Upload
joe-hung
View
10
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Relationship
Citation preview
I'HE REI,..ATI()NSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOl. CULTURE AND STUDENT'
ACHIEVEMENT IN AMZON'A ELEMENI'ARY PUBLIC SCHOOIJ
By
Cheiig"Bau Liu
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPAR'TMENT OF EDUCATIONAL IJiADERSHIP
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
DOCTOR. OF EDUCATION
In the (jraduate College
THE UNIWRSITY OF ARIZONA
2004
UMI Number: 3132238
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI UMI Microform 3132238
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
2
rfli: UNiVERSfTY OF ARJZOi CiRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certiiy that we have read tlie
dissertation prepared by CHEN'G BAU Lll.i
entitled THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCtiOOL CULTURE AND STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT IN ARIZONA ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCffOOLS
and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the
Degree of Doctor of Education
'U(o^ Quinn David Ph.D. date
James Chalfant Ba^.D. date
Patricia First, J.D. Ed.D. date
date
date
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submisvsion of the final copies of the disvsertation to the Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be acceptedj&4iWHling the dissertation requirement.
-H*., , r/;;,/Of
Dissertation Director: Quiiraro Ph.D. date
3
STA,TEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertalion has been subniitted iti partial fulilllmcnt of requiremenis for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University libraxy to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Libraiy.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in who or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgtnent the proposed use of tlie material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
SIGNED:
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN'I'S
This study would not have been jsossible without the efforts of many people. First, I would like to thank Dr. Quiim, my advisor and dissertation chair, for his frequent and excellent advice and support throughout the experience. His expertise and encouragement, in numerous classes as well as in the entire dissertation process, were invaluable. Thank you for allowing me to use the data.
I would like to thank my minor committees. Dr. Chalfant (minor advisor) and Dr. Pysh from the Department of Special Education for their passion and dedication. Because they come from a different discipline and unique vision, they were always able to provide support and help for what I needed from different angles. Thank you for your instruction, guidance, and recommendation on my dissertation and in special education, classes.
I would like to sincerely thank Dr. First for her understanding, kindness, patience, efforts, suggestions, and great support during my dissertation process from beginning to the end,
I would like to thank cveiy classmate from EDL Cohort 6 and 7 for their help in each class. 1 also appreciated the help irom. Dr. Nicole Ofiesh (SERP), and other EDL professors, Dr. Pedicone, Dr. McClean, Dr. Anderson, and Dr. Adrenas who taught my classes at UA.
Finally, 1 would like to thank a good friend of mine Rudy Molina at the IJA SAI.T center for spending time on con-ecting my dissertation as well as other homework for other classes. I sincerely appreciate his friendship and his great efforts.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES 7
LIST OF FIGURES 1.0
ABSTRACT 11
CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 12 Introduction: U.S. Educational Problem 12 American Educational (Cultural) Reforms 14 School Cultural Transformation 17 Statement of t he P roblem 18 Purpose of the Study and Research Question 19 Hypothesis o f the S tudy 20 A.ssuraptioiis for t his S tudy 20 Definitions of Terms 21
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LriERATURE 24
Theoretical Literature: Organizational Culture 24 What is Culture? 24 Nature of o rganizational culture 25 Organizational Cultural Formation 27 Levels of Organizational Culture 29 School Culture and C limate 32 Relationship between Culture and Climate 35 Positives and Negatives of Culture: 37
Empirical literature: School Factors to Student Achievement 39 Introduction: Organizational Behaviors 39 Parental Involvement 41 Parent's Socioeconomic Status 45 Teacher Attitude and Characteristics 47 Professional Development 50 Principal's Impact on Student Achievement 53 Leadership Behavior Studies 57 Small Schools 60 Class Size 63 Conclusion: Person-Environment Interaction 67
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOG Y 68
Sample-s and Participants 68 Instrumentation 6 9 Data Collection Procedure 74 Statistical Technique and Data Analysis Design 76 Diagram of Research Design 77
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION. 80
Introduction 80 Overview of Statistical Technical Analyses 80
Description of the Samples and Participants.. 81 Descriptive Data of AIMS Scores 86 Modification for this Study 88
Step 1: SCSAIMS R egression Analyses and Hypotheses 93 Regression Analysis on SCS and Math (AIMS) 93 Regression Analysis on SCS and Reading (AIM'S) 97 Regression Analysis on SCS and Writing (AIMS) 99
Step 2; School Factors-SCS Regression Analyses .101 Collaborative I.eadership and School Factors Regression Analysis....... 101 Collegial Support and School Factors Regression Analysis 105 Teacher Collaboration and School Factors Regression Analysi.s 108 Professional Development and School Factors Regression Analysis I l l Unity of Purpose and School Factors Regression Analysis 113 Learning Partnership and School Factors Regression Analysis 116
CHAPTERS SUMMARY AND DISSCUSION 119
Summary of the Step 1 Findings 119 Regression Analyses on SCS and MMS (Math) 119 Regression Analyses on SCS and AIMS (Reading) 120 Regression Analyses on SCS and AIMS (Writing) 120
Summary of the Step 2 Findings 121 Diagram of the Final Analysis Results 123 Hypotheses Testing and Conclusions 125 Discussion of the Stepl Findings 127 Discussion of the Step 2 Findings 135 Implications and Recommendations for Professional Educators 138 ITte L imitation o f the S tudy 139 Final Thoughts 139 Recommendations for Inittne Study 141
APPENDIX A SCHOOL CULIJTRE SURVEY 143
APPENDIX B PERMISSION LETTER FOR ACCESSING IX) THE DA'IA. FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SCHOOLCIJLTIJRE 144
APPENDIX C EXEMPT S'l'AlUS OF HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAI 145
REFERENCES ...146
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1, Reliability of School Culture Survey (SCS) 71
Table 3.2, Dimension of school culture survey and items 72
Table 4.1, Statistical techniques 80
Table 4.2, School level and principaFs gender 82
Table 4.3, School level and principal administration 83
Table 4.4, School level and school size ..84
Table 4.5, 2002-2003 School performance profile as reported by the Arizona Department of Education 85
Table 4.6, AIMS .scores on math, reading, and writhig (3"\ 8"', and 10th grade) ...86
Table 4.7, Bivariate correlations between school factors 90
Table 4.8, ANOVA matrix from multiple linear regression analysis on SCS and Math 94
Table 4.9, Model summary from multiple linear regression analysis on SCS and Math 95
Table 4.10, Matrix of coefficient Irom multiple linear regression analysis on SCS and Math 96
Table 4.11, Model summary from regression analysis on SCS and reading (AIMS) 97
Table 4,12, NOVA matrix from muhiple linear regression analysis on SCS and reading (AIMS) 97
Table 4.13, Matrix of coefficient from multiple linear regression analysis on SCS and reading (AIMS),...., 98
Table 4,14, NOVA matrix from multiple linear regression analysis on SCS and writing (AIMS) 99
Table 4.15, Model summary from multiple linear regression analysis on SCS and writing (AIMS).,. 100
8
IJST OF TABLES- Continued
Table 4,16, Matrix of coefficients from multiple linear regression analysis on. SCS an4 writing (AIMS) .....100
Table 4.17, Independent variables and dependent variables for school factors- SCS multiple linear regression analyses 101
Table 4.18, Model summary model summary from collabofative leadership and school factors multiple linear regression analysis 102
Table 4.19, ANOVA matrix model siiramaiy from collaborative leadership and school factors multiple linear regression analysis, ....103
Table 4.20, Matrix of coefficients model summary from collaborative leadership and school factors multiple linear regression analysis 104
Table 4.21, ANOVA matrix from collegial support and school factors multiple linear regression analysis 105
Table 4.22, Model summaiy from collegial support and school factors multiple linear regression analysis 106
Table 4.23, Matrix of coefficients from collegial support and school factors multiple linear regression analysis 107
Table 4.24, ANOVA matrix from teacher collaboration and school .factors multiple linear regression analysis 108
Table 4.25, Model .summary from teacher collaboration and school lactors m ultiple linear regression analysis 109
Table 4.26, Matrix of coefficients from teacher collaboration and school factors multiple linear regression analysis 109
Table 4.27, .Model summary from professional development and school factors multiple linear regression analysis Ill
Table 4.28, ANOVA matrix from professional developmen,C and school factors multiple linear regression analysis 112
Table 4,29, Matrix of coefflcient.s lk)m professional development and school factors multiple linear regression analysis 112
Table 4.30, .Model sunnnary from unity of putpose and scliool lactors multiple linear regression analysis 113
9
I.,1ST OP TAB.LES-- Continued
Table 4.31, ANOVA matrix from unity of purpose and school factors multiple linear regression analysis..., 114
Table 4.32, Matrix of coefficients ixom unity of purpose and school factors multiple linear regression analysis. 115
Table 4.33, Model suramaty from learning partnership and school fectors multiple 1 inear regression analysis 116
Table 4.34, ANOVA matrix from learning partnership and school factors multiple linear regression analysis 117
Table 4.35, Matrix of coefficients from learning partnership and school factors multiple linear regression analysis ...118
Table 5.1, Matrix of bivariate correlations between SCS 137
Table 5.2, Research questions and statistical analysis techniques 142
10
U:ST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1, Dimensions for distinguishing between culture and climate ...36
Figure 2.2, Dimensions of leadership 58
Figure 2.3, Leadership style with degree of trust 59
Figure 3.1, Diagram of research design... 78
Figure 4.1, The dispersion of AIMS (Math) ..88
Figure 4.2, The dispersion of AIMS (Reading) 89
Figure 4.3, The dispersion of AIMS (Writing) 89
Figure 4.4, Final version of research design 92
Figure 5.1, .Diagram, of the final analysis results 124
Figtire 5.2, The scatter plots and the line of be.st fit (Math/Leaning Partnership) 130
Figure 5.3, The scatter plots and the line of best fit (Reading/Learning Partnership) 132
Figure 5.4, 'Ilie scatter plots and the lines of best fit (Principal Tenure/SES/Leaming Partnership) 134
Figure 5.5, The scatter plots and the lines of best fit (Principal Tenure/SES./Leaming Partnership 135
Figure 5.6, The scatter p!ot.s and the lines of best fit (Principal Tenure*5 /SES/Learning Partnership) 135
11
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine whether selected dimensions of school
culture as measured by the School Culture Su:rvey (SC'S) (Valentine & Gruenert, 1998)
were related to student academic achievement on Math, Reading, and Writing as
measured by Arizona's Instrument for Measure Standards (AIMS). The SCS is a 35-item
Likert, and the Lil
12
CHAPTER 1; STATEMENT OF I'HE PRDBLEM
Introduction: U.S. Educational Problems
Schools have been viewed as providers of opportunities for social mobility, and
Americans have always placed a great deal of faith in education. Schools are regarded as
places in which that the hearts and minds of children are nurtured and developed, and
flinctioning as antidotes for ignorance and prejudice, and as solutions to numerous social
problems (Sadovnik, Cookson, & Semel, 2001). Lawrence Cremin (1990) pointed out
that Americans have expected their schools to solve social, political, and economic
problems and have placed on the schools "all kinds of millennial hopes and expectations"
(p. 92). Unfortunately, the American education system continues to struggle. For instance,
the crisis of inequalities of educational opportunity in the early 1970s, the allegedly
authoritarian and oppressive nature of the schools, and the way in which classroom
practices thwarted tiie personnel development of students (Sadovnik, Cookson, & Semel,
2001).
In 1983, the National C^'ommission on Educational Excellence, founded by the
President Reagan's Secretary of Education, Terrel Bell, issued its famous report, A
Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. This report provided a serious
indictment of US education and cited high rates of adult illiteracy, declining SAT scores,
and low scores on international comparisons of knowledge by US students as examples
of literacy and standards. The committee stated, "the educational foundations of our
society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our ver>'
future as Nation and a people" (p. 5).
The educational problems became the focus of national attention during the 19808
and 1990s. The emphasis was shifted and the crisis was attributed to the decline of
standards and authority, which was thought to be linked to the erosion of US economic
superiority in the world (Sdovnik, Cooksoii, & Semel, 2001). The report of/I Nation at
Risk forced government leaders, educational reformers, teacher organizations,
administrators, and various other interest groups to attempt to improve the quality of US
schools. A larger number of studies of schools resulted from the 1983 report. Many of
these studies were qualitative and described the need to change schools drastically in
ways that are highly compatible with the finding of the effective schools research
Mterature.
Cuwently, the predicament of American education is that every public school
district is struggling to improve student achievement. The past several decades have
produced a great variety of broad proposals to raise the academic achievement of
elementary and high school students. Some proposals require for greater parent
involvement. Some seek to implement more school choice through the use of vouchers.
Some propose better teacher training and higher teacher salaries, a longer school year and
school day,, smaller schools and sra.aller classes, single-sex schools, and school unifomis.
More recently, a growing number of proposals focus on changes in school practices.
Increasing number of educators have proposed national and state tests as a means of
encouraging higher standards. At the same time many believe that in order to help
students learn, particularly those from low socioeconomic levels, it is best not to pressure
them to achieve on grade level (Chall, 2000).
14
It seems that politician, has his own solution when schools have problems. Some
of these politically driven refomis might help, but most of them failed to have any impact
in the classroom, Wilms (2003) points out that the problems are that those plans are little
more thjin symbolic political gestures designed to win the confidence of voters, and most
of them have little to do with the problem of how to improve the quality of teaching and
children's learning. Matters become worse because most reform.s are mandated by distant
legislatures and school boards without consulting teachers and administrators, tliose who
are closest to the scene of the action. Therefore, most teachers and administrators either
ignore the mandates or comply minimally. The phenomenon will continue to keep
teachers to work in isolation from one another, and administrators remain disconnected
from what goes on in the classroom. In addition, adversarial relationships between
teacher tmions and administrators continue to thwart most serious attempts to improve
what goes on in schools (Wilms, 2003).
American Educational (Cultural) Reform
By the time the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was brought to Congress for
consideration, many still wished to bring order out of seeming chaos in education. People
hoped to see the emergence of a consensus on what should be done to make schools more
effective. Apparently the hope was to legislate a simpler, more transparent understanding
of more rigorous scientific thought and methods would be instramental in improving the
perfonnance of schools (Owens, 2004). Owens (2004) found the following.
As dissatisiaction with public schooling has deepened over time, the search for
simple direct solutions has not borne fruit in the sense of an emerging broad
15
national consensus that points the way to effective school refoim, Instead, efforts
to improve the perft>nnaiice of schools have produced not widespread agreement
as to how to bring about improvement but a frustratingly broad array of very
different concepts, proposals, and programs some of wh ich are in conflict, (p. 9)
The 1980s and 1990s were the decades of significant debate and reform in U.S.
education. The educational movements of the 1980s and 1990s consisted of two waves of
movement (Barcharch, 1990; Passow, 1989) during those decades. The first wave of
reform began in 1983 and the second began in 1985, and continued through the end of the
1990s. In the 1980s, the major reform actors shifted from the federal to the state to the
local levels, hi 1990s, President Clinton's Goals 2000, placed the federal govenmient
back at the forefront of educational policy (Sdovnik, Cookson, & Semel, 2001).
According to Owens (2001; 2004), the so-called first wave of reform was an
initial reaction to the outpouring of critiques of schooling that began with the pubhcation
of A Nation at Risk in 1983. The movement was composed largely of an astonishing
increase in regulatory mandates imposed on the schools by the states. Those regulations
facilitated the reach of governmental bureaucracies directly into the classroom by, for
example, specifying what textbooks must be used, how many minutes should be devoted
to instruction, what teaching techniques should be applied, by establishing elaborate
systems of examinations and reportirig through, which compliance could be audited by
governmental agencies.
The first refonn movement mainly emphasized the issues of accountability and
achievement. To respond to the call for increased academic achievement, many states
increased graduatioo requirements, toughened cuniculum mandates, and increased the
use of standardized test scores to measure student achievement (Dougherty, 1990, p 3).
The wa:ve of refomi had taken teachers for granted and regarded them as low-level
functionaries of public hierarchical bureaucracies (Owens. 2001; 2004). It is obviously
that top-town reform became ineffective in dealing with the school's countless problems
from the mid to late 1980s. Although raising achievement standards for students and
implementing accountability measures for evaluating teachers had positive effects, many
including the National Governors Association believed that educational reform had to do
more than provide changes in evaluation procedures (Sdovnik, Cookson, & Semel, 2001).
In the 1990s, many thoughtllil observers were concerned that approaches with this
requisite detailed top-down bureaucratic administration of regularities were
counterproductive in two major ways. First, regulatory approaches were dnXang schools
to new heights of mindless rigidity that often failed to take into account the specific
individual educational needs of students and the specific circmnstances of the schools
that they attended. Heightening the bureaucratic control of schools, it was argued,
hampered teachers in making the professional judgments about the curriculum and
teaching. Decisions are best made not by the demanding from, some faceless distant
bureaucratic office but by highly qualified teachers, who in face to face interaction with
students can bring their professional insights to bear on the problem. Second, an
increasing body of research, made clear that teachershighly qualified and motivated to
do the best for their "client," namely the students--- were increasingly frustrated by their
growing inability to exercise their professional judgments in a school environment that
17
was becoming steadily bureaucratizeti. This was reflected in. the theo-growing evidence
of alienation and declining morale of the teachers who remained on the job (Owens, 2004,
p. 127-128).
School Cultural Transfornuition
"Cultural transformation refers to building cultural linkages between the vision
and goals of the school and, its teachers and students" (Weller and Weller, 2000, p. 11).
Weller (1998a) notes that cultural linkages are those traditions, values, attitudes, and
beliefs that are closely akin to the new vision and goals and those that are incorporated as
part of the school's new social characteristics. Some characteristics of leadership
behaviors that facilitate in transforming a school culture have been reported. Sergiovanni,
Burlingame, Coombs, & Thurston (1992) report that democratic leadership
characteristics, such as using teacher-teams in developing vision and goals, modeling,
reinforcing expected behaviors and holding high expectations for success, facilitate the
cultural transformation process. Several studies (Cunningham & Gresso, 1993; Weller,
Hartly, & Brown, 1994) suggest that effective transformation of .school culture requires
jointly developed visions and goals to ensure singular purpose and commitment. Time
and energy expended in shaping school culture provides the vested interest necessaiy for
success. Shared goveniance or teamwork is also a significant ingredient in cultural
transformation, Both shared governance and team work flows from initial teacher
involvement and allow teachers the latitude to develop school poHcies and practices
necessary to promote the new values antl beliefs of the school. New policies, consistent
18
with the new belief system, provide the infTastractiire for new norms, attitudes, traditions,
and behaviors essential for the acceptance of a, new culture (W'elier & Weller, 2000).
Welter and Weller suggest that school reform needs the transformation of school
cidture. Changes in structure are only technical, changes and cannot by themselves
significantly atJect school effectiveness, Cunningham and Gresso (1993) reported that
introducing new structures and conducting technical tampering can not singularly
transform schools into effective educational organizations. Only cultural change in
schools preceding structural changes will naturally evolve from and seive to reinforce the
new values, beliefs, and attitudes of the school.
Effective leadei-s transfon-ns the culture by bonding people's values, aspirations,
and ideals through the creation of a commonness that fosters mutual commitment and
allows for personal fulfillment. Allowing followers to take responsibility for their actions
and rewarding their achievements as they strive to attain new goals becomes central to
the leadership function (Etzioni, 1988). Weller and Weller (2000) suggest that
transformational leaders should energize their ibllowers by helping them align their needs
and expectations with those of the organization. Leaders provide clear direction and
support, and reward behaviors that solidify and perpetuate the values and beliefe of the
organization.
Statement of the Problem
Prior to the 1960's, most research done on the processes of teaching and learning
investigated such factors as lamily background, location of the community in which the
student lived, amount of money pro vided for education, and teacher and student
19
characteristics that were considered important. Relatively iittle research was done on the
school culture and classroom processes that related to student achievement. This type of
research culminated in the works of Coleniai) et al (1966) and Jencks (1972) who
reported that school tactors explained little of the variance in student learning; rather it
was home and community factors that were really important.
Recently, some researchers have shown impressive evidence for the impact of
school culture. Leslie Fyans, Jr, and Martin Maehr (1990) looked at the effects of five
dimensions of school culture: academic challenges, comparative achievement,
recognition for achievement, school community and perception of school goals. They
found that students are m.ore m,otivated to learn in schools with strong cultures. School
culture also correlated with teachers' attitudes toward their work. In a study that profiled
effective and ineffective organizational cultures, Yin Cheong Cheng (1993) found
stronger school cultures had better-motivated teachers, hi an environment with strong
organizational ideology, shai'ed participation, charismatic leadership and intimacy,
teachers experienced higher job satisfaction and increased productivity. Even with these
recent studies, there is still a great controversy on whether differences between school
cultures lead to vsignificant differences in student outcomes.
Purpose of the Study and Research Question
The purpose of this study was to investigate if various elements of school culture
are related to increased student academic achievements. The research question for this is,
"Does school culture impact student achievement on Math. Reading, and/or Writing?"
20
Hypotheses of Study
Null Hypothesis 1
Hq] ; The difference of student achievement in Math can not be explained
and predicted by the variance in one or more school culture factors of
Collaborative Leadership, Collegial Support, Teacher Collaboration, Unity
of Puqiose, Proi^essional Development, and Learning Partnership.
Null Hypothesis 2
Ho?.: The differences of student achievement in Reading can not be
explained and predicted by the variance in one or more school culture
factors of Collaborative Leadership, Collegial Support, Teacher
Collaboration, Unity of Purpose, Professional De velopment, and Learning
Partnership.
Null Hypothesis 3
H03: The difference of student achievement in Writing can not be
explained and predicted by the variance in one or more school culture
factors of Collaborative Leadership, Collegial Support, Teacher
Collaboration, Unity of Puipose, Professional Development, and Learning
Partnership.
Assumptions for this Study
Several assumptions were made in the design of this study:
1. Participants were able to assess the culture of their schools, even though
the questionnaire required no personally identifying information.
21
2. It is possible that respondents may provide inaccurate or incorrect answers.
3. The perceptions of teachers' school culture can influence student
achievement on Math, Reading, and Writing (AIMS).
4. Using the same survey instrument to assess the school culture between
school levels will not misrepresent survey results.
5. The school culture survey can be used by administrators to improve school
culture.
Definitions of Terms
Collaborative Leadership. The degree to which school leaders establish
and maintain collaborative relationships with school staff. The leaders value
teachers' ideas, seek input, engage staff in decision-making, and trust the
professional judgment of the staff Leaders support and reward risk-taking and
innovative ideas designed to improve education for the students. Leaders
reinforce the sharing of ideas and effective practices among all staff (Gruenert,
1998, p. 98).
Teacher Colhihoration. The degree to which teachers engage in
constructive dialogue that fiuthers the educational vision of the school. Teachers
across the school plan together, observe and discuss teaching practices, evaluate
programs, and develop an awareness of the practices and programs of other
teachers (Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
Professional Development, The degree to which teachers value continuous
personal development and school-wide improvement. Teachers seek ideas from
22
seminars, colleagues, organizations, and other professional sources to maintain
current knowledge, particularly current knovvledge about instmetional practices
(Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
Collegia! Support, The degree to which teachers work together effectively.
Teachers trust each other, value each other's ideas, and assist each other as they
work to accomplish the tasks of the school organization (Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
Unity of Purpose. The degree to which teachers work toward a common
mission for the school. Teachers understand, support, and perform, in accordance
with that mission (Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
Learning Partnership. The purpose of this term is to measure the degree to
which teachers, parents, and students work together for the common good of the
student. Parents and teachers share common expectations and communicate
frequently about student performance. Parents trust teachers and students
generally accept responsibility for their schooling (Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
School Effectiveness: The tenn refers to school academic achievement and school
non-academic achievement. Academic achievement includes standard tests such as
AMIS or Stanford Achievement Test. Non-achievement includes student attendance rate,
stalT stability, job satisfaction etc.
Student Achievement: The student achievement in this study refers to the scores
that students gain on Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AMIS) in reading,
math, and writing on different school levels: 3"^ 8* and 10*'" grade.
23
Socioeconomic Status (SES): For the purpose of this study socioeconomic status
refers to the students at each school receiving tree and reduced hmches.
School Size: For the puipose of this study, the school size refers to the number of
student enrollment.
School Safety: Total number of incidents that occun*ed on the school grounds that
required the intervention of local, state or federal law enforcement.
24
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The conceptual framework of the section contains two main themes: theoretical
literature and empirical literature. The theoretical literature introduces (1) the definition
of culture, (2) the nature of organizational culture, (3) organizational culture formation,
(4) levels of organizational culture, (5) relationship between culture and climate, and (6)
positives and negatives of school cultures. The empirical literature includes the factors
that demonstrate how organizational behaviors or characteristics in school culture impact
student academic achievement. The school culture or school characters listed in the
empirical literature include (1) parental involvement, (2) parent socioeconomic status, (3)
teachers' attitudes and characteristics, (4) professional development, (5) principal
leadership behavior, (6) leadership studies, (7) small schools, and (8) class size.
Theoretical Literature: Organizational Culture
What is Culture?
Organizational culture has been defined by numerous researchers. Cultural
anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) found 164 different definitions of culture.
Ott (1989) summarized 58 books and articles that defined organizational culture
differently. The definitions range from the simple to the complex with no single
definition acceptable to all researchers. Although, in many respects, the culture of each
organization is unique, common ingi'edients in school cultures have been identified
(Lightfoot, 1983; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Sarason,, 1971).
Many definitions have been found in the literature. Some examples include;
organizational culture is the body of solutions to external and internal problems that has
25
worked consistently for a group and that: is therefore taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think about, and feel in relation to those problems {Scheiii, 1985,
pp. 19-20). "Cuhure can be defined as the shared philosophies, ideologies, values,
assumptions, beliefs, expectations, attitudes, and norms that knit a community together"
(Kilmami, R. H., Saxto, M. J., & Serpa, R., 1985, p.5). Terrence Deal (1985, p. 301)
asserts "At the heart of most.. .definition, of culture is the concept of a learned pattern of
unconscious thought, refl,ected and re.inforced by behavior, that silently and powerfiilly
shapes the experience of a people." "Organizational culture is the rules of game; the
unseen meaning between the lines in the ru,lebook that insures unity" (Wilkins &
.Patterson, 1985, p.267).
Owens (2004) believes that culture represents the shared beliefs, norms, values, and
assumptions, and attitudes that telegraph what the organization stands for, its mission,
and its expectations. He concluded "Culture refers to the behavioral nomis, assumptions,
and beliefs of an organization, whereas climate refers to perceptions of person in the
organization that reflect those norms, assumptions, and beliefs." Weller and Weller (2000)
wrote that "culture is what the school's inhabitants traly believe and value, and it is
reinforced in the way they behave with regularity, both overtly and covertly. Culture is
the shared meanings and values that give a sense of community, direction, commitment,
and purpose to the organization" (p. 10).
Nature of Organizational Culture
Tbe concept of culture was used in the anthropology in the late 19th century, but
the anthropologists did not reach consensus on how it should be defined (Freytag, 1990),
26
Sathe (1983) stated "Different people think of different slices of reality wlien they talk
about culture" (p. 6). Thus the concept of organizational culture itself has not been well
defined by either researchers or practitioners. Early studies of anthropology were focused
on obser^^able behaviors exhibited by members of a society, which inciuded customs and
habits, but during the last decades most anthropologists who study culture have focused
more on the assumptions, values, and beliets that are used by a society's members to
interpret their experiences and to generate behaviors. These two methods have been
called "cultural adaptationist" and "ideational schools," and have influenced writers in
the field of organizational culture (Freytag, 1990).
The range of cultural definitions could be from very broad to very nanxiw. For
instances, Louis (1985, p. 126) simply stated that culture is "shared tacit knowledge,"
Schwartz and Davis (1981, p, 33) defined culture as "a pattern of beliefs and expectations
shared by the organizational members." Similarly, Cooke and Rousseau (1988, p. 245)
defined that culture is "shared beliefs and values guiding the thinking and behavioral
styles of organizational members." Wilkin (1983, p26) gives a broader definitions of
culture as "taken-for-grantcd and shai*ed assumptions that people make about how work
is to be done and evaluated and how people relate to one another. Wilkin also gave
ano ther definition; "Culture consists of the conclusions a group of people draws from its
experience. An organization's cuhure consists largely of what people believe about what
works and what does nof (Wilkin & Paterson, 1985, p. 267). Freytag (1990) concluded
that there are some commonalities in the definitions, and most writers based their
27
definition on shared assumptions, beliefs, or values that guide organization member's
behavior.
Other writers have also reported that components of culture include behavior,
values, and assumptions, which consists of distinct levels of ciilturc. Sdiein (1985)
divided culture into three levels: (a) Artifacts, such as art, technology, and behavior, (b)
values, which are group member's conceptions of what ought to be, and (c) assumptions
about reality. Similar to Sehein's concept, Sathe (1983) posited three levels of culture as;
organizational behavior pattenis, justifications of behavior, and the assumptions that
govern people's justifications and behavior. Freytag (1990, p.181) defined
"Organizational cultures a distinct and shared set of conscious and unconscious
assumptions and values that binds organizational members together and describes
appropriate patterns of behavior."
Organizational Cultural Formation
Freytag (1990) suggests that we should understand some obvious facts about
organizational characteristics before we can understand how organizational cultures form.
According to Freytag, the features of organization should include:
An organization exists in order fulfdJ the objectives, and these objectives
focus on the satisfaction of some need in the organization's environment.
Organizations consist of a group of people brought together to achieve these
objective,s.
The objectives must be such that they cannot be achieved by one person
acting alone.
28
Freytag (199()) demonstrates thsit these fects contain several irnpiications, and explains
each stage in how organizational culture is formed. First, the primary implication in
organizational cultural formation is that the behaviors of certain group members will be
interdependent, and the nature of dependencies will vary depending on the complexity of
the organization. Even in the small organizations, once particular jobs are defined with a
scope nanrower than achievement of the organizational objective itself, interdependencies
are created. Developing ways to handle these interdependencies presents the grist for
problems that all organijsations must face. Second, organizations must interact with their
environment. From the perspective of open-systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978), organizations
input raw materials and human resoiu'ces from their environments, engage in
t-ansformation, processes, and output the transfomied product or service to the
environment. To remain feasible, the organizations must produce the product or service to
fit the environmental needs. Thus, the organizations must interact with their environment
to obtain the infonuation about whether they are satisfying needs, and also they must
obtain human and material inputs. Developing ways to handle interactions with the
environment presents a second source of problems for organizations.
At the early stage of an organization's development, each problem, is new when
the organization encounters the external and internal environment. Therefore in order to
solve the problem, the organization must engage in some behaviors based on beliefs or
values that have been formed in other situations. If the solution is satisftictory, the
behavior is positively reinforced simultaneously with a. similar stimulus situation, and
more hkely to be repealed. During this formative stage, the beliefs and value of the
29
organizational leaders exercise the greatest influence on liow the problem is solved,
During the tinie of organizational development, the behaviors are still executed
consciously, but, over time, some of the behaviors begin to be executed unconsciously
(i.e. habits are foniied), and an assumption develops that when faced with, a particular
problem, situation that has been encountered in the past, a particulaj* behavior that has
been used in the past is still the most appropriate. The set of assumptions, both conscious
and unconscious, and values that are used to define appropriate responses to the many
problem situations that organization encounters become a central component of culture.
Freyta,g (1990) believes that organizational culture evolves over time naturally is
inherent in this statement of implication. One mechanism for cultural evolution is that
culture itself defines the response when new problem are encountered, and phenomenon
become an important feature for an organizational practitioner. This feature might be
positive so the direct managerial action is unnecessary to solve each problem. It may be
sometimes be negative when the behavior is not optimal, and the optimal solution is not
considered because of cultural constraints, or due to changes in the internal or external
environment. The organizational cultiue will be in jeopardy if the adaptations to
environmental changes cannot be made.
Levels of Organizational Culture
The organizational cultural fonnation mentioned previously is related to three levels
of organization. Edgar Schein (1992), a social psychologist who teaches at the Sloan
School of Management at M.I.T., claims that culture in organizations exists at three
levels: (a) artifacts, (b) espoused values, and (c) assumptions. They are regarded as a
30
comprehensive and theoretically useful model of organizational culture. Level one of
Schein's model is the most obvious, visible, and audible aspects of organizational culture.
These are artifacts such as tools, buildings, art, and technology, as well as patterns of
human behaviors. Because these artifacts are visible, they have been frequently studied
by using naturalistic field methods such as observation, interviews, and document
analysis. Therefore, to make sense of these artifacts and behaviors requires people to
decipher the meanings of the.se patterns (Owens, 2001; 2004). These patterns are not,
however, always easy to decipher. Within school environments, artifacts provide concrete
evidence of a culture. Examples are trophy cases, published mission statements, or the
way people greet strangers (Thompson, 1993).
Level two of Schein's model is concerned with the values and beliefs. Values are the
organizational member's sense of what ought to be. At this level, values are testable in
the physical environment and by obtaining social consensus. Values are the enshrined
solutions to organizational and human problems that arose in the past and were solved.
The solutions become beliefs and prescriptions: "You ought to do it this way. This is the
right way to do it." Espoused values are the things that individuals claim guide their
actions (Thompson, 1993). They are somewhat difficult to identify other than through an
interview or ob.servation of practice. Owens (2001; 2004) states that the values are
sometimes encoded in written language .such as in a mission statement, a statement of
philosophy, or credo. Documents such as these move us closer to understanding the basic
assumptions of the organizations of the organization but they merely reflect the basic
assumptions that are llie essence of the culture.
31
The final level of Schein's model is assumption, the foimclation of organizational
culture. Assumptions come Ixom values and are taken, for granted, invisible, and out of
consciousness. If individuals only see the two top levels of culture, they miss the most
iraportaot aspects, Schein (1985) aspects that "operate unconsciously, and that define in a
basic 'taken-for-granted' fashion an organization's view of itself and its environment."
These ai-e basic unconscious beliefs about the relationships of individuals to the
environment; nature of reality, time, and space; the nature of human, nature; the nature of
human activity; and the nature of hixman relationships. The beliefs are so deeply
ingrained in us that we very rarely are conscious that they are beliefs. We generally
experience them as "truth" or "the way things are" (Thompson, 1993). Owens (2004)
agrees that these unseen assumptions form patterns but asserts that they remain implicit,
unconscious, and taken for granted, which the organizational members are unaware
miless they are called to the surface by some process of inquiry. One of the things we
take absolutely for granted is the existence of schools themselves, and the order of things
in schools.
32
School Culture and Climate
School climate. The terms culture and climate are both abstractions and many
people confuse the terms climate and culture, Luneiiburg and O.mstein (1996) define
school climates as "the environmental quality within the organization.. .and it may be
referred to as open, bustling, wann, easy-going, informal, cold, impersonal, hostile, rigid,
and closed" (p.74). School climate is part of school culture but does not encompass
school culture. School climate describes a. school's shared perceptions of its inhabitants,
its morale, and its attitude toward its function as an educational organization. Moreover,
climate is rooted in psychology whereas culture is rooted in history, sociology, and
anthropology.
Halpin and Croft (1963) refer to school climate as the quality of the euvironment.
The type of climate existing in a school includes elements such as the appearance of the
building, the maanerisms of the people, and the feelings individuals have about visiting
the school and tKmsacting business there. The climate of the school maybe warm and
pleasant or it may be hostile and unpleasant. Teachers, students, parents, and others may
be treated with dignity and respected as individuals, or they may be disrespected and
experience remarks that are in poor taste.
Eveiy individual can develops an intuitive sense that each school is distinctive and
unique in some almost indefinable powerful way by moving from school to school
Generally, chmate is defined as the characteristics of the total environment in a school
building, arid also is included in culture. According to Tagiuri (1968), organizational
culture is included in the total environment in an organization, that is, the organizational
33
climate. Renato Tagiuri (1968) asserted that the organizational climate is composed of
four dimensions and these four dimensions or subsystems are dynamically interrelated.
1. Ecology refers to physical and material factors in the organization. For
example, it includes the size, age. design, facilities, and the condition of the
building or buildings etc.
2. Milieu is the social dimension in the organization. This includes virtually
everything relating to the people in the organization.. For examples, race,
ethnicity, salary levels of teacher, socioeconomic levels of students,
education levels of the teachers, the moral and motivation of the adults and
students who inhabit in the school, level of job satisfaction, and a host of
other characteristics of the people in the organization.
3. Social system refers to the organizational and administrative stmcture of the
organization. It includes how the school organization, the way in which
decision made, and v/ho is involved in making them, communication patterns
among people, and so on.
4. Culture refers to the values, belief systems, norms, and ways o f thinking that
are characteristic of the people in the organization. For example, how people
do and behavior in, an organization.
School culture. Actually, the field of education lacks a clear and consistent
definition, of School Culture. The term has been used synonymously with a variety of
concepts, including "climate", "ethos" and "saga" (Deal, 1993). School culture has been
and can be defined in a number of ways. The concept of culture came to education from
34
the corporate workplace with the notion, that it would provide direction for a more
efficient and stable learning environment. Scholars have argued about the meaning of
culture fbr centuries. Noted anthropologist (3eertz (1973) has made a large contribution to
our current understanding of the term. For Geertz, culture represents a "historically
transmitted pattern of meaning". Those patterns of meaning are expressed both (explicitly)
through symbols and, (implicitly) in, our taken-for-granted beliefs.
,A review of the literature on school culture reveals much of Geertz's perspective.
Deal and Peterson (1990) note that the definition of culture includes deep patterns of
values, beliefs and traditions that have been tbrnied over the course of [the school's]
history. Heckraan (1993) .reminds us that school culture lies in the commonly held beliefs
of teachers, students and principals. These defi,nitions go beyond the business of creating
an efficient learning environment. They focus more on the core values necessary to teach
and intluence young minds.
Seifert and Vomberg (2002, p. 86) refer to school culture as "the interaction
among the following factors: attitudes and beliefs held by stakeholders inside and outside
the organization; cultural nontis of the school; and the relationships among individuals in
the school." School culture is composed of traditions, values, and beliefs that are held in
common by students, teachers, tmd, principals (Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, 1999). Stolp and Smith (1994) define school culture as the historically-
transmitted patterns of meaning that include the norms, values, beliets, ceremonies,
rituals, traditions and myths understood, maybe in varying degrees, by rae.mbers of the
school coramuiiity. This system of meaning often shapes what people think and how they
act.
Relationship between Culture and Climate
The terra culture has a long hlstoi^f and the meaning of word has been discussed
for many years in a number of different fields, including anthropology, sociology, history,
English, and rhetoric. Stolp and Smith (1.995) summarize and make a distinct relationship
between culture and climate. Climate is the tenn typically used to describe people's
shared perceptions of the organization or work unit, where culture embrace not only how
people feel about their organization, but the assumptions, values, and beliefs that gives
the organization its identity and specify its standards for behavior. When discussing
climate, the focus is on, the impressions, feelings, and expectations held by members of
the school organization. These perceptions are aroused by the organization's structure
and settings, as well as by the social interactions among those who work and learn there.
Stolp and Smith (1995) used tvi/o circles to represent culture and climate. As
depicted in tigure 1, culture includes chmate, but climate does not encompass all aspects
of culture. The dimensions tor distinguishing between culture and climate can be
described as follows:
36
Figure 2.1. Dimemkm for distinguishmg between culture and climate.
School Culture / 1. Historical j 2. Internalized \
School Climate 1, Immediate 2. Surlace
Historical versus Immediate: Culture is a product of the history of relationship in
a school, whereas climate is defined by how people perceive those relationships in the
present. The comparison does not suggest that people's perceptions readily change Jrom
day to day.
Internalized versus Surface: Culture has to do with the value and assumptions
underlying behavior, where climate is ba.sed on people's perceptions of the behavior i tself
The underlying spoken words or the design of a school may not be easily detected,
whereas climate is the perception that people share about what is immediately visible,
Although this dimension is helpful, it is impossible to mark the boundaries between
school culture and climate with precision. The broken circle dividing culture and climate
37
ill the figure suggests that categories are not meant to be absolute or rigid. These
dimensions denote some unique qualities of climate and culture while still recognizing
their inseparable relationship. The lines are never definitive and the boundaries are not
represented by fine lines. Instead it is represented by tran^sitional shades of gray because
the climate emerges from, people's shared perception of culture. Deal (1993) states that
fomial definitions, though verifiable and rigorous, often fail to capture tJie robustness of a
concept as experienced by those that kno\ it first hand.
Positives and Negatives of Culture
All schools have cultures, and successful schools seem to have strong and
functional cultures aligned with a vision of quality schooling. Educators have recently
developed a much deeper understanding of school culture, and a deeper appreciation for
its importance in effective schools (Levine and Lezotte, 1990). Culture plays a major role
in school restructuring (Newmann and Associates, 1996) and school improvement efforts
(Fullan, 1998). Peterson (1998) believes that culture is the underground stream of norms,
vahies, beliefs, traditions, and rituals that builds up over time as people work together,
solve problems, and confront challenges. This set of informal expectations and values
shapes how people think, feel, and act in schools.
Culture inlluences the actions and the spirit of school life. It shapes a school's
motivation, commitment, effort, and focus. Sergiovanni (2001) found:
Culture senses as a compass setting to steer people in a common direction; it
provides a set of norms defining what people should, accomplish and how, and it
38
is a source of meaning, and it is a source of meaning and significance for teachers,
students, administrators, and others as they work. (p. 108)
He believes that once the culture is shaped and established in school, a strong
culture acts a powerful socializcr of thought and programmer of behavior. The shaping
and establishment of such a culture was not just happened suddenly, Instead they are a
negotiated product of the shared sentiments of school participants.
Although school culture inspires educators to learn and grow, to take risks, and to
work collegially, unfortunately sctiool cuhure can also contain negative attitudes and
beliefs that come from different sources. For example, if the staff development activities
were poorly conceived in the past and did not address teacher needs, the staff members
may see staff development, or any e ffort to improve teaching, as a waste of time. School
members might feel that their students can't learn after the school had struggled
academically for a long time. The belief that "nobody can teach these kids'" might have
long existed in the minds of the staff members. Some schools develop "toxic" cultures,
which actively discourage efforts to improve teaching or student achievement. In these
schools the spirit and focus are fractured and often hostile, the value of serving students is
replaced by die goal of serving self, a sense of helplessness and despair predominates,
and professional growth is not a prized activity (Deal and, Peterson, 1998), Staff members
resist reform, publicly ridiculing those who want to try new things. A toxic culture can
destroy motivation, dampen commitment, depress effort, and change the focus of the
school It can decrease learning, frustrate growth, stymie risk taking, and foster radical
individualism rather than collegiality (Peterson, 1999).
39
Empirical Literature: School Factors Related to Student Acbievement
Introduction: Organizational Behaviors
Organization is "a system of two or more people, engaged in cooperative action,
trying to reach an agreed-upon purpose. Organizations are bound systems of structured
social interactions featuring the use of incentives, communication systems, and authority"
(Sirns, 2002, p. I ), Sims defines organizational behavior as the body of knowledge
derived from the study of these actions and attitudes. Understanding organizational
behavior helps individuals to identify school problems, determine how to correct them,
and establish whether the changes would make a difference. Such knowledge can allow
organizational participants to better understand situations they face in the workplace and
change their behavior so their pertbmiance and the organization's etfectiveness increases.
According to Sims, organizational behavior includes a collection of separate theories and
models, ways of thinking about particular people and events. To appreciate behavior in
organizations, researchers and specialists in organizational behavior cannot only focus on
individuals acting because people frequently work together in groups or in teams in
organizational settings. Therefore, organizational behavior should include three distinct
levels of analysis: individuals, groups, and organizations (Sims, 2002).
Functioning as any other social organization, a school is like a world where
people live and work together. The school world has power, structure, logic, and values,
which combine to exert strong influence on the ways in which individuals perceive the
world, interpret it, and respond to it (Owen,s, 2004). Therefore, Owens (2004) concludes;
40
The behavior of people at work in an educational orgaiiizatioii'--" 'in as
well as a groupis not merely a reflection of their idiosyncratic persotialities but
is influenced, if not defined,, by the social norms and expectation of culture that
prevail in the organization. This inteiplay between individuals and the social
environment of their world of work is power&l in giving rise to organizational
behavior, which means the behavior of people in the school organization, (p. 2)
Owens {2004) suggests that individuals who would be educational leaders should
be able to find the essentials of organizational behavior, which are essential in deciding
what to do as they engage in the practice of leadership. The reason is that leaders will
encounter many people in their professional practice whose understanding of
organizational behavior will be at a different stage of development from their own. In this
growing and developing field, it is important that people not merely understand and
internalize their commitment to certain principles and practices of organizational
behavior, but also understand why some may disagree with them and doubt their practical
usefulness in the harsh realities of the embattled US schools. As any practitioner
spending time in schools knows, cultural differences are real and directly influence the
quality of the work life. Empirical validations of common cultural features in school
organizations may better infomi the cun-ent efforts and help reduce educational faddism.
The primary puqiose of empirical literature is used to demonstrate how school cultural
behavior differences are related to student academic achievement.
41
Parental Involvement
Downey (2002) mentions that Jiiost research on, the field of parental involvement
in cbildren's education, includes; (a) the effects of parental interaction and involvement in
the school, and (b) the impact of parental involvement at home.
Interaction with teachers. There are several reasons for us to believe that a good
parent-teacher relationship contributes to children's school performance. "When parents
communicate constructively with teachers and participate in school activities, they gain a
clearer understanding of what is expected of their children at school and they may learn,
f rom teachers how to work a t home to enhance thei r chi ldren 's educat ion" ( Izzo ,
Weissberg, Kasprow, & Fendrich, 1999, p. 820). When parents attend parent/teacher
conferences, it creates continuity between the domin,ant spheres of influence in the
children's life, home and school (Epstein & Lee, 1995), and Hkely signals to children the
parents' value for them. Some agi-ee that children learn more when they receive
consistent messages fi*om home and school (Epstein, 1987). Epstein (1996) writes that the
"main reason ... for better communications a,nd exchanges am,ong schools, families, and
community groups is to assist students at all grade levels to succeed in school and in
life"(p. 5). Stevenson and Backer (1987) report the evidence that children's school
perform,ance is enhanced by a strong parent-teacher relationship. Grolnick and
Slowiaczek (1987) studied 300 eleven-fourteen year- olds and found a strong association
between teachers reported grades and parental involvement (the frequency of attendance
at parent-teacher conferences, open school night, and school activities and events).
42
Several studies report the opposite pattern: an inverse relationship between
parent/school contact and children's school success. Desiraoiie (1999) analysed the
National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) with a nationally representative sample
of nearly 25,000 eighth graders collected in 1988, and he toimd negative associations
between parents' contact with the school regarding academic matters and students math
and reading test scores and grades. Rigsby, Stull and M^orse-Kelly (1995) suggest that
one reason for this puzzling pattern is that parents might become involved with
adolescents' schooling when their children experience either behavioral problems or poor
grades.
Moses et al. (1989) report: the results of an intervention program with parents for
things such as; being a project leader, attending informational meetings, participating in
workshops, and acting as voluntary classroom helpers. He found that tlie children
demonstrated a marked increase in math perfonnance compared to the achievement of
students who attended the inter\'ention program without parental involvement.
School level parental involvement. Students may gain some benefits from their
parents' involvement at schools, but do they fare better by merely attending a school
where many other parents are highly involved? People might think that children benefit
from school-level parental involvement because it promotes infomiation sharing and
greater normative control over children's behavior. Coleman (1990) described this as
"social closure." Carbonaro (1999) found that social closure was related to better
performance on mathematics test scores and a decrease in the probability of dropping out,
but had no effect on reading test scores or grades. Other researchers analyzed the same
43
data and found that social closure was associated with lower math test scores (Morgan &
Sorenseii, 1999).
Sui-Chu and Willms (1996) analyzed NELS data and concluded that while
schools did differ in the level of involvement associated with parental volunteers or
attendance at parent-teacher conferences, school-level parental involvement plays only a
very small role In explaining students' math and reading test scores. They concluded that
while schools vary in the degree to which parents are involved in school activities,
relatively few schools have a strong influence in shaping the learning climate at home,
the dimension of parental i nvolvement most closely related to students' schoo l success.
Intervention studies also shows little evidence that school-level parental
involvement has any significant impact on students' school performance. Desimone,
Fimi-Stevenson and Henrich (2000) used a CoZi model of intervention plan to study the
effects on students' school achievement. The CoZi intervention model includes: (a)
parent and teacher participation in school-based decision making that is gi'ounded in child
development principles; (h) parent outreach and education begiiming at the birth of the
child; (c) child care for preschoolers and before- and after-school care for kindergarten
tlirougli sixth graders; and (d) parent involvement programs. In an evaluation of
comparing one CoZi school and one non-CoZi school, the CoZi school had better school
climate and parental involvement than the non-CoZi school, but parentchildren
interactions and children's level of achievement were not improved. It is possible that the
children experienced no improvements in school perfonnance because the intervention of
CoZi program was only in eflct for one year.
44
Current studies suggest that parental involvement in children's' schools via
attending parent-teacher conferences, contacting school officials, attending school events,
and developing a close-knit commimity where many parents know each other, probably
has modest positive effects on children's school perferrmance. If parents are serious about
helping their children do well in school, improving their relationship with teachers and
involvement in school activities are worthy goals.
Parental involvement at home. What parents do at home plays an important role
in shaping children's school-related skills. A lotigitudinal study (West, Denton, &
Gennino-Hausken, 2000) of early childhood on America's kindergartners. The findings
from the longitudinal study sliowed that eighteen percent of children entering
kindergarten in the U.S in the fall of 1998 did not know that print reads from left to right,
where to go when the print ends, or where the story ends in the book, but a small
percentage of children could already read words in context. The expectation that parents
have for their children is also related to children's school performance. Children with
parents who hope and expect thern to do well are more likely to do well in school than
their counterparts with parents who do not have high educational expectations for their
children (Milne, Myers, Rosenthal, & Ginsburg, 1986).
Other empirical studies show that parenting styles also affect students' school
achievement, A study was found association between the parents' style of interaction
(reported by the students) and student's grades that persisted despite stati.
45
authoritative style perfomied best in school, while students with authoritarian and
permissive parents were more likely to have lower school grades.
Hart and Risely (1992) studied forty families over a two and a half year period,
and found several dimensions of parenting style that were related to the child's
subsequent perfbmiance on IQ tests. They concluded that three primary dimensions of
parenting are what matter; (a) the absolute amount of parenting per hour, (b) parents'
social interaction with the children, and (3) the quality of speech to the child, Clark (1983)
studied ten African-American children, half of them were successful academically and
half of them were not. Clark reported that parents of high-achieving students have a
distinct style of interacting with their children. They created emotionally supportive home
environment and provided reassurance when the children encountered failure.
Parent's Socioeconomic Status
Many poor insufficient parental practices are highly conrelated with
socioeconomic status, and one of the reasons children from disadvantaged backgrounds
do less well in school than their more advantaged counterparts is because their parents'
interaction style did not prepare them for school. Some researchers (Stevenson & Baker,
1987) report that the typically positive effects of socioeconomics are mediated entirely by
parenting practices, but it is difficult to discern precisely how parenting styles and
socioeconomic status are related. Kohn (1969) argued that parents' style of interaction
with their children is influenced by parents' occupation. For example, parents who work
in jobs with little autonomy and are rewarded for adherence to external standards, tend to
parent in ways that prepare their children for success in these same kind of jobs. Kohn
46
(1969) found tbat working class parents put more empliasis on obedience than did
middle-class parents. In contrast, parents in occupations that allow for m,o.re sell'-
determiiied activities and decision-making tend to promote their children's skills for
assuming these kinds of middle-class occiipation.s. Middle class parents use a less
punitive style of discipline and put greater emphasis on developing children's internal
controls.
Types of parent occupations are also related to how parents interact with teachers
and school officials. Lareau (1987) found that teachers made active efforts on
parent/teacher relationships to involve working-class and middle-class parents, but low
income parents were less involved. Working class parents were less likely to attend
parent-teacher conferences because the costs of attending were greater for working class
parents tiian middle-class parents. Working class parents may find it hard to obtain
transportation, secure child care, and rearrange work schedules. Working class parents
also were likely to have a view that it is the school's job to educate their children. Lareau
(1987) writes "Working-class culture ... promotes independence between the spheres of
family life and schooling" (p. 82). Middle-class parents were more likely to think that
children's education as part of their responsibility. Middle-class parents were less
comfortable interacting with teachers because they reported feeling unqualified to discuss
academic problems. When they have contact with teachers or schools, working-class
parents often discussed non-academic issues such as bus schedules or playground
activities. Low-income parents experience greater financial stress and health-related
problems than other parents. Both of these keep them iTom developing consistent routines.
47
Children perform belter in school when their learning is not compromised by hunger,
distracting physical ailments, lack of adequate sleep, unattended visual limitations, or
other health related problems.
Teacher Attitude and Characteristics
An old saying, "you reap what you sow" has remained current for centuries and
teachers are not exempt. "The nature of the dynamic of social interaction in the classroom
is driven by the attitude of the teacher" (Coleman, 2001, p. 94). If teachers lack
enthusiasm, the students will be equally unenthusiastic. If teachers are sarcastic, students
will respond in kind. In general, teachers who are enthusiastic about the teaching, are
personable, and caring will encourage the same traits in their students. Teachers with
positive attitudes make a concerted effort to create a positive learning environment for
their students. Glass (2002) believes that characteristics can include qualities of teachers
that are viewed as personalsuch as mental ability, age, ethnicity, gender and the like
or as experientialsuch as certification status, educational background, previous
teaching experience and the like. Some characteristics are combinations of personal and
experiential qualities. The term "teacher characteristics" does not generally refer to the
direct observation of their impact on student's leamiug in tenns of either students' test
perfonnance or teaching behavior. Some of the empirical evidence shows that teacher
characteristics could improve students' measured achievement.
Teacher's expectation. Will students perfomi up to the level of expectation that
teachers hold? This was answered clearly in the Rosenthal (1973) study. One hundred
U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatoiy School airmen were randomly assigned to five math
48
classes. When teachers were told the students assigned to their class were high achievers,
they treated them accordingly, and student perforaiance was commensurate with the
expectation, Conversely, when teachers were told the students assigned to their class
were low achievers, they treated them as sitch and once again, student performance was
commensurate with the level of expectation (Rosenthal, 1973).
Teachers send messages to students via tone of voice, body language, and offering
encouragement or criticism that affect student performance. The Rosenthal (1973) study
clearly demonstrates the power of perception. Students wi th high ability perform at a
lower level when teachers were told they were low ability students and vice versa.
A student who has been labeled a disciplinary problem in one teacher's classroom
may be perceived as such by other teachers who have had no prior personal experience
with the student. Teachers m.ay be unconsciously less patient and tolerant in dealing with
students that have been labeled, Sometimes, these students will live up to their reputation
because they feel it is expected. If students sense that teachers are less tolerant or patient,
the students may act out as a result of faistration and resentment of being singled out
(Coleman, 2001).
Teachers also have unconsciously stereotypical perceptions on various ethnic
groups. This perception may direct the nature of interaction and expectations teachers
hold for certain ethnic groups (Kuykendall, 1992). Some examples of these stereotypes
might be that Asian students are good in math and science and are quiet and obedient;
African American students do not do well in math and science and are hyperactive and
American hidian students are not very competitive.
49
Academic preparation. Druva and Anderson (1983) suggest that there is a modest
relationship between, teachers' college course work: in the subject area in which they
subsequently teach and their students' achievement. Monk (1994) studied and analyzed
data front 3000 high school students from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth.
Monk coffdated teacher characteristics with student achievement, taking into account
student's earlier achievement, background characteristics, and teachers' inputs. The
greater the number of college-level mathematics or science courses the teachers has taken,
the better their students did on the mathematics and science tests. Goklhaber and Brewer
(1996) found a similar relationship in a secondary analysis of more than five thousand
high school sophomores and their teachers. The results indicate that college level math
courses taken by teachers was the only variable that accounted for any appreciable
variation in students' achievement.
Certification, Darling-Hammond (1997, p. 308) wrote "reviews of research over
the past thirty years, summarizing hundreds of studies, have concluded that even with the
shortcomings of current teacher education and hcensing, fully prepared and certi fied
teaches are ... more successfiil with students than teachers without this preparation."
Ashton (1996) noted that teachers with regular state certification receive higher
supervisor ratings and student achievement than teachers who do not meet standards, but
this observation was based on data with virtually no statistical controls being imposed.
Laczko and F3erliner (2001) researched the impact of certification status on student
achievement in two large urban school districts. They analyzed the information about the
teachers hired fbr the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. This information included
the school where they were currently leaching, the grade levels^ the teacher's certification
statuvs, highest degree earned, date and attended institution where it was achieved, age,
and number ot'years of teaching experience. Teachers were eliminated from the sample if
they taught any subject that was not included in Stanford Nine achievement battery.
Laczko and Berliner found that in the 1998-1999 school year, students taught by certified
teachers outscored their counte:rpar(.s taught by uncertitied teachers in reading, language,
and math.
Professional Development
Reitzug (2002) points out that school staff development includes four different
types. First, training is a traditional tbrm and includes workshops, presentations, and
other types of in-service. Training tyjjically includes a direct instraction/lecture
component, skill demonstration and modeling, and simulated skill practice, and
workplace coaching and consultation. Opportunities to learn that are embedded in the
work settings is the second form. Third, networks are collections of educators trom
across different schools that interact regularly to discuss and share practices around a
particular focus or philosophy of schooling. Professional development is the fourth.
School professional development can be completed through active involvement of
university faculty in, the school, fomial professional development experiences, and
through school-based collaborative research.
Historically staff development practice has been limited, fragmented, one-shot or
short term and pre-packaged. It occurred on the margins and focused on training verse
problem solving (Little, 1993). Most educators participate in a very limited amount of
51
staff development. Tliey migl-it attend one or two days of workshop or staff developnient
during a year days as well as participate in their school district's one or two annual staff
developnient days, Most of them are unconticcted and do not match the needs of each
school.
Sparks (1995) believes that staff development should consist of a broad range of
process and activities that contribute to the learning of educators, but most educators have
a narrow conception of staff development with only workshops and in-services. Guskey
(2000) thinks that professional development is a process and activities designed to
enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Developing teacher knowledge
and skills is more than acquiring existing skills and knowledge. It also includes enabhng
teachers to reflect critically on their practice and fashion new knowledge and beliefs
about content, pedagogy, and learners (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). "In
order to change practice in significant and worthwhile ways, teachers must not only leam
new subject matter and new instructional techniques, but they must alter their beliefs and
conceptions of practice, their theories of action" (Smyhe, 1995) (p. 93). Guskey (1986)
argues that tlie impact of professional development on student achievement should not be
hmited to an examination of only standardized test scores.
Although there are great deal of articles related to professional development. The
empirical literature on the topic is much less extensive. Du.e to a variety of confbimding
variables, it is difficnlt to establish a direct relationship between professional
development activities, improvement in teaching, and increases in student achievement
(Mullens, et aL, 1996). The executive directors of the National Staff Development
52
Council, Sparks and Hirsii (2000) note that "a growing body of research show that
improving teacher knowledge arid teaching skills is essential to raising student
performance. Ferguson (1991) found that teacher expertise accounted for 40% of the
difference in student achievement in reading and math. Armour et at. (1989) found that
differences in teacher qualifications accounted for more than 90% of the variance in
student achievement in a large urban district. Reitaig (2002) believes tliat the relationship
between professional development and student achievement is a function of both, the
quality of the professional development processes and activities, and the efficacy of the
substance of the professional development. That is, professional development can
improve student achievement only to the extent to which its content Ixicus can do so.
Shymanksy, Yore, and Anderson (1999) provide an illustrative example. They .studied the
impact of a high quality science professional development program on teaching practice
and student achievement. When the teachers were provided to change fheir teaching to
more regularly use the methods and objectives the professional development program
advocated, the student achievement in science did not improve subsequent to the
professional development initiative. This study suggests that it is not professional
development processes and activities alone that influence student's achievement. Rather
it is the content and methods being advocated in the professional development program in
combination with the quality of the professional development processes and activities
that influence student achievement. An alternative explanation may be that the student
achievement assessment strategy that was used may not have been congruent with the
content a:nd methods being advocated in the staff development program (Reitzug, 2002).
53
Several researchers (Statistic, 199S; Cohen & Hill, 1998) have demonstrated that
professional development definitely makes a difference in the quality of teaching in
schools and in the achievetnent of students. According to a survey from the National
Center for Education Statistics (199S), two-thirds of teachers report that professional
development activities have caused them to change their teaching. A second national
survey from the National Center for Education Statistics (1998) found that teachers who
participated in professional development {cused on standards were more likely to
describe teaching in ways consistent with the standards than teachers who did not
participate in the professional development. Cohen, and Hill (1998) assert that
professional development that was care&lly focused on particular objectives resulted in
more teaching practices consistent with the objectives. They found the gi^eater the amount
of professional development, the more practice was influenced. Other studies (Adey,
1997; Adey & Shayer, 1993; 1994; Shayer & Adey, 1996) report a significant coiTelation
between teachers' level of use of the strategies promoted by the professional development
effort and student's cognitive gain. Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine (1996) found that
there is a greater increase in student achievement for money spent on professional
development than for money spent on reducing class size or raising teachers' salaries.
Principal's Impact on Student Achievement
It is difficult to track the linkages between principals' leadership behavior and
student outcomes. The assertion that principals make a difference in student achievement
can be supported by theory and experience, but less clear to researchers and practitioners
of educational administration is exactly how or precisely in what ways princi