Research on school climate/culture and its impact on the development of school improvement

School Climate

1925 13 According to Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee, the concept of educational leadership was developed after several poor urban communities began to exhibit excellent academic attainment, virtually against all odds. The schools were studied; the success was not due to money nor to demographics of the teachers and leaders, or to the equipment that was, or was not, available within the schools. Rather, the success of the schools could be linked to the quality of leadership of the principals of the schools. It was more than 25 years ago when Bossert et al. conducted their studies. Their studies utilized four variables: the contexts of the schools, including the composition of the students; leadership at the schools, processes at the schools, and student achievement at the schools. In the Bossert et al. model, the community and institutional context feed into the principal's leadership, as do personal characteristics. Once the principal's leadership is established, it affects the school's organizational processes and as a result the school outcomes.

This paper investigates school climate/culture and its impact on the development of school improvement. The impact of school culture on the development of positive and negative successes is reviewed. The reasons that it is important to have a strong school culture are investigated, and the role of the principal in making positive change within the school is reviewed. A plan of action for improving the situation in a local middle school is presented.

Discussion

As far back as 1994, Stolp questioned what school culture really is. At that point in time no real definition had been established. Instead, education borrowed the term from business, perhaps believing that it would provide direction for the learning environment. The definition of culture that Stolp adopted reflected an understanding developed by himself and Smith in which the concluded that school culture was a historically transmitted pattern of meaning, one which included traditions and rituals, ceremonies, beliefs, values, norms, and even myths that had been adopted by the school community. Waller may have proposed this meaning as far back as 1932, when he stated that "schools have a culture that is definitely their own" (p. 103). As Stolp and Smith (1994) pointed out, this meaning shapes what people think and impacts or even determines how they act. Thus, school culture can be a critically important ingredient in the development of a dynamic and effective school system.

Although there was still debate in 1994 as to what, exactly, constituted school climate or culture, there was already evidence that school culture stimulated and supported learning. As Stolp and Smith pointed out, "the implementation of a clear mission statement, shared vision, and school wide goals promote increased student achievement" (p. 2). At the same time, they also found a correlation between a strong school culture and the teacher's attitudes towards working in the school and teaching. In short, schools with stronger cultures have teachers that were better motivated, had higher satisfaction with their jobs, and higher productivity. Stolp and Smith suggested that in order to change the school's culture, and thus to increase teacher motivation, job satisfaction, productivity, and student achievement, one first had to understand what the current culture was.

One observation relating to innovation and change in the school system was constructed by Noordewier, Korthagen, and Zwart. They pointed out that many times, teachers feel they are not taken seriously in their profession and that they are not an inspiration for the profession of teaching. Goals in the school system are frequently established without consulting teachers, which only reinforces the idea that teachers are not taken seriously. If the individuals who are setting the goals are not involved in classroom education, it is likely that the teachers will have different ideas about what is good, what is adequate, and what needs to change. Thus, innovation that comes from the top down (administration --? teacher) puts pressure on the teachers.

Noordewier et al. suggest that this may lead to flight, fight, or freeze syndrome. In flight, teachers try to leave; in fight, they may actively resist, and in freeze, they become very tense and stressed. Implication for meaningful change is strong: teachers who experience fight or flight may simply put innovation on the back shelf and refuse to participate, or may even bad-mouth the innovation and the principal which wishes to innovate. At the same time, the teacher who freezes may simply try to stay out of everyone's way and as a result will accomplish nothing. According to Noordewier et al. (2009), top-down thinking described herein is prevalent in today's educational culture.

The overall picture, according to Noordewier et al. is rather hopeless: top-down approach to innovation puts stress on teachers, but principals who attempt this by promoting the concept of ownership in an effort to have the teachers "own" any innovation are still pressuring the teacher, which just confirms to them that they are at the mercy of the principal. Thus, innovation can be difficult to achieve simply because the knowledge that innovation is needed or desired can cause teachers to feel insecure and to subconsciously resist intervention.

Hallinger may have revealed the solution to this issue when he suggested that it is not individuals teachers upon which principals should concentrate. Rather, the focus of educational leadership should be on systemic change in student outcomes and in overall improvement of school conditions. According to Hallinger, for many years the concentration in education was on instructional leadership, based on the principal's leadership style. Today, however, the concept of transformational leadership by the principal is taking center stage. Transformational leadership concentrates on establishing collective vision and motivating the members of the organization by this vision.

Covey and Gulledge provide information on business leadership. It may be helpful to consult the business model because the scientific approach to business has been utilized for so long and so effectively that there is a rich body of data on management. Covey and Gulledge suggested that utilizing concepts of principle-centered leadership helps develop the vision that can be used to transform. By concentrating on principles, leadership is able to accommodate smaller changes within the organization that might otherwise cause disruption. Covey and Gulledge refer to this as adapting to the ebb and flow that is typical of schools. By concentrating on the principles behind the leadership, it is easier to determine methods that can be used to change problems into solutions, addressing them using the framework of goals and visions.

According to Covey and Gulledge (1992) each organization has four levels. The organizational level considers the systems and structures that relate to value and missions. The next level is the managerial level, which is the level in which the management forms the actions that impact upon staff. The interpersonal level establishes a relationship between management and staff on a human level. The final level emphasizes the personal levels of responsibility within an organization, in which self-management and self-mastery play a strong role (Covey & Gulledge, 1992). Covey and Gulledge believe that this holistic approach to the organization allows the leadership to concentrate on leadership that will transform. This environment establishes a culture in which the school itself can excel as a whole, while all of the individual components within the school have the independence to allow them to excel.

Wayne Hoy (2010) established a research instrument that could be utilized in developing a description of organizational climate for use in instituting change. The OCDQ-RM instrument for middle schools was given to 42 teachers at a faculty meeting. The principal was asked to leave so that teachers could respond to the survey anonymously. The results address a number of dimensions related to leadership and behavior within the organization. The results and the plan are discussed below.

Plan of Action

Survey

The results of the survey are summarized in the table below. The details of how the results were calculated are included in Appendix A.

Dimension Score Relative Positioning Nationwide

Supportive behavior 578 Principal has an average amount of supportive behaviors

Directive behavior 705 Principal is more directive than 97% of other principals

Restrictive behavior 164 The principal is less restrictive than 99% of other principals

Principal openness 570 The principal is more open than half of the other principals

Collegial behavior 158 Teachers are less collegial than 99% of other teachers

Disengaged behavior -156 Teachers are less committed than 99% of the teachers

Committed behavior -37 Teachers are less committed than 99% of other teachers

Teacher openness 425 Teachers are slightly less open than average

Supportive behavior sub score is related to social needs and the task achievement of a facility. According to Hoy, a supportive principal is helpful and concerned with the teachers, provides constructive criticism, and sets an example by working hard. This principal has an average number of supportive behaviors. The level of directive behavior for the principal is very high. Directive behaviors are rigid and domineering and include close and consistent monitoring over every one of the teacher's actions. Restrictive principal behavior hinders teacher's work and places demands on teachers that interfere with their work. A low score shows that the principal is not restrictive. The principal is slightly above the national average in terms of openness, whereas the teachers are slightly less open than the average school. The teachers in this school have a very low score on collegial behavior. This indicates that they do not support open interactions among teachers and they do not particularly like or respect each other. The disengaged behavior score indicates that the teachers are very disengaged; there is a lack of meaning and focus to what they do and many are simply putting in their time. They are critical and they do not accept behaviors of their colleagues. They are also far less committed to their students than are most teachers; they don't work particularly hard to ensure that their students will succeed in class.

Discussion

Clearly there are issues with the way things are being handled in this school. One might argue that the principal ties to direct everything because the teacher's attitudes are so poor, but a directive principal behavior is counterproductive and leads to poor attitudes. Peck pointed out that being highly directive is an exhausting and undue burden both on the leader and on the team. It results in employees who are so dependent on the leader for direction and guidance that they exist to make sure the leader gets what he wants, rather than to do their jobs. Peck pointed out that if you "Tell a strong performer what you want done and how to do it, watch them closely, and have them come back to you to make the key decisions" then they become demotivated, they feel unvalued, and they are no longer able to do their best work (Peck, 2008, The Impact). This is the situation that currently exists at the middle school.

Plan

Peck suggests, and I recommend, eight steps to change the leadership process that poisons the culture. They are adapted as an action plan for the middle school principal at this school:

- Evaluate how much time the principal spends in the staff activities
- Set a new lowered "percentage of time spent in staff activities" goal and establish a timeline
- Carefully review and assess what should be delegated - not what the principal feels can be delegated.
- Meet with individual staff and ask them what they can do to be more on their own, and ask what items they have been given the responsibility to do, but not the authority.

- Use these two lists to assess what each person could eventually do with the items that should be delegated, even if it seems a stretch at the present time.

- Make a new list of items to turn over to each person.
- Turn some of the items over and set a follow-up time to ask them if they are doing okay or if they need more assistance.

- Check in with each person at the 30 day point and see if they like the new delegation, but also remind them that they can come to you with issues.

Finally, the principal will need to remember that he or she created these issues and that teachers will make efforts to suck them back in as they all seek a new work balance. Peck recommends letting the teachers figure it out for themselves. Peck also points out that this problem did not occur in a day and will not be undone in a day. Measure progress by re-utilizing Hoy's evaluative progress survey to see how things are progressing at the six month point. By then, changes in the school's culture, and atmosphere, should be obvious. As Wheatley and Frieze have pointed out, "the world doesn't change one person at a time. It changes as networks of relationships form among people who share a common cause and vision of what's possible" (para. 1). Relationships cannot form and common cause and vision cannot develop if the principal is dictating everything. This plan for action should change the relationship between principal and teachers and in so doing, change the school culture for the better.

References

Northouse, P. Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64.

Stolp, S., & Smith, S.C. (1994). School culture and climate: The role of the leader. OSSC Bulletin. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council.

Stolp, S. (1994) Leadership for school culture. ERIC Digest 91. June 1994.

Noordewier, S., Korthagen, F.A.J. & Zwart, R. C. (2009, August). Promoting quality from within: Towards a new perspective on professional development and changes in school culture. Paper presented at the EARLI Conference, Amsterdam.

Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: Wiley.

Lindahl, R. (2006). The role of organizational climate and culture in the school improvement process: A review of the knowledge base.

Brooks, J.S., Scribner, J.P., & Eferakorho, J. (2004), "Teacher leadership in the context of whole school reform", Journal of School Leadership, No.14, pp.242-65.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Research on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership: Retrospect and prospect. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351.

Covey, S., and Gulledge, K. (1992). Mission, vision, and quality within organizations: Principle-centered leadership. Journal for Quality and Participation. July/August 1992.

Hoy, W. (2010) OCDQ-RM. The organizational climate description for middle schools (OCDQ-RM). Wayne K. Hoy.org.

Peck, D. (2008) You really need to fire yourself: 8 steps to kick the directive habit. Leadership Unleashed.

Wheatley, M., & Frieze, D. (2006) How large scale change really happens - Working with emergence. The School Administrator, Spring 2007. Reprinted at Margaret Wheatley.