473680

2013
IMP16110.1177/1365480212473680Improving SchoolsAldridge and Ala’I

Article

Improving Schools

Assessing students’ views of school

16(1) 47­–66
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
climate: Developing and validating sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1365480212473680
the What’s Happening In This imp.sagepub.com

School? (WHITS) questionnaire

Jill Aldridge and Kate Ala’I

Curtin University, Australia

Abstract
This article describes the development and validation of a six-scale survey to assess school climate in
terms of students’ perceptions of the degree to which they feel welcome and connected, together with
a scale to assess students’ perceptions of bullying. The development of each survey involved a multi-stage
approach, including: 1) an extensive review of research related to school climate to identify components
that can be considered important for effective schools made up of diverse students; 2) elucidating the scales
identified in step one; and 3) writing individual items within the scales. Items from previously validated
questionnaires were examined and, if appropriate, adapted. We used Trochim and Donnelly’s (2006)
framework for construct validity to guide the validation of the new questionnaire. When the questionnaire
was administered to a sample of 4067 high school students from eight schools, various statistical analyses
ensured the questionnaire’s discriminant, convergent, concurrent and predictive validity.

Keywords
Inclusivity, orderly environment, school climate, school connectedness, social connectedness, What Is
Happening In This School? (WHITS)

Introduction
A school’s culture has been referred to as a school’s ethos or climate and, although there is no con-
sensus on the definition of school culture, it is generally agreed that it involves a group phenomenon
based on the quality and character of school life and patterns of people’s experiences (Cohen,
McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009). For the purpose of this article, school climate refers to the
quality and character of school life, including the norms, values and expectations that a school
accepts and promotes (Brookover, 1985). These, in turn, create an environment that dictates whether
the staff, students and parents feel safe (socially, emotionally or physically), welcome and respected.
In the literature, there has been some confusion between the terms ‘school culture’ and ‘school
climate’ (Schoen & Teddlie, 2008; Van Houtte, 2005) and, until recently, these terms have often been

Corresponding author:
Jill Aldridge, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia.
Email: j.aldridge@curtin.edu.au
48 Improving Schools 16(1)

used interchangeably. The notions of climate and culture originated from the different disciplines of
psychology and anthropology, respectively. Van Houtte (2005) has suggested that school culture is
best understood as a component of school climate, whereas Schoen and Teddlie (2008) have recently
proposed a model whereby school climate can be better understood as a level of school culture.
Although it is acknowledged that research involving both traditions have merit (Freiberg, 1999), for
the purpose of this research, we have used Schoen and Teddlie’s (2008) model as a guide.
It is widely acknowledged that a school’s culture is a major factor that can affect and influence
school improvement and change efforts (Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Daly, 2008; Sailes, 2008; Schoen
& Teddlie, 2008; Van Houtte, 2005). Deal and Peterson (1999) are of the opinion that school
reform efforts are likely to fail if they are not meaningfully linked to a school’s culture. Past studies
also indicate that elements of the school culture play a pivotal role in promoting or providing bar-
riers to the implementation of school-wide programs, including those related to bullying and vio-
lence (Coyle, 2008; Greene, 2008). The school culture characteristics that are likely to support
successful implementation include collaboration, connections among staff, a sense of family
(Coyle, 2008) and the quality of relationships between students (Coyle, 2008; Greene, 2008).
Positive school climates have been found to be related to increased student engagement (Brady,
2006) and improved academic achievement (Brookover et al., 1978; Esposito, 1999; Hoy & Hannum,
1997; MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). In one study, involving 270,000 fourth and eighth graders in
over 10,000 schools, Lubienski, Lubienski, and Crane (2008) performed a multilevel analysis of
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data to identify differences among schools on
five factors (school size, class size, school climate, teacher certification and instructional practices)
while holding demographic factors constant. This study revealed that that some of these factors,
including school climate, are positively correlated with student achievement.
Past research has indicated that the school climate perceived by adolescents is a strong predictor
of emotional and behavioural outcomes (Esposito, 1999; Kuperminc, Leadbeater, & Blatt, 2001;
Loukas & Robinson, 2004; Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000; Wang, Selman, Dishion, & Stormshak,
2010). A large-scale study involving 10,400 students from schools across Israel revealed that a
school’s climate was related to student’s reports of physical victimization, threats and verbal-social
victimization (Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, & Astor, 2005). Research evidence supports the
notion that changes in the school climate (particularly in terms of improved teacher–student rela-
tionships and improved discipline and order) can reduce behaviour problems (Gottfredson, 1989;
Wang et al., 2010) and help to create a safe school (Gottfredson, 1989; Sherman et al., 1997).
Because research has shown that the school climate is integrally related to student academic,
emotional and behavioural success at school, as well as a strong influence on the success of school
reform, the focus of our research was to identify factors that contribute towards a positive school
climate and to develop a questionnaire that could be used to assess these. In practical terms, this
instrument could provide school administrators and those involved in reform efforts with a reliable,
valid and convenient tool that can be used to provide information about students’ perceptions of the
school climate that can be used to guide changes in practices. It can also be used to provide infor-
mation to monitor reform efforts aimed at increasing the safety and inclusivity at the school.

Theoretical background
Relationships
Social capital involves features related to the cohesiveness of groups including strong social bonds
that involve high levels of interpersonal trust and norms of reciprocity (Dessel, 2010; Kawachi &
Aldridge and Ala’I 49

Berkmann, 2000; Putman, 1995; Wilkinson, 1996). As such, social capital is an important feature
of peer relationships that provides the foundation for connectedness in school communities.
Research evidences have indicated that the accumulation of social capital can to lead to the reduc-
tion of social conflict (such as bullying) and increase the tolerance of diverse cultures (Kawachi &
Berkmann, 2000).
Relationships within a school environment play a pivotal role in creating a safe and inclusive
school climate. To this end, James Noonan (2005, p. 65) states:

If there is a common thread to creating a positive school climate, it is the importance of relationships –
student to student, teacher to student, teacher to family, administrator to staff, school to community.
Perhaps it is simplistic to conclude that something as inherently comprehensive and complex as school
climate boils down to such subjective considerations as people and relationships, but that may be closest
to the truth.

Within the school environment, the establishment of social bonds with teachers and with other
students is influential in creating social capital (Roffrey, 2008) and important in attaining positive
student outcomes (Anderson, 1982; Carbonaro, 2005; Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder, 2001; Shields,
1991). Philosophical assumptions about how school members treat and interact with each other
involve unspoken norms and beliefs. These norms and beliefs influence the types and nature of
interactions between teachers and students that take place in a school and are critical to the school
climate (Dessel, 2010).
The teachers’ relationships with the students are a pivotal aspect of any school environment
and can have a powerful influence a students’ experience of school. According to Noddings
(1996) those students who perceive themselves to be noticed and valued by teachers are more
likely to work hard and to care about themselves and others. Research has shown that students
who perceive their teachers to be supportive, have greater confidence in tackling new problems
and are more likely to persevere in completing challenging tasks (Loukas & Robinson, 2004).
Other research has found that, if students consider teachers to be approachable, supportive and
care about them, then they are more likely to seek the teachers’ help if there is a problem, have
better achievement and fewer behaviour problems (Reinke & Herman, 2002; Wang et al., 2010).
Conversely, students who feel uncared for by teachers are likely to experience higher levels of
disorder (Sherman et al., 1997). Based on these research findings, we considered the teachers’
relationships with and support of students to be an important factor that influences the school
climate.
The notion of peer connectedness is concerned largely with building positive levels of student-
to-student rapport (Roffey, 2008). The establishing of bonds between peers is a critical component
of a positive school climate and numerous studies testify to the powerful influence of peer con-
nectedness with a range of student outcomes (Goldbaum, Craig, Pepler, & Connolly, 2003; Rutter,
2003; Stewart, 2003; Welsh, 2000). According to Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory, adoles-
cents who establish social bonds within the school environment are more likely to strive to meet
the expectations of society and have fewer behaviour problems. According to Loukas et al. (2006),
students who have a sense of social connectedness are less likely to be affected by the negative
effects of self-criticism and low self-efficacy.
Numerous studies have found that positive peer relationships, acceptance and positive interac-
tions among peers are related to reduced victimization (Goldbaum et al., 2003; Kilian et al., 2007;
Welsh, 2000). According to Stewart (2008), positive peer relations provide students with the means
to learn and adopt more prosocial ways of dealing with conflict, thereby reducing the risk of being
50 Improving Schools 16(1)

either a perpetrator of bullying or a victim of peer aggression. In fact, research has indicated that
positive relationships with peers can promote psychological and life skills and may be related to
academic achievement and motivation (Cotterell, 1992; Nichols & White, 2001; Stewart, 2008).
Given these theoretical and research findings, we considered students’ relationships with their
peers to be a key component of the school climate.

School connectedness
Relationships within schools are considered to have a powerful influence on school connectedness
(Rowe & Stewart, 2009). School connectedness refers to a student’s sense of belonging within the
school environment. Theory related to school connectedness has, in recent literature, been described
as an ecological concept (Rowe, Stewart, & Patterson, 2007). From this ecological view of school
connectedness, Dessel (2010) considers the importance of the quality of relationships and
degree of connectedness and cohesion amongst different and multiple groups within the school
community.
Research findings indicate that students’ perceptions of school connectedness (sense of belong-
ing to a school community) is positively related to academic achievement and engagement (Bond
et al., 2007; Lonczak et al., 2002; Pittman & Richmond, 2007). Students’ perceptions of school
connectedness also have been found to be related positively to students’ completion of secondary
school (Bond et al., 2007). In addition, it is increasingly acknowledged that having a sense of con-
nection to the school is strongly related to promoting students’ mental health and psychosocial well
being (Bond et al., 2007; Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill, & Abbott, 2005; Resnick et al.,
1997; Rutter, Maughan, Moretimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979) and reduced violence (Bisset,
Markham, & Aveyard, 2007; Kliewer & Murrelle, 2007; Patton et al., 2006; Springer, Parcel,
Baumler, & Ross, 2006).
In recent years, there has been growing acknowledgement, that a comprehensive whole
school approach to improving and promoting school connectedness is beneficial (Battistich,
Schaps, & Wilson, 2004; Erickson, Mattaini, & McGuire, 2004; Hawkins et al., 2005;
Youngblade et al., 2007). Theoretical and research findings support the importance of school
connectedness as an important component of the school climate that is likely to influence stu-
dents’ achievement and engagement. Therefore, school connectedness was included as a con-
struct in our study.

Inclusivity and affirming diversity

Most schools today include students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Although,
traditionally, inclusive education has referred to the inclusion of students with disabilities into
mainstream classrooms (van Kraayenoord, 2007), our study draws on UNESCO’s (1995, 1997,
2000) broader aims and notion of inclusion that advocate respect, acceptance and appreciation of
the diversity of our world’s cultures. In a school environment, then, inclusion and affirming diver-
sity is related to the creation of harmony in difference so that students with differing cultural and
language backgrounds feel that they are acknowledged and valued.
It is fair to say that the culture of the school can become a hostile environment for individuals
who are exposed to victimization, harassment or prejudice. The bullying or harassment of indi-
viduals who are regarded as different (as a result of their race, religion, ability or sexual orienta-
tion) can lead to prolonged absence from school and increased violence (Whitted & Dupper, 2005).
Fraser (2001) and Rutter et al. (1979) have highlighted that the many hours that students spend in
Aldridge and Ala’I 51

school contributes enormously to a students’ socialization. Dessel (2010, p. 408) points out that the
school environment is a microcosm of our society and provides numerous opportunities for stu-
dents to learn about ‘differences, conflict resolution and peaceful coexistence’. Having said this,
however, past research has also indicated that prolonged contact between diverse groups and the
celebration of diversity (such as Harmony Day) is not sufficient to alleviate prejudice and break
down barriers (Dessel, 2010).
Teachers often are not prepared to teach in classrooms with diverse students and are ill-equipped
to deal with racism or prejudice (Marshall, 2001). Bearing in mind that the majority of teachers are
white and middle class, it is not surprising then that they often are unable understand the views of
minority groups.
Research findings indicate that the key to providing a truly multicultural education is in chang-
ing the school climate. Examining the language used in curriculum and in day-to-day interactions
can help to shape the school culture. By better preparing our teachers to use anti-racist strategies
and to involve an intergroup, intercultural approach that highlights the benefits of diversity, helps
students to better understand their place in society. Past research highlights numerous examples of
best practice and programmes that promote intercultural relationships, including multicultural and
anti-bias education and moral development programmes (Banks, 2005; Erickson et al., 2004;
Stephan & Vogt, 2004; Twemlow, Fonagy, & Sacco, 2005; Whitted & Dupper, 2005). Given the
research evidence related to the importance of affirming diversity in providing an inclusive school
climate, this construct was included in our study.

Creating an orderly environment

Students’ perception of their safety is an important aspect of the school culture (Cohen et al., 2009)
and, according to Teddlie and Reynolds (2000), contributes to an effective school ethos. Having
clear rules and order helps students and staff to know what is expected of them and provide clear
guidelines about interpersonal conduct (Hernandez & Seem, 2004). Hernandez and Seem (2004)
purport that clearly defining what is considered to be acceptable behaviour is likely to lead to the
creation of a safer school climate. According to Wang et al. (2010), there is a need for the school
climate to communicate and enforce a fair system in which clear rules are established in a fair and
equitable manner. Research evidence suggests that schools which establish, communicate and
enforce a fair discipline system have fewer behaviour problems (Kawachi & Berkmann, 2000;
Sugai & Horner, 1999). Given that research evidence supports the importance of having fair, clear
and consistent rules to creating a safe school environment, this construct was considered pivotal in
ensuring a positive school climate.
Recent research indicates that adolescents often are unwilling to report and seek help if school
rules are broken (Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010; Oliver & Candappa, 2007), with the rate at
which students seek help declining considerably in the middle years of schooling (Williams &
Cornell, 2006). In their Improving the Quality of Education for All (IQEA) project, Teddlie and
Reynolds (2000) found that the ways in which a school deals with problems is likely to be reflected
and established in school culture.
Research indicates that, in schools where students believe that they know how to report the
breaking of school rules and feel comfortable doing so, the rights of students are more likely to be
upheld and safer school conditions prevail (Antrop-González, 2006; Bandyopadhyay, Cornell, &
Konold, 2009; Williams & Cornell, 2006). Given that past research indicates that schools in which
a supportive climate prevails are likely to have increased willingness for students to seek help, this
52 Improving Schools 16(1)

construct, concerned with whether the school has the structures in place to enable and promote
students to seek help, was selected for inclusion in our study.

Past questionnaires to assess school climate

Surveys have been used extensively to assess school climate. The theoretical foundations of much
of the research related to school climate can be traced back to Lewin’s (1936) field theory in
which the interaction of personal characteristics and the environment is a determinant of human
behaviour. Later, Murray (1938) used Lewin’s theory to formulate a needs-press model of interac-
tion in which personal needs can be supported or frustrated by the environment. To date, the
majority of multidimensional instruments for assessing the notion of educational climate have
been centred on students’ perceptions of schooling at the classroom level (Fraser, 2007; Huang &
Fraser, 2009). There have been some examples, however, of classroom-level surveys being used
to help to assess the school climate. For example, the My Class Inventory (originally developed
as classroom climate instrument) was adapted for use at the school level and involving the four
aspects of Friction, Cohesion, Competition among Students and Satisfaction with Classes (Loukas
& Murphy, 2007). Other studies related to the school climate have used the Classroom Environment
Scale (originally developed by Trickett & Moos, 1973). The use of the CES was found to provide
a starting point for identifying dimensions related to social climates and have been found to be
related to a range of outcomes, including a commitment to academic achievement (Eccles &
Midgely, 1989; Phillips, 1997; Shouse, 1996). Our research, however, sought to include informa-
tion about students’ experiences of whether the school affirmed cultural diversity, whether
mechanisms were in place that allowed students to report behaviour that was prejudiced and
whether the school rules helped them to feel safe (Felner & Felner, 1989; Gottfredson &
Gottfredson, 1985).
A review of the literature revealed that there have been a number of surveys developed to assess
school culture, but most of these were designed to assess teachers’ view of the school climate
(Anderson, 1982; Maslowski, 2006), including the Work Environment Scale (WES; Moos, 1979,
1986) which was later adapted by Docker, Fraser, and Fisher (1989) to describe teachers’ work
environment, and the School-Level Environment Questionnaire (Aldridge, Laugksch, & Fraser,
2006; Fisher & Fraser, 1991; Huang & Fraser, 2009; Johnson & Stevens, 2001; Johnson, Stevens,
& Zvoch, 2007). In addition, there are questionnaires developed to assess the organizational cul-
ture of the school, including, the School Culture Questionnaire (Saphier & King, 1985), the School
Work Culture Profile (Snyder, 1988), School Values Inventory (Pang, 1995) and the School
Cultural Elements Questionnaire (Cavanagh & Dellar, 1996).
Some multidimensional questionnaires have been developed to assess students’ experiences of
the climate of the school. Ainley, Batten, Collins, and Withers (1998) developed a scale as was
used as part of a large Commonwealth-funded project in Australia. Despite claims of the scale
being multidimensional, only the internal consistency and not the factor analysis was reported.
Another survey was the School Climate Bullying Survey (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2009), designed
to assess the nature and prevalence of bullying at school and includes the scales of Prevalence of
Teasing and Bullying, Aggressive Attitudes and Willingness to Seek Help. Although an important
survey, the School Climate Bullying Survey only assessed this one component of the school cli-
mate. The Assessment of Climate, Cultural Pluralism and School Safety (Brand, Felner, Shim,
Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003) assesses 10 scales of Teacher Support, Consistency and Clarity of
Rules and Expectations, Achievement Orientation, Negative Peer Interactions, Positive Peer
Interactions, Disciplinary Harshness, Student Input in Decision Making, Instructional Innovation,
Aldridge and Ala’I 53

Support for Cultural Pluralism and Safety Problems. Another study involving perceptions of school
climate focused on order and discipline and achievement motivation (Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf,
2008). Given that, to date, there is no single questionnaire that has been validated for use in high
schools that are culturally and linguistically diverse the development of this new survey has filled
this gap.

Design and procedures

The development and validation of the school climate questionnaires involved both quantitative
and qualitative research methods (Creswell & Plano Clarke, 2007). Trochim and Donnelly’s (2006)
framework for construct validity was used to guide the validation of the new questionnaire.
According to this framework, a construct must fulfil both translation and criterion-related validity
requirements.
The development of the new questionnaires followed a three-stage approach. The first step
involved identifying and defining salient scales and consisted of two steps. First, an extensive
review of theories and research related to school culture was carried out. This assisted us in identi-
fying components of the school climate that theorists, researchers and practitioners consider essen-
tial for effective schools made up of a diverse population of students. The second step was to
elucidate the scales identified in step one, thereby maximizing the content validity of the instru-
ment by ensuring that it was based on a sound theoretical framework. The third step involved writ-
ing individual items within the scales. Items from previously validated questionnaires were
examined and, if appropriate, adapted. However, the majority of the items were developed for the
purpose of this questionnaire.

Data sources
The sample for the large-scale administration involved all of the students (grades 8 to 12) from
eight high schools. This provided a sample of 4067 students, 1971 of the students were boys and

Construct validity

Translaon validity Criterion validity

Operaonalizaon is an accurate detailed Operaonalizaon gives relaonal conclusions
definion of the theorecal construct that are expected, based on theory

Content validity Face validity Convergent validity Discriminant validity

Constructs are Items of a construct are Items of a construct are Items from different
theorecally well able to reflect clearly the highly correlated to each constructs are not highly
defined and inclusive theorecal construct other correlated to each other

Concurrent validity Predicve validity

Disnguishes between
groups it should theorecally Predicts something that it
be able to disnguish should theorecally predict

Figure 1. Framework for construct validity (source: Trochim & Donnelly, 2006).
54 Improving Schools 16(1)

1850 were girls (266 students did not specify their gender) ranging from 12 to 17 years of age. Of
these students, approximately 65 percent were born in Australia and 35 percent were born over-
seas, and 76 percent spoke English as their first language and 24 percent of the students did not.
Schools were selected to provide a representative sample of schools in metropolitan Western
Australia. As such, the schools ranged in terms of cultural diversity and location, particularly with
respect to socio-economic demographics.

Analysis of data
For the newly developed What’s Happening In This School? (WHITS) questionnaire, analysis was
undertaken to fulfil Trochim and Donnelly’s (2006) construct validity framework. A pilot study
was conducted with 53 students from two Year 8 science classes to confirm the face validity of the
new surveys. Seven students from these two classes, based on their willingness to participate, were
selected for semi-structured interviews. A range of low-achieving to high-achieving students was
selected to ensure that the sample was representative of the population. The main purpose of the
interviews was to confirm whether students were responding to the items on the basis intended by
the questionnaire developers.
The next step involved examining the criterion validation of the new questionnaire in terms of
the discriminant validity, concurrent validity and predictive validity. To examine the convergent
validity, exploratory factor analysis involving the use of oblique rotation, was used in the principal
component analysis. Factor loadings indicated how strongly each item was related to a particular
factor, eigenvalues showed the relative importance of each factor, and the cumulative variance was
used to check whether a sufficient number of factors have been retained (Field, 2009). The
Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated for each factor to provide an indication of the internal
consistency reliability. The factor loadings and internal consistency reliability measure ensured the
convergent validity of the questionnaires.
Discriminant validity was also established using factor analysis. Brown (2004) and Field (2009)
explained that oblique rotation in exploratory factor analysis provides realistic representation of
how factors are interrelated. According to Field (2009), based on theoretical grounds there should
be a moderately strong relationship between factors. However, factor correlations above 0.80
imply overlap of concepts and point towards poor discriminant validity (Brown, 2006). The com-
ponent correlation matrix obtained from oblique rotation was used to determine whether the cor-
relation values met the requirements of discriminant validity.
Concurrent validity was assessed to make sure that each construct was able to distinguish
between those groups which it was expected to distinguish. If, as past research suggests, the cli-
mate of a school differs to that of other schools, then, concurrent validity can be established by
examining the ability of each scale to differentiate between different schools. This was investigated
using ANOVA. The eta2 statistic, based on the ratio of the between-group effect to the total amount
of variance in the data (Field, 2009), was calculated to provide information about the amount of
variance attributed to class membership.
Predictive validity was assessed to ensure that the score on the construct predicts scores on other
dimensions based on theoretical grounds. Theoretical and research underpinnings discussed in the
literature review suggested that students’ perceptions of bullying is associated to the school cli-
mate. Students’ perceptions of the extent to which they are bullied by others, as assessed by a
newly-developed scale, was used. Because the hypothesis was that there is a negative correlation
between each WHITS scale and bullying, the correlations were tested using a one-tailed Pearson
coefficient.
Aldridge and Ala’I 55

Results
Development of the WHITS
Content validity was established by basing the constructs in the survey on sound theoretical
grounds, including school culture and school climate models, as well as school effectiveness and
school improvement theories. An extensive review of literature authenticated that the items used to
conceptualize the constructs were an accurate representation.
Given the importance of the school climate and the fact that students, as major stakeholders in
the education process, it was considered necessary that students be given the opportunity to express
their views. The importance of listening to students’ voices is not new and has been found, in past
research, to be potentially transformative (Aldridge & Bell, in press; Rudduck, 2002; Rudduck &
Demetriou, 2003).
A multitude of factors shape the quality and character of the school, however, for our question-
naire, in deciding which constructs to include, we considered the theory and research findings
described above to ensure that we included school climate elements that were likely to support
diversity. To this end, we developed six scales that can be used as indicators. Table 1 provides a
scale description and sample item for each of the newly developed scales. The first two scales,
Teacher Support and Peer Connectedness were developed to assess students’ perceptions of the
important teacher–student and student–student relationships in the school. The School
Connectedness scale was developed to assess students’ perceptions of the extent to which they felt
welcome at a part of the school. The Rule Clarity and Reporting and Seeking Help scales were
developed to assess students’ perceptions of the extent to which the rules of the schools were clear
and the degree to which they were aware of procedures and confident to report or seek help when

Table 1. Description and sample item for each scale of the What’s Happening In This School? (WHITS)
questionnaire

Scale Description Sample item

The extent to which …
Teacher support …students perceive that teachers
at the school are supportive and
helpful.
Peer connectedness …students feel that there is
contact and friendship between
students from diverse cultures and
backgrounds.
School connectedness …students perceive that students
at the school are part of a
community.
Affirming diversity …students with differing cultural
backgrounds and experiences are
acknowledged and valued.
Rule clarity …students perceive the school
rules to be clear and promote a
safe environment.
Reporting and seeking help …students are aware of
procedures and are confident that
they can report incidents.
At this school teachers take an
interest in my background.
At this school I make friends with
people from different backgrounds.
At this school I feel welcome.
At this school my cultural background
is respected by students.
At this school the rules make it
clear that certain behaviours are
unacceptable.
I can report incidents without others
finding out.
56 Improving Schools 16(1)

there were breaches of the school rules. A copy of the WHITS questionnaire can be found in the
Appendix.

Development of the bullying scale

Bullying can be defined as a proactive behaviour (that is usually repetitive) and is characterized by
an imbalance of power between the perpetrator and the victim (Guerra, Williams, & Sadek, 2011;
Rigby, 2006; Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Past research has reported that repetitive exposure to bul-
lying can have a traumatic impact on victims (Baldry, 2004; Carney, 2008; Rigby, 2002).
Because past studies have identified that the climate created at a school is a predictor of bully-
ing, this scale was selected for inclusion of this study (Dessel, 2010; Gendron, Williams, & Guerra,
2011; Pernice-Duca, Taiariol, & Yoon, 2010). Further, research evidence has indicated that changes
in the school climate can help to reduce a culture of bullying (Bradshaw & Waasdorp, 2009).
Bandyopadhayay et al. (2009, p. 339) maintain that the school climate is particularly relevant for
the prevention of bullying, because schools in which there is a culture of bullying ‘empowers bul-
lies to act aggressively without fear of sanction, encourages passivity in bystanders and creates an
environment in which bystanders of bullying see no reason to report their victimization or expect
assistance’.
Our bullying scale was developed to examine the frequency with which students experienced
bullying (whether physical, emotional or social). The scale involves a retrospective self report of
bullying episodes that they have experienced over the previous four weeks. The scale takes into
account that bullying can present itself in different forms (such as physical, verbal or written). The
internal consistency reliability of this scale was 0.94.

Face validity. To ensure that the researchers and participants attributed similar meanings and inter-
pretations to the constructs, seven Year 8 students were interviewed. These students indicated that
the items were clear, concise and easily understood, thus supporting the face validity of the
instrument.
Once we had established the criteria for translation validity, the next step was to establish
whether the criterion validity (in terms of convergent, discriminant, concurrent and predictive
validity) had been met. Analysis involving the data collected from 4067 students in eight govern-
ment high schools in Western Australia was used. Prior to the analyses of the data, the multivariate
normality and sampling adequacy of the data were tested. Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated that
this value was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The Kaiser-Maiyer-Olkin measure of adequacy
was high (0.965), confirming the appropriateness of the data for further analysis. The results for the
analyses conducted to support the criterion validity are discussed below.

Convergent validity. Exploratory factor analysis was carried out to extract salient factors. According
to Field (2009), because data involving humans are correlated, oblique rotation is recommended to
obtain a set of relevant factors. Principal component analysis of the 48 items extracted the six suc-
cinct sets of factors. Table 2 details the results of the oblique rotation.
Factor loadings indicate how strongly each item is related to a particular factor, eigenvalues
show the relative importance of each factor, and the cumulative variance can be used to check
whether a sufficient number of factors have been retained (Field, 2009). The results indicate that
the eigenvalue for each factor was greater than 1 (considered acceptable using Kaiser’s criterion),
whilst the cumulative variance for all six factors was acceptable at 64.05 percent (Table 2).
Furthermore, all items loaded above 0.30 on their own scale and no other scales, therefore all of the
items were retained.
Aldridge and Ala’I 57

Table 2. Factor loadings, percentage of variance and Eigenvalues for items in the WHITS
Item number Factor loading
Teacher Peer School Affirming Rule clarity Reporting and
support connectedness connectedness diversity seeking help
1 0.301
2 0.780
3 0.736
4 0.727
5 0.589
6 0.806
7 0.793
8 0.792
9 0.685
10 0.786
11 0.782
12 0.881
13 0.877
14 0.888
15 0.867
16 0.790
17 0.488
18 0.772
19 0.776
20 0.797
21 0.396
22 0.835
23 0.764
24 0.840
25 0.626
26 0.811
27 0.646
28 0.681
29 0.637
30 0.755
31 0.847
32 0.728
33 0.769
34 0.591
35 0.537
36 0.789
37 0.800
38 0.780
39 0.746
40 0.536
41 0.706
42 0.752
43 0.742
44 0.802
45 0.775
46 0.799
47 0.755
48 0.693

% Variance 4.248 9.379 5.448 4.917 3.703 34.813

Eigenvalue 2.039 4.502 2.615 2.360 1.778 16.710
Cronbach alpha reliability 0.891 0.934 0.897 0.892 0.909 0.910

Factor loadings smaller than 0.30 have been omitted. N = 4067 students in eight schools.
58 Improving Schools 16(1)

The Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated for each factor to provide an indication of the
internal consistency reliability. It is contended that, in exploratory research, a lenient cut-off of
0.60 is common; to be considered a satisfactory scale, the alpha should be 0.70 or higher and for a
‘good’ scale a cut-off of 0.80 is required (Cohen et al., 2000). The internal consistency reliability
value for each WHITS scale, reported at the bottom of Table 2, was above 0.89, with highest value
of 0.91 for Reporting and Seeking Help. The factor loadings and internal consistency both strongly
support convergent validity of the questionnaire.

Discriminant validity. Trochim and Donnelly (2006) suggested that discriminant validity is achieved
when the correlations between a particular item and other items in the same construct are higher
than its correlations with items from different constructs. Although oblique rotation in exploratory
factor analysis provides a pragmatic representation of how factors are interrelated (Brown, 2004;
Field, 2009), there should also be a moderately strong relationship between factors that is based on
theoretical grounds (Field, 2009). Factor correlations above 0.80, however, imply an overlap
between concepts that may indicate poor discriminant validity (Brown, 2004). The component cor-
relation matrix, generated from the oblique rotation and provided in Table 3, indicates that the
highest correlation was 0.54. Thus, the requirement of discriminant validity for the WHITS scales
was met.

Concurrent validity. Concurrent validity was assessed to ensure that each construct was able to dis-
tinguish between those groups between which it is expected to distinguish. To establish concurrent
validity, the ability of each scale to differentiate between different schools was investigated using
ANOVA. The eta2 statistic, based on the ratio of the between-group effect to the total amount of
variance in the data (Field, 2009), provided information about the amount of variance attributed to
class membership. The results, reported in the Table 4, shows that the eta2 value was significant
(p < 0.001) for each scale, suggesting that each scale in the WHITS differentiated significantly
between schools, thus supporting the concurrent validity of the scales.

Predictive validity. Predictive validity was used to estimate whether the scales of the WHITS could
predict scores on a dimension that, based on theoretical grounds, it should predict. Theoretical and
research underpinnings, discussed above, suggest that students’ views of the school climate should

Table 3. Component correlation matrix for WHITS scales

Scale Teacher Peer School Affirming Rule Reporting and

support connectedness connectedness diversity clarity seeking help
Teacher 1.000 0.283 0.431 0.436 0.473 0.541
support
Peer 0.283 1.000 0.404 0.322 0.212 0.269
connectedness
School 0.431 0.404 1.000 0.432 0.451 0.371
connectedness
Affirming 0.436 0.322 0.432 1.000 0.402 0.386
diversity
Rule clarity 0.473 0.212 0.451 0.402 1.000 0.457
Reporting and 0.541 0.269 0.371 0.386 0.457 1.000
seeking help
Aldridge and Ala’I 59

Table 4. Ability to differentiate between schools (ANOVA results) and predictive validity (Pearson’s
Correlation) for WHITS scales

Scale ANOVA results (Eta2) Pearson’s coefficient (1-tailed)

Teacher support 0.169** -0.168**
Peer connectedness 0.054** -0.131**
School connectedness 0.055** -0.301**
Affirming diversity 0.168** -0.160**
Rule clarity 0.023** -0.197**
Reporting and seeking help 0.013** -0.196**
**p < 0.001.
The sample consisted of 4067 students in eight schools.
The Eta2 statistic is the ratio of the between-group effect to the total amount of variance.

be strongly and negatively associated with students’ self reports of bullying (as assessed by the scale
developed for the purpose of this study). Because our hypothesis was that there would be a negative
correlation between each WHITS scale and students’ perceived bullying, correlations were tested
using a one-tailed Pearson coefficient. The results reported in Table 4 indicate that all of the WHITS
scales had a statistically significant and negative correlation with student self-reports of the fre-
quency of bullying, thereby supporting the predictive validity of the WHITS scales.

Discussion and conclusions

Because research evidence has shown that the school climate is integrally related to student aca-
demic, emotional and behavioural success at school, as well as a strong influence the success of
school reform (Daly, 2008; Deal & Peterson, 1999; Dessell, 2010; Sailes, 2008; Schoen & Teddlie,
2008; Van Houtte, 2005), the focus of our research was to identify factors that contribute towards
a positive school climate and to develop a questionnaire that could be used to assess these salient
factors. In practical terms, this instrument will provide school administrators and those involved in
reform efforts with a reliable, valid and convenient tool that can be used to provide information
about students’ perceptions of the school climate that can be used to promote reflexivity in prac-
tices (as recommended by Durrant, 2012) and to guide changes. It was anticipated that a tool that
allows students’ voices to be heard might promote transformative changes similar to those found
by McIntyre, Pedder, and Rudduck (2005) and Rudduck (2002). The tool also could be used to
provide information to monitor reform efforts aimed at increasing the safety and inclusivity at the
school.
The new questionnaire satisfied all aspects of construct validity, as outlined in Trochim and
Donnelly’s (2006) framework. Translation validity was satisfied through a thorough review of lit-
erature, used to ensure that the scales and items were based on sound theoretical and research find-
ings (content validity) and a pilot test that involved interviews with individual students (face
validity). Criterion validity was established through the statistical analysis of data collected from
4067 students in eight schools. A factor analysis using oblique rotation established that each item
loaded above 0.30 on its a priori factor and no other, thereby supporting the discriminant validity.
The relatively high internal consistency reliability of no less than 0.89 for each of the six scales
supported the convergent validity. A one-way ANOVA was used to determine whether each of the
scales could distinguish between the perceptions of students in different schools. All of the scales
were able to statistically significantly differentiate between schools, thus supporting the concurrent
60 Improving Schools 16(1)

validity. Finally, the predictive validity was examined using the newly developed bullying scale to
determine whether each of the six scales were able to predict the degree to which students per-
ceived bullying to take place. The statistically significant and negative association between each of
the six school climate scales and bullying scale supported the predictive ability of the new
questionnaire.
For researchers, the use of this survey, in conjunction with other techniques such as interviews
and observations, could lead towards a more comprehensive understanding of the school climate.
Furthermore, longitudinal studies could be conducted to examine changes in students’ perceptions
of the school climate and its influence on different criterion variables such as ethnic identity, moral
development and student well-being.

References
Ainley, J., Batten, M., Collins, C., & Withers, G. (1998). Schools and the social development of young
Australians. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research.
Aldridge, J. M., Laugksch, R. C., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). School-level environment and outcomes-based edu-
cation in South Africa. Learning Environments Research, 9, 123–147.
Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the literature. Review of Educational
Research, 52, 368–420.
Antrop-González, R. (2006). Toward the school as sanctuary concept in multicultural urban education:
Implications for small high school reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(3), 273–301.
Baldry, A. C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental and physical health of Italian
youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 343–355.
Bandyopadhyay, S., Cornell, D. G., & Konold, T. R. (2009). Validity of three school climate scales to assess
bullying, aggressive attitudes, and help seeking. School Psychology Review, 38(3), 338–355.
Banks, C. (2005). Improving multicultural education: Lessons from the intergroup education movement. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students’
‘connectedness’ to school and social adjustment during middle school. Journal of Primary Prevention,
24(3), 243–262.
Bell, L. M., & Aldridge, J. M. (in press). Investigating the use of student perception data for teacher reflection
and classroom improvement. Learning Environments Research.
Bisset, S., Markham, W., & Aveyard, P. (2007). School culture as an influencing factor on youth substance
use. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 485–490.
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social and school
connectedness in early secondary school as predictors’ of late teenage substance use, mental health, and
academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 357.e9–357.e18.
Bradshaw, C. P., & Waasdorp, T. E. (2009). Measuring and changing a ‘culture of bullying’. School
Psychology Review, 38(3), 356–361.
Brady, P. (2006). Inclusionary and exclusionary secondary schools: The effect of school culture on student
outcomes. Interchange, 36, 295–311.
Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003). Idle school improvement and reform:
Development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism and school safety.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 570–588.
Brookover, W. B. (1985). Can we make schools effective for minority students? The Journal of Negro
Education, 54, 257–268.
Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., & Wisenbaker, J. M.
(1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 15, 301–318.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
Aldridge and Ala’I 61

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational
Leadership, 60(6), 40–44.
Carbonaro, W. (2005). Tracking, students’ effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 78,
27–49.
Carney, J. V. (2008). Perceptions of bullying and associated trauma during adolescence. Professional School
Counseling, 11(3), 179–188.
Cavanagh, R. F., & Dellar, G. B. (1996, April). The development of an instrument for investigating school
culture. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York.
Cohen, J., McCabe, E., Michelli, N., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and
teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.
Cotterell, J. L. (1992). The relation of attachments and supports to adolescent well-being and school adjust-
ment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 28–42.
Coyle, H. E. (2008). Bridges and barriers to successful bullying prevention programme implementation.
Journal of School Violence, 7(2), 105–122.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed method research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Daly, T. (2008). School culture and values-related change: Towards a critically pragmatic conceptualisation.
Irish Educational Studies, 27(1), 5–27.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Inc.
Dessel, A. (2010). Prejudice in schools: Promotion of an inclusive culture and climate. Education and Urban
Society, 42(4), 407–429.
Docker, J. G., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1989). Differences in psychosocial work environment of different
types of schools. Journal for Research in Childhood Education, 4, 5–7.
Durrant, J. (2012). Special issue: Diversity, participation and creativity in learning. Improving Schools, 15(2),
93–100.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early
adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Volume 3. Goals and
cognitions (pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press.
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student willingness to
seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 533–553.
Erickson, C., Mattaini, M., & McGuire, M. (2004). Constructing nonviolence cultures in schools: The state of
the science. Children & Schools, 26, 102–116.
Esposito, C. (1999). Learning in urban blight: School climate and its effect on the school performance of
urban, minority low-income children. School Psychology Review, 28, 365–377.
Felner, R. D., & Felner, T. Y. (1989). Primary prevention programs in an ecological context: A transactional-
ecological framework and analysis. In L. Bond & B. Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention in the schools
(pp. 13–48). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.
Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1991). School climate and teacher professional development. South Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 19, 17–23.
Fraser, B. J. (2001). Twenty thousand hours: Editor’s introduction. Learning Environments Research, 4(1),
1–5.
Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of
research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Freiberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1999). School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environ-
ments. London: Falmer Press.
Gendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2011). An analysis of bullying among students within
schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. Journal
of School Violence, 10(2), 150–164.
62 Improving Schools 16(1)

Goldbaum, S., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Connolly, J. (2003). Developmental trajectories of victimization:
Identifying risk and protective factors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(2), 139–156.
Gottfredson, D. (1989). Developing effective organizations to reduce school disorder. In O. Moles (Ed.),
Strategies to reduce student misbehavior (pp. 87–104). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO ED 311 608).
Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1985). Victimization in schools. New York: Plenum Press.
Greene, M. B. (2008). Reducing school violence: School-based curricular programs and school climate. The
Prevention Researcher, 15(1), 12–16.
Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., & Sadek, S. (2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during child-
hood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82(1), 295–310.
Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Abbott, R. D. (2005). Promoting positive adult
functioning through social development intervention in childhood: Long-term effects from the Seattle
Social Development Project. Archives of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 25–31.
Hernandez, T. J., & Seem, S. R. (2004). A safe school climate: A systemic approach and the school counsel-
lor. Professional School Counseling, 7, 256–262.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hoy, W. K., & Hannum, J. W. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of organizational
health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 290–311.
Huang, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Science teachers’ perceptions of the school environment: Gender differ-
ences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 404–420.
Johnson, B., & Stevens, J. J. (2001). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the School Level
Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ). Learning Environments Research, 4, 325–344.
Johnson, B., Stevens, J. J., & Zvoch, K. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of school climate: A validity study of
the revised School Level Environment Survey (SLEQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement,
67, 833–844.
Johnson, M. K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G., Jr. (2001). Students’ attachment and academic engagement: The
role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 74, 318–340.
Kawachi, I., & Berkmann, L. (2000). Social cohesion, social capital and health. In L. Berkmann & I. Kawachi
(Eds.), Social epidemiology (pp. 174–190). New York: Oxford University Press.
Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). The effects of school climate, socioeconomics
and cultural factors on student victimisation in Israel. Social Work Research, 29, 165–181.
Kilian, J. M., Fish, M. C., & Maniago, E. B. (2007). Making schools safe. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 23(1), 1–30.
Kliewer, W., & Murrelle, L. (2007). Risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use: Findings from
a study in selected Central American countries. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 448–455.
Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of
school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 69–104.
Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Blatt, S. J. (2001). School social climate and individual differences
in vulnerability to psychopathology among middle school students. Journal of School Psychology, 39,
141–159.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw.
Lonczak, H. S., Abbott, R. D., Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Effects of the Seattle
social development project on sexual behaviour, pregnancy, birth, and sexually transmitted disease out-
comes by age 21 years. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 438–447.
Loukas, A., & Murphy, J. L. (2007). Middle school student perceptions of school climate: Examining protec-
tive functions on subsequent adjustment problems. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 293–309.
Loukas, A., & Robinson, S. (2004). Examining the moderating role of perceived school climate in early ado-
lescent adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 209–233.
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.
Aldridge and Ala’I 63

Lubienski, S. T., Lubienski, C., & Crane, C. C. (2008). Achievement differences and school type: The role of
school climate, teacher certification and instruction. American Journal of Education, 115, 97–138.
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student
achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73–84.
Marshall, P. (2001). Multicultural teaching concerns: New dimensions in the area of teacher concerns
research? Journal of Education Research, 89, 371–379.
Maslowski, R. (2006). A review of inventories for diagnosing school culture. Journal of Educational
Administration, 44(1), 6–35.
McIntyre, D., Pedder, D., & Rudduck, J. (2005). Pupil voice: Comfortable and uncomfortable learnings for
teachers. Research Papers in Education, 20, 149–168.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures measures, findings, and policy impli-
cations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moos, R. H. (1986). Manual for work environment scale (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nichols, J. D., & White, J. (2001). Impact of peer networks on achievement of high school Algebra students.
Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 267–273.
Noddings, N. (1996). Learning to care and be cared for. In A. Hoffman (Ed.), Schools, violence, and society
(pp. 185–198). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Noonan, J. (2005). School climate and the safe school: Seven contributing factors to safety in the schools.
Educational Horizons, 83(1), 61–65.
Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of telling. Oxford Review of Education, 33, 71–86.
Pang, N. S. K. (1995). The development of the school values inventory. In R. Cotter & S. J. Marshall (Eds.),
Research and practice in educational administration (pp. 160–186). Melbourne, Victoria: Australian
Council for Education Administration.
Patton, G. C., Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Butler, H., Glover, S., Catalano, R., & Bowes, G. (2006).
Promoting social inclusion in schools: A randomized trial of effects on student health risk behaviour and
well-being. American Journal of Public Health, 96(9), 1582–1587.
Pernice-Duca, F., Taiariol, J., & Yoon, J. (2010). Perceptions of school and family climates and experiences
of relational aggression. Journal of School Violence, 9(3), 303–319.
Phillips, M. (1997). What makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian cli-
mate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American
Educational Research Journal, 34, 633–662.
Pittman, L., & Richmond, A. (2007). Academic and psychological functioning in late adolescence: The
importance of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(4), 270–288.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Reinke, W. M., & Herman, K. C. (2002). Creating school environments that deter antisocial behaviours in
youth. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 549–559.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., Tabor, J., Beuhring, T.,
Sieving, R. E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, L. H., & Udry, J. R. (1997). Protecting adolescents
from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 278(10), 823–832.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Rigby, K. (2006). Bully/victim students and classroom climate. Youth Studies Australia, 25(3), 34–41.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and
social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. Elementary School Journal, 100, 443–471.
Roffey, S. (2008). Emotional literacy and the ecology of school wellbeing. Educational & Child Psychology,
24(2), 29–39.
Rowe, F., & Stewart, D. (2009). Promoting connectedness through whole-school approaches: A qualitative
study. Health Education, 109(5), 396–413.
64 Improving Schools 16(1)

Rowe, F., Stewart, D., & Patterson, C. (2007). Promoting school connectedness through whole school
approaches. Health Education, 107, 524–542.
Rudduck, J. (2002). The 2002 SERA lecture: The transformative potential of consulting young people about
teaching, learning and schooling. Scottish Educational Review, 34, 123–137.
Rudduck, J., & Demetriou, H. (2003). Student perspectives and teacher practices: The transformative poten-
tial. McGill Journal of Education, 38, 274–288.
Rutter, J. (2003). Working with refugee children. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Moretimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary
schools and their effects on children. London: Open Books.
Sailes, J. (2008). School culture audits: Making a difference in school improvement plans. Improving Schools,
11(1), 74–82.
Saphier, J., & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. Educational Leadership, 42(6), 67–74.
Schoen, L. T., & Teddlie, C. (2008). A new model of school culture: A response to a call for conceptual clar-
ity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19, 129–153.
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (Eds.). (1997). Preventing
crime: What works, what doesn’t and what’s promising. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs.
Shields, P. M. (1991). School and community influences on effective academic instruction. In M. S. Knapp
& P. M. Shields (Eds.), Better schooling for the children of poverty: Alternatives to conventional wisdom
(pp. 313–328). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Shouse, R. C. (1996). Academic press and sense of community: Conflict, congruence, and implications for
student achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 47–68.
Snyder, K. J. (1988). Work culture profile. Tampa, FL: School Management Institute.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim
questionnaire. Aggressive Behaviour, 29, 239–268.
Springer, A., Parcel, G., Baumler, E., & Ross, M. (2006). Supportive social relationships and adolescent health
risk behavior among secondary school students in El Salvador. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 1628–1640.
Stephan, W., & Vogt, W. (Eds.). (2004). Education programs for improving intergroup relations. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Stewart, E. A. (2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehaviour: A multilevel analysis.
Justice Quarterly, 20, 575–601.
Stewart, E. B. (2008). The influence of school- and individual-level factors on academic achievement.
Education and Urban Society, 40(2), 179–204.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Discipline and behavioural support: Practices, pitfalls and promises.
Effective School Practices, 17(4), 10–22.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (Eds.). (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. New
York: Falmer Press.
Trickett, E., & Moos, R. H. (1973). The social environment of junior high and high school classrooms.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 93–102.
Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:
Atomic Dog.
Twemlow, S., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. (2005). A developmental approach to mentalizing communities: The
Peaceful Schools experiment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 69, 282–304.
UNESCO. (1995). Declaration of principles on tolerance. Culture of Peace Programme. Retrieved 9 April
2010, from: http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/tolerance.pdf.
UNESCO. (1997). Inclusive schools and community support programs: Report 1996, First Phase 1997. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2000). Inclusive education and education for all: A challenge and a vision. Section for special
needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
Van Houtte, M. (2005). Climate or culture: A plea for conceptual clarity in school effectiveness research.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 71–89.
Aldridge and Ala’I 65

van Kraayenoord, C. (2007). School and classroom practices in inclusive education in Australia. Childhood
Education, 83(6), 390–394.
Wang, M., Selman, R. L., Dishion, T. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2010). A tobit regression analysis of the covari-
ation between middle school students’ perceived school climate and behavioral problems. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 274–286.
Welsh, W. (2000). The effects of school climate on school disorder. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 567, 88–107.
Whitted, K., & Dupper, D. (2005). Best practices for preventing or reducing bullying in schools. Children &
Schools, 27, 167–175.
Wilkinson, R. (1996). Unhealthy societies: The afflictions of inequality. New York: Routledge.
Williams, F., & Cornell, D. (2006). Student willingness to seek help for threats of violence in middle school.
Journal of School Violence, 5, 35–49.
Youngblade, L., Theokas, C., Schulenberg, J., Curry, L., Huang, I., & Novak, M. (2007). Risk and promo-
tive factors in families, schools and communities: A contextual model of positive youth development in
adolescence. Paediatrics, 119(2), 47–57.

Appendix Table 1. What’s Happening In this School? (WHITS) Questionnaire

1. Teacher support Almost never Not often Some times Often Almost
always
At this school …
1. Teachers know my name. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Teachers try to understand my problems. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Teachers listen to me. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Teachers take an interest in my background. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Teachers treat me fairly. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Teachers support me when I have problems. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Teachers go out of their way to address my 1 2 3 4 5
needs.
8. Teachers are willing to listen to my problems.
2. Peer connectedness
At this school…
10. I get along with other students. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I belong to a group of friends. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I make friends with students from different 1 2 3 4 5
backgrounds.
13. I socialize with students from different cultures. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Students talk to me. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Students support me. 1 2 3 4 5
16. Students help me. 1 2 3 4 5
17. I feel accepted by other students. 1 2 3 4 5
3. School connectedness
At this school…
18. I look forward to coming to school. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I enjoy being at school. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I feel accepted by adults. 1 2 3 4 5
66 Improving Schools 16(1)

Appendix Table 1. (Continued)

3. School connectedness
21. I feel included at school. 1 2 3 4 5
22. I feel welcome. 1 2 3 4 5
23. I am part of a community. 1 2 3 4 5
24. I am respected. 1 2 3 4 5
25. I am valued. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Affirming diversity
At this school…
26. My cultural background is valued. 1 2 3 4 5
27. Days that are important to my culture are 1 2 3 4 5
recognized.
28. I am encouraged to understand the culture of 1 2 3 4 5
others.
29. My background is known by students and 1 2 3 4 5
teachers.
30. I am taught about the background of others. 1 2 3 4 5
31. Religious days that are relevant to me are 1 2 3 4 5
recognized as being important.
32. My culture is understood. 1 2 3 4 5
33. My cultural background is respected by 1 2 3 4 5
students.
5. Rule clarity
At this school…
34. The rules at this school are clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5
35. The school rules help me to feel safe. 1 2 3 4 5
36. School rules protect me. 1 2 3 4 5
37. The rules make it clear to me that certain 1 2 3 4 5
behaviours are unacceptable.
38. I understand why the school rules are in place. 1 2 3 4 5
39. I know the school rules. 1 2 3 4 5
40. I am required to follow the rules at this school. 1 2 3 4 5
41. Teachers help me to follow the rules at this 1 2 3 4 5
school.
6. Reporting and seeking help
At this school…
42. I can report bad behaviour to school officials. 1 2 3 4 5
43. I am encouraged to report incidents. 1 2 3 4 5
44. I am confident to talk to a teacher if I am 1 2 3 4 5
bullied.
45. I am encouraged to report bullying. 1 2 3 4 5
46. I know how to report problems. 1 2 3 4 5
47. I can report incidents without others finding out. 1 2 3 4 5
48. It is okay to tell a teacher if I feel unsafe. 1 2 3 4 5
49. I am able to seek counselling. 1 2 3 4 5