ABSTRACT
As was shown in the previous chapter there has been during the 1990s a significant rapprochement between the aims of school improvement and school effectiveness, and the criteria for determining the extent to which a school is effective are, however differently expressed by change agents and researchers, well known. The focus is essentially on student achievement: ‘in schools as places where primarily learning takes place, the objectives of education are primarily students’ learning outcomes’ (Creemers 1996:32). Creemers concedes that these outcomes can be found not only in the cognitive domain but in the affective, social and aesthetic domains, but that, none the less, the cognitive objectives ‘are crucial for the educational system in general’ (ibid.: 33). Those who have in the same decade been exploring restructuring, both theoretically and in the field, would agree entirely with Creemers’ view, not disputing the central importance of achievement in the cognitive domain but claiming that there are other factors which enhance learning and which must be taken into consideration if these objectives are to be attained. It is the sum total of these factors, as will become apparent in this chapter, which makes holism the crux of the theory and practice of restructuring.
