Bulach, C.R., Malone, B. (1994). The relationship of School Climate to the Implementation of School Reform. ERS SPECTRUM, 12 (4), 3-8.

The Relationship of School Climate

to the Implementation of School Reform

Clete Bulach & Bobby Malone

Much current talk and attention has focused on the importance of restructuring, reform, school-based decision making, valued outcomes, and other proposed remedies for the problems of public education. Educational improvement is a worthy goal, but many schools throughout the United States may be implementing change and reform before sufficiently considering the conditions in the school setting that might affect the success of implementing the reform.

For example, the state of Kentucky in 1990 mandated the non-graded primary (NGP) for all elementary schools, and school-based decision making (SBDM) for at least one school in each school district. An analogous situation would be the Farm Bureau requiring all farmers in a state to start growing a new type of corn that had to be planted and tended in a different way. Most farmers would want to have their soil analyzed to determine whether the right nutrients were present to enable the new type of corn to grow properly if the new procedures were followed. They would not want to go to all the effort to learn a new way of doing things, and then have those efforts fail because of some underlying deficiency.

Is it possible that implementing a reform is like planting a seed? Is there a proper soil, or for want of a better word, "climate," for implementing a reform?

The literature is replete with research and opinion on the importance of school climate. Hoy and Tarter (1992) state that a healthy organizational climate is crucial for a good school. It should logically follow that a school with a healthy climate could implement a reform more effectively than a school with a relatively poor climate.

One other ingredient thought to be important for implementing change and/or reform is trust between employees (McGarry 1991). The research of Bulach (1993) also shows a strong positive relationship between levels of group trust and group openness. Perhaps levels of openness and trust are also important for the implementation of a reform.

The purpose of the study described in this article was to investigate the role of school climate and levels of group openness and trust on selected schools in Kentucky that were implementing school-based decision making (SBDM) and/or non-graded primary (NGP).

Although the research literature often mentions that openness and trust are important for a healthy school climate, very little research directly links these three elements. The authors felt that the current study was necessary because of the millions of dollars being spent on reform and because of the countless hours being devoted to reform efforts by educators across the United States. Unfortunately, these reform efforts often produce staff burnout, stress, and poor morale rather than their intended results. Why is this true in some cases and not in others?

School Climate and Student Achievement School climate is frequently mentioned in the effective schools research as one of the variables important for student achievement. Matluck (1987), Cruickshank (1990), and Bliss et al. (1991) identified a number of variables relevant to student achievement. Although variables differ from researcher to researcher, there is a common core group of variables relevant to student achievement: climate, leadership, expectations, frequent monitoring of instruction, parent and community involvement, and instruction. Climate as it is referred to in effective schools research frequently deals with the area of discipline, order, and safety.

The school climate research contains much information citing the importance of chmate for student achievement (Agnew 1981; Anderson 1982; Brookover et al. 1977; Heck et al. 1990; Howe 1985; Keefe et al. 1985; Lezotte et al. 1980; Stickard and Mayberry 1986; and Stronge and Jones 1991). The works of Brookover et al. (1979), Rutter (1981), Rutter et al. (1979), and Wynne (1980) support the statement that a school's climate heavily influences a student's chance for success. Discussing Brookover's 1979 work, Ralph and Fennessey (1983) state that school climate variables may be the effect or the cause of changes in other variables, such as achievement. Hoyle, English, and Steffy (1985) state, "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) writes: "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).

Further support for the role of school climate in achievement is supplied by the research of Bulach, Malone, and Castleman (1994). Their research on 20 schools shows a significant difference in student achievement between schools with a good school climate and those with a poor school climate.

School Climate and Refonn -

The research of Doak (1970), Takata (1984), and Buffie (1989) supports the premise that change or reform occurs more effectively when a good school climate is present. There are others who talk about the importance of trust for successful school reform and improvement (AASA 1991; Saxl, Miles, and Lieberman 1989; and McGarry 1991). This assertion provides further support for the premise that organizational climate is important for successful reform to occur.

Micholas writes, "Virtually all contemporary research on subjective well being, quality of life, happiness and satisfaction with life as a whole shows that good interpersonal relations contribute more than anything else to these desirable states. If one were to list plausible necessary conditions for good interpersonal relations, trust would certainly be included in the list" (1990, 619). Bartolome writes, "Almost any organization would operate more effectively with completely open and forthright employees" (1989, 135). He goes on to say that openness depends on trust. Because of the commonly held assumption that openness and trust are necessary for organizations and the people within them to operate effectively, any measure of school climate should include these two variables.

Sergiovanni and Starratt devote a chapter to school climate and change (1993, 81-104). They say that a healthy school climate is important for change to occur. Further, they imply that where a healthy climate exists, levels of openness and trust will be higher. People will then discuss personal concems about the change, thereby leading to greater acceptance of the change. If the authors are correct, they provide further support for including openness and trust in a measure of school climate.

A special report published by the California Association of School Administrators (1990) concludes that educators who are considering implementing school-based decision making should analyze a district's readiness to implement the reform. A number of factors should be considered, including school climate and levels of trust.

In summary, the literature supports the importance of school climate in implementing school reform. A number of studies also mention the importance of openness and trust for school reform. There is also support for including openness and trust in any measure of school climate.

Methodology

This study was designed to explore the relationships between school climate, group openness, group trust, and the implementation of two current reform efforts in Kentucky: school-based decision making (SBDM) and nongraded primary (NGP).

A total of 13 schools (292 teachers) in western Kentucky participated in the study in May of 1993. Twelve of the schools were elementary schools, and one was a middle school. The schools were small city or rural schools ranging in size from 200 to 700 students. The racial makeup of the schools was primarily Caucasian, and the socioeconomic status was upper-lower to middle class. The 12 elementary schools, with 150 primary teachers responding, had all implemented the nongraded primary in the fall of 1992. Seven of the elementary schools plus the middle school (180 staff responding) had also implemented schoolbased decision making the previous year. The participation of the schools in the study was voluntary and was based on the principal's willingness to involve his or her staff in the study.

The Tennessee School Climate Inventory (TSCI) and the Group Openness and Trust Scale (GOTS) were the two instruments selected for this study.

The TSCI measures the institutional attributes of school climate. It has seven subscales that measure order, leadership, environment, involvement, instruction, expectations, and collaboration. It measures the same variables as the effective schools research except for frequent monitoring of instruction and student time on task. It also measures two variables more commonly found in the climate domain collaboration and environment (Butler and Alberg 1991).

The GOTS measures the psychological attributes of school climate. It has two subscales that measure group openness and group trust (Bulach 1993).

The average scores from all respondents in a school on the seven subscales of the TSCI (institutional attributes) and the two subscales of the GOTS (psychological attributes) were combined to produce an overall climate score. For example, the score on each subscale was added and the sum was divided by nine, since there are nine subscales. This allowed for comparisons between the subscale scores, the overall score, and scores on how effectively reforms were implemented. The unit of analysis was the score for the school building.

Some may question the advisability of combining data from two instruments for an overall climate score. However, these two instruments effectively operationalized the definition of school climate used in this study. Further, there is ample support in the literature review that shows the importance of openness and trust for a healthy school climate.

The effectiveness of implementation of the reforms (NGP and SBDM) was measured by instruments developed by the authors. The NGP scale consisted of 16 items that measured how effectively the school staff perceived this reform to be implemented. The SBDM scale consisted of 17 items that measured how effectively the school staff perceived this reform to be implemented. The work of Russell (1992) was crucial in developing these instruments.

Correlational analyses were completed in order to gain a better understanding of the relationships that the variables have with each other.

Definitions for this Study:

School climate - Those psychological and institutional attributes that give an organization its personality. The psychological attributes analyzed in this study are group openness and trust. The institutional attributes analyzed in this study are: order, leadership, environment, involvement, instruction, expectations, and collaboration (Bulach, Malone, and Castleman 1994).

Group trust - An interpersonal condition that exists between people when interpersonal relationships are characterized by an assured reliance or confident dependence on the character, ability, truthfulness, confidentiality, and predictability of others in the group (Bulach 1993).

Group openness - An interpersonal condition that exists between people in a group when 1 ) they tell each other what they think about facts, ideas, values, beliefs, feelings and the way they do things, and 2) the recipient of a transmission is willing to listen to that transmission (Bulach 1993).

School-based decision making - The practice of shared decision making involving a school council on matters important to the operation of a school.

Non-graded primary - Teaching primary school students in a multi-age, multi-ability setting that allows students to progress at their own pace.

Results

The data in Table 1 below show significant correlations between school climate, group openness, group trust, and the implementation of the two reform efforts. Specifically: a The correlation was +.50 between school climate and the staff's perception of how effectively SBDM was implemented. This is significant at the .001 level.

• The correlation was +.41 between school climate and the staff's perception of how effectively NGP was implemented. This is significant at the .001 level.
• The correlation was +.44 between group openness and the staff's perception of how effectively SBDM was implemented. This is significant at the .001 level.
• The correlation was +.45 between group openness and the staff's perception of how effectively NGP was implemented. This is significant at the .001 level.
• The correlation was +.48 between group trust and the staff's perception of how effectively SBDM was implemented. This is significant at the .001 level.
• The correlation was +.42 between group trust and staff's perception of how effectively NGP was implemented. This is significant at the .001 level.

Within the subscale showing effective implementation of SBDM, climate was the subscale with the second highest degree of correlation. (Collaboration was the highest.) The correlations of openness and trust for implementing SBDM were also high, but not as high as for climate. This lends support to the practice of combining the scores from all the subscales for an overall climate score. It would appear that the average of all the subscales into an overall climate score is a dimension separate from any of the individual subscales. That the correlation for collaboration is higher would be expected since shared decision making is the heart of SBDM.

Within the subscale showing effective implementation of NGP, the correlations for group openness and trust are both higher than the correlation for climate, although not much higher. This lends credence to the opinion of many that levels of openness and trust are important for effectively implementing change and/or reform.

Table l.-Correlation Data For All School Climate Subscales,

Reforms, and School Climate

Openness Trust Order Leader Environ h-tvolve Instruct Expect Collab NGP SBDM

Group Openness 1.0 .60 .27 .21 .38 .25 .22 .26 .34 .45 .44

Group Trust .60 1.0 .36 .33 .56 .21 .38 .39 .53 .42 .48

Order .27 .36 1.0 .78 .76 .63 .58 .76 .68 .43 .46

Leader .21 .33 .78 1.0 .76 .77 .66 .75 .77 .33 .45

Environment .38 .56 .76 .76 1.0 .66 .74 .82 .75 .43 .43

Involvenient .25 .21 .63 .77 .66 1.0 .60 .65 .67 .26 .46

Jnstruction .22 .38 .58 .66 .74 .60 1.0 .78 .74 .29 .33

Expectation .26 .39 .76 .75 .82 .65 .78 1.0 .79 .31 .38

Collaboration .34 .53 .68 .77 .75 .67 .74 .79 1.0 .39 .53

NGP .45 .42 .43 .33 .43 .26 .29 .31 .39 1.0 .65

SBDM .44 .48 .46 .45 .43 .46 .33 .38 .53 .65 1.0

Climate .31 .45 .85 .90 .92 .82 .83 .90 .90 .41 .50

It should also be noted that there was a significant positive correlation (+.60) between group openness and group trust. In earlier research with this instrument (Bulach 1993), the correlation was not as high. Some fine tuning of the instrument has been accomplished since the original work. This adds support to the long-held assumption that people tend to be more open with people they trust and vice versa.

It is interesting to note that the subscales for the TSCI all have fairly high correlations with each other compared to group openness and trust. Two of the subscales - collaboration and environment - have much higher correlations with openness and trust. The collaboration and environment subscales measure the climate domain. The other five subscales of the TSCI -order, leadership, involvement, instruction, and expectations - have much weaker correlations with openness and trust. These five subscales measure the effective schools domain. This would tend to indicate that the psychological dimension measured by the GOTS adds an important dimension to school climate research.

Conclusions

The results of this study lead to the conclusion that school climate is a significant factor in successfully implementing school reform. However, there is also the possibility that higher school climate scores are the result of successfully implementing school reform. The study does not determine which is the cause and which is the effect. Future research should look at school climate scores before implementing a reform and again after the reform was implemented to determine causality.

Educational reform is far too expensive in terms of money and expended human energy to continue implementation in the haphazard manner that occurs in many school districts. Before implementing change or reform, some effort should be made to determine whether it has a reasonable chance of succeeding. The information about school climate provided by the GOTS and the TSCI could help identify those schools that might be ready to implement reform and those that might not. Wherever successful implementation is doubtful, ways should be found to prepare the staff of the school or school system so that a receptive climate is present.

The involvement of the whole school staff is important in order for reforms to be effective. T'his involvement can best occur where there is a climate of openness and trust that allows people to work together in a collegial atmosphere.

References

This Web page is designed in July 17, 1998.

The copyrights are reserved.