Education-line Home Page

The relationship between school climate & head teacher leadership, and pupil attainment: evidence from a sample of English secondary schools

Rosalind Levačić , Fiona Steele and Rebecca Smees
Institute of Education, University of London, email: r.levacic@ioe.ac.uk 

Lars Malmberg
Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford

Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh,
11-13 September 2003

WORKING PAPER: PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Introduction: school effectiveness characteristics

A central l issue in school effectiveness research (SER) is the identification of the characteristics of effective schools or the factors associated with school effectiveness. Ultimately the goal is to find school climate processes or factors that are causally related to desired student outcomes, both cognitive and affective. The context-input-process-outcome model of school effectiveness has emerged as the accepted framework for SER. School processes are also important for research on education production functions since they mediate between the input of resources and the production of outcomes and thus can explain differences in school efficiency. The generalised model of school effectiveness specifies a complex set of interrelationships between four main groups of factors - the school's external environment, the school's own organisational climate, classroom processes and the motivations, attitudes, behaviours and abilities of the individual students. The challenge of SER is to specify essential relationships in a sufficiently simple form for statistical estimation while not biasing the findings by omitting key variables or linkages. School and classroom climate processes must be captured in a measurable form for analysis using either surveys or researcher recorded observations.

This paper reports an attempt to create school climate constructs and test their relationship with pupil attainment. This covers the following:

Review of research and methodology

As note, the number of derivative publications about SER exceeds the number of original empirical studies. Their review of the Key Characteristics of Effective Schools1, which cautions against the dangers of interpreting correlational relationships as causal or placing too much confidence in evidence from outlier studies, was influential in distilling a list of 'eleven factors for effective schools' from the research evidence mainly from the US, UK, Australia and the Netherlands. This list and a similar one from were combined by to produce a list of nine processes of effective schools. As make clear, the key processes that have been distilled out in these influential reviews, are derived from about half a dozen major studies. These include a study of 78 Michigan elementary schools , the Louisiana longitudinal study (76 schools) , Fifteen Thousand Hours study of 12 London secondary schools and School Matters: the Junior Years (50 London primary schools).

These studies used the same basic methodology for identifying 'effectiveness factors'. The sampled schools' relative effectiveness in value-added terms was estimated statistically from data on pupil attainment and pupil background. Data on school and class process were collected by survey instruments and/or researcher observation. Two alternative methods of identifying 'effectiveness factors' are to be found in the studies. One method involves selecting a sub-sample of schools that are placed into groups according to their being more effective or less effective and having low or higher SES pupils. Differences are then identified in the process variables found in effective schools, controlling for composition, compared to ineffective schools. The other method is to obtain measures of school processes and to statistically test the relationship between the process variables and pupil attainment, controlling for pupil background and school context. The school effectiveness characteristics are derived from a handful of major studies conducted many years ago, which mostly predated the use of multilevel modelling and used the first method to identify 'effective school climate factors'. The school effectiveness characteristics distilled out in these major surveys include both class level and school level constructs though the distinction between the two levels in the list of characteristics thus derived is not clear cut.

Obtaining good quality evidence on the factors related (correlationally or causally) to school effectiveness requires an expensive and time consuming research design which tracks several thousand students in schools over a number of years. A major recent study is the LOSO project in Flemish Belgium which has followed 4700 students in 275 secondary schools since 1991/2. The study collected data from teachers on the learning climate of their classroom and their teaching practices. School climate constructs were created from questionnaires to pupils and teachers about the school's organisational environment. The main findings are that after controlling for pupil variables and school context, class composition, class climate variables affected attainment and were themselves interrelated. The school climate variables explained very little of the variance in attainment: only the construct 'paying attention to differences between students' was positive and significant.

Smaller scale studies usually utilise existing data, supplemented by school surveys. A number of smaller scale studies of school effectiveness using multilevel modelling have also included measures of school and classroom climate. A large proportion of these are from the Netherlands and offer only limited support for the impact of the 'key characteristics of effective schools' on pupil attainment , the evidence being stronger for primary schools than for secondary.

A related branch of research is on the effects of school leadership on student attainment. While school leadership appears as one of the school effectiveness characteristics and is expected to impact on school process variables, it has often been studied separately or as the major focus in its own right. The majority of research on leadership is qualitative and thus cannot rigorously establish a relational or causal effect on pupil attainment. Despite this lack of hard evidence, government policies and educational leadership programmes, such as the National College of School Leadership in England, are predicated on the assumption that the quality of leadership has important effects on pupil attainment. Only a relatively small proportion of school leadership studies have a used a research design which enables the 'effect' on pupil attainment of leadership to be estimated. A recent literature review by and meta-analysis by selected only studies meeting this specification2. Most studies estimated a direct effect of leadership on student attainment and only a few utilised a model in which the effects of leadership on attainment are indirect. There is also considerable lack of consensus on the appropriate conceptualisation of school leadership (possibly reflecting the wider range of general management literature from which educational leadership research draws than does school effectiveness research). As Witziers et al. note 'consistency in the way concepts are operationalised is not the strongest feature of leadership research'. Their overall conclusion from a meta-analysis of 37 studies is that the effect size of leadership is positive but small (in the order of explaining one percent of the variation in student attainment). Dutch studies mainly show no effects of leadership in secondary schools. An important methodological issue examined by Witziers et al. is the moderating effect of school contextual variables on leadership - its effects tend to be smaller in models including school context variables and also when teacher variables are included. Theories of leadership consider both how leaders affect school and class climate and the reciprocal effects of climate in modifying leadership behaviour.

Operationalising school climate in a study of 20 English secondary schools

A major reason for the paucity of studies including school and class climate constructs compared to those which just estimate school effects including fixed pupil and school level variables is the expense of collecting such data and the reluctance of hard pressed schools to participate in surveys, especially of sensitive nature. However, a set of school climate and leadership constructs was collected from a sample of 20 English secondary schools in the course of a DfES funded pilot study on the effects of resourcing on pupil attainment, in which the school climate and leadership variables were included as controls3.

A set of related instruments on school climate were developed to be administered to different types of stakeholder. The distinct groups identified were Year 9 and Year 11 pupils who responded to the same instrument; teachers, the head teacher and/or deputy, support staff and governors. Each of the adult groups had a slightly different version of the school climate instrument reflecting a priori assumptions about the aspects of school climate about which they could be expected to be knowledgeable. For the adults the teachers' instrument was the starting point and the others were adjusted versions of it. The items for the school climate questionnaire were selected after comparing a number of instruments that had already been used in other research studies or for diagnostic purposes for school improvement. The content of the various instruments was mapped to a set of school climate constructs drawn from these questionnaires, which corresponded quite closely to the eleven effective characteristics of Sammons et al. The instruments reviewed in order to construct the one used in RAPA study are listed in the Appendix in Table A1. The criteria for selecting constructs and items were:

developed and used in previous research with some evidence of association with pupil attainment;
good reliability and validity tests (in particular Cronbach's alpha reported) and a good linkage of items to constructs;
construct validity - appropriate for the stakeholder to whom it is administered;
ability to administer same construct to different stakeholders;
the instrument should not exceed 30 minutes to complete;
obtaining permission to use the instrument and at low cost.

The Assessment of School Climate Instrument (Grosin and McNamara - Stockholm and M? Universities) was the one which most heavily influenced the constructs and items selected. This instrument has been worked on since the 1990s and is mainly used for school evaluation in Sweden and the school ratings are used to inform school improvement work. The instrument has both a teacher and a pupil version - for Year 5 and 6 pupils (12-13 years of age). It is available on a website so that school staff and pupils can respond to it on line. The instrument is based on 30 years of school effectiveness research - hence its constructs map quite well to the characteristics of effective schools. Another instrument was influential - the Louisiana ABC + model (Teddlie and Stringfield) developed for school improvement work but also derived from one of the longitudinal classic studies. Permission was obtained to use both instruments. Questions were modified, omitted or added so as to reflect the English school context and age of the pupils.4

Seven a-priori constructs, covered by 41 items, were selected for the pupil school climate questionnaire. For the teacher questionnaire, 10 a priori constructs were selected including headteacher leadership, and represented by 84 questions in total. The support staff questionnaire included nine constructs (pupil performance monitoring and rewards was omitted and teachers replaced by staff in four of the other constructs). The governors' questionnaire included 8 constructs5. As in the AISC instruments, respondents are asked whether they 'agree strongly', 'agree', 'disagree' or 'disagree strongly' with statements such as 'The teachers in this school show respect for the students' and the responses are coded from 4 (agree strongly) to 1. Further details of the items and constructs are given in the discussion below and in tables A2 and A3 in the Appendix.

Administration of the school climate instrument

As this was a pilot study, which focused on the relationship between school resourcing and pupil attainment, sample size was restricted to 20 secondary schools in England. All secondary schools in England were stratified into 8 categories according to high or low school size, high/low percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) and high/low resourcing (see Table 1). High or low refers to above or below the median. Data on size and FSM were available from the Annual Census of Schools 2001 and data on budget revenue per pupil were obtained from Section 52 statements for 2001-02 held at the DfES. Schools that had been recently visited for fieldwork and schools in special measures were excluded. The proportion of schools sampled from each of the six categories reflected the proportion of each category in the whole school population.

As the sampled schools were to be visited by 5 fieldwork teams6 the selection procedure ensured that each team would have a pair of schools to visit in a single government office area7. A 1 in 10 acceptance rate for participation in the study was assumed and therefore 200 schools were initially sampled and given to the teams in batches of 10. Schools in each batch were contacted by telephone and invited to participate.8

Table 1 Stratified sampling frame for selecting secondary of schools

Resourcing

Free School Meals

School size

Secondary (excluding middle schools deemed secondary)

High

 

High

High

392

Low

635

Low

High

246

Low

376

Low High

High

355

Low

328

Low

High

719

Low

515

A field work team of two visited each school for two and a half days in the summer term of 2002. The timing resulted in a reduced number of Year 11 pupils being available for responding to the surveys because of GCSE exams and two schools did not provide any Year 11 pupils. A mixed ability form group in Year 11 and in Year 9 in each school was administered the questionnaires in class with the field worker present. A number of instruments was administered but in this paper we report only on the school climate findings. The resulting dataset used for analysis contains 351 Year 11 students and 519 Year 10s, 124teachers, 29 heads and deputies, 77 support staff and 45 governors.9

Factor analysis to create school climate constructs

The creation of school climate and leadership constructs and assessment of their reliability and validity was carried out in three steps.

(1) The a priori constructs were screened for missing values and skewness. Thereafter a series of exploratory Principle Components Analysis (PCA) and Factor Analyses (FA) (maximum likelihood) and tests of internal consistency were conducted. If the a priori constructs displayed a satisfactory and interpretable factor structure10 and appropriate internal consistencies, these were retained.

(2) If the a priori constructs were not satisfactory, an alternative factor structure with a modified set of items was, to the extent possible, proposed.

(3) The final versions of the constructs were based on datasets with imputed values for missing data. The most seemingly solid constructs were tested with confirmatory factor analysis.

Pupil school climate constructs

The 7 a priori constructs in the pupil school climate instrument were: 'expectations of teachers' (12 items), 'pupils' attitudes to learning' (7 items), 'pupil performance, monitoring and rewards' (4 items), 'pupil-teacher relationships' (7 items), 'home-school relationships' (7 items), 'pupil participation in school' (3 items) and 'school leadership' (4 items). These are listed in the first column of Table 2.

When the a priori constructs were scrutinized the following patterns emerged: the first construct (A) 'expectations of teachers' subdivided nicely into two derived constructs with acceptable internal consistencies, which may be labelled 'teachers' interest and respect' (based on 6 items) and 'pro achievement beliefs' (based on 4 items). The second a priori construct (B) 'pupils' attitudes to learning' was not internally consistent (a = .28), and the analyses suggested that it may be subdivided into two discernible constructs: 'positive attitudes to learning' (based on 3 items) and 'negative attitudes to learning' (3 items) The third a priori construct (C) 'student performance monitoring and rewards' (4 items) was deemed appropriate and retained. The fourth a priori construct (D) 'pupil-teacher relationships' showed up as one derived construct after excluding one item. The items in the first four a priori constructs were analysed, the structure of which, after excluding two items, was found to be interpretable and useful for the current study. The results from Principle Components Analyses of constructs A - D are presented in Tables A2 and A3 in the Appendix. Thereafter, the fifth a priori construct (E) 'home-school relationships' divided into two derived constructs: 'positive relationships' (3 items) and 'homework check up' (3 items). No clear derived construct emerged if the items measuring this construct were included with the previous or latter items, whereby it was analysed on its own. The a priori constructs (F) 'pupil participation' and (G) 'headteacher's leadership' each formed a clear structure, which was retained when analysed together. The derived constructs E - G are shown in Table A3 of the Appendix.

The derived school climate constructs were submitted to a second order principle components/ factor analysis in which two factors evolved. The first factor included all constructs except the attitudes, which emerged in the second factor (see Table 2 and Table A2 Appendix). The second factor is valuable because it includes the only 'negative' wordings among the school climate constructs11. The second order factors enable one to test the relationship between pupil attainment and school climate, as a summary variable.

Table 2. Internal consistencies of pupil school climate constructs

A priori constructs

No. of items

a

A. Expectations of teachers

10

0.71

B. Pupil attitudes to learning

7

0.28

C. Pupil performance monitoring and rewards

4

0.58

D. Pupil teacher relations

7

0.76

E. Home school relationships

7

0.71

F. Pupil participation in school

3

0.60

G. Headteacher's leadership

4

0.83

Derived constructs for use in analysis of pupil achievement

   

Teachers' interest and respect

6

0.82

Teachers' pro-achievement beliefs

4

0.66

Students' positive attitudes to learning

3

0.59

Students' negative attitudes to learning

3

0.56

Positive home-school relationships

4

0.63

Homework check up

3

0.63

Monitoring and pupil rewards

4

0.58

Pupil teacher relationships

6

0.61

Pupil participation

3

0.69

Headteacher's leadership

4

0.83

Second order factors

   

School climate - factor A

8

 

Attitudes - factor B

2

 

Adult stakeholder school climate constructs

Eleven a priori constructs were included in the teacher questionnaire: (A) 'expectations and standards', (B) 'staff unity on values and practices', (C) 'teacher/staff pupil relationships', (D) 'pupil performance, monitoring and rewards', (E) 'home-school relationships', (F) 'pupil attitudes to learning', (G) 'teacher/staff collaboration', (H) 'teacher/staff/governor involvement', (I) 'teacher confidence and development' and (J) 'educational leadership'.

The analyses here were conducted among the combined teacher and head teacher groups given that these had responded to the same items. The principal components analysis was done in two parts12. The first principal components analysis (see Table 3) covered items from construct A - G, which was broadly confirmed by a Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis. The derived constructs are shown in Table 3. The first construct mapped well onto the concept of '

'shared vision and goals' among staff (Sammons et al., 1995), here labelled ' shared vision and goal unity' comprising five items. The internal consistency was very good (a = .84). The second construct mapped well onto 'an attractive working environment' (Sammons et al., 1995), here labelled 'warm staff atmosphere' comprising four items (a = .78). The third construct corresponded quite well to the 'concentration to teaching and learning' concept (Sammons et al., 1995), here labelled 'pupils' interest in learning', (a = .68). The fourth construct focused on 'parental involvement in pupil's learning' corresponding well with the 'home-school partnership' concept (Sammons et al., 1995). The fifth construct focused on 'high expectations on pupils' resembling the 'high expectation' concept (Sammons et al., 1995). The sixth construct focused on 'structured teacher tasks' in line with the concept of 'purposeful teaching' (Sammons et al., 1995) (a = .78. The seventh construct captured 'monitoring pupil achievement' in line with a concept of the 'monitoring progress' (Sammons et al., 1995), consisting of two items (a = .74). The eighth construct called 'positive reinforcement' in line with the concept of 'feedback' (Sammons et al., 1995).

In the second set of PCA/FA four constructs were derived (see Table 3). The first was called 'teacher involvement in school activities' (a = .91) mapping quite well on the concept of 'collegiality and collaboration' (Sammons et al., 1995). The second construct was called 'firm and purposeful headteacher leadership', one of the sub-components of the 'professional leadership' concept (Sammons et al., 1995) (a = .86). The third construct was 'headteacher's high expectations' (a = .79). The fourth construct was 'headteacher visibility' (a = .87) which most closely resembles in meaning the pupils' construct for headteacher's leadership.

Higher values for all the constructs, except 'students' negative attitudes to learning' indicated a more positive school climate (i.e. stronger agreement with a feature assumed to indicate a favourable school climate).

The structure of constructs was first examined among secondary school non-core teachers only (n = 124). In the next stage the head-teachers and deputy head teachers (n=29) were added to the group and the same structure emerged. It was not possible to discern to what extent the structure fitted the support staff (n=77) and governors (n=45), given that these had not always responded to the same items as the non-core teachers and the heads. Table 3 shows which stakeholder groups were included in the various school climate constructs.

In the next step missing data points were imputed for all items to which each stakeholder group had responded (using the EM-algorithm in the missing value analysis (MVA) module of SPSS (SPSS 1997)). The imputed items were thereafter used for creating the 'clean' constructs. Some of the constructs were based on a smaller number of items in the case of three constructs for the support staff: warm staff atmosphere was based on 2 items (instead of 4), high expectations of pupils based on 2 items (instead of 3) and firm and purposeful leadership of 4 items (instead of 5). The 'shared vision and unity' construct was estimated on the basis on two items (instead of 5) among the governors. Two constructs only including one item each among the governors were dropped.

Table 3. Internal consistencies of adult school climate constructs

Derived constructs for use in analysis of pupil attainment

No. of items

Stakeholder groups included

a

SET 1

     

(1) Shared vision and goal unity

5

All groups

0.84

(2) Warm staff atmosphere

3

All except governors

0.78

(3) Pupils' interest in learning

3

All groups

0.68

(4) Parental involvement in pupils' learning

2

All except governors

0.81

(5) School's high expectations of pupils

3

All groups

0.75

(6) Structured teacher tasks

2

Teachers, heads & deputies

0.78

(7) Monitoring pupil achievement

2

Excludes support staff

0.74

(8) Warm teacher-pupil relationships

2

All except support staff

0.70

(9) Positive reinforcement by teachers

2

All except support staff

0.76

SET 2

     

(10) Teacher involvement in school activities

4

Teachers, heads & deputies

0.91

(11) Headteacher: firm and purposeful leadership

5

All except governors†

0.86

(12) Headteacher: high expectations of pupils

2

All except governors†

0.79

(13) Headteacher visibility

2

All except governors†

0.87

Note † Governors were not included because they had been asked differently worded questions on leadership.

Consistency of school climate constructs and school effectiveness characteristics

The factor analysis was able to derive two sets of school climate constructs for pupils and adult stakeholders which are reasonably reliable as measured by Cronbach's alpha and which correspond quite closely in meaning to the eleven school effectiveness characteristics. The mapping between the Sammons et al. (1995) effectiveness characteristics, the a priori constructs used in the RAPA study and the final constructs derived for inclusion as explanatory variables in multilevel modelling of pupil attainment is shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Mapping of school effectiveness characteristics to RAPA study a-priori school climate constructs and those derived from factor analysis

Sammons et al effectiveness characteristics

Sammons et al sub-factors

RAPA a priori constructs:
A = adults;
P = pupils

RAPA pupil constructs

RAPA adult constructs

Professional leadership

Firm & purposeful
Participative approach
Leading professional- visibility an indicator

Headteacher leadership (A) (P)
Teacher involvement in decision making (A)

Head's leadership: (active, focus on good behaviour, interest in pupils and their learning)

Head's leadership:
Firm & purposeful;
High expectations;
Visibility.
Teacher involvement

Shared vision & goals

Unity of purpose
consistency
collegiality and collaboration

Staff unity on values and practices (A)
Teacher collaboration (A)

None

Shared vision and unity
Teacher involvement

A learning environment

Orderly atmosphere

Attractive environment

Expectations/standards (A)
Expectations of teachers (P)

Teachers' interest and respect

Warm staff atmosphere

Concentration on teaching & learning

Max of learning time
academic emphasis
focus on achievement

Pupil attitudes to learning (A) (P)

Positive attitudes to learning;
Negative attitudes to learning

Pupils' interest in learning

Purposeful teaching

efficiency of org
clarity of purpose
structure lessons
adaptive practice

Expectations/standards (A)
Expectations of teachers (P)

Homework check up

Structured teacher tasks

High expectations

 

Expectations/standards (A)
Expectations of teachers (P)

Teachers' pro achievement beliefs

High expectations

Positive reinforcement

clear and fair discipline
feedback

Teacher-pupil relationships (A)

Pupil rewards
Warm pupil-teacher relations

Positive reinforcement

Monitoring progress

 

Pupil performance monitoring and rewards (A) (P)

None

Monitoring achievement

Pupil rights & responsibilities

Raising pupil self-esteem
Responsibility
Control of work

Pupil participation in school (P)

Pupil participation

 

Home school partnership

Parental involvement

Home-school relationships (A) (P)

Home-school relationships

Parental involvement

A learning organisation

school staff based development

Teacher confidence and development (A)

None

None

Values for school climate constructs

Values for the school climate constructs for each school were created by averaging the ratings given for each construct by the different stakeholders at the school. The values range from a possible maximum of 4 to a minimum of 1 and in all cases except 'students' negative attitudes to learning' a higher score indicates a more positive climate rating. Separate average school level ratings were calculated for Year 9 and Year 11 students, teachers plus heads and deputies, support staff and governors. In subsequent analysis the school climate ratings for all adults were used as the ratings excluding governors correlated highly with those including governors.

The distribution of school level ratings for the different school climate constructs is shown in Figures 1 and 2 below. The pupil climate constructs with the widest dispersions are 'homework check-up' and 'head's leadership'. For adults the widest dispersions are for 'parents' involvement in pupils' learning' and 'visible and active head'. For most of the constructs there is a reasonable amount of variation at school level.

Figure 1 Box plot of distribution of Year 9 pupil school climate ratings

Figure 2 Adult stakeholder school climate constructs

Relationship between school climate and pupil attainment

The main objective of the analysis was to test for relationships between pupil attainment and the school climate constructs. The control variables were pupils' prior attainment, other pupil characteristics and school context variables. Variants of a two level model, with pupil and school levels, was fitted using SPSS.

Data

Pupil level data on the pupil variables were obtained from the Pupil Level Annual Census of Schools, which took place for the first time in January 2002. The school context variables were provided from the Annual Census of Schools 2002 and Registrar of Educational Establishments. These data are now merged by the DfES to produce the National Pupil Data base. The following pupil level variables were included:

Prior attainment. For Year 11 pupils this is the average level obtained in KS3 English, maths and science (taken in Year 9). For Year 9 pupils it is the average mark in English, maths and science in the Key Stage 2 national tests.

Gender
Eligibility for free school meals (FSM)
Mother tongue not English
Non-white ethnic origin

Age was not included as it proved to be statistically insignificant.

School context variables included in the analysis were:

Percentage of pupils eligible for FSM
Size of school (pupil roll)
Percentage of pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) - defined as being on School Action Plus
Percentage of pupils whose mother tongue is not English
Proportion of boy pupils
School has 6th form.

All the schools were comprehensive (i.e. non selective schools) though one was a secondary modern13. Two schools were denominational but this was too small a number for a denominational dummy to be statistically significant in regressions on pupil attainment.

Attainment was measured in terms of Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 test and examination results at pupil level in 2002. Seven measures of pupil outcome were used:

Key Stage 3 - level in English, level in maths, level in science and average level in English, maths and science.
Key Stage 4 - numerical grade in English Language, maths and total score for GCSE/GNVQ exams taken.

Analysis

A crucial issue in the analysis of the relationship between school climate and pupil attainment is the role of school context variables in affecting school climate. As evidence from previous research, overviewed briefly above, shows school composition in terms of characteristics, such SES status of the students, their ethnicity and gender balance, affect school climate. However, these factors are not expected fully to determine school climate: there is scope for the way the school is managed to affect its culture, with the headteacher depicted in management literature has having a prime influence. Therefore, in testing for the relationship between school climate and pupil attainment, the effect of school context variables was explored.

As a first step, the correlations between the school climate variables and school context variables were examined. These are shown in Tables A4 and A5 in the Appendix. All the school context variables are correlated with at least one school climate construct. Having a sixth form is negatively correlated with 7 of the pupil climate constructs for Year 11 students and only one for Year 9 students. The proportion of pupils eligible for FSM is positively correlated with 'pupil rewards', 'pupil participation' and 'pupil-teacher relationships' and not correlated with 'attitudes to learning' or other constructs, except a negative correlation with 'headteacher leadership'. 'Headteacher leadership' as assessed by pupils is negatively correlated with the percentage of pupils whose mother tongue is not English14. School size is negatively correlated with three constructs and the second order summary climate construct. At the pupil level, girls generally rate school climate less favourably, as do pupils with higher prior attainment.

The pattern of correlations between the adult school climate constructs is somewhat different from that of the pupils. The school having a sixth form is positively correlated with three of the constructs and school size is positively correlated with 3 of the constructs and negatively with only one. The proportion of boys and pupils whose mother tongue is not English are not correlated with any of the adult climate constructs, whereas they are correlated with 3 and 6 respectively of the pupils constructs.

When school climate constructs are correlated with school context variables, then when both types of variables are entered into a regression equation on pupil attainment, the significance of the coefficients for the school climate variables will be reduced if the effects are picked up by school context variables.

Therefore a preliminary set of regressions was performed for all seven pupil attainment measures in which:

  1. each school climate construct was entered without other climate variables, both with and then without the school context variables;
  2. all the pupil school climate constructs were entered together with and without school context variables;
  3. all the adult school climate constructs plus one of the three head teacher constructs15 were entered with and without school context variables.

This gave four regressions for each of the seven pupil attainment measures. Whether the estimated coefficient on each climate construct was significant at 5%, 10% or 20% confidence or insignificant was recorded16. The summary findings for all seven pupil attainment measures are reported in Table 5. A construct is recorded as significant in a regression on a pupil attainment measure at 5% confidence (++ or --) if it was significant at 5% in at least 2 of the four regressions (entered singly with and without context; entered jointly with and without context) and one of these was for the construct entered singly without school context17. If a construct was significant at 10% in at least two regressions this is indicated by +. If the construct was significant at 10% only when entered with other constructs it is recorded as insignificant since the coefficient values are subject to change depending on which other constructs are included due to multicolinearity. The number of regressions (out of 7) in which each school climate variable was significant is recorded in the right hand column.

Table 5 Significance of school climate constructs in regressions on attainment

Construct

KS3 Eng

KS3 maths

KS3 sci

KS3 av

GCSE Eng
lang

GCSE maths

GCSE GNVQ total

No. sig results

Pupils' constructs

               

Teachers' interest & respect

I

I

I

I

I

I

+

1

Teachers' pro- achievement beliefs

I

I

I

I

I

I

++

1

Pupils' positive attitude to learning

+

+?

I

+

I

I

I

2+

Pupils' negative attitude to learning

I

-

I

-?

-

-

-

4+

Home-school relationships

I

I

I

I

-?

I

I

0

Homework check up

+?

+

I

+?

I

I

I

1+

Pupil rewards

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

Pupil-teacher relationships

I

I

I

I

I

+

+

2

Pupil participation

I

I

I

I

-?

I

I

0

Head teacher leadership

+

++

+

+

+

+?

++

6+

2nd order climate construct A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

2nd order climate construct B

+

+

I

+

I

I

+

4

Adult stakeholder constructs

               

Teachers' shared vision & goals

+?

I

+

+?

I

I

+

2+

Warm Staff atmosphere

-?

-?

I

I

I

+

I

1-

Pupils' interest in learning

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

Parental involvement in pupils' learning

I

I

I

I

+

++

++

3

Teachers' high expectations of pupils

I

I

+

+

+?

+?

I

2+

Structured teacher tasks

I

I

+

I

I

++

I

2

Monitoring pupil achievement

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

Warm teacher-pupil relationships

+

+

+

+

++

+

I

6

Positive reinforcement

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

Teachers' involvement in school

I

-

I

-?

I

I

I

0

Head's firm & purposeful leadership

-?

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

Head's high expectations

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

Head's visibility & activity

I

I

I

I

I

+

I

1

Key ++/-- indicates significance at 5% with positive or negative sign.
+/- indicates significance at 10%. +? or -? indicates weakly significant.

Two of the constructs - the pupils' assessment of 'headteacher leadership' and the adults' rating of 'warm teacher-pupil relationships' have positive and significant effects in six out of the seven attainment measures. The most interesting finding of the study is the consistently positive relationship with 'headteacher's leadership' as reported by pupils in contrast to the almost complete insignificance of the adults' three headteacher leadership constructs.

The pupils' headteacher leadership construct consists of four simple questions (all that were asked of pupils on this topic). These are:

The head teacher makes sure pupils behave well
I often see the head teacher around the school
The head teacher is really interested in how much we learn at school
The head teacher seems to be interested in us - the pupils.

These are clearly indicators of head teacher leadership quality rather than measures of the more sophisticated behaviours that the management literature associates with effective leadership and which the items in the adults' instrument attempted - unsuccessfully - to ascertain (see Table A4 in Appendix).

Other constructs which have some significant relationship with pupil attainment are 'pupils' positive and negative attitudes to learning' (as reported by pupils). This is repeated in the significance of the second order school climate construct B which consists of the two attitude constructs. 'Parental involvement in learning' is significant in the three GCSE regressions. Other constructs appearing significant in two attainment regressions are 'teachers' shared vision and goals', 'teachers' high expectations' and 'structured teacher tasks'.

regressions of pupil attainment on selected school climate variables

The correlation of school climate constructs with school context variables means that statistical significance of the constructs may be reduced when entered as independent variables together with context variables in a regression equation. The correlations between school construct variables also mean that when entered together their estimated coefficients are liable to change sign and significance depending on which other climate variables are included. Therefore, to test the robustness of the school climate constructs in 'explaining' pupil attainment they were entered with differing combinations of school context and climate variables. Seven school climate variables were selected for testing based on the initial screening for statistical significance reported in Table 5. A construct was selected for further testing if it had been significant in two or more regressions on pupil attainment.

The school climate constructs selected for further testing were:

Pupil constructs:

Warm pupil-teacher relations
Head teacher leadership
Second order school climate (attitudes)

Adult constructs:

Teachers' shared vision and goals
Parental involvement in learning
Structured teacher tasks
Warm teacher-pupil relations.

Pupils' positive and negative attitudes to learning were not selected because they are included in the second order school climate construct (attitudes).

Each construct was included in four separate regressions on each of six pupil attainment measures (KS3 English, maths and science: GCSE English language, maths and total GCSE/GNVQ score). The models fitted were:

  1. Three pupil constructs together with school context variables;
  2. Three pupil constructs together without context variables
  3. Four adult constructs together with context variables
  4. Four adult constructs together without context variables
  5. All seven context variables included together without context variables
  6. Each school climate construct entered singly without school context variables.

Thus each construct was tested in four different forms of the estimation equation.

The summary results are shown in Table 6, as the number of significant positively signed estimators for each construct in each model in a total of six regressions on pupil attainment measures. Thus the maximum score for each construct for each model is 6. The full regression results are reported in Tables A7 to A 12 the Appendix. The importance of the interrelationships between the climate and context variables is shown in these results. Take 'headteacher leadership' for example. When included with school context variables it is not significant for any of the six pupil attainment measures18. However, 'head teacher's leadership' is significant when the school context variables are omitted. Similarly, the second order school climate (attitudes) construct is significant in 3 out of 6 pupil attainment regressions when school context is omitted, but in only one when the context variables are included. 'Structured teaching tasks' is significant only for GCSE maths (a plausible finding) and remains so in the presence of school context but not when the pupil climate constructs are included. Three of the climate constructs (warm pupil-teacher relations, teachers' shared vision and warm teacher-pupil relations) are only significant when other constructs as well as school context are omitted. The latter finding exemplifies the problem of identifying the effects of single school climate constructs when they are inter-correlated.

Table 6 : Summary findings for school climate constructs: number of regressions of pupil attainment out of six in which a construct is statistically significant

Estimation model

Warm pupil-teacher relations

Head teacher leadership

Second order school climate: attitudes

Teachers' shared vision and goals

Parental involve-ment in pupils' learning

Structured teacher tasks

Warm teacher-pupil relations

Pupil climate constructs with context

0

0

1

NA

NA

NA

NA

Pupil climate constructs without context

0

4

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

Adult climate constructs with context

NA

NA

NA

0

0

1a

0

Adult climate constructs without context

NA

NA

NA

0

3

1a

0

All climate constructs without context

0

4

3

0

2

0

0

Climate construct entered singly without context variables

1

4

3

2

3

1a

4

Findings for school effectiveness characteristics

Out of the 23 school climate constructs derived from the instruments administered to pupils and adult stakeholders, nine (including positive and negative pupil attitudes) passed the screening test of being significant in two or more of seven possible regressions on pupil attainment measures. Given the problems of colinearity between the climate constructs themselves and between them and school context, a fair test is if they are significant when entered singly without other constructs or context variables. The main issue in this paper is whether school climate is related to pupil attainment. In order to detect any relationship school context often needs to be omitted. This study provides confirmation that some of the school climate variables distilled from the classic studies are related to pupil attainment. Head teacher leadership as assessed by pupils (but not by teachers) stands out as the most consistently significant climate variable, followed by the second order climate variable (pupil attitudes) and parental involvement in pupils' learning.

A different and more difficult question is how much do school climate variables add to explaining the variance in pupil attainment once school context is taken into account. This can be assessed by comparing the log likelihood statistic for nested regression equations (i.e. for pupil climate constructs with context variables compared to the model without pupil climate; and for adult climate constructs compared to the model without climate constructs: see the regression result tables in the Appendix). The results are different for KS3, where some of the school context variables are significant and for KS4 where they are not. School context explains part of student progress from KS2 to KS3 but once school context has affected KS3 test results it does not appear to affect progress between KS3 and GCSE in this sample of schools. Both the pupil and adult climate variables increase the goodness of fit of the regression by a very small amount for KS3 English and Maths. However, the pupil climate variables contribute to a larger improvement in fit for GCSE maths and total GCSE/GNVQ score.

Intra-group correlations for school climate constructs

A further factor which may explain the relatively poor performance of most of the school climate constructs in explaining pupil attainment is the lack of internal agreement as to perceptions of school climate among the school's stakeholders. If there is an integrated school culture then the school's stakeholders will rate the school climate constructs similarly. This can be tested by estimating the intra-school correlation for the climate constructs. The intra-school correlation is the between school variance divided by the total variance. The greater the agreement among stakeholders on their rating of their own school climate the larger will be the between school variance compared to the within school variance and hence the larger the intra-school correlation. The intra-school correlations for the pupil climate constructs are shown in Table 7. They are low indicating little consensus among pupils. The highest correlation of 0.12 is for headteacher leadership.

Table 8 shows the intra-class correlations for the adult stakeholder groups, differentiating between single stakeholder and mixed stakeholder groups. Some of the adult stakeholder intra-school correlations are considerably higher than those for pupils. Parental involvement in learning and teachers' high expectations have the highest intra-school correlations. The head's visibility is between 0.24 and 0.18 and is considerably higher than the other two head teacher leadership constructs.

Table 7 Intra-school correlations for pupil school climate constructs

Pupils' constructs

Correlation

Teachers' interest & respect

0.03

Teachers' pro- achievement beliefs

0.08

Pupils' positive attitude to learning

0.07

Pupils' negative attitude to learning

0.05

Home-school relationships

0.05

Homework check up

0.10

Pupil rewards

0.08

Pupil-teacher relationships

0.07

Pupil participation

0.05

Head teacher leadership

0.12

Table 8 Intra-school correlations for adult stakeholder school climate constructs

Construct

Adult school stakeholder groups

 

Teachers only

Teachers + head & deputy

Support staff only

Teachers plus support staff

All except governors

Governors only

All adult groups

Teachers' shared vision & goals

0.12

0.09

0.31

0.17

0.13

0.21

0.08

Warm Staff atmosphere

-0.04

0.03

0.23

0.03

0.03

NA

NA

Pupils' interest in learning

0.08

0.10

0.35

0.15

0.13

0.09

0.14

Parental involvement in pupils' learning

0.43

0.39

0.09

0.30

0.29

NA

NA

Teachers' high expectations of pupils

0.31

0.27

0.32

0.18

0.17

0.12

0.12

Structured teacher tasks

-0.02

-0.03

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Monitoring pupil achievement

0.18

0.15

NA

NA

NA

-0.04

NA

Warm teacher-pupil relationships

0.19

0.09

NA

NA

NA

0.18

NA

Positive reinforcement

0.09

0.13

NA

NA

NA

-0.05

NA

Teachers' involvement in school

0.04

0.05

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Head's firm & purposeful leadership

0.06

0.08

0.21

0.10

0.12

NA

NA

Head's high expectations

0.07

0.10

0.11

0.09

0.09

NA

NA

Head's visibility & activity

0.23

0.23

0.24

0.19

0.18

NA

NA

Note: NA is not applicable, as the construct was not created for this group

Conclusion

Although the characteristics of effective schools are well known in the SER literature they are derived from a limited number of classic studies and have not been consistently confirmed in later research. There is greater consistency among instruments for assessing school climate than those for school leadership. The findings of this study offer some support for the statistical significance of some school climate constructs in multilevel models of pupil attainment which include both pupil level and school level variables. The complex inter-correlations between school climate variables and between them and school context variables are evident in this data set. These relationships make it difficult to identify and estimate the causal links between these variables. More certain relationships can be established between school climate constructs and pupil attainment when the climate variables are entered singly and without school context variables. This study also shows that which stakeholders are included affects the measures of school climate and their relationship with pupil attainment.

The most robust finding is that of a positive and significant relationship between headteacher leadership as assessed by pupils on the basis of four simple questions. Attempts to assess headteacher leadership using more sophisticate questions to staff about more detailed aspects of headteacher attitudes and behaviour proved unsuccessful. The agreement between stakeholders was low and the constructs were not significant in regressions of pupil attainment. Parental involvement in pupils' learning and pupils' attitudes to learning were also found to be significant for some measures of pupil attainment.

The major weakness of this study is the small number of schools which may well have resulted in more climate constructs failing to reach statistical significance than with a larger sample. Another weakness is that it was not possible to select participants randomly. Pupils were of mixed ability but both the classes and staff selected were dependent on availability at the time the field work took place. While the school climate instruments were based on others which have been used in SER, they were adapted for English secondary schools and so were changed in a number of respects. Much more work needs to be done if we are to get more reliable measures of school climate and headteacher leadership by trying out instruments and analysing the consistency of responses of different stakeholders and the effects of different combinations of stakeholder group responses on both the constructs and their relationship to pupil attainment and how they are affected by school context. However, given the paucity of studies that have been able to measure school climate and leadership and include these in multilevel models of pupil attainment, the findings of this study should be of interest.

APPENDIX

Table A1 School climate instruments reviewed in constructing the RAPA instruments

ACER = Australian Council for Educational Research School Life Instrument (Ainley, J. and Sheret)

AISC (Sweden) = Assessment Instrument for School Climate (Grosin, L. and McNamarra, P. University of Stockholm at http://overlord.hig.se/gmc)

ALSPAC Avon Longitudinal Schools, Parents and Children Study

Hay McBer Context for School Improvement Questionnaire for Leadership Programme for Serving Head teachers

ISEP = Improving Schools Effectiveness Project (Scottish Education Office, Strathclyde University, Institute of Education)

L ABC+ model = Louisiana ABC plus model (Teddlie and Stringfield)

PISA: Programme for International Student Assessment 2000

PIPS = Performance Indicators for Primary Schools (University of Durham)

YELLIS = Year 11 Indicator System (University of Durham)

TABLE A2 Pupil School Climate Constructs: Principle Component Analysis

Construct

Component

Teachers' interest and respect (from Expectations of teachers section)

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

h2

The teachers in this school treat the pupils fairly.

0.74

0.66

My teachers are interested in me as a person.

0.74

0.60

The teachers in this school show respect for the pupils.

0.71

0.68

The teachers and pupils get on well in this school.

0.68

0.54

If a pupil is being bullied, they would feel able to tell a teacher about it.

0.54

0.40

If a pupil needs extra help with learning, most teachers will give it.

0.44

0.41

Order and structure (from section)

The teachers spend all of the time in lessons teaching us or making sure we are working

0.69

0.53

The teachers have the same rules about behaviour.

0.65

0.49

The teachers in this school come to their lessons on time.

0.35

0.62

0.55

The teachers mark and return homework promptly.

0.60

0.44

The teachers make sure that it is quiet and orderly during lessons.

0.60

0.42

Teachers' pro achievement beliefs

The teachers in this school believe that learning is important.

0.65

0.57

The teachers at this school really believe that all pupils can achieve.

0.60

0.57

The teachers are only interested in the pupils who do well in tests and exams.

-0.55

0.47

The teachers in this school seem to like teaching.

0.51

0.52

Positive attitudes to learning

Most pupils at this school want to do well in tests and exams.

0.71

0.57

Most pupils at this school want to continue their education after GCSEs.

0.70

0.54

Most pupils at this school are interested in learning.

0.68

0.55

Monitoring and rewards

I am set targets for my learning by my teachers which are individual to me and not for the whole class.

0.69

0.52

The school has rewards for pupils who work hard or make good progress even if they do not get high grades.

0.63

0.53

A pupil who works hard or makes good progress is noticed and praised.

0.57

0.51

Teachers notice those pupils who are not working as well as they could and try to make them work harder.

0.50

0.51

0.55

Negative attitudes to learning

Many pupils don't do as well as they could because they are afraid that other pupils won't like them as much.

0.81

0.66

Pupils who get good marks and work hard get teased by the other pupils.

0.76

0.60

Most pupils at this school want to leave as soon as they can and get a job.

-0.35

0.48

0.46

Eigenvalue

6.56

1.77

1.50

1.33

1.15

1.04

Explained variance

26.25

7.10

5.99

5.34

4.60

4.17

53.44

Note: The items included in this table were submitted to Principle Components Analysis (PCA) and a Factor Analysis (FA) with Maximum Likelihood extraction. The results from the PCA with a Varimax Rotation are presented. Loadings below .35 ere omitted for sake of readability. h2 is the communality.

TABLE A3 More Pupil School Climate Constructs: Related Component Matrix

Component

Positive home school relationships

F1

F2

h2

My parents often get to know how I am doing at school through teachers who tell them.

0.79

0.62

If I were to behave badly at school, the teachers would soon tell my parents.

0.52

0.28

My parents feel welcome in school and like to visit it.

0.72

0.54

My teachers set me targets for my learning and inform my parents about them.

0.63

0.43

Home work check- up

I have a school homework diary which my parents must see and sign regularly.

0.87

0.77

My teachers check that my parents have seen my homework diary.

0.87

0.78

If I did not do my homework regularly the teachers would tell my parents.

0.46

0.46

0.42

Eigenvalue

2.59

1.25

Explained variance

37.05

17.86

54.91

Pupil participation in school .

The teachers consult the pupils about what school rules we should have

0.75

0.56

The teachers really listen to what pupils think about the school

0.74

0.61

Pupils in this school are often involved in organising things like dances, events to raise money for charity and trips

0.68

0.49

School leadership

F1

F2

h2

The head teacher makes sure pupils behave well.

0.83

0.70

I often see the head teacher around the school.

0.82

0.67

The head teacher is really interested in how much we learn at school.

0.78

0.70

The head teacher seems to be interested in us - the pupils

0.75

0.67

Eigenvalue

3.14

1.27

Explained variance

44.83

18.18

63.01

Table A4 Adult school climate construct: item responses within each construct

Construct 1 Shared vision and goal unity (a = .84)

There is unity between teachers and the headteacher on the school's aims and values and how these are implemented through teaching and learning.

Teachers at this school are all committed to the school's aims and values.

Teachers follow the same set of rules about pupil behaviour.

There is general agreement amongst the teachers about what are effective teaching approaches.

Teachers and the headteacher agree on how teachers and pupils should behave towards each other.

Construct 2 Warm staff atmosphere (a = .78)

The teachers at this school are friendly towards each other.

The teachers work well together.

If I have a problem, I will get support from other teachers.

Newly qualified teachers at this school are supported by experienced teachers.

Construct 3 Pupils' interest in learning (a = .68)

Most pupils at this school are interested in learning.

Most pupils at this school want to do well in tests and exams.

Most pupils at this school want to continue their education after GCSEs.

Construct 4 Parental involvement in pupil's learning (a = .81)

Parents give a lot of support to the work of the school.

There is a high level of parental support for their child's learning at school.

Construct 5 High expectations of pupils (a = .75)

The school sets educational goals that are appropriate for each pupil's ability to achieve.

The teachers have high expectations of the pupils' standards of achievement.

The school gives high priority to raising pupils' standards of achievement.

Construct 6 Structured teacher tacks (a = .78)

All teachers set weekly homework for their classes.

All teachers mark and return homework promptly.

Construct 7 Monitoring pupil achievement (a = .74)

The school regularly monitors pupils' actual attainments against those expected given their prior attainment or ability.

Pupils who are underachieving are identified and attempts made to motivate them.

Construct 8 Warm teacher-pupil relationship (a = .70)

Teachers and pupils get on well in this school.

Pupils show respect towards teachers and other staff.

Construct 9 Positive reinforcement (teachers)(a = .76)

The school has a system for rewarding pupils who work hard and/or make good progress even if they do not get high grades.

A pupil who works hard or makes good progress is noticed and praised.

Construct 10 Collegiality: Teacher involvement in school activities (a = .91)

Teachers are actively involved in creating the school development or improvement plan.

Teachers in this school are often involved in school improvement activities.

Teachers are encouraged by the head teacher to be involved in school improvement activities.

Teachers participate on a regular basis in the development of school policies.

Construct 11 Firm and purposeful headteacher (a = .86)

The head teacher takes action if a teacher's performance is inadequate.

The head teacher ensures that teachers are given support to improve their teaching, if they need it.

The head teacher encourages staff more than he/she criticises them.

The head teacher makes clear that the quality of teaching and learning at this school are his/her foremost priority.

The head teacher encourages teachers' to develop themselves professionally.

Construct 12 Headteacher's high expectations (a = .79)

The headteacher really believes that this school can make a difference to our pupils' learning achievements what ever their family background.

The head teacher has high expectations of pupils' learning.

Construct 13 Headteacher visibility (a = .87)

The head teacher is seen frequently around the school.

The head teacher often talks to the pupils or visits lessons.

Table A5 Correlations: pupil constructs at school level and school context variables (Year 9 and Year 11)

Pupil characteristic

% pupils eligible for FSM

Pupil roll

% pupils on SEN action plus

% pupils whose mother tongue is not English

Proportion boys

School has sixth form

Construct

Yr 9

Yr 11

Yr 9

Yr 11

Yr 9

Yr 11

Yr 9

Yr 11

Yr 9

Yr 11

Yr 9

Yr 11

Teachers' interest & respect

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-0.484

Teachers' pro- achievement beliefs

I

I

I

-.465

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-0.432

Pupils' positive attitude to learning

I

I

I

I

I

I

0.529

I

I

-.416

I

I

Pupils' negative attitude to learning

I

I

I

I

0.433

I

-.407

I

I

I

I

I

Home-school relationships

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0.496

I

I

-0369

-0.433

Homework check up

I

I

I

I

I

0.390

I

I

I

I

I

I

Pupil rewards

I

0.430

I

-.430

I

I

I

0.398

I

I

I

-0.471

Pupil-teacher relationships

I

0.448

I

I

I

I

I

I

0.405

I

I

-0.641

Pupil participation

I

0.659

I

-0.497

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-0.681

Head teacher leadership

-.448

I

I

I

I

I

-.370

-.488

0.490

0.605

I

I

Summary school climate construct A

I

I

I

-.459

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-.600

Summary school climate construct B

I

I

I

I

I

I

0.526

I

I

I

I

I

Note: 20 schools. Statistical significance reported at 90% level.

Correlations in bold are those that are also significant and of same sign when the correlation is done at pupil level.

Table A6 Correlations: adult stakeholder constructs at school level and school context variables

Pupil characteristic

% pupils eligible for FSM

Pupil roll

% pupils on SEN action plus

% pupils whose mother tongue is not English

Proportion boys

School has sixth form

Construct

           

Teachers' shared vision and goals

-0.374

I

I

I

I

I

Warm Staff atmosphere

I

I

-.0.449

I

I

0.432

Pupils' interest in learning

I

I

I

I

I

I

Parental involvement in pupils' learning

I

0.452

I

I

I

I

Teachers' high expectations of pupils

-0.389

0.382

I

I

I

0.483

Structured teacher tasks

I

I

I

I

I

I

Monitoring pupil achievement

I

-0.426

I

I

I

I

Warm teacher-pupil relationships

-0.432

I

I

I

I

I

Positive reinforcement

I

I

I

I

I

I

Teachers' involvement in school

I

I

I

I

I

I

Head's firm & purposeful leadership

I

I

I

I

I

I

Head's high expectations

I

0.495

I

I

I

0.413

Head's visibility & activity

I

I

I

I

I

I

Note: 20 schools. Statistical significance reported at 90% level. I

Tables presenting results from regressions of pupil attainment on pupil background, school context and school climate variables

Table A7 KS3 English 2002 (t statistic is in parenthesis)

 

No climate variables

Pupil climate with context

Pupil climate without context

Adult climate with context

Adult climate without context

All climate without context

Head's leader-ship- ex. context

Pupils' attitudes -ex. context

Warm teacher pupil relations

Constant

0.917
(2.14)

0.255
(0.13)

-3.016
(-2.09)

-1.79
(-0.93)

-2.314
(-1.41)

-5.639
(-2.21)

-0.718
(-0.823)

-2.23
(-1.71)

-1.501*
(-1.85)

KS2 Eng, math, sci av

0.646
(36.43)

0.064
(36.39)

0.064
(38.35)

0.064
(36.21)

0.064
(38.20)

0.064
(38.1)

0.065
(38.39)

0.065
(38.40)

0.064
(38.39)

Girl

0.487
(9.54)

0.487
(9.54)

0.475
(9.83)

0.488
(9.55)

0.474
(9.81)

0.481
(9.95)

0.473
(9.78)

0.471
(9.76)

0.473
(9.80)

Non-white ethnicity

0.0777
(0.86)

0.077
(0.863)

0.073
(0.83)

0.074
(0.82)

0.077
(0.87)

0.072
(0.82)

0.080
(0.91)

0.071
(0.81)

0.080
(0.92)

Eligible for FSM

-0.48
(-6.98)

-0.479
(-5.58)

-0.478
(-7.47)

-0.481
(-6.99)

-0.475
(-7.41)

-0.471
(-7.35)

-0.477
(-7.45)

-0.484
(-7.58)

-0.477**
(-7.47)

Mother tongue not English

0.707
(5.59)

0.706
(5.58)

0.741
(6.09)

0.712
(5.63)

0.764
(6.29)

0.751
(6.23)

0.763
(6.29)

0.731
(6.02)

0.763
(6.31)

School context variables

                 

% of pupils eligible for FSM

-0.022
(-3.47)

-0.022
(-2.95)

omitted

-0.017
(-1.96)*

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Size: pupil roll

0.000
(1.02)

0.000
(0.462)

omitted

0.000
(0.94)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Percent of pupils with SEN

-0.058
(-1.34)

-0.047
(-1.02)

omitted

-0.04
(-0.94)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Percent pupils mother tongue not English

0.014
(2.88)

0.011
(1.52)

omitted

0.014
(2.47)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Proportion of boys

0.004
(1.12)

0.004
(0.80)

omitted

0.002
(0.42)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Sixth form

-0.510
(-2.09)

-0.602
(-2.15)

omitted

-0.347
(-1.17)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Pupil school climate constructs

                 

Warm pupil-teacher relations

omitted

-0.870
(-1.23)

-0.454
(-0.87)

omitted

omitted

-0.795
(-1.24)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Headteacher leadership

omitted

0.430
(1.18)

0.581*
(1.82)

omitted

omitted

0.610**
(2.09)

0.520*
(1.74)

omitted

omitted

Second order school climate: attitudes

omitted

0.742
(0.85)

1.248**
(2.33)

omitted

omitted

1.28**
(2.45)

omitted

1.13**
(2.31)

omitted

Adult school climate constructs

                 

Teacher shared vision and goals

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.091
(-0.17)

0.206
(0.47)

0.308
(0.63)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Parents' interest in learning

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.033
(0.96)

-0.012
(-0.05)

-0.79
(-0.36)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Structured teacher tasks

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.595
(1.15)

0.221
(0.464)

0.541
(1.27)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Warm teacher- pupil relations

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.352
(0.58)

0.624
(1.55)

0.390
(0.75)

omitted

omitted

0.746**
(2.84)

Log likelihood

9882.34

9878.2

10664

9879.23

10667

10658

10670.4

10667.4

10666.6

KS3 English

Single climate variables with are significant when entered singly without school context:

Adults: warm teacher-pupil relationships 0.746 (2.835)

Pupils: head teacher leadership 0.520 (1.737) (p < 0.099)

Pupils' attitudes to learning (second order climate_ 1.134 (2.312)

Adult: teacher vision and unity (p<0.107)

Table A8 KS3 Maths 2002 (t statistic is in parenthesis)

 

No climate variables

Pupil climate with context

Pupil climate without context

Adult climate with context

Adult climate without context

All climate without context

Head's leader-ship- ex. context

Pupils' attitudes -ex. context

Warm pupil teacher relations

Constant

0.963**
(4.63)

0.421
(0.50)

-2.17
(-2.10)

1.166
(1.29)

-0.868
(-0.65)

-4.039*
(-1.92)

-0.514
(-0.81)

-1.521
(-1.59)

-0.545
(-0.83)

KS2 Eng, math, sci av

0.077**
(49.26)

0.077**
(49.19)

0.078
(52.4)**

0.077**
(48.47)

0.078**
(52.02)

0.078
(51.92)

0.078
(52.44)

0.078
(52.44)

0.0780
(52.31)

Girl

-0.107
(-2.34)

-0.106
(-2.33)

-0.112
(-2.61)

-0.106
(-2.23)

-0.113**
(-2.63)

-0.108**
(-2.50)

-0.113
(-2.65)

-0.116
(-2.71)

-0.115
(-2.68)

Non-white ethnicity

-0.164**
(-2.07)

-0.160
(-2.02

-0.180
(-2.32)

-0.164
(-2.06)

-0.177
(-2.28)

-0.184
(-2.37)

-0.172
(-2.20)

-0.182
(-2.33)

-0.175
(-2.25)

Eligible for FSM

-0.173**
(-2.82)

-0.172
(-2.79)

-0.219
(-3.87)

-0.173
(-2.82)

-0.21
(-3.70)

-0.211
(-3.71)

-0.22
(-3.79)

-0.224
(-3.96)

-0.215
(-3.79)

Mother tongue not English

0.542**
(4.80)

0.538
(4.76)

0.550
(5.08)

0.543
(4.79)

0.570
(5.26)

0.561
(5.15)

0.576
(5.34)

0.540
(4.99)

0.570
(5.28)

School context variables

                 

% of pupils eligible for FSM

-0.019**
(-6.43)

-0.019
(-5.86)

omitted

-0.021
(-5.31)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Size: pupil roll

0.000
(0.637)

0.000
(-0.05)

omitted

0.000
(0.21)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Percent of pupils with SEN

-0.024
(-1.29)

-0.017
(-0.94)

omitted

-0.029
(-1.39)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Percent pupils mother tongue not English

0.011**
(4.23)

0.008
(2.51)**

omitted

0.012
(4.18)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Proportion of boys

0.003
(1.73)*

0.003
(1.33)

omitted

0.004
(1.69)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Sixth form

-0.217
(-1.98)*

-0.268
(-2.28)

omitted

-0.255
(-1.87)*

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Pupil school climate constructs

                 

Warm pupil-teacher relations

omitted

-0.501
(-1.75)

-0.353
(-0.94)

omitted

omitted

-0.465
(-0.882)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Headteacher leadership

omitted

0.227
(1.55)

0.469**
(2.05)

omitted

omitted

0.488**
(2.08)

0.424*
(1.96)

omitted

omitted

Second order school climate: attitudes

omitted

0.513
(1.49)

0.924**
(2.39)

omitted

omitted

1.017**
(2.36)

omitted

0.841**
(2.34)

omitted

Adult school climate constructs

                 

Teacher shared vision and goals

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.089
(-0.35)

0.101
(0.29)

0.274
(0.68)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Parents' interest in learning

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.117
(0.76)

-0.033
(-0.18)

-0.057
(-0.30)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Structured teacher tasks

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.130
(0.55)

0.080
(0.21)

0.359
(1.02)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Warm teacher pupil relations

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.172
(-0.63)

0.376
(1.15)

0.74
(0.17)

omitted

omitted

0.410*
(1.94)

Log likelihood

9219.7

9218.5

9940.9

9223.97

9948

9940.6

9945.5

9943.5

9946

Climate variables significant if entered on own without school context variables:

Adult: warm pupil teacher relationships; Pupils: head teacher leadership, attitudes to learning. Not significant: parental interest; structured tasks, shared vision; pupils- pupil teacher relations

Table A9 KS3 Science 2002 (t statistic in parenthesis)

 

No climate variables

Pupil climate with context

Pupil climate without context

Adult climate with context

Adult climate without context

All climate without context

Head's leader-ship- ex. context

Teachers' vision and goal unity

Warm teacher pupil relations

Constant

1.915
(6.37

3.261
(2.23)

-0.166
(-0.127)

0.06
(0.04)

-1.303
(-0.98)

-3.030
(-1.25)

0.639
(0.89)

-0.189
(-0.21)

0.069
(0.10)

KS2 Eng, math, sci av

0.058
(36.59)

0.058
(36.49)

0.058
(38.88)

0.057
(36.25)

0.058
(38.73)

0.058
(38.61)

0.058**
(38.99)

0.0581
(38.94)

0.0580
(38.97)

Girl

-0.126
(-2.77)

-0.126
(-2.77)

-0.130
(-3.02)

-0.126
(-2.76)

-0.131**
(-3.04)

-0.126
(-2.93)

-0.131**
(-3.05)

-0.134
(-3.13)

-0.132
(-3.07)

Non-white ethnicity

-0.128
(-1.61)

-0.132*
(-1.65)

-0.159
(-2.03)

-0.135
(-1.69)

-0.158**
(-2.02)

(-0.161
(-2.07)

-0.153**
(-1.96)

-0.160**
(-2.06)

-0.154
(-1.98)

Eligible for FSM

-0.326
(-5.32)

-0.323
(-5.28)

-0.368
(-6.48)

-0.324
(-5.29)

-0.367
(-6.46)

-0.362
(-6.36)

-0.370
(-6.51)

-0.370
(-6.52)

-0.371
(-6.54)

Mother tongue not English

0.503
(4.46)

0.505
(4.48)

0.508
(4.68)

0.510
(4.52)

0.521
(4.83)

0.519
(4.78)

0.517
(4.80)

0.514
(4.77)

0.512
(4.76)

School context variables

                 

% of pupils eligible for FSM

-0.017
(-3.84)

-0.020
(-3.64)

omitted

-0.015
(-2.48)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Size: pupil roll

0.000
(0.22)

0.000
(-0.04)

omitted

0.000
(-0.-60)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Percent of pupils with SEN

-0.035
(-1.21)

-0.042
(-1.26)

omitted

-0.025
(-0.74)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Percent pupils mother tongue not English

0.007*
1.91)

0.009
(1.58)

omitted

0.008
(1.79)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Proportion of boys

0.003
(1.11)

0.005
(1.39)

omitted

0.003
(0.76)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Sixth form

-0.180
(-1.05)

-0.273
(-1.34)

omitted

-0.118
(-0.55)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Pupil school climate constructs

                 

Warm teacher-pupil relations

 

-0.429
(-0.94)

-0.319
(-0.67)

omitted

omitted

-0.466
(-.076)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Headteacher leadership

 

0.068
(0.26)

0.420
(1.45)

omitted

omitted

0.428
(1.55)

0.354
(1.44)

omitted

omitted

Second order school climate: attitudes

 

-0.129
(-0.20)

0.547
1.12)

omitted

omitted

0.600
(1.21)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Adult school climate constructs

                 

Teacher shared vision and goals

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.309
(0.78)

0.389
(1.10)

0.421
(0.91)

omitted

0.604*
(2.06)

omitted

Parents' interest in learning

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.086
(0.35)

0.008
(0.04)

-0.024
(-0.12)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Structured teacher tasks

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.441
(1.18)

0.330
(0.85)

0.499
(1.23)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Warm teacher-pupil relations

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.161
(-0.37)

0.287
(0.88)

0.178
(0.36)

omitted

omitted

0.519**
(2.34)

Log likelihood

9268.2

9266.9

9987.9

9268.5

9987

9983

9989.7

9987.7

9986.9

Table A10 GCSE English Language 2002 (t statistic in parenthesis)

 

No climate variables

Pupil climate with context

Pupil climate without context

Adult climate with context

Adult climate without context

All climate without context

Head's leader-ship- ex. context

Parents' interest in learning

Warm teacher pupil relations

Constant

0.245
(0.55)

-1.466
(-0.40)

-3.813
(-1.04)

-0.730
(-0.50)

-2.426*
(-1.85)

-9.797
(-1.70)

-1.843
(-1.11)

-0.974
(-1.71)

-2.15
(-2.78)

KS3 Eng, math, sci av. level

0.855
(41.64)

0.576
(7.82)

0.566
(7.69)

0.854
(41.6)

0.859
(42.3)

0.543**
(7.31)

0.571**
(7.79)

0.854
(41.68)

0.859
(42.27)

Girl

0.614
(11.76)

0.195
(1.32)

0.189
(1.3)

0.615
(11.77)

0.611**
(11.86)

0.217
(1.46)

0.182
(1.24)

0.613
(11.76)

0.614
(11.90)

Non-white ethnicity

0.041
(0.46)

-0.036
(-0.15)

-0.065
(-0.28)

0.038
(0.43)

0.044
(0.51)

-0.066
(-0.28)

-0.06
(-0.27)

0.037
(0.42)

0.037
(0.42)

Eligible for FSM

-0.309
(-4.28)

0.068
(0.31)

0.099
(0.46)

-0.310
(-4.29)

-0.326**
(-4.57)

0.125
(0.57)

0.094
(0.43)

-.308**
(-4.27)

-0.319**
(-4.46)

Mother tongue not English

0.432
(3.50)

0.558
(1.57)

0.413
(1.18)

0.436
(3.53)

0.426**
(3.52)

0.507
(1.43)

0.389
1.12)

0.436**
(3.53)

0.418**
(3.46)

School context variables

                 

% of pupils eligible for FSM

-0.013
(-1.89)

0.016
(1.13)

omitted

-0.012
(-1.79)

omitted

omitted

omitted

-.013**
(-2.30)

omitted

Size: pupil roll

0.000
(0.25)

-0.001
(-1.09)

omitted

0.000
(0.69)

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.000
(-0.62)

omitted

Percent of pupils with SEN

-0.077
(-1.70)

-0.215
(-2.75)

omitted

-0.076*
(-2.15)

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.057
(-1.56)

omitted

Percent pupils mother tongue not English

0.003
(0.48)

-0.027
(-2.27)

omitted

0.004
(0.99)

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.004
(0.83)

omitted

Proportion of boys

0.000
(0.12)

0.004
(0.37)

omitted

-0.000
(-0.09)

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.002
(0.68)

omitted

Sixth form

-0.197
(-0.75)

-0.049
(-0.08)

omitted

-0.143
(-0.630)

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.256
(-1.20)

omitted

Pupil school climate constructs

                 

Warm pupil-teacher relations

omitted

-1.356
(-1.34)

-0.214
(-0.25)

omitted

omitted

-0.492
(-0.51)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Headteacher leadership

omitted

1.252
(1.61)

1.27*
(2.04)

omitted

omitted

1.348*
(1.87)

1.204**
(2.16)

omitted

omitted

Second order school climate: attitudes

omitted

1.309
(1.61)

0.847
(0.82)

omitted

omitted

0.944
(0.867)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Adult school climate constructs

                 

Teacher shared vision and goals

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.850*
(-2.03)

-0.438
(-1.27)

-0.693
(-0.57)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Parents' interest in learning

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.290
(1.11)

0.392**
(2.21)

0.650
(1.02)

omitted

0.512**
(2.83)

omitted

Structured teacher tasks

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.456
(1.15)

0.364
(0.96)

1.44
(0.10)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Warm teacher pupil relations

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.447
(0.98)

0.526
(1.66)

0.899
(0.88)

omitted

omitted

0.669**
(2.69)

Log likelihood

10452.8

1168.5

1144.9

10442.8

10403

1135

1149

10447.7

10451

Adult school climate. Parental interest (without context) 0.489** (2.93). Teachers' shared vision not significant when entered singly without context.

Log likelihood for pupil variables only is 10413. I.e. including context reduces proportion of variance explained.

Table A11 GCSE maths 2002 (t statistic in parenthesis)

 

No climate variables

Pupil climate with context

Pupil climate without context

Adult climate with context

Adult climate without context

All climate without context

Head's leader-ship

Parents' interest in learning

Warm teacher pupil relations

Structured teaching

Constant

-1.114

(-2.08)

-8.26
(-2.31)

-5.739
(-1.97)

-5.770
(-3.37)

-5.637
(-4.70)

-13.145
(-3.69)

-2.482*
(-1.86)

-2.668
(-5.73)

-3.476
(-2.56)

-4.838
(-3.03)

KS3 Eng, math, sci av. level

1.022
(53.64)

0.997
(19.94)

0.995
(20.24)

1.021
(53.54)

1.021
(54.2)

0.984
(20.01)

0.996**
(20.30)

1.023
(54.26)

1.022
(53.69)

1.022
(53.61)

Girl

-0.071
(-1.47)

-0.151
(0.124)

-0.153
(-1.57)

-0.070
(-1.45)

-0.072
(-1.51)

-0.152
(-1.56)

-0.154
(-1.59)

-0.075
(-1.56)

-0.071
(-1.46)

-0.071
(-1.46)

Non-white ethnicity

-0.025
(-0.30)

0.085
(-0.53)

-0.138
(-0.88)

-0.032
(-0.39)

-0.041
(-0.50)

-0.150
(-0.96)

-0.133
(-0.85)

-0.040
(-0.48)

-0.028
(-0.34)

-0.029
(-0.35)

Eligible for FSM

-0.240
(-3.59)

0.210
(1.44)

0.230
(1.59)

-0.242**
(-3.61)

-0.244**
(-3.67)

0.254*
(1.75)

0.228
(1.58)

-.246**
(-3.71)

-0.240**
(-3.58)

-0.241
(-3.59)

Mother tongue not English

0.522**
(4.55)

0.081
(0.34)

0.003
(0.02)

0.527**
(4.60)

0.508
(4.53)

0.071
(0.30)

-0.017
(-0.07)

0.486
(4.32)

0.525**
(4.57)

0.525
(4.57)

School context variables

                   

% of pupils eligible for FSM

0.001
0.121

0.022
(1.69)

omitted

0.006
(0.76)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.009
(1.03)

0.006
(0.789)

Size: pupil roll

0.0005
(1.08)

0.000
(0.474)

omitted

0.000
(0.73)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.001
(1.36)

0.001
(1.74)

Percent of pupils with SEN

-0.0388
(-0.73)

-0.010
(-0.12)

omitted

-0.012
(-0.28)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.013
(-0.27)

-0.032
(-0.71)

Percent pupils mother tongue not English

-0.009
(-1.31)

-0.021*
(-1.99)

omitted

-0.005
(-0.97)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.011*
(-1.84)

-0.006
(-1.03)

Proportion of boys

-0.002
(-0.48)

-0.003
-0.28)

omitted

-0.003
(-0.62)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

-0.005
(-1.00)

-0.005
(-1.15)

Sixth form

0.0586
(0.19)

0.931
(1.49)

omitted

0.204
(0.77)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.206
(0.70)

0.280
(1.00)

Pupil school climate constructs

                   

Warm pupil-teacher relations

omitted

0.951
(0.97)

0.225
(0.36)

omitted

omitted

0.388
(0.65)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Headteacher leadership

omitted

0.473
(0.617)

0.587
(1.19)

omitted

omitted

0.942*
(2.13)

0.636
(1.41)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Second order school climate: attitudes

omitted

0.976
(1.25)

0.987
(1.20)

omitted

omitted

0.931
(1.40)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Adult school climate constructs

                   

Teacher shared vision and goals

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.030
(0.06)

0.360
(1.14)

0.944
(1.27)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Parents' interest in learning

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.524
(1.75)

0.798**
(4.90)

1.156**
(2.95)

omitted

0.668**
(4.05)

omitted

omitted

Structured teacher tasks

omitted

omitted

omitted

1.122**
(2.43)

1.063**
(3.06)

1.065
(1.19)

omitted

omitted

omitted

1.286**
(2.43)

Warm teacher-pupil relations

omitted

omitted

omitted

0.020
(0.04)

-0.425
(-1.47)

-0.895
(-1.43)

omitted

omitted

0.699*
(1.87)

omitted

Log likelihood

10005

896.9

868.3

993.7

9948.3

854

872

9955

10002

9999

Structured teacher tasks does not quite reach significant when entered on own without context - 0.739(1.54) p<0.135.

Log likelihood for model with only pupil background data: 9965.8

Table A12 GCSE/GNVQ total score 2002 (t statistic in parenthesis)

 

No climate variables

Pupil climate with context

Pupil climate without context

Adult climate with context

Adult climate without context

All climate without context

Head's leader-ship

Warm pupil teacher relations

Parents' interest in learning

Constant

-11.714
(-2.65)

-75.94
(-4.46)

-74.681
(-3.92)

-16.30
(-0.92)

-33.570
(-2.40)

-113.51
(-3.77)

-30.51
(-2.85)

-37.02
(-2.83)

-21.0
(-4.43)

KS3 Eng, math, sci av. level

9.899
(57.15)

9.875
(19.62)

9.69
(19.16)

9.883
(56.98)

9.917
(57.59)

9.497
(18.35)

9.593
(18.71)

9.786
(19.33)

9.927
(57.75)

Girl

4.416
(10.03)

2.413
(2.34)

2.357**
(2.30)

4.422
(10.04)

4.355
(9.97)

2.33
(2.24)

2.34
(2.28)

1.977*
(1.94)

4.32
(9.91)

Non-white ethnicity

0.535
(0.71)

-1.55
(-0.96)

-1.123
(-0.69)

0.517
(0.68)

0.544
(0.75)

-1.144
(-0.70)

-0.790
(-0.48)

-0.918
(-0.56)

0.526
(0.70)

Eligible for FSM

-4.202
(-6.90)

-0.637
(-0.41)

-0.577
(-0.38)

-4.22
(-6.93)

-4.293
(-7.09)

-0.401
(-0.26)

-0.557
(-0.36)

-0.83
(-0.54)

-4.304
(-7.12)

Mother tongue not English

7.75
(7.43)

7.572**
(3.05)

6.036
(2.49)

7.765**
(7.44)

7.580
(7.38)

6.678**
(2.70)

5.786**
(2.38)

5.377**
(2.22)

7.474
(7.28)

School context variables

                 

% of pupils eligible for FSM

-0.091
(-1.36)

0.047
(0.66)

omitted

-0.119
(-1.51)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Size: pupil roll

0.004
(1.21)

0.005
(1.78)

omitted

0.003
(0.68)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Percent of pupils with SEN

-0.562
(-1.28)

-1.26
(-3.38)

omitted

-0.572
(-1.32)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Percent pupils mother tongue not English

-0.012
(-0.24)

-.114
(-1.70)

omitted

0.022
(0.41)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Proportion of boys

0.036
(0.92)

0.014
(0.28)

omitted

0.052
(1.13)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Sixth form

 

-.213
(-0.07)

omitted

-4.077
(-1.49)

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

omitted

Pupil school climate constructs

                 

Warm pupil teacher relations

omitted

7.508
(1.60)

7.554
(1.7)

omitted

omitted

8.22
(1.68)

omitted

11.02**
(2.32)

omitted

Headteacher leadership

omitted

4.325
(1.24)

6.240*
(1.88)

omitted

omitted

8.430**
(2.30)

8.104**
(2.25)

omitted

omitted

Second order school climate: attitudes

omitted

10.74**
(2.87)

10.395
(1.95)

omitted

omitted

10.58*
(1.95)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Adult school climate constructs

                 

Teacher shared vision and goals

omitted

omitted

omitted

-4.182
(-0.83)

-2.354
(-0.63)

4.603
(0.76)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Parents' interest in learning

omitted

omitted

omitted

4.479
(1.41)

3.940*
(2.04)

6.124*
(1.89)

omitted

omitted

3.812**
(2.26)

Structured teacher tasks

omitted

omitted

omitted

4.181
(0.87)

5.978
(1.45)

4.925
(0.66)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Warm teacher pupil relations

omitted

omitted

omitted

-1.665
(-0.30)

1.174
(0.344)

-4.315
(-0.85)

omitted

omitted

omitted

Log likelihood

23339.8

2467.99

2465.8

23315.6

23302.5

2441.2

2482.3

2481.5

23318.8

Notes: Parents' Interest in Learning is also significant at 0.5% with school context variables included. Second order school climate (attitudes) is significant at 5% when school context variables are included but just fails to reach significance at 10% when school context variables omitted.

References

Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J. and Wisenbaker, J. (1979) School Social Systems and Student Achievement: Schools Can Make a Difference. New York: Praeger.

Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. G., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K. and Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978) 'Elementary school social climate and school achievement'. American Educational Research Journal Vol 15, No. 301-318.

Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H. (1996) 'Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research 1980-95'. Educational Administration Quarterly Vol 32, No. 1 5-44.

Levine, D. U. and Lezotte, L. (1990) Unusually effective schools: a review and analysis of research and practice. Madison WI: The National Centre for Effective Schools Research and Development.

Meyerson, D. and Martin, J. (1997) Cultural change: integration of three different views. In Harris, A., Bennett, N. et al (Eds) Organisational Effectiveness and Improvement in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. and Ecob, R. (1988) School Matters: the Junior Years. Wells, Somerset,: Open Books.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. and Ouston, J. (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours: secondary schools and their effects on children. Shepton Mallet, UK: Open Books.

Sammons, P., Hillman, J. and Mortimore, P. (1995) Key characteristics of effective schools: a review of school effectiveness research, London University Institute of Education and Ofsted, London.

Scheerens, J. (1997) 'Conceptual models and theory-embedded principles on effective schooling'. School Effectiveness and School Improvement Vol 8, No. 3 269-310.

Scheerens, J. (1999) Concepts and theories of school effectiveness. In Visscher, A. J. (Ed) Managing Schools Towards High Performance. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger: 37-70.

Teddlie, C., Falkowski, C., Stringfield, S., Desselle, S. and Garvue, R. (1984) The Louisiana School Effectiveness Study: Phase 2 1982-84. Baton Rouge, La: Louisiana Department of Education.

Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (Eds), (1999) The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Teddlie, C. and Stringfield, S. (1993) Schools Make a Difference: lessons learned from a 10 year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.

Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., Wimpelburg, R. and Kirby, P. (1989) Contextual differences in models for effective schooling in the USA. In Creemers, B. P. M., Peters, T. et al. (Eds) School Effectiveness and School Improvement: Proceedings of the Second International Congress, Rotterdam, 1989. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Van Damme, J., De Farina, B., Van Landeghem, G., Opdenakker, M.-C. and Onghena, P. (2002) 'A new study of the educational effectiveness in secondary schools in Flanders: an introduction'. School Effectiveness and School Improvement Vol 13, No. 4 383-395.

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. and Kruger, M. (in press) 'Educational leadership and student achievement: the elusive search for an association'. School Effectiveness and School Improvement Vol No.

Notes:

  1. Commissioned by the Office for Standards in Education.
  2. A recent as yet unpublished systematic review by the EPPI Centre of UK research on the effect of school leadership on pupil attainment found only 8 studies to include.
  3. A class climate instrument was developed and administered but there were too few teachers linked with pupils with outcome and background data to undertake worthwhile analysis.
  4. About half the items in our instruments bore a close resemblance to those in the Swedish ASCI.
  5. teacher collaboration and teacher confidence and development were omitted from the governors' instrument and teacher involvement replaced by governor involvement.
  6. The data were collected and keyed in by a team from PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
  7. As resourcing was the main focus of the pilot study, a good spread of resourcing per pupil was ensured by ordering schools in each category in terms of revenue per pupil and selecting schools from the top and bottom parts of the distribution.
  8. A payment per school was given as a financial incentive and also a feedback report of management information from the analysis of the survey data.
  9. The only missing data on these adults was gender. Factor analysis was conducted without using data on gender.
  10. A factor structure is deemed structurally satisfactory if (1) a certain item loads in one factor, not on more, and (2) the items in a certain factor should have strong loading for all items that load on that factor, and display low loadings for the rest of the items (that load on other factors).
  11. It was recoded so that high values relate to low negative attitudes.
  12. This was because when it was attempted to analyse all items together the constructs became blurred after the 9 and the last four constructs form a distinct set concerning school decision-making and leadership
  13. It serves pupils who fail to get into a selective grammar school.
  14. The positive correlation between pupils' assessment of the headteacher and proportion of boys is due to the inclusion of two outliers - an all girls' school which has the lowest head teacher rating and an all boys school which has one of the highest.
  15. It was not possible to enter the adult head leadership constructs together due to multicollinearity.
  16. The 20% significance level was included (as a separate recording) in order to be less restrictive in rejecting climate variables as insignificant in view of the relatively small number of schools.
  17. As it is the most easily interpreted relationship and it is not confounded by colinearity.
  18. This is also the case when head's leadership is the only school climate variable but is entered with the school context variables.

This document was added to the Education-line database on 28 October 2003