Both organisers assume broad definitions of student learning, something that has been a consistent
feature of the ISSPP research. Although the definition of success used to select schools was relatively
narrow, those in selected schools were keen to emphasise the broad range of outcomes that successful
schools have, outcomes for both student and others. For example, Mulford and Silins’ [51] analysis of
teacher and principal survey data used three measures of student outcomes: student academic
achievement, student social and development skills, and student empowerment. Drysdale and Gurr [25]
included traditional (e.g., results on standardised tests and other contrived measures of attainment) and
authentic, e.g., outcomes of learning that involve knowledge construction and disciplined inquiry; see [59]
student learning outcomes. Wang’s [30] Singapore cases included student and school outcomes, with
the history and reputation of the school an important element of success. School reputation also featured
as an outcome in Mulford and Silins’ [51] model, as this was shown to be a predictor of academic
achievement. Raihani’s [55] Indonesian cases emphasised the academic achievement of students on
national tests, the spiritual development of students, and the quality of the school and staff.
As these examples illustrate, in terms of the first organiser for the Figure 1 model, the “what” element
of the Figure 1 model includes a broad range of student outcomes including academic attainment and
progress, participation and achievement in extra and co-curricular programs, and personal aspects such
as social development. Importantly, it also includes school outcomes such as the success and reputation
of the school, the quality of the teachers, and the quality of the learning environment.