Using School Climate Surveys to Categorize Schools and Examine Relationships with School Achievement Christine DiStefano, Diane M. Monrad, R.J. May, Patricia McGuinness, & Tammiee Dickenson South Carolina Educational Policy Center University of South Carolina Columbia, SC

Rationale No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001  Achievement & Accountability Data  No information regarding school climate South Carolina’s Report Card  Three types of variables:  Contextual (e.g., school size, poverty index)  Achievement (e.g., PACT, AYP)  Climate surveys School climate data from teachers, parents, & students Limited information from surveys included on report card

Research Questions 1)Can factors underlying school climate surveys administered to students and teachers across the state of South Carolina be identified? 2)Can the factor structures be used to create clusters of schools within the state that vary on the identified dimensions of school climate?

Participants Elementary schools with 4 th, 5 th, or 6 th grade as the exit grade Schools: >500 used in analyses Individual Level data  Teachers (n=19,121)  Parents (n=30,713)  Students (n=44,055) Data aggregated to school level to provide comparisons at the school level

Methods Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)  Conducted separately for teachers, parents, and students  Used multiple criteria used to evaluate EFA solutions  Created factor scores  Computed correlations between factor scores and report card variables Cluster Analysis  Used factor scores from teacher and student surveys used to create the clusters  Validated externally using parent survey factor scores and SC report card data

EFA Results Teacher Factors Home-School Relationship Leadership and Climate Instructional Focus Social-Physical Environment Safety Parent Factors Home-School Relationship Social- Physical Environment Learning Environment Teacher- Parent Relationship Student Factors Learning Environment Expectations of Others Social- Physical Environment Safety

Correlations Variables School Ach. Rating % Adequate yearly progress objectives met % Students gifted and talented Home-School relationship (Teacher Factor) Social-Physical environment (Parent Factor) Safety (Teacher Factor) Instructional focus (Teacher Factor) Social-Physical environment (Student Factor) Safety (Student Factor) Home-School relationship (Parent Factor) Learning Environment (Parent Factor) % Average student attendance % Poverty

Cluster Analysis 4 clusters identified based on teacher & student factor scores Information from report card helped to distinguish between groups Groups:  Cluster 1 = Better Than Average Climate (n=173)  Cluster 2 = Average Climate (n=198)  Cluster 3 = Below Average Climate (n=120)  Cluster 4 = Poor Climate (n=61)

Percentage of schools meeting 2005 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by school clusters 1-4. Note: Student and Teacher Surveys Only

Cluster Analysis & Student Achievement Note: Student and Teacher Surveys Only

Findings Moderate to strong relationships exist between achievement indicators and school climate  More AYP objectives were met by schools with the most favorable school climates  Students performed at higher levels in schools with more positive climates Dimensions of climate  Parents and teachers identified Home-School Relationship as important  Students identified student behavior as key  Importance of perceived safety

Limitations Need further research at the middle and high school levels Need to analyze additional school years Need to examine contribution of district support to school climate Need to examine the role of poverty in school climate

Conclusions Importance of climate  School climate can be modified  School climate can be a conduit to improving achievement Use climate data to gain a greater understanding of schools  Help schools with lower climate ratings improve  Create schools with better safety, atmosphere, and working conditions