An Investigation of Vatiables Related to Student Achievement

Bulach, C. R., Malone, B. & Castleman, C. (1995). An investigation of variables related to student achievement. Mid-Western Educational Researcher 8 (2), 23-29.

The purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship of selected variables to student achievement. Data on instructional leadership, involvement, order, instruction, expectation, collaboration, environment, socioeconomic status level and student achievement were collected from 27 schools. The instrumentation used to collect the data were the Tennessee School Climate Inventory (which yields a school climate score), the California Test of basic Skills (CTBS), and a student free and reduced lunch count.

A significant positive correlation (r (25) = .52, p <. 01) was found between school climate and student achievement and between student achievement and the socioeconomic status of students (r (25) = .41, p < .05). A significant positive correlation (r (25) = .49, p < . 01) was also found between the involvement subscale of the climate instrument and student achievement. Of all the variables investigated, it would appear that the involvement of parents and the community has the strongest relationship to student achievement

We concluded that school climate scores can be just as helpful as the socioeconomic status of students in predicting student achievement. Further, high achievement is possible in elementary schools that have a large number of students of low socioeconomic status. Finally, our data support the notion that schools with a high proportion of students of low socioeconomic status can have a healthy school climate.

The cause for varying levels of achievement in schools has frequently been the subject of investigation. The Coleman (1966) report, which stated that the best predictor of student achievement is the socioeconomic status of the parents, led to a flurry of investigations on student achievement. The effective schools research and school climate research came on the heels of the Coleman report because researchers refuse to accept its findings. Of course, not everyone agreed with the results or interpretations of this research. Houlihan (1988) believed that researchers have overanalyzed and victimized schools by ridiculous statistical interpretation. He stated, "Statistical data have been carried to the ultimate in silliness" (p. 10). Many educators would agree with Houlihan, particularly when achievement scores are involved. Nevertheless, the push goes on to recognize students, teachers, administrators, and schools for outstanding achievement. It would be helpful if there were a better indicator than the socioeconomic status of students to predict in advance which schools would be likely to have high or low achievement. The socioeconomic status of students is extremely difficult to change whereas another variable might not be.

The purpose of this research was to investigate any relationships which might exist between student achievement and possible predictor variables. Predictor variables investigated were the following: effective school variables, school climate variables, and the socioeconomic status of students. A second purpose was to investigate which variables are the most important for student achievement.

In order to provide a theoretical framework for this project the authors reviewed the research on effective schools and school climate. The literature review is a summary of findings in these two areas because research in the two fields is so extensive. The authors will address the research on the relationship of socioeconomic status to achievement fire, and then follow with the research on effective schools and school climate. Hopefully, this will give the reader a better understanding of those factors which have a relationship with achievement.

The Coleman (1966) report was a landmark study which documented that the socioeconomic status of students is the best predictor of student achievement. The research of Metz (1988) and Chubb and Moe (1990) also found that the socioeconomic @ of students is important for achievement. Chubb and Moe's research was based on data gathered from 20,000 students and 500 schools nationwide. Of significance was the finding that the socioeconomic status of students and the organization of the school in terms of goals, leadership, personnel, and practice, had an equal influence on student achievement.

The effective schools research, as reviewed in Matluck (1987), Cruickshank (1990), and Bliss, et al. (1991), identified many variables which are relevant for student achievement. While there are differences in the variables depending on the researcher, there is agreement on a core group of variables which are relevant for student achievement. They are: orderly climate, leadership, expectations, frequent monitoring of instruction or assessment, parent and community involvement, and instruction. Other variables which researchers cite as important for achievement are the following: site-based management, staff stability, staff development, collaboration, time-on-task, and sense of mission.

Critics of the effective schools research stated that most of the data collected was from poor urban schools and students of low socioeconomic status and that the research was methodologically flawed (Bliss, et al., 1991; Freestone, 1991; Good & Trophy, 1986; Purvey & Smith, 1983). Another critic (Matluck, 1987) suggested that the definition of terms was a flaw in the research because methodologically similar studies used the same terms, but lacked agreement on the meaning of the terms, e.g. climate, leadership, and high expectations. Despite this criticism, there is considerable support for the premise that effective schools improve student achievement.

Acknowledgement of the role of school climate in improving student achievement has also received widespread support (Agnew, 1981; Anderson, 1982; Brookover, et al., 1977; Howe, 1985; Keefe, et al., 1985; Lezotte, Hathaway & Mlier, 1980; Montoya, 1990; Parades, 199 1; Stickard, et al., 1986; Strong & Jones, 1991). The works of Brookover, et al. (I 979), Rutter (I 98 1), Rutter, et al. (I 979), and @e (1980, cited in Purkey & Smith, 1983) were used to justify the statement that a school's climate influences a student's chance for success. Ralph and Fennessey (1983), in discussing Brookover's (1979) work, stated that school climate variables may be the effect or the cause of changes in other variables, e. g. achievement. Hoyle, English, and Steffy (1985) stated, "School climate may be one of the most important ingredients of a successful instructional program. Without a climate that creates a harmonious and well-functioning school, a high degree of academic achievement is difficult, if not downright impossible to obtain (p. 15). Finally, Sweeney (1988) wrote, "A winning school climate provides the very foundation for a sound educational program. When the climate is right, people are inspired to do their best. Teachers and students ... do what needs to be done to stimulate learning. Achievement generally rises" (P. 1).

Several studies did not show a significant positive relationship between climate and achievement. Culpepper (1993) gathered data from 698 teachers in 41 elementary schools. She used the school as the unit of analysis and found no significant relationships between climate and reading and math achievement. Montoya (1990) collected data from two schools and eight classes of sixth graders. She also found no relationship with climate and achievement.

While there is a great deal of agreement that school climate is important for achievement, critics state that there is very little agreement on the definition of school climate. Arter (1989) wrote, "As with many other concepts in education, there is no unanimous agreement as to exactly what constitutes school or classroom climate' (P. 2). Stronge and Jones (1991) stated, "School climate is a term which we tend to intuitively understand, but one for which there is no single accepted definition (p.41). In the effective schools research, school climate is usually called a safe orderly environment. In Brookover, et al. (1979), school climate refers to pupil efficacy and pupils' and principals' perceptions of others' behavior. Hoyle, et al. (1985) defined climate as "the environment of the school as perceived by its students, staff, and patrons. It is the school's 'personality"' (p. 15). Lezotte, et al. (1980) included physical attributes such as heat, light, and noise; psychological attributes such as satisfaction, morale, trust, openness, and cooperation; and institutional attributes such as norms, beliefs, and attitudes. Sergiovanni and Staffatt (1993) stated that climate can be viewed as "the enduring characteristics which describe the psychological character of a particular school" (p.82).

Ellis (1988) stated that school climate consists of subjective and objective indicators which give an overall feel for a school. Perhaps Uzotte and Ellis are talking about the same thing. Are psychological, physical, and institutional attributes also subjective and objective indicators? To resolve this question, the authors developed a definition which incorporates many of the above ideas.

The definition of school climate that was used for the purpose of this research is "the perception someone has about the psychological and institutional attributes of an organization or those psychological and institutional attributes which give an organization its personality." The physical attributes of school climate were not included because there is little evidence to show that they affect school climate.

In order to operationalize school climate, the Tennessee School Climate Irwentory (TSCI) (Butler and Alberg, 1991) was chosen. It has seven subscales which measure order, leadership, environment, involvement, instruction, expectations, and collaboration. Each subscale consists of descriptions of seven behaviors which make up that subscale. The TSCI was chosen as the measure of school climate because it provides data on five of the six variables frequently identified in the effective school research. These variables are the following: order, leadership, instruction, involvement, and expectation. The other two variables of the TSCI are environment and collaboration. These variables are more frequently found in the climate domain. Both the effective schools and school climate domains provide research support which shows that they are important for student achievement. Consequently, it was believed by the authors that an instrument which measured both domains to some extent would prove useful for this research.

Definitions of the variables are as follows. The first five are effective schools variables and tend to measure the institutional attributes of school climate. Environment and collaboration tend to measure the psychological attributes of school climate.

The literature review of effective schools and climate research shows that a number of variables are important for student achievement. The TSCI measures much of the domain cited as important for student achievement with the exception of students' socioeconomic status. Consequently, the hypotheses were as follows:

Six hundred and eleven (611) teachers and principals from twenty-seven elementary schools in Western Kentucky were involved in the study. The principals of all of the schools volunteered to participate in the study with the condition that they would be provided a profile of their school. The schools varied in size ranging from a low of 93 pupils to a high of 700 pupils. The populations of the schools were primarily Caucasian of upper-lower to lower-middle class. Overall the sample for this study is representative of the schools in Kentucky and would be representative of most populations except for large urban schools and schools with a high proportion of minority students.

The TSCI was the instrument selected for this study based on the reasons cited earlier. Reliability data on the TSCI using the Cronbach alpha or measure of rationale equivalence was an average of +. 80 for the seven subscales (Butler& Alberg, 1991).

The TSCI has seven subscales which measure order, leadership, environment, involvement, instruction, expectations, and collaboration. Each subscale has seven behaviors for a total of 49 items or behaviors which are measured. It measures the same domain as the effective schools research except for frequent monitoring of instruction and student time-on-task. It also measures collaboration and environment two variables more commonly found in the climate domain.

In addition to the climate data, data were also collected on achievement using the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) and on the socioeconomic status (SES) of the students. The SES of students was determined by counting the number of students on free and reduced lunch. While this may not be the best measure of a student's socioeconomic status, it was within the scope of this study. Chubb et al. (1990) reported that parents' education and income were the most important socioeconomic-dc variables for determining the performance of students. This study will only look at the income level as measured by free and reduced lunch counts. The failure to gather data on the education of the parents is a limitation of this study in terms of testing hypothesis 2.

The unit of analysis for climate, achievement, and the socioeconomic status of students was the school. The rationale for this decision was that as the climate score represented all of the respondents' opinions, i.e. the entire school, there would have to be a score for the entire school in the other areas as well. Thus there was one score for the whole school in each of these areas: school climate, each of the climate subscales, student achievement, and number of free and reduced lunches. The statistical technique used to analyze the data was the Pearson product moment correlation.

The overall school climate scores were correlated with the achievement scores. The mean climate score was 25.3 with a standard deviation of 2.32. The mean achievement score was 59.54 with a standard deviation of .46. A positive correlation of +.517 was found between the school climate and student achievement scores. The correlation was significant at the .01 level. Hypothesis 1 was supported. There is a significant positive relationship between school climate and achievement.

The reduced and free lunch count, which served as a measure of the socioeconomic status of students for each school, ranged from a low of 14.3% of the students to a high of 70%. The mean free and reduced lunch count was 40.5% with a standard deviation of 12.98. There was a wide range of socioeconomic levels with most schools falling into the medium to low socioeconomic levels. A positive correlation of +.409 was found between student achievement and socioeconomic status. It was significant at the .05 level. Hypothesis 2 was supported. There is a significant positive relationship between the socioeconomic status of students and achievement.

A negative correlation of -.064 (not significant) was found between the overall school climate score and socioeconomic status. Hypothesis 3 was not supported. There is no relationship between school climate and the socioeconomic status of students.

Climate subscale scores for each of the schools were correlated with achievement scores. With 25 degrees of freedom, a correlation of +. 38 is required at the .05 level of confidence, and.49 at the.01 level. Only two of the subscales were significantly correlated with achievement scores. The subscale titled "involvement' had a correlation of r (25) = .49, p < .01 and the subscale tided "instruction' had a correlation of r (25) = .3 9, p < .05.

The finding that there is a significant positive relationship bctween achievement and school climate is encouraging. Evan more encouraging is the fact that the relationship between school climate and achievement is stronger than the relationship between achievement and the socioeconomic status of the students. This is encouraging because school climate scores can be raised whereas the socioeconomic status of the students is difficult to change.

In related research, Benton and Bulach (1994) developed a school improvement plan designed to improve school climate subscale scores. The TSCI data were collected in October 1993, the improvement plan was implemented to address specific subscale weaknesses, and the TSCI was again administered in April 1994. A significant improvement in the collaboration (p < .05) and involvement (p < .05) subscales occurred. Collaboration and involvement were two areas of weakness in the overall climate of the school which were targeted in the school improvement plan. This provides support for the above statement that school climate scores can be improved.

The strongest correlation for the subscales with achievement was the involvement subscale (r (25) =. 49, p < 01). This finding supports the research of Anderson (1994), Marcon (1993), and Snodgrass (1991). The importance of involving students, parents and the community in the school can not be overlooked as a significant factor related to student achievement. It also adds further support for the role of school-based decision-making and the feeling of community which Sergiovanni, et al. (1993) advocate in their latest book on supervision.

The involvement subscale was followed by the instruction subscale in terms of its relationship with achievement scores. The seven behaviors in this subscale deal with teaching and evaluation methodology. It follows that there should be a relationship between achievement and instruction if teachers actually exhibit the behaviors measured by this scale, e.g., use a variety of teaching strategies; sequence learning activities so students can experience success; develop higher-order thinking skills, etc. As a matter of fact, we expected this relationship to be the highest with achievement. The fact that it was not may be indicative of the fact that teachers say they do these things when that may not always be the case.

There was a surprise with the remaining subscales. While they are all positively correlated with achievement, we had expected the leadership subscale r = .24 to be much higher. This finding was somewhat disturbing because Bulach and Malone (1994) found a correlation of +. 90 between scores on the leadership subscale and the overall climate score. This indicated that the principal is a strong force in the overall picture of school climate. The score on the leadership subscale should be an accurate predictor of the overall school climate score and a less accurate predictor of the school's achievement scores. That it did not happen in this study could be explained by the fact that the principals in Kentucky are currently leading a massive reform movement which could detract from instructional leadership, thereby causing the low correlation.

As in the studies of Coleman (I 969), Metz (I 988), and Chubb, et al. (1990), this research verified that the socioeconomic status of students is a factor in their achievement level. However, schools with a large number of low socioeconomic status students can achieve at high levels. As a matter of fact, the school in this study with the highest achievement scores had 43.7% of its students on free or reduced lunch. Of course the school with the highest percentage of free and reduced lunches also had the lowest achievement scores. The relationship is definitely there, but it is not as strong as once thought. Schools with students who have a low socioeconomic status can achieve at high levels. The reader needs to keep in mind that this research was done in elementary schools. Mayer and Jencks (1989) stated that little is known about the effect of SES on student achievement in the elementary schools. This research provides evidence that high achievement in elementary schools with low SES students is possible.

That may not be possible at the high school level. The work of Metz (1988) paints a very dismal picture of achievement levels in low SES high schools. She wrote that students enter the 9th grade badly equipped to meet the demands of a high school curriculum and that they are deeply discouraged about their academic prospects. The work of Mayer and Jencks (1989) suggests otherwise. They state that the effect of SES on the achievement of high school students is small. However, based on teaching and administrative experience in inner-city and suburban schools in Cincinnati, OH, they believe that once the pattern of low academic achievement is set it may be difficult to reverse even if school climate is good.

This raises another question. Does a healthy school climate lead to higher achievement, or does high student achievement lead to a healthy school climate? The work of Metz would lead one to believe that achievement provides staff with intrinsic rewards which indirectly leads to a healthy school climate. Further, teachers in high SES schools work hard, receive a lot of support, and take pride and pleasure in their students' progress. The question raised could very well be one of the "chicken or egg syndrome." Just as you can't have an egg without a chicken or vice versa, you can't have achievement without a healthy climate, or a healthy climate without student achievement.

Perhaps the finding that there is no relationship between school climate scores and the socioeconomic status of the school's students can shed some light on this issue. Since there is a relationship between climate and achievement and none between climate and SES, it is possible that climate makes an independent contribution to student achievement. Longitude research focusing on school improvement plans to improve school climate variables might be one way for determining which school climate variables have the most effect on student achievement.

There are those who might say that it is difficult to improve school climate in schools where you have a large percentage of low SES students, e.g., to get parents involved, maintain high expectations, establish a safe orderly environment, etc. These are all indicators of a healthy school climate, and while it may be more difficult in a school with a high percentage of low SES students, it can be done.

This research has continued the investigation on indicators of effective schools, and it has combined that area of research with the research on school climate. This study made the following contributions to these areas of research:

Evidence was provided that high achievement is possible in elementary schools which have low SES levels.

Additionally, the data suggest that school climate makes an independent contribution to student achievement levels over and above the socioeconomic status of students. Because school climate scores can be raised, this is very encouraging for further research in this area. The authors believe that parent and community involvement and the instructional habits of teachers have the strongest relationship with achievement.

Agnew, Evelyn M. (1981). The relationship between elementary school climate and school achievement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of San Francisco. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 360A.

Anderson, Carolyn S. (1982). The search for school climate: a review of research. Review of Educational Research, 32,368420.

Anderson, E.L. (1994). The effect of parental involvement on academic achievement (Doctoral Dissertation, Walled University. Dissertation Abstracts International. 251. DAI-A55-2.

Arter, Judith A. (1989). Assessing school and classroom climate. Portland, Oregon: NWREL.

Benton, E., & Bulach, C. R. (1994, April). Determining the effectiveness of a school improvement plan. Paper presented at the West Georgia Research Colloquium, Carrollton, GA.

Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1977). Schools can make a difference. A study of elementary school social systems and school outcomes. Paper prepared for Michigan State University Center for Urban Affairs, East Lansing, Michigan.

Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement. East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 005)

Bliss, J. R., Firestone, W, A., & Richards, C. E. (Eds.). (1991). Rethinking effective schools: research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Bulach, C. R., & Malone, B. (in press). The relationship of school climate and group openness and trust to the effective implementation of school reform. ERS SPECTRUM. Journal of School Research and Information.

Butler, E. D., & Alberg, M. J. (1991). Tennessee school climate inventory: A resource manual Memphis, TN: Memphis State University Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., Mcpardand, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, E, & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.

Cruickshank, D. P. (1990). Research that informs teachers and teacher educators. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

Culpepper, P. (1993). The relationship of school climate and student learning to teacher attitudes toward the Georgia Teacher Evaluation Program. Order No. AAC 9225354, ProQuest, Dissertation Abstracts.

Firestone, W. A. (1991). Educators, researchers and the effective schools movement in rethinking effective schools research and practice (Bliss, Firestone, & Richards, Eds.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice HAI.

Good, T., & Brophy, 1. (1986). School effects in Handbook of research on teaching (M. Wiffrock, Ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Houlihan, G. T. (1988). School effectiveness: the key ingredients of schools with heart. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Howe, H. (1985). Giving equity a chance in the excellence game. In The great school debate: which way for American education (B. & R. Gross, Eds.). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hoyle, J. R., English, F. W., & Stefry, B. E. (1985). Skills for successful leaders. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Keefe, J. W., et al. (1985). School climate: Clear definitions and a model for a larger setting. NASSP Bulletin, 69 (484), 7077.

Lezotte, L. W., Hathaway, D. V, Miler, S. K., Passalacqua, J., & Brookover, W. B. (1980). School learning climate and student achievement. Tallahassee, FL: SSTA Center, 53.

Mayer, S. E., & Jencks, C. (1989). Growing up in poor neighborhoods: How much does it matter? Science, 24 (3), 41-45.

Marcon, RA. (1993). Parental involvement and early school success: Following the Class of 2000 at year five. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED357 881).

Matluck, B. M. (1987, August). The effective schools movement: Its history and context. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Metz, M. H. (1988). Field study on teachers' engagement project on the effects of the school as a workplace on teachers' engagement-phase one. Final report. National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, Madison, WI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 103)

Montoya, A. L., & Brown, N. L. (1990). Perceptions of school climate and student achievement in middle and elementary school (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 111)

Paredes, V (1991). School climate and student achievement. Austin Independent School District, Texas Office of Research and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 3 37 870).

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 440.

Ralph, J. H., & Fennessey, J. (1983). Science or reform: Some questions about the effective schools model. Kappan, 64, 692.

Rutter,M. (1981, February 26-28). School effects on pupil progress: Research findings and policy implications. Paper prepared for the National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Education.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (I 993). Supervision: A redefinition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stickard, J., & Mayberry, M. (1986). The relationship between school environments and student achievement., A review of literature. R & D Center for Educational Policy and Management, College of Education, University of Oregon.

Stronge, J. H., & Jones, C. W (1991). Middle school climate: the principal's role in influencing effectiveness. Middle School Journal, May, 41-44.

Sweeney, J. (1988). Tips for improving school climate. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Wynne, E. A. (I 980). Looking at schools: Good, bad, and indifferent. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Back to the Top

Back to Full-Text Page

Back to SIG Home

Back to Research Home