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