1. Parent, Student, and Teacher Perceptions of School Climate: Investigations Across Organizational Levels Christine DiStefano Diane M. Monrad R. John May Jessalyn Smith Jennifer Gay Diana Mindrila Sarah Gareau Anita Rawls University of South Carolina In collaboration with the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee and the South Carolina Department of Education Paper Presented at American Educational Research Association March 26, 2008

2. Rationale No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001  Student achievement data  School accountability data South Carolina’s Report Card  Three types of variables: Contextual (e.g., school size, poverty index) Achievement (e.g., PACT, AYP) Climate surveys

3. Initial Research Focused on elementary schools in South Carolina. Examined 2005 climate surveys for students, parents, and teachers. Identified school climate factors and their relationship with a variety of report card variables.

4. Research Questions  Can dimensions of climate be identified that underlie student, parent, and teacher responses to the school climate survey across elementary, middle, and high school levels?  Do the dimensions of climate differ depending on the grade level of the student?  How well do climate dimensions and selected report card variables predict school performance (e.g., AYP and standardized test scores) at elementary, middle, and high school levels?

5. Respondent Groups for the 2006 South Carolina School Climate Surveys

6. Methods  Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)  Conducted separately for teachers, parents, and students  Used multiple criteria used to evaluate EFA solutions  Created factor scores  Factor scores aggregated to school level to provide comparisons at the school level  Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)  Compared the final EFA solutions for students, teachers, and parents across the organizational levels and the combined sample  Correlational and Regression Analysis  Examined the relationships between school’s climate factor scores and critical report card variables outcomes

7. EFA Results Teacher Factors  Working Conditions/ Leadership  Home-School Relationship  Instructional Focus  Physical Environment  Safety Parent Factors  Learning Environment  Home-School Relationship  Social- Physical Environment  Teacher Care- Support Student Factors  Learning Environment  Social- Physical Environment  Home-school Relationship  Safety

8. CFA: Results CFAs tested final EFA solution in student, parent, and teacher datasets  Across organizational levels: separately & combined 6 indices used to assess fit (RMSEA, ECVI, NNFI, CFI, SRMR, GFI) One solution can be used to describe parents, students, and teachers across organizational levels

9. Correlations: Factor Scores with School Absolute Value

10. Highest Correlations with School Absolute Value Predictor Absolute Value Elem. Absolute Value Middle Absolute Value High Factor score for Teacher Home-School Relationship0.72 Factor score for Parent Social-Physical Environment0.640.530.51 Factor score for Student Social-Physical Environment0.510.430.56 Factor score for Teacher Safety0.510.560.37 Factor score for Student Safety0.480.510.53 Factor score for Parent Learning Environment0.470.430.45 Factor score for Teacher Instructional Focus0.470.500.49 Factor score for Parent Home School Relations0.450.270.38 % of teachers returning from the previous school year0.330.50 Student attendance rate0.290.450.44 % of teachers with emergency or provisional certificates -0.28 -0.52 -0.48 % students older than usual for grade -0.37 -0.54 -0.69 Poverty index -0.81 -0.88 -0.72

11. Block Regression Summary (with Adjusted R-squares)

12. Findings  Identified factors underlying 2006 school climate surveys for students, parents, and teachers.  School climate factors are similar in definition across respondent groups and across organizational levels.  School climate factors have moderate to strong relationships with critical report card achievement variables.

13. Findings (Cont.)  Climate factor scores accounted for about two-thirds of the variation in the school achievement measures for absolute school values.  The addition of selected report card variables and poverty raised the variance accounted for by 10-14%.

14. Conclusions  Increase emphasis on the importance of school climate.  School climate is modifiable.  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.

15. Future Research  Conduct longitudinal research to validate school climate factor structures and relationships with critical report card variables.  Investigate the relationship between school climate and school improvement initiatives.  Examine the relationship between school climate and poverty.

16. Comments or Questions? Please Contact: Christine DiStefano, PhD E: Distefan@gwm.sc.edu OR Diane M. Monrad, PhD E: dmonrad@gwm.sc.edu University of South Carolina, College of Education South Carolina Educational Policy Center College Suite 010 Columbia, SC 29208 P: 803-777-8244 Paper available at http://www.ed.sc.edu/SCEPC/Projects.htm