View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Liberty University Digital Commons

A CAUSAL COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF PROFICIENCY-BASED

EDUCATION ON SCHOOL CLIMATE

by

Kay B. York

Liberty University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Liberty University

2017
 2

A CAUSAL COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF PROFICIENCY-BASED

EDUCATION ON SCHOOL CLIMATE

by Kay B. York

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

2017

APPROVED BY:

Michelle J. Barthlow, Ed.D., Committee Chair

Vance Pickard, Ed.D., Committee Member

Holly Couturier, Ph.D., Committee Member

 3

ABSTRACT

This quantitative, causal comparative study sought to determine if proficiency-based education

has an effect on school climate. With sweeping school reform across the United States,

educators are seeking ways to improve student achievement and maintain a positive school

climate. This study consisted of 87 teachers in proficiency-based high schools and 125 teachers

in non-proficiency-based high schools in New England who were emailed the Secondary School

Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI-S-G). Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics

computed for each teacher group through SPSS. SPSS was also used to conduct separate t tests

for each of the eight domains of the SCAI-S-G in order to compare the two groups. Assumption

testing was carried out with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the Wilks-Shapiro tests. Assumptions

of normality were not tenable, therefore, the Mann-Whitney U was run for each of the eight

domains of the SCAI-S-G in order to compare the two groups. In order to limit the risk of type I

error with multiple tests run, a Bonferroni correction was used. The following research question

was examined: Is there a difference between the teachers’ assessments of school climate in a

proficiency-based high school and the teachers’ assessments of school climate in a non-

proficiency-based high school on the eight categories measured by the SCAI-S-G? It was found

that there was a statistical difference in four domains of school climate with non-proficiency-

based schools showing a slightly higher score than proficiency-based schools for physical

environment, student interactions, attitude and culture and community relations. There was no

statistically significant difference between non-proficiency-based schools and proficiency-based

schools in the domains of faculty relations, leadership and decisions, discipline and learning and

assessment. While these results were surprising, in light of the components of the proficiency-

based model that encompass student-centered learning, relationships and autonomy, the
 4

information is useful for schools as they strive to build a positive school climate in the midst of

educational change. Recommendations for further research could include: to find out if there is

correlation between the types of leadership in the schools and school climate in proficiency-

based and non-proficiency-based schools, the area of school climate and student outcomes,

conducting research through the lens of the student and parent population with school climate

and proficiency-based and non-proficiency-based education, and research on the impact of self-

actualization linked to student success within the proficiency-based model.

Keywords: school climate, organizational climate, proficiency-based education,

standards, academic achievement

 5

Dedication

This research is dedicated to my family who has encouraged me each step of the

way: my husband Brent who has endured many study evenings and has been my strong

support, my children who have cheered me on, as well as my siblings who have encouraged

and prayed for me and to my parents who provided me with faith, determination, and a love

of learning. Thanks also goes out to my colleagues who have helped and encouraged along

the way. And finally, all praise goes to the Lord for His steadfast faithfulness on this

journey!
 6

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge those on my committee who have provided their time and

guidance to assist me in my doctoral pursuit. To my chair and research consultant, Dr. Michelle

Barthlow, a heartfelt thank you for the time you have invested to help me achieve this goal, your

gentle guidance and encouragement has been amazing! Dr. Holly Couturier, my Maine

connection and Dr. Vance Pickard, thank you for your time and encouragement throughout this

process. I am deeply grateful for each of you!

 7

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................3

Dedication ............................................................................................................................5

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................6

List of Tables .....................................................................................................................10

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................11

List of Abbreviations .........................................................................................................12

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................13

Overview ............................................................................................................................13

Background ........................................................................................................................13

Problem Statement .............................................................................................................16

Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................17

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................18

Research Question .............................................................................................................20

Definitions..........................................................................................................................20

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................22

Overview ............................................................................................................................22

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................22

Related Literature...............................................................................................................27

Summary ............................................................................................................................48

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ..................................................................................................52

Overview ............................................................................................................................52

Design ................................................................................................................................52
 8

Research Question .............................................................................................................53

Hypotheses .........................................................................................................................53

Participants and Setting......................................................................................................54

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................55

Procedures ..........................................................................................................................58

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................59

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ....................................................................................................61

Overview ............................................................................................................................61

Research Question .............................................................................................................61

Null Hypotheses .................................................................................................................61

Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................................................62

Results ................................................................................................................................64

Hypotheses .........................................................................................................................71

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................82

Overview ............................................................................................................................82

Discussion ..........................................................................................................................82

Implications........................................................................................................................89

Limitations .........................................................................................................................92

Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................93

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................94

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................111

Appendix A: Permission to Use Survey Instrument…………………………………...111

Appendix B: Script for Initial Phone Contact of Principals…………………………...112

 9

Appendix C: Participant E-mail………………………………………………………..113

Appendix D: Consent Form……………………………………………………………114

Appendix E: IRB Exemption…………………………………………………………..116

Appendix F: Survey Instrument………………………………………………………..118

Appendix G: Permission to Reproduce Survey………………………………………..127

 10

List of Tables

Table 1: Percentages and Frequencies, Study Variables………………………………………..62

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations, Study Variables……………………………….........62

Table 3: Tests of Normality, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Tests……………………………...……....63

Table 4: Tests of Normality, Shapiro-Wilk Tests………………………………………….........64

Table 5: Independent Samples t-test…………………………………………………………….75

Table 6: Mann Whitney U Test…………………………………………………………………80

 11

List of Figures

Figure 1: Box and Whisker Plot for Physical Environment scale………………………………65

Figure 2: Box and Whisker Plot for Faculty Relations scale…………………………………...65

Figure 3: Box and Whisker Plot for Student Interactions scale………………………………...66

Figure 4: Box and Whisker Plot for Leadership and Decisions scale…………………………..66

Figure 5: Box and Whisker Plot for Discipline and Environment scale………………………..67

Figure 6: Box and Whisker Plot for Learning and Assessment scale…………………………..67

Figure 7: Box and Whisker Plot for Attitude and Culture scale………………………………..68

Figure 8: Box and Whisker Plot for Community Relations scale………………………………68

 12

List of Abbreviations

Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Non-proficiency-based education (Non-PBE)

Proficiency-based education (PBE)

The Alliance for the Study of School Climate (ASSC)

Secondary School Climate Assessment Instrument-General (SCAI-S-G)

 13

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Overview

This chapter gives the reader some background information on the topic of school climate

and proficiency-based education. It discusses the problem that educational demands place on

schools and the subsequent impact on school climate. The chapter finishes with the purpose and

significance of the study and the research question.

Background

School climate is something that is taken for granted until it becomes a problem.

Freiberg (1998) likened school climate to the air that we breathe, it is just there and not noticed

until it turns bad. School climate can have a positive or negative effect on students’ learning and

teachers play a major role in the nurturing of a positive school climate (Anari, 2011; Freiberg,

1998; Thapa et al., 2013). With the strong focus on educational reform since the passage of the

No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and ESSA (2015), schools and teachers have been under

pressure to improve student performance (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). This pressure

has increased the stress on teachers and subsequently impacted school climate (Brand, Felner,

Seitsinger, Burns, & Bolton, 2008; Stauffer & Mason, 2013; Zullig, Koopman, Patton, & Ubbes,

2010).

The school climate construct goes back over 100 years with work published by Perry in

1908 (Zullig et al., 2010). However, it was not really studied until the 1950’s when the term

“organizational climate” was coined in the business world as the workplace environment was

scrutinized to look at the effect on productivity (Zullig et al., 2010). In the 1970’s, school

climate was viewed through the lens of researchers as they attempted to connect positive school

climate with better student achievement (Zullig et al., 2010). In 1983, with the publication of the
 14

federal report, “A Nation at Risk”, schools were put under a microscope. This federal report is

seen as the historical milestone marking the beginning of the accountability era (Tschannen-

Moran & Gareis, 2015). Researchers, school leaders, and even politicians began to seek ways to

“fix” the schools (National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE), 1983; Zullig et al.,

2010). Furthermore, education in the 1990’s, focused not only on schools, but on individual

classrooms and teachers. With today’s educational reform, school climate has once again

become the focus of study and the impact that these reforms may have on school climate

(Stauffer & Mason, 2013; Zullig et al., 2010).

Intertwined with school climate and the focus of school reform is the notion that clear

expectations, as expressed in explicit standards and outcomes, will result in improved student

scores (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Furthermore, research has linked positive school

climate to improved student performance (Brand et al., 2008; Kelley, Thornton, & Daughtery,

2005; Thapa et al., 2013). With the triangle of school reform, positive school climate, and

providing students with explicit standards and outcomes, the notion of standards-based education

has resurfaced. Standards-based education has many different names including: performance-

based education, personalized learning, competency-based education, mass customized learning,

and proficiency-based education (Keenan, 2013; Liebtag, 2013; Marzano, 2012; Schwann &

McGarvey, 2012). For the purpose of clarity, the term proficiency-based education will be used

throughout this paper. Proficiency-based education refers to a system of instruction that includes

instruction, formative and summative assessments that are based on a student’s mastery of

learning targets or standards before a student can progress to the next lesson or level. A

proficiency-based system reports a student’s progress through a report card that shows progress
 15

and proficiency toward a set of standards (CompetencyWorks, 2015; Maine Department of

Education, 2015).

Proficiency-based education also came about as a result of the “A Nation at Risk” report

in 1983 (U.S. Department of Education) and No Child Left Behind in 2001. Both the report and

No Child Left Behind highlighted the problem of low student achievement and sought to find

ways to raise student achievement and learning in our nation’s schools. The Common Core State

Standards, another historical marker for standards and accountability, were adopted by many

states to address educational problems and inequities in curriculum (National Governors’

Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). The

Common Core State Standards provide standards for what students need to know to reach clear,

academic benchmarks (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). The development of standards is one

initiative resulting from the educational reform happening in the United States (Clark, 2005).

The rationale of educational standards is the foundation of the proficiency-based model of

education (Liebtag, 2013).

There are two main theoretical constructs that guide this research. The first is based on

Maslow’s (1943) theory of human motivation and Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination

theory. Maslow’s theory introduced the idea that each person has unique individual needs that

are important to meet in order to meet their full potential (Erickson, 1973; Maslow, 1943; Scales

& Leffert, 2004). These needs include physiological, safety, love, self-esteem and self-

actualization (Maslow, 1943; Scales & Leffert, 2004). Maslow’s defined needs showed an

impact on the choices that an individual made and is further emphasized by Maslow’s statement,

“We are motivated by the desire to achieve or maintain the various conditions upon which these

basic satisfactions rest and by certain more intellectual desires” (Maslow, 1943, p. 394). School
 16

climate is impacted by whether a teacher or student’s needs are being met which in turn impacts

the learning and academic success of the students and school (Erickson, 1973; Scales & Leffert,

2004; Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011; Wolf, Dulmus, Maguin, & Cristalli,

2013). Deci and Ryan (2000) further the research on motivation and needs of the learner with

the theory of self-determination. Deci and Ryan (2000) examined the needs of an individual and

the psychological needs that motivate a person. Through empirical research, Deci and Ryan

(2000) found that there are three basic needs that foster an individual’s intrinsic motivation

including, competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Maslow’s (1943) theory of motivation and

the recent work of Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory, provide a strong

foundation for understanding proficiency-based education.

Organizational climate theory is the second theoretical construct guiding this research. It

was originally developed by the business world and based on employee performance (Schneider,

Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). According to Thoonen et al. (2011), this model ties performance and

motivation in the workplace to different characteristics of the work setting and includes external

factors such as the social or political environment. This model was used to create a framework

to guide research for large-scale reform through the work of Leithwood, Jantzi, and Mascall

(2012). Thoonen et al., (2011) used this model in education as a basis for research on school

climate.

Problem Statement

The world of education over the last twenty years has increasingly focused on high

standards for all students. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required that all students be

tested and found proficient in reading and math through state standardized tests (Parkay, Anctil

& Hass, 2014). This high-stakes testing mandate has affected the climate of our schools (Parkay
 17

et al., 2014). With the recent passage of The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December

of 2015, the federal government demonstrated a continued commitment to high standards and

accountability in education for all students (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). With the

expectations of ESSA, teachers continue to face increasing job demands and are seeking

instructional strategies, such as proficiency-based education, to help students meet more

stringent academic demands. Students come to school, not only with emotional or physical

needs, but also experience stress and test anxiety due to the era of high-stakes testing (Embse &

Hasson, 2012). Although there has been much research done on school climate, Thapa et al.

(2013) called for more research on school climate from multiple perspectives. Furthermore,

Thapa et al. (2013) highlighted a gap in the literature on school climate and called for research

that targets specific aspects, activities or curriculum interventions that may affect not only school

climate but ultimately, teaching and learning. Due to the increasing difficulty in obtaining

consent from schools and parents for research on school climate, Brand et al. (2008), emphasized

the utilization of teacher perspectives, carrying out research, through surveys to guide school

reform through the lens of school climate. Several studies commissioned by the Nellie Mae

Foundation pointed to the limited amount of empirical research on student-centered learning's

impact in K-12 classrooms (Friedlander, Burns, Lewis-Chap, Cook-Harvey, & Darling-

Hammond, 2014; LaBanca et al., 2015; Voight, Austin, & Hanson, 2013). The problem is it is

unclear how proficiency-based education will impact school climate.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this causal comparative study is to add to the research on school climate

and find out the impact of proficiency-based education on school climate through the perspective

of high school teachers. The independent variable will be defined as the proficiency-based
 18

school or the non-proficiency-based school. The dependent variable will be defined as school

climate.

Proficiency-based education is a shift in thinking for some teachers and requires teachers

to give up long-held beliefs regarding teaching and learning (Starr, 2011). Teachers in

proficiency-based classrooms are no longer the “sage on the stage” but a facilitator of student

learning (CompetencyWorks, 2015; Schwahn & McGarvey, 2012). Throughout the United States

there are some schools that have made the shift to proficiency-based education however the

research is limited on whether or not school climate is impacted by this system of instruction

(CompetencyWorks, 2015). This research study will look at whether proficiency-based

education has an effect on school climate from teachers’ perspectives in high schools in New

England. Proficiency-based education provides students with personalized learning and clear

targets as well as teachers with the opportunity to connect with students and achieve academic

success (Sturgis, 2015; Marzano, Boogren, Heflebower, Kanold-McIntyre, & Pickering, 2012;

Voight, Austin, & Hanson, 2013). Research has linked academic success to positive school

climate (Freiberg, 1998, Gumuseli & Eryilmaz, 2011, Embse & Hasson, 2012). With the push

for academic reform, Thapa et al. (2013) pointed out that school climate is an important

consideration in strengthening instructional supports and called for more research to be done on

school climate linked to various curriculum models or interventions. Therefore, school climate

will be examined through the lens of the proficiency and non-proficiency based model.

Significance of the Study

Due to the push by several states for proficiency-based education, some districts

throughout the United States have moved to a proficiency-based system. However, there are

schools on both ends of the spectrum, with some schools fully implemented and some schools
 19

that are still non-proficiency based (Maine Department of Education, 2015, CompetencyWorks,

2015). Districts and schools that have made the change agree that teacher engagement is

important to the change process and dependent on the culture and climate of the schools (Maine

Department of Education, 2015).

Proficiency-based education provides clear learning targets for students and allows them

to learn at their own pace. This reduces the inequity found in education in the past. According

to Friedlander et al. (2014), students in affluent schools tend to get the individual help that they

need, have choice in their learning process, and experience authentic learning. However,

students in poorly funded schools, low-income areas or schools with a high population of

underserved students, typically do not have the same opportunities for personalized learning and

inequity of learning opportunities is present (Friedlander et al., 2014).

The path to academic success requires a paradigm shift for many teachers. The literature

pointed to factors that contributed to teacher stress and burnout, with major shifts in school

reform as one of these factors (Anari, 2012; Lim & Eo, 2014; Stauffer & Mason, 2013). With

the stress and demands in today’s schools and classrooms, positive school climate becomes a

major factor in the academic success of schools and students (Thapa et al., 2013). The research

highlighted the importance of teacher engagement in the success of the proficiency-based model

(Maine Department of Education, 2015). Proponents of the proficiency-based model discussed

the positive effects on student learning, teacher collaboration, and engagement

(CompetencyWorks, 2015). The research is limited on whether school climate is different in a

proficiency-based school as opposed to a non-proficiency-based school. With the push towards

proficiency-based education across New England, this timely study will add to the research on
 20

proficiency-based education and the impact on school climate. The research will further inform

educators as they move forward in providing the best environment for teaching and learning.

Research Question

RQ1: Is there a difference between the teachers’ assessments of school climate in a

proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school on the eight categories

measured by The Alliance for the Study of School Climate Secondary Assessment Instrument

(SCAI-S-G)?

Definitions

1. School Climate – “The perceptions and practical realities of those within a school as a

result of everything that happens within that school, defined across eight separate but

inter-related dimensions” (Freiberg, 2005; The Alliance for the Study of School Climate

Survey, 2015).

2. Dimension 1-Physical Appearance – “Examines the relationship between the physical

characteristics and environment of a school and the climate that it promotes” (SCAI-S-

G).

3. Dimension 2-Faculty Relations – “Examines the relationship between how members of

the faculty relate to one another and its effects on the climate of the school” (SCAI-S-G).

4. Dimension 3-Student Interactions – “Examines the relationship among student

expectations, peer interactions, and their place in the school and climate that exists”

(SCAI-S-G).

5. Dimension 4-Leadership and Decision-Making – Examines the relationships among

decision-making mechanisms, how administrative authority is manifested and the climate

that is created as a result” (SCAI-S-G).

 21

6. Dimension 5-Discipline and Management Environment – Examines the relationship

between the management and discipline approaches used within the school and the

climate that is created as a result” (SCAI-S-G).

7. Dimension 6-Learning, Instruction and Assessment – “Examines the relationships among

the instructional strategies and the assessment methods used in the school and the climate

that is created” (SCAI-S-G).

8. Dimension 7-Attitude and Culture – “Examines the pervasive attitudes and cultures that

operate within the school and their relationship to the climate” (SCAI-S-G).

9. Dimension 8-Community Relations – “Examines the relationship between the way that

the school is perceived externally and its climate” (SCAI-S-G).

10. Proficiency-Based Education – “Proficiency-based education refers to any system of

academic instruction, assessment, grading and reporting that is based on students

demonstrating mastery of the knowledge and skills they are expected to learn before they

progress to the next lesson, get promoted to the next grade level or receive a diploma. If

students struggle to meet minimum expected standards, they receive additional

instruction, practice time and academic support to help them achieve proficiency, but

they do not progress in their education until expected standards are met” (Maine

Department of Education, 2015; Sturgis, 2015). Students receive differentiated

instruction and support to meet their individual needs. Learning outcomes include

application and creation of knowledge and meaningful formative and summative

assessment is given (Pace, Moyer, & Williams, 2015).

 22

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

This literature review will begin with the discussion of two theoretical frameworks of the

study. The first framework is grounded in the work of Abraham Maslow (1943) and his theory

of human motivation and Ryan and Deci’s (2000) more recent work on motivation with the

development of self-determination theory. The second is the organizational climate theory that is

the foundation of school climate (Schneider et al., 2013). The literature review will then focus

on school climate and the impact on academic success. School climate will be examined through

research in the following eight areas: physical appearance, relationships among faculty, as well

as student interactions, leadership and decision-making, discipline and management

environment, teaching and learning, including assessment, attitude and culture, and community

relations (ASSC, 2015). Finally, proficiency-based education will be explained and connections

made with regard to school climate. Five key elements of a strong proficiency-based model will

be discussed including: student mastery, clear targets with measurable learning objectives,

formative and summative assessment that is meaningful and positive for students, differentiated

teaching and support, and learning targets that include application and creation of new

knowledge (CompetencyWorks, 2015).

Theoretical Framework

There are two main theoretical constructs that guided this research. The first is based on

the theory of human motivation (Maslow, 1942; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Maslow’s theory

introduced the idea that each person has unique individual needs that are important to fulfill in

order to meet their full potential (Erickson, 1973; Maslow, 1943; Scales & Leffert, 2004). These

needs include physiological, safety, love, self-esteem and self-actualization (Maslow, 1943;
 23

Scales & Leffert, 2004). Maslow’s defined needs affect the choices that an individual makes as

emphasized by Maslow’s statement, “We are motivated by the desire to achieve or maintain the

various conditions upon which these basic satisfactions rest and by certain more intellectual

desires (Maslow, 1943, p. 394). School climate is impacted by whether a teacher or student’s

needs are being met which in turn impacts the learning and academic success of the students and

school (Erickson, 1973; Scales & Leffert, 2004; Thoonen et al., 2011; Wolf et al., 2013).

Building on the work of Maslow, Ryan and Deci (2000) co-founded the self-

determination theory and further defined and explained human motivation. Self-determination

theory aligns with Maslow’s work on human motivation and the idea that all human beings have

basic needs both physical and psychological that must be met in order to reach one’s full

potential (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ryan and Deci (2000) identified three needs important for the

development of self-motivation and positive outcomes: competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

The researchers pointed out the importance of motivation in many settings, including the

educational setting. Motivation provides not only energy but also direction and perseverance and

ultimately produces results (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Self-determination theory further explains what motivates people and examines types of

motivation and how they are manifest in different situations (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In its

simplest form, motivation can be broken down into two types. The first type is autonomous

motivation also known as intrinsic motivation. The second type is controlled motivation also

known as extrinsic motivation (Deci & Flaste, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Developmentalists acknowledge that intrinsic motivation is found in young children and

is not dependent upon any type of reward. However, it is unclear why motivation has a tendency

to decrease as students progress through school (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Therefore, Ryan and Deci
 24

(2000) sought to understand this phenomenon through self-development theory and researched

human motivation not only from a needs standpoint but also to discover conditions that fostered

intrinsic motivation. The researchers found that classroom models and curriculum that supported

competence, autonomy, and relatedness promoted intrinsic motivation (Deci & Flaste, 1995;

Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Intrinsic motivation involves the need to feel competent. Competence is defined as an

individual taking on challenges that are not too hard or too easy but provide a meaningful

challenge that when achieved provides an individual with a sense of accomplishment and

competence (Deci & Flaste, 2000). High standards and rigor do not guarantee positive outcomes

if an individual perceives that they are unattainable (Dweck, Walton, & Cohen, 2014). As an

individual perceives competence, this inspires intrinsic motivation (Deci & Flaste, 1995).

While it was found that competence is important in relation to intrinsic motivation,

autonomy must also be present (Ryan & Deci, 2000). “People must not only experience

competence or efficacy, they must also experience their behavior as self-determined for intrinsic

motivation to be in evidence” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). Autonomy rather than control is

important in fostering intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Choice and the free will of the

individual related to the task or activity that they are involved in provides autonomy. Feedback

that is not given to control a person’s actions but to encourage and support that person where

they are, will result in that person feeling competent (Deci & Flaste, 1995). Research has shown

that students taught in a controlling environment show less initiative, less motivation, and learn

less (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Utman, 1997). Through their research, Ryan and Deci (2000)

found that autonomous motivation is an important factor in better performance and

understanding of tasks that require application, creativity or higher order thinking skills (Deci &
 25

Flaste, 1995). This has also been found to hold true in areas other than education and work, such

as sports and music (Frederick & Ryan, 1995). Deci and Flaste (1995) stressed the importance

of competence and autonomy related to intrinsic motivation and success for an individual (Deci

& Flaste, 1995).

Relatedness was shown to be important in building and maintaining intrinsic motivation

(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Relatedness is defined as, “the need to feel connected with others…the

need to love and be loved, to care and be cared for” (Deci & Flaste, 1995, p. 88). This

relatedness or connection is supported through research that demonstrated the importance of

caring relationships in a student’s academic success (Allen et al., 2013; Drolet & Arcand, 2013;

Hawkins, Monahan, & Oesterle, 2010; Murray-Harvey, 2010; Petty, Wang, & Harbaugh, 2013).

Intrinsic behaviors are positively impacted in individuals who experienced a sense of belonging

and connection (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Dweck et al., 2014).

In order to better understand self-determination theory, one must examine and understand

controlled motivation, the opposite of autonomous motivation. Controlled motivation puts

various forms of pressure on an individual, including positive reinforcement such as rewards or

even praise (Deci & Flaste, 1995). Ryan and Deci (2000) found through their research that this

type of motivation produces compliance that tends to produce less learning or understanding and

more anxiety, depression, or narcissism. It may also produce defiance and result in negative

behaviors or behaviors opposite to the desired outcome (Deci & Flaste, 1995). In education,

this controlled motivation may also produce more rote learning, learning for “the test” and less,

deeper learning and understanding of the material (Deci & Flaste, 1995). The research of

Adams, Forsyth, Dollarhide, Miskell, and Ware (2015), further corroborated autonomous

motivation. These researchers found that schools who emphasized autonomy, competence, and
 26

relationships and did not control student behaviors through rewards and punishment were found

to be significantly higher in mathematics achievement than those schools who utilized

controlling behaviors (Adams et al., 2015).

The second theoretical construct that guided this research is the theory of organizational

climate. It was originally developed for the business world and based on employee performance

(Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). Most of the research on the organizational climate theory

started in 1950 and attempted to look at the environment of businesses and the impact on morale,

productivity, and turnover (Zullig et al., 2010). Organizational climate is defined as, “the shared

perceptions of and the meaning attached to the policies, practices, and procedures employees

experience and the behaviors they observe getting rewarded and that are supported and

expected” (Schneider et al., 2013, p. 362). Performance and motivation in the workplace are tied

to different characteristics of the work setting and includes external factors such as the social or

political environment (Thoonen et al., 2011). As workers start in a new job or position, they

observe the culture and climate of the organization. Through observation and experiences,

including the type of motivation presented, the individual worker makes decisions on

performance according to the impact it will have on their psychological well-being (Wolf,

Dulmus, & Maguin, 2012). Organizational climates that provide a safe environment to learn

from mistakes or failure, and resolve problems are important for successful outcomes (Wolf et

al., 2012). Prior research regarding organizational climate established that the characteristics and

conditions of the organization had more impact on climate than individuals in the organization

(Schneider et al., 2013). A shared perception of individuals within the organization, however,

may affect the overall climate and organizational outcomes (Wolf et al., 2013). The literature

also indicated a strong connection between poor organizational climate and poor results. This
 27

highlighted the need for best practices in an organization to ensure an improvement in climate

that ultimately produces quality outcomes (Schneider et al., 2013). It is important to note that

Wolf et al. (2013) pointed out that there were not a large number of studies that specifically

linked organizational climate to client outcomes. Further research may be appropriate in this

area.

In transferring the business model of organizational climate to the research on school

climate, researchers found four essential areas important including: safety, relationships,

teaching and learning, and institutional environment (Anderson, 1982; Brand et al., 2008; Miller

& Fredericks, 1990; National School Climate Center, 2015; Thoonen et al., 2011). Each of these

areas will be examined through an educational lens and their impact on schools and student

success.

Related Literature

School Climate

According to the Center for Social and Emotional Education, “School climate is based on

patterns of peoples’ experiences of school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal

relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures” (National School

Climate Center, 2015). School climate forms the core of a school. A positive school climate

draws students, teachers, administrators, and other staff members to enjoy coming each day

(Freiberg, 2005). School climate is part of a healthy school environment and is not something

that can be addressed once and fixed. Nurturing school climate takes time, continuous care, and

intentional practices (Freiberg, 2005).

Voight, Austin, and Hanson (2013) carried out an extensive study on what makes a

school successful. Their research associated the climate of a school with a school’s success more
 28

than a school’s resources. The essential areas associated with school climate impacted the

success of the students and school more than resources such as money, teacher experience or

support service (Voight et al., 2013). School climate can be shaped and impacted by school

districts and therefore is an important consideration in regard to school reform and success

(Voight et al., 2013). Van Ryzin (2011) also found that perceptions of school climate were

connected to engagement and academics. With many research studies linking positive school

climate to teacher and student engagement as well as academic success for students, it is

important for schools to better understand areas that impact school climate (Brand et al., 2008;

Freiberg, 1998; Stauffer & Mason, 2013; Thapa et al., 2013). There are eight essential areas of

school climate that will be examined through research in order to better understand what

encompasses school climate; physical appearance, relationships, safety, leadership and decision-

making, discipline environment, learning, instruction, and assessment, attitude and culture, and

community relations (Adams et al., 2015; Alliance for the Study of School Climate, 2014;

Voight, Austin, & Hanson, 2013).

Physical appearance. The physical appearance of the school including the conditions of

the facility and building, impact the climate of the school in various ways (Uline, Wolsey,

Tschannen-Moran, & Lin, 2010). The poor quality of facilities may detract good teachers from

wanting to work in such an environment. This in turn impacts the quality of teaching and

learning for students and ultimately impacts school climate (Horng, 2009; Uline et al., 2010).

Research further shows that teachers and students in schools with poor quality facilities and low

resources show a reduction in efficacy and motivation to achieve (Horng, 2009; Uline et al.,

2010). Uline et al. (2010) pointed out, however, that in one school studied, the facilities were

inadequate yet the teachers and students worked hard to build a climate of school pride and
 29

community and positively impacted school climate and achievement. Uline et al. (2010)

discussed earlier research that found cleanliness and neatness of a school were preferred by all

stakeholders more than newer facilities and may explain why schools that had poor resources

still ranked high in school climate. As more research is conducted in this area, findings may

point to a better understanding of the relationship between the physical environment and positive

school climate. Uline et al. (2010) also noted that further research should investigate the extent

to which the physical environment impacts not only an individual’s attitudes and behaviors but

also the total school climate.

Relationships. “The process of learning and teaching is fundamentally relational. The

patterns of norms, goals, values, and interactions that shape relationships in schools provide an

essential foundation for school climate” (Cohen & Geier, 2010, p. 3). Relationships in a school

setting happen not only between colleagues but also between teachers and students. These

relationships combined together have an impact on the quality of school climate and ultimately

the quality of academic life (Bird, Martin, Tummons, & Ball, 2013).

Faculty relations. The importance of positive relationships among faculty plays a vital

role in building a positive school climate. Collegial interactions are important in fostering

respect as well as the sharing of ideas that combat feelings of isolation (Conner, 2014).

Troman’s (2008) case study found that relationships mattered to teachers as they discussed their

opinions on school climate. Administrative leadership in a school should support the

collaboration and relationship building of faculty that in turn helps to foster a positive school

climate and subsequently, impacts academic achievement (Southern Regional Education Board,

2009, 2012). Conner (2014) also pointed out that this collaboration among staff likewise acts as

a role model for students in the construction of positive school climate.

 30

Teacher and students. Many research studies demonstrated the importance of

relationships for adolescents (Allen et al., 2013; Drolet & Arcand, 2013; Hawkins, Monahan, &

Oesterle, 2010; Murray-Harvey, 2010; Petty, Wang, & Harbaugh, 2013). The research

highlighted the importance of positive support from caring adults. Adolescents expressed their

need for positive relationships and the need to be heard and understood (Drolet & Arcand, 2013).

Research has shown that interactions in the school setting with teachers impacted the students’

attitudes toward school and ultimately toward academics (Bird et al., 2013; Reglin, 1990; Roeser

& Eccles, 1998). It was also found that the positive student-teacher relationship increased

student participation and satisfaction with school. This in turn raised academic motivation, and

effected the student absence rate and dropout rate (Bird et al., 2013; Wentzel, Battle, Russell, &

Looney, 2010). Positive student-teacher relationships helped the student to feel connected to the

school. This school connectedness showed a link to positive outcomes and also lessened the

probability of other negative behaviors and risk (Hawkins, Monahan, & Oesterle, 2010).

Murray-Harvey (2010) provided empirical evidence for the importance of teachers building

positive relationships with students that not only impacts students socially and emotionally but is

also essential for improving academic achievement. The emotional connection in the classroom

is a key piece in predicting student learning and encompasses not only positive student and

teacher relationships but also positive peer interactions (Allen et al., 2013).

Peer to peer. Maslow (1943) listed self-esteem as an important, basic need. Self-esteem

is linked to the amount of perceived social support among students and a sense of belonging. As

social support increases, a person’s self-esteem increases (Budd, Buschman, & Esch, 2009). A

sense of belonging is defined by whether or not a student feels accepted and valued as part of the

school community (Frehill & Dunsmuir, 2015; Goodenow & Grady, 1993). The literature
 31

addressed the strong need for students to feel like they belong and the impact it has on school

success (Allen et al., 2013; Aryana, 2010; Cohen & Garcia, 2008; Goodenow & Grady, 1993;

Osterman, 2000). The research highlighted the importance of a student’s need for a sense of

belonging with peers in the school and coincided with Maslow’s theory on the defined needs of

an individual (Parkay, Anctil, & Hass, 2014; Scales & Leffert, 2004). The need for a sense of

belonging can be traced back to the research of Goodenow and Grady (1993) that emphasized

the correlation between a student’s sense of belonging and academic motivation and

achievement. According to Goodenow and Grady (1993), “Students’ subjective sense of school

belonging has been identified as a potentially important influence on academic motivation,

engagement, and participation, especially among students from groups at risk of school dropout”

(p. 60). Maslow’s theory is again emphasized as research highlighted the importance of student

belongingness in achieving academic success. Students who do not feel that they belong, or

believe that they are welcomed and respected in the school will start to disengage and eventually

drop out (Finn & Rock, 1997; Goodenow & Grady, 1993). Wallace, Ye, and Chhuon (2012),

noted that students needed to have a sense of belonging in areas of their life where they spend

significant amounts of time and gave evidence to the connection between academic achievement

and sense of belonging. The research of Kingery, Erdley, and Marshall (2011) indicated robust

findings that demonstrated peer acceptance as a predictor of academic achievement. Another

study also found that a student’s sense of belonging predicted academic success in both high and

low poverty areas (Irvin, Meece, Byun, Farmer, & Hutchins, 2011). It is important to note that

one research study, while finding no correlation between self-esteem, which is linked to a sense

of belonging, and student achievement, also found that self-esteem had no negative effect on
 32

achievement (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). Further research may be

appropriate in this area.

The importance of peer-to-peer relationships as they pertain to learning in the classroom

impacts the climate of the classroom and the school. Supportive peer relationships were found to

strengthen a positive learning climate (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010).

The significance of peer acceptance and friendships is supported by Burack et. al’s (2013)

research that found peer acceptance and friendships, and not parent or cultural affiliations,

impacted school grades.

Positive student interaction also supported instruction and learning through the use of

methods such as cooperative learning (D. Johnson, R. Johnson, & Roseth, 2010). Classroom and

school climates that encouraged students to learn together, share, teach each other and value each

other produced a positive social interdependence and higher achievement (D. Johnson, R.

Johnson, & Roseth, 2010). The promotion of positive peer relationships through such avenues as

cooperative learning fostered self-esteem and supported the belief that a higher self-esteem is

shown to have a positive impact on student achievement (Aryana, 2010).

A sense of belonging in the classroom was also linked to a student’s ability to feel

confident and competent in regard to academics in the classroom (Darragh, 2013). Darragh

(2013) found a direct association between confidence, competence, and a sense of belonging in a

mathematics classroom. This research aligned with Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-development

theory and the importance of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

Peer relationships may impact the development of self-efficacy. Carlisle’s (2011)

research highlighted the strong connection between self-efficacy and motivation. This sense of

self-regulation is key in goal setting and persistence in following a task to completion (Erdem &
 33

Demirel, 2007). “There is evidence that a high sense of self-efficacy supports motivation, even

when the feeling of efficacy is unrealistically high” (Woolfolk as cited in Erdem & Demirel,

2007). Research has shown that schools can impact the development of self-efficacy through

relationship building with staff and peers. Schools can also help raise students’ self-efficacy

levels through curriculum, instruction, and support that promote academic success (Carlisle,

2011; Scales & Tacccogna, 2000; Starkman, Scales, & Roberts, 1999).

It is important to note that Wentzel’s (2009) research found that older students were more

than likely to share academic failures and successes than younger students possibly in order to

gain help in school. This is further explored through the research of Lynch, Lerner, and

Levanthal (2013) who found peers influenced behaviors both within the circle of friends and the

larger peer group. These findings are inconsistent with other research that demonstrated students

are less likely to seek help from peers as they grow older (Altermatt, 2011; O’Neel & Fuligni,

2013). A Chinese study challenged the association of sense of belonging and academic

achievement. The researchers found no direct correlation between sense of belonging and

academic success (Liu & Lu, 2010). However, with the study limited to Chinese students, the

researchers explained that Chinese high school is very difficult and cognitive factors may play a

role in academic achievement more than a student’s sense of belonging (Liu & Lu, 2010).

Strong research supports the important role of peers in the educational environment.

Consequently, schools should consider the role of peers when working to improve academic

success. The influence of peer culture in school, however, requires further research and study

(Lynch et al., 2013).

Safety. The need to feel safe remains fundamental to a student’s success. Maslow

(1943) showed the need all humans have for safety. This is socially, emotionally, intellectually,
 34

and physically important for all human beings. Schools must ensure that both teachers and

students have the basic need of safety met before teaching and learning can occur (Thapa,

Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Allessandro, 2013). Research has shown that schools where

students do not feel either emotionally or physically safe with peers, have higher rates of

absenteeism and lower academic achievement (Astor, Guerra, & Van Acker, 2010; Gregory et

al., 2010). Voight et al. (2013) provided additional research that showed the importance of

providing a safe and supportive environment to support optimal student performance. Cornell

and Mayer (2010) added to the literature on the impact of disorder in schools due to student

behaviors that disrupt the classroom and school environment and have been shown to impact

learning and academic achievement. Schools that had clear and consistent rules provided

students with a feeling of safety and well-being (Bosworth, Ford, & Hernandaz, 2010). It is

important to note, however, that schools with safety and order issues must not only look at

classroom management and instruction but also take a more interdisciplinary approach with other

stakeholders in the community, including mental health providers (Cornell & Mayer, 2010). As

Maslow (1943) and Ryan and Deci (2000) demonstrated, the physical and psychological human

needs must be met in order to achieve success academically and ultimately in life. As Cornell

and Mayer (2010) shared from the Goals 2000, Educate America Act, “by the year 2000, every

school in America will be free of drugs and violence and the unauthorized presence of firearms

and alcohol, and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning” (Goals 2000:

Educate America Act, 1994). While this valued goal remains unmet as of today, a safe

environment is important to educators. Ultimately, a safe and supportive environment plays a

vital role in building positive school climate (Bosworth et al., 2010).

 35

Leadership and decision-making. Research shows that the school administration plays

a vital role in determining school climate (Hough & Schmitt, 2011; May & Sanders; Southern

Regional Education Board, 2009, 2012; Zullig et al., 2010). Beaudoin (2011) pointed out that

transformational leaders are the driving force behind positive school reform and climate. At the

building level, this leadership should focus on fostering collaboration and empowering teachers

to create the optimal learning environment for students (McCarley, Peters, & Decman, 2014).

Principal’s role. The leadership of the school plays a major role in the development of

positive school climate that in turn impacts any type of school reform and the change process

(May & Sanders, May & Supovitz, 2011; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Park’s (2012)

research gave empirical evidence that a principal’s leadership style contributed to a school

climate that is open to change and innovation. The scope of leadership responsibilities varied

across districts. May and Supovitz (2011) focused on three areas important to measuring

leadership; having a clear vision for the school, building and supporting a collaborative climate,

and supporting teachers’ instructional practices. Thoonen et al. (2011) found that

transformational leadership practices such as vision building and individual support promoted

teacher empowerment. Leaders who provided support and time for teachers to collaborate were

found to be more effective in positive school climate and increased academic improvement

(Southern Regional Education Board, 2012). Leaders who provided professional development

and intellectual stimulation fostered a climate of collaboration and trust (Thoonen et al., 2011).

Tschannen-Moran and Gareis’ (2015) found a strong correlation between trustworthy leadership

and the cultivation of a strong school climate. These findings are in agreement with the

extensive research of Kouzes and Posner (2012) who shared that a leader’s behavior is vital to

the success of an organization. According to Kouzes and Posner (2012), this behavior should
 36

lead to intentional practices including, “Model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the

process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart” (p. 29).

While many studies provided evidence of leadership practices that were found to be

effective in positive school climate and transformative change, May and Supovitz (2011) took

the research one step further and examined the scope of a principal’s efforts and the impact on

school climate and instruction. Their research found that a principal’s influence on targeted,

individual teachers impacted school improvement more than broad-based influence involving the

whole school (May & Supovitz, 2011). According to Park (2012), school administrators tend to

overlook or neglect stakeholders in the change process. This impacts the success of school

change. Kouzes and Posner (2012) shared the importance of helping individuals within an

organization to develop and increase their abilities, self-determination, and confidence that in

turn will produce strong leaders and a climate of engagement and success. May and Supovitz

(2011) cautioned, however, that only targeting individual teachers may not be the best practice in

every situation and suggested that a principal utilize a combination of broad and targeted

influence. Successful principals act as role models, provide direction for the school, support for

teachers, and create a climate of collaboration and trust (Thoonen et al., 2011).

Discipline environment. The expectations of student behaviors and the management of

student behaviors are factors in a positive or negative school climate (ASSC, 2015; Zullig,

Huebner, & Patton, 2010). Strong leadership was found to connect to an orderly learning

environment that in turn had a positive effect on school climate (Sebastian & Allensworth,

2012). Shindler, Jones, Williams, Taylor, and Cadenas (2011) also found that individual

teacher’s management styles affected not only student achievement but also school climate.

Management styles that promoted a sense of responsibility for one’s actions and empowered
 37

students to be self-directed learners were associated with a positive school climate (Shindler et

al., 2011). Teachers willing to build relationships and who are committed to the students and

school help foster a positive school climate (Shindler et al., 2011).

Learning, instruction, and assessment. Since the beginning of structured education,

the concept of teaching and learning centered on the teacher as instructor. Research increasingly

points to a shift with the teacher as a facilitator of learning (Khan, 2012; Marzano, 2012;

Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011). With the age of technology and the Internet, students have

information at their fingertips. Although information is easy to find and constantly changing in a

global world, students need a teacher who can help them apply the information in various ways

such as comparing, classifying, analyzing, investigating and inventing (Klein, 2013; Marzano &

Kendall, 2008).

A classroom climate that fosters inquiry in a safe environment with high expectations and

achievable goals will help students achieve academic success (Hoy, 2012). High expectations

are important in building academic tenacity. Academic tenacity is defined as “non-cognitive

factors that promote long-term learning and achievement” (Dweck et al., 2014, p. 4). Fostering

academic tenacity can be accomplished by challenging students with high standards and the

expectation that with the proper support and scaffolding, students will be successful (Dweck et

al., 2014; Deci & Flaste, 1995; Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011).

According to Marzano (2007), teaching is an art. Teachers have the ability to impact the

effectiveness of the classroom and school not only with climate but also student learning and

academic success (Marzano et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Classrooms that

meet individual student needs and assist students to become self-regulated with authentic
 38

interactions between peers and teachers are important features to make schools a positive

learning environment (Hoy, 2012).

Effective classroom pedagogy may be attained through effective instructional strategies,

effective management strategies, and effective curriculum design (Marzano, 2007). By

providing students with clear expectations and goals to achieve in the classroom, teachers are

promoting effective instructional strategies and fostering a positive school climate. Academic

rigor is supported by providing students with clearly defined learning outcomes and assists in the

development of an outstanding academic school climate (Bryk et al., 2010, Marzano et al.,

2012). Effective management strategies such as cooperative learning, respect and trust, and

strong relationships in the classroom setting, all help to promote a positive climate (Thapa et al.,

2012). Not only do these strategies contribute to effective classroom pedagogy and affect school

climate, they also align with a proficiency-based model of instruction (Schwahn & McGarvey,

2011).

Teacher’s role. The vision and mission of the school as well as the improvement of

educational practices is part of the important role of a teacher in today’s schools (Kilinc, 2014).

We need teachers who are leaders both in and out of the classroom. Teacher leadership is

defined as teachers who lead in and outside of the classroom, and contribute to the community of

learners through best teaching practices to increase school improvement (Katzenmeyer & Moller,

2009). Teachers promote a positive school climate when practicing collaboration and

establishing supportive relationships throughout the school (Kilinc, 2014; Sweetland, & Hoy,

2000). Kurt, Duyar, and Calik (2012) further emphasized that a positive or negative school

climate impacted the relationships between colleagues and teachers and students. Research has

shown that students placed high value on positive relationships with adults who cared about
 39

them. Students reported appreciation of adults who listened to them, helped them to improve,

and supported them (Drolet & Arcand, 2013). This type of relationship builds trust, which in

turn helps to build a positive school climate (Drolet & Arcand, 2013). Drolet and Arcand (2013)

also found that students expressed their appreciation of adults who acknowledged what they

could do and worked with them to find ways to develop the student’s individual academic talent.

Effective management in the classroom supports both positive school climate and school

change (Newberry, Gallant, & Riley, 2013). According to the National School Climate Center

(2015), teachers should be intentional in promoting a positive school climate by being role

models, managing classrooms that allow for trust and respect, and providing strong pedagogy.

Some examples of strong pedagogic methods are those found in cooperative learning, service

learning, and proficiency-based learning (Marzano et al., 2012; National School Climate Center,

2015). While research has shown that positive relationships with peers positively effects

cognitive development, teachers cannot make students have friends. They can, however, employ

classroom strategies and methods such as mentioned above, including the organization of

cooperative learning groups and one to one teaching to foster relationships in the school setting

(Johnson & Roseth, 2010). It should be noted that proficiency-based education encourages small

group learning and individualized instruction (CompetencyWorks, 2015).

Attitude and culture. The school environment involves not only how teachers and

students feel connected to the school but also involves the leadership of the school and

professional attitudes of the school staff. Each of these variables has an effect on the total school

environment (National School Climate center, 2015). School practices that involve leaders with

a strong vision and teachers that focus on relationships and relevant instruction contribute to a

school’s academic success (Walters et al., 2014). Friedlaender et al. (2014) found a common
 40

thread among successful schools. Successful schools all emphasized the idea that every student

has the potential to learn to high standards. This attitude should drive the vision of the school

and the practices of each stakeholder in the school community to achieve success (Friedlaender

et al., 2014).

School connectedness. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides a clear

definition of school connectedness as “the belief held by students that adults and peers in the

school care about their learning as well as about them as individuals” (CDC, 2015, para. 1).

School connectedness is nurtured through the promotion of a sense of belonging within the

school community. Acceptance and value to the organization promotes this sense of belonging

(Frehill & Dunsmuir, 2015; Goodenow & Grady, 1993). The research also highlighted the

importance of other stakeholders and their feelings of connectedness to the organization, built

through trust and collaboration (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). Trust is the foundation to building and

sustaining connections (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). According to Bennis and Nanus, “Trust is the

emotional glue that binds followers and leaders together” (1997, p. 142).

The literature addressed the strong need for students to have a sense of belonging and the

subsequent impact on school success (Allen et al., 2013; Aryana, 2010; Cohen & Garcia, 2008;

Goodenow & Grady, 1993; Osterman, 2000). Goodenow and Grady (1993) defined sense of

belonging as “the extent to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and

supported in the school social environment” (p. 60). Students who feel connected to their school

are more likely to have better academic achievement and school attendance (CDC, 2015; Klem

& Connell, 2004, Wentzel et al., 2010). The literature also pointed out that school connectedness

is linked to a positive school climate and feeling safe at school (Mehta, Cornell, Fan, & Gregory,

2012). Mehta et al.’s (2012) research supported the school safety research that showed students
 41

who felt unsafe or bullied, showed less connectedness and low engagement at school (Astor et

al., 2010; Gregory et al., 2010; Thapa et al., 2013; Voight et al., 2013).

Community relations. The importance of the community including parents, businesses,

community members, and other organizations has been shown to improve and expand learning

opportunities and build relationships that promoted a positive school climate (Perkins, 2008).

The research pointed to the relationship between community and school improvement and the

desire of community to be involved with the school (Ice, Thapa, & Cohen, 2015).

Having clean and well-maintained physical facilities positively affected community

engagement (Uline et al., 2010). The condition of physical facilities also factors in attracting

quality teachers and staff. School leaders realize that well maintained, welcoming school

environments may effect decisions made by community members, taxpayers, and policymakers

who make choices on whether or not to allocate resources for school improvement (Uline et al.,

2010).

Jeynes (2007) meta-analysis of 52 research studies sought to determine whether parent

involvement made a significant difference in a child’s education. The results of the meta-

analysis found an association between parent involvement and a child’s academic success. It

also showed the importance of this involvement with various populations as well as various

parental programs (Jeynes, 2007).

Building school-family-community relations starts with good communication (Griffin &

Galassi, 2010). Schools need to engage parents and community members in the educational

process, asking for input, and communicating resources that are available to promote academic

success (Griffin & Galassi, 2010). Parents and community members need to feel welcome in the
 42

school and are more likely to communicate with school personnel and access resources to

support academic achievement if they have a sense of community (Griffin & Galassi, 2010).

Proficiency-Based Education

As the research demonstrates, there is a strong case for the importance of positive school

climate. Attention to the needs of teachers and students supports a positive school climate

(Newberry et al., 2013). In light of the school reform occurring across the United States, many

studies pointed out that schools must find ways not only to promote a positive school climate but

also to facilitate student learning and achievement (Corrigan, D’Alessandro, & Brown, 2013;

Hoy, 2012; Kilinc, 2014; Stauffer & Mason, 2013; Thoonen et al., 2011; Wentzel et al., 2010).

As Freiberg (2005) stated, “Continuous improvement requires continuous information about the

learner and the learning environments” (p.24).

One of the major reforms sweeping the nation is the Common Core State Standards

created by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association

(NGA & CCSSO, 2010). The Common Core State Standards were designed to provide clear

academic benchmarks and standards that provide equity, clarity, and collaboration in and among

schools (Liebtag, 2013). Proficiency-based education is one way to implement the Common

Core State Standards and move towards a more individualized approach of teaching and learning

and also encompass many of the essential areas that promote a positive school climate (Maine

Department of Education, 2015).

Melville, Bartley, and Weinburgh (2012) pointed out that lasting student gains are

dependent on teachers and students working together for the common good. Proficiency-based

education encourages peer-to-peer collaboration as well as teachers working collaboratively with

students and colleagues. Proficiency-based education is a learner-based model whereby students

 43

are given the individual academic support needed to assist them in mastery of knowledge at their

own pace (Maine Department of Education, 2015). Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2015)

reasoned that if schools are clear about standards and assess students on these standards and

educators are held accountable, then academic performance will improve. This sounds

simplistic, however, many factors impact academic performance including the area of school

climate. Education is complex and schools need to find ways to meet the needs of the learner in

the twenty-first century (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Voight et al. (2013) highlighted the

outcomes of over 300 studies from the U.S. Department of Education that demonstrated the

importance of high expectations, learning connected to students’ needs, and small group

instruction to increase academic success. Proficiency-based education is one model that many

schools are turning to as they strive to improve academic performance (CompetencyWorks,

2015; Maine Department of Education, 2015).

Students today have very different needs, experiences, and expectations than schools

structured 100 years ago (Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011). Technology not only provides

knowledge and information at the touch of a button, it also provides schools with many more

options for learning (Khan, 2012). Today’s world requires a workforce that is not just proficient

in math and reading but able to solve problems, synthesize, and conceive new ideas (Khan,

2012). Proficiency-based education does not rely on tests or one-shot snapshots of a student’s

performance but understands that students learn at different rates and in different ways and

tailors learning to their individual needs (CompetencyWorks, 2015; Khan, 2012).

Proficiency-based education provides cognitive scaffolding for students. Cognitive

scaffolding gives support for students that is more individualized to their needs, and quality

feedback that assists students in reaching high standards (Dweck et al., 2014). The students are
 44

able to utilize feedback to improve their learning and ensure that targets or standards are met

(Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011).

The proficiency-based classroom supports the three conditions that self-determination

theorists found important in motivation for academic success including competence, autonomy,

and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Students are provided the scaffolding needed to feel

competent and yet have autonomy in learning choices (Dweck et al., 2014). Sense of belonging

or relatedness is cultivated in a proficiency-based classroom through small group learning and

smaller learning communities within the school (Dweck et al., 2014). Many studies have shown

the power behind school connectedness and the desire for students to get one-on-one attention

from their teachers (Allen et al., 2013; Aryana, 2010; Cohen & Garcia, 2008; Dweck et al., 2014;

Goodenow & Grady, 1993; Osterman, 2000).

The research with organizational climate theory aligns with the proficiency-based model

highlighting the importance of a work or educational environment that provides a safe, positive

environment where failure is not an option. Instead, students know what they need to learn, and

mistakes are an avenue to feedback that promotes learning (Dweck et al., 2014; Marzano, 2012;

Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011).

The research remains unclear whether or not proficiency-based education has an impact

on teacher satisfaction and ultimately school climate. Sturgis (2015) pointed out several factors,

however, that may promote teacher satisfaction and thereby impact school climate. Teachers in a

proficiency-based model have more autonomy in how they design the learning pathways for their

students (Sturgis, 2015). There is also more emphasis on one to one planning and small group

instruction. This fosters relationships that are key in a positive school climate

(CompetencyWorks, 2015; Sturgis, 2015). Finally, a shared leadership and collaborative effort
 45

among staff was found in successful proficiency-based school models that promoted respect and

trust (Sturgis, 2015).

There are five main elements that are key in proficiency-based education: student

mastery, clear targets with measurable learning objectives, formative and summative assessment

that is meaningful and positive for students, differentiated teaching and support, and learning

targets that include application and creation of new knowledge (CompetencyWorks, 2015). It

was also noted that strong teachers and leaders are part of an effective proficiency-based model

(CompetencyWorks, 2015).

Student mastery and clear targets go hand in hand. Students are expected to master

specified content that is clearly defined. Clear targets are important to the success of students. If

students are provided with a clear target, they will hit it (Stiggins, 2014). The materials,

assignments, and teaching instruction align with the specified content to provide clearly defined

targets for mastery (Deci, 2009; Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011). The learning is personalized with

support and teaching is based on an individual’s needs. Student progress is tracked and

advancement made upon mastery (Marzano, 2012; Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011). A phrase

often used in regard to proficiency-based education is, “Learning is constant, and time is the

variable” (Sturgis, 2015, p. 8).

Along with clear targets, formative assessments that help students understand what they

know and what they need to work on is important before they demonstrate mastery of the

learning objectives through a summative assessment. Formative assessments provide teachers

with feedback on what students have learned so that support is provided for student mastery

(Friedlaender et al., 2014; Marzano, 2012; Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011). High standards and

rigor do not guarantee positive student outcomes if students do not perceive that they can attain
 46

them (Dweck et al., 2014). “The effects of any educational intervention depend on its

psychological meaning to the students” (Dweck et al., 2014, p. 24). Challenging work should be

presented in a positive way so that it does not overwhelm or discourage students but provides the

supports necessary to foster success (Dweck et al., 2014). It also involves engagement of the

student through instruction and activities that provide choice and significance. This engagement

is connected to autonomous motivation through choice and relevance (Deci, 2009, Deci & Flaste,

1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Differentiated teaching and support for individualized student learning also impacts

student achievement (Haystead, 2010). Schools need to provide individual support both in

school and out of school that builds confidence and competence. Both areas will boost

motivation that is intrinsically based and a good foundation for school success (Walters et al.,

2014). Individualized learning gives students a choice in their learning. It also helps bridge the

gap between real world skills and a traditional curriculum (Dachtler, 2015).

Finally, according to Marzano and Kendall (2008) learning targets that include higher

order thinking are an important part of proficiency-based education. The focus is not on the

attainment of knowledge but on what the student does with the knowledge. It goes beyond recall

and encourages students to investigate, experiment, problem solve, make decisions, and invent

(Marzano & Kendall, 2008). Educational reform has typically focused on curriculum and how it

is presented. With the knowledge that self-development theory presents, and the research

available on non-cognitive or motivational factors, schools need to challenge students with high

expectations and application of learning (Dweck et al., 2014).

Murray-Harvey (2010) found that schools with teaching interventions that built

supportive relationships helped to counteract the stressful environments that students may
 47

encounter outside of school. These environments provided for the positive relationships that

students have found to be important to their success. Proficiency-based education encourages

the teacher-student relationship as they work in small groups and individually as well as planning

educational pathways that meet individual student needs (Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011).

Proficiency-based education also provides students with the means to take responsibility.

Students must not only take responsibility to plan their own learning, they are an important part

of their peers’ learning (Khan, 2012). This aligns with the research showing the importance of

peer interactions in relation to academic success (Aryana, 2010; Bryk et al., 2010; Drolet &

Arcand, 2013; Johnson & Roseth, 2010; Klem & Connell, 2004).

In order for schools to embrace the change necessary for proficiency-based education to

take root, the perspective of the self-determination theory should be noted. It is necessary for

teachers and students to internalize the importance of this type of reform (Deci, 2009).

According to self-determination theorists, internalization takes place through the satisfaction of

the need for competency, autonomy, and a sense of relatedness (Deci, 2009; Ryan and Deci,

2000). These needs also support ownership and commitment to educational reform (Deci, 2009;

Deci & Flaste, 1995).

As research has noted, organizational climate theory and subsequent school climate

research demonstrated the need for best practices in an organization that foster a positive climate

(Adams et al., 2015; Alliance for the Study of School Climate, 2014; Friedlaender, 2014;

Schneider et al., 2013; Voight, Austin, & Hanson, 2013; Wolf et al., 2013). Proficiency-based

education may be one educational practice that leads to improved climate that ultimately

produces quality outcomes ( CompetencyWorks, 2015; Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011; Sturgis,

2015).
 48

Summary

The theories that guided this research are the theory of human motivation through the

work of Maslow (1943) and Ryan and Deci (2000) and organizational climate theory. Maslow’s

(1943) work introduced the idea that each person has needs that must be met in order for

motivation to positively impact an individual’s choices. Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-

determination theory delves deeper into human motivation and examines intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation. Intrinsic motivation, also called autonomous motivation, is at the core of creativity,

responsibility, academic success, and lasting change (Deci & Flaste, 1995). Ryan and Deci’s

(2000) research focused on conditions that fostered intrinsic motivation. The researchers found

that competence, autonomy, and relatedness are important factors in nurturing intrinsic

motivation. The opposite of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, should be understood in

light of school climate and academic success. Extrinsic motivation, also known as controlled

motivation, produces compliance for task completion or learning that is initiated by negative or

positive control but does not always produce lasting change or deeper learning (Ryan & Deci,

2000).

Organizational climate theory began in the business world and was the springboard for

school climate research (Schneider et al., 2013; Thoonen et al., 2011; Zullig et al., 2010). School

climate research has grown over the last few years as school reform has resurfaced (Brand et al.,

2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015; Stauffer & Mason, 2013; Zullig et al., 2010). With

education reform at the forefront due to the No Child Left Behind federal legislation and the

adoption of the Common Core State Standards (National Governors’ Association Center for Best

Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), school climate has once again

become a focus as schools seek educational reform (Stauffer & Mason, 2013; Zullig et al., 2010).
 49

School climate is defined as “the quality and character of school life” (National School

Climate Center: School Climate, 2015, para. 3). Research has shown that school climate, in

relation to student achievement, has a positive correlation with school engagement and academic

success (Anari, 2011; Freiberg, 1998; Gumuseli & Eryilmaz, 2011; Embse & Hasson, 2012; Van

Ryzin, 2011; Thapa et al., 2013). There are several essential areas that research found important

to school climate. They are: safety, relationships, teaching and learning, and the school

environment as it relates to staff, administration, teachers, and community (National School

Climate Center, 2015).

Education reform brought about the creation of Common Core State Standards and with

these standards, an educational initiative called proficiency-based education (Maine Department

of Education, 2015; NGA & CCSSO, 2010). Proficiency-based education has many different

names including: standards-based education, performance-based education, personalized

learning, competency-based education, and mass customized learning (CompetencyWorks, 2015;

Keenan, 2013; Liebtag, 2013; Schwann & McGarvey, 2012). It is defined as instruction,

assessment, and grading based on student mastery of specific standards. Students are not bound

by class or time but must meet specific standards before they move on to the next level. Students

receive differentiated instruction and support to meet their individual needs. The classroom

environment encourages students to take responsibility for their learning. Learning outcomes

include application and creation of knowledge as opposed to just factual knowledge

(CompetencyWorks, 2015; Maine Department of Education, 2015). Research has shown the

importance of positive relationships and a sense of belonging on an individual’s success and also

the impact on school climate (Anari, 2011; Freiberg, 1998; Gumuseli & Eryilmaz, 2011; Embse

& Hasson, 2012; Van Ryzin, 2011; Thapa et al., 2013). Proficiency-based education offers the
 50

necessary elements to improve school climate through relationship building in the classroom and

focusing on the needs of each individual to assist them in working to their potential and

experiencing academic success. This relates well to the research on motivation by Maslow

(1943) and Ryan and Deci (2000) that highlighted the importance of competence, autonomy, and

relatedness.

Proficiency-based education provides instruction, support, and feedback that challenges

students but also fosters competency. Competency must accompany autonomy according to

Ryan and Deci (2000). Proficiency-based classrooms encourage autonomy through choice in

activities and learning that takes place on an individual level (CompetencyWorks, 2015;

Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011). Competence and the perception of autonomy promote intrinsic

motivation that supports academic success (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

The self-determination theory also emphasized the need for relatedness. Ryan and Deci’s

(2000) research pointed out that relatedness is important for intrinsic motivation to flourish. The

research also underscored the important of caring relationships to academic success.

Proficiency-based classrooms promote relationship building through individualized instruction

and small group interactions with both teachers and peers (Bird et al., 2013; Bryk et al., 2010;

Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011; Wentzel et al., 2010). Cooperative learning promotes positive

peer relationships that foster self-esteem and that Aryana (2010) confirmed impacts academic

achievement.

With the explosion of technology and the changing needs of businesses and organizations

in today’s world, schools are challenged to meet these needs by changing how students are

educated (Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011). The proficiency-based model provides the cognitive

scaffolding needed to meet individual student needs (Dweck et al., 2014). It also provides
 51

teachers and students with the framework to experience success in the classroom that in turn

fosters a positive climate (Maine Department of Education, 2015; Melvin & Bartley, 2012;

Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015; Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011). This research study will add

to the research regarding school climate by focusing on a gap in the literature that targets a

curriculum method or instructional practice, proficiency-based education, that may have an

effect on school climate as well as teaching and learning (Thapa et al., 2013).
 52

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

Overview

This chapter focuses on the research design, the hypotheses, and a detailed look at the

participants, setting, the instrument utilized for research, the procedures, and data analysis.

Design

This quantitative study used a non-experimental, causal-comparative research design in

which the researcher sought to identify if there is a difference between school climate in a

proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school. The independent

variable is defined as the type of school, proficiency-based or non-proficiency-based.

“Proficiency-based education refers to any system of academic instruction, assessment, grading

and reporting that is based on students demonstrating mastery of the knowledge and skills they

are expected to learn before they progress to the next lesson, get promoted to the next grade level

or receive a diploma” (Maine Department of Education, 2015). The dependent variable is

defined as school climate. “School climate refers to the quality and character of school life.

School climate is based on patterns of students’, parents’ and school personnel’s experience of

school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning

practices, and organizational structures” (National School Climate Center: School Climate, 2015,

para. 3). This design is appropriate as Gall, Gall and Borg (2007) stated, “Causal-comparative

research is a type of non-experimental investigation in which researchers seek to identify cause-

and-effect relationships by forming groups of individuals in whom the independent variable is

present or absent… and then determining whether the groups differ on the dependent variable”

(p. 306). The dependent variable is continuous in nature and the independent variable is a
 53

dichotomous nominal-level discrete variable which is appropriate when analyzing the data using

an independent samples t-test (Ritchey, 2008).

Research Question

RQ1: Is there a difference between the teachers’ assessments of school climate in a

proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school on the eight categories as

measured by The Alliance for the Study of School Climate Secondary Assessment Instrument

(SCAI-S-G)?

Hypotheses

H01: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

physical environment in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high

school as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H02: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

faculty relations in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school as

measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H03: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

student interactions in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school

as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H04: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

leadership and decisions in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high

school as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H05: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

the discipline environment in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high

school as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

 54

H06: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

learning and assessment in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high

school as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H07: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

attitude and culture in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school

as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H08: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

community relations in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school

as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

Participants and Setting

The participants for this study were taken from a convenience sample of high schools in

New England identified as either a proficiency-based school or a non- proficiency-based school.

For the purpose of this study, the type of school was identified according to whether or not the

school report card used is proficiency-based in all content areas. Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007)

pointed out that many times researchers must do a convenience sample in order for the study to

be conducted. Due to the large geographic area of New England and the small size of many

schools, multiple schools were part of the study to obtain a sufficient sample size. In order to

ensure an appropriate sample size based on Gall et al. (2007), medium effect size and statistical

power at .7, this study included 87 teachers from proficiency-based high schools and 125

teachers from non-proficiency based high schools. The participants consisted of 77 male and 135

female teachers. The number of years of teaching experience is as follows: 41 survey

participants having 0-5 years of experience, 37 survey participants with 6-10 years of experience,

79 survey participants with 11-20 years of experience and 54 survey participants with 20+ years
 55

of experience. The ethnicity of the survey participants is as follows: Caucasian-202, Latino-1,

Native American-3 and other-6. The representation of content levels is as follows: English

Language Arts-27, Math-34, Social Studies-22, Science-26, Special Education-27 and other-76.

Instrumentation

This study used a survey developed by the Alliance for the Study of School Climate, with

the purpose of investigating the difference between the teachers’ assessments of school climate

in a proficiency-based school and the teachers’ assessments of school climate in a non-

proficiency-based school. The survey tool is called the Secondary School Climate Assessment

Instrument-General (SCAI-S-G) specifically designed for use with teachers, administrators, and

external assessment consultants. Approval was granted to use the SCAI-S-G in the research

study (see Appendix A). All surveys were returned to ASSC through an online link and data

compiled by ASSC.

The SCAI-S-G is recognized as a scientifically sound assessment tool, receiving a top

rating by an independent study of climate instruments and has also been approved by the U.S.

Department of Education Office of Safe and Supportive Schools (Alliance for the Study of

School Climate, 2014). This instrument was also used in many research studies (Gangi, 2010;

Shindler, Jones, Williams, Taylor, & Cadenas, 2009; Thapa et al., 2013). Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient for internal consistency reliability for the survey tool was calculated by adding

together the questions for each of the sub-scales, and then dividing by the total number of items

present in the scale. Using this coding format allowed the average of the composite scale to be

interpreted as a function of the original measurement metric of the scale (i.e., a scale of 1 to 4).

This was done for each sub scale to determine Cronbach’s alpha of reliability. Each of the sub-

scales of the SCAI are all above the accepted standard for a reliable instrument of 0.7 with each
 56

of the sub-scales holding a Cronbach’s alpha reliability measure at .77 or higher. The individual

coefficients for each sub-scale are as follows: physical environment-.77, faculty relations-.89,

student interactions-.83, leadership and decisions-.94, discipline and environment-.89, learning

and assessment-.90, attitude and culture-.91 and community relations-.80, N=212 (ASSC, 2015).

Validity for the instrument was demonstrated through face, construct, and predictive validity

(ASSC, 2015). Face validity is demonstrated, as each of the item descriptions will be familiar to

participants and mirrors what takes place within the school setting (ASSC, 2015). The items also

reflect current research in regard to characteristics found within effective schools (ASSC, 2015).

Construct validity on each of the eight sub-scales is grounded in a theoretical set of constructs

that relate to each other both practically and theoretically (ASSC, 2015). This indicates that the

items were created based on principles that predict a school’s success. In other words, if certain

characteristics are found in a school, then it is more than likely that other characteristics will also

be found (ASSC, 2015). Predictive validity is shown as stated by The Alliance for the Study of

School Climate, “The SCAI is predictive of student achievement and as a reliable measure of

internal locus of control producing behaviors it is predictive of outcomes related to the level of

internal locus of control” (ASSC, 2015, para. 5).

The eight sub-scales are defined as follows and describe the dimensions of the SCAI-S-G

in order to provide a more complete picture of school climate. In the SCAI-S-G, physical

appearance looks at the relationship between the physical setting of the school, including how

others view it. It also incorporates the custodial staff and their role and expectations (ASSC,

2015). Faculty relations looks at relationships between faculty members and the level of respect

and collaboration that is present (ASSC, 2015). Student interactions examine peer relationships

relative to school climate. It also looks at whether these interactions are intentional or accidental
 57

(ASSC, 2015). The administrative leadership style is examined in the sub-scale of leadership

and decision-making. The shared vision of the school community is also examined (ASSC,

2015). Discipline and management examines discipline styles and also strategies that focus on

student responsibility and motivation. Teacher-student interactions are also given consideration

in relation to the climate (ASSC, 2015). Learning and assessment examines learner centered

instruction and clear learning targets (ASSC, 2015). Attitudes and culture is the seventh sub-

scale in the SCAI-S-G and examines social and communal bonds as well as prevailing attitudes

in the school including a sense of pride in the school (ASSC, 2015). The final sub-scale is

community relations. This encompasses the community’s attitudes toward and perceptions of

the school as well as the degree to which the school is a part of the community (ASSC, 2015).

The SCAI-S-G consists of 79 items and takes approximately 22 minutes to complete.

Each item is rated on a three-point Likert scale with ratings that range from high to low.

Participants will be asked to select the rating that best describes the school currently and

responses will be recorded as follows: high=3, high-middle=2.5, middle=2, middle-low=1.5 and

low=1. The eight sub-factors include a different number of items under each one and are listed

as follows: physical appearance-8 items, faculty relations-11 items, student interactions-10

items, leadership and decisions-11 items, discipline environment- 10 items, learning and

assessment-12 items, attitude and culture-10 items, and community relations-7 items. The scores

on the SCAI-S-G can range from a low of 0 to a high of 237. The high scores range from 159-

237 and describe a positive school climate that depicts a collaborative school, with a vision that

drives effective, student-centered teaching and learning. The school vision and mission would

also include teaching and learning built on clear standards and assessments that measure a

student’s progress towards mastery (ASSC, 2015). The middle scores on the SCAI-S-G range
 58

from 80-158 and describe a school climate that depicts a collegial school with a vision that has

good intentions that may work most of the time. However, the teacher is the central part of the

learning environment. Student voice and choice is also not a significant part of the learning

process. The school follows standards and assessments created and defined by external entities

with a mix of student success (ASSC, 2015). The low scores on the SCAI-S-G can range from

0-79. These scores would indicate a school climate that is focused on the faculty and staff and

their interests. The atmosphere is competitive, contentious and unfriendly with poor

relationships among staff and students. Learning is not student-centered and assessments are

used to punish or motivate learning in a negative way. The whole educational experience has a

negative effect on students (ASSC, 2015).

Procedures

IRB approval was secured for the research study (see Appendix E). Following

IRB approval, ASSC was contacted to work out final details needed to carry out the inventory

including payment for the use of the survey and how it would be emailed to participants. The

identified New England high school principals in proficiency-based schools and non-proficiency

based schools were contacted by telephone to explain the research study and obtain consent. In

order to preserve the anonymity of the survey, the researcher sent a link to the survey and

consent form (Appendix D) to principals and the principals sent out the link to their staff. An

explanation of the voluntary study was sent with the link so that teachers were fully informed

and if requested, a paper copy was provided (Appendix C). The email explained that the

principals of the participants’ schools had granted prior approval. The SCAI-S-G was given in

an online format provided by ASSC to participating high school teachers, unless a paper copy

was specifically requested. A few days following the requested deadline specified for
 59

respondents to complete the assessment survey, the principals were contacted with a follow up

email and another link with an appeal for a response from their staff (Gall et al., 2007).

All principals were sent a follow up, thank you email to be distributed to their staff, once

the assessment survey was completed. The principals were also given the opportunity to request

a copy of the summary and findings.

Data Analysis

Prior to all statistical analyses, there were several data preparation steps taken. The

original dataset consisted of a sample of 405, however, the data was restricted to 212 valid cases

present for all the dependent variables. List-wise deletion was used during all analyses for

missing variables for the independent samples t-test (Allison, 2002). An exploratory analysis of

data was conducted with descriptive statistics computed for each teacher group. Gall et al.

(2007) pointed out that usually the descriptive statistics reported include the group mean and

standard deviation. Next a t test for the difference between two sample means was conducted.

The two teacher groups were compared in each of the eight categories of the SCAI-S-G survey

with a separate t test for each comparison. The data was examined to accept or fail to reject the

null hypothesis for each category. Gall et al. (2007) emphasized the importance of a separate t

test for each category explaining that there is more of a chance to find a significant difference

between groups by comparing the groups on a number of variables. For each t test there are

three assumptions regarding the scores. According to Gall et al. (2007), “The first assumption is

that the scores form an interval or ratio scale of measurement” (p. 315). The second and third

assumptions are that score variances for the populations under study are normally distributed and

equal (Gall et al., 2007). A box and whisker plot was run and any outliers dismissed. The

researcher checked for normality using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the Shapiro-Wilks test (Green
 60

and Salkind, 2014). Some violations of normality were found and noted. The Levene’s Test for

Equality of Variance was run to find out if the population distributions consisted of the same

variances with the hope that the F ratio will be nonsignificant (Warner, 2013).

In order to limit the risk of type I error with multiple tests run, a Bonferroni correction

was used (Warner, 2013). The Bonferroni correction is calculated by dividing the alpha level of

.05 by the number of tests run, which in this research is 8, with the new alpha level set at .006.

The null hypothesis was rejected with statistical significance if p < .006. The effect size is

reported as eta squared (η2) (Gall et al., 2007).

Due to violations that the Shapiro-Wilks and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests showed,

assumption of normality was not tenable (Green and Salkind, 2014). Therefore, a non-

parametric test, Mann-Whitney U, was conducted and results reported. Scores are converted to

ranks and therefore, outliers do not have as much significance on results (Warner, 2013). Due to

the use of the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U, outliers were not excluded (Warner, 2013).
 61

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Overview

This study sought to identify if there is a difference between school climate in a

proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency based high school from the teacher’s

viewpoint. The independent variable is the type of school, proficiency-based or non-proficiency

based. The dependent variable is school climate measured through the eight categories in the

SCAI-S-G.

This chapter begins with a review of the research question that navigates this study,

followed by the eight null hypotheses associated with that question. The descriptive statistics are

presented followed by results of the data analyses.

Research Question

RQ1: Is there a difference between the teachers’ assessments of school climate in a

proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school on the eight categories as

measured by The Alliance for the Study of School Climate Secondary Assessment Instrument

(SCAI-S-G)?

Null Hypotheses

H01: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

physical environment in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high

school as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H02: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

faculty relations in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school as

measured by the SCAI-S-G.

 62

H03: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

student interactions in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school

as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H04: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

leadership and decisions in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high

school as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H05: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

the discipline environment in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high

school as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H06: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

learning and assessment in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high

school as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H07: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

attitude and culture in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school

as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

H08: There is no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ assessments of

community relations in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school

as measured by the SCAI-S-G.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are presented as frequencies for the categorical variables for

proficiency based and non-proficiency based schools as noted in Table 1 (Ritchey, 2008).

Slightly more than half (58.7%) of the sample is in non-proficiency based schools.
 63

Table 1
Percentages and Frequencies, Study Variables
Frequency Percent
Non-PBE schools 125 58.7%
PBE schools 87 40.8%
N 212 100.0%

Descriptive statistics including the means and standard deviations were calculated for all

variables in Table 2. Ritchey (2008) notes that for continuous variables, means and standard

deviations are the appropriate descriptive statistics to report. It is important to note that for every

subscale, non-proficiency-based schools have a higher mean than proficiency-based schools

(Table 2). This indicates that there is a difference between the two types of schools in regard to

school climate and will be further discussed in chapter 5.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations, Study Variables
Non-PBE
PBE schools
schools
Variables M SD M SD
Physical Environment 3.93 0.66 3.33 0.71

Faculty Relations 4.00 0.67 3.87 0.59

Student Interactions 3.95 0.56 3.75 0.49

Leadership & Decisions 3.88 0.81 3.65 0.77

Discipline & Environment 3.91 0.63 3.83 0.58

Learning & Assessment 3.91 0.62 3.89 0.61

Attitude & Culture 3.88 0.66 3.59 0.66

Community Relations 4.07 0.65 3.64 0.77

NOTE: n = 212
 64

Results

In order to investigate the research question and corresponding hypotheses associated

with the research question, a series of independent samples t-tests were used. As Ritchey (2008)

notes, the use of an independent samples t-test is appropriate when the dependent variable is

continuous in nature and the independent variable is a dichotomous nominal-level discrete

variable. These criteria are satisfied under the current circumstances. Gall et al. (2007) also

emphasized the importance of a separate t-test for each category, explaining that there is more of

a chance to find a significant difference between groups by comparing groups on a number of

variables.

Assumption Tests

For each t-test, the assumption of normality was checked utilizing the Shapiro-Wilks test

and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Green and Salkind, 2014). These tests were performed for all

non-proficiency based and proficiency based variables. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov

tests are displayed in Table 3, while results of the Shapiro-Wilks tests are displayed in Table 4.
 65

Table 3
Tests of Normality, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Tests
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic Df P
Physical Environment Non-PBE 0.178 124 0.000
Physical Environment PBE 0.100 81 0.045
Faculty Relations Non-PBE 0.116 119 0.000
Faculty Relations PBE 0.110 79 0.018
Student Interactions Non-PBE 0.092 116 0.018
Student Interactions PBE 0.116 81 0.009
Leadership & Decisions Non-PBE 0.103 115 0.004
Leadership & Decisions PBE 0.096 77 0.078
Discipline & Environment Non-PBE 0.121 113 0.000
Discipline & Environment PBE 0.103 74 0.052
Learning & Assessment Non-PBE 0.112 110 0.002
Learning & Assessment PBE 0.097 77 0.068
Attitude & Culture Non-PBE 0.085 108 0.051
Attitude & Culture PBE 0.095 75 0.094
Community Relations Non-PBE 0.115 107 0.001
Community Relations PBE 0.097 80 0.061

As Table 3 indicates, all of the variables violate the assumption of normality except for

Leadership and Decisions PBE, Discipline and Environment PBE, Learning and Assessment

PBE, Attitude and Culture non PBE, Attitude and Culture PBE and Community Relations PBE.
 66

Table 4
Tests of Normality, Shapiro-Wilk Tests
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig.
Physical Environment Non-PBE 0.921 124 0.000
Physical Environment PBE 0.982 81 0.333
Faculty Relations Non-PBE 0.949 119 0.000
Faculty Relations PBE 0.902 79 0.000
Student Interactions Non-PBE 0.972 116 0.015
Student Interactions PBE 0.983 81 0.342
Leadership & Decisions Non-PBE 0.932 115 0.000
Leadership & Decisions PBE 0.951 77 0.005
Discipline & Environment Non-PBE 0.953 113 0.001
Discipline & Environment PBE 0.977 74 0.197
Learning & Assessment Non-PBE 0.969 110 0.011
Learning & Assessment PBE 0.921 77 0.000
Attitude & Culture Non-PBE 0.960 108 0.002
Attitude & Culture PBE 0.985 75 0.545
Community Relations Non-PBE 0.949 107 0.000
Community Relations PBE 0.971 80 0.063

As Table 4 indicates, all of the variables violate the assumption of normality except for

Physical Environment PBE, Student Interactions PBE, Discipline and Environment PBE,

Attitude and Culture PBE and Community Relations PBE. Due to the results of these tests, the

assumption of normal data was not tenable. This may be due to the fact that the teacher groups

were not equal with slightly more than half (58.7%) of the sample from non-proficiency-based

schools. With the violation of non-normal data, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was

conducted and results reported following the t test.

Data was screened by checking for outliers for all eight of the dependent variables via

box and whisker plots (Green and Salkind, 2014). The box and whisker plots are shown in

figures 1-8 with outliers noted.

 67

Figure 1. Box and Whisker Plot for Physical Environment scale.

As can be seen by Figure 1, there are 7 outliers for Non-PBE schools and 4 outliers for

PBE schools.

Figure 2. Box and Whisker Plot for Faculty Relations scale.

As can be seen by Figure 2, there are 2 outliers for Non-PBE schools and 2 outliers for

PBE schools.
 68

Figure 3. Box and Whisker Plot for Student Interactions scale.

As can be seen by Figure 3, there are 2 outliers for Non-PBE schools and 2 outliers for

PBE schools.

Figure 4. Box and Whisker Plot for Leadership and Decisions scale.

As can be seen by Figure 4, there are 2 outliers for Non-PBE schools and 3 outliers for

PBE schools.
 69

Figure 5. Box and Whisker Plot for Discipline and Environment scale.

As can be seen by Figure 5, there is 1 outlier for Non-PBE schools and no outliers for

PBE schools.

Figure 6. Box and Whisker Plot for Learning and Assessment scale.

As can be seen by Figure 6, there is 1 outlier for Non-PBE schools and 3 outliers for PBE

schools.
 70

Figure 7. Box and Whisker Plot for Attitude and Culture scale.

As can be seen by Figure 7, there are 2 outliers for Non-PBE schools and no outliers for

PBE schools.

Figure 8. Box and Whisker Plot for Community Relations scale.

As can be seen by Figure 8, there were no outliers.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were run with and without the outliers with no change in

the results. With the Mann-Whitney U test utilized in this research, Warner (2014) indicates that

outliers are not a problem in non-parametric analyses and can be left alone.
 71

Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis One

The first null hypothesis states, H01: There is no statistically significant difference

between the teachers’ assessments of physical environment in a proficiency-based high school

and a non-proficiency-based high school as measured by the SCAI-S-G. In order to investigate

this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The use of an independent

samples t-test is appropriate when the dependent variable is continuous in nature and the

independent variable is a dichotomous, nominal-level discrete variable. These criteria are

satisfied under the current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 5. It was found that

the domain of physical environment yielded a statistically significant difference as a function of

the independent variable (t=6.18; p=0.000). Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance shows

that the data are homoscedastic (F=0.409; p=0.523). The analysis indicates that teachers in non-

proficiency-based schools (M=3.93) have a slightly higher score on physical environment

relative to teachers in proficiency-based schools (M=3.33), therefore the null is rejected with p

<.006. The data was run with and without outliers with no change in results.

Due to violations that the Shapiro-Wilks test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed,

assumption of normality was not tenable (Green and Salkind, 2014). For the K-S test, in the

domain of physical environment, non-proficiency-based, D(124)=.178, p=.000 and proficiency-

based, D(81)=.100, p=.045. With these violations of normality evident, a non-parametric test,

Mann-Whitney U was conducted. The use of the Mann-Whitney U test is appropriate when

assumption of normality is not tenable (Warner, 2013). This criterion is satisfied under the

current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 6. It was found that the domain of

physical environment yielded a statistically significant difference. The analysis indicates that
 72

teachers in non-proficiency-based schools (M=123.09) have a slightly higher average rank on

physical environment relative to teachers in proficiency-based schools (M=72.24), Z = -6.017; p

= 0.000. Therefore, the null is rejected with p <.006. It is important to note that these results

agree with the t test results above.

Null Hypothesis Two

The second null hypothesis states, H02: There is no statistically significant difference

between the teachers’ assessments of faculty relations in a proficiency-based high school and a

non-proficiency-based high school as measured by the SCAI-S-G. In order to investigate this

hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The use of an independent samples t-

test is appropriate when the dependent variable is continuous in nature and the independent

variable is a dichotomous, nominal-level discrete variable (Ritchey, 2008). These criteria are

satisfied under the current circumstances. The results from the independent samples t-test are

reported in Table 5. The results indicated no significant differences between the teachers’

assessments of faculty relations in a proficiency-based high school (M=3.87) and a non-

proficiency-based high school (M=4.00), (t=1.37; p=0.172). Based on the non-significant

results, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis. The data was run with and without

outliers with no change in results.

Due to violations that the Shapiro-Wilks test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed,

assumption of normality was not tenable (Green and Salkind, 2014). For the K-S test, in the

domain of faculty relations, non-proficiency-based, D(119)=.116, p=.000 and proficiency-based,

D(79)=.110, p=.018. With these violations of normality evident, a non-parametric test, Mann-

Whitney U was conducted. The use of the Mann-Whitney U test is appropriate when assumption

of normality is not tenable (Warner, 2013). This criterion is satisfied under the current
 73

circumstances. The results are reported in Table 6. The results indicated there were no

significant differences between the teachers’ assessments of faculty relations in a proficiency-

based high school (M=90.09) and a non-proficiency-based high school (M=105.75), Z = -1.886;

p = .059. Based on the non-significant results, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis.

It is important to note that these results agree with the t test results above.

Null Hypothesis Three

The third null hypothesis states, H03: There is no statistically significant difference

between the teachers’ assessments of student interactions in a proficiency-based high school and

a non-proficiency-based high school as measured by the SCAI-S-G. In order to investigate this

hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The use of an independent samples t-

test is appropriate when the dependent variable is continuous in nature and the independent

variable is a dichotomous, nominal-level discrete variable (Ritchey, 2008). These criteria are

satisfied under the current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 5. It was found that

the domain of student interactions yielded a statistically significant difference as a function of the

independent variable (t=2.66; p=0.008). Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance shows that

the data are homoscedastic (F=0.860; p=0.355). The analysis indicates no significant differences

between the teachers’ assessments of student interactions in non-proficiency-based schools

(M=3.95) and proficiency-based schools (M=3.75). The researcher failed to reject the null

hypothesis. The data was run with and without outliers with no change in results.

Due to violations that the Shapiro-Wilks test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed,

assumption of normality was not tenable (Green and Salkind, 2014). For the K-S test, in the

domain of student interactions, non-proficiency-based, D(116)=.092, p=.018 and proficiency-

based, D(81)=.116, p=.009. With these violations of normality evident, a non-parametric test,
 74

Mann-Whitney U was conducted. The use of the Mann-Whitney U test is appropriate when

assumption of normality is not tenable (Warner, 2013). This criterion is satisfied under the

current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 6. It was found that the domain of

student interactions yielded a statistically significant difference. The analysis indicates that

teachers in non-proficiency-based schools (M=109.26) have a slightly higher average rank on

student interactions relative to teachers in proficiency-based schools (M=84.31), Z = -3.030; p =

.002. Therefore, the null is rejected with p <.006. It is important to note that these results do not

agree with the t test results above.

Null Hypothesis Four

The fourth null hypothesis states, H04: There is no statistically significant difference

between the teachers’ assessments of leadership and decisions in a proficiency-based high school

and a non-proficiency-based high school as measured by the SCAI-S-G. In order to investigate

this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The use of an independent

samples t-test is appropriate when the dependent variable is continuous in nature and the

independent variable is a dichotomous, nominal-level discrete variable (Ritchey, 2008). These

criteria are satisfied under the current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 5. The

results indicated no significant differences between the teachers’ assessments of leadership and

decisions in a proficiency-based high school (M=3.65) and a non-proficiency-based high school

(M=3.88), (t=1.99; p=0.047). Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance shows that the data are

homoscedastic (F=0.698; p=0.405). Based on the non-significant results, the researcher failed to

reject the null hypothesis. The data was run with and without outliers with no change in results.

Due to violations that the Shapiro-Wilks test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed,

assumption of normality was not tenable (Green and Salkind, 2014). For the K-S test, in the
 75

domain of leadership and decisions, non-proficiency-based, D(115)=.103, p=.004 and

proficiency-based, D(77)=.096, p=.078. With these violations of normality evident, a non-

parametric test, Mann-Whitney U was conducted. The use of the Mann-Whitney U test is

appropriate when assumption of normality is not tenable (Warner, 2013). This criterion is

satisfied under the current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 6. The results

indicated there were no significant differences between the teachers’ assessments of leadership

and decisions in a proficiency-based high school (M=84.82) and a non-proficiency-based high

school (M=104.32), Z = -2.385; p = .017. Based on the non-significant results, the researcher

failed to reject the null hypothesis. It is important to note that these results agree with the t test

results above.

Null Hypothesis Five

The fifth null hypothesis states, H05: There is no statistically significant difference

between the teachers’ assessments of the discipline environment in a proficiency-based high

school and a non-proficiency-based high school as measured by the SCAI-S-G. In order to

investigate this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The use of an

independent samples t-test is appropriate when the dependent variable is continuous in nature

and the independent variable is a dichotomous, nominal-level discrete variable (Ritchey, 2008).

These criteria are satisfied under the current circumstances. The results from the independent

samples t-test are reported in Table 5. The results indicated no significant differences between

the teachers’ assessments of the discipline environment in a proficiency-based high school

(M=3.83) and a non-proficiency-based high school (M=3.91), (t=1.00; p=0.321). Based on the

non-significant results, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis. The data was run with

and without outliers with no change in results.

 76

Due to violations that the Shapiro-Wilks test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed,

assumption of normality was not tenable (Green and Salkind, 2014). For the K-S test, in the

domain of discipline environment, non-proficiency-based, D(113)=.121, p=.000 and proficiency-

based, D(74)=.103, p=.052. With these violations of normality evident, a non-parametric test,

Mann-Whitney U was conducted. The use of the Mann-Whitney U test is appropriate when

assumption of normality is not tenable (Warner, 2013). This criterion is satisfied under the

current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 6. The results indicated there were no

significant differences between the teachers’ assessments of the discipline environment in a

proficiency-based high school (M=86.75) and a non-proficiency-based high school (M=98.75), Z

= -1.485; p = .138. Based on the non-significant results, the researcher failed to reject the null

hypothesis. It is important to note that these results agree with the t test results above.

Null Hypothesis Six

The sixth null hypothesis states, H06: There is no statistically significant difference

between the teachers’ assessments of learning and assessment in a proficiency-based high school

and a non-proficiency-based high school as measured by the SCAI-S-G. In order to investigate

this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The use of an independent

samples t-test is appropriate when the dependent variable is continuous in nature and the

independent variable is a dichotomous, nominal-level discrete variable (Ritchey, 2008). These

criteria are satisfied under the current circumstances. The results from the independent samples

t-test are reported in Table 5. The results indicated no significant differences between the

teachers’ assessments of learning and assessment in a proficiency-based high school (M=3.89)

and a non-proficiency-based high school (M=3.91), (t=0.32; p=0.750). Based on the non-

significant results, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis. The data was run with and
 77

without outliers with no change in results.

Due to violations that the Shapiro-Wilks test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed,

assumption of normality was not tenable (Green and Salkind, 2014). For the K-S test, in the

domain of learning and assessment, non-proficiency-based, D(110)=.112, p=.002 and

proficiency-based, D(77)=.097, p=.068. With these violations of normality evident, a non-

parametric test, Mann-Whitney U was conducted. The use of the Mann-Whitney U test is

appropriate when assumption of normality is not tenable (Warner, 2013). This criterion is

satisfied under the current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 6. The results

indicated there were no significant differences between the teachers’ assessments of learning and

assessment in a proficiency-based high school (M=92.25) and a non-proficiency based high

school (M=95.23), Z = -.371; p = .711. Based on the non-significant results, the researcher failed

to reject the null hypothesis. It is important to note that these results agree with the t test results

above.

Null Hypothesis Seven

The seventh null hypothesis states, H07: There is no statistically significant difference

between the teachers’ assessments of attitude and culture in a proficiency-based high school and

a non-proficiency-based high school as measured by the SCAI-S-G. In order to investigate this

hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The use of an independent samples t-

test is appropriate when the dependent variable is continuous in nature and the independent

variable is a dichotomous, nominal-level discrete variable (Ritchey, 2008). These criteria are

satisfied under the current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 5. It was found that

the domain of attitude and culture yielded a statistically significant difference as a function of the

independent variable (t=2.86; p=0.004). Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance shows that
 78

the data are homoscedastic (F=0.199; p=0.656). The analysis indicates that teachers in non-

proficiency-based schools (M=3.88) have a slightly higher score in the domain of attitude and

culture relative to teachers in proficiency-based schools (M=3.59), therefore the null is rejected

with p <.006. The data was run with and without outliers with no change in results.

Due to violations that the Shapiro-Wilks test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed,

assumption of normality was not tenable (Green and Salkind, 2014). For the K-S test, in the

domain of attitude and culture, non-proficiency-based, D(108)=.085, p=.051 and proficiency-

based, D(75)=.095, p=.094. With these violations of normality evident, a non-parametric test,

Mann-Whitney U was conducted. The use of the Mann-Whitney U test is appropriate when

assumption of normality is not tenable (Warner, 2013). This criterion is satisfied under the

current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 6. It was found that the domain of

attitude and culture yielded a statistically significant difference. The analysis indicates that

teachers in non-proficiency based schools (M=102.06) have a slightly higher average rank on

attitude and culture relative to teachers in proficiency-based schools (M=77.52), Z = -3.085; p =

.002. Therefore, the null is rejected with p <.006. It is important to note that these results agree

with the t test results above.

Null Hypothesis Eight

The eighth null hypothesis states, H08: There is no statistically significant difference

between the teachers’ assessments of community relations in a proficiency-based high school

and a non-proficiency-based high school as measured by the SCAI-S-G. In order to investigate

this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The use of an independent

samples t-test is appropriate when the dependent variable is continuous in nature and the

independent variable is a dichotomous, nominal-level discrete variable (Ritchey, 2008). These

 79

criteria are satisfied under the current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 5. It was

found that the domain of community relations yielded a statistically significant difference as a

function of the independent variable (t=4.09; p=0.000). Levene’s test for homogeneity of

variance shows that the data are homoscedastic (F=3.228; p=0.074). The analysis indicates that

teachers in non-proficiency-based schools (M=4.07) have a slightly higher score in the domain of

community relations relative to teachers in proficiency-based schools (M=3.64), therefore the

null is rejected with p <.006. The data was run with and without outliers with no change in

results.

Due to violations that the Shapiro-Wilks test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed,

assumption of normality was not tenable (Green and Salkind, 2014). For the K-S test, in the

domain of community relations, non-proficiency-based, D(107)=.115, p=.001 and proficiency-

based, D(80)=.097, p=.061. With these violations of normality evident, a non-parametric test,

Mann-Whitney U was conducted. The use of the Mann-Whitney U test is appropriate when

assumption of normality is not tenable (Warner, 2013). This criterion is satisfied under the

current circumstances. The results are reported in Table 6. It was found that the domain of

community relations yielded a statistically significant difference. The analysis indicates that

teachers in non-proficiency based schools (M=106.90) have a slightly higher average rank on

community relations relative to teachers in proficiency-based schools (M=76.74), Z = -3.784; p =

.000. Therefore, the null is rejected with p <.006. It is important to note that these results agree

with the t test results above.

 80

Table 5
Independent Samples t-Test Results,8 domains of SCAI-S-G
Non-PBE
PBE schools
schools
Variables M SD M SD T p
0.000
Physical Environment 3.93 0.66 3.33 0.71 6.18

Faculty Relations 4.00 0.67 3.87 0.59 1.37 0.172

Student Interactions 3.95 0.56 3.75 0.49 2.66 0.008

Leadership & Decisions 3.88 0.81 3.65 0.77 1.99 0.047

Discipline & Environment 3.91 0.63 3.83 0.58 1.00 0.321

Learning & Assessment 3.91 0.62 3.89 0.61 0.32 0.750

Attitude & Culture 3.88 0.66 3.59 0.66 2.86 0.004

Community Relations 4.07 0.65 3.64 0.77 4.09 0.000

NOTE: n = 212; all p-values are for two-tailed tests.
 81

Table 6
Mann Whitney U test ,8 domains of SCAI-S-G Results,8 domains of SCAI-S-G
Non-PBE
PBE schools
schools
Variables Mean Rank Mean Rank Z p

Physical Environment 123.09 72.24 -6.017 0.000

Faculty Relations 105.75 90.09 -1.886 0.059

Student Interactions 109.26 84.31 -3.030 0.002

Leadership & Decisions 104.32 84.82 -2.385 0.017

Discipline & Environment 98.75 86.75 -1.485 0.138

Learning & Assessment 95.23 92.25 -0.371 0.711

Attitude & Culture 102.06 77.52 -3.085 0.002

Community Relations 106.90 76.74 -3.784 0.000

NOTE: n = 212; all p-values are for two-tailed tests.
 82

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

Overview

This chapter begins with a discussion of the results and implications of this study in light

of the theory and research outlined in the literature review. The chapter presents the limitations

of the study and concludes with recommendations for future study.

Discussion

The purpose of this quantitative, causal comparative study was to find out whether

proficiency-based education, through the perspective of high school teachers, impacts school

climate. Proficiency-based education is a shift in thinking for many and emphasizes student-

centered learning (Starr, 2011). Throughout the United States, various schools have shifted to

proficiency-based education but the research is limited on whether or not this system of

instruction impacts school climate (CompetencyWorks, 2015). Prior research indicated the

positive effects of the proficiency-based model in regard to student learning and engagement,

teacher collaboration and satisfaction, and academic performance (CompetencyWorks, 2015,

Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Proficiency-based education also provides for the needs of

the individual found in the works of Maslow (1943) and Ryan and Deci (2000) concerning the

theory of human motivation.

With the push for academic reform through proficiency-based education, Thapa et al.

(2013) pointed out that positive school climate is an important consideration in strengthening

instructional supports and called for more research on school climate linked to various

curriculum models or interventions. Therefore, school climate was examined through the lens of

the proficiency and non-proficiency based model, addressing eight domains of school climate.
 83

The first research hypothesis sought to discover if a statistically significant difference

existed between the teachers’ assessments of physical environment in a proficiency-based high

school and a non-proficiency-based high school. The physical environment includes the setting

of the school, how others view it and the custodial staff and their expectations. While physical

environment may not directly affect the teaching model utilized in a school, it does impact

school climate and is important to consider when looking at the overall perceptions of school

climate. The analysis indicates that teachers in non-proficiency-based schools scored slightly

higher on physical environment relative to teachers in proficiency-based schools. Based on these

results, the null hypothesis was rejected. Uline et al. (2010) points out that poorer facilities may

detract from good teachers taking jobs in such environments and this in turn impacts school

climate. This research does not indicate the condition of the facilities in the sample schools.

Therefore, further research is necessary to investigate whether or not there is a difference in the

physical environment of each type of school and whether this in fact does impact school climate.

Research indicates that physical environment, however, is important for any instructional model.

Maslow’s theory of human motivation also highlights the importance of a safe physical

environment in order for an individual to meet their full potential (Maslow, 1942; Ryan & Deci,

2000).

The second research hypothesis sought to discover whether a statistically significant

difference occurred between the teacher’s assessments of faculty relations in a proficiency-based

high school and a non-proficiency-based high school. Faculty relations pertains to the level of

respect and collaboration between faculty members (ASSC, 2015). The results indicated no

significant differences and, based on this non-significance, the researcher failed to reject the null

hypothesis.
 84

Despite no significant differences between the two models of instruction in relation to

this research project, research does indicate that collaboration is important and may foster

relationships that are key to a positive school climate (CompetencyWorks, 2015; Sturgis, 2015).

The proficiency-based education model places a strong emphasis on teachers working

collaboratively with students and colleagues (Melville et al., 2012; Sturgis, 2015). For this

reason, it is interesting to note that there were no significant differences. The teachers in the non-

proficiency-based school had a higher rank (105.79) than the teachers in the proficiency-based

school (90.09) showing that collaboration and relationships seem to be stronger in the non-

proficiency based schools. This is contrary to the literature. This may be due in part to the type

of leadership that is present in each school type. Administrative leadership that supports

collaboration and relationship building fosters a positive school climate (Conner, 2014). Troman

(2008) also found that relationships matter to teachers as they discussed their opinions on school

climate. Nevertheless, with the huge shift in the teaching and learning model of proficiency-

based education, and the time required to implement new models of instruction, educators may

be sacrificing collegial relationships. With the means in both schools very close, (Non-PBE,

M=4.00; PBE, M=3.87) further research is needed in this area.

The third research hypothesis sought to discover whether there was a statistically

significant difference between the teacher’s assessments of student interactions in a proficiency-

based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school. Student interactions as measured by

the SCAI-S-G examine peer relationships and a teacher’s perspective on whether those

interactions are intentional or accidental. The results of the analysis indicated teachers in a non-

proficiency based school had a slightly higher score on student interactions than teachers in

proficiency-based schools, therefore the researcher rejected the null hypothesis.

 85

These findings were surprising in light of the emphasis that proficiency-based education

places on student interactions and peer relationships. The proficiency-based model should

support and cultivate a sense of belonging and relatedness through small group learning and

smaller learning communities within the school (Dweck et al., 2014). Positive faculty

relationships may act as a role model for students and impact student interactions (Conner,

2014). With faculty relations in non-proficiency-based schools showing a higher rank than the

proficiency-based schools, and research indicating a correlation between faculty relations and

student interactions, further research in this area would be appropriate. The stress of educational

reform may impact both faculty relations and student interactions.

The fourth research hypothesis sought to discover whether there was a statistically

significant difference between the teacher’s assessments of leadership and decisions in a

proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school. Leadership and

decisions on the SCAI-S-G examines the administrative leadership style in the school. The

results indicated no significant differences and, based on this non-significance, the researcher

failed to reject the null hypothesis.

Due to the need for the Bonferroni correction, the alpha level was set very low, at .006. If

the usual alpha level of .05 had been used, then the null hypothesis would have been rejected. In

order to determine whether or not there is a difference in teachers’ assessments of leadership and

decisions between these two types of schools, further research is needed in this area.

Leadership is important in determining school climate (Hough & Schmitt, 2011; May &

Sanders; Southern Regional Education Board, 2009, 2012; Zullig et al., 2010). This research

project indicated that there was no difference in school climate in relation to leadership and

decisions. Further research in this area may be beneficial as schools experience educational
 86

reform and change. Beaudoin (2011) shared that transformational leaders are the driving force

behind positive school reform and positive school climate. The research on leadership indicates

that the type of leadership factors significantly in affecting educational change and creating a

positive school climate.

The fifth research hypothesis sought to discover whether there was a statistically

significant difference between the teacher’s assessments of the discipline environment in a

proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school. The discipline

environment considers discipline styles of the staff and strategies that focus on student

responsibility and motivation. The results indicate no significant differences between the

teacher’s assessments of the discipline environment in a proficiency-based high school and a

non-proficiency-based high school. Therefore, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis.

Past research on the discipline environment indicated that strong leadership and teacher’s

management styles affected this domain (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Shindler et al., 2011).

Considering the proficiency-based model’s emphasis on fostering relationships between teacher

and students and the subsequent impact on student behavior and learning, it was surprising that

no statistical difference occurred between the two models (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Dweck et al.,

2014; Griffin & Galassi, 2010; Sturgis, 2015). Deci (2009) denotes the importance of the self-

determination theory in building relationships that in turn fosters positive school climate. It is

unclear, however, whether the teachers involved in this research project have internalized this

importance thereby impacting the results. Furthermore, with the stress of educational reform,

teachers in proficiency-based schools may be struggling to manage classrooms built around

small group instruction and individual student needs (Anari, 2012; Lim & Eo, 2014; Stauffer &

Mason, 2013; Thapa et al., 2013). Further research in this area is appropriate.
 87

The sixth research hypothesis sought to discover whether there was a statistically

significant difference between the teacher’s assessments of learning and assessment in a

proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school. Learning and

assessment examines learner-centered classrooms and clear targets. The results of the research

analysis indicate no significant differences between the teachers’ assessment of learning and

assessment in a proficiency-based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school. Based

on the non-significant results, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis.

These findings were unexpected with the strong emphasis that proficiency-based

education places on the learner. Proficiency-based education emphasizes individual academic

support to assist the learner in mastery of learning targets at the learner’s own pace

(CompetencyWorks, 2015; Maine Department of Education, 2015). This model also provides

cognitive scaffolding that gives individual support to the student and their needs (Dweck et al.,

2014). With only a slightly higher rank in the non-proficiency-based school (95.23) than the

proficiency-based school (92.25) in regard to learning and assessment, this seems to indicate

what past research has shown, any classroom or school that focuses on individual student needs

positively impacts school climate (Hoy, 2012). Further research in the area of learning and

assessment and various teaching models may be appropriate.

The seventh research hypothesis sought to discover whether there was a statistically

significant difference between the teacher’s assessments of attitude and culture in a proficiency-

based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school. Attitude and culture examines

social and communal bonds within the school and how teachers and students feel connected to

the school. The results of the analysis indicated that teachers in non-proficiency-based schools
 88

scored slightly higher in the domain of attitude and culture relative to teachers in proficiency-

based schools and therefore, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis.

The literature addressed a strong need for teachers and students to feel connected to the

school and hold a sense of belonging that, in turn, positively affects school climate (Friedlaender

et al., 2014, Frehill & Dunsmuir, 2015; Goodenow & Grady, 1993). The proficiency-based

education model emphasizes relationships and collaboration (Dweck et al., 2014; Maine

Department of Education, 2015) and, therefore, it was remarkable that the results of the analysis

showed a higher score in non-proficiency-based schools in the domain of attitude and culture.

This result may indicate that it is not necessarily the model of education used but the vision and

leadership style of the school staff that affects the domain of attitude and culture. Stress on

teachers and students, that educational reform brings to the school and classroom, may also

impact the results (Anari, 2012; Lim & Eo, 2014; Maine Department of Education, 2015;

Stauffer & Mason, 2013).

The eighth research hypothesis sought to discover whether there was a statistically

significant difference between the teacher’s assessments of community relations in a proficiency-

based high school and a non-proficiency-based high school. The domain of community relations

examines the perceptions of teacher’s attitudes in relation to the community including parents

and community members. Based on the analysis, teachers in non-proficiency based schools have

a slightly higher rank in the domain of community relations relative to teachers in proficiency-

based schools. Therefore, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis.

According to the research, building school-family-community relations starts with good

communication. Schools need to engage parents and community members in the educational

process (Griffin & Galassi, 2010; Jeynes, 2007). This becomes extremely important as
 89

communities, in general, maintain strong, long-held beliefs regarding education making good

communication vital in helping the school community understand the shift to proficiency-based

education. With the push for proficiency-based education and educational reform, community

relations should be noted as an important part of the process. Schools must clearly communicate

the changes that are taking place in regard to teaching models, grading and graduation. If the

school community does not understand the reason for educational reform, they will want to hold

on to what they have known in education and possibly retain negative feelings towards change

such as in the proficiency-based education model (Griffin & Galassi, 2010; Jeynes, 2007;

Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011). With the non-proficiency-based schools in this research showing

a higher rank (106.90) than the proficiency-based schools (76.74), community relations must be

strengthened in order to build a positive school climate that will ultimately impact the success of

students in a proficiency-based model.

Implications

This research study added to the body of knowledge on school climate and proficiency-

based education through the lens of school climate. This research also adds to the literature on

school climate and its importance in the process of educational reform and change. Through the

analysis of data, it was found that there was a statistical difference in four domains of school

climate with non-proficiency-based schools showing a slightly higher score than proficiency-

based schools: physical environment, student interactions, attitude and culture and community

relations. The researcher feels strongly that the higher ranks in these areas are due to the many

forces that are present in the midst of educational reform. Schools that are in the process of

change should look closely at building strong faculty and student relationships. The literature

addressed the strong need for school connectedness which in turn strengthens trust (Frehill &
 90

Dunsmuir, 2015; Goodenow & Grady, 1993; Kouzes & Posner, 2012). This trust is foundational

for successful change to happen both in the school and community. Community relations is an

important part of school climate and student success (Ice, Thapa & Cohen, 2015; Perkins, 2008).

The non-proficiency-based schools showed a higher rank than the proficiency-based schools.

This may be an indication that the school community does not have a strong understanding of

proficiency-based education. As schools experience educational change, it is important for

school leadership to build and encourage a working relationship with the community by

providing information and opportunities for the school community to understand how and why

the changes are taking place.

There was no statistically significant difference between non-proficiency-based schools

and proficiency-based schools in the domains of faculty relations, leadership and decisions,

discipline and learning and assessment. While these results were surprising, in light of the

components of the proficiency-based model that encompass student-centered learning,

relationships and autonomy, the information is useful for schools as they strive to build a positive

school climate in the midst of educational change (Khan, 2012; Schwahn & McGarvey, 2011).

The literature indicated that teacher stress and burnout comes with major shifts in school reform

(Anari, 2012; Lim & Eo, 2014; Stauffer & Mason, 2013). At this time of educational reform in

New England, it is possible that teachers in proficiency-based schools are feeling more stress and

burnout due to the vast changes in the grading system, graduation requirements and curriculum

that proficiency-based education requires of teachers and schools. Consequently, this may have

impacted the results especially in the area of faculty relations and learning and assessment. As

teachers make curriculum changes, the amount of work increases along with an increase in stress

levels.
 91

The researcher feels that the discipline environment is impacted once again by the stress

of educational change. Teachers in proficiency-based schools may be struggling to manage

classrooms where individualized student instruction and needs are emphasized. Teachers must

also learn to give up control and teach students how to take responsibility for their learning.

School leadership is important in assisting teachers to manage classrooms built around the needs

of the students by providing professional development and support in this area.

The findings of this research in the area of leadership and decisions showed non-

proficiency-based schools with a higher mean, and a very low difference. Further research in

this area should be conducted, as prior research has indicated the leadership in the school plays a

significant part in the process of school reform and the change process (May & Sanders, n.d.;

May & Supovitz, 2011; Park, 2012; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Proficiency-based

education is a model that requires teachers to give up long-held beliefs and past research

indicates a principal’s leadership style contributes to a positive school climate that embraces

change and innovation (Park, 2012; Starr, 2011). With proficiency-based education at the

forefront of educational change, schools should closely examine the type of leaders that can

move the school towards positive change. It is the opinion of the researcher that effective

leadership is vital in the midst of educational change and plays an important role in affecting

each of the eight domains that impact school climate.

As research indicates, positive school climate is important to student success and schools

in the midst of educational change must find ways to promote a positive school climate. While

this research project did not show a correlation between positive school climate and the

proficiency-based model, it did add to the literature on the importance of leadership and the

foundations that must be present in order to successfully navigate educational reform.

 92

As schools continue the shift to proficiency-based education, further research as to the

impact of this model will add to a better understanding of its effect on school climate and

education.

Limitations

There are several imitations of the study. First, obtaining good response rates from

teachers proved difficult, consequently, the researcher added more schools as the study

progressed, thereby limiting the threat of a poor sample but adding to the number of schools in

the study. Many schools across the United States and in New England are either exploring,

transitioning or fully implemented in the proficiency-based model and this impacted the

availability of schools to obtain a good sample. In order to limit this threat, the researcher

defined the proficiency based schools as fully implemented as defined by the use of a proficiency

based report card. Schools also were not asked how long they had been fully implemented in

regard to proficiency-based education which may impact the findings. With schools moving to a

proficiency-based model, it is recognized that with any change comes a certain amount of stress

and many hours of hard work which may have impacted how teachers in proficiency-based

schools responded to the survey and ultimately impacted school climate (Brand et al., 2008;

Stauffer & Mason, 2013; Zullig et al., 2010). It was also difficult to get teachers to respond as the

researcher did not have direct access to teacher emails and instead went through the principals.

Another limitation was that the researcher depended on the principals in each school to

disseminate the survey link so that respondents stayed anonymous. However, this possibly

impacted the response rates as well. Another limitation of the study was that this survey only

included schools in New England that were identified as proficiency-based or non-proficiency-

based schools by the principals and district administration. Also, this study only targeted high
 93

schools so it is not generalizable to all schools. Finally, a limitation that should be noted is that

the personal life experiences of staff members may affect their view of school climate (Connolly,

James & Beales, 2011).

Recommendations for Future Research

1. The leadership of the schools should be researched to find out if there is any correlation

between the types of leadership in the schools and the impact on school climate in

proficiency-based and non-proficiency-based schools.

2. Further research in school climate and student outcomes may be appropriate (Wolf et al.,

2013).

3. Conducting the research through the lens of the student and parent population would

assist in finding correlations between school climate and proficiency-based education.

4. Further research should investigate the extent to which the physical environment might

impact a student’s attitudes and behaviors in different educational models (Uline et al.,

2010)

5. A qualitative study may be appropriate in the area of school climate and types of teaching

models.

6. Further research on the impact of self-actualization linked to student success within the

proficiency-based model may be beneficial.

 94

REFERENCES

Adams, C. M., Forsyth, P. B., Dollarhide, E., Miskell, R., & Ware, J. (2015). Self-regulatory

climate: A social resource for student regulation and achievement. Teachers College

Record, 117(2), 1-28.

Aldridge, J. M., Laugksch, R. C., & Fraser, B. J. (2006, May). School-level environment and

outcomes-based education in South Africa. Learning Environments Research, 9(2), 123-

147. doi:10.1007/s10984-006-9009-5

Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of

effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student

achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system-secondary. School

Psychology Review, 42(1), 76.

Alliance for the Study of School Climate (2015). Retrieved from

http://web.calstatela.edu/centers/schoolclimate/

Allison, P. (2002). Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Altermatt, E. (2011). Capitalizing on academic success: Students’ interactions with friends as

predictors of school adjustment. Journal of Early Adolescence 31(1). Doi:

10.1177/0272431610379414

Anari, N. (2012). Teachers: Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(4), 256-269.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13665621211223379

Anderson, C. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of

Educational Research, 52(3), 368-420. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170423

 95

Aryana, M. (2010). Relationship between self-esteem and academic achievement amongst pre-

university students. Journal of applied sciences, 10(20), 2474-2477.

Astor, R. A., Guerra, N., & Van Acker, R. (2010). How can we improve school safety research?

Educational researcher, 39(1), 69-78.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem

cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44.

Beaudoin, M. N. (2011). Respect: Where do we start? Educational Leadership, 69(1), 40-44.

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1997). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). New York:

HarperBusiness.

Bird, W. A., Martin, M. J., Tummons, J. D., & Ball, A. L. (2013). Engaging students in

constructive youth-adult relationships: A case study of urban school-based agriculture

students and positive adult mentors. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(2), 29+.

Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:

2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA381950116&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w

&asid=33182d24f8adaaba8fa3fd6de805b7fa

Bosworth, K., Ford, L., & Hernandaz, D. (2011, April). School Climate Factors Contributing to

Student and Faculty Perceptions of Safety in Select Arizona Schools. Journal of School

Health, 81(4), 194-201. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00579.x

Brand, S., Felner, R. D., Seitsinger, A., Burns, A., & Bolton, N. (2008). A large-scale study of

the assessment of the social environment of middle and secondary schools: The validity

and utility of teachers’ ratings of school climate, cultural pluralism, and safety problems
 96

for understanding school effects and school improvement. Journal of School Psychology,

46. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.12.001

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing

Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Budd, A., Buschman, C., & Esch, L. (2009). The correlation of self-esteem and perceived social

support. Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences, 8(1).

Burack, J. A., D’Arrisso, A., Ponizovsky, V., Troop-Gordon, W., Mandour, T., Tootoosis, C., ...

& Fryberg, S. (2013). ‘Friends and grades’: Peer preference and attachment predict

academic success among Naskapi youth. School psychology international, 34(4), 371-

386.

Clark, J. (2005). Achieving teacher education standards through a mathematics performance-

based assessment: A case study of five Colorado preservice-teachers on field experience.

International Education Journal, 5(5), 57-70.

Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2008). Identity, belonging, and achievement: A model, interventions,

implications. Current Directions In Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 17(6), 365-

369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00607

Cohen, G. L., & Geier, V. K. (2010). School climate research summary. Retrieved from

www.schoolclimate.org/climate/research.php

CompetencyWorks (2015). Retrieved from www.competencyworks.org

Congress, U. S. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Public Law, 103-227.

Conner, T. (2014, March). Relationships, school climate, and camaraderie: Comparing

perceptions of an elementary school faculty. Review of Higher Education & Self-

 97

Learning, 7(23), 116-124. Retrieved October 31, 2015, from Education Research

Complete.

Connolly, M., James, C., & Beales, B. (2011). Contrasting perspectives on organizational culture

change in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 12(4), 421-439. doi: 10.1007/s10833-

011-9166-x

Cornell, D. G., & Mayer, M. J. (2010). Why do school order and safety matter? Educational

Researcher, 39(1), 7-15.

Corrigan, M. W., Higgins-D'Alessandro, A., & Brown, P. M. (2013). The case for adding

prosocial education to current education policy: Preparing students for the tests of life,

not just a life of tests. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 10(3) Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1430481274?accountid=12085

Dachtler, J., (2015). Is personalized learning the gateway for all k-12 students to attain agency

and achievement? Retrieved from competencyworks.org

Darragh, L. (2013). Constructing confidence and identities of belonging in mathematics at the

transition to secondary school. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 215-229.

doi:10.1080/14794802.2013.803775

Deangelis, K. J., & Presley, J. B. (2011). Teacher qualifications and school climate: Examining

their interrelationship for school improvement. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 10(1),

84-120. doi:10.1080/15700761003660642

Drolet, M., & Arcand, I. (2013). Positive development, sense of belonging, and support of peers

among early adolescents: Perspectives of different actors. International Education

Studies, 6(4), 29-38. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1447222604?accountid=12085
 98

Dweck, C., Walton, G., & Cohen, G. (2014). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that

promote long-term learning. Retrieved from https://ed.stanford.edu/

sites/default/files/manual/dweck-walton-cohen-2014

Embse, N. V. D., & Hasson, R. (2012). Test anxiety and high-stakes test performance between

school settings: Implications for educators. Preventing School Failure: Alternative

Education for Children and Youth, 56(3), 180-187.

Erdem, E., & Demirel, Ö. (2007). Teacher self-efficacy belief. Social Behavior and

Personality, 35(5), 573-586. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/209906307?accountid=12085

Erickson, G. M. (1973). Maslow's basic needs theory and decision theory. Behavioral Science,

18(3), 210. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1301277724?accountid=12085

Fan, W., Williams, C. M., & Corkin, D. M. (2011). A multilevel analysis of student perceptions

of school climate: The effect of social and academic risk factors. Psychology in the

Schools, 48(6), 632-647. doi:10.1002/pits.20579

Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221-234. http://dx/doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.82.2.221

Frederick, C. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Self-determination in sport: A review using cognitive

evaluation theory. International Journal of Sport Psychology.

Frehill, N., & Dunsmuir, S. (2015). The influence of sense of school belonging on Traveller

students' secondary school completion. Educational & Child Psychology, 32(2), 10-21.
 99

Freiberg, H. J. (1998). Measuring school climate: Let me count the ways. Educational

leadership, 56(1), 22-26.

Freiberg, H. J. (2005). School climate: Measuring, improving, and sustaining healthy learning

environments. London: Falmer Press.

Friedlander, D., Burns, D., Lewis-Chap, H., Cook-Harvey, C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014).

Student-centered schools: Closing the opportunity gap. (SCOPE Research Brief).

Retrieved from Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education

website: https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Student-

centered%20learning%20one%20pager.pdf

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research, an introduction (Eighth

ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Gangi, T. A. (2010). School climate and faculty relationships: Choosing an effective assessment

measure (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University New York).

Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends' values

to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental

Education, 62(1), 60. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1299992482?accountid=12085

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2014). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and

understanding data (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school

discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 483-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018562

 100

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and

individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5),

890.

Gumuseli, A. I., & Eryilmaz, A. (2011). The measurement of collaborative school culture (CSC)

on Turkish schools. New Horizons in Education, 59(2), 13-26.

Guo, P., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2011). The place of teachers’ views of teaching in

promoting positive school culture and student prosocial and academic outcomes. In

Association for Moral Education Annual Conference.

Haystead, M.W. (2010). Report on professional development: A summary of findings for ten

teachers on three critical commitments to school reform. Centennial, CO: Marzano

Research

Hawkins, J. D., Monahan, K. C., & Oesterle, S. (2010). Predictors and consequences of school

connectedness: The case for prevention. The Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 3+. Retrieved

from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA2597501

09&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=8f9615345b517b6c2c20d0f72f

5f4f8a

Herbert, P. C., & Lohrmann, D. K. (2011). It's all in the delivery! An analysis of instructional

strategies from effective health education curricula. Journal of School Health, 81(5), 258-

264. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00586.x

Horng, E. L. (2009). Teacher tradeoffs: Disentangling teachers' preferences for working

conditions and student demographics. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3),

690-717. Retrieved from

 101

http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/200456776

?accountid=12085

Hough, D. L., & Schmitt, V. L. (2011). An ex post facto examination of relationships among the

developmental designs professional development model/ classroom management

approach, school leadership, climate, student achievement, attendance, and behavior in

high poverty middle grades schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(3), 163-175.

Retrieved October 31, 2015, from Education Research Complete.

Hoy, W. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all

students: A 40-year odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 76-97.

Hoy, W. K., Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., & Bliss, J. (1996). The organizational climate of middle

schools: The development and test of the OCDQ-RM. Journal of Educational

Administration, 34(1), 41-59.

Ice, M., Thapa, A., & Cohen, J. (2015). Recognizing Community Voice and a Youth-Led

School-Community Partnership in the School Climate Improvement Process. School

Community Journal, 25(1), 9-28. Retrieved October 31, 2015, from Education Research

Complete.

Irvin, M. J., Meece, J. L., Byun, S. Y., Farmer, T. W., & Hutchins, B. C. (2011). Relationship of

school context to rural youth’s educational achievement and aspirations. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 40(9), 1225-1242.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Roseth, C. (2010). Cooperative learning in middle schools:

Interrelationship of relationships and achievement. Middle grades research journal, 5(1),

1-18.
 102

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop

as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Keenan, D. S. (2013). Experiential learning and outcome-based education: A bridge too far

within the current education and training paradigm. Journal of Applied Learning

Technology, 3(2).

Kelley, R. C., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of

leadership and school climate. Education-Indianapolis Then Chula Vista, 126(1), 17.

Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse: Education reimagined. London: Hodder &

Stoughton.

KILINÇ, A. Ç. (2014). Examining the relationship between teacher leadership and school

climate. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(5), 1729-1742.

Kingery, J. N., Erdley, C. A., & Marshall, K. C. (2011). Peer acceptance and friendship as

predictors of early adolescents' adjustment across the middle school transition. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 57(3), 215-243.

Klein, J. D. (2013). Making meaning in a standards-based world: Negotiating tensions in global

education. The Educational Forum, 77(4), 481-490. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2013.822044

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student

engagement and achievement. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-73. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215675398?accountid=12085

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary

things happen in organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Kreft, I. G. G. (1993). Using multilevel analysis to assess school effectiveness: A study of dutch

secondary schools. Sociology of Education, 66(2), 104-129. doi: 10.2307/2112796

 103

LaBanca, F., Joo Oh, Y., Lorentson, M., Jia, Y., Sibuma, B., & Snellback, M. (2015). Measuring

the impact of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning on the academic

engagement, skills acquisition, and achievement of underserved students (Rep.). Quincy,

MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

Liebtag, E. (2013). Moving forward with Common Core State Standards implementation:

Possibilities and potential problems. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(2), 56-70.

doi:10.3776/joci.2013.v7n2p56-70

Lim, S., & Eo, S. (2014). The mediating roles of collective teacher efficacy in the relations of

teachers' perceptions of school organizational climate to their burnout. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 44, 138-147. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.007

Liu, Y., & Lu, Z. (2011). Trajectories of Chinese students' sense of school belonging and

academic achievement over the high school transition period. Learning and Individual

Differences, 21(2), 187-190. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.12.007

Lynch, A. D., Lerner, R. M., & Leventhal, T. (2013). Adolescent academic achievement and

school engagement: An examination of the role of school-wide peer culture. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 6-19.

Maine Department of Education (2015). Threads of implementation: A thematic review of six

case studies of Maine school districts implementing proficiency-based/learner-centered

systems. Retrieved from maine.gov

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective

instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., Boogren, T., Heflebower, T., Kanold-McIntyre, J., & Pickering, D. (2012).

Becoming a reflective teacher. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

 104

Marzano, R. J., Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing and assessing educational objectives: Applying

the new taxonomy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370.

May, J. J., & Sanders, E. T. (n.d.). Beyond standardized test scores: An examination of

leadership and climate as leading indicators of future success in the transformation of

turnaround schools. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching and Research, 42-54.

May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2010). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 0013161X10383411.

McCarley, T. A., Peters, M. L., & Decman, J. M. (2014). Transformational leadership related to

school climate: A multi-level analysis. Educational Management Administration &

Leadership, doi: 1741143214549966.

Mccarther, S. M. (2010). Donavon's story: One urban high school student's voice -- many lessons

for improved schools. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal,

24(1/2), 29-36. Retrieved October 31, 2015, from Education Research Complete.

Mehta, S. B., Cornell, D., Fan, X. & Gregory, A. (2013). Bullying, climate and school

engagement in ninth-grade students. Journal of School Health, 83: 45–52.

doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2012.00746.x

Melville, W., Bartley, A., & Weinburgh, M. (2012). Change forces: Implementing change in a

secondary school for the common good. Canadian Journal of Educational

Administration and Policy.

Miller, S. I., & Fredericks, J. (1990). The false ontology of school climate effects. Educational

Theory, 40(3), 333-342.

 105

Murray-Harvey, R. (2010). Relationship influences on students' academic achievement,

psychological health and well-being at school. Educational and Child Psychology, 27(1),

104.

National School Climate Center (2015). Retrieved from www.schoolclimate.org

National School Climate Council (2012). The school climate improvement process: Essential

elements. School Climate Brief (4). Retrieved from

www.schoolclimate.org/climate/schoolclimatebriefs.php

O’Neel, C. G.-O., & Fuligni, A. (2013). A longitudinal study of school belonging and academic

motivation across high school. Child Development, 84(2), 678-692. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2012.01862.x

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students' need for belonging in the school community. Review of

Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/214111717?accountid=12085

Pace, L., Moyer, J., & Williams, M. (2015). Building consensus and momentum: A policy and

political landscape for k-12 competency education. KnowledgeWorks. Retrieved from

www.nmefoundation.org

Park, J. H. (2012). The effects of principal’s leadership style on support for innovation: Evidence

from Korean vocational high school change. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(1), 89-

102.

Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. (2014). Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing

quality educational programs (10th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

 106

Petty, T., Wang, C., & Harbaugh, A. P. (2013). Relationships between student, teacher, and

school characteristics and mathematics achievement. School Science and Mathematics,

113(7), 333-344.

Reglin, G. L. (1990). Rural high school dropouts grade the rural public school system. The High

School Journal, 73(4), 213-217. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364870

Ritchey, F. (2008). The Statistical Imagination: Elementary Statistics for the Social Sciences,

2nd Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents' perceptions of middle school: Relation to

longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 8(1), 123-158. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/61516986?accountid=12085

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom

instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663.

Scales, P., & Leffert, N. (2004). Developmental assets a synthesis of the scientific research on

adolescent development. Minneapolis: Search Institute.

Scales, P. C., & Taccogna, J. (2000). Caring to try: How building students' developmental assets

can promote school engagement and success. National Association of Secondary School

Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 84(619), 69-78. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/216041661?accountid=12085
 107

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture.

Annual review of psychology, 64, 361-388.

Schwahn, C. J., McGarvey, B. (2011). Inevitable: Mass customized learning - learning in the

age of empowerment. Lexington, KY: Chuck Schwahn & Bea McGarvey.

Shindler, J., Jones, A., Williams, A. D., Taylor, C., & Cadenas, H. (2009). Exploring the school

climate--student achievement connection: And making sense of why the first precedes the

second. Los Angeles: Alliance for the Study of School Climate, California State

University.

Song, J. H., Kim, W., Chai, D. S., & Bae, S. H. (2014). The impact of an innovative school

climate on teachers' knowledge creation activities in Korean schools: The mediating role

of teachers' knowledge sharing and work engagement. KEDI Journal of Educational

Policy, 11(2), 179-203. Retrieved October 31, 2015, from Education Research Complete.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2009). Competent leaders make the difference in achieving

school and student goals. Retrieved from

http://pulications.sreb.org/2009/09V05w_BestPractices_School_Leadership.pdf

Southern Regional Education Board (2012). Building capacity of district, school and teacher

leaders to raise achievement and graduation rates. Retrieved from

http://publications.sreb.org/2012/12V11w_BestPractices_BuildingCapacity.pdf

Starkman, N., Scales, P. C., & Roberts, C. (1999). Great places to learn: How asset-building

schools help students succeed. Minneaplis, MN: Search Institute.

Starr, K. (2011). Principals and the politics of resistance to change. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership, 39(6), 646-660. doi: 10.1177/1741143211416390

 108

Stauffer, S. D., & Mason, E. C. M. (2013). Addressing elementary school teachers’ professional

stressors: Practical suggestions for schools and administrators. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 809-837. doi: 10.1177/0013161x13482578

Sturgis, C. (2015). Implementing competency education in k-12 systems: Insights from local

leaders. International Association for K-12 Online Learning.

Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes:

Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703-729.

Stiggins, R. (2014). Defensible teacher evaluation: Student growth through classroom

assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school

climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357-385. doi:

10.3102/0034654313483907

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. DASH. (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/school_connectedness.htm

Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How

to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and

leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-536. doi:

10.1177/0013161x11400185

Troman, G. (2008). Primary teacher identity, commitment and career in performative school

cultures. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 619-633.

doi:10.1080/01411920802223925
 109

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2015). Faculty trust in the principal: An essential

ingredient in high-performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 66-

92. doi:10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0024

Türker, K., Duyar, I., & Temel Çalik. (2012). Are we legitimate yet? The Journal of

Management Development, 31(1), 71-86.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711211191014

Uline, C. L., Wolsey, T. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Lin, C. (2010). Improving the physical

and social environment of school: A question of equity. Journal of School Leadership,

20(5), 597-632. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from ERIC.

United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform: A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education,

United States Department of Education. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved 2016, from http://www.ed.gov/

Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 1(2), 170-182.

Van Ryzin, M. J. (2011). Protective factors at school: Reciprocal effects among adolescents’

perceptions of the school environment, engagement in learning, and hope. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 40(12), 1568-1580.

Voight, A., Austin, G., and Hanson, T. (2013). A climate for academic success: How school

climate distinguishes schools that are beating the achievement odds (Report Summary).

San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

 110

Wallace, T. L., Ye, F., & Chhuon, V. (2012). Subdimensions of adolescent belonging in high

school. Applied Developmental Science, 16(3), 122-139.

doi:10.1080/10888691.2012.695256

Walters, K., Smith, T. M., Leinwand, S., Surr, W., Stein, A., & Bailey, P. (2014). An up-close

look at student-centered math teaching. Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers

and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 35(3), 193-202.

Wolf, D. A. P. S., Dulmus, C. N., & Maguin, E. (2012). Empirically supported treatment’s

impact on organizational culture and climate. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(6),

665-671. doi: 1049731512448934.

Wolf, D. A. P. S., Dulmus, C. N., Maguin, E., & Cristalli, M. (2014). Do organizational culture

and climate matter for successful client outcomes? Research on Social Work Practice,

24(6), 670-675. doi: 10.1177/1049731513506616

Zullig, K. J., Huebner, E. S., & Patton, J. M. (2011). Relationships among school climate

domains and school satisfaction. Psychology in the Schools, 48(2), 133-145.

doi:10.1002/pits.20532

Zullig, K. J., Koopman, T. M., Patton, J. M., & Ubbes, V. A. (2010). School climate: Historical

review, instrument development, and school assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 28(2), 139-15All

 111

APPENDIX A

Permission to Use Survey Instrument

 112

APPENDIX B

Script for Initial Phone Contact of Principals

Thank you for taking my call. My name is Kay York and I am a principal in Northern Maine at
Central Aroostook Junior Senior High School and also currently a doctoral student at Liberty
University. I am currently working on my dissertation focusing on traditional and proficiency-
based education and the impact, if any, on school climate. I am contacting high school teachers
throughout New England in both proficiency-based and non-proficiency based schools to assist
in the research.

The goal of the research is to find out if there is a difference between the teachers’ assessments
of school climate in a proficiency-based high school and the teachers’ assessments of school
climate in a non-proficiency-based high school. Conclusions and recommendations from the
study will provide valuable information for schools as educators seek instruction methods and a
school climate that meets the needs of students in the twenty-first century.
For the purposes of this study, proficiency-based education is defined by Maine Department of
Education as any system of academic instruction, assessment, grading and reporting that is based
on students demonstrating mastery of the knowledge and skills they are expected to learn before
they progress to the next lesson, get promoted to the next grade level or receive a diploma. If
students struggle to meet minimum expected standards, they receive additional instruction,
practice time and academic support to help them achieve proficiency, but they do not progress in
their education until expected standards are met.

I have been given information by the state department of education in your state that your school
is identified as a proficiency-based school, evidenced by the use of a proficiency-based report
card.

Or

I have been given information by the state department of education in your state that your school
uses a traditional report card and that you are not a proficiency-based school.

I am asking for your help in providing a link to the teachers in your school to take a short,
anonymous, 20-minute survey that will provide valuable insight in regard to school climate and
proficiency-based education.

Would you be willing to help me with this? If so, I will email you a follow up letter with a
request for a letter of permission on school letterhead for your staff to participate in the survey.
I appreciate your time and thank you for your support.
 113

APPENDIX C

Participant E-mail

Dear Colleague,

I have spoken with your principal and received permission to contact you regarding participation
in a research project that will involve taking a short, anonymous survey on school climate. I am
a doctoral student at Liberty University as well as a fellow New England educator. I am currently
working on my dissertation focusing on traditional and proficiency-based education and the
impact, if any, on school climate. I am contacting high school teachers throughout New England
in both proficiency-based and non-proficiency based schools to assist in the research.

The goal of the research is to find out if there is a difference between the teachers’ assessments
of school climate in a proficiency-based high school and the teachers’ assessments of school
climate in a non-proficiency-based high school. Conclusions and recommendations from the
study will provide valuable information for schools as educators seek instruction methods and a
school climate that meets the needs of students in the twenty-first century.

This voluntary survey will take about twenty minutes to complete and you may opt out at any
time. By completing and submitting the survey, you are consenting to participate in this
educational research. A response by September 16, 2016 would be greatly appreciated!

Follow this link to the Survey, marking only one description per item:
xxxxx
Or copy and paste the URL into your internet browser:

If you would prefer a paper copy of the survey, please contact me at kyork3@liberty.edu.

If you have any questions concerning the study and/or the survey, please contact me at
kyork3@liberty.edu.
Thank you for your consideration and support in this research effort.

Sincerely,

Kay York
Liberty University Doctoral Candidate
 114

APPENDIX D

CONSENT FORM
A Causal Comparative Study on the Effect of Proficiency-based Education on School Climate
Kay York
Liberty University
School of Education
You are invited to take part in a research study on school climate and whether or not it is
impacted by the absence or presence of proficiency-based education. You were selected as a
possible participant because you teach in either a proficiency-based or non proficiency-based
school. I ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be
in the study.

Kay York, a doctoral candidate in the School of Education at Liberty University, is conducting
this study.
Background Information: The purpose of this study is is to understand if proficiency-based

education has an effect on school climate. A positive school climate has been shown to

impact a student's learning. Proficiency-based education provides a framework of

instruction that includes formative and summative assessments that are based on

individual students’ mastery of learning targets or standards before a student can progress

to the next lesson or level. The proficiency-based model provides key elements that promote

teacher and student satisfaction and therefore may impact school climate.

Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, I would ask you to do the following things:
1. Participants will be asked to take a short, online climate survey that should take about 20
minutes or less.
2. The data collection is anonymous. The survey responses cannot be traced back to
individual participants.
Risks and Benefits of being in the Study: There are no known potential risks to

participants.

Participants should not expect to receive direct benefits from completing the survey. However,
possible benefits to society include information to understand how better to meet the educational
needs of students in today’s world.

Compensation: You will receive no compensation for taking part in this study.
 115

Confidentiality: The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of report I might
publish, I will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a subject or
school. Research records will be stored securely. Only the researcher will have access to the
records.
The online link for the survey is a private, secure system through The Alliance for the
Study of School Climate (ASSC). The data is password protected. The report link is password
protected as well and will only be available to the researcher.

Voluntary Nature of the Study: Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether
or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with Liberty University. If
you decide to participate, you are free to not answer any question or withdraw at any time prior
to submitting your survey responses without affecting those relationships.

Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is Kay York. You may email her
any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact Kay at
kyork3@liberty.edu. You may also contact the researcher’s faculty advisor, Dr. Michelle
Barthlow, at mjbarthlow@liberty.edu

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone
other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Institutional Review Board, 1971
University Blvd, Carter 134, Lynchburg, VA 24515 or email at irb@liberty.edu

Please notify the researcher if you would like a copy of this information to keep for your
records.
 116

APPENDIX E

6/24/2016
Kay York
IRB Exemption 2529.062416: A Causal Comparative Study
on the Effect of Proficiency-Based Education on School Climate
Dear Kay York,
The Liberty University Institutional Review Board has reviewed your
application in accordance with the Office for Human Research
Protections (OHRP) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulations and finds your study to be exempt from further IRB review.
This means you may begin your research with the data safeguarding
methods mentioned in your approved application, and no further IRB
oversight is required.
Your study falls under exemption category 46.101(b)(2), which
identifies specific situations in which human participants research is
exempt from the policy set forth in 45 CFR 46:101(b):
(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude,
achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior,
unless:
(i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be
identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of
the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at
risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing,
employability, or reputation.

Please note that this exemption only applies to your current research
application, and any changes to your protocol must be reported to the
Liberty IRB for verification of continued exemption status. You may
report these changes by submitting a change in protocol form or a new
application to the IRB and referencing the above IRB Exemption
number.
 117

If you have any questions about this exemption or need assistance in

determining whether possible changes to your protocol would change
your exemption status, please email us at irb@liberty.edu.
Sincerely,
G. Michele Baker, MA, CIP

Administrative Chair of Institutional Research

The Graduate School

Liberty University | Training Champions for Christ since 1971

 118

APPENDIX F

SCAI-S-G Survey

Directions: Rate each item below. For each item there are three descriptions. Select the rating that best
describes the current state at your school as a whole: Level 3 (high), 2 (middle) or 1 (low). If you feel that
the practices at your school rate between two of the descriptions provided, select the middle level option.
Each item should receive only one rating/mark.

1. Physical Appearance
Level – 2 (middle) Level – 1 (low)
Level – 3 (high)

High high-middle middle middle-low low

1.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Welcoming to outsiders, Some signage for visitors as Little concern for the image
the school projects its they enter the building, but of the school.
identity to visitors. images compete for
attention.
1.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Purposeful use of school Some use of school Students associate school
colors/symbols. colors/symbols but mostly colors with “losers.”
associated with sports.
1.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Staff and students take Staff regularly comments on The schools appearance is
ownership of physical school appearance, but left solely to the janitorial
appearance. students do not feel any staff.
sense of personal ownership.
1.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
No litter. Litter cleaned at the end of People have given up the
day. battle over litter.
1.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Current student work is Few and/or only top Decades-old trophies and
displayed to show pride performances are displayed. athletic records in dusty
and ownership by cases.
students.
1.f ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Things work and/or get Things get fixed when Many essential fixtures,
fixed immediately. someone complains enough. appliances and structural
items remain broken.
1.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Staff and students have Most staff are cordial with Custodians are demeaned.
respect for custodians. custodians.
1.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Graffiti is rare because Graffiti occurs occasionally, Graffiti occurs frequently
students feel some sense but is dealt with by the staff. and projects the hostility of
 119

of ownership of the students toward their

school. school.
ASSC SCAI – S- G Instrument v. 2011 7.2.1 Alliance for the Study of School Climate
www.calstatela.edu/schoolclimate-Reproduced with permission
 120

2. Faculty Relations
Level – 2 (middle) Level –1 (low)
Level – 3 (high)

High high-middle middle middle-low low

2.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Faculty members commonly Most faculty members are congenial to Typically faculty members view one
collaborate on matters of teaching. one another, and occasionally another competitively.
collaborate.
2.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Faculty members approach Faculty members attend to problems Faculty members expect someone
problems as a team/collective. as related to their own interests. else to solve problems.
2.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Faculty members use their Faculty members use time efficiently Faculty members look forward to
planning time constructively and but feel the need to consistently vent time away from students so they can
refrain from denigrating students in displaced aggression toward students. share their “real feelings” about
teacher areas. them.
2.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Faculty members are typically Faculty members wait for safe Faculty members commonly use
constructive when speaking of opportunities to share complaints unflattering names for other faculty
each other and/or administrators. about other teachers and/or and/or administration in private.
administrators.
2.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Faculty members feel a collective Faculty members give sincere “lip Faculty members are content with
sense of dissatisfaction with status service” to the idea of making things the status quo and often resentful
quo, and find ways to take action better. toward change-minded staff.
to improve.
2.f ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Faculty members exhibit high level Faculty members exhibit respect for a Faculty members exhibit little respect
of respect for one another. few of their prominent members. for self or others.
2.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Faculty meetings are attended by Faculty meetings are an obligation that Faculty meetings are seen as a
most all, and address relevant most attend, but are usually seen as a waste of time and avoided when
content. formality. possible.
2.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Staff and all-school events are well There are few regular attendees at Faculty and staff do a minimum of
attended by faculty. school events. investing in school-related matters.
2.i ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Leadership roles are most likely Leadership roles are accepted Leadership is avoided, and the
performed by faculty members with grudgingly by faculty. motives of those who do take
other faculty expressing leadership roles are questioned.
appreciation.
2.j------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Faculty members have the time Faculty members congregate in small Faculty members typically see no
and interest to commune with one cordial groups, yet commonly feel a need to relate outside the walls of
another, and feel very little sense that teaching is an isolating their class.
isolation. profession.

ASSC SCAI – S- G Instrument v. 2011 7.2.1 Alliance for the Study of School Climate
www.calstatela.edu/schoolclimate-Reproduced with permission
 121

3. Student Interactions
Level - 2 Level –1
Level - 3

High high-middle middle middle-low low

3.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Students feel a sense of community, Students feel as though they have Students feel no sense of affiliation
and “school” is defined by the warm friends and are safe, but the school is with the school or community.
regard for the inhabitants of the just a place to take classes.
building.
3.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Students of various cultures and sub- Students of various sub-groups most Various sub-groups are hostile to one
groups blend, interrelate, and feel often stay separate. another.
like valued members of the
community.
3.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Students readily accept the purpose Students think put-downs are just part Put-downs lead to hostility and even
of zero tolerance for “put-downs.” of their language. violence.
3.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Many students attend school events. A few regulars attend school events. It is un-cool to attend school events.

3.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------

“Popular” students feel an obligation “Popular” students treat the other “Popular” students use their political
to serve the school, not a sense of popular students well. capital to oppress those less popular.
entitlement.
3.f ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Most students feel safe from Most students don’t expect much Most students do not feel safe from
violence. severe violence but accept minor acts violent acts, large or small.
of harassment almost daily.
3.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Leaders are easy to find due to the Leaders come from a small group of Students avoid leadership for fear of
wide range of gifts that are validated students. being viewed negatively by peers.
and harnessed.
3.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Athletes are valued as quality It is assumed that some athletes are Athletes band together to oppress the
community members and approach just “jerks,” and that jocks are not “real weaker and more academically-gifted
their role with a humble sense of students.” element in the school.
honor.
3.i ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Most students expect to be given Most students are upset when rights Most students assume that they have
ownership over decisions that affect are withdrawn, but typically take little few rights.
them. action.
3.j ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Most students expect to engage in Most students adjust their expectations Most students’ expectation of school
“authentic learning” activities and to to each teacher and focus mainly on is that little of value is learned there
be taught with methods that make doing what it takes to get “the grade.” and real-world learning happens
them responsible for their own elsewhere.
learning.

ASSC SCAI – S- G Instrument v. 2011 7.2.1 Alliance for the Study of School Climate
www.calstatela.edu/schoolclimate-Reproduced with permission
 122

4. Leadership/Decisions
Level - 2 Level – 1
Level - 3

High high-middle middle middle-low low

4.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
School has a sense of vision and a School has a set of policies, a written School has policies that are used
mission that is shared by all staff. mission, but no cohesive vision. inconsistently.
4.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Vision comes from the collective will Vision comes from leadership. Vision is absent.
of the school community.
4.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
School’s decisions are Policies and mission exist but are not Mission may exist but is essentially
conspicuously grounded in the meaningful toward staff action. ignored.
mission.
4.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Vast majority of staff members feel Selected staff members feel Administration is seen as playing
valued and listened to. occasionally recognized. favorites.
4.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
A sense of “shared values” is Most share a common value to do Guiding school values are absent or
purposefully cultivated. what is best for their students. in constant conflict.
4.f ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Staff understands and uses a clear There is a SDM committee but most Decisions are made autocratically or
system for selecting priority needs, real power is in a “loop” of accidentally.
and has a highly functioning team insiders/decision-makers.
for “shared decision-making.”
4.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Most of the faculty and staff have a Some faculty and staff members have Most faculty and staff members feel
high level of trust and respect for respect for leadership. at odds with the leadership.
leadership.
4.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Teacher leadership is systematic Some teachers take leadership roles Leadership is seen as solely the
and integral to the school’s when they feel a great enough sense domain of the administration.
leadership strategy. of responsibility.
4.i ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Leadership demonstrates a high Leadership is highly political about Leadership seems disconnected to
level of accountability, and finds how resources are allocated and outcomes and find countless reasons
ways to “make it happen.” often deflects responsibility. why “it can’t happen.”
4.j ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Leadership is in tune with students Leadership has selected sources of Leadership is isolated from the
and community. info about the community and students and community.
students.
4.k------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Leadership is in tune with others’ Leadership makes pro forma Leadership does not see school
experience of the quality of school statements about wanting good climate as a necessary interest.
climate. school climate.

ASSC SCAI – S- G Instrument v. 2011 7.2.1 Alliance for the Study of School Climate
www.calstatela.edu/schoolclimate-Reproduced with permission
 123

5. Discipline Environment
Level - 2 Level – 1
Level – 3

High high-middle middle middle-low low

5.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
School-wide discipline policy is School-wide discipline policy is used School-wide discipline policy exists
consistently applied. by some staff. in writing only.
5.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
It is evident from student behavior In many classes there are clear Students have to determine what
that there are clear expectations expectations and most teachers are each teacher expects and behavioral
and consistency in the discipline fair and unbiased. interventions are defined by a high
policy. level of subjectivity.
5.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Most teachers use effective Most teachers use some form of Most teachers accept the notion that
discipline strategies that are defined positive or assertive discipline but the only thing the students in the
by logical consequences and refrain accept the notion that punishment school understand is punishment
from punishments or shaming. and shaming are necessary with and/or personal challenges.
some students.
5.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Classrooms are positive places, and Most teachers maintain a positive Classrooms are places where
teachers maintain a positive affect, climate, but some days they just feel teachers get easily angered by
and follow-through with the need to complain about the class students and there is a sense of
consequences in a calm and non- and/or get fed up with the “bad kids.” antagonism between the class and
personal manner. the teacher.
5.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Maximum use of student-generated Occasional use of student-generated Teachers make the rules and
ideas and input. ideas. students should follow them.
5.f------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Most consider teaching and Most have some sensitivity to student Most view all student misconduct as
discipline within the lens of basic needs, but the primary goal of disobedience and/or the student’s
student needs that must be met for classroom management is control. fault.
a functional class.
5.g ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o -------------------
Teacher-student interactions could Teacher-student interactions could be Teacher-student interactions are
be typically described as supportive typically described as fair but teacher- mostly teacher-dominated and
and respectful. dominated. reactive.
5.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
When disciplining students, When disciplining students, teachers When disciplining students, teachers
teachers typically focus on the are typically assertive yet often are typically personal and often
problematic behavior, not the reactive, and give an overall antagonistic.
student as a person. inconsistent message.
5.i------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Management strategies consistently Management strategies promote Management strategies result in
promote increased student self- acceptable levels of classroom mixed results: some classes seem to
direction over time. control over time, but are mostly improve over time, while others
teacher-centered. seem to decline.
5.j ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Teachers successfully create a Teachers successfully create a Teachers create a competitive
sense of community in their classes. functioning society in their classes. environment in their classes.

ASSC SCAI – S- G Instrument v. 2011 7.2.1 Alliance for the Study of School Climate
www.calstatela.edu/schoolclimate-Reproduced with permission
 124

6. Learning/Assessment
Level – 2 Level – 1
Level – 3

High high-middle middle middle-low low

6.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Learning targets for assessments are Most high-achieving students can find a Students see grades as relating to
clear and attainable for learners. way to meet the teacher’s learning personal or random purposes.
targets.
6.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Instruction/Assessment promotes Instruction/Assessment is most often Instruction/Assessment is focused on bits
students’ sense of ownership and focused on relevant learning, yet mostly of knowledge that can be explained and
responsibility for their learning. rewards the high-achievers. then tested.

6.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------

The grading in most classes focuses Focusing on the process is The focus of grades is typically the
on both the end result and the encouraged but what is graded is final product.
process. mostly the end result of the work.
6.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Teachers have some mode of making Teachers are aware of learning styles as a Teachers expect all students to conform
sense of, and being responsive to, concept, and make some attempt in that to their teaching style.
varying learning styles. area.

6.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------

Instruction is dynamic, involving, learner- Instruction is mostly based on relevant Instruction is mostly lecture and
centered, and challenging. ideas but often seems to be busy-work. independent seatwork.

6.f ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------

Students learn to work cooperatively and Some teachers buy into the idea of Cooperative learning is rare as it is seen
as members of teams. cooperative learning. as leading to chaos and cheating.

6.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------

Students are given systematic Mostly higher-level students are given Teaching is seen as providing maximum
opportunities to reflect on their learning occasional opportunities to reflect on their input, and little opportunity for reflection
progress. learning in some classes. exists.

6.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------

Students are seen as the primary users Assessment is seen as something that Assessment is used to compare students
of assessment information, and occurs at the end of assignments. Grades to one another and/or to send a message
assessment is used for the purpose of are used primarily for student-to-student to lazy students.
informing the learning process and is comparison.
never used to punish or shame.
6.i------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Classroom dialogue is characterized by Classroom dialogue is active and Classroom dialogue is infrequent and/or
higher-order thinking (e.g., analysis, engaging but mostly related to obtaining involves a small proportion of students.
application, and synthesis). right answers.

6.j ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------

Students consistently feel as though they Students are engaged in quality content, Students feel the content is only
are learning subjects in-depth. but the focus is mostly on content occasionally meaningful and rarely
coverage. covered in-depth.
6.k------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Teachers promote the view that Teachers promote the view that effort has Teachers promote the view that
intelligence and ability are a function of a lot to do with how much students are intelligence and ability are fixed/innate
each students’ effort and application, and able to accomplish. The major emphasis is traits and not all students have what it
are not fixed. The major emphasis is placed on working to produce good takes. The major emphasis is on the
placed on the process over the product. products. comparison of products/grades.
ASSC SCAI – S- G Instrument v. 2011 7.2.1 Alliance for the Study of School Climate
www.calstatela.edu/schoolclimate-Reproduced with permission
 125

7. Attitude and Culture

Level – 2 Level – 1
Level – 3

High high-middle middle middle-low low

7.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Students feel as though they are Students feel as though they are part Students feel as though they are
part of a community. of a society. visitors in a building.
7.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Students voluntarily correct peers Students seek adult assistance to Students accept verbal abuse as a
who use destructive and/or abusive stop blatant verbal abuse. normal part of their day.
language.
7.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Students feel as though they are Students feel as though they are Students feel as though they are
working toward collective goals. working toward independent goals. competing with other students for
scarce resources.
7.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Students speak about the school in Students speak of the school in Students denigrate the school when
proud, positive terms. neutral or mixed terms. they refer to it.
7.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Most students feel listened to, Most students see some evidence Most students feel they have very little
represented, and that they have a that some students have a voice. voice when at school.
voice.
7.f ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Most students feel a sense of Most students see some evidence Most students feel alone, alienated
belonging to something larger. that efforts are made to promote and/or part of a hostile environment.
school spirit.
7.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Teachers share commonly high Most teachers have high Often teachers openly express doubts
expectations for all students. expectations for students who show about the potential of some students.
promise.
7.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Most students feel as though they Graduates feel that they had an A high number of students graduate
owe their school a debt of gratitude acceptable school experience. feeling cheated.
upon graduation.
7.i------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Students feel welcome and Some students have a few staff that Students assume adults do not have
comfortable in talking to adults they target for advice. any interest in their problems.
and/or designated peer counselors.
7.j------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
School maintains traditions that School maintains traditions that School has given up on maintaining
promote school pride and a sense some students are aware of but most traditions due to apathy.
of historical continuity. see as irrelevant to their experience.

ASSC SCAI – S- G Instrument v. 2011 7.2.1 Alliance for the Study of School Climate
www.calstatela.edu/schoolclimate-Reproduced with permission
 126

8. Community Relations
Level – 2 Level – 1
Level – 3

High high-middle middle middle-low low

8.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
School is perceived as School is perceived as School is suspicious of why
welcoming to all parents. welcoming to certain parents would want to visit.
parents.
8.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
School sends out regular School sends out pro forma School sends out pro forma
communication to communication that may be communication only.
community, including plentiful but is not created
invitations to attend key with the consumers’ needs
events. in mind.
8.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Community members are Inconvenience leads to few The vast majority of
regularly invited to speak community members community members have
in classes. speaking in classes. not seen the inside of the
school.
8.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Service learning efforts Service learning is Service learning is seen as
are regular, promoting performed, but very just a glorified field trip and
student learning and infrequently due to therefore not worth the time
positive community- perceived inconvenience. or expense.
relations.
8.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Parents and coaches all Parents support the Parents feel free to
work for the best interest coaches and teams if things challenge coaches, coaches
of student-athletes. are going well. mistrust parents.
8.f------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Volunteer efforts are well Volunteers are willing, but Volunteers are hard to find
coordinated, volunteers are often unaware of the or unreliable.
are plentiful, and events and/or feel a lack of
conspicuously guidance.
appreciated.
8.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ----------------------- o --------------------
Athletic events and Fine Athletic events and Fine Athletic events and Fine Arts
Arts performances are well Arts performances are performances are poorly
attended due to deliberate attended by a die-hard attended and as a result
efforts toward promotion following and/or only when progressively less effort is
and crowd appreciation. things are going well. made by participants.
ASSC SCAI – S- G Instrument v. 2011 7.2.1 Alliance for the Study of School Climate
www.calstatela.edu/schoolclimate-Reproduced with permission

 127

APPENDIX G

Permission to Reproduce Survey