Scho Climate 2017

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/341819850
School Climate and Academic Performance
Chapter · June 2020

DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.662
CITATIONS READS
0 984
1 author:
Siti Noor
Universiti Utara Malaysia
46 PUBLICATIONS 70 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Leadership and Quality View project
HUBUNGAN ANTARA TAHAP KOMPETENSI FUNGSIONAL GURU DENGAN PENCAPAIAN AKADEMIK PELAJAR DI SEKOLAH MENENGAH DI NEGERI KELANTAN View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Siti Noor on 02 June 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Siti Noor Ismail, Faizahani Abd. Rahman, and Aizan Yaacob
Subject: Education, Change, and Development, Education and Society
Online Publication Date: May 2020 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.662
Summary and Keywords
Definitions of school climate have been interpreted in various ways by scholars since the
1960s. They have been closely associated with achievement, quality control, and school
management, among many others that denote characteristics of highly effective organiza
tion. It has long been recognized and acknowledged by administrators of the organiza
tion, practitioners, psychologists, motivators, and educators that a healthy school climate
promotes a positive attitude and openness that will thus create a learning environment
that motivates and encourages effective teaching and learning activities; increases teach
ers’ job satisfaction; and, finally enhances students’ academic performance. The school
climate model that determines the characteristics of an effective school climate encom
passes four main factors: culture (assumptions, values, norms, beliefs), ecology (structure
and facilities), humanity structure and system (instructions, administration, decision mak
ing, planning structure), and social system (structure element). Definitions derived from
past literature and criticisms as well as arguments against what constitute healthy school
climate are presented in this article. A clear set of goals and transparent definitions of
the concept are recommended so as to ensure that both school and the other elements in
the school body can work synchronously to achieve the same goal, which is providing a
positive and healthy school climate.
Keywords: healthy school climate, practitioners, teaching and learning, academic performance, interactions
Introduction
An academically excellent and high-performance school is one in which the teachers set
high expectations that can reasonably be attained by the students, in a learning environ
ment where the teachers faithfully believe in the students’ ability to achieve academic
success. In such an environment, students continuously work toward the same academic
goal, and in doing so, respect those who excel in their academics. These are a few of the
many elements of a healthy school climate as defined by Page (2002), in which high-
achieving schools have teachers who set high but achievable targets for their students
and who believe in students achieving those targets by working hard.
Page 1 of 23
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University
Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy
and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

In general, there are two types of school climate: open and closed (Hoy, Hoffman, Sabo, &
Bliss, 1996). An open climate is one where the interaction between teacher and teacher,
and school principal and teachers, is symbiotic and conducted in a receptive, friendly, but
professional manner. In this context, teachers and the school principal show strong sup
port for each other so that they can have an open exchange of ideas, views, and perspec
tives. Both parties execute their tasks and responsibilities without taking into account any
power relations that might exist between them. Both teachers and principal are mutually
in support of each other. On the other hand, a closed school climate is often illustrated by
controlled and constrained relationships where communications and interactions are
monitored, thus very restricted. There is a strong presence of power relations where prin
cipals often dictate teachers’ behaviors, actions, and decisions as the norm practiced in
this kind of school environment. Interaction between teachers and the principal or the
school’s management is not mutual. Often, the management controls many aspects of de
cision-making, thus leading to frequent misunderstandings. Such a practice is the total
opposite of an open school climate and does not provide a teaching and learning environ
ment conducive to creating a positive healthy school climate. From these two opposite de
finitions, it can thus be concluded that an open school climate is vital in ensuring a suc
cessful and positive school climate.
In the 20th century, school practitioners and scholars have defined the concept of school
climate differently with respect to the ecology of the school, safety, a caring and healthy
school setting, school culture, classroom structures, and so on. Very often, these defini
tions evolve according to time, school, and educational trends. For instance, Halpin and
Croft (1963), pioneers in the area of school climate, introduced school climate as being
the personality of a school. Here, the school’s personality is defined in terms of the char
acteristics of the school itself, including the culture and interactions of those in the
school, such as students, teachers, principal, and administrators. Therefore, having a pos
itive and vibrant personality equates with a school having a positive outlook. Tagiuri
(1968), on the other hand, defined climate as encompassing many elements such as ecolo
gy, milieu, social system, and culture, along with personal characteristics. He further il
lustrated that climate is a mean used to describe an organization. This seems to be in ac
cordance with Halpin and Croft’s definition, but in a more detailed manner, Tagiuri has
systematically included other elements to redefine the term.
Starting the 50s, research on school climate has also associated a positive school climate
with one that ensures a safe and caring learning and teaching environment for the stu
dents. Jones (in the 1980s and 1990s), for example, viewed school climate in terms of
school safety and caring relations within schools. By re-conceptualizing the term, the im
portance of safety and inclusivity in the definitions are given careful attention by most re
searchers. An initial focus on a simple meaning for a positive and healthy school climate
now covers a wider scope that encompasses many more perennial matters, involving
schools that care for the management, teachers, students, parents, and the committee
around them. Across time, the concept of school climate evolved to include a few other
prominent foci: personality, safety, and a caring environment.
Page 2 of 23
and Legal Notice).

From safety and caring perspectives, school is now regarded as a place that can foster,
develop, and provide a healthy environment capable of producing generations of respon
sible and educated individuals. Thus, it is important to provide a support system that ac
commodates and allows individuals to have some voice in shaping a school environment
conducive for learning (Noddings, 1984), a vital element in creating a healthy and posi
tive school climate. Teachers, students, and parents are all regarded to be stakeholders
and investors in determining the school’s direction and management.
School climate has also been identified and associated with factors affecting a school’s ef
ficiency and students’ performance (Pashiardis, 2000). A school that is academically ex
cellent is one where the teachers set high expectations that are nevertheless reasonably
achievable by the students. In order for this to take place, both teachers and students
must work closely together, sharing and working toward the same academic goals in a
setting of mutual trust and dependence to achieve these set targets and expectations.
These are all indicators of an efficient, positive, and healthy school climate.
Meanwhile, in the Malaysian context, a healthy school climate is highly influenced and af
fected by both formal and informal organization and also by the personality of the organi
zation and its leadership and management. Abdul Razak (2006), for example, defines
school climate as a social system that constructs and designs the learning environment.
This means that a positive and healthy school has both a conducive teaching and learning
environment that allows and encourages students to learn and teachers to impart knowl
edge and skills to the students in a caring and healthy environment. Meanwhile, Abdul
Samad and Gooi (2005) refer to school climate as a term that illustrates teachers’ percep
tions toward the working culture and environment of a school.
This article discusses and presents different definitions of school climate, to illustrate the
variations and inconsistencies in research findings, and suggests future directions for re
search in this area. The article is organized into three sections. The first, “DEFINING A
HEALTHY SCHOOL CLIMATE,” a brief synopsis of various definitions of healthy school
climate is presented chronologically in order to illustrate the evolution of research in this
area. In the second section, “THEORIES OF A HEALTHY AND POSITIVE SCHOOL CLI
MATE” are discussed, with justifications for including the different models. In the third
section, studies on “CRITICISMS OF AND ARGUMENTS FOR A HEALTHY SCHOOL CLI
MATE” are put forth to explain why studies in this area are complicated and confusing.
Next, the relationships among “SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS, HEALTHY SCHOOL CLI
MATE, AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT” are explored before concluding this article
with . “FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS”.
Defining a Healthy School Climate

A healthy and positive school climate has been linked to a few variables, indicators, and
concepts. Table 1 illustrates how different scholars have defined and measured school cli
mate.
Page 3 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Table 1. Different Definitions of School Climate
Authors Measure Dimensions

ment
Halpin and Personality Person’s personality and percep

Croft (1963) tions of school
Tagiuri Four rela Culture, ecology, milieu, and social

(1968) tionship fac system
tors
Brookover et Personality Atmosphere, tone, ideology, milieu

al. (1978) of the school
Abdul Karim Leadership Efficient school management,

(1989) and effi principal’s perception of his or her
cient school roles and responsibilities, strategies
manage to improve schools, parents’ in
ment volvement, teachers’ expectations
of students, positive attitudes and
behaviors of teachers, and good dis
cipline
Farmakis Positive stu Inside and outside learning experi

(1995) dents ences heavily influenced by teach
TQM ers and supported by school’s man
agement, positive school culture
and support from parents when at
home
Haynes, Em Personality Atmosphere, tone, ideology, milieu

mons, and of the school
Ben-Avie
(1997)
Hoy and School rela Community-school (environmental

Sabo (1998) tionship and press) principal–teacher, teacher–
interaction teacher, teacher–student
Tan, Wong, TQM and Quality of school and climate

Melita, and school
Khoo (2003)
Page 4 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Marshall, TQM and Quality of school and climate

Pritchard, school
and Gunder
son (2004)
Abdul Samad Personality Person’s personality and percep

and Gooi tions of school
(2005)
Prajogo and School char Relationships among students and

McDermott acteristics staff/teachers, teaching and learn
(2005) ing emphasis, values and beliefs,
shared approaches and practices.
Kumar and 5 personali Relationships and interactions be

Sankaran ty dimen tween parents, teachers, adminis
(2007) sions trators, and physical facilities; so
cial system and culture of school
Kunnanatt 5 personali Relationships and interactions be

(2007) ty dimen tween parents, teachers, adminis
sions trators, and physical facilities; so
Johnson, 5 dimen Collaborative, student relation

Stevens, and sions ships, school resources, decision-
Zvoch (2007) making, and teaching innovation
Lam, Gary, 5 personali Relationships and interactions be

and Chin ty dimen tween parents, teachers, adminis
(2008) sions trators, and physical facilities; so
Cohen (2013) 4 essential Safety, relationships, teaching and

areas (Na learning, and institutional environ
tional ment
School Cli
mate Coun
cil [NSCC],
2007)
Petrie (2014) Personality Atmosphere, tone, ideology, milieu

of the school
Page 5 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Bradshaw, Safe and Safety, student engagement, and

Waasdorp, Supportive school environment
Debnam, and Schools
Johnson model
(2014)
As listed in the table, definitions of a healthy school climate vary, from ones that focus on
relationships and interactions, to those that stress academic performance, to those that
consider facilities of the school, among many more. The table describes the evolution of
the concept from total quality management (TQM) and personality, to a safe school envi
ronment. Halpin and Croft (1963), pioneers in school climate, associated the term with
personality and perceptions of those in the school. In their view, the strength of a healthy
and positive school climate therefore relies on the “personality” that embodies the
school’s characteristics, such as interactions and relationships among teachers, and be
tween teachers and principals, and teachers and students. In this definition, school cli
mate portrays the personality of the individual and how these individuals aim to obtain
the shared expectations of the school’s organization. Thus, this definition reflects the ac
tual school climate of the institution.
Brookover et al. (1978) took this definition further by adding atmosphere as another vari
able that helps in creating a healthy and positive school climate. These authors listed four
components—atmosphere, tone, ideology, and milieu—as characterizing a school’s cli
mate. However, all these components adhere to the setting and outlook of the school. In
the 1990s, the focus was on TQM, whereas the trend of research in the 21st century has
shifted to a focus on personality dimensions and interactions between individuals in the
school organization.
School climate can also be defined as a social system that molds, invents, and creates a
healthy learning environment that in turn influences the acts and behaviors of those in its
sphere. This article highlights five vital elements for an effective school climate: collabo
ration, student behaviors and relationships, school sources and resources, decision-mak
ing, and teaching innovation (Ismail, 2011).
Collaboration refers to the relationship or strategic teaming between and among teach
ers, effective communication among teachers, and teachers working in groups to create
effective yet interesting teaching methods.
Student relationships constitute healthy collaborations and relationships where positive

behaviors and habits are inculcated and where values such as tolerance, teamwork, and
symbiotic relationships exist collectively among students, teachers, and school adminis
tration. This translates into positive behaviors and acts and high motivation among teach
ers and students.
Page 6 of 23
and Legal Notice).

School sources and resources . . .refers to the materials provided in the school including
school furniture, equipment, technology, curriculum materials, manipulatives, textbooks
and any other materials within the school.
Innovation is regarded as something new that contributes toward the betterment of the
school in terms of approach, system, tools, and strategies that take place in the teaching
and learning processes. It refers to innovative and creative ideas, new 21st-century cur
riculum, and teaching and learning tools of the 21st century that align with innovative
and highly motivated teaching staff.
School climate is a variable that determines the school’s effectiveness and efficiency, and
is very much influenced by school’s management. An effective, efficient school manager
is essential in contributing to and determining a healthy, efficient school that could lead
to a successful, excellent school, thus producing high student academic achievement. In
such a situation, the principal implements the school’s achievement strategy effectively
and with sensitivity, addressing current trends and changes of teaching and learning in
the 21st century and readily facing and embracing globalization.
The challenges from the 21st-century evolution of global and technology progress re
quires school’s management to be more proactive and innovative to be able to compete
globally. They are needed and required to be more energetic, creative and at the same
time competitive to be at par with the world class. One of the required elements that
must be possessed by a school’s principal is leadership that is relevant in the 21st centu
ry which, in other words comprise of confidence and knowledge in performing and under
takings tasks, high commitment, honest and hold strong integrity. This means, the man
agement must possess certain traits such as confidence and drive to influence and move
others, possess communication skills, are team players that have positive aura, able to
make short and long term plans based on the 21st-century strategy, ready to learn to im
prove and add knowledge, entrepreneurial, creative and innovative, intuitive, and able to
motivate teachers and support staff, teachers, and also students. A combination of the
above criteria in the school’s management, and also in its principal, will thus create a
positive, healthy school climate that could realize the aspiration of excellence in educa
tion.
In the context of South East Asia, studies have focused on healthy school climate and
teacher job satisfaction (Ghavifekr & Pillai, 2015; Ilyas & Abdullah, 2016; Treputtharat &
Tayiam, 2013; Waruwu, 2015). In Thailand, for example, a study conducted by Treput
tharat and Tayiam (2013), who surveyed 329 primary schoolteachers, discovered that the
school climate has a positive significant relationship on teachers’ job satisfaction, and dis
closed six aspects of organizational climate: performance standard, responsibility, unity,
reward, success, and leadership. While in Indonesia, Waruwu (2015) and Ilyas and Abdul
lah (2016) extended the study to include leadership, organizational culture, emotional in
telligence, and job satisfaction. Waruwu (2015) revealed the correlation between teach
ers’ perceptions about the principal’s emotional intelligence and organizational climate
and job satisfaction. Similarly, Ilyas and Abdullah (2016) discovered that leadership di
Page 7 of 23
and Legal Notice).

rectly affects teacher performance; emotional well-being and job satisfaction directly in
fluence teachers’ performance; and leadership directly affects job satisfaction.
In Malaysia, a study conducted by Kean, Kannan, and Piaw (2017), who investigated the
relationship between leadership practices and teacher commitment based on a survey
conducted with 384 secondary schoolteachers, also found consistent findings. Kean and
colleagues suggested that principal leadership practices, such as continuous improve
ment of instruction, cooperation and collaboration, and school climate, which impact
teacher commitment, should be given more emphasis. In sum, even though many at
tempts have been made to understand healthy school climate, there is a lack of published
studies in these area in South East Asia.
Theories of a Healthy and Positive School Cli

mate
Many proposed theories are often used with and related to school climate. One is social
cognitive theory, which has been linked to climate achievement, as it offers a theoretical
explanation in relation to students and staff (Bandura, 1993, 1997). Through accumula
tion and collective efficacy that lead to the creation of positive school climate, students
could take control in creating this atmosphere in the school setting (Hoy & Sabo, 1998).
This explains the impact that academic staff has on students’ achievement and how their
perspectives could motivate the latter. Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, and Malone (2006),
for instance, proved that teachers self-efficacy beliefs were related to student achieve
ment, and a study by Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) found that teacher’s efficacy could
predict students’ reading and mathematics performance. Teachers’ collective efficacy be
lief was related to an increase of more than 40% in student achievement.
The second theory, self-determination theory, has been closely and widely applied in cre
ating a healthy school climate (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It advocates the basic psychological
needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy that both students and academic staff
must meet. When all of these basic psychological needs, comprised of many interrelated
and intertwined elements, are met, they produce determination and a strong will for both
students and staff to work in symbiosis. This encourages group dynamics that could fur
ther enhance a positive climate.
Another theory that is often associated with healthy and positive school climate is
Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological theory (1986), which advocates that layers of environ
ment influence and affect many school elements. Studies have investigated how such lay
ers, which include family, schools, and societies, affect student learning (Hampden-
Thompson & Galindo, 2017; Rosenfeld, Richman, & Bowen, 2000; Stewart, 2007). This
theory is closely related to factors affecting the social, psychological, and cognitive ele
ments that provide a nuanced perspective on effects of school climate on student achieve
ment.
Page 8 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Another frequently used theory in school climate is the combination of social identity the
ory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher,
& Wetherell, 1987), which focuses on how a group, system, or organization influences stu
dent and teacher behaviors. The social identity approach views that when individuals em
brace certain self-actualization feelings, they feel responsible toward working for the bet
terment of the organization. In doing so, they feel psychologically part of that group, sys
tem, or organization (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Thus, their personal values and needs are
the shared common traits that link and unite them, and they are identified by their con
nectedness with others that is illuminated through their principles, or what they deem as
pertinent and urgent.
Social identity theory also posits that as group members find the group to be psychologi
cally meaningful, they will become more motivated in achieving the group’s goals and
hence will put more effort into ensuring these goals are realized (Haslam, Powell, & Turn
er, 2000). Typically, being part of the group triggers psychological connectedness and
membership that makes these individuals behave and act in alignment with the group’s
goals and values (Turner, 1985; Turner & Reynolds, 2011). In the school context, norms,
values, and beliefs of the “school” group are embodied in the school climate construct. A
central goal of the school as a group is to have a strong academic emphasis, supportive
staff–student relations, and shared values and approach, which are contributing factors to
successful student learning (Bizumic, Reynolds, Turner, Bromhead, & Subasic, 2009;
Reynolds, Lee, Turner, Bromhead, & Subasic, 2017). It is felt that there is a need to look
at school climate as the catalyst in building student, staff, and school identification as the
psychological process in which school climate affects their actions. Consequently, stu
dents’ school identification may affect their academic performance.
Related concepts to social identification have been extensively documented by the educa
tional literature and studied in relation to student outcomes. For example, connectedness,
student–school relationship, attachment, and sense of belonging to school have been
studied (Blum, 2005; Libbey, 2004; Osterman, 2000; Vieno, Perkins, Smith, & Santinello,
2005; Waters, Cross, & Runions, 2009). If the school climate is positive and supportive, it
helps students identify with the school as a significant group to them, where they find
meaning and belonging; then they are more likely to innately absorb the school values
and norms, focusing on learning and achievement (Reynolds et al., 2017). Reynolds et al.
(2017) found that the relationship between students’ school climate perceptions and their
numeracy and writing scores was arbitrated by students’ school identification. However,
the measure of school climate in the study was limited in that there was only one general
dimension of school climate: shared values and approach. One study found a relationship
between school climate and students’ conduct in that problems were caused by students’
school connectedness (Loukas, Suzuki, & Horton, 2006).
School belonging has also been cited as a vital variable for modeling of student achieve
ment (Burke & Kao, 2013; Gummadam, Pittman, & Ioffe, 2016; Hernández, Robins,
Widaman, & Conger, 2014). The social identity approach found links between the school
staff’s climate perception and student achievement (Reynolds et al., 2017), in which the
Page 9 of 23
and Legal Notice).

subject of the research was student achievement. In addition, staff’s school identification
is also found to have an influence on their perception of student achievement. In other
words, the level of the staff’s psychological membership to the school might impact the
school climate on students achievement. For example, when staff members strongly iden
tified themselves with the school, they might be more motivated to strive for better
achievements for their students in the classroom and thus would dedicate more effort to
foster positive relations with students. These behaviors are conducive to student academ
ic performance, which may be translated to students’ improved achievement, and this can
be attained when the staff’s social identity as school members is high.
Criticism of and Arguments for a Healthy

School Climate
Numerous studies have documented criticisms and arguments over a healthy school cli
mate. First, researchers argue that terms are not clearly defined, which can lead to in
conclusive findings as there are indefinite measurements of the concept. Meanwhile, links
between school climate, achievement, and socioeconomic status have not been clearly es
tablished, leading to inconsistency in the research on healthy school climate. Hence, it is
argued here that the concept of school culture offers education reformers a more dynam
ic understanding of the technical, political, and cultural dimensions of improving schools
and student achievement (Jones, 2002).
Because of this, much criticism has centered on defining school climate itself, as various
definitions have been offered regarding what is important. Often, school climate is almost
impossible to measure because there are many confusing definitions associated with the
term. It is often linked to student academic performance, teacher satisfactions, sophisti
cated and efficient structure and systems, and satisfying facilities. Academic pressure
and teachers’ high academic expectations have also been closely linked to student perfor
mance and achievement. In regards to creating a healthy and positive school climate,
endless contradictions exist as to the kinds of elements needed. Hoy, Tarter, and Kot
tkamp (1991) reported that teachers view interference in relation to community but this
means differently. Clearly, pressure and a bit of interference have been reportedly needed
to ensure positive school results such as markedly higher achievement. Literature has al
so been contradictory in estimating the extent to which both student and staff percep
tions influence student achievement. School climate has been cited as the main predictor
of both emotional and behavioral outcomes.
The many disputes and multiplicity of definitions of school climate have also led to vari
ous confusions, as it is often measured inconsistently and with different measurements
and scales, depending on how it is defined and with variations in perceptions, interac
tions, and school and students achievements. However, the recurring emergence of the
importance of creating a healthy school climate involves three factors: (a) school empha
sis on personal growth or goal orientations, (b) interpersonal relations within a school,
Page 10 of 23
and Legal Notice).

and (c) shared norms, goals, and values (Maxwell, Reynolds, Lee, Subasic, & Bromhead,
2017).
Socioeconomic Status, Healthy School Climate,

and Academic Achievement
Researchers have asserted that students in schools with a positive climate performed bet
ter academically than they otherwise would have on the basis of SES background (Bryk &
Schneider, 2002). Educational researchers and practitioners assert that a supportive
school and classroom climate can positively influence the academic outcomes of students,
thus potentially reducing academic achievement gaps between students in schools of dif
ferent socioeconomic status (SES) (Berkowitz, Moore, Avi Astor, & Benbenishty, 2016).
Nonetheless, scientific evidence establishing links among SES, school climate, and acade
mic achievement has been inconclusive because of inconsistency of methods, instru
ments, definitions of variables, and design of studies.
Research in this area has been limited to the relationship among SES, climate, and acade
mic performance because of an extensive literature that has focused on providing too var
ied and therefore conflicting indicators and factors of positive school climate that lead to
academic achievement. In regards to this, more than 80 studies have been documented to
explore these confusing descriptions, using various methods and assumptions. Some liter
ature has indicated that a healthy school climate contributes positively to student
achievement, regardless of whether low SES might be an influence on academic perfor
mance (Brand, Felner, Shim, Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003; Schagen & Hutchison, 2003).
Only a few authors have studied school climate in relation to low SES and academic
achievement, although there is an anticipated outcome in relation to SES. This illustrates
that SES does not have any significant contribution to positive school climate, as it is only
significant in producing high academic performance. By contrast, other scholars have
mentioned that SES does in fact contribute to creating a positive school climate, which in
turn produces good academic performance. Therefore, it can be argued that a school that
is highly affected by poverty and crime, low SES, and other social issues is unable to pro
vide and create a safe, healthy, and positive school climate because of the complexity of
family-, society-, and community-based stressors that have to be shouldered by a school
and its staff (McCoy, Roy, & Sirkman, 2013).
Nevertheless, if schools are able to turn around and make the necessary changes that
would theoretically alter the negative effects of low SES, crime and negative community
or family influences could be minimized. In this view, school climate can be seen as the
mediating factor that connects SES background and academic achievement. This relation
ship is mediated through student connectedness, belonging, and engagement with the
school (Wang & Holcombe, 2010) and also students’ sense of safety (Benbenishty & Astor,
2005). In another perspective, it is also established that SES background and academic
achievement changes across schools of different climate. Cheema and Kitsantas (2014),
Page 11 of 23
and Legal Notice).

for instance, found the relationship between SES and achievement in a positive school cli
mate weaker compared to that of schools with a less positive climate. Their findings indi
cated that the relationship between academic achievement, school SES, and students
could therefore be negotiated through positive climate.
To make matters more confusing, research that looks at the relationships between SES,
school climate, and academic achievement has been inconsistent and complicated. Al
though research has usually shown that lower SES backgrounds are often significantly re
lated to lower academic achievement (Sirin, 2005), and some research has indicated that
students and schools with lower SES backgrounds experience a more negative school cli
mate (Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, Astor, & Zeira, 2004), other research indicates no
association between SES background and school climate experiences (Berkowitz et al.,
2015).
However, it has long been established that school violence and school climate are closely
associated. Past studies have proven that a lower violence rate and a positive school cli
mate are often linked to high levels of school performance, although safe and positive
schools are not necessarily the prerequisite for higher achievement; no evidence indicat
ed that by reducing violence or improving school climate, academic performance of the
school’s students could be increased (Benbenishty Astor, Roziner, & Wrabel, 2016). It can
be believed that academic improvement is the key factor in reducing violence and pro
moting a healthy school climate. This is illustrated by the fact that teachers who have
high academic expectations of their students have more positive relationships with them
in general. By improving the teaching practices of these teachers, this will further con
tribute to a more positive school culture that will in turn reduce misbehavior.
In summary, disputes in regards to school climate, first and foremost, often resulted from
the different definitions that derived from the various interpretations of the term “school
climate” itself. Because scholars have defined it from different aspects and angles, there
are a number of definitions available. Depending on what constitutes the priority, school
climate is often associated with quality of the school, interactions and relationships with
in and between the school and its surroundings, academic performance, and other mea
surements.
Another disagreement that arises concerns what can be used to measure a school cli
mate. Meteorological climate, for instance, is determined using various mechanisms such
as temperature, humidity, types of clouds available, and the frequency and heaviness of
rainfall. However, with school climate, there is no definite measurement to determine
how healthy and positive a school is. Therefore, very often, student academic perfor
mance seems to be the most logical and obvious choice for evaluation. However, this
leads to the question of whether a school that continuously produces excellent academic
performance can be regarded as healthy and positive, and the same applies to a poorly
performing school. This question leads to others: Are the background and other factors
that are directly related to the students the actual reason why a school is still considered
negative? Does the same hold true for the teaching staff and management as well? Is it
Page 12 of 23
and Legal Notice).

possible for a school to have an excellent and highly recommended management team but
still not do well on the school climate spectrum?
Future Research Directions

In the 21st century, violence and safety of schools have become a common concern
(Robers, Zhang, Morgan, & Musu-Gillette, 2015), and various school-related factors indi
cating disrupted school ecosystems have continuously been discussed by the educational
community. Among the many major factors affecting this ecosystem, the one that attracts
constant attention is school climate. The importance of school climate has long been rec
ognized by researchers and has been noted to reduce crime and disruption in schools if it
is well controlled (Dewey, 1916; Perry, 1908) and provides effective school practices and
environments (Cohen & Geier, 2010).
The school climate has a clear impact on all school community members. Students in
schools with a positive school climate demonstrated higher academic achievements and
involvement, improved socio-emotional well-being, and reduced absenteeism; lower levels
of crime in schools also resulted (Cohen & Geier, 2010; Payne et al., 2003). It has also
been highlighted that these schools produce fewer students with disciplinary problems,
low levels of achievement, and involvement in deviant behaviors and criminal activities
(Payne, 2008; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). In addition, teachers
in schools with a positive school climate also experienced higher levels of efficacy, enthu
siasm, and satisfaction, as well as lower levels of absenteeism (Cohen & Geier, 2010; Got
tfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005; National School Climate Council
[NSCC], 2007; Payne et al., 2003). Obviously, this type of school climate has great influ
ence on the safety and success of a school, student attitude and behavior, and the acade
mic achievement of its students.
Unfortunately, the positive significance and advantages of this school climate to date have
not been translated into effective educational practice. This may be because of the exis
tence of a translation gap between school climate research and policy, which arises from
a number of problems. One of these is the lack of definition of what constitutes a good
school climate, agreed on by all stakeholders (National School Climate Council [NSCC],
2007). The key components of a positive community-based school climate in many ways
continues to be debated.
Although the foci have been on relationships among members of the school community
and the similarity of school goals, norms, and values, there is no universal agreement on
the definition of a good school climate. Without a comprehensible definition and complete
description of the concept of an effective school climate, school leaders have no clear di
rection and mission to guide them. Hence, school leaders often handle administrative
matters without a complete understanding of what needs to be done to improve the
school climate.
Page 13 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Some have suggested that a positive and community-based school climate leads to a high
er sense of belonging, and thus to more prosocial behavior. Schools with such a climate
meet the needs of teachers and students, thus creating better cohesion among all mem
bers of the community, who are then more committed to the mission and goals of the
school and hence more likely to practice school norms and regulations (Payne, 2008).
Lack of leadership also plays a role in widening the gap between research and school cli
mate policy. Having a strong and determined leadership role at state, district, and school
levels is essential for effective and developed school climate policies and practices (Na
tional School Climate Council [NSCC], 2007). It is clear that creating and maintaining a
positive and community-based school climate will lead to improvement that is beneficial
to academic success and student behavior. The process of improving an effective school
climate can be achieved when education leaders at all levels engage and work together
with community members in the success of every program that can produce an effective
school climate.
Hence, some suggestions can be summarized here as a guide toward creating a positive,
healthy, and effective school climate, which in turn will result in better student perfor
mance. Some suggestions are listed here:
1. Explore and set an effective school climate. Policymakers should determine in advance
the characteristics of an effective school climate and thus set a healthy and effective
school climate policy to be practiced in all schools and throughout the community. A
healthy and effective school climate is one that has healthy and open-ended features. One
of the dimensions of school climate is academic climate, which refers to the teaching and
learning practices promoted in the school and is composed of three factors: leadership,
teaching and learning, and professional development (Wang & Degol, 2015).
Although there is no universally agreed upon set of core domains or features, the Nation
al School Climate Center identifies five elements of school climate that necessitate the
process of creating a positive and healthy environment: (a) safety (e.g., rules and norms,
physical security, social-emotional security); (b) teaching and learning (e.g., support for
learning and social and civic learning); (c) interpersonal relationships (e.g., respect for di
versity, social support from adults, social support from peers); (d) institutional environ
ment (e.g., school connectedness, engagement, physical surroundings); and (e) staff rela
tionships (e.g., leadership, professional relationships) (NSCC, 2007).
2. Assess school climate. Policymakers should choose or develop an instrument that can
measure school climate level and thus compare the level of climate it earns with a prede
termined standard value for reaching a healthy and effective level of school climate. The
reliability and validity of all instruments need to be certified using the tested measures as
outlined from assessment tools such as the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (Co
hen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009), School Effective Battery (Gottfredson, 1999),
and What About You (Gottfredson, 1999). The National Center on Safe Supportive Learn
ing Environments has created an online compendium of research-based school climate
measures, including surveys to be completed by students, parents, and educators. One
Page 14 of 23
and Legal Notice).

such measure included in the collection is the California Healthy Kids Survey, which as
sesses school connectedness, opportunities for meaningful participation, and perceptions
of safety across elementary, middle, and high school. The Comprehensive School Climate
Inventory also measures multiple elements, including an orderly school environment, par
ent/community involvement, collaboration within the school, and instructional practices
(National School Climate Council [NSCC], 2007).
3. Improve school climate. School climate improvement can be defined as an intentional,

strategic, collaborative, transparent, and coordinated effort to make school learning envi
ronments stronger (Ice, Thapa, & Cohen, 2015). Every district and school needs to create
a climate team consisting of representatives from all groups of school communities, in
cluding students, teachers, administrators, staff, parents, and larger members of the com
munity. These teams need to be supported by strong and clear climate leadership at the
federal, state, district, and school levels.
In conclusion, the school climate team should be involved in the following activities: (a)
professional development opportunities to learn about school climate research and best
practices; (b) government, district, and school policy assessments and their own school
goals; (c) continuous assessment of the current school climate through the survey of all
school community members; and (d) the implementation of school climate improvement
efforts at the district and school level incorporated into every aspect of the school’s func
tion, either curriculum, co-curriculum or student personality. Furthermore, these forces
must use data-driven decision-making processes to guide school climate improvement ef
forts. When school climate is enhanced, student academic achievement can also be real
ized successfully because healthy and effective school climate can stimulate academic
achievement of students.
References
Abdul Karim, M. N. (1989). Characteristics of effective rural secondary schools in
Malaysia. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Abdul Samad, R. S., & Gooi, A. W. (2005). Hubungan antara iklim sekolah dengan
kepuasan kerja guru sekolah menengah di Wilayah Persekutuan [The relationship be
tween school climate and job satisfaction of secondary school teachers in the Federal Ter
ritory]. Jurnal Pendidikan: Universiti Malaya, 25, 163–178.
Abdul Razak, A. Z. (2006). Ciri iklim sekolah berkesan: Implikasinya Terhadap Motivsi
Pembelajaran [Characteristics of effective school climate: Implications for learning moti
vation]. Education Malaysian Journal [Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia], 31, 3–19.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and function

ing. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Page 15 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., Roziner, I., & Wrabel, S. L. (2016). Testing the causal links
between school climate, school violence, and school academic performance: A cross-
lagged panel autoregressive model. Educational Researcher, 45(3), 197–206.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood,
family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., & Benbenishty, R. (2016). A research synthesis of the associ
ations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and acade
mic achievement. Review of Educational Research, XX(X), 1–45.
Bizumic, B., Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Bromhead, D., & Subasic, E. (2009). The role of
the group in individual functioning: School identification and the psychological
well-being of staff and students. Applied Psychology, 58, 171–192.
Blum, R. W. (2005). A case for school connectedness. Educational Leadership, 62(7),

16–20.
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., Debnam, K. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2014). Measuring school
climate in high schools: A focus on safety, engagement, and the environment. Journal of
School Health, 84(9), 593–604.
Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school im
provement and reform: Development and validation of a school-level assessment
of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(3), 570.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. Amer

ican Psychologist, 34(10), 844–850.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human develop

ment: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742.
Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., & Wisen
baker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 301–318.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organiz
ing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Burke, R., & Kao, G. (2013). Bearing the burden of whiteness: The implications of
racial self-identification for multiracial adolescents’ school belonging and acade
mic achievement. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(5), 747–773.
Page 16 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement:
A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490.
Chambers, B. D., & Erausquin, J. T. (2018). Race, sex, and discrimination in school
settings: A multilevel analysis of associations with delinquency. Journal of School
Health, 88(2), 159–166.
Cheema, J. R., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Influence of disciplinary classroom climate on

high school student self-efficacy and mathematics achievement: A look at gender
and racial ethnic differences. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Educa
tion, 12(5), 1261–1279.
Cohen, J. (2013). Creating a positive school climate: A foundation for resilience. In S.

Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 411–423). New
York, NY: Springer US.
Cohen, J. (2014, February 21). School climate policy and practice trends: A paradox. A
Commentary. Teachers College Record.
Cohen, J., & Geier, V. K. (2010). School climate research summary. New York, NY: Center
for Social and Emotional Education.
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,
policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Records, 111, 180–213.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of educa

tion. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Farmakis, L. V. (1995). Implementing total quality management and the effect on organi
zational climate at two-year colleges (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Arizona State Univer
sity, Tucson, AZ.
Ghavifekr, S., & Pillai, N. S. (2015). The relationship between school’s organizational cli
mate and teacher’s job satisfaction: Malaysian experience. Asia Pacific Educational Re
view, 17(1), 87–106.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its mean
ing, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Delinquency and schools. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Page 17 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Gottfredson, G. D. (1999). User’s manual for the effective school battery. Ellicott City,
MD: Gottfredson Associates.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School
climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency pre
vention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 412–444.
Gummadam, P., Pittman, L. D., & Ioffe, M. (2016). School belonging, ethnic identity,
and psychological adjustment among ethnic minority college students. Journal of
Experiential Education, 84(2), 289–306.
Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of school. Chicago, IL:
Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago.
Hampden-Thompson, G., & Galindo, C. (2017). School–family relationships, school

satisfaction and the academic achievement of young people. Educational Review,
69(2), 248–265.
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization, and
work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sus
tainable organizational outcomes. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 319–339.
Haynes, N. M., Emmons, C., & Ben-Avie, M. (1997). School climate as a factor in student
adjustment and achievement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8(3),
321–329.
Hernández, M. M., Robins, R. W., Widaman, K. F., & Conger, R. D. (2014). School belong
ing, generational status, and socioeconomic effects on Mexican origin children’s
later academic competence and expectations. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
26(2), 241–256.
Howard, E. R. (1974). School climate improvement. Education Digest, 39(8), 333–336.
Hoy, W. K., Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., & Bliss, J. (1996). The organizational climate of middle
schools: The development and test of the OCDQ-RM. Journal of Educational Administra
tion, 34(1).
Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of
achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77–93.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measur
ing organizational climate. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Page 18 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Ice, M., Thapa, A., & Cohen, J. (2015). Recognizing community voice and a youth-led
school–community partnership in the school climate improvement process. School Com
munity Journal, 25(1), 9–28.
Ilyas, M., & Abdullah, T. (2016). The effect of leadership, organizational culture, emotion
al intelligence, and job satisfaction on performance. International Journal of Evaluation
and Research in Education, 5(2), 158–164.
Ismail, S. N. (2011). The relationship between total quality management (TQM) and
school climate in high performance school, average and low performance school (Unpub
lished thesis of Doctoral Degree).
Johnson, B., Stevens, J. J., & Zvoch, K. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of school climate. A
validity study of scores from the revised school level environment questionnaire. Educa
tional & Psychological Measurement, 67(5), 833–844.
Johnson, S. L. (2009). Improving the school environment to reduce school violence: A re
view of the literature. Journal of School Health, 79(10), 451–465.
Jones, R. (2002). The necessity of the unconscious. Journal for the Theory of Social Behav
iour, 32(3), 151–167.
Jones, M., Yonezawa, S., Ballesteros, E., & Mehan, H. (2002). Shaping pathways to higher
education. Educational Researcher, 31(2), 3–11.
Jones, M., Yonazawa, S., Mehan, H., & McClure, L. (2008). School climate and student
achievement. (Policy brief). California Dept. of Education & UC Davis School of Education
Center for Applied Policy in Education.
Kean, T. H., Kannan, S., & Piaw, C. Y. (2017). The effect of school bureaucracy on the rela
tionship between principals’ leadership practices and teacher commitment in Malaysia
secondary schools. Malaysia Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 37–55.
Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Zeira, A. (2004). The contributions
of community, family, and school variables to student victimization. American Jour
nal of Community Psychology, 34(3-4), 187–204.
Krauss, S. E., Kornbluh, M., & Zeldin, S. (2017). Community predictors of school engage
ment: The role of families and young-adult partnership in Malaysia. Children and Youth
Services Review, 73, 328–337.
Kumar, M. R., & Sankaran, S. (2007). Indian culture and the culture for TQM: A compari
son. TQM Magazine, 19(2), 176–188.
Kunnanatt, J. T. (2007). Impact of ISO 9000 on organizational climate. International Jour

nal of Manpower, 28(2), 175–192.
Page 19 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Lam, M. Y., Gary, K. K., & Chin, K. S. (2008). An organizational learning model for voca
tional education in the context of TQM culture. International Journal of Quality & Reliabil
ity Management, 25(3), 238–255.
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bond

ing, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274–283.
Loukas, A., Suzuki, R., & Horton, K. D. (2006). Examining school connectedness as a
mediator of school climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 491–
502.
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and cli
mate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(2),
73–84.
Marshall, J. C., Pritchard, R. J., & Gunderson, B. (2004). Cultural norming in schools in
“healthy” and “unhealthy” districts. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 3(2), 85–109.
Maxwell, S., Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., & Bromhead, D. (2017). The impact of
school climate and school identification on academic achievement: Multilevel
modeling with student and teacher data. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(2), 1–21.
McCoy, D. C., Roy, A. L., & Sirkman, G. M. (2013). Neighborhood crime and school cli
mate as predictors of elementary school academic quality: A cross-lagged panel
analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(1–2), 128–140.
Mohammadpour, E. (2013). A three-level multilevel analysis of Singaporean eighth-

graders science achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 212–220.
Sobri, M. K., Hanum, F., Zulnaidi, H., & Ahmad, A. R. (2019). A comparative study of
school environment for students’ skills development in Malaysia and Indonesia. Kasetsart
Journal of Social Sciences, 40(1), 149–154.
National School Climate Council (NSCC). (2007). The School Climate Challenge: Narrow
ing the gap between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guide
lines and teacher education policy. New York, NY: National School Climate Center.
National School Climate Council (NSCC). (2009). National school climate standards:
Benchmarks to promote effective teaching, learning and comprehensive school improve
ment. New York, NY: National School Climate Center.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Re
view of Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367.
Page 20 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Page, A. S. (2002). The organizational health of high schools and students proficiency in
mathematics. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 98–104.
Pashiardis, G. (2000). School climate in elementary and secondary schools: View of Cypri
ot principals and teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 224–
237.
Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2003). Schools as communities: The
relationships among communal school organization, student bonding, and school disor
der. Criminology, 41(3), 749–777.
Payne, A. A. (2008). A multilevel analysis of the relationships among communal school or
ganization, student bonding, and school disorder. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin
quency, 45(4), 429–455.
Payne, A. A. (2012). Communal school organization effects on school disorder: Interac

tions with school structure. Deviant Behavior, 33(7), 507–524.
Perry, A. C. (1908). The management of a city school. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Petrie, K. (2014). The relationship between school climate and student bullying. Teach
Journal of Christian Education, 8(1), 26–35.
Prajogo, D. I., & Mc Dermott, C. M. (2005). The relationship between TQM practices and
organizational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
25(11), 1101–1122.
Reynolds, K. J., & Branscombe, N. (2015). Psychology of change: Life contexts, experi
ences, and identities (Vol. 2). Beaverton, OR: Ringgold.
Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Turner, I., Bromhead, D., & Subasic, E. (2017). How does school
climate impact academic achievement? An examination of social identity process
es. School Psychology International, 38(1), 78–97.
Robers, S., Zhang, A., Morgan, R. E., & Musu-Gillette, L. (2015). Indicators of school
crime and safety: 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, G. L. (2000). Social support networks and
school outcomes: The centrality of the teacher. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 17(3), 205–226.
Schagen, I., & Hutchison, D. (2003). Adding value in educational research: The mar
riage of data and analytical power. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 749–765.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-ana

lytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.
Page 21 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Stewart, E. B. (2007). Individual and school structural effects on African American

high school students’ academic achievement. High School Journal, 91(2), 16–34.
Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. H. Litwin

(Eds.), Organizational climate: Exploration of a concept (pp. 11–32). Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks & Cole.
Tan, K. C., Wong, M. F., Mehta, T., & Khoo, H. H. (2003). Factors affecting the develop
ment of national quality awards. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(3), 37–45.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school cli
mate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385.
Treputtharat, S., & Tayaim, S. (2013). School climate affecting job satisfaction of teachers
in primary education, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences,
116, 996–1000.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Parish, J., & DiPaola, M. (2006). School climate: The interplay be
tween interpersonal relationships and student achievement. Journal of Scholar Leader
ship, 16(4), 386–415.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social-cognitive theory

of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and re
search (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). Self-categorization theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A.

W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (pp. 399–
417). U.K.: Sage Publications
Turner, I., Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., & Bromhead, D. (2014). Well-being,
school climate, and the social identity process: A latent growth model study of
bullying perpetration and peer victimization. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(3),
320–335.
Turner, J., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the so
cial group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Vieno, A., Perkins, D. D., Smith, T. M., & Santinello, M. (2005). Democratic school cli
mate and sense of community in school: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 36(4), 327–341.
Wang, C., Berry, B., & Swearer, S. M. (2013). The critical role of school climate in effec
tive bullying prevention. Theory Into Practice, 52(4), 296–302.
Page 22 of 23
and Legal Notice).

Wang, M.‑T., & Degol, J. L. (2015). School climate: A review of the construct, mea
surement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2),
1–38.
Wang, M.‑T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, en
gagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research
Journal, 47(3), 633–662.
Waruwu, B. (2015). The correlation between teachers’ perceptions about principal’s emo
tional intelligence and organizational climate and job satisfaction of teachers of state se
nior high school in Gunungsitoli Nias, Indonesia. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(13),
142–147.
Waters, S. K., Cross, D. S., & Runions, K. (2009). Social and ecological structures sup
porting adolescent connectedness to school: A theoretical model. Journal of School
Health, 79(11), 516–524.
Siti Noor Ismail
Universiti Utara Malaysia College of Arts and Sciences
Faizahani Abd. Rahman
Universiti Utara Malaysia College of Arts and Sciences
Aizan Yaacob
Universiti Utara Malaysia
Page 23 of 23
and Legal Notice).
View publication stats

Scho Climate 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scho Climate 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

School Climate and Academic Performance

Chapter · June 2020

Leadership and Quality View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

School Climate and Academic Performance

Summary and Keywords

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Defining a Healthy School Climate

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Table 1. Different Definitions of School Climate

Authors Measure­ Dimensions

Halpin and Personality Person’s personality and percep­

Tagiuri Four rela­ Culture, ecology, milieu, and social

Brookover et Personality Atmosphere, tone, ideology, milieu

Abdul Karim Leadership Efficient school management,

Farmakis Positive stu­ Inside and outside learning experi­

Haynes, Em­ Personality Atmosphere, tone, ideology, milieu

Hoy and School rela­ Community-school (environmental

Tan, Wong, TQM and Quality of school and climate

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Marshall, TQM and Quality of school and climate

Abdul Samad Personality Person’s personality and percep­

Prajogo and School char­ Relationships among students and

Kumar and 5 personali­ Relationships and interactions be­

Kunnanatt 5 personali­ Relationships and interactions be­

Johnson, 5 dimen­ Collaborative, student relation­

Lam, Gary, 5 personali­ Relationships and interactions be­

Cohen (2013) 4 essential Safety, relationships, teaching and

Petrie (2014) Personality Atmosphere, tone, ideology, milieu

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Bradshaw, Safe and Safety, student engagement, and

Student relationships constitute healthy collaborations and relationships where positive

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Theories of a Healthy and Positive School Cli­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Criticism of and Arguments for a Healthy

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Socioeconomic Status, Healthy School Climate,

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Future Research Directions

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

3. Improve school climate. School climate improvement can be defined as an intentional,

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and function­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Blum, R. W. (2005). A case for school connectedness. Educational Leadership, 62(7),

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. Amer­

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human develop­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Cheema, J. R., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Influence of disciplinary classroom climate on

Cohen, J. (2013). Creating a positive school climate: A foundation for resilience. In S.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of educa­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Hampden-Thompson, G., & Galindo, C. (2017). School–family relationships, school

Howard, E. R. (1974). School climate improvement. Education Digest, 39(8), 333–336.

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Kunnanatt, J. T. (2007). Impact of ISO 9000 on organizational climate. International Jour­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 June 2020

Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bond­

Authors Measure Dimensions

Halpin and Personality Person’s personality and percep

Tagiuri Four rela Culture, ecology, milieu, and social

Farmakis Positive stu Inside and outside learning experi

Haynes, Em Personality Atmosphere, tone, ideology, milieu

Hoy and School rela Community-school (environmental

Abdul Samad Personality Person’s personality and percep

Prajogo and School char Relationships among students and

Kumar and 5 personali Relationships and interactions be

Kunnanatt 5 personali Relationships and interactions be

Johnson, 5 dimen Collaborative, student relation

Lam, Gary, 5 personali Relationships and interactions be

Theories of a Healthy and Positive School Cli

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and function

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. Amer

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human develop

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of educa

Kunnanatt, J. T. (2007). Impact of ISO 9000 on organizational climate. International Jour

Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bond

Payne, A. A. (2012). Communal school organization effects on school disorder: Interac

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-ana