SCHOOL CULTURE AND SCHOOL CLIMATE

OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THAILAND

MISS THANYAPORN PAPOLNGAM

A THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

KHON KAEN UNIVERSITY

2011

SCHOOL CULTURE AND SCHOOL CLIMATE

OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THAILAND

MISS THANYAPORN PAPOLNGAM

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

GRADUATE SCHOOL KHON KAEN UNIVERSITY

2011

THESIS APPROVAL

KHON KAEN UNIVERSITY

FOR

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

Thesis Title: School Culture and School Climate of Elementary Schools in Thailand

Author : Miss Thanyaporn Papolngam

Thesis Examination Committee

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Preecha Kampirapakorn Chairperson

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wirot Sanrattana Member

Asst. Prof. Dr. Thaveechai Bunterm Member

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kanokorn Somprad Member

Dr. Prayuth Chusorn Member

Dr. Kaisit Plarin Member

Thesis Advisors:

………………..………………………… Advisor (Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wirot Sanrattana)

………………..………………………… Co-Advisor (Prof. Dr. Muriel K. Oaks)

………………..……………………. ……………………………..…………(Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lampang Manmart) (Asst. Prof. Dr. Paisan Suwannoi)

Dean, Graduate School Dean, Faculty of Education

Copyright of Khon Kaen University

ธนยาภรณ พาพลงาม. 2554. วฒนธรรมโรงเรยนและบรรยากาศโรงเรยนประถมศกษาในประเทศไทย.

วทยานพนธปรญญาปรชญาดษฎบณฑต สาขาวชาการบรหาร การศกษา บณฑตวทยาลย มหาวทยาลยขอนแกน.

อาจารยทปรกษาวทยานพนธ: รศ.ดร. วโรจน สารรตนะ, Prof. Dr. Muriel K. Oaks

บทคดยอการวจยคร งน มวตถประสงคเพ อศกษาวฒนธรรมโรงเรยนและ

บรรยากาศโรงเรยนตามการรบรของครและเจาหนาทโรงเรยนประถมศกษา ของประเทศไทย กลมตวอยางคอโรงเรยนประถมศกษาในประเทศไทย จำานวน

398 โรงเรยน ท ได มาโดยวธ การส มแบบหลายข นตอน โดยมผ ตอบ แบบสอบถาม คอ คร 1 คน เจาหนาท 1 คน ในแตละโรงเรยน รวมทงหมด 796

คน เคร องมอทใชคอ แบบสอบถาม ซงผลการวจยสรปไดดงน 1) ผลการ วเคราะหขอมลผตอบแบบสอบถาม พบวา ครสวนใหญเปนเพศหญง มอาย

ระหวาง 51-60 ป จบการศกษาระดบปรญญาตร มประสบการณการทำางาน ระหวาง 21-30 ป และปฏบตงานในโรงเรยนขนาดกลาง และเจาหนาทสวนใหญ

เป นเพศหญง มอายระหวาง 51-60 ป จบการศกษาระดบปรญญาตร ม ประสบการณการทำางานระหวาง 1-10 ป และปฏบตงานในโรงเรยนขนาดกลาง

2) ผลการศกษาวฒนธรรมโรงเรยนและบรรยากาศโรงเรยนตามการรบรของ ครและเจาหนาท พบวา อยในระดบ มาก ทกดาน 3) ผลการเปรยบเทยบ

วฒนธรรมโรงเรยนพจารณาตาม เพศ ระดบการศกษา สถานภาพการทำางาน อาย ประสบการณการทำางาน และขนาดโรงเรยน เมอพจารณาตามเพศ ระดบ

การศกษา และสถานภาพการทำางาน พบวา มความแตกตางกนอยางมนย สำาคญทางสถตทระดบ 0.01 และ เมอพจารณาจาก ประสบการณการทำางาน

พบวา มความแตกตางกนอยางมนยสำาคญทางสถตทระดบ 0.05 4) ผลการ เปรยบเทยบบรรยากาศโรงเรยนพจารณาตาม เพศ ระดบการศกษา สถานภาพ

การทำางาน อาย ประสบการณการทำางาน และขนาดโรงเรยน พจารณาตาม เพศ สถานภาพการทำางาน และประสบการณการทำางาน พบวา มความแตกตางกน

อยางมนยสำาคญทางสถตทระดบ 0.05 5) ผลการศกษาคาสมประสทธสห สมพนธระหวาง 6 ตวแปรวฒนธรรมโรงเรยน และ 7 ตวแปรบรรยากาศ

โรงเรยน พบวา มความสมพนธในทศทางบวกอยางมนยส ำาคญทางสถตท ระดบ 0.01 ทกตวแปร และมทศทางบวก โดยคาสมประสทธสหสมพนธระหวาง

ตวแปร ภาวะผนำาแบบรวมมอ กบ ความเปนเอกภาพของจดประสงค และ มต การเรยนการสอน กบ มตการทำางานรวม มคาสงสด 6) ผลการศกษาคา

สมประสทธสหสมพนธระหวางตวแปร 6 ตวแปรของวฒนธรรมโรงเรยน กบ ตวแปร 7 ตวแปรของบรรยากาศโรงเรยน พบวา มความสมพนธในทศทางบวก

อยางมนยสำาคญทางสถตทระดบ 0.01 ทกตวแปร และมทศทางบวก โดยคา

สมประสทธสหสมพนธระหวางตวแปร มตสงแวดลอม กบ ตวแปรภาวะผนำา แบบรวมมอ มคาสงสด

Thanyaporn Papolngam. 2011. School Culture and School Climate of Elementary

Schools in Thailand. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis in Educational

Administration, Graduate School, Khon Kaen University.

Thesis Advisors: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wirot Sanrattana

Prof. Dr. Muriel K. Oaks

ABSTRACT

The objective of this research was to investigate the school culture and the

school climate based on the perceptions of teachers and staffs of elementary schools

in Thailand. The samples were 398 teachers and 398 staffs derived by multi-staged

random sampling. Questionnaires were administered and collected data were

analyzed.

The research results were: 1) According to the respondents’ demographic data,

most of the teachers were females aged from 51 to 60 years old with bachelor’s

degrees, 21 to 30 years working experiences, and were working in medium-sized

schools. Most of the staffs were females aged from 51 to 60 years old with bachelor’s

degrees, 1 to 10 years working experiences, and were working in medium-sized

schools. 2) Every aspect of the school cultures was rated “high”. 3) The comparison

results of the school culture classified by gender, education level, and working status

revealed that there were significant differences at 0.01 level and at 0.05 by working

experiences. 4) Every aspect of the school climate was rated “high” 5) The

comparison results of the school climate classified by gender, working status, and

working experiences revealed that there were significant differences at 0.05. 6) The

correlation coefficient among the six school culture variables and the seven school

climate variables was positive and significantly different at 0.01 level. The highest

correlation coefficient was between Collaborative Leadership and Unity of Purpose,

and between Instructional Dimension and Collaborative Dimension. 7) The

correlation coefficient among the six school culture variables and the seven school

climate variables was positive and significantly different at 0.01 level. The highest

correlation coefficient was between Environment Dimension and Collaborative

Leadership.

The present thesis is dedicated

to my parents and the entire teaching staff

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest and sincere gratitude to my advisor,

Associate Professor Dr. Wirot Sanrattana for his kindness in providing an opportunity

to be his advisee. I would also like to express my appreciation for his guidance,

suggestions, encouragement, support, guidance and criticism throughout the course of

my study.

Moreover I would like to express sincere and deep gratitude to my co-advisor,

Professor Dr. Muriel K. Oaks for her valuable advice, tremendous kindness, useful

comments and good suggestions.

Of course I also extremely grateful to the entire thesis examination committee

for their helpful suggestions: Associate Professor Dr. Preecha Kampirapakorn,

Assistant Professor Dr. Thaveechai Bunterm, Associate Professor Dr. Kanokorn

Somprach, and Dr. Prayuth Chusorn.

I am also grateful to Dr. Kaisit Plarin for his helpful hints and for helping me

to improve my English.

Special thanks to doctorate students of Educational Administration, Cohort 6,

Khon Kaen University for their warm hospitality and encouragement. Especially,

Miss Phenporn Thongkamsuk for her helpful suggestions on statistic analysis.

Last but not least I would like to express my utmost gratefulness and

appreciation to my dear parents, Mr. Samai Papolngam and Mrs. Sungwan

Papolngam, for their strong support and for giving me the chance to study. I also

deeply thank my sister and grandmother who have always lifted my spirit and give me

great joy.

Thanyaporn Papolngam

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT (IN THAI) i

ABSTRACT (IN ENGLISH) ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

LIST OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background and rationale of the study 1

1.2 Purpose of the study 7

1.3 Research hypothesis 8

1.4 Scope of the study 9

1.5 Operational term definitions 10

1.6 Significance of the study 12

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEWS 13

2.1 Organization culture 13

2.2 Levels of culture 16

2.2.1 Tangible artifacts 17

2.2.2 Espoused values 18

2.2.3 Underlying assumptions

19

2.2.4 Cultures as shared norms 21

2.2.5 Culture as shared beliefs and values 22

2.2.6 Culture as tacit assumptions 27

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Page

2.3 School culture 28

2.3.1 The importance of school culture 34

2.3.2 Categories of school culture 37

2.3.3 Models of school culture 38

2.3.4 The effects of culture on teachers and schools 47

2.3.5 Shaping school culture 50

2.3.5.1 Challenges in shaping school culture 51

2.3.6 Enhancing school culture 55

2.3.7 Maintaining school culture 56

2.3.8 Sustainability of culture 57

2.3.9 Research on school culture 58

2.3.10 Measuring school culture 62

2.3.11 Six subscales of the school culture survey-teacher form 66

and school culture survey-staff member form

2.4 School climate 74

2.4.1 Definition of school climate 75

2.4.2 Components of school climate 77

2.4.3 The effect of school climate 83

2.4.4 The importance of school climate 85

2.4.5 Improving school climate 86

2.4.6 Promoting a positive school climate 89

2.4.7 Research on school climate 93

2.4.8 Assessing school climate 100

2.4.9 School climate variables 103

2.5 Comparison between school culture and school climate 105

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Page

2.6 The relationship between school culture and school climate 107

2.7 Conceptual framework 111

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 113

3.1 Population and sample 113

3.2 Informants 114

3.3 Instrumentation 114

3.4 Construction and investigation of instrument 115

3.5 Data collection 116

3.6 Data analysis 116

3.6.1 Descriptive statistics 116

3.6.2 Inferential statistics 117

3.7 Data interpretation 117

3.8 Chapter summary 118

CHAPTER IV THE FINDINGS 119

4.1 Symbols used in data analysis 119

4.1.1 Symbols used refer to variables 119

4.1.1.1 School culture’s variables 119

4.1.1.2 School climate’s variables 119

4.1.2 Symbols used refer to statistics 119

4.2 Presentation of data analysis 120

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISSCUSSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 155

5.1 Purpose of the study 155

5.2 Research hypothesis 156

5.3 Research methodology 156

5.4 The findings 157

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Page

5.5 Discussions 160

5.6 Recommendations 169

5.6.1 Recommendation for the findings application 169

5.6.1.1 School culture 169

5.6.1.2 School climate 170

5.6.2 Recommendation for future researches 173

REFERENCES 175

APPENDICES 187

VITAE

213

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Theory Z organization and culture 23

Table 2 Broad categories of school culture 37

Table 3 Defines school climate in terms of four aspects of the school 78

environment

Table 4 Climate, culture comparison 106

Table 5 Organizational culture and organizational climate 107

Table 6 The number of population and sample 114

Table 7 Teacher and staffs’ status of the samples responding 122

the questionnaire

Table 8 The degree of school cultures on the perceptions of teachers and 124

staff in elementary basic education schools

Table 9 The independent sample t-test for gender related to teachers and 128

staff’s perceptions about the school culture in elementary basic

education schools

Table 10 The independent sample t-test for education levels related to 129

teachers and staff’s perception of the school cultures

Table 11 The independent sample t-test for working status related to 130

teacher and staff’s perceptions of school cultures in

elementary basic education school

Table 12 One-Way ANOVA for age related to teachers and staff’s 131

perceptions about the school culture in elementary of the school

cultures in elementary basic education schools

Table 13 One-Way ANOVA for work experience related to teachers and 133

staff’s perceptions about the school cultures in elementary basic

education schools

LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)

Page

Table 14 Post-Hoc (Shceffe) for work experiences related to teachers 134

and staff’s perceptions on collaborative leadership in elementary

basic education schools

Table 15 One-Way ANOVA for school sizes related to teachers and staff’s 135

perceptions about the school cultures in elementary basic

education schools

Table 16 The degree of school climate on the perceptions of teachers and 137

staffs in elementary basic education schools

Table 17 The independent sample t-test classified by gender of teachers 143

and staff’s perceptions of the school climate in elementary basic

education school

Table 18 The independent sample t-test for educational levels of teachers 144

and staff’s perceptions of the school climate in elementary basic

education schools

Table 19 The independent sample t-test for working status of teachers and 145

staff’s perceptions of the school climate in elementary basic

education schools

Table 20 One-Way ANOVA for age related to teachers and staff’s 146

perceptions about the school climate in elementary basic

education schools

Table 21 One-Way ANOVA for working experiences related to teachers 148

and staff’s perceptions about the school climate in elementary

basic education schools

LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)

Page

Table 22 Post-Hoc (Shceffe) for working experiences related to teachers 149

and staff’s perceptions about the school climate in expectation

dimension in elementary basic education schools

Table 23 One-Way ANOVA for school sizes related to teachers and 150

staff’s perceptions about the school climate in elementary basic

education schools

Table 24 Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient related to 152

teachers and staff’s perceptions about the school cultures and

school climate in elementary basic education schools

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Dimensions of organizational culture 15

Figure 2 Components of school culture can support or impede learning 20

Figure 3 Levels of culture 21

Figure 4 Major components of theory Z as applied to school 25

Figure 5 Culture elements model of school culture 39

Figure 6 A typology of school cultures 41

Figure 7 A types of school cultures 42

Figure 8 Schools as communities theoristical framework 110

Figure 9 The conceptual framework of the study 112

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and rationale of the study

During the past decades, considerable attention has been devoted to the

investigation and definition of a school’s climate, culture, atmosphere, personality and

ethos. As school administrators struggle with reform to improve students’ academic

performance, their concerns must encompass more than instructional change. This

brief describes school culture and school climate. Two factors of school’s

environment that can either impede or support learning and achievement of school.

School climate and culture are important in the student learning process.

Schools that successfully engage students in this process share certain characteristics.

Such schools value academic excellence and have high expectations of student

achievement. A cooperative environment is fostered in which students feel

empowered to excel, and safe from the influence of societal distractions, such as

drugs and gangs. Educators must give as much attention to school climate and culture

as is given to traditional concerns like curriculum development and teaching methods

(http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1708897.html April 21, 2003). Students are

important actors in schools (Fielding, 2004) and have pertinent insights into what

constitutes effective teaching and learning (Riley and Rustique-Forrester, 2002).

Students shape learning processes through the ways in which they respond to teachers

and to the curriculum. Understanding students as individuals and how they perceive

the processes of schooling (Rudduck and Flutter, 2000) helps teachers to construct

successful learning experiences for them.

Theorists refer to organizational culture and climate as overlapping concepts.

Organizational culture has its roots in sociology and anthropology, whereas

organizational climate is rooted in psychology (Miner, 2002). The terms school

culture and school climate describe the environment that affect the behavior of

teachers and student. School culture is the shared beliefs and attitudes that

characterize the district-wide organization and establish boundaries for its constituent

units. School climate characterizes the organization at the school building and

classroom level. It refers to the “feel” of a school and can vary from school to school

within the same district. While an individual school can develop a climate

independently of the larger organization, changes in school culture at the district level

can positively or adversely affect school climate at the building level. Some

researchers view school climate in terms of the culture of the school. The culture of

the school includes organizational values, ideals, attitudes and beliefs (Chance &

Wood, 1996). It is the “shared attitudes, beliefs and values of the people in the

school” (Winter & Sweency, 1994). Organizational culture is manifested in norms,

shared values and basic assumption, each occurring at different level of abstraction

(Hoy & Miskel, 1996).

Stolp and Smith (1995) explained that school culture has a powerful influence

in schools because it defines the important elements of that school, and the manner in

which school community members operate. School leaders with an understanding of

culture are aware that teachers and related school personnel commit personal energy

to only what they believe and feel is personally important. Interest in school culture

has gained momentum. The results of Schools retaining a culture of excellence and

high performance inspire the constituency, paralleling the concept that a culture of

incompetence perpetuates opposite results with research concluding that the culture of

a business organization influences the success or lack of success within that

organization. These results conclude that the same cultural dimensions accounting for

increased measurable performance in business may result in increased measurable

achievement in school culture (Deal & Peterson, 1999a).

School culture affects the lives of all school personnel, especially including

teachers in their classrooms. Berman and McLaughlin (cited in Sarason, 1996)

assessed the outcomes of efforts of educational change over several years. Among

other things, they noted that a great deal of federally mandated reforms failed due to

“school organizational climate and leadership” and “characteristics of schools and

teachers”. They are indicative of the effect of school culture on the change process.

Their findings reinforce the above-mentioned findings of Hargeaves (1997b) as well.

Of particular interest here are their findings about teacher attributes regarding

proposed reforms. They noted three teacher characteristics that had an effect on the

outcome of the projects: years of teaching, sense of efficacy, and verbal ability. They

discovered that the number of years teaching had a negative effect on the hanger

process-the longer a teacher taught the less likely the change was to improve student

achievement and the less likely the project was going to achieve its goals. They also

discovered that teachers with many years of experience were less likely to change

their practices and more likely to abandon the reform project once federal funding ran

out. They found that teacher efficacy, the belief that a teacher can help even the most

unmotivated student, had a positive effect on all outcomes.

School culture can enhance school effectiveness and productivity. Teachers

and students are more likely to succeed in a culture that fosters hard work,

commitment to valued ends, an attention to problem solving, and a focus on learning

for all students. In schools with negative or despondent cultures, staff have, either

fragmented purposes or none at all, feel no sense of commitment to the mission of the

school, and have little motivation to improve. In many schools with strong

professional cultures, the staff share strong norms of collegiality and improvement,

value student learning over personal preferences, and assume that all children can

learn if they- teacher and staff- find the curriculum and instructional strategies that

work. In these schools, the culture reinforces collaborative problem solving, planning,

and data-driven decision making. Positive, professional cultures foster productivity.

An effective process for improving a school culture includes empowering diverse

stakeholders to rebuild relationships that will stimulate a staff member’s commitment

to support student success in highly challenged school communities. When a school

district or site has been challenged for its lack of performance, a survival culture

permeates every dimension of the organization.

School culture can be defined as apparent characteristics based on shared

perception and pattern of behavior in the same direction and is integrated to overall.

Culture can be differently perceived and performed due to individual different school

(Nonglak Ruoenthong, 1992). Organizations or schools have their own culture

components. These cultures affect to working behaviors of workers in the

organizations and directly affect to efficiency and competency of work performance

(Worapot Suttisai, 1993). School culture is related to academy because it helps school

personnel to understand their tasks and the acceptable ways to work together

(Yuvadee Kangsadal, 2002).

The importance of school culture reflects the shared ideas, assumptions,

values, and beliefs that give an organization its identity and standard for expected

behaviors. An expeditionary learning school culture is developed and sustained

through practices that bring the community together, promote shared understandings,

and encourage all community members to become crew, not passengers. Teaching

practices and school-wide structures ensure that all students are well known by adults

and peers. The faculty articulates and promotes a set of character traits that are

emphasized throughout the school. Teachers foster student character though

challenging academic work, service, and the expectation that students are courteous,

respectful, and compassionate. Public and classroom spaces reflect the values of the

expeditionary learning design principles, showcase the work of students, and facilitate

collaboration. The outcomes of a positive school culture include higher morale,

enhanced commitment to teaching, and continuance in the profession. The resulting

emphasis on relationships can help bring about a work climate in which self-esteem,

commitment, cooperation and task accomplishment are so significant that they raise

people to higher levels.

School climate appears to be a key factor in determining “a school’s success

or failure as a place of learning” (Brookeover and Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979;

Reynolds and Cuttance, 1992: Pashiardi, 2000) and a significant element in

discussions about improving academic performance and school reform efforts. As

Freiberg (1998) claimed, a healthy school climate contributes to effective teaching

and to the establishment of a school-working environment, which enables all

members of the school community to teach and learn at optimum levels. It is a broad

term that refers to teachers’ perceptions of the general work environment of the

school, the formal organization, informal organization, personalities of participants,

and organizational leadership. The organizational climate of the school is simply the

set of internal characteristics that distinguish one school from another and influence

the behavior of each school’s members. More specially, school climate is a relatively

enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by participants, affects

their behavior, and is based on their collective perceptions of behavior in schools.

The National Education Act of 1999 recognizes the importance of school

administrators. They have to be leaders of learning reform and to support the school

personnel to be committed to continuous professional development. This will lead to

school efficiency and success. There are many factors that enhance school quality,

especially good climate. Good school environment makes school personnel satisfied

and they can perform their works to their full competency (Itthipon Srirattan, 2007).

Learning and teaching occur best in school climate that are positive. School

climate is an ever-changing factor in the lives of people who work and learn in

schools. It can be a positive influence on the health of the learning environment or

significant barrier to learning. Thus, feedback about school climate can play an

important role in school reform and improvement effects. Measuring the influence of

change-directed activities on the climate in which teaching and learning occur should

be a key factor in improving and sustaining educational excellence.

The importance of school climate and to some extent culture for an effective

school has been the subject of extensive research. In the research on 20 schools,

Bulach and Castleman (1994) found a significant difference of student achievement

between schools with good climate and those with poor climate. The relationship

between school climate and achievement continued to be researched. Hirase (2000)

and Erpelding (1999) found that the schools with a positive climate had higher

academic levels. While there are plenty of researches showing the importance of

school climate to achievement, there are also some researches that support its

importance for other factors. In a school with a positive climate, students receive the

best instructional service. Teachers focus on students’ characteristics, learning styles

and experiences as they try to make learning relevant to the lives of their students.

Furthermore, they work to establish a supportive non-threatening climate in which

students are likely to take advantage of learning opportunities through active student

involvement. Also they select appropriate materials and teach thoroughly and in a

holistic way in order to achieve excellence in education (Borich, 1999). The

atmosphere of a school has a major impact on the organizational behavior, and

because administrators can have a significant, positive influence on the development

of the personality of the school, it is important to describe and analyze school climate.

It could be described as the heart and soul of a school; it affects the quality of a school

and the creation of healthy learning experiences; nurtures students’ and parents’

dreams and aspirations; stimulates teachers’ creativity and enthusiasm and elevates all

of its members (Freiberg and Stein, 1999; Pashiardi, 2000).

The concept of school culture has evolved from studies of organizational

culture and school climate in the disciplines of organizational management and school

administration. Both school culture and school climate require significant attention

when a principal or superintendent is a new to the office or when major changes are

being implemented in the school system. School culture and school climate are useful

terms for the intangibles that can affect learning. Although the definition of climate

and culture are blurred and overlapping, one suggested difference is that culture

consist of shared assumptions, values, or norms, whereas climate is defined by shared

perceptions of behavior (Ashforth, 1985).

Senge and others (1990) mentioned the problems of public schools affected by

the out-of-date systematic structure. The structure is not flexible and not supporting

enough for students of the twenty-first century.

Elementary schools are the places where students begin to acquire formal

learning activities. Educational process must be really well prepared by concerned

personnel. The working systems must be efficient and updated. The school’s goal is

to acquire students’ success and growth in good environment. Therefore, the

principal, staff, parents, community and students have to work together in the

fostering culture and climate.

This research assessed school culture and school climate by means of a

questionnaire-based empirical study conducted in elementary schools of Thailand.

Survey research is defined as the administration of questionnaires to a sample of

respondents selected from some population (Babbie, 1989). Survey research is

especially appropriate for making descriptive studies of large populations and may be

used for explanatory purposes as well. It is appropriate for this study. The survey

questionnaire used in this study was a selection of established measuring instruments.

The survey forms chosen for this study were the School Culture Survey-Teacher Form

(SCS-TF) developed by Gruenert & Valentine (1998) and the School Climate

Inventory (SCI) by researchers at the Center for Research in Educational Policy

(CREP) at the university at Memphis in 1989.

The reasons that the survey questionnaire design was chosen for this study

were: 1) It can survey a large sample size at a reasonable cost. In this study, the

sample size was drawn from elementary school teachers in Thailand. 2) It is relatively

easy to design. In this study, a Likert scale with 35 items was used. 3) It is relatively

objective, anonymous, and can statistically analyzed.

School culture and school climate are very important to enhance academic

success, and affect to working performances of teachers, leaders, students and

school’s community. School culture and school climate are believed to support school

and students’ achievement. Thus, I would like to investigate perceptions of teachers

and staffs on school culture and school climate of elementary basic education schools

in Thailand.

1.2 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this research was to investigate the perceptions of teachers and

staffs on school culture and school climate of elementary basic education schools in

accordance with the following seven guided research questions:

1. To what degree did elementary basic education schools demonstrate the

school culture characteristics in terms of: 1) Collaborative Leadership, 2) Teacher

Collaboration, 3) Professional Development, 4) Unity of Purpose, 5) Collegial

Support, and 6) Learning Partnership?

2. Were there significant differences in school culture in elementary basic

education schools based on teachers and staffs’ perceptions classified by gender,

education levels, working status, age, working experiences, and school sizes?

3. To what degree did elementary basic education schools demonstrate the

school climate characteristics in terms of: 1) Order Dimension, 2) Leadership

Dimension, 3) Environment Dimension, 4) Involvement Dimension, 5) Instruction

Dimension, 6) Expectation Dimension, and 7) Collaborative Dimension?

4. Were there significant differences in school climate in elementary basic

education schools based on teachers and staffs’ perceptions classified by gender,

education levels, working status, age, working experiences, and school sizes?

5. Were there significant correlation among six variables of school culture in

terms of: 1) Collaborative Leadership, 2) Teacher Collaborative, 3) Professional

Development, 4) Unity of Purpose, 5) Collegial Support, and 6) Learning Partnership?

6. Were there significant correlation among seven variables of school climate

in terms of: 1) Order Dimension, 2) Leadership Dimension, 3) Environment

Dimension, 4) Involvement Dimension, 5) Instruction Dimension, 6) Expectation

Dimension, and 7) Collaborative Dimension?

7. Were there significant correlation among six variables of school culture and

seven variables of school climate?

1.3 Research hypothesis

Organizational culture and climate have been described as overlapping

concepts by theorists (Miner, 1995). A distinction between climate and culture with

school or organizational climate being viewed from a psychological perspective and

school culture viewed from an anthropological perspective (Hoy et at, 1991).

Differences between school climate and culture are highlighted in organizational

studies. Often the climate is viewed as behavior, while culture is seen as comprising

the values and norms of the school or organization (Hoy, 1990 ; Heck and

Marcoulides, 1996). Lunenburg and Ornstein (2004) described organizational climate

as the total environmental quality within an organization and believe that the recent

attention to the effectiveness of public schools and their cultures has shed more

interest on the importance of climate. The relationship between culture and climate

was supported by Schein (1996) he stated that norms, values, rituals and climate are

all manifestations of culture. In addition, the relationship of culture and climate is

further supported by McDougall and Beattie (1998), as well as by the early studies of

Schneider and Reichers (1983). Even though the conceptual distance between culture

(shared norms) and climate (shared perceptions) is small, it is nonetheless real. Hoy

and Feldman (1999) believed that this difference is meaningful and crucial because

shared perceptions of behavior are more readily measured than shared values. They

described climate as having fewer abstractions than culture (more descriptive and less

symbolic) and concluded that climate presents fewer problems in terms of empirical

measurements. Climate is the preferred construct when measuring the organizational

health of a school (Hoy and Feldman, 1999).

The study in the areas of six elements of school culture (collaborative

leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, collegial support, unity

of purpose, and learning partnership) and seven elements of school climate (order

dimension, leadership dimension, environment dimension, involvement dimension,

instruction dimension, expectation dimension, and collaboration dimension) are also

supported significant differences between school culture and school climate according

to four guided research hypotheses as follows:

1. There was a significant difference in the perceptions of teachers and staffs

on school climate, and school culture of elementary basic education schools classified

by gender, education level, working status, age, working experiences, and school

sizes.

2. There was significant correlation among six variables of school culture; 1)

Collaborative Leadership, 2) Teacher Collaborative, 3) Professional Development, 4)

Unity of Purpose, 5) Collegial Support, and 6) Learning Partnership.

3. There was significant correlation among seven variables of school climate;

1) Order Dimension, 2) Leadership Dimension, 3) Environment Dimension, 4)

Involvement Dimension, 5) Instruction Dimension, 6) Expectation Dimension, and 7)

Collaborative Dimension.

4. There was significant correlation among six variables of school culture and

seven variables of school climate.

1.4 Scope of the study

1. The population used in this study were 31,484 elementary basic education

school teachers and staffs in Thailand. The sample size was 398 teachers and 398

staffs derived by multi-stage random sampling.

2. There are two informants in one school, one teacher and one staff.

3. Variables of this study are:

3.1 The component of school culture’s variables

1) Collaborative Leadership

2) Teacher Collaboration

3) Professional Development

4) Unity of Purpose

5) Collegial Support

6) Learning Partnership

3.2 The component of school climate’s variables

1) Order Dimension

2) Leadership Dimension

3) Environment Dimension

4) Involvement Dimension

5) Instruction Dimension

6) Expectation Dimension

7) Collaborative Dimension

1.5 Operational term definitions

1.5.1 School Culture is defined in terms of the perceptions of teacher and staff in

elementary basic education school towards the following subscales: collaborative

leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose,

collegial support, and learning partnership.

1.5.1.1 Collaborative Leadership is defined in terms of the school leaders

establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships with school staff. The leaders

value teachers’ ideas, seek input, engage staff in decision-making, and trust the

professional judgment of the staff. Leaders support and reward risk-taking and

innovative ideas designed to improve students’ achievement. Leaders reinforce the

sharing of ideas and effective practices among the staff.

1.5.1.2 Teacher Collaboration is defined as teachers engaged to creative

dialogue that furthers the educational vision of the school and related to teachers

throughout the school planning, observing and discussing teaching practices,

evaluating programs, and developing an awareness of the practices and programs of

other teachers.

1.5.1.3 Professional Development is defined in terms of the value teachers

have for continuous personal development and school-wide improvement. Teachers

seek ideas from seminars, colleagues, organizations, and other professional sources to

maintain current knowledge, particularly knowledge of instructional practices.

1.5.1.4 Unity of Purpose is defined as teachers working together in ways in

which they are most effective, and toward a common mission for the school. Teachers

understand, support, and perform in accordance with that mission.

1.5.1.5 Collegial Support is defined as teachers working together effectively.

Teachers trust one another, values others’ ideas, and assist others as they work to

accomplish the tasks of the school organization.

1.5.1.6 Learning Partnership is defined as the notion relating to the

involvement of all facets of the school community in the learning process. This

includes the school staff, as well as the parents, students, and the community-at-large.

Schools must be increasingly responsive to the needs of those within the community.

1.5.2 School climate is defined in terms of the perceptions of teacher and staff in

elementary basic education school towards the following subscales: Order,

Leadership, Environment, Involvement, Instruction, Expectations, and Collaboration.

1.5.2.1 Order is that the effective schools maintain a safe and orderly

environment for learning. In a safe environment, students and staff feel free from

danger and harm to themselves or their property. The schools have a systematic set of

school policies and practices with rules that are specifically prescribed and

consistently enforced. The personnel’s expected behaviors are clearly understood and

respected.

1.5.2.2 Leadership is the involvement of the principal in instruction that has

been positively associated to both climate and learning outcomes. The principal is the

person in charge to guide and improve instructional programs and to fosters positive

climate so as to enhance students’ learning.

1.5.2.3 Environment is the surrounding situations and conditions including

physical structures, climate, and culture in which the schools are situated.

1.5.2.4 Involvement is defined as that parents and community are involved in

the schools.

1.5.2.5 Instruction is defined as teachers’ practices to help students learn.

1.5.2.6 Expectations is defined as the extent to which students are expected to

learn and be responsible. Teachers are supposed to do their best according to the

shared expectations.

1.5.2.7 Collaboration is defined as the learning community that the

administrators, faculty, and students cooperate and participate in problem solving.

1.5.3 Teacher means professional personnel with major responsibilities for

teaching.

1.5.4 Staff means professional personnel with major responsibilities for teaching

and general affairs together in school.

1.5.5 Elementary school is a school for children in grades 1-6, and provides the

basics of education known as primary school.

1.5.6 School size is defined according to the determined numbers of students as

follows: small (≤ 120 students), medium (121-600 students), large(600 - 1,500

students).

1.6 Significance of the study

This study traced a deep and thorough review literature on school culture,

school climate and proposed suggestions to improve school culture and school climate

of elementary schools in Thailand. More specifically, it provides:

1.6.1 A deep and thorough review literature on school culture and school

climate of elementary basic education school in Thailand.

1.6.2 An understanding of the characteristics of a strong/weak,

positive/negative school culture and school climate of elementary basic education

school in Thailand and educators can become more thoughtful about developing one.

1.6.3 Strong and positive school culture and school climate are important

drives to put forward to efficient and effective education management.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Educational research confirms the importance of school climate and culture to

the academic attainment of students. Culture is the shared assumptions and ideologies

of an organization, its philosophical base (Schein, 1992). Climate is the particular

school’s ambience, the feeling one receives upon entering the building. Climate is

viewed separately from culture but is a subdivision of culture (Hoy, Tarter &

Kottkamp, 1991).

Parents, teachers, principals, and students always sense something special and

undefined about the schools they attend. Most schools have their own tone. Climate,

or “ethos” that seems to permeate all activities in school. The unique quality of each

school is never spoken of, and it is not mentioned whether or not they seek out

colleagues for help. The school culture is a complex web of norms, values, beliefs and

assumptions, and traditions and rituals that have been built up overtime as teachers,

students, parents, and administrators work together, deal with crises, and develop

unstated expectations for interacting and working together (Schien, 1983; Deal and

Peterson, 1990). This moving stream of feeling, folkways, and activities flows

constantly within schools (Deal and Peterson, 1990). The concept of school culture

and school climate has evolved from studies of organizational culture and school

climate in the disciplines of organizational management and school administration.

In this study “School Culture and School Climate of Elementary Schools in

Thailand” was explored on theoretical perspectives as follows:

2.1 Organizational culture

In recent years, organizational culture has been popularized by best selling

book such as In Search of Excellence. A Passion for Excellence, and Corporate

Culture. (Peters and Waterman, 2006).

The culture of an organization is all the beliefs, feelings, behaviors, and

symbols that are characteristics of an organization. More specifically, organizational

culture is defined as shared philosophies, ideologies, beliefs, feelings, assumptions,

expectations, attitudes, norms, and values. While there is considerable variation in the

definition of organization of culture, it appears that most contain the following

characteristics:

- Observed Behavioral Regularities. When organizational members interact,

they use common language, terms, and rituals and ceremonies related to deference

and demeanor.

- Norms, standards of behavior evolve in work groups, such as “a fair day’s

work for a fair day’s pay”. The impact on work group behavior, sanctioned by group

norms, results in standards and yardsticks.

- Dominant Values. One organization espouses and expects its members to

share major values. Typical examples in schools are high performance levels of

faculty and students, low absence and dropout rates, and high efficiency.

- Philosophy, policies guide an organization’s beliefs about how employee and

clients are to be treated. For example, most school districts have statements of

philosophy or mission statement.

- Rule, guidelines exist for getting along in the organization, or the “ropes”

that a newcomer must learn in order to become an accepted member.

- Feeling, this is an overall atmosphere that is conveyed in an organization by

the physical layout and the way in which members interact with clients or other

outsiders.

The culture of an organization is interrelated with most other concepts in

educational administration, including organization structures, motivation, leadership,

decision making, communications, and change. Figure 1 depicts organizational

culture within the context of social system theory and more specifically open systems

theory, being characterized by inputs, a transformation process, outputs, external

environments, and feedback (Deal, Kennedy, 1984).

Information People

External Environment

Transformation

Behavioral Philosophy Regularities

Norms Rules

Values Feelings

Process

Feedback Loops

Figure 1 Dimensions of organizational culture Sources : Deal, Kennedy (1984)

Organization impacts energy from the environment in the form of information,

people, and materials. The imported energy undergoes a transformation designed to

channel behavior toward organizational goals and fulfill members’ needs.

Administrative process and organizational structures have a significant impact on

organizational culture and vice versa. In turn, these administrative processes and

organizational structures export a product into the external environment. In a school,

the output maybe students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes or attendance, dropout

rates, and more precise performance criteria such as scholastic awards.

Figure 1 shows the interrelationship of organizational culture with most other

concepts in educational administration. Thus, culture represents the organization’s

cumulative learning, as reflected in organizational structures, people, administrative

processes, and the external environment. This tends to perpetuate beliefs and behavior

and specifies the goals, values, and mission of the organization and the criteria by

which to measure the organization’s success.

Subcultures: Large and complex organizations do not typically manifest

single homogeneous beliefs, values, and behavior patterns, In other words, there may

MotivationLeadershipDecision -MakingCommunicationChange

Culture

Job DescriptionSelection SystemEvaluation- SystemControl SystemReward System

Input

Products Services Trained-

people

Information people materials

be more than one culture in an organization. Firstly, there are differences between the

formal culture, which consists of the ideal philosophy of the organization and how

organizational members should behave, and the informal culture, which consists of

the actual manifestations of the ideal philosophy in the day-to-day behavior of

organizational members. Secondly, there are likely to be different cultures in various

functional groups in the organization, such as the divisions of instruction, business,

personnel, and research and development in a large school district: There are

differences among student, teacher, and administrator groups; and there are

differences among elementary, middle school, and high school levels. In other words,

whenever the task requirements result in a unique combination of people, structures,

and function, the requirements to fulfill the group’s goal will result in a unique

culture.

Dominant culture: Besides the subcultures that exist in an organization, the

larger organization may also have a culture that distinguishes from other large

systems. For example, one large school district is highly in favor of innovation. This

philosophy translates itself into a variety of practices including team teaching.

Flexible scheduling, teacher-advisor programs, report card conference, use of the

bureau’s speaker, collaboration with business firms, and internships. It results in

values that emphasize good interpersonal relations between students and teachers,

teachers and administrators, teachers and parents, and school and community.

Thus, central office administrators prescribe policies and make decisions for

all the school districts to comply the philosophy of innovation. Most key

administrators portrayed the same image. They demonstrated excellent interpersonal

and verbal skills and strived to be accessible to students, teachers, parents, and the

community. They spent a portion of their time cultivating relations with the business

community through membership in the Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions Club, Chamber of

Commerce, and so on. This example shows that even large and relatively

heterogeneous school districts known to have dominant cultures can improve their

educational goals.

2.2 Levels of culture

Culture plays a dominant role in organizational life. To define it is one thing;

to perceive how it influences performance is quite another. Culture is as complex as

human behavior itself. Part of it is visible and understandable; other elements are

hidden and obscure. Schein (1992) argues that the best way to think about

organizational culture is to conceive it as existing on three levels:

2.2.1 Tangible artifacts

The artifacts level, the most visible of the three, is perhaps the level most

closely associated with what we think of as school climate, how people perceive the

school. A school’s artifacts include its structure and processes, architecture, rituals,

and icons that are most conspicuous to the casual observer. The teachers’ model of

dress, roll call in class, the bell for first period, and the scent of a long hallway

represent elements of the artifacts level of culture.

The initial feel of the school emanates from this tangible level of experience.

Thus, people who visit the school for the first time are most likely to recognize this

level of culture. They may experience it as a mood or feeling, a certain style, or a

physical presence.

If we want to trace the complex pattern of a school, we should begin at the

artifacts level, but identification of culture at this level only scratches the surface of

understanding, offering but a glimpse of the complete picture. As Schein (1992)

emphasizes, what an observer cannot tell from the artifacts is what they mean, that is,

why the principal, staff, and students behave as they do and why the school operates

as it does. The second level of culture provides deeper insight into the ideas that guide

the school’s sense of its mission.

In addition to artifacts, most tangible layers of culture also consist of practices.

In these practices or behavioral patterns, the underlying assumptions, values and

norms come to the surface. These practices are not the result of any formal agreement

or arrangement among teachers, but they develop from socially accepted or reinforced

behaviors of the teachers (Deal, 1985). Practices essentially refer to the customs, “the

way we do things around here”, or to the rituals in school. The term ritual originates

from the discipline of cultural anthropology, where it refers to the social customs

around a certain event that is meaningful to the members of a particular group. In

schools, one may think of the ceremony that takes place when a teacher get retires.

These events often take place according to a fixed protocol, consisting of several

activities that emphasize their solemnity to the participants. Ritual, therefore, takes

place around events that are infused with meaning in the eyes of school members.

2.2.2 Espoused values

The truth about educators is that, as people of letters, they value the expression

of the things they value. School mission statements abound with affirmations of high

expectations for student achievement, responsiveness to students’ diverse learning

styles, and mobilization of resources for the goal of improving student learning.

Educators expect that a list of such values, having been discussed, agreed on,

and publicized, will guide the school’s operation. The National Leadership Network

Study Group on Restructuring Schools expressed this expectation as follows:

“Through shared values and beliefs, members of the organization develop a sense of

direction that guides their day-to-day behavior” (Joan Burnham and Shirley Hord,

1993). If the school has designated respect as an important value, for example, people

are expected to treat others with consideration and respect.

Values and beliefs are important parts of an organization’s culture. This is true

both are corporately espoused and held by individuals. Practitioners bring with them a

particular set of principles that form their philosophy of education. For example, a

teacher’s belief in the values of experiential learning becomes an expression of culture

as reflected in his or her actions. Sashkin and Sashkin (1997) distinguish among the

following terms:

1) Values tell us what is right and wrong.

2) Beliefs are summaries of cause and effect; that is, they remind us what is

3) likely to happen when we act in certain ways.

4) Norms simply state expected standards of overt behavior.

5) Values are not necessarily supportive of a school’s mission.

As the Sashkins (1997) explain, “Shared values and beliefs can support

increased organizational effectiveness but they can also impair effectiveness. When

everyone holds to the same flawed beliefs, their combined efforts may lead to

disaster”. Also, values and beliefs are not, as Schein points out, a reliable guide to an

organization’s culture. For one thing, they are not always explicitly stated. Nor are

they always consistent with observed behavior. One other problem with relying on

the values promulgated by an institution is that its members may or may not agree

with those values where it really matters. In practice, for example, a school’s mission

statement may declare that all children can and are expected to succeed, but one or

more teachers, when pressed for their own views, may confide that some students

simply can’t meet the conditions for succeeding in school. In such a case, teachers’

tacit values, much more than any official statement displayed in the school’s hallway

or discussed in faculty meetings, govern their actual behavior.

This hidden realm of what staff members actually believe- consciously or

unconsciously-is what school leaders who want to set their school’s culture in a

positive direction must penetrate. And this brings us to Schein’s third level, which

recognizes the hidden aspects of culture, those cultural patterns that truly influence

the organization’s performance.

2.2.3 Underlying assumptions

An organization’s culture manifests itself in tangible artifacts and espoused

values and beliefs. But the essence of the culture lies hidden in what Schein (1999)

calls “shared tacit assumptions”. Although this level of culture is difficult to

recognize, it is more powerful than the first two levels because these underlying

assumptions, though largely invisible, shape the behavior of the organization’s

members. “As a responsible leader”, Schein (1999) warns, “you must be aware of

these assumptions and manage them, or they will manage you”.

Shared tacit assumptions are powerful because, as Schein notes, they influence

all aspects of an organization’s functioning: “Mission, strategy, means used,

measurement systems, correction systems, language, group norms of inclusion and

exclusion, status and reward systems, and concepts of time, space, work, and human

nature are all reflected in the culture” (Schein, 1999).

The culture at this third level does not exist alongside or independently of

these elements; rather, Schein insists, it pervades and shapes them. Using the analogy

of a human body, we could say that culture is not just an arm or a leg but rather the

Assumptions and beliefs

mind and personality that govern all the members. Too often, culture is assumed to be

simply one component of an organization that can be controlled and fine-tuned at will

by an astute leader.

A further source of the power of these tacit assumptions is that they operate

undetected below the radar screen, ready to trip up unsuspecting leaders who too

quickly think they have correctly analyzed their organization’s culture but have only

identified its superficial elements. Schein (1999) warns, “If you are serious about

managing culture in your organization, the biggest danger you face is that you do not

fully appreciate the depth and power of culture”. Now we are ready to explore some

implications of Schein’s robust conception of culture. The first ought to be obvious:

Deciphering your school’s culture is no simple task.

The following chart shows how these components of school culture can

support or impede learning.

Supports Learning Impedes Learning

The building and its arrangements are a reflection of the children, their needs, and their educational accomplishments.

There is little that reflects an emphasis on the children and their education.

Administrators, teachers, students, and parents participate in decision making

Decisions are made without participation of teachers and parents.

All students can learn. Parents want their children to succeed. Parents are partners in education.

Some students are incapable of learning or too lazy to learn. Parents don’t care. Parents know nothing about education.

Figure 2 Components of school culture can support or impede learning

One way to untangle some of the problems of definition is to view culture at

different levels. As illustrated in figure 2, culture is manifested in norms, shared

Values

Artifacts and symbols

values, and basic assumptions, each occurring at different levels of depth and

abstraction.

2.2.4 Cultures as shared norms

Norms are usually unwritten and informal expectations that occur just below

the surface of experience. Norms directly influence behavior. They are much more

visible than either values or tacit assumptions; consequently, they provide a clear

means for helping people understand the cultural aspects of organizational life.

Moreover, if we are concerned with changing organizational behavior, then it is

important to know and understand the norms of that culture. As Allen and Kraft

(1982) note “Norms are universal phenomena. They are necessary, tenacious, but also

extremely malleable. Because they can change so quickly and easily, they present a

tremendous opportunity to people interested in change. Any group, no matter its size,

once it understands itself as a cultural entity, can plan its own norms, creating positive

ones that will help it reach its goals and modifying or discarding the negative ones”.

Tacit Assumptions – Abstract Premises- Nature of human nature - Nature of human relationships- Nature of truth and reality- Relationship to the environment

Values – Conceptions of What is Desirable- Openness- Trust- Cooperation- Intimacy- Teamwork- Control

Norms- Support your colleagues- Don’t criticize the principal- Handle your own discipline problems- Be available to give students extra help- Get to know your colleagues

Deep Abstract

Superficial Concrete

Figure 3 Levels of Culture

Norms are also communicated to participants by stories and ceremonies that

provide visible and potent examples of what the organization stands for. Sometimes

stories about people are created to reinforce the basic norms of the organization. The

principal who stands by the teacher despite overwhelming pressure from parents and

superiors becomes a symbol of the cohesiveness and loyalty in a school’s culture.

Teacher quickly learn the norms. “Do not tell tales out of school”, “support your

colleagues”, and “support your principal”. Norms determine the way people dress and

talk; the way participants respond to authority, conflict, and pressure; and the way

people balance self-interests with organizational interests.

2.2.5 Culture as shared beliefs and values

At the middle level of abstraction, culture is defined as shared belief and

values. Values are beliefs of what is desirable. They are reflections of the underlying

assumptions of culture, and lie at the next level of analysis. Values often define what

members should do to be successful in the organization. When we ask people to

explain why they behave the way they do, we may begin to discover the central values

of the organization. Shared values define the basic character of the organization and

give the organization a sense of identity. If members know what their organization

stands for, if they know what standard they should uphold, they are more likely to

make decisions that will support those standards. They are also more likely to feet

part of the organization and that organizational life has important meaning.

William Ouchi’s book (1981) on the success of Japanese corporations was one

of the first contemporary analyses of corporate culture. Ouchi (1981) argued that the

success of effective corporations in both Japan and America was a function of a

distinctive corporate culture, one that was internally consistent and characterized by

the shared values of intimacy, trust, cooperation, teamwork, and egalitarianism.

Success of these organizations was not as much a matter of technology as it was of

managing people. He labeled the American organizations with these values Theory Z

culture.

Table 1 Theory Z organization and culture

Organizational Characteristics Core Values

1. Long-term employment Organizational commitment2. Slower promotion rates Career orientation3. Participative decision making Cooperation and teamwork4. Individual responsibility for group decision Trust and group loyalty5. Holistic orientation Egalitarianism

Theory Z organizations have a number of properties that promote this

distinctive culture. Long term employment opportunities create is employees a sense

of security and commitment to the organization, participants become invested in the

organization. The process of slower rates of promotion creates more opportunities to

broaden experience and diverse career paths as employees perform different functions

and occupy different roles. This effectively produces company-specific skills and

promotes career development. Participative and consensual decision making demands

cooperation and teamwork, values that are openly communicated and reinforced.

Individual responsibility for collective decision making demands an atmosphere of

trust and mutual support. Finally, concern for the total person is natural part of the

working relationship, which tends to be informal and emphasizes the whole person

and not just the individual’s work role. This holistic perspective promotes a strong

egalitarian atmosphere, a community of equals who work cooperatively on common

goals rather than relying on the formal hierarchy. Thus Theory Z organizations are

structured and operate to promote the basic values of intimacy, trust, cooperation, and

egalitarianism. These core values of the culture are the dominant values that most of

the organizational members accept and share; they influence virtually every aspect of

organizational life.

The features of Theory Z applied to schools include trust, subtlety, and

intimacy; shared control and decision making; training in planning, organizational

processes, budgeting systems, and interpersonal skills; motivation through self-

interest; rewards over the long run and the importance or high-quality education.

Theory Z applied to schools depicts these concepts.

Trust, Subtlety, and Intimacy: According to Ouchi, no institution can exist

without trust, subtlety, and intimacy. Trust in a school can only exist among people

who understand that their objectives are compatible in the long run. The concept is

based on the assumption that if you don’t understand what someone else does, if you

don’t understand their language, their technology, and their problems, then you can’t

possibly trust them. Trust can be developed only through intimae, professional

experience with someone else, including close interpersonal relations between

students and students, teachers and students, teachers and teachers, administrators and

teachers, and administrators and students.

Shared Control and Decision Making : School administrators must spend

adequate time discussing with students, teachers, parents, and the community the

objectives of the schools and how the schools are run. School leaders must understand

the incentive system available to personnel in their career and helps them to

rationalize these incentives so that they can trust them. Then, administrators can invite

subordinates to share control, which provides stakeholders with input into decisions

that will affect the way they perform their responsibilities.

Figure 4 Major components of theory Z as applied to school

Source : Ouchi (1993)

Training, the concept of quality circles, also called learning teams or

cooperative learning groups, is advocated. Quality circles consist of small groups of

employees who meet regularly to discuss the way they do their jobs and to

recommend changes. The purpose is to yield a group-based suggestion system for

solving problems and improving the quality of the system (John J. Bonstingl, 2001).

This requires a period of training to increase participation, consensus in decision, and

shared control. The training is directed toward getting to know organization: its

objectives, problems, and overall resources. Specifically, teachers and other non

administrative personnel are trained in planning, organizational processes (motivation,

leadership, decision making, communication, and change), the system’s budgetary

Trust Subtlety Intimacy

Theory Z in

Schools

Motivation Through

Self Interest

Equitable Reward System

Shared Control and

Decision Making

Skills Training

Quality Educatio

n

process, group dynamics, and many of the school administrator’s day-to-day activities

to which teachers are rarely exposed. The training is designed to create a culture that

lends itself to openness, trust, and employee involvement.

Motivation Through Self-Interest: Ouchi believes that there is only one form

of interest, self-interest. If you can not create a setting in which people are permitted

to naturally do what seems desirable to them-to satisfy their self-interest-then you are

always fighting, constraining, holding back, and can never have high commitment nor

high productivity. In the theory Z organization, because people have participated in

shaping the goals and objective of the system, you can say to people, “Do what comes

naturally; do what you prefer to do ,because we have agreed that those things you

choose to do are simultaneously good for the institution” (William Ouchi, 1982).

Rewards : An organizational memory is essential. Some key persons must

remember who has gone the extra mile, who is committed, and who has put in extra

time; this person must ensure that those efforts are recognized and rewarded.

According to Ouchi, if there is that kind of organizational memory, then people will

have confidence that as long as they do what is right, there will be equity in the end.

They therefore lose whatever incentives they might have to be selfish narrow-minded,

or short-sighted. What does Ouchi say about the lockstep salary schedules prevalent

in most school district? Ouchi responds by saying that it is necessary that schools

disassemble the currently bureaucratical approach to evaluation, promotion, and pay.

Importance of High-Quality Education: One of the greatest assets any country

has in developing its social health and its economic health, is its school systems. High

quality education leads to an educated workforce, thereby increasing economic capital

in the improved country. An enlightened citizenry is important to the welfare of a

nation.

Other studies (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982) of

successful corporations also suggest the pivotal importance of strong organizational

cultures in fostering effectiveness. Deal and Kennedy (1982) suggest that successful

organizations share some common cultural characteristics. They argues that such

organizations have:

1) A widely shared organizational philosophy.

2) Concern for individuals that is more important than formal rules and

policies.

3) Rituals and ceremonies that build a common identity.

4) A well-understood sense of the informal rules and exceptions.

5) A belief that what employees do is important to others.

In strong cultures, beliefs and values are hold intensely, shared widely, and

guide organizational behavior. It might be tempting to jump to the conclusion that a

specific set of values defines excellence in organizations, but that would be

unjustified. What promote excellence yesterday does not necessarily promote it today

or tomorrow (Aupperle, Acar and Booth, 1986; Hitt and Ireland, 1987). In fact, a

strong culture can be a liability in times of rapid change because the organization’s

culture may be so ingrained that it prevents adaptation to new constraints. From the

observes of Hanson (2003) that in many ways the link between culture and

effectiveness is the same as that between structure and effectiveness. Both culture and

structure can undermine outcome by either stagnating or disrupting the system

through rigidities, conflicts, and hidden agendas.

2.2.6 Culture as tacit assumptions

A deepest level of culture, it is the collective manifestation of tacit

assumptions. When members of an organization share a view of the world around

them and their place in that world, culture exists. That is, a pattern of basic

assumptions has been invented, discovered, or developed by the organization as it

learned to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration. This

pattern has worked well enough to be considered valid and it is taught to new member

as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. Because

the assumptions have worked repeatedly, they have become so basic that they are

taken for granted, tend to be no comfortable and no debatable, and thus are highly

resistant to change. From this perspective, the key to understanding organizational

culture is to decipher the tacit assumptions members share and to discover how these

assumptions fit together into a cultural pattern or paradigm.

Tacit assumptions are abstract premises about the nature of human

relationships, human nature, truth, reality, and environment (Dyer, 1985). For

example, is human nature basically good, evil, or neutral? How is truth ultimately

determined-is it revealed or discovered? What are the assumed relationships among

members of the group primarily hierarchical, cooperative, or individualistic? When

organizations develop consistent and articulate patterns of basic assumptions, they

have strong cultures.

Consider two strong, but contrasting school cultures. The first school has a

strong, distinctive culture based on the following assumptions as suggested by Schien

(1985):

1) Truth ultimately comes from teachers themselves.

2) Teachers are responsible, motivated, and capable of governing themselves

and making decision in the best interests of their students.

3) Truth is determined through debate, which often produces conflict and

testing of ideas in an open forum.

4) Teachers are a family; they accept, respect, and take care of each other.

These core assumptions give rise to such shared values as individualism,

autonomy, openness, professionalism, and authority of knowledge. In contrast, a

second school is guided by the following assumptions:

1) Truth ultimately comes from experienced teachers and administrators.

2) Most teachers are committed and loyal to the school.

3) Relationships in the school are basically hierarchical.

4) Yet, teachers respect and honor each other’s autonomy in the classroom.

5) Teachers are family who take care of each other.

In this school the core assumptions produce such values as respect for

authority respect for territory, and conflict avoidance.

2.3 School culture

Every organization has a culture, the history and underlying set of unwritten

expectations that shape everything about the school. A school culture influences the

ways people think, feel, and act, being able to understand and shape the culture is key

to a school's success in promoting staff and student learning.

Although organizational culture has become a fashionable construct for

analysis in education, much of the recent discussion about school culture remains

analytical, philosophical, and rhetorical rather than empirical (Cusick, 1987). It is not

difficult, for example, to use the research results on corporate cultures (Ouchi, 1981;

Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982) and the effective schools

research (Brookover et al.,1978; Ruttet et al.,1979; Clark, Lotto, and Astuto, 1984) to

develop an ideal description of an effective school culture.

Anthropological and sociological studies of school cultures are needed. The

in-depth descriptions of qualitative studies are necessary to map the basic assumptions

and common values of the cultures of schools. Educational researches must consider

the school as a whole and analyze how its practices, beliefs, and other cultural

elements relate to the social structure as well as give meaning to its social life. To

understand culture one must be immersed in the complex clustering of symbols

people use to give meaning to their world.

Firestone and Wilson (1985) provide a useful framework for beginning to

study the organizational cultures of schools. They suggest that the analysis of school

culture can be addressed by studying its content, the expressions of culture, and

primary communication patterns.

The symbols through which culture is expressed often help identify important

cultural themes. Three symbol systems communicate the contents of a school’s

culture: stories, icons, and rituals.

1) Stories are narratives that are based on true events, but they often combine

truth and fiction.

2) Myths are stories that communicate an unquestioned belief that cannot be

demonstrated by the facts.

3) Legends are stories that are retold and elaborated with fictional details.

A school’s organizational culture is “a system of ordinary, taken-for-granted

meanings and symbols with both implicit and explicit content [i.e., norms, values,

beliefs, assumptions] that are, deliberately and non-deliberately, learned and shared

among members” (Erickson, 1987). There are three dimensions to a school’s culture:

its form, content, and strength. With respect to form, a school’s culture may vary from

one that largely supports isolated, individual work and problem solving to one that is

based on collaboration in its various forms, from collaboration among subgroups in

the organization (balkanized) to whole staff collaboration (Hargreaves & Macmillan,

1991). Evidence suggests a strong link between highly collaborative school cultures

and schools’ effectiveness (Fieman-Nemser & Floden, 1986; Little, 1982). Authentic

collaboration among teachers, regarding improvement of teaching and learning, for

example, provides opportunities for the dissemination of hard-won technical

knowledge from one teacher to another. It also provides occasions for joint problem

solving around individual teacher dilemmas as well as tasks shared by teachers such

as curriculum development tasks.

The specific nature of a school staff’s shared norms, values, beliefs, and

assumptions defines the content of a school’s culture. Staff in especially productive

schools typically hold norms of continuous improvement and professional growth as

well as norms of mutual respect. These staff value the welfare and learning of their

students first and foremost. As well, they value the participation of all the school’s

stakeholders in decision making and believe that all of their students can learn and

that they are responsible for ensuring that such learning occurs (Mortimore,

Sammons, Stoll, Lewis & Ecob, 1988; Rosenholtz, 1989).

The extent to which norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions are shared among

staff defines the strength of a school’s culture. Strong cultures are especially useful in

the day-to-day conduct of the school’s business because the hectic and fast-paced

nature of the enterprise provides little opportunity for collegial deliberation

(Hargreaves & Macmillan, 1991). Excessive consensus among staff can be self-

sealing, however, cutting off the inclination to award ideas of change for the attention

they may deserve (Firestone & Louis, 1999). Indeed, learning what is needed for

organization improvement demands openness to new ideas from diverse sources,

along with norms of risk taking and experimentation and beliefs about the importance

of learning from small failures (Sitkin, 1992; Watkins & Marsick,1993).

Hoy, Tarter and Kottkamp (1991) further described school culture as “a

system of shared orientations (norms, core values and tacit assumptions) by members,

which holds the unit together and gives it a distinct identity”. In this pattern of shared

orientations, no distinction is made between the different subsets of status within the

school. The non-certified staff must also embrace these shared notions if a school

hopes to establish a sustainable set of cultural values.

Evidence concerning how less productive school cultures can be changed is

modest, but recommends several strategies: using such bureaucratic strategies as the

hiring of new staff to support cultural norms; persistently communicating the values

considered to be important to the culture; providing symbolic support, for example,

through ceremonies, for the values and beliefs considered important to the school; and

providing staff development activities that empower staff to act in ways valued by the

school (Deal & Peterson, 1990; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990).

School culture is not a static entity. It is constantly being constructed and

shaped through interactions with others and through reflections on life and the world

in general (Finnan, 2000). School culture develops as staff members interact with

each other, the students, and the community. It becomes the guide for behavior that is

shared among members of the school at large. Culture is shaped by the interactions of

the personnel, and the actions of the personnel become directed by culture.

Hollins (1996) argues that “schools are shaped by cultural practices and values

and reflect the norms of the society for which they have been developed”. Just as

hydrogen is a major element of water, so are societal values a major ingredient of

school culture. The general ideologies of society at large and the communities

surrounding individual schools become reflected in the culture of schooling.

In her study of inner city schools, Anyon (1995) identified three factors that

vitiated reform efforts in the schools involved in her study: sociocultural differences

among participants, an abusive school environment, and educators’ expectations of

failed reform. These three factors combined to create a school culture that negated

any attempt at reform. Efforts at reform continually failed in those schools because

the underlying stream of values and norms was indicative of the poverty, negativity,

and abuse of the surrounding community. Anyon’s study (1995) suggests that in order

to reform the schools, the community’s expectations and values would have to be

reformed which will be reflected in the culture of the schools.

Much of the current research on school culture presents implications only as

they pertain to positive versus negative effects on student academics and teacher

outcomes. Other research focuses on cultural issues as a barrier to school outcomes

and change initiatives in particular. In addition, ‘school culture’ is often explored as a

whole of the school variable that includes students, rather than simply a workplace

level variable that, potentially, has implications for teacher and student outcomes at

the sub-group level.

R.G. Owens and C.R. Steinhoff (1988) identified four distinctive school

cultures,

1) Family culture. Described as a school that is a family or a team. The

most important element is concern for each other, and staff

commitment to the students and their culture is common.

2) Machine culture. The school runs like a well-oiled machine. The focus

is on precision rather than on nurturing learners.

3) Cabaret culture. A circus-type culture. The relationships and status in

the organization come from theatrical practices. These schools are "all

show and no go."

4) Concentration Camp culture. The school culture is viewed as

unpredictable. Tension and stress abound. People view it as a prison.

They have no choice but to function or try to escape.

As many researchers have noted, every school has a culture: a positive,

healthy one that promotes learning for both the students and the adults in the building

or a negative one that is steeped in conflict and is resistant to change. Schools are

dynamic environments. “We need to treat educational organizations as complex social

organisms held together by a symbolic webbing” (Deal, 1990). This symbolic

webbing must be understood and embraced by all personnel. To get a true measure of

a school’s culture is a difficult pursuit (Roach & Kratochwill, 2004). Schools

encounter constant turnover of staff, and inevitable turnover of the students. The

peculiarities of schools, in contrast to private enterprises, have led many researchers

to define school culture in specific ways which may contrast with the cultural

specifications of other types of organizations.

Hopkins, Ainscow and West (1994) offered the following meanings of culture,

as it relates to schools:

1) the observed patterns of behavior

2) the norms that evolve in working groups of teachers

3) the dominant values espoused by the school

4) the philosophy that guides the approach to teaching

5) the unwritten policies and procedures that new teachers have to learn

Higgins-D’Alessandro & Sadh (1997) found that students who held positive

expectations of the behavioral norms of students at school (e.g., at this school there is

very little cheating) expressed a greater satisfaction with school life and were more

inclined than others to participate in extra-curricular activities. Sense of school

membership may also be enhanced among schools possessing a strong emphasis on

academic pursuits (or academic press).

Barth (2002) wrote: “A school’s culture is a complex pattern of norms,

attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, values, ceremonies, traditions, and myths that are deeply

ingrained in the very core of the organization. It is the historically transmitted pattern

of meaning that wields astonishing power in shaping what people think and how they

act”.

Deal and Peterson (1990) defined it (in The Shaping School Culture

Fieldbook, 2002) as kind of the underlining set of norms, values, beliefs, rituals, and

traditions that make up the unwritten rules of how to think, feel and act in an

organization. Every organization has a conscious, predictable part of their rules and

procedures and so forth, but the school’s culture is often below the stream of

consciousness and is really what.

Similarly many writers have provided formal definitions of school or

organizational culture. Listed below are some of the most frequently cited definitions.

Culture is: An informal understanding of the “way we do things around here.” Culture

is a strategic body of learned behaviors that give both meaning and reality to its

participants (Cunningham and Gresso,1993). The stable, underlying social meanings

that shape beliefs and behavior over time (Deal, 1990).

David and Weller explained : “ To a large extent culture contributes to the

school's effectiveness or ineffectiveness and is a product of the school's leadership.

Culture sets the standards and guides the daily actions of administrators, teachers and

students alike"(Weller, 2002).

Culture is the stable, underlying social meanings that shape beliefs and

behavior over time (Deal,1990). Culture can be viewed in terms of both product and

process. Product embodies the accumulated wisdom of previous members of the

organization. Process is continually renewed and recreated as new members are taught

the old ways and eventually become teachers themselves (Bolman and Deal, 1991).

The collective programming of the mind distinguishes the members of one

group from those of another group (Hofstede, 1997) i.e.

1) Culture is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group has

learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal

integration, and that has worked well enough to be considered valid

and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to

perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein,1992).

2) Culture is a complex pattern of norms, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors,

values, ceremonies, traditions, and myths that are deeply ingrained in

the very core of the organization. Culture is the historically transmitted

pattern of meaning that wields astonishing power in shaping what

people think and how they act (Barth, 2002).

School culture is defined as shared beliefs, feelings, assumptions,

expectations, attitudes and values for development as staff members interact with each

other, the teachers, the students, and the community. These become common

behaviors among members of the school. Culture is shaped by the interactions of the

personnel, and the actions of the personnel are directed by culture.

2.3.1 The importance of school culture

Sociologists recognized the importance of school culture as early as 1930s, but

it was not until the late 1970s that educational researchers began to draw direct links

between the quality of a school’s climate and its educational outcomes. Harvard

University researcher Ron Edmonds, often regarded as the father of the “effective

schools” movement, included “safe, orderly climate conducive to learning” on his

influential list of school level factors associated with higher student achievement.

“The school’s atmosphere is orderly without being rigid,” he observed, “quiet without

being oppressive, and generally conducive to the instructional business at hand.” Yet

despite its importance, organizational culture is possibly the least discussed element in

practical conversations about how to improve student achievement. Perhaps that is

because factors such as strong leadership, close monitoring of student progress, a

common and coherent curriculum, and teacher collaboration all seem like pieces of

the puzzle that educators can directly affect. On the other hand, even the synonyms

we use to describe a school’s culture — terms such as “atmosphere” and “climate”—

make it sound more like an environmental condition than an educational one. And

much like the weather, school culture seems to exist beyond direct human control.

(http://www.readingrockets.org/article/26095 by Jerald ,2006)

Why does culture exert such a powerful influence on a school’s effectiveness?

Because the culture tells people in the school what is truly important and how they are

to act. As Bruce A. Lane (1992) said, “The power of the school culture model lies in

its recognition that movement of schools toward greater effectiveness must begin with

attention to the subtle, habitual regularities of behavior that comprise the culture of

the school.”

A truly positive school climate is not characterized simply by the absence of

gangs, violence, or discipline problems, but also by the presence of a set of norms and

values that focus everyone’s attention on what is most important and motivate them to

work hard toward a common purpose. Terrance Deal and Kent Peterson (1999)

contended that “the culture of an enterprise plays the dominant role in exemplary

performance.” They define school culture as an “underground flow of feelings and

folkways [wending] its way within schools” in the form of vision and values, beliefs

and assumptions, rituals and ceremonies, history and stories, and physical symbols.

According to Deal and Peterson research (1999) suggests that a strong,

positive culture serves several beneficial functions, including the following:

1) Fostering effort and productivity.

2) Improving collegial and collaborative activities that in turn promote better

communication and problem solving.

3) Supporting successful change and improvement efforts.

4) Building commitment and helping students and teachers identify with the

school.

5) Amplifying the energy and motivation of staff members and students.

6) Focusing attention and daily behavior on what is important and valued.

Hobby of Britain’s Hay Group suggests, viewed more positively, culture can

also be the ultimate form of ‘capacity’—a reservoir of energy and wisdom to sustain

motivation and co-operation, shape relationships and aspirations, and guide effective

choices at every level of the school (Jerald, 2006).

Fullan (2005) noted that of the 134 secondary schools in England that were

part of the 2004 Hay Group study, the “successful schools had a much more

demanding culture-hunger for improvement, promoting excellence, holding hope for

every child-while the less successful schools had less of a press on improvement and

were more forgiving when results were not forthcoming”.

Building a strong culture is not an overnight task. According to Bryk and

Schneider (2002), “Relational trust is not something that can be achieved simply

through some workshop, retreat, or form of sensitivity training, although all of these

can be helpful. Rather, relational trust is forged in daily social exchanges. Trust grows

over time through exchanges where the expectations held for others are validated in

action.” Creating and maintaining a strong culture—for students and teachers alike—

also depends on their understanding of “the definition of the situation” defined earlier.

“For relational trust to develop and be sustained,” said Byrk and Schneider (2002),

both staff and students “must be able to make sense of their work together in terms of

what they understand as the primary purpose of the school: Why are we really here?”.

Patterson, Purkey, and Parker (1986) summarized the general knowledge base

regarding school cultures:

1) School culture does affect the behavior and achievements of

elementary and secondary school students (though the effect of

classroom and student variables remains greater).

2) School culture does not fall from the sky; it is created and thus can be

manipulated by people within the school.

3) School cultures are unique; whatever their commonalities, no two

schools will be exactly alike - nor should they be.

4) To the extent that it provides a focus and clear purpose for the school,

culture becomes the cohesion that bonds the school together as it goes

about its mission.

5) Though we concentrate on its beneficial nature, culture can be

counterproductive and an obstacle to educational success; culture can

also be oppressive and discriminatory for various subgroups within the

school.

Lasting fundamental change (e.g. changes in teaching practices or the decision

making structure) requires understanding and, often, altering of the school's culture;

cultural change is a slow process.

2.3.2 Categories of school culture

Rosenholtz (1989) described two distinct observable cultures, “high consensus

” or “collaborative” schools and “low consensus” or “ isolated ”schools. Hargreaves

(1993) described four categories, “fragmented individualism”, “balkanised”,

“collaborative” and “contrived collegiality” (Cole & Knowles, 2000).

The categories of these researchers summarized in Table 2, broadly describe

cultures in schools and will be used as a basis for looking more deeply into the

literature available in this area. Summarizing the categories by these two researchers

acts as a point of reference while exploring the complexity of the term.

Table 2 Broad categories of school cultureRosenholtz (1989) Hargreaves (1993)

High Consensus / Collaborative School. These schools work towards commonly defined, shared goals.

Collaborative In these schools there is a broad agreement on educational values. Shared goals. Teachers work together with sincerity. Supported by school administration.Contrived CollegialityThe pattern of interaction is recently adopted. Teachers work together but without the will and commitment to do so.

Low Consensus / Isolated Schools These schools work towards individual goals,There is no common purpose.

BalkanisedTeachers sometimes form groups defined by attitudes, professional goals, subject orientations or personal interests.Fragmented IndividualismIn these schools teachers are private, isolated and conservative. There is a lack of enthusiasm for change.

2.3.3 Models of school culture

Development of a preliminary model of school culture from the list of cultural

elements required consideration of the relationships between the elements.

Erikson (1987) addressed the issue of the development of school culture. It

was presented as an interpretive framework containing three different conceptions

about the possession and sharing of cultural knowledge. Firstly, cultural knowledge

exists in small bits spread throughout the school, secondly there are larger chunks of

common knowledge which underpin collective behavior and thirdly, the sharing of the

knowledge is related to power and status. The knowledge bits conception proposes

that the school community collectively possesses a large pool of bits of information,

the individual pieces being contributed by specific members and groups. No single

member or group has learned the total body of knowledge. Another conception

portrays cultures as a conceptual structure with the presence of central organizing

constructs and core symbols that are widely shared throughout the school and provide

cohesion and consistency of behavior. The third concept recognizes that there is a

systematic variation in cultural knowledge between the groups and that the

organization of the differences has resulted from social interaction including conflict.

This political struggle conception views culture as being in a state of change, new

culture is continuously being created. A further consideration is of the effect that the

social environment surrounding individuals and groups has on their specific cultural

knowledge, not on the total body of knowledge itself. Collectively, these conceptions

of Erikson portray school culture as a dynamic combination of shared and individual

knowledge with new frameworks and knowledge being continuously learned and

applied.

Maxwell and Thomas (1991) suggested that culture is expressed through the

behavior of groups and individuals. There is a concurrent process by which ideas,

beliefs and values are developed to give meaning to the behavior. The “interactive

model of culture” (Maxwell & Thomas, 1991) has four reciprocative elements. The

central element is the belief system which embodies the tacit assumptions and

understandings of the group. This influences the group value system, an expression of

common judgments about the relative importance of issues and matters of concern.

The group value system influences the development of norms that express behavioral

expectations and associated standards which set the limits for consequent behavior.

The last element of the model is the resulting behavior. Maxwell and Thomas (1991)

suggested that each of the latter three elements will interact with and influence the

preceding element. The overall system interacts with the temporal and socio-political

environment in which the organization exists and will be responsive to external

influences.

These conceptions influenced the development of the model presented in

Figure 5.

Individual Beliefs Individual Attitudes

Professional Values

Transformational Teachersleadership as Learners

School-wide School Culture CollegialityPlanning

Shared Mutual Visions Empowerment

Collaboration

Individual Values Individual Norms

Figure 5 Cultural elements model of school culture

The core construct of school culture is situated at the center of the model. It is

a unified entity characterized by the collective values and norms of the school staff.

The cultural elements are the components of school culture. Each element describes a

particular aspect of school culture and represents a distinct set of beliefs, values and

norms. The elements are descriptors of the prevailing culture which is characterized

by the relative strength of the eight elements. Certain elements are also vehicles for

cultural development. These describe mechanisms of social interaction through which

teachers can express and exchange their individual beliefs and values leading to the

formation of a common value system and norms. For example, through collaboration,

teachers share information on their individual teaching programs and instructional

strategies which can lead to the development of common approaches to student

learning throughout the school. The model portrays cultural development as a process

in which disparate teacher beliefs, attitudes and values and norms coalesce and form

the school’s culture. Thus the model allows consideration of the state of the prevailing

culture and also of the processes which develop school culture.

Another application of the model is in representing the dynamic nature of

school culture. There is an interaction between the core culture and individual

dispositions of teachers. The elements can be considered as radial continuums

between collectivity and individualism. It is assumed that fluctuations in the culture

could be explained as movement along these continuums. The stability of the culture

requires maintenance of a balance in these fluctuations in which weakening of certain

elements would be compensated for by the strengthening of others. It is envisaged that

a stable school culture was in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

A further application of the model is in explaining cultural growth and decline.

In these instances it is envisaged that the equilibrium between the elements would not

be maintained and a new culture formed. For cultural growth to occur, it is proposed

that an increase in the overall contribution of the eight elements to school culture is

required. Increases in individual elements are not countered by a decrease in others

and there is net improvement. The reverse situation occurs when a diminishing

contribution from some elements is not countered by an increased contribution from

others resulting in net degradation and cultural declination.

Hargreaves (1995) proposed a model of school culture based upon expressive

and instrumental domains. In the expressive domain, social cohesion is generated

through maintenance of positive relationships. The instrumental domain concerns

social control and task orientation. The model identifies four types of school culture,

traditional with low cohesion and high control, welfarist with high cohesion and low

control, hot-house with high cohesion and control, and anomic with low cohesion and

low control. He also proposed a fifth type of culture, effective, which includes optimal

cohesion, optimal control and the presence of high expectations and support in

facilitating achievement of the expectations.

HIGH OPTIMUM LOW

HIGH

OPTIMUM

LOW

Figure 6 A Typology of school cultures Source : Hargreaves (1995)

Hothouse Welfarist

Ideal

Traditional Anomic

Instrumental domain- social control-

Expr

essi

ve d

omai

n- s

ocia

l coh

esio

n

● Traditional – low social cohesion, high social control–custodial, formal,

unapproachable;

● Welfarist – low social control, high social cohesion–relaxed, caring,

cosy;

● Hothouse – high social control, high social cohesion–claustrophobic,

pressured, controlled;

● Anomic – low social cohesion, low social control–insecure, alienated,

isolated, “at risk”.

The fifth culture, in the centre, is an effective school with optimal social

cohesion and optimal social control—fairly high expectations and support for

achieving standards. Hargreaves emphasises these as “ideal cultures” because real

schools “move around”. Indeed, departments within schools may fall within different

parts of this model. (Hagreaves ,1995)

Stoll and Fink’s model develops these ideas, they focus on the school’s current

effectiveness, but also argue that the rapidly accelerating pace of change makes

standing still impossible and therefore schools are either getting better or getting

worse. These two concepts enable school cultures to be examined on two dimensions,

effectiveness-ineffectiveness, and improving-declining (figure 7). As in David

Hargreaves’ model, within most schools, one can find sub-cultures exemplifying

several, if not all, of the types.

Improving Declining

Effective

Ineffective

Figure 7 A Types of school cultures Source : Stoll , Fink (1996)

Moving Cruising

Struggling Sinking

Strolling

● Moving — boosting pupils’ progress and development

— working together to respond to changing contexts

— knowing where they’re going and having the will and skill

to get there

— possessing norms for improving schools

● Cruising — appearing to be effective

— usually in more affluent areas

— pupils achieve in spite of teaching quality

— not preparing pupils for the changing world

— possessing powerful norms that inhibit change

● Strolling — neither particularly effective nor ineffective

— moving at inadequate rate to cope with pace of change

— meandering into future to pupils’ detriment

— ill-defined and sometimes conflicting aims inhibit

improvement

● Struggling — ineffective and they know it

— expending considerable energy to improve

— unproductive ‘thrashing about’

— will ultimately succeed because have the will, if not the skill

— often identified as ‘failing’, which is de-motivational

● Sinking — ineffective: norms of isolation, blame, self reliance, and loss

of faith powerfully inhibiting improvement

— staff unable to change

— often in deprived areas where they blame parenting or

unprepared children

— need dramatic action and significant support.

Cavanagh (1997) amalgamated these three approaches. The culture of a

learning community is manifested by the sharing of values and norms amongst

teachers resulting in commonality of purpose and actions intended to improve the

learning of students. The culture of the individual school is characterized by the

perceived extent of participation in the interactive social processes which develop,

maintain and transform the culture.

A school culture with well developed cultural elements is expected to produce

a professional working environment with certain features. The teachers do not work in

isolation from their colleagues and are bonded together by common needs and

expectations. Their efficacious values are given effect by membership in a community

which emphasizes the learning of students. Collegiality provides the teachers with

support from colleagues which increases their confidence in their capacity to educate

students and to be active participants in implementing innovations. There is an

atmosphere of trust and empowerment which is non-judgmental and accommodative

of mistakes. Problems and success are shared, the professional growth of the teachers

is built upon the experiences of others and the resulting increased pool of knowledge.

Collaboration provides school wide consistency in instructional approaches

and the socialization of students. As students move from class to class and progress

from year to year, previous learning experiences are reinforced and extended through

a sequential and coordinated curriculum. A school-wide instructional program

developed and refined through collaboration between teachers is also well understood

by these teachers thus enhancing the effectiveness of its delivery.

The model of the School Culture Survey (SCS) used in this study was

developed by Gruenert and Valentine (1998) at the Middle Level Leadership Center.

The elements of this model are the following six factors:

1. Collaborative Leadership; leaders can influence the creation and

maintenance of an organization’s culture. To sustain an effective organizational

culture, participative leadership that shares power with followers is important (Davis,

2003; Hackman & Johnson, 2000; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 2000; Yukl,

2002). A participative process builds trust, legitimacy, and ownership. Ownership, in

turn, yields satisfaction by participants who feel they are treated with respect when

they are allowed to express their views and utilize their expert skills. A healthy

organizational culture is sustainable through participative leadership.

The leadership of a school is not held solely by the leaders. It exists

throughout the organization, with different members who may hold very distinct

official roles (Ogawa & Bossert, 1995; Preskill & Torres, 1999, Rafoth & Foriska,

2006; Reeves, 2006). If leaders are to be effective, they must distribute the role of

leadership among several staff members. This idea is supported by Marzano, Waters

and McNulty (2005), who described this development of a leadership team as a key

characteristic of effective schools.

2. Teacher collaboration; the following are educational research accounts of

the importance of collaboration among staff members for schools:

1) The importance of collaboration in changing teacher practice has

led to its widespread acceptance as an essential component of any

effort at improved teaching (Brownwell, Adams, Sindelar,

Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006).

2) Enlightened administrators recognize that achieving a high-level of

student learning can happen only though the active engagement of

teacher leaders (Danielson, 2006).

3) Educators must stop working in isolation and hoarding their ideas,

materials and strategies and begin to work together to meet the

needs of students (Dufour, 2004).

4) Underpinning healthy cultures in districts is possible by an

understanding that education can be improved through active

networks of people in different job settings working together in an

interconnected setting (Marshall, Pritchard, & Gunderson, 2004).

5) Time for teacher collaboration is essential for effective education

(Reeves, 2006).

6) Evidence for the benefits of collaboration, rightly conducted, are

overwhelming (Schmoker, 1999).

7) One characteristic of successful schools is that teachers work

together (Strahan , 2003).

8) Working collaboratively in small groups and larger school-wide

groups to identify student learning needs and addressing those

needs has been one of the most important subscales in student

achievement (Wade, 2004).

3. Professional Development; the importance of professional development, has

been a central tenet of public schools (Brownwell et al, 2006; DuFour & Eaker, 1998;

Pedder et al, 2005; Snowden & Gorton, 2002; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997; Wood, 2003).

The shift towards collaborative environments, however, has changed the notion of an

educated school workforce. Professional development no longer simply entails the

traditional modes and methods of attending workshops, and reading and using novel

best practice research; rather, the concept has become intertwined with the very nature

of the work done in schools.

As teachers work together in collaborative environments, they increase their

knowledge of effective practice. It is these collegial conversations that can take the

place, at least in part, of more traditional, research-based, instructional improvements.

Inherent in this call for collaboration is that the act of planning and working together,

in itself, is a powerful professional development tool (Brownwell et al, 2006).

4. Unity of Purpose is an order for any group of people to work together in

ways in which they are most effective. There must be a shared goal to which they all

aspire. In education, these goals are labeled by several distinct terms, such as mission,

vision, or purpose. These terms will be used interchangeably throughout the course of

this section. The unifying aspects of such a shared goal, or purpose, are supported by

several researchers (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Gabriel, 2005; Goldman & O’ Shea,

1990; Haberman, 2004; Lambert, 2003; Preskill & Torres, 1989).

5. Collegial Support is the notion of collegial support concerns the degree to

which teachers work together, and the relationships that they form. The quality of

discourse, dialogue and reflection among the teaching staff are key components of

collegial support. Teachers who work together in a collaborative environment are

afforded the unique opportunity to build lasting relationships. “Collaborators evolve

into learning partners, equally invested in each other and in improving achievement”

(Gabriel, 2005). It is these relationships that bring a staff closer together, that

encourage them to support each other toward the goal of ensuring the success of all

students. “The cultures should emphasize that the school is a community of learners,

and that all can learn from each other” (Robbins & Alvy, 1995).

6. Learning Partnership concerns the involvement of all facets of the school

community into the learning process. This includes the school staff, as well as the

parents, students, and the community-at-large. Schools must be increasingly

responsive to the needs of those within the community.

2.3.4 The effects of culture on teachers and schools

The culture of the school reflects the local culture in many ways (Rossman,

Corbett, & Firestone, 1988; Welch, 1989). When schools seek to improve, a focus on

the values, beliefs, and norms of both the school and the environment outside the

school is necessary (Sarason, 1982; Deal and Peterson, 1990). Patterson, Purkey, and

Parker (1986) summarize the general knowledge base regarding school culture:

School culture does affect the behavior and achievement of elementary and

secondary school students (though the effect of classroom and student variables

remains greater).

School culture has been described as being similar to the air we breathe. No

one notices it unless it becomes foul (Freiberg, 1998). The culture of a school can be a

positive influence on learning or it can seriously inhibit the functioning of the school.

In any working environment, employees and clientele prefer to be in a situation that is

appealing and invitational. Hanson and Childs (1998) describe a school with a

positive school climate as “a place where students and teachers like to be”. It is a

place that has a climate of support and encouragement (Hanson & Childs, 1998),

where physical comfort levels are optimal (such as heating, cooling, and lighting –

Freiberg, 1998), and, as Peterson and Deal (1998) describe:

1) Where staff have a shared sense of purpose, where they pour their

hearts into teaching:

2) Where the underlying norms are of collegiality, improvement, and hard

work;

3) Where rituals and traditions celebrate student accomplishment, teacher

innovation, and parental commitment;

4) Where the informal network of storytellers, heroes, and heroines

provides a social web of information, support, and history;

5) Where success, joy, and humor abound.

Peterson and Deal (1998) further point out that a school with a positive school

culture is a place with a “shared sense of what is important, a shared ethos of caring

and concern, and a shared commitment to helping students learn”. Schools that are

conducted in a culture exhibiting these positive qualities have teachers and staff

members who are willing to take risks and enact reforms.

On the other hand, schools with a toxic or negative culture are places where

teachers are unwilling to change and where the tone is oppositional and acerbic. These

are the types of places where nobody prefers to be. They are “places where negativity

dominates conversations, interactions, and planning; where the only stories recounted

are of failure” (Peterson & Deal, 1998). The shared ethos about reform among

teachers in these schools is “this too shall pass” and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. To

these teachers, the way it has always been done is the right way. Whether positive or

toxic, the introduction of change will serve to bring the dominant features of the

school’s culture to the surface.

According to Sarason (1996), it is difficult to determine the nature of a

school’s culture because our own personal experiences and values “put blinders on

what we look at, choose to change, and evaluate, Because our values and assumptions

are usually implicit and ‘second nature,’ we proceed as if the way things are is the

way things should or could be”. We view the rituals, policies, activities, traditions,

curriculum, and pedagogy in the school through the filter of our own values and

experiences. We must understand and analyze our own cultural influences before we

can examine a school’s. Sarason (1996) further points out that prior to observing a

school, a person must: confront the fact that he or she was born into this society with

its distinctive culture; that before entering any kind of school the observer had already

developed conceptions of and attitudes toward being in school; that he or she had

spent a dozen years in public schools during which pictures and conceptions of what

schools are were crystallizing, if not being locked into conceptual and attitudinal

concrete; and in the course of undergraduate and graduate education that same

observer was hearing and reading about schools in the mass media and was being

taught what schools are by college professors.

This is true not only for people observing schools, but also of teachers and

other school personnel. Teachers and other school workers are not culturally void

when they enter a school. Their personal experiences, values, norms, and prior

education all influence their views of curriculum, pedagogy, and change even before

they step foot into a classroom. Any change that is proposed that runs counter to the

teacher’s already developed culture and philosophy will be resisted. Teachers who

contentedly stay in a school for a number of years do so because it is a place where

the underlying stream of values and norms (the school culture) coincides with their

own. On the other hand, a conflict of cultures may provide the impetus for teachers to

leave (Hinde, 2002).

The culture of the local school is one of several “potentially powerful

determinants of student learning” for which strong evidence exists, said Kenneth

Leithwood, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom (2004),

who advise school leaders to take their cues from this evidence. Culture affects every

part of the school’s operation. Its influence ranges “from what faculty talk about in

the lunchroom to the type of instruction that is valued, to the way professional

development is viewed, to the importance of learning for all students”, said Terrence

E. Deal and Kent D. Peterson (2009). To underscore the power of a strong

collaborative culture, Deal and Peterson point to these effects:

1) Culture foster school effectiveness and productivity.

2) Culture improves collegial and collaborative activities that foster better

communication and problem-solving practices.

3) Culture fosters successful change and improvement efforts.

4) Culture builds commitment and identification of staff, students, and

administrators.

5) Culture amplifies the energy, motivation, and vitality of a school’s staff,

students, and community.

6) Culture increases the focus of daily behavior and attention on what is

important and valued.

For all those reasons, culture is well worth every school leader’s attention. The

importance of the task is obvious to all, yet not everyone agree on how to do it, and

for good reason.

2.3.5 Shaping school culture

A school’s culture is shaped by its history, context and the people in it.

1. The school’s age can impact cultural change. Schein (1996) identifies

three significant developmental periods in a business organization’s life. Parallels can

be drawn with schools. In the early years of a new school, dominant values emanate

from its “founders” and the school makes its culture explicit. It clarifies its values,

finds and articulates a unique identity and shares these with newcomers, whether

teachers, pupils or parents. Culture is the “glue” that holds everyone together, and can

be seen as a positive development force. In midlife, the school is well established but

needs to continue growing and renewing. Changes may have occurred to its external

and internal contexts, altering strengths and weaknesses. The most important aspects

of the culture are now embedded and taken for granted, and culture is increasingly

implicit. Subcultures have also sprung up. Change becomes more difficult because of

less consciousness of the culture; it is harder to articulate and understand. Maturity

and/or stagnation and decline is more problematical from the cultural change

perspective. This stage is reached if the school has ceased growing and responding to

its environment. Dysfunctional elements have surfaced, and the challenging of old

assumptions is resisted.

2. School culture is influenced by a school’s external context. Locally, a

school’s community, including the pupils’ parents, may have their own conceptions of

what a “real school” is: “a real school is what I attended when I was a child.” The

Local Educational Authority (LEA) can also help create an improvement mindset, as

well as having its own improvement orientation and language (e.g. “The Learning

Borough”). Political and economic forces or changes in national or local educational

policies are also influences. For example, focusing the external assessment system

only on core subjects at the primary level, influences what is valued in schools.

Teaching unions are another aspect of the external context that can impact on the

school culture and, thus, its orientation to improvement.

3. School cultures vary between primary and secondary schools. In primary

schools care and control influence their culture, such that when pupils leave primary

schools there is a feeling that they have left a family. In contrast, secondary school

culture is influenced not only by larger size and department structures, but by the very

fundamental nature of teachers’ academic orientation; the difference between being,

for example, an art teacher and a science teacher—and the fragmented individualism

that pupils experience in moving from one subject and teacher to another.

4. School culture is influenced by the school’s pupils and their social class

background. Thrupp (1997) argues that the social mix of the school plays a major role

in how it functions, largely because of the cumulative effect of how the pupils relate

to each other as a group. Essentially, pupils who attend the school favor it in a

particular way, through their own pupil culture. This takes on added significance

when they reach adolescence and their identities and values are shifting.

5. Changes in society pose challenges to a school’s culture, whether they be

related to learning, the pupil population, organizational management, rapid

technological developments or the changing role of women. Such societal changes

often demand rapid responses from a school. Yet while culture changes as participants

change, it can also be a stabilizing force, particularly for those who have been part of

the culture for a longer period. It can therefore appear problematic for those in search

of quick fix changes because it often seems as if it is an unmovable force. While

culture presents, therefore, the paradox of both being static and dynamic, in reality it

is constantly evolving and being reconstructed.

2.3.5.1 Challenges in shaping school culture

In spite of these complexities and difficulties, an administrator may be able, to

a limited extent, to shape the organizational culture of the school or school district.

Principals should remember, however, that combining “professional management

with inspirational leadership and a collectivist culture” may lead to role conflicts and

confusion. Following suggestions are offered from analysis of the social science and

educational literature on organization cultures.

1) Clarity about values and ideals

An administrator needs to be clear about which values and ideals the

school should be promoting. An administrator who has no notion of what an ideal

school would look like will not be able to create policies for moving in positive

direction. Research by Hallinger (2003) indicates that “Principals can influence

student learning by developing a clear mission that provides an instructional focus for

teachers throughout the school”. Unfortunately, many administrators become bogged

down in the everyday duties of managing a school and have not thought through what

it is that their school should aspire toward. A basic question that needs to be answered

is “What should be the primary mission and goals of this school?”. Obviously, the

administrator should not be the only one who attempts to answer this question;

teachers, students, and parents, among others, also need to be involved in order to

gain deeper insights and commitment. The principal appears to play the major role,

however, beyond that of parent, in developing a school climate of high expectations.

If an administrator is not clear about what the school should stand for and should be

aspiring toward, the administrator will be in a poor position to shape the

organizational culture in a different direction. As Firestone and Wilson (1985) have

emphasized, “The principal’s task and challenge is to develop a clear vision of the

purpose of the school that give primacy to instruction and to carry it through

consistently during those countless interactions with”.

2) Shaping the culture through choice of staff

Once an administrator has developed a clear vision of the “purpose” of

the school, particular attention must be paid to the kinds of individuals recommended

as future members of the faculty and to the people appointed to important leadership

positions within the school. For example, every time an administrator has an

opportunity to replace a member of the faculty, the potential exists for shaping the

culture. Since to principal’s greatest influence may well be in the power “to recruit,

select, promote, and demote staff members,” it may take years of this process for a

principal to reshape the school’s culture. Hiring and retaining teachers who especially

value experimentation, for example, will certainly make innovation or change easier

to facilitate for principals. It is true that, in the instance of a single vacancy, there is

little chance of hiring someone whose values and ideals are exactly what the

administrator wants the organizational culture to reflect. The cumulative effect of

selective hiring over a number of a school in important ways. In the final analysis, the

people associated with an organization are the major contributors to its culture. Their

values and ideals are the building blocks of the group norms that greatly influence

individual and group behavior. By emphasizing certain values and ideals in the hiring

process, an administrator can shape the culture of an organization over a period of

time.

3) Shaping the culture through formal leadership appointments

An administrator will also have an opportunity to shape the culture of

the organization when making appointments of people to leadership positions within

the organization. Periodically, an administrator will need to appoint a chairperson of a

committee or select someone for an important position, for example, department head.

In these situations an administrator should take care to select or appoint people who

will best represent the organizational value and ideals that the administrator is trying

to promote. By selecting such individuals, the administrator will not only obtain

people who share a commitment to certain organizational priority but, perhaps more

importantly, will be communicating symbolically to others in the school those values

and ideals the administrator thinks are important for people to process. The

administrative act of selection or appointment can potentially carry great symbolic

influence, especially if the administrator emphasizes publicly the reasons for these

selections. According to Hallinger (2003), however, these appointments also the

opportunity for the administrator to personally communicate key values and place

greater reliance on instructional leaders to aid in fostering a positive school climate.

4) Working with the informal leaders

In addition to selecting with care of those individuals who will occupy

important leadership positions in the school, an administrator who wishes to shape the

organizational culture will need to identify and develop an appropriate relationship

with the informal leaders of the school. This is particularly true for new principal

because the formal and informal leaders who are already in place form a large portion

of the school’s power structure. Developing a commitment from the school leaders

will be crucial to the achievement of the principal’s goal. An informal leader

generally operates in every group. The informal leader may be the same person as the

formal leader, however, whether or not that is true depends on the formal leader’s

personal influence with other members of the group rather than on any formal

appointment by the principal. An informal leader can best be identified by examining

a group’s interaction patterns; the individual with whom there is the greatest

interaction and communication within the group and whose opinion and judgment are

most respected by the other member is the informal leader.

Obviously, in most situations, it would be best for an administrator if

the informal leader and the formal leader were the same person. That may not be the

case, however, especially if an administrator has not exercised good judgment in

selecting the formal leader within the organization, or if there has been very limited

opportunity to appoint new formal leaders, or it the informal leader’s values are not

consistent with those that the administrator would like to see adopted by the

organization.

5) Handling conflict between formal and informal leaders

When the informal leader of a group is a different person from the

formal leader, a potential for conflict may exist. For example, the administrator and a

department chairperson may be trying to promote a certain work ethic on the part of

member of a particular department. If the informal leader of that department is

opposed to the new work ethic, however, then the other members of the department

may develop a group norm that will influence the members to resist the proposed

work ethic. This type of conflict can be detrimental to developing a cohesive

organizational culture.

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to resolving this type of

conflict between formal and informal leaders. The administrator could attempt to

influence the informal leader by using persuasion to convey the desirability of what

the organization is trying to accomplish. In addition, the administrator could attempt

to develop a rival informal leader within the group who could possibly lead the group

in a direction that would be more compatible with the overall purposes of the

organization. While the social science literature provides few clues as to how the

administrator might accomplish this, it would appear that the key to a solution lies in

identifying and nurturing some individual in the group whose personal qualities are

liked and respected by colleagues, but whose values and ideals are more congruent

with the administrator’s. By encouraging the administrator-approved informal leader

to exert leadership within the group and then rewarding such efforts, an administrator

may be able to change the group norms of a subculture to make them more consistent

with the overall purpose of the organizational culture.

2.3.6 Enhancing school culture

Once an administrator has attained a good understanding of the organizational

culture of the school, the administrator will then, and only then, be in a position to try

to enhance that culture if changes are needed. While most, if not all, administrators

would probably like to develop an organizational culture that is characteristic of

effective schools, trying to change an organizational culture, especially a school

culture, will not be easy. Krajewski (1993) offers the following principles for

modeling creative teaching and leadership behaviors that enhance school culture: (1)

Envision a future direction of collaboration. (2) Clearly establish the connection

between mission and practice by being an enthusiastic facilitator, meeting the needs

of teachers and students, understanding the motivations of each employee, and

promoting growth in all school personnel. (3) View problems as opportunities and

focus on solutions. (4) Be creative in stimulating good teaching practice. (5) Think of

others. (6) Foster staff development. (7) Create situations that decrease teacher

isolation and promote professional sharing. (8) Stay focused on the most important

outcome, student performance. An effective process for improving a school culture

includes empowering diverse stakeholders to rebuild relationships that will instill a

staff’s commitment to support student success in the highly challenged school

communities. When a school district or site has been challenged for its lack of

performance, a survival culture permeates every dimension of the organization.

Primary beliefs of the school staff focus on job security and basic survival. To create a

new culture of change, school principals and teacher leaders must focus on an overall

organizational transformation that includes the following successful practice:

1) Defining the role of the school principle, teacher, and school community

through open communication and academic growth activities that can best

serve the needs of the particular school community.

2) Scheduling effective communication mechanisms, such as staff lunchroom

visits, department forums, staff meeting pop-ins, and all-district personnel

rallies.

3) Sharing successes through employee union newsletters, internal

correspondence, and community relations that breed further successes for

diverse student populations.

4) Visualizing school wide and classroom goals that support the goals of the

school site and district to generate key results and offering staff

development training that supports these results.

2.3.7 Maintaining school culture

Often teachers, students, and parents expect the principal to maintain an

existing culture of the school, especially if it has been perceived as successful in

solving the second’s internal and external problem. The role of maintaining culture

involves three audiences: internal veterans, internal newcomers, and external

constituents. As principal, you would hope to influence veteran teachers and staff

members to “keep the faith”, that is, to abide by the norms of the school’s culture.

Principals often do this by using ceremonies, stories, and rituals that reinforce the

values, beliefs, and basic assumptions of the culture.

Newcomers to the school present a special challenge for leaders in

maintaining culture. Newcomers may bring with them new ideas and different

backgrounds. Often new teachers are recent graduates of university programs and

hold to more idealistic philosophies. Because of these different values, beliefs, and

assumptions, they can be either a positive or negative threat to the existing culture.

As principal or assistant principal, your role is to help recruit and hire new teachers

and staff members who already possess some of the school’s values and beliefs, and

assumptions of the school’s culture. A major complaint of new teachers is their

difficulty in uncovering the secrets of how things are done in the school (Crow,

Matthews, & McCleary, 1996).

Even in the midst of helping new teachers learn to survive, principal can

socialize newcomers by what principals attend to, how deal with crises, what kinds of

behavior they reward, and how they respond to failure. Peters and Waterman (1982)

argued that the leader’s response to failure is as important as his or her response to

success in building an innovative culture. If new teachers see attempts at innovation

punished if they are unsuccessful, these new teachers are less likely to try them

(Crow, Matthews, & McCleary, 1996).

The third audience to which leaders must attend in maintaining the culture is

external constituents-those individuals outside the organization who are connected to

it. Your role is to communicate the norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions of the

school’s culture to these individuals and groups. You will want to ensure their

understanding of the school’s culture and to enlist their support in the school’s

mission and vision. At the same time, you will have to be sensitive to the concerns of

the external constituents. School cultures cannot remain vibrant if they only

emphasize the values and beliefs of faculty and staff members and ignore the

concerns of the community. Because of this, principals must be actively involved in

their communities, being sensitive to the ways communities are changing and to the

views that external constituents have about the school’s values and how well schools

are doing in their academic and activity programs.

2.3.8 Sustainability of culture

Culture is an ongoing phenomenon. As new members enter an organization,

the sustainability of the espoused cultural values is at risk. Fullan (2005) established

eight elements of sustainability:

1) public service with a moral purpose

2) commitment to changing context at all levels

3) lateral capacity building through networks

4) intelligent accountability and vertical relationships

5) deep learning

6) dual commitments to short-term and long-term results

7) cyclical energizing

8) the long lever of leadership

These elements are especially important for schools, as they seek to build a

sustainable culture in the face of incredible turnover among their staff and student.

In educational setting, the key to sustaining a positive learning culture

involves identifying and protecting shared values, reflective dialogue, and

celebrations which support the culture of learning (DuFour & Eaker,1998). This

cultural shift is the most crucial, and most difficult step that must be undertaken if a

school seeks to transform on a permanent basis. Once the culture of a building

becomes ingrained within all facets of a school community, it becomes a sustainable

resource, In schools, which are often rife with high turnover of both staff and

students, this sustainable resource helps to ensure that the focus of the school remains

intact as new members enter the organization, and other member depart.

The tenure of the leader is another important concept to investigate within an

analysis of the sustainability of the culture of an organization. No leader can be in a

position of power forever, so they must prepare others to assume their reign if they

hope that the culture of the organization will survive after they are gone. The main

mark of an effective principal is not just his or her impact on the bottom line of

student achievement, but also on how many leaders he or she leaves behind who can

go even further (Fullan, 2005). In concert with the definition of culture offered by

Schein (2004), this notion of the tenuous reign of any leader help to explain the need

for an understanding of the perspectives, responsibilities and needs of all personnel in

a building.

2.3.9 Research on school culture

Although the frameworks for examining school culture in terms of the shared

values, beliefs, and ideologies are available, the determination of culture at this level

of analysis is not easy. The core values of a group or school are more easily

determined than the tacit assumptions, but the analysis remains difficult and time

consuming. Anthropological studies of schools using ethnographic techniques and

linguistic analysis are imperative if we are to assess the culture of schools in Thailand.

There are another study culture and used many method for research. Such as a

comparative school culture different the content as follows:

Mingkwan Kittiwannagorn (2010) studied transformational leadership and

instructional leadership of school principals, school culture and teaching behaviors of

teachers influencing characteristics of students’ learning in Bangkok Metropolitan

Administration School. The results of the research revealed the state of

transformational leadership and instructional leadership of school principals, school

culture and teaching behaviors of teachers were at a high level, except the

characteristics of students’ learning was at an average level. The results on school

culture depended on instructional leadership, not on transformational leadership of the

school principal. Chantra Pakepingchan’s (2004) study of relationships between

school culture and academic performance in primary schools under Kanchanaburee

educational service area revealed that: 1) The overall school culture and each aspect

of culture were at high level. 2) The teachers in different school sizes did not have

different school cultures as a whole and by each aspect. 3) The teachers in different

education service areas did not have different school cultures as a whole. When

classified by each aspect of the school culture, it was found that teachers in different

education service areas had significant different practice level in empowerment at

0.01 level. 4) The overall school culture was significantly correlated at high level with

the academic performance as a whole and the internal supervision aspect were

significantly correlated at 0.01 level, and the overall school culture was significantly

correlated at 0.01 in the moderate level as curriculum aspect, instructional aspect,

measurement and evaluation aspect, and quality assurance. Wilai Maikeoaw (1995)

studied on the effect of school culture and leadership forces of administrator on

performance of workers in the primary school. It was found that the overall

relationship between school culture and performance of workers in primary school

was significantly correlated high at 0.01 level in positive direction. Similarly, the

research of Oytip Sutthitep (2000) on school culture affecting academic performance

in primary school under Bangkok Metropolitan Administration revealed that school

culture that affected academic performance were quality and honesty aspects.

Welch (1989) argued that implementation difficulties in change strategies

were due to factors such as norm, beliefs, and attitudes, that arise within the firmly

entrenched traditions of school culture. Welch (1989) maintained that the likelihood

of shifting attitudes and increasing behavior change is to some degree dependent upon

the beliefs and feelings of individual teachers operating within target schools. While

research has been conducted regarding teacher receptivity to change (Waugh &

Punch, 1987 cited in Welch, 1989), any evaluation of the relationship to student

development was not pursued. Not surprisingly, teachers assessed the advantages and

disadvantages (of collaborative consultation) primarily in terms of how it would affect

them personally (Welch, 1989). By implication, student outcomes were a secondary

consideration where cultural change initiatives were proposed, regardless of

declarations to the contrary. Clearly, such inconsistencies will be pivotal to the

success of change efforts where objectives pertain to student growth and achievement.

Hamilton and Richardson (1995) examined the relationship between school

culture and staff development outcomes in two schools, in response to the failure of

such development programs to effect meaningful cultural change. The authors

maintained that much of the literature on staff development reflects a strong focus on

methods of teaching and classroom management, without consideration of the context

in which these activities occur. “Development programs” take the form of traditional

model of learning transfer, “wherein experts inform teachers about methods mandated

for classroom implementation”. Still, existing behavioral norms for individual

autonomy meant that staffs were at liberty to implement or ignore any new classroom

strategies. The cultural norm of individualism in teaching actually worked against

collegiality to prevent both the exploration of teachers’ beliefs, and open discussion of

teaching practices. Findings revealed that the interaction of school culture and

expectations for participation in staff development strongly affected progress toward

program goals. It was concluded that allowances needed to be made for teachers’

beliefs and concerns within the context of organizational culture, in order to optimize

school improvement processes.

Mok and Flynn (1998) examined the effects of Catholic school culture on the

academic achievement of 4,949 Year 12 students from 44 Catholic schools in New

South Wales. Student achievement was significantly different between schools, and

was explained by a number of antecedent variables, including school socioeconomic

status, coeducational status, school size, student gender, and student background

factors such as parent’s education level. Further variance was accounted for by

student motivation, expectations, and students’ religious attitudes, although the

contribution from each was small. Of particular note was the additional 20% of

variance in student achievement accounted for by quality of school life, which was

measured as a single higher order factor consisting of seven culture subscales. Of the

seven subscales, students’ sense of achievement and relationship with teachers

contributed most to explanation, over satisfaction with school, alienation from school,

relevance of school, sense of identity, and self-esteem and status. An additional and

independent contribution was made from a favorable educational culture, accounting

for 6% of school-level variance and 4% of student-level variance. Overall, the

composite of all school culture and background variables explained 57% of school-

level, and 29% student-level variance. Further, when school-level sources of variance

were controlled, school culture had as strong an influence on achievement as parents’

education level. Students who reported more favorable school cultures and positive

home background experience, scored significantly better than their peers in terms of

academic achievement.

Accord with Engels et.al (2008) studied the principals in schools with a

positive school culture. The research focuses on the profile of principals who seem to

be able to shape the school culture to best encourage teaching and learning. Data from

a representative sample of primary schools (N = 46) were collected through

questionnaires for principals and for teachers (N = 700) and semi-structured

interviews with the principals. The results of study with very positive school cultures

we find principals with high achievement orientation, who focus on creating a

flexible, stimulating, participative and supportive environment, who do not only

identify with roles of mentor or innovator but manage to devote most of their time to

their preferred role. Most but not all are satisfied with their jobs. Contextual factors

can make the difference. The role of the school board, an official body that carries the

final responsibility for the policy-making of a school, is important in this respect. In

our sample principals who are satisfied with the autonomy and support they receive

from their school board are also those who experience a high level of job satisfaction

and report a low level of burnout. Those who report low job satisfaction and have

high scores for emotional exhaustion and cynicism and/or low scores for personal

accomplishment, feel that the school board provides more obstruction than support.

Ohlson and Matthew (2009), on a study of school culture, leadership, teacher

quality and student outcomes via a performance framework in elementary schools

participating in a school reform initiative on 50 elementary schools in the state of

Florida. The findings revealed that as teacher collaboration increased, the model

predicted that student suspensions decreased by 6.709%. In addition, the model

predicted that when the percentage of out-of-field teachers within a school increased,

student suspensions decreased by 0.16%. Finally, as the percentage of non-certified

teachers within a school increased, the student suspension percentage increased by

0.22%. The exemplar interviews revealed comprehensive discussions regarding

components of a collaborative school culture and educational leadership practices

related to data-driven decision-making, developing stakeholder partnerships, teacher

guided professional development, and fostering relationships and open

communication. The findings offered valuable insight into the characteristics of

quality teaching and school culture that demonstrate greatest impact on student

attendance and suspensions and might influence educational policy, teacher training,

educational leadership, and school reform initiatives.

2.3.10 Measuring school culture

Measuring a school’s culture is an initial step toward meaningful school

improvement. Once measured, the formal and informal leaders of the school can

engage all faculty members in an analysis of the data and discussions that begin the

chain of conversations necessary to become a professional community capable of

identifying problematic issues, addressing them, and thus growing as a school.

Personnel at the Middle Level Leadership Center (MLLC) have developed two

different types of assessment tools for collecting data useful in faculty analysis and

reflection about school culture.

Assessment of school culture is generally accepted to be a straightforward

quantitative process, assessment of school culture is far more complex. Two basic

schools of thought exist regarding appropriate means of assessing school cultures. On

one hand, Schein (1999) categorically refuted that culture can be assessed through

written questionnaires or surveys, asserting that the assessor would neither know what

to ask nor be able to judge the reliability or validity of the responses. Rousseau

(1990), on the other hand, allowed that such quantitative tools as Q-sorts and

questionnaires can legitimately be utilized, in conjunction with structured interviews,

to assess organizational culture. Such quantitative survey instruments for assessing

organizational culture are readily available, e.g., Kilmann and Saxton’s Culture Gap

Survey (1991). However, these instruments tend to be superficial and are incapable of

probing the depth and uniqueness of an organization’s culture. As Rousseau (1990)

commented, the uniqueness of each organization’s culture prevents outsiders from

forming valid a priori questions. Schein (1984) further noted that using surveys to

assess culture violates ethical research procedures in that it puts words into the

mouths of respondents rather than captures their own words. Also, such instruments

summarize and aggregate responses, possibly misrepresenting the respondents’ true

views. Several researchers have used the survey and come to similar conclusions.

Phillips (1996) conducted more than 3,100 school culture assessments from 1981 to

2006 and found compelling anecdotal evidence to suggest that the connection

between school culture and student achievement is a reality and that culture influences

everything that happens in a school. Phillips also found connections between school

culture and staff member satisfaction, parent engagement, and community support.

For The School Culture Inventory Questionnaires, based on the finding from

the preliminary studies, it was decided to revise the School Culture Inventory

according to the following criteria. First, the inventory had to reflect more general

dimensions of culture. A number of scales of the School Culture Inventory Form I

were found to be hardly relevant to schools. For that reason, a more concise number

of dimensions was aimed for. It was decided to use the four culture orientations of the

competing values framework as a basis for these. Furthermore, the formulated items

were to be less situation dependent. The preliminary study revealed that the ratings of

some items differed from those of other items the same dimension because those

particular items reflected certain practices within the school. Thus the items had to be

more divorced from specific action and more directly referring to underlying values.

Earlier work of Rokeach (1973) on values and Enz (1986) on organizational values

was used to formulate the items. A similar approach was used by Van Muijen (1984)

and Quinn & Spreitzer (1991) in their operationalization of items from the competing

values model. One of the difficulties with the operationalization of values is that

respondents tend to rate what they prefer themselves (Rokeach,1968). Thus it was

decided to ask respondents to rate their personal as well as school values. By

combining these two aspects, it was assumed that respondents would provide more

reliable ratings of school values.

The first tool for measuring school culture developed by the staff at the

Middle Level Leadership Center and used in all Center school improvement projects

is the School Culture Typology, a self-reflective tool and related activity designed to

identify a school-wide perspective of the “type” of culture that exists in a school. The

typology tool was first developed in 1997 based upon the work of Fullan and

Hargreaves (1996) as a hands-on, practical method of defining for discussion

purposes a school’s stage or type of culture. The activity was revised in 2000,

reflecting the work of Deal and Peterson (1999) and again revised slightly in 2006. To

complete the activity, teachers assign point values to statements that are “most

descriptive” of their school from a series of statements representing twelve elements

of school culture. Those elements are (1) student achievement, (2) collegial

awareness, (3) shared values, (4) decision making, (5) risk-taking, (6) trust, (7)

openness, (8) parent relations, (9) leadership, (10) communication, (11) socialization,

and (12) organization history. Once the members of a leadership or school

improvement team, or the whole faculty, have completed individual worksheets, the

facilitators of the activity lead the group in a consensus discussion or take the

individual worksheets and compile them to form a mathematical summary of the

teachers’ responses. This process creates a composite picture of the school’s

“predominant” type of culture. The six types of culture, derived from the writings of

Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) and Deal and Peterson (1999) are (1) Toxic, (2)

Fragmented, (3) Balkanized, (4) Contrived Collegiality, (5) Comfortable

Collaboration, and (6) Collaborative. As a school strives to develop a truly

collaborative culture, the school’s leadership and/or improvement teams can monitor

the cultural change with this typology tool and the School Culture Survey. For more

information about the School Typology Activity, contact Jerry Valentine, professor at

the University of Missouri and Director of the Middle Level Leadership Center or

Steve Gruenert, assistant professor of school leadership at Indiana State University.

This study applied The School Culture Survey which was designed ascertain

the cultural perceptions of certified staff, but no parallel instrument existed to derive

the same perceptions from the non-certified population. The School Culture Survey

relates insight about the shared/beliefs, the pattern of behavior, and the relationships

in the school. There are six factors, thirty-five items in a survey and that will be taken

about twenty minutes to be completed by administrator of school or teachers about

their school’s culture. This valid, reliable instrument provides data of critical cultural

variables based upon the collective perception of the faculty. The factors are:

1) Collaborative Leadership measures the degree to which school leaders

establish and maintain collaborative relationships with school staff. The leaders value

teachers idea, seek input, engage staff in decision-making, and trust the professional

judgment of the staff. Leaders support and reward risk-taking and innovative idea

designed to improve education for the students. Leaders reinforce the sharing of ideas

and effective practices among all staff.

2) Teacher Collaboration measures the degree to which teachers engage in

constructive dialogue that furthers the educational vision of the school. Teachers

across the school plan together, observe and discuss teaching practices, evaluate

programs, and develop an awareness of the practice and programs of other teachers.

3) Professional Development measures the degree to which teachers value

continuous personal development and school-wide improvement. Teachers seek ideas

from seminars, colleagues, organizations, and other professional sources to maintain

current knowledge, particularly current knowledge about instructional practices.

4) Collegial Support measures the degree to which teachers work together

effectively. Teachers trust each others, values each other’s ideas, and assist each other

as they work to accomplish the tasks of the school organization.

5) Unity of Purpose measures the degree to which teachers work toward a

common mission for the school. Teachers understand, support, and perform in

accordance with that mission.

6) Learning Partnership measures the degree to which teachers, parents, and

students work together for the common good of the student. Parents and teachers

share common expectations and communicate frequently about student performance.

Parents trust teachers and students generally accept responsibility for their schooling.

Gruenert (1998) described the lack of an instrument intended to gauge the

cultural perceptions of schools who espoused a vision and mission directed toward

collaboration among staff and teacher. He developed such an instrument, which was

labeled the School Culture Survey-Teacher Form (SCS-TF) and the School Culture

Survey-Staff Member Form (SCS-SMF). The SCS-TF and the SCS-SMF are

measured school culture in terms of the following six subscales above.

2.3.11 Six subscales of the school culture survey-teacher form and school

culture survey-staff member form

The details of six subscales of the School Culture-Teacher Form (SCS-TF)

and School Culture Survey-Staff Member Form (SCS-SMF) for this study are as

follows:

1) Collaborative leadership

Leaders can influence the creation and maintenance of an organization’s

culture. To sustain an effective organizational culture, participative leadership that

shares power with followers is important (Davis, 2003; Hackman & Johnson, 2000;

Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 2000; Yukl, 2002). A participative process builds

trust, legitimacy, and ownership, Ownership, in turn, yields satisfaction by

participants who feel they are treated respect when they are allowed to express views

and utilize expert skills. A healthy organizational culture is sustainable through

participative leadership.

Shared decision making, effective leaders lead by distributing leadership

among participants to positively influence the culture of their organization

(Bensimon, Neumann & Birnbaum, 1989). Davis (2003) described collaborative

leaders as those who build broad-based participation, and sustain participation by

building hope. Such leaders use frames, lenses, or metaphors to survey and monitor

organizational culture, and as a means of reflection about issues impacting

organizational culture, including leadership, structure, function, governance, and

problem solving (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Neumann & Birnbaum, 1989; Donaldson,

1998; Lethwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 2000; Morgan, 1997; Tierney, 1988).

Successful leaders embrace shared decision-making. According to Ogawa and

Bossert (1995), leadership is not the sole domain of a gifted few, rather it “flows

through the network of roles that comprise organizations”. Thus, it is important to

involve all stakeholders in key decisions that affect them directly (Bruffee, 1999;

Patton, 1997). The belief of Yukl (2002), this is best accomplished through a

consistent pattern of shared, participative leadership. “Participative leadership

involves the use of various decision procedures that allow other people some

influence over the leader’s decisions”.

Potential benefits of utilizing participative leadership include better decision-

making, increased buy-in and satisfaction, and decision-making skill development

(Hackman & Johnson, 2000; Yukl, 2002). According to Kouzes and Posner (2002),

“when a leader makes people feel strong and capable, they’ll give it their all and

exceed their own expectations”. This is especially important in schools, where

personnel (both certified and non-certified) are often bereft if financial incentives and

often feel alone in their building. In an environment of collaboration and support, all

staff members are more likely to improve their practice, which in turn assures an

improved learning experience for all of their students.

The leadership of a school is not held solely within the leaders. It exists

throughout the organization, within different members who may hold very distinct

official role (Ogawa & Bossert, 1995; Preskill & Torres, 1999, Rafoth & Foriska,

2006; Reeves, 2006). If a leader is to be effective, they must distribute the roles off

leadership among several staff members. This idea is supported by Marzano, Waters

and McNulty (2005), who described this development of a leadership team as a key

characteristic of effective schools.

According to Danielson (2006), teacher leaders fail to allow teachers to break

free from the barriers of their rooms, to become leaders within the school. This is due

two major inhibiting subscales: administrators threatened by teacher leadership, and

teacher reluctance to take part in leadership endeavors. Effective administrators,

however, understand that the use of teacher leaders is the only method to enhance the

experience for all facets within the school, to attempt to enact a change toward a more

productive school environment. Marzano (2003) supported this notion, “although it is

certainly true that strong leadership from the principal can be a powerful force, the

notion that an individual can effect change by sheer will and personality is simply not

supported by the research”. Eaker, Dufour, and Dufour (2002) described teachers as

transformational leaders, and view administrators as leaders of leaders. Beachum and

Dentith (2004) described teachers as “successful agents and conduits in promoting

cultural change”. Goldman and O’Shea (1990) promoted teachers as dynamic forces

fully capable of effecting change.

Professional learning communities within any public school, the workforce is

well educated and professional. In this environment, a shared leadership style can be

promulgated as the best method for success. In the vain, Dufour and Eaker (1998)

described a model of participative leadership within the realm of education known as

the Professional Learning Community (PLC). The following six characteristics

undergird this approach:

1) shared mission, vision, and values

2) collective inquiry

3) collaborative teams

4) action orientation and experimentation

5) continuous improvement

6) results orientation

A participative and collaborative work environment for school is supported by

other researchers (Adamy & Heinecke, 2005; Beachum & Dentith, 2004; Bolman &

Deal, 1997; Hoppey, Yendol-Silva, & Pullen, 2004; Mays-Woods, 2004; Wade, 2004;

Winn & Blanton, 2005).

Schools that operate as Professional Learning Communities (PLC) are quite

different from the more traditional approach to public schooling. Decision making is

shared, via a systematic approach to collaboration among all key staff, and the focus

of the school is on student learning. The success or failure of a PLC school is based

on measurable results. The PLC approach to dealing with students who experience

difficulties in academic concerns is also different. According to Dufour (2004), in a

PLC the response to student difficulties is timely, based on intervention, and directive.

The directive component to this approach signifies a place where a PLC is truly

different from other schools. When students have academic concerns, they are

required to devote extra time to their studies until they prove that they successfully

changed their behaviors.

2) Teacher collaboration

Collaboration is increasingly gaining favor as an organization strategy to be

employed in effective schools. The following are educational research accounts of the

importance of collaboration among staff members for schools:

1) The importance of collaboration in exchanging teacher practice has

led to its widespread acceptance as an essential component of any effort at improved

teaching (Brownwell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006).

2) Enlightened administrators recognize that achieving their aims of

high level student learning can happen only through the active engagement of teacher

leaders (Danielson, 2006).

3) Educators must stop working in isolating and hoarding their ideas,

materials and strategies and begin to work together to meet the needs of students

(Dufour, 2004).

4) Underpinning healthy cultures in district is an understanding that

education can be improved through active networks of people in different job settings

working together in an interconnected setting (Marshall, Pritchard, & Gunderson,

2004).

5) Time for teacher collaboration is essential for effective education

(Reeves, 2006).

6) Evidence for the benefits of collaboration, rightly conducted, are

overwhelming (Schmoker, 1999).

7) One characteristic of successful school is that teachers work

together (Strahan, 2003).

8) Working collaboratively in small groups and larger school-wide

groups to identify student learning needs and address those needs has been one of the

most important subscales in student achievement (Wade, 2004).

Bruffee (1999) discussed the importance of constructing knowledge through

interdependence, collaboration, and reacculturation. This model of collaborative

knowledge construction is especially relevant for schools, which traditionally have

operated within a hierarchical structure, in which the teacher is the unquestioned

authority in the classroom, the principal is the unquestioned leader of the school, and

so forth. This approach was assailed by several authors. According to Ogawa and

Bossert (1995), “leadership is embedded not in particular roles but in the relationships

that exist among the incumbents of roles”. In other words, it is not the formal

structure of schools that decides their fate, but rather the relationships that are

developed within the key stakeholders.

In order for schools to truly provide a learning environment for their students,

collaborative practice needs to be at the core of their approach. In this way,

knowledge will become a social construct, with a relevant context that applies to all

facets within the school setting. Collaborative discourse is the most appropriate way

to achieve this end, where all components of the school are allowed to become key

decision makers, and trust is developed among all members of the school community.

Bruffee (1999) offered the concept of nonstandard discourse, in order to explain the

difficult task of breaking free from traditional roles, to truly understand and trust those

with whom little may be shared. He described this discourse in terms of peer

relationships (teacher to teacher) and non-peer relationships (student-teacher).

If schools are to engender a collaborative approach, they need to understand

the difficulties inherent in this approach. All teachers may not readily submit to the

lessons of collaborative practices. Brownwell et at (2006) described this reality in

their discussion of the different benefits of collaborative among teachers. They

describe teachers in a continuum of high to low adopters. In their research, high

adopters were those teachers who had the most knowledge of curriculum, student-

friendly belief systems, student-focused instructional approaches, and a propensity for

reflective practice. Medium and low adopters, by contrast, were lacking in these

essential skills to a certain degree. This absence of these skills practically means that

not all teachers will derive the same benefits from collaborative. If follows, therefore,

that not all students will benefit in the same way from a collaborative environment

within their school. Senge (1990) presented an analogous perspective to this idea of

high to medium adopters. The researcher separated the groups into those who comply

with shared goals to those who commit to shared goals. The difference is that “people

who are enrolled or committed truly want the vision”. Dufour and Eaker (1998)

described educators must also be properly trained in order for collaborative practice to

be effective.

Reeve (2006) supported that collaboration could not be forced upon a school,

rather it must be an agreed upon principle. This seemingly inherent tenet, that the

decision to undergo a collaborative approach must be decided upon in a collaborative

fashion. He cautioned against an autocratic implementation of collaboration, with the

reality that the leader can only enact change through a cooperative decision making

strategy, and that improved organizational performance happens through the

cooperation of networks of individuals, rather than individuals acting alone.

3) Professional development

On-going training for staff is a crucial component of successful schools. The

importance of professional development has long been a central tenet of public school

(Brownwell et at, 2006; Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Pedder et al, 2005; Snowden &

Gorton, 2002; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997; Wood, 2003). The shift towards collaborative

environments, however, has changed the notion of an educated school workforce.

Professional development no longer simply entails the traditional modes and methods

of attending workshops, and reading and using novel best practice research, rather the

concept has become intertwined with the very nature of the work done in schools.

Professional development intertwined with instruction. Professional

development is no longer viewed as in independent activity which takes place in an

independent sphere, separated from the day to day work of school staff. It is seen,

rather, as a more diverse concept, incorporating many different types of activities.

Goodnough (2005) explained those involved in planning for and facilitating

professional development programs need to offer teachers a ranger of choices that

incorporate many different strategies, ranging from traditional workshops to more

collaborative, team-based initiatives such as study groups or teacher-inquiry groups.

The key tenets of any professional development program must be succinct,

and they must directly intertwine with instruction (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Guskey,

2000; Hargreaves, 2001; Lambert, 2003; Pedder et al, 2005). Dufour and Eaker

(1998) presented a model of professional development in which it is so intertwined

with instructional concerns that it is difficult to ascertain where the two are divided,

there is no separation between the two.

Collaboration as professional development; the very nature of collaboration

and collaborative discourse lend themselves to teacher learning, and thus, student

improvement. Several researchers support this notion of the inherent professional

development aspect of collaborative (Danielson, 2006; DuFour & Eaker, 1998;

Lambert, 2003).

As teachers work together in collaborative environments, they increase their

knowledge of effective practices. It is these collegial conversations that can take the

place, at least in part, of more traditional, research based, instructional improvements.

“Inherent in this call for collaboration is that the act of planning and working together,

by itself, is a powerful professional development tool” (Brownwell et al, 2006).

4) Collegial support

The nature of collegiality among the staff at a school is a related, yet distinct,

concept to collaboration. The notion of collegial support concerns the degree to which

teachers work together, the relationships that they form. The quality of discourse,

dialogue and reflection among the teaching staff are key components of collegial

support. Teacher who work together in a collaborative environment are afforded the

unique opportunity to build tasting relationships. “Collaborators evolve into learning

partners, equally invested in each other and in improving achievement” (Gabriel,

2005), It is these relationships that bring a staff closer together, that encourage them

to support each other toward the goal of ensuring the success of all students. “The

culture should emphasize that the school is a community of learners and that all can

learn from each other” (Robbins & Alvy, 1995). In traditional schools, staff members

are often seen as independent contractors, who work diligently within their own

sphere but who seldom engage their peers in order to improve their practice. If an

effective level of collegial support is in place, all staff members will learn from each

other, which will, in turn, benefit all segments of the staff.

Dialogue and reflection are key components of this nature of collegiality. The

dialogue among staff must directly relate to student learning, and must be geared

toward the success of all subgroups within the school (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Pedder

et at, 2005; Strahan, 2003). The benefits of this dialogue include: contributes to

building a sense of community and connection, and increases the likelihood that

learning at the small group level will continue throughout the organization and helps

bring hidden agendas to the surface (Preskill & Torres, 1999). Dialogues also

provides energy to the organization, which can help sustain the culture (Strahan,

2003). Reflective discourse also fuels effective schools. This discourse should push

boundaries and invite conflict, in order to be most effective (Bruffee, 1999; Lambert,

2003).

5) Unity of purpose

In order for any group of people to work together in ways in which they are

most effective, there must be a shared goal to which they all aspire. In education,

these goals are labeled by several distinct terms, such as mission, vision, or purpose.

These terms will be used interchangeably throughout the course of this section. The

unifying aspect of such a shared goal, or purpose, are supported by several researchers

(Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Gabriel, 2005; Goldman & O’Shea, 1990; Haberman, 2004;

Lambert, 2003; Preskill & Torres, 1989). The process of formulation shared purposes

will bring an organization together and drive the members towards a more coherent

working relationship. There are several benefits to this process of clarifying values,

beliefs, assumptions and knowledge. They include the formation of common

understandings of terms, the ability of individual members to accept change, and the

increased ease of mediating conflicts once they arrive (Preskill & Torres, 1999). The

principal should lead this effort, and ensure that all members are involved in the

creation of this common mission (Danielson, 2006; Fullan, 2005; Goldman & O’Shea,

1990; Marzano, Water, & McNulty, 2005). This will engender support from all staff

members within the school.

In order for a purpose to be a unifying force, it must contain applicable

concepts that the organizational members can truly own. Senge (1990) supported this

postulate, “a vision not consistent with values that people live by day to day will not

only fail to inspire genuine enthusiasm, it will often foster outright cynicism”. Gabriel

(2005) offered “a mission statement should focus on goals, on what you intend to

accomplish, rather than on theories”. Educators are consistently bombarded with best

practices research and theories who offer theoretical perspectives on how to improve

their teaching. These are often disregarded by staff members who are seeking real

practical knowledge, rather than theoretical constructs. Effective school purpose, by

contrast, are build upon practical knowledge and application, and are agreed upon by

all who have a direct stake in the learning environment of the students.

6) Learning partnership

The notion of learning partnership concerns the involvement of all facets of

the school community into the learning process. This includes the school staff, as well

as the parents, students, and the community-at-large. Schools must be increasingly

responsive to the needs of those within the community.

Several authors submit that organizational change and learning is best

accomplished through the collaboration of all stakeholders. Davis (2003) explained a

collaborative model for decision making, and its corresponding advantage for the

organization as a whole. The values in this model is in its recognition of complexity in

the organization as a system and the need to involve everyone in the change process

who is affected by or who will be expected to implement the new directions. The

analysis of Grogan (2003) about the social context of the superintendency,

promulgated the notion that the superintendent must be receptive to the increasingly

varied needs of their school community, and the most effective means of doing that

are learned by connecting with the communities, by hearing the voices of dissent, and

by working through others. Oldroyd and Hall (1997) also mention this collaborative

nature of school learning, “the needs of a range of individuals and groups have to be

taken into account”.

2.4 School climate

When students as well as parents, educators and community members walk

into a school, they quickly begin to form judgments about the experience of living and

working in that school. Will this school help to motivate my child to do well

academically and learn to be a “life-long learner”? How safe is the school? Is the

physical environment (e.g. temperature, cleanliness, size) supportive of learning?

How respected and “connected” do students feel? Are teachers and students engaged

in interesting and meaningful work? Is there a culture of intellectual rigor? To what

extent are people in the school promoting the social, civic, emotional and ethical as

well as cognitive skills and dispositions that provide the foundation for learning and

effective participation in a democracy? The ways in which groups of students, parents

and school personnel answer these questions reflect group norms and values that have

a profound impact in creating or undermining; a climate for learning.

2.4.1 Definition of school climate

The concept of school climate outgrown from the research on organizational

climate and school effectiveness, school climate takes on many definitions and

conceptualizations. Early on, the concept was viewed as something intangible but

consequential to an organization, analogous to an individual’s personality (Halpin &

Croft, 1963). Related with Hoy and Forsyth (1986) describe four personality

metaphors that help researchers and practitioners to conceptualize the climate of a

school. The following section will present a brief summary of these four common

ways to categorize and measure school climate: open to close, healthy to unhealthy,

exploitive to participative, and humanistic to custodial. In additional, other methods

of assessing the climate of a school, including using student feedback to improve the

overall educational program will be addressed.

School climate refers to the quality and character of school life. It is based on

pattern of school life experiences and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal

relationships, teaching, learning and leadership practices, and organizational

structures. Various definitions of school climate exist. For example;

Using Tagiuri’s taxonomy (1968), one can categorize the environmental

quality of an organization if four dimensions: ecology, milieu, social system, and

culture. Applied to schools, the ecological dimension would refer to the physical and

material aspects, such as the school building and school library. The milieu would be

the average characteristics of the individuals in school, such as teacher’s morale, staff

stability, and students’ background. The social system would be the formal and

informal structures or rules that govern individuals and groups’ interactions in school.

They include principal-teacher communication, participation of staff in decision

making, students’ involvement in decision-making, collegiality, and teacher-student

relationships. Finally, the cultural dimension is concerned with values and belief

systems, such as student peer norms, expectation for success, and discipline in school.

According to Hoy and Forsyth (1986), school climate is defined as a relatively

enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by teachers, influences

their behavior and is based on their collective perceptions.

Haynes, Emmons ,and Comer (1994) defined school climate as “the quality

and consistency of interpersonal interactions within the school community that

influence children’s cognitive, social and psychological development”. At school,

children cultivate interpersonal skills, discover and refine values, and struggle with

vulnerabilities. As such, schools must provide a safe environment for optimal

outcomes in terms of academics, character development, and emotional intelligence.

A review of the literature on school climate reveals many interesting connections

between the social microcosm of the school and its students’ personal and intellectual

growth. School climate has also been linked to improved student behavior and

academic achievement (Lehr & Chritenson, 2002), student learning (Hoy & Sabo,

1998), student failure (Comer, 1993), student behavior and delinquency (Pink, 1982),

absenteeism (Reid, 1983), student suspension (Wu et. Al., 1982), too, and low school

motivation (Goodenow & Grady, 1994). A preponderance of research suggest that a

positive, supportive school climate has been deemed appropriate in improving

educational quality and creating safer schools.

McEvoy (2000) stated that school climate refers to the attitudes, beliefs,

values and norms that underlie the instructional practices and the operation of a

school. Kelley, Thornton and Daugherty (2005) saw school climate as a set of shared

values, interpretations and similar definitions of purpose and Hoy and Miskal (1987;

cited in Rovai, Wighting & Liu, 2005) defined school climate as “the set of internal

characteristics that distinguishes one school from another and influences the behavior

of people”. The latter definition which establishes school climate as one of the key

characteristics that distinguish different schools from one another clearly identifies

school climate as a critical variable to consider in the current study.

Similarly Schreuder and Landey (2001) defined school climate as “the unique

atmosphere of a particular school and the ways in which this atmosphere is

experienced by the various stakeholders in the school”. This atmosphere is unique in

every school because it is the result of

- The interaction between the principal, teachers, learners, parent

community and officials of the education department who liaise with the

school

- The attitudes which these people have towards the school

- The values which apply in the school

- The leadership and management approaches followed in the school

- The extent to which positive contributions and achievements are

acknowledge.

Zepeda (2004) stated that school climate is the social atmosphere in which

people interact with others and the school environment. Its includes the perceptions

that people have of various aspects of the internal environment such as safety, high

expectations, relationships with teachers, students, parents and administrators.

In this study, the definition of school climate is characteristics of school, such

as the physical structure of a school building, atmosphere, and the interactions

between students, teachers, principal, staffs, and parents that influences and affects

their behavior concerning their teaching and the achievement of the school’s goals.

2.4.2 Components of school climate

Although these is no consistent agreement in the literature on the components

of school climate, the elements that comprise a school’s climate are extensive and

complex. As a result, researchers have identified the following factors that influence

school climate:

1) Number and quality of interactions between adults and students

(Kuperminc, Leadbeater & Blatt, 2001).

2) Students’ and teachers’ perception of their school environment, or the

school’s personality (Johnson, Johnson & Zimmerman, 1996).

3) Environmental factors (such as the physical buildings and classrooms, and

materials used for instruction).

4) Academic performance (Johnson & Johnson, 1993).

5) Feelings of safeness and school size (Freiberg, 1998).

6) Feeling of trust and respect for students and teachers (Manning &

Saddlemire, 1996).

Several aspects of a school’s physical and social environment comprise its

climate. One organization identified the following eight areas:

1) Appearance and physical plant

2) Faculty relations

3) Student interactions

4) Leadership/decision making

5) Disciplined environment

6) Learning environment

7) Attitude and culture

8) School-community relations’

Table 3 Defines school climate in terms of four aspects of the school environment

School environment Supports Learning Impedes Learning

1. A physical environment that is welcoming and conducive to learning

- School building contain a limited number of students.- Students are, and feel, safe and comfortable everywhere on school property.- Classrooms are orderly.- Classrooms and grounds are clean and well-maintained.- Noise level is low.Area for instruction and activities and appropriate for those uses.- Classrooms are visible and inviting.- Staff members have sufficient textbooks and supplies.

- School building contains a large number of students.- Students are harassed by other students in halls, restrooms, lunchrooms, or playgrounds.- Classrooms are disorganized.- Classrooms and grounds are dirty, poorly lit, and poorly maintained.- Noise level is high.- Classrooms are in rooms not intended for that use. Space is overcrowded.- Classrooms are hidden and protected from scrutiny.- Textbooks and supplies are insufficient. Deliveries are delayed.

2. A social environment that promotes communication and

- Interaction is encouraged. Teachers and students actively communicate.

- Interaction is limited. Students and teachers do not speak to each other.

interaction Teachers are collegial. Student groupings are diverse. Parents and teachers are partners in the educational process.- Decisions are made on-site, with the participation of teachers.- Staff are open to students’ suggestions ; students have opportunities to participate in decision-making.- Staff and students are trained to prevent and resolve conflicts.

Teachers are isolated from one another. Students self- segregate. Parents are not treated as equal partners.- All decisions are made by central administration or the principal without teacher involvement.Students have no role in determining classroom or building activities and decision.Bullying and conflicts are ignored.

Table 3 Defines school climate in terms of four aspects of the school environment (Cont.)

School environment Supports Learning Impedes Learning

3. An Affective environment that promotes a sense of belonging and self-esteem

- There is a sense of community. The school is respected and valued by teachers, staff, students, and families.- Parents perceive the school as warm, inviting and helpful.

- Teachers, staff and students do not feel they have any impact on what happens in the school.- Teachers, staff, students, and families do not feel they are part of the school community.- Parents do not feel welcome at the school. Parents feel “blamed” for their child’s difficulties.

4. An Academic environment that promotes learning and self-fulfillment

- There is an emphasis on academics, but all types of intelligence and competence are respected and supported. Teaching methods respect the different ways children learn.- Expectations are high for all students. All are encouraged to succeed.- Progress is monitored regularly.

- Academic performance is downplayed or not rewarded. Teaching methods do not allow for a variety of learning styles.- Expectations are low. Some students are expected to fail.- There is minimal or no periodic assessment.- There is little communication about

- Results of assessments are promptly communicated to students and parents.- Results of assessments are used to evaluate and redesign teaching procedures and content.- Achievements and performance are rewarded and praised.- Teachers are confident and knowledgeable.

results of assessments. Students do not know how to improve their performance. Parents discover that their child is struggling academically at report card time.- Results are not used to improve teaching and learning. Teachers and students repeat the same cycle of failure.Rewards and praise are minimal.- Teachers are unsure or under-prepared.

According to Anderson (1982), the factors were the ecology (physical and

material aspects), milieu (the composition of the population of the school), social

system (relationships between person) and culture (beliefs, values system). These

factors have been defined at the school and classroom level by other researchers

(Creemers & Reezigh, 1999; MacBeath, 1999) to include:

1) The physical environment of the classroom and school (school building,

school yard, playgrounds, halls). Appropriate, attractive and well-cared external

physical conditions support and facilitate learning. An attractive, welcoming,

comfortable and safe environment, with access to adequate appropriate resources,

enables learning to take place. We can learn in different conditions (and in some parts

of the world students have to) but it is much easier to do so when conditions help,

rather than hinder learning.

2) The social environment of school and classroom. Specifically, the social

environment promotes communication and participation and it related to the

relationships and interactions among students, students and teachers, and between

school and parents. Include rules and arrangements concerning behavior towards each

other.

3) The learning environment promotes learning and self fulfillment and refers

to the quality of instruction at the classroom level and determined by five

components:

(1) Curriculum (goals, structure and clarity of content, evaluation,

feedback)

(2) Grouping procedures (individual work, cooperative learning)

(3) Teacher behavior (classroom management, prior knowledge, clarity

of presentation, immediate exercises, feedback, questioning,

homework)

(4) As previously cited (Howard et al., 1987), school climate must

address the “safety”

(5) School Division Climate 31 needs of both the teachers and

students if the school is to be successful. Sackney (1988) looked at

two subdivisions of climate, “academic climate” and “social

climate;” both having a set of norms, processes, and structures.

Academic climate refers to the “quality of instruction and student

performance,” and social climate refers to that which “indirectly

impact student learning”. Berliner and Biddle (1995) contend that

to resolve existing problems in public education, certain social

issues must be examined. These issues include income or wealth

inequity, diversity, demographics, violence and drugs and school

size. Brookover et al. (1978) concluded that student achievement is

clearly affected by a school’s social environment and that “the

differences in climate between schools are important aspects of the

school’s social environment”. Sugai and Horner (2001) reported

that “learning and teaching occur best in school climates that are

positive, orderly, courteous, and safe”.

As previously cited (Howard et al., 1987), school climate must address the

“safety School Division Climate 31 needs” of both the teachers and students if the

school is to be successful. Sackney (1988) looked at two subdivisions of climate,

“academic climate” and “social climate;” both having a set of norms, processes, and

structures. Academic climate refers to the “quality of instruction and student

performance,” and social climate refers to that which “indirectly impact student

learning”. Berliner and Biddle (1995) contend that to resolve existing problems in

public education, certain social issues must be examined. These issues include income

or wealth inequity, diversity, demographics, violence and drugs and school size.

Brookover et al. (1978) concluded that student achievement is clearly affected by a

school’s social environment and that “the differences in climate between schools are

important aspects of the school’s social environment”. Sugai and Horner (2001)

reported that “learning and teaching occur best in school climates that are positive,

orderly, courteous, and safe”.

Ninan (2006) founded three essential P’s of a healthy school climate are Place,

People and Processes. When these three elements are complementary and are in

consonance with each other, a congenial climate is created. Every school should aim

at creating such a climate. Its positive impact on children will manifest in their better

learning and responsible behavior, which finally makes them, accomplished human

beings.

The components for this study to include seven components: order, leadership,

environment, involvement, instruction, expectation, and collaboration.

2.4.3 The effect of school climate

Numerous studies related that students in schools with a better school climate

have higher achievement and better socio-emotional health. Probably the most

comprehensive work in this area is being done by the Search Institute, a nonprofit

organization that encourages schools and communities to develop and empower

young people. The Search Institute found that a caring school climate is associated

with:

1) Higher grades, engagement, attendance, expectations and aspirations, a

sense of scholastic competence, fewer school suspensions, and on-time

progression through grades (19 studies)

2) Higher self-esteem and self-concept (5 studies)

3) Less anxiety, depression

4) Less substance abuse (4 studies)

Another study, by John Schweitzer of Michigan State University, revealed that

when students in Detroit schools felt a sense of community with one another and a

sense of belonging to their schools, they achieved higher scores on MEAP tests.

A national study of more than 12,000 seventh to twelfth grades found that

connectedness to family and school significantly protects youth from seven of eight

behaviors risky to their health.

School climate is reflected in the social interactions in and out of the

classroom, and from the faculty lounge to the lunchroom (Ashby & Krug, 1998).

Because values, attitudes, beliefs, and communications are subjective matters,

researchers primarily rely on participants’ perceptions to measure school climate and

sometimes aggregate the participants’ response to the level of interest, such as

classroom or school (Griffith, 2000).

The most studied educational outcome of school climate is children’s learning

and academic achievement. A review of 40 major studies between 1964 and 1980,

Anderson (1982) found over half of these studies reported effects of school climate on

student achievement. High students’ achievement is associated with high teacher

commitment or engagement, positive peer norms, an emphasis on group or team

cooperation, high level of expectation held by teachers and administrators,

consistency in administering rewards and punishments, consensus over curriculum

and discipline, and clearly defined goals and objectives. Some of these relationships

between school climate and student achievement remain significant after students’

background characteristics are controlled (Anderson, 1982).

The attributes of a supportive climate promoted in successful schools include:

1) Continual sharing of ideas- Teachers share ideas daily regarding vital issues

of instruction, curriculum, testing, school organization, and the value of specific

knowledge.

2) Collaboration-Teachers become involved in team teaching and other

collaborative efforts in program development, writing, and research.

3) Egalitarianism- Teachers dispense with formalities and anyone who takes

an interest in a department meeting can vote. The notion that the quality of ideas is

more important than the source.

4) Practical application-Teachers ask themselves, How does what we are

doing help students, teachers, and schools? What did we do this week to help?

School’s climate has a direct impact on its students’ abilities to achieve.

School with a positive atmosphere encourage and welcome the participation of

faculty, students and parents, which in turn make the school successful. The

professional school counselor is in a unique position to make a difference by

ascertaining and evaluating the climate of his or her school. As the student advocate,

the professional school counselor can facilitate the process of bringing together key

members of the school community to evaluate and improve his or her school’s

climate. It has shown that productivity increases when all shareholders are not only

satisfied with their school but also feel vested through pride and ownership.

2.4.4 The importance of school climate

The importance of organizational climate to school effectiveness is to a great

degree. Climate is indicative of how well the organization is realizing its full

potential. High performance organizations tend to make optimal use of everyone’s

capabilities. An accurate assessment of the climate can identify the unnecessary

obstacles to employees their best (http://www.ldrgroup.com\climateoverview.html

August 8, 2002).

The importance of school climate has been documented in many studies.

There is research that supports the notion that school reform is more effective when a

good climate is present (Bulach & Malone, 1994). And that a healthy organizational

climate is crucial for a good school (Hoy & Tarter, 1992).

Similarly, Educational research confirms the importance of school climate and

culture to the academic attainment of students. Culture is the shared assumptions and

ideologies of an organization, its philosophical base (Schein, 1992). Climate is the

particular school’s ambience, the feeling one receives upon entering the building.

Climate is viewed separately from culture but is a subdivision of culture (Hoy, Tarter

& Kottkamp, 1991). Climate is nebulous. It cannot be seen or touched, only felt.

Principals and teachers are the architects of climate in a school; students just walk into

it.

School climate can play a significant role in providing a healthy and positive

school atmosphere. Freiberg (1998) notes, “the interaction of various school and

classroom climate factors can create a fabric of support that enables all members of

the school community to teach and learn at optimum levels”. It has been found that a

positive school climate can yield positive educational and psychological outcomes for

students and school personnel; similarly, a negative climate can prevent optimal

learning and development (Freiberg, 1998; Johnson & Johnson,1993,1997;

Kuperminc et al.,1997; Kuperminc, Leadbeater & Blatt, 2001; Manning &

Saddlemire, 1996). Manning and Saddlemire (1996) conclude aspects of school

climate, including “trust, respect, mutual obligation, and concern for other’s welfare

can have powerful effects on educators’ and learners’ interpersonal relationships as

well as learners’ academic achievement and overall school progress”.

Freiberg and Stein (1999) summarize the importance of climate as follows:

School climate is the heart and soul of a school. It is about that essence of a school

that leads a child, a teacher, an administrator, a staff member to love the school and to

look forward to being there each day. School climate is about that quality of a school

that helps each individual feel personal worth, dignity and importance, while

simultaneously helping to create a sense of belonging to something beyond ourselves.

The climate of a school can foster resilience or become a risk factor in the lives of

people who work and learn in a place called school.

2.4.5 Improving school climate

Numerous articles define culture as “the way we do things around here.”

Culture is about the relationships, general attitudes, and perceptions within schools.

Research has directly linked a school’s ability to restructure or to improve

achievement to the culture and climate of the school. A school's climate should be

optimistic and nurturing, one where everyone believes that all students are capable of

learning, and where it is safe, fun and intellectually challenging. The attributes of a

supportive climate promoted in successful schools include (Macneil & Maclin, 2005):

1) Continual sharing of ideas- Teachers share ideas daily regarding vital

issues of instruction, curriculum, testing, school organization, and the

value of specific knowledge.

2) Collaboration-Teachers become involved in team teaching and other

collaborative efforts in program development, writing, and research.

3) Egalitarianism- Teachers dispense with formalities and anyone who takes

an interest in a department meeting can vote. The notion that the quality of

ideas is more important than the source.

4) Practical application-Teachers ask themselves, How does what we are

doing help students, teachers, and schools? What did we do this week to

help?

5) Principals who desire to improve a school's culture, must foster an

atmosphere that helps teachers, students, and parents know where they fit

in and how they can work as a community to support teaching and

learning. Creating a school culture requires instructional leaders to develop

a shared vision that is clearly communicated to faculty and staff.

Additionally, principals must create a climate that encourages shared

authority and responsibility if they are to build a positive school culture.

Educators and parents have multiple options to enhance school climate and

students’ overall educational experience. The following is a list of possible

interventions to improve school climate:

1) Increased parent and community involvement.

2) Implementation of character education or the promotion of fundamental

moral values in children.

3) Use of violence-prevention and conflict-resolution-curricula.

4) Peer mediation.

5) Prevention of acts of bullying (Perterson & Skiba, 2001).

6) Teachers and principals treat students fairly, equally and with respect.

7) Provide a safe environment for staff and students (Harris & Lowerly,

2002).

8) Personalization through adopt-a-kid programs, honoring most-improved

student, and block scheduling (Shore, 1995).

Hensen and Childs (1998) asserted that an improved school climate is a

paragon that should be pursued in all schools. A good school climate indicates that

people are working together towards a common goal and that everyone takes

responsibility for. Freiberg (1998) added that a healthy school climate contributes to

effective teaching and learning and that feedback from climate could play an

important role in school reform and school improvement efforts.

Beau Garrido, Presley Cobb and Kiahhn Jackson (2004) descript “this set of

recommendations is designed to make students feel more comfortable in school and to

increase sociability, extracurricular participation and academic achievement” follow

as nine points:

1) Demonstrate Commitment: This shows that an educator’s purpose is

not to bore a captive audience, but to inspire the mind.

2) Promote Open Mindedness: To work towards the eradication of

ignorance; to show that a diverse world exists, and that it can educate in

a more complex and interesting way than the classroom.

3) Provide Opportunities for Active Learning: Active learning provides an

opportunity to physically create from what has been retained – it proves

that education has practical uses.

4) Displaying High Expectations: Also a parental tool, it incites

productivity, and prepares students for the mentality of the real world.

5) Effective Communication: Being sure that information is always

accurate, even through over-communication, is beneficial to

accomplishing tasks.

6) Proper Climate Controls: Studies show that climate deficiencies, like

dim lighting, temperature extremes, and seating arrangements far from

the teacher, are preferences of underachieving students.

7) Decreasing School Size: The most effective improvement, but also the

most expensive. Decreased class size is a common substitute, but not as

effective. Small school size creates familiar faces and attitudes,

improves sociability, extracurricular participation, and academic

achievements.

8) Teacher Supervision: Supervision, of especially low-traffic areas,

discourages misbehavior and criminal activity.

9) Cleanliness, Décor, and Landscaping: The school’s environment is a

predictor of the student’s feelings about the school. Schools with

graffiti covered playgrounds promote bad behavior, but a clean, well-

organized, facility contributes to more well behaved students.

School climate strategies need a quick start and should be visible to all the

faculty and staff and be able to be completed in a few.

2.4.6 Promoting a positive school climate

School climate can affect many areas and people within schools. For example,

a positive school climate has been associated with fewer behavioral and emotional

problems for students (Kupermince et al., 1997). Additionally, specific research on

school climate in high-risk urban environments indicates that a positive, supportive,

and culturally conscious school climate can significantly shape the degree of

academic success experienced by urban students (Haynes & Comer, 1993).

Furthermore, researchers have found that positive school climate perceptions are

protective factors for boys and may supply high-risk students with a supportive

learning environment yielding healthy development, as well as preventing antisocial

behavior (Haynes, 1998; Kuperminc et al., 1997). School climate research suggests

that positive interpersonal relationships and optimal learning opportunities for

students in all demographic environments can increase achievement levels and reduce

maladaptive behavior (McEvoy & Welker, 2000). Regarding the roles of teachers and

administrators, Taylor and Tashakkori (1995) found that a positive school climate is

associated with increased job satisfaction for school personnel. Finally, students

perspectives are important during the transition from one school level to another.

Attending a new school can be frightening for students and this apprehension can

adversely affect students’ perceptions of their school’s climate and learning outcomes.

Therefore, research has shown that providing a positive and supportive school climate

for students is important for a smooth and easy transition to a new school (Freiberg,

1998).

Creating a positive school climate involves many things and although the

indicators of school climate might vary from researcher to researcher, there is an

underlying belief that certain variables are more relevant that others to student

achievement. One of the most important aspects of school climate is the whole

concept of creating positive and safe learning environments where students’ minds are

engaged allowed to reach their full potential (Scherer, 1998).

The school climate influences how teachers and students experience

schooling. A recent report by the National Conference of State Legislatures on

improving student achievement identifies a supportive school climate at one of the

primary characteristics of high achieving schools. Although a variety of aspects make

up a supportive school climate, Pintrich and Schunk (1996) identify the following

three aspects as particularly important for cultivating a learning-focused orientation in

teachers and students: (1) a sense of community and belonging, (2) warmth and

civility in personal relations, and (3) feelings of safety and security.

The more students and teachers feel a sense of belonging to the school

community, the more likely they will remain engaged in and actively pursue the

learning goals of that community. In addition, an environment that offers positive,

collegial relationships can help combat a sense of isolation and cultivate instead a

sense of common purpose aimed at promoting student learning. When civility and

warmth permeate the entire school community, it seems more likely all members of

the learning community will have a positive, affirming experience and be inclined to

develop a learning-focused identity.

The last dimension of a positive climate Pintrich and Schunk (1996) identified

is a feeling of safety and security. It can refer to both a sense of feeling free to express

one’s ideas and opinions as well as a sense of physical and emotional safety. On

research of Pintrick and Schunk (1996) that demonstrates the link between student

achievement and safe environments; they explain, that is particularly pronounced for

minority students. And they note that unless safety needs are being met, individuals

within the school community will find it difficult to concern themselves with

learning-related goals.

Positive school climate needs to be actively created and sustained by members

of the student, parent and school personnel group in school, and supported by the

community at large.

A positive school climate exists when all students feel comfortable, wanted,

valued, accepted, and secure in an environment where they can interact with caring

people they trust. A positive school climate affects everyone associated with the

school –students, staff, parents, and the community. It is the belief system or culture

that underlies the day-to-day operation of a school. Improved school climate is a goal

to pursue. Educators need to constantly work toward improving their school climate,

culture, and conditions so that student learning is improved.

Positive school climate does not happen by accident; instead, it requires

commitment of staff; intentional policies, programs and practices; and ongoing

maintenance. Based on research findings and identified dimensions of school climate,

several school functions emerge as essential to building positive climate, including:

1) Helping at-risk students use school and community-based supports to build

upon their unique strengths.

2) Adopting school-wide practices that build character and prevent

inappropriate student behavior.

3) Using diverse and increasingly intensive approaches to support students

who struggle academically.

4) Tracking and analyzing school data (test scores, rule infractions, risk

behaviors, climate survey, etc.) to identify needs and trends.

5) Promoting meaningful youth leadership and actively seeking and

supporting parent involvement.

6) Adopting programs and policies to prevent specific risk behaviors (e.g.,

substance use) and address student mental health and other concerns; and,

7) Formally connecting each student to at least one caring adult—either a

school staff member or community member (i.e., mentor).

In a school with a positive climate, students receive the best instructional

services. Teachers focus on students’ characteristics, learning styles and experiences

as they try to make learning relevant to the lives of their students. Furthermore. They

work to establish a supportive non-threatening climate in which students are likely to

take advantage of learning opportunities through active student involvement. Also,

they select appropriate materials and teach thoroughly and in a holistic way in order to

achieve excellence in education (Borich, 1999). Finally, the quality of career

development of students is high. Students are provided with the latest information on

what is best for their future so that they can make the best possible decisions.

School with high student achievement have a positive school climate. A

positive school climate exists when all students feel comfortable, wanted, valued,

accepted and secure in an environment where they can interact with caring people

whom they trust and they receive the best instructional services. Subsequently, a

positive school climate is the atmosphere where teaching and learning are emphasized

and rewarded and where a spirit of collegiality and collaboration among the staff and

between the staff and the principal in reaching the goals of the school exists and

affects everyone associated with the school: students, teachers, parents and the

community (Pashiardi , 2000).

Schreuder and Landy (2001) explained a positive school climate is important

because :

- It is essential for the effective functioning of the school,

- It motivates the principal, the teachers, the learners and the parents to

become involved in the activities of the school,

- It increases productivity,

- It benefits effective communication,

- It develops pride in the school

According to Kruger (2002) advantages of a positive school climate for the

staff are :

- Motivation

- A positive self-image

- A spirit of cooperation and collegiality

- Involvement and dedication

- Commitment to the school’s mission

- Job satisfaction and,

- Good interpersonal relationship

McLaughlin (2004) suggests that organizations such as schools should provide

opportunities for youth to engage as active learners in ways that lead to confidence in

the value of participatory problem-solving. Positive school climates foster

environments in which members of the school community respect, value and promote

students’ abilities to shape their own learning and participate in solving school and

community problems. In these schools, students feel a sense of freedom to express

their ideas and respect the ideas of others, both in the classroom and through school-

wide activities that bring students together to address issues related to school life.

Members of schools with positive climate ask students for their input regarding a

range of issues including school policies, and this input is taken into account by

teachers and administrators. Through these experiences, students become active

participants in the democratic process and meaningfully contribute to school life.

Follow as Schreuder and Landy (2001) suggests that “although each school

has its own particular climate, school with a positive climate share certain

characteristics”. The following usually indicate a positive school climate :

- The school’s vision and mission are expressed in the day-to-day activities.

- Teachers and learners work towards realizing their shared values in all

activities, both in the classroom and outside it.

- The atmosphere is one of order and purpose, and the school building and

grounds are neat and tidy, even if the building is old.

- The academic and extra-curricular programs are well organized.

- There is a positive culture of teaching and learning. Teachers are well

prepared and motivated to meet learners’ diverse needs.

- There are real bonds of trust between teachers and learners.

- Teachers and learners have high expectations of one another and help one

another to realize these expectations.

- The participative leadership and management approach is followed

throughout the school down to classroom level. Teachers lead by example

and acknowledge pupils’ contributions and achievements. This results in

respect developing spontaneously between teachers and learners, and

fewer disciplinary problems and conflict situations arise in the classroom.

- Teachers cooperate particularly well with one another. This results in trust

and support from the parent community. Everyone in the school will

eventually feel ownership of everything happening in the school.

2.4.7 Research on school climate

During the last twenty years there has been extensive research on identifying

the factors that comprise the quality of school (Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp, 1991). The

research has been guided by many different voices. These range from talking about

schools as if they were akin factories, identifying the characteristics of the inputs

necessary to obtain the desired outputs, to talking about schools as if they were akin to

families, stressing the dynamics of caring which ground the kind of positive families

relationships which lead to healthy growth.

Numerous studies have been done on organization school climate. For

instance, Halpin (1967) finds that it is behavior of elementary school principals,

which in a large measure sets a climate tone for school (Halpin & Croft, 1963). In

more direct investigation leader behavior and organizational climate was found that

by varying the leadership style from bureaucratic to human relations and human

resources, three different climates-closed; warm, supportive and friendly; supportive

goal-oriented, each with distinct implementations for member performance and

satisfaction were created (Litwin & Stringer, 1968). The research of David

McClelland and colleagues at the Harvard Business School (Litwin & Stringer, 1968)

and Hay McBer and Company (Kelner, Rivers & O’Connell, 1996), ongoing since the

1950s, indicate that successful leadership competencies and managerial styles produce

motivating organizational climates, which arouse employee motivation to do work,

and which predict the desired organizational outcomes: exceptional customer

satisfaction and financial performance. Thus, climate makes a difference. That is, it

differentiates levels of performance among organizations. Hundreds of studies have

demonstrated the link between organizational climate and bottom-line performance

measures such as volume, efficiency, productivity, and customer perceptions of

service quality. Typically, climate has accounted for 10 to 25 percent of the variance

in performance measures. In many cases it has even been possible to predict

significant improvement in performance based on climate improvements (Spencer,

Pelote & Seymour, 1998). In their study, Pirola-Merlo, Hartel, Mann & Hirst (2002)

examined how negative events impact on learn climate and how team climate relates

to performance. Based on the results, team climate had a positive relation with team

performance. Zohar (2000) demonstrated that variation in behavior at the level of the

individual supervisor, the group climate level of analysis; affected safety behavior,

and it was plausible that this would hold true for other aspects of climate. Weber

(1995) found that the degree of difference in the climate regarding ethics between

organizational units depended on how “insulated” the employees in that department

were, with technical core employees having a more individual or local climate, while

boundary-spanning employees had more of a cosmopolitan ethical climate. Neal &

Griffin & Hart (2000) investigated links between general organizational climate and

specific safety climate, and found that general organizational climate could influence

perceptions of safety climate, and that these perceptions of safety climate influenced

safety performance through their effects on knowledge and motivation.

Poor school climate may result when the physical school facilities are poor.

The physical state of the school is a predictor of school achievement (Berner, 1993).

Several building features have been shown to be related to student achievement: (a)

building age, (b) climate control, (c) lighting, (d) indoor air quality, (e) acoustical

control, (f) design classifications, and (g) overall impressions. Similarly students

attending non-modernized buildings scored lower on basic skills assessments than

students attending school in more modernized buildings, showing that the building

age matters. In addition, many older buildings may not be able to accommodate

technology and curriculum innovations (Chan, 1996). Air temperature and quality are

two of the most important elements found to influence student achievement (Uline &

Tschannen-Moran, 2008). Daylight offers the most positive effects on student

achievement, most possibly due to the biological effects of sunlight on the human

body (Wurtman, 1968). Acoustics have also been shown to have an effect on student

achievement. Specifically, chronic noise has been shown to have a negative effect on

student learning (Maxwell & Evans, 2000). Specific design classifications, such as

large group meeting places, natural light, pleasing and appropriate color, and the

presence of technology for teachers have also been noted in the research as being

related to student achievement (Tanner, 2000). When learning is taking place in poor

facilities, a clear focus on academics is not taking place; the learning environment is

less likely to be perceived as orderly and serious (Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2008).

When the buildings are in disrepair, there is less likely to be community support for

the schools. The teachers’ attitudes and behaviors are related as well; teachers are less

likely to be enthusiastic about coming to work if the building they work in is in

disrepair or in poor quality.

Some researchers approach the matter of school size from a slightly different

angle, querying students about the interpersonal climate in their schools. This research

focuses on elements such as relations among students and between students and

teachers, especially teacher attention and demonstrations of caring toward students.

Positive correlations between small schools and favorable interpersonal relations have

been found by Bates (1993); Burke (1987); Fowler and Walberg (1991); Gottfredson

(1985); Gregory & Smith (1982, 1983); Smith, Gregory, & Pugh (1981); Kershaw &

Blank(1993); Pittman & Haughwout (1987); Rutter (1988); Smith & DeYoung

(1988); Stockard & Mayberry (1992). None of the research consulted for this report

found equal or superior interpersonal relations in large schools.

Lyman and Foyle (1998) posited that considering the premise that meaningful

educational change takes root at the school level, teachers and administrators must

collaboratively solve problems as members of school wide, grade-level and subject-

area teams. Interactions within these teams, and between educators and parents and /

or students statistically significantly impact the school’s climate, student achievement,

teacher effectiveness and morale. Strong, effective school leadership is contingent

upon administrators and teachers making time to collaborate with one another and

with students. Lyman and Foyle (1998) contended student and parent confidence is

enhanced when they have opportunities to positively interact with administrators,

teachers and school staff. Positive informal interactions take place when the

professional shows empathy,25 appreciation and respect. The teacher or administrator

also uses positive discourse with the student and / or parent.

Similarly, research in the area of school climate indicates that certain

characteristics are associated with the climate of effective schools which is conducive

to learning (Brookover & Lezotte, 1979 ; Edmonds, 1979 ; Reynolds & Cuttance,

1992; Lezotte, 1991; Pashiardi & Pashiardi, 1993 ; Lezotte & Jacoby, 1990). These

characteristics can be summarized as follows:

1) The principals are the instructional leaders in their schools. They effectively

define and communicate the mission of the school to all school participants and

convey a vision of what the school should and will be.

2) Policies and procedures, rules and regulations are clear well-known to the

school participants so that everybody feels responsible to implement then

consistently.

3) Administrators, teachers, students and others involved have a common

denominator, “the plan”, that includes the school’s goals and objectives and guides

the daily behavior of all school participants (Wynne, 1981).

4) Teachers believe it is their responsibility to teach all students by using

different teaching procedures and materials based on the students’ learning needs and

styles (Roueche & Baker, 1986).

5) Communication and collaboration among the school staff is emphasized.

Administrators and teachers work collaboratively in planning and coordinating the

school curriculum as well as in implementing new learning techniques (Campo,

1993).

6) A climate of optimism and high expectations permeates the classroom.

Teachers maintain an orderly environment where student success can be cultivated

(Roueche & Baker, 1986).

7) The professional working climate within an effective school encourages an

awareness and an acceptance of the community in which it exists. This is illustrated

through participation in collective community project (Edmonds, 1979).

Gayton (1999) studied elementary schools in West Virginia to determine if a

significant relationship existed between teacher-perceived school climate and the state

accreditation status of schools. Gayton also included the SES of schools and school

size as part of her study. The CFK Ltd. School Climate Profile was used to measure

teacher perception of the schools’ climate. Student achievement was measured by

results obtained from the 1998 Stanford Achievement Test – 9th Edition (SAT – 9).

The number of students who received free or reduced lunch determined the SES of

each School Division Climate 24 school. One hundred elementary schools

participated in the study, 53 that earned full accreditation and 47 that lacked full

accreditation. Schools with a student enrollment less than 290 were considered small

schools. Schools with a student enrollment equal to or more than 290 were considered

large schools. From her descriptive, one-shot case study, Gayton (1999) concluded

that:

1) teachers in schools that lacked full accreditation status had a lower mean

scores in overall school climate compared to teachers in schools that earned full

accreditation status;

2) schools that lacked full accreditation status had at least 61% of students

who received free and reduced lunch;

3) high morale was the only predictor of low SES schools achieving full

accreditation status; as morale decreased, the number of schools that earned full

accreditation status also decreased;

4) large schools with high SES were more likely to lack full accreditation

status when compared to large schools with low SES; and

5) small schools with low SES had a low mean score in the area of

cohesiveness and therefore were less likely to earn full accreditation status.

According to research on school climate in Thailand. Such as, Srimala

Jatuporn (2005) referred to school culture in term of school climate. As the school

duty apart from offering knowledge to students, it is also the place for giving good

traits and characteristics to them. It is because school is believed to be the institute for

human development. According to the study, the means of school teacher responses

are at the “much” level. The reason is that school teachers aware and realize about

school goal and their own duties as teacher. According the relationship among school

climate, student achievement, morality and happiness. From the study findings, when

school teachers perceive school climate higher, the achievement on every subject will

increase as well.

The findings from school climate of this study are factors affecting study

achievement, morality happiness have three issues:

1. School climate, order dimension, environment dimension, and instruction

dimension affected to student achievement respectively. Because of when students

understand the lessons, they will achieve better. If teacher develop their teaching

techniques, they can assist learners to master better. Order dimension is also crucial

because the overall achievement needs orderly schools. The rule of school and

regulations will be great solutions for solving problems of misbehaviors.

2. School climate factors affecting student morality are environment

dimension, collaboration, and instruction dimension. Because good environment

foster students to relax, especially in neat and orderly school. The second issue is

collaboration, the important part of work place. The school personnel helps another to

accomplish work- the personnel are participative and collaborative. The instruction

dimension is also crucial for the student morality. Teaching style , techniques , and

aspects are improve instruction for a students.

3. School climate factors affecting student happiness are two dimension,

environment and instruction respectively. The variables on school climate are both

physical and psychological. The physical is about neat and orderly buildings-

temporary buildings, library computer room, science laboratory, and also enough

instructors, various learning resources.

Charunlak Paensuk’s (2005) study on organizational climate and job

satisfaction of personnel of Wang Klai Kang Won School revealed that the

organizational climate aspects should be correlated and in same direction.

Administrator should recognize and foster the personnel more as they perform

important tasks in the organization. The administrator should recognize and response

to the needs and feelings of personnel if he expects to lead the organization to

efficiency and effectiveness.

Siriporn Khantikarn (2006) studied organizational health and organizational

climate of schools in Samut Songkram Educational Service Area. It was found that

the overall organizational climate was at “High” level. It might be because staffs of

elementary schools pay respect to and support one another, be proud, enjoy their

work and share their practice. Praphan Sodto (2002) studied the school climate

development approach in primary school. The research findings were: 1) The levels of

school climate factors of Watthungkok school were overall at high level. When

classified by each aspect, it was found that each aspect was at high level, except

opportunity for input factor which was at the moderate level. 2) The separation of

thinking between administrative teachers and classroom teachers about the climate in

school was not different. 3) The ways to develop climate in primary school about the

opportunity for input factor was that the administrator should support all the teachers

in the school to have; the opportunity of thinking, the opportunity to share the opinion

and the opportunity to work together in order to get the successful work. The research

of Phatcharee Srichan-ngam (1999) on the organizational climate in large elementary

schools under the jurisdiction of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration revealed

that: 1) The organizational climate in large elementary schools under the jurisdiction

of the Metropolitan Administration according to the variables of the eight aspects of

organizational climate including: Leadership process, Motivational forces, Decision-

making process, Goal setting or Ordering, Control process, Performance goals and

Training were found in consultative patterns. 2) The organizational climate was found

in the combination of consultative and benevolent authoritative patterns.

Chaiwat Sakuna’s (1997) research on the environment and climate of primary

schools under the jurisdiction of the office of Phitsanulok provincial primary

education found that: 1) The school environment of area usage aspect, classroom

building management aspect, other facility structures, and sanitary system aspect were

evaluated high and very high, 2) School academic and administration climate were

evaluated high and very high, 3) The relationship between environment and climate

were positively correlated. Samniang Wilamas’s (1999) study on school climate

affecting to teachers’ commitment revealed that the climate of most of the primary

schools was open, the teachers’ commitment was high, and the climate that positively

affected the teachers’ commitment was the support dimension whereas the non-

collaboration dimension negatively affected the teachers’ commitment.

2.4.8 Assessing school climate

Many researchers have developed measures of school climate. Freiberg (1998)

consider multiple factors an individuals within the school system using direct

measures, such as surveys and interviews, and indirect measures, such as disciplinary

and attendance records. The School Climate Survey contain seven dimensions of

school climate and specifically assesses students’ perceptions in the following areas:

1) Achievement motivation

2) Fairness

3) Order and discipline

4) Parent involvement

5) Sharing of resources

6) Student interpersonal relationships

7) Student-teacher relationships (Haynes, Emmons, & Comer, 1993).

The Charles F. Kettering Ltd. (CFK) School Climate Profile is also widely

used to measures school climate. This survey is comprised of four section and is given

to teachers, administrators, and students. Part A, the General Climate Factors, is

comprised of the following eight subscales:

1) Respect

2) Trust

3) High morale

4) Opportunity for input

5) Continuous academic & social growth

6) Cohesiveness

7) School renewal

8) Caring (Johnson et al., Johnson & Johnson, 1997).

Further scales have been created assessing issues such as security

maintenance, administration, guidance, student activities, and teacher-principal

interactions (Hanna, 1998). Additional measures include the Comprehensive

Assessment of School Environments (Keefe & Kelley, 1990), the Organizational

Climate Index (Hoy, Smith, & Sweethland , 2002), and the Organizational Climate

Description Questionnaire (Halpin & Croft , 1963).

From the studied of Jones and James (1979), Middlemist and Hitt (1981), and

Joyce and Slocum (1982) have argued in favour of a multi-dimensional approach to

the issue of measurement. Specifically, Jones and James (1979) derived six

dimensions of climate:

1) Leadership facilitation and support;

2) Workgroup co-operation, friendliness and warmth;

3) Conflict and ambiguity;

4) Professional and organizational esprit;

5) Job challenge, importance and variety; and

6) Mutual trust

It has been argued that these dimensions represent a useful method for

measuring organizational climate (Ryder & Southey, 1990).

According to Stewart (2007) school climate can be measured in three ways: by

its (a) school culture, (b) school organization, and (c) school milieu. School culture

can be defined as the unwritten beliefs, values and attitudes that a school holds to be

true.

School climate inventory (SCI) used for this study consists of seven dimension

logically and empirically linked with factors associated with effective school

organizational climates (Butler & Alberg , 1989). Each scale contains seven item,

with 49 statements comprising the inventory. Response are scored through use of

Likert-type ratings. Seven dimensions were utilized for the school climate inventory

(Butler & Rakow , 1995). As the seven scales are appeared to be representation of

many variables, the instrument will be used for assessing school climate of this study.

The seven scales of the school climate inventory with brief descriptions are listed

below :

1) Order , the extent to which the environment is order and appropriate

student behaviors are present.

2) Leadership, the extent to which the administration provides instructional

leadership.

3) Environment , the extent to which positive learning environments exist.

4) Involvement, the extent to which parents and community are involve in the

school.

5) Instruction, the extent to which the instructional program is well developed

implemented.

6) Expectation, the extent to which students are expected to learn and be

responsible.

7) Collaboration, The extent to which the administration, faculty, and

students cooperate and participate in problem solving.

2.4.9 School climate variables

Although the variables of school climate appear to be slightly different from

researcher to researcher, all to them share certain communalities. The following

attributes that are discussed are representative of the many variables that have been

identified by different researchers as important attributes of school climate. They are

by no means all inclusive. They are only indicative of some of the variables that are

most of commonly listed.

Ten factors of Sweeney (1988) highlight school with good climate : a

supportive and stimulating environment, student-centered strategies, positive

expectations feedback rewards , a sense of family, closeness to parents, community

communication, achievement and trust.

Hoy, Tarter and Kottkamp (1991) listed seven components of school climate;

institutional integrity, principal influence, consideration, initiating structure, resource

support, morale, and academic emphasis.

Sackney (1998) indicated the variables are related to school climate could be

divided in two general dimensions: those that deal with the academic climate and

those that address the social climate.

Seven dimensions were utilized for this study for the school climate inventory

(Butler & Rakow , 1995). As the seven scales are appeared to be representation of

many variables follow as detailed :

1) Order, there are cannot be engagement of the student’s minds if they do

not feel safe and their fears are assuaged (Scherer, 1998). Murphy , Weil , Halliger,

and Mitman (1985) claimed “effective schools maintain a safe and orderly

environment for learning”. In a safe environment students and staff feel free from

danger and harm to themselves or their property. In an orderly environment, the

school has a systematic set of school policies and practices with rules that are specific

and behavior expectations are clear and consistently enforced. Teaching and learning

cannot take place if schools do not offer a safe and orderly environment.

2) Leadership, the principal’s involvement in instruction has been positively

associated to both climate and learning outcomes. Young (1980) believed that the

principal is the key in improving school climate. The principal is the one that must

provide the kind of leadership that fosters positive climate where learning can take

place. Based on his effective school research. Edmonds (1979) identified the principal

as the person positioned to guide and improve instructional programs.

3) Environment, the way schools are structured and the conditions in which

they exist have a great impact on the academic success of its students. Purkey and

Novak (1996) indicated that schools exhibiting a positive climate are clean and nicely

decorated. They concluded that behavior and academic achievement are better when

the school is clean and when it is decorated with student work, pictures, posters. Kohl

(1998) talked about an environment that is not only warm and inviting but also

friendly. He spoke of an environment where students are valued both as individuals

members of the learning community and as members of the larger community in

which they live.

4) Involvement, parent and community involvement have been found to

influence academic achievement and school climate. Some of the many studies

linking academic achievement to parent/community involvement include Brookover

and Lezotte (1979), Edmonds and Fredericksen (1978) and others. In their view of

205 studies, Borger et al. (1985) reported that parent and community variables played

a part in effective schools according to 90 per cent of the studies analyzed. Haynes,

Comer and Hamilton – lee (1989) found that the climate of school is considerably

enhanced when parents are included in the planning and organization of school

activities and contribute to important decision about significant school events because

it gives parents the opportunity to be stakeholders.

5) Instruction, the important of the effective teachers in providing a climate

conductive to learning cannot be overemphasized. “What happens in the classroom is

an important first step to establishing a climate that is conductive to learning”

(Sackney, 1988). Professional growth and development is key in enhancing the skills

of instruction that would ultimately help teachers in their efforts to increase student

achievement.

6) Expectation. Edmonds (1979) and Rutter et al, (1979) have related high

expectations to school effectiveness more consistently than any other variable. In a

school that exhibits high expectations, the staff not only believes in their ability to

influence students achievement but is also held accountable for student learning. High

expectations for student and staff performance have been linked to positive student

outcomes (Edmonds, 1979; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979) stated that expectations not

only influence the way people think about their performance but also the way they

explain their performance.

7) Collaboration, Sergiovanni and Starrat (1998) talked about collaboration

as the main ingredient of learning communities. They further claimed that change

efforts would nor be effective in a climate that is not conductive collaboration.

2.5 Comparison between school culture and school climate

There is a closed and sometimes ambiguous relationship between

organizational culture and climate which has often been overlooked in the literature

(Schneider, 1985; Ryder and Southey, 1990). According to Barker (1994), there is

evidence that the two terms have frequently been used synonymously. Despite the

large number of studies into climate, attempts to define the construct in a way that

differentiates it from culture have proven problematic (Field & Ableson ,1982).

Moran and Volkwein (1992) argue that while culture and climate are distinctly

identifiable elements within organizations, there is some overlap between the two

terms. Culture is widely understood to be made up of a collection of fundamental

values and belief systems which give meaning to organizations (Hatch, 1993). A

further distinction between the two in the contention that the climate of an

organization consists essentially of shared perceptions, whereas the culture of an

organization is made up of shared assumptions (Ashforth , 1985). In a similar vein,

Moran and Volkwein (1992) have suggested that climate consists of attitudes and

values alone, whereas culture exists as a collection of basic assumptions, in additional

to attitudes and values.

Similarly organizational culture and climate have been described as

overlapping concepts by theorists (Miner, 1995). Hoy et al. (1991) offered a

distinction between climate and culture, with school or organizational climate being

viewed from a psychological perspective and school culture viewed from an

anthropological perspective. Differences between school climate and culture are

highlighted in organizational studies. Often the climate is viewed as behavior, while

culture is seen as comprising the values and norms of the school or organization (Hoy,

1990; Heck & Marcoulides, 1996). Lunenburg and Ornstein (2004) described

organizational climate as the total environmental quality within an organization and

believe that the recent attention to the effectiveness of public schools and their

cultures has shed more interest on the importance of climate. Hoy and Feldman

(1999) believed that this difference is meaningful and crucial because shared

perceptions of behavior are more readily measured than shared values. They described

climate as having fewer abstractions than culture (more descriptive and less symbolic)

and concluded that climate presents fewer problems in terms of empirical

measurements. Climate is the preferred construct when measuring the organizational

health of a school.

The basic component which makes organization culture and organization

climate different from each other is related with the research method. Contrary to the

qualitative researches made about the organization culture, in the research about

organizational climate the quantitative ones are commonly made use of (Glick, 1985).

Similarly Bilir (2005) described the organization climate is mostly about attitudes and

behaviors. Whereas the culture is a process in which the aim is to form a collection

about more comprehensible system of values and believe. Related with Tahaoglu

(2007), the organization culture is composed of believes, values or norms shared by

all members of organization. On the other hand, the organizational climate is

composed of the understandings of members about organization.

The difference between climate and culture in term of major common

indicators like, discipline, method, content and level of abstraction, follow as:

Table 4 Climate, culture comparison

Items Climate CultureDiscipline Psychology and social

psychologyAnthropology and sociology

Method Survey research multivariate statistics

Ethnographic techniques linguistic analysis

Content Perceptions of behavior multivariate statistics

Assumptions and ideology linguistic analysis

Level of Abstraction

More concrete More abstract

Source : Adapted from Hoy et al. (2000)

Chuck Saufler (2005) described school culture and climate are two distinct but

highly interrelated and interactive dimensions of school life. School climate is created

by the attitudes, beliefs, values, and norm the underline the instructional practices, the

level of academic achievement and the operation of a school. It is driven by how well,

and how fairly the adults in a school create, implement, model and enforce these

attitudes, beliefs, values, and norms. Climate is largely created by the atmosphere. In

school with strong school climate the adults model behaviors that strengthen climate,

such as learning student names and greeting them by name. Adults showing a genuine

concern for individual students and consistently reinforcing them positively and

responding to negative behaviors in a respectful manner also strengthens the climate.

The product of good school climate is a strong school culture. School culture is “the

way we do that here”, or the way “we don’t do that here”. The “that” can reflect any

attitude, belief, value, norm, procedure or routine including “how we do relationships

at this school”. In a school with strong culture any staff or student will be able to

explain and demonstrate “how we do that here”.

2.6 The relationship between school culture and school climate

The school is an organization, a system of interweaving parts, linking together

in particular ways. A school is a particular kind of organization.

Mentz (1990) defined the relationship between “organizational culture and

organizational climate” as follows:

Table 5 Organizational culture and organizational climate

Organizational culture (The situation)

Organizational climate (The perception)

Set of values, convictions, ceremonies and norms

The perceptions of those involved regarding the

Which reflect the communications, symbols, management style and behavior of the people involved

Quality of school culture and

And which are evident in the management philosophy and goals of the school

Which can be evaluated by means of questionnaires and interviews

Source : Elsabe' De Villiers (2006)Organizational culture and organizational climate influence one another.

Aspects of organizational culture such as traditions and ceremonies have an effect on

organizational climate, whilst the attitudes of those involved with the school certainly

have an influence on organizational culture.

A school’s culture and climate can interact with the school improvement

process in many ways and in all phases of that improvement process. As Beach and

Lindahl (2004b) discussed, in reality, school improvement processes are not as linear

as diagrams. However, the basic phases of the model offer a useful structure for

examining potential interactions between the process and the school’s climate and

culture.

Most reviews of the effective school literature point to the consensus that

school culture and climate are central to academic success (Mackenzie, 1983).

Typical of the findings is the summary of Purkey and Smith (1983), who in their

review of the literature on effective schools found a close correlation between positive

school culture and academic quality: The literature indicates that a student’s chance

for success in learning cognitive skills is heavily influenced by the climate of the

school. A school-level culture press in the direction of academic achievement helps

shape the environment (and climate) in which the student learns. An academically

effective school would be likely to have clear goals related to student achievement,

teachers and parents with high expectations, and a structure designed to maximize

opportunities for students to learn. A press for academic success is more likely to

realize that goal than would a climate that emphasizes affective growth or social

development.

The importance of school climate and to some extent culture for an effective

school has been the subject of extensive research. Bulach, Malone and Castleman

(1994), in their research on 20 schools found a significant difference in student

achievement between schools with a good school climate and those with a poor

school climate. They also cited 17 references in their review of literature in support of

this relationship. The relationship between school climate and achievement continues

to be researched. Hirase (2000) and Erpelding (1999), found that schools with a

positive climate had higher academic achievement.

The relationship between culture and climate was supported by Schein (1996)

when he stated that norms, values, rituals and climate are all manifestations of culture.

In addition, the relationship of culture and climate is further supported by McDougall

and Beattie (1998), as well as by the early studies of Schneider and Reichers (1983).

Even though the conceptual distance between culture (shared norms) and climate

(shared perceptions) is small, it is nonetheless real (Hoy & Feldman, 1999).

Bulach and Berry (2001). Their research is the impact of setting and size on a

school’s culture and climate has been found the database from the 25 schools provides

norms for schools from different settings. This allows school officials to compare

their data against that of other schools. One conclusion based on the data is that most

schools do not have a good climate, as only two elementary schools had an average

score that was over 32.0 indicating agreement that a good culture and climate was

present. Another conclusion is that elementary schools have much better climates than

middle and high schools. Whether this is a result of smaller school size or the

elementary setting is unknown. It is possible that more well behaved elementary

students are responsible for the better climate and not school size. Regarding urban

schools, it is likely that they have less positive cultures and climates, but the small

number of schools involved in this study do not justify such a conclusion.

Related with Bulach and Williams (2001) a significant negative correlation

between school size and the school’s culture and climate was found. Other finding

were that elementary schools had more positive climates than middle and high schools

and urban schools had less positive climates than rural and suburban schools.

To encourage a school culture and climate that promotes individuals who are

bonded together by natural will, and who are together bound to a set of shared ideas,

and ideals then principals must strengthen their efforts towards improving

connections, coherence, capacity, commitment, and collaboration among their

members (Sergiovanni, 2001).

David J. Dewit (2002) discussed from the study of Sense of school

membership: A mediating mechanism linking student perceptions of school culture

with academic and behavioral functioning (baseline data report of the school culture

project), the interpersonal and normative features of school culture, evidence suggests

that student sense of school membership may be influenced by several tangible

environmental characteristics typically referred to as “school climate”. These include

factors such as organizational size, school governance (e.g., public vs. separate school

sectors), school resources, and the demographic and socio-economic composition of

students and teaching staff (Bryk et al., 1990; Finn & Voelkl, 1993; Firestone &

Rosenblum, 1988; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; McNeal, 1997; Rumberger,

1995). Large schools, for example, are thought to inhibit student ability to form

attachments to the school environment because they tend to be more bureaucratic with

a high degree of role specialization and formal communication links. Wehlage and

colleagues hypothesize that American Catholic schools may be more effective in less

bureaucratic and possess a culture that is more broadly supportive of those who attend

(Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989). Unfortunately, evidence

supporting many of these hypothesized relationships has remained sketchy largely

because weak feelings of school membership are inferred from incidents of truancy

and school disorder and not measured directly as a mechanism linking school

characteristics with student behavioral outcomes.

School culture - Social atmosphere - School learning goal structures - Student behavioral norms - Governance practices

School climate (e.g. school size)

Sense of School Membership (e.g., feelings of acceptance, belonging and support, bonding to school, involvement in extra-curricular activities)

Self-Esteem, Academic, Motivation,Pro-social

Values

Behaviour,Academic,

Performance,Mental

Figure 8 Schools as communities theoretical framework Source : Dewit, Karioja (2002)

Not shown in Figure 8 are a number of model controls deemed as important

correlates of student perceptions of school culture and sense of school membership.

Because many of these factors are also related to student academic and behavioral

problems, it becomes necessary to control statistically for their influence. Prior

research suggests that girls tend to express more favorable impressions of school

environment than boys (Goodenow, 1993a; Hagborg, 1994), perform better

academically, and are less inclined to engage in violent and delinquent behavior

(Jenkins, 1997). Age is an important control insofar as early adolescence is a period of

rapid developmental change both physically (with the onset of puberty) and

psychologically as peers take on new significance as a reference group in defining

individual perceptions of self-worth. These changes may serve to explain why

feelings of detachment from school grow stronger when students enter their high

school years as well as the frequent occurrence of delinquent behavior observed

among older students.

2.7 Conceptual framework

Theorists refer to organizational culture and climate as overlapping concepts.

Organizational culture has its roots in sociology and anthropology, whereas

organizational climate is rooted in psychology (Miner, 2002). The terms school

culture and school climate describe the environment that affect the behavior of

teachers and student. School culture is the shared beliefs and attitudes that

characterize the district-wide organization and establish boundaries for its constituent

units. School climate characterizes the organization at the school building and

classroom level. It refers to the “feel” of a school and can vary from school to school

within the same district. While an individual school can develop a climate

independently of the larger organization, changes in school culture at the district level

can positively or adversely affect school climate at the building level.

School climate and culture are important in the student learning process.

Schools that successfully engage students in this process share certain characteristics.

Such schools value academic excellence and have high expectations of student

achievement. A cooperative environment is fostered in which students feel

empowered to excel, and safe from the influence of societal distractions, such as

drugs and gangs. Educators must give as much attention to school climate and culture

as is given to traditional concerns like curriculum development and teaching methods

As the purpose of this research was to investigate the perceptions of teacher

and staff on school culture and school climate of elementary basic education school in

Thailand and as the variables of school culture were used in this study composed of 1)

Collaborative Leadership, 2) Teacher Collaborative, 3) Professional Development, 4)

Unity of Purpose, 5) Collegial Support, and 6) Learning Partnership, and the variables

of school climate were used composed of 1) Order Dimension, 2) Leadership

Dimension, 3) Environment Dimension, 4) Involvement Dimension, 5) Instruction

Dimension, 6) Expectation Dimension, and 7) Collaborative Dimension. Therefore,

the conceptual framework of this study shown as the figure below:

Independent variable Dependent variable

1. Gender2. Education level 3. Working status 4. Age5. Working experience6. School size

School Climate1. Order Dimension2. Leadership Dimension3. Environment Dimension4. Involvement Dimension5. Instruction Dimension6. Expectation Dimension7. Collaborative Dimension

School Culture1. Collaborative leadership2. Teacher collaboration3. Professional development4. Unity of purpose5. Collegial support6. Learning partnership

Figure 9 The conceptual framework of the study

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research was a Quantitative Research. The objective was to study

relationship between the variables of School Culture and School Climate of

Elementary Basic Education Schools. The researcher specified research methodology

as follows: 1) Population and Sample, 2) Informant, 3) Instrumentation, 4)

Construction and Investigation of the Instrument Quality, 5) Data Collection, 6) Data

Analysis, 7) Data interpretation with following details:

3.1 Population and sample

The population used in this research included 31,484 schools, under

jurisdiction of the Office of Basic School Commission, Primary Education, 2009

school year. (Office of Basic Education Commission, 2009) For 398 schools were

determined as the samples by using Multi-stage Random Sampling as follows:

The First Sampling, Cluster Random Sampling was performed by using

Simple Random Sampling. 20% of the provinces of each region was determined and

17 provinces were obtained.

The Second Sampling, Stratified Random Sampling was performed by using

Simple Random Sampling. The proportion was based on school size as shown in

Table 6.

Table 6 The number of population and sample

Regions Provinces

Population(School in provinces

sampled)

Sample Size(Proportion based on

school sizes)small medium large small medium large

North Lampang 118 125 30 8 8 4Phayao 137 153 12 8 9 3

Central

Samut Sakhon 41 65 9 5 6 2Lop Buri 152 203 23 9 17 4Sing Buri 68 40 28 5 4 4Pathum Thani 46 97 51 3 7 5Ang Thong 65 86 17 5 6 2

SouthTrang 101 196 14 7 16 3Ranong 37 52 7 3 5 2Phuket 17 31 10 3 4 2

East Chachoengsao 141 170 28 9 13 4Rayong 87 132 9 5 8 2

West Ratchaburi 148 190 25 9 14 4

NorthEast

Nong Bua Lam Phu 126 194 20 8 16 4

Loei 140 310 31 9 32 4Yasothon 189 209 13 13 21 3Nong khai 135 377 26 8 37 4

Total 1,748 2,629 354 117 223 564,731 398

3.2 Informants

The respondents were 398 teachers and 398 staffs in sample schools; 1 teacher

and 1 staff from each school, by using Simple Random Sampling from the name list

of teachers and staffs of each school.

3.3 Instrumentation

The instrument used in this research was the Questionnaire consisting of 3

parts; Part 1 was the Questionnaire of respondent’s demographic data, Part 2 was the

Questionnaire of school culture, and Part 3 was the Questionnaire of school climate.

The Questionnaire of school culture called “The School Culture Survey

(SCS)” was developed by Gruenert & Valentine (1998) consisted of six variables, and

reliability coefficient of each variable was as follows: collaborative leadership (.910),

teacher collaboration (.834), professional development (.867), unity of purpose (.821),

collegial support (.796), and learning partnership (.658)

The Questionnaire of school climate called “The School Climate Inventory

(SCI)” was developed by the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), at

the University of Memphis in 1989. It consists of seven dimensions with the

reliability coefficients as follows: Order Dimension (.835), Leadership Dimension

(.856), Environment Dimension (.846), Involvement Dimension (.784), Instruction

Dimension (.764), Expectation Dimension (.753), Collaboration Dimension (.762)

(The Center for Research in Educational Policy, 1989 cited in Srimala Jatuporn,

2005).

3.4 Construction and investigation of instrument

Part 1: Questionnaire of respondents’ demographic data, constructed by the

researcher. It was a Checklist consisting of gender, age, educational level, working

experience, and school size.

Part 2: The School Culture Survey. The researcher sent a letter of permission

to the instrument owner, Professor Dr. Jerry W. Valentine, University of Missouri,

and Director of the Middle Level Leadership Center on 2nd June 2009. After being

permitted, the researcher translated it into Thai Language, and asked for an

investigation from 5 experts : 1) Professor Dr. Sermsak Wisalapon, 2) Professor Dr.

Paitoon Sinlarat, 3) Associate Professor Dr. Preecha Kampirapakon, 4) Associate

Professor Dr. Prachoom Rodprasert, and 5) Associate Professor Dr. Boonme Nenyod.

The experts investigated the congruence between Thai Language and English

Language. The researcher analyzed the findings from investigation for Index of

Congruence (IOC) with following criteria:

+1 when you are confident that the Thai words had the same meaning

as English language.

0 when you are not confident that the Thai words had the same

meaning as English language.

-1 when you are confidents that the Thai words did not have the same

meaning as English language.

It was found that the IOC values were more than 0.50 up in every item as the

criterion specified by Booncherd Pinyo-ananta-pong (2002). However, the experts

recommended for improving and correcting the wordings. The wordings were

corrected as recommended.

Part 3: The School Climate Inventory. Though there was a Thai version

investigated by experts by Srimala Jatuporn (2002). But, for testing quality of

instrument again. The researcher tried out both of questionnaires as The School

Culture Survey (SCS) and The School Climate Inventory (SCI), with 30 teachers and

staffs in Elementary Schools, under the jurisdiction of Roi-et Educational Service

Area 2, who were not the samples. Then, data were brought to analyze the reliability

coefficient by finding the Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. It was found that the

reliability coefficient of total issue of The School Culture Survey = 0.94. The

reliability of each variable as follows: 1) Collaborative Leadership (0.83) 2) Teacher

Collaborative (0.74) 3) Professional Collaborative (0.70) 4) Unity of Purpose (0.83)

5) Collegial Support (0.74) 6) Learning Partnership (0.72). For The School Climate

Inventory, the reliability coefficient of total issue = 0.93, the reliability of each

variable as follows: 1) Order Dimension (0.71), 2) Leadership Dimension (0.70), 3)

Environment Dimension (0.86), 4) Involvement Dimension (0.81), 5) Instruction

Dimension (0.71), 6) Expectation Dimension (0.70), and 7) Collaboration Dimension

(0.72).

3.5 Data collection

The questionnaire and the letter from the Faculty of Education asking for

cooperation was sent to each of the samples. 361 of the questionnaire sent were

returned. That was 90.70% of the samples.

3.6 Data analysis

The SPSS statistics for windows was used to analyze the data. The statistic

values were as follows:

3.6.1 Descriptive statistics

1) The demographic data of the samples were tallied for frequency, and

calculated for percentage.

2) The Mean and Standard Deviation was analyzed for the level of

perception in school culture variables as follows : 1) Collaborative Leadership 2)

Teacher Collaborative 3) Professional Development 4) Unity of Purpose 5)

Collegial Support 6) Learning Partnership , and analyzing level of perception in

school climate variables as follows: 1) Order Dimension 2) Leadership Dimension 3)

Environment Dimension 4) Involvement Dimension 5) Instruction Dimension 6)

Expectation Dimension 7) Collaborative Dimension.

3.6.2 Inferential statistics

1) The independent sample t-test was applied to test the average value of

the school culture variables, and school climate variables, as classified by gender,

educational level, and work position.

2) One-way ANOVA was applied to analyze to differentiate the variables

of school culture, and school climate, as classified by age, work experience, and

school size.

3) The analysis of Pearson’ s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was

applied to find the relationship between 2 variables and also to study the correlation

coefficient of variables within school culture, and school climate, each variable, and

between variables of school culture and school climate.

3.7 Data interpretation

The survey question was scored on a Likert’s five-level rating scale. The

rating numbers were interpreted as follows:

1 refers to Strongly disagree.

2 refers to Disagree.

3 refers to Neutral.

4 refers to Agree.

5 refers to Strongly agree.

The Means ( ) of the level of school culture and school climate was

interpreted (Wanya Wisalaporn, 1997) as follows :

4.51 – 5.00 refers to Very High Perception (VHP).

3.51 – 4.50 refers to High Perception (HP).

2.51 – 3.50 refers to Moderate Perception (MP).

1.51 – 2.50 refers to Low Perception (LP).

0.01 – 1.50 refers to Very Low Perception (VLP).

The correlation coefficient among the variables, it was interpreted (Davis,1981

cited in Srimala Jatuporn, 2005) as follows :

0.70 – 1.00 refers to Very High Relationship (VHR).

0.50 – 0.69 refers to High Relationship (HR).

0.30 – 0.49 refers to Moderate Relationship (MR).

0.10 – 0.29 refers to Low Relationship (LR).

0.01 – 0.09 refers to Very Low Relationship (VLR).

0.00 refers to No Relationship (NR).

3.8 Chapter summary

This chapter describes the methodology and research design. Also described

were the population and sample, information, instrumentation, construction and

investigation of instrument, data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation. The

informants were one teacher and one staff of each school of the sample schools. The

survey instrument contained the following sections: demographic background, and the

School Culture Survey (the SCS), and the School Climate Inventory (the SCI). There

were six dependent variables of school culture and seven variables of school climate.

The data were collected and then statistically analyzed using various statistical

techniques; Frequency, Percentage, Mean, Standard Deviation, T-test, One-Way

ANOVA, The Scheffe’s technique, and Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation

Coefficient. The data were analyzed to compare the variables of the school culture

and school climate. Also analyzed were demographic variables whether they affected

the school culture and climate.

CHAPTER IV

THE FINDINGS

The empirical data of School Culture and School Climate of Elementary Basic

Education Schools were obtained and analyzed to investigate the research objective.

Details were as follows:

4.1 Symbols used in data analysis

4.1.1 Symbols used refer to variables

4.1.1.1 School culture’s variables

COL Refered to Collaborative Leadership.

TEA Refered to Teacher Collaborative.

PRO Refered to Professional Development.

UNI Refered to Unity of Purpose.

COLE Refered to Collegial Support.

LEAR Refered to Learning Partnership.

4.1.1.2 School climate’s variables

ORD Refered to Order Dimension.

LEAD Refered to Leadership Dimension.

ENVI Refered to Environment Dimension.

INV Refered to Involvement Dimension.

INS Refered to Instruction Dimension.

EXP Refered to Expectation Dimension.

COLL Refered to Collaborative Dimension.

4.1.2 Symbols used refer to statistics

Refered to Mean.

n Refered to Sample.

S.D. Refered to Standard Deviation.

r Refered to Pearson’s product moment correlation

coefficient.

t Refered to T distribution.

F Refered to F distribution.

SS Refered to Sum of Squares.

MS Refered to Mean Squares.

df Refered to Degree of Freedom.

P Refered to P-values.

** Refered to Significant at the 0.01 level.

* Refered to Significant at the 0.05 level.

4.2 Presentation of data analysis

The respondents’ demographic data were analyzed and the findings were

presented as the following details:

Part 1 The findings on demographic data analysis of the respondent samples’ status

Part 2 The findings on data analysis of school cultures, with the following details:

1) The findings on analysis for the Mean and Standard Deviation of school

cultures based on perception of the teachers and staff as classified by each

variable and overall.

2) Comparative analysis findings on school cultures based on perception of

teachers and staff as classified by gender.

3) Comparative analysis findings on school cultures based on perceptions of

teachers and staff as classified by educational degree.

4) Comparative analysis findings on school cultures based on perceptions of

teachers and staff as classified by working status.

5) Comparative analysis findings on school cultures based on perceptions of

teachers and staff as classified by age.

6) Comparative analysis findings on school cultures based on perceptions of

teachers and staff as classified by working experience.

7) Comparative analysis findings on school cultures based on perceptions of

teachers and staff as classified by school size.

Part 3 The findings on data analysis in school climate, with the following details:

1) The findings on analysis for the Mean and Standard Deviation of school

climate based on perceptions of the teachers and staff as classified by each

variable and overall.

2) Comparative analysis findings on school climate based on perceptions of

teachers and staff as classified by gender.

3) Comparative analysis findings on school climate based on perceptions of

teachers and staff as classified by educational level.

4) Comparative analysis findings on school climate based on perception of

teachers and staffs as classified by working status.

5) Comparative analysis findings on school climate based on perception of

teachers and staffs as classified by age

6) Comparative analysis findings on school climate based on perception of

teachers and staffs as classified by working experience.

7) Comparative analysis findings on school climate based on perception of

teachers and staffs as classified by school size.

Part 4 The correlation coefficient analysis findings of school culture variables and

perceptions of teachers and staff in elementary basic education schools under the

Office of the Basic Education Commission.

Part 1 The findings on demographic data analysis of the respondent samples’ status

361 complete questionnaire or 90.70% of the total number required returned.

The demographic data of teachers and staff were analyzed for frequency and

percentage. The findings were shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Teachers and staffs’ status of the samples responding the questionnaire

StatusTeacher (n = 361) Staff (n = 361)

frequency percentage frequency percentage

1. Gender

1. Male

2. Female

121

240

33.52

66.48

125

236

34.63

65.37

2. Age

1. 20 – 30 years old

2. 31 – 40 years old

3. 41 – 50 years old

4. 51 – 60 years old

39

54

123

145

10.80

14.96

34.07

40.17

95

65

76

125

26.32

18.00

21.05

34.63

3. Education

1. Bachelor’s degree

2. Master’s degree

266

95

73.68

26.32

329

32

91.14

8.86

4. Working experiences

1. 1 – 10 years

2. 11 – 20 years

3. 21 – 30 years

4. 31 – 40 years

80

73

115

93

22.16

20.22

31.86

25.76

132

67

107

55

36.56

18.56

29.64

15.24

5. School sizes

1. Small ( ≤ 120 students)

2. Medium (121 – 600

students)

3. Large (600 – 1,500

105

207

49

29.08

57.35

13.57

125

185

51

34.63

51.25

14.12

students)

Table 7 showed that there were 240 female teachers or 66.48%, and 121 male

teachers or 33.52% respectively. Classified by age, there were 145 persons or 40.17%

aged between 51 to 60, 123 persons or 34.07% between 41 to 50, and 54 persons or

14.96% between 31 to 40 respectively. Classified by level of education, there were

266 persons or 73.78% with Bachelor Degrees, and 95 persons or 26.32% with Master

Degrees respectively. Classified by working experiences, most (115 persons or

31.86%) had working experiences between 21 to 30 years, second most (93 persons or

25.76%) with 31 to 40 years, and 80 persons or 22.16% with 1-10 years respectively.

Classified by school sizes, most (207 persons or 57.35%) were working in medium-

sized schools, second most (105 persons or 29.08%) in small-sized, and 49 persons or

13.57% in large-sized respectively.

Table 7 shows that there were 236 female staff or 65.37%, and 125 male or

34.63% respectively. Classified by age, most (125 persons or 34.63%) were 51 to 60

years old, second most (95 persons or 26.32%) were 20-30 years old, and 76 persons

or 21.05% were 41-50 years old respectively. Classified by level of education, 329

persons or 91.14% were Bachelor Degree holders, and 32 persons or 8.86% with

Master Degrees respectively. Classified by working experiences, most (132 persons

or 36.56%) had 1-10 years working experiences, most second (107 persons or

29.64%) with 21-30 years, and 67 persons or 18.56% with 11-20 years respectively.

Classified by school sized, most (185 persons or 51.25%) were working in medium-

sized schools, second most were 125 persons or 34.63% in small-sized, and 51

persons or 14.12% in large-sized respectively.

Part 2 The findings on data analysis of school cultures

The data were analyzed to investigate research objectives 1 and 2. The

findings were as follows;

1) The findings on analysis for the Mean and Standard Deviation of school

cultures based on perceptions of the teachers and staff as classified by each variable

and overall, the data analysis findings were shown in Table 8.

Table 8 The degree of school cultures on the perceptions of teachers and staff in

elementary basic education schools

Items S.D. Remark

1. Collaborative leadership

1.1 Leaders value teachers’ ideas.

1.2 Leaders in this school trust the

professional judgments of teachers.

1.3 Leaders take time to praise teachers

that perform well.

1.4 Teachers are involved in the decision-

making process.

1.5 Leaders in our school facilitate teachers

working together.

1.6 Teachers are kept informed on current

issues in the school.

1.7 My involvement in policy or decision

making is taken seriously.

1.8 Teachers are rewarded for

experimenting with new ideas and

techniques.

1.9 Leaders support risk-taking and

innovation in teaching.

1.10 Administrators protect instruction and

4.07

3.69

4.15

4.25

3.90

4.26

4.16

4.26

4.02

3.63

0.44

0.74

0.63

0.72

0.71

0.67

0.64

0.71

0.74

0.72

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

planning time.

1.11 Teachers are encouraged to share

ideas.

2. Teacher collaboration

2.1 Teachers have opportunities for

dialogue and planning across grades

and subjects.

4.27

4.21

3.92

4.08

0.70

0.65

0.46

0.69

HP

HP

HP

HP

Table 8 The degree of school cultures on the perceptions of teachers and staff in

elementary basic education schools (Cont.)

Items S.D. Remark

2.2 Teachers spend considerable time

planning together.

2.3 Teachers take time to observe each

other teaching.

2.4 Teachers are generally aware of what

other teachers are teaching.

2.5 Teachers work together to develop and

evaluate programs and projects.

2.6 Teaching practice disagreements are

voiced openly and discussed.

3. Professional Development

3.1 Teachers utilize professional networks

to obtain information and resources for

classroom instruction.

3.2 Teachers regularly seek ideas from

seminars, colleagues, and conferences.

3.3 Professional development is valued by

the faculty.

3.4 Teachers maintain a current

knowledge base about the learning

3.77

3.69

4.06

4.08

3.86

4.03

3.77

3.86

4.25

4.08

0.77

0.76

0.61

0.67

0.72

0.46

0.76

0.70

0.66

0.66

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

process.

3.5 The faculty values school

improvement.

4. Unity of Purpose

4.1 Teachers support the mission of the

school.

4.2 The school mission provides a clear

4.18

4.05

4.17

4.08

0.68

0.49

0.64

0.69

HP

HP

HP

HP

Table 8 The degree of school cultures on the perceptions of teachers and staff in

elementary basic education schools (Cont.)

Items S.D. Remark

sense of direction for teachers.

4.3 Teachers understand the mission of the

school.

4.4 The school mission statement reflects

the values of the community.

4.5 Teaching performance reflects the

mission of the school.

5. Collegial Support

5.1 Teachers trust each other.

5.2 Teachers are willing to help out

whenever there is a problem.

5.3 Teachers’ ideas are valued by other

teachers.

5.4 Teachers work cooperatively in

groups

6. Learning Partnership

6.1 Teachers and parents have common

expectations for student performance.

6.2 Parents trust teachers’ professional

4.03

3.95

3.96

4.09

4.05

4.17

4.02

4.11

3.99

4.21

3.97

0.63

0.65

0.65

0.49

0.66

0.67

0.64

0.68

0.49

0.67

0.67

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

judgments.

6.3 Teachers and parents communicate

frequently about student performance.

6.4 Students generally accept

responsibility for their schooling, for

example they engage mentally in class

and complete homework assignments.

3.90

3.89

0.69

0.71

HP

HP

Total 4.03 0.42 HP

Table 8 showed that the overall school culture of elementary basic education

schools based on perceptions of teachers and staff was at “High” level ( = 4.03) and

overall Standard Deviation at “Low” level (S.D. = 0.42). That revealed the school

culture based on perceptions of teachers and staff was scattered from the center at

overall “Low” level. It was found that every aspect was at “High” level. The values

of the aspects put in order were Collegial Support ( = 4.09), Collaborative

Leadership ( = 4.07), Unity of Purpose ( = 4.05), Professional Development ( =

4.03), Learning Partnership ( = 3.99), and Teacher Collaboration ( = 3.92)

respectively. It was found that the value of every item of each aspect was at “High”

level. The Standard Deviation of both the aspects and the items was between 0.42-

0.76 from low to high scattered from the center in school cultures.

2) Comparative analysis findings on school culture based on perception

of teachers and staffs as classified by gender, the data analysis findings were shown in

Table 9.

Table 9 The Independent Sample t-test for gender related to teachers and staff’s

perceptions about the school culture in elementary basic education schools

School Culture Gender n S.D. t dfSig(2-

tailed)1. Collaborative Leadership

MaleFemale

246476

4.034.09

0.450.43

-1.897 720 .058

2. Teacher Collaboration

MaleFemale

246476

3.853.96

0.470.45

-3.069*

*

720 .002

3. Professional Development

MaleFemale

246476

3.954.07

0.460.46

-3.528*

*

720 .000

4. Unity of PurposeMale

Female246476

3.994.08

0.520.47

-2.137

*

720 .033

5. Collegial SupportMale

Female246476

3.994.14

0.530.47

-3.979*

*

720 .000

6. Learning Partnership

MaleFemale

246476

3.924.03

0.520.47

-2.885*

*

720 .004

Table 9 The Independent Sample t-test for gender related to teachers and staff’s

perceptions about the school culture in elementary basic education schools

(Cont.)

School Culture Gender n S.D. t dfSig(2-

tailed)

TotalMale

Female246476

3.964.06

0.440.40

-3.314*

*

720 .001

** Significant at the 0.01 level ; * Significant at the 0 .05 level

Table 9 showed the comparative findings on perceptions of teachers and staff

on collaborative leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, unity of

purpose, collegial support, and learning partnership. Classified by gender, the values

were found significantly different at 0.01 level in the following aspects: Teacher

Collaboration, Professional Development, Collegial Support, and Learning

Partnership. The aspect of Unity of Purpose was significantly different at 0.05 level.

The female teachers and staff had higher average values than male in every aspect.

3) Comparative analysis findings on school culture based on perception

of teachers and staffs as classified by educational degree, the data analysis findings

were shown in Table 10.

Table 10 The Independent Sample t-test for education levels related to teachers and

staff’s perceptions of the school cultures.

School Culture Education n S.D. T dfSig(2-

tailed)

1. Collaborative Leadership

Bachelor Master

595127

4.054.19

0.430.45

-3.383*

*

720 .001

2. Teacher Collaboration

Bachelor Master

595127

3.904.02

0.450.48

-2.785*

*

720 .005

3. Professional Development

Bachelor Master

595127

4.014.09

0.460.48

-1.946 720 .052

4. Unity of PurposeBachelor

Master595127

4.024.17

0.480.50

-3.243*

*

720 .001

5. Collegial SupportBachelor

Master595127

4.084.12

0.490.50

-.936 720 .350

6. Learning Partnership

Bachelor Master

595127

3.984.05

0.490.48

-1.543 720 .123

TotalBachelor

Master595127

4.004.11

0.410.43

-2.579*

*

720 .010

** Significant at the 0.01 level

Table 10 showed the comparative findings on teachers and staff in elementary

basic education schools on the aspects of collaborative leadership, teacher

collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support, and

learning partnership. Classified by education levels, all the aspects and the

collaborative leadership, teacher collaborative, and unity of purpose were

significantly different at 0.01 level. The average value of perceptions of teachers and

staff with master degrees was higher than that of those with bachelor degrees.

4) Comparative analysis findings on school cultures based on perceptions

of teachers and staff as classified by working status, the data analysis findings were

shown in Table 11.

Table 11 The Independent Sample t-test of working status related to teachers and

staff’s perceptions of school cultures in elementary basic education

schools.

School Culture Working status n S.D. T df

Sig(2-

tailed)

1. Collaborative Leadership

TeacherStaff

361361

4.024.12

0.430.44

-3.165*

*

720 .002

2. Teacher Collaboration

TeacherStaff

361361

3.923.93

0.450.47

-.372 720 .710

3. Professional Development

TeacherStaff

361361

3.994.07

0.450.47

-2.584*

*

720 .010

4. Unity of PurposeTeacher

Staff361361

4.024.08

0.480.49

-1.558 720 .120

5. Collegial SupportTeacher

Staff361361

4.084.09

0.480.51

-.304 720 .761

6. Learning Partnership

TeacherStaff

361361

3.964.02

0.500.48

-1.866 720 .062

TotalTeacher

Staff361361

4.004.05

0.410.42

-1.825 720 .068

** Significant at the 0.01 level

Table 11 showed the comparative findings on perceptions of teachers and staff

in elementary basic education schools on collaborative leadership, teacher

collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support, and

learning partnership. Classified by working status, the Collaborative Leadership and

Professional Development were found significantly different at 0.01 level. The

average value of the staff’s perceptions was higher than that of the teachers’ except

Learning Partnership.

5) Comparative analysis findings on school cultures based on perceptions

of teachers and staff classified by age. The data analysis findings were shown in Table

12.

Table 12 One-way ANOVA of age related to teachers and staff’s perceptions of the

school cultures in elementary basic education schools.

School CultureSchool Culture

Variance SS df MS F p

1. Collaborative Leadership

Between groupsWithin groups

.644153.39

4

3717

.215

.1941.109 .345

Total 154.038 720

2. Teacher Collaboration

Between groupsWithin groups

.862167.29

4

3717

.287

.2111.360 .254

Total 168.156 720

3. Professional Development

Between groupsWithin groups

.642169.37

8

3717

.214

.2141.001 .392

Total 170.020 720

4. Unity of Purpose

Between groupsWithin groups

.424188.22

6

3717

.141

.238.595 .618

Total 188.650 720

5. Collegial Support

Between groupsWithin groups

.734194.59

1

3717

.245

.246.996 .394

Total 195.32 720

6

6. Learning Partnership

Between groupsWithin groups

1.126189.61

1

3717

.375

.2391.568 .196

Total 190.737 720

Total

Between groupsWithin groups

.211138.63

4

3717

.070

.175.403 .751

Total 138.845 720

Note : 20-30 years = 134, 31-40 years = 119, 41-50 years = 199, 51-60 years = 270

Table 12 showed the comparative findings on perceptions of teachers and staff

in elementary basic education schools on collaborative leadership, teacher

collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support, and

learning partnership. Classified by age, all the aspects had no significant differences

between teachers and staff at 0.05 level.

6) Comparative analysis findings on school cultures based on perceptions

of teachers and staff as classified by working experience, the data analysis findings

were shown in Table 13.

Table 13 One-way ANOVA for working experience related to teachers and staff’s

perceptions about the school cultures in elementary basic education schools.

School CultureSchool Culture

Variance SS df MS F p

1. Collaborative Leadership

Between groupsWithin groups

1.538152.50

1

3717

.513

.1932.662* .047

Total 154.038 720

2. Teacher Collaboration

Between groupsWithin groups

.063168.09

4

3717

.021

.212.098 .961

Total 168.156 720

3. Professional Development

Between groupsWithin groups

.393169.62

7

3717

.131

.214.612 .607

Total 170.020 720

4. Unity of Purpose

Between groupsWithin groups

1.316187.33

3

3717

.439

.2371.855 .136

Total 188.650 720

5. Collegial Support

Between groupsWithin groups

1.548193.77

7

3717

.516

.2452.109 .098

Total 195.326 720

6. Learning Partnership

Between groupsWithin groups

.893189.84

4

3717

.298

.2401.242 .293

Total 190.737 720

Total

Between groupsWithin groups

.496138.34

9

3717

.165

.175.947 .417

Total 138.845 720

* Significant at the 0.05 level

Note: 1-10 years = 212, 11-20 years = 140, 21-30 years = 222, 31 – 40 years = 148

Table 13 showed the comparative findings on perceptions of teachers and

staffs in elementary basic education schools on collaborative leadership, teacher

collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support, and

learning partnership. Classifying by working experience, it was found there were

significant differences of collaborative leadership at 0.05 level. The Scheffe’s

Technique was applied and it was found that there were no significant differences at

0.05 level as shown in Table 14.

Table 14 Post-Hoc (Shceffe) for working experiences related to teachers and staff’s

perceptions on collaborative leadership in elementary basic education

schools.

Years of working experience < 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

>= 40 years

< 10 years - -.0006 .0142 -.054911 – 20 years - .0148 -.054421 – 30 years - -.0691>= 40 years -

7) Comparative findings on school cultures based on perceptions of

teachers and staff classified by school sizes. The data analysis findings were shown in Table 15.

Table 15 One-way ANOVA for school sizes related to teachers and staff’s

perceptions about the school cultures in elementary basic education schools

School CulturesSchool Cultures

Variances SS df MS F p

1. Collaborative Leadership

Between groupsWithin groups

.136153.90

2

2718

.068

.194.350 .705

Total 154.038 720

2. Teacher Collaboration

Between groupsWithin groups

.146168.01

0

2718

.073

.212.346 .708

Total 168.156 720

3. Professional Development

Between groupsWithin groups

.313169.70

7

2718

.156

.214.731 .482

Total 170.020 720

4. Unity of Purpose

Between groupsWithin groups

.355188.29

5

2718

.178

.237.748 .474

Total 188.650 720

5. Collegial Support

Between groupsWithin groups

.047195.27

9

2718

.023

.246.095 .909

Total 195.326 720

6. Learning Partnership

Between groupsWithin groups

.814189.92

3

2718

.407

.2391.700 .183

Total 190.737 720

Total

Between groupsWithin groups

.135138.71

0

2718

.068

.175.386 .680

Total 138.845 720

Note : Small = 230, Medium = 392, Large = 100

Table 15 showed the comparative findings on perceptions of teachers and

officers in elementary basic education schools on collaborative leadership, teacher

collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support, and

learning partnership. Classified by school sizes, all the aspects showed no significant

differences between teachers and staff at 0.05 level.

Part 3 The comparative analysis findings on school climate

For data analysis in this part was the analysis findings for answering the

research objectives 3, and 4 in order as follows:

1) Comparative analysis findings on school climate levels based on

perceptions of teachers and staff classified by each variable and in overall. The data

analysis findings were shown in Table 16.

Table 16 The degree of school climate on the perceptions of teachers and staff in

elementary basic education schools

Items S.D. Remark

1. Order Dimension

1.1 Rules for student behavior are

consistently enforced.

1.2 Students disciplines is administered

fairy and appropriately.

1.3 Students misbehavior in this school

interferes with teaching.

1.4 Student tardiness and absence from

school is a major problem.

1.5 The school is a safe and secure place

in which to work.

3.83

4.02

4.08

3.29

2.83

4.34

0.45

0.68

0.68

1.14

1.14

0.67

HP

HP

HP

MP

MP

HP

1.6 Most problems facing this school can

be solved by the principal and the

faculty.

1.7 Students behavior is generally positive

in this school.

2. Leadership Dimension

2.1 The administration communicates the

belief that all students can learn.

2.2 The administration encouragers

teachers to be creative and to try new

methods.

2.3 The principal provides useful feedback

on staff performance.

2.4 The administrative staff does not be

4.14

4.12

3.88

4.11

4.20

3.94

2.63

0.69

0.64

0.42

0.69

0.66

0.69

1.11

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

MP

Table 16 The degree of school climate on the perceptions of teachers and staff in

elementary basic education schools (Cont.)

Items S.D. Remark

Enough to protect instructional time.

2.7 The principal is an effective

instructional leader.

2.8 The goals of this school are reviewed

and updated regularly.

2.9 The principal is highly visible

throughout the school.

3. Environments Dimension

3.1 Faculty and staff feel that they make

important contributions in this school.

3.97

4.05

4.25

4.12

4.10

0.81

0.70

0.66

0.49

0.66

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

3.2 Varied learning environments are

provided to accommodate diverse

teaching and learning styles.

3.3 The school building is neat, bright,

clean, and comfortable.

3.4 School employees and students show

respect for each other’s individual

differences.

3.5 An atmosphere of trust exists among

the administration, faculty, staff,

students, and parents.

3.6 Teachers are proud of this school and

its students.

3.7 People in this school really care about

each other.

4.09

4.16

4.08

3.99

4.27

4.17

0.69

0.72

0.69

0.76

0.71

0.65

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

Table 16 The degree of school climate on the perceptions of teachers and staff in

elementary basic education schools (Cont.)

Items S.D. Remark

4. Involvement Dimension

4.1 Community businesses are active in

this school.

4.2 Parents are involved in a home and

school support network.

4.3 Parents are treated courteously when

they call or visit the school.

4.4 Parents are invited to serve on school

advisory committees.

4.5 Parents volunteers are used wherever

4.03

4.11

4.07

4.26

4.18

3.87

0.50

0.77

0.66

0.74

0.74

0.77

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

possible.

4.6 Information about school activities is

communicated to parents on a

consistent basis.

4.7 Parents are often invited to visit

classroom.

5. Instruction Dimension

5.1 Teachers used a variety of teaching

strategies or models.

5.2 Teachers sequence learning activities

so that students can experience success

at each step.

5.3 Teachers provide opportunities for

students to develop higher-older skills.

5.4 Curriculum guides insure that teachers

cover similar subject content within

each grade level.

4.03

3.70

3.93

4.08

3.97

4.11

3.96

0.68

0.79

0.45

0.69

0.64

0.72

0.63

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

Table 16 The degree of school climate on the perceptions of teachers and staff in

elementary basic education schools (Cont.)

Items S.D. Remark

5.5 Teacher use appropriate evaluation

methods to determine student

achievement.

5.6 Pull out programs often disrupt and

interfere with basic skills instruction.

5.7 Teachers use a wide range of teaching

materials and media.

6. Expectation Dimension

6.1 Low achieving students are given

opportunity for success in this school.

4.10

3.22

4.05

3.69

3.79

0.68

1.02

0.70

0.46

0.75

HP

MP

HP

HP

HP

6.2 School rules and expectations are

clearly defined, stated, and

communicated.

6.3 Students share the responsibility for

keeping the school environment

attractive and clean.

6.4 Students are held possibility for their

actions.

6.5 Many students are not expected to

master basic skills at each grade level.

6.6 Many students do not participate in

classroom and school activities because

of their sex, race, religion,

socioeconomic status, or academic

ability.

6.7 Teachers have high expectations for

all students.

4.00

4.14

3.98

3.27

2.73

3.97

0.69

0.71

0.71

1.11

1.29

0.76

HP

HP

HP

MP

MP

HP

Table 16 The degree of school climate on the perceptions of teachers and staff in

elementary basic education schools (Cont.)

Items S.D. Remark

7. Collaborative Dimension

7.1 The faculty and staff share a sense of

commitment to the school goals.

7.2 Students are encouraged to help others

with problems.

7.3 Teachers are encouraged to

communicate concerns, question, and

constructive ideas.

7.4 Students participate in solving the

problems of the school.

3.83

4.04

3.99

3.95

3.85

0.42

0.66

0.67

0.66

0.77

HP

HP

HP

HP

HP

7.5 Faculty and staff cooperate a great deal

in trying to achieve school goals.

7.6 Teachers do not participate enough in

decision making.

7.7 Most problems facing this school can be

solved by the principal and the faculty.

4.22

2.60

4.14

0.73

1.08

0.70

HP

MP

HP

Total 3.90 0.38 HP

Table 16 revealed that the overall value of school climate in elementary basic

education schools was high ( = 3.90), and the overall Standard Deviation (S.D.) was

low. It was found that every aspect was at high level. The average values of the

studied dimensions ranged from high to low were; the highest Environment

Dimension ( = 4.12), the second highest Involvement Dimension ( = 4.03 ),

Instructional Dimension ( = 3.93), Leadership Dimension ( = 3.88), Order

Dimension, Collaborative Dimension ( = 3.83 ), and Expectation Dimension ( =

3.69 ). Every item of each dimension was valued “high”, except, “Many students of

each grade level do not expect to master their basic skills”, “Students with

misbehaviors in this school interfere teachings”, “Many students do not participate in

classroom and school activities”, “Student tardiness and absence from school is a

major problem”, “Teachers do not participate enough in decision making”, “The

administrative staff do not work hard enough to protect instructional time”, and

“Launching many programs interrupts basic skills instruction”. The Standard

Deviation (S.D.) of each item ranged from 0.38 to 1.29. Classified by gender of the

samples, the school climate was valued from low to high, scattered from the center.

2) Comparative analysis findings on school climate level based on

perceptions of teachers and staff as classified by gender, the data analysis findings

were shown in Table 17.

Table 17 The Independent Sample t-test classified by gender of teachers and staff’s

perceptions of the school climate in elementary basic education schools.

School Climate Gender n S.D. t dfSig (2-

tailed)

1. Order DimensionMale

Female246476

3.803.85

0.470.43

-1.415 515.250

.158

2. Leadership Dimension

MaleFemale

246476

3.893.86

0.440.40

0.448 720 .655

3. Environment Dimension

MaleFemale

246476

4.084.15

0.520.47

-1.975

*

720 .049

4. Involvement Dimension

MaleFemale

246476

3.974.06

0.520.49

-2.259

*

720 .024

5. Instruction Dimension

MaleFemale

246476

3.883.95

0.480.43

-2.054

*

497.884

.041

6. Expectation Dimension

MaleFemale

246476

3.713.69

0.500.43

0.636 720 .525

7. Collaborative Dimension

MaleFemale

246476

3.823.83

0.450.40

-0.231 493.433

.817

TotalMale

Female246

4763.883.91

0.410.36

-1.252 720 .211

* Significant at the 0.05 levelTable 17 showed the comparative findings on perceptions of teachers and staff

on Order Dimension, Leadership Dimension, Environment Dimension, Involvement

Dimension, Instructional Dimension, and Collaborative Dimension. Classified by

gender, Environment Dimension, Involvement Dimension , and Instruction

Dimension were found significantly different at 0.05 level. The female teachers and

staff’s average value was higher than that of the males, except Leadership Dimension,

and Expectation Dimension.

3) Comparative analysis findings on school climate level based on

perceptions of teachers and staff as classified by education levels, the data analysis

findings were shown in Table 18.

Table 18 The Independent Sample t-test of educational levels of teachers and staff’s

perceptions of the school climate in elementary basic education schools

School Climate Education level n S.D. t df Sig

(2-tailed)1. Order Dimension Bachelor

Master595127

3.843.79

0.420.48

.975 191.818

.331

2. Leadership Dimension

Bachelor Master

595127

3.873.91

0.410.46

-.733

189.038

.465

3. Environment Dimension

Bachelor Master

595127

4.124.14

0.480.53

-.514

720 .608

4. Involvement Dimension

Bachelor Master

595127

4.034.03

0.490.55

-.040

188.496

.968

5. Instruction Dimension

Bachelor Master

595127

3.933.91

0.440.47

.605 720 .545

6. Expectation Dimension

Bachelor Master

595127

3.703.67

0.460.45

.655 720 .513

7. Collaborative Dimension

Bachelor Master

595127

3.823.84

0.420.42

-.493

720 .622

TotalBachelor

Master595127

3.903.90

0.370.41

.078*

189.659

.938

Table 18 showed the comparative findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff in elementary basic education schools on Order

Dimension, Leadership Dimension, Environment Dimension, Instructional

Dimension, Expectation Dimension, and Collaborative Dimension. Classified by

education levels of the samples, it was found that there were no significant differences

between teachers and staff at 0.05 level. The average values of teachers and staff with

Bachelor Degrees and those with Master Degrees were equal.

4) Comparative analysis findings on school climate levels based on

perceptions of teachers and staff as classified by working status, the data analysis

findings were shown in Table 19.

Table 19 The Independent Sample t-test of working status of teachers and staff’s

perceptions of the school climate in elementary basic education schools

School Climate Working status n S.D. t df

Sig(2-

tailed)

1. Order DimensionTeacher

Staff361361

3.843.82

0.460.43

.477 720 .634

2. Leadership Dimension

TeacherStaff

361361

3.873.89

0.410.42

-.694

720 .488

3. Environment Dimension

TeacherStaff

361361

4.144.11

0.490.48

.860 720 .390

4. Involvement Dimension

TeacherStaff

361361

4.054.01

0.520.48

.976 789.174 .329

5. Instruction Dimension

TeacherStaff

361361

3.953.90

0.460.43

1.609

720 .108

6. Expectation Dimension

TeacherStaff

361361

3.713.69

0.470.44

.732 720 .464

7. Collaborative Dimension

TeacherStaff

361361

3.853.80

0.430.40

1.698

720 .090

TotalTeacher

Staff361361

3.923.89

0.390.37

.980 720 .327

Table 19 showed the comparative findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff in elementary basic education schools on Order

Dimension, Leadership Dimension, Environment Dimension, Involvement

Dimension, Instructional Dimension, Expectation Dimension, and Collaborative

Dimension. Classified by working status, there were no significant differences

between teachers and staffs at 0.05 level. The average value of each dimension of the

teachers’ perceptions was higher than that of the staff’s, except the Leadership

Dimension.

5) Comparative analysis findings on school climate levels based on

perceptions of teachers and staff as classified by age, the data analysis findings were

shown in Table 20.

Table 20 One-way ANOVA for age related to teachers and staff’s perceptions about

the school climate in elementary basic education schools.

School ClimateSchool Climate

Variance SS df MS F p

1. Order Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.535157.37

8

3718

.178

.199.897 .442

Total 157.913 721

2. Leadership Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.350136.88

9

3718

.117

.173.675 .567

Total 137.240 721

3. Environment Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.355189.21

6

3718

.118

.239.495 .686

Total 189.571 721

4. Involvement Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.473200.79

2

3718

.158

.254.622 .601

Total 201.265 721

5. Instruction Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

1.186157.81

4

3718

.395

.1991.984 .115

Total 159.00 721

6. Expectation Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

1.266164.26

2

3718

.422

.2072.035 .107

Total 165.529 721

7. Collaborative Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.314138.56

4

3718

.105

.175.599 .616

Total 138.878 721

Total

Between groupsWithin groups

.405113.56

1

3718

.135

.143.942 .420

Total 113.966 721

Note : 20-30 years = 134, 31-40 years = 119, 41-50 years = 199, 51-60 years = 270

Table 20 showed the comparative findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff in elementary basic education schools on Order

Dimension, Leadership Dimension, Environment Dimension, Involvement

Dimension, Instructional Dimension, Expectation Dimension, and Collaborative

Dimension. Classified by age, there were no significant differences between teachers

and staff at 0.05 level.

6) Comparative analysis findings on school climate levels based on

perceptions of teachers and staff as classified by working experience, the data analysis

findings were shown in Table 21.

Table 21 One-way ANOVA for working experiences related to teachers and staff’s

perceptions about the school climate in elementary basic education schools

School ClimateSchool Climate

Variance SS df MS F P

1. Order Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.075157.838

3718

.025

.199.126 .945

Total 157.913 721

2. Leadership Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.449136.791

3718

.150

.173.866 .458

Total 137.240 721

3. Environment Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.506189.065

3718

.169

.239.706 .548

Total 189.571 721

4. Involvement Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.177201.087

3718

.059

.254.233 .873

Total 201.265 721

5. Instruction Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.853158.147

3718

.284

.2001.424 .235

Total 159.000 721

6. Expectation Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

2.059163.470

3718

.686

.2063.325* .019

Total 165.529 721

7. Collaborative Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.227138.651

3718

.076

.175.433 .729

Total 138.878 721

Total

Between groupsWithin groups

.361113.605

3718

.120

.143.840 .472

Total 113.966 721

* Significant at the 0.05 level Note : 1-10 years = 212, 11-20 years = 140, 21-30 years = 222, 31 – 40 years = 148

Table 21 showed the comparative findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff in elementary basic education schools on Order

Dimension, Leadership Dimension, Environment Dimension, Involvement

Dimension, Instructional Dimension, Expectation Dimension, and Collaborative

Dimension. Classified by working experiences, the Expectation Dimension showed

significant differences at 0.05 level. Applied by Scheffe’s Technique, there were no

significant differences at 0.05 level. The findings were shown in Table 22.

Table 22 Post-Hoc (Shceffe) for working experience related to teachers and staff’s

perceptions about the school climate in Expectation Dimension in

elementary basic education schools

Years of working experience < 10 years 11 – 20

years21 – 30 years

>= 40 years

< 10 years - .0832 .1131 .004911 – 20 years - .0299 -.078321 – 30 years - -.1082>= 40 years -

7) Comparative analysis findings on school climate levels based on

perceptions of teachers and staff as classified by school sizes, The data analysis

findings were shown in Table 23.

Table 23 One-way ANOVA for school sizes related to teachers and staff’s

perceptions about the school climate in elementary basic education schools

School ClimateSchool Climate

Variance SS df MS F P

1. Order Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.019157.89

4

3718

.010

.199.048 .953

Total 157.913 721

2. Leadership Between groups .444 3 .222 1.285 .277

Dimension

Within groups 136.796

718 .173

Total 137.240 721

3. Environment Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.093189.47

7

3718

.047

.239.195 .823

Total 189.571 721

4. Involvement Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.067201.19

7

3718

.034

.254.133 .875

Total 201.265 721

5. Instruction Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.358158.64

2

3718

.179

.200.896 .409

Total 159.00 721

6. Expectation Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.100165.42

9

3718

.050

.209.239 .787

Total 165.529 721

7. Collaborative Dimension

Between groupsWithin groups

.210138.66

8

3718

.105

.175.602 .548

Total 138.878 721

Total

Between groupsWithin groups

.005113.96

1

3718

.002

.144.016 .984

Total 113.966 721

Note : Small = 230, Medium = 492, Large = 100Table 23 showed the comparative findings on school climate based on the

perceptions of teachers and staff in elementary basic education schools on Order

Dimension, Leadership Dimension, Environment Dimension, Involvement

Dimension, Instructional Dimension, Expectation Dimension, and Collaborative

Dimension. Classified by school sizes, there were no significant differences between

teachers and staff at 0.05 level.

Part 4 The analysis findings on correlation coefficient between school culture

variables and school climate variables based on perceptions of teachers and staff in

elementary basic education schools.

The data were analyzed to investigate the research objectives 5, 6, and 7

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was applied to find the correlation

coefficient ( r ). Data analysis findings were as follows:

The correlation coefficient (r) between six variables of school cultures and

seven variables of school climate were investigated. The six variables of school

cultures were; (1) Collaborative Leadership (COL), (2) Teacher Collaboration

(TEA), (3) Professional Development (PRO), (4) Unity of Purpose (UNI), ( 5)

Collegial Support (COLE), and (6) Learning Partnership (LERN), and seven

variables of school climate were; (1) Order Dimension (ORD), (2) Leadership

Dimension (LEAD), (3) Environment Dimension (ENVI), (4) Involvement

Dimension (INV), (5) Instructional Dimension (INS), (6) Expectation Dimension

(EXP), and (7) Collaborative Dimension (COLL). The data analysis findings were

shown in Table 24.

Table 24 Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient of teachers and staff’s perceptions about the school cultures

and school climate in elementary basic education schools

Variables COL TEA PRO UNI COLE LEAR ORD LEAD ENVI INV INS EXP COLL

COL 1.00TEA 0.79** 1.00PRO 0.77** 0.78** 1.00UNI 0.80** 0.76** 0.77** 1.00

COLE 0.72** 0.73** 0.73** 0.72** 1.00LEAR 0.75** 0.71** 0.68** 0.75** 0.64** 1.00ORD 0.49** 0.42** 0.46** 0.45** 0.41** 0.43** 1.00

LEAD 0.60** 0.54** 0.53** 0.58** 0.46** 0.55** 0.64** 1.00ENVI 0.68** 0.64** 0.65** 0.67** 0.67** 0.64** 0.61** 0.68** 1.00INV 0.60** 0.59** 0.61** 0.61** 0.52** 0.64** 0.61** 0.65** 0.74** 1.00INS 0.56** 0.58** 0.62** 0.59** 0.52** 0.58** 0.60** 0.68** 0.72** 0.71** 1.00EXP 0.50** 0.47** 0.49** 0.48** 0.41** 0.46** 0.59** 0.63** 0.55** 0.52** 0.59** 1.00

COLL 0.58** 0.61** 0.59** 0.61** 0.55** 0.57** 0.62** 0.68** 0.73** 0.69** 0.76** 0.61** 1.00

** Significant at the 0.01 level

284

Table 24 showed that the correlation coefficient between each pair of the six

variables of school cultures was high at 0.01 level in positive direction. The

correlation coefficient between Collaborative Leadership (COLL) and Unity of

Purpose (UNI) was the highest (0.80). The correlation coefficient between Collegial

Support (COLE) and Learning Partnership (LEAR) was the lowest (0.64).

The correlation coefficient between each pair of the seven variables of school

climate was high at 0.01 significant level in positive direction. The correlation

coefficient between Instructional Dimension (INS) and Collaborative Dimension

(COLL) was the highest (0.76). The correlation coefficient between Expectation

Dimension (EXP) and Involvement Dimension (INV) was the lowest (0.52).

The correlation coefficient between each of the external pairs of the six

variables of school culture and the seven variables of school climate was significantly

different at 0.01 level in positive direction. The correlation coefficient between

Environment Dimension (ENVI), and Collaborative Dimension (COLL) was the

highest (0.68). The correlation coefficients between the Order Dimension (ORD) and

Collegial Support (COLE), and between Expectation Dimension (EXP) and Collegial

Support (COLE) were the lowest (0.41).

CHAPTER V

285

SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

In this chapter, the purpose of the study, research hypothesis, research

methodology, and the research findings were summarized, and discussions and

recommendations were presented as follows:

5.1 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this research was to investigate the perceptions of teacher and

staffs on school culture and school climate of elementary basic education schools in

accordance with the following seven guided research questions:

1. To what degree did elementary basic education schools demonstrate the

school culture characteristics in terms of: 1) Collaborative Leadership, 2) Teacher

Collaborative, 3) Professional Development, 4) Unity of Purpose, 5) Collegial

Support, and 6) Learning Partnership?

2. Were there significant differences in school culture in elementary basic

education schools based on teachers and staffs’ perceptions classified by gender,

education levels, working status, age, working experiences, and school sizes?

3. To what degree did elementary basic education school demonstrate the

school climate characteristics in terms of: 1) Order Dimension, 2) Leadership

Dimension, 3) Environment Dimension, 4) Involvement Dimension, 5) Instruction

Dimension, 6) Expectation Dimension, and 7) Collaborative Dimension?

4. Were there significant differences in school climate in elementary basic

education schools based on teachers and staffs’ perceptions classified by gender,

education levels, working status, age, working experiences, and school sizes?

5. Were there significant correlation among six variables of school culture in

terms of: 1) Collaborative Leadership, 2) Teacher Collaborative, 3) Professional

Development, 4) Unity of Purpose, 5) Collegial Support, and 6) Learning Partnership?

6. Were there significant correlation among seven variables of school climate

in terms of: 1) Order Dimension, 2) Leadership Dimension, 3) Environment

Dimension, 4) Involvement Dimension, 5) Instruction Dimension, 6) Expectation

Dimension, and 7) Collaborative Dimension?

7. Were there significant correlation among six variables of school culture and

seven variables of school climate?

5.2 Research hypothesis

There were many significant differences between school culture and school

climate according to four guided research hypotheses as follows:

1. There was a significant difference in the perceptions of teachers and staff on

school climate, and school culture of elementary basic education school classified by

gender, education level, working status, age, working experiences, and school sizes.

2. There was significant correlation among six variables of school culture; 1)

Collaborative Leadership, 2) Teacher Collaborative, 3) Professional Development, 4)

Unity of Purpose, 5) Collegial Support, and 6) Learning Partnership.

3. There was significant correlation among seven variables of school climate;

1) Order Dimension, 2) Leadership Dimension, 3) Environment Dimension, 4)

Involvement Dimension, 5) Instruction Dimension, 6) Expectation Dimension, and 7)

Collaborative Dimension.

4. There was significant correlation among six variables of school culture and

seven variables of school climate.

5.3 Research methodology

The population used in this research were teachers and staffs of 31,484

schools, under jurisdiction of the Office of Basic School Commission, Primary

Education in the 2009 school year (Office of Basic Education Commission, 2009).

398 schools were determined as the samples by using Multi-Staged Random

Sampling. The respondents were 1 teacher and 1 staff in each school.

The instrument used in this research was a Questionnaire consisting of 3 parts;

Part 1: was the Checklist Questionnaire of respondents’ demographic data,

Part 2: was the Likert’s five-level rating scale of School Culture Survey,

Part 3: was the Likert’s five-level rating scale of School Climate Inventory.

Descriptive statistics were applied to obtain frequency and percentage of the

informants’ demographic data, and to analyze the Mean, Standard Deviation of the

level of the informants’ perceptions on school culture variables and school climate

variables. T-test and One-Way ANOVA were applied for inferential statistics, and the

computer program, SPSS Statistics 11.5 BASE for Windows, was applied for

Pearson’s product moment coefficient.

5.4 The findings

5.4.1 According to the respondents’ demographic data analysis, there were

361 teachers, and 361 staffs. Of the teachers, there were 66.48% females, 40.17%

ages ranging from 51 to 60 years old, 73.78% with Bachelor Degrees, 31.86% with

working experiences ranging from 21-30 years, and 57.35% working in medium-sized

schools. Of the staff, there were 65.37 % females, 34.63% with ages ranging from 51

to 60 years old, 91.14% with Bachelor Degrees, 36.56% with working experiences

ranging from 1 to 10 years, and 51.25% working in medium-sized schools.

5.4.2 Degrees demonstrated by elementary basic education schools on

school culture characteristics.

The school culture characteristics demonstrated by elementary basic education

schools based on perceptions of teachers and staffs were found in overall at high level

( = 4.03), and the Standard Deviation in overall was at low level (S.D. = 0.42).

Every aspect of school culture was rated high. The mean ( ) values of the aspects

ranging from high to low were Collegial Support ( = 4.09), Collaborative

Leadership ( = 4.07), Unity of Purpose ( = 4.05), Professional Development ( =

4.03), Learning Partnership ( = 3.99), and Teacher Collaboration ( = 3.92). Every

item of each aspect was rated high. The Standard Deviation of each of the aspects

and each of the items were from 0.42 to 0.76. That showed that the school culture

perceived by teachers and staffs were scattered from “Low” level to “High” level

from the center.

5.4.3 Comparison of school culture for elementary basic education schools

classified by gender, educational levels, working status, age, working experience,

and school size.

5.4.3.1 Classified by gender, the aspects; Teacher Collaboration,

Professional Development, Collegial Support, and Learning Partnership, were found

significantly different at 0.01 level, and Unity Purpose at 0.05. Every aspect of school

culture was perceived more by female teachers and staffs than by the males.

5.4.3.2 Classified by education levels, the overall and the aspects;

Collaborative Leadership, Teacher Collaboration, Unity of Purpose, and Collegial

Support were found significantly different at 0.01 level. The school culture perceived

by teachers and staffs with master’s degrees were higher than by those with

bachelor’s degrees.

5.4.3.3 Classified by working status, the aspects Collaborative

Leadership and the Professional Development were found significantly different at

0.01 level. Every aspect of the school culture except the Learning Partnership was

perceived by the staffs was in higher than by the teachers.

5.4.3.4 Classified by age, were found no aspect of the school culture

showed any significant difference at 0.05 level.

5.4.3.5 Classified by working experiences, the Collaborative

Leadership showed significant differences. When the aspects of school culture were

paired by Scheffe’s Technique, there were no significant differences at 0.05 level.

5.4.3.6 Classified by school sizes, no aspect of the school culture

showed any significant difference at 0.05 level.

In comparison of school culture, no aspects showed significant

differences at 0.05 level.

5.4.4 Degrees demonstrated by elementary basic education schools on

school climate characteristics.

The school climate characteristics demonstrated by elementary basic

education schools based on perceptions of teachers and staffs were found in overall at

high level ( = 3.90), and the Standard Deviation in overall was at low level ( S.D.

= 0. 38). Every aspect of school climate was rated high. The mean ( ) values of the

aspects ranging from high to low were Environment Dimension ( = 4.12),

Involvement Dimension ( = 4.03), Instruction Dimension ( = 3.93), Leadership

Dimension ( = 3.88), Order Dimension( = 3.83), Collaborative Dimension ( =

3.83), and Expectation Dimension ( = 3.69). Every item of each aspect was rated

moderate to high. The Standard Deviation of each of the aspects and each of the items

were from 0.38 to 1.29. That showed that the school climate perceived by teachers

and staffs were scattered from “Low” level to “High” level from the center.

5.4.5 Comparison of school climate of elementary basic education schools

classified by gender, educational level, working status, age, working experience,

and school size.

5.4.5.1 Classified by gender, Environment Dimension, Involvement

Dimension, Instruction Dimension, and Collaborative Dimension, were found

significantly different at 0.05 level. Every aspect of school climate were perceived

more higher by female teachers and staffs than by the males except leadership

dimension and expectation dimension.

5.4.5.2 Classified by education levels, there were no significant

differences at 0.05 level. The average values of teachers and staff with Bachelor

Degrees and those with Master Degrees were equal.

5.4.5.3 Classified by working status, there were no significant

differences at 0.05 level. The school climate perceived by teachers was higher than by

staffs except Leadership Dimension.

5.4.5.4 Classified by age, there were no significant differences between

teachers and staff at 0.05 level.

5.4.5.5 Classified by working experiences, the Expectation Dimension

was found significantly different at 0.05 level. When the aspects of school climate

were paired by Scheffe’s Technique, there were no significant differences at 0.05

level.

5.4.5.6 Classified by school sizes, there were no significant differences

between teachers and staff at 0.05 level.

5.4.6 Correlation among six variables of school culture and correlation

among seven variables of school climate.

5.4.6.1 The correlation coefficient among the school culture variables

was positively related at 0.01 level with the values from 0.68 to 0.80. The correlation

coefficient between Collaborative Leadership and the Unity of Purpose was the

highest. The lowest was between Collegial Support, and the Learning Partnership.

5.4.6.2 The correlation coefficient among the school climate variables

was positively related at 0.01 level with the values from 0.52 to 0.76. The correlation

coefficient between Instruction Dimension and Collaborative Dimension was the

highest. The lowest was between Expectation Dimension and Involvement

Dimension.

5.4.7 Correlation among six variables of school culture and seven

variables of school climate.

The correlation coefficient among school culture variables and school climate

variables was positively related at 0.01 level with the values from 0.41 to 0.68. The

correlation coefficient between the school culture Collaborative Leadership and the

school climate Environment Dimension was the highest. The lowest was between the

school culture Collegial Support and the school climate Order Dimension, and

between the school culture Collegial Support and the school climate Expectation

Dimension.

5.5 Discussions

The content of this study was divided into three parts; 1) the study of school

culture based on perception of teachers and staffs, 2) the study of school climate

based on perception of teachers and staffs, and 3) the study of relationship between

school culture variables, and school climate variables. Each part was discussed as

follows:

5.5.1 The study of school culture level based on perception of teachers and

staff, consisting of six variables - they were 1) Collaborative Leadership, 2) Teacher

Collaboration, 3) Professional Development, 4) Unity of Purpose, 5) Collegial

Support, and 6) Learning Partnership. It was found that the average value of each

aspect of the school culture was high. Major issues were discussed were as follows:

5.5.1.1 The study of school culture was to investigate the perceptions

of teachers and staff on six variables; 1) Collaborative Leadership, 2) Teacher

Collaboration, 3) Professional Development, 4) Unity of Purpose, 5) Collegial

Support, and 6) Learning Partnership, found that the overall and each aspect of school

culture was at high level. It might be because both teachers and staff were aware of

the variables. They understood their own roles and recognized the school objectives.

They collaborated and supported one another while working. As a result, they could

perceive working in diversified school culture very well. This was supported by the

research findings of Chantra Pakepingchan (2004) studied on a study of relationships

between school culture and academic performance in primary schools under

Kanchanaburee education service area. The research finding was the overall of school

culture and each of aspect were at the high level. Similarly, the research of Wilai

Maikeoaw (1995) studied on the effect of school culture and leadership forces of

administrator on performance of workers in the primary school. It was found that the

overall relationship between school culture and performance of workers in primary

school was significantly correlated high at 0.01 level in positive direction. The study

of Gruenert (1998) that the six aspects created and sustained positive school culture.

Brian David Mitchell (2009) conducted a quantitative study on school culture and

student achievement using a criterion-referenced competency test. The study revealed

that collaboration was the thread woven through all six school culture elements.

Collaborative leadership stresses the importance of the shared decision making

process. Teacher collaboration is important for student achievement. Fullan (1999)

suggested that successful schools were those with the culture that encouraged teachers

to work collaboratively. As teachers collaborate, they develop stronger instructional

strategies, and these strategies ultimately enhance student achievement. Professional

development provides opportunities for teachers and communities to learn best

teaching practices together (DuFour et al., 2005). Unity of purpose requires the efforts

of the stakeholders working together towards the common vision and mission for the

school (Brown, 2005). Collegial support encourages colleagues to share their personal

professional development experiences (Brosnan, 2003). Learning partnership is the

bond the school has with the community and the sharing of the same high

expectations for student achievement (Henderson, 1987; Henderson & Berla, 1995).

School leaders should understand the concept of collaboration within each of the six

school culture elements and should recognize the importance of focusing on fostering

an overall collaborative school culture. Collegiality together with collaboration will

lead to positive school outcomes. The researches on school culture, change, and

improvement reveal that the school is more successful when teachers are collegial and

work collaboratively on improvement activities (Levine and Lezotte, 1990; Fullan and

Hargreaves, 1991). Similarly Little (1981) and Rosenholtz (1989) discovered key

behaviors in schools with strong collegial orientations. In these school, teachers

recognized professional relationships, shared ideas, and were ready to exchange new

techniques. Teachers and administrators spent time observing one another, and

discussed the teachings through formal and informal demonstrations. Interactions

among staffs and administrators fostered more successful staff development and better

teachings.

Darling and Hammond (1997) stated that schools organized around

democratic and collaborative culture prepared students with higher achievement,

better skills and better understandings than those traditionally organized. In addition,

Fullan (1998) reported that student achievement increased substantially in schools

with collaborative work culture that fostered a professional learning community

among teachers and others, that focused continuously on improving instructional

practice in the light of student performance data, and that linked to standards and staff

development support. Similarly, Ishler et   al. (1998) investigated how collegial

support affected teachers' long-term implementation of cooperative learning, but the

needs for competence and autonomy were not included in their investigation. The

present study complemented and extended these previous studies by including all

three basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and collegial support. It

provided a more comprehensive account of the social-contextual factors that were

pertinent to the enhancement of teacher motivation. This comprehensive account was

consistent with the propositions of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

5.5.1.2 The study of school culture level classified by gender was

found that the females had higher level of perceptions than males. It might be

because the females were flexible in their work, understanding, and closer to the

students than the males. This was supported by the study of Biklen (1995). Biklen

found that the elementary school women teachers she observed and interviewed did

not view "being an administrator" as a career goal because it compromised the

commitment to children. Similarly, Acker (1995a), Biklen (1983, 1995) and Evetts

(1990) found that the women teachers were whole-heartedly doing their jobs.

5.5.1.3 The study of school culture level classified by working status

was found that the staff had higher level of perceptions than teachers. It might be

because the staffs helped and supported both of the teachers and students, and worked

closely with them. So, they might viewed the overall image of school work

thoroughly. It was supported by the findings of Yeomans’ (1989) study revealing that

help, support, trust, and openness were at the heart of a collaborative staff. Silverman

(2006) stated that employees with a best friend at work were more productive, were

likely to positively engage with customers, to share new ideas, and to stay longer in

their jobs. It wasn’t supported by the findings of Eqao Research (2009) that revealed

that teachers highly recognized the importance of their collaborative efforts and

dialogues about instructional practices in developing stronger learning culture in the

school. Student achievement increased when teachers worked together in teams of

true collaboration (DuFour & Eaker, 2005). Schmoker (2004) suggested that schools

would perform better if teachers worked in focused, supportive teams.

5.5.1.4 The study of school culture level classified by school sizes was

found that the school sizes did not affect the teachers and staffs’ perceptions on school

culture. This might be because the patterns of working systems in each school were

similar. Most of the teachers, students, and the school staffs highly recognized the

importance of learning and teaching processes and the student achievement. They

worked to serve the school objectives. Nevertheless, there were differences in

perceptions of school culture. The research support was Chantra Pakepingchan

(2004) studied on a study of relationships between school culture and academic

performance in primary schools under Kanchanaburee education service area. The

findings were: 1) the teachers in different school size did not have different school

cultures as overall and each aspect. 2) The teachers in different education service area

did not different school culture as a whole, classified by each aspect found that the

different teachers in education service area had significant different practice level in

empowerment at 0.01 level. Inconsistent, the research on Meier (1996) argued that

parents needed to be involved. The parents and teachers need to get to be acquainted

with one another. This is likely to be easier developed in smaller schools. Personal

social relations (e.g. teacher-teacher, teacher-student, student-student) and

opportunities for more varied approaches to instruction and assessment may play a

mediating role in creation of positive school culture and high academic achievement

(Lee et al., 2000; Wasley et al., 2002; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). So in smaller

schools, there may be a greater possibility to develop personal social relations and

having better opportunities of professional growth of teachers than medium and larger

schools. In smaller schools, teachers generally have better opportunities to know each

other, share ideas and materials with each other, and the head teacher can easily guide

and provides proper feedback to teachers that can contribute in the betterment of

academic achievement of students. Similarly Meier (1995), Raywid (1997),

Sizer(1996) ,and Toch (2003) stated, “smaller schools offer more opportunities for

people to know one another and for teachers to personalize learning. But the real

virtue of small schools is that they offer a better chance than large high schools to put

all of the above ingredients together and create the kind of culture just described.

Small groups have a better shot at getting members to agree upon a vision and a

mission, getting buy in from their communities, developing a curriculum tailored to

their students, increasing the amount of individualized learning, holding school-wide

conversations about improvement, and cultivating rich, productive interdependent

relationship. Small schools have a better chance of breaking teachers out of their

classroom isolation, training the entire staffs, and sustaining long term professional

development initiatives. It is easier to gather data and develop data driven decision

making systems in a small school than in a large one, and, when the data suggest

changes, it is easier to turn a small school around than a large school.”

5.5.2 The study of school climate level based on perceptions of teachers and

staffs consisted of seven variables; 1) order dimension 2) leadership dimension 3)

environment dimension 4) involvement dimension 5) instruction dimension 6)

expectation dimension 7) collaborative dimension. It was found that every variable of

the school climate was perceived by teachers and staffs at “High” level. The major

issues were discussed as follows:

5.5.2.1 Every aspect of school climate was perceived by both teachers and

staff at “High” level. This suggested that the teachers and staff were aware of their

own duty. So, the good working climate was developed. In addition, the relationship

among teachers and staffs and students’ learning achievement were recognized in

order to serve the school objectives. According to Srimala Jatuporn’s study (2005),

the means of school teacher responses was “much”. The reason was that school

teachers were aware of and recognized school goals and their own duties as teachers.

The research which investigated the relationship among school climate, student

achievement, morality and happiness revealed that the higher the school teachers

perceived school climate, the more the achievement of every learning subject

increased. Similar, research of Siriporn Khantikarn (2006) studied organizational

health and organizational climate of schools in Samut Songkram Educational Service

Area. It was found that the overall organizational climate was at “High” level. It

might be because staffs of elementary schools pay respect to and support one another,

be proud, enjoy their work and share their practice. Praphan Sodto (2002) studied the

school climate development approach in primary school. The research findings were:

1) The levels of school climate factors of Watthungkok school were overall at high

level. When classified by each aspect, it was found that each aspect was at high level,

except opportunity for input factor which was at the moderate level. 2) The separation

of thinking between administrative teachers and classroom teachers about the climate

in school was not different. 3) The ways to develop climate in primary school about

the opportunity for input factor was that the administrator should support all the

teachers in the school to have; the opportunity of thinking, the opportunity to share

the opinion and the opportunity to work together in order to get the successful work.

According to the study of Anderson (1982), there were more than half that

reported effects of school climate on student achievement. High students' achievement

is associated with high teacher commitment or engagement, positive peer norms, an

emphasis on group or team cooperation, high level of expectation held by teachers

and administrators, consistency in administering rewards and punishments, consensus

over curriculum and discipline, and clearly defined goals and objectives. Some of

these relationships between school climate and student achievement remain

significant after students' background characteristics are controlled. Similarly, a

number of studies have explored the relationships between teacher commitment and

factors of school climate. Strong associations have been reported between

organizational commitment and climate openness (McDaniel, 1992), collegiality

(Combs, 1995; Firestone & Pennel, 1993), collaboration (Gibson, 1996; Hatton, 1996;

Rosenholtz, 1989), and teacher empowerment (Hornung, 1995). Overall, these studies

make a strong case for a relationship between the climate of a school and the level of

teacher commitment. Hirase (2000) and Erpelding (1999) research found that schools

with a positive climate had higher academic achievement. Krawczyk (2007) found a

positive relationship between student academic performance and teacher perceptions

of the overall school climate.

5.5.2.2 The study of school climate level classified by gender revealed

that females’ average value of school climate perceptions was higher than that of

males. It might be because females paid more attention to different kinds of

environment than males. Furthermore, they had an attempt in working to accomplish

goal and mission of school more than males. Hrebiniak & Alutto (1977), Reyes

(1992), and Steers (1997) supported that women were consistently more committed

to their employing organizations than men (Steers, 1997). Donmez’s (1992) research

was different, it showed that, classified by gender, both groups perceived the

organizational climate at “middle” level or as “mild climate”. The findings on Supcin

(2000) showed that female teachers were affected from the organizational climate of

school in a more negative way than the males. In addition, the findings on Acet’s

(2006) research on elementary schools revealed that male teachers perceived the

organizational climate in a more positive way than the females did. Gunbayi, Ilhan

(2007) found that there was a trend for men to report higher open climate than women

in intimacy, support and member conflict.

5.5.2.3 The study of school climate level classified by working status revealed

that the level of perception in school climate of teachers was higher than that of the

staffs. It might be because the teachers were more satisfied with their roles and duties

and happier to work than the staffs. This was supported by the findings on

Bahamonde-Gunnell (2000) found that teachers who were satisfied with their jobs had

more positive views about school climate than those who were not satisfied.

Similarly, Hirase's (2000) research found that teachers have in good climate schools

had a greater sense of work-efficacy. Erpelding (1999) found that there was a strong

relationship between teacher autonomy and school climate. This was not supported by

the findings of research on Charunlak Paensuk’s (2005) study on organizational

climate and job satisfaction of personnel of Wang Klai Kang Won School revealed

that the organizational climate aspects should be correlated and in same direction.

Administrator should recognize and foster the personnel more as they perform

important tasks in the organization. The administrator should recognize and response

to the needs and feelings of personnel if he expects to lead the organization to

efficiency and effectiveness.

5.5.2.4 The study of school climate level classified by school sizes revealed

that the school sizes did not affect the teachers and staffs’ perceptions on school

climate. It might be because schools of any size had similar management patterns and

working environment of learning and teachings focusing on students’ learning

achievement. As a result, there were no differences in school climate. It was not

supported by the findings of research on Phatcharee Srichan-ngam (1999) on the

organizational climate in large elementary schools under the jurisdiction of the

Bangkok Metropolitan Administration revealed that: 1) The organizational climate in

large elementary schools under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Administration

according to the variables of the eight aspects of organizational climate including:

Leadership process, Motivational forces, Decision-making process, Goal setting or

Ordering, Control process, Performance goals and Training were found in

consultative patterns. 2) The organizational climate was found in the combination of

consultative and benevolent authoritative patterns. The findings on Raywid (1999)

pointed out that the studies indicated that smaller schools allowed more opportunities

for students to be involved in co-curricular activities, and paid more attention to the

individuals. Similarly, Tucker (1997) found that small schools had better learning

climate than large schools. That was due to the acquaintance of the faculty and

students in smaller schools. And this could affect the levels of openness, trust,

cooperation, atmosphere and other culture and climate variables that would directly or

indirectly affect the students’ achievement. The findings on Cotton (1996, 2001)

concluded that smaller schools yielded better academic results and provided better

school climate. Furthermore, Walberg (1992) revealed that the higher rates of parent

involvement in smaller schools/units were frequently cited as major positive influence

on students’ achievement and attitudes. Pittman and Haughwout (1987) found

smaller-sized schools to be strongly correlated with a composite measure of school

climate in terms of student participation, interaction with faculty, sense of cohesion

and infrequent discipline problems.

5.5.3 The study of the relationship between the school culture variables

and school climate variables showed that the highest level of relationship was

between the school culture variable Collaborative Leadership (COL) and the school

climate variable Environment Dimension (ENVI) in positive direction at 0.01

significant level. The teachers and staffs worked collaboratively under the

administrators’ efforts. In addition, good environment for enhancing the complete

implementation needed to be included. The research conducted by Samniang

Wilamas’s (1999) study on school climate affecting to teachers’ commitment revealed

that the climate of most of the primary schools was open, the teachers’ commitment

was high, and the climate that positively affected the teachers’ commitment was the

support dimension whereas the non-collaboration dimension negatively affected the

teachers’ commitment. The findings on Bulach and Berry (2001) revealed that 25

schools provided norms for schools of different settings. This allowed school officials

to compare their data against those of other schools. The research concluded that most

schools did not have good climate. There were only two elementary schools with

average score over 32.0 indicating that a good culture and climate were present.

Furthermore, it added that elementary schools had much better climate than middle

and high schools. It was possible that more well-behaved elementary students were

responsible for the better climate and not school sizes. Regarding urban schools, it

was likely that they had less positive culture and climates, but the small number of

schools involved in this study was not consistent with such conclusion. Similarly, De-

Roche (1997) mentioned the culture climate relationship as: Culture is to meteorology

(the study of weather) as climate is to climatology (the study of weather in a specific

area or location). The school had culture, the classroom had climate. Both influenced

and affected one another. What we had been calling school climate might be

described as the school culture in terms of its organizational health, its safety and

orderliness, its rites, its goals and regulations, and so on. While the commitment to

improve the culture of a school might take sometimes, it seemed that principals,

teachers, and others could begin to improve some of the climate factors immediately.

Since the school climate and the classroom climate were interrelated, it was best, not

to focus on the dichotomy but rather to suggest that both could be enhanced to

improve the quality of the education taking place in the school.

5.6 Recommendations

According to the above findings, there were two major recommendations: the

findings application, and future research conducting as follows:

5.6.1 Recommendation for the findings application

5.6.1.1 School culture

1) Although the research findings revealed that the six aspects of

school culture; Collaborative Leadership, Teacher Collaboration, Professional

Development, Unity of Purpose, Collegial Support, and Learning Partnership were

each and overall rated at high level, the teachers and the staffs should be develop and

improve the six culture aspects for the schools to be more efficient and effective.

2) The comparative research findings on school culture classified by

gender revealed that there were significant differences in Teacher Collaboration,

Professional Development, Collegial Support, Learning Partnership, and Unity of

Purpose. Females had higher level of perceptions on the school culture than males.

Therefore, the teachers and male staffs should be encouraged to acquire more of the

following school culture aspects: the Teacher Collaboration, Professional

Development, Collegial Support, Learning Partnership, and Unity of Purpose.

3) The comparative research findings on school culture classified by

education levels revealed that there were significant differences in overall and the

following aspects; Collaborative Leadership, Teacher Collaboration, Unity of

Purpose, and Collegial Support. The perception of teachers and staffs with master’s

degrees was higher than that of those with bachelor’s degrees. Therefore, the teachers

and staffs with bachelor’s degrees should be fostered to develop their perceptions on

school culture in overall and the following aspects: Collaborative Leadership, Teacher

Collaboration, Unity of Purpose, and Collegial Support.

4) The comparative research findings on school culture classified by

working position revealed that there were significant differences in two aspects:

Collaborative Leadership and Professional Development. The perception level of

staff was higher than that of teachers, except Learning Partnership. Therefore, the

staff should be fostered to acquire more of Learning Partnership.

5) The comparative research findings on school culture classified by

age revealed that there were no significant differences in the following aspects:

Collaborative Leadership, Teacher Collaboration, Professional Development, Unity of

Purpose, Collegial Support, and Learning Partnership. Therefore, all of the teachers

and staff should be fostered to acquire more of all of the aspects be better.

6) The comparative research findings on school culture classified by

working experiences revealed that there were significant differences in Collaborative

Leadership. Therefore, the teachers and staff with any working experiences should be

fostered to acquire more of Collaborative Leadership be better and for long.

7) The comparative research findings on school culture classified by

school sizes revealed that there were no significant differences in Collaborative

Leadership, Teacher Collaboration, Professional Development, Unity of Purpose,

Collegial Support, and Learning Partnership. Therefore, all of the teachers and staffs

should be fostered to acquire more of all of the aspects be better.

5.6.1.2 School climate

1) The research findings of school climate level perceived by teachers

and staffs were valued high in overall and in each aspect. Each item was found that:

(1) Of the Order dimension, the items “Student’s misbehavior

in this school interferes the teachings, and Student’s tardiness and absence from

school is a major problem” were at moderate level. Therefore the teachers and staffs

should encourage the students to participate more in learning and teaching activities.

(2) Of the Leadership dimension, the item “The administrative

staff do not protect enough instructional time” was at “moderate” level. Therefore,

the administrators should provide more time for teachers to prepare different learning

and teaching activities.

(3) Of the Instruction dimension, the item “Pull out the

programs that often disrupt and interferes basic instruction skills” was at “moderate”

level. Therefore, the teachers should be prepared with appropriate lesson plans based

on the individual differences. Too much difficult and complex technique teaching

plans are not appropriate for the whole class.

(4) Of the Expectation dimension, the item “Many students

are not expected to master basic skills at each grade level”, and “Many students do

not participate in classroom and school activities because of their gender, race,

religion, socioeconomic status, or academic ability”, were at “Moderate” level.

Therefore, the teachers should expect only what students can do in accordance with

their potentiality. They should not set high expectations for all students. In addition,

they should allow students to participate different activities appropriate to their

gender, race, religion, economic, or status. Students should be free to show off their

competency.

(5) Of the Collaborative dimension, the item “Teachers do not

participate enough in decision making” was at “Moderate” level. Therefore,

Elementary School teachers and staffs should be encouraged to participate more in

decision making.

2) The comparative research findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff classified by gender revealed that there were

significant differences in the following aspects: the Environment Dimension,

Involvement Dimension, Instruction Dimension, and Collaborative Dimension.

Females perceived the school climate at higher level than males, except Leadership

Dimension, and Expectation Dimension. Therefore, both of male and female teachers

and staff should be encouraged to participate more in working together. In addition,

they should collaborate in planning and solving the students’ problems so that the

students would have better learning achievement, and the school would be more

efficient.

3) The comparative research findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff classified by education levels revealed that there

were no significant differences. Therefore the teachers and staff both with bachelor’s

degrees and master’s degrees should be encouraged to collaborate in working and

helping each other.

4) The comparative research findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff classified by working status revealed that were no

significant differences in every aspect. The teachers had higher level of perceptions

than the staffs, except in Leadership Dimension. Therefore, the teachers should be

encouraged to acquire Leadership Dimension.

5) The comparative research findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff classified by age revealed that were no significant

differences in every aspect. Therefore, the teachers and staffs should be encouraged

to improve all of the seven aspects of school climate be better.

6) The comparative research findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff classified by working experiences revealed that were

significant differences in the Expectation Dimension. Therefore, the teachers and

staffs should be enhanced to improve school climate in the Expectation Dimension.

Furthermore, they should not set too high expectations for students. The students

should be encouraged to improve themselves with full potential in every aspect.

7) The comparative research findings on school climate based on

perceptions of teachers and staff classified by school size revealed that were no

significant differences in every aspect. Therefore, all of seven aspects of school

climate should be developed to better.

5.6.1.3 The research findings revealed that there was positive correlation

among the school culture variables and school climate variables in the following

pairs; between Order Dimension and Collegial Support, and between Expectation

Dimension and Collegial Support at “Moderate” level. Therefore, it can be explained

that:

1) The teachers and staff should enhance the climate of working

together with well-organized instruction, and expect students to behave well and to

learn things in proper ways with good working culture – being supportive and

considerate of one another.

2) The administrators, teachers, and staff should clearly determine rule

and regulation of students appropriate behavior so that the students could practice

correctly.

3) The teachers and staff should encourage students to learn or work

with their full potentiality but they shouldn’t set too high expectations on students.

4) The administrators should encourage the teachers and staff to work

together to gain trust and to recognize one another’s value.

5.6.2 Recommendations for future researches

Recommendations for future researches are as follows:

5.6.2.1 This research was in a study framework of six school culture

variables, and seven school climate variables applied with One-way ANOVA, and

Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. The samples were teachers and

staffs working in elementary basic education schools. The research findings were

similar regarding the school differences. It would be interesting should school

cultures of higher educational institutes like Secondary Education School,

Vocational College, Technical College, and Higher Education levels be studied. The

differences or school culture characteristics, and specific school climate of different

contexts would be clearly specified.

5.6.2.2 There should be varied and updated conceptual frameworks,

variables and theories of School Culture and School Climate to explain the studies.

Researches need to be conducted for new knowledge bodies of School Culture and

School Climate.

5.6.2.3 Qualitative Researches of School Culture and School Climate

should be conducted to get more reliable results. The school culture and school

climate of studied schools compared with successful schools will yield interesting

results. Later on, the results of both Quantitative Research and Qualitative Research

should be developed as overall research conclusion that will consequently be useful

for concerned people.

5.2.4 This research findings should be studied again to confirm the

past results, the differences and to get the guidelines for further studies like; the

Linear Equation Model, Grounded Theory Study, Participatory Action Research,

Research and Development. The researches of School Culture and School Climate in

different contexts and with different samples should also be conducted.

REFERENCES

Acker, S. (1995a). Gender and teacher's work. Review of research in education.

Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Andrea, J.Q., & Beh, B.Sc. (2005). School leadership, culture, and teacher stress:

Implications for problem students. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of

the School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, U.S.A.

Andrew, L.S. (2006). A Study of the relationship between school culture and

standardized test scores. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Management in

Organizational Leadership, University of Phoenix, U.S.A.

Anyon, J. (1995). Race, social class, and educational reform in an inner-city school.

Teachers College Record, 97(1), 69-94.

Ashforth, S.J. (1985). Climate formations: Issues and extensions. Academy of

Management Review, 25, 837-847.

Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. Belmont, California: Wadsworth

Publishing.

Bahamonde-Gunnell, M. A. (2000). Teachers perceptions of school culture in relation

to job satisfaction and commitment. Dissertation Abstracts International,

61(09), 3419.

Barth, R. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.

Bates, R.J. (1987). Corporate culture, schooling and educational administration.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(4), 79 -115.

Beau, G., & Presley, Cobb., & Kiahhn, J. (2004). Nine points to improve

school climate. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://usfcollab.fmhi.usf.edu

Biklen, S. K. (1983). Teaching as an occupation for women: A case study of an

elementary school. New York: State University of New York Press.

__________. (1995). School work: Gender and the cultural construction of

teaching. New York: State University of New York Press.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness:

A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30,

509-534.

Borich, G. (1999). Effective teaching methods. Columbus , OH: Merrill Publishing.

Brownell, M., Noralou, R., Randy, F. et al. (2006). Is the glass half empty?

A population-based perspective on socioeconomic status and educational

outcomes. IRPP Choices, 12(5).

Bulach, C.R., & Malone, B. (1994). The relationship of school climate to the

implementation of school reform. ERS SPECTRUM: Journal of School

Research and Information, 12(4), 3-9.

Burke, M.A., & Baca, R., & Picus, L.O., & Jones, C.E. (2003). Leveraging resources

for student success: How school leaders build equity. Thousand Oaks,

California: Corwin Press.

Cavanagh, R.F., & Dellar, G. B. (1997). Towards a model of school culture. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association. Chicago.

Chad M. Brinton. (2007). Comparing perceptions about collaborative culture

from certified and non-certified staff members through the adaptations of

The School Culture Survey-Teacher Form. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department

of Graduate school, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.A.

Chaiwat Sakuna. (1997). The environment and atmosphere of primary school

under the jurisdiction of the office of provincial primary education,

Phitsanulok. Master thesis in Education, Graduate School, Naraesuan

University.

Chantra Pakepiangchan. (2004). A study of the relationships between school

culture and academic performance in Primary School under

Kanchanaburi Education Service are office. Master thesis in Education,

Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot University.

Chapman, C., & Harris, A. (2004). Strategies for school improvement in schools

facing challenging circumstances. Educational Research, 46(3), 219-228.

Charunlak Paensuk. (2005). Organization climate and job satisfaction of personnel

of Wang Klai Kang Won School. Mater thesis in Education, Graduate

School, Rajabhat Thonburi University.

Chery, L., & Markuten, B. (2005). Organizational culture and student

empowerment in Baccalaureate Nursing Programs. Ph.D. Dissertation,

Department of Graduate College of Nursing, Kent State University, U.S.A.

Chuck Saufler. (2005). School climate and culture. Retrieved October 10, 2010,

from http://www.safeschoolsforall.com/schoolclimate.html

Clark, D., &Lotto, L., & Astuto, T. (1984). Effective schools and school

improvement:  A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 41-68.

Cooper, B.,& Brna, P., & Martins, A. (2000). Effective affective in intelligent

systems building on evidence of empathy in teaching and learning, Affect

in interactions: Towards a new generation of computer interfaces. Berlin:

Springer.

Cox, T.H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory research and

practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cunningham, W.G.,& Gresso, D.W. (1993). Cultural leadership: The culture of

excellence in education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cusick, P. A. (1987). Organizational culture and schools. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 23, 3-117.

De Roche, C. (1997). Organizational culture: Managementcentrism and conceptual

imperialism. Studies in Organizations, Cultures and Societies, 4(1), 35-70.

David, J. D., & Kim, K. (2002). Sense of school membership: A mediating

mechanism linking student perceptions of school culture with academic

and behavioral functioning (Baseline data report of the school culture

project). Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.camh.net

Davis, K. (1981). Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Deal, T.E. (1987). The culture of schools. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

________. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco,

California: Jossey Bass.

Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture.

Washington, DC: Department of Education.

Donmez, B. (1992). Organizational climate of 1nonu University. 1nonu:

University Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu.

Dufour, R. (1997). The school as a learning organization: Recommendations for

school improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 81-87.

Englert, R.M. (1993). Understanding the urban context and conditions of

practice of school administration, city schools: Leading the way. Newbury

Park, California: Corwin Press.

Engels, N., & Hotton, G., & Devos, G., & Bouckenooghe, & Aelterman, A. (2008).

Principals in schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies,

34(3), 159-174.

Erikson, F. E. (1987). Conceptions of school culture an overview. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 23(4), 11-24.

Erpelding, C.J. (1999). School vision, teacher autonomy, school climate and student

achievement in elementary schools. Dissertation Abstract International,

60(5), 1405.

Evetts, J. (1990). Women in primary teaching: Career contexts and strategies.

London: Unwin Hyman.

Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical

underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal,

30(2): 295-310.

Fieman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R.E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. New York:

Macmillan.

Finnan, C. (2000). Implementing school reform models: Why is it so hard

for some schools and easy for others?. Paper presented at the meeting of the

American Educational Research Association. New Orleans.

Firestone, W., & Wilson, B. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to

improve instruction: The principal’s contribution. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 7-30.

Fred, C.L., & Allan, C.O. (1996). Educational administration: Concepts and

practices. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.

Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant pedagogy.

New York: Macmillan.

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Gary, M. C., & Louise, J.M., & Lloyd, E. Mc. (1996). Leadership: A relevant and

realistic role for principals. Princeton, New Jersey: Eye on Education.

Graham, H. (2000). Strategic management : Thinking, analysis and action.

Australia: Prentice Hall.

Gruenert, S. (1998). Development of a school culture survey. Columbia, Missouri:

University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.A.

________., & Valentine, J.W. (1998). The school culture survey. Columbia,

Missouri: University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.A.

Gunbayi, I. (2007). School climate and teacher’s perceptions on climate factors :

Research into nine urban high schools. The Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology, 6(3),70-78.

Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administration:

A case of finding out what you don’t know you don’t know. Journal of

Educational Administration, 34(5), 98-116.

__________ . (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on leadership.

Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 126-151.

Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change. New York:

Teachers College Press.

__________. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement.

British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 487-503.

__________., & Macmillan, R. (1992). Balkanized secondary schools and the

malaise of modernity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association. San Francisco, California.

Hirase, S. K. (2000). School climate. Dissertation Abstracts International,

61(02), 439.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:

Mc Graw Hill.

Hollins, E.R. (1996). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning.

Mahwah, New Jersey: Erbaum.

Hopkins, D. (1990). Changing school culture through staff development.

Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Hopkins, D., & Ainscow, M., & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of

change. New York: Teacher College Press.

Hoy, W., & Tarter, C., & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools.

Newbury Park, California: A Sage Publications.

Hrebiniak, L., & Alutto, J. (1977). Personal and role related factors in the

development of organizational communication. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 17, 555-572.

Itthipon Srirattana. (2007). School based management and organizational climate

of the Catholic Schools in Bangkok Archdiocese. Master thesis in

Education, Graduate School, Silpakorn University.

James, L.G., & John, M.I., & James, H.D., Jr., &Robert, K. (2006). Organization

behavior structure processes. Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Jerald, C.D. (2006). School culture: The hidden curriculum.

Retrieved November 22, 2010 from http://www.readingrockets.org

Jerry, L.P., & Stewart, C.P., & Jackson, V.P. (1986). Productive school

systems for a non rational world. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jerry, V. (2009). The middle level leadership center (MLLC). Retrieved

May 23, 2009, from http://www.mllc.org

John, B.M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Foundations, theories, and

analyses. New York: Oxford University Press.

John, I.G. (1975). Dynamics of educational change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kanter, E. (1983). The change masters. New York: Touchstone.

Kenna, M.C. (1999). Coming to know a school culture. Ph.D. Dissertation,

Department of Education in School Leadership (Teaching and Learning),

Virginia State University, U.S.A.

Kenneth, K.W., & Anna, N. (2007). Successful school and educational

accountability: Concepts and skills to meet leadership challenges. United

State: Pearson Education.

Kuck, G. (2000). Improving school cultures-without a word. Lutheran Education,

136(2), 141-142.

LDR. (2002). Climate overview. Retrieved August 08, 2010, from

http://www.ldrgroup.com\climateoverview.html

Louis, J.M., & Gary, M.C. (2003). Being and become a principal : Role

conceptions for contemporary principals and assistant principals. United

State: Pearson Education.

McLaughlin, M. (2004). Community counts: How youth organizations matter for

youth development. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.

Mikie, L., & Loren, R.T. (2005). Leading effective secondary school reform.

California: A Sage Publications.

Mingkwan Kittiwannakorn. (2008). Transformational leadership and instructional

leadership of school principals, school culture and teaching behaviors of

teachers influencing characteristics of students’ learning in Bangkok

Metropolitan Administration School. Retrieved March 09, 2011, from

http://www.withayajarn.com

Mortimore, P., & Sammons, P., & Stoll, L., & Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School

matters: The junior years. London: Paul Chapman.

Muk, M., & Flynn, M. (1998). Effect of catholic school culture on students’

achievement in the higher school certificate examination: a multilevel path

analysis. Educational Psychology, 8(4), 409-432.

Ninan, M. (2006). School climate and its impact on school effectiveness : A case

study. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness

and Improvement at Fort Lauderdale, Florida-USA.

Nadine, E., & Gwendoline, H., & Geert, D., & Dave, B., & Antonia, A. (2008).

Principals in schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies,

34(3), 159-174.

Nonglak Ruoenthong. (1992). Organizational culture influence the District

Education Office. Master thesis of Education, Graduate School, Silpakorn

University.

Office of The Basic Education Commission Department Operation Center. (2009).

Data on web. Retrieved July 25, 2009, from http://doc.obec.go.th

Ohlson, M. (2009). A study of school culture, leadership, teacher quality

and student outcomes via a performance framework in elementary

schools participating in a school reform initiative. Ph.D. Dissertation,

Department of Philosophy, University of Florida, U.S.A.

Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese

challenge. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Owens, R.G., & Steinhoff, C.R. (1989). Towards a theory of organizational culture.

Journal of Educational Administration, 27(3), 6-16.

Oytip Sutthitep. (2000). School culture affecting academic performance in

primary school under Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. Master

thesis in Education, Graduate School, Silpakorn University.

Pashiardi, G. (2000). School climate in elementary and secondary schools: Views of

Cypriot principals and teachers. International Journal of Educational

Management, 14(4), 224-237.

Peter, L. (1997). The influence of organizational culture, subculture, leadership

style and job satisfaction on organizational commitment.

Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of Technology,

Australia.

Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York : Harper

and Row Publishers.

Petra, E.S., & Richard, A.G. (2002). School leadership and administration:

Important concepts, case studies, & simulations. New York: MCGraw-Hill.

Phatcharee Srichan-ngam. (1999). The organizational climate in large elementary

schools under the jurisdiction of the Bangkok Metropolitan

Administration. Master thesis in Education, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn

University.

Phillips, G. (1996). Classroom rituals for at-risk learners. Vancouver: Educserv,

British Columbia School Trustees Publishing.

Pinit Ratanakul. (1990). Thailand: Refining Cultural Values. The Hastings Center

Report [serial online] 1990; 20.

Praphan Sodto. (2002). The school climate development approach in primary

school. Master thesis in Education, Graduate School, Silpakorn University.

Ralf, M. (2001). School culture and school performance. Ph.D. Dissertation,

Department of Philosophy, University of Twents, Netherlands.

Reyes, P. (1992). Organizational orientation in public and private elementary schools.

Journal of Educational Research, 87, 86-93.

Riley, K.A., & Rustique-Forrester, E. (2002). Working with disaffected students.

London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Roach, A.T., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2004). Evaluating school climate and school

culture. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37, 10-17.

Robbins, P., & Alvy, H.B. (1995). The principal’s companion. California: Corwin

Press.

Robert, F.C. (1997). The culture and improvement of Western Australian senior

secondary schools. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Philosophy, Curtin

University of Technology, Australia.

Robert, M., & Scott, M., & Frederick, H., & Aprill, G. (2001). School choice in the

real world: Lessons from Arizona charter schools. Colorado: Westview

Press.

Ronald, L. (2009). The role of organizational climate and culture in the

school improvement process: A review of the knowledge base. Retrieved

May 1, 2009, from http://cnx.org/content/

Rossman, G., & Corbett, D., & Firestone, W. (1988). Change and effectiveness in

schools: A cultural perspective. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Research for

Better Schools.

Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2000). Pupil participation and pupil perspective: Carving a

new order of experience. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 75-89.

Samniang Wilamas. (1999). School climate affecting to teacher commitment under

the jurisdiction of the office of primary education of Nakorn Pathom

Province. Master thesis in Education, Graduate School, Silpakorn University.

Sarason, S.B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco CA:

Jossey - Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. (2001). The principal ship: A reflective practice. San Antonio,

TX: Trinity Press.

Sirichai Karnjanawasee. (2009). Applied statistics for behavioral research.

Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.

Siriporn Khantikarn. (2006). Organization health and organization climate of

schools in education service area, Samut Songkhram. Master thesis in

Education, Graduate School, Silpakorn University.

Smyth, W.J. (2000). Teachers’ work in a globalizing economy. London: Falmer

Press.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2009). The school culture.

Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.sedl.org/change/school/

Srimala Jatuporn. (2005). The climate of secondary schools in northeast Thailand:

The relationships among school climate, student achievement, morality,

and happiness. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Education, Khon Kaen

University.

Stanley, B.S. (2006). Reaction of employees to performance appraisal

interviews as a function of their participation in rating scale development.

Retrieved January 02, 2011, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Starratt, R. (1993). Levels of culture. Retrieved December 08, 2010, from

http://www.det.nse.edu.au

Steers, R.M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1998). The cruising school: The unidentified ineffective

School. London: Falmer Press.

Stolp, S.W., & Smith, S.C. (1995). School management and organization;

School environment; School improvement programs; Educational

leadership; School principals; United States. University of Oregon, U.S.A.

Supcin, E. (2008). Organizational climate and academic staff’s perception on

climate factors. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 3(1), 37-48.

Surin Niyamang-goon. (1999). Sampling techniques. Bangkok: Kasetsart

University.

The Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis. (1989).

The school climate inventory. Retrieved December 11, 2011, from

http://umdrive.memphis.edu

Thomas J. Sergiovanni , Martin Burlingame , Fred S. Coombs , & Paul W. Thurston

(1999). Educational governance and administration. Massachusetts: Allyn

& Bacon.

Thrupp, M. (1997). The school mix effect: How the social class composition of

school intakes shapes school processes and student achievement. Paper

presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Chicago.

Tony, B. (1995). Theories of educational management. Leicester: Paul Chapman

Publishing.

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

Wayne, K.H. (1990). Organizational climate and culture: A conceptual analysis of

the school workplace. Journal of Educational and Psychological

Consultation, 1(2), 149 – 168.

________ . (2002). Theory and research in educational administration.

Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

________ . (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice.

7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

________ ., & Cecil G. Miskel (2001). Educational administration: Theory,

research, and practice. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wilai Maikeoaw. (1995). The effect of school culture and leadership forces of

administrator on performance of workers in the primary school. Master

thesis in Education, Graduate School, Silpakorn University.

Willis, D.H., & Donald, L.R. (2002). The keys to effective schools: Educational

reform as continuous improvement. California: Corwin Press.

Worapot Suttisai. (1993). Organization culture and Administration as

Standardization of Douglas McGregor. Bangkok: The University of the

Thai Chamber of Commerce.

Wragg, E.C., & Haynes, G.S., & Wragg, C.M., & Chamberlin, R.P. (2000). Failing

teachers. London: Routledge.

Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff Relationships in the Primary School: A Study of

Organizational Cultures: London: Cassell.

Yuvadee Kangsadal. (2002). Cultures in school and developments’ learner. Academic

Journal, 5(6), 69.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

List of Experts

List of Experts

1. Professor Dr. Sermsak Wisalapon : Member of the Royal Institute.

: Vongchavalitkul University.

2. Professor Dr. Paitoon Sinlarat : Vice president of research department,

Dhurakij Pundit University

3. Associate Professor Dr. Preecha Kampeerapakon : Special Instructor of

Philosophy

Program in Educational

Administration of

Khon Kaen University

4. Associate Professor Dr.Prachoom Rodprasert : Expert from Chulalongkorn

University

5. Associate Professor Dr. Boonme Nenyod : Department of Educational

Policy, Management, and

Leadership,

Faculty of Education,

Chulalongkorn University

APPENDIX B

Instrumentation

เรยน ทานผอำานวยการโรงเรยน

ขาพเจา นางสาวธนยาภรณ พาพลงาม ตำาแหนง อาจารยสาขาวชาจตวทยา วทยาลยการศกษา มหาวทยาลยราชภฎรอยเอด

ปจจบนเปนนกศกษาปรญญาเอกสาขาวชาการบรหารการศกษา คณะศกษาศาสตร มหาวทยาลย ขอนแกน ไดทำาวทยานพนธเรอง “School Culture and School Climate of Elementary Schools in Thailand ” โดยมอาจารยทปรกษาวทยานพนธดงน คอ 1) รองศาสตราจารย ดร. วโรจน สารรตนะ 2) Professor Dr. Muriel K. Oaks (Dean)

ในการทำาวทยานพนธครงน มแบบสอบถามทใชในการเกบรวบรวมขอมล 3 สวน ประกอบดวย

สวนท 1 แบบสอบถามขอมลพนฐานของผตอบแบบสอบถาม

สวนท 2 แบบสอบถามวฒนธรรมโรงเรยนสวนท 3 แบบสอบถามบรรยากาศโรงเรยนเพอใหการเกบรวบรวมขอมลสอดคลองกบวตถประสงคการ

วจย ขาพเจาใครขอความกรณาจากทาน โปรดมอบหมายให “ ครผสอน” จำานวน 1 ทาน และ “เจาหนาท” จำานวน 1 ทาน เปนผตอบแบบสอบถาม (ตามจำานวนแบบสอบถามทสงมาจำานวน 2 ชด) โดยใครขอความกรณารวบรวมใหครบทกฉบบ แลวสงคนตามชอทอยทระบในซอง (ตดแสดมป) ทแนบมาพรอมน ภายในวนท 31 มนาคม 2553

ในการตอบแบบสอบถาม ขอความกรณาตอบแบบสอบถามใหครบทกขอ และตรงกบความเปนจรง เพราะขอมลทถกตองตามความเปนจรงจะชวยใหการวจยมความนาเชอถอ และสามารถนำาผลการวจยไปใชประโยชนได และการสรปผลการวจยครงนเปนการสรปผลในภาพรวม ไมไดแยกวเคราะหเปนรายโรงเรยน ดงนน ผลการวจยจะไมกระทบตอสถานภาพของโรงเรยนและผตอบแบบสอบถามแตประการใด ขอใหตอบอยางเปนอสระ โดยไมตองลงชอโรงเรยนและชอผตอบแบบสอบถามในแบบสอบถาม

ขอขอบพระคณเปนอยางสงมา ณ โอกาสน

(นางสาวธนยาภรณ พาพลงาม)

นกศกษาปรญญาเอก สาขาวชาการบรหารการศกษา

คณะศกษาศาสตร มหาวทยาลยขอนแกน

เบอรโทรศพทตดตอ 081-4344377

สวนท 1 ขอมลพนฐานของผตอบแบบสอบถาม – สำาหรบคร

เพศ ชาย หญง

อาย ….……. ป

การศกษา (สงสด) ปรญญาตร ประกาศนยบตรวชาชพคร

ปรญญาโท ปรญญาเอก อน ๆ …………………..…

ประสบการณการทำางาน ….……. ป

ขนาดของโรงเรยน ขนาดเลก ขนาดกลาง ขนาดใหญ ขนาดใหญพเศษ

สวนท 2 แบบสอบถามวฒนธรรมโรงเรยน สำาหรบคร–

คำาชแจง ขอความขางลางอธบายถงสภาพการณทเกดขนในโรงเรยนของทานในระดบใดโปรดแสดงความคดเหนโดยทำาเครองหมาย / เกยวกบวฒนธรรมโรงเรยนของทาน โดยพจารณาจากเกณฑตอไปน

1 = ไมเหนดวยอยางยง 2 = ไมเหนดวย 3 = เหนดวยปานกลาง 4 = เหนดวย 5 = เหนดวยอยางยง

ขอท

ขอความ

ระดบความคดเหน

ไมเห

นดวย

ไม

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วย

1 2 3 4 51. ครใชประโยชนจากเครอขายวชาชพเพอใหได

ขอมลและทรพยากรสำาหรบการสอนในหองเรยน2. ผนำาเหนคณคาในความคดของคร3. ครมโอกาสปรกษาหารอและวางแผนรวมกน

ระหวางเพอนครรวมชนเรยนและรายวชา4. ครใหความไววางใจซงกนและกน5. ครใหการสนบสนนพนธกจของโรงเรยน6. ครและผปกครองมความคาดหวงในทางเดยวกน

เกยวกบการปฏบตตนและการเรยนของนกเรยน7. ผนำาโรงเรยนมความไววางใจในการตดสนใจทาง

วชาชพของคร8. ครใชเวลาสวนใหญในการวางแผนงานทสำาคญ

รวมกน9. ครแสวงหาแนวคดการปฏบตงานจากการสมมนา

เพอนรวมงาน และการประชมอยเสมอ10.

ครเตมใจใหความชวยเหลอเมอมปญหาเกดขน

11.

ผนำาโรงเรยนใหการยกยองครทปฏบตงานด

12.

พนธกจของโรงเรยนทำาใหครทราบทศทางการปฏบตงานทชดเจน

13.

ผปกครองมความไววางใจในการตดสนใจทางวชาชพของคร

14.

ครมสวนเกยวของในกระบวนการตดสนใจ

15.

ครใชเวลาสงเกตการสอนซงกนและกน

16.

คณะครเหนคณคาในการพฒนาวชาชพ

17.

ครตางเหนคณคาในความคดของครดวยกน

18.

ผนำาโรงเรยนอำานวยความสะดวกใหครไดปฏบตงานรวมกน

19.

ครมความเขาใจในพนธกจของโรงเรยน

ขอท

ขอความ ระดบความคดเหน

ไมเห

นดวย

ไมเห

นดวย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วย

1 2 3 4 520.

ครไดรบทราบขาวสารทเปนเหตการณปจจบนทเกดขนในโรงเรยน

21.

ครและผปกครองมการตดตอสอสารกนบอยครงเกยวกบการปฏบตตนและการเรยนของนกเรยน

22.

ขาพเจาจรงจงกบการมสวนเกยวของในการกำาหนดนโยบายหรอการตดสนใจทสำาคญ

23.

ครตระหนกถงการปฏบตงานของเพอนครดวยกน

24.

ครจดกระบวนการเรยนการสอนโดยใชองคความรทเปนปจจบน

25.

ครทำางานในกลมอยางรวมแรงรวมใจ

26.

ครไดรบรางวลจากการทดลองใชแนวคดและวธการใหมๆ

27.

พนธกจของโรงเรยนสะทอนใหเหนคานยมของชมชน

28.

ผนำาโรงเรยนสนบสนนใหนำาสงใหมหรอนวตกรรมใหมเพอใชในการสอน

29.

ครปฏบตงานรวมกนเพอพฒนาและประเมนแผนงานและโครงการตางๆ

30.

คณะครใหความสำาคญในคณคาของการปรบปรงโรงเรยน

31.

การปฏบตงานสอนสะทอนใหเหนถงพนธกจของโรงเรยน

32.

ผบรหารตองการใหครปฏบตงานสอนตามแผนและเวลาทกำาหนด

33.

ความเหนตางในการปฏบตการสอนของครสามารถวจารณและอภปรายไดอยางเปดเผย

34.

ครไดรบการกระตนใหมการแลกเปลยนความคดเหนซงกนและกน

35.

นกเรยนสวนใหญมความรบผดชอบในการเรยน เชน ตงใจเรยน และทำาการบานทไดรบมอบหมาย

สวนท 3 แบบสอบถามบรรยากาศโรงเรยน - สำาหรบคร

คำาชแจง โปรดแสดงความคดเหนโดยทำาเครองหมาย / เกยวกบบรรยากาศดานตางๆ ในโรงเรยนของทาน

โดยพจารณาจากเกณฑตอไปน

1 = ไมเหนดวยอยางยง 2 = ไมเหนดวย 3 = เหนดวยปานกลาง 4 = เหนดวย 5 = เหนดวยอยางยง

ขอท

ขอความ

ระดบความคดเหน

ไมเห

นดวย

ไมเห

นดวย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วย

1 2 3 4 51. บคลากรในโรงเรยนมการแลกเปลยนความคดเหน

เพอนำาไปสเปาหมายของโรงเรยน2. นกเรยนทมผลสมฤทธตำาไดรบโอกาสทจะพบกบ

ความสำาเรจในโรงเรยน3. กฎระเบยบ และความคาดหวงของโรงเรยนมการ

ระบและชแจงใหเขาใจรวมกนอยางชดเจน4. ครใชยทธศาสตร และรปแบบทหลากหลายในการ

จดการเรยนการสอน5. มการดำาเนนการเกยวกบกจกรรมของชมชนใน

โรงเรยน6. นกเรยนไดรบการกระตนใหชวยเหลอผทมปญหา7. บคลากรในโรงเรยนมความรสกวาพวกเขาไดให

ความสำาคญกบโรงเรยน8. การบรหารไดทำาใหนกเรยนมความเชอมนวา

นกเรยนทกคนสามารถเรยนรได9. สงแวดลอมการเรยนรไดจดใหมการเปลยนแปลง

อยเสมอ เพอปรบใหมความเหมาะสมกบรปแบบของการเรยนการสอนอยางหลากหลาย

10.

อาคารเรยนเปนระเบยบ สะอาด สดใส และสบาย

11.

ผปกครอง มสวนรวมในเครอขาย สนบสนนบานและโรงเรยน

12.

ผปกครองไดรบการปฏบตอยางสภาพ เมอโทรศพทหรอมาตดตอทโรงเรยน

13.

กฎระเบยบเกยวกบพฤตกรรมของนกเรยน สามารถใชบงคบไดอยางสมำาเสมอ

14.

บคลากรในโรงเรยนและนกเรยน ยอมรบซงกนและกนในความแตกตางระหวางบคคล

15.

ครลำาดบกจกรรมการเรยนการสอนอยางเปนขนตอน ทำาใหนกเรยนสามารถประสบความสำาเรจในแตละขนตอน

ขอท

ขอความ

ระดบความคดเหนไม

เหนด

วย

ไมเห

นดวย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วยอย

าง1 2 3 4 5

16.

ครไดรบการกระตนใหมการสอสารเกยวกบคำาถาม และความคดเหนอยางสรางสรรค

17.

นกเรยนมสวนในการรบผดชอบ ในการรกษาวนยของโรงเรยนใหมสภาพแวดลอมทดและสะอาด

18.

ผปกครองไดรบการเชอเชญ ใหเขาไปเปนคณะกรรมการใหคำาปรกษาของโรงเรยน

19.

ผปกครองทเปนอาสาสมครไดเขาทำางานใหโรงเรยนในทกสถานท เทาทจะเปนไปได

20.

ฝายบรหาร สงเสรมใหครเปนผมความคดสรางสรรคและพยายามใชวธการสอนใหมๆ

21.

นกเรยนไดรบการจดใหกระทำาในสงทเขาทำาได เทาทเปนไปได

22.

นกเรยนจำานวนมากไมไดรบการคาดหวงวา เปนผมความรอบรในทกษะพนฐานของแตละระดบชนทเรยน

23.

ระเบยบวนยของโรงเรยนไดรบการดำาเนนการอยางยตธรรมและถกตอง

24.

ครจดโอกาสใหนกเรยน เพอพฒนาทกษะชนสง

25.

นกเรยนทมพฤตกรรมไมเหมาะสมในโรงเรยน รบกวนการสอน

26.

นกเรยนมสวนรวมในการแกปญหาของโรงเรยน

27.

มนกเรยนจำานวนมากทไมไดมสวนรวมในชนเรยน และกจกรรมของโรงเรยน เนองจากขอจำากดในเรองเพศ เผาพนธ ศาสนา สถานภาพเศรษฐกจและสงคม หรอความสามารถทางวชาการ

28.

คณะครและทมงาน ใหความรวมมอเปนอยางยงในการพยายามทำาใหโรงเรยนบรรลเปาหมาย

29.

บรรยากาศทเปนอยระหวาง ฝายบรหาร คณะคร ทมงาน นกเรยน และผปกครองเปนไปอยางไววางใจ

30.

นกเรยนทเฉอยชา และขาดเรยน เปนปญหาใหญของโรงเรยน

31.

ครมสวนรวมในการตดสนใจนอยเกนไป

32.

ขอมลเกยวกบกจกรรมตางๆ ของโรงเรยน ไดรบการแจงใหผปกครองทราบโดยพนฐาน ทรบรรวมกน

ขอท

ขอความ

ระดบความคดเหน

ไมเห

นดวย

ไมเห

นดวย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วย

1 2 3 4 533.

แนวทางของหลกสตร ประกนไดวา ครครอบคลมเนอหาวชาในทำานองเดยวกนภายใน

แตละระดบชน34.

ผบรหารจดเตรยมขอมลยอนกลบทเปนประโยชนของการปฏบตของทมงาน

35.

ครใชวธการประเมนผลทเหมาะสมในการพจารณาตดสนผลสมฤทธของนกเรยน

36.

ทมบรหาร ไมไดรกษาเวลา ในการจดการเรยนการสอนเทาทควร

37.

ผปกครองไดรบเชญใหมาเยยมเยยนชนเรยนอยบอยๆ

38.

ครมความภาคภมใจในโรงเรยน และนกเรยนของตน

39.

โรงเรยนเปนททำางานทมความมนคงและปลอดภย

40.

ปญหาสวนใหญทโรงเรยนเผชญอย สามารถแกไขไดโดยผบรหารและคณะคร

41.

มการตดโครงการททำาแลวมกจะไมประสบความสำาเรจ

42.

ผบรหารเปนผนำาทางวชาการทมประสทธผล

43.

ครมความคาดหวงสงกบนกเรยนทกคน

44.

คร ผบรหาร และผปกครอง มขอตกลงรวมกนเกยวกบวนยของนกเรยน

45.

เปาหมายของโรงเรยนไดรบการทบทวน และปรบเปลยนใหเปนปจจบนอยเสมอ

46.

พฤตกรรมของนกเรยนในโรงเรยน โดยทวไปเปนไปในทางบวก

47.

ผบรหารสอดสองดแลทวทงโรงเรยน

48.

ครใชอปกรณ และสอการเรยนการสอน อยางกวางขวาง

49.

บคลากรในโรงเรยนมความใสใจซงกนและกนอยางแทจรง

สวนท 1 ขอมลพนฐานของผตอบแบบสอบถาม – สำาหรบเจาหนาท

เพศ ชาย หญง

อาย ….……. ป

การศกษา (สงสด) ปรญญาตร ประกาศนยบตรวชาชพคร

ปรญญาโท ปรญญาเอก อน ๆ …………………..…

ประสบการณการทำางาน ….……. ป

ขนาดของโรงเรยน ขนาดเลก ขนาดกลาง ขนาดใหญ ขนาดใหญพเศษ

สวนท 2 แบบสอบถามวฒนธรรมโรงเรยน -สำาหรบเจาหนาท

คำาชแจง ขอความขางลางอธบายถงสภาพการณทเกดขนในโรงเรยนของทานในระดบใด โปรดแสดงความคดเหนโดยทำาเครองหมาย / เกยวกบวฒนธรรมโรงเรยนของทาน โดย พจารณาจากเกณฑตอไปน

1 = ไมเหนดวยอยางยง 2 = ไมเหนดวย 3 = เหนดวยปานกลาง 4 = เหนดวย 5 = เหนดวยอยางยง

ขอท

ขอความ

ระดบความคดเหน

ไมเห

นดวย

ไมเห

นดวย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วย

1 2 3 4 51. เจาหนาทใชประโยชนจากเครอขายวชาชพเพอใหได

ขอมลและทรพยากรสำาหรบการสอนในหองเรยน2. ผนำาเหนคณคาในความคดของเจาหนาท3. เจาหนาทมโอกาสรวมปรกษาการวางแผนปฏบต

งานรวมกน4. เจาหนาทใหความไววางใจซงกนและกน5. เจาหนาทใหการสนบสนนพนธกจของโรงเรยน6. เจาหนาและผปกครองมความคาดหวงในทาง

เดยวกนเกยวกบการปฏบตตนและการเรยนของ

นกเรยน7. ผนำาโรงเรยนมความไววางใจในการตดสนใจทาง

วชาชพของเจาหนาท8. เจาหนาทใชเวลาสวนใหญในการวางแผนงานท

สำาคญรวมกน9. เจาหนาทแสวงหาแนวคดการปฏบตงานจากการ

สมมนา เพอนรวมงาน และการประชมอยเสมอ10.

เจาหนาทเตมใจใหความชวยเหลอเมอมปญหาเกดขน

11.

ผนำาโรงเรยนใหการยกยองเจาหนาททปฏบตงานด

12.

พนธกจของโรงเรยนทำาใหเจาหนาททราบทศทางการปฏบตงานทชดเจน

13.

ผปกครองมความไววางใจในการตดสนใจทางวชาชพของเจาหนาท

14.

เจาหนาทมสวนเกยวของในกระบวนการตดสนใจ

15.

เจาหนาทใชเวลาสงเกตการปฏบตงานซงกนและกน

16.

เจาหนาทเหนคณคาในการพฒนาวชาชพ

17.

เจาหนาทตางเหนคณคาในความคดของเจาหนาทดวยกน

18.

ผนำาโรงเรยนอำานวยความสะดวกใหเจาหนาทไดปฏบตงานรวมกน

ขอท

ขอความ

ระดบความคดเหน

ไมเห

นดวย

ไมเห

นดวย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วย

1 2 3 4 519.

เจาหนาทมความเขาใจในพนธกจของโรงเรยน

20.

เจาหนาทไดรบทราบขาวสารทเปนเหตการณปจจบนทเกดขนในโรงเรยน

21.

เจาหนาทและผปกครองมการตดตอสอสารกนบอยครงเกยวกบการปฏบตตนและการเรยนของนกเรยน

22.

ขาพเจาจรงจงกบการมสวนเกยวของในการกำาหนดนโยบายหรอการตดสนใจทสำาคญ

23.

เจาหนาทตระหนกถงการปฏบตงานของเพอนรวมงาน

24.

เจาหนาทปฏบตงานโดยใชองคความรทเปนปจจบน

25.

เจาหนาททำางานในกลมอยางรวมแรงรวมใจ

26.

เจาหนาทไดรบรางวลจากการทดลองใชแนวคดและวธการใหมๆ

27.

พนธกจของโรงเรยนสะทอนใหเหนคานยมของชมชน

28.

ผนำาโรงเรยนสนบสนนใหนำาสงใหมหรอนวตกรรมใหมเพอใชในการปฏบตงาน

29.

เจาหนาทปฏบตงานรวมกนเพอพฒนาและประเมนแผนงานและโครงการตางๆ

30.

เจาหนาทใหความสำาคญในคณคาของการปรบปรงโรงเรยน

31.

การปฏบตงานของเจาหนาทสะทอนใหเหนถงพนธกจของโรงเรยน

32.

ผบรหารตองการใหเจาหนาทปฏบตงานตามแผนและหยดตามเวลาทกำาหนด

33.

ความเหนตางในการปฏบตงานของเจาหนาทสามารถวพากษวจารณและอภปรายไดอยางเปดเผย

34.

เจาหนาทไดรบการกระตนใหมการแลกเปลยนความคดเหนซงกนและกน

35.

นกเรยนสวนใหญมความรบผดชอบในการเรยน เชน ตงใจเรยน และทำาการบานทไดรบมอบหมาย

สวนท 3 แบบสอบถามบรรยากาศโรงเรยน - สำาหรบเจาหนาท

คำาชแจง โปรดแสดงความคดเหนโดยทำาเครองหมาย / เกยวกบบรรยากาศดานตางๆ ในโรงเรยนของทาน

โดยพจารณาจากเกณฑตอไปน

1 = ไมเหนดวยอยางยง 2 = ไมเหนดวย 3 = เหนดวยปานกลาง 4 = เหนดวย 5 = เหนดวยอยางยง

ขอท

ขอความ

ระดบความคดเหน

ไมเห

นดวย

ไมเห

นดวย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วย

1 2 3 4 51. บคลากรในโรงเรยนมการแลกเปลยนความคดเหน

เพอนำาไปสเปาหมายของโรงเรยน2. นกเรยนทมผลสมฤทธตำาไดรบโอกาสทจะพบกบ

ความสำาเรจในโรงเรยน3. กฎระเบยบ และความคาดหวงของโรงเรยนมการ

ระบและชแจงใหเขาใจรวมกนอยางชดเจน4. ครใชยทธศาสตร และรปแบบทหลากหลายในการ

จดการเรยนการสอน5. มการดำาเนนการเกยวกบกจกรรมของชมชนใน

โรงเรยน6. นกเรยนไดรบการกระตนใหชวยเหลอผทมปญหา7. บคลากรในโรงเรยนมความรสกวาพวกเขาไดให

ความสำาคญกบโรงเรยน8. การบรหารไดทำาใหนกเรยนมความเชอมนวา

นกเรยนทกคนสามารถเรยนรได9. สงแวดลอมการเรยนรไดจดใหมการเปลยนแปลง

อยเสมอ เพอปรบใหมความเหมาะสมกบรปแบบของการเรยนการสอนอยางหลากหลาย

10.

อาคารเรยนเปนระเบยบ สะอาด สดใส และสบาย

11.

ผปกครอง มสวนรวมในเครอขาย สนบสนนบานและโรงเรยน

12.

ผปกครองไดรบการปฏบตอยางสภาพ เมอโทรศพทหรอมาตดตอทโรงเรยน

13.

กฎระเบยบเกยวกบพฤตกรรมของนกเรยน สามารถใชบงคบไดอยางสมำาเสมอ

14.

บคลากรในโรงเรยนและนกเรยน ยอมรบซงกนและกนในความแตกตางระหวางบคคล

ขอท

ขอความ

ระดบความคดเหน

ไมเห

นดวย

ไมเห

นดวย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วย

1 2 3 4 515.

ครลำาดบกจกรรมการเรยนการสอนอยางเปนขนตอน ทำาใหนกเรยนสามารถประสบความสำาเรจในแตละขนตอน

16.

ครไดรบการกระตนใหมการสอสารเกยวกบคำาถาม และความคดเหนอยางสรางสรรค

17.

นกเรยนมสวนในการรบผดชอบ ในการรกษาวนยของโรงเรยนใหมสภาพแวดลอมทดและสะอาด

18.

ผปกครองไดรบการเชอเชญ ใหเขาไปเปนคณะกรรมการใหคำาปรกษาของโรงเรยน

19.

ผปกครองทเปนอาสาสมครไดเขาทำางานใหโรงเรยนในทกสถานท เทาทจะเปนไปได

20.

ฝายบรหาร สงเสรมใหครเปนผมความคดสรางสรรคและพยายามใชวธการสอนใหมๆ

21.

นกเรยนไดรบการจดใหกระทำาในสงทเขาทำาได เทาทเปนไปได

22.

นกเรยนจำานวนมากไมไดรบการคาดหวงวา เปนผมความรอบรในทกษะพนฐานของแตละระดบชนทเรยน

23.

ระเบยบวนยของโรงเรยนไดรบการดำาเนนการอยางยตธรรมและถกตอง

24.

ครจดโอกาสใหนกเรยน เพอพฒนาทกษะชนสง

25.

นกเรยนทมพฤตกรรมไมเหมาะสมในโรงเรยน รบกวนการสอน

26.

นกเรยนมสวนรวมในการแกปญหาของโรงเรยน

27.

มนกเรยนจำานวนมากทไมไดมสวนรวมในชนเรยน และกจกรรมของโรงเรยน เนองจากขอจำากดในเรองเพศ เผาพนธ ศาสนา สถานภาพเศรษฐกจและสงคม หรอความสามารถทางวชาการ

28.

คณะครและทมงาน ใหความรวมมอเปนอยางยงในการพยายามทำาใหโรงเรยนบรรลเปาหมาย

29.

บรรยากาศทเปนอยระหวาง ฝายบรหาร คณะคร ทมงาน นกเรยน และผปกครองเปนไปอยางไววางใจ

30.

นกเรยนทเฉอยชา และขาดเรยน เปนปญหาใหญของโรงเรยน

31.

ครมสวนรวมในการตดสนใจนอยเกนไป

ขอท

ขอความ

ระดบความคดเหน

ไมเห

นดวย

ไมเห

นดวย

เหนด

วยปา

น

เหนด

วย

เหนด

วย

1 2 3 4 532.

ขอมลเกยวกบกจกรรมตางๆ ของโรงเรยน ไดรบการแจงใหผปกครองทราบโดยพนฐาน ทรบรรวมกน

33.

แนวทางของหลกสตร ประกนไดวา ครครอบคลมเนอหาวชาในทำานองเดยวกนภายในแตละระดบชน

34.

ผบรหารจดเตรยมขอมลยอนกลบทเปนประโยชนของการปฏบตของทมงาน

35.

ครใชวธการประเมนผลทเหมาะสมในการพจารณาตดสนผลสมฤทธของนกเรยน

36.

ทมบรหาร ไมไดรกษาเวลา ในการจดการเรยนการสอนเทาทควร

37.

ผปกครองไดรบเชญใหมาเยยมเยยนชนเรยนอยบอยๆ

38.

ครมความภาคภมใจในโรงเรยน และนกเรยนของตน

39.

โรงเรยนเปนททำางานทมความมนคงและปลอดภย

40.

ปญหาสวนใหญทโรงเรยนเผชญอย สามารถแกไขไดโดยผบรหารและคณะคร

41.

มการตดโครงการททำาแลวมกจะไมประสบความสำาเรจ

42.

ผบรหารเปนผนำาทางวชาการทมประสทธผล

43.

ครมความคาดหวงสงกบนกเรยนทกคน

44.

คร , ผบรหาร และผปกครอง มขอตกลงรวมกนเกยวกบวนยของนกเรยน

45.

เปาหมายของโรงเรยนไดรบการทบทวน และปรบเปลยนใหเปนปจจบนอยเสมอ

46.

พฤตกรรมของนกเรยนในโรงเรยน โดยทวไปเปนไปในทางบวก

47.

ผบรหารสอดสองดแลทวทงโรงเรยน

48.

ครใชอปกรณ และสอการเรยนการสอน อยางกวางขวาง

49.

บคลากรในโรงเรยนมความใสใจซงกนและกนอยางแทจรง

ขอขอบพระคณเปนอยางสง

APPENDIX C

Permission to use the School Culture Survey

To: 'wirsan@kku.ac.th'Cc: Valentine, Jerry W.; caod49Subject: School Culture Survey

Dear Wirot Sanrattana and Thanyaporn Papolngam,

My name is Catherine O’Brien and I am one of the graduate research assistants here at the Middle Level Leadership Center (MLLC).  Dr. Valentine forwarded your request to me regarding permission to use the School Culture Survey located on our website.  I have attached the documents you need to use per Dr. Valentine's approval.  If you have any questions regarding our instrument as you are conducting your research, please do not hesitate to give us a call.

 

Thanks for your interest in our work at the Middle Level Leadership Center.

 

Best Wishes,

CAO

Catherine A. O’Brien

Graduate Research Assistant

University of Missouri-Columbia

Middle Level Leadership Center

Hill Hall, Room 211

573.882.0947              573.882.0947      

VITAE

Personal Data

Name : Thanyaporn Papolngam

Date of Birth : December 4, 1976

Place of Birth : Roi Et, Thailand

Nationality : Thai

Marital Status : Single

Work Place : Roi Et Rajabhat University

Education Background

1998 : Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science

Rambhaibanni Rajabhat University, Chantaburi, Thailand.

2002 : Master’s Degree in Educational Psychology

Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

2011 : Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Administration

Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.