This study has two distinct features that are different from current studies using multilevel analysis on school effectiveness. First, it uses a very large dataset, and second, the analysis is on a streamed-school system. The initial findings of this study record three differences from studies in the West: (a) the relatively large size of school effect in the Hong Kong schools; (b) the negative correlation between intercepts and slopes for prior attainment; and (c) the differential effectiveness for low and high ability students. The study highlights the issue of whether or not the results of school effectiveness research based on mixed ability schools can be generalised to some countries in East Asia where students are streamed to schools according to their academic ability. It suggests the need to explore whether the contextual factors that influence the effectiveness of schools in a mixed system are duplicated in a streamed-school system.
BoskersR.J.WitzersB. (1995). School effects, problems, solutions and meta-analysis. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Leeuwarden, Netherlands.
2.
BoskersR.J.WitzersB. (1996). The magnitude of school effects. Or: Does it really matter which school a student attends? Paper presented at AERA annual conference, New York.
3.
ColemanJ.S.CampbellE.O.HobsonD.F.McPartlandM.M.MoodA.M.WeinfeldF.D.YourkR.L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
4.
CoeR.Fitz-GibbonC.T. (1998). School effectiveness research: Criticisms and recommendations. Oxford Review of Education, 24 (4), 421–438.
5.
DalyP. (1991). How large are secondary school effects in Northern Ireland?School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2 (4), 305–323.
6.
Fitz-GibbonC.T. (1997). The value-added national project: The final report. Durham: SCAA.
7.
GoldsteinH. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold.
8.
GrayJ. (1989). Multilevel models: Issues, and problems emerging from their recent application in British studies of school effectiveness. In BockR.D. (Ed.), Multilevel analysis of educational data. New York: Academic Press.
9.
HartmannJ. (2001). Judgment on constitutional and administrative law list no.1555 of 2000: Between equal opportunities commission (applicant) and director of education (respondent). Hong Kong: Justice Department.
10.
HillP.W.RoweK.J. (1996). Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7 (1), 1–34.
11.
HillP.W.MokM.JaneG.AuW.K.RichardsonC. (2001). The Quality Education Fund Project on development of performance indicators for measuring value-added improvement of primary and secondary students' academic performance. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Centre for Applied Educational Research.
12.
LevineD. (1992). An interpretive review of US research, and practice dealing with unusally effective schools. In ReynoldsD.CuttanceP. (Eds.), School effectiveness: Research, policy and practice. London: Cassell.
13.
MortimoreP.SammonsP. (1994). School effectiveness and value added measure. Assessment in Education: Principle, Policy & Practice, 1 (3), 315–332.
14.
PurkeyS.C.SmithM.S. (1983) Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427–452.
15.
RamsayJ.O.SilvermanB.W. (1997). Functional data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
16.
ReynoldsD. (1992) School effectiveness and school improvement: An updated reivew of the British literature. In ReynoldsD.CuttanceP. (Eds.), School effectiveness: Research, policy and practice. London: Cassell.
17.
RutterM.MaughanB.MortimoreP.OustonJ. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. London: Open University.
18.
SammonsP.NuttalD.CuttanceP. (1993). Differential school effectiveness: Results from a reanalysis of the Inner London Education Authority's Junior School Project data. British Educational Research Journal, 19 (4), 381–405.
19.
SammonsP.NuttalD.CuttanceP.ThomasS. (1993). Continuity of school effects: A longitudinal analysis of primary and secondary school effects on GCSE performance. An unpublished draft paper.
20.
ScheerensJ. (1992). Effective school research: Theory and practice. London: Cassell.
21.
ScheerensJ.BoskersR.J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.
22.
ScheerensJ.VermeulenC.J.A.J.PelgrumW.J. (1989). Generalizability of instructional and school effectiveness indicators across nations. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 789–800.
23.
SmithD.J.TomlinsonS. (1989). The school effect: A study of multi-racial comprehensives. London: Policy Studies Institute.
24.
ThomasS.MortimoreP. (1996). Comparison of value-added models for secondary-school effectiveness. Research Papers in Education, 11 (1), 5–33.
25.
ThomasS.SammonsP. (1997). Differential secondary school effectiveness: Comparing the performance of different pupil groups. British Educational Research Journal, 23 (4), 451–469.
26.
WillmsJ.D. (1986). Social class segregation and its relationship to pupils' examination results in Scotland. American Sociological Review, 51, 224–241.
27.
WillmsJ.D. (1987). Differences between Scottish Education Authorities in their examination attainment. Oxford Review of Education, 13 (2), 211–232.
28.
WillmsJ.D.RaudenbushS.W. (1989). A longitudinal hierarchical linear model for estimating school effects and their stability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 209–232.
29.
WoessmanL. (2001). Why students in some countries do better. Education Matters, 1 (2), 67–74.
30.
WoodhouseG. (Ed.)., (1995). A guide to MLn for new users. London: University of London, Institute of Education.
31.
YangM.GoldsteinH.RathT.HillN. (1998). The use of assessment data for school improvement purposes. An unpublished draft paper.
