failure.
Finally, the learning environment effect, as the core focus of the school, impacted the students'
performance over the year, as follows: on the one hand, through the school concern with the
maintenance of its infrastructure, including equipment and laboratories, the discipline, to ensure the
learning and the extra-class projects, to diversify the teaching process; on the other hand, through
the teachers' concern with the students' proper dedication to the studies and tests, the students'
participation in review classes, the family's participation and the need to improve the student's
behavior in the classroom. As noted, the effect was a little more intense near the quarterly tests,
because of the teachers. Part of this effect was associated with the teachers' requirements (Machado
Soares, 2004) and another part, with the school climate, which, within the Brazilian context, has
already proven to affect the learning process. There was little concern with the correction of
homework and the absenteeism rate (Machado Soares, 2004; Lee, Franco and Albernaz, 2004) or
with students’ results.
The Italian school
The results from Italian school could be seen in this section. Table 04 shows Italian participant
profile:
Gender (Female)
Average age
Marital status (Married)
Higher Education
Computers (at least one)
Celular (at least one)
Internet (acess)
Study time (6 hours - week)
frequency of study per week
(three times a week)
Workload (40 hours per
week)
Professional experience
(more than 10 years)
Parents
(%)
Students
(%)
Teachers
(%)
Principals
(%)
60
48
90
55
100
100
100
-
60
16
100
100
100
60
60
55
50
80
100
100
100
100
-
53
75
100
100
100
100
-
-
-
80
50
-
-
60
100
Table 02: participant profile of the Italian school.
This set of parents usually talked with their children about the school, the learning process and the
teachers. They, in general, attended teacher-parent meetings and visited the schools, were habitual
readers and spoke another language. The students, usually, were motivated and used to study the
school subjects and do their homework requested, spoke another language and talked with their
parents. Both groups used the technologies. Their teachers also used technologies, were habitual
readers, frequent travelers and improved their education through academic researches, participation
in courses, workshops and congresses. The principals, on their turn, were habitual readers, spoke
another language, participated in courses, conferences, knowledge networks and visited other
schools.
The data related to the explanatory factors of the students' performance has been summarized in
Table 05.
Score higher
than 75%
F A P G
FD01
FD03
FD06
FD11
Teacher, who make a difference.
Schools' physical infrastructure (school resources: library,
computers, internet, laboratories)
School management (capacity of planning and
organizing).
Curriculum designed for students to learn.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F
X
Score of
100%
A P
X X
G
X
X
X
X
FD13
School discipline (Strategies to maintenance of order).
X
X
X
X
FD14
FD16
FD17
School climate (good environment for learning).
Political Pedagogical Project prepared to student learning.
Learning environment as core focus of the school.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 05: explanatory factors of the students' performance
Regardless of gender, age, marital status, education, technology access, cultural capital and level of
participation in the school, all the groups recognized eight factors as the reasons for the students'
good performance.
Teachers and principals had some different views in relation to the students’ performance, but all of
them agreed that the teacher, school infrastructure, school management, curriculum, school subject,
school climate, educational project and learning environment as the core focus of the school were
determinant factors. Through interviews, we analyzed the teacher factor, school management and
learning as the core focus of the school3.
The teacher effect was mainly spread through his/her commitment to the work and high-level of
teaching, which ended up reaching and affecting the students' performance. The teachers'
involvement, according to the participants, consisted of the execution of the planning and teaching,
application of tests, correction of the students' tasks and homework, dedication to the students,
preparation of school reports and dedication to the school, through punctuality and lack of absence.
The high-level of teaching consisted of students' dedication, students’ discipline, delivery of planned
content, valuation of good students and control of students’ grades. In this respect, some categories
were also found in other studies. (Sammons, Hillman and Mortimore, 1995; Lee, Franco and
Albernaz, 2004).
The school management effect, which was investigated by means of observation, analysis of
documentation and interviews, was spread, among other things, through the definition of the use and
allocation of materials (paper, cleaning products) and didactic resources (textbooks), organization of
the school budget, improvement of infrastructure, organization and compliance with the annual
schedule, guarantee of discipline, by punishing students, organization of the work and school
schedules, management of events and meetings and organization of extra-class activities.
The school management effect, through leadership, reached from the school planning up to the
monitoring and management of the results achieved by the students. However, some of these effects
were superficial, fragmented and did not reach the school as a whole.
It was noted that the principals were familiar with the local and national legislation, as well as with
education theories. Such inputs benchmarked the discussions about the school problems and
difficulties, students' learning issues and teachers’ education. For example, the teachers' discussions
were based on specialized literature, students’ learning difficulties and actions to be taken to help
them out over the year.
It was noted that the annual planning was based on the school reality, its problems and the
objectives to be achieved during the year. However, this document, and the corresponding
discussion, was treated superficially, with few meetings scheduled to check its effectiveness. The
3
In this school, we did not investigate the intensity (period of the year) of any factors, because of the short research
time.
document focused on administrative issues, without clearly indicating the paths that could lead to
changes and school improvements.
The teachers' lesson plans were mentioned and valued as a manner to improve the teaching process.
However, these lesson plans were not prepared and the classes were taught based on the teachers’
experience. The classes were based on the same contents and conducted in an equal manner to all
the students, including those who had difficulties and learning disorders.
The monitoring and evaluation management was not performed on a systemic basis and only a few
projects were followed up. On the other hand, the educational results were managed in a little more
organized manner by the school statistics department, which recorded the students' performance. In
this process, periodical meetings were scheduled for the purpose of discussing the results with the
students and parents.
Finally, the learning effect as a core focus of the school impacted the students' performance. This
effect mainly resulted from the concern with the school discipline, the maintenance of the
infrastructure, the need of review lessons, the support from the family and the students' success. A
part of the effect occurred through the requirements made by the teachers, which had little impact on
the school climate.
Final consideration
This study revealed which school factors explain student academic performance from the
perspective of the groups that are involved in the teaching and learning process: families, students,
teachers and principals. As these participants are just one specific demand from different cultures, it
does not allow any comparison. However, describing school factors permit us to reflect on the
school organization (Phillips, 2000). These data can also be used by universities professors and
experts in pre and in-service education to promote discussion about school quality.
As each school has its culture, including teacher education, investigate which school factors are
more important, more intense and in which part of the year can help principals, providing relevant
information for better organizing and conducting their schools. Still permit to the principals,
exploring the school factors, find the best way to improve students’ performance.
In Brazil, 16 factors were cited by one or more groups, 14 by teachers and principals, 12 by all
groups as being school factors responsible for student performance. Teacher was the main factor that
influenced student learning. This impact was spread mainly through the teacher’s commitment to the
school and commitment to the students and the requirement of high-level of teaching (Lee, Franco
and Albernaz, 2004). The school management had an effect in practically all parts of the school, but
it was limited because principals did not possess specific knowledge (theoretical basis) on education
and their focus were more on administrative processes than on pedagogical ideals.
Although, these data do not permit any comparison, some school factors were found in both
realities: the teacher factor, school management, curriculum designed for students to learn, school
discipline, political pedagogical project prepared to student learning and learning environment as
core focus of the school. Regardless of the participant profile or local culture, these six factors were
found in both schools as responsible for students’ performance.
We can conclude that in both schools there is not a single factor that explains students’ performance.
In fact, there are multiple factors sustaining and supporting students’ performance. As Rutter et al.
(1979) showed there are a variety of factors acting in combination that are more powerful than any
single factor acting alone. These researchers suggested that there is a kind of global "ethos" in
school that makes positive difference on student outcomes. Also Barbosa and Fernandes (2001)
stated that multiple factors act concurrently on multiple levels of social integration to determine the
students’ performance and this is the result of this complex interaction.
One must also consider that these school factors assume, depending on period of year, different
intensities. It means that they can have more effect on student performance, for example, at the
beginning of the school year, or some may act more directly while others indirectly, but these
factors are always acting together.
In Brazilian school, we found effects coming from teacher, school management and learning
environment as core focus of the school, among others. These effects were present throughout the
year, but had different intensities. The teacher factor was a little more intense on the students, right
before the quarterly tests, which were applied for all the subjects at the end of each quarter. During
those periods, teachers were more demanding and rigorous with students’ dedication. The intensity
of this effect was not higher only because the teachers did not prepare different lesson plans for
those students with difficulties and learning disorders.
The school management effect appeared to be more decisive at the beginning and at the end of the
year, when principals had to organize schools and to decide about student failure. The learning
environment effect was more intense near the finals tests, caused principally by teachers. The
infrastructure and discipline factors had its effects more centralized during the year (from March to
October).
Finally, we have to consider that we just have the results of one Brazilian school, and we cannot
draw solid conclusions without having significant samples. Thus, it remains open for further
investigation the school factors that influence students’ performance and in which period of the year
they are more intense.
REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁGICAS
ALBERNAZ, A; FERREIRA, F. H. G.; FRANCO, C. Qualidade e equidade na educação fundamental
brasileira. Texto para Discussão nº 455. Rio de Janeiro: PUC-Rio, 2002.
BARBOSA, M. E. F.; FERNANDES, C.. A escola brasileira faz diferença? Uma investigação dos efeitos da
escola na proficiência em matemática dos alunos da 4ª série. In: FRANCO, Creso (Org.). Avaliação,
ciclos e promoção na educação. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2001. p. 121-153.
BROOKE, N. SOARES, J. F. (org). Pesquisa em eficácia escolar: origens e trajetórias. Belo Horizonte:
Editora da UFMG, 2008.
CASTRO, C. M.; FLETCHER, P. A escola que os brasileiros frequentaram em 1985. RJ: Ipea,
Iplan,1986.
CASTRO, C. M.; SANGUINETTY J. A.; MARQUES, E. A.; LACERDA, E. R.; FRANCO, M. A. C.;
SILVA, M. A. Determinantes de la educación en América Latina: acceso, desempeño y equidad.
ECIEL. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas. (1984).
CÉSAR, C.; SOARES, J. Desigualdades acadêmicas induzidas pelo contexto escolar. Revista Brasileira de
Estudos de População, v. 18, n. 1/2, p. 97-110, 2001.
COLEMAN, J. S. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Print. Office.
1966.
CRESWELL, J. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and
Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. 2005.
CRESAS. Le handicap socioculturel en question. Paris: ESF. 1978.
CRAHAY, M. Poderá a escola ser justa e eficaz? Da igualdade das oportunidades à igualdade dos
conhecimentos. Tradução de Vasco Farinha. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget, 2002.
CRAHAY, M; BAYE, A. Existem escolas justas e eficazes? Cad. Pesqui., São Paulo, v. 43, n. 150, 2013.
Disponível
em:
<http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S010015742013000300007&lng=pt&nrm=iso>. Acesso em: 27 jun. 2014.
DOUGLAS, J. W. B.; ROSS, J. M.; SIMPSON, H. R. All our future. London: P. Davies, 1968.
ESPÓSITO, Y.L.; DAVIS, C.; NUNES, M. M. R. 2000. Sistema de Avaliação do Rendimento Escolar – O
modelo adotado pelo estado de São Paulo. Revista Brasileira de Educação, n. 13, pp.25-53.
FELICIO, F.; FERNANDES, R. O Efeito Da Qualidade Da Escola Sobre O Desempenho Escolar: Uma
Avaliação Do Ensino Fundamental No Estado De São Paulo. Anais do XXXIII Encontro Nacional
de Economia – Natal-RN, 2005.
FERNANDES, N. S.; SOARES, T. M.; PENA, A.C.; CUNHA, I. C. O conhecimento do professor em
avaliação educacional e a proficiência do aluno. Est. Aval. Educ., SP, v. 21, n. 47, p. 569-590, 2010.
FERRÃO, M. E.; BELTRÃO, K.; SANTOS, D. Políticas de não-repetência e qualidade da educação:
evidencias obtidas a partir da modelagem dos dados da 4ª série do SAEB-99. Estudos em Avaliação
Educacional, n. 26, 2002.
FERRÃO, M. E.; BELTRÃO, K. I.; FERNANDES, C. Aprendendo sobre Escola Eficaz – evidências do
Saeb-99. INEP/MEC, 2002.
FLETCHER, P. À procura do ensino eficaz. Relatório de pesquisa, PNUD/MEC/SAEB. 1997.
FRANCO, C.; BONAMINO, A. A pesquisa sobre características de escolas eficazes no Brasil: breve revisão
dos principais achados e alguns problemas em aberto. Revista Educação On-line, RJ: PUC-Rio, n. 1,
2005. Disponível em: <http://www. maxwell.lambda.ele.puc-rio.br>. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2013
FRANCO, C.; SZTAJN, P.; ORTIGÃO, M. I. Mathematics teachers, reform, and equity: results from the
Brazilian National Assessment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Reston, Virginia,
v. 38, n. 4, 393-419. 2007.
GOMES, C. A. A escola de qualidade para todos: abrindo as camadas da cebola. Ensaio: Avaliação de
Políticas Públicas Educacionais, n. 13, jul. - set./2005, p. 281 - 306.
KLEIN, R.; FONTANIVE, N. S. Gestão de resultados e de aprendizagem. Apresentado no XIV Encontro
Nacional de Diretores (Fundação Bradesco). Gestão escolar: as articulações do diretor, SP. 2010.
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas (Inep). Censo da Educação Básica, 2012.
LEE, V. E.; BRYK, A. S.; SMITH, J. The Organization of Effective Secondary Schools. In: DARLINGHAMMOND, L. Review of Research in Education’. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association, p. 171-267, 1993.
LEE, V.; FRANCO, C.; ALBERNAZ, A. Quality and equality in Brazilian secondary schools: a multilevel
cross-national school effects study. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego. 2004.
LÜCK, H. Dimensões de gestão escolar e suas competências. Curitiba: Positivo, 2009.
MACHADO SOARES, T. Influência do Professor e do Ambiente em Sala de Aula sobre a Proficiëncia
Alcançada pelos Alunos Avaliados no Simave-2002. 2004.
MELLA, O. (Org.) Qualitative study of schools with outstanding results in seven Latin American
countries. Santiago, Chile: UNESCO, Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of
Education, 2002.
MEURET, D. Établissement scolaires: ce qui fait la différence. L’Année Sociologique, Paris,v. 50, n. 2,
p. 545-556, 2000.
MORTIMORE, P. The nature and findings of school effectiveness research in primary sector. In: RIDDELL,
S.; PECK, E. (Org.). School effectiveness research: its message for school improvement. Londres:
HMSO, 1991.
MURILLO, F. J. Um Panorama da Pesquisa Ibero-Americana Sobre a Eficácia Escolar. In N. Brooke e J.F.
Soares (orgs.). Pesquisa em Eficácia Escolar: origem e trajetórias. BH: Ed. UFMG, 2008, p. 466481.
PHILLIPS, D. Learning from elsewhere in education: some perennial problems revisited with reference to
British interest in Germany. Comparative Education, v. 36, n. 3, p. 297-307, 2000.
RACZYNSKI, D.; MUÑOZ. G. Efectividad escolar y cambio educativo en condiciones de pobreza en Chile.
Santiago de Chile: Ministerio de Educación. 2005.
RUTTER, M. Fifteen thousand hours: secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press. 1979.
SAMMONS, P.; HILLMAN, J.; MORTIMORE, P. Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A Review of
School Effectiveness Research. London: Office for Standards in Education [OFSTED], 1995.
SÁTYRO, N.; SOARES, S.. A infraestrutura das escolas brasileiras de ensino fundamental: um estudo com
base nos censos escolares de 1997 a 2005. Textos para Discussão n. 1267. Brasília: Ipea, 2007.
SAUVY, A.; GIRARD, A. Les diverses classes sociales devant l’enseignement. Population, 2. Reprisin
INED (1970), Population et l’enseignement . Paris: PUF. 1965, p. 233-260.
SCARTEZINI, R. A.; VIANA, T. de C.. O Efeito professor e sua Transmissibilidade. In: COLÓQUIO DO
LEPSI IP/FE-USP, 2010, São Paulo. Anais... São Paulo: USP, 2010. Disponível em:
<http://www.proceedings.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=MSC000000003201000010005
8&lng=pt&nrm=abn>. Acesso em: 30 set. 2013.
SCHEERENS, J. Improving school effectiveness. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational
Planning, 2000.
SCHEERENS, J.; BOSKER, R. The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon, 1997.
SCHIEFELBEIN, E.; SIMMONS, J. Os determinantes do desempenho escolar: uma revisão de pesquisas nos
países em desenvolvimento. Cadernos de Pesquisa, São Paulo, n. 35, p. 53-72, nov. 1980.
SOARES, J. F. Qualidade e eqüidade na educação básica brasileira: a evidência do SAEB-2001. Archivos
Analíticos
de
Políticas
Educativas,
v.12,
n.
38,
2004.
Disponível
em:
<http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n38>. Acesso em: 21 maio 2012.
_______. Melhoria do desempenho cognitivo dos alunos do ensino fundamental. Cadernos de Pesquisa, v.
37, n. 130, pp. 135-160, jan./abr. 2007.
SOARES, S.; RAZO, R.; FARIÑAS, M. Perfil estatístico da educação rural: origem socioeconômica
desfavorecida, insumos escolares deficientes e resultados inaceitáveis. In: BOF, Alvana Maria (Org.).
A educação no Brasil rural. Brasília: Inep, 2006. p. 47-68.
SOARES, J. F.; ALVES, M. T. Desigualdades Raciais no Sistema Brasileiro de Educação Básica. Educação
e Pesquisa, São Paulo, v. 29, p.147-165, 2003.
SOARES, J. F., CÉSAR, C. C. & MAMBRINI, J. Determinantes de desempenho dos alunos do ensino
básico brasileiro: evidências do SAEB de 1997. IN: C. Franco (Org.), Avaliação, ciclos e promoção
na educação, Porto Alegre: Artmed. p. 121-153, 2001.
SOARES NETO, J. J. JESUS, G. R.; KARINO, C. A.; ANDRADE, D. F.. Uma escala para medir a
infraestrutura escolar. Est. Aval. Educ., São Paulo, v. 24, n. 54, p. 78-99, jan./abr. 2013.
SOARES, J. F.; MAMBRINI, J.; PEREIRA, L. R.; ALVES, M. T. G. Fatores associados ao desempenho
em Língua portuguesa e matemática: evidencia do SAEB – 2001. Minas Gerais, UFMG, 2001.
WILLMS, J. D. Monitoring School Performance. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1992.
YIN, R. K. Aplications of case study research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1993.