Principals' Engagement of Low Ability Students in Singapore Secondary Schools

Educational Management Administration and Leadership

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 214-232

  Ong, Chye Hin ^a   Dimmock, Clive ^b  

^a SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES   (Singapore)

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Engagement; grounded theory; instructional leadership; low ability student; management; principals; Singapore; streaming; typology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874577957     PISSN: 17411432     EISSN: 17411440     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1741143212468345     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Ansalone G.Schooling, tracking and inequality.Journal of Children and Poverty. 2001;7 (1): 33-49.
2. AnsaloneG (2004) Getting our schools on track: is detracking really the answer?Radical Pedagogy6(2): 1-10. Available at: http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue6_2/ansalone.html(accessed 28 December 2010).
3. Aron RMain Currents in Sociological Thought. Harmondsworth: Weidenfeld and Nicolson; 1970:.
4. Ayalon H.Nonhierarchical curriculum differentiation and inequality in achievement: a different story of more of the same?.Teachers College Record. 2006;108:1186-1213.
5. BarkerB (2005). Transforming schools: illusion or reality?School Leadership and Management25(2): 99-116. Available at: http://www.swetswise.com/eAccess/viewToc.do?titleID=182054&yevoID=1951368(accessed 28 May 2008).
6. BarkerB (2007) The leadership paradox: Can school leaders transform student outcomes?School Effectiveness and School Improvement18(1): 21-43. Available at: http://www.swetswise.com/eAccess/viewToc.do?titleID=182031&yevoID=1950044(accessed 22 June 2008).
7. Biafora F,Ansalone G.Perceptions and attitudes of school principals towards school tracking: structural considerations of personal beliefs.Education. 2008;128 (4): 588-602.
8. Blumer HerbertSymbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1969:.
9. Boaler J,William D,Brown M.Students' experiences of ability grouping; disaffection, polarization, and the construction of failure.British Educational Research Journal. 2000;26:631-648.
10. Bush T,Middlewood DLeading and Managing People in Education. London: Sage; 2005:.
11. Caldwell BSchool-Based Management. Brussels: International Academy of Education; 2005:.
12. Carbonaro W.Tracking, students' effort, and academic achievement.Sociology of Education. 2005;78:27-49.
13. Chang ASC1990:.
14. Chang A,Goh SC,Moo SN,Chen AYReport on Motivation and Classroom Behaviour of Normal Technical Students. National Institute of Education: Singapore Centre for Educational Research; 1997:.
15. Cheng S,Martin L,Werum RE.Adult social capital and track placement of ethnic groups in Germany.American Journal of Education. 2007;114:41-74.
16. Dimmock CSchool-Based Management and School Effectiveness. Dimmock C, ed. London and New York: Routledge; 1993:1-21.
17. Dimmock CDesigning the Learning-Centred School. A Cross-Cultural Perspective. London and New York: Falmer Press; 2000:.
18. Dimmock C,O'Donoghue TAInnovative School Principals and Restructuring: Life History Portraits of Successful Managers of Change. London and New York: Routledge; 1997:.
19. Engels N,Hotton G,Devos G,Bouckenooghe D,Aelterman A.Principals in schools with a positive school culture.Educational Studies. 2008;34 (3): 159-174.
20. Feldhusen JF.Susan Allan sets the record straight: response to Allan.Educational Leadership. 1991;48 (6): 60-65.
21. Fullan M,Watson N.School-based management: reconceptualizing to improve learning outcomes.School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2000;11 (4): 453-474.
22. Gamoran ACan Unlike Students Learn Together? Grade Retention, Tracking, and Grouping. Wang MCWalberg HJ, ed. Greenwich, CT: Information Age; 2004:141-155.
23. GamoranA (2009) Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice (WCER Working Paper No. 2009-6). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Available at: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php(accessed 27 December 2010).
24. Glaser BBasics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing. California: Sociology Press; 1992:.
25. Habegger S.The principal's role in successful schools: creating a positive school culture.Principal. 2008;88 (1): 42-46.
26. Hallam SAbility Grouping in Schools. Perspectives on Educational Policy. London: Institute of Education, University of London; 2002:.
27. Hallinger P,Bickman L,Davis K.School context, principal leadership and student reading achievement.The Elementary School Journal. 1996;96:527-549.
28. HallingerPHeckRH (1998) Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 19801-995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement9(2): 157-191. Available at: http://www.swetswise.com/eAccess/viewToc.do?titleID=182031andyevoID=1894554R(accessed 21 May 2008).
29. Heck RH,Price C,Thomas SL.Tracks as emergent structures: a network analysis of student differentiation in a high school.American Journal of Education. 2004;110:321-353.
30. Hoadley U.Social class and pedagogy: a model for the investigation of pedagogic variation.British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2008;29:63-78.
31. Huang M-H.Classroom homogeneity and the distribution of student math performance: a country-level fixed-effects analysis.Social Science Research. in press;:.
32. Ireson J,Hallam S,Hack S,Clark H,Plewis I.Ability grouping in English secondary schools; effects on attainment in English, mathematics, and science.Educational Research and Evaluation. 2002;8:299-318.
33. Ivinson G,Duveen G.Classroom structuration and the development of social representations of the curriculum.British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2005;26:627-642.
34. Kulik JA.Findings on ability grouping are often distorted, response to Allan.Educational Leadership. 1991;48 (6): 67.
35. Law L,Walker A,Dimmock C.The influence of principals' values on their perception and management of school problems.Journal of Educational Administration. 2003;41 (5): 498-523.
36. Lee U W.Streaming keeps drop-out rates to 3%.TODAY. 2006, May 4;4:.
37. Lincoln YS,Guba EGNaturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985:.
38. Loveless TThe Tracking Wars: State Reform Meets Social Policy. Washington: Brookings Institution Press; 1999:.
39. Lucas SR,Berends M.Sociodemographic diversity, correlated achievement, and de facto tracking.Sociology of Education. 2002;75:328-348.
40. Lucas SR,Gamoran AClosing the Gap: Promising Strategies for Reducing the Achievement Gap. Loveles S T, ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 2002:171-198.
41. MacNeil AJ,Prater DL,Busch S.The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement.International Journal of Leadership in Education. 2009;12 (1): 73-84.
42. Report on the Ministry of Education. Singapore: Author; 1979:.
43. Ministry of Education, Singapore (2010). Education Statistics Digest 2010. Singapore: Author. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-statistics-digest/.
44. Ministry of Education, Singapore (2010a) Secondary School Education Booklet. Singapore: Author. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/secondary/.
45. More pathways for secondary school students.Press Release. 2010b;:.
46. Ministry of Education, Singapore (n.d.) Release of the primary school leaving examination results. Press ReleaseNovember 2007 to November 2010. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/.
47. NettlesSMHerringtonC (2007) Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: the implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education82(4): 724-736. Available at: http://www.swetswise.com/eAccess/viewToc.do?titleID=157554&yevoID=2156394(accessed 20 May 2008).
48. Ng CFNanyang Technological University: National Institute of Education; 1999:.
49. Oakes J,Gamoran A,Page RNHandbook of Research on Curriculum. Jackson PW, ed. New York: Macmillan; 1992:570-608.
50. Oakes JKeeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. 2005). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2005:.
51. Ono H.Who goes to college? Features of institutional tracking in Japanese higher education.American Journal of Education. 2001;109:161-195.
52. Park H2009:.
53. Punch KFIntroduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage; 1998:.
54. Quek MSINational University of Singapore; 1988:.
55. Quek T.Factory rejects? Govt spends more on ITE students than JC ones.The Straits Times. 2006;:.
56. Rahma PMNational Institute of Education: Nanyang Technological University; 2003:.
57. Sergiovanni TJThe Principalship - A Reflective Practice Perspective. 2009) The Principalship - A Reflective Practice Perspective, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Inc Boston.Inc Boston: Pearson Education; 2009:.
58. Strauss A,Corbin JBasics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990:.
59. Tack LM,Farkas G.Learning-related behaviors, cognitive skills, and ability grouping when school begins.Social Science Research. 2006;35:1048-1079.
60. Tan KHSingapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University; 1995:.
61. Tay E S1993:.
62. Van de Gaer E,Pustjens H,Van Damme J,De Munter A.Tracking and the effects of school-related attitudes and the language achievement of boys and girls.British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2006;27:293-309.
63. Van Houtte M.Tracking effects on school achievement: a quantitative explanation in terms of academic culture of school staff.American Journal of Education. 2004;110:354-388.
64. Watanabe M.Tracking in the era of high-stakes state accountability reform: case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina.Teachers College Record. 2008;110:489-533.
65. Witziers B,Bosker RJ,Kruger ML.Educational leadership and student achievement: the elusive search for an association.Educational Administration Quarterly. 2003;39:398-425.