to which the conceptions of school effectiveness in models are consistent or .5 compatible.

High model congruence indicates that the criteria and indicators of effectiveness developed
from the models are similar, consistent, compatible, of at least not conflicting in nature. On
the other hand, model incongruence represents'^! the potential conflict between conceptions
or indicators of school effectiveness^ developed from different models. To different people
who have different concern sj different models may be used to define and measure school
effectiveness. Ifthct chosen models are congruent, then these models can be integrated and
provide a complete and consistent assesment of school effectiveness from different per ?
spectives. If the chosen models are incongruent, then the evaluation of school effectiveness
and ways for maximizing school effectiveness may become very? controversial, since the
criteria and indicators of effectiveness developed from tht models may conflict and cannot be
maximized at the same time.
For each case of maximizing or studying school effectiveness, we would like; to know
whether the models used to conceptualize school effectiveness are congruent: and whether
the categories of school effectiveness are congruent. If both category'; congruence and model
congruence can be ensured, then evaluating or maximizing-, school effectiveness would be
less problematic. How to ensure these two kinds of congruence when studying school
effectiveness in different contexts still needs- further exploration.
Assuming that model congruence exists between models, some investigators tried to
integrate several models and proposed multiple criteria models to define and measure
effectiveness (see Cheng, 1986b; 1993h; Hackman, 1987; Hackman and Walton, 1986; Hoy
and Miskel, 1991; Miskel, McDonald and Bloom, 1983). For example, from Hackman and
Walton's (1986) idea, school effectiveness may be defined h"
owing
three

dimensions: