There are two research traditions on improving schools: school effectiveness and school improvement. Despite their shared goal of improving schools, the two traditions are not particularly connected and exist side by side using different foci, methods and designs as well as having different historic developments. School effectiveness research typically focuses on the identification of factors which are related to (mainly cognitive) student outcomes. The school improvement tradition, however, focuses on processes how a school becomes a “good school”, whereas the results on the student level are often of minor importance or even neglected (Stoll, Creemers, & Reezigt, 2006). Nevertheless, linking school effectiveness and school improvement has been a topic of high relevance in the international debate for a long period of time. Nearly 25 years ago researchers from school effectiveness and school improvement have started linking the two traditions to overcome the limits the individual approaches have.

Based on the differences of school effectiveness and school improvement each research area has to deal with different weaknesses, but also has specific strengths (e.g. Reynolds & Stoll, 1996). Here criticism shall only be addressed very briefly.

School effectiveness research is often criticised for the cross-sectional approach and the lack of causality as well as the restrictive use of mainly (basic) cognitive student outcomes as effectiveness criteria (e.g. Coe & Fitz‐Gibbon, 1998; Reynolds, Teddlie, Hopkins, & Stringfield, 2000). Furthermore, school effectiveness research was often conducted focusing on effective schools. Knowledge on indicators that characterise effective schools does not necessarily provide information on which indicators need to be changed in a less effective school to change from a less effective into a more effective school (e.g. Scheerens & Demeuse, 2005).

Criticism referring to the school improvement tradition addresses weaknesses of school improvement research as well as school improvement practice. Here only criticism of school improvement research will be considered. School improvement research is often criticised for its lack of focus on student learning and student outcomes as well as its lack of theoretical explanations why a school changes in which way (Clark, Lotto, & Astuto, 1984; Stoll et al., 2006).

Therefore, linking school effectiveness and school improvement shall enable one to pursue the shared goal more effectively by achieving better theoretical descriptions as well as empirical studies of processes and of effects of schools and their development. Despite the efforts that have been put into linking school effectiveness and school improvement by researchers from the two fields and across countries, the debate has not (yet) led to satisfying results, neither on a theoretical nor a methodological level. Beside discussing hindrances and possibilities of linking school effectiveness and school improvement some researcher developed frameworks and models to bring the traditions together.

Clark, D. L., Lotto, L. S., & Astuto, T. A. (1984). Effective Schools and School Improvement: A Comparative Analysis of Two Lines of Inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 41–68. Coe, R., & Fitz‐Gibbon, C. T. (1998). School Effectiveness Research: criticisms and recommendations. Oxford Review of Education, 24(4), 421–438. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London; New York: Routledge. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2012). Improving quality in education: Dynamic approaches to school improvement. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge. Creemers, B. P. M., Stoll, L., Reezigt, G. J., & ESI team. (2007). Effective School Improvement - Ingredients for Success: The Results of an International Comparative Study of Best Practice Case Studies. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement (pp. 825–838). Dordrecht: Springer. Reynolds, D., & Stoll, L. (1996). Merging school effectiveness and school improvement: The knowledge bases. In D. Reynolds, R. Bollen, B. P. M. Creemers, D. Hopkins, L. Stoll, & N. Lagerweij (Eds.), Making good schools. Linking school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 94–112). London: Routledge. Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Hopkins, D., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 206–231). London: Falmer Press. Scheerens, J., & Demeuse, M. (2005). The theoretical basis of the effective school improvement model (ESI). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(4), 373–385. Stoll, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Reezigt, G. J. (2006). Effective School Improvement: Similarities and Differences in Improvement in Eight European Countries. In A. Harris & J. H. Chrispeels (Eds.), Improving schools and educational systems. International perspectives (1st ed., pp. 90–104). London [u.a.]: Routledge.