This article describes a grounded theory constructed from a study of Singapore neighbourhood secondary school principals’ engagement of their lowest stream, the Normal Technical students, in their schools. This substantive theory is labelled the ‘theory of selective engagement’. It implies that how principals engage their lowest streamed students is based on the way they perceive streaming as practiced in the Singapore education system, their perception of the Normal Technical students and their personal expectations of these students. The theory proposes that principals can be classified as ‘realists/pragmatists’, ‘innovators/improvisers’ and ‘nurturers’ according to the extent they selectively engage their students in areas such as: (1) Streaming/Lateral Movement; (2) Monitoring; (3) Deployment of Resources; (4) Subject Offerings; (5) Enrichment Programmes; (6) Managing Discipline; (7) Leadership Opportunities; and (8) Treatment of Students.
AronR (1970) Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Harmondsworth: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
4.
AyalonH (2006). Nonhierarchical curriculum differentiation and inequality in achievement: a different story of more of the same?Teachers College Record108: 1186–1213.
BiaforaFAnsaloneG (2008) Perceptions and attitudes of school principals towards school tracking: structural considerations of personal beliefs. Education128(4) : 588–602.
8.
BlumerHerbert (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
9.
BoalerJWilliamDBrownM (2000) Students’ experiences of ability grouping; disaffection, polarization, and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal26: 631–648.
10.
BushTMiddlewoodD (2005) Leading and Managing People in Education. London: Sage.
11.
CaldwellB (2005) School-Based Management. UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning; Brussels: International Academy of Education.
12.
CarbonaroW (2005). Tracking, students’ effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education78: 27–49.
13.
ChangASC (1990) Streaming and learning behaviour. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Convention of the International Council of Psychologists, organized by the International Council of Psychologists at Tokyo, Japan, 14–18 July 1990.
14.
ChangAGohSCMooSNChenAY (1997) Report on Motivation and Classroom Behaviour of Normal Technical Students. Singapore Centre for Educational Research, National Institute of Education.
15.
ChengSMartinLWerumRE (2007) Adult social capital and track placement of ethnic groups in Germany. American Journal of Education114: 41–74.
16.
DimmockC (1993) School-based management and linkage with curriculum. In: DimmockC (ed.) School-Based Management and School Effectiveness. London and New York: Routledge, 1–21.
17.
DimmockC (2000) Designing the Learning-Centred School. A Cross-Cultural Perspective. London and New York: Falmer Press.
18.
DimmockCO'DonoghueTA (1997) Innovative School Principals and Restructuring: Life History Portraits of Successful Managers of Change. London and New York: Routledge.
19.
EngelsNHottonGDevosGBouckenoogheDAeltermanA (2008) Principals in schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies34(3): 159–174.
20.
FeldhusenJF (1991) Susan Allan sets the record straight: response to Allan. Educational Leadership48(6): 60–65.
21.
FullanMWatsonN (2000) School-based management: reconceptualizing to improve learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement11(4): 453–474.
22.
GamoranA (2004) Classroom organization and instructional quality. In: WangMCWalbergHJ (eds) Can Unlike Students Learn Together? Grade Retention, Tracking, and Grouping. Greenwich, CT: Information Age, 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.
GlaserB (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing. California: Sociology Press.
25.
HabeggerS (2008) The principal’s role in successful schools: creating a positive school culture. Principal88(1): 42–46.
26.
HallamS (2002) Ability Grouping in Schools. Perspectives on Educational Policy. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
27.
HallingerPBickmanLDavisK (1996) School context, principal leadership and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal96: 527–549.
HeckRHPriceCThomasSL (2004) Tracks as emergent structures: a network analysis of student differentiation in a high school. American Journal of Education, 110: 321–353.
30.
HoadleyU (2008) Social class and pedagogy: a model for the investigation of pedagogic variation. British Journal of Sociology of Education29: 63–78.
31.
HuangM-H (in press) Classroom homogeneity and the distribution of student math performance: a country-level fixed-effects analysis. Social Science Research.
32.
IresonJHallamSHackSClarkHPlewisI (2002) Ability grouping in English secondary schools; effects on attainment in English, mathematics, and science. Educational Research and Evaluation8: 299–318.
33.
IvinsonGDuveenG (2005). Classroom structuration and the development of social representations of the curriculum. British Journal of Sociology of Education26: 627–642.
34.
KulikJA (1991) Findings on ability grouping are often distorted, response to Allan. Educational Leadership48(6): 67.
35.
LawLWalkerADimmockC (2003) The influence of principals' values on their perception and management of school problems. Journal of Educational Administration41(5) : 498–523.
36.
LeeU W (2006, May 4) Streaming keeps drop-out rates to 3%. TODAY4. MediaCorp Press Ltd. Singapore.
37.
LincolnYSGubaEG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
38.
LovelessT (1999) The Tracking Wars: State Reform Meets Social Policy. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
39.
LucasSRBerendsM (2002) Sociodemographic diversity, correlated achievement, and de facto tracking. Sociology of Education75: 328–348.
40.
LucasSRGamoranA (2002) Track assignment and the black-white test score gap : divergent and convergent evidence from 1980 and 1990 sophomores. In: LovelesS T (ed.) Closing the Gap: Promising Strategies for Reducing the Achievement Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 171–198.
41.
MacNeilAJPraterDLBuschS (2009) The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education12(1): 73–84.
42.
Ministry of Education, Singapore (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education. Singapore: Author.
Ministry of Education, Singapore (2010b) More pathways for secondary school students. Press Release1 September 2010.
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.
NgCF (1999) The learning style of normal (technical) students in a neighbourhood school. Unpublished MA Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
49.
OakesJGamoranAPageRN (1992) Curriculum differentiation: opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In: JacksonPW (ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan, 570–608.
50.
OakesJ (2005). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality , 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51.
OnoH (2001) Who goes to college? Features of institutional tracking in Japanese higher education. American Journal of Education109: 161–195.
52.
ParkH (2009) Growing curriculum differentiation and its implications for inequality in Korea. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Asian Studies, March 2009, Chicago.
53.
PunchKF (1998) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage.
54.
QuekMSI (1988) School social climate and the academic self-concept of secondary three normal course students. Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis, National University of Singapore.
55.
QuekT (2006) Factory rejects? Govt spends more on ITE students than JC ones. The Straits TimesH1, 2 May 2006.
56.
RahmaPM (2003) The meanings Singapore secondary one normal technical students attach to the letters used in algebra: a case study. Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
57.
SergiovanniTJ (2009) The Principalship – A Reflective Practice Perspective , 6th edn. Pearson Education, Inc Boston.
58.
StraussACorbinJ (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
TackLMFarkasG (2006) Learning-related behaviors, cognitive skills, and ability grouping when school begins. Social Science Research35 : 1048–1079.
60.
TanKH (1995) Differences in school related attitudes among low and high achieving students in the normal and express streams. Unpublished Master (M.Ed.) Dissertation, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
61.
TayE S (1993) Speech by Dr Tay Eng Soon, Senior Minister of State for Education, at the Launching of the Normal (Technical) Course at the World Trade Centre Auditorium on Tuesday, 4 May 1993.
62.
Van de GaerEPustjensHVan DammeJDe MunterA (2006) Tracking and the effects of school-related attitudes and the language achievement of boys and girls. British Journal of Sociology of Education27: 293–309.
63.
Van HoutteM (2004) Tracking effects on school achievement: a quantitative explanation in terms of academic culture of school staff. American Journal of Education110: 354–388.
64.
WatanabeM (2008) Tracking in the era of high-stakes state accountability reform: case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Teachers College Record110: 489–533.
65.
WitziersBBoskerRJKrugerML (2003) Educational leadership and student achievement: the elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly39: 398–425.
