.3, "‘1' "$3., <5. 4 '1'“ fags-A 5‘s VT}: ‘ .. n.:'~“‘r:' , "Ia .: L x ‘ r‘. ' ”LIE u: ‘~..‘ u Qf Jan..- v . .. _. \ 4-. ‘n,’ H In]; . 5::- i552: E33? I'nv '. 'H; M: -J'a“ ‘JE‘J‘L MW“ 2‘ i’I 4 vs I '1. f ”1." . . r Y P Ac.- a . v.4 M1. 4.“ . Ml HIGAN STATE UNIV ITY LIBRAR ES mm my WHWJTWHImamHi EU” '93 01037 3763 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Search for New Factors in Elementary Public School Organizational Climate: A Study in the State of Illinois presented by Luis Esteban Garcia has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for , Ph-n- degreeinlhflasmE/J. {{L/M/M fl M Major professor Date ‘3‘ “3’ ‘ 99 MS U L1 an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 LIBRARY MIchIgan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID F INES return on or baton data duo. - DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE A stance FOR NEW FACTORS IN ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE: A STUDY IN THE scams OF ILLINOIS By Luis Esteban Garcia A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1994 Director: Dr. Samuel Moore II ABSTRACT A SEARCH FOR NEW FACTORS IN ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE: A STUDY IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS BY Luis Esteban Garcia The main purpose of this study was to develop an organizational climate survey to study principal-teacher interaction in Illinois public elementary schools. The Elementary School Organizational Climate Survey (ESOCS) was composed of 11 aspects and 52 items. Two hundred elementary schools were selected and the grade teachers and the school principal were asked to respond to the initial form of the ESOCS; 739 subjects from 89 elemen- tary schools agreed to voluntarily participate in the study. Using the school as a unit Of analysis, numerous factor analyses and reliability analyses were conducted, converging on seven aspects of school climate and reducing the instru- ment items to 42. The instrument's aspects further reduced to a second-order factor solution. Factor 1 was named collective participative behavior (open-closed) and Factor 2 was named procedurally rigid behavior (closed-Open) . The ' two factor dimensions were used to develop a school typol-. ogy. Schools were arranged on a continuum from Open, Luis Esteban Garcia engaged, disengaged, and closed climates. The aspect decision.making emerged as a new factor in the measurement of organizational climate and frustration continued to be the weakest scale in the study of school climate. The mean scores of teachers and.principals showed that principals consistently perceived the school climate to be more Open than teachers on the seven aspects. Principals in this study seemed to regard themselves as effective leaders. The one-way'ANOVA.cOmparing teachers age for the scale work by the book was significant, F(3,85) = 3.87, p<.013. The post hoc (Tukey) test indicated that teachers over the age of 47 years perceived the climate differently from the lower age groups. The one-way ANOVA comparing urban and rural schools on the scale routine duties was found to be significant, §(1,88) = 7.92, p<.006. Rural schools seemed to be engaged in unnecessary busywork that hindered teachers from.more important activities. Finally, the ESOCS-FF proved to be a reliable and valid measurement instrument 'with theoretical and research implications to be used in the elementary school. The typology developed provides a framework not only to study school climate but also school effectiveness, communication and, leadership. COpyright by LUIS ESTEBAN GARCIA 1994 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation became a reality through many years of hard work, perseverance and convincing myself that I could do it. Thanks to God and all the people around me who always believed that I could make it. Now that it is a reality, I want to especially thank my wife, Clersida Garcia, for all the hours of insightful reflections and thoughtful discussion that guided my work, and my two children, Niuyen and Xuyen, for their sacrifices, support, and patience during the long years Of studying. I would like to dedicate this achievement to my parents-in-law, Clersida and Romulo Garcia, who provided me with financial, moral and affective support throughout my graduate studies, and to my mama Teresa (83-year-old grandmother), who sent me thousands of blessings and has been fighting with her life to see me graduate. I also want to recognize the love, support and encour- agement of my other relatives, Monica, Gloria, Cheli, Fredy, Tommike, Romulito, Abraham, and Eileen, and the rest of the family members and friends in Venezuela. my sincere appreciation and gratitude are extended to Dr. Samuel Moore II, the writer's doctoral advisor, who for many years guided and provided me with insightful, support- V ive, and encouraging words throughout my master's and doctoral programs at Michigan State University. I also want to thank Dr. Frederick Ignatovich, who inspired and stimu- lated me to understand school climate and leadership; Dr. Lawrence Sierra, who believed in me and always Offered his support; Dr. Herbert Olson, who gave me the most valuable recognition at MSU by hiring me to teach undergraduate students in spite Of opposition in the department due to my lack Of fluency in the English language. I really thank all of you who graciously agreed to serve on my committee. I especially owe a great deal of gratitude to the elementary school teachers, principals, and their superin- tendents who participated in this study. I want to extend my appreciation to Judith Bischoff for her special support and to Nancy Chamberlain, Karen Garland, and Penny Armstrong for their assistance, time and talent throughout this process. Finally, I want to thank my friends Sherry, Michael, Deborah, Lynda, Luke, and Crystal for their caring support and faith in me. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS L I ST or TMLE S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF ”PENDICES . O O O O O O C O O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. I NTRODUCT I ON 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O 0 Background of the Study . Statement Of the Problem . Purpose of the Study . . . Significance of the Study Research Questions . . . Procedural Design . . . . Limitations Of the Study . Definition of Terms . . . Independent variables . . Organization Of the Study REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . Understanding the Definition of School Climate . . . . . . . Selected Research on Organizational Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Climate Measurement Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Organizational Climate Measurement Instruments for Elementary Schools . . Criticism Of the OCDQ . . . . . . . . The Elementary School Organizational Climate Survey Framework . . . . . . . n THODOLOGY . O O O O O O O O O O O O O The Instrument . . . . . . . . Preliminary Stage of the Instrument The Initial Form of the Instrument . Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . vii Page xiv IV. Data Collection . . . . . Sample Return . . . . Treatment of the Data . . Factor Analysis . . Second-Order Factor Analysis Differences Between Teachers and Principals . . . . . . . . . Independent variables . . . . . . SW C O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . Summary of Analysis Procedures Analysis Procedures: Aspects Of the ESOCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures for Analyzing Research Questions . . . . . Analysis of the Seven Final Scales of the ESOCS . . . . . . . . . . Mutual Respect and Consideration Production Emphasis . . . . . . WOrk by the Book . . . Teachers' Dedication . Routine Duties . . . . Frustration . . . . . Decision Making . . . . Second-Order Factor Analysis Developing a School Typology the State of Illinois . . Differences Between Teachers Principals . . . . . . . . Independent variables . . . Teacher Age . . . . . . Years of Teaching Experienc Teacher Salary . Teacher Gender . School Location Summary . . . . . or Hoses :3 no oooomoooflo SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . Introduction . . . . . . . Summary of the Study . . . . Second-Order Factor Analysis Teachers and Principal . . . Independent variables . . . Conclusions . . . . . . Implications for Future Study viii O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 103 104 105 108 Generalizability . APPENDICES . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . ix Table 2.10 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.8. 4.9. 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. LIST OF TABLES Page Characteristics of prototypic profiles for each climate type . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Initial factor analysis: NO specification . 59 Initial factor analysis: Principal component extraction, SZ-item set . . . . . . 61 Seven-factor varimax solution (specified): Principal component 42-item set (new item numbers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Principal component extraction: Seven- factor varimax solution specified, 42-1116!!! 88". o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 63 Revised ESOCS-FF new aspects: 42 items . . . 65 Elementary school organizational climate BtlldY-u-final form 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 67 Original instrument item number change due to 7-facor varimax solution . . . . . . . 68 Correlation coefficients . . . . . . . . . . 78 Second-factor analysis: Rotated factor matrix (loading factor) . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Secondary factor analysis (varimax): No criteria for the seven aspects - loading 0 I O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O 7 9 Second-factor varimax solution for Factors 1 and 2 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 7 9 Teachers' state means and standard deviations by each aspect (nonstandardized means) . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.13. 4.14. 4.15. 4.16. A01. 0.3. Example Of prototype profile of elementary schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosstabs for second-factor analysis using the median . . . . . . . . . . Teacher and principal means for raw scores 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O I O Tukey procedure for variable age . . Major school climate instruments, categorized by Taguiri's climate taxonomy O O O O O O O C O O O O O O One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect teachers' dedication . One-Way.ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect mutual respect and consideration . . . . . . . . . . . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect decision making . . . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect routine duties . . . . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect production emphasis . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect frustration . . . . . One-Way'ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect work by the book . . . One-way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher' 8 years of experience by aspect teachers' dedication . . . . . . . One-Way’ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect mutual respect and consideration . One-Way.ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect decision making . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 87 87 89 91 112 139 139 140 140 141 141 142 143 143 144 0.6. One-Way'ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect routine duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect production emphasis . . . . . . . . . . . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect frustration O O O O O I I O I O O O O O O One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years Of experience by aspect work by the hock O O O O O O O O O O O O O One4Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect teachers' dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect mutual respect and consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . One—Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect decision making . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect routine duties . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect production emphasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect frustration . One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect work by the hock O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect teachers' dedication O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O One-Way‘ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect mutual respect and consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 144 145 145 146 147 147 148 148 149 149 150 151 151 Page One-way ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect decision.making . . 152 One-way’ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect routine duties . . . 152 One-way.ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect production aphasia O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 15 3 One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect frustration . . . . 153 One-Way.ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect work by the hock O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 154 xiii Figure 2.1. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. LIST OF FIGURES Typology of school climates . Teachers' aspect means for whole state Typology of school climate Principals and teachers whole state means for seven factors . . . Histogram for age Of teacher variable Histogram for years Of teacher experience variable . . xiv Page 39 85 86 9O 9O 92 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. C. D. MAJOR SCHOOL CLIMATE INSTRUMENTS, CATEGORIZED BY TAGUIRI'S CLIMATE T“ on OMY O O C C O O O O C O O O O O O O PILOT TEST EVALUATION FORM . . . . . . ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY--FINAII FORM 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 HUMAN SUBJECTS LETTER . . . . . . . . . REPRESENTATIVE STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLE OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN 18 EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTERS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS SAMPLE OF COMPUTER MAILING LABELS . . . SUPERINTENDENT RESPONDENT FORM . . . . . LETTER TO PRINCIPALS . . . . . . . . . . SURVEYCOVERLETTER . . . . . . . . . . FOLLOW-UP LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL . . . . COVER LETTER To TEACHERS AND PRINCIPAL . ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY--REVISED FORM 0 o o o o o o o o o SUGGESTED WORDING CHANGES FOR ITEMS DELETED FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY . . . . . ONE-WAY ANOVA TABLES FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE TEACHER AGE . . . . . . . . . . ONE-WAY ANOVA TABLES FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE . Page 112 115 118 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 138 139 143 Page ONE-WAY ANOVA TABLES FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE TEACHER SALARY . . . . . . . . . . . 147 ONE-WAY ANOVA TABLES FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE SCHOOL LOCATION o o o o o o o o o o o 151 xvi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter of the study presents a background of the study, statement of the problem, discussion of the purpose of the study, significance Of the study, research questions, procedural design, limitations Of the study, definition of terms, list Of independent variables, and organization of the study. Background of the Study Every society is composed of formal organizations. The school is considered one of the formal organizations within each society. For decades, the relationship between the school organization and its employees has been of critical interest to researchers, especially school administrators. Organizational climate is a term used tO define and under- stand school organization. School climate has been defined in the literature as "those characteristics that distinguish the organization from other organizations and that influence the behavior of people in the organization" (Litwin & Stringer, 1968, p. 1) and as the "relatively enduring quality Of the school environment that is experienced by participants, affects their behavior, and is based on their 2 collective perception of behavior in school” (Boy A Miskel, 1987, p. 226). Bay, Tarter and Hottkamp (1991) argued that there is no standard definition of organizational climate because the definition "is conceptually complex and vague” (p. 260). Several studies have been done to understand organizational climate. For example, the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) , developed by Halpin and Croft (1962, 1963), has been used in more than 200 studies, including more than eight different countries (Anderson, 1982; Cheng, 1991; Boy 5 Miskel, 1987; Silver, 1983). As stated in the literature, organizational climate is a broad term and one of the most productive concepts created by organizational researchers (Guion, 1973) . In the last 30 years, school climate has been associated with the effec- tive schooling qualities of production and job satisfaction (Anderson, 1982; Corcoran, 1985; Edmonds, 1979; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ousten, & Smith, 1979; Walberg, 1982). The work in the area of school climate has been very extensive. It covers the research field and includes the popular literature (Argyris, 1958; Austin 5. Garber, 1985; Brookover s Lezotte, 1979; Brookover et al. , 1978; Feldvebel, 1964; Lezotte s Passalacqua, 1978; Ouchi & Johnson, 1978; Stevens, 1987). School climate, as denoted by Pritchard and Karasick (1973); Schneider (1972); and Neumann, Reichel, and Abu (1988), has been used as a strong 3 predictor of attitudinal and behavioral variables such as job satisfaction and decision making; alienation (Roy, 1972); school discipline (Nwankwo, 1979); principal and school effectiveness (Anderson, 1964); and innovation (Brady, 1988). As referred to in the literature, within the school climate, there is an interaction that creates a degree Of intersubjective agreement among teachers. This interaction is believed to influence the perception as well as behavior of the individual (Hoy &.Miskel, 1987; Raudenbush, Rowan, & Rang, 1988). In the last three decades, several attempts have been made to explore school climate at the elementary school level. Educational leaders and teachers are aware of hOW'a good climate may positively affect school effectiveness, student outcome and performance, as well as personal growth, work attitude and satisfaction (Bailey, 1979; Barker, 1963; Brookover et al., 1978; Coyne 1975; Lezotte & Passalacqua, 1978; Neumann et al., 1988), values (Vyskocil & Goens, 1979), and morals (Edmonds, 1979; Weber, 1971). The standard practice in the measurement of the school cleate has been to survey organization members on a series of items. ‘ The related items have been grouped on scale scores where the items load after the performance of a statistical procedure known as factor analysis (Pallas, 1988; Rutter et al., 1985). 4 The major study in the school climate literature is the work of Halpin and Croft (1962, 1963), who developed the OCDQ. No other instrument has been used more widely to study school climate at the elementary school level. The OCDQ was designed to measure the social interaction of teacher-teacher and principal-teacher. Through a factor analysis method, Halpin and Croft Operationalized the interaction of teacher-teacher in four scales (Disengage- ment, Hindrance, Esprit, and Intimacy) and the interaction of principal-teacher in four scales (Aloofness, Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration). They used the individ- ual as the unit of analysis. Halpin and Croft (1962) also classified schools into a six-prototype continuum from “Open” to "closed." They did this by performing a second— order factor' analysis on. the scores that 'were double standardized. Inspired by the original work of Halpin and Croft, the OCDQ has been revised for elementary schools (OCDQ-RE) and for secondary schools (OCDQ-RS). Statement Of the Problem The behavioral interaction of teachers and principals has been studied using different approaches. The most popular is the one developed by Halpin and Croft (1962). Thirty' years later, a. need. exists to find. comparable organizational climate scales to be used at the elementary school level. The literature reported that more than 200 studies have been done using the OCDQ and researchers have 5 reported that there are indications that the instrument was not measuring what it was supposed to measure. And, after 30 years, numerous questions have arisen about the reliabil- ity and the validity of both the items and scales (Cheal, 1990; Hayes, 1973; Hoy & Miskel, 1987; Hoy et al., 1991). For those same reasons, Hay and Clover (1986) revised the OCDQ and developed the OCDQ-RE. The major problem identified by the writer of this study was to develop an elementary school climate survey. The OCDQ and other instrument item-scales were used as a framework for selecting and developing items and scales for the new instrument. A second problem of this study was to survey the public elementary schools in the state of Illinois as to the school climate as perceived by their grade-level teachers and the school principal. Pugpgse of the Study The purpose Of this study was to develop an organiza- tional climate survey to study the climate in Illinois public elementary schools. Specifically, this study was intended to address 11 different aspects Of the school climate considered in the literature by several authors as important components of the school climate. To develop the scales or aspects and items on the survey, the researcher focused attention on the approaches of five different school climate instrument. The most 6 important were (a) Halpin and Croft (1962) , ”Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire" (OCDQ); (b) Roy and Clover (1986) , "Organizational Climate Description Question- naire RE” (OCDQ-RE); (c) Litwin and Stringer (1968), ”Climate Questionnaire” (QC); (d) CFK LTD (1973), ”CFK LTD School Climate Profile"; and (e) Likert (1978), "Profile of Organizational Characteristics” (POC) . The writer selected the scales or aspects based on (a) a review Of literature where 11 aspects emerged as important components of the school climate, (b) consultation with experts in the field of instruction concerning significant aspects of the school climate, and (c) the researcher's own experience as a teacher for 10 years. The 11 identified aspects were classified into three groups of attributes: for teachers, morale, engagement, routine duties, and frustration; for principals, consider- ation, trust, production emphasis, and work by the book; and for the general school, communication, decision making, and order and discipline. These aspects are defined later in the chapter. The names of the aspects do not represent any of the above-mentioned approaches . The items on the questionnaire assigned tO each aspect were a product of the reviewed literature, two pilot tests, and review by experts. Thus, 52 items were developed or modified from the five approaches mentioned. Given the 11 elementary school aspects of school 7 climate, the writer's second purpose was to explore whether or not the various scales hold together through an examina— tion of unspecified factor solutions. This procedure enabled the number of items and scales to be corrected, depending on how they load and group together. The final purpose Of the study was to determine if there is a difference between teachers and principals and to find out if the independent variables--teacher age, years of teaching experience, salary, gender, and school location-- have an influence on different aspects of the organizational climate . Siggificance of the Study This study is of educational significance because it contributes to the body of knowledge about organizational climate in elementary schools, specifically in the public schools of Illinois. Further, it is an attempt to provide a View Of the interrelationship Of school principals and teachers. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide a useful tool for the understanding Of school climate teacher-principal interaction. A desired impact will be to reach the research community interested in understanding school climate. This study identified independent variables for analyzing differences in the scales. The differences in the scales Offered additional information which may impact policymakers. Therefore, educational leaders may benefit 8 from the results Of this study. This new instrument could serve not only as a basis for planning new strategies for school improvement programs, but also as a device to assess the results of such efforts. Thus, the results Of this study might alert administrators where the school needs active intervention, thus accomplishing the desired goal of diagnosis and prescription. The writer believes that this instrument will be a valid and reliable tool for use by school districts to measure their organizational climate and develop remedial plans to support needed changes that will, in fact, have an impact on school effectiveness, quality of production, and job satisfaction. W A new school climate instrument to assess the elementa- ry school was developed, consisting of 52 items and 11 scales. The researcher foresaw that a series Of steps needed to be taken in order to be able to analyze the data and support the hypothesized scales. In regard to the instrument, the following research questions were proposed: I. a. What are the number of scales present in the Elemen- tary School Organizational Climate Survey (ESOCS)? b. What are the qualities of the scales that are identified to be present in elementary public schools in the State of Illinois? Factor analysis without specification Of the number Of 9 factors was conducted to identify the quality of the scales and items. A subsequent step was taken to reconfirm or modify the scales and items. The following criteria were used: (a) Items that failed to load on a particular factor at a value of .40 or crossloaded on two or more factors were considered for deletion, and (b) items that reflected poorly on the total subscale reliability and low correlation (below .40) were considered for deletion. The varimax rotation, without specification of the number of factors, dictated the number of aspects that were used for the rest of the analysis. II. a. By using second-order factor analysis, can the scales that describe the organizational climate dimensions be defined? b. If the scales do reduce to a second-order factor analysis, what are the qualities of these scales? c. Can the schools be categorized into a typology of school climate in terms of Openness and.closedness? III. a. Is there any significant difference between the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the school climate? b. Does the teachers' perception about school climate depend on age, years Of teaching experience, salary, gender, and school location? Descriptive analysis and exploratory MANOVA and ANOVA were used to assess the above research questions. 10 Procedural Qgsigg Items were developed, changed, or modified to more accurately represent the 11 selected scales. The creation of this instrument started as a class project in a school climate graduate course and took shape in a subsequent class of research methods in which a pilot study using the instrument was conducted. After revision by the instruc- tors, the first draft of the preliminary form was completed. A second pilot study was conducted overseas once the instrument was translated into Spanish. After seeking feedback from experts in the language, the instrument was ready to be tested. Later, the researcher decided to conduct the study in the United States. A final revision occurred when the survey was judged by a group Of experts in the field at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, for content validity. After modifications, a final form was adopted. Selection of a population was performed by using stratified random sampling; Two hundred.thirty-four school districts, representing 18 different regions, were asked.to be part Of the study on school climate for their elementary schools only. Grade-level (K-6) teachers and the school principal were the only subjects to be involved in the study, and they responded to the initial form Of the ESOCS. .After' approval by ‘the school district, all elementary schools within that district were selected. The data were 11 Obtained through a series of mailed-survey procedures. Finally, after the coding process, the data were entered into a data-based program and later transferred to a mainframe computer for analysis. Limitations of the Study Several limitations were identified for this study: The study was limited to the public elementary school level in Illinois. The availability of subjects was limited by (a) the school superintendent's willingness to participate in the study, (b) the school principal's willingness to allow his/her school to be part of the study, and (c) teachers' decisions to participate in the study. The subjects were limited to grade-level teachers (K-6) and school principals. The study was limited by the inherent capability of the instruments to measure the perception of respondents. The study was limited by the instrument's 4-point scale and the possible irrelevancy of some Of the items to the individual, the reliance on the honesty of the individu- al, and the tendency of the individual to give socially acceptable responses. Sgfiinitign of Terms W: the representation Of a sufficient level of intersubjectivity agreement‘within.an.organization 12 (school) that is under the influence Of formal and informal behavior of its members that is based on their collective perception. Slgmengagy School: a public educational institution that works with a population of students with an age range of 6 to 12 years, the unit Of analysis for this study. ggincipal: the appointed chief administrator Of an attendance center or elementary school. - ve her: the person in the elementary school whose primary duty is the instruction of students (1(- 6).. i a a1 ate 3 tion s ' nna re m: The most popular instrument used to study organiza- tional climate at the elementary school level developed by Halpin and Croft (1962, 1963). Their main purpose was to identify the critical aspects of teacher-teacher and teacher—principal interaction in the school, using the individual as a unit Of analysis. Qrganizational climate Description Qgestionnaire for Elementagy Schools (QQQQ-RE): The revised instrument drawn from the original OCDQ that was developed by Boy and Clover (1986) and Roy et al. (1991). They used the school as the unit of analysis, looking' at ‘the Icritical aspects of teacher-teacher and teacher-principal interaction in the school. Elementagy School Qrganizational climate Survey: The 13 questionnaire developed for the current research. The terms “aspect," "scale,” and “factor" are used interchangeably in this study. These terms are common in the organizational climate literature and mean the name that distinguishes a particular descriptor. Eleven aspects were identified and then classified into three groups Of attributes: for teachers, morale, engagement, routine duties, and frustra- tion; for' principals, consideration, trust, production emphasis, and work by the book; and for the general school, communication, decision making, and order and discipline. Each aspect is defined and an example given from the questionnaire as follows: Mggglg: .As pointed out by Guba (1958), morale refers to the extra expenditure of energy required to accomplish institutional tasks and or the tendency Of expending extra effort in the achievement of group goals. There is a clear sense of belongingness and a notion of community. Teachers believe that their social needs are being satisfied (Fox, 1973; Halpin & Croft, 1962, 1963; Sweeney, 1988). An example is question 2: Teachers tend to expend extra effort to achieve school goals. Sggggemen : As pointed out by Rottkamp, Mulhern, and Hay (1987), engagement is one of the critical aspects Of school climate that refers to faculty commitment to the school and to peers and reflects the valuable behavior of involvement and dedication with a positive attitude toward 14 work. An example is question 7: Even after school, teachers like working with each other. nggige guties: As pointed out by Halpin and Croft (1962, 1963), this is the faculty's feeling about adminis- trative paper work which keeps teachers busy on nonteaching duties and consumes a great deal Of time. An example is question 15: Preparation for routine administrative reports exhausts teachers' time. Eggstration: As pointed out by Rottkamp et al. (1987) , frustration refers to the teachers' general patterns of negative expectations that distract them from the basic assignment of teaching. There is a general feeling of a pattern of disengagement and unfairness that interferes with the task Of teaching. An example is question 18: Teachers are confused about what is expected from them. Qgggideggtion: Several researchers reported that there is a significant relationshiptconcerning'teacher'perception of principal consideration (Anderson, 1982; Bell, 1979; Breckenridge, 1976; Fox, 1973; Hopkins, 1990). The princi- pal's behavior is perceived by teachers as a friendly one with an emphasis on mutual respect and support. The principal encourages teachers and motivates them by setting an example through hard work and expending time to help teachers solve problems. An example is question 21: In this school the principal supports the teachers. Trust: Several researchers have identified trust as a 15 key element in the interaction-influence process within an organizational environment (Fox, 1973; Likert, 1967; Ouchi, 1981; Sweeney, 1988; Zand, 1972). The principal's behavior is perceived by teachers as an honest one in the establish- ment of an effective interpersonal relationship with an emphasis on caring, respect, and confidence. Teachers generally’ take responsibilities considering their true meaning of their actions because there is no element of not believing others. An example is question 28: The principal allows teachers to take extensive responsibility for their job. zgoguction emphasis: As pointed out by Halpin and Croft (1962) and Boy and Clover (1986), this refers to the behavior' of the (principal that is lcharacterized. by' a constant monitoring and control of school activities, and maintaining consistent performance standards. In this study, production emphasis has a positive meaning as compared to the common negative connotation found in the literature (Halpin & Croft, 1962). An example is question 30: The principal in this school makes sure that teachers work to their full capacity. WOrk 2y the book: As pointed out by Halpin and Croft (1962) and Litwig and Stringer (1968), this refers to the behavior of the principal that is characterized by a rigid and close supervision. The principal's main.emphasis is on enforcing rules and regulations, maintaining a social 16 distance between the main office and the staff, and assuring that teachers go through appropriate bureaucratic channels . An example is question 36: The principal demands that his/her staff follow the rules without any question. Sommugication: As reported in the literature, communi- cation is an essential executive function to examine the school as a social system (May & Miskel, 1987; Smith, 1966) . More specifically, ‘it is the property Of the school and its members to relate to each other in different forms and directions . Teachers and principal communicate among and between each other in an attempt to send and receive open and honest messages, ideas, or attitudes that may enhance the degree of interpersonal relationships between them (Hopkins, 1990; Sweeney, 1988). An example is question 43: There is Open and honest communication between teachers and the principal. i O a n : As pointed out in the literature, the school is basically a decision-making structure, a premise which served as one of the major variables in the 19908 school reform (Barth, 1988, 1990; Weiss, Cambone, & Wyeth, 1992) . More specifically, when teachers are included in decision making, they become committed, and a sense of ownership develops. It appears to engage teachers in school issues and it also appears to reduce the sense of frustra- tion (David, 1989; David, Purkey a White, 1988). Teachers' ideas are listened to and they participate in problem 17 solving in the school (Fox, 1973). An example is question 45: My Opinions and ideas are listened to and used in this school. Qgge; gnd discipline: The school has been shown in the literature as an. oriented. order-discipline institution (Etzioni, 1964). One of its major goals is to have control over the students. Specifically, the personnel at the school consider order-discipline as a fundamental condition for effective teaching. Teachers and the principal agree on the meaning, flexibility, and importance Of disciplinary actions as a prerequisite for effective learning to take place in the school (Nwankwo, 1979; Squires, Huitt, s. Segars, 1983). An example is question 51: The principal and teachers in this school support.all.disciplinary actions as they are applied in this school. Ingegndgnt yariables 1. Teacher age: the number of years that represented the age of the teacher. The average age of teachers in each building was used to examine the relationship between the organizational climate scales and the average age of the faculties. 2. Teacher's years of experience: the number Of years that the teacher has worked in the elementary public school. More specifically, the average years of teach- ing experience was used to investigate the relationship between organizational climate and the scales and the 18 level of years of teaching experience. 3. Teacher salary: the total amount regularly paid or stipulated for payment to the individual teacher. The average salary was used to examine the relationship be- tween organizational climate and the scales. 4 . Teacher gender: the proportion Of teachers by gender was identified and used in the investigation of the relationship between the organizational climate and the scales and teachers' gender. 5. School location: the concentration of population in the area, where an urban school has more than 1,500 persons per mile and a rural school has fewer than 2,500 people. The relationship of organizational climate and the scales according to the school location was examined. Qrganization pf the Study This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter I includes an introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, significance Of the study, research questions, procedural design, limitation of the study, definition Of terms, and the organization of the study. A review of current literature pertaining to this study is contained in Chapter II. The methodology and instrumentation used for this study are presented in Chapter III. The analysis of the data is contained in Chapter Iv. The summary and conclusions Of this investigation are in Chapter v. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE Introduction In reviewing the research on organizational climate, it was evident that sociologists, administrators, and psycholo- gists have struggled with this concept. Steinhoff and Owen (1976) , in their review Of the literature, pointed out that the term "climate" is ubiquitous and has been used as a “synonym for atmosphere, setting, culture, milieu, or environment” (p. 179) . Other authors have expressed similar conclusions and seem to agree that there are ambiguities in the conceptualization of school climate. One of the first investigators to use school climate terminology was Cornell (1955), who referred to school climate as a "delicate blending of interpretations by persons in the organization of their job or roles in relationship to others and their interpretation of the roles Of others in the organization” (p. 223) . Later, Merton and Christie (1958) pointed out that "school climate is a system concept, an event which appears to affect one individual or department while actually having significant influence elsewhere in the system" (p. 27). In the late 19508, the concept Of organizational climate was used mainly in the 19 20 social sciences in relationship to work environment research (Null, 1969). Argyris (1958) is well recognized in literature dealing with organizational climate. In a case study of behaviors of role participants in a bank, he recognized the complexity of studying human behavior in any organization. He said that to approach the organization demands "ordering and conceptualizing a buzzing confusion of simultaneously existing, multilevel, mutually interesting variables” (p. 501). Cornell (1955) and Argyris (1958) worked on the interactions of people in the organization. They isolated and discussed variables that they believed had an effect on people's interactions. Cornell, for example, proposed that the following variables be studied: "teacher morales, teachers' perception of the degree of deconcentration of administrative power in the school system, [and] the extent to which teachers feel they are given responsibility when they participate in policybmaking" (p. 225). In relation to the study of school climate, a major breakthrough took place in the early 19608. The initial efforts were made by Halpin and Croft (1962, 1963). The pioneering work Of Halpin and Croft set the tone for the next 30 years. They developed the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), which is the most recog- nized instrument on school climate. More than 200 studies, including more than eight different countries, have used 21 this questionnaire. A more in-depth analysis regarding Halpin and Croft's work appears later in this chapter. understanding the nginipion of School climate Understanding school climate has not been an easy task. With respect to the measurement instrument alone, the literature shows that various frameworks exist in the form of Observation.guides, case analysis techniques, and.paper- and-pencil inventories (Steinhoff & Owens, 1976). Highly eclectic approaches tend to be popular in diagnosing organizational climate. This may be due to the lack of fundamental clarity as to (1) just what is meant by the term "organizational climate,” and (2) what crucial factors or fact define organizational climate. (p. 182) Despite apparent difficulties in clarifying the definition of organizational climate, several researchers noted that the definitions were quite similar to early descriptions of personality type (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964; Halpin & Croft, 1963; Hey et al., 1991; Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968). As stated by Halpin and Croft (1963), ”personality is to the individual what 'clbmate' is to the organization" (p. 1). Halpin and Croft (1966) clarified their definition Of organizational climate by referring exclusively to the social interaction between the principal and the teachers. Organizational climate has been defined by Feldvebel (1964) as "patterns of social interaction.characterizing an organization. The main units Of interaction in this concept Of climate were individuals, the group as a group, and the 22 leader“ (p. 1); and by Hamatz (1966) as ”the set of charac- teristics which describes an organization and (a) distin- guishes the organization from other organizations, [and] (b) are relatively the behavior of people in the organization” (p. 21) . In an effort to determine a more precise definition Of organizational climate, Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) concluded that the following attributes were more or less common to the concept of organizational climate: (a) a concept, like personality; (b) a particular situational variable; (c) determined by characteristics, conduct, attitude, and expectation of people; and (d) an indirect determinant of behavior in that it acts upon attitudes, expectations, and states of arousal which are direct determinants of behavior. Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) stressed that organizational climates are an enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that: (1) is experienced by its members, (2) influences their behavior, and (3) can be described in terms of the values of a particular set Of characteristics or attributes of the organization. (p. 26) Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) went further to formulate four descriptive dimensions that have been used to examine the literature on school climate. The descriptive dimensions are ecology, milieu, social system, and culture. Ecology is the physical and material aspect of school; milieu, the social aspects Of particular individuals and group in the school; social system, the pattern of relationships that exist between individuals and groups in organizations; and 23 culture, the belief system, value, and cognitive structure (Anderson, 1982; Boy at al., 1991; Miskel & Ogawa, 1988; Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968). Stated in a sLmilar way to Hoy and.Mdskel (1987) and Tagiuri and.Litwin (1968), Hoy et al. (1991) defined school climate as "the relatively enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by participants, affects their behavior, and is based on their collective perception of behavior" (p. 10). Neumann et al. (1988) summarized the concept for school organization by pointing out that climate is an enduring quality'of the school environment and is "(1) affected by the principal's leadership; (2) experienced by teachers, and (3) based on collective perceptions" (p. 84). Selected Research on Qrganizational Climatg The literature related to school climate has pointed out that a desirable school climate has a set of conditions which are associated with increased teacher effectiveness, student learning, and.parental support. Teacher evaluation and staff development practices are Often successfully combined and delivered in schools which have created and maintained a desirable school climate. The phrase "school climate” began to appear regularly in the educational literature research in the 19708 (Kelley, 1980). Research- ers have developed valid and reliable assessment tools to Imeasure climate in the school (Hoy et al., 1991), and it has 24 been stated by several researchers that effective schools share a number“ of characteristics. One characteristic consistently has arisen to the top: "a winning school climate” (Sweeney, 1988). Among the factors that Sweeny believed were common in an effective school were: - having a supportive, stimulant environment; - having a sense of family; - maintaining open lines of positive communication; [and] - bonding together with trust. (p. 1) Fox (1973) identified similar factors common to effeCtive schools: - Respect by students, teachers, and administrators for themselves and others; - Trust and confidence that others can be counted on to behave honestly; - High morale or a good feeling about what is hap- pening in the school; - Opportunities for everyone to contribute ideas; [and] - Caring or a feeling that people are concerned about each other. (p. 31) Squires et a1. (1983) stated. that school climate consisted of three conditions: an emphasis on academics, an orderly environment, and expectation for success. They found the following academic factors present in effective schools: - Teachers and principal support the academic focus of the school by spending most of the day on in- structional activities; 25 - Teachers who give and mark homework; [and] - Academic learning is the primary focus of the school. (pp. 66-67) Successful school emphasizing an orderly environment have: - Students who know that faculty work together to enforce school rules and to strictly control classroom behaviors; [and] - Punishment delivered in a way that indicates firm disapproval Of misbehavior while avoiding humilia- tion and avoiding modeling violence. (pp. 69-70) Successful schools emphasizing expectations for effective- ness have:- - Teachers and principals who believe and expect all students, regardless of race or class, to master the academic work; and - Students who believe that work is more important than luck in order to succeed. (p. 71) Hopkins (1990), in his study regarding teachers' psychological states and the use of educational ideas, found the following factors related to school climate: - Principals who are perceived as supportive figures are actively involved; [and] - High degree Of internal communication provides the opportunities for staff to engage in frequent discussions about an innovation (thus increasing the possibility of its successful implementation). (p. 61) Qrganizational glimate Measurement Ins ruments The most relevant work regarding organizational climate measurement instruments used in elementary and secondary education has been sorted out into Tagiuri's organizing scheme and listed in Appendix A, as analyzed by Anderson 26 (1982) and Mulhern (1984). As mentioned at the beginning Of the chapter, Anderson (1982) used the four profiles presented by Tagiuri (1968) as the major dimensions present in the environmental quality of an organization. The four descriptive dimensions--ecology, milieu, social system, and culture--were found by Anderson to be useful organizing devices in the delineation of school climate literature. The criteria used are to some extent arbitrary, as Anderson pointed out. It has been shown by researchers that ”Tagiuri's dimensions are perhaps too broad to be precisely defined in an Operational sense, and some Of the dimensions seem to overlap considerably” (Cheal, 1990, p. 19). Anderson (1982) found that "the majority of factors measured by school climate instruments seem to fall in the social and cultural dimensions” (p. 379). In considering some of the major organizational climate instruments found in the literature, it is apparent a great deal of diversity exists. For example, Likert (1978) developed the ”Profile of Organizational Characteristics" (POC) , which is a very transparent instrument based on four managerial practices: (a) supportive behavior, where each subordinate feels support and maintains a sense Of personal worth; (b) group method of supervision, where the manager is the guide and relies on group meetings in which the main goal is to have people together; (c) high performance goals, where the leader is a guide helping the group to set 27 performance goals that are realistic and obtainable; and (d) linking pin function, where the leader acts as an intermedi- ary between his/ her group and higher management. Likert (1978) constructed the instrument based on six organizational variables: leadership, motivation, commu- nication, decisions, goals, and control. He drew a con- tinuum from System 1 to 4 to attempt to move the organiza- tion from theory ”X" to “Y." The basis Of System 1 is that the manager does not have confidence in his/her subordinates because they are seldom involved (task oriented). System 2 is where the manager is seen as having a lack of confidence and trust in subordinates but goals are made at the top (intermediate). System 3 is where the manager has substan- tial but not complete confidence and trust in subordinates and the decisions are kept at the top (intermediate). System 4 is where the manager has complete confidence and trust in subordinates and decisions are shared (relationship oriented) (Likert, 1967, 1978). A different approach was developed by Litwin and Stringer (1968) . The "Climate Questionnaire" (CO) was drawn from the work of Atkinson and Cartwright (1964) . The Atkinson model is considered intrinsic to the individual where AM - M x E x I (arousal motivation is equal to motive by expectancy by incentive) (p. 12) . Litwin and Stringer (1968) constructed their instrument based on three kinds Of need: (a) achievement—-refers to the need to excel in 28 competing with.others, solving problems, and.taking respon- sibility; (2) power--refers to the need to control and influence others; spending time to gain authority, the leader looks for high structure; (3) affiliation--refers to the need for warm.friendly relations; the leader is always helping, counseling, and making social relations. The instrument was composed Of nine scales: structure, respon— sibility, reward, risk, warmth, support, standards, con- flict, and identity. In this approach, three types of leaders emerged: (1) authoritarian (power), (2) loose (informal), and (3) high productivity (achievement). Another approach was presented by CFK LTD (1973) in the ”CPR LTD School Climate Profile. " CFK LTD looked for school climate determinants, pointing out that a positive climate is both a means and an end. Thus, a good climate has to include "productivity” and ”satisfaction," because one without the other is insufficient. Productivity is basical- ly achieving the basic skill and developing constructive attitudes with a clear set Of values. Satisfaction is basically gaining a sense of personal growth and the enjoyment of working in the school as a pleasant place to give and gain reward. The instrument developed by CFK LTD (1973) was composed of eight factors: respect, trust, high.morale, Opportunity for input, continuous academical social growth, cohesive- ness, school renewal, and caring. CFK LTD also used the 29 basic needs developed by Maslow (1943) for student educa- tion. These included (a) physiological needs (e.g., light); (b) safety needs (e.g., security); (c) belonging (e.g., acceptance and friendship); (d) esteem (e.g., achievement and recognition); and (e) self-actualization (e.g. , need for maximized potential achievement). According to CFK LTD, there were three school determinants: (a) program determi- nants (opportunity for active learning), (b) process determinants (the problem-solving ability Of the school in identifying and working with conflicts), and (c) material determinants (the adequate resources and the supportive and efficient logistical system of the school). Major Qrganizational climate Measurement Instruments for Elementapy Schools The literature revealed that Halpin and Croft's (1962, 1963) pioneer work regarding conceptualization and measure- ment of the school climate was the most well-known and widely accepted. Halpin and Croft assumed that people's perceptions were a valid source of data. The purpose of an assessment Of organizational climate, then, was to obtain an objective description of those perceptions. Halpin and Croft (1962) began mapping the organiza- tional climate of schools when they Observed that (a) schools differ markedly in their feel, (b) the concept of morale does not provide an index Of this feel, (c) "ideal” principals who were assigned to schools where improvement 30 was needed were immobilized by the faculties, and (d) the topic Of organizational climate was generating interest (May a Miskel, 1987; Roy et al., 1991). Halpin and Croft (1962) clarified that their context to study school climate was narrowed to the exclusive social interaction between the teachers and principal. They generated items that were classified using the following group interaction scheme: 1. Interaction determined primarily by the leader's behavior; 2. Behavior attributable to characteristics of the group; 3 . Interactions determined by procedures or by actions of an executive in a position hierarchically superior to the leader himself (e.g. , the superin- tendent and the board of education limit the principal's range of decision); and 4. Interactions determined primarily and hence asso- ciated directly with the "personality” assets and liabilities of the individual. (p. 19) The items collected were classified into aspects of school climate using an intuitive, common-sense basis. As the process moved on, items were then selected for testing. More than 1,000 items were developed. Using inductive and deductive methods, the items were arranged; eight subtests were "verified” by factor analysis. This preliminary step was done before the OCDQ was finalized into 64 items (Halpin & Croft, 1962). The approach that Halpin and Croft (1962) used involved a descriptive questionnaire to identify important aspects of 31 teacher-teacher and teacher-principal interaction. The first four factors described the teachers' perceptions and how the teachers related to other teachers in their school environment. The second climate factors were the collective perception Of teachers concerning the principal: W12: 1. Disengagement refers to the teacher's tendency to not be ”with it, " that is, ”to go through the motions" without commitment to the task at hand. 2. Hindrance refers to the teacher's feelings that the principal burdens them with routine duties, commit- tee work, and other unnecessary busy work. 3. Esprit refers to morale growing out of a sense Of both task accomplishment and the satisfaction of social needs. 4. Intimacy refers to the teacher's enjoyment of warm and friendly social relations with each other. grincipal's Behavior 5. Aloofness refers to formal and impersonal principal behavior; the principal goes by the "book" and maintains social distance from subordinates. 6. Production Emphasis refers to close supervision. The principal is highly directive and not sensitive to faculty feedback. 7. Thrust refers to dynamic behavior in which the principal attempts to "move the organization " through the example the principal personally sets for teachers. 8. Consideration refers to warm, friendly behavior by the principal. The principal tries to be helpful and do a little something extra for the faculty. (cited in Boy et al., 1991, p. 14) Further analyses were done to investigate how the scales clustered together. Thus, a second-order factor analysis was performed. Halpin and Croft (1962) decided 32 that a three-factor solution best described the underlying structure of the eight subtests. The intnmacy and consid- eration joined together to become the social need factor; esprit and thrust merged to form Factor 2, or the behavior Of the group that was later called esprit; aloofness and production emphasis merged together to form Factor 3, or social control. Halpin and Croft (1962) used the individual as the unit of analysis. Halpin and Croft (1962) double standardized the scores with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10, and then items were subjected to a three-factor solution as deter- mined by the three factors identified in the second-order factor solution. Thus, six basic school climates were arrayed along a rough continuum from open to closed. The six patterns were named and ranked: Open, Autonomous, Con- trolled, Familiar, Paternal, and Closed. Then a prototype profile was developed using the school as the unit of analysis (Table 2.1). The distinctive features of the Open climate are its high degree of thrust, esprit, and low engagement. This combination suggests a climate in which both the principal and faculty are genuine in their behaviors. The closed climate is Characterized by a high degree of apathy on the part of all members Of the organization. The esprit is low because groupmmembers secure neither social-needs satisfac- tion nor the satisfaction that comes from task achievement. 33 Table 2.1.--Characteristics of prototypic profiles for each climate type. Climate Type Climate Dimension Open Autonomous Controlled Familiar Paternal Closed Disengage- ment Low* Low Low High High High Hindrance Low Low High Low Low High Esprit High* High High Average Low Low* Intimacy Average High Low High Low ' Average Aloofness Low High High Low Low High Production Emphasis Low Low High Low High High Thrust High* Average Average Average Average Low* Considera- tion High Average Low High High Low *Balient characteristic of the Open and closed climates. EQSQ- From SHEEL_§2D22llE2ALEAI_JE3EEflJB._HQAEMELBQ.JDEEEUJEEAQB§1 g;ipppg (p. 16) by W. Hay, J. Tarter, and R. Hottkamp, 1991, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Members' behavior can be construed as unauthentic; indeed, the organization seems to be stagnant. criticism of the QQQQ The weaknesses and limitations of the OCDQ are numer- ous. First, the criticism about the six discrete climates identified by Halpin and Croft (1962) is discussed. The six major patterns have been questioned, in particular the ”middle climate” (Andrews, 1965; Silver, 1983; Watkins, 1968). It seems to be a consensus that the Open to closed continuum is a "crude rank, " as admitted by Halpin and Croft 34 (1962, p. 78). Brown (1964), in a replication of the study using the OCDQ, generated eight patterns rather than six climate types. Brown suggested that it was not advisable to place schools into discrete climates. Thomas (1976) also questioned the validity and reliability of the Open to closed continuum. The OCDQ has been criticized for not being well suited for the study Of secondary schools, especially urban schools. Problems have been shown with the middle climate category, which seems to be the most vague. The validity Of the instrument has been questioned, given indications that the instrument may not be measuring what it was supposed to measure (Carver & Sergiovanni, 1969; Halpin, 1966; Hoy & Clover, 1986; Miskel s Ogawa, 1988; Watkins, 1968). The OCDQ also has been criticized by Silver (1983) . She pointed out that there is a problem with the clear logic of the conceptual framework of the OCDQ. Silver remarked that the hindrance aspect referred to administrator demands and not teachers' behaviors. Also, production emphasis is mislabeled, according to Silver. It measured close and autocratic control by the principal, not an emphasis on high production. Halpin and Croft (1962) recognized the inade- quacy Of the concept Of consideration, suggesting that two or more facets Of considerate behavior have been confounded within a single measure. The unit of analysis has been another source Of 35 criticism because Halpin and Croft (1962) used a total analysis approach to determine the eight basic scales. Sirotnik (1980) maintained that the appropriate procedure is the between analysis because the property of the study is viewed as fundamentally intrinsic to the group, as is the case in the school. Other researchers, including Anderson (1982), Austin and Garber (1985), and Burstein (1980), cautioned about the use Of the total analysis as compared to the between analysis as suggested by Sirotnik (1980) . Another criticism is the fact that the studwaas limited.to the relationship Of teacher-principal; and the prime participants of the school--in this case, the students-~were not present (Hoy et al., 1991). The OCDQ has been highly criticized; and for that reason, Hay and Clover (1986) developed a simplified version of the OCDQ. This revised climate instrument for elementary schools (OCDQ-RE) is a 42-item survey that uses six scales. For the construction Of the revised OCDQ-RE, Hoy and Clover (1986) used the following strategy. They reviewed the 64 original items of the OCDQ, performing a scrutinized factor loading for each item within the eight subtests. Twenty-four items with low factor loading were dropped. Subsequently, they decided to broaden the scope by adding new items, particularly those relating to teacher-student interaction, using the following criteria: 1. Each item reflected a property of school; 36 2. The statement was clear and concise; 3. The statement has content validity; and 4. The statement has discriminatory potential. (Hoy et al., 1991, p. 27) On the development of the scales, the concept Of hindrance was viewed as a characteristic Of the principal and not as a dimension of the teacher, as denoted by Halpin and Croft (1962). Special consideration was given to the subscale production emphasis, aloofness, and hindrance due to the faCt Of conceptual clarity and labeling (Hayes, 1973). The preliminary revised OCDQ-RE was composed by 131 untested items that needed to be pilot tested. .A.sample of 38 elementary schools was used in the pilot test using the school as unit of analysis, as suggested by Sirotnik (1980). To reduce the number of items, Hoy and Clover (1986) used three criteria: (1) items that loaded.high on.cne factor and low'On all other were retained; (2) items were evaluated for conceptual clarity and fit with primary items in the factor; and (3) items were eliminated if they reduce substantially the internal consistency of the subtests. (p. 99) Using these criteria, 56 items were eliminated because of their lowaactor loading (<.3) across all factors. Further reductions of items were done after the examination of items that loaded together from more than one subscale, as in the case of consideration and thrust. Also, items that spread across several scales were dropped, as in the case Of the 37 items developed to measure ”pupil control. " As a result, a total Of 42 items remained. In the construction of the revised OCDQ-RE, six dimensions emerged--three describing the principal's behavior and three describing the teacher's behavior. Items belonging to the original subscale of consideration and thrust combined to form one factor--"the supportive princi- pal behavior." The Old and new production emphasis also clustered to form one factor called ”directive leader behavior. " The revised version of hindrance formed the factor called "restrictive leader behavior." On the other hand, for the teachers, the original esprit dimension suffered a major change and the new factor was called "collegial teacher behavior. " The original OCDQ intimate and disengaged teachers remained with minor changes. These two factors are called "intimate teacher behavior" and ”disengaged teacher behavior. " The six dimensions were summarized by Hoy et a1. (1991) . Supportive principal behavior reflects a basic concern for teachers. The principal listens and is Open to teacher suggestions. Praise is given genuinely and frequently, and criticism is handled constructive- ly. The competence of the faculty is respected, and the principal exhibits both a personal and professional interest in teachers. Directive principal behavior is rigid, close supervision. The principal maintains constant moni- toring and control over all teacher and school activ- ities, down to the smallest detail. Restrictive principal behavior is behavior that hinders rather than facilitates teacher work. The principal burdens teachers with paperwork, committee 38 requirements, routine duties, and other demands that interfere with their teaching responsibilities. Collegial teacher behavior supports open and professional interactions among teachers. Teachers are proud of their school, enjoy working with their colleagues, and are enthusiastic, accepting, and mutually respectful of their colleagues. Intimate teacher behavior is cohesive and strong social relations among teachers. Teachers are proud of their school, enjoy working with their colleagues,.and are enthusiastic, accepting, and mutually respectful of their colleagues. Disengaged teacher behavior signifies a lack of meaning and focus to professional activities. teachers simply are putting in time in nonproductive group efforts; they have no common goals. In fact, their behavior often is negative and critical of their colleagues and the school. (p. 32) Following the development of the new OCDQ-RE, it was ready for testing. In a study conducted in New Jersey, 70 elementary schools were selected and factor analyses were performed. The instrument seemed to be stable, confirming its validity and reliability, and explaining 67.2% of the variance. The alpha coefficients show the reliability of the scores for the subtest. For example, the lowest alpha was .75 for disengaged and the highest was .95 for support- ive. These results show that the scales were relatively independent of each other (Hoy & Clover, 1986; Hoy et al. , The two categories of the six subtests of the OCDQ-RE were defined by Hay and Clover (1986) and Hoy et a1. (1991) as a general construct of openness, understanding that openness in principal behavior is independent of Openness in 39 faculty behavior; hence, ”two continua of openness anchored the conceptualization of the climate of elementary school and provided basis for a four-celled typology . . . of school climate: Open, Closed, Engaged, and Disengaged Climates” (Hoy et al., 1991, p. 44) (Figure 2.1). PRINCIPAL BEHAVIOR m . Open Closed 0 H > Open Engaged a Open Climate Climate m a: g Closed Disengaged Closed g Climate Climate Note. From n cho l ealth choo s: Measur n r ani- gational= Slimate (p. 44) by W. Hoy, J. Tarter, and R. Kottkamp, 1991, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Figure 2.1.--Typology of school climates. A.description of each climate as shown in Figure 2.1 was stated by Hoy et a1. (1991): W. The distinctive characteristics of the open climate are cooperation, respect, and openness that exist within the faculty and between the faculty and principal. The principal listens and is receptive to teacher ideas, gives genuine and frequent praise, and respects the competence of faculty (high suppor- tiveness) . Principals also give their teachers freedom to perform without close scrutiny (low directiveness) and provide facilitating leadership devoid of bureau- cratic trivia (low restrictiveness) . Likewise, the 40 faculty supports open and professional behavior (high collegial relations) among teachers. Teachers know each other well and typically are close personal friends (high intimacy). They cooperate and are committed to teaching and their job (low disengage- ment) . In brief, the behavior of both the principal and teachers is genuine and open. Spgaged climate. The engaged climate is marked, on one hand, by ineffective attempts of the principal to lead, and on the other, by high professional performance of the teachers. The principal is rigid and authoritarian (high directiveness) and respects neither the professional expertise nor personal needs of the faculty (low supportiveness) . In addition, the principal is seen as burdening faculty with unnecessary busy work (high restrictiveness) . Surprisingly, however, the teachers simply ignore the principal's unsuccessful attempts to control, and conduct them- selves as productive professionals. They respect and support each other, are proud of their school, and enjoy their work (high collegiality). They not only respect each other's professional competence but they like each other as friends (high intimacy). The teachers come together as a cooperative unit engaged and committed to the teaching-learning task (high engagement). In brief, the teachers are productive in spite of weak principal leadership; the faculty is cohesively committed, supportive, and engaged. Sisengaged climate. The disengaged climate stands in stark contrast to the engaged climate. The princi- pal's leadership behavior is strong, supportive, and concerned. The principal listens and is open to teachers' views (high supportiveness); gives teachers the freedom to act on the basis of their professional knowledge (low directiveness); and relieves teachers of most of the burdens of paperwork and bureaucratic trivia (low restrictiveness) . Nevertheless, the faculty reacts badly; teachers are unwilling to accept responsibility. At best, the faculty simply ignores the initiatives of the principal; at worst, the faculty actively works to immobilize and sabotage the princi- pal's leadership attempts. Teachers not only dislike the principal but also do not especially like each other as friends (low intimacy) or respect each other as colleagues (low collegiality). The faculty clearly is disengaged from their work. Although the principal is supportive, flexible, and noncontrolling (i.e., open), the faculty is divisive, intolerant, and uncommitted (i.e., closed). 41 Closes; climate. The closed climate is the antithesis of the open. The principal and teachers simply go through the motions, with the principal stressing routine trivia and unnecessary busywork (high restrictiveness) and teachers responding minimally and exhibiting little comitment to the tasks at hand (high disengagement). The principal's leadership is seen as controlling and rigid (high directiveness) as well as unsympathetic and unresponsive (low supportiveness) . The misguided tactics are accompanied not only by frustration and apathy, but also by suspicion and a lack of respect of teachers for their colleagues as well as the administration (low intimacy and noncolleg- iality) . In sum, closed climates have principals who are nonsupportive, inflexible, hindering, and control- ling, and a faculty that is divisive, apathetic, intolerant, and disingenuous. (pp. 39-41) The Elementagy School Organizational climate Survey Framework The ESOCS was developed as a product of a process that started in a graduate school climate course, and further developed in a subsequent graduate class on research methods, where the first scales and items were developed and submitted to a process of revisions. The first draft was piloted in the Lansing, Michigan, area using an evaluation pilot form (Appendix B) to correct items. The corrected questionnaire was then submitted and final suggestions from the instructor were adopted. The ESOCS was further piloted when the instrument was translated into Spanish. The pilot took place in the city of Barquisimeto in Venezuela. The same pilot evaluation form was used to correct items. Later, the writer decided not to conduct the study in Venezuela but in the state of Illinois. The ESOCS was then adopted on its preliminary draft and a third round of 42 revisions occurred when the survewaas judged by'a group of experts in the field at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, for the content validity of the preliminary form Of the survey. After modification, a final form was adopted. As mentioned previously, the ESOCS has 11 scales chosen from the literature as relevant components of the organiza- tional climate. The 11 identified aspects were classified into three groups of attributes: for teachers, morale, engagement, routine duties, and frustration; for principals, consideration, trust, production emphasis, and work by the book; and for the general school, communication, decision making, and order and discipline. The 11 scales were defined in Chapter I. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to develop an organiza- tional climate survey to study the climate in Illinois public elementary schools. Specifically, this chapter includes a description of the research design and method- ology used in the study, including the instrument develop- ment, preliminary form, initial form, sampling procedures, data collection, sample returns, treatment of the data, factor analysis, second-order factor analysis, the differ- ences between teachers and principals, and the independent variables. The Instrument As stated previously, the researcher, based on the literature review in Chapter II, chose 11 aspects that have emerged as important components of the school climate. This decision was reached as a result of suggestions by experts in the field and the researcher's personal experience as a teacher. These 11 aspects of school climate served as the structure for the selection of items for use on the ques- tionnaire. The researcher wants to point out that there are other important aspects in the literature; however, it was necessary to set a limit on the number which could be used 43 44 within the confines of the present study. The 11 identified aspects were classified into three groups of attributes: for teachers, morale, engagement, routine duties, and frustration; for principals, consider- ation, trust, production emphasis, and work by the book; and for the general school, communication, decision making, and order and discipline. Each aspect was defined in Chapter I. Erglmingg stage 9f the Instrument Using the definitions described above, 11 items were generated to represent the various aspects of the ESOCS. The researcher, after selecting the aspects, decided to select items from the measurement instrument developed by Halpin and Croft (1962), Roy and Clover (1986), Litwin and Stringer (1968), CKF LTD (1973), and Likert (1978). The first 15 items were taken from the above instrument with slight modification (first draft) to represent the hypoth- esized aspect. Additional items not contained in the above instrument were created from the literature in the field. One of the researcher's purposes was to enhance the number of aspects commonly used in the literature mentioned before. Therefore, 11 aspects were chosen. For the first draft, 6 items per aspect were developed for a total of 66; and, after the first feedback from the instructor in the methods class, these were reduced to five per aspect for a total of 55. A second draft was produced after the first pilot study 45 (Lansing, Michigan). Several items were changed to a more consistent wording. A decision was made to modify all original items, altering their intent. A second draft incorporated the suggestions, resulting in the preliminary form of the ESOCS. Thus, 55 items comprised the ESOCS preliminary form. Following this step, the ESOCS was translated into Spanish to be used in the public school of venezuela. The instrument was translated and reviewed for verification of the correct meaning and interpretation of the ESOCS in Spanish with the Venezuelan student population in Lansing, Michigan. Later, the instrument was pilot tested in the city of Barquisimeto, Venezuela, elementary school. A few changes in wording were made, although the number of items and aspects remained the same. The Initial Form of the Instrument The researcher later decided to conduct the study in the United States, more specifically in the state of Illinois, to gain more insight and input. Therefore, a review by a panel of experts was carried out at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, where the preliminary form of the survey was judged for content validity by a group of experts in the field. During each review, an evaluation form was used to check for ambiguity, bias, personal opinions, and difficulty with the vocabulary (Appendix B). Also, the researcher interviewed the judges 46 to find.out whether the items truly represented a source of measure for that particular aspect. The criteria estab- lished for the selection of the items were that the items should: (a) reflect a property of the school, (b) be clear and concise, (c) have content validity, and (d) have discriminatory potential (Hoy et al. , 1991) . After feedback from the judges, the final form.of the ESOCS was ready to be tested. A total of 52 items remained from the preliminary 55 items (Appendix C). The ESOCS included a brief statement on the front page indicating the researcher's interest in gathering the teacher's perceptions of the present school climate. Directions consisting of five steps were provided with an example. Teachers were asked to indicate the response that most accurately describes their perceptions by carefully circling the best answer to every statement on the following Likert-type scale: 1. Rarely occurs 2. Occasionally 3. Frequently 4. very Frequently The instrument was printed at Northern Illinois University' and 'was mailed thorough the Department of Physical Education. Before mailing the instrument, per- mission ‘was granted by the (Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects. It was 47 stated that the rights and welfare of human subjects appeared to be protected (Appendix D). W The present study was narrowed to the elementary public schools in the state of Illinois. The population in this study consisted of elementary grade teachers (K-6) and the school principals. The first step in accessing the population was to draw a representative stratified random sample of school dis- tricts in the 18 Education Service Centers (regions) in the state of Illinois (Appendix E). ‘A.stratified random sample of each school district was developed using the services of the Social Science Research Institute at Northern Illinois University. The selection was made proportionally per center; the computer also produced five mailing labels for each school district to provide for the follow up. .A.total number of 234 school districts was drawn from a total of 972, and this number was divided by 18 (regions). An average of 13 school districts per region was selected. The computerwmailing labels came*with the coding identification of the school district superintendent (Appendix F). After a response_ from the superintendent that his/her school district would participate in the study (Appendix G), all elementary schools within that district were chosen and a letter was sent to the school principal requesting permis- sion to use the school as one unit of this study (Appendix 48 H) . A total of 200 elementary schools were selected, and 89 decided to participate in the study. In summary, from the original sample size (234), 15.3% of the school districts agreed to be part of the study and 44.5% of the schools participated in the project. .After the principal responded that his/her school would be part of the study, all grade teachers at that school, including the building principal, were chosen. A total of 739 subjects from 89 elementary schools agreed to participate in this study. Data Collection _Each randomly selected school district superintendent received a packet containing a cover letter from the researcher (Appendix I) explaining the purpose of the study. A copy of the instrument was included for the superinten- dent's review (Appendix C). A self-addressed, pre-paid envelope was also included. An approval form (Appendix G) was attached which contained two options: (a) yes, the school district will participate in the study, and (b) no, the school district will not participate in the study. The school superintendents were asked to provide a reason for not participating in the study. A 15-day period was established to receive responses by the superintendents. A follow-up letter of transmittal (Appendix J) was sent, and a phone call was made after another 15 days to secure a response by the superintendent. The superintendent response was 48% of the sample size 49 (234). From that response, 15.3% said yes and 32.7% said no. The school districts' reasons for not participating could be summarized in the following way: (a) time con- straints for the district and faculties, (b) similarity of project currently in process within the district, (c) a straightforward "we don't want to participate, " and (d) currently too much tension between the district and union. The school districts willing to participate expressed their desire to have a copy of the study; and some of them pointed out that there was no need to contact the school district for this matter. They said that the school principal can be contacted directly to request permission to use their school in the study. Each selected elementary school building principal received a packet containing a cover letter (Appendix H) explaining the purpose of the study and requesting per- mission to access teachers at that school. The principal was asked to send a list of teachers' names if the school would participate in the study. (A self-addressed pre-paid envelope was included for the return of the principal's response. After 10 days, the researcher called schools that did not respond to the first contact to ensure that each building principal received the information. A total of 200 elementary schools was selected, and 92 decided to be involved in the study. Three schools decided to drop from the study; therefore, the final number of schools partici- 50 pating was 89. After receiving the names of the teachers from the school, the researcher selected all K-6 teachers within that school and the building principal. An individual, personal- ized envelope containing the instrument and a cover letter (Appendix K) was sent to each subject chosen. A self- addressed pre-paid envelope was included for the return of the survey. A total of 739 grade teachers (K-6) from 89 schools returned the instrumenta .After'lo days of the first mailing, a reminder followbup letter was sent to schools that had not responded. Sample Return From the 200 elementary schools selected for this study, 44.5% participated in the project. A total of 739 teachers and 89 elementary schools desired to participate voluntarily. It could be said that the sample return is a moderate one, compared with the standard return on the social science type of research including schools where a 50% return is considered adequate. For this study, the number of schools is critical due to the fact that schools are the unit of analysis. A.debate among researchers still is unsolved in relation to (a) number of items in relation to number of cases, and (b) minimum of cases per item (Cattel, 1952; Rummel, 1970; Sirotnik, 1980). .After the return, the instrument was coded and.entered into a data base. Later the raw data were transferred to 51 the mainframe computer at Northern Illinois University. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X, Release 4.1) was the software used for the statistics analysis procedures. Treatment of the Data After receiving the instrument, a procedure was established to check individual and total responses of the schools. Every survey was carefully checked; subjects who omitted a page, or more than 10 items, were dropped from the data set. A data base was programmed where items 1 to 52 were entered at 0 for no response to 1 to 4 as possible responses for each item. The data base, therefore, helped to minimize human error because only numbers from 0 to 4 could be entered. Finally, the computer print out was compared with the individual survey. All cases found to be recorded incorrectly were then corrected in the software data bank. After correction, the data were transferred to the main frame. As mentioned before, the analysis of the data was done on the Northern Illinois University mainframe computer. werking in the same direction as Sirotnik (1980), the school was held as the unit of analysis in this study. Therefore, the study had 89 units. To do so, means were computed on the items across individuals within each group, and then an items-correlation matrix from 89 schools was factor analyzed. Consequently, as pointed out by Boy at al. 52 (1991), Cheal (1990), and Sirotnik (1980), the measurement in this study must be interpreted as an estimate of the magnitude of an attribute of the school, not an attribute of teachers in the school. Potential problems using the between-group analysis have been identified by Sirotnik (1980), Cattel (1952), and Rummel (1970), where the authors denoted that the number of items in relation to the number of units (schools) could, in fact, be a problem. It is particularly true when the number of items is greater than the number of participant groups. In this study, the number of items (52) is almost half of the number of schools (89). Then the problem will be the minimum number of units per item. This matter of the minimum allowable ratio of cases to items is still a.matter of great debate, going from opinions that the ratio should be 10 cases per item, at least 5 cases per item, or just that the number of cases should exceed the number of items (Cattel, 1952; Hoy et al., 1991; Rummel, 1970). Factor Analysis Six criteria were used to reduce the number of items in the ESOCS: (a) only items that loaded high on one factor and low on all the others were retained; (b) items that failed to load on a particular factor at a value of .40 were deleted; (c) items that crossloaded on two or more factors were deleted; (d) items that reflected poorly on the scale reliability and low correlation (below .40) were deleted; 53 (e) items were evaluated for conceptual clarity and fit with primary items in the factor; and (f) items which substan- tially reduced the internal consistency of the aspect, as measured by Cronbach's coefficient alpha, were deleted. Using the school as a unit of analysis, the varimax rotation, without specification of the number of factors, dictated the number of aspects that were used for the rest of the analysis. The program was set to record any items that loaded greater than .30. Of the total 52 items, 9 were chosen for deletion based on the following criteria: 1. One item (#14) loaded by itself on one factor (factor 9). Item 14 was considered for deletion. 2. Three items (#20, 27, 42) from different aspects loaded together in factor 8. The three items were consid- ered for deletion. 3. Two items (#13, 37) substantially reduced the internal consistency of the aspect. The two items were considered for deletion. 4. Three items (#5, 17, 18) crossloaded from the teachers' aspects of frustration (#17-18) and teacher morale (#5) into principal attributes. Those three items were considered for deletion based on the criteria of conceptual clarity and not within the aspect. In summary, one item (#5) from the morale aspect, two items (#13, 14) from the routine duties aspect, three items 54 (#18, 19, 20) from the frustration aspect, one item (#27) from the trust aspect, one item (#31) from the work by the book aspect, and one item (#42) from the communication aspect were considered for deletion. The first factor analysis without specification seemed to indicate that 9 rather than 11 factors were presented. Further analyses were planned to determine the qualities of the aspects presented in the ESOCS. Those steps are discussed in the next chapter. Second-Order Factor Analysis Following the steps of Halpin and Croft (1962-63) and Boy et al. (1991), a second-order factor analysis was completed on the subtest correlation matrix to explore the underlying structure of the aspects. The mean scores were standardized and a school typology was developed. Differences Between Teachers and Principals To compare teachers and principals, the mean from the raw scores for teachers and principals was used on each of the aspects. Independent variables Descriptive analysis and exploratory MANOVAs and one— way ANOVAs were conducted to determine if the independent variables accounted for differences in the elementary school climate. 55 EBEEQEI This chapter focused upon the development of the instrument, including the preliminary and initial form, the sampling procedure, data collection, sample return and the treatment of the data, factor analysis, second-order factor analysis, differences between teachers and principals, and independent 'variables. 'The next. chapter includes the analysis of the data. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The Problem The behavioral interaction of teachers and principals has been studied using different approaches. The most popular is the one developed by Halpin and Croft (1962). Thirty years later, a need exists to find a comparable organizational climate instrument to be used at the elemen- tary school level. The problem identified in this study was developing an elementary school climate survey using the Organization Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) and other instru- ment item-scales as a framework to select and develop items and scales for the new instrument. The researcher's primary purpose in this study was to develop and construct an organizational climate survey to study the climate in Illinois public elementary schools. Specifically, this study was intended to address 11 differ- ent aspects considered in the literature by several authors as important components of the school climate. Given the 11 elementary, school aspects of school climate, the writer's second purpose was to explore whether the various scales hold together through an examina- 56 57 tion of unspecified factor solution. This procedure enables the number of items and scales to be corrected, depending on how they load and group together. The final purpose of the study was to determine if there is a difference between teachers and principals and to determine if the independent variables--teacher age, teachers' years of teaching experience, teacher salary, teacher gender, and school location--have an influence on different aspects of the organizational climate. Summag of Analysis Procedures To determine the qualities and number of scales on the Elementary School Organizational Climate Survey (ESOCS) , research questions La. and I.b. were processed in the following way: (a) the survey items were field tested for the content validity, (b) the school building item means were aggregated, and (c) numerous factor analysis and reliability analysis procedures were conducted. A systemat- ic deletion of items, reduction of the number of aspects, and a final factor analysis of the reduced item matrix and aspects resulted in the final form of the ESOCS: ESOCS-FF (Appendix L) . The ESOCS-FF was subject to a second-order factor analysis to determine the underlying factor structure. The average school scores for the items comprising each subtest were added to yield school subtest scores, thus represent- . ing the climate profile for each school. To provide for a 58 common denominator, the subtest scores were standardized ‘with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. A.two- continua factor was constructed. A box was developed to place schools according to their level of openness and closedness. To investigate whether there is any difference between teachers and principals, the mean scores from the raw data were used on each aspect; and to test the independent variable, a two-step process was used: MANOVA and ANOVA. The main purpose of using MANOVA was to control the overall alpha level. Specifically, the researcher was interested in the set of measures as they represent some underlying construct or dimension (climate aspects). The researcher's main.interest,was on the separate univariate analysis. Bray and Maxwell (1982), and Hurberty and Morris (1984) pointed out that the MANOVAPANOVA. approach is seldom. if ever appropriate. They stressed that researchers may find a situation in which the MANOVA test is significant but all the P univariate tests are nonsignificant or vice versa. Apalysie Procedures: Aspects ef the ESQQS Factor analysis (varimax rotation) without specifica- tion was used to detemmine both the number and qualities of the scales present in the ESOCS (original form) (Table 4.1). The principal components analysis yielded nine factors with Eigenvalues from 19.8 to 1.1, explaining 75.5% of the 59 Table 4.1.-Initia1 varimax factor analysis: lo specification. Factor var. 1 2 3 4 s 6 7———'E_—§— 22 .89099 25 .88269 21 .87365 23 .86790 43 .85324 26 .80653 .33305 24 .79275 .32298 29 . 8164 .30403 38 .69691 .31996 28 . 8365 .30483 40 . 6246 .43953 51 .65597 .45746 44 . 4471 .39734 41 . 4456 .31528 45 . 4228 .44955 52 .56815 .31800 18* .55253 . .51552 17* .52805 .34794 5* .51375 .49350 .48080 50 .47569 .43687 .36941 9 ' .84783 7 .75816 2 . 4455 .42988 1 .72796 10 .70765 .31420 8 .58699 .44624 4 .38611 .53540 .53108 6 .45825 32 .32884 .79126 30 .32620 .78034 31 .74746 37* -. 3019 .33367 34 .47498 . 69763 33 .52120 .53666 .31856 13* . 4279 -.43450 .31406 12 .83131 11 .75991 15 . 9078 16 .44304 .63712 19 .53737 .58245 3* .50108 .45711 .55906 35 -.39033 .76901 36 .35368 -.44610 .66368 39 .53370 .64631 47 .36352 .63614 49 .47607 .61567 46 .50710 .60955 48 -.37214 .60647 42* .38712 -.65459 20* .38871 .35170 .54734 27* .44842 , .53498 14* .38888 .76578 60 variance (Table 4.2). An Eigenvalue of 1.00 was used as a criterion for a "true” factor. Factor 9, containing one item (#14), was dropped; and factor 8 was included in the next analysis. Before deciding to drop the nine items selected for deletion, a new attempt was made to check the reliabilities of items and aspects. Two analyses were done: one without the items selected for deletion and the other including the items selected for deletion. The factor analysis shows that, in fact, items #18, 17, 5, 37, and 13 substantially lowered the internal consistency of the aspect. In the analysis, the varimax failed to converge with eight factors; then factor'#8 was deleted (items #20, 27, 42), as expected. Factor analysis with seven factors specified was used to determine the quality of the ESOCS-FF. These seven factors (Table 4.3), with Eigenvalues from 17.3 to 1.1, explained 75.3% of the variance (Table 4.4). The rotated factor matrix, percentage of variance, and reliability analysis are included for further reference. The 'seven factors were refined into the ESOCS-FF. Using the strength of factor loading and the information from the alpha reliability analysis, the final form of the instrument held seven aspects and 42 items. Six criteria were used to reduce the number of items on the ESOCS: (a) only items that loaded high on one factor and low on all the others were retained; (b) items that 61 Table 4.2.--Initia1 factor analysis: Principal component extraction, 52-item set. Percent of Cumulative Factor Eigenvalue Variance Percent 1 19.88165 38.2 38.2 2 5.67707 10.9 49.2 3 3.99901 7.7 56.8 4 2.60330 5.0 61.8 5 1.63430 3.1 65.0 6 1.54079 3.0 68.0 7 1.48446 2.9 70.8 8 1.30231 2.5 73.3 9 1.11565 2.1 75.5 62 Table 4.3.--8even-factor varimax solution (specified): Principal component 42-item set (new item numbers). Factor Var. I 2 3 4 5 6 *7 1 .91127 3 .89426 2 .88385 5 .87618 4 .84643 6 .81512 .36093 8 .79220 .32832 7 .75779 .36003 10 .71308 9 .69334 13 .66894 .41608 14 .66351 11 .65955 .44867 12 .65721 .44951 15 .62100 .48893 16 .58480 .30332 17 .45939 .44418 -.36082 -.34012 26 .85051 29 .76316 27 .75610 28 .74338 .38743 30 .69784 31 .58747 32 .42115 .54397 .42103 33 .42321 -.40892 18 .80898 19 .30865 .79531 20 .79077 21 .47388 .71982 22 .49891 .55402 40 .67953 42 .49135 .65367 41 .48075 .62519 43 .62444 23 -.30682 .82813 24 .33619 -.34786 .73139 25 .54290 .68165 35 .82969 34 .82119 36 .70369 38 .56893 .59316 37 .48533 .53531 63 Table 4.4.--Principal component extraction: Seven-factor varimax solution specified, 42-item set. Percent of Cumulative Factor Eigenvalue Variance Percent 1 17.33756 41.3 41.3 2 4.82425 11.5 52.8 3 3.27020 7.8 60.6 4 2.29578 5.5 66.0 5 1.36960 3.3 69.3 6 1.35147 3.2 72.5 7 1.18316 2.8 75.3 64 failed to load on a particular factor at a value of .40 were deleted; (c) items that crossloaded on two or more factors were deleted; (d) items that reflected poorly on the scale reliability and low correlation (below .40) were deleted; (e) items were evaluated for conceptual clarity and fit with primary items in the factor; and (f) if the items reduced substantially the internal consistency of the aspect, it was deleted as measured by Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The revised ESOCS aspects are renamed in Table 4.5. One item (#3) from the morale aspect that loaded with frustration in the first factor analysis moved to a dif- ferent aspect. A decision was made, and item #3 was deleted for conceptual clarity. Thus the final number of items in the instrument became 42 with seven aspects. The Elementary School Organization Climate Survey-Final Form (ESOCS-FF) shows that the seven aspects are relatively independent of each other. Those aspects seem to be stable, and the factors also support the construct validity of the seven measures of school climate. As expressed by Kerlinger (1986), factor analysis enables researchers to find the meaning of constitutive construct. Specifically, in this study, seven hypothesized entities of school climate were constructed. In summary, the number of aspects reduced from 11 to 7 and the number of items from 52 to 42 (Appendices C and L). The ESOCS was then rearranged. The aspects consideration, 65 Table 4.5--Revised ESOCS-FF new aspects: 42 items. Number of Reliability Cumulative Aspects Items (Alpha) Eigenvalue Variance EELBELBBL tt utes Mutual Respect and Consideration 17 .97 17.91 41.7 Production Emphasis 5 .89 3.36 7.8 Work by the Book 3 .88 1.42 3.3 222222; Atpributes Teachers' Dedication 8 .88 4.82 11.2 Routine Duties 3 .80 1.36 3.2 Frustration 2 .89 1.1 2.8 Geeerel School Atpgibutes Decision Making 4 .81 2.31 5.4 Total - 7 Aspects 42 .87 -- 75.4 66 trust, communication, and order and discipline united to form a broad aspect called mutual respect and consideration. Teachers ' morale and engagement converged to form the aspect of teachers' dedication. The remaining aspects-- routine duties, frustration, production emphasis, work by the book, and decision making--maintained their identity with fewer items than shown before (Table 4.6) . The revised instrument item numbers changed from the original as shown in the following 7-factor varimax solution, Table 4.7. All further analyses in this chapter were made by using seven aspects and 42 items. This modified instrument (ESOCS-FF) is the product of the above-mentioned factor analysis. Several studies have shown that this reduction of items after the factor analysis procedure should be expect- ed, particularly in dissertation work, as expressed by Cheal (1990) . The author pointed out that reduced items and scales do not provide a desirable situation and a bigger sample size may be the solution. As mentioned before, there is a concern about the number of items in relation to the number of units of analysis. It is problematic to get a school sample larger than 200 or’more, as Boy at al. (1991) discussed in their OCDQ-RE study, where they used a sample size of 70 ‘schools. Procedures for Analyzing Research Questions Several steps were planned to determine the qualities 67 Table 4.6.--E1ementary school organizational climate study--fina1 form. Principal Teacher General School Attributes Attributes Attributes (3 factors) (3 factors) (1 factor) Mutual Respect and Consideration-- 17 items Production Emphasis--5 items work by the Book-- 3 items Teachers' Dedication-- 8 items Routine Duties--3 items Frustration--2 items Decision making-- 4 items 68 Table 4.7--Origina1 instrument item number change due to 7-factor varimax solution. Item Number Loading Aspect rsocs zsocs-rr Factor Mutual Respect and 22 1 .89 Consideration 25 2 .87 21 3 .87 23 4 .83 43 5 .86 26 6 .79 24 7 .76 29 8 .78 38 9 .66 28 10 .71 40 11 .65 51 12 .66 44 13 .65 41 14 .63 45 15 .60 52 16 .57 50 17 .48 Production Emphasis 32 18 .80 30 19 .79 31 20 .78 34 21 .72 33 22 .56 Work by the Book 35 23 .83 36 24 .73 39 25 .68 Teachers' Dedication 9 26 .84 7 27 .74 2 28 .74 1 29 .75 10 30 .69 8 31 .57 4 32 .52 6 33 .43 Routine Duties 12 34 .82 11 35 .82 15 36 .70 Frustration 16 37 .61 19 38 .62 Decision Making 47 39 .68 49 40 .65 46 41 .63 48 42 .62 69 of the aspects presented in the ESOCS. 1. To assist the content validity of the survey items, field testing was conducted using an independent panel of judges. 2. The data for each school building-items means were aggregated. 3. Factor analysis, using the unspecified N-factor was used. 4. Alpha reliability analysis of items-aspects in various specified factor solution was conducted. .5. Items deletion, based on a systematic criteria for the revision of factors, was completed as outlined above. 6. Factor analysis of the reduced aspects-items matrix, using a specified factor criterion, was used. If the aspects of organizational climate could be defined through the statistical procedures outlined above, second-order factor analysis in various specified factor solution was used to determine and define the interrelated- ness of the identified aspects. Through the above procedures, the ESOCS was refined to portray the organizational climate of the elementary school. The final product was comprised of seven aspects and 42 items (see Table 4.5). The general school attributes--aspects of communication, and order and discipline--were combined with the principal attributes--aspects of consideration and trust- -to collectively form the new mutual respect and consider- 70 ation aspect. The aspects production emphasis and work by the book remained as separate principal aspects. The teachers' attributes--aspects of morale and engage- ment--combined to form the new teachers' dedication aspect. Routine duties and frustration scales remained as separate teachers' aspects. From the three aspects of the general school attributes, only the decision-making aspect remained to represent this area. The scales with the number of items, alpha reliabili- ty, Eigenvalue, and the cumulative variance are represented in Table 4.5. Items 13, 14, 20, 27, 37, and 42 that were deleted were reworded for future use (see Appendix M). After reduction of items and scales, the item numbers were changed for the final form of the instrument, as shown in Table 4.7. .Also, the Alpha for each item is presented in the table. In summary, the resultant seven factors that portrayed the ESOCS were created from the 11 aspects and the 52 items in the ESOCS-FF. The following section contains a description of each factor as well as a discussion of how items and aspects fell into the seven factors. Analysis of the Seven Final Scales of the ESQQS u Res t and onsideration Mutual respect and consideration refers to the percep- ._ —nj 7E" _ 71 tion by teachers that the principal's behavior is honest and promotes an effective interpersonal relationship with an emphasis on mutual respect, support, and consideration. Teachers and principals communicate among and between each other in an attempt to send and receive open and honest messages, ideas, or attributes that may enhance the degree of interpersonal relationship between them. Mutual agree- ment on the meaning, flexibility, and importance of disci- plinary actions are prerequisites for effective learning in the school. A staff that scores high in mutual respect and consid- eration perceives the principal's behavior as positive. This perception encourages conduct creating a degree of confidence and motivating teachers to maintain an environ- ment of cooperation and trust. A staff that scores low in this aspect usually believes that the principal is not truly committed to working with teachers, thus resulting in a high degree of mistrust and perceived lack of support. This factor contains the majority of items (17): 4 from consideration, 4 from trust, 3 from order and disci- pline, 4 from communication, 1 from decision making, and 1 from work by the book. The original and the new item numbers, as well as the alpha reliability, are shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.7. 72 groducpion Sephasis Production emphasis refers to behavior by the principal which is perceived by teachers as custodial orientation. Such behavior is characterized by close supervision and constant monitoring and control of school activities in order to meet consistent performance standards. A staff that scores high on production emphasis usually perceives the principal as a directive personality who practices and maintains constant control over school activities, thus showing a low degree of trust. A staff that scores low on production emphasis believes that the principal is not committed to supervising and controlling school activities. Thus, there is a perception of a collaborative environment relationship. This factor contains all five original items. The original and the new item numbers, as well as the alpha reliability, are shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.7. Work by the Book Work by the book refers to behavior by the principal which is perceived by the teachers as rigid and close supervision. In this scale, the principal's main emphasis is on enforcing rules and regulations, maintaining a social distance between the main office and the staff, and forcing teachers to go through bureaucratic channels. A staff that scores high on work by the book perceives their relationship with the principal as impersonal, thus 73 creating social distance between the main office and teachers in a rigid environment. In this study, the responses by teachers who scored high were rotated to low. The staff that scores low on work by the book believes that the principal is able to adapt and show flexibility, thus creating an environment of cooperation and closeness between the staff and the main office. In this study, the responses by teachers who scored low were rotated to high. This factor contains three items, all from the original aspect. The original and new item numbers, as well as the alpha reliability, are shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.7. zeechepe' Qedication Teachers' dedication refers to the behavior of the teachers which is perceived as comitment to the school with a tendency of expanding extra effort in the achievement of group goals. A clear sense of belongingness and a notion of community developed, thus reflecting a valuable behavior of involvement and dedication with a positive attitude toward work. A staff that scores high in teachers' dedication perceives that colleagues are engaged on a high level of interaction within school responsibilities, and the group that forms that particular school (staff) shows a high degree of job dedication. A staff that scores low in teaching dedication per- . ceives that colleagues are not committed to the school and 74 show a low level of interaction and engagement. There is not a clear sense of belongingness among this group. This factor contains eight items. Three items are from morale and five items are from engagement. The original and new item numbers, as well as the alpha reliability, are shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.7. goetine Duties Routine duties refers to the feeling of faculty that the demands of administrative paperwork are excessive assignments that keep teachers busy with non-teaching duties and consume a great deal of time. {A staff that scores high on routine duties perceives unnecessary busywork as a burden that hinders them from more important activities. In this study, the responses by teachers who scored high were rotated to low. .A staff that scores low on routine duties perceives an opportunity to engage in productive work with a fair load of assignments which do not hinder them from teaching perfor- mance. In this study, the responses by teachers who scored low were rotated to high. This factor contains three items, all from the original aspect. The original and new item numbers, as well as the alpha reliability, are shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.7. I gestrapion Frustration refers to the teachers' general patterns of 75 negative expectations that distract them from the basic assignment of teaching. There is a general pattern of disengagement and unfairness that interferes with the task of teaching. A staff that scores high on frustration perceives dissatisfaction and shows negative expectations and feelings of disengagement. They view the administration as interfer- ing with their job of teaching. In this study, the respons- es by teachers who scored high were rotated to low. A staff that scores low on frustration perceives that they. are not distracted from the primary job of instruction and there is a sense of engagement (absence of frustration). In this study, the responses of teachers who scored low were rotated to high. This factor contains two items from the original aspect. The original and new item numbers, as well as the alpha reliability, are shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.7. Wing This refers to the process of involvement that facili- tates the interrelationship of school personnel. Ideas are listened to and the different parties are represented when decisions are made. Thus, teachers become committed to their work and participate in problem solving. A staff that scores high on decision making perceives that teachers are involved and engaged in the decision- making process at the school. The ideas of the staff are 76 considered by the administration. .A staff that scores low on decision making perceives ‘that'there is no teacher involvement at the school decision- making level. There is a sense of frustration and disen- gagement. This factor contains four items from the original aspect. The original and new items numbers, as well as the alpha reliability, are shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.7. In summary, the ESOCS original form containing 11 aspects and 52 items was reduced to 7 aspects and 42 items. This was done using numerous factor analyses. The final form with seven aspects was submitted to a second-order factor analysis to explore research question II.a. Second-Qrder Factop Analysis Following Halpin and.Croft's (1962-1963) standards for constructing a battery of subtests, it was proposed that each aspect should measure a relatively different type of behavior and at the same time the battery should tap enough common behavior to allow the investigator to find a pattern of more general factors. Finally, those factors extracted should not be discordant with those already reported in the literature (Boy et al., 1991). The ESOCS-FF scales are relatively independent of each other. They explain 75.3% of the variance and the different aspects are consistent with the literature on organizational climate. The non-parametric correlation shows a moderate to 77 high-moderate correlation (Table 4.8). .A second-order factor analysis was completed on the subtest correlation. matrix to explore the underlying structure of the seven factors. The data were reduced to two factors. Factor 1 shows an alpha of .87, and Factor 2 an alpha of .50. The loading factor for the second-factor analysis is shown in Table 4.9. A.two-factor solution with a varimax rotation and the alpha are given for the seven aspects (Table 4.10). Mutual respect and consideration, teachers ' dedication, decision making, production emphasis, and frustration (absent) loaded strongly only on Factor 1, while work by the book and routine duties load strongly only on Factor 2 . The two factors showed an Eigenvalue of 3.2 to 1.4, accounting for 67.6% of the total variance (Table 4.11). Factor 1 is characterized by a high level of collective participative behavior among teachers and administrators. This behavior is meaningful and tolerant to both, resulting in a high level of social interaction, trust, acceptance, and mutual respect exist and a low sense of teacher frustra- tion. This factor was labeled ”collective participative" behavior and is arranged along a continuum from closed to open, meaning that as Factor 1 increases, faculties are highly engaged, active, and committed with an absence of frustration. The opposite will happen if Factor 1 decreas- 78 Table 4.8--Correlation coefficients. Mutual Work Teachers' Respect Decision Routine Product. by the Dedication Consid. Making Duties Emphasis Frustration Book 1.0000 .6730** .6252** .2224** .5395** .5044** .3315** .6730** 1.0000 .7422** .2653** .6660** .5711** .3923** .6252** .7422** 1.0000 .2433** .4185** .4885** .4805** .2224** .2653** .2433** 1.0000 .0943 .2164 .3416** .5395** .6660** .4185** .0943 1.0000 .3499** -.0226 .5044** .5711** .4885** .2164** .3499** 1.0000 .2991** .3315** .3923** .4805** .3416** -.0226 .2991** 1.0000 * Significance level-.05. ** Significance level=.01. Table 4.9.--Second-factor analysis: Rotated factor matrix (loading factor) Scales Factor 1 Factor 2 Mutual Respect and Consideration .860 .321 Production Emphasis .849 -.223 Teachers' Dedication .795 .240 Decision Making .696 .466 Frustration (Absence of) .648 .405 warn by the Book .191 .844 Routine Duties .090 .724 .e 79 Table 4.10.--Secondary factor analysis (varimax): No criteria for the seven aspects - loading. Factor 1 Alpha Factor 2 Alpha Mutual Respect and Work by the Book Consideration Teachers' Dedication Routine Duties Decision Making Production Emphasis Frustration .87 .50 Table 4.11.—-Second-factor varimax solution for Factors 1 and 2. Percent of ’ Cumulative Factor Eigenvalue Variance Percent 1 3.27186 46.7 46.7 2 1.45699 20.8 67.6 80 Factor 2 is characterized by the combination of the teachers' perception that the principal engages in meaning- less burdensome duties. This is characterized by rigid, close, and constant supervision over teachers with little concern for openness and flexibility. This factor was labeled."procedurally rigid” behavior and is arranged along a continuum from open to closed, meaning that as Factor 2 increases, the faculties become more highly engaged in.non- productive activities that are characterized by rigid, close supervision. The opposite will happen if Factor 2 decreas- es. The two second-order factors are viewed along a continuum, as follows: Factor 1 Closed ----------------------- Open Low High Participation Participation Factor 2 Open ----------------------- Closed Low High Rigidity Rigidity 81 Commensurate with the steps of Boy et al. (1991), two second-order factors between teachers and administrators were found: (a) a measure of the degree of collective participation (openness) , and the (b) a measure of the degree of procedural rigidity (closedness) . These two factors are relatively independent (Hoy et al., 1991), and several combinations of climates are possible with each school. Conceptually, these two factors measured the openness and closedness of the school, thus four contrasting types of school climate are possible. Both factors can be open or closed and result in four combinations: (a) if Factor 1 is high and Factor 2 is low (open climate), teachers and principals are engaged; (b) if Factor 1 is low and Factor 2 is high (closed climate), teachers and princi- pals are disengaged; (c) if Factor 1 is high and factor 2 is high (engaged climate), teachers are highly engaged and principals are inflexible; and (d) if Factor 1 is low and Factor 2 is low (disengaged climate), teachers are clearly disengaged from their work and principals are supportive and flexible . Developing a School zypelogy gor the State of Illinois The ESOCS-FF scales are independent of each other and provide a description of school climate in terms of seven specific aspects and two general dimensions. This fact allows a map to be drawn of the building, school district, -— 82 and the state along the seven scales by compounding teacher— principal interaction. The two factor' dimensions (Factors 1 and 2) are independent of each other, and thewaill be used to develop a typology of school climate. As suggested by Hoy et al. (1991), scores were stan- dardized on each of the subtests in order to determine a common denominator to compare schools. A.mean of 500 with a standard. deviation of 100 was used. For example, the teachers' dedication formula Sds was T-ded - 100 x (t-ded- 25.224)/3.293+500, suggested by Hoy'et al. (1991), was used for each aspect. The other formulas were: mutual respect and consideration 8 100 x (M.R.C.-56.697)/7.818+500 decision making = 100 x (D.M.-11.799)/2.078+500 routine duties = 100x(R.D.-9.228)/1.676+500 production emphasis = 100 x (P.E.-16.025)/2.379+500 frustration = 100 x (Frust.-6.975)/1.066+500 work by the book = 100 x (W.B.-9.172)/ 1.782+500 The formulas used to calculate the level of openness- closedness were: 1. Level of collective participative behavior (Factor 1) s (mutual respect and consideration + (1000 - t-ded) + 83 (1000 - decision making) + (1000 - production emphasis) + (1000 - frustration))lS. 2. Level of procedurally rigid behavior (Factor 2) = (work by the book + (1000 - routine duties) )/2 (closedness) . The teachers' state means and standard deviation which were used to calculate the standardized score by each aspect are shown in Table 4.12 and Figure 4.1. To construct a school climate typology of the state of Illinois, school buildings were arranged into schools such that if Factor 1 and 2 were higher than the median, they received a "1. " If they were low in the factor, they received a "4." If they were high on Factor 2 but low in Factor 1, they received a '2.” If they were low on Factor 2 and high on Factor 1, they received a "3." A box with four cells (Figure 4.2) that parallels the one created by Hoy and Clover (1986) was constructed with Factor 1 on the vertical axis and Factor 2 on the horizontal axis. Four elementary school typical cases are shown in Table 4.13. .A crosstab table indicates the distribution of school buildings showing the distribution of schools on the four cells (Table 4.14). if enc s Between Teachers end Principals The differences between teachers and principals' perception regarding school climate were assessed using mean scores from the raw data. The principal means are notably 84 Table 4.12.-— Teachers' state means and standard deviations by each aspect (nonstandardized means). .Aspect Mean Standard Deviation Teachers' dedication 25.224 3.293 Mutual respect and consideration 56.697 7.818 Decision making 11.799 2.078 Routine duties 9.228 1.676 Production emphasis 16.025 2.379 Frustration 6.975 1.066 Work by the book 9.172 1.732 85 100 1 9 0 SLIM“... .... , 8 o q... than-.-..-.,--...._....._.,. in...“ is...” M... “1...... mw..-..............-.w...-........ _.......4 '1 70 ’3 Teacher Dedication m 1 E3 Mutual Respect-cons c 60 ... ~ [3 Decision Making a) ‘ v Routine Duties E 50 “"3. f— — ‘ Mi [3 Production Emphasis . .3134 Frustration 40 L’Q’fj Cl Work by the Book 1 if"! // 30+ E?? . ’5? C'x " ,3; if; “,3! l, Scales Figure 4.1.--Teachers' aspect means for whole state. High Factor 1 Collective Participative Behavior Low Figure 4.2.--Typology of school climate. 86 OPEN CLIMATE ENGAGED CLIMATE Teacher Teacher Engagement Engagement vs. vs. Principal Principal Engagement Rigidity H I! L I! I. L L 11 DISENGAGED CLOSED CLIMATE CLIMATE Teacher Teacher Disengagement Disengagement vs. vs. Principal Principal Supportiveness Disengagement Low High Factor 2 Procedurally Rigid Behavior 87 Table 4.13.--Example of prototype profile of elementary schools. Classification School No. Factor 1 Factor 2 Rank Continuum 11 1 (H) 2 (L) 2 Open Climate 12 1 (H) 1 (H) 1 Engaged Climate E 10 2 (L) 2 (L) 4 Disengaged Climate . i 16 2 (L) 1 (H) 3 Closed Climate g H - high. L - low. Table 4.14.--Crosstabs for second-factor analysis using the median. High Low Count Exp. val. Row Pct. High. Low Col. Pct. Totl. Pct. Row Adj. Res. 1.00 2.00 Total 1.00 25 19 44 22.0 22.0 50.0% 56.8% 43.2 56.8% 43.2% 28.4% 21.6% 103 -1e3 2.00 19 25 44 22.0 22.0 50.0% 43.2% 56.8 43.2% 56.8% 21.6% 28.4% -1.3 1.3 Column 44 44 88 Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 88 higher than the teachers' means on the seven.aspects (Table 4.15 and Figure 4.3). V es For this study, several independent variables were used to measure the organizational climate at the elementary school level. Several exploratory statistical analyses, including MANOVA.and oneawayuANOVA, were conducted to deter- mine if the independent variables accounted for differences in the elementary school organizational climate. These independent variables consisted of the teacher age, years of teaching experience, teacher salary, teacher gender, and school location. A descriptive analysis is presented followed.by MANOVA and one-way ANOVA test results. Ieachep Age The average age of teachers for each of the 89 schools was determined. Descriptive statistics and a histogram chart (Figure 4.4) present the frequency distribution of the age groups of the teachers, ranging from 25 to 60 years. The data for age were divided into the following quartile groups: Group Average age of teacher per school 1 less than 41.00 2 greater than 41.00 but less than 43.67 3 greater than 43.67 but less than 47.00 4 greater than 47.00 89 Table 4.15.--Teacher and principal means from raw scores. Principal Teacher Aspect Mean Mean Teachers' dedication 30.7 25.2 Mutual respect and consideration 63.0 56.7 Decision making 19.0 11.8 Routine duties 17.1 9.2 Production emphasis 20.1 16.0 Frustration 12.0 6.9 Werk by the book 14.0 9.2 9O 100 90 80 7O q 6 0 .1 .mm.... d 501...... Principal . Teacher Means 40 d 3 0 q ........... 20" 10' T1) ILFLC Figure 4.3.--Principals and teachers whole state means for seven factors. COUNT IIOOOIMT 0N6 SVIIOL EQUAL! AP'IOXIIATILY .40 OCCURRENCES t 1 20 {see 1 1‘i‘_i U 1 34 less ””30 l!!!’!‘!?""‘ H .lmulwhu.nnu Hr”. .. 1‘......“.‘..iiwphn.“n.11 .H 40 Ieeseeeeeeeeseseeeeee 42 Ieeeeessseeeeseeseessseeeeeseseseeseeeeseeeeesses A.t4.i-!!r-t-tt-‘-'¢t-'--t--*!ssas!!!!a.”n“-.-,.... "'II'Tesseeseseseeeieseseeseeesesseesseee 4. Ieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeees ’° giiiliiii uunuuo.du«o+o-OO u a N. . . . . . ‘f . . .' C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deb-O :. DI. e s s s s 0----.-ccoficooo§puuofiucco+oc-o.----§-c--’---o§oooo§ 4 I 12 “unfl13IOQFAflufiflfiflgflfl9Y.,,WM.H in”. Figure 4.4.--Histogram for age of teacher variable. 91 A.multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test for age group differences on the seven scales was significant, {(1,80867), p<.019 (Pillais). The one-way.ANOVA comparing the age group for the scale work by the book was signifi- cant, §(3,85) = 3.87, p$.013. Post hoc comparison analysis indicated group 4 was different from the other groups (Table 4.16) . The group means were the following: 1 = 488.2; 2 = 496.7; 3 = 475.2; and.4 = 410.5. The other six scales were found to have no statistical significance (Appendix N). Years of Teaching Eipepience The average years of teaching experience for teachers at the 89 schools were determined. Four groups were created and the distribution, ranging from 2 to 36 years of teaching experience, is presented.on a histogram (Figure 4.5). The Table 4.16--Tukey procedure for 'variable age. .Mean Group 4 3 1 2 410.5499 4 475.1730 3 * 488.2008 1 * 496.6738 2 * *Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .05 level. 92 COUNT MXDPOXNT ONE SYNOOL EQUAL! APPROXIMATELY .SO OCCURRENCIS I 840-884.": D I H a; se zeseeesee [seeseees .1seseseeeeeseseeeesse 33".”“ M_ .1 333 Issessssssessssssesssssssssesssssessssesssess Iseeesesesessseessessseseseseessssees Ieeesseeeeeeesseseeesee 1‘8993999999999999991H- H....H.., Iesesseee 25 lesee ”ca-e...“ : 3 anion-0409‘; d-..”- choo-OONeodouoaaau—oo n u s lO 1! . ., HISTOM FREQUENCY. .._. .. .. _ Figure 4.5.--Histogram for years of teacher experience variable. data were divided into the following quartile ranges: Group Average years of teaching experience 1. less than 14.20 2 greater than 14.20 but less than 16.0 3 greater than 16.0 but less than 19.5 4 greater than 19.5 .A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test for the average teaching experience on the seven scales did not reach significance, §(.95791), ps.517. The one-way ANOVA comparing years of teaching experiences for the seven scales was found to have no statistical significance; therefore, no further analysis was done (Appendix 0). 93 Teechep Salegy The average teacher salary for teachers at the 89 schools was determined, and four groups were created. Group Teacher Salary 1 less than 3.20 (less than $25,000) 2 more than 3.20 but less than 3.80 (between $25,000 and $30,000) 3 more than 3.8 but less than 4.15 (between $30,000 and $40,000) 4 more than 4.15 (more than $40,000) .A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test for the average teacher salary on the seven scales did not reach significance, fi(1.08654) , p<.363. The one-way ANOVA compar- ing teachers' salary for the seven scales was found have no statistical significance; therefore, no further analysis was done (Appendix P). Teacher Sender The population of this studwaas broken down into male and female teachers. The female population in this study was overwhelmingly greater (87.6%) than the male population (12.4%). The number of males by school buildings is not representational to conduct analysis of variance due to the ‘unequal number of cells. No further analysis was appropri- ate . 1 ca n School location for the 89 schools was broken.down.into 94 two groups: urban (74%) and rural (26%). A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test for the breakdown of school location on the seven scales did not reach significance, z(.195725), p<.071. The one-way ANOVA comparing school location for the scale routine duties was significant, {(1,88) - 7.92, p<.006). The mean difference between urban and rural schools was Urban = 451.5; rural = 516.8. The other six scales were found to have no statisti- cal significance (Appendix Q). Summar_y The results shown in Chapter IV present the process of development of an elementary school instrument that started with 11 aspects and 52 items and was reduced to 7 aspects and 42 items using the statistical procedure of factor analysis. The instrument was further reduced using a second-factor analysis that converged into two major factors that were used to develop a school typology. Schools were placed within a continua of open, engaged, disengaged, and closed climates. The differences between teachers' and principals' perception were assessed using the mean scores from the raw data. The demographic data were assessed using MANOVAs and ANOVAs and the variables teacher age and school location were shown to be significant. The results described in Chapter IV are discussed in the next chapter. Chapter V focuses on the summary of the findings 95 described in this chapter followed by a discussion and implications for future study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the study, present and discuss the findings and conclusions, and draw implications for future study. Summag of the Study The purpose of this study was to develop an organiza- tional climate survey to study the climate in Illinois public elementary schools. A second.purpose was to explore whether or not the various aspects hold together through an examination of unspecified factor solutions. The final purpose was to measure if there are differences between teachers and principals and to determine if independent variables shown in the literature as have an influence on different scales of the organizational clnmate. Werking from the major studies found in the literature on elementary school climate, the researcher developed an organizational climate instrument and tested it for use in the elementary school. Halpin and Croft (1962) developed an elementary school instrument with eight scales representing 96 97 the behaviors of both the principal and the teachers. In 1986, Hoy and Clover identified six scales that also represented the social interaction between the princ ipal and teachers. As a result of this study, using factor analysis, seven statistically valid and reliable scales were identified and defined to portray aspects of the organizational climate of the elementary school. Three scales described the principal attribute: _ mutual respect and consideration, production emphasis, and work by the book. Three scales described the teacher attribute: teachers ' dedication, routine duties, and frustration. The final scale described the general school attribute of decision making. Mutual respect and consideration emerge as the largest dimension, accounting for 41.3% of the total variance. This aspect resulted from the combination of the scales of consideration, trust, communication, and order and disci- pline. Teachers' dedication emerged as the second dimension, accounting for 11.5% of the total variance. This scale resulted from the combination of the aspects of morale and engagement. Production emphasis became the third dimension, accounting for 7.8% of the total variance. This scale maintained its total identity. Decision making emerged as a new factor in the measure- 98 ment of organizational climate, and it became the fourth dimension, accounting for 5.5% of the total variance. This aspect maintained 80% of its total identity. Work by the book became the fifth dimension, accounting for 3.3% of the total variance. This aspect.maintained 60% of the total identity. Routine duties became the sixth dimension, accounting for 3.2% of the total variance. This aspect maintained 60% of its total identity. Frustration became the seventh dimension, accounting for 2.8% of the variance. This aspect.maintained 40% of its total identity. This scale emerged as the weakest factor in elementary school organizational climate. The results of this factor analysis seemed to show the importance of teachers' closeness (intimacy) as demonstrated consistently by the study of Halpin and Croft (1962) as well as that of Boy and Clover (1986). The aspect teachers' dedication.emerged as an independent factor in the measure- ment of the school climate. Trust and consideration merged together with communication and order and discipline to form the strongest factor of the instrument. This finding was consistent with the elementary school research (Hoy & Clover, 1986; Hoy et al., 1991). In their study, trust and consideration formed the dimension of leadership, supportive behavior. This factor also was the strongest predictor explaining most of the variance. 99 Teacher frustration consistently emerged as the weakest aspect in this study of organizational climate. This aspect seems to be a difficult scale to measure as also reported in the literature (Cheal, 1990). The results showed that the proportion of the seven scales of the ESOCS-FF were excel- lent. All of the scales had high reliability coefficients. The aspects were reasonably pure, that is, most of the items loaded high on one scale and relatively low on the other. The scales also showed indication of stability of the factor structure providing evidence of the construct validity of each aspect. The ESOCS-FF seven scales showed to be independent of each other. This lack of interdependence among the aspects would support further research using selected scales from the ESOCS-FF. This property would allow researchers to address individual dimensions of school climate as determined for their specific school need. Finally, the unit of analysis in the study was the appropri- ate one. The seven aspects of the elementary school climate were ”organizational properties” not individual ones. The seven resultant aspects were collectively composed of 42 items that made up the ESOCS-FF. . Second-Qrder Factor Analysis Second—order factor analysis was performed as suggested by Halpin and Croft (1962, 1963) and Hoy and Clover (1986) to explore the interrelationship of the seven elementary school climate factors. Halpin and Croft identified three 100 factors: social need, spirit, and social control. Hoy and Clover identified two factors: teacher openness and principal-teacher openness. The results of the two-factor solution with a varimax rotation given for the seven aspects showed that aspects from the principal attribute (mutual respect and consider- ation, productionuemphasis), teachers attributes (teachers' dedication, frustration), and the general school attribute (decision.making) loaded strongly only on Factor 1. Factor 1 represented collective participative behavior. The results also showed that aspects from the principal attrib- ute (work by the book) and teacher attribute (routine duties) loaded strongly only on Factor 2. Factor 2 repre- sented procedurally rigid behavior. Both second-order factors were viewed along an open- closed continuum; more specifically, the two factors measured the low and high interaction of teachers and principal aspects. These two factors were orthogonal. .As pointed out by Hoy and Clover (1986) and Hoy et a1. (1991), it was quite possible to have four combinations of school climate. Thus, theoretically, four contrasting types of school climate were possible. Where teachers scored high in Factor 1 and low in Factor 2, the two factors meant that their'behavioeras open; more specifically, teacher-princi- pal engagement was presented (open climate). The opposite occurred.when teachers' scored low in Factor 1 and high in 101 Factor 2 . Thus, teacher-principal disengagement was presented (closed climate) . Two other incongruent factors could occur. When teachers scored high in Factor 1 and high in Factor 2, there was teacher engagement versus principal rigidity (engaged climate). When teachers scored low in Factor 1 and low in Factor 2, there was teacher disengage- ment versus principal supportiveness (disengaged climate). This independent combination allowed the understanding of the possibility that some schools may have principals who were considered supportive, concerned, flexible, non- controlling, and facilitation (i.e., open) and yet the faculty behavior was intolerant, divisive, uncommitted and apathetic (i.e., closed). In this case, the faculty was simply unwilling to accept a principal (who was shown to be effective. These faculty were able to immobilize and sabotage the principal's leadership attempts. On the other hand, some schools may have had principals who were restrictive and controlling (i.e. , closed), yet the teachers were committed and supportive of each other, showing a cohesive behavior. These teachers simply ignored the ineffective behavior of the principal as they engaged themselves in the process of teaching. In the ideal case (open), some schools may show behavior of the faculties as sincere, with a high degree of mutual respect for each other as well as a high degree of tolerance of divergent ideas and behaviors. With a positive and supportive faculty relation- 102 ship, trust and engagement highlight the daily life of the school. In contrast to the ideal case, some schools may show behavior of the faculty as divisive, with a high degree of intolerance and apathetic and.ritualistic behavior'where mistrust and disengagement highlight the daily life of the school (Hoy et al., 1991). The second factor solution provided evidence of the construct validity of each aspect. The two factors were independent of each other and the instrument seemed to offer a new alternative to study the elementary school climate. The typology developed seemed to have both theoretical and practical significance. This approach.provided a framework for the study of school climate, school effectiveness, leadership as well as a perspective for developing change strategies and school improvement programs. The researcher believed that the instrument itself needed to be subjected to further analysis to ensure its stability, using a wide range of population and sample. In conclusion the ESOCS-FF seemed to be a parsimonious and reliable research tool that needs to be further tested. This set of measures seemed to map the domain of organiza- tion climate for elementary schools. The ESOCS-FF contained seven aspects that can be grouped into two behavioral categories: collective participative (open-closed) and procedural rigidity' (closed-open). This category ‘was defined in a general construct of openness and each openness 103 was independent of the other, hence two continuums of openness, as suggested by Boy and Clover (1986), underlied the climate of elementary schools. This provided the basis for the four-celled typology of organizational climate: open, engaged, disengaged, and closed climates. Teachers and Principal The present study was based on a sample of teachers‘ and principals. The results showed differences between teachers and principal perception in all the seven aspects. Consis- tently, principals perceived the school climate to be more open than teachers. Principals in this study seemed to regard themselves as effective leaders. They saw'themselves as particularly successful in all of the aspects. This finding may have an effect on the selection process. It is possible that principals who decided to be part of the study were confident of their effectiveness as leaders and the quality of their working environment. This finding also suggested that the principal perception of school climate was a separate issue from the perception of the teachers. Therefore, caution must be taken when principal data are interpreted separate from the teacher data. It is not surprising to find.principals rating themselves higher than did their teachers. Halpin (1966) , in summarizing some results of various leadership studies, pointed out that there was a positive relationship between the way leaders believed they should behave and the way which their group 104 members described them as behaving. Finally, this result suggested that further examination of the principal leader- ship role in the school should be made. independent Variables The variable teacher age was found to be significant on the scale work by the book. The results demonstrated that teachers over the age of 47 were displaying behavior that emphasized the use and the following of rules and regula- tions. This finding suggested that as time passes by teachers seem to become rigid and, as Hoy and Miskel (1987) suggested, this could be a product of what is called a bureaucratic expectation, where teachers are expected to behave in appropriate ways based on the school's rules and regulations or policy. Thus, it could be said that as teachers get older they become more adapted to the bureau- cratic way of control rather than to a free open situation. Also, this results seemed to suggest that as time passed by the bureaucratic structure modified teacher personality, as pointed out by Merton (1957) . The variable school location was found to have signifi- cance on the scale routine duties. The results showed that rural schools were engaged in excessive assignments that kept teachers busy on nonteaching duties. Rural schools seemed to emphasize unnecessary busywork. This finding was related to what Raudenbush et al. (1989) indicated about rural high schools: teacher morale and participation were 105 low, suggesting that rural schools engaged in activities that hindered teachers being engaged in productive work. This finding is a critical aspect that needs to be addressed by the authority of the educational system in the state of Illinois. The variables years of teaching experience and teacher salary were found to have no significant affect on the faculty's perception on the seven scales studied in this research. The results of the one-way ANOVA for this independent variable are shown in Appendices M-P. The variable gender was not tested with MANOVA or ANOVA due to the fact that 86.7% of the responses were female. There were many schools without male responses. This situation suggested that elementary schools in this state are composed mainly of female teachers. It also could be said that male teachers may not have been interested in participating in the study. This finding is important for further replication of the study where the gender variable is going to be considered. conclusions On the basis of the findings of this study, the following conclusions are presented. The results of various factor analysis testing of the qualities of the aspects of the ESOCS show that seven statistically valid and reliable scales portray the organi- zational climate of the elementary school. The seven 106 aspects are independent of each other and the results show evidence of the construct validity of each scale, indicating the stability of the instrument. The aspect decision making emerged as a new factor in the measurement of organizational climate and the aspect frustration continued to be the weakest scale in the elementary school organizational climate, which leads to the question, Are we really measur- ing frustration or is frustration a vague aspect that is difficult to measure? The interrelationship of the seven aspects was explored and two factors were identified. Factor 1 represented collective participative behavior (open-closed) and Factor 2 represented procedurally rigid behavior (closed-open) . The two factors were viewed along an open-closed continuum. They are orthogonal and a combination of four theoretically contrasting types of school climates were mapped. The independence of the two factors is another evidence of the construct validity of the instrument scales. The ESOCS-FF seemed to be a parsimonious and reliable research tool that could be used to study leadership, communication, school effectiveness and decision making at the elementary school level. Further research using the ESOCS-FF is recommended to test and support the stability of this research instru- ment. The results show that principals perceive the school climate as more open than teachers do, suggesting that they 107 see themselves as effective leaders. This result could be tied to the selection process that allowed superintendents and principals the choice of participating or not. There- fore, school principals who participated may be the ones who were confident of the quality of their working environment. In this study, numerous superintendents who allowed their school to participate in this project responded that currently there is too much tension.among teachers, princi- pal, district and union. This may be evidence that schools that participated in this study are a product of filter selection, which implies that a degree of bias is introduced in the study during the selection process when superinten- dents agree to allow their school to participate. The results of the exploratory MANOVA and one-way ANOVA to determine if the independent variables accounted for differences showed that teachers over the age of 47 are showing behavior that displays rigidity and adaptation to bureaucratic expectation. It seems to prove the point made by Merton (1957) that as time passes the bureaucratic structure modified teachers' personality. In other words, teachers are socialized within the system that molds their behavior. This process is referred to as bureaucratic socialization (Hoy & Miskel, 1987). Teachers working in rural school districts were found to be engaged in excessive nonteaching duties, suggesting that rural school districts are involved in activities that 108 hinder teachers being engaged in productive work. These results may call the attention of policy makers in the state of Illinois to plan and incorporate actions leading to correct the rigidity found in the population over 47 years old and the excessive nonteaching duties found in the rural school districts. Elementary schools in Illinois seem to be overwhelming- ly represented by female teachers, suggesting that in fact elementary schools are composed of mainly female teachers or that female teachers are the ones choosing to respond to surveys. These two factors are combined together although this finding is no surprise because traditionally elementary schools have been represented by female teachers. Studies including a more balanced gender distribution may vary the findings of this study. In conclusion, the ESOCS-FF is a valid developed and tested measurement instrument. It has theoretical and research implications in the study of organizational climate in the elementary school. Several suggestions and.implica- tions for further studies are provided in this chapter. impiicepions for Feture Study The ESOCS-FF is presented for use in the elementary school as a reliable and valid measurement instrument with theoretical and research implications. The seven aspects accounted for 75.3% of the variability. The instrument was developed and tested at the elementary school level. .A— 109 The typology developed provides a framework not only to study the organizational climate but school effectiveness, communication, leadership, decision making, communication, control processes and goal setting. The typology developed has provided practitioners with a tool to examine and diagnose difficulties in the school. The ESOCS—FF can be easily administered and scored and it can serve as a base for planning change strategies and school improvement programs. 3Also, the ESOCS is ready to be tested on a Hispanic (Latino) population. It can be said that the ESOCS-FF is a tool for assessing the success of the princi- pal and the commitment of teachers. For future replication of this study, researchers should consider the participation rate of the unit of study. It is problematic to obtain a large sample size due to the selection process; it requires two levels of administrative approval and a faculty's cooperation to voluntarily partici- pate in the study. A large participating school sample would permit the development of broader instrument norms. This, in fact, would add external validity and, of course, enhance the utility of this instrument. The length of the instrument is sound, which implies an easy and fast completion. The researcher's major concern was the scale frustration, which needs to be enlarged into four or five items. This aspect needs further consideration as to what constitutes frustration when we study school 110 climate. This expansion would serve to strengthen the overall factor structure. Therefore, it is suggested for replication of this study the researcher seek to expand the reliability of the scale frustration. The researcher highly recommends checking the gender composition of the schools to avoid the problem of having mainly one group responding. When using the school as a unit of analysis, the independent variables should be carefully selected to reflect the group, for example, gender, ethnicity, and school location (urban-suburban-rural). It is recommended for the analysis of the data that when.using MANOVAs also do ANOVAs, because the two tests do not test the same thing and important information could be missed. Seneralizability Although the sample was randomly drawn from the Illinois population (grade teachers and principals), the participation in this project was voluntary. In addition, only elementary schools were approached to participate in the study. Furthermore, generalizing beyond the sample must be undertaken cautiously and with full cognizance of the limitation of the research design. The participants in this study are believed to be the product of a filtered selection (superintendent-principal). Therefore, caution should be taken when generalizing about Illinois elementary public 111 schools and the findings from this study. With the understanding of the above-mentioned limita- tion, the ESOCS—FF's seven independent scales identified appeared to have potential as a useful tool to help describe the differences in the elementary organizational climate. The internal structure of the instrument was found to be highly reliable and.valid, the typology developed offered a practical tool to portray the climate of the elementary school in a large group of buildings or specific enough to portray individual buildings. APPENDICES APPENDIX.A MAJOR SCHOOL CLIMATE INSTRUMENTS, CATEGORIZED BY TAGIURI'S CLIMATE TAXONOMY 1J12 acoan—e>ec one eocoELOCLoa «seaweed covenants c. eo.o> moow>com —e.oeam 23520.. to» tied—.6 «2,352; a—roce—orom aco.eo_ec po.ococ.m xuoecaoca xu.coeeoo\—oorom ocesaesce “one neonates< mono—snot oce a—o.eeaez .aee—ocmwv Amwmu xu—caesou noo_uooca nouu._.oee >u>¢=m hzwzzom_>zm au.—eo.uoeca e>.uocua.c.ec< can ma.v..om mooxum >¢om xu.ete>.o «necescvpu Aesop .mceb—ox aruea< co_uo.cm a couceoc<. a»_=o.ta.o unoco>_.ogou ..u3. >¢ohzu>z. pecan anece>.u.ueasou co.uooe»—uem ecoscoce>cu hzuzzoe_>zm uz_z¢.morou Ammo. .mceapox aneco>.u.uedsou a cue—pm. A.mxv xu—ac.ee.o co_uo—aa covuoeeneuom >¢o~zu>z_ mooxum >1 acoscoc.>ce Stage» ouau.»u. o>.u.uoz loom. .__o;ou_x. ae.u—>.uoe _oorom ._omr. xwoz. co.uou .otucoo .oucoe mu_hm.zmeu<¢<:u uco.to peauoeppoac— ucocum -coa.>co ocoaum moorom 20.: “av m.»orase rcoeuoncoca Ammo—v Adv co_uococ.ocoo .ueocu a c_a—orv let 8.1aam la. smocaoo_< .oooo. um.srem eocecouc-es aauoam Assoc.ucoov o_uoaoao eon-nuauosoco .ua a. as.” Assoc—urea. o_u».ceE:c nrpeepouuau manoeuo o>puemoz ocean up—or .ncocou co_»ooau_uam .82 .222: ace—ue>aoano A—om. .coupom a «54....3. Ammo. ua.4 accrue mo >»_e<=o Imam. .uca.»..aoz a c.ouaamv lama. ua_4 nooxum to >»_3<=o 88. .8222: ..om. >¢o~zu>z_ zo.»a_¢umuo asexum Annmp ..pe ue eueovmv 39: 4<_._.zm¢w.._..:o u_hz<=uo ooepzou 3.a=a lama. .As: a ._.ou.m .tazo__.s. ._ua. >oo3omo_ eras—nu seesaw pe.oom com—v: .6523 =§ zoo—com 8:05.52... neocaoceura.~.< eaoe a 1Jl4 .Aaom_. _o=o.»octouc_ nuootuna< co.»outo»».o .Aamm_ .A».»to>.c= scumbag .co.ueuaeuu.o pecouooo. =oouo or» eo co.o.>o¢ .a—oorom aceocooem eo euoe.—u poco_uo~_comto= .caor—ox .3 “cocoon Am. aucepnun eo acoeueuooaxe cc- eco.»e:pe>e aceaeca Am. pooroa eo Au.—e:c accused Co as.» loo—e>e aces-a pc- peavoc—aa la. o>otae. on actuate .av coeueunoe seepesc toe ace—ueaooaxexctoocoo veered Abe «co—voucoaxo a.—oa.oc.ta eo coeuaoctea .p. a»...uac o.eov.o< A». e>och. ou ecose.seou acooauoxtoroeoh A». rowan—asoo poorou no.5 toe aco_»ouoeaxo pro ecoeuoope>e neonate A». ouo._oo\co.u recaps eo hue—enc .eco.ueu unease .aco.ue:pe>o .xu.p—n< Am. assoc corona» o:- rnaa Lorene» eo co.»ouoeaxw .mv aster o.eeoso< Amy acovueuoeaxe one aco.ue:—e>o accused Am. ace—ueuoeaxe. oc- aco.ue:—e>e ecouam an. hep—.unu o—Eeoeo< Seaman anyone accuse» -coauouce.to oesopou< coco—peoxe o.u».css:: 2a.»:oeom save—bosons ceeteu.peoe pee e>.eerou Ea.o—uoruaeusawpeauoeppour. co.uo—:Ee o—sepeo< .e~a. ...o no ae>oxooamv aoa_ecco.uao=o eras—ac gunman .u.oom so.__z APPENDIX B PILOT TEST EVALUATION FORM 115 PILOT TEST EVALUATION FORM Subject # Please spend ten more minutes to provide me with an assessment of this instrument 1. 1.2 1.3 Were any of the questionnaire items stated ambiguously? Yes No if yes, which one? (write the item #) (a) __ (b) _ (C) _ (d) __ In each of these ambiguous cases. what possible meaning did you read into the item? (Please write the word or words and possible meanings. a. b. c. d. How would you change the items and which words would you rather use? a. b. c. d. Did you feel any of the questionnaire items were biased? Yes No If yes. which one? (a) __ (b) _ (c) __ (d) _ 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 116 What type ofbiases did you detect? Did any of the items reveal the opinions of the person who constructed the questionnaire? Yes No If yes. which one? (a) __ (b) _ (c) __ (d) __ How would you change the items? a. b. c. d. Did you feel any pressure (other than that imposed by your own beliefs) to select a given response to any of the questionnaire items? Yes No If yes. which item tended to be forcing? (a) _ (b) __ (0) __ (d) __ In each of these cases. which response did you think was expected? a. b. 117 3.2 How would you change the items? a. b. c. d. 4. Did you find the vocabulary too difficult? Yes No 4.a If yes. in which item do you think the wording was too difficult? (8) __ (b) _ (C) _ (d) __ 4.b What word would you use? a. b. c. d. 5. In your opinion, the questionnaire is: too long too short __ acceptable other OTHER COMMENTS: APPENDIX C ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY--PINAL FORM 118 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY (ESOCS) Return to: Luis Garcia Physical Education Department 231 Anderson Hall Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115 On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe specific aspects of school climate. Since we are collecting perceptions, there are no correct or incorrect answers. For each item, I am asking you to indicate your perception about actual school climate in your school. Some of the items might be hard to answer, but please mark your best response to every statement DIRECTIONS: 1. READ each item carefully. 2. THINK about how frequently the described situation occurs in YOUR school. 3. DECIDE which word most accurately describes your perception of school climate. 4. CAREFULLY circle the item you have selected. KEY: 1. RARELY OCCURS 2. OCCASIONALLY 3. FREQUENTLY 4. VERY FREQUENTLY EXAMPLE: In this school. teachers cooperate 1 2 3 4 with each other. 5. ANSWER EACH QUESTION 119 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY . In this school, teachers accomplish their work with great enthusiasm, vigor. and pleasure. ............... Teachers tend to expend extra effort to achieve school goals. ................................... 3. Teachers like working in this school. ................. 4. Teachers feel that their need for belonging is 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. satisfied in this school. ............................ Teachers are proud of being members of the staff of this school. ............................... Teachers spend time alter school with students who have academic or personal problems. ................ . Ety‘en after school. teachers like working with each 0 er. ......................................... There is a feeling of team spirit throughout the school. ........................................ Teachers are very dedicated in doing their jobs. ........ Teachers feel that they have to accomplish their tasks on time .................................... Attendance reports require too much of teachers' time. .......................................... Teachers are kept bus with routine. non-teaching duties which are not r ated to teaching. .............. Teachers need more independence in writing lesson plans. ......................................... Grading reports are unnecessarily time consuming. ..... .1 RarelyOccu's N Occasionally a Frequently 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Very Frequently A 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 120 Preparation for routine administrative reports exhausts teachers’ time. ........................... Teachers talk about leaving this school. ............... The administrators in this school interrupt teachers in their teaching duties. ..................... Teachers are confused about what is expected of them. .......................................... Teachers feel that they are not treated fairly in this school. ...................................... Teachers do not demonstrate much concern for their work. .......................................... In this school. the principal supports his/her teachers. ....................................... The principal treats teachers with respect. ............. The principal in this school devotes his/her time to helping teachers solve their problems. .......... The principal encourages teachers’ efforts to improve. ........................................ The principal in this school shows teachers that helshe is on their side. ......................... Teachers have confidence in principal’s decisions. ....... There is no trust between the principal and teachers. ....................................... The principal allows teachers to take extensive responsibility for their job. .......................... Teachers can share their personal problems with the principal. .................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 -* Rarely Occurs N Occasionally co Frequently Very Frequently .h N 0000 #nh N 00 .h 234 234 234 31. 121 The principal in this school makes sure that teachers work to their full capacity. ..................... School activities are checked closely by the principal. ......................................... . The principal monitors instruction carefully ................ 33. The principal is willing to try new ideas to increase school production. ........................... 34. The principal maintains definite standards of school performance. ................................ 35. The primary objective of this school is to follow the rules. .................................... 36. The principal demands that his/her staff 37. 39. 41. 42. follow the mles without any question. ................... The principal checks the subject matter ability of the teachers. .................................... . The principal is not flexible in adapting the rule to his/her situation. .............................. The principal will not tolerate any deviation from regular procedure on the part of teachers. regardless of the reason. ............................. In this school, communication flows in all directions (downward. upward, horizontally). .............. In this school, communication is downward. .............. Communication in this school is basimlly in writing. ........................................... There is open and honest communication between teachers and the principal ............................. is Very Frequently -‘ RaIerOccure N Occasionally a: Frequently 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 45. 47. 49. 51. 52. 122 Teachers are kept informed about everything of interest to them. ................................. My opinions and ideas are listened to and used in this school. ................................... I have been involved in some of the important decisions that have been made in this school. ......... When important decisions are made in this school. there is representation of all parties (faculty, community. students). ........................... The principal makes most of the decisions in this school. ....................................... The staff of this school participates in problem- solving and school improvement in this school. ........ The personnel of this school feel that order and discipline are meaningful and important. ............. The principal and teachers in this school support disciplinary actions as they are applied in this schoo. .................................... The principal and teachers in this school agree that some flexibility is needed to handle discipline problems appropriately. .......................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 -‘ RarelyOcctn N Occasionally 0) Frequently is Very Frequently (.0 h 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 123 The folan demographic data will assist us in generating profiles and categories 0 respondents. Please be assured that analyses will be anonymous. Neither you, your district, nor your school will be identified in reporting the results of this study. Circle your age and number of years teaching experience you have (counting the present ear as a full year) In the appropriate boxes below. Mark your age and years 0 teaching experience in the area below the boxes. 53. A 54. Years of teaching experience o o o o 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 In order to answer the following questions, blacken the circle immediately to the left of the response you choose. ‘ 55. What is your gender? 0 Male 0 Female 56. What type of community is your school? 0 urbano rural Osuburban 0 other: 57. Your annual salary is: less than $20,000.00 between $20,100.00 and $25,000.00 between $25,100.00 and $30,000.00 between $30,100.00 and $40,000.00 between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 more than $50,000.00 Thank you for your time and interest in completing this survey. APPENDIX D HUMAN SUBJECTS LETTER 1J24 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE Of VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 “824-1046 AND DEAN Of THE GRADUATE SCHOOL June 11, 1992 Luis E. Garcia Northern Illinois University Physical Education Department 231 Anderson Hall DeKalb, IL 60115-9913 REz‘ SCHOOL CLIMATE IN THE ILLINOIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, IRB 492-282 Dear Mr. Garcia: The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol has been reviewed by a member of the UCRIHS committee. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to June 5, 1993. Any changes in procedures involving human subjeCts must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notifed promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, .292. David E. wright, Ph University Committee - Human Subjects (UCRIHS) DEH/pjm Dr. Samuel Moore Research Involving USU is . Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institutio- APPENDIX E REPRESENTATIVE STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLE OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN 18 EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTERS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 125 MAP OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTERS Dem E @fifir APPENDIX F SAMPLE OF COMPUTER MAILING LABELS 126 18 100 0010 2003 2681 IIIIIIIIIIIPII - - SCHOOL 1200 GRAND ave Jouusrow cxrv IL 62951 18 100 0020 2010 2684 III! ilIII’Ii m‘ SCHOOL 502 E earn 51 nnaxow IL 62959 APPENDIX G SUPERINTENDENT RESPONDENT FORM 127 SUPERINTENDENT RESPONDENT FORM 1. ( ) Yes Our school district will participate in the study of school climate in elementary schools and we encourage the school principal and teachers to be involved in the study. Additional Comments: 2. ( )No we are sorry, at this time we cannot assist you for the following reasons: School District Street City State/Zip Telephone Fax # APPENDIX H LETTER TO PRINCIPALS 128 Northern Illinois University Physical Education Department 231 Anderson Hall DeKalb, IL 60115-9913 November 22, 1993 Dear School Principal: Your school was one of 200 schools randomly selected to participate in this project on organizational climate. Your district superintendent has already reviewed and approved your school's opportunity to participate in the study. Your school will be able to consider active participation by completing and returning the questionnaire before the new year. The relationship of organizational climate to both the quality of production/service outcome and job satisfaction has received extensive attention in both research and popular literature. During the past 30 years, researchers have studied the organizational climate in industries, businesses, and colleges, as well as secondary and elementary schools. Organizational climate in school settings is of growing interest to administrators, teachers, parents, and students. It has been found to affect the students' personal growth and satisfaction as well as their behaviors (cognitive and effective) and values. Thus, there is a need for greater understanding of the organizational climate of elementary schools. Research in this area has significant potential to influence and enhance school effectiveness. As educational leaders in a changing society, we need direct and practical data on conditions in schools to effectively formulate useful models of innovation. To expedite the information-gathering process, it would be most helpful if you would send me a list of your teachers and the class level which they teach. I will then prepare for each teacher a packet including a cover letter, survey form, and self-addressed, return envelope for the response. In addition, I will include a separate cover letter, survey form, and return envelope for your response, as principal of the school. I assure you that all responses will be kept confidential. No individual or school will be named in any part of the study. At your request, a copy of the completed study and/or an organizational climate profile of your school will be mailed to you upon completion of this project. Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to be involved in the project. Please feel free to contact me at (815-753-1331lor (81 5-756-95231if you would like more information about the study. Sincerely, Luis Garcia Instructor LG/rb APPENDIX I SURVEY COVER LETTER 129 Northern Illinois University Department of Ph sical Education 23 Anderson Hal DeKalb, IL 60115-9913 June 30, 1992 ENAMEB ESCHOOL DISTRICT& EADDRESSE ECITYE, ESTATEE EZIPfi User In partial fulfillment of my doctoral pr ram at Michigan State University, I am planning to conduct a so 001 climate research study during September 992. ince I am presently on the facult at Northern llinois University it is ideal for me to conduc this study in the state of Illino s and within the local school districts. I am most hopeful that your district elementary schools will be able to participa e in this project. The purpose of the study is to examine school climate as perceived by principals and teachers in the public elenentarg schools. School climate, as defined by Litwin and Stringer (196 ), refers to "a set of measurable propert es of the work environment rceived directly by the people who live and work in the environmen and which influ- ence their motivational behavior." The relationshi of organisational climate to both the quality of production/serv ce outcome and job satisfaction has received exten- sive attention in both research and popular literature. Durin the st 30 ears, researchers have ex lored the or anizational climate n indus ries, businesses, and col eges, as wel as secondary and elementary schools. Or anisational climate in school settings is of growing interest to adm nistrators, teachers, parents, and students. t has been found to affect the students' rsonal rowth and satis- faction as well as their behaviors (cognit ve and e festive) and values. Thus, there is a need for greater understanding of the organizational climate of elementary schools. Research in this area has significant tential to influence and enhance school effective- ness. As educational leaders in a changing society, we need direct and practical data on conditions in schools to effectively formulate useful models of innovation. I would a reciate your willingness to allow your school district to participa e in this study. If you wish to do so, please mark the irst option on the attached form, which will indicate that you will allow me to send information regarding this study to the school principals and teachers, seekin their willingness to participate in Sgistudy. If you do not wish 0 participate, please mark the second 0 on. I have enclosed a co of the survey for you to review. I assure you that all responses w 1 be kept anonymous and confidential. No individual or school will be names in any part of the research. Please feel free to contact me (815-753-1331 or 815-756-9523) if you would like more information about this study. Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to assist me in this endeavor. Sincerely, Luis Garcia LP/rob APPENDIX J FOLLOW-UP LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 130 Northern Illinois University Department of Physical Education 231 Anderson Hall DeKalb, IL 60115-9913 July 15, 1992 SNAMEE SSCHOOL DISTRICT8 SADDRESSE ECITYs, 8STATE5 EZIPE Dear During the summer of 1992, I sent a letter to your school district inviting your participation in my doctoral re- search study on school climate. In case my correspondence did not reach you, or you have not had an opportunity to review it at this busy time of year, a copy is enclosed. I believe that your school could provide invaluable infor- mation for my study and am hopeful you will be able to participate in this project. If I can provide more information regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact me (my office phone is 815-753-1331). I appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response. Respectfully, Luis Garcia, Instructor Department of Physical Education LP/rb enc . APPENDIX K (:0an LETTER To TEACHERS AND PRINCIPAL 131 Northern Illinois University Physical Education Department 231 Anderson Hall DeKalb, IL 60115-9913 December 14. 1992 Dear Elementary School Colleague: I am conducting a study on school climate. The main purpose of this study is to examine how the work environment (principals and teachers) is perceived directly by the people who live and work in that environment. This study Is being conducted in the Illinois Elementary school system. Your school has been randomly selected to participate In the study and permission by the school district has been granted. I will appreciate your voluntary participation by completing and returning the attached survey. This survey should take approximately thirty minutes. A self addressed envelope has been Included for the return of the survey. I highly appreciate your participation and thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to answer this survey. Please feel free to contact me (815-753-1331) or (815456-9523) If you would like more information about this study. I assure you that your response will be anonymous and no Individual or school will be named in any part of the research. Sincerely 56v} gimp/£9 s Garcia 6 Instructor LG/rb att. APPENDIX L ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY-- REVISED FORM 132 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY (ESOCS-FF) Revised Instrument Return to: Luis Gerda Physical Eduation Department 231 Anderson Hall Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115 On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe specific aspects of school climate. Since we are collecting perceptions. there are no correct or incorrect answers. For each item, I am asking you to indicate your perception about actual school climate in your school. Some of the items might be hard to answer, but please mark your best response to every statement. DIRECTIONS: 1. READ each item carefully. 2. THINK about how frequently the described situation occurs in YOUR school. 3. DECIDE which word most accurately describes your perception of school climate. 4. CAREFULLY circle the item you have selected. KEY: 1. RARELY OCCURS 2. OCCASIONALLY 3. FREQUENTLY 4. VERY FREQUENTLY EXAMPLE: In this school. teachers cooperate 1 2 3 4 with each other. 5. ANSWER EACH QUESTION 10. 11. 12. 13. 133 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY . The principal treats teachers with respect. ...... The principal in this school shows teachers that helshe is on their side. .................. In this school, the principal supports his/her teachers. ................................ The principal in this school devotes his/her time to helping teachers solve their problems. . . . There is Open and honest communication between teachers and the principal. ................... Teachers have confidence in principal’s decisions. The principal encourages teachers’ efforts to improve. ................................. Teachers can share their personal problems with the principal. ............................. The principal is not flexible In adapting the rule to his/her situation. ..................... The principal allows teachers to take extensive responsibility for their job. ................... In this school, communication flows in all directions (downward, upward, horizontally). ..... The principal and teachers' in this school support all disciplinary actions as they are applied In this school. ............................... Teachers are kept informed about everything of interest to them. ........................... 1 1 1 234 234 234 14. In this school, communication is downward. .............. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 134 My opinions and ideas are listened to and used in this school. ................................... The principal and teachers in this school agree that some flexibility is needed to handle discipline problems appropriately. ........................... The personnel of this school feel that order and discipline are meaningful and important. .............. The principal monitors instruction carefully ............. The principal in this school makes sure that teachers work to their full capacity. .................. School activities are checked closely by the principal. ...................................... The principal maintains definite standards of school performance. ............................. . The principal is willing to try new ideas to increase school production. ....................... The primary objective of this school is to follow the rules. ................................. The principal demands that his/her staff follow the rules without any question. ................ The principal will not tolerate any deviation from regular procedure on the part of teachers. regardless of the reason. .......................... Teachers are very dedicated in doing their jobs. ........ Even after school, teachers like working with each other. ......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 234 234 28. 29. 31. 32. 135 Teachers tend to expend extra effort to achieve school goals. ................................... In this school, teachers accomplish their work with great enthusiasm. vigor, and pleasure. ............... . Teachers feel that they have to accomplish their tasks on time .................................... There is a feeling of team spirit throughout the school. ........................................ Teachers feel that their need for belonging is satisfied in this school. ............................ 33. Teachers spend time after school with students who have academic or personal problems. ..... . ........... 34. Teachers are kept busy with routine, non-teaching 35. 37. 39. 40. duties which are not related to teaching. .............. Attendance reports require too much of teachers’ time. .......................................... . Preparation for routine administrative reports exhausts teachers’ time. .......................... Teachers talk about leaving this school. .............. . Teachers feel that they are not treated fairly in this school. ..................................... When important decisions are made in this school, there is representation of all parties (faculty, community, students). ............................ The staff of this school participates in problem- solving and school improvement in this school. ......... AMOccurs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 to Occasionally on FMUOHW .5 Very FIBQUOOW 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 136 a r >~ , .3 “if .5 I . 5 1 2 3 4 41. I have been involved in some of the important decisions that have been made in this school. ............ 1 2 3 4 42. The principal makes most of the decisions in this school. ........................................... 1 2 3 4 The followin demographic data will assist us in generating profiles and categories 0 respondents. Please be assured that analyses will be anonymous. Neither you, your district. nor your school will be identified in reporting the results of this study. Circleyour age and number of ears teaching experience you have (counting the present year as a full year) In the appropnate boxes below. Mark your age and years 0 teaching experience in the area below the boxes. 53. A e 54. Years of teachin l experience (OQNGOI-ISODN-to (DGNOUI-hCDN-KO (OQ‘IOIU‘I-th-IO (DQNGOI-D-ODN—KO In order to answer the following questions. blacken the circle immediately to the left of the response you choose. 55. What is your gender? 0 Male 0 Female 137 56. Which of the following categories best represents your ethnic background? _ American Indian _ Hispanic __ Black _ Oriental/Asian _ Caucasian/white _ Other (specify) 57. What type of community is your school? 0 urban 0 rural Osuburban 0 other: 58. Your annual salary is: less than $20,000.00 between $20,100.00 and $25,000 between $25,100.00 and $30,000 between $30,100.00 and $40,000. between $40,000.00 and $50,000. more than $50,000.00 Thank you for your time and interest in completing this survey. 8888 IE'M. 3-1.1“ APPENDIX M SUGGESTED WORDING CHANGES FOR ITEMS DELETED FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY 138 Suggested Werding Changes for Items Deleted from ESOCS Item Item Item Item Item Item 13. 14. 20. 27. 37. 42. Teachers in this school waste more of their time on writing lesson plans. Grading reports consumes most of the teachers' time in this school. Teachers in this school do not indicate an in- terest for their work. Teachers trust the principal in this school. The principal in this school follows rules to check the subject matter ability of teachers. Communication between teachers and principal in this school is basically in writing. APPENDIX N ONE-WAY ANOVA TABLES FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE TEACHER AGE 139 Independent variable age by aspect teachers' dedication. Sum of Mean 1_ E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 13657.9365 4552.6455 .5232 .6675 Within groups 87 757076.9923 8702.0344 Bartlett-Box g 82.367, p = .069 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 24 484.9226 88.8554 18.1375 2 22 480.2639 67.5200 14.3953 3 24 477.3180 89.0569 18.1787 4 21 452.5342 121.9286 26.6070 Table N.2.--One-Way.ANOVh: Independent variable age by aspect mutual respect and consideration. Sum of Mean 2, E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 19409.7462 6469.9154 .6221 .6026 Within groups 86 894339.5268 10399.2968 Standard Standard Group Count mean Deviation Error 1 24 448.9703 84.4103 17.2302 2 22 489.9451 94.0033 20.0416 3 24 466.5260 113.6786 23.2045 4 20 470.0307 114.1717 25.5296 140 Table N.3.--One-Way.ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect decision making. Sum.of Mean 2. E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 10010.7751 3336.9250 .4490 .7187 Within groups 87 646640.1076 7432.6449 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 24 463.5146 68.3726 13.9565 2 22 480.2301 87.4329 18.6408 3 24 450.7419 83.5525 17.0551 4 21 464.0474 104.4081 22.7837 Table N.4.--One-Way’ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect routine duties. Sum.of Mean 2’ 2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 52391.6078 17463.8693 2.5794 .0587 Within groups 87 589035.9343 6770.5280 Bartlett-Box 2 =2.954, p = .031 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 24 475.3083 103.1872 21.0630 2 22 504.7028 64.1698 13.6811 3 24 437.7436 90.4705 18.4672 4 21 466.4223 58.9131 12.8559 141 Table N.5.--0ne-Way.ANOVh: aspect production emphasis. Independent variable age by Sum of mean 2, E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 28840.5990 9613.5330 1.0719 .3653 Within groups 87 780257.1030 9868.4724 Bartlett-Box g 82.007, p,= .111 Standard Standard Group Count Haan Deviation Error 1 24 454.8830 87.9715 17.9571 2 22 482.4028 66.8548 14.2535 3' 24 478.3522 108.0916 22.0641 4 21 505.3944 109.4697 23.8882 aspect frustration. Independent variable age by Sum of Mean 2, E Source Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 60237.4316 20079.1439 2.2992 .0837 Within groups 87 762116.4129 8759.9588 Bartlett-Box z_=7.021, p,= .000 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 24 487.6485 56.7143 11.5768 2 22 501.2366 64.4341 13.7374 3 24 472.3265 96.6575 19.7301 4 21 430.6933 138.9367 30.3185 142 Table N.7.--One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable age by aspect work by the book. Sum.of mean 2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between ’ groups 3 94560.8335 31520.2778 3.8652 .0121 Within groups 85 693165.5457 8154.8888 Bartlett-Box 2 =1.822, p|= .141 Standard Standard Group Count mean Deviation Error 1 23 488.2008 65.3692 13.6304 2 22 496.6738 85.0203 18.1264 3 24 475.1730 105.1981 21.4735 4 20 410.5499 100.7411 22.5264 APPENDIX 0 ONEANAY ANOVA TABLES FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE TEACHER'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 143 Table O.1.--One-Way.ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect teachers' dedication. Sum of Mean 2_ 2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between ' groups 3 38077.8260 12692.6087 1.5072 .2183 Within groups 87 732657.1028 8421.3460 Bartlett-Box 2 =3.714, p - .011 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 21 504.6072 91.3775 19.9402 2 26 475.4211 91.5015 17.9449 3 21 473.9505 53.5213 11.6793 4 23 445.7453 116.5910 24.3109 Table O.2.--One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect mutual respect and consider- ation. Sum of _ mean I. E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 5460.0957 1820.0319 .1723 .9148 Within groups 86 908289.1774 10561.5021 Bartlett-Box {.31-7017 2 s .165 ‘ Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 21 468.3776 ' 81.7434 17.8379 2 26 461.0062 98.0265 19.2246 3 21 481.6254 93.2585 20.3507 4 22 464.3224 131.0174 27.9330 144 years of experience by aspect decision making. Independent variable teacher's Sum.of Mean 2, E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 15385.6349 5128.5450 .6958 .5571 Within groups 87 641265.2479 7370.8649 Bartlett-Box g 81.988, p_- .114 Standard Standard Group Count mean Deviation Error- 1 21 466.8202 66.7582 14.5678 2 26 447.0386 73.1504 14.3460 3 21 483.2050 90.2118 19.6858 4 23 464.2905 107.7864 22.4750 Table O.4.--One-Way’ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect routine duties. Sum of mean ,2 E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 7505.8381 2501.9460 .3434 .7940 Within groups 87 633921.7040 7286.4564 Bartlett-Box z -l.662, p,= .173 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 21 476.8496 108.7506 23.7313 2 26 478.0889 75.2187 14.7516 3 21 470.9683 86.2469 18.8206 4 23 455.5256 69.7954 14.5534 145 Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect production emphasis. Sum of Mean 2, 2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 6129.2481 2043.0827 .2214 .8813 Within groups 87 802968.4540 9229.5225 Bartlett-Box 2 =1.423, p s .234 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 21 465.5818 86.3363 18.8401 2 26 478.8211 78.6958 15.4335 3 21 485.6783 98.0665 21.3999 4 23 486.8688 118.0760 24.6205 Table O.6.--One-Way.ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect frustration. Sum.of Mean E. E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 51433.2761 17144.4254 1.9348 .1299 Within groups 87 770920.5684 8861.1560 Bartlett-Box I 87.571, p - .000 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 21 491.1329 61.4912 13.4185 2 26 480.4806 57.2972 11.2369 3 21 491.9369 98.9145 21.5849 4 23 433.6610 137.7649 28.7260 146 Table O.7.--One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher's years of experience by aspect work by the book. Sum of Mean 2 E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 44965.3749 14988.4583 1.7152 .1700 Within groups 85 742761.0043 8738.3648 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 20 508.5578 54.2352 12.1274 2 26 448.9295 86.4002 16.9445 3. 21 470.1726 117.0371 25.5396 4 22 456.9840 103.8072 22.1318 APPENDIX P ONE-WAY ANOVA TABLES FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE TEACHER SALARY 147 Table P.1.--One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect teachers' dedication. Sum of mean 2 2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 40269.9667 13423.3222 1.5987 .1955 Within groups 87 730464.9621 8396.1490 Bartlett-Box 2 81.579, p_= .192 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 23 506.5990 96.0276 20.0231 2 22 472.9205 65.0743 13.8739 3 22 469.9942 102.8474 21.9271 4 24 448.6208 97.0296 19.8061 Table P.2.--One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect mutual respect and consideration. Sum of Mean 2. E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 22554.2719 7518.0906 .7255 .5395 Within groups 86 891195.0011 10362.7326 Bartlett-Box g = .694, p = .556 Standard Standard Group Count mean Deviation Error 1 23 472.4098 98.4527 20.5288 2 22 485.6834 85.4852 18.2255 3 21 441.4252 117.5392 25.6492 4 24 472.1220 103.8768 21.2038 148 Table P.3.--One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect decision making. Sum of Mean 2. Z Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 11297.6547 3765.8849 .5077 .6780 Within groups 87 645353.2281 7417.8532 Bartlett-Box I 81.128, p - .336 Standard Standard Group Count mean Deviation Error 1 23 454.1637 95.4367 19.8999 2 22 461.7683 65.2394 13.9091 3 22 457.7435 92.5129 19.7238 4 24 482.3829 87.4425 17.8491 Table P.4.--Oneeway.ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect routine duties. Sum.of Mean 2, ,2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 30603.4637 10201.1546 1.4530 .2330 Within groups 87 610824.0784 7020.9664 Bartlett-Box 2 -1.854, p_- .135 Standard Standard Group Cdunt Mean Deviation Error 1 23 480.2480 .92.9879 19.3893 2 22 439.9110 85.5994 18.2499 3 22 471.0187 94.2271 20.0893 4 24 488.5591 59.0761 12.0589 149 Table P.5.--One-Way.ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect production emphasis. Sum of Mean 2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 8329.7005 2776.5668 .3017 .8241 Within groups 87 800768.0015 9204.2299 Bartlett-Box z I=1.618, p = .183 Standard Standard Group Count mean Deviation Error 1 23 485.0778 73.3801 15.3008 2 22 491.8988 90.8553 19.3704 3 22 466.9456 118.4628 25.2564 4 24 473.8511 96.5166 19.7014 Table P.6.--One-Way.ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect frustration. Sum of Mean 2 E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 30560.6177 10186.8726 1.1193 .3458 Within groups 87 791793.2268 9101.0716 Bartlett-Box 2 '=3.904, p - .009 Standard Standard Group Count mean Deviation Error 1 23 494.5958 72.9568 15.2125 2 22 489.2120 64.7192 13.7982 3 22 460.0034 104.8178 22.3472 4 24 452.1967 124.4137 25.3958 150 Table P.7.--One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable teacher salary by aspect work by the book. Sum of Mean 2. E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 1303.3412 434.4471 .0470 .9864 Within groups 85 786423.0380 9252.035? Bartlett-Box g 81.687, p - .168 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 22 470.9877 86.1740 18.3724 2 22 474.8903 72.0116 15.3529 3 22 465.5035 108.0758 23.0418 4 23 466.0957 112.0655 23.3673 APPENDIX Q ONE-WAY ANOVA TABLES FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE SCHOOL LOCATION 151 Table Q.1.--One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect teachers' dedication. Sum.of Mean 2, I Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 1 9534.2168 9534.2168 1.1127 .2944 Within groups 88 754037.1980 8568.6045 Bartlett-Box z - .073, p,- .787 Standard Standard Group Cbunt Mean Deviation Error 1 71 468.0569 91.5749 10.8679 2 19 493.2776 96.3268 22.0989 Table Q.2.--0ne-Way ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect mutual respect and consideration. Sum of Mean 2, 2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 1 30.1202 30.1202 .0029 .9574 Within groups 87 912242.4499 10485.5454 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 70 468.2217 104.8663 12.5339 2 19 466.8020 92.3319 21.1824 152 Table Q.3.--One-Way ANOVA: location by aspect decision.making. Independent variable school Sum of Mean 2, ,2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 1 8.5810 8.5810 .0012 .9728 Within groups 88 644760.2795 7326.8214 Bartlett-Box z - .604, p - .437 Standard Standard Group Count mean Deviation Error 1 71 462.9458 82.8445 9.8318 463.7024 95.5496 21.9206 2 19 Table Q.4.--One-Way.ANOVA: location by aspect routine duties. Independent variable school Sum of mean g ,2 Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 1 52820.9363 52820.9363 7.9206 .0060 Within groups 88 586857.1844 6668.8316 Bartlett-Box,£ 81.405, p,= .236 Standard Group Count Mean Deviation 1 71 457.4624 84.9830 2 19 516.8258 67.2100 Standard Error 10.0856 15.4190 153 Table Q.5.--One-Way.ANOth Independent variable school location by aspect production emphasis. E 1?. Ratio Prob. Sum of Mean Source df Squares Squares Between groups 1 29536.2075 29536.2075 Within groups 88 765298.8869 8696.5783 Bartlett-Box fi_-1.472, 2,8 .225 Standard Group Count Kean Deviation 1 71 487.4341 97.1237 2 19 443.0433 76.3719 3.3963 .0687 Standard Error 11.5265 17.5209 Table Q.6.--One-Way.ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect frustration. E 1' Ratio Prob. Sum of Mean Source df Squares Squares Between groups 1 9492.580? 9492.580? Within groups 88 811611.1051 9222.8535 Bartlett-Box 2 -2.633, p,- .105 Standard Group Count Kean Deviation 1 71 468.0456 .101.1343 2 19 493.2112 72.8928 1.0292 .3131 Standard Error 12.0024 16.7228 firs—em“: 154 Table Q.?.--One-Way ANOVA: Independent variable school location by aspect work by the book. Sum of mean 2. E Source df Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between groups 1 4902.1864 4902.1864 .538? .4650 Within groups 86 782547.9786 9099.3951 Bartlett-Box z - .038, p - .846 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 70 465.3599 96.0854 11.4844 2 18 483.8633 92.5179 21.8067 REFERENCES REFERENCES Anderson, C. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. e ew f E c o 1 Research. 5.2.. 368-420- Anderaon. D- P- (1954)- 9W glgmgngg;y_§ghgglg. Minneapolis: Educational Research and Development Council. Andrews, J. H. M. (1965). School organizational climate: Some validity studies. W W. 5.. 317-334- Argyris, C. (1958). Some problems in conceptualizing ' organizational climate:.A case study of a bank. WW. .4. $01-$20. Atkinson, 3., s Cartwright, D. (1964). Some neglected variables in contemporary conceptions of decision and perfomnce- W. 14.. 575-590. Austin. 6.. & Garber. 8- (1985)» We: gghggl_. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Barker, R. (1963). On the nature of environment. W. 1.9.. 17-38. Bailey, M. (1979). The art of positive principalship. Momentum. 19. 46-47. ' Barth, R. S. (1988). Principals, teachers, and school leadership- Wm. 5.2. 639-642. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bell, W. (1979). Obstacles to urban school renewal. W. 16. 65-72. Brady, L. (1988). The principal as a climate factor in Australian schools: A review of studies. Journal of WM. 2.6.. 73-81. 155 156 Bray, J. H., s Maxwell, 8. E. (1982). Analyzing and interpreting significant MAMOVAs. v 3111mm. 52(3) . 340-367. Breckenridge, E. (1976). Improving school climate. 2h; W. 58.. 314-318- Brookover,‘W., & Lezotte, L. (1979). Chanccc_in_cchcc1 chczcctcciccics ccinciccgc WILL chccces ig student cchiczcccnc (Occasional Paper No. 1?). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Brookover,‘W., Schweitzer, J., Schneider, J., Beady, C., Flood, P., a Wisenbaker, J. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. MW. 15. 301-318. Brown, R. J. (1964). de t n and as 0 ..1 ' '0 - “:1- es A.cr e £31191 :3 2229212- ’Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Burstein, L. (1980). The role of levels of analysis in the specificaiton of education effects. In R. Dreeben a J. Thomas (Eds.), Ihc_ccclyc;c_cfi v s W. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Carver, P., s Sergiovanni, T. (1969). Some notes on the OCDQ. MW. 1. 78- 81. Cattel, R. B. (1952). £AQ§Q£_§EA12§1§- New York: Harper. CPR LTD (1973). The climate of the school. In CPR LTD (Ed-i. MW (pp. 1-22)- Bloomington, IN: Author. Cheal. J- P- (1990)- Wis: lcycl_cchcc1. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Cheng, Y. C. (1991). Organizational environment in school: Commitment, control, disengagement, and headless . 39W. 21(4), 481-501. 157 Corcoran, T. B. (1985). Successful secondary schools. In R. Kyle (Ed.), 0 e c nce: set V e . Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Cornell, P. G. (1955). Socially perceptive administration. £h1_pc1§g_§ccpgg, 15, 222. Coyne, R. (1975). Environmental assessment: Mapping for counselor action- W. :1, 151-15‘s David, J. L. (1989). Synthesis of research on school- bassd management. WW. 16(8). 45- 53. David, J. L., Purkey, S. a White, P. (1988, September). ciccciccc. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the National Governor' s Association, Washington, DC. Edmonds, R. (1979, March/April). Some schools work, more can. W. 28-32- Etzioni. A- (1964) Was Enslswood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Feldvebel, A. (1964). Organizational climate, social class, and educational output. ,ggcicicccccQELc ncccccck, 12 (entire issue). Forehand, G. A., a Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Wrist. 5.2. 361-381. Pox, R. S. (1973). cho v : - . “a Bloomington, IN: PhiDelta Kappa, Inc. Guba, E. G. (1958). Morale and satisfaction:.A study in Past-future time Psrapsctivs- Wes 9113;122:112. 51. 195-209- Guion, R. M. (1973). A.note on organizational climate. ' _2: _ ._d. _ .' ' '..! . '_ Halpin. A- W- (1956)- W W. New York: Macmillan. 158 Balpin,.A., 8 Croft, D. (1962, August). Inc a s (Contract No. SAE 543-8639). Washington, DC; U.S. Office of Education. Halpin, AI‘W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). e a z e c . Chicago: Mddwest Administration Center of the University of Chicago. Eamatz, G. C. (1966). e h s n c t . ‘Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and welfare. ane ,.A. W. (1973). ea - e ' ' s o 8. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Hopkins, D. (1990). Integrating staff development and school improvement: A.study of teacher personality and school climate. In B. Joyce (Ed. ), (ASCD Yearbook) (pp. 41-67). Alexandria, VA: .Association for Supervision and Curriculum.Development. Hoy,‘W. R. (1972). Dimensions of student alienation and characteristics of public high schools. Incccchcncc, 1, 36-52. Boy, W., a Clover, S. (1986). Elementary school climate: A revision of the OCDQ. We: max. 22. 93-110- Hoy,‘W. K., s Miskel, C. G. (1987L EQBEALLQBAL edI). ‘New'York: Random House. Roy, W. R., Tarter, C. J., 8 Elisa, J. (1990). Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. d t on W11. 2.6.. 250-279- Hey, W., Tarter, J., 8 Kottkamp, R. (1991). 99cc s: t ELLEAEQ- Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Huberty, c. J., a Morris, J. b. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Win. 195(2) . 302-308- 159 Kelley. B- A- (1980)- mm- Boston. ‘VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Rerlinger, P. (1986). n (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kettering Foundation. (1973). School climate improvement: A change to the school administrator. Phi Delta Rappan Occasional Paper. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Rappan. Kottkamp, R., Mulhern, J., & Hoy,‘W. (1987). Secondary school c1Lmate:.A revision of the OCDQ. Ecccccicnc; W. 2.3.. 31-48- Lezotte, L., & Passalacqua, J. (1978). Individual school buildings: Accounting for differences in measured pupil performance. DIDAD_EQHQALLQE..11. 283-293. Likert. R- (1967)- W mgngccmccc_gclgcc. New York: McGrawbHill. Likert-R- (1978). Wool- AnnArbor: Rensis Likert Associates Publishers. Litwin, G., s Stringer, R. (1968). W- Boston: Harvard University. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. ' W191. 5.9. 370-396. Merton. R- (1957)- W- New York: Free Press. Merton, R. R., 5 Christie, R. (1958). EIQccccgcc_gc;_§hc WWW s ed ctcdentc. New York: Columbia University Bureau of Applied Research, Teachers College Press. Miles, M. B. (1965). Education and innovation: The organization in context. In M. Abbott a J. Lovell (Edam). W University. Miskel, C., a Ogawa, R. (1988). WOrk motivation, job satisfaction, and climate. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), h on e o l dmf stra 'on (pp. 279-304). Newaork: Longman. 160 Mulhern. J- (1984) - W s e t . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University. Neumann, Y., Reichel, A., s Abu, I. (1988). Organizational climate and.work satisfaction: The case of Beduin Elementary School in Israel. Inc W. 2.6 (1). 82-96. Newmann, F. M., Rutter, R. A., a Smdth, M. S. (1985). Washington, be: National Institute of Education.“ Null, J. E. (1969). cchcclc. Danville: The Interstate. Nwankwo, J. I. (1979). School climate as a factor in students' conflict in Nigeria. Ecccccicg§1_§cgcicc, 19, 267-279. Ouchi, G., a Johnson, J. (1978). types of organizational control and their relationship to emotional well being- W211. 23. 293- 317. ‘ Ouchi, W. (1981, January 4L Theory 2: How'American business can.meet the Japanese challenge. Ncc;Zc;k 1W. PP- 42-45- Pace, C. R., a Stern, G. C. (1958). An approach to the measure of psychological characteristics of college environments - mm. 4.2. Pallas, A. M. (1988). School climate in American high schools. WW. 3.214). 541-554- Pritchard, R., s Rarasick, B. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. ' at al v o and W. 9.. 110-119- Raudenbash, S., Rowan, B., & Rang, S. (1988). zhc s t scho c te: ti eve QEQQTEQELELQE- Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Rumsl. R- J- (1970)- MW- Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. 161 Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ousten, J., a Smith, A. (1979). P tee t o s: e acboola_and_tbeir_sffssts_on_cbildrea- Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Schneider, B. (1972). Organizational climate: Individual preferences and organizational realities. 192£2e1_2£ W. 5.6.. 211-218- Silver, P. (1983). E c. t New York: Harper 6 Row.- Sirotnik, R. (1980). Psychometric implications of the unit-of—analysis problem (with examples from the measurement of organizational climate). Journal_of Educational_nsasurseent..11. 245-282. Smith. A- G- (1966)- Qammunieation_end_§ulture- New York: Holt, Rinehart a‘Winston. Squires, D..A., Huitt, W. G., 8 Segars, J. R. (1983). ac v so a a d c ssr : A. - ed c . .Alexandria, VA:.Association for Supervision and Curriculum.Development. Steinhoff, C. R., a Owens, R. G. (1976). Problems related to techniques for assessing organizational development and determining intervention style. Eng J9urnal_2f_Educational_8dminis§ration..14. 176-186. Stevens. a. (1987i- S2h221.22festireaeasi_§isht rariables_tbat_aake_a_differenee- Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education, Office of Technical Assistance and Evaluation. Sweeney. J. (1988)- TiPa_for_inerozing_acheol_clieate. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Tagiuri, R., a Litwin, G. (1968). a t a o co . Boston: President and Fellows of Harvard College. Thomas, A. (1976). The organizational climate of schools. International_BezieE_of_Edusation..22. 441- 456. vyskocil, J., a Goens, G. (1979). Collective bargaining and supervision: A.matter of climate. EQHQAELQEAL Leadership..31. 175-177- 162 Walberg, H. J. (1982). Educational climates. In H. Walberg (Ed.), v s d c t 0 ds d pgcggccizicyp Becheley, CA: MCCutchan. watkins, J. (1968). The OCDQ--An application and some implications- Edusati2nelEAdsiniatration_Quart2:12. 1' 46-60e Weber, F. (1971). o (Occasional Paper No. 18). Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. weiss, C. H., Cambone, J., a Wyeth, A. (1992). Trouble in paradise: Teacher conflicts in shared decision making. W. 28(3). 350-367. Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving- adainistratire_§cience_nuarterlr. 11. 229- 239.