University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

School staff perceptions of school climate: a mixed-methods multistudy examination of staff school climate at the state, regional, and school levels

(USC Thesis Other)

School staff perceptions of school climate: a mixed-methods multistudy examination of staff school climate at the state, regional, and school levels

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

School Staff Perceptions of School Climate: A Mixed-Methods Multistudy Examination of Staff
School Climate at the State, Regional, and School Levels

Gordon Capp, MSW, LCSW
USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work
Doctor of Philosophy (Social Work)
University of Southern California
Degree Conferral: August 15, 2018

Dissertation Guidance Committee
Ron Avi Astor, PhD (Chair)
Gale Sinatra, PhD
Benjamin Henwood, PhD

ii
Dedication and Acknowledgements
During the time I wrote this dissertation, I have seen unprecedented changes in how our
nation models and prioritizes the treatment of others. I often think of Greg Boyle, who says that
one of the most dangerous ideas floating around our culture is that somehow, some people matter
more than others. He advocates for a model of living that reflects a dogmatic and never-ending
quest for kinship, and suggests that we want to remember that we belong to one another. I take
this as a challenge to keep relationships and social justice at the forefront of my mind as I go
forth to train social workers and conduct meaningful research. Our work is founded on the power
of relationships to bring others into kinship with us, to change thinking and behavior, and to
foster confidence in the fundamental truth that we are all worth something merely because we
are human. This dissertation is dedicated to the many clients, field instructors, supervisors,
students, colleagues, teachers, principals, and staff members who have shaped my thinking,
taught lessons in kinship, and encouraged me to keep working.
This dissertation is also dedicated to the many people who have changed my perspectives
and forced me to think differently about schools and what we as a nation should expect for K-12
students. So, this dissertation is also dedicated to students who go to school every day and do
their best to learn and grow, and to the staff members and teachers and principals who work
diligently to understand the nuances of nurturing young minds and souls, caring for their mental
and physical health, and supporting one another along the way.
There are many people to acknowledge and publicly thank for their involvement in this
process. First, my profound thanks go to Ron Avi Astor. Your guidance, mentorship, and
encouragement have created a rich and fulfilling experience as a doctoral student. I deeply
appreciate your humanity and faith, work ethic, and breadth of thinking. You provide an example
iii
of how to approach research in a way that is meaningful and inspiring. Your approach to
mentoring and supporting students is a balance of support and challenge, and yet another model
for me to work toward with my future graduate students. I know we are kindred spirits in much
of our thinking about children and schools, and I look forward to continued conversations in the
years to come.
There are many new colleagues and friends that come from working with teams of
researchers. My thanks go to Rami Benbenishty for welcoming me to the research team and
collaborating so freely — and from halfway around the world. And to Hadass, for your
thoughtful feedback and encouragement.
My thanks also go to the faculty and staff in the USC community. Many faculty members
have provided mentorship and encouragement along the way through classes or tutorials or
impromptu conversations. Special thanks to Ben Henwood and Gale Sinatra for their diligence
and support as they sat on two committees! Thanks also to Tamika Gilreath for her good humor
and insight as we worked through data and analytic issues.
To my cohort, Chung, Kate, Rebecca, Andi, Nick, Jaih: Without you, this would have
been a very different experience, and one that I don’t care to think much about. These friends
and colleagues provide inspiration for hard work and careful thinking. They provide intense,
selfless support in times of need and crisis, and when it’s needed, prioritize laughter over
everything else. I look forward to many, many years of friendship and collaboration with you all.
I thank the many other friends and colleagues and family who have provided support and
encouragement along the way. I am fortunate to be part of a diverse community of people who
value one another. Who work hard, play hard, and take care of one another’s children. I thank
you for your friendship and for tolerating abrupt exits to go write. Some insisted on bike rides
iv
and camaraderie. These activities were also reminders that life has to be lived — even while in
graduate school. Thanks to Mom and Dad for supporting the continually evolving dreams of
your children. To brothers who sent texts to check on writing progress.
Finally, to Kristin and Madeline. Thank you for your unquestioning support of this
adventure. For your patience and for your encouragement. And for sharing the faith that this was
a good leap to make, or just telling me that it was, even though we didn’t know where it was
going to take us. I love you both.

v
Table of Contents
Dedication and Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... ii
List of Figures and Tables ........................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1: School Staff Perceptions of School Climate: A Mixed-Method Multistudy
Examination of Staff School Climate at the State, Regional, and School Levels ........................... 1
Introduction and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1
Staff School Climate .................................................................................................................. 3
Social Emotional Learning and School Climate ................................................................. 4
Staff Members and School Climate ..................................................................................... 6
Theories Addressing School Climate, School Settings, and Individual Outcomes ............. 7
Variables in the Conceptual Model ................................................................................... 10
Dissertation Structure .............................................................................................................. 14
Study 1: Staff-Reported Dimensions of School Climate and Their Associations
with Student Victimization, Risk Factors, and Well-Being .............................................. 15
Study 2: Exploring Patterns of School Climate Experiences among Staff Members
in California ....................................................................................................................... 16
Study 3: Exploring Positive and Negative School Climate through Staff Member
Experiences: How do SES, Leadership, and Time Influence School Contexts and
Climate? ............................................................................................................................. 17
References ............................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2, Study 1: School Staff Members in California: How are School Climate
Perceptions Related to Perceptions of Student Risk and Well-Being? ......................................... 32
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 32
Introduction and Purpose ......................................................................................................... 33
Unique Position of Staff Members in a School’s Ecology ...................................................... 35
Empirically Testing a Staff-Centric Conceptual Model of School Climate ...................... 36
Empirically Testing the Conceptual Model: How are Staff Perceptions of Student
Risk Behaviors Related to Perceptions of Staff Climate? ................................................. 38
Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 40
Methods ................................................................................................................................... 40
Measures ............................................................................................................................ 41
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 43
Index Reliability ................................................................................................................ 44
Stepwise Regression Models ............................................................................................. 45
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 46
Empirical Support for the Conceptual Model of Staff Climate ......................................... 46
Contribution to School Climate Theory ............................................................................ 54
References ............................................................................................................................... 56
Chapter 3 (Study 2): Exploring Patterns of Positive and Negative School Climate
Experiences among Staff Members in California ......................................................................... 75
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 75
Objectives and Purpose ........................................................................................................... 76
School Climate ........................................................................................................................ 77
School Staff and School Climate ............................................................................................. 78
Staff Characteristics: Roles, Placements, Experience, and Ethnicity ................................ 80
vi
Need for a Holistic Examination of How School Staff Members Experience Climate .......... 81
Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 82
Methods ................................................................................................................................... 84
Measures ............................................................................................................................ 85
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 87
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 90
Positive Climate ................................................................................................................. 91
Positive Discipline and Support ........................................................................................ 91
Negative Climate ............................................................................................................... 92
Lackluster Climate ............................................................................................................. 92
Staff Roles, Placements, Experience, and Ethnicity .......................................................... 93
Implications and Future Research ..................................................................................... 99
References ............................................................................................................................. 101
Chapter 4 (Study 3): Exploring Positive and Negative School Climate: How do
Socioeconomic Status, Leadership, and School Contexts Influence Staff Perceptions of
Climate? ....................................................................................................................................... 116
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 116
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 117
Ecologically Nested Staff Member Experiences of School Climate ............................... 117
Contexts Influencing Climate: SES, Districts, and Staff Experiences ............................ 118
Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 124
Methods ................................................................................................................................. 125
Districts, Schools, and Individuals as Participants .......................................................... 126
Qualitative Data Collection ............................................................................................. 127
Results ................................................................................................................................... 131
Sample Description ......................................................................................................... 131
Validating Subgroup-Based Sorting for Schools ............................................................ 133
Schools with Positive Climate Based on Sorting and Qualitative Results ...................... 134
Schools with Negative Climate Based on Sorting and Qualitative Results .................... 136
Cross-Cutting Themes Explaining Climate ..................................................................... 137
Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 146
High and Low SES .......................................................................................................... 147
Quantitative Climate Sorting ........................................................................................... 149
Explaining Climate by Focusing on Staff Member Perspectives .................................... 149
Climate Disconnected from District Influences .............................................................. 154
Implications and Future Study ......................................................................................... 155
References ............................................................................................................................. 158
Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 179
Chapter 5: Integrating Findings about Staff Experiences: Seeking Pathways to
Understanding and Creating Positive Climate ............................................................................ 184
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 184
Key Findings of Dissertation Studies .................................................................................... 186
Study 1: School Staff Members in California: How are School Climate
Perceptions Related to Perceptions of Student Risk and Well-Being? ........................... 186
Study 2: Exploring Patterns of Positive and Negative School Climate Experiences
among Staff Members in California ................................................................................ 187
vii
Study 3: Exploring Positive and Negative School Climate: How do
Socioeconomic Status, Leadership, and School Contexts Influence Staff
Perceptions of Climate? ................................................................................................... 189
Combined Practical and Theoretical Implications from Studies 1, 2, and 3 ......................... 190
Assessing Climate and Implementing Interventions ....................................................... 191
Ecological Theory: Possible Additions and Changes to the Conceptualization of
School Climate ...................................................................................................................... 193
Shifting School Climate Theory: Including History and Prioritizing Climate
Components ..................................................................................................................... 195
Areas of Future Study ............................................................................................................ 198
Connections to Social Work Research and Practice .............................................................. 201
References ............................................................................................................................. 203

viii
List of Figures and Tables
Table 1.1. Staff Dimensions of School Climate ............................................................................ 27
Table 1.2. Staff Climate Indexes and Corresponding Climate Dimensions .................................. 28
Table 2.1. Staff Dimensions of School Climate ............................................................................ 64
Table 2.2. Sample Demographics .................................................................................................. 65
Table 2.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis for Data Reduction of Staff School Climate Scales ....... 67
Table 2.4. Correlations among Staff School Climate Components ............................................... 70
Table 2.5. Stepwise Regression Models for Student Risk ............................................................. 71
Table 2.6. Stepwise Regression Models for Student Well-Being ................................................. 73
Table 3.1. Sample Demographics ................................................................................................ 109
Table 3.2. Model Fit Indicators for Staff School Climate ........................................................... 111
Table 3.3. Conditional Probabilities for Staff Climate Latent Profile Membership ................... 112
Table 3.4. Odds Ratios Predicting Class Membership Relative to Positive Climate Class
based on Staff Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 113
Figure 3.1. Graphic Illustration of Latent Profile Analysis for Staff School Climate ................. 115
Table 4.1. Semistructured Interview Guide ................................................................................. 164
Table 4.2. Case Study Schools Embedded in High- and Low-SES and Positive- and
Negative-Climate Frameworks .................................................................................................... 165
Table 4.3. Evidence Demonstrating Positive and Negative Climate in Schools ......................... 166
Figure 4.1. Staff School Climate Experiences Nested in School and District Contexts ............. 177
Figure 4.2. Mixed-Methods Case Study Design ......................................................................... 178
Table A1. Select Case Study Activities ....................................................................................... 179
Table A2. Case Study Codebook ................................................................................................. 181

1
Chapter 1: School Staff Perceptions of School Climate: A Mixed-Method Multistudy
Examination of Staff School Climate at the State, Regional, and School Levels
Introduction and Objectives
For nearly 100 years, school climate has been recognized as a critical component of
experiences in schools. In recent decades, school climate research has often been designed to
understand how positive school climate influences students (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, &
Pickeral, 2009; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016).
Despite the long history of school climate research, questions persist regarding how the construct
of school climate should be defined and operationalized, and how different groups of school
constituents experience and influence school climate.
The concept of school climate as it has been defined and operationalized in recent years
is frequently based on four primary dimensions: school safety, relationships, teaching and
learning, and the institutional environment (Thapa et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016). It is
important to recognize that researchers also tend to agree that these four dimensions combine to
create a unique environment. Cohen et al. (2009) suggested that school climate “refers to the
quality and character of school life” (p. 182) and represents a pattern of experiences that make up
the school. The National School Climate Center (2007) similarly defined climate as an active
element — one that shapes the interactions of all people in a school and reflects norms, values,
relationships, teaching, and learning.
One common element across the many conceptual climate definitions is that all
professionals in a school are implicated in the definition of climate. It takes the actions and
decisions of students, teachers, staff members, and administrators to create school climate.
However, the majority of contemporary research on school climate has focused almost
2
exclusively on student reports and perceptions of school climate and the influence of school
climate on students’ academic progress and social and emotional development (Berkowitz,
Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017; Cohen et al., 2009; Thapa et al., 2013). Little rigorous or
empirical work has focused exclusively on the school staff, especially the wide array of
professionals who could comprise or be responsible for school climate.
Although student outcomes and perceptions of climate are clearly important, the
perspectives of teachers and nonteaching school staff members are largely missing from the
current understanding of school climate. This creates critical gaps in current school climate
literature. Current definitions of school climate do not specifically reflect the views or
perceptions of the school staff. Similarly, empirical research that explores staff views of school
climate is lacking. Including staff perspectives in school climate models has important
implications for efforts to improve school climate or implement interventions that target social
and emotional learning (SEL) or school violence and bullying. New requirements to include
these nonacademic elements as part of school accountability systems reflect an urgent need to
ensure the inclusion of staff perspectives.
This three-study dissertation aimed to fill multiple gaps in the empirical literature related
to the composition and creation of school climate through a methodical examination of school
staff member perspectives and experiences. This empirical investigation is needed to understand
how school staff members experience and contribute to school climate, and how these
experiences fit within a broader ecological model of school climate. Thus, the three studies of
this dissertation aimed to:
1. Test theoretical components of staff-focused school climate and examine the
relationships between these components and staff perceptions of student risk behaviors
3
and well-being. This is one of the first empirical studies using a large, statewide dataset
(approximately 54,000 respondents) and multivariate methods.
2. Examine how individual staff members experience multiple components of school
climate. Using the same statewide California dataset and latent profile analysis, this
dissertation identified groups of staff members based on previously unobserved
heterogeneity, or shared profiles of school climate perceptions.
3. Explore how salient characteristics that delineate staff experiences, including their school
setting, job in school, years of experience, and ethnicity, are related to their perceptions
of school climate.
4. Explore how staff experiences of climate fit with the larger ecological context of the
school and school district. This aim involved a mixed-methods study to first identify
schools with positive and negative climate typologies, based on the results of the
previously described latent profile analysis. Qualitative case study methods were
employed to study how individuals interact with the context of the school and compare
positive and negative climate. One additional aim was to explicate how teachers at these
extremes view school climate.
Staff School Climate
Because school climate has been increasingly linked to common risk factors and problem
behaviors in students, it is even more important to consider how to maximize the protective
capacity of school climate for all people in schools (Astor, De Pedro, Gilreath, Esqueda, &
Benbenishty, 2013). Evidence shows that school climate can contribute to academic outcomes,
including math achievement (Berkowitz et al., 2015), and that climate is a critical component in
preventing dropout (Freudenberg & Ruglis, 2007; Rumberger, 1995). Research also showed that
4
positive school climate is connected to reduced violence and victimization in schools (Astor,
Benbenishty, Zeira, & Vinokur, 2002; Espelage & Swearer, 2003) and decreased student
substance use and delinquency (Thapa et al., 2013; Zullig, Koopman, Patton, & Ubbes, 2010).
There is also reason to believe that positive school climate may help to alleviate
disparities in academic achievement related to socioeconomic status (SES; Berkowitz et al.,
2017). This is particularly relevant in light of recent research about increasing income inequality
in schools (e.g., Reardon, 2016). Together, these benefits of school climate are wide-reaching
and extend beyond academic achievement. These benefits also suggest that positive school
climate can be thought of as a protective factor for students (Astor & Benbenishty, 2017; Astor,
Benbenishty, & Estrada, 2009; Astor et al., 2013; Astor, Jacobson, Wrabel, Benbenishty, &
Pineda, 2017; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Berkowitz et al., 2017). One conspicuous question
that emerges from this is whether positive school climate is also a protective factor for school
professionals.
Social Emotional Learning and School Climate
With the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, there are new requirements to
include nonacademic indicators in school accountability systems. Already, efforts have been
made to include SEL in these nonacademic assessments (Weissberg & Cascarino, 2013).
Research also has demonstrated the effectiveness of school-based SEL interventions that are
delivered by the school staff (for a review, see Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, &
Schellinger, 2011). These policy and research trends can also be seen as an opportunity to
incorporate measures of school climate into accountability systems (Melnick, Cook-Harvey, &
Darling-Hammond, 2017). Further, positive school climate can be understood as a necessary
support for social and emotional competencies (Melnick et al., 2017), and that these constructs
5
are mutually reinforcing. As SEL increases, the climate becomes more positive, providing a
stronger foundation for SEL (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Melnick et al., 2017).
SEL programs in schools have been shown to contribute to improved social skills,
decreased emotional distress, and few behavior problems and bullying (Durlak et al., 2011). This
body of literature is closely connected to findings that supportive school climate is critical for the
academic and social and emotional well-being of children (Astor et al., 2013; Cohen et al., 2009;
Thapa et al., 2013). This is not new information for schools, and researchers from the
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning have asserted that educators
already know the importance of SEL for their students (Weissberg & Cascarino, 2013). Rather,
these findings support the need to continue examining school climate, particularly staff
experiences and perspectives of climate.
Along with these opportunities to enhance whole-child outcomes in schools is the
assumption that staff members are ready and able to tackle what may seem like additional
responsibilities in their classrooms and schools. It is not only counselors and psychologists who
are charged with teaching SEL; research about the effectiveness of interventions has shown not
only that interventions delivered by a range of staff members are effective (Durlak et al., 2011),
but also that whole-school interventions are the most effective (Hamedani & Darling-Hammond,
2015; Pitner, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2015).
It is possible, however, that the focus on whole-school intervention, wherein staff
members are primary implementers, has overlooked the readiness of school professionals. Some
research has indicated that teacher perceptions of SEL instruction have positive and negative
influences on stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012). This
suggests that work to incorporate SEL is important, but may also be perceived as an added
6
burden. There are calls in the literature to enable school professionals to become experts in
psychological and academic learning (Hamedani & Darling-Hammond, 2015); this seems to be a
continued need that warrants further attention from policy makers, school leaders, and
researchers.
Staff Members and School Climate
The welfare and satisfaction of teachers is already an established priority in the research
literature. A high level of teacher attrition is expensive and resource intensive; replacing new
staff members (e.g., within their first 5 years of teaching) results in significant resources being
spent on hiring instead of programming or materials (Darling-Hammond, 2003). Beyond the high
costs of replacing staff members, instability from attrition and turnover negatively affect school
communities and school performance (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Ingersoll, 2001). Ingersoll
(2001) also convincingly showed that organizational elements along with individual
characteristics contribute to teacher retention and turnover. Although these examples do not
specifically discuss school climate, organizational elements including administrative support,
opportunities for professional growth, and discipline are related to teacher turnover (Darling-
Hammond, 2003; Ingersoll, 2001) and frequently included in definitions of school climate.
Other research about teachers has shown that school climate is in fact connected to daily
exchanges in school environments. Interactions with students and other staff members are key
factors when examining stress, efficacy, and job satisfaction for teachers (Collie et al., 2012;
Grayson & Alvarez, 2008). Collie, Shapka, and Perry (2011) also found that school climate, and
specifically relationships with students, predict a general commitment to the profession. Other
findings indicate that when teachers rate their school environment more positively, they also
report lower ratings of burnout and higher ratings of efficacy (Pas & Bradshaw, 2014).
7
Several tensions emerge when considering these examples in the school climate
literature. There is no clear consensus on the definition or composition of school climate, making
it difficult to compare conclusions. Further, school climate has been combined with other
constructs as researchers consider outcomes like burnout or job satisfaction. Yet school climate
has also been often considered a single construct that affects student outcomes, including
academic performance and social and emotional outcomes. The same careful consideration of the
influence of climate for school staff members is needed.
An additional tension is that a school’s staff is composed of more than teachers; other
professionals work in schools and have interactions with one another and students, and are thus
also implicated in school climate definitions. The sizeable and diverse dataset for this
dissertation afforded the opportunity to examine multiple kinds of staff members who are
typically left out of the empirical literature, thus addressing the empirical and theoretical gap in
the literature. Because school climate theories were constructed with a focus on student
experiences and perceptions, staff member perceptions are not directly reflected in current
theoretical models or studies of school climate.
Theories Addressing School Climate, School Settings, and Individual Outcomes
Ecological theories suggest that individual behaviors and experiences are shaped by
nested influences. Such theories are particularly appropriate for the study of school-related
phenomena; schools are prime examples of environments in which multiple influences are
simultaneously present. For instance, students are subject to peer influences, teachers,
playground supervision, and their parents while they are at school. Similarly, teachers or other
staff members are also subject to peer influences, supervisors, and various policies guiding their
work. Thus, ecological theories are frequently used to frame the study of school climate and
8
often focus on the importance of individual relationships and influences from multiple ecological
layers (Wang & Degol, 2016).
Using an ecological foundation to examine school violence, scholars proposed a
theoretical model that assumes that school violence is influenced by a combination of variables
that exist in the school, including school climate and individual interactions, and external
variables like student and family characteristics, the neighborhood, and larger cultural influences
(Astor & Benbenishty, in press; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). In their model, the school
mediates, moderates, and attenuates influences from external contexts. School staff members and
their interactions and decisions are an integral part of how the school processes various
influences on violence. Another important tenet of this ecological model is that outside external
influences are not seen as predetermining factors for the school. Rather, a school’s internal
context, including climate, moderates and mediates various inputs and shapes student behaviors
and experiences (Astor & Benbenishty, in press; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). Staff members are
part of this internal context, and they shape the experiences of others while the school context
shapes their own experiences.
This model provides a helpful foundation for understanding how staff members both
experience and contribute to the school climate around them. Research has continued to support
the importance of considering multiple perspectives from multiple layers of a school’s ecology
when examining the impact of school climate on outcomes, including academic achievement
(Berkowitz et al., 2015) and student victimization (Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, Astor, &
Zeira, 2004). Teachers and school staff members, then, are part of the social context of schools
and have integral influences on the composition of a school’s climate. At the same time, they
hold critical perspectives on what kind of climate a school has and how it might contribute to
9
student outcomes. The three studies of this dissertation build toward a long-term goal of zooming
out and considering the whole school context. However, with the gaps in school climate
literature regarding staff members, the immediate goal of this research was to focus back in on
staff members to ensure their perspectives are clearly and accurately represented in future, more
holistic research.
In the study of school climate, the focus is often on the importance of relationships or
interactions at schools (Astor & Benbenishty, in press; Astor et al., 2017; Benbenishty & Astor,
2005; Berkowitz et al., 2017; Chen & Astor, 2010) and their resulting influences on individuals
from multiple ecological layers (Wang & Degol, 2016). For the studies in this dissertation, this
means that in schools, teachers and staff members represent one ecological layer, whereas
students represent another. Again, for the purposes of the three studies presented here, the focus
is on how staff perceptions of school climate are related to the interactions between a school’s
ecological layers. For instance, Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2015) concluded that it is possible that
teachers’ beliefs are dynamic and affected by student behaviors, meaning that their responses to
particular behaviors may reflect their own efforts to manage the behavior and reflect changing
patterns of interactions they have with students. The same could be true of interactions with other
staff members.
On a larger scale, theories posit that positive school climate acts as a protective factor for
students. School staff members may also experience a protective element of school climate, and
this likely influences both their perceptions of student behaviors and their own professional and
personal outcomes. School staff members also contribute to a school’s climate in ways that
students cannot. For example, relationships with other staff members and students are important
10
contributors to a whether a school’s climate is positive and supportive. If so, then the school’s
climate is both protecting students and making it a better place for the staff.
Although a positive and protective school climate is the ideal goal, not all school climate
is positive. Just as there are benefits to positive climate, negative climate can be expected to
inhibit academic and socioemotional progress. School staff members experiencing negative
climate may experience a compounded consequence in this case — not only does the climate
they contribute to have a negative influence on students, their own experiences (like relationships
with others, teaching experiences, work experiences) may also be negative.
Variables in the Conceptual Model
School climate. School climate can be broadly defined as the patterns of experiences that
make up the school day, or the “quality and character of school life” (National School Climate
Center, 2016, para. 1). Although there is no clear consensus of what exactly constitutes school
climate, there is agreement that it is a multidimensional construct, and further research has
presented four primary dimensions of school climate: safety, relationships, teaching and learning,
and the institutional (or physical) environment (Berkowitz et al., 2015; Cohen et al., 2009; Thapa
et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016). Table 1.1 shows the four dimensions of school climate
adapted to reflect staff perceptions.
• School safety includes both physical and social and emotional safety, a supportive
environment, and clear rules (Cohen et al., 2009; Thapa et al., 2013).
• Relationships in schools should be positive and supportive and demonstrate a respect for
diverse opinions and beliefs and the need for collaboration (Thapa et al., 2013). There are
academic and social and emotional implications for relationships; this dimension also
reflects the relational nature of learning (Cohen et al., 2009).
11
• Teaching and learning concerns the quality of instruction, the engagement of people in
learning, and whether people believe their work in schools is meaningful and relevant
(Cohen et al., 2009; Wang & Degol, 2016).
• The institutional environment often refers to the quality of the physical environment of a
school, but may also include organizational elements like schedules and the availability
of resources (Cohen et al., 2009; Wang & Degol, 2016).
Staff-centered components of school climate. In a study that served as a prelude to this
dissertation (Capp, Astor, & Gilreath, 2018), these four primary dimensions were adapted to
reflect staff perspectives. This theoretical and empirical examination began with a question: How
would these same school climate dimensions appear if we started from a school staff member
perspective? The following section details the construction of the same four dimensions of
climate using components believed to represent school staff experiences. Table 1.2 shows the
items and components used to construct a staff-centric model of school climate.
School safety. In some ways, staff members experience the same threats to safety as
students. For example, bullying and victimization don’t merely represent a one-way interaction
between two students, but implicate the interactions among peers and staff members and the
context of the school (Espelage & Swearer, 2010; Reddy et al., 2013). Because so many
elements of school climate are contingent upon relationships and interactions with teachers and
the staff, aggression and victimization are key elements to examine in the school context
(Espelage & Swearer, 2010). In addition, staff members may also be victims of bullying in their
schools (Astor, Behre, Wallace, & Fravil, 1998; Espelage et al., 2013; Reddy et al., 2013; Ziera,
Astor, & Benbenishty, 2004). Other student behaviors are important parts of staff experiences,
including disruptive and disrespectful behaviors and student mental health problems. One further
12
element is how the school responds to discipline problems. For staff members in particular, this
may be an indication of support for personal safety and the responsibility to provide safety and
academic instruction.
Teaching and learning. This dimension focuses on the primary mission of a school, to
educate students. A shared mission among staff members for their school, wherein academic
challenges, support, and opportunities are available to all students, may be likened to collective
efficacy, wherein staff members believe that as a collective group, they have the ability to effect
change and facilitate student progress (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). Also in this dimension is
the notion that activities related to learning are meaningful for students. Finally, staff training
may be understood as a way to address existing problems or to continue professional
development and individual learning about the craft of education.
Relationships. Cohen et al. (2009) noted that learning is inherently relational; this helps
underscore the importance of supportive relationships, especially those between students and the
staff. Extant research convincingly showed that positive, supportive, mentor-like relationships
with teachers have wide-reaching and long-lasting impacts (Baker, 1999; Jennings & Greenberg,
2009; Murray & Greenberg, 2000). The ecological framework used for this dissertation also
assumes that influences are important for all people working in schools. Thus, support between
staff members is a critical area to evaluate. Such support may come directly from another staff
member or from larger school-wide efforts. How members of a school community approach
differences and diversity may be key determinants of whether individuals feel supported at
school.
Institutional environment. This dimension is less frequently used in the school climate
literature. Evidence indicates that the physical environment is important for school climate, and
13
that even looking at the exterior condition of a school can give clues to its climate (Astor et al.,
2009). Staff members also experience the school as a workplace, and are therefore subject to
policies, leadership, and job requirements that may feel separate from active engagement with
students.
Characteristics that differentiate experiences of school staff members. School staff
members are a varied and diverse group of people. Teachers in different kinds of schools (e.g.,
elementary, middle, and high schools) experience different aspects of school climate as a facet of
their work. Elementary schools, for example, tend to be more nurturing environments than
middle or high schools (Astor et al., 2013; Cohen et al., 2009), at least partially in response to the
developmental needs of younger students. In middle and high schools, as students get older,
social and academic needs change, requiring corresponding changes in how adults respond to
these needs (Eccles et al., 1993). Evidence also indicates that bullying behaviors are more severe
in middle school (Espelage & Horne, 2008; Nansel et al., 2001), and that middle school teachers
have unique perspectives on when to intervene (Behre, Astor, & Meyer, 2001). Further, the
transition to high school is an important one, and ninth grade is considered a critical time for
student academic trajectories (Donegan, 2008; Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010).
Years of experience. The amount of time staff members work in schools is a critical
element for understanding perceptions of their workplace. Previous research noted the
differences between beginning teachers, or those with less than 5 years of experience, and those
with longer tenures (Elfers, Plecki, & Knapp, 2006). Specifically, there is significant concern
about the attrition of early career teachers compared to veterans (Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein,
2004; Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008; Elfers et al., 2006). Early career attrition is especially
problematic for special education teachers (Billingsly et al., 2004), demonstrating that the kind of
14
work performed in a school likely matters a great deal. This research suggests that there are
important differences between teachers in their first 3 to 5 years on the job and those with more
years of experience, and that novice teachers leave the profession more often than those with
more experience (Elfers et al., 2006).
Staff roles. Though much research about school climate has focused on teachers, roles in
schools include teachers, administrators, counselors, psychologists, social workers, secretaries,
custodial staff members, bus drivers, and other support staff members. All of these people have
interactions with students and one another, and all are integral to the functioning of the school.
Thus, these various roles, or jobs, that people fill in schools may be important predictors of
differences in perceptions of school climate.
Dissertation Structure
Results from an initial exploration of staff-focused school climate suggested that using
existing dimensions of school climate, modified to reflect the views of the staff, may be an
appropriate way to assess school climate (Capp et al., 2018). In addition, there is meaningful
variation in how staff members view climate. Several characteristics contribute to this variation,
including the kind of school in which they work, the job they have in a school, the length of their
experience in schools, and their ethnicity. Thus, depending on these characteristics, some staff
members experience more positive school climate than others. However, questions remain about
the construct of staff climate, the quality or valence of climate that staff members experience,
and the influence of local school contexts on their experiences.
The three-study dissertation described here used a quantitative and mixed-methods design
(see Figure 1.1) to build on a preliminary study of school staff members in California, and also
provided a foundation for future research. The three studies were intended to provide unique
15
information that together constitutes a comprehensive examination of staff school climate. Each
study — Chapter 2 (Study 1), Chapter 3 (Study 2), and Chapter 4 (Study 3) — are separate but
conceptually related studies that will be submitted for review in peer-reviewed journals (see
Chapter 5 for brief discussion of journal and audience targets). The dissertation studies aimed to
(a) investigate how components of staff-focused school climate relate to one another and staff
perceptions of student risk; (b) establish profiles of staff members who share perceptions of
climate; and (c) explore the influences of school and district contexts related to school climate
through a qualitative case study of schools. In addition, the dataset for this dissertation (Study 1
and 2) offered a unique opportunity to examine a large sample representing 54,000 staff
responses from across the state of California.
Study 1: Staff-Reported Dimensions of School Climate and Their Associations with Student
Victimization, Risk Factors, and Well-Being
In the preliminary study of staff-focused school climate, indexes of climate were
developed to capture staff experiences and perceptions (Capp et al., 2018). Study 1 aimed to
explore how these components are related and how they might be modified and pared down to
provide a more concise and effective description of staff-focused school climate. This study also
provided the first epidemiological view of staff in California and the relationship between their
perceptions of climate and students. Staff perceptions of students in this study included student
risk behaviors (e.g., disruptive behavior, violence, and bullying) and student well-being. This
study examined specifically how staff members view student violence and disruptive behaviors
and how these are related to perceptions of school climate. Staff reports about school climate
should be related, in part, to how staff members experience relationships and behaviors with their
16
students. It is expected that as staff members report more positive climate, their reports about
problem behaviors will decrease and their reports about student well-being will increase.
Study 2: Exploring Patterns of School Climate Experiences among Staff Members in
California
This study built on knowledge gleaned from Study 1. This study used dimensions and
components of staff-focused school climate from Study 1 to answer questions about how school
staff members simultaneously experience the many components of school climate: (a) What
patterns, or subgroups, exist among teachers in California? and (b) How do characteristics of
staff members (e.g., school type, job, experience) predict their affiliation with specific profiles of
school climate? Study 2 employed person-centered analysis to understand how different groups
of staff members perceive school climate. Dimensions of school climate were used to construct
profiles of staff members or groups of staff members who share meaningful profiles of school
climate perceptions. This study hypothesized that there are positive and negative profiles of
school climate. These should indicate whether staff members experience positive or negative
climate in their schools. Staff profiles that are neither completely positive nor completely
negative are also expected. For instance, it could be that how schools handle discipline or how
staff members experience respect others help to define a particular profile of climate experiences.
The staff profiles that emerged from this study were based on their views of school
climate, and therefore also reflect the schools in which they work. Why these profiles exist in
schools, and what is happening contextually in schools to create particular climates, are
important questions investigate. Study 3 built on these questions using a mixed-methods
approach.
17
Study 3: Exploring Positive and Negative School Climate through Staff Member
Experiences: How do SES, Leadership, and Time Influence School Contexts and Climate?
The final mixed-methods study further explored staff views of positive and negative
school climate in the context of specific school settings. The groups of staff defined by positive
and negative perceptions of school climate (identified in Study 2) were used to locate specific
schools with a high concentration of staff members who shared either a positive or negative view
of climate. These schools were selected from one high-SES school district and one lower-SES
school district. The final sample of four case study schools was drawn from one high-SES and
one low-SES district. Two schools were expected to have a positive climate and two were
expected to have a negative climate.
The first goal of this study was to situate quantitative findings from Study 1 and Study 2
in a real-life context, exploring school climate profiles and dimensions through the lived
experiences of school professionals. Understanding organizational, district, and community
backgrounds could help explicate how teachers in different contexts experience the dimensions
of climate studied in Study 1 and Study 2. The second goal was to explore staff perceptions of
climate in the local school context (Ingersoll, 2001). In this case, the local school context
included the influence of district SES and how district perceptions of climate might be connected
to the quality of climate in schools. A case study was the chosen method because of the need to
examine individual experiences in an organizational context (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2003),
and because of the value of observing a variety of situations wherein staff members interacted
with the school context. This includes the school as a whole, or as the center of an ecological
model, and the various professionals, parents, students, and tasks that make up the school
18
experience (Astor & Benbenishty, 2017, in press; Astor et al., 2017; Benbenishty & Astor,
2005).
This case study was expected to produce results that could explain staff experiences
beyond Study 1 and Study 2. The third study provided a way to understand how staff members
view their contributions to school climate and how they view the influence of various contextual,
or ecological, influences. These include the school as a whole, other staff members and
principals, students, and the school district. School climate influences interactions (National
School Climate Center, 2007) and reflects a combination of internal and external influences
(Astor & Benbenishty, in press; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). Using a case study methodology
facilitated a clearer understanding of these complex constructs.

19
References
Astor, R. A., Behre, W. J., Wallace, J. M., & Fravil, K. A. (1998). School social workers and
school violence: Personal safety, training, and violence programs. Social Work, 43, 223–
232. http://doi.org/10.1093/sw/43.3.223
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). Mapping and monitoring bullying and violence:
Building a safe school climate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (in press). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., & Estrada, J. N. (2009). School violence and theoretically atypical
schools: The principal’s centrality in orchestrating safe schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 46, 423–461. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329598
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., & Vinokur, A. (2002). School climate, observed risky
behaviors, and victimization as predictors of high school students’ fear and judgments of
school violence as a problem. Health Education & Behavior, 29, 716–736.
http://doi.org/10.1177/109019802237940
Astor, R. A., De Pedro, K. T., Gilreath, T. D., Esqueda, M. C., & Benbenishty, R. (2013). The
promotional role of school and community contexts for military students. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 16, 233–244. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0139-x
Astor, R. A., Jacobson, L., Wrabel, S. L., Benbenishty, R., & Pineda, D. (2017). Welcoming
practices: Creating schools that support students and families in transition. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
20
Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential
behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. Elementary School
Journal, 100, 57–70. http://doi.org/10.1086/461943
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 13, 544–559.
Behre, W. J., Astor, R. A., & Meyer, H. A. (2001). Elementary- and middle-school teachers’
reasoning about intervening in school violence: An examination of violence-prone school
subcontexts. Journal of Moral Education, 30, 131–153.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03057240120061388
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood,
family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Berkowitz, R., Glickman, H., Benbenishty, R., Ben-Artzi, E., Raz, T., Lipshtat, N., & Astor, R.
A. (2015). Compensating, mediating, and moderating effects of school climate on
academic achievement gaps in Israel. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–34.
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87, 425–469.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669821
Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of
early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70, 333–347.
http://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000305
21
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition,
teaching area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7–31.
http://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807500101
Capp, G. P., Astor, R. A., & Gilreath, T. D. (2018). The voices and perceptions of school staff on
school climate: Advancing a conceptual model of school climate based on school staff
perspectives. Manuscript under review.
Chen, J.-K., & Astor, R. A. (2011). School engagement, risky peers, and student–teacher
relationships as mediators of school violence in Taiwanese vocational versus
academically oriented high schools. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 10–30.
http://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20413
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,
policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment: The impact of
school climate and social-emotional learning. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 1034–1048.
http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20611
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104, 1189–1204. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do.
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6–13.
Donegan, B. (2008). The linchpin year. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 54–57.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-
22
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac
Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit
on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48,
90–101. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Elfers, A. M., Plecki, M. L., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Teacher mobility: Looking more closely at
“the movers” within a state system. Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 94–127.
http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8103_4
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student
willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School
Psychology, 48, 533–553. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.07.001
Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V. E., Jones, A., Lane, K. L., McMahon, S. D., …
Reynolds, C. R. (2013). Understanding and preventing violence directed against teachers:
Recommendations for a national research, practice, and policy agenda. American
Psychologist, 68, 75–87. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031307
Espelage, D. L., & Horne, A. M. (2008). School violence and bullying prevention: From
research-based explanations to empirically based solutions. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 588–606). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What
have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–
383.
23
Espelage, D. L., Swearer, S. M. (2010). A social-ecological model for bullying prevention and
intervention: Understanding the impact of adults in the social ecology of youngsters. In S.
R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools:
An international perspective (pp. 61–72). New York, NY: Routledge.
Freudenberg, N., & Ruglis, J. (2007). Reframing school dropout as a public health issue.
Preventing Chronic Disease, 4, A107.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–
13. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A
mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1349–1363.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005
Hamedani, M. G., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Social emotional learning in high school:
How three urban high schools engage, educate, and empower youth. Stanford, CA:
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534.
http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 491–525. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
24
Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Zeira, A. (2004). The contributions of
community, family, and school variables to student victimization. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 34, 187–204. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-004-7414-4
Melnick, H., Cook-Harvey, C. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Encouraging social and
emotional learning in the context of new accountability. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy
Institute.
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children’s relationship with teachers and bonds with
school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of
School Psychology, 38, 423–445. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00034-0
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
National School Climate Center. (2007). The school climate challenge: Narrowing the gap
between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and
teacher education policy. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolclimate.org/themes/schoolclimate/assets/pdf/policy/school-climate-
challenge-web.pdf
National School Climate Center. (2016). What is school climate? Retrieved from
https://www.schoolclimate.org/about/our-approach#tab2
Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). What affects teacher ratings of student behaviors? The
potential influence of teachers’ perceptions of the school environment and experiences.
Prevention Science, 15, 940–950. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0432-4
25
Pitner, R., Astor, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2015). Violence in schools. In P. Allen-Meares (Ed.)
Social work services in school (7th ed., pp. 265–296). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Reardon, S. F. (2016). School district socioeconomic status, race, and academic achievement.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
Reddy, L. A., Espelage, D., McMahon, S. D., Anderman, E. M., Lane, K. L., Brown, V. E., …
Kanrich, J. (2013). Violence against teachers: Case studies from the APA task force.
International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1, 231–245.
http://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.837019
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and
schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583–625.
http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003583
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2015). Teachers’ victimization-related beliefs and strategies:
Associations with students’ aggressive behavior and peer victimization. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 45–60. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9840-y
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement,
and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 315–352.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
Weissberg, R. P., & Cascarino, J. (2013). Academic learning + social-emotional learning =
national priority. Phi Delta Kappan, 95, 8–13.
http://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500203
26
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA:
Sage.
Zeira, A., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2004). School violence in Israel: Perceptions of
homeroom teachers. School Psychology International, 25, 149–166.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0143034304043679
Zullig, K. J., Koopman, T. M., Patton, J. M., & Ubbes, V. A. (2010). School climate: Historical
review, instrument development, and school assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 28, 139–152. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909344205

27
Table 1.1. Staff Dimensions of School Climate
School safety Staff- or teacher-reported student risk behaviors: bullying, fighting, disruptive
behavior, depression, or other mental health problems.
School discipline policies, administrative support: effective and fair disciplinary
practices, school is a positive place to work.
Relationships Respect for others: school fosters appreciation for diversity, instructional materials,
activities, and attitudes demonstrate respect and sensitivity.
Staff–teacher support: staff members have close relationships, support one another,
work to improve school.
Staff–student support: staff members care about and listen to every student, believe
students will be successful.
Staff-reported student well-being: students are well-behaved, healthy, and ready to
learn.
Teaching and learning Shared mission: school provides opportunities for all students, emphasizes academic
success and support for students.
Meaningful participation: school encourages student participation in activities and
student voice in classroom procedures.
Staff training needs: areas of potential need include instructional methods, working
with special education students, and promoting positive climate.
School promotes staff well-being: school fosters trust and collegiality.
Institutional environment School supports teaching: school uses data for instructional decisions, encourages
staff participation, and provides logistical support.

28
Table 1.2. Staff Climate Indexes and Corresponding Climate Dimensions
Response to discipline (α = .931):
Safety
This school handles discipline problems fairly.
This school effectively handles student discipline and behavioral
problems.
Student risk behaviors (α = .838):
Safety
How much of a problem at this school is:
Harassment or bullying among students?
Physical fighting between students?
Disruptive student behavior?
Student depression or other mental health problems?
Lack of respect of staff by students?
Respect for others (α = .819):
Relationships
This school emphasizes using instructional materials that reflect the
culture or ethnicity of its students.
This school has staff examine their own cultural biases through
professional development or other processes.
This school considers closing the racial/ethnic achievement gap a high
priority.
This school fosters an appreciation of student diversity and respect for
each other.
This school emphasizes showing respect for all students’ cultural beliefs
and practices.
This school gives all students equal opportunity to participate in numerous
extracurricular and enrichment activities.
Supportive relationships (α = .96):
Relationships
How many adults at this school:
Really care about every student?
29
Acknowledge and pay attention to students?
Want every student to do their best?
Listen to what students have to say?
Believe that every student can be a success?
Treat all students fairly?
Treat every student with respect?
How many adults at this school:
Have close professional relationships with one another?
Support and treat each other with respect?
Feel a responsibility to improve this school?
Work hard to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment
Meaningful participation (α = .731):
Teaching and learning
This school encourages opportunities for students to decide things like
class activities or rules.
This school gives all students equal opportunity to participate in classroom
discussions or activities.
Staff training needs (α = .909):
Teaching and learning
Do you feel you need more professional development, training, mentorship
or other support in any of the following areas?
Meeting academic standards
Evidenced-based methods of instruction
Positive behavioral support/classroom management
Working with diverse racial, ethnic, cultural groups
Culturally relevant pedagogy for the school’s students
Serving English language learners
Serving special education (IEP) students
Meeting the social, emotional, developmental needs of youth
Creating a positive school environment
Student well-being (α = .840) Based on your experience:
How many students at this school are healthy and physically fit?
30
How many students at this school arrive at school alert and rested?
How many students at this school are motivated to learn?
How many students at this school are well-behaved?

31
Figure 1.1. Dissertation Design

32
Chapter 2, Study 1: School Staff Members in California: How are School Climate
Perceptions Related to Perceptions of Student Risk and Well-Being?
Abstract
An extensive body of research shows that school climate is an important factor for individuals
and schools, and recent research has suggested that positive climate may reduce inequalities in
educational achievement connected to ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Yet current
conceptualizations of school climate largely overlook the perspectives and experience of staff
members. School staff members (e.g., teachers, administrators, social workers) have different
roles and experiences in schools than students and are expected to take action to create positive
climate for students. Data for this study come from the 2013 statewide administration of the
California School Climate Survey (CSCS). In 2013, approximately 54,000 school staff members
completed the survey. The majority of the sample was teachers (n = 38,205), but also included
more than 2,000 administrators; 2,600 counselors, school psychologists, nurses, and social
workers; and 8,000 other staff members. Controlling for staff characteristics, negative
perceptions of school climate predicted higher levels of student risk, and positive perceptions
predicted higher student well-being. These results support a staff-focused model of school
climate. Further, how the school responded to discipline was the strongest influence in the
models. Efforts to improve school climate might begin by assessing discipline procedures.

33
Introduction and Purpose
As school stakeholders continue to seek improvements in the experiences and outcomes
of students attending public schools, it remains critical to explore the role of school climate. An
extensive body of research shows that school climate is associated with improved academic
achievement and social and emotional outcomes for students and that positive school climate
may be a protective factor for students (for an extensive review, see Astor, De Pedro, Gilreath,
Esqueda, & Benbenishty, 2013; Berkowitz, Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017). One recent
review of school climate research showed that positive school climate may also help address
inequalities in educational achievement that stem from differences in socioeconomic status
(Berkowitz et al., 2017).
Current definitions of school climate generally agree that it is a multidimensional
construct that represents the pattern of experiences that make up the school day (Cohen,
McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009). The National School Climate Center (2007) further stated
that climate shapes interactions of all professionals, students, and parents in a school and reflects
norms, values, relationships, teaching, and learning. Yet with a few exceptions, research
conducted during the last 20 years has largely focused on how school climate shapes the
experiences of students, and has left out the perspectives of school staff regarding school climate.
To accurately understand school climate and how it influences all school constituents, school
climate models need to include school staff members, especially because these professionals
create, facilitate, and contribute to the quality of school climate.
Recent federal policy has highlighted the importance of nonacademic indicators,
including school climate and social and emotional learning (SEL). The Every Student Succeeds
Act requires state accountability systems to include alternate indicators of school quality and
34
student success. This is a key opportunity to weave measures of school climate and SEL into
general assessments of progress in schools (Melnick, Cook-Harvey & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
SEL is inextricably linked to school climate, to the extent that positive school climate has been
described as mutually reinforcing to social, emotional, and academic development (Jennings &
Greenberg, 2009; Melnick et al., 2017). School climate provides a foundation for integrating the
social and emotional health of students, and staff members, into a school context (Melnick et al.,
2017; Weissberg & Cascarino, 2013). Investigating school climate specifically from a staff
perspective should provide a more complete picture of the concept of school climate. Yet a
majority of studies and theoretical paradigms have focused exclusively on student experiences. It
is difficult to imagine how school climate can be fully understood without understanding how
teachers experience it, especially because they are charged with changing it and maintaining a
positive school climate. Very little theoretical and empirical work has been done on school staff
and climate.
This study used the four common conceptual dimensions of climate in the school climate
research literature as a starting point to explore staff perspectives of school climate. This is one
of the first studies to use a large-scale, statewide sample of teachers and school staff members
from diverse geographical regions in California. Furthermore, this is one of the first studies to
include nonteaching staff members. Existing school climate research about staff members
primarily focused on teachers and omitted other staff perceptions of climate. This study
examined how staff perceptions of climate variables are interrelated with their experiences of
student risk behaviors, disruptive behavior, involvement in school violence, and student well-
being. Staff members’ overall perceptions of climate should be related to their perceptions of
student risk behaviors. If so, this relationship could be an important variable for understanding a
35
school’s readiness to implement interventions that are designed to use school climate or SEL to
reduce student risk. If staff members do not experience positive climate, it is likely that they
perceive increased student risk behaviors. Likewise, a more positive climate according to staff
members will likely result in fewer perceived risk behaviors. This is an implicit premise behind
school climate and SEL interventions, yet how staff members experience or understand climate
is rarely examined.
Unique Position of Staff Members in a School’s Ecology
Ecological theories suggest that individual behaviors and experiences are shaped by
nested influences. These theories are frequently used to frame the study of school climate and
often focus on the importance of individual relationships and influences from multiple ecological
layers (Wang & Degol, 2016). Schools are prime examples of ecological settings characterized
by multiple and simultaneous influences. For instance, students are subject to peer influences,
teachers, their own motivation and personality traits, and tasks associated with learning while
they are at school. Similarly, teachers and other staff members are subject to peer influences,
administrators, interactions with students, and the demands of managing behavior and
curriculum in their classrooms.
Using an ecological foundation to examine school violence, Benbenishty and Astor
(2005; also see Astor & Benbenishty, in press) proposed a theoretical model in which behaviors
at school are influenced by a combination of variables that exist in the school, including teacher–
student relationships and external variables like student and family characteristics. In this model,
the school mediates, moderates, and attenuates influences from external contexts. Teachers and
school staff members are a major instrument of these mediating, moderating, and attenuating
influences, and therefore are integral influences on the composition of a school’s climate (Astor
36
& Benbenishty, in press; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). Two related lines of inquiry stem from
this conceptualization of influence in a school’s ecology: How do individual school staff
members perceive school climate based on their experience as part of the school ecology? Is how
staff members experience school climate associated with how they perceive and experience
student behaviors?
Empirically Testing a Staff-Centric Conceptual Model of School Climate
In a preliminary study, researchers posited that a commonly used, four-dimension model
of school climate could also assess staff member perceptions of climate. They described an
adaptation of a student school climate model to reflect the unique, additional ways that staff
members might experience climate (Capp, Astor, & Gilreath, 2018). One underlying premise is
that school staff members contribute to a school’s climate in ways that students cannot. At the
same time, staff members experience the same general environment as students. In this study,
four frequently used dimensions of school climate were maintained (e.g., Berkowitz et al., 2017;
Cohen et al., 2009; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013), although the
elements that comprise those dimensions were shifted to reflect the unique perspectives and
experiences of staff members (see Table 2.1).
For example, school safety includes how the school responds to discipline and student
behaviors (e.g., disruptive or disrespectful behavior, fighting, bullying). Relationships include
the presence of respect and acceptance at school as indicated by individual reflection, an
appreciation for diversity, and efforts to address disparities in achievement. Relationships for
staff members include both support for (or from) their colleagues and how staff members support
students. This contrasts with student reports about relationships that focus on whether or not they
feel supported by adults (Cohen et al., 2009). Teaching and learning include student engagement
37
and opportunities and the need for training. Finally, the institutional environment includes the
physical environment of the school. One important element of this model is that multiple
characteristics help to differentiate staff experiences in schools and also likely influence their
experiences of school climate.
Jobs or roles in schools. First, school staff members, or school professionals, are a
varied and diverse group of people. Although a vast quantity of research has suggested a focus
on teachers, roles in schools include teachers, administrators, counselors, psychologists, social
workers, secretaries, custodial staff members, bus drivers, and other support staff members. All
of these school professionals have interactions with students and one another, and all are integral
to the functioning of the school.
Elementary, middle, and high schools. Second, despite the tendency of the research
literature to discuss school climate as universal across school settings, elementary schools are
different than middle and high schools. Teachers in different school types (i.e., elementary,
middle, and high schools) experience different aspects of school climate as a facet of their work.
Some of this is due to the students they encounter. For instance, the developmental needs of
elementary students are very different than middle school students (Eccles et al., 1993). Evidence
also indicates that bullying behaviors are more severe in middle school (Espelage & Horne,
2008; Nansel et al., 2001), and that middle school teachers have unique perspectives on when to
intervene (Behre, Astor, & Meyer, 2001). Further, the transition to high school is an important
one, and the ninth grade is considered a critical time for student academic trajectories (Donegan,
2008; Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010). This suggests that the experiences and behaviors of
school staff are reflective of both the type of school and the kinds of interactions that they have
with students and colleagues.
38
Years of experience. Finally, this model of staff climate includes years of experience as
an important filter for school climate and understanding staff perceptions of their workplace.
Previous research noted the differences between beginning teachers, those with 3 to 5 years of
experience, and those with longer tenures (Elfers, Plecki, & Knapp, 2006). Beyond this, there is
significant concern about the attrition of early career teachers compared to veterans (Billingsley,
Carlson, & Klein, 2004; Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008; Elfers et al., 2006). Early career
attrition is especially problematic for special education teachers (Billingsley et al., 2004), also
demonstrating that the kind of work performed in a school likely matters a great deal.
Empirically Testing the Conceptual Model: How are Staff Perceptions of Student Risk
Behaviors Related to Perceptions of Staff Climate?
School violence represents a range of intentional behaviors that aim to harm others and
occur on or around school grounds (Astor, Benbenishty, & Estrada, 2009; Pitner, Astor, &
Benbenishty, 2015). Although student experiences and views of violence, bullying, and
victimization are captured in many current assessments of climate (e.g., Eliot et al., 2010;
Gilreath, Astor, Cederbaum, Atuel, & Benbenishty, 2014; Sullivan et al., 2015), staff
perspectives are also needed to create a comprehensive understanding of violence in schools,
partly because so many elements of school climate are contingent upon relationships and
interactions with teachers and staff members (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Espelage & Swearer,
2010; Reddy et al., 2013).
Relationships among school constituents may be an effective barometer for the presence
of conflict and tension in schools because of their centrality in nearly every activity that occurs in
a school. Researchers have asserted that school experiences, including teaching and learning, are
in fact inherently relational (Cohen et al., 2009). Indeed, we may be able to quickly draw a gut
39
feeling about relationships as we watch interactions between staff members and students or
among staff members (Noonan, 2004). The reciprocity of relationships and interactions is an
important element for understanding violence and teacher experiences. Troop-Gordon and Ladd
(2015) concluded that it is possible that teachers’ beliefs are dynamic, meaning that they are
affected by student behaviors. Staff perceptions of climate, therefore, should be related to not
only their own experiences but also how they understand students.
In examining violence and student behaviors, one clearly implicated area is how the
school responds to these issues (Astor & Benbenishty, 2017; Astor, Jacobson, Wrabel,
Benbenishty, & Pineda, 2017). Some research has explored an authoritative school climate
model wherein school discipline policies and support for students are key elements for exploring
climate and violence specifically directed toward teachers (Berg & Cornell, 2016; Gregory et al.,
2010). One limitation of this conceptualization is that the relationships staff members have with
one another may also be important and possibly mutually supportive.
Some research posited that positive school climate is an influence that acts as a protective
factor for students (Astor et al., 2009; Astor et al., 2013; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Berkowitz
et al., 2017). School staff members may then experience a protective element of school climate
that is related to both their perceptions of student behaviors and their own professional and
personal outcomes. This protection supposes positive school climate. If staff members
experience negative climate, it may be that they also have negative perceptions of student
behaviors.
If climate is viewed in the context of student behaviors that either involve disruptive
behaviors in the classroom or school violence in general, then those aspects of climate that are
closely tied to student behavior may hold particular importance for staff members. Many studies
40
have documented potential climate disruption resulting from violence, victimization, and
bullying (Astor, Guerra, & Van Acker, 2010; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Hong & Espelage,
2012; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010). Therefore, components of safety and
discipline should also be important factors in our understanding of how school climate is
constructed.
Purpose
Given the differences that exist among types of school staff members and the resulting
differences in perceptions of school climate (Capp et al., 2018), further evaluation of school
climate informed by staff perspectives is needed. This study sought to answer two primary
questions. First, using common dimensions of school climate (for a review, see Berkowitz et al.,
2017), are existing conceptual dimensions of school climate a suitable framework for
understanding staff perspectives of school climate? Second, how do dimensions of climate relate
to staff perceptions of student risk and well-being?
Previous research strongly linked students’ positive perceptions of school climate to
decreased student risk behaviors, bullying, and violence and increased social and emotional
functioning and academic performance. For staff members, more positive views of school
climate were expected to yield lower reports of student risk and higher perceptions of student
well-being. Negative staff views of climate were likewise hypothesized to be associated with
higher staff reports of student risk and lower staff reports of student well-being.
Methods
Data for this study come from the 2012–2013 statewide administration of the CSCS in
connection with the Building Capacity and Welcoming Practices projects at USC. The California
Department of Education requires a biennial administration of the CSCS for school districts
41
receiving Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities funds. Any other school districts in
California may also administer the survey. Although no one is required to take the survey, all
certificated staff members working in Grades 5–12 must be invited to take the survey; other staff
members may also participate. The survey is designed for online administration, although it can
be administrated with paper surveys. This study analyzed approximately 54,000 responses from
teachers and staff members in California. This is one of the first quantitative analyses of staff
members, even though these data are collected yearly.
Measures
Items from the CSCS core module were used for this study and include questions about
multiple aspects of staff members’ experiences in their schools and their perceptions of students.
Sample items asking about the general school environment are: “This school fosters an
appreciation of student diversity and respect for each other”; “This school gives all students
equal opportunity to participate in classroom discussions or activities”; “This school handles
discipline problems fairly”; and “This school takes steps to minimize paperwork.” Answers to
these questions are given on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree,
and 4 = strongly disagree). Responses of “not applicable” were excluded from this analysis.
Items were reverse coded for analysis so that higher values corresponded to more positive
ratings.
Questions that assess relationships in the school include: “How many adults at this school
(a) really care about every student; (b) listen to what students have to say; and (c) treat every
student with respect.” In addition, items assessing relationships among staff members include:
“How many adults at this school (a) support and treat each other with respect; and (b) feel a
responsibility to improve this school?” Possible answers for these questions are on a 5-point
42
Likert scale (1 = nearly all, 2 = most, 3 = some, 4 = few, and 5 = almost none). These items were
also reverse coded so that higher values indicated higher levels of support. Several questions
asked about whether staff members need more professional development, training, or support in
areas such as meeting academic standards; positive behavioral support and classroom
management; culturally relevant pedagogy; and creating a positive school environment. Answers
to these questions were dichotomous (1 = yes, 2 = no). Responses of “not applicable” were
excluded from this analysis.
Two sections of the CSCS ask about student outcomes. Questions about student risk
behaviors include how much of a problem certain behaviors represent at this school, namely:
“harassment or bullying among students”; “disruptive student behavior”; and “lack of respect of
staff by students.” Possible answers for these questions are on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =
insignificant, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, and 4 = severe). Questions about student well-being assess
“How many students are healthy and physically fit” and “How many students are motivated to
learn.” Answers to these questions are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = nearly all, 2 = most, 3 =
some, 4 = few, and 5 = almost none. Well-being items were reverse coded so that higher values
corresponded with higher well-being.
Finally, several questions capture relevant characteristics of staff members. Respondents
report their role: teacher in fourth grade or below, teacher in fifth grade or above, special
education teacher, administrator, counselor, psychologist, or other certificated or classified staff
member. Respondents indicate the number of years they have worked in their position and their
school, and they report their ethnicity. In addition, the CSCS indicates whether staff members
work in elementary, middle, or high schools.
43
Independent variables. Previously established subscales of school climate were used in
this study: respect for others (α = .819); meaningful participation (α = .731); response to
discipline (α = .931); school supports job (α = .830); supportive relationships (α = .96); and staff
training needs (α = .909). Demographic variables, or staff characteristics, included the following:
their role, or job, in their school; school type (elementary, middle, high); ethnicity; years in their
current position at any school; and years in any position in their current school.
Dependent variables. Staff reports about student risk and well-being served as outcome
variables in this study. Scales for student risk (α = .838) and student well-being (α = .840) were
constructed for use in multivariate models.
Analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using staff responses to
clarify the existence of multiple constructs. In general, items were retained on factors if they had
high loadings after promax rotation (i.e., > 45), did not load on two or more factors, and had
eigenvalues greater than 1. Following this, stepwise ordinary least squares models were used to
examine associations between (a) staff-reported school climate dimensions and student risk
factors and (b) school climate dimensions and student well-being. Stepwise regression models
were organized by the four primary dimensions of school climate: safety, relationships, teaching
and learning, and institutional environment. SAS 9.4 was used for analysis, and PROC
SURVEYREG was used specifically to control for clustering at the school level.
Results
In 2012–2013, approximately 54,000 school staff members completed the survey (see
Table 2.2 for sample demographics). The majority of the sample taught fifth grade or above (n =
28,338), and approximately 10,500 teachers reported teaching Grade 4 or below. There were
2,262 administrators who responded to the survey, and slightly more than 2,600 staff members
44
reported working in pupil support positions (often referred to as pupil personnel services),
including counselors, school psychologists, nurses, and social workers. There were also 8,250
other staff members in the sample, including secretaries, bus drivers, instructional aides,
custodians, and other nonteaching or noncertified staff members. The majority of this sample
indicated their ethnicity was White (68%), and slightly less than 16% reported being Hispanic or
Latino. Almost 6% reported Asian ethnicity, and a little less than 3% were African American.
Finally, in assessing years of experience, the majority of the sample reported working in their
schools or jobs for more than 10 years (37% and 55%, respectively).
Index Reliability
EFA has been described as a mechanism for generating theory and improving parsimony
in models (Henson & Roberts, 2006). Therefore, EFA and reliability tests were used for data
reduction and to evaluate theoretically created scales of staff-focused school climate (Lee, 2010).
Eigenvalues greater than 1 were initially used to define factors of school climate, and items with
values greater than .40 after promax rotation were retained as long as they did not have an equal
or higher loading on another factor. In general, EFA supported multiple scales to measure school
climate, providing support for the multiple dimensions of climate that are proposed in this model
of staff school climate. Items measuring each school’s response to discipline did not load with a
sufficient value on any factor; however, these items were kept in the model due to the
importance of discipline as indicated by existing theory and research. Reliability coefficients
ranged from .73 to .96 for all scales (see Table 2.3).
Table 2.4 shows correlations among school climate scales and outcomes subsequently
used in the stepwise regression. Significant negative correlations were observed between
45
elements of climate and student risk behaviors, whereas significant positive correlations were
observed between all elements of school climate and student well-being.
Stepwise Regression Models
Results of the multivariate regression analyses are presented in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. For
student risk, all models were statistically significant. In general, this model provided support for
the hypothesis that negative perceptions of climate would be related to higher levels of perceived
student risk behaviors. Controlling for staff characteristics, decreases in school climate predicted
higher levels of student risk. In the first step, staff characteristics were entered into the model;
these included grade, type of school, job, ethnicity, and length of experience. This model was
significant (F = 196.248, p < .001). Step 2 introduced the response to discipline, which was
significantly and negatively associated with student risk (β = -.455, p < .001). In Step 2, this
model explained 27% of the variance in staff perceptions of student risk. Step 3 added respect for
others (β = -.085, p < .001) and supportive relationships (β = -.171, p < .001), which were also
significantly and negatively associated with student risk. This step increased the explained
variance to 30%. Finally, Step 4 introduced meaningful participation (β = -.070, p < .001) and
the need for training (β = .112, p < .001), and increased the explained variance to 32%. Response
to discipline remained the largest (standardized) predictor throughout these models, suggesting
that this dimension of climate may be especially important for staff members.
All models for well-being were also significant, again supporting the expectation that
positive climate experiences would be related to higher perceptions of student well-being. In
general, these models mirrored results from student risk, wherein higher ratings of climate were
associated with higher levels of student well-being. In Step 1, the model included staff
characteristics (F = 134.704, p < .001). In Step 2, explaining 20% of the variance, the response to
46
discipline was significantly positively associated with well-being (β = .403, p < .001). Step 3
again introduced respect for others (β = .069, p < .001) and supportive relationships (β = .240, p
< .001), both significantly and positively associated with student well-being. Step 3 explained
26% of the variance. In Step 4, meaningful participation and the need for training were added,
explaining 26% of the variance. Meaningful participation was significantly and positively
associated with well-being (β = .091, p < .001), whereas the need for training was significantly
and negatively associated with well-being (β = -.041, p < .001). Across both models, an
increased need for training was associated with higher levels of student risk, bullying, and
violence. This makes intuitive sense, because staff members who feel overwhelmed by negative
climate and difficult student behaviors would likely want training and support to improve the
school environment.
Discussion
This study aimed to empirically evaluate a theoretical model of school climate from the
perspectives of school staff members, using staff perceptions of student risk and well-being as a
context for this evaluation. Thus, results from this study contribute to the existing school climate
literature in multiple ways. The addition of staff perspectives of school climate is paramount,
because the voices of teachers and staff members are often missing from school climate research.
Finally, there are implications for future studies, current efforts to support school staff members
and teachers, and school reform efforts.
Empirical Support for the Conceptual Model of Staff Climate
As indicated, a primary aim of this study was to evaluate a model of school climate using
common dimensions that were tailored to represent the unique experiences and contributions of
staff members to school climate. In this case, staff members in California who experienced
47
positive climate also reported experiencing less disruptive behavior from students, lower
involvement in school violence, and increased student well-being. In a preliminary study of
school staff members in California, multiple indexes were used to compose the four primary
dimensions of climate (Capp et al., 2018). Although these indexes offered an opportunity to
examine staff perspectives in depth, correlations between many of these indexes were very high.
This suggests that some of the indexes were measuring essentially the same staff experiences.
Thus, these correlations and the previously described EFA were used to create a more
parsimonious model. Correlations between the revised and reduced indexes suggest a better
starting point for investigating associations between climate indexes and perceptions of student
risk and well-being (see Table 2.4). Further, examining staff views of climate and subsequently
their views of students facilitated an important layer of validity to this theory. Staff experiences
of climate and their perceptions of students are intertwined (Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2015) and
likely have some degree of reciprocal influence (Hong & Espelage, 2012).
Safety and the school’s response to discipline. Two elements of climate appear to have
a primary influence on school staffs. The school’s response to discipline was the strongest
predictor in all steps of the models, suggesting that this element of climate is especially
important for staff members as they consider their experiences of school climate. This result
aligns with research investigating an authoritative climate, wherein discipline structures and
supportive relationships contributed to less aggression toward teachers and less teacher distress
(Berg & Cornell, 2016). Other research about teachers connected burnout and other kinds of
duress to student behaviors in the classroom (e.g., Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012), further
highlighting the importance of disciplinary responses when educators think of school climate.
This reinforces the assumption that staff perceptions of student behavior are intertwined, or
48
possibly reciprocal in nature (Hastings & Bham, 2003; Hong & Espelage, 2012; Troop-Gordon
& Ladd, 2015). Specifically, Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2015) suggested that as climate improves,
staff members could also perceive improvements in behavior. This, however, is an area for future
research to investigate. In addition, future research should investigate whether, or to what extent,
staff members see student behaviors as part of school climate rather than a separate issue.
The school’s response to discipline and perceptions of student behaviors are part of the
larger safety dimension. For staff members, this dimension of climate incorporates both their
assessments about being supported by their school and administrators and their perceptions of
student misbehavior. It is also important to recognize that staff views of student behaviors
include behaviors directed toward staff members and other students.
Supportive relationships for staff members. The presence of supportive relationships
with other staff members and students also had a primary influence on staff members’
perceptions of climate. Extensive literature has examined the importance of students
experiencing supportive relationships with adults at school (e.g., Jennings & Greenberg, 2009;
Murray & Greenberg, 2000). Further, evidence suggests that when teachers feel supported by
their colleagues and other adults in the school, this is beneficial and can contribute to improved
job satisfaction, more positive perceptions of their workplace, and less stress surrounding student
behavior challenges (Zinsser, Christensen, & Torres, 2016). As with many ideas in this staff
climate model, the nature of relationships for staff members may be more complicated than
either of these separate bodies of literature have indicated.
Findings suggest that school staff members experience and perceive supportive
relationships with multiple school constituents when they consider what is important. These
multiple relationships include those with students, teachers, aides, secretaries, and principals.
49
One possible explanation for this is that staff members working in schools simultaneously
interact with their adult colleagues, supervisors, or principals and with their students. Although
relationships with various stakeholders (e.g., staff colleagues, principals, students) likely are
different in the minds of staff members, they nonetheless happen at the same time in the same
place and appear to have a unified impact. Continued exploration of the dynamic nature of staff
perceptions and student behavior is clearly needed. Relatedly, it is likely that in this model of
staff school climate, staff members influence and are influenced by different groups in schools.
Respect for others. Also included in the relationships dimension of climate is respect for
others. This is an important component because it provides a way to understand how a school
environment deals with cultural, ethnic, and other variations in student populations. Further, this
may be particularly relevant in California, where demographics have shifted to a minority-
majority student population. Additionally, in the models examining school climate, certain ethnic
groups of staff members appeared to have different perceptions related to school climate and
student risk behaviors. For example, staff members identifying as African American and
American Indian or Alaska Native (compared to being White) were associated with increased
reports of student risk. These relationships were relatively small, but support trends reported in
previous research with this sample (Capp et al., 2018). Further, they demonstrate that efforts to
meet the needs of diverse learners and create welcoming school environments are still needed.
How staff members perceive the efforts of their schools, and by default themselves and their
colleagues, to contribute to this process is a key factor in the assessment of staff school climate.
This dimension of climate, including relationships and respect for others, is certainly a
critical element in terms of the collective struggle to address diversity in public education, but it
also gains importance in the current polarized political climate. In a recent study of how teachers
50
approached their classrooms after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, researchers posited that
teachers were responding to political trauma experienced by themselves and their students
(Sondel, Baggett, & Dunn, 2018). These researchers found that teachers in their sample were
working to create safe spaces for their students to process complex reactions to cultural and
political ramifications. Teachers felt they needed to actively comfort students who were worried
for their safety because of either their ethnicity or the possibility that their families would be
forced to leave the country (Sondel et al., 2018). One argument presented in the current study is
that school climate definitions assume action is needed from staff members to create climate.
Findings from Sondel et al. (2018) provide an example of teachers paying close attention to the
kinds of experiences students have in their classrooms.
In another national survey of high school teachers in the United States, teachers indicated
that more students were experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety, often related to
immigration, travel limitations, and threats to LGBTQ rights (Rogers et al., 2017). In the same
survey, teachers reported increased polarization and incivility among their students, and
increasingly hostile environments for religious minorities and other vulnerable groups in
predominately White schools (Rogers et al., 2017). These examples reflect the importance of
quality relationships in a school and the need for schools to actively and collectively demonstrate
respect for others. Beyond this, it is worth making explicit the notion that national events and
changes in behavior quickly manifest in schools and classrooms. Perhaps positive and
welcoming school climates are one way to inoculate school communities from harmful
behaviors.
Teaching and learning and the institutional environment. The dimensions of
relationships and safety stood out prominently in the models and may offer a way to prioritize
51
efforts to assess or improve climate. However, all elements of climate were significant predictors
in the models, thus reinforcing the importance of a holistic, ecologically inclusive understanding
of school climate.
The school staff model of school climate presented here also includes the dimensions of
teaching and learning and the institutional environment. Teaching and learning was assessed
with staff perceptions of training needs and how their school encourages student participation
and advocacy. Potential training needs included pedagogical methods, evidence-based
instruction, and meeting the social and emotional needs of their students. These elements both
were significant predictors in models of student risk and well-being, with results showing that
higher needs for training accompanied more negative climate. Thus, a school staff that endorses
high needs for training suggests a negative climate experience and higher levels of staff-reported
negative student behaviors.
Prior research suggested that the institutional environment and structural support for
teaching are important components to consider (Capp et al., 2018; Wang & Degol, 2016). The
results from this study provide further insight about the institutional environment and support for
teaching. First, staff assessment of support was highly correlated with other components of
climate, including respect for others, and was not empirically supported as an independent
influence. Rather, this is likely an influence that works in concert with other dimensions.
The physical condition of the school was not assessed by the CSCS. Thus, this dimension
of climate remains unexplained in this study. However, it is important to recognize that
definitions of the institutional environment often include the physical characteristics and
condition of the school (e.g., Wang & Degol, 2016); further exploration is needed to consider
how the condition of facilities influences staff school climate.
52
Perceptions of climate and their relationship to student risk and well-being. The
current findings suggest that negative perceptions of climate explain more about student risk and
well-being than positive perceptions of climate. Given research indicating that positive school
climate may be a protective factor for students and staff members in schools (Astor et al., 2009;
Astor et al., 2013; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Berkowitz et al., 2017), these results may reflect
this protective capacity—that positive climate is protecting school stakeholders from negative
influences. It is also possible that these two models are effectively opposite ends of a single
spectrum, wherein the upper, or positive, extreme reflects a climate that mitigates risk of
negative behaviors and experiences, and the opposite end is characterized by a negative climate
that is not protective, and thus more negative experiences are reported. It could also be that in
this case, risk and well-being represent the same goal: The absence of risk corresponds with
students being supported and ready to learn.
There are several limitations to this study to consider. This was a secondary analysis of
cross-sectional data, so no causality can be inferred about whether a particular valence of climate
results in specific staff perceptions or vice versa. Clustering was controlled for in this analysis,
but it remains true that school staff members work in schools and those schools are nested in
districts. Climate can be expected to vary within these larger organizations, but because this is
one of the first explorations of staff perceptions, it is important to first consider the experiences
of individuals, much as we do with students. Future studies should examine school and district
influences on staff perceptions of climate. The CSCS does not ask staff members about gender,
although it is likely that there was a higher proportion of women than men in this sample based
on information from the California Department of Education. Items from the CSCS provide a
solid foundation for examining school climate, but as the results indicate, there are multiple areas
53
in which future studies can improve the literature base with improved measures. Future research
should include specific assessments of the physical environment of the school, for example, and
should continue work to broaden our understanding of what constitutes a safe school for staff
members. Given the politically charged nature of many issues affecting diverse schools,
continued work to hone the assessment of how schools address diversity and encourage respect
for all professionals, students, and parents in a school is also needed.
Despite these limitations, the results presented here about staff members in California are
important and should inform policy theory and research on school climate. One clear implication
is that researchers, policy makers, and school leaders should be more carefully considering the
experiences of teachers and staffs, especially because staff members are increasingly expected to
enact policy and implement curriculum related to instruction and social and emotional
development. Not only does the Every Student Succeeds Act present opportunities (and
mandates) to include SEL in school accountability systems (Melnick et al., 2017), there are clear
expectations reflected in SEL and mental health intervention research that staff members, and
classroom teachers, are integral to effective intervention implementation (e.g., Bradshaw, Koth,
Thornton, & Leaf, 2009; Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2005;
Domitrovich et al., 2010; Durlak et al., 2011; Franklin, Kim, Ryan, Kelly, & Montgomery, 2012;
Paternite & Johnston, 2005). In fact, it is possible that examinations of climate should start with
staff members, because they bear responsibility for diverse student outcomes and are expected to
enact policies concerning instruction and social and emotional development. For example, a
school or district wherein staff members are reporting a high need for training suggests that the
overall perception of climate is negative. School reform efforts in that district should consider
that without addressing staff concerns, outwardly driven change may not be successful.
54
Contribution to School Climate Theory
In general, examining staff experiences of school climate maps onto existing school
climate research. That is, positive experiences of climate accompany perceptions of lower
student risk and higher student well-being. Results from the model of staff-focused climate
presented here (see Table 2.1) match literature focusing on students, in which positive
experiences of climate are associated with improved student outcomes (e.g., Berkowitz et al.,
2017; Bond et al., 2007; Cohen et al., 2009). However, this study presented information
specifically about school staff members, a group largely missing when considering a four-
dimension definition of school climate. It is noteworthy that this database has been relatively
unused, and therefore this is one of the first empirical studies of school staff in California.
Additionally, this is one of the few examples of research that explored a diverse sample of school
staff from across an entire state.
In many ways, this study supports existing theories of school climate with a focus on
school staff and their experiences, particularly regarding student risk behaviors and well-being.
With improvements in school climate, staff members also perceive increases in student well-
being and decreases in problem behaviors. One question for future research is whether working
to improve one dimension of climate for staff members will have broader effects. In other words,
if school leaders wanted to improve climate, where might they start? For instance, given the
importance of school discipline procedures in this study, it is possible that school leaders seeking
to improve climate should first consider discipline procedures in their schools. Future research
should also more carefully consider the potential influence of various characteristics on staff
members’ perceptions of climate. Because of differences between elementary and secondary
55
school settings and students, staff members in these contexts could experience different qualities
of climate or place different emphasis on different elements of climate.

56
References
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). Mapping and monitoring bullying and violence:
Building a safe school climate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (in press). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., & Estrada, J. N. (2009). School violence and theoretically atypical
schools: The principal’s centrality in orchestrating safe schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 46, 423–461. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329598
Astor, R. A., De Pedro, K. T., Gilreath, T. D., Esqueda, M. C., & Benbenishty, R. (2013). The
promotional role of school and community contexts for military students. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 16, 233–244. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0139-x
Astor, R. A., Guerra, N., & Van Acker, R. (2010). How can we improve school safety research?
Educational Researcher, 39, 69–78. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357619
Astor, R. A., Jacobson, L., Wrabel, S. L., Benbenishty, R., & Pineda, D. (2017). Welcoming
practices: Creating schools that support students and families in transition. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Behre, W. J., Astor, R. A., & Meyer, H. A. (2001). Elementary- and middle-school teachers’
reasoning about intervening in school violence: An examination of violence-prone school
subcontexts. Journal of Moral Education, 30, 131–153.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03057240120061388
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood,
family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
57
Berg, J. K., & Cornell, D. (2016). Authoritative school climate, aggression toward teachers, and
teacher distress in middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 122–139.
http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000132
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87, 425–469.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669821
Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of
early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70, 333–347.
http://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000305
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition,
teaching area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7–31.
http://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807500101
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social
and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage
substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40,
357.e9–357.e18. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school climate
through school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Findings from a
group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10, 100.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0114-9
58
Capp, G. P., Astor, R. A., & Gilreath, T. D. (2018). The voices and perceptions of school staff on
school climate: Advancing a conceptual model of school climate based on school staff
perspectives. Manuscript under review.
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,
policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2005). Safe and sound: An
educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs.
Chicago, IL: Author.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104, 1189–1204. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356
Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Greenberg, M. T., Embry, D., Poduska, J. M., & Ialongo,
N. S. (2010). Integrated models of school ‐ based prevention: Logic and theory.
Psychology in the Schools, 47, 71–88. http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20452Donegan, B.
(2008). The linchpin year. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 54–57.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac
Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit
on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48,
90–101. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
59
Elfers, A. M., Plecki, M. L., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Teacher mobility: Looking more closely at
“the movers” within a state system. Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 94–127.
http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8103_4
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student
willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School
Psychology, 48, 533–553. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.07.001
Espelage, D. L., & Horne, A. M. (2008). School violence and bullying prevention: From
research-based explanations to empirically based solutions. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 588–606). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Espelage, D. L., Swearer, S. M. (2010). A social-ecological model for bullying prevention and
intervention: Understanding the impact of adults in the social ecology of youngsters. In S.
R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools:
An international perspective (pp. 61–72). New York, NY: Routledge.
Franklin, C. G. S., Kim, J. S., Ryan, T. N., Kelly, M. S., & Montgomery, K. L. (2012). Teacher
involvement in school mental health interventions: A systematic review. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34, 973–982. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.027
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T.-H., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative
school discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 483–496. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018562
Gilreath, T. D., Astor, R. A., Cederbaum, J. A., Atuel, H., & Benbenishty, R. (2014). Prevalence
and correlates of victimization and weapon carrying among military- and nonmilitary-
60
connected youth in Southern California. Preventive Medicine, 60, 21–26.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.12.002
Hastings, R. P., & Bham, M. S. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and
teacher burnout. School Psychology International, 24, 115–127.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0143034303024001905
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research:
Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 393–416. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in
school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311–322.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 491–525. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Lee, C.-H. (2010). Personal and interpersonal correlates of bullying behaviors among Korean
middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 152–176.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508329124
Melnick, H., Cook-Harvey, C. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Encouraging social and
emotional learning in the context of new accountability. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy
Institute.
Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children’s relationship with teachers and bonds with
school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of
School Psychology, 38, 423–445. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00034-0
61
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
National School Climate Center. (2007). The school climate challenge: Narrowing the gap
between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and
teacher education policy. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolclimate.org/themes/schoolclimate/assets/pdf/policy/school-climate-
challenge-web.pdf
Noonan, J. (2004). School climate and the safe school: Seven contributing factors. Educational
Horizons, 83, 61–65.
Paternite, C. E., & Johnston, T. C. (2005). Rationale and strategies for central involvement of
educators in effective school-based mental health programs. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34, 41–49. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-1335-x
Pitner, R., Astor, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2015). Violence in schools. In P. Allen-Meares (Ed.)
Social work services in school (7th ed., pp. 265–296). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Reddy, L. A., Espelage, D., McMahon, S. D., Anderman, E. M., Lane, K. L., Brown, V. E., …
Kanrich, J. (2013). Violence against teachers: Case studies from the APA task force.
International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1, 231–245.
http://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.837019
Rogers, J., Franke, M. Yun, J.-E. E., Ishimoto, M., Diera, C., Geller, R. C., … Brenes, T. (2017).
Teaching and learning in the age of Trump: Increasing stress and hostility in America’s
high schools. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.
62
Retrieved from https://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/teaching-and-learning-in-age-of-
trump
Sondel, B., Baggett, H. C., & Dunn, A. H. (2018). “For millions of people, this is real trauma”: A
pedagogy of political trauma in the wake of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 70, 175–185. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.017
Sullivan, K., Capp, G., Gilreath, T. D., Benbenishty, R., Roziner, I., & Astor, R. A. (2015).
Substance abuse and other adverse outcomes for military-connected youth in California:
Results from a large-scale normative population survey. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 922–928.
http://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1413
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about
school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39,
38–47. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357622
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2015). Teachers’ victimization-related beliefs and strategies:
Associations with students’ aggressive behavior and peer victimization. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 45–60. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9840-y
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement,
and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 315–352.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
63
Weissberg, R. P., & Cascarino, J. (2013). Academic learning + social-emotional learning =
national priority. Phi Delta Kappan, 95, 8–13.
http://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500203
Zinsser, K. M., Christensen, C. G., & Torres, L. (2016). She’s supporting them; who’s
supporting her? Preschool center-level social-emotional supports and teacher well-being.
Journal of School Psychology, 59, 55–66. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.09.001

64
Table 2.1. Staff Dimensions of School Climate
School safety Staff- or teacher-reported student risk behaviors: bullying,
fighting, disruptive behavior, depression or other mental health
problems.
School discipline policies, administrative support: Effective
and fair disciplinary practices, school is a positive place to work.
Relationships Respect for others: school fosters appreciation for diversity,
instructional materials, activities, and attitudes demonstrate
respect and sensitivity.
Staff–teacher support: staff members have close relationships,
support each other, work to improve school.
Staff–student support: staff members care about and listen to
every student, believe students will be successful.
Staff-reported student well-being: students are well-behaved,
healthy, and ready to learn.
Teaching and learning Meaningful participation: encourages student participation in
activities and student voice in classroom procedures.
Staff training needs: include evidence-based practices,
pedagogical methods, working with special education students,
and promoting positive climate.
Institutional environment School supports teaching: uses data for instructional decisions,
encourages staff participation, provides logistical support.

65
Table 2.2. Sample Demographics
n %
Role in school
Teacher, Grade 5 or above 28,338 52.04
Elementary school 4,227
Teacher, Grade 4 or below 9,867 18.12
Teacher, special education 3,128 5.74
Administrator 2,262 4.15
Pupil personnel services 2,608 4.79
Other staff member 8,250 15.15
School type
Elementary 20,601 39.01
Middle 11,567 21.91
High 20,636 39.08
Race and ethnicity
African American 1,599 2.96
American Indian or Alaska Native 384 0.71
Asian or Pacific Islander 3,079 5.7
White (not Hispanic) 36,766 68.04
Hispanic or Latino 8,533 15.79
Other or multiethnic 3,677 6.8
Tenure in position at any school
< 1 year 5,382 9.87
66
1–2 years 5,402 9.91
3–5 years 10,285 18.86
6–10 years 13,036 23.91
> 10 years 20,420 37.45
Tenure in current school, any position
< 1 year 2,192 4.02
1–2 years 2,965 5.44
3–5 years 7,131 13.08
6–10 years 12,468 22.87
> 10 years 29,759 54.59

67
Table 2.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis for Data Reduction of Staff School Climate Scales
Staff School Climate Components PCA
Loading
Respect for others (α = .819)
This school emphasizes using instructional materials that reflect the culture or
ethnicity of its students.
88
This school has staff examine their own cultural biases through professional
development or other processes.
100
This school considers closing the racial/ethnic achievement gap a high priority. 97
This school fosters an appreciation of student diversity and respect for each other. 42
This school emphasizes showing respect for all students’ cultural beliefs and
practices.
47
This school gives all students equal opportunity to participate in numerous
extracurricular and enrichment activities.
58
Meaningful participation (α = .731)
This school encourages opportunities for students to decide things like class
activities or rules.
88
This school gives all students equal opportunity to participate in classroom
discussions or activities.
100
Response to discipline (α = .931)
This school handles discipline problems fairly. *
This school effectively handles student discipline and behavioral problems. *
Support (α = .96)
68
How many adults at this school:
Really care about every student? 100
Acknowledge and pay attention to students? 99
Want every student to do their best? 98
Listen to what students have to say? 98
Believe that every student can be a success? 95
Treat all students fairly? 95
Treat every student with respect? 97
Have close professional relationships with one another? 49
Support and treat each other with respect? 51
Feel a responsibility to improve this school? 71
Work hard to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment 80
Staff training needs (α = .909)
Do you feel you need more professional development, training, mentorship, or other
support in any of the following areas?

Meeting academic standards 75
Evidenced-based methods of instruction 74
Positive behavioral support or classroom management 87
Working with diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups 94
Culturally relevant pedagogy for the school’s students 97
Serving English language learners 100
Serving special education students 100
Meeting the social, emotional, and developmental needs of youth 91
69
Creating a positive school environment 78
Student risk behaviors (α = .838)
How much of a problem at this school is:
Harassment or bullying among students? 100
Physical fighting between students? 95
Disruptive student behavior? 83
Student depression or other mental health problems? 68
Lack of respect of staff by students? 70
Student well-being (α = .840)
Based on your experience:
How many students at this school are healthy and physically fit? 100
How many students at this school arrive at school alert and rested? 92
How many students at this school are motivated to learn? 79
How many students at this school are well-behaved? 60

70
Table 2.4. Correlations among Staff School Climate Components
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Respect for others
2. Meaningful participation .665*
3. Response to discipline .561* .492*
4. Supportive relationships .583* .521* .506*
5. Need for training -.140* -.102* -.102* -.126*
6. Student risk -.382* -.369* -.475* -.418* .185*
7. Student well-being .359* .348* .424* .424* -.116* -.567*
*p < .01

71
Table 2.5. Stepwise Regression Models for Student Risk
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
b SE β b SE β b SE β b SE β
Constant 1.879 0.016 3.052 0.017 3.840 0.023 3.745 0.024
Grade 5 0.166 0.009 .127*** 0.103 0.008 .079*** 0.104 0.008 .080*** 0.096 0.008 .074***
Grade 4 0.099 0.011 .060*** 0.039 0.010 .024*** 0.049 0.009 .030*** 0.048 0.009 .029***
Special education 0.111 0.014 .040*** 0.073 0.013 .026*** 0.072 0.012 .026*** 0.060 0.012 .022***
Administrator -0.084 0.016 -.026*** 0.072 0.014 .022*** 0.050 0.014 .016*** 0.008 0.014 .002
Pupil personnel services 0.134 0.016 .040*** 0.172 0.014 .052*** 0.157 0.014 .047*** 0.150 0.014 .045***
African American 0.208 0.017 .053*** 0.136 0.015 .035*** 0.103 0.015 .026*** 0.085 0.015 .022***
American Indian or Alaska
Native
0.118 0.034 .015** 0.053 0.030 .007* 0.040 0.030 .005 0.031 0.029 .004
Asian or Pacific Islander -0.030 0.012 -.010* -0.028 0.011 -.010* -0.029 0.011 -.010** -0.056 0.011 -.020***
Hispanic 0.037 0.008 .020*** 0.015 0.007 .008* 0.004 0.007 .002 -0.016 0.007 -.009*
Other or multiethnic 0.134 0.011 .051*** 0.078 0.010 .030*** 0.060 0.010 .023*** 0.051 0.010 .020***
Middle school 0.273 0.009 .171*** 0.228 0.008 .142*** 0.202 0.008 .126*** 0.195 0.007 .122***
High school 0.259 0.008 .192*** 0.174 0.007 .129*** 0.135 0.007 .100*** 0.124 0.007 .092***
Job 1–2 years 0.028 0.013 .013* 0.006 0.012 .003 -0.005 0.011 -.002 -0.001 0.011 .000
Job 3–5 years 0.007 0.012 .004 -0.018 0.010 -.011 -0.026 0.010 -.016** -0.021 0.010 -.012*
Job 6–10 years 0.017 0.012 .011 -0.028 0.010 -.019** -0.037 0.010 -.024*** -0.031 0.010 -.020*
72
Job > 10 years -0.015 0.011 -.011 -0.043 0.010 -.032*** -0.043 0.010 -.032*** -0.035 0.010 -.026***
School 1–2 years 0.001 0.019 .000 0.005 0.017 .002 0.002 0.016 .001 0.000 0.016 .000
School 3–5 years 0.001 0.016 .000 -0.012 0.015 -.006 -0.019 0.014 -.010 -0.013 0.014 -.007
School 6–10 years -0.020 0.016 -.013 -0.033 0.014 -.021* -0.039 0.014 -.025** -0.026 0.013 -.017*
School > 10 years -0.072 0.015 -.055*** -0.074 0.013 -.056*** -0.078 0.013 -.059*** -0.060 0.013 -.046***
Response to discipline -0.350 0.003 -.455*** -0.250 0.004 -.324*** -0.240 0.004 -.312***
Respect for others -0.095 0.006 -.085*** -0.044 0.006 -.039***
Supportive relationships -0.181 0.005 -.171*** -0.166 0.005 -.156***
Meaningful participation -0.078 0.006 -.070***
Need for training 0.024 0.001 .112***
Adjusted R
2
.072 .268 .302 .316
ΔR
2
.196 .034 .014
*p < .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001
73
Table 2.6. Stepwise Regression Models for Student Well-Being
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
b SE β b SE β b SE β b SE β
Constant 3.782 0.014 2.854 0.016 1.963 .021 1.943 .022
Grade 5 -0.164 0.008 -.140*** -0.114 0.008 -.098*** -0.117 0.007 -.100*** -0.115 0.007 -.098***
Grade 4 -0.072 0.010 -.049*** -0.025 0.009 -.017** -0.039 0.009 -.026*** -0.043 0.009 -.029***
Special education -0.146 0.013 -.059*** -0.115 0.012 -.047** -0.115 0.011 -.046*** -0.112 0.011 -.045***
Administrator 0.224 0.014 .078*** 0.101 0.013 .035*** 0.123 0.013 .043*** 0.141 0.013 .049***
Pupil personnel services 0.026 0.015 .009 -0.004 0.013 -.001 0.013 0.013 .004 0.016 0.013 .005
African American -0.172 0.015 -.049*** -0.114 0.014 -.033*** -0.077 0.014 -.022*** -0.076 0.014 -.022***
American Indian or Alaska Native -0.099 0.031 -.014** -0.048 0.028 -.007 -0.034 0.027 -.005 -0.032 0.027 -.004
Asian or Pacific Islander -0.003 0.011 -.001 -0.004 0.010 -.002 -0.002 0.010 -.001 0.005 0.010 .002
Hispanic -0.101 0.007 -.062*** -0.084 0.007 -.052*** -0.073 0.006 -.045*** -0.069 0.006 -.042***
Other or multiethnic -0.131 0.010 -.056*** -0.087 0.009 -.037*** -0.067 0.009 -.029*** -0.065 0.009 -.028***
Middle school -0.007 0.008 -.005 0.029 0.007 .021*** 0.060 0.007 .042*** 0.067 0.007 .047***
High school -0.116 0.007 -.096*** -0.048 0.006 -.040*** 0.001 0.006 .001 0.012 0.006 .010
Job 1–2 years -0.005 0.012 -.003 0.013 0.011 .006 0.026 0.011 .013* 0.024 0.010 .012*
Job 3–5 years 0.013 0.011 .009 0.033 0.010 .022* 0.043 0.009 .029*** 0.040 0.009 .027***
Job 6–10 years 0.018 0.010 .013 0.056 0.010 .041*** 0.064 0.009 .047*** 0.062 0.009 .045***
Job > 10 years 0.041 0.010 .034*** 0.064 0.009 .054*** 0.064 0.009 .053*** 0.061 0.009 .050***
74
School 1–2 years -0.010 0.017 -.004 -0.014 0.016 -.005 0-.009 0.015 -.003 -0.007 0.015 -.003
School 3–5 years -0.008 0.015 -.005 0.001 0.014 .001 0.008 0.013 .005 0.007 0.013 .004
School 6–10 years 0.025 0.014 .018 0.034 0.013 .024** 0.040 0.012 .029** 0.035 0.012 .025**
School > 10 years 0.076 0.014 .065*** 0.076 0.013 .065*** 0.079 0.012 .068*** 0.074 0.012 .063***
Response to discipline 0.277 0.003 .403*** 0.170 0.003 .247*** 0.161 0.003 .234***
Respect for others 0.070 0.005 .069*** 0.020 0.006 .020**
Supportive relationships 0.228 0.005 .240*** 0.214 0.005 .226***
Meaningful participation 0.091 0.005 .091***
Need for training -0.008 0.001 -.041***
Adjusted R
2
.051 .204 .258 .264
ΔR
2
.154 .054 .006
*p < .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001
75
Chapter 3 (Study 2): Exploring Patterns of Positive and Negative School Climate
Experiences among Staff Members in California
Abstract
Research on school climate has linked positive school climate with improved academic and
social emotional outcomes for students. Although school climate affects all people in schools,
school staff members are largely absent from current climate definitions. There is reason to
believe there are important distinctions in how staff members see school climate depending on
their roles in schools, experience, and school placement. This study aimed to answer these
questions: (a) Are there subgroups of staff members who share perceptions of school climate? (b)
How are characteristics of staff members (e.g., school type or job) associated with their
affiliation with subgroups of school climate? A large sample of 54,000 staff members who
participated in the 2013 California School Climate Survey were examined in this study. Latent
profile analysis was used to identify distinct subgroups of staff members across California with
different perceptions of school climate in their schools. Four subgroups of staff perceptions of
school climate were identified: negative climate (3.8%), lackluster climate (20%), positive
discipline and support (47%), and positive climate (29%). Contrary to media reports about the
demoralization of school staff members, results indicate a substantial proportion of staff
members experience very positive school climate. Yet staff members working in middle or high
schools perceive much more negative climate than those in elementary schools.

76
Objectives and Purpose
In recent decades, research on school climate has convincingly linked positive school
climate with improved academic and social emotional outcomes for students (Astor &
Benbenishty, in press; Astor, De Pedro, Gilreath, Esqueda, & Benbenishty, 2013; Benbenishty &
Astor, 2005; Berkowitz, Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017; Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, &
Pickeral, 2009; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). Among improved social
emotional outcomes are decreased risk behaviors, school violence, and bullying (Espelage &
Swearer, 2010). In addition, research has suggested that positive climate may help to alleviate
disparities in academic achievement due to socioeconomic status (Berkowitz et al., 2017).
School climate, then, may be considered one mechanism that can improve the experiences of
students, their social emotional learning (SEL), and their academic outcomes as they progress
through 13 years of primary and secondary education.
Schools and districts are being increasingly held accountable for the quality of the
climate that students experience. Recent requirements in the Every Student Succeeds Act mean
that school climate and SEL indicators must be included in school accountability programs.
Further, researchers have maintained that SEL and school climate are not only linked, but also
mutually reinforcing constructs (Melnick, Cook-Harvey, & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Thus,
there is likely an increasing expectation that students will experience positive school climates
and develop proficiency in SEL and academics. Current definitions of climate assume action
from staff members to create climate, making them primarily responsible for the creation of a
positive climate for students. However, how staff members perceive and experience climate is
largely missing from the current school climate literature. In combination with concerns about
high levels of stress for staff and attrition among teachers in particular, this indicates that further
77
attention to the kind of climate that staff members experience is needed. Practically, this suggests
that staff members experience positive and negative climate.
In response to the empirical and theoretical gaps concerning varying experiences of
climate among school staff members, this study examined subgroups of school staff members in
California based on their perceptions of school climate. Results from this study could inform the
reconceptualization of school climate theory by understanding how different staff subgroups
perceive school climate in their schools. Furthermore, addressing how different groups of staff
members perceive climate in their schools could inform programs and policy at local, district,
and larger levels that endeavor to improve staff school climate.
School Climate
School climate can be described as the pattern of events and experiences that make up the
school day, or the quality and character of school life. Within these definitions is the idea that
school climate shapes interactions of all people in a school and reflects the norms, values,
relationships, teaching, and learning that occur in schools (National School Climate Center,
2007). In one sense, this active element of school climate helps focus this research. School staff
members are one group in a school community that creates climate through its interactions with
others. Capp, Astor, and Gilreath (2018; also see Study 1) proposed an empirically and
conceptually driven model of staff school climate with some modifications to more accurately
reflect staff experiences and perceptions. Using this staff-centric conceptual model highlights
new empirical avenues that need to be explored. One such avenue is climate as it pertains to the
type of school in which staff members work (i.e., elementary, middle, or high school); their role
or job (e.g., teacher, administrator, counselor, secretary); years of experience in their schools or
jobs; and their ethnicity. In this study, these are referred to as staff characteristics. Differences
78
that stem from these characteristics and define staff experiences may be important for
understanding variations in how staff members perceive climate (Capp et al., 2018; also see
Study 1).
School Staff and School Climate
Research concerning school climate and staff members can be understood as having two
groups of beneficiaries: students, who are the primary consumers of public education, and staff
members, who should have the opportunity to experience a meaningful and fulfilling vocation.
One primary way that climate might be created in a building, then, is through relationships or
interactions at schools (Astor & Benbenishty, 2017; Astor, Jacobson, Wrabel, Benbenishty, &
Pineda, 2017; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Berkowitz et al., 2017; Chen & Astor, 2010). In
existing student-focused models of climate, relationships with adults often include aspects of
social support (e.g., adults notice when students are upset) and high expectations (e.g., an adult
believes a student will be successful; De Pedro, Astor, Gilreath, Benbenishty, & Berkowitz,
2018). These examples demonstrate that the actions of staff members are important for creating
climate for students.
Staff perceptions of school climate are also likely connected to their own professional
well-being and personal satisfaction with their work. A large body of research is clearly
concerned with the general well-being of teachers in particular. One area of significant concern
is teacher attrition (Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, 2004; Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008; Elfers,
Plecki, & Knapp, 2006). Research has shown that more than 42% of new teachers leave teaching
within 5 years, and that a steady increase in the attrition of beginning teachers has occurred in the
last 2 decades (Ingersoll, Merrill, & May, 2014; Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2013). This
strongly suggests that a high proportion of staff members experience negative school climate.
79
One consequence of teacher attrition is cost and strain on local resources. This is especially true
when replacing staff members within their first 5 years, and requires that resources be directed to
hiring rather than programs or materials (Darling-Hammond, 2003). The resulting instability
from attrition also negatively affects school staff members and school performance (Darling-
Hammond, 2003; Ingersoll, 2001). Although these studies did not explicitly connect school
climate to attrition and turnover, it is likely that high numbers of staff members leaving the
profession are not experiencing positive and supportive climate.
Other studies have linked school climate to staff experiences in their school contexts.
Relationships, or interactions, with students and colleagues are important factors for researchers
investigating stress, efficacy, and job satisfaction among teachers (Collie, Shapka, & Perry,
2012; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008). Grayson and Alvarez (2008) found that negative school
climate was linked to increased stress and burnout for teachers, and suggested a bidirectional
relationship with climate. That is, negative climate may decrease satisfaction for teachers, which
could lead to actions or behaviors from teachers that might also perpetuate negative experiences
related to school climate (Grayson & Alvarez, 2008). Research support exists for the opposite
direction of influence as well; when teachers view their school environment positively, they also
report decreased burnout and higher feelings of efficacy (Pas & Bradshaw, 2014). These findings
appear to parallel research focused on students, wherein positive climate is associated with
positive outcomes including improved academic achievement and social and emotional
development (e.g., Berkowitz et al., 2017). One important caveat is that these findings focus
largely on teachers, who do not constitute the entire school staff. The unique sample in this study
allowed the consideration of many different staff members in a school.
80
Staff Characteristics: Roles, Placements, Experience, and Ethnicity
In fact, results from two preceding studies show wide variation in how various
professionals experience the climate in their schools and that differences in staff responsibilities
and experiences yield different perceptions of climate. It is possible that these differences are
partially rooted in the fact that staff members represent a diverse group of professionals in
schools. For instance, findings from staff members in California indicate that staff members
working in elementary schools have more positive perceptions of climate than those working in
middle and high schools. Elementary schools tend to be more nurturing environments than
middle or high schools (Eccles & Midgley, 1998), at least partially in response to the
developmental needs of younger students. In middle and high schools, as students get older,
social and academic needs change, requiring corresponding changes in how adults respond to
these needs (Eccles et al., 1993). Staff members in these different kinds of schools also
experience different structures; middle and high school teachers are likely responsible for
teaching a single subject in a department structure rather than teaching all subjects to a single
classroom of students. However, few if any studies have indicated how these settings might
influence perceptions of school climate.
This same preliminary study showed that specific jobs, or roles, are also an important
consideration relating to climate. For instance, teachers in special education or fifth grade or
above tended to experience more negative climate than others, whereas administrators reported
more positive climate than other staff members (Capp et al., 2018). Empirical studies about the
diverse nature of school staff are scarce; this study is one of the first to consider how a person’s
role in a school may influence perspectives of school climate.
81
Along with extant literature focusing on burnout and attrition, recent research (Capp et
al., 2018; also see Study 1) suggested that years of experience also may be an important factor
for understanding perceptions of climate. Particular concern surrounds early career staff
members. Results from California suggest that staff members with 5–10 years of experience have
more negative perceptions of school climate (Capp et al., 2018). Negative climate may be one
factor that contributes to the overall experiences of staff members that eventually leads to them
leaving their schools or profession, or otherwise affecting their work.
Need for a Holistic Examination of How School Staff Members Experience Climate
Ecological theories are frequently used to frame the study of school climate and often
focus on the importance of individual relationships and influences from multiple ecological
layers (Wang & Degol, 2016). Students are subject to peer influences, teachers, playground
supervision, and their parents while they are at school. Similarly, teachers or other staff members
are also subject to influences from students, peers, supervisors, and various policies guiding their
work. For instance, Troop-Gordon and Ladd (2015) concluded that it is possible that teachers’
beliefs about climate are dynamic, meaning that they are affected by student behaviors, and that
more positive perceptions of student behaviors might improve perceptions of the school’s
climate. This illustrates the importance of understanding what teachers and other staff members
experience.
Benbenishty and Astor (2005; also see Astor & Benbenishty, in press) suggested an
ecological model with the school in the center, wherein the school mediates, moderates, and
attenuates influences from external contexts. School staff members and their interactions and
decisions are an integral part of how the school processes various influences on violence.
Teachers and school staff members, then, are part of the social context of schools and have
82
integral influences on the composition of a school’s climate. For example, relationships with
other staff members and students make important contributions to whether a school’s climate is
positive and supportive. At the same time, they hold critical untapped perspectives on what kind
of climate a school has and how it might contribute to their own experiences.
On a larger scale, theories posit that positive school climate acts as a protective factor for
students. School staff members may also experience a protective element of positive school
climate. On the other hand, school staff members experiencing negative climate may experience
a compounded consequence. Negative climate could reflect their contributions to the school, and
it may also mean that their experiences are negative. Research reviewed here strongly suggests
that further investigation of the presence of positive and negative climate is important. Variation
in how staff members experience climate indicates that multiple factors may be influencing the
quality of climate that staff members experience. Given the complexity of school experiences,
there is likely also variation in the quality of climate. Some individuals must experience very
negative or very positive school climate, but there must also be gradations of negative or positive
environments. What does it mean to have a partially negative or partially positive climate?
Purpose
This study built on two previous studies (Capp et al., 2018; Study 1) primarily concerned
with using a statewide sample of school staff members to establish a staff-informed
conceptualization of school climate. These two studies began to fill an existing theoretical and
empirical gap in the literature by incorporating school staff members into the extant literature.
This study examined how pertinent characteristics and perceptions of school climate were
simultaneously experienced by school staff members in California. Variable-centered approaches
provide the opportunity to explore how constructs and concepts are related within a population;
83
for school staff members, this may be exemplified by recent research exploring the relationships
between student disruptive behaviors, indicators of school climate, and teacher burnout (Study 1;
Grayson & Alvarez, 2008). Person-centered analysis is one way of recognizing that in this
sample of school staff members in California, there are subgroups that are meaningfully different
in how they experience school climate (Nurius & Macy, 2008).
Building on findings from Capp et al. (2018) and Study 1, this study empirically explored
the possibility that there are different groupings of staff members who perceive and experience
the dimensions of staff-centric school climate differently. Research questions for Study 2 were:
1. What distinct subgroups of staff members exist that perceive school climate in different
ways?
2. How are characteristics of staff members (e.g., school type, job, experience) associated
with these subgroups?
Based on the previously reviewed literature, it was expected that at least three, and
perhaps four, subgroups of staff members would emerge. Given pervasive concerns about
burnout, attrition, stress, and student behaviors in the literature about teachers, a subgroup
experiencing negative climate was expected. Negative perceptions of climate have also been
documented in previous research with this sample in California (Capp et al., 2018; Study 1).
However, some staff members in California clearly experienced positive climate (Capp et al.,
2018; Study 1), and thus a positive climate subgroup was also expected. Finally, previous studies
suggested that staff perceptions are not wholly positive or negative. Additional subgroups are
likely to represent staff experiences that are between these extremes.
Preliminary studies in California (Study 1) suggested that how the school responds to
discipline and the presence of supportive relationships are important dimensions of climate.
84
Additionally, Berg and Cornell (2016) described a model of authoritarian school climate that
posits disciplinary structures and student support as key factors for positive climate. It is
possible, then, that one subgroup in this sample would reflect these particular elements of
climate.
Results from preliminary studies also indicated that staff members in elementary schools
report difference experiences than those in middle and high schools. It was expected that
elementary staff members in this study would be associated with subgroups indicating positive
climate. Similarly, it was expected that new staff members would be associated with positive
climate subgroups, and that staff members with 5–10 years of experience would be associated
with more negative climate subgroups. Finally, preliminary studies also showed that staff
ethnicity is related to school climate experiences, although results have not been consistent in
this area. Staff members identifying as African American and American Indian or Alaska Native
on the California School Climate Survey (CSCS) may be more likely to experience negative
school climate.
Methods
Data from the 2013 administration of the CSCS were used for this study (N = 54,000).
The CSCS is a biennial survey developed by WestEd in conjunction with the California
Department of Education. School districts receiving Title IV funding (approximately 85% of
districts) are required to administer the survey. The present analysis included school staff
members (including teachers, administrators, counselors, psychologists, and support staff
members) from schools across the state of California.
85
Measures
The core module of the CSCS was used to measure several components that constitute
school climate. These were previously identified in Study 1 as key components for understanding
staff climate. Staff members were asked how their school handles discipline, including items
such as: “This school handles discipline problems fairly.” Answers to this question were given
on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree).
Responses of “not applicable” were excluded from this analysis. Items were reverse coded for
analysis so that higher values corresponded to more positive ratings. Questions about student risk
included: “How much of a problem at this school is: (a) harassment or bullying among students;
(b) disruptive student behavior; and (c) lack of respect of staff by students.” Possible answers for
these questions were on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = insignificant, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, and 4 =
severe).
Several items assessed respect for others: “This school emphasizes using instructional
materials that reflect the culture of ethnicity of its students” and “This school fosters an
appreciation of student diversity and respect for each other.” Possible responses for these
questions were on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 =
strongly disagree). Responses of “not applicable” were excluded from this analysis. Items were
reverse coded for analysis so that higher values corresponded to more positive ratings. Items
assessing supportive relationships included: “How many adults at this school: (a) really care
about every student; (b) want every student to do their best; (c) believe that every student can be
a success; (d) have close professional relationships with one another; and (e) work hard to ensure
a safe and supportive learning environment.” Possible answers to these questions were on a 5-
86
point Likert scale (1 = nearly all, 2 = most, 3 = some, 4 = few, and 5 = almost none). These items
were also reverse coded so that higher values indicated higher levels of support.
Questions assessing meaningful participation included items such as: “This school
encourages opportunities for students to decide things like class activities or rules.” Responses
were on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly
disagree). Responses of “not applicable” were excluded from this analysis, and items were
reverse coded for analysis so that higher values corresponded to more positive ratings. Finally,
staff members indicated their need for training to meet academic standards; meet the social,
emotional, and developmental needs of youth; and create a positive school environment.
Answers to these questions were dichotomous (1 = yes, 2 = no). Responses of “not applicable”
were excluded from this analysis.
Finally, several relevant characteristics of teachers were used to predict latent class
membership. These include staff members’ roles, or job, in their school; school type (elementary,
middle, high); ethnicity; years in their current position at any school; and years in any position in
their current school.
Analysis. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was an appropriate tool for this study because it
is one way of recognizing that in this sample of school staff members in California, there are
subgroups that are meaningfully different in how they perceive the multiple dimensions of
school climate (Rosato & Baer, 2012). LPA is conceptually similar to latent class analysis and is
distinguished by using continuous indicator variables instead of categorical variables.
Throughout the rest of this manuscript, we retain standard language for describing latent class
analysis. Person-centered analysis, in this case LPA, can identify clusters of theoretically
meaningful characteristics shared in subgroups (Nurius & Macy, 2008). This facilitated a better
87
understanding of how staff members differ in their perceptions of school climate, and
consequently what this means for how staff members interact with one another and their
students.
Individual LPA models were run using school climate variables. Model selection was
guided by the parametric bootstrapped likelihood ratio test, Bayesian information criteria, Lo-
Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test, and theoretical and conceptual concerns (Nylund,
Asparouhov, & Muthen, 2007). Following model selection, a combined model including staff
characteristics was run to determine how staff characteristics predicted membership in latent
classes.
Results
The sample for this study included 54,000 school staff members (see Table 3.1 for
complete sample description). Approximately 52% of the sample were teachers in fifth grade or
above, and 18% were teachers in fourth grade or below. Special education teachers represented
almost 6% of the sample, whereas 4% were administrators. In California, staff members with a
pupil personnel services credential include social workers, counselors, and school psychologists;
these staff members accounted for nearly 5% of the sample. Finally, other staff members
accounted for 15% of this sample, including secretaries, custodians, instructional aides,
playground supervisors, and bus drivers.
Model fit was determined by low adjusted Bayesian information criterion value relative
to other models, and a significant Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test value, which indicates
that the current model is preferable to the model with one fewer latent class. (Table 3.2 shows
model fit indicators). Based on these criteria, a four-class model provided the best fit to the data
for school climate. Therefore, four subgroups best represent this sample of staff members, which
88
is in line with the previously described expectation that there would be at least three subgroups
of staff members.
Conditional probabilities for school climate are summarized in Table 3.3. Class 1
(negative climate) accounted for 3.8% of the sample and was composed of staff members who
were likely to endorse a high need for training, highest student risk, lower student well-being,
and the lowest ratings of all other elements of climate: respect for others; meaningful
participation; how the school handles discipline; and supportive relationships. Class 2 (lackluster
climate) accounted for 20% of the sample. Members of this class were likely to report similar
needs for training and high ratings of student risk, but slightly improved ratings of well-being
and climate elements. Class 3 (positive discipline and support) constituted 47% of the sample.
Staff members in this class were likely to report more positive ratings of how the school handles
discipline and supportive relationships than the previous groups, and slightly higher ratings of
the other school climate elements. Finally, Class 4 (positive climate) accounted for 29% of the
sample. Staff members in this class were likely to report the lowest levels of student risk and a
need for training, and very positive ratings of all other climate elements. These results support
the hypothesized construction of subgroups. The two extremes, very negative and very positive
climate are represented here, as along with a subgroup that highlights experiences related to
school discipline procedures and supportive relationships. The fourth subgroup (lackluster)
suggests that some staff members experience climate that is not positive, but is slightly better
than a pervasively negative climate.
In Figure 3.1, the four subgroups of school climate are graphically shown. Rather than
representing a linear process, this figure consists of one line representing each climate subgroup.
Comparisons can be made vertically among these subgroups, such that a higher position in the
89
figure is associated with more positive reports of climate. One exception to this pattern is the
need for training and student risk, wherein higher values reflect more negative climate.
Multinomial logistic regression was used to predict the odds of school climate class
membership based on staff characteristics (see Table 3.4). All results reported here are relative to
membership in the positive class. Compared to teachers in fourth grade or below, teachers in
fifth grade or above were 1.66 times (95% CI = 1.39, 1.97) as likely to be in the lackluster class
and 1.75 times (95% CI = 1.32, 2.32) as likely to be in the negative class. Special education
teachers were also 1.47 times (95% CI = 1.22, 1.77) as likely to be in the lackluster class and
1.40 times (95% CI = 1.05, 1.86) as likely to be in the negative class. In contrast, administrators
were less likely to be in any class other than the positive class. For example, they were 56% less
likely to be in the negative class (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.30, 0.65) and 72% less likely to be in
the lackluster class (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.20, 0.38). Other staff members were also less likely
to be in the lackluster class (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62, 0.90) or the discipline and support class
(OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.70, 0.87). Thus, the job or role staff members in schools is an important
aspect of how they experience climate. The difference between administrators and special
education teachers, for instance, suggests that variation likely exists within school contexts as
well.
Staff members working in middle and high schools were more likely to be in any class
except the positive climate subgroup. For example, middle school staff members were 2.70 times
(95% CI = 2.05, 3.56) as likely to be in the negative subgroup, and high school staff members
were 4.31 times (95% CI = 3.62, 5.12) as likely to be in the lackluster subgroup. It was expected
that elementary staff members would be associated with more positive climate subgroups.
90
Nevertheless, the odds ratio for high school staff members shows this was a substantial
difference.
Years of experience were measured by years in the same school (in any job) and years in
the same job (in any school). Years in the same school yielded only one significant result;
individuals working between 6 and 10 years in their schools were 1.47 times (95% CI = 1.11,
1.93) as likely to be in the negative subgroup. Similar to middle and high school staff members,
those working in the same job for 6–10 years were more likely to be in any subgroup except the
positive climate subgroup. Staff members in their job for more than 10 years were more likely to
be in the discipline and support class (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.02, 1.31). Odds ratios for staff
members in their jobs for 6–10 years support the hypothesis regarding experience. Contrary to
the previous hypothesis, there were no statistically significant results for staff members with less
than 5 years of experience.
Compared to White staff members, significant results indicated that non-White staff
members were more likely to be in the lackluster or negative subgroups, but not the discipline
and support subgroup. This finding partially supports the hypothesized associations. For
example, African American staff members were 3.54 times (95% CI = 2.75, 4.57) as likely to be
in the negative subgroup and nearly 3 times as likely to be in the lackluster subgroup (OR = 2.96,
95% CI = 2.40, 3.65).
Discussion
This study set out to better understand how school staff members in California experience
school climate and how their jobs, school placement, and years of experience influence their
perceptions of school climate. The results frame two areas of significance for researchers and
practitioners who focus on school settings and related ecological contexts: (a) school staff
91
members in California are likely to be in one of four subgroups based on their perceptions of
school climate and (b) various staff member demographics influence these perceptions of
climate. The four subgroups of climate presented here are important because they offer one of
the first holistic descriptions of how groups of staff members are meaningfully different in how
they experience school climate on a daily basis (Rosato & Baer, 2012).

Positive Climate
Perhaps the most surprising result of this study is that nearly a third of this sample was
likely to be in the positive climate subgroup, despite the prevalence of concerns about burnout,
attrition, and high stress for school staff members. This subgroup was likely to report that the
school climate it experiences is overwhelmingly positive. The implications of this group are
encouraging on many levels. For these staff members, this suggests positive work environments.
This group may also be able to foster a positive climate for students. It is also possible that
understanding the source of this positive climate could facilitate creating a similarly positive
climate for other staff members.
Positive Discipline and Support
Staff members in the positive discipline and support group were likely to indicate that
many of their climate experiences are better than those in the negative and lackluster subgroups,
but not as positive as the positive climate subgroup. Most important for this subgroup is that its
members were likely to indicate more positive ratings of how the school handles discipline and
supportive relationships. In a related study with this sample, results showed that these two
elements of climate are especially important for predicting staff member perceptions of student
risk and well-being (see Study 1). The current results add support to the importance of these two
92
components of climate and the suggestion that they carry weight for many staff members. Other
research showed that a model of authoritative school climate, composed of strict and fair
disciplinary practices and student support, is associated with safer schools and enhanced
relationships with students (Berg & Cornell, 2015; Gregory et al., 2010). Further, it may be that
if discipline and relationships are viewed as more positive, it can alter the composition of climate
for the staff. For the staff members in this sample, this could mean that without improved
perceptions of these two elements, these staff members could be in the lackluster subgroup. It is
also possible that these elements are higher in this subgroup because they are more important to
staff members, or because people in schools have made active efforts to improve things in these
areas. Regardless, these four subgroups show that school climate is not always experienced as
completely positive or negative.
Negative Climate
In this sample of California staff members, the negative class is especially concerning
because it indicates that these staff members had pervasively negative experiences at work every
day. Thus, the implications for their personal and professional well-being, and that of their
students, are alarming. However, like the positive climate subgroup, given concerns about school
staff members presented in the literature, it is a surprise that this subgroup is so small. Only 4%
of the sample was likely to be in this subgroup.
Lackluster Climate
In the lackluster subgroup, staff members were likely to report slightly better climate than
in the negative subgroup. Yet these were not positive ratings of climate. An important area of
future research is to explain the differences and implications of working in a place where staff
members experience climate as overwhelmingly negative compared to a place where things are
93
“not quite that bad.” Most staff members in this sample were likely to be in a subgroup that was
a mix to some extent. Further study should also examine the stability of these subgroups and
school contexts. Factors including the surrounding neighborhood, community, gang influence,
and violence are expected to shape the kind of climate that staff members experience (Astor &
Benbenishty, in press; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). Finally, there is a need to connect research
about specific staff member outcomes in the presence of these subgroups, including burnout and
attrition (Collie et al., 2012; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008).
Staff Roles, Placements, Experience, and Ethnicity
This study suggests that the basic demographic details that differentiate the working
experiences of school staff members are important elements, and predictors, of their experiences
of school climate.
Role or job in schools. Previous studies have indicated that understanding the role of
staff members in a school is important when considering their experiences of school climate
(Capp et al., 2018; Study 1). This study confirmed the importance of these characteristics and
extended existing results by clarifying the relationship between a particular role and the
experiences of school climate. For instance, teachers in Grade 5 or above were more likely to be
in the lackluster or negative climate subgroups. Special education teachers at any grade level
were also more likely to experience negative or lackluster climate. This relationship may help
explain high rates of burnout and attrition for special education teachers in particular (Billingsley
et al., 2004). Some studies have suggested that the additional aspects of special education (e.g.,
individualized education programs, litigation, challenging behaviors; Brunsting, Sreckovic, &
Lane, 2014) may lead to global difficulties for these teachers; such difficulties could be
exacerbated by negative school climate experiences. Given the additional responsibility that
94
special educators have for vulnerable populations, our results suggest increased attention should
be paid to this group. It is important to acknowledge here that special education teachers should
not be left alone to care for vulnerable populations or advance goals related to social justice in
schools. Addressing systematic inequity and creating inclusive schools is the responsibility of all
those who care about social justice (Capper & Young, 2014).
Administrators in our sample were more likely to be in the positive climate subgroup.
This is in line with preliminary studies in this research sequence, wherein administrators had
significantly higher mean scores on climate variables (Capp et al., 2018). In this study, it is
important to recognize not only that administrators were more likely to be in the positive climate
subgroup than other kinds of staff members, but also that they were working in the same places
as people in other, less positive subgroups. There is wide support for the principal’s influence on
school climate (e.g., Astor, Benbenishty, & Estrada, 2009; McCarley, Peters, & Decman, 2016;
Price, 2012; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Direct support for teachers from the principal, in the
context of principal–teacher relationships, also has an important influence on climate (Price,
2012). It is possible that on some level there is a tendency to express positive views of climate as
an effort to indicate effective school outcomes and programs. It is also possible that more
positive responses from administrators is a protective response, as part of an effort to support
teachers and staff members in a particular building. However, research has suggested a
principal’s leadership is predictive of school climate (Bulach, Boothe, & Pickett, 2006;
McCarley et al., 2016) and that transformational leaders should create a climate conducive to
change (Engels, Hotton, Devos, Bouckenooghe, & Aelterman, 2008). These ideas are
conspicuously future-oriented, and future research examining longitudinal data might investigate
the predictive capacity or ability of principals to effect change in their school’s climate over
95
time. Although this may seem like fortune-telling, some research about visionary principals
suggested that this quality of vision is part of what makes them successful (Astor et al., 2009).
Elementary, middle, and high school. Although school climate research often focuses
on elementary or secondary students, little attention is given to differences between these
settings. Many studies have focused on the differential experiences of middle school students,
the impact of developmental changes that manifest during this period, and the inherent mismatch
in developmental needs and middle school environments (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al.,
1993; Rice & Dolgin, 2005). However, these settings are also clearly different for staff members.
Previous studies indicated that staff members in elementary schools report significantly different
perceptions of climate than those in middle and high schools (Capp et al., 2018). Results from
this study again support these findings, but also clarify that this phenomenon goes beyond
merely the presence of differences to suggest that staff members working in elementary schools
experience more positive school climate than those in secondary schools. Further, some of these
discrepancies were dramatic—staff members working in high schools were more than 3 times as
likely to be in a negative climate subgroup than those working in elementary schools. One clear
goal for future research should be investigating possible reasons for this disparity in climate and
clarifying how much of this may be an issue of conceptualization or measurement. Is school
climate just worse in high school, or do we not have a sufficient understanding of how climate
operates in high school contexts? Middle school staff members were also twice as likely to be
part of the negative and lackluster climate subgroups. Although the contrast for those in middle
schools was not quite as stark as for high school staff members, it was still substantially different
than elementary school, and the same questions about climate exist for middle school settings.
96
One factor that may be at play is that elementary environments may be more nurturing or
represent a better match for students’ developmental stages (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). This
could be due to the age of the children in elementary schools and the relative size of many
elementary school settings. There are potentially multiple responses to this difference. School
climate interventions could focus on the quality of relationships that staff members have with
students and one another; the promise of fostering mentors and positive adult relationships is
well established (Darling, Hamilton, & Shaver, 2003; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). One
lingering question, however, is that if staff members are also experiencing noticeably better
climate in elementary schools, what is it about these contexts that may be more nurturing?
Years of experience. In the preliminary study by Capp et al. (2018), staff members
within the first 3 years of their job or school reported the highest levels of positive school
climate, with the exception of student well-being and risk. In the same study, staff members with
6–10 years of experience reported the most negative levels of school climate. This decline in
perceptions of school climate aligns with several other phenomena related to teachers. Burnout
and attrition often happen among teachers within the first 5–7 years of experience (Billingsley et
al., 2004; Borman & Dowling, 2008; Brunsting et al., 2014; Ingersoll et al., 2014). In this study,
which included all staff members in a school and not just teachers, results indicate a similar
pattern for staff members working in the same job, regardless of the school. In general, staff
members who are between their second and 10th year were less likely to be in the positive
climate subgroup. Similar to previous studies, this pattern falls off after 10 or more years, when
perceptions of climate generally improve. The only significant result for staff members working
in their jobs for more than 10 years was that they were more likely to be in the discipline and
support subgroup. It is possible that this reflects relationships and experiences that accumulate
97
over many years of experience. However, it is also interesting in this study that there was only
one significant result for years of experience in the same school. Only those who have worked
for 6–10 years were more likely to be in the negative climate subgroup. The difference between
experience in a job (at any school) and in a school (doing any job) could highlight the
importance of the school setting and the personal investment that staff members may have in
their buildings, in contrast to staff members who may move around to different schools as part of
their job (e.g., a school psychologist who works at multiple school sites).
Staff ethnicity and perceptions of school climate. In this study, the ethnicity of the staff
members mattered in relation to how they perceived their school’s climate. African Americans
and American Indians or Alaska Natives were more than 3 times as likely to be in a negative
climate subgroup than White staff members. Latino and mixed-race staff members were also
more likely to be in the negative climate subgroup. These same staff members were also more
likely to be in the lackluster subgroup, indicating a general pattern of nonpositive climate
experiences. Data for this study did not allow conclusions about why these experiences might
persist, but they highlight a distressing pattern of experiences for staff members working in
schools and an area of urgent future inquiry.
At a minimum, these results offer a baseline for comparison for future studies
investigating more specifically how and why ethnicity influences experiences of school climate.
School context likely is a critical factor for understanding these experiences. Public schools
remain segregated based on socioeconomic levels and ethnicity, and this trend continues to grow
(Reardon, 2016). A large body of educational research shows that Black and Latino students with
low socioeconomic status (SES) often attend schools with limited financial resources and
personnel (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Loeb, Darling-Hammond, & Luczak, 2005). Further, schools
98
with predominantly low-SES, Black, and Latino populations are often in communities with high
poverty and violence, which negatively affects the school’s social and emotional climate
(Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010). These same school communities also have higher teacher
and principal turnover (Gregory et al., 2010). Together, these community and school factors can
be expected to influence climate for students (De Pedro, Gilreath, & Berkowitz, 2016). The
influence of school climate on staff members, then, should be similar. Future research focusing
on how school-level SES, resource availability, or failing schools is urgently needed to
understand how contextual influences are likely explaining the experiences of these staff
members.
A few studies by international researchers explored teacher ethnicity. In a study of
preservice teachers in the United Kingdom, researchers noted concerns over the disproportionate
number of Black and minority students failing or withdrawing from teacher preparation
programs. They reported that students continue to experience social isolation, negativity, and
stereotyping related to race, and sometimes racist abuse and harassment (Wilkins & Lall, 2011).
Santoro (2015) presented research that emphasized the tendency for minority or ethnic teachers
to be reduced to a representative of a particular culture and presumed to be able to automatically
provide culturally sensitive instruction and connect with same-culture students. These are
presented partly as issues of identity—diverse teachers are seen separately from “normal”
teachers representing the dominant cultural majority (Santoro, 2015). Finally, it is also possible
that the inferior experiences of staff members in California are related to larger societal
mechanisms that have been observed in Canada, including inequality throughout school systems
that restrict the number of students who might be willing and able to enter school professions
(Ryan, Pollock, & Antonelli, 2009). Although these examples originate in other countries, some
99
of these patterns are already discernable in U.S. samples and literature. For example, research
has continued to demonstrate inequality in academic achievement due to SES and ethnicity (e.g.,
Reardon, 2016).
Implications and Future Research
There are limitations to consider regarding this study. This analysis used self-report
surveys and is a cross-sectional examination of how staff members view climate; no claims of
causality are intended by this research. The CSCS does not ask about participants’ gender, nor
does it directly collect information about SES or free and reduced-price lunch programs. These
are important factors for understanding schools and represent important areas of future study.
Despite these issues, this study has important implications and directions for future research.
Future studies should investigate what contributes to the creation of these subgroups for staff
members and how amenable these subgroups are to change. That is, as people seek to improve
climate, do staff members easily shift among subgroups? Is it important to change one element
first to facilitate widespread change (e.g., response to discipline)? Or do people become
entrenched in their own experiences of climate?
Practical and theoretical implications also emerge from this study. The four subgroups of
school climate and the importance of staff characteristics in this study suggest that the local
context of schools and districts matter a great deal. Efforts to improve, or even assess, school
climate must therefore be sensitive to the variation likely found among individual schools in a
district and among districts in a wider region or state. Top-down interventions, for instance,
should be approached with caution, because a single intervention may not be equally effective
depending on the experiences of staff members in any given school.
100
The implementation of SEL or school climate interventions aimed at improving student
behaviors and outcomes must also consider the staff members charged with delivering those
interventions. Because successful implementation of social and emotional, school climate, or
bullying interventions is largely dependent on staff members (e.g., Franklin, Kim, Ryan, Kelly,
& Montgomery, 2012) and whole-school investment (Capp et al., 2017; Pitner, Astor, &
Benbenishty, 2015; Pitner et al., 2017), working to understand and improve staff experiences
may be a necessary prerequisite. The process of improving climate for staff members might also
alter the kinds of interventions needed to support students. In other words, if staff members feel
the climate has improved, student experiences and outcomes would likely improve.
One implication of this study in general is that local context matters a great deal. After
all, the four subgroups of school climate identified in this analysis coexisted in the same schools
and districts. Future research should consider how local geographic context, including SES and
local concentrations of ethnicity, contribute to the presence of various ethnicities in a particular
school and the experiences of those staff members. It is possible to locate these subgroups in
specific schools and districts. This information at these levels is potentially important and
helpful. It may offer an additional way for district leaders to understand variation in their schools
and for school leaders to address specific expectations, practices, or social dynamics in their
buildings.
101
References
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). Mapping and monitoring bullying and violence:
Building a safe school climate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (in press). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., & Estrada, J. N. (2009). School violence and theoretically atypical
schools: The principal’s centrality in orchestrating safe schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 46, 423–461. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329598
Astor, R. A., De Pedro, K. T., Gilreath, T. D., Esqueda, M. C., & Benbenishty, R. (2013). The
promotional role of school and community contexts for military students. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 16, 233–244. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0139-x
Astor, R. A., Jacobson, L., Wrabel, S. L., Benbenishty, R., & Pineda, D. (2017). Welcoming
practices: Creating schools that support students and families in transition. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood,
family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87, 425–469.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669821
Berg, J. K., & Cornell, D. (2016). Authoritative school climate, aggression toward teachers, and
teacher distress in middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 122–139.
http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000132
102
Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of
early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70, 333–347.
http://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000305
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition,
teaching area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7–31.
http://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807500101
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and
narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 367–409.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321455
Brunsting, N. C., Sreckovic, M. A., & Lane, K. L. (2014). Special education teacher burnout: A
synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Education and Treatment of Children, 37, 681–
711. http://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0032
Bulach, C., Boothe, D., & Pickett, W. (2006). Analyzing the leadership behavior of school
principals. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 1. Retrieved
from http://cnx.org/content/m13813
Capp, G. P., Astor, R. A., & Gilreath, T. D. (2018). The voices and perceptions of school staff on
school climate: Advancing a conceptual model of school climate based on school staff
perspectives. Manuscript under review.
Capp, G. P., Moore, H., Pitner, R., Iachini, A. L., Berkowitz, R., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R.
(2017). School violence. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of
education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
103
Capper, C. A., & Young, M. D. (2014). Ironies and limitations of educational leadership for
social justice: A call to social justice educators. Theory Into Practice, 53, 158–164.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.885814
Chen, J.-K., & Astor, R. A. (2011). School engagement, risky peers, and student–teacher
relationships as mediators of school violence in Taiwanese vocational versus
academically oriented high schools. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 10–30.
http://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20413
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,
policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104, 1189–1204. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356
Darling, N., Hamilton, S. F., & Shaver, K. H. (2003). Relationships outside the family: Unrelated
adults. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence
(pp. 349–370). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do.
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6–13.
De Pedro, K. T., Astor, R. A., Gilreath, T. D., Benbenishty, R., & Berkowitz, R. (2018). School
climate, deployment, and mental health among students in military-connected schools.
Youth & Society, 50, 93–115. http://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X15592296
De Pedro, K. T., Gilreath, T., & Berkowitz, R. (2016). A latent class analysis of school climate
among middle and high school students in California public schools. Children and Youth
Services Review, 63, 10–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.01.023
104
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate
classrooms for early adolescents. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation
in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–181). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac
Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit
on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48,
90–101. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Elfers, A. M., Plecki, M. L., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Teacher mobility: Looking more closely at
“the movers” within a state system. Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 94–127.
http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8103_4
Engels, N., Hotton, G., Devos, G., Bouckenooghe, D., & Aelterman, A. (2008). Principals in
schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies, 34, 159–174.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701811263
Espelage, D. L., Swearer, S. M. (2010). A social-ecological model for bullying prevention and
intervention: Understanding the impact of adults in the social ecology of youngsters. In S.
R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools:
An international perspective (pp. 61–72). New York, NY: Routledge.
Franklin, C. G. S., Kim, J. S., Ryan, T. N., Kelly, M. S., & Montgomery, K. L. (2012). Teacher
involvement in school mental health interventions: A systematic review. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34, 973–982. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.027
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A
mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1349–1363.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005
105
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T.-H., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative
school discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 483–496. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018562
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59–68.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357621
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534.
http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2014). What are the effects of teacher education and
preparation on beginning teacher attrition? Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/78
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., & Stuckey, D. (2013). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching
force. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 491–525. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher
turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 44–70.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje8003_4
106
McCarley, T. A., Peters, M. L., & Decman, J. M. (2016). Transformational leadership related to
school climate: A multi-level analysis. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 44, 322–342. http://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214549966
Melnick, H., Cook-Harvey, C. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Encouraging social and
emotional learning in the context of new accountability. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy
Institute.
National School Climate Center. (2007). The school climate challenge: Narrowing the gap
between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and
teacher education policy. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolclimate.org/themes/schoolclimate/assets/pdf/policy/school-climate-
challenge-web.pdf
Nurius, P. S., & Macy, R. J. (2008). Heterogeneity among violence-exposed women: Applying
person-oriented research methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 389–415.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507312297
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in
latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study.
Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). What affects teacher ratings of student behaviors? The
potential influence of teachers’ perceptions of the school environment and experiences.
Prevention Science, 15, 940–950. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0432-4
Pitner, R., Astor, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2015). Violence in schools. In P. Allen-Meares (Ed.)
Social work services in school (7th ed., pp. 265–296). Boston, MA: Pearson.
107
Pitner, R., Moore, H., Capp, G., Iachini, A. L., Berkowitz, R., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A.
(2017). School safety, victimization, and bullying: An overview of violence interventions
and monitoring approaches. In C. Franklin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work online.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Price, H. E. (2012). Principal–teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal
and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 39–85.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11417126
Reardon, S. F. (2016). School district socioeconomic status, race, and academic achievement.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
Rice, F. P., & Dolgin, K. G. (2005). The adolescent: Development, relationships, and culture.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rosato, N. S., & Baer, J. C. (2012). Latent class analysis: A method for capturing heterogeneity.
Social Work Research, 36, 61–69. http://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svs006
Ryan, J., Pollock, K., & Antonelli, F. (2009). Teacher diversity in Canada: Leaky pipelines,
bottlenecks, and glass ceilings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32, 591–617.
Santoro, N. (2015). The drive to diversify the teaching profession: Narrow assumptions, hidden
complexities. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18, 858–876.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.759934
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
108
Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2015). Teachers’ victimization-related beliefs and strategies:
Associations with students’ aggressive behavior and peer victimization. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 45–60. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9840-y
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44, 458–495. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321502
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement,
and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 315–352.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
Wilkins, C., & Lall, R. (2011). ‘You’ve got to be tough and I’m trying’: Black and minority
ethnic student teachers’ experiences of initial teacher education. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 14, 365–386. http://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.543390

109
Table 3.1. Sample Demographics
n %
Role in school
Teacher, Grade 5 or above 28,338 52.04
Elementary school 4,227
Teacher, Grade 4 or below 9,867 18.12
Teacher, special education 3,128 5.74
Administrator 2,262 4.15
Pupil personnel services 2,608 4.79
Other staff member 8,250 15.15
School type
Elementary 20,601 39.01
Middle 11,567 21.91
High 20,636 39.08
Race and ethnicity
African American 1,599 2.96
American Indian or Alaska Native 384 0.71
Asian or Pacific Islander 3,079 5.7
White (not Hispanic) 36,766 68.04
Hispanic or Latino 8,533 15.79
Other or multiethnic 3,677 6.8
Tenure in position at any school
< 1 year 5,382 9.87
110
1–2 years 5,402 9.91
3–5 years 10,285 18.86
6–10 years 13,036 23.91
> 10 years 20,420 37.45
Tenure in current school, any position
< 1 year 2,192 4.02
1–2 years 2,965 5.44
3–5 years 7,131 13.08
6–10 years 12,468 22.87
> 10 years 29,759 54.59

111
Table 3.2. Model Fit Indicators for Staff School Climate
Classes Adjusted BIC LMR-LRT p-value Entropy
1 1,200,107.686
2 1,039,269.404 .0000 .860
3 968,497.946 .3333 .900
4 947,826.476 .0000 .866
5 935,644.339 .0000 .846
6 930,322.855 .0000 .831
Note. Bold indicates model with best fit. BIC, Bayesian information criterion; LMR-LRT, Lo-
Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test.

112
Table 3.3. Conditional Probabilities for Staff Climate Latent Profile Membership
Negative Lackluster Discipline
and Support
Positive
Proportion of sample 4 20 47 29
Respect for others 1.739 2.612 2.957 3.640
Meaningful participation 1.934 2.753 3.007 3.732
Handles discipline 1.571 2.129 3.029 3.719
Supportive relationships 3.026 3.695 4.237 4.738
Need training 4.827 4.487 3.596 3.050
Student well-being 2.950 3.192 3.722 4.031
Student risk 2.934 2.726 2.060 1.704

113
Table 3.4. Odds Ratios Predicting Class Membership Relative to Positive Climate Class based on
Staff Characteristics
Lackluster Discipline and
Support
Negative
Position type OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Grade 5 1.66 (1.39, 1.97) 1.05 (0.94, 1.17) 1.75 (1.32, 2.32)
Special education 1.47 (1.22, 1.77) 1.07 (0.92, 1.24) 1.40 (1.05, 1.86)
Administrator 0.28 (0.20, 0.38) 0.7 (0.60, 0.81) 0.44 (0.30, 0.65)
Pupil personnel services 0.85 (0.68, 1.06) 0.88 (0.75, 1.02) 1.00 (0.73, 1.37)
Other 0.75 (0.62, 0.90) 0.78 (0.70, 0.87) 1.16 (0.87, 1.55)
Race and ethnicity
African American 2.96 (2.40, 3.65) 1.15 (0.94, 1.40) 3.54 (2.75, 4.57)
American Indian or Alaska Native 1.89 (1.27, 2.81) 0.96 (0.68, 1.36) 3.20 (1.88, 5.44)
Asian or Pacific Islander 1.07 (0.89, 1.30) 0.94 (0.83, 1.06) 0.97 (0.76, 1.24)
Hispanic 1.44 (1.25, 1.65) 1.02 (0.93, 1.12) 1.89 (1.59, 2.25)
Other or multiethnic 1.98 (1.73, 2.26) 1.08 (0.96, 1.21) 2.83 (2.33, 3.46)
School type
Middle 2.68 (2.28, 3.15) 1.73 (1.54, 1.95) 2.70 (2.05, 3.56)
High 4.31 (3.62, 5.12) 2.24 (1.99, 2.53) 3.72 (2.81, 4.94)
Tenure at school
1–2 years 0.95 (0.79, 1.15) 0.82 (0.64, 1.04) 1.22 (0.84, 1.76)
3–5 years 1.11 (0.94, 1.31) 0.84 (0.66, 1.08) 1.29 (0.97, 1.73)
6–10 years 0.98 (0.82, 1.17) 0.92 (0.73, 1.17) 1.47 (1.11, 1.93)
114
> 10 years 0.85 (0.72, 1.01) 0.85 (0.66, 1.08) 1.20 (0.90, 1.59)
Tenure in job
1–2 years 1.29 (1.10, 1.51) 1.06 (0.95, 1.19) 1.34 (1.07, 1.67)
3–5 years 1.26 (1.09, 1.46) 1.14 (1.02, 1.28) 1.07 (0.84, 1.36)
6–10 years 1.45 (1.24, 1.70) 1.27 (1.12, 1.43) 1.31 (1.02, 1.68)
> 10 years 1.13 (0.99, 1.28) 1.16 (1.02, 1.31) 1.12 (0.91, 1.38)
Note. Reference categories were Grade 4 teachers for position type, White for race and ethnicity,
elementary school for school type, and less than 1 year for tenure in school and job.

115
Figure 3.1. Graphic Illustration of Latent Profile Analysis for Staff School Climate

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Conditional Probabilites
School Climate Components
Negative 3.8%
Lackluster 20%
Positive discipline and
support 47%
Positive 29%
116
Chapter 4 (Study 3): Exploring Positive and Negative School Climate: How do
Socioeconomic Status, Leadership, and School Contexts Influence Staff Perceptions of
Climate?
Abstract
School staff members are rarely included in school climate research, particularly in relation to
expectations that they create climate in their schools. School climate contexts for staff members
often involve how they interact with one another in any given school, but also how the school
district organizationally supports issues of school climate. This mixed-methods study explored
how socioeconomic status (SES), school districts, leadership, and school contexts come together
to create school climate. A statewide latent profile analysis was used as a template to identify an
initial sample of positive- and negative-climate schools in one high-SES district and one low-
SES district. Based on these data and district-level interviews, four schools were selected for a
case study. Data collection involved key informant interviews and observation. Findings indicate
that the SES of the district and school did not directly dictate the quality of climate in each of the
four case study schools. Instead, organizational variables in the schools, such as the principal’s
decisions and vision, changes in principals, and the presence of a shared staff mission were
highlighted as key influences on the quality of climate that staff members in schools with
positive and negative climate experience. Findings also suggest that staff members may place a
higher priority on creating positive climate for students than considering how climate influences
their own experiences.

117
Introduction
Positive school climate continues to gain importance in research and practice
communities as a mechanism to support student success. A large body of school climate research
has linked positive school climate with numerous positive outcomes for students (e.g., Astor &
Benbenishty, in press; Astor, De Pedro, Gilreath, Esqueda, & Benbenishty, 2013; Benbenishty &
Astor, 2005; Berkowitz, Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017), and a limited body of research has
linked elements of school climate to outcomes for teachers (e.g., Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2011,
2012; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008). However, the majority of school climate research is based on
student perspectives and reports of school climate (Berkowitz et al., 2017). As a result, research
focused on school staff members who would be responsible for climate and social and emotional
curriculum is scarce. The views of teachers, administrators, and other staff members are critical
for understanding how schools can create positive climates and how staff members see their roles
in schools. Recent research has highlighted important variations in how staff members
experience climate, and that some individuals report much more positive experiences than others
(Capp, Astor, & Gilreath, 2018; also see Study 1 and Study 2). These differences suggest that
understanding local contexts is critical for understanding climate. This mixed-methods study
begins to fill this gap by exploring how community SES and school districts combine with
school settings to create positive and negative levels of climate.
Ecologically Nested Staff Member Experiences of School Climate
One way that research does include the local context is through the use of ecological
theories. These posit that individual behaviors and attitudes are shaped by nested ecological
influences (Astor & Benbenishty, in press; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). These theories are
frequently used to study school climate and often focus on the importance of relationships and
118
influences from multiple ecological layers (Wang & Degol, 2016). Thus, it is not merely one
relationship that matters for a member of a school community. It is the combination of many
kinds of interactions with many purposes that make up experiences at school. Astor and
Benbenishty (in press; also see Benbenishty & Astor, 2005) proposed a theoretical model that
assumes that school violence is influenced by a combination of variables that exist in the school,
including teacher–student relationships, and external variables including community SES and
student and family characteristics. In their model, the school mediates, moderates, and attenuates
influences from external contexts. The interplay between external influences, including
neighborhood or community characteristics, and the internal influences of the school are critical
factors in their heuristic model. Although external influences are important, they don’t dictate
what happens in the school, including the construction of climate. Instead, the school mediates
and moderates influences (Astor & Benbenishty, in press). How school staff members
understand these influences in conjunction with their experiences of school climate was one
guiding question for this study.
Several layers of context were included in the design of this study. These are shown in
Figure 4.1 and reflect an effort to capture wider and more immediate influences on the
construction of climate from a staff perspective.
Contexts Influencing Climate: SES, Districts, and Staff Experiences
It is no surprise that SES is a critical component for understanding climate in districts and
schools. Research has clearly demonstrated that one of the strongest predictors of academic
achievement is student and school SES. Around the world, researchers have found that students
with lower-SES backgrounds experience poorer academic achievement than their higher-SES
peers (Berkowitz et al., 2017; Sirin, 2005). Research from the Center for Policy Analysis at
119
Stanford University highlighted continued inequity in educational opportunity related to both
SES and race and ethnicity. Recent analyses convincingly demonstrated that district SES is
closely related to average academic achievement. This relationship is so strong that these
researchers stated: “We have little evidence that we know how to provide adequate educational
opportunities for children growing up in low-income communities” (Reardon, 2016, p. 7). The
same study also found that racial achievement gaps are very large, even when students attend
schools with similar SES. One potential reason is that Black and Hispanic students are generally
poorer than White students (Reardon, 2016).
Poverty in combination with poor school climate may influence the experiences of many
people in a school. For instance, Hopson and Lee (2011) found that among students experiencing
poor climate, those from poor families report worse behavior than students from higher-income
families. This suggests a double danger, wherein students experiencing poverty and negative
school environments may have worse experiences than higher-SES students in the same schools.
In addition, it is likely that these behavioral differentials affect staff members as well, because
teachers may respond differently in classrooms with higher levels of behavior problems (Troop-
Gordon & Ladd, 2015). Further, it is not merely individual levels of poverty that matter; low
neighborhood SES may also be a source of deprivation in schools (Owens, 2010) and can
contribute to further income segregation (Owens, 2016). Further, communities with high poverty
and violence have been shown to negatively affect school climate (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera,
2010).
School climate definitions assume that staff members are fundamentally responsible for
the quality of climate that students experience. Other research similarly highlighted this
responsibility and alluded to tension that may exist for staff members related to their desires and
120
abilities to shape their environment. For instance, Kraft et al. (2015) found that teachers
recognized the need for organizational interventions to address the persistently negative and
unsuccessful school experiences among low-income students. Teachers in this study indicated
that their individual contributions were not enough to overcome the influences of poverty (Kraft
et al., 2015).
Despite the systemic inequality that is evident in schools and the difficulties that staff
members face in trying to respond to SES disparities, research about school climate provides a
potential pathway to make improvements. In a recent review, researchers found convincing
evidence that positive school climate contributes to higher academic achievement and decreases
the negative influence that low SES might have on academic achievement (Berkowitz et al.,
2017).
Together, it is clear that low SES and related inequality negatively influence academic
achievement and school climate. Further, based on this evidence, school, district, and community
levels of poverty or inequality are all important. It is expected that when examining local
context, schools in higher-SES districts are more likely to have positive climate, whereas those in
lower-SES districts are likely to have more negative school climate.
District decisions may influence climate. Districts have clear influence over schools
through budgets, policies, personnel decisions, and program decisions, although it is unclear how
this influence relates to staff member experiences of climate. Sometimes, district influences or
local context are captured in efforts to improve school climate or social and emotional learning
outcomes. Locally created interventions and programs implemented by schools and districts are
increasingly important, both practically and theoretically, as schools and districts continue to
create or select programs to target needs. In districts that are creating interventions, these efforts
121
reflect a community-driven perspective that capitalizes on local resources to solve problems that
have been identified in particular local contexts (De Pedro et al., 2017). In other cases, districts
select interventions because of an affinity for a particular activity or approach (Capp,
Benbenishty, Astor, & Pineda, in press). Thus, it is crucial to understand the local district and
school contexts. In fact, it is hard to imagine that trying to understand climate relying only on
existing administrative data would reflect nonstandardized, grassroots efforts or specific ideas
and desires of school leaders. Focusing on particular district and school contexts, then, is
necessary to gain a holistic and nuanced understanding of how school climate influences people,
interactions, and decisions.
Staff-focused model of school climate. In a recent study of school staff members in
California, researchers argued that the construction of school climate for staff members should
be similar to that of students, but should account for key shifts in the experiences and
responsibilities of staff members (Capp et al., 2018). A follow-up study supported the hypothesis
that modifying a commonly used model of student-focused climate would reflect the unique
experiences and characteristics of staff members (Study 1). For example, students experience
relationships with other peers, and their relationships with staff members reflect being cared
about, mentored, and supported (Berkowitz et al., 2017; Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral,
2009; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgens-D’Alessandro, 2013). Staff members also experience
these relationships, but with the expectation that they exert a positive influence. That is, they are
expected to support and mentor through their relationships, and thus facilitate positive student
experiences. Staff members also experience relationships with other adults in schools, some of
them peers and some of them supervisors. School safety also represents an area wherein staff
members may have a different, or additional, experience that connects to their feelings of safety.
122
How a school responds to discipline issues, for instance, likely contributes to whether staff
members feel safe in school, beyond the prevalence of violence or bullying (Espelage et al.,
2013; Hong & Espelage, 2012; also see Study 1 and Study 2).
Situating staff experiences in schools. The same preliminary studies also articulated
relevant characteristics for understanding staff member experiences, which include their role, or
job, in schools (e.g., teacher, principal, secretary); school type (e.g., elementary, middle, high
school); years of experience; and ethnicity. Staff perceptions of climate varied based on all of
these characteristics, suggesting that the essential tasks and expectations that dictate staff
experiences are salient aspects of their wider experiences of school climate (Capp et al., 2018;
Study 1, Study 2). One additional finding from this preliminary research on staff-focused school
climate was that not all dimensions of climate contributed equally to models of school climate.
For instance, safety, including the school’s response to discipline, and relationships were the
strongest influences on staff perceptions of climate (Study 1). This suggests that although all
dimensions of climate matter, some seem to be more important. Together, these findings suggest
that staff member experiences related to discipline and relationships with others in the building
are important for understanding climate.
Study 2 explored subgroups of staff members who share perceptions of climate. Findings
showed that staff perceptions are grouped together in meaningful ways. There is a subgroup
consisting of positive ratings of school climate and a subgroup of staff members who share
negative perceptions of climate (Study 2). This study also emphasized the importance of the jobs,
school types, and ethnicity of staff members when considering the quality of climate they
experience. For instance, staff members working in middle and high schools were much more
likely to experience negative climate in comparison to elementary teachers, and administrators
123
were more likely to experience positive climate compared to most other staff members (Study 2).
One implication from this study is that any or all of these subgroups can be found at the same
place at the same time. How does this shape the overall school climate?
Finally, school principals were prominent figures in these preliminary studies about staff
school climate. Results from Study 1 and Study 2 show that how the school responds to
discipline is a key factor in school climate experiences for staff members. This, combined with
their markedly different perceptions of climate, suggests their contribution to climate is
important.
Gaps in current staff-focused climate research. Although these preliminary studies
examining staff perceptions provided a foundation for understanding school staff experiences in
California, there are gaps in the literature. First, by examining the experiences of staff members
from a more epidemiological perspective, there is the possibility that climate is decontextualized
from specific places. Previous research indicated that elementary and secondary school settings
are different in terms of school climate, but current conceptualizations and theories do not
account for these structural differences. Additional contextual questions include the quality of
climate. Positive and negative perceptions have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, yet
we must also consider that there are schools featuring a pervasively negative climate, schools
with a positive climate, and schools that fall in between. In the previously described latent profile
analysis, four profiles of climate emerged (Study 2), but several questions remain: How do these
manifest in a school setting? How do staff members experience their daily routines in a positive
climate compared to a negative climate in school? How do administrators respond to being in a
negative-climate school? Does the district maintain an awareness of the quality of climate in its
124
boundaries? Does the district know which schools are positive and negative, and does it know
why?
Purpose
Considering the diverse body of school climate literature and the large scale of related
issues, including SES, that may influence school contexts and thus school climate, this study
aimed to explore staff-focused school climate with a framework that embeds individual
experiences in wider contextual issues. This may be understood as a filtering process, wherein
various contextual and ecological elements are expected to be reflected in the pattern of
experiences that make up the school day (National School Climate Center, 2007). Figure 4.1
shows this filtered process and includes two nested sequences. The first sequence proposes that
SES and the valence of climate in districts and schools are interconnected and observable
through the daily experiences of staff members. The second sequence, embedded in school and
district levels, shows the progression of research foci moving from an epidemiological, statewide
approach to an investigation of the actual experiences of people in these contexts.
As previously mentioned, the relationships between high SES and positive climate are
expected to be reflected in district and school contexts. One objective for this study, then, was
exploring how school districts understand positive and negative school climate and the quality of
climate in their schools. The four subgroups of school climate that represent staff members in
California (Study 2) suggest not only that substantial variation exists in the quality of school
climate experienced by staff members, but that there is a need to further explore how the school
context contributes to the diverse experiences of climate. This is especially important given the
awareness that in a particular school, there may be staff members who represent all four profiles
of climate.
125
Teachers and school staff members have enormous social responsibility and great
influence over students. Understanding their perceptions and beliefs about school climate is
critical, including ideas about how climate is created and how different combinations of personal
and ecological interactions contribute to school climate. This study also sought to root
quantitative findings in the actual experiences of staff members. This case study, therefore,
aimed to answer these questions:
1. How is the quality, or valence, of school climate understood by staff members, school
leaders, and the district?
2. How does SES influence staff perceptions of school climate?
3. What experiences reflect a positive climate in school?
4. How do staff members characterize their role regarding school climate (e.g., they create
it, it is a shared responsibility, it is a result of school-wide dynamics and interactions)?
Methods
This case study was a mixed-methods investigation of staff members in their local school
and district contexts. Essentially, this is an explanatory sequential design (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2011; quant à QUAL), wherein quantitative methods were first used to identify places of
positive and negative climate. In the second step of this design, these quantitative results were
used to refine questions, the case study sample, and data collection (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2011). In the following sections (methods, results, and discussion), information is presented to
help explain the processes of choosing high- and low-SES districts and positive- and negative-
climate schools, and the implications of these choices and analyses. Subsequently, more holistic
case study data collection and analysis are presented. Figure 4.2 presents the mixed-methods
design and data collection activities at district, school, and individual levels.
126
Districts, Schools, and Individuals as Participants
District selection. Two school districts were selected from an existing consortium
composed of a university and several school districts. These two districts were selected because
of similar characteristics, including: their geographic proximity to each other, similar size
(number of schools), ethnic diversity, and number of charter schools. Because of the importance
of SES, and to further explore how SES might influence school climate, an additional criterion
for selection was including a higher-SES district (with fewer free and reduced-price meals) and
one lower-SES district (more free and reduced-price meals). After these districts were contacted,
confirmed their participation, and learned about the procedure used to sort schools by school
climate profile, these districts facilitated the selection of school sites for further study. In both
districts, district personnel members connected the researcher with principals for final approval
and arrangements for data collection activities. The researcher then met with all four principals
(and in one case, the entire leadership team) to present the goals of this project, and all four gave
permission and facilitated access to their schools, various meetings, and events. Conversations
with district personnel members also provided significant information supporting the conclusions
of the profile-based sorting. This information is described further in the results section. The final
sample consisted of four schools. Based on their position in the profile-based list, one of these
schools was expected to have very positive climate, one with moderately positive climate, and
two with negative climate.
Staff subgroups of climate and school selection. In a previous study of school staff
members in California using latent profile analysis (Study 2), four subgroups of school staff
members were identified based on their perceptions of school climate: negative climate,
lackluster climate, higher discipline and support, and positive climate. The negative subgroup
127
(3.8% of the sample) reported the highest need for training, highest perceived student risk, lower
perceived student well-being, and lower ratings of all other elements of climate. The lackluster
subgroup (20%) reported similar needs for training and high ratings of student risk, but more
positive ratings of well-being and climate elements. The discipline and support subgroup (47%)
reflected staff members who were more positive about how the school handles discipline and
supportive relationships than the previous subgroups. The positive subgroup (29%) reflected the
lowest reports of student risk and need for training and very high ratings of all other climate
elements.
For the purposes of this case study, each of these subgroups was located in California
schools using a cross-tabulation of school identification codes and membership in a subgroup of
school climate perceptions. This yielded a list of schools with the proportion of staff members in
each subgroup. Because the primary goal in this study was to compare positive and negative
climate in schools, schools in participating districts were again sorted based on the proportion of
staff members in these climate subgroups. The result was two lists of schools in each district that
featured the most positive and most negative climates. To illustrate further, one school included
in this case study had 31 respondents, and nearly 68% of them belonged to the positive climate
subgroup. These lists were presented to school district personnel members as way to (a) evaluate
the accuracy of this statistical process to identify positive- and negative-climate schools, (b)
suggest possible locations for case study activities, and (c) begin evaluating the transactions
between the district and schools regarding school climate.
Qualitative Data Collection
Following identification of school sites based on the school sorting and interviews with
district personnel members, qualitative case study activities were employed to explore the school
128
context in connection with staff perspectives of school climate. Following the methodology
detailed by Yin (2003), multiple sources of evidence were gathered. Figure 4.2 shows a case
study matrix that represents data collection for this case study. Data collection began in
December 2016 and continued through June 2017. This period of several months allowed for the
building of rapport with participants, observation of a wide variety of activities on the four
school campuses, and interviews with a variety of staff members. This time span also allowed for
repeated triangulation of case study data. For instance, interviews could include questions about
school events or activities that were previously observed, and interviewees could suggest further
activities for observation (see Table A1 Appendix).
Documentation. This step included a review of documents from publicly available
sources that described school and district programs, initiatives, historical trends, and indicators
of ongoing processes that districts and schools were involved in to monitor, understand, or
change school climate. School and district records about ongoing school climate-related efforts
were sought, as were current policies guiding staff interactions at school.
Semistructured interviews with key informants. Twenty semistructured interviews
were conducted with key informants, usually lasting between 20 and 40 minutes. Interviews with
multiple stakeholders were critical to understanding how experiences and perceptions of climate
manifest in more than one ecological layer of the school. In addition, these interviews allowed an
exploration of the relationship between the district and school. Primary targets for these
interviews included teachers, secretarial or other staff members, counselors or school social
workers, principals, and district-level personnel members or administrators. District
representation was important in this context because of the potential to provide historical
information about the school, including any impetus for change at the district or school level. An
129
interview guide was developed for semistructured interviews (see Table 4.1). Questions were
intended to gather staff perspectives about: (a) what constitutes positive and negative climate, (b)
how the school and district contexts influence their experiences of climate, and (c) what they
believe are the most important factors for creating climate.
Direct observation. Finally, direct observation was an appropriate tool in this case to
situate findings about climate in the context of a school, clarify interactions between district and
school levels, and triangulate data from other sources. Further, organizational and logistical
elements of the school influenced how people experienced particular schools. Observations
captured several aspects of daily school life, including: (a) formal (e.g., staff meetings) and
informal interactions among staff members; (b) instruction and classroom activities, general
supervision (e.g., lunch or recess), and informal interactions between staff members and
students; (c) interactions among parents, other members of the community, and school staff
members; and (d) physical aspects of the school. Additionally, during observations, many
informal conversations occurred. In many cases, this resulted in the opportunity to have multiple
conversations with school professionals, including principals and department leaders, over time.
Analysis. For all data collection activities, materials were kept in a case study database
for storage and analysis (Yin, 2003). Materials included field notes (e.g., observations), photos
(no pictures of people were taken), and interview transcripts. Key informant interviews were
recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thus, nearly all data (except for photographs) were
transcribed and imported into NVivo for analysis.
In general, inductive coding techniques were used to generate codes from the data.
Although a codebook was not created prior to analysis, previous literature and the design of this
study suggested possible themes, including characterizations of positive and negative climate,
130
and characterizations of climate unique elementary and secondary settings. This strategy was
appropriate for this study given the exploratory and explanatory goals (Kohlbacher, 2006; Powell
et al., 2013). All transcripts were read, reread, and checked for accurate transcription. The
primary researcher coded initial transcripts and developed an initial codebook. Then, an
additional researcher coded two of these transcripts and further refined the codebook (See Table
A2 in the Appendix). Both researchers independently co-coded an additional six transcripts of
interviews and observations. Discrepancies in coding were discussed and consensus reached. An
interrater agreement rate of 93% was documented. In order to share qualitative results, quotes
were selected that represent multiple voices and that represent the diverse sample including staff
from elementary and secondary schools, and teachers, principals, secretaries, and other staff
members (Corden & Sainsbury, 2006). Quotes were also selected that were effective and clear
examples of themes (Chenail, 1995; Corden & Sainsbury, 2006). Finally, data collection and
analysis happened concurrently. Thus, the process of coding and analyzing interviews and
observations also guided future observations and interviews.
Strategies for rigor. Several strategies for rigor (Padgett, 2011) were included in this
study’s design. First, this case study incorporated triangulation in many stages. In fact, this is a
key facet of a case study design. Data from the California School Climate Survey were used to
identify school sites for analysis, then district personnel members were interviewed to validate
quantitative results. Qualitative data provided an additional layer of validation for district-level
information. As mentioned, data collection and analysis were concurrent and iterative, allowing
the researcher to ensure that a variety of activities were observed and key informants could be
interviewed. The researcher conducting observations and interviews also used regular peer
131
debriefing and support to discuss preliminary findings and additional questions that arose from
interviews or observations, and to monitor researcher bias.
Results
Sample Description
District information. District A, a high-SES district, is a suburban school district in
Southern California, with 30 schools and approximately 29,000 students. The Education Data
Partnership (2018) reported that approximately 25% of students qualified for free and reduced-
price lunch, approximately 6% qualified as English learners (2016–2017), and 25% were
socioeconomically disadvantaged (California Department of Education, 2017). Four schools
were classified as Title I schools. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students, according to the
California Department of Education (2017), are defined as students whose parents have not
received a high school diploma; who were eligible for free and reduced-price meals (also known
as the National School Lunch Program); who have a direct certification for free or reduced-price
meals; or who are migrant, homeless, or foster youth.
District B, a low-SES district, is also a suburban district in Southern California, in a
county adjacent to District A. District B has 25 schools and approximately 21,000 students. In
contrast to District A, roughly 58% of District B students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch,
nearly 17% are classified as English learners (Education Data Partnership, 2018), and 64% are
socioeconomically disadvantaged (California Department of Education, 2017). In addition, this
district has 22 schools classified as Title I. See Table 4.2 for a presentation of sample schools
with high and low SES and positive and negative climate.
School descriptions. In District A, Elementary 1 is a small elementary school with
approximately 540 students and approximately 45 teachers. In the last 3–5 years, student
132
demographics have changed, reflecting regional changes and changing boundaries for the school.
One result of these changes has been an increase in the number of students who are English
learners, in foster care, or qualify for free or reduced-price lunch; these students make up 37% of
the school’s population. One result of this change is that the school will be officially classified as
a Title I school in the year following this case study. During the case study, 9% of the students
were English learners and 32% were socioeconomically disadvantaged (California Department
of Education, 2017). According to the profile-based sorting and district responses, Elementary 1
was expected to be a positive climate school.
In the same district, Elementary 2 (medium climate) is one of the district’s Title I
schools, with 63% of students classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and 28% classified
as English learners. Enrollment at Elementary 2 was 588 students at the time of this study, with
approximately 54 staff members. In contrast to Elementary 1, Elementary 2’s student
demographics have been relatively stable during the past few years.
High School 1 is in District A, along with the two elementary schools. Approximately
3,200 students attend High School 1, along with approximately 230 employees. During the time
of this case study, 3% of the students were classified as English learners and 25% classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged. Based on the initial sorting of schools, this school was
expected to have a more negative climate.
Finally, High School 2 is in the adjacent low-SES district (District B). It features roughly
240 staff members and 3,100 students; 5% of students are classified as English learners and 52%
are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Similar to the previous high school, the quantitative
sorting indicated a negative climate would be expected at High School 2.
133
Individual participant information. In addition to conversations with many staff
members, key informant interviews were also conducted with 20 staff members from the four
schools in this case study. Interviews were conducted with teachers, administrators, secretaries,
coaches, and one speech and language pathologist. Eight of these staff members worked in
elementary schools, and the remaining 12 worked in high schools. On average, staff members
had more than 16 years of experience in their profession and had been in their current jobs for an
average of 10.5 years.
Validating Subgroup-Based Sorting for Schools
As previously described, schools in participating districts were sorted based on the
proportions of staff members expected to endorse a positive climate and then sorted again based
on proportions of those expected to endorse a negative climate. These subgroups were derived
from state-level data, and it was uncertain whether locating these subgroups at the district level
would reflect meaningful variation in school climate perceptions. It was also important to make
an initial attempt to identify positive- and negative-climate schools in the high- and low-SES
districts.
These lists were shared with district personnel members to determine if this method of
organizing schools was worthwhile. Initial conversations with district leaders confirmed the
sorting procedure, especially the extremes of these lists. The first few schools at the top of each
list (positive and negative) were clearly known by district personnel members for having either
positive or negative environments. For example, district staff members described one elementary
school at the top of the positive-climate list as a “love-fest,” whereas in another district, one of
the negative-climate schools was described as having a “toxic environment.” Additionally,
schools at the top of the negative climate lists were described as having dissatisfied staff
134
members, and in both cases these schools had requested support from union representatives.
These responses from district personnel members provide validation that at least for a snapshot
of one point in time, the staff profiles of school climate identified across California (Study 2) and
the process of sorting schools by positive and negative climate have utility as a mechanism for
the assessment of climate. The district responses also show that to some degree, the districts in
this study were aware of the quality of climate in their schools.
Schools with Positive Climate Based on Sorting and Qualitative Results
Because one goal of this study was to better understand positive and negative climate
environments, results that describe positive and negative climates are presented first. These
descriptions also indicate whether schools were in high- or low-SES district contexts. Then,
cross-cutting themes that help further explain why the climate in these schools was positive or
negative are discussed. Table 4.3 displays qualitative results in more detail.
High-SES district and positive-climate schools. Two schools in this sample were
identified with more positive climates, both in the higher-SES district (District A). Given the
methods used to select districts and schools, it is important to first address the kind of climate
encountered in the school contexts. At Elementary 1, a positive school climate was expected
based on quantitative analyses and conversations with district personnel members. Results
overwhelmingly showed that this was true. One teacher explained:
I feel like we have a very positive school culture. I see the principal interact with teachers
as well as students. I see teachers interact with each other, and with students. I see the
schoolwork of students displayed throughout the school. I see the great lengths teachers
go to in order to make our school a positive place for students.
Another teacher explained the climate this way:
135
We have a very special school. [Elementary 1] teachers are really focused on being a
team and working for all students, not just the ones in their classrooms. The staff is very
caring and encouraging. The parents are more often than not, very supportive of our
classrooms.
These comments exemplify staff beliefs that the climate in their school was positive, and
participants had specific examples of what their colleagues do to create this climate. The
principal of Elementary 1 also reported that in the school year following this case study, it would
be classified as a Title I school due to its steadily changing student demographics.
The quantitative sorting process suggested that Elementary 2 would have a moderately
positive climate. It should be noted that this quantitative sorting method may not measure
gradations of climate as well as extremes, so this presents an opportunity to see if subtle
differences are also reflected in qualitative findings. Elementary 2 is also one of the district’s
Title I schools, with high levels of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. At Elementary 1
and Elementary 2, interviews with staff members indicated that the cohesion among staff
members was high. Multiple respondents described a sense of family among their coworkers.
Each of these schools also implemented a weekly ritual called the “flag salute,” in which the
entire school gathers to celebrate student achievements, birthdays, and even student jokes. A
teacher from Elementary 2 further explained:
See we have a very unusual school—people come here and they’re like, there’s just
something about [this school]. Because we are like a family. Most of us have been here
forever. So, it feels like a family, and we do things outside of school together, and we’re
just on each other’s side. We’re really supportive.
136
Some comments indicated a less positive climate. These reflected perceptions of the school’s
leadership, suggested that not all staff members experienced supportive relationships, or
implicated disciplinary procedures at the school: “There were several years of just—I didn’t
want to come to work because I didn’t feel supported, I didn’t feel appreciated, I felt like I was
under attack.” Yet another teacher shared a comment that showed the influence of the principal:
But one of the things that I think happens is that there’s behavior problems with some of
our students that we have here. But when they send a student up to the office, and the
administration is not wanting to deal with the parents that much, deal with the
ramifications of suspending a kid, or those types of things, then that student gets a little
light talking-to, and they’re sent back in the classroom.
Another staff member relayed an example of difficulties among staff members:
And I could tell you, too, that there was a teacher here that was here last year that was
phenomenal. … And he ended up taking a position with another school as a fifth grade
teacher because he could not stand the climate of what he was working with at his grade
level.
Observations and interviews from Elementary 2 show that the climate was mostly positive, but
that there were clear reasons why it might be a moderately positive climate.
Schools with Negative Climate Based on Sorting and Qualitative Results
High-SES district, negative-climate school. The two high schools in this study
represented both the high- and low-SES districts. Each of the high schools in this study was
originally sorted as having a negative climate. In District A, at High School 1, this was not
necessarily an accurate characterization. Data collected during the case study suggested a
positive climate, and that many people were happy to be working at High School 1. However,
137
there were also indicators that not all staff members viewed things positively. In one case, this
reflected a fundamental disagreement with the mission of the school, and whether the school was
really meeting the needs of the diverse student body:
What happens if we said to students, “Do what you’re passionate about, and make sure it
makes the world better.” Why aren’t we saying that to them? That’s school climate. …
Not spirit day with a green T-shirt. It doesn’t work that way. We’re not asking those big
questions.
Low-SES district, negative-climate school. In District B, at High School 2, case study
data much more closely reflected the sorting as a negative-climate environment. Individual
conversations and meetings revealed consistent evidence that staff members were not
experiencing a positive climate. This was clearly connected to two larger issues: a rapid change
of administrators in the preceding 12 months and significant perceived instability relating to
other policies and procedures at the school. During an initial visit with the leadership team at
High School 2, one administrator quickly intuited that given the other schools involved in the
case study, the reason their school would be included in a study about school climate was
because of a negative climate. This conclusion, and the fact that this researcher was welcomed
anyway, suggested awareness about the climate of this school. Importantly, for this school, there
were indicators suggesting that the climate was beginning to improve.
Cross-Cutting Themes Explaining Climate
One emerging conclusion is that there are many elements, or themes, that come together
to create a positive or negative climate, despite the level of SES in the district. Several of these
themes help explain staff perceptions of climate and factors that influence positive and negative
experiences in schools. These themes also interlock with one another, meaning that evidence
138
from one theme often will implicate another. These themes were: (a) principals have critical
influences on climate; (b) administrator turnover always matters; (c) staff members root their
perspectives in time and history; (d) relationships with other staff members shape individual
experiences; (e) staff members make decisions that create climate; (f) staff members view
themselves in service of the students; (g) departmental structure and school size may influence
climate; and (h) school staff members consider climate to be disconnected from the district.
Finally, interviews and observations referenced in these sections are examples. Table 4.3
presents a comprehensive listing of case study evidence.
Principals have critical influences on climate. First, perhaps the most overwhelming
theme from this case study was the influence of the principal or leadership team in schools. This
was true in elementary and secondary settings, regardless of whether climate was positive or
negative, as succinctly expressed by one elementary teacher: “The principal has a lot to do with
school culture whether you like it or not.”
Other comments from a high school teacher indicate the immediacy and potency of
administrators:
A good example is climate has changed just in this year at our school because we had one
principal at the beginning of the year, and now, we have a different principal. So, with
that change of leadership, that’s changed the climate of what we do.
Another elementary teacher unequivocally described the power of a principal: “Like I said, we
had a great climate here until one principal came—it’s amazing what one principal can do. They
brought in and destroyed the climate here.” Other staff members clearly connected their
experiences in the school with the administration, and expressed the importance of the principal
actively leading an approach to improve school climate:
139
But when I go back to why I’m here, it’s for that individual, one kid at a time, one teacher
at a time. That’s the best we can do. And again, I think it would not, at all, even be a
remote opportunity if we didn’t have the right leadership.
Another elementary teacher described the principal’s importance this way:
Our administrator does set the tone for the environment and culture of our school. She
celebrates accomplishments, and encourages teachers and staff, to celebrate each other.
She is transparent at all times and is always student-centered when making decisions. She
leads our positive culture and climate.
Administrator turnover always matters. The importance of principals and their
intentional efforts to engage staff members was further supported by descriptions of changes in
administration. Many participants also spoke directly about the impact of changing
administrators, including this high school teacher:
The other problem with this school is that it has had way too many lead administrators.
The predecessor was here the longest; he was here 7 years. I’ve been teaching for 25
years in California and I’ve had lead administrators last 2.75 years on average. So that’s a
big factor.
Another elementary teacher described transitions as an expected event with different results for
the staff:
It has changed a little bit because we’ve had principals obviously change, and the climate
does obviously change when a new principal comes in. We had some great principals,
then we had one bad year that really brought the team together but really caused
problems with administration.
140
In one school, many administrator changes occurred during the past few years, including
assistant principals. This pattern was exacerbated by the fact that an interim principal was
installed after the school year began. Not only did these rapid changes in leadership generate
turmoil among staff members, but the uncertainty of the leadership moving forward was
apparent, especially in meetings with staff members. One staff member expressed his frustration
at the negative influence of changing administrators on school policies; he noted that he has had
9.5 principals in his tenure (the half-year being a joke about the interim principal).
In some instances, frustration about policies was related to a lack of stability and
predictability. Constantly changing policies seemed to create additional tension for staff
members. One person mentioned frustration with programs that are initiated and then disappear.
He noted that this happens with changes in leadership, and that programs should not be “regime
based” and instead should be systematic. This concern was echoed by another high school
teacher who discussed fundamental routines at school:
And with that, policies have changed, or lack of policies. And I look at things like tardy
policies and detention and stuff like that. I think they should be embedded and that no
matter who changes at the top, we should have certain policies that don’t ever change.
But because we’ve had so much change at the top, policies have changed.
These results help emphasize the importance of the principal’s influence, indicating that even a
change in leadership can have rapid and pervasive influence on a school.
Staff members root their perspectives in time and history. Many participants talked
about changes in their schools and leadership in a way that indicated that school climate has a
trajectory influenced by various transitions. In interviews with staff members and in other
forums, it became clear that staff members consider time and history as they conceptualize and
141
evaluate climate. This was sometimes manifested as a comparison, wherein the current climate
was compared with previous climate, as one high school staff member articulated: “I’ve heard
from other teachers that say, ‘Hey, I avoided the office for years,’ and the atmosphere is so
different now in the last few years.” This comment from a staff meeting summed up recent
history: “Good thing you weren’t here 2 years ago. Two years ago, it was bad climate. Now,
there is no climate.”
What is conspicuous here is that for this teacher, ratings of climate effectively included a
lack of climate, which was viewed as better than a negative climate. For some staff members,
however, time and experience generate stability: “Socially, the fact actually that the teachers
have been here a long time, we know each other really well. We’ve all worked together really
well.”
In one case, there was a dramatic change in the climate at one of the elementary schools;
this turned out to be a defining moment for the staff of this school and its understanding of how
it could interact with and control climate: “It was about 8 years ago—we had a principal here
that really was not effective and we really at that time worked together to voice our concerns and
that principal ended up leaving, and everybody stuck together.”
This event surfaced many times in interviews and observations (see Table 4.3) at this
particular school, indicating that it was a powerful, shared moment in the history of the school.
Many staff members still identified this as an important event in the understanding of their
school climate.
Relationships with other staff members shape individual experiences. How people
described relationships and collaboration were important. Attitudes about collaboration were
generally an indicator of the kind of climate apparent in the school setting. The following
142
examples are from schools expected to have a positive climate: “To me, school climate [or]
culture has to do with the way we treat each other—staff and parents, as well as students.”
Another teacher described the team dynamic in an elementary school staff: “Focus between
teachers is on communication and being a team, instead of an atmosphere where there is
competition between teachers and staff.”
In schools where the climate was negative, the importance of relationships and
collaboration was equally strong, but it seemed that staff members were thinking about what they
wanted, rather than what they had:
How do we be bold and allow a space for people to step up and say bold things? To say
brave things? And if we do disagree, we talk about the things we disagree on instead of
just stopping the conversation.
Another high school teacher described problems stemming from the absence of supportive
relationships:
So, what has happened in the past, really, is that we’ve always had islands of teachers in
classrooms, and islands of people who some are doing really great things on their own.
But then we have teachers who aren’t that strong, who aren’t supported, and who aren’t
getting any better. And so, the natural thing to that would be that we need to collaborate
… except that’s not happening.
Staff members make decisions that create climate. One question guiding this study
concerned assumptions about the creation of climate. There were clear indications that staff
members assume responsibility for creating climate, particularly for students. This was
frequently an implicit message, followed closely by beliefs that climate is a student-centered
experience. One teacher described it this way:
143
I feel like we have a very positive school culture. I see the principal interact with teachers
as well as students. I see teachers interact with each other, and with students. I see the
great things that occur at the Friday morning line-up each week. I see the schoolwork of
students displayed throughout the school. I see the great lengths teachers go to in order to
make our school a positive place for students.
Some staff members took a more active view of creating climate and embedded these efforts into
various routines and interactions that happen every day, as explained by one high school teacher:
How do we communicate climate to kids—from staff to kids? Classroom management
has got to be front and center for that. How do we address the behaviors that are not
acceptable in a classroom setting, and at the same time, reinforce those behaviors that
are? And again, do so in a cordial way that allows kids to align themselves with the goal
of the purpose of the class.
Another high school teacher talked about specific actions during class:
One thing that’s really cool is you stand by the door and greet them one by one. Try to
know their names as soon as you can. That’s a big deal—they know that you know them.
I think I had a study or something, in one of my previous education classes, try to make
two connections with a kid during the time you have them, each period. One could be at
the door; I know some teachers here shake their hands as they come in. And talk to them
as you’re going around. So that way they feel some kind of connection. Learn about
them.
As shown in these responses, staff members were clearly reflecting on their actions and
decisions that create climate in their schools. The next theme helps explain why these efforts
may be focused on students, and not themselves.
144
Staff members view themselves in service of the students. Many responses and
indications from this case study suggest that staff members often, or at least at first, consider
school climate to be important for students. This suggests they are not immediately considering
the influence of the principal, the district, or other colleagues in terms of creating a climate that
influences them. One elementary teacher summed it up this way: “I know a lot of teachers are
dedicated, but definitely here, we are very dedicated to our students. And I see that in everybody
that works here. And student focus is our number one goal, as it should be.” A high school
teacher expressed discontent at the climate created for students:
And I hear about the gold ribbon school—great, what’s next? Are you going to do it
again next year? What about that kid who’s failing five classes who you have not
addressed all year? We’ll wait until the end of the year and he can go to [continuation
school]. So, you’re going to [mess up] his whole year?
Another high school teacher talked specifically about personal responsibility for creating
climate:
And I think that’s what I’ve seen more and more, that as teachers are empowered to, and
also encouraged to, say it’s gonna change—culture will be affected the greatest if
teachers individually took it on themselves to smile. To take note in what’s going on with
the kid in drama, or track, or something. I think collectively—individually, [I] can’t
change it. But collectively we all are doing those little—it goes a long way.
How climate affects students is a powerful idea for staff members. Like the previous theme about
creating climate, the first priority for climate seems to concern students.
Departmental structure and school size may influence climate. The final two themes
presented here are examples of how the definition of climate that guided this study may require
145
further study to enhance accuracy in relation to staff perspectives. There were many indications
that positive and negative climate manifest differently at high schools and elementary schools.
This could be due to size or structural differences in these settings, including the existence of
departments as a strong organizing mechanism. For example, in visits to both high schools,
feedback from staff members, especially secretaries and principals, indicated that observations of
different departments would be very different. Thus, in these departments, staff members
discussed collaboration, instruction, and how these patterns of interaction are represented, as one
high school teacher explained:
So, our department meetings have become less, they’re not complaining sessions
anymore, like yesterday our department meeting was a professional development session.
There was someone on campus did this really cool thing, so the entire department went.
And we all sat and went through it, and talked about how we can take it back.
This comment illustrates the notion that staff experiences were very closely connected to their
departments in the high school settings. The fundamental challenges of instruction and managing
students seemed more closely addressed in the department. At elementary schools, this
separation was not evident.
School staff members consider climate to be disconnected from the district. Finally,
one assumption in this study was that because of the districts’ knowledge of positive- and
negative-climate schools, district influence would be an important element of school climate
perceptions. However, this was not the case, and most participants indicated that the district was
not a part of the school climate. One elementary teacher explained this absence of influence as
co-occurring with a lack of knowledge about the school:
146
I just think a lot of times the district is out of touch, and so they come twice a year with
their big group of people to check us out, judge us, see how we’re doing. You know, it’s
nice, we get positive comments. But really you can’t know what’s happening unless
you’re here all the time.
During observations, staff members spoke about changes in funding and personnel matters
related to the district. But these were often dismissed, or at least disconnected, from their
conceptualization and experiences of school climate. One teacher articulated the lack of
connection this way: “I don’t care, I hope they think we’re great because I think we’re great, but
sometimes they do sometimes they don’t.” This sense of disconnection was somewhat surprising
given the district responses at the beginning of this research project and the influence expected
from the district.
Discussion
This study set out to explore staff experiences related to school climate with a focus on
SES and school contextual factors that were expected to influence the quality of school climate.
Several components of this study are important to highlight. First, this study rooted previous
quantitative findings from across the state of California in the lived experiences of staff members
working in districts and schools. Second, a unique and innovative method of assessing the
quality (e.g., positive or negative) of climate in schools allowed the sampling for this study to be
based on external quantitative analyses in combination with insider knowledge in participating
school districts. Finally, this study was designed to incorporate the influence of high or low SES
on staff perceptions of school climate. This is one of the first case studies to examine staff school
climate in district and school contexts that also addressed district SES. Several questions guided
this case study, including:
147
1. How is the quality, or valence, of school climate understood by staff members, school
leaders, and the district?
2. How does SES influence staff perceptions of school climate?
3. What experiences reflect a positive-climate school?
4. How do staff members characterize their role regarding school climate (e.g., they create
it, it is a shared responsibility, it is a result of school-wide dynamics and interactions)?
High and Low SES
One assumption guiding the structure of this study was that the SES of the school district
and school community would help account for the quality of climate in particular schools. It was
expected that more negative climate would be found in lower-SES schools and districts. Recent
trends from administrative data examining districts and test scores also indicate increasing
economic and ethnic segregation in schools (Reardon, 2016) and among districts (Owens,
Reardon, & Jencks, 2016). These findings suggest that existing disparities would also influence
local school communities. Thus, one surprising result from this case study was that this
relationship between SES and climate was not clear. The two elementary schools discussed here
both were relatively positive-climate schools, and both of them had experienced increasing levels
of socioeconomic disadvantage during the preceding years. In fact, Elementary 1 was newly
classified as a Title I school the year following this case study, reflecting the steadily changing
student population and an increase in socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Yet this school
was a strong, positive-climate school, as indicated by the quantitative sorting and convincing
case study evidence.
At Elementary 2, quantitative and qualitative data suggested that the climate was not as
positive as the other elementary school, but still positive. Like Elementary 1, staff members at
148
Elementary 2 also talked about being part of a family and feeling like it was a great place to
work. At Elementary 2, one teacher noted the changes in neighborhood SES and the resulting
changes in their student population, matching existing literature about the negative influences of
low-SES neighborhoods and communities on schools (Hopson & Lee, 2011; Owens, 2010).
However, rather than this being a deficit for the school, this same teacher was proud to note that
despite the surrounding poverty and declining community resources, the school maintained a
strong ability to serve diverse student needs. Results from both elementary schools suggest that
high or low SES doesn’t necessarily dictate climate, and that other aspects are more powerful for
the creation of climate, including the relationships among staff members and the quality of
leadership. The comments from Elementary 2 in particular align with recent assertions that
positive climate may alleviate disparities in academic achievement due to SES (Berkowitz et al.,
2017).
Because there was only one participating school in District B (low SES), it is not possible
to compare schools to explain connections between lower SES and more negative climate. There
are possible partial explanations that can be acknowledged here. The quantitative sorting in
District B revealed positive and negative climate schools, including the “love-fest” school
mentioned earlier. This assessment from the district adds validity to the quantitative sorting
process in District B. At face value, this suggests that even in a lower-SES district, there are
superlative examples of positive and negative school climate. Examining the specific levels of
socioeconomic disadvantage for these schools is beyond the scope of this manuscript, but
represents an important step for future research. In addition, results from High School 2 show
that staff members largely attributed the quality of the current climate to the administration. This
theme was pervasive in conversations with staff members and observations of various meetings
149
and events. One question that emerges, then, is whether leadership could represent the keystone
of staff school climate, and without stability in leadership, other factors are less important.
Quantitative Climate Sorting
Because of how schools were sampled in this study, it is important to reflect on the utility
of sorting schools based on the existence of staff subgroups relating to school climate. As lists of
schools were presented to district leaders, it was clear that this quantitative method had initial
field validity, because their reactions and reports about the most positive and most negative
schools clearly matched the construction of the lists. However, there were also instances in
which this tool did not necessarily provide an accurate reflection of a school’s climate when
considering the qualitative evidence reported here. For example, according to the initial listing of
schools, one high school in the sample was expected to have a more negative climate. After visits
to campus and conversations with staff members, it was clear that the current climate was
different, and better, than what was expected. One obvious explanation is that in the time
between the survey and visits to the school to collect data, things changed and started to improve.
Regardless, this method was a helpful tool for this case study. The preliminary sorting of schools
provided a broader perspective on how climate might be distributed in the districts and provided
a stronger beginning point for sampling than relying solely on word of mouth or reputation in the
district.
Explaining Climate by Focusing on Staff Member Perspectives
One objective of this study was to investigate influences and factors that contribute to a
positive or negative school climate. Quantitative results from previous studies in California
suggested that the multiple dimensions of climate are important for staff members (Capp et al.,
2018; Study 1). Results from a latent profile analysis suggested that staff members
150
simultaneously experience dimensions of climate in different ways (Study 2). The results from
this case study help illustrate how certain dimensions of climate are more important, or more
influential, than others.
Importance of leadership and principals. One clear theme spanning positive and
negative climate schools was the primacy of the principal’s influence. This theme is striking
because of its prominence in the qualitative responses from participants and observations, and it
reflects an element of climate that is not explicitly articulated in current definitions of climate.
When participants were asked about where a school’s climate comes from, the first response was
nearly always “the principal.” This finding clearly supports quantitative research that described
the importance of the principal to positive academic outcomes among students (Leithwood &
Mascall, 2008; Wallace Foundation, 2006) and positive work environments for teachers
(McCarley, Peters, & Decman, 2016; Price, 2012). Many examples of research investigating
climate for staff members have focused on teachers (e.g.. Collie et al., 2011; Grayson & Alvarez,
2008; Malinen & Savolainen, 2016), and this study clarified the impact on all staff members in
any given school. These results also provide a cautionary element, that although the principal
may effectively create a positive climate wherein staff members feel supported and inspired, it
may also be that the climate created is negative and inhibits the ability of staff members to
effectively deliver academic and social and emotional support to their students and one another.
Organizational intentionality: The principal’s vision. Where does the principal’s
influence come from? In some of the case study schools, it was clear from multiple sources (e.g.,
teachers, nonteaching staff members, and principals) that there was a concerted effort to create
an environment where the school’s mission was shared and important. At Elementary 1, this was
done through careful and diligent recognition of the hard work demonstrated by staff members
151
and a clear focus from the principal on being present, involved, and available to both the staff
and students. At High School 2, many conversations indicated that the principal was motivated to
create a shared mission that would benefit students and support staff members. Certain staff
members were able to recognize this goal and seemed to benefit from this knowledge. Other
research has suggested that transformational leaders in schools are able to engage teachers in the
mission of a school, and evidence supports the association between transformational leaders and
improved school climate (Engels, Hotton, Devos, Bouckenooghe, & Aelterman, 2008; McCarley
et al., 2016). One possible pathway for this process is trust in the principal, and some evidence
suggests that to lead effectively and foster a vibrant school climate, trust between the staff and
administration needs to be strong (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2014). Elementary 1 provides a
clear example of a vibrant climate and a high level of trust between the staff and administration.
It is possible that the variable buy-in to the principal’s mission is also related to the size
or structure of the school. At Elementary 1, which had a relatively small staff, it was more
feasible for the principal to be in contact and have meaningful interactions with all staff members
in different ways than at the high schools, which had more than 200 staff members and five or
six administrators. At the high schools, evidence indicated that department leaders were able to
capitalize on the vision. At both high schools, some staff members were working to initiate
change at the department level that mirrored the principal’s goals. An important area of future
study is to examine pathways of leadership in a school and the potential for successful shared
leadership to positively influence climate. Extant findings have suggested that shared leadership
positively influences instructional practices (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008) and may be related to
improved school climate (McCarley et al., 2016). Further, research has suggested that there is a
burden on school leaders to encourage teachers and staff members to share leadership, and there
152
are likely leaders in a school who have the desire and expertise to lead (Marks & Printy, 2003).
At High School 2, the principal was already working to share leadership with the staff, and there
were leaders who were emerging.
Staff members root their perspectives in time and history. This theme is also
important because of its prominence in interviews and informal conversations, and again because
it is not explicitly incorporated into existing definitions of climate. Notably, Astor and
Benbenishty (in press) added a “temporal–historical” axis to their ecological model of school
climate and school violence and called for an increased focus on measuring the importance of
time in school climate research. In some ways, this theme helps explain how perceptions of
climate have changed over time. For example, as staff members reflected on their experiences
with and perceptions of climate, the progression of events was important. Many responses about
changes in climate were connected to changes in principals or other events in the history of the
school. Changes in student demographics, community SES, and even shifting cultural norms
were also important aspects of staff members’ narratives about climate.
How could this understanding of time and history shape our approach to schools? It
seems that staff members tend to think about climate in their schools as a trajectory. Their
recollections and comments about climate indicate transitions and turning points where the
climate had changed and evolved. This, in turn, suggests that changing climate is seen as a
possibility, or even an eventuality. Using this framework could support efforts to get buy-in from
staff members regarding interventions such as positive behavior intervention and supports or
other school-wide intervention programs. A time-based framework also assumes that staff
members have key knowledge about a particular school context. A new principal, or a principal
153
wanting to effect change, might start change efforts by having staff members describe these
trajectories.
Creation of climate: Staff members in service to student climate. One central focus
for this study was exploring the source of climate. School climate definitions suggest that school
professionals must take particular actions to create climate, even though these same professionals
must enter a school and experience that same climate. Participants in this case study
overwhelmingly indicated that the principal is the central player in creating climate. Despite the
role of the principal, comments and observations showed that staff members also create climate.
This was evidenced through specific choices, like greeting students as they enter a classroom or
taking time to talk with students about their concerns and struggles. Sometimes, efforts to create
climate reflected a more general feeling, such as one teacher who talked about wanting her
students to find solace and renewal in her classroom. One teacher discussed the importance of
students connecting with an adult on campus, reflecting an understanding that this single
connection could be the reason a student comes to school and could be used to build further
investment from either that student or other adults on campus.
The common theme in these perspectives was that the creation of climate is in service to
students, rather than contributing to a school climate that staff members also experience. Results
from this case study demonstrate that staff members were working to create a school climate that
would foster student development and achievement. But they also were able to articulate how the
school climate influenced their own work and experiences, suggesting that at some level, the
distinction may rest in the focus that school staff members have on their students. Researchers,
school leaders, and policy makers must reflect on the fact that staff members may be answering
questions about climate from a student-focused perspective when they assess climate. Thus,
154
assessments may be incomplete, potentially leaving out important information about staff
experiences.
Climate Disconnected from District Influences
One final goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between districts and
schools regarding school climate. During the initial stages of this research, when the quantitative
school lists were shared, district personnel members had quick responses regarding the quality of
climate in schools. This was especially true at the extremes, in which the schools with the most
positive or negative climates elicited convincing reactions. Beyond this, there are clear
organizational pathways from the district to individual schools. Funding, facilities, and personnel
are all under district control. In District A, one elementary principal explained that hiring directly
for the school is not possible; teaching applicants are interviewed with principals from across the
district, and preexisting criteria guide where new teachers are placed.
Despite this influence, the case study data presented here indicated that for the most part,
school professionals did not ascribe the climate of their schools to district influences. This was
evident in responses to queries about the source of school climate and the district’s influence on
climate. Interview participants generally denied any influence from the district. One high school
teacher acknowledged that the district has an influence, largely through decisions about funding,
but that the onus for climate remains with the constituents at the school.
There are several limitations to this study to mention. This was a qualitative study,
limiting generalizability. The sampling for this study began with statewide data and a
quantitative sorting process that yielded positive- and negative-climate schools. Yet district
personnel members were ultimately in control of which schools participated in this study.
Despite the general agreement observed regarding the composition of positive- and negative-
155
climate lists, the final sample included uneven numbers of schools from participating districts,
with three schools in the higher-SES district and one high school in the lower-SES district. This
limited the ability to specifically compare district levels of SES and elementary and secondary
schools. Even with these issues, this study offered detailed and nuanced insight into how staff
members understand school climate in their local school and district contexts, and highlighted
important areas of future research and implications for practice and school climate theory.
Implications and Future Study
One of the most compelling implications from this study is that efforts to improve school
climate or implement SEL, bullying, or other whole-school interventions need to carefully
consider staff member experiences of climate. Whole-school implementation is frequently called
for in the literature, along with efforts to gain buy-in from all staff members in a school (Pitner,
Astor, & Benbenishty, 2015; Pitner et al., 2017). Study results demonstrate that staff members
experience the pattern of events that make up the school day (National School Climate Center,
2007) in ways that need to be understood in the local context of their students, olleagues, and
principals, even before any steps toward generating buy-in for a particular intervention.
Findings presented here about principals are striking and help explicate how climate is
shaped in schools. Their obvious importance for climate suggests further study about how they
understand school climate. Along with this, the level of intentionality with which they target
school climate is important. Some principals in this study were very targeted in their interactions
and decisions with respect to school climate. When the principals in this study actively
considered the kind of environment they wanted to create, there was generally evidence that
there was some success.
156
Findings from preliminary studies (Capp et al., 2018; Study 1, Study 2) suggested that
staff members in elementary and secondary schools experience climate very differently. These
studies found that elementary staff members generally had more positive perceptions of climate.
Although data from this case study mirrored these findings, this question warrants further
consideration. One possible explanation is that there is an important difference in the focus on
departments at the high school level. Staff members in high schools may identify more closely
with others in their specific department, distancing them from other groups on campus and
administrators. However, it could also be that the size of these schools was a key factor. With
more than 3,000 students in both high schools and fewer than 600 in both elementary schools, it
is possible that the smaller staff size in the elementary settings allowed the principal to have
closer and more consistent contact with staff members. One critical question emerges from these
findings: Should climate be conceptualized and measured in the same way at elementary, middle,
and high schools? It is possible that quantitative results about climate present negative
perceptions of secondary school climate that may not be entirely correct. Without an accurate
assessment of secondary climate, researchers and school leaders may be missing important
information about climate in these settings.
The last implication for school climate theory involves the definition of climate. The
differences between elementary and secondary schools has already been discussed. Two
additional themes related to school climate discussed in this study are lacking from current
definitions of climate: leadership and time and history. It could be argued that these are implicit
in existing components of climate. However, the conviction of responses from case study
participants strongly suggests that these elements are important enough that they need to be
highlighted and explicitly measured. There is some danger in merely adding items to measures,
157
but further study that can incorporate these salient elements of climate while using parsimonious
research models will be important.

158
References
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (in press). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., De Pedro, K. T., Gilreath, T. D., Esqueda, M. C., & Benbenishty, R. (2013). The
promotional role of school and community contexts for military students. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 16, 233–244. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0139-x
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood,
family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87, 425–469.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669821
California Department of Education. (2017). California School Dashboard: Technical guide
2016–17 school year. Retrieved from
https://www.acsa.org/application/files/6614/8772/3554/Technical_Guide_Dashboard_Gu
ide_Spring_2017.pdf
Capp, G. P., Astor, R. A., & Gilreath, T. D. (2018). The voices and perceptions of school staff on
school climate: Advancing a conceptual model of school climate based on school staff
perspectives. Manuscript under review.
Capp, G. P., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Pineda, D. (in press). Learning together:
Implementation of a peer-tutoring intervention targeting academic and social emotional
needs. Children & Schools.
159
Capp, G. P., Moore, H., Pitner, R., Iachini, A. L., Berkowitz, R., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R.
(2017). School violence. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of
education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chenail, R. J. (1995). Presenting Qualitative Data. The Qualitative Report, 2(3), 1-9. Retrieved
from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol2/iss3/5
Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,
policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment: The impact of
school climate and social-emotional learning. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 1034–1048.
http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20611
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104, 1189–1204. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356
Corden, A. and Sainsbury, R. (2006) Using Verbatim Quotations in Reporting Qualitative Social
Research: Researchers’ Views. Social Policy Research Unit, University of York.
Retrieved from https://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/verbquotresearch.pdf
De Pedro, K. T., Pineda, D., Capp, G., Moore, H., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2017).
Implementation of a school districtwide grassroots antibullying initiative: A school staff
and parent-focused evaluation of Because Nice Matters. Children & Schools, 39, 131–
145. http://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdx008
Education Data Partnership. (2018). Ed-data. Retrieved from http://www.ed-data.org/
160
Engels, N., Hotton, G., Devos, G., Bouckenooghe, D., & Aelterman, A. (2008). Principals in
schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies, 34, 159–174.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701811263
Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V. E., Jones, A., Lane, K. L., McMahon, S. D., …
Reynolds, C. R. (2013). Understanding and preventing violence directed against teachers:
Recommendations for a national research, practice, and policy agenda. American
Psychologist, 68, 75–87. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031307
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A
mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1349–1363.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59–68.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357621
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in
school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311–322.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003
Hopson, L. M., & Lee, E. (2011). Mitigating the effect of family poverty on academic and
behavioral outcomes: The role of school climate in middle and high school. Children and
Youth Services Review, 33, 2221–2229. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.07.006
Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 7, 21.
Kraft, M. A., Papay, J. P., Johnson, S. M., Charner-Laird, M., Ng, M., & Reinhorn, S. (2015).
Educating amid uncertainty: The organizational supports teachers need to serve students
161
in high-poverty, urban schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51, 753–790.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15607617
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 529–561.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321221
Malinen, O.-P., & Savolainen, H. (2016). The effect of perceived school climate and teacher
efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A longitudinal study.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 144–152. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.012
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39, 370–397. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253412
McCarley, T. A., Peters, M. L., & Decman, J. M. (2016). Transformational leadership related to
school climate: A multi-level analysis. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 44, 322–342. http://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214549966
National School Climate Center. (2007). The school climate challenge: Narrowing the gap
between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and
teacher education policy. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolclimate.org/themes/schoolclimate/assets/pdf/policy/school-climate-
challenge-web.pdf
Owens, A. (2016). Inequality in children’s contexts: Income segregation of households with and
without children. American Sociological Review, 81, 549–574.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416642430
162
Owens, A. (2010). Neighborhoods and schools as competing and reinforcing contexts for
educational attainment. Sociology of Education, 83, 287-311.
Owens, A., Reardon, S. F., & Jencks, C. (2016). Income segregation between schools and school
districts. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1159–1197.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216652722
Padgett, D. K. (2011). Qualitative and mixed methods in public health. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Pitner, R., Astor, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2015). Violence in schools. In P. Allen-Meares (Ed.)
Social work services in school (7th ed., pp. 265–296). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Pitner, R., Moore, H., Capp, G., Iachini, A. L., Berkowitz, R., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A.
(2017). School safety, victimization, and bullying: An overview of violence interventions
and monitoring approaches. In C. Franklin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work online.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Price, H. E. (2012). Principal–teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal
and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 39–85.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11417126
Powell, B. J., Proctor, E. K., Glisson, C. A., Kohl, P. L., Raghavan, R., Brownson, R. C., …
Palinkas, L. A. (2013). A mixed methods multiple case study of implementation as usual
in children’s social service organizations: Study protocol. Implementation Science, 8, 92.
http://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-92
Reardon, S. F. (2016). School district socioeconomic status, race, and academic achievement.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
163
research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2015). Teachers’ victimization-related beliefs and strategies:
Associations with students’ aggressive behavior and peer victimization. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 45–60. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9840-y
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2015). Faculty trust in the principal: An essential
ingredient in high-performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53, 66–92.
http://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0024
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44, 458–495. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321502
Wallace Foundation. (2006). Leadership for learning: Making the connections among state,
district and school policies and practices. New York, NY: Author.
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement,
and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 315–352.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

164
Table 4.1. Semistructured Interview Guide
What is your job in this school, and how long have you worked here?
When people talk about school climate, what does that mean to you?
How would you describe the climate of this school?
What makes a school have positive school climate?
What role do school staff members have in relation to school climate?
What other influences (including the district) help to create school climate?
What would you like to be different about the climate in this school?
How do people (students, staff members, parents, etc.) get along here?
Are there (or have there been in the past) programs or specific efforts aimed at changing
aspects of school climate? If so, are they working, and why?

165
Table 4.2. Case Study Schools Embedded in High- and Low-SES and Positive- and Negative-
Climate Frameworks
Positive Climate Negative Climate
High SES (District A) Elementary 1 High School 1
Elementary 2
Low SES (District B) High School 2
166
Table 4.3. Evidence Demonstrating Positive and Negative Climate in Schools
Theme Positive Climate Negative Climate
Role of principals Our administrator does set the tone for the environment and
culture of our school. She celebrates accomplishments, and
encourages teachers and staff, to celebrate each other. She is
transparent at all times, and is always student centered when
making decisions. She leads our positive culture and climate.

But when I go back to why I’m here, it’s for that individual,
one kid at a time, one teacher at a time. That’s the best we can
do. And again, I think it would not, at all, even be a remote
opportunity if we didn’t have the right leadership.

Climate is definitely top-down. If your leader (principal) has a
positive attitude, that will be passed on. Our principal has
programs that focus on drawing attention to one anothers
contributions, etc (staff) as well as positive reinforcement
programs for students.

I think that a good staff will be a good staff regardless of
I don’t think we talk to students. I think we don’t ask them
about things. I don’t see a high degree of parent involvement. I
see a lot of top down stuff. I don’t think everybody’s at the
table.

And so when I started sharing my visions, that also helped.
Because with the current administration, they want everything
to be teacher led. They want it to come from the teachers and
then how we can support you.

Climate changed with each new principal, some time periods
were better than others. One guy with a lot of energy – this
spilled over to staff, and students felt more empowered
Another guy was different, and things were worse

Shifts – administration – when there’s a good administration,
there’s a good climate.

167
administration. People can be amazing teachers regardless of
administration, but to create an overall culture that is
pervasive and is the way that a school is, is the responsibility
of a school administration.

Because it was about 8 years ago we had a principal here that
really was not effective and we really at that time worked
together to voice our concerns and that principal ended up
leaving, and everybody stuck together.

like I said we had a great climate here until one principal came
– it’s amazing what one principal can do. They brought in and
destroyed the climate here.

But, um, we also got an assistant principal last year – a man –
we haven’t had a lot of male leaders. And he’s terrific. And
he’s been a game-changer as far as our principal, too. Like he
could kind of see her negativity, and he was bold enough to
counteract that. So we really like him

A good example is climate has changed just in this year at our
school because we had one principal at the beginning of the
year, and now, we we have a different principal. So with that
change of leadership, that’s changed the climate of what we
do.

The principal has a lot to do with school culture whether you
like it or not.
168
Principal also said that she thinks a new school is different for
climate – she’s opened a couple of new schools and started in
existing schools. So when you build/start a new school, the
people there create the climate. But when you enter an existing
school (as a teacher/staff member/principal) you are entering
an existing culture.
Administrator turnover And with that, policies have changed, or lack of policies. And
I look at things like tardy policies and detention and stuff like
that. I think they should be embedded and that no matter who
changes at the top, we should have certain policies that don’t
ever change. But because we’ve had so much change at the
top, policies have changed. And we’ve kind of ended up this
year with like no tardy policy, no detention

like I said we had a great climate here until one principal came
– it’s amazing what one principal can do. They brought in and
destroyed the climate here.

There is some discussion here – one teacher notes that he has
systems for positive reinforcement. He says: “Why do we
169
have all these programs that disappear? I’ve been doing all
these things, but they go away.” He notes that this happens as
staff change over and as there are changes in leadership. He
argues that these programs can’t be “regime-based” but should
instead be systematic.
Time and history Socially, the fact actually that the teachers have been here a
long time, we know each other really well. We’ve all worked
together really well.

it was about 8 years ago we had a principal here that really
was not effective and we really at that time worked together to
voice our concerns and that principal ended up leaving, and
everybody stuck together.
But there is a lot of history with some of them, and they are
very hesitant to buy in, and not trust. Because of experiences.
So for them, their culture has been a place you can’t trust.
Negative.

“Good thing you weren’t here 2 years ago.” “2 years ago it
was BAD climate. Now, there is no climate.”

I’ve heard from other teachers that say hey I avoided the office
for years, and the atmosphere is so different now in the last
few years.
Supportive relationships It’s a good relationship. We have very strong working
relationships as well as personal relationships with each other.

To me, school climate/culture has to do with the way we treat
So what is happened in the past really, is that we’ve always
had islands of teachers in classrooms, and islands of people
who some are doing really great things on their own. But then
we have teachers who aren’t that strong, Who aren’t
170
each other - staff and parents, as well as students.

Focus between teachers is on communication and being a
team, instead of an atmosphere where there is competition
between teachers and staff.

Because staff believe in being part of a team, students also
experience this idea of being on a team.

But this teacher is OK in the classroom – kids like her, parents
like her, but she’s super closed off – she even papers the
windows of her classroom so that you have to open the door to
see what’s happening. She doesn’t seem to want to be part of
the “family” that this school has adopted as their climate.

There’s a lot of help. Anytime you need something they are
here for you. Our principals are very helpful. And resourceful.
So any help we need we get.

Starfish Awards: these are public ways of appreciating people
supported, and who aren’t getting any better. And so the
natural thing to that, would be that we need to collaborate.

So I feel like if we felt it was a team effort with admin, and a
team effort with us. That you’re not judged on your teaching
methods, or your lack of content knowledge or whatever. But
if we felt comfortable enough to come to each other and watch
each other and actually work together, I think that would be a
huge, positive environment, at least working.

Um, OK, teachers are very isolated at this particular school, in
a way. We don’t have a teachers lounge, we don’t eat lunch
together. The teaching profession is kind of one where there’s
a lot of isolation anyway, you’re in your classroom. And at our
school, you really have to go out of your way to make an
effort to get to know other teachers, just because we’re not set
up.

So that climate has to do with how you communicate with
each other, and aligning yourself with the goals of the
171
and thanking them for work they do to help the staff in one
way or another. P reads these aloud and hands the card to the
“thankee.” There are 19 awards from different staff members

Meaning, that I get to have relationships, the relationships that
I do with the teachers because I do duty – and I’m willing to
do that. Like watching kids on the playground, because I go to
staff meetings, which I’m not really required to go to, but I do
so that I can have a relationship with the teachers.

So in terms of everything that should, you would think would
make a climate not so great, if you’re talking about anything
else but the people. But this school is very much a family, and
I think the students feel it, and I think the teachers feel it, and
anybody who is new here, everybody is so welcoming, and
they just welcome that person into the V family. And you feel
like you are part of something that’s bigger than just you
going to a job every day and going home.
organization.

Were working on our mission statement, vision statement, and
giving a voice to the staff and saying who do we want to be?
Because I think a lot of times you find that people who may be
a little bit more hesitant, actually want this to be a great place
they just – like I said, experience or history – but now they’re
given a piece to say, hey this is who we are. So I think
allowing a lot more time for the staff to share in that,
Staff view climate as
student issue
I know a lot of teachers are dedicated, but definitely here, we
are very dedicated to our students. And I see that in everybody
Climate doesn’t matter as much if you have a positive
relationship with kids – then things are ok.
172
that works here. And student focus is our #1 goal, as it should
be.

And I think, that’s what I’ve seen more and more, that as
teachers are empowered to, and also encouraged to, say it’s
gonna change – culture will be affected the greatest if teachers
individually took it on themselves to smile. To say hi to the
kids, to reach out to – just little things. To stand at the door.
Maybe not every time, because you get busy, you know, but
welcome the kids from time to time. To take note in what’s
going on with the kid in drama, or track, or something. I think
collectively – individually, me, can’t change it. But
collectively we all are doing those little – it goes a long way.
Staff create climate I feel like we have a very positive school culture. I see the
principal interact with teachers as well as students. I see
teachers interact with each other, and with students. I see the
great things that occur at the Friday Morning Line-up each
week. I see the school work of students displayed throughout
the school. I see the great lengths teachers go to in order to
make our school a positive place for students.

To me, school climate/culture has to do with the way we treat
I teach students. The content is the content. I just think that
from my perspective climate also comes from the other
stakeholder group, or constituency

How do we communicate climate to kids – from staff to kids.
Classroom management has got to be front and center for that.
How do we address the behaviors that are not acceptable in a
classroom setting, and at the same time, reinforce those
behaviors that are? And again, do so in a cordial way that
173
each other - staff and parents, as well as students. When you
walk in the door at a school, the culture should be immediately
evident in the welcoming smiles and happy attitudes of those
you encounter. Parents and teachers work together to help the
students succeed.

Focus between teachers is on communication and being a
team, instead of an atmosphere where there is competition
between teachers and staff. Not so much physical safety
maybe for the students, but academic safety. We want them to
take risks in their thinking Because staff are believe in being
part of a team, students also experience this idea of being on a
team.

Staff’s got tremendous amount of responsibility for creating
that climate.
allows kids to align themselves with the goal of the purpose of
the class.

And so for a lot of students, What brings them here is that
activity they’re involved in, whether it’s band, whether it’s
photography, or its auto shop, it’s a sport. Whatever that is
that pulls in a lot of kids and keeps them connected to
something on campus. And then I think from there, individual
relationships that teachers build with their students within the
class. Because even if we have students were not connected to
a club or sport, if they feel like somebody cares, an adult
cares. Not even just am I academically supported - But this
perception of, does this person in front of me even care about
me. So I think that once a student feels that this person cares
about me, I think that connects them to at least that one class
for that one hour.

Yeah, I feel like I haven’t talked about the students a lot.
Because, in my classroom, it’s so enjoyable. And I try to
provide this space for students, because I’m an art. I try to
174
provide a space that’s enjoyable, and that they can have lots of
creative options and that they feel heard, and also have kind
of, a separation from stress.

I used to tell my kids when I taught math if you and me
against this math. It’s you and I together , We’re going to
figure this out. But many math teachers will say, well I am the
knower of math I am thinking her knowledge and you will
learn from us. It’s me and math against you. So those are two
ways that teachers approaches that would tell you if you’re
going to feel that it’s their job to create a positive culture, Or if
it’s someone else’s job to do that.
Defining school climate:
Elementary vs. secondary
vs. departments
So our department meetings have become less, they’re not
complaining sessions anymore, like yesterday our department
meeting was a professional development session. There was
someone on campus did this really cool thing, so the entire
department went. And we all sat and went through it, and
talked about how we can take it back. So it really changes, and
I think that part of that happened, just first listening to people,
and trying to help them say I can’t solve anything, but let’s
175
attack this one thing that I can help you with.

So what opens up a little bit more each time it happens, And at
the end of the day, at least an English department we do
approach students an instruction differently. But we respect
the way that we do it, and if I say I can’t do it your way but I
get how are you do it.

I think it’s different based on whether the department wants a
change. If they don’t want a change, then the conversation si
completely different.
Disconnected from district Um, you know I just think a lot of times the district is out of
touch and so they come twice a year with their big group of
people to check us out, judge us, see how we’re doing. You
know, it’s nice we get positive comments. But really you can’t
know what’s happening unless you’re here all the time.

District – again – I don’t care, I hope they think we’re great
because I think we’re great, but sometimes they do sometimes
they don’t.
So we can either get that dictated to us, or we can say this is
what we’re going to do. So it’s kind of that idea. I get that the
district can make things harder. I mean legitimately I get from
funding, back to cutting tutor money so we can’t – so it really
does affect the day to day in some cases. I’m realizing that,
it’s not all – but – it’s what I preach to my AVID kids. I get
you’re frustrated witn your teacher – so what are you going to
do? Vent, get it out, good, but when we vent everyday for a
semester and your grade is still a C or and F, what are you
176

doing? Because I guarantee you it’s not all the teacher. And
that’s kind of the thing that’s like, what can you do
collectively. So let’s problem solve.

I um, the district. I don’t feel much from them.

Teacher says that people are maybe jaded because there is a
tendency to get exited about new prospects and then the
district “pulls the rug out.” Thus, her question about where the
district wants to go.
177
Figure 4.1. Staff School Climate Experiences Nested in School and District Contexts

178
Figure 4.2. Mixed-Methods Case Study Design
quant à QUAL Explanatory Sequential Design
quant Activities
Latent profile analysis using California School Climate Survey data
Proportions of profiles located in districts for sampling
QUAL Activities
Activity Place Source Product
Direct
observation
School campus Student arrival; dismissal;
classroom; front office; staff
meetings
Field notes; informal
conversations and
interviews
Documentation N/A Publicly available; provided
by district; provided by school
Documents; online
information
Informant
interviews
Schools, district
office, phone
District representative or
administrator; principal;
counselors; teachers; support
staff members
Transcripts
179
Appendix
Table A1. Select Case Study Activities
Activity High-SES District Low-SES District
Elementary 1 Elementary 2 High School 1 High School 2
Interviews Grade 3 teacher Grade 5 teacher VAPA teacher English lead
Physical education teacher Grade 5 teacher Avid teacher Math lead
Grade 4 teacher Speech and language pathologist Assistant principal Special education teacher
Grade 2 teacher Grade 2 teacher Secretary Special education teacher
Math lead Football coach and history
teacher
Tennis coach
Photo teacher
Informal
conversations
Initial meeting, principal Initial meeting, principal Initial meeting, principal Initial meeting, leadership team
Classroom tour, principal Gym, playground supervisor After class, principal Scheduling math meeting,
principal and assistant principal
Noon duty, playground
supervisor
After class, assistant principal Before staff meeting, principal
Data presentation, leadership
180
team
Targeted
observations
Classroom tour Lunch and playground Staff senate Staff meeting
Lunch and playground Friday flag salute Full day of classes Staff meeting
Staff meeting End of day dismissal Curriculum lead meeting Math meeting
Friday flag salute Classroom tour English department meeting Class observations
Staff development meeting Spring showcase Leadership meeting
Student survey meeting Climate and culture meeting
Department meeting

181
Table A2. Case Study Codebook
Administrator turnover Influence of changing administrators on staff
perceptions or experiences.
Climate affects staff Staff reflections of how climate affects their
experiences, work, and interactions.
Collaboration Relationships, interactions, and collaboration
among staff members that either reflect or
constitute climate.
Defining climate School staff members may not actively define
multiple dimensions of climate, and climate
and culture may be used interchangeably.
District influences Examples of how the district influences the
school climate.
Efforts to change climate School- or district-based efforts to change
climate; programs target particular routines,
behaviors, and procedures.
Family connections to school Family members play a role in perceptions of
the school or district.
Mission of education Presence and articulation of a shared mission
for the school.
Parenting norms Influence of parenting norms on how staff
members view the school’s climate.
Physical environment How the physical environment shapes
182
experiences of climate.
Principals’ influence on climate Principals have a primary influence on a
school’s climate; their vision (or absence) is
communicated through their daily interactions
and choices.
Role of discipline policy and procedure How school disciplinary policies and
procedures are connected to school climate.
School climate is school level, not district Understanding climate as something that is a
school-level phenomenon; when and how the
district is involved.
School size, grade levels, and structure School climate may be constructed differently
in elementary versus high schools and is
influenced by the size of a school.
Staff experiences buffer negative climate Positive experiences with students may buffer
or moderate negative climate influences.
Staff participation in decision-making Staff members may be involved in deciding
school policy or school initiatives; related to
curriculum, social and emotional learning, or
other activities.
Staff members responsible for creating climate Evidence that staff members create climate in
their schools.
Staff members view climate as an influence
for students
Staff members initially, or instinctively, view
climate as something that concerns and
183
influences students rather than something that
influences staff members.
Tension between staff members and
administrators
Indications of conflict or disagreement between
staff members and principals.
Things that create positive climate Any actions, decisions, behaviors from people,
or other factors that create positive climate.
This school’s climate Participant reflections on what kind of climate
is present in their school.
Time and history Staff narratives include how climate has
changed over time, including changes in
personnel, personal histories, and the school’s
history.
Years of experience Tenure in job and school.

184
Chapter 5: Integrating Findings about Staff Experiences: Seeking Pathways to
Understanding and Creating Positive Climate
Introduction
The three studies of this dissertation built upon one another using different methods and
focusing on increasingly more complex variables. The joint findings highlight the perceptions of
school professionals who are tasked with creating climate for students. They also document how
these individuals experience school climate. This is the first statewide set of studies to explore
these issues from a school staff perspective, and therefore have unique theoretical and conceptual
contributions and applicable implications.
In addition, recent changes in definitions and policy have emphasized school climate and
social emotional (SEL) learning as essential components of a school’s mission (Astor &
Benbenishty, in press). Yet research focusing on school staff perceptions is scarce. The approach
of this dissertation, therefore, was designed to build a staff-centered theoretical model of school
safety that could be conceptually linked to existing student-centered theoretical models of school
climate (see Berkowitz, Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017). In the following sections, the three
studies are briefly reviewed. Following this, implications for school climate theory and practice
are discussed, as are suggestions for future research.
It is worth noting that this dissertation has relevance for California. Extensive research
about students in California based on the California Healthy Kids Survey has allowed scholars to
highlight important trends and disparities that exist for K-12 students in California (De Pedro,
Astor, Gilreath, Benbenishty, & Berkowitz, 2018; Gilreath, Astor, Cederbaum, Atuel, &
Benbenishty, 2014; Moore, Benbenishty, Astor, & Rice, 2017; Sullivan et al., 2015). The three
studies in this dissertation, using the California School Climate Survey (CSCS), provide
185
similarly important theoretical conclusions for thinking about school climate in schools, and like
other studies using the California Healthy Kids Survey, offer particular importance and
generalizability for staff members in the state of California. This is the first time a statewide
representative approach has been taken. Although these findings contribute to theory and the
empirical literature by adding generalizability and issues of scale, it is important to remember
that they are a snapshot in time and very specific to California. Care should be given when
generalizing the specific results to other states or countries, because these findings likely vary
between states and over time within states. Despite this, the general approach and conceptual
ideas about staff school climate are likely to be similar for staff across time and context.
Chapters 2, 3, and 4 (Studies 1, 2, and 3) of this dissertation were each written with the
goal of publication in peer-reviewed journals. Because these studies are among the first to
explore staff perceptions of school climate, the potential implications are relevant to several
bodies of literature and practice. Thus, possible audiences for Study 1 include: Social Work
Research, Research on Social Work Practice, or the Journal of the Society for Social Work and
Research. Study 2 will be targeted toward: Educational Researcher, American Journal of
Educational Research, Teachers and Teacher Education, Journal of Teacher Education, or the
American Journal of Education. Audiences for Study 3 include: American Education Research
Journal, Sociology of Education, Teachers College Record, Harvard Educational Review,
Journal of School Violence, and AERA Open.
186
Key Findings of Dissertation Studies
Study 1: School Staff Members in California: How are School Climate Perceptions Related
to Perceptions of Student Risk and Well-Being?
The first study of this dissertation aimed to test a proposed theoretical adaptation for
school climate that focused on school staff members. The results from this study confirm that it
is possible to create a staff-centric climate model that can eventually interact with research
focusing on student climate. The conceptual categories for staff climate are similar to students,
and yet reflect the unique experiences of staff members in a school and the subtle differences in
how they experience climate. Study 1 suggests it is preferable to have a staff model of climate in
addition to student-centric models. In addition, these results about California school staff
members could serve as a baseline for ongoing efforts to monitor staff perceptions of climate
over time or to compare with regional, county, district, or school data.
One important finding from this study was that theoretically and empirically, the staff-
focused model of school climate behaved as expected and similar to student-centric climate
models. For example, more positive staff reports of school climate were associated with lower
staff reports of student risk behaviors, including bullying, violence, and disruptive behaviors.
More positive climate was also associated with higher reported student well-being or readiness.
Theoretically and empirically, these finding are in line with expectations based on previous
school climate research investigating student experiences (e.g., Berkowitz et al., 2017; Wang &
Degol, 2016).
Important relationships emerged between the components of school climate in this study.
For example, controlling for all other characteristics and components of climate, the school’s
response to positive and supportive discipline practices was the strongest influence in both risk
187
and well-being models. This makes intuitive sense, that a connection exists between the school’s
disciplinary organizational procedures and staff perceptions of student risk. Yet this element of
positive and supportive discipline remained the strongest predictor when combined with other
climate components. One important question emerging from this study is whether positive
discipline procedures mediate or moderate experiences of school climate. Put another way, could
positive climate exist without strong discipline policies and procedures? Other researchers have
constructed models of climate that feature disciplinary structures and support for students (Berg
& Cornell, 2016; Gregory et al., 2010). Their findings indicated that increased safety in school
was associated with strict and fair disciplinary practices and student support. The discussion of
discipline in schools often has negative connotations, potentially invoking concerns about
problem behaviors and suspensions. There is value, however, in considering the positive benefits
of structures that foster effective disciplinary structures.
Study 2: Exploring Patterns of Positive and Negative School Climate Experiences among
Staff Members in California
The second study also involved an epidemiological examination of staff members in
California. Study 2 also began to answer questions about how experiences related to school
climate manifest in the daily routines of school. In fact, the design of Study 2 was closely linked
to definitions that indicate climate reflects patterns of experiences and shapes interactions that
occur in school settings (National School Climate Center, 2007). Latent profile analysis was used
to identify groups of staff members who experience climate in meaningfully similar ways.
Two key findings from Study 2 are highlighted here. First, results indicated that staff
members in California were likely to be in one of four climate subgroups: positive climate (29%
of the sample), positive discipline and support (47% of the sample), negative climate (3% of the
188
sample), and lackluster climate (20% of the sample). The proportion of staff members in these
subgroups is important. Nearly 30% of the sample experienced very positive climate, a
surprising finding given substantial concerns about burnout, attrition, pay disparities, and
difficult working conditions for teachers. And although some staff members experienced
pervasively negative experiences, they constituted a small portion of this sample. One
implication from these results is that in any given school, there may be staff members in any, or
all, of these subgroups. For instance, consider a school in which much of the staff is in the
positive discipline and support and positive climate subgroups, compared to a school wherein the
majority of the staff is in the negative and lackluster subgroups. These two hypothetical settings
would likely respond to student and staff needs differently. An additional concern that pervades
this dissertation is that interventions to address social emotional learning (SEL), bullying,
violence, or even school climate frequently rely on staff members for implementation. Do we
expect staff perceptions of climate to improve because they are delivering a SEL intervention?
Do we expect that staff members’ implementation is not affected by a negative climate?
Study 2 also presents findings about groups of staff members that are more likely to be in
particular subgroups of climate. For instance, middle and high school staff members in this
sample were more likely to be in the negative and lackluster subgroups than those in elementary
schools. Several disturbing trends were apparent in results about staff ethnicity as well—African
American and American Indian or Alaska Native staff members were also more likely to
experience negative climate than their White colleagues. Combined with results from a
descriptive study about California school professionals (Capp, Astor, & Gilreath, 2018), these
results indicate substantial disparities in how staff members experience climate based on their
ethnicity.
189
Finally, Study 2 supports the importance of understanding local contexts in research that
examines or includes school climate. Careful assessment of the coexistence of these subgroups in
particular schools and districts needs to be prioritized to enhance well-being for staff members,
students, and the success of interventions and programs.
Study 3: Exploring Positive and Negative School Climate: How do Socioeconomic Status,
Leadership, and School Contexts Influence Staff Perceptions of Climate?
The third study of this dissertation set out to address questions emerging from the first
two quantitative studies, including how climate is created and what elements of climate might be
more important. This study also incorporated influences from specific school contexts into a staff
school climate model. Findings indicate that the principal and general perceptions of leadership
are perhaps the central factor for the creation and quality of school climate. This was true in all
settings, regardless of the kind of school or the quality of climate in that school. Staff
perspectives were also found to be rooted in their experiences over time; that they partially
constructed their assessments of climate by comparing the current climate with local history.
Study 3 aimed to explore the influences of local context and the likely presence of
negative and positive climate experiences described in Study 2. This final study used results
from the latent profile analysis in Study 2 to locate schools in districts that were likely to have a
positive or negative climate based on the proportion of staff members in the positive and
negative climate subgroups as previously described. Results from the first step of this study
showed that there are indeed schools that are likely to have positive or negative climate, and
responses from district personnel confirmed this quantitative sorting. Implications from this
sorting process are discussed further in this chapter.
190
One of the contextual influences included in this study is that schools were nested in
high- and low-SES districts. Findings indicate that the hypothesized relationship between
negative climate and lower SES was not supported. In this study, positive climate was found in
two schools with steadily increasing rates of socioeconomic disadvantage. Study 3 also explored
how staff members characterized their understanding of and contribution to climate.
Finally, one question this study sought to answer was the degree to which staff members
felt they construct school climate in their schools for the students and themselves. Findings
showed that staff members engaged in many activities, sometimes strategically, to create climate.
However, many of these efforts were focused on creating climate to support students in their
schools. Their first response about climate, then, was not necessarily about their own experiences
and did not reflect a singular school climate that filters down through the staff to students. Thus,
a staff-centric model of climate is an important addition to the school climate literature. A
combination of models is likely needed to capture an accurate assessment of climate in schools.
Combined Practical and Theoretical Implications from Studies 1, 2, and 3
Findings and conclusions from the three studies in this dissertation provide an in-depth
examination of school staff members, a largely overlooked population in school climate research.
Particularly in California, these studies are some of the first to use the CSCS and present findings
intended for dissemination. There are reasons to be both hopeful about the experiences of staff
members and concerned about the disparities evident in their experiences of school climate.
Further, key influences on climate have been described for the first time in these studies. Positive
climate is clearly important, and clearly matters to staff members. Continued efforts to
understand and improve school climate are needed to ensure the well-being of staff members and
protective capacity of school settings for students.
191
Many practical and theoretical implications emerge from these dissertation studies; these
are discussed in the following sections of this chapter. Many of these implications indicate the
need for future research, and these are discussed briefly. This chapter closes with a more detailed
discussion of future studies that emerged from the three dissertation studies.
Assessing Climate and Implementing Interventions
Using the CSCS as part of a monitoring system. A steadily advancing research base
has advocated for an understanding of school problems and interventions using a framework of
ongoing data collection that reflects local needs (Astor & Benbenishty, in press; Astor, Capp,
Moore, & Benbenishty, 2016; Pitner, Moore, Capp, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017). Often referred
to as a monitoring system, this strategy emphasizes the importance of school leaders and
constituents having ongoing access to data that helps them (a) understand what kinds of issues
may be negatively influencing their school contexts, or school climate; (b) determine the severity
of these issues; and (c) collect evidence showing progress following the implementation of
programs or policies to ameliorate issues. One implication of this dissertation research is that
California data can be used as part of a monitoring system for any district. The CSCS has been
administered every 2 years since 1987 and is available to all schools in California. Thus, this
survey is one example of a monitoring tool that would allow schools and districts to consider
past trends in staff experiences and track future responses.
Further, results from these dissertation studies using the CSCS show potential future
applications of this approach. For instance, ongoing monitoring of the experiences of non-White
staff members or those working in secondary school settings may yield trends that are
meaningful for improving climate experiences. There are also areas where the incorporation of
additional data would allow for more comprehensive monitoring of school climate-related issues.
192
For example, tracking principal changes at school or district levels over time could provide
valuable insights about changes in school climate.
Subgroup-based sorting as a tool for local, regional, or statewide contexts. The
subgroup-based sorting used in Study 3 could also be a useful tool for schools and districts, or
even larger regions. With strong response rates, replicating the latent profile analysis and
locating these subgroups in schools would offer districts an accurate sense of the kind of climate
that school staff members are experiencing in each school. This could quickly identify schools
with a very positive or negative climate. It would also allow a more comprehensive view of how
multiple subgroups of school climate experiences are represented in each school. In turn, these
steps would allow school and district leaders to target efforts to assess and improve climate.
One final element of a monitoring system relevant for this discussion is that locally
created interventions could also become part of a data-driven decision-making process for
schools and districts (Astor & Benbenishty, 2017; Astor, Jacobson, Wrabel, Benbenishty, &
Pineda, 2017). Consider a district that uses subgroup-based sorting and finds schools with a high
number of staff members experiencing a lackluster or negative climate. School and district
leaders could meet with staff members in those schools and generate local policies or programs
to improve climate. If these locally created programs were successful, an existing monitoring
program, including the CSCS, could help demonstrate effectiveness and be used to hone these
intervention efforts. Imagine staff members being able to examine data spanning multiple years
showing an improved school climate for staff members. These programs and policies, and
supporting data, could then be shared with other schools in the same district and beyond.
SEL and school climate interventions. There is clear evidence that schools are seen as
ideal places for the implementation of interventions targeting SEL, bullying, or mental health
193
issues (Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009; Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning, 2005; Domitrovich et al., 2010; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, &
Schellinger, 2011; Franklin, Kim, Ryan, Kelly, & Montgomery, 2012; Paternite & Johnston,
2005). In addition, the literature has strongly indicated that whole-school interventions are the
most effective for SEL and school climate interventions (Capp et al., 2017; Pitner, Astor, &
Benbenishty, 2015; Pitner et al., 2017). Considering this body of literature, one key implication
from all three studies is that not all staff members in schools or districts are experiencing the
same kind of climate. This variation is significant in the context of interventions that intend to
address climate, SEL, or bullying.
School climate and SEL are increasingly being considered mutually reinforcing concepts
(Melnick, Cook-Harvey, & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Further, some scholars have noted that in
the last decade, the definitions of SEL, school climate, bullying, and school safety have changed
and even blended together (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018). As these definitions morph and merge,
it is increasingly important for schools or districts to understand how staff members perceive the
climate in their schools. It is likely that staff members experiencing a negative climate will have
more difficulty implementing and delivering school climate, SEL, or bullying interventions than
staff members experiencing a positive climate.
Ecological Theory: Possible Additions and Changes to the Conceptualization of School
Climate
School climate research is often rooted in ecological theories because of the multiple and
nested influences that are represented in school settings (Wang & Degol, 2016). In the study of
student outcomes related to school climate, this makes sense because students experience
influence from peers, teachers, other staff members, and principals. Student academic and social
194
and emotional development is also connected to these nested influences. The studies in this
dissertation were founded on an ecological model in which the idea of nested influences remains,
but the focus is shifted from the individual to the whole school. Put another way, these studies
are based on a school-in-the-center model rather than a person-in-environment model (Astor &
Benbenishty, 2018; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). This model recognizes that the patterns of
experiences that constitute a typical school day are affected by both internal and external
influences. Internal influences include school climate, school violence, and the interactions
among everyone in a school. External influences include student and family characteristics,
neighborhood demographics, and community and cultural influences. This model includes
organizational structures (district, county, and state government) and the importance of time or
historical contexts. Finally, the school’s internal context, including climate, moderates and
mediates outside influences (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005).
One facet of this school-in-the-center framework is that the school is not merely a
location in which things happen, but is a dynamic place because of the unique combination of
people attending school and the evolving mission of education. Throughout this dissertation, it
has been argued that one missing element in school climate research is the perceptions of school
staff members, because they are a critical component of a dynamic, school-focused ecological
model. It is true that like research focusing on student experiences and outcomes, these
dissertation studies focused on staff member experiences. These studies acknowledged the need
to expand research designs to include the entire context, while temporarily highlighting the
contribution of school staff members in the school context.
195
Shifting School Climate Theory: Including History and Prioritizing Climate Components
Order of importance: Discipline or principals? One benefit of using an ecological
model to study school climate is that schools are complex, and theories need to incorporate
multiple institutional goals, diverse constituents, and many contextual influences. There may also
be value in prioritizing the order of assessment and intervention. Whole-school intervention may
be initially difficult, and clarifying an effective beginning point may be helpful. One question
woven throughout the three dissertation studies is whether certain dimensions of climate might
be more influential than others.
Results from Study 1 suggest that the school’s approach to discipline and supportive
relationships may have more influence on staff perceptions of climate than other elements. Study
2 similarly indicated this, with a substantial proportion of California staff members sharing a
profile of climate defined by more positive ratings of discipline and support. This is important
regarding efforts to change and improve climate. If there is an order of importance to the
construction of climate, then targeting efforts to reform or improve climate should encourage
more efficient change and facilitate whole-school investment and intervention. For instance, in
High School 2 (low-SES district) presented in Study 3, targeting discipline procedures and
policies may bring an element of stability and predictability for the staff that would make initial
improvements to the existing climate; this in turn could create momentum for future changes.
However, findings from Study 3 suggest that the principal is the primary driver of climate, and
that a single principal committed to sharing a mission can begin to effect change for the whole
school. These findings about the importance of the principal are consistent with prior research
(e.g., Astor, Benbenishty, & Estrada, 2009), yet this particular influence is often missing from
conceptualizations of climate. This is an important element to include in future research.
196
Findings from Study 3 also suggest that assessing whether the principal is mission driven and the
degree to which staff members agree and are included in that mission may be good starting
points. Further research to quantitatively capture these ideas is necessary.
It is possible, then, that starting with leadership or disciplinary procedures will facilitate
initial improvement and encourage investment from stakeholders. Future research is needed to
clarify whether targeting change at one element of climate is effective and which element to
target. Local assessments are clearly important to answer these questions, and it could be that
two schools or school districts would provide two different answers to these questions.
Importance of time and history as staff members assess climate. Recent evolutions in
school climate theory have included the passage of time in theoretical models. The temporal
element in this model recognizes that changing norms, funding priorities, and historical events
all shape school climate and school contexts (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018). In Study 3, time and
history represented an important theme as staff members discussed their perceptions of school
climate. In describing the climate of their schools, staff members in Study 3 generally referenced
two elements of history in their narratives. First, they spoke of their personal histories in the
school and how the quality of their experiences changed with various events, which nearly
always included the departure and arrival of principals. This demonstrates the relevance of
individual perspectives, because staff members are clearly influenced by the school context.
Second, staff members also spoke more broadly about the history of their school and how it had
changed and evolved over time. In these instances, the implication was that the school also had a
narrative that reflected changes in climate. These findings regarding time and history
demonstrate the importance of including this element in an ecological model.
197
Practically, the inclusion of time and history in theoretical models requires assessments
of climate to be sensitive to the history of changes in a school. A rapid succession of negative
changes might present a different environment for a new principal intent on improving climate
compared to a school where the changes were slower and less dramatic. The benefit of learning
about the school context over time will be a significant strength in future assessments of climate.
This may be especially important for the implementation of interventions to improve climate in a
school. Patterns of events might have helped define the climate in a school, including significant
watershed events that many staff members share in their individual, institutional memories. The
importance of local data has already been discussed, and time and history are key components of
how staff members understand the trajectory of their schools.
Elementary and secondary schools may require distinct climate models. Each of the
dissertation studies presented here, along with a preliminary study (Capp et al., 2018), separately
demonstrated that elementary and secondary school environments have markedly different
climates according to school staff members. In general, these results show that elementary staff
members report more positive school climate than those in middle and high school. Potential
reasons for this have been discussed in the three dissertation studies. One possible explanation is
that elementary schools are more nurturing environments because of the ages and developmental
stages of elementary students (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993). Research also
showed that student experiences are more negative in middle school (Rice & Dolgin, 2005; Way,
Reddy, & Rhodes, 2007). Finally, there is consistent evidence that bullying behaviors tend to
escalate in the middle school years (Goldbaum, Craig, Pepler, & Connolly, 2003; Nansel et al.,
2001). Together, these changes in student perceptions and behavior suggest that there may be a
198
resulting change in the overall school climate beginning in middle school. Results from Study 1
support the notion that student behavior and staff perceptions of climate are linked.
However, results from Study 3 did not indicate that student behaviors were responsible
for staff perceptions of climate. School-level leadership was the most consistently cited reason
for climate according to staff members, and there was little mention of student behavioral
problems by staff participants. When student behavior was mentioned, it was generally
connected to the administrative response to those behaviors. Certainly, further research is needed
in this area. It is clear, however, that the experiences of staff members are substantially different
in elementary and secondary settings. Further, according to Study 1, Study 2, and Capp et al.
(2018), elementary staff members experience much better school climate than those in middle
and high school. It is possible that elementary climate tends to be better. It is also possible that
these differences reflect measurement tools that do not accurately capture the differences and
nuances in these settings.
Perhaps there is a larger implication—that elementary school climate is a different
construct than secondary school climate. Differences in student behavior, structure of the school
day, and differences in leadership models (e.g., more administrators and department leaders) may
be additional reasons to consider a conceptual separation between elementary and secondary
settings when examining school climate.
Areas of Future Study
Combined, these studies revealed potential opportunities for schools and districts to use
monitoring programs to understand current school climates. One avenue for future research is to
incorporate additional data to examine some of the key school climate influences noted in this
dissertation research. For instance, future research should incorporate data about changing
199
principals. Quantitatively, it would be helpful to understand the frequency of changes and how
long principals stay in their schools. Qualitatively, there are questions about why these changes
happen: Are there district policies that influence principal tenure? Do districts consider the
potential impact on school climate when administrator reassignments occur? Are there
opportunities for principals to work together regarding climate in their buildings? There are
questions specifically for principals: What encourages principals to stay or leave particular
schools? To what extent do principals include their school’s climate in their approach to their
school community? Although it is not the intention of these questions to assign sole
responsibility for school climate to principals, the prominence of their influence is clear.
Further questions also exist about the relationship between school climate and school
size. As previously discussed, there are important theoretical implications for understanding
school climate that may be due to school size and structure. For instance, a more comprehensive
study of elementary schools in California that also includes enrollment will be important to help
isolate how size is related to climate. In the second and third studies presented here, elementary
schools had more positive climates. One hypothesis about this finding is that in a smaller school
there is an increased opportunity for the entire staff to feel more connected and united around a
school’s mission, and that the principal in these settings has more opportunity to connect with
each staff member.
It is also clear that the structure and activities are very different in elementary and
secondary schools. This is largely due to the age and developmental needs of elementary
students compared to secondary students (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993; Wang &
Dishion, 2012). Research presented here convincingly showed that elementary schools have
consistent and marked differences in the quality of climate reported by staff members. Although
200
investigating size is an important element to rule out, it seems likely that other structural
elements are dictating these differences in school climate. Results from Study 3 suggest
departmental structures as a possible mediating source for these climate differences. Alternately,
studies should seek to identify if there are other models of secondary structure, such as a middle
school teaming model (e.g., Erb & Stevenson, 1999; Mertens & Flowers, 2003), that influence
the quality of climate perceived by staff members. Regardless, one critical question that remains
is whether researchers should be measuring elementary and secondary school climate in the same
way.
Two other areas of research are indicated by the combination of results from the three
dissertation studies. It is evident that the specific local context of a school matters. Leadership,
student behaviors, and colleagues are all examples of influences specific to a single location. Can
wider geographical patterns also be observed? In Study 3, the two participating districts were
neighboring suburban districts with similar numbers of students. In California, which has more
than 1,000 school districts across urban, suburban, and rural environments, there may be
important variations in the quality of climate staff members experience relative to geographic
distinctions.
One area of future research that is particularly important to ecological theories of school
climate is to connect the school climate experiences of various constituents. For instance, one
follow-up study to this dissertation should examine the similar and divergent patterns of climate
perceptions of students, staff members, and principals. Finally, as previously indicated, one area
in need of future research is patterns in staff school climate perceptions over time. Because data
from the CSCS are available for the past few decades, examining the stability and change of
201
climate experiences over time may yield important insights into contextual influences on school
climate.
Connections to Social Work Research and Practice
This research focused on staff member experiences of school climate, and subsequently
school contexts often associated with educational research. One implicit goal of this dissertation
was highlighting that school climate should be equally present in the scope of social work
research. The very definition of SEL indicates that what we are collectively asking teachers and
school staff members to do is create an environment wherein fundamental interpersonal skills are
taught alongside academic content:
Social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process through which children and adults
acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand
and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others,
establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions.
(Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2018, para. 1)
Social workers should be more involved in the furthering of SEL research in schools.
One argument posited by this research is that the implementation of SEL, bullying, or school
climate interventions rely on assumptions about staff members’ collective readiness and
willingness to deliver these interventions. Given the substantial research base dedicated to
school-based interventions addressing various SEL and mental health interventions, it is critical
to consider that assessing staff perceptions of climate is a necessary first step in the intervention
process.
At a more practical level, social workers in multiple clinical settings encounter school-
aged youth, working to address problems that at a minimum co-occur in school contexts. This is
202
especially true for school social workers, who are charged with ensuring equitable educational
opportunities for all students while working in existing school structures (National Association
of Social Workers, 2012). Further, school social workers are expected to provide leadership in
developing a positive school climate and use data-informed decision making in their practice
(National Association of Social Workers, 2012). These expectations should be combined with
the need to include teachers and staff members in the framework of school social work practice.
Understanding climate from a staff perspective is a critical element for school social workers so
they can intervene at multiple layers of a school’s ecology.

203
References
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). Mapping and monitoring bullying and violence:
Building a safe school climate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (in press). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., & Estrada, J. N. (2009). School violence and theoretically atypical
schools: The principal’s centrality in orchestrating safe schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 46, 423–461. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329598
Astor, R. A., Capp, G., Moore, H., & Benbenishty, R. (2016). Monitoring school climate and
social emotional learning: Lessons from Israel and California. In R. H. Shute & P. T. Slee
(Eds.), Mental health and wellbeing through schools: The way forward (pp. 173–184).
New York, NY: Routledge
Astor, R. A., Jacobson, L., Wrabel, S. L., Benbenishty, R., & Pineda, D. (2017). Welcoming
practices: Creating schools that support students and families in transition. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood,
family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Berg, J. K., & Cornell, D. (2016). Authoritative school climate, aggression toward teachers, and
teacher distress in middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 122–139.
http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000132
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
204
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87, 425–469.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669821
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school climate
through school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Findings from a
group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10, 100.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0114-9
Capp, G. P., Astor, R. A., & Gilreath, T. D. (2018). The voices and perceptions of school staff on
school climate: Advancing a conceptual model of school climate based on school staff
perspectives. Manuscript under review.
Capp, G. P., Moore, H., Pitner, R., Iachini, A. L., Berkowitz, R., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R.
(2017). School violence. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of
education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2005). Safe and sound: An
educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs.
Chicago, IL: Author.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2018). What is SEL? Retrieved
from https://casel.org/what-is-sel
De Pedro, K. T., Astor, R. A., Gilreath, T. D., Benbenishty, R., & Berkowitz, R. (2018). School
climate, deployment, and mental health among students in military-connected schools.
Youth & Society, 50, 93–115. http://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X15592296
Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Greenberg, M. T., Embry, D., Poduska, J. M., & Ialongo,
N. S. (2010). Integrated models of school ‐based prevention: Logic and theory.
Psychology in the Schools, 47, 71–88. http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20452
205
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate
classrooms for early adolescents. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation
in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–181). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac
Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit
on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48,
90–101. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Erb, T. O., & Stevenson, C. (1999). What difference does teaming make? Middle School
Journal, 30, 47–50. http://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.1999.11494587
Franklin, C. G. S., Kim, J. S., Ryan, T. N., Kelly, M. S., & Montgomery, K. L. (2012). Teacher
involvement in school mental health interventions: A systematic review. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34, 973–982. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.027
Gilreath, T. D., Astor, R. A., Cederbaum, J. A., Atuel, H., & Benbenishty, R. (2014). Prevalence
and correlates of victimization and weapon carrying among military- and nonmilitary-
connected youth in Southern California. Preventive Medicine, 60, 21–26.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.12.002
Goldbaum, S., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Connolly, J. (2003). Developmental trajectories of
victimization: Identifying risk and protective factors. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 19, 139–156. http://doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n02_09
206
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T.-H., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative
school discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 483–496. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018562
Melnick, H., Cook-Harvey, C. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Encouraging social and
emotional learning in the context of new accountability. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy
Institute.
Mertens, S. B., & Flowers, N. (2003). Middle school practices improve student achievement in
high poverty schools. Middle School Journal, 35, 33–43.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2003.11494524
Moore, H., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A. & Rice, E. (2017). The positive role of school climate
on school victimization, depression, and suicidal ideation among school-attending
homeless youth. Journal of School Violence. Advance online publication.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1322518
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
National Association of Social Workers. (2012). NASW standards for school social work
services. Washington DC: Author.
National School Climate Center. (2007). The school climate challenge: Narrowing the gap
between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and
teacher education policy. Retrieved from
207
https://www.schoolclimate.org/themes/schoolclimate/assets/pdf/policy/school-climate-
challenge-web.pdf
Paternite, C. E., & Johnston, T. C. (2005). Rationale and strategies for central involvement of
educators in effective school-based mental health programs. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34, 41–49. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-1335-x
Pitner, R., Astor, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2015). Violence in schools. In P. Allen-Meares (Ed.)
Social work services in school (7th ed., pp. 265–296). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Pitner, R. O., Moore, H., Capp, G., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). Prevention of
violence, aggression, and bullying in schools. In P. Sturmey (Ed.), The Wiley handbook
of violence and aggression. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Rice, F. P., & Dolgin, K. G. (2005). The adolescent: Development, relationships, and culture.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sullivan, K., Capp, G., Gilreath, T. D., Benbenishty, R., Roziner, I., & Astor, R. A. (2015).
Substance abuse and other adverse outcomes for military-connected youth in California:
Results from a large-scale normative population survey. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 922–928.
http://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1413
Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement,
and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 315–352.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
Wang, M.-T., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). The trajectories of adolescents’ perceptions of school
climate, deviant peer affiliation, and behavioral problems during the middle school years.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 40–53. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2011.00763.x
208
Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate during the
middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and behavioral
adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 194–213.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9143-y

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation consists of 3 studies examining school climate specifically from a staff perspective. ❧ Study 1: An extensive body of research shows that school climate is an important factor for individuals and schools, and recent research has suggested that positive climate may reduce inequalities in educational achievement connected to ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Yet current conceptualizations of school climate largely overlook the perspectives and experience of staff members. School staff members (e.g., teachers, administrators, social workers) have different roles and experiences in schools than students and are expected to take action to create positive climate for students. Data for this study come from the 2013 statewide administration of the California School Climate Survey (CSCS). In 2013, approximately 54,000 school staff members completed the survey. The majority of the sample was teachers (n = 38,205), but also included more than 2,000 administrators

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An ecological mixed-methods analysis of homeless students’ school experience at the state, district, and school levels

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

The role of school climate in the mental health and victimization of students in military-connected schools

PDF

A mixed-methods examination of transgender and gender nonbinary students’schooling experiences: implications for developing affirmative schools

PDF

School social dynamics as mediators of students personal traits and family factors on the perpetration of school violence in Taiwan

PDF

The assessment of Latino affective and behavioral responses to racial campus climate

PDF

Impact of positive student–staff relationships and the social–emotional outcomes of Black high school students classified with an emotional disability

PDF

Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

PDF

Exploring the social determinants of health in a population with similar access to healthcare: experiences from United States active-duty army wives

PDF

A mixed method examination of available supports for secondary school students’ college and military aspirations

PDF

The intersection of grit and social capital: a mixed methods examination of successful first-generation college students

PDF

What do you notice? What do you wonder? A mixed-methods investigation into community science data talks

PDF

Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

Homelessness and substance use treatment: using multiple methods to understand risks, consequences, and unmet treatment needs among young adults

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

School connectedness: a comparison of students' and staff school connectedness perceptions

PDF

How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)

PDF

Every space counts: how ex-prisoners with mental illnesses navigate public space and interactions in everyday life

PDF

Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Capp, Gordon P. (author)

Core Title School staff perceptions of school climate: a mixed-methods multistudy examination of staff school climate at the state, regional, and school levels

School School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Social Work

Publication Date 06/27/2018

Defense Date 04/04/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag latent class analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,qualitative case study,school climate,school staff members,social emotional learning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Astor, Ron Avi (committee chair), Henwood, Benjamin (committee member), Sinatra, Gale (committee member)

Creator Email capp@usc.edu,gpcapp@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-507463

Unique identifier UC11266334

Identifier etd-CappGordon-6352.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-507463 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CappGordon-6352.pdf

Dmrecord 507463

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Capp, Gordon P.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA